Dahrez

November 2018

Your recent editing history at Ken Wilber shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Ifnord (talk) 23:47, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Dahrez reported by User:Ifnord (Result: ). Thank you. Ifnord (talk) 00:02, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Dahrez, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Dahrez! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like GreenMeansGo (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:03, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Your continued edit warring

You should really be discussing you proposed changes on the article's talk page. What it appears to look like is that you're adding language simply to promote the subject, a violation of WP:PUFFERY. As to your question of this being a free encyclopedia, it is without cost. But, you are not "free" to force your opinions into an article. That violates our policy on writing by consensus, please see WP:CON. I personally have no opinions on the subject in the article. But, I do try to keep writing on Wikipedia neutral and factual. Please read more about the five pillar of this encyclopedia before returning to your edit war. (Wikipedia:Five pillars) Ifnord (talk) 17:01, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring at Ken Wilber

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

The full report is at the edit warring noticeboard. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 20:42, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Dahrez (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I was editing in good faith and not aware of the three revert rule. Yet my edits were reverted without arguments. There is a terrible control of admins of articles that they themselves acknowledge they have no knowledge about. My descriptors were meant to clarify Wilber's activities, and as wikipedia itself describes an independent scholar is "An independent scholar is anyone who conducts scholarly research outside universities and traditional academia." Which is exactly what Wilber does as his published research in transpersonal psychology clearly establishes. The descriptor philosopher is similar to what other writers such as Robert Pirsig and Alan Watts have in their wikis, even though they haven't contributed in the formal academic literature. Wilber's article itself says it "...a systematic philosophy which suggests the synthesis of all human knowledge and experience.[2]" and furthermore "Wilber has been categorized as New Age due to his emphasis on a transpersonal view[40] and, more recently, as a philosopher." I feel there is an extreme bad faith in blocking me like this as it assumes malicious intent of my part without any evidence. The admins are hostile and revert edits without comments. The 'consensus' is simply a way of maintaining a particular clique of admins view of the subject. I find this a very bad sign for wikipedia, pointing to an absurd culture of control and almost censure-like attempt to block new users - even if they are experts and more knowledgeable than the admins - from contributing. I am appalled at this. Dahrez (talk) 23:37, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You are blocked for edit warring, not for the content of your edits. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 00:40, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.