(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)
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)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Drmies (
talk)
23:40, 15 December 2019 (UTC)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)
Decline reason:
Community consensus is that you are indeed a sockpuppet and the block is appropriate. Yamla ( talk) 13:32, 16 December 2019 (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.
Martin Kempf ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
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)
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)
~~~Leobenite
[[User:Leobenite|Leobenite]] ([[User talk:Leobenite|talk]]) 11:04, 14 December 2019 (UTC)Leobenite
~~~~Martin Kempf
[[User:Martin Kempf|Martin Kempf]] ([[User talk:Martin Kempf|talk]]) 05:29, 14 December 2019 (UTC)Martin Kempf
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)
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)
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.
(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)
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)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Drmies (
talk)
23:40, 15 December 2019 (UTC)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)
Decline reason:
Community consensus is that you are indeed a sockpuppet and the block is appropriate. Yamla ( talk) 13:32, 16 December 2019 (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.
Martin Kempf ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
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)
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)
~~~Leobenite
[[User:Leobenite|Leobenite]] ([[User talk:Leobenite|talk]]) 11:04, 14 December 2019 (UTC)Leobenite
~~~~Martin Kempf
[[User:Martin Kempf|Martin Kempf]] ([[User talk:Martin Kempf|talk]]) 05:29, 14 December 2019 (UTC)Martin Kempf
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)
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)
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.