Kenfree

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Kenfree, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Epipelagic (talk) 00:40, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

The Green Book

Hi Ken. It is not appropriate in interpolate commentaries in the text of an article. The place to raise these concerns is on the article's talk page. Please raise your issues here. Thanks. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:44, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Kenfree

I started the thread about your behavior at ANI. Please comment there. Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:22, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Mediation request

This is in response to your email to the Mediation Committee requesting mediation of a dispute at RT (TV network). Before requesting mediation please thoroughly read and consider the Mediation Committee Policy, giving particular note to the "Principles," "What is mediation?," and "Prerequisites" sections. If you still desire mediation after familiarizing yourself with the policy, submit your request through the "File a request" section of the Requests for mediation page, as the Committee does not accept or consider requests made via email. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:40, 17 October 2014 (UTC), Chairperson

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "RT Network". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 27 October 2014.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 14:47, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

NPOV dispute: Failing to recognize that the Neutrality of the article is not fulfilled

PLEASE answer on the talk page of the rt article, there is an identical post under this headline, thank you.

As of now Ymblanter is the only editor who understands in some sense the glaring hypocrisy of this article. Being new to this kind of kindergarten, NPOV denialism is quite instructive for me in as to how wikipedia works. Most disputes should be made evident for any casual reader of wikipedia. Instead editors try to hide behind a consensus made by editors who partly have VERY strong views about Ukraine/Russia and seem to be so desperate in their war like thinking as to becoming blind to any challenge to their views, dismissing it out of hand with bogus accusation of NPOV pushing and removing the NPOV tag (Volunteer Marek)(Iryna Harpy).

For once find some facts not some he/she said expert. I am sure many people, including myself, are very interested in finding out facts in the organisational structure, modus operandi actual work related misconduct that is systematic to this organization and the implications for its reporting. By failing to do that and just asserting names like "propaganda" you know fully well you are becoming an propaganda combatant with his/her own agenda; you absolutely understand that for most people "propaganda" has a negative connotation (not even to mention the Etymology, it will conveniently discourage any serious discussion/contention with the organization itself and/or its published information). Guess what? articles on the "BBC" and "CNN" etc. don't feature this quality name, except they fully satisfy your definition of propaganda (as in pushing a certain line favourable to their owners, which dosn't imply that the narrative is necessarily wrong because the "forces of darkness" i.e. Kremlin is behind it or necessarily right because the "forces of light" i.e. the white house or benign businessmen are pushing it) but aren't declared as propaganda tools. The reason for this is quite normal in that editors of these articles are "just like you" similar cultural background, views, interests, similar tendency in evaluation and similar ideology.

And here comes the kicker the article for "China Central Television" doesn't feature a propaganda introduction - the article for "Broadcasting Board of Governors" doesn't either. The only concern (BBG) for english-language editors under the "criticism" section is just that the agency is intransparent/ineffective and the counterpoint is that "conservatives" don't like the liberal orientation of it.

How come that almost every article on "western media" [maybe seemingly] reads like a discription of a toilet paper factory with beautiful smiling people in it and the articles on "cctv" especially "rt" [maybe seemingly] reads like a script of (history) accusations [the obligatory picture of Mr.Medvedev and Mr.Putin behind the scenes, having a watchful eye on the operations] ---> rebutal of rt, (organization) accusation ---> rebutal of rt, (On-air staff) "oh look how unsatisfied/unprofessional they look and oh look how they are very friendly with Mr.Putin [the personified Satan cough, cough]" , (Reception) accusation ---> rebutal of rt, (criticism, disgruntled employee) accusation ---> rebutal of rt and finally we have to concede they are very good at their propaganda --> professional awards. Something wrong with this picture?.

The entire purpose of the article seems to demonize, sow distrust and make the reader feel like "rt" is a virus ready to take other your mind. This is so obvious you achieve the exact opposite. Instead of infantilizing the casual reader of wikipedia get a grip on facts (and not this pathetic, yés but we have reliable sources like some NGOs and the State Department and our consensus is...). You appear like employees for the Ministry of Truth. This is plainly pathetic.Spotter 1 (talk) 14:56, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

private response to your invitation to the formal mediation

Let's do this.

Concerning Ymblanter thatswhy I wrote "understands somewhat" about the issue. In his post "Proposed reorganization of RT (TV network) page" he concedes that rt is singled out, but I very much disagree with his propaganda statement insofar that if the feature propaganda is added to journalism you would have to have similar introductionary statements for ALL other journalistic organizations. The purpose to inform someone is never just for the sake of informing someone but the act of informing, given it is "true", carries in itself the sting "calling" for acting accordingly. I think this is something he will agree on no matter if he is a participant or not.Spotter 1 (talk) 17:30, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk pages

Why are you mangling my re-pings? Please read WP:TPO. If you wanted to amend the text in the barnstar you awarded, make the change to your own text and mark it as being a minor edit, and provide a relevant edit summary such as "ce - amending wording in barnstar". --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:19, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

If I interfered with your re-ping in any way, I do apologize. I was not simply editing the wording in the barnstar, but also attempting to move it out of the "talkback" section of the page where I thought I had inadvertently intruded. Something must have gotten lost in the translation... Kenfree (talk) 04:14, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay. I've taken a look at the earlier edit and can see what you were trying to accomplish. As it was my re-ping, I'll move the mucked up bit down to the latest talkback so that the sections are obviously separated. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:18, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, Kenfree, please read WP:TALKNEW. I'm referring to the header for the section: "Never use headings to attack other users." Not only is "accusation" unwarranted, it is a blatant personal attack on me misrepresenting my comment and tone on on your talk page. Also, please read user talk page notes. If you take a look, you will see that I specify — If I left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it; if you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, then place {{Talkback|Iryna Harpy}} on your talk. There is no need to cut and paste my entire missive and retitle it on my talk page. Thank you for your attention. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning RT Network, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, User:TransporterMan (talk) 12:56, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Request

I'd like to call your attention to a motion on the RT talk page (57 Motion NPOV tag) that I started. This is, in my opinion, a more actionable step towards reaching the goal of an article that fulfills the NPOV policy.Spotter 1 (talk) 20:21, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Kenfree. You have new messages at Iryna Harpy's talk page.
Message added 00:20, 1 November 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:20, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

RT (TV network) falls under the discretionary sanctions of WP:ARBEE

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Eastern Europe, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

EdJohnston (talk) 03:44, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

RT and the bbc ref

'Adapting techniques inherited from the old KGB, say the authors, RT makes extensive use of conspiracy theories that serve to undermine a "reality-based discourse". This, they argue, then creates the conditions in which the Kremlin can advance its own disinformation to "confuse situations at critical junctures".

They give as examples a spurious RT report about Jews fleeing Ukraine over anti-Semitism, equally bogus insinuations that a US think tank was advising Ukrainian President Poroshenko to carry out ethnic cleansing, and the spreading of conspiracy theories concerning the downing of Malaysian airliner MH17 over east Ukraine in July.'

so the ref does mention RT and disinformation - I don't know what you are saying really in denying that - Sayerslle (talk) 19:19, 17 November 2014 (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. Thank you.

November 2014

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at RT (TV network). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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.  Bbb23 (talk) 01:49, 18 November 2014 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

only one of these edits was a revert, the others were all original edits by me, accompanied by edit summaries -- no warning was received from anyone in the course of this editing

Decline reason:

You have been edit warring on the article from 8th October to 17th November. I have no idea whatever how you can think that only one of your edits in that period reverted editing by other editors: the substantial majority of the 22 edits you made to the article did so. As for not being warned, you yourself posted a report to the edit warring noticeboard about edit warring on the very article where you have been edit warring, and you have also made other talk page posts about edit warring, making it abundantly clear that you were aware both of Wikipedia's edit warring policy and of the fact that the editing of that article included an edit war in which you were involved. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:24, 18 November 2014 (UTC) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:28, 18 November 2014 (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.

• The following edits were reverts per policy (all on November 17): 14:34, 14:50, two consecutive edits completed at 18:09, 19:04, and 21:10. That's five reverts. The last revert occurred after you were notified of the edit warring report filed at WP:AN3.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:07, 18 November 2014 (UTC)