User talk:Martin Kempf

Discretionary sanctions alert: pseudoscience and fringe science.

(Alerting all recent editors of our Multiple chemical sensitivity article.)

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in pseudoscience and fringe science. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

--Guy Macon (talk) 20:31, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Martin Kempf. Guy Macon (talk) 13:46, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

December 2019

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

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 ~~~~}}. Drmies (talk) 23:40, 15 December 2019 (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).

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

Request reason:

You claim I'm here to not build an encyclopedia, that I'm a sockpuppet, that I use proxy and I do not know what else. But I'm just a normal guy using a normal computer, never used a proxy, I don't know the other persons you are talking about, I'm not a newbie, I'm contributing on wikipedia since 2006. I reacted on one article when I saw that some authors took back their old text by deleting new contributions without any questionning or discussion, which is a point you should investigate about, not my coup de gueule. Martin Kempf (talk) 10:50, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Community consensus is that you are indeed a sockpuppet and the block is appropriate. Yamla (talk) 13:32, 16 December 2019 (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.

Martin Kempf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Unfortunately, there's nothing I can do - or at least am willing to do - about your block, which I strenuously opposed. If you feel strongly enough that you want to continue editing here (you have almost no edits, so I'm not sure why you care much), you should e-mail the Arbitration Committee to appeal your block. You should clarify that your editing since 2006 is not here (en.wiki) but at the French Wikipedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:29, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the claim "I'm contributing on wikipedia since 2006", see [1]. He did start posting to the French and German Wikipedias in 2006 and has made 29 edits in the last 12 years, but only started contributing to the English Wikipedia in the last two days.

And yet Martin Kempf has, in his two days of editing the English Wikipedia;

Agreed with proven sockpuppets
Used the same "yo" to ping other that the sockpuppets used
Used the same -- and extremely unusual -- practice of typing their user name after the four tyldes in the sig that we see in the proven sockpuppets.

My conclusion is that, per the WP:DUCK test, Martin Kempf is the sockmaster, and that it is likely that the SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SamuelBurckhalter got the wrong sockmaster. Unclear whether SamuelBurckhalter is a second sockmaster or a sockpuppet of Martin Kempf.

I also concur with the WP:NOTHERE conclusion. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:48, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good detective work there Guy Macon, agree Martin Kempf is likely the sock master or one of two sock masters. I agree the block should not be overturned as the evidence is overwhelming, per this ANI thread. If an admin or Arbitration Committee were to overturn this block it should only be done, in my view, with an indefinite topic ban on multiple chemical sensitivity. Too much coincidence that Martin Kempf, who very rarely edits under that account, appears on MCS talk page within two hours of a confirmed sockpuppet to back up another two sockpuppets who were supporting each other. Yeah, I was not convinced SamuelBurckhalter was the sock master as his account was so new and created around same time as the other socks in 2018. I suspect there has been or there may be in the future socking on the french or other EU language pages for multiple chemical sensitivity. Also, no talk page edits on the french wiki, so he was a total newbie on the MCS talk pages in that regard but yet mastered all the wiki code, so yeah he learnt that likely when on talk with the many other sock puppets over the past year.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 15:44, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As explained on the ANI thread, many of the socks used German type names in their account names, so we knew the sock master likely knew German and was connected to that part of Europe in some way. So the fact Martin Kempf has been discovered above to have edited on German wiki is further evidence that he is indeed the sock master.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:47, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Kempf writes, in their block review request, the following: “I reacted on one article when I saw that some authors took back their old text by deleting new contributions without any questionning or discussion, which is a point you should investigate about, not my coup de gueule.” which proves he is a sockpuppet because how could he know contributions were being deleted? He had zero edits before posting on the talk page about the content dispute. This is an accidental admission that he was almost certainly involved on that article using other accounts and following/watch listing the content dispute. Proof he is the sock master and proof the indefinite should remain. I do think Bbb23 should strike their comment supporting this editor, in light of the evidence.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:54, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While any one of these suspicious behaviors might be a coincidence, together they paint a convincing WP:DUCK case. Yes, it could happen that an editor with 29 edits might figure out how to read the article history, but that would be unusual. Legitimate first-time editors generally comment on the state of the article as it exists when they make their first edit, not to deletions that happened previously. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:57, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I am confident that the other accounts were all using proxy’s on a different continent and Martin Kempf was using his real IP address as the sock master, explaining the different geolocation and user agent information — it fits with the behavioural evidence as well.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:03, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, what is all this paranoïa about? I'm not what you call a sock master or everything else you accuse me here. And editing a German page is no evidence at all. And what is your thing with Europe? Is the evil of english Wikipedia in Europe? I really don't understand your fury about that post, and I'm not linked with any of the other accounts you are talking about. Your 'detective work' is linked to nothing, just your imagination. Really funny how you can speak so badly about someone knowing he is reading it. I'm a normal person! Martin Kempf (talk) 20:01, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following users use Wikipedia to form their signature but in this process they bizarrely manually type their username beside the four tildes meaning their username appears twice, once wiki formatted and once manually typed, appearing beside the '(UTC)' part of the account signature. This is behavior that I have literally never seen anywhere else on Wikipedia.

User:Martin Kempf e.g. see this diff

User:KrisKelvin99 e.g. see this diff

User:Leobenite e.g. see this diff

User:QueerWordGirl e.g. see this diff

Do you have an explanation as to why you and three sockpuppets all share same extremely rare behavior?

It sure looks like you created a bunch of sockpuppets, had them all express the same opinion about multiple chemical sensitivity, then used your main account to agree with them. If you have another explanation as to why your behavior matches the behavior of the socks, I would love to hear it. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:19, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just copied the code I saw that I was answering to (the post of Leobenite). I try to stick to the supposed habits in the talks. What the others did I don't know since I have no connection with them or knowledge who they are. Martin Kempf (talk) 20:28, 16 December 2019 (UTC) Martin Kempf (and I don't hide behind pseudos like you all do)[reply]

I don't believe you. Leobenite typed

       ~~~Leobenite

and Wikipedia changed it to

       [[User:Leobenite|Leobenite]] ([[User talk:Leobenite|talk]]) 11:04, 14 December 2019 (UTC)Leobenite

Then you typed

        ~~~~Martin Kempf

and Wikipedia changed it to

       [[User:Martin Kempf|Martin Kempf]] ([[User talk:Martin Kempf|talk]]) 05:29, 14 December 2019 (UTC)Martin Kempf

BTW, I don't use a pseudonym. Guy Macon (talk) 21:14, 16 December 2019 (UTC)Guy Macon[reply]

Yeah, plus the other two socks signing that way.

Martin Kempf writes on 14 Dec. 2019 05:29: maintain old narratives and confirmed sock Leobenite writes on 14 Dec. 2019 05:49: tired old narratives. Same language use within minutes of each other and without any other posts by the accounts in between.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:06, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Enchanté Guy, I AM Martin Kempf. I'm not some sock master or sock puppet, I am here under my full name. Do you really think that I would 'plot' any 'attack' on 'your' page with my proper name? I gave my opinion there, used a form which was used just before me, and I am not responsible what other persons I do not know do after me! I don't know anyone on this page, even not you! What I suppose is that you don't like my opinion. That is quite not acceptable to be blocked for this, because you should talk if you don't have the same opinion, not just block users. And I further suppose that because I'm here with my proper name and without any proxy, it makes you so easy to attack me and to charge me with all your supposed findings about me. That I can also not accept. Is this really how Wikipedia works? You can block someone because you don't like his opinion, and even when he is explaining himself honestly, you just burn him? I had another opinion about Wikipedia until meeting you. You changed my high opinion about this great idea behind Wikipedia. Your so called proves against me are all circumstantial, and you don't believe me when I tell you that you are wrong. What should I say more? Burn him, yes burn him! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin Kempf (talk • contribs) 23:34, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Guy Macon: That's why preview function exists, I can see and adapt my result to the one of the other editors in a talk. I lived too often in foreign countries to know when I have to adapt to local practices. And you too, you did sign yourself like that, so YOU MUST be the sockmaster in fact!! Martin Kempf (talk) 22:35, 30 December 2019 (UTC)Martin Kempf[reply]

Obviously he was signing his name like that as part of his demonstration of how you do it as his message included examples of how you did it, context is everything. You know the context.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:00, 1 January 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

This is a purely arbitrary and punitive block for ONE participation in a TALK, in which I did not follow the opinion of the authors of the article. I did NOT edit or alter the article itself. There is no hard evidence like provider or IP that could link me to any other user in Wikipedia, since I'm ONE person with ONE username and never used sockpuppets or being sockmaster. This is only the imagination of the admins of this page who continue declining any attempt of explanation here, who don't like my opinion in a simple TALK. I never touched their article. This is totally arbitrary how you block whole accounts just on one TALK participation. I never was sockmaster or sockpuppet!! How often I have to explain this. If the admins don't like my opinion, than TALK, but your block is strictly punitive for my participation in your page talk. And since I never edited the page itself, it's also totally exaggerated to block me indefinitely. Martin Kempf (talk) 17:06, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

No reason has been given to overturn the consensus at ANI December 2019 and no reason has been given to overturn the WP:NOTHERE block other than mentions of jargon such as "punitive". Johnuniq (talk) 03:01, 17 January 2020 (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.

What part of "You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia."[2] are you having trouble understanding?

While the behavioral evidence that you are a sockpuppet is compelling (See evidence at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1025#Martin Kempf) YOU WERE NOT BLOCKED FOR SOCKPUPPETRY AND THUS EVEN IF THE CONCLUSION THAT YOU ARE A SOCKPUPPET IS WRONG YOU WILL REMAIN BLOCKED BECAUSE YOU ARE CLEARLY NOT HERE TO BUILD AN ENCYCLOPEDIA. The fact that you keep focusing in on something that you were NOT blocked for and refusing to acknowledge or understand what you WERE blocked for makes it crystal clear the the block was a good block.

If you were unblocked, what would you do that helps to build an encyclopedia? So far your only contributions[3] have consisted of showing up at Talk:Multiple chemical sensitivity and supporting two confirmed sockpuppets who were supporting each other. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:53, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am here to build an encyclopedia, I already contributed to high quality articles (but not in English yet, sorry, you will have to read in other languages), I am still not a sockpuppet nor a sockmaster and NEVER WAS, why can't you just understand that I don't have anything to do with the other editors in the talk page and NEVER touched your article. I just gave my opinion in a talk page, that's all. You say that you don't block me because of sockpuppetry but because of the fact that I'm not here to build an encyclopedia, but you base your conviction that I don't want to build an encyclopedia on the 'evidence' that I'm a sockpuppet, so logically, in the end, you are still blocking me for sockpuppetry. But I'm not a sockpuppet and never was! I didn't even know that it exists before this shitstorm, since I am on Wikipedia since 2006 and take my edits here very seriously. And I didn't even touch any English article, I was just on a talk page!--Martin Kempf (talk) 01:09, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly oppose you being unblocked and request any reviewing admin review all evidence on this talk page. You straight away, with no article edits, joined an usually very quiet article talk page (when not plagued by your two previous sock farms) within minutes of other sock accounts posting with the same unique behavioural evidence, well described above. You could not know about that content dispute, unless you were a sock, since your first edits to English Wikipedia were to the talk page, i.e. no watchlist due to first edit. Why go straight to the talk page? How could you know about that content dispute? IT IS HIGHLY SUSPICIOUS THAT YOUR FIRST EDIT TO THE ENGLISH WIKIPEDIA IS TO GO STRAIGHT TO A CONTENT DISPUTE TO BACKUP SOCK ACCOUNTS IN A CONTENT DISPUTE WITH THE EXACT SAME EXTREMELY UNUSUAL GRAMMAR AS WELL AS LINGUISTIC CHOICES AND MISTAKES.. You were found, above, to have the exact same highly unique behavioural evidence as the sockpuppets, some of whom (probably all of whom) were confirmed to be on proxy IP addresses. It is not unusual for the sock master to join content disputes on their normal IP address while commanding multiple sockpuppets on proxy IP addresses. Multiple lines of behavioural evidence confirms you are the sock master of a proxy IP sock farm. You got blocked because you are not here, per WP:NOTHERE, to build an encyclopedia and your unblock failed because of behavioural evidence points to you being a sock account. You wrongly thought you could edit on a different IP address to your socks but failed to disguise your behavioural evidence and got caught, per WP:DUCK. You are a highly disruptive WP:SPA and I believe sock master of two sock farms spanning more than a year. Nevertheless, happy new year Martin Kempf. :=)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 11:21, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote: I already contributed to high quality articles (but not in English yet, sorry, you will have to read in other languages)

Actually, the vast majority of your known edits were to the English Wikipedia, via utilising two sock farms. There are hundreds of edits to consider. I also suspect you used alternative accounts or sockpuppets on the German version of multiple chemical sensitivity because the google translation of that article is hugely POV and mirrors the fringe POV the sock farms were pushing on the English encyclopedia.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:05, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is going way too far. Your accusations are libelling. I followed 'your' page and contributed only to the TALK when major changes occurred, that was my first contribution to English Wikipedia ever. I never edited 'your' article, and never used sockpuppets. And suspecting that I am using multiple accounts or sock farms is outrageous. I never used more than my only and one account you see here in wikipedia. I can understand that you are happy having 'found' someone with his real name and his real IP to accuse with all your bitterness, but I'm not what you are accusing me. I demand you to stop blocking me for something I'm not, and stop blaming me for all the 'bad' things happening to 'your' page. And the signing of Guy, he had to 'try' it out with preview to have it look like mine. That what I did when I first posted. But you are deeply in some paranoia of being attacked by somebody that you don't even consider that I'm telling the truth --Martin Kempf (talk) 20:22, 1 January 2020 (UTC)Martin Kempf[reply]