User talk:RichardBennett

Welcome!

Hello, RichardBennett, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Narco 02:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Hello, RichardBennett. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people[edit]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, 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 that 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.

Neutrality^talk 01:48, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard notice, for informational purposes, given to all those who edit in the topic area. As the template states, it does not imply any wrongdoing by anyone. Neutrality^talk 01:48, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adding content not supported by the source, and reversions[edit]

Please don't add content that is not supported by the cited source. The journal article you quote does not appear to directly describe Free Press (organization) as "leftwing." Unless a cited source clearly and directly says something, we may not add it. See WP:V.

You also should not restore material that has been challenged and remove for a specific reason. In addition to possibly being considered edit-warring, it is considered impolite on Wikipedia. Neutrality^talk 01:47, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do not vandalize proper edits. The cited article clearly says Free Press is anti-capitalist:

"Eric Klinenberg’s Fighting for Air: The Battle to Control America’s Media (2007) is the first to chronicle both corporate media consolidation and its discontents, although it builds off of Robert McChesney’s work on both fronts (e.g., McChesney, 2007; McChesney, 2004; McChesney & Nichols, 2002; Nichols & McChesney, 2005). Engaging in an overview of media reform activism presents some uncertainties over who and what merits attention. By the “media reform movement” (or the “media democracy movement”),2 I mean those groups and individuals whose primary political goals target the regulations governing media institutions. Though promoting a vision of media localism, these organizations tend to be focused on national regulations, primarily those of the Federal Communications Commission, as well as Congressional funding for public broadcasting and the malfeasance of corporate media. National non-profit organizations, mainly Free Press (created by McChesney, along with progressive journalist John Nichols and activist Josh Silver), occupy a central position in the thinking, actions, and visibility of such activism...

"It is too simple to point out that a victory for media reform tomorrow would be insufficient to solve the world’s problems, or even the media’s. But the structure and articulated vision of a political coalition bespeaks its hopes and the possibilities it seeks to actualize. So it is on this ground — that is, taking the movement at its word — through which I analyze the struggle for national media reform. While a specific consideration of genre and cultural policy is outside the scope of this article, I argue below that the national media reform coalition is hampered by pursuing a strategy oriented around FCC liberalism and economistic arguments while ignoring media texts and rituals. I conclude by discussing other contemporary attempts at media-based activism that orient their struggles for democracy within a framework of expanding social justice. These efforts are arguably more reminiscent of media activism in other countries, where challenging media content is fundamental to battling authoritarian control of both the state and the market."

Given that McChesney and Nichols founded Free Press and McChesney is still on the board, this more than justifies my claim that Free Press is a leftwing organization. But for bonus points, here's more from McChesney:

"Of course, given the existing power structure of U.S. society and the seven-decades-long ceiling on civilian government purchases as a percentage of GDP, all of this may appear to be pie in the sky. And our message is that it is, unless the power structure of U.S. society can be altered. Only a reform movement so radical that it would appear revolutionary within the context of the existing U.S. economic and social order, fundamentally reducing the field of operation of the capitalist market, holds any chance of substantially improving the conditions of most people in society. Needless to say, for such a struggle to succeed people will have to have a sense of real things to struggle for that will materially affect their lives.

"These gains will only be made through an enormous class struggle from below. If won, they will not, we underscore, eliminate the evils of capitalism, or the dangers it poses for the world and its people. In the end, there is no real answer but to remove brick by brick the capitalist system itself, rebuilding the entire society on socialist principles. This is something that the great majority of the population will undoubtedly learn in the course of their struggles for a more equal, more humane, more collective, and more sustainable world. In the meantime, it is time to begin to organize a revolt against the ruling class–imposed ceiling on civilian government spending and social welfare in U.S. society."

https://monthlyreview.org/2009/02/01/a-new-new-deal-under-obama/, "A New New Deal under Obama?", John Bellamy Foster and Robert W. McChesney, Monthly Review: An Independent Socialist Magazine. RichardBennett (talk) 02:02, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Given that McChesney and Nichols founded Free Press and McChesney is still on the board, this more than justifies my claim ..." That is WP:SYNTH. The article is about the organization, not its founders or board members. These cites may be relevant to the individual biographies of the founders, but not on the organization's website. Neutrality^talk 02:06, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

McChesney is a board member and a founder, you're grasping at straws.RichardBennett (talk) 02:08, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Take some time to read WP:SYNTH. Unless you find a source that directly and expressly describes Free Press itself as "leftist," "left-wing," etc., you cannot make such a claim. Neutrality^talk 02:10, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And, moreover, the journal article you cited actually contradicts your claim. It situates Free Press as part of a "national media reform coalition" that pursues a "strategy oriented around FCC liberalism and economistic arguments" rather than a more radical approach. Neutrality^talk 02:13, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've added just such a source to the article. I can't wait to see what rule you twist to justify removing it.RichardBennett (talk) 02:21, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't make personal attacks on this website. Neutrality^talk 03:30, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I offer you the same admonition. It's perfectly obvious that Free Press has a leftwing orientation, so this entire dispute is a waste of time. RichardBennett (talk) 03:43, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've not made any personal attacks on you. As for "perfectly obvious" - perhaps in your mind or Mr. Pai's, but we work off what the sources say here, not on what own feelings might be. Neutrality^talk 03:46, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not so much. I gave you a source and you edited my comment down to nothing. That's not neutral, it's bias. RichardBennett (talk) 04:03, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Neutrality^talk 23:48, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is about your repeated personalization of disputes, uncivil remarks, and refusal to understand policies like Wikipedia:Verifiability (all content "must include an inline citation that directly supports the material"); Wikipedia:Synthesis ("Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources."); and Wikipedia:No personal attacks ("Comment on content, not on the contributor."). I will withdraw the discussion if you commit to reading and understanding these policies, and removing abusive comments that you've made. Neutrality^talk 23:51, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality is attacking me to cover up the biased edits he/she has made to the article in question. This us nothing but a smokescreen. RichardBennett (talk) 23:54, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 2017[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 60 hours for persistent personal attacks after warnings. Please "comment on content, not on the contributor, per our policy Wikipedia: No personal attacks. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}. Bishonen | talk 23:59, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

My comments were not out of line given the malicious nature of "Neutrality's" edits. Admins who manipulate Wikipedia's more obscure rules to promote a personal agenda should not be allowed to abuse casual users as this Neutrality person has. I am not to blame here. This block raises questions not only about Neutrality's integrity, but also about the friendly admin who did the dirty work. The fundamental dispute is whether Free Press is a left-of-center advocacy group or a centrist one. This is not a serious question in the minds of people familiar with its origins and history. RichardBennett (talk) 00:04, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You repeat the personal attacks against Neutrality, and you then add a personal attack against Bishonen for good measure. Your use of the word "friendly" in this context is hardly a compliment. You can now add my name to your shit list. You show an appalling lack of insight into your own behavior. If you continue in this vein, your block should be increased and your access to this page revoked. Bbb23 (talk) 01:01, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Note to the reviewing admin: diffs of the attacks can be found here. Re "the friendly admin who did the dirty work": I did warn RichardBennett against attacking anybody in his appeal. I guess it didn't take. Bishonen | talk 00:16, 29 November 2017 (UTC).[reply]

I see the blocking admin is now playing tough guy with me, threatening to extend the block unless I bend over. Apparently calling someone "friendly" is a personal attack. That's actually hilarious. RichardBennett (talk) 00:28, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see Bbb23 has blocked 20,476 users. Good show. RichardBennett (talk) 01:26, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Hello, RichardBennett. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

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:RichardBennett reported by User:Sykes83 (Result: ). Thank you. —Sykes83 (talk) 18:53, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as I noted elsewhere, I am not a paid contributor for Stonyfield. I have no connection to them, and I would appreciate it if you would stop accusing me of being one. Thanks! --Sykes83 (talk) 18:57, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You admit to be being paid to edit Wikipedia and you made dishonest edits to the Stonyfield page - removing citations then deleting content because it was unsourced - on company time. I think the facts speak for themselves. RichardBennett (talk) 19:01, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be misinterpreting my paid editing disclosure as having any relevance whatsoever to Stonyfield. I edited a page related to my employer. You can read the page here: Draft:Fastly. Because I'm being paid by Fastly, I am required to disclose my connection by Wikipedia policy. Further, I made my edits in the Draft namespace to be especially careful to not violate NPOV policies. As you can see, Fastly has nothing whatsoever to do with Stonyfield. --Sykes83 (talk) 19:04, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my well-sourced claim that you're paid to edit Wikipedia. RichardBennett (talk) 19:06, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Hello, RichardBennett. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]