User talk:Arthur Kemp

Welcome!

Hello, Arthur Kemp, 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:

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 {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! William M. Connolley (talk) 08:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Autobiography. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 21:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 22:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no interest except to correct serious factual errors, which are clearly libellous. All changes are fullly referenced, and verifiable from outside sources.

Regardless, continued reverts are not allowed. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 22:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Warning / advice

Hello, you need to be aware of both WP:3RR and WP:COI. If you have any doubts about these, please ask questions here. In any event, please do *not* re-remove the autobiography tag from Arthur Kemp or you will be blocked.

Your username, obviously, is the same as Arthur Kemp. You should make it clear whether you claim to be the same person, or not (you are not required to prove it; we'll accept your claim, if you make it, until evidence suggests otherwise) William M. Connolley (talk) 23:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How do I prove that I am the subject in question.

Also, please advise me of the following: let's say I create a Wiki entry on yourself, saying that you are a Nazi. You then make a correction saying you are not. I then change it back, and then when you object once more, I threaten you with banning.

How fair is that?

It is surely not the purpose of Wikipedia to create a platform for liars to spread unsubstantiated slander about people? Or is it? Your reply would be greatly appreciated.

If you are, or ar not, the same Arthur Kemp as the article subject, just say so, we will take your word on it, no proof required at this time, as Mr Connolley stated above. The dephamatory article you you used as an example would most probably have a VERY short lifespan, as personal attacks are not allowed here on the wiki. Its also VERY important that Wikipedia NOT take sides in a controversy, instead, reporting both sides as even handedly as possible. As you can understand, having someone who was personally involved in a controversy writing the history of that same controversy will most probably bias the writing towards that persons point of view. For the record, I had no knowledge and no opinion as to you, or Mr Derby-Lewis, before today. You only came to my attention when I noticed your name editing an article with the same name, and would have responded with the same autobiography tag had I noticed Mr Derby-Lewis editing his own article. aAs for banning or blocking you, that is far beyond my power, as I, like you, am just a "lowly" user, not an administrator. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 00:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So are you saying that if I had been as deceitful as the person who created the original pack of lies about myself, and had used a pseudonymn, you would not have objected to my changes?

No, I am saying that I would not have noticed them. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 01:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It that is so, I would suggest that you urgently need to evaluate your own standards of integrity.

Perhaps you may need to do the same. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 01:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In any event, I am glad that you agree that the original entry was defamatory in the extreme. I am only baffled why anyone at Wikipedia would object to the correction, with outside sources, of such blatant bias.

No, You misread what I intended, I suggested that your hypothetical "I'm calling you a Nazi" article would have been deleted within minutes of it's creation. But, now that you have actually called someone a Nazi on a talk page, I'm afraid this entire conversation is academic. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AArthur_Kemp&diff=262871715&oldid=262869175 Wuhwuzdat (talk) 01:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the general rule on information in biographies is that if it is not referenced to a reliable source, it should not be in the article. For more information check out the biographies of living persons page. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A reliable source? Would that be the anonymous poster who put up the defamatory article in the first place? Or would that be the total pack of lies from the Communist Party?

All changes I have made are referenceable to outside sources.

Attacks in the article Talk:Arthur Kemp

Warning

Please do not make personal attacks as you did at Talk:Arthur Kemp. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images, especially those in violation of our Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy, will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 01:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yet more advice

First of all, I've blocked you for a token 3h; you can't edit anywhere except here for that period. You cannot go around accusing other users of being Nazis. See WP:CIVIL.

Second, WP:COI puts you at a disadvantage when editing your own page. As indeed, it puts me at a disadvantage over William Connolley. I now ignore that page, because I find fighting over myself painful.

Third, I think its now clear that you are AK; I'm rather disappointed by your How do I prove that I am the subject in question since I made it clear you don't have to prove it, just claim it. But I think you effectively have.

Fourth, it would help a lot if you could learn some basic wiki markup. Sign you talk page comments with four tildes (~~~~) and we can see who is saying what. Indent your responses with colons (: gets you one level, :: two, etc) so things become more readable.

Fifth, you should distinguish banning - which is permanent removal of your edit rights - with blocking, which is temporary.

Best wishes,

William M. Connolley (talk) 08:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that the most ridiculous thing you have ever heard?

So, the scenario is as follows:

1. Someone (anonymously) makes the outrageously false claims and lies about you on Wikipedia;

2. You are made aware of the claims, and correct them, providing full outside references;

3. And then other anonymous people come in and delete your corrections, saying that they are your "opinion" and therefore worthless.

If you call that fair, then my name is Idi Amin. I am astonished that such ‘rules’ even exist.

Now, could you please be do kind as to advise me how I go about "proving" that lies made against me are wrong?

Let me give you one example (it is fairly standard). The SPLC article (and Searchlight) claimed that I was some type of contact person for the NPD in Germany. Now the fact is that I have never been to an NPD meeting, spoken to anyone in that party, nor even come close to even passing through a town where they have had a meeting.

Because I have never had any contact with the NPD, there is obviously no outside reference to me having done so.

Now, when I point this out on Wikipedia, my comment is tagged "citation needed." Hey? How on earth does one find a citation for something that never happened?

What this "rule" suggests to me is that I can put up a Wiki entry on any person I choose, make up the most outrageous claims, and when that person says 'no it isn't true' then Wikipedia will demand a citation to 'prove' it isn't true.

Please tell me if I have it worng -- but this is certainly how it appears to me.

(PS: I only used the 'Nazi' thing as an example. Anyone actually reading that entry will see that, and that it was purely done to make the point that it seems that anyone can write anything about anybody else here, and then when that person denies it, their defence is dismissed as unprovable nonsense. My unreserved apologies to anyone who misinterpreted that point, as I did not ever mean to actually suggest that anyone was a Nazi.)

Arthur Kemp (talk) 08:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you call that fair - no, I didn't. I said that was the way things are (you have over dramatised, but the basic scenario of you being disadvantaged when there is a WP:COI stands. What can you do about this? First off, the article seems to be up for deletion. You can vote to delete it. Second, you can try to get some second opinions. Third, you can discuss your concerns calmly on the article talk page William M. Connolley (talk) 21:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions

There are currently discussions about you and the article in Wikipedia about you taking place here and here. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

January 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Arthur Kemp. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Verbal chat 16:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The recent edit you made to Arthur Kemp constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to remove content from articles without explanation. Thank you. TopGearFreak 16:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary for your edits. Thank you. Synchronism (talk) 16:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 16:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you continue to deny me the right to refute the SPLC's lies? What is your motive?

Arthur Kemp (talk) 16:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am unusual -- all I can do is point out that any edits you make to that article will get reverted, and you will get nothing out of it. If you have a concern, post on the talk page stating what the concerns are (hopefully giving really solid cites for your statements) and if an edit should be made, it will be made. Thanks! Collect (talk) 16:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have now inserted a refutation of the SPLC lies without deleting your edit. Arthur Kemp (talk) 17:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have reported you for a WP:3RR violation. See WP:3RRN. Verbal chat 17:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember, it is not YOUR article, it is an article ABOUT you. You, or I, or any other user, have no ownership of this article, or any other. As for my warning about the 3 revert rule, I did not make the rules, I simply bring them to your attention. If you have a point to make, do it on the talk pages, not by removing content from the article. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 17:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, it is not my article at all. All I ask is that I be allowed equal opportunity to refute the lies put out by the SPLC, nothing more.

If I posted up a batch of lies about you, you would also want the opportunity to deny them, would you not? Of course you would. It is commonsense and fair.

Arthur Kemp (talk) 17:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An analogy

Hello. It seems you are new to Wikipedia. I can imagine that it must be frustrating to have other people control your image, but I wanted to show you another case of a notable person who edited his own article, and ended up in conflict with quite a few editors.

Matt Sanchez is the article. The dispute went to the Arbitration Committee and Mr. Sanchez, under the username Bluemarine was blocked for a year, as can be seen here. He is now topic banned from editing anything but his user page. --Moni3 (talk) 17:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I read that example, Sanchez was blocked for attacking other people.

By contrast, I have not attacked anyone.

I have merely attempted to ensure that if the Wikipedia article contributors insist on including politically motivated lies about myself, then at the very least I am afforded an equal opportunity to deny them.

This is only common sense and fair, so that uninformed readers coming across the page understand that the allegations are just that, and not 'fact.' Arthur Kemp (talk) 17:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Arthur Kemp. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Nancy ^talk 18:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy, please be advised that I am not in an edit war, as you claim. All I have asked is for equal right of refutation of unprovable allegations against me, not removal of those allegations. I have made this request repeatedly on this talk page, and it has just been ignored by the anonymous editors.

Please advise me of what choice I have in this case? Arthur Kemp (talk) 18:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at Arthur Kemp. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. — Aitias // discussion 18:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, you've gone and got yourself blocked again. You can get yourself out of this hole, *if* you'll listen to advice and take the time to understand wiki's policies. If you insist on forcing wiki to work your way, it won't work.

If you're interested in discussing how to get yourself unblocked and not re-blocked, please indicate that here.

In the meantime, there seems to be some confusion over at the AK article over whether you deny being a white supremacist. Merely asserting so in the article is not quite good enough. However, in one of those odd little twists of wiki-policy, you are considered to be WP:RS for your own opinions. If you can point to any external source (your blog, your book, whatever) where you say this, then the controversy disappears William M. Connolley (talk) 18:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How remarkable, I am blocked "again" merely for asking for the right to refute subjective, unprovable, allegations about myself. I suppose that is fair, yes?

Anyway, I am of course interested in being 'unblocked'.

Good. What you'll need to do is first, read WP:3RR and understand why you've broken it, and agree not to do so again. On that article in particular, and in general. Its important that you make it clear that you understand the rule you've broken; if you don't realise that, they you can't agree not to do it again. Second, you have to agree to back off editing Arthur Kemp. I doubt you'll like that, but you'll have to live with it. There is, as I said, nothing wrong with you discussing it on the talk page, offering sources for various statements, and/or pointing out why (in your view) others should be removing. You may also wish to look at WP:BLP which in a sense may give you some countervailing advantage William M. Connolley (talk) 21:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I deny emphatically that I am a white supremacist. A supremacist regards other races as inferior, and I do not.

If I understand your comment correctly, you are saying that if I put up a blog post saying I am not a white supremacist, all this just disappears? Incredible. Please confirm this and I will do it straight away. Arthur Kemp (talk) 19:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The dispute over whether you've denied being a WS certainly disappears, yes William M. Connolley (talk) 21:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The current version of the article, by the way, notes that the SLPC has made allegations and that you (Kemp) have refuted them on yoru web page. —C.Fred (talk) 22:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]