User talk:Sempi

Anonymous IP editors

 * Hi Sempi. On the subject of anonymous IPs editing, it is a very complicated subject! IP addresses can be banned, but usually aren't as different people can share an IP. So if you ban one person, you might actually be banning several, including innocent parties. To be honest I'm not an expert on the subject, have a read at Blocking policy if you're looking a fuller explanation.
 * I tried clicking on the links you added and my work server denied access. So I'm assuming people with parental controls couldn't access them either. Regarding the other person who removed my link to youtube, this seems to be a new policy and one I don't fully understand. But what I think the reasoning is that videos uploaded to youtube may be copyrighted and youtube provides no information as to whether they are copyrighted or not. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, both in our own articles and external links provided in articles. So linking to any of the fight videos is going to be difficult I think. Maybe inserting some text in the article stating that "the videos are available widely on the internet, on sites such as youtube and sublimedirectory" is best. I hope you're not put off editing. There are a lot of things about Wikipedia that annoy me too, mostly around copyrights too actually. More specifically around uploading images, which is a total minefield!
 * By the way, I added your signature in. If you end your talk page comments with four "tides" ( the ~ symbol it adds your username. It helps people to know who's saying what! Anyway, welcome to Wikipedia and I hope you stay. I'll post this on your talk page as well. Stu   ’Bout ye!  12:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

RFC/U discussion concerning you (Sempi)
Hello, Sempi. Please be aware that a user conduct request for comment has been filed concerning your conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry is located at Requests for comment/Sempi, where you may want to participate. Rich wales (talk · contribs) 06:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

No wonder you are defending the actions of this group to unfairly suppress and delete information from this article! You Rich Wales, seem to have a conflict of interest! (link removed) If you still support Barack Obama, then you would have an interest in suppressing information about the natural born citizen clause, which might make him ineligible. So this really was politics all along? Sempi (talk) 07:24, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * This is a notice to all that my response in the Weazie (talk) 03:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)empi]], has been altered, deleted, my edits reverted, and I have been blocked from correcting, adding to, or clarifying my response. Since my response does not state what I want it to say, and I have effectively been gagged, any conclusions will be false and unjust. Sempi (talk) 09:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Rich Wales, it's apparent that you've given thousands of dollars to the one person the "natural born citizen" article could potentially affect. Do you still support Barack Obama? What is your relationship with him? These questions should be answered if we are to make a fair assessment of what is going on here. Because it appears you have a conflict of interest in fairly editing the article. You have a political interest. Your statements and actions have supported those editors making wholesale deletions of multiple contributors to the article without valid discussion or consensus. You are also supporting these editors in the Edit War, and Vandalism reports I filed. And now, you have filed a report against me for attempting to stop the deletions and vandalism, and you invited all those that either deleted contributions or supported the deletions into your report to jump on me. Obviously they will all attack me for trying to stop their improper deletions of material. Then on top of that, those you invited into the report have deleted and edited my responses, and requested that I be blocked, so I cannot defend myself. The report is a one-sided farce. Sempi (talk) 21:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 *  Thousands  of dollars??? When, pray tell, did I do that?  If you've found something online saying that I gave a four-figure sum of money to a political campaign, then I've most likely been the victim of identity theft and would very much like to know the details (which you should send me via the "e-mail this user" link on my talk page, not by posting it for everyone to see).  I did make a modest political donation earlier this year, but that's all.  I definitely do not consider such an action, or the way I have voted, to put me in a conflict of interest w/r/t the "natural born citizen" article.


 * As for the suggestion that I have been censoring you or getting other people to stack the deck against you, I informed everyone I mentioned by username in the RFC/U (including you) because I had a responsibility to make sure they (and you) were all aware of it. I have no desire to restrict your ability to participate (in an appropriate manner) in the RFC/U process.  I had nothing at all to do with the decision to block you, and as best I can tell, that decision happened because you violated WP:OUTING and not because anyone wants to muzzle your opinions in general.  If you do have additional things you would like to add to the RFC/U, I would urge you to put the material on your own user talk page (which you can still edit), and I or someone else will see to it that the material is copied to the RFC/U (assuming, I need to say, that the material is not of a disruptive nature).   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 22:20, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I was able to get someone to send me the "outing" link, and it turned out to be referring to someone else with the same name as me, living a few miles from me, and evidently with a lot more money than I have (judging by where they live). FWIW, I've never met this other person.   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 23:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Same name, same place, same profession, just a coincidence? Ok, that's why I was asking, it is apparently you. You say you made a small donation this year, but these donations were previous years. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with it, but it would be a conflict of interest.


 * As I pointed out there are numerous embellishments and misstatements in the RFC. For example, you claim, "Sempi suggests a link to a blog site to substantiate his claim that Vattel's The Law of Nations is a crucially important source of inspiration for the Founding Fathers." Once again, these are your words, not mine. That link absolutely was not a "crucially important source of inspiration," nor did I ever say it was. That was just a link I posted in reply for one of the editors to read. The RFC is littered with these types of misstatements, assumptions, and embellishments. With no way for me to respond, except posting here and hoping one of you who is fighting to malign me, will actually correct or respond to your own dishonest statements, I am guaranteed to lose. Even my response has been reverted and edited, and still has not been corrected. This RFC is a travesty and is not helping to correct things at all, but only make them worse!

Finally, did you invite Anythingyouwant into the discussion, or anyone else from the article history that may have suffered similar deletions? Or only your deletion pals? Sempi (talk) 03:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I have requested that the RFC be held open beyond the time of your blocking (so that you may respond or solicit other comments), and Rich wales has provide a link on the RFC page to your comments. --Weazie (talk) 03:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * In addition to posting a link to your comments on the RFC/U page, I also notified Anythingyouwant on his talk page just now. If there is anyone else you feel I may have (accidentally or otherwise) neglected to notify, let me know and I'll rectify the omission.   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 03:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

So I see I still cannot reply or edit anything!

How about we invite all those that have had Law of Nations contributions deleted in the past month or so? Though I doubt any of them will show up, because most people don't hang out at at Wikipedia pages, and even less check their talk pages. I certainly didn't - the last time I checked my talk page was probably four years ago.

The people that hang out here as the self appointed gatekeepers of information in the natural born citizen clause article, are those that are doing the deleting regarding the Law of Nations, rather than editing and collaboration. Abusers like Weazie, Mystylplx‎, Loonymonkey, Johnuniq, and Fat&Happy. Most of these below are probably just regular people passing by, unsure how to contribute, and only participate in Wikipedia in a very casual way, but they all had material deleted in the past month, so it's worth a try:

Spanman03103

76.231.129.103

210.9.137.221

Kingporthos

109.66.8.1

We're Patriots

71.248.57.178

98.148.214.209

Weedin777

Onthedot

DLH

216.136.112.27

68.170.209.222

216.189.209.130

68.170.209.229

91.64.51.196

On the other hand, Richwales acts like pro, and a gentleman, but unfortunately after reviewing the history, he still seems to have had a bias for a while, at least a month:


 * 04:51, 7 April 2011 Richwales (talk | contribs) (62,785 bytes) (rv; Mystylplx makes a reasonable point on the talk page against giving undue weight to De Vattel; please don't add this back without discussing it on the talk page and reaching a true consensus)

I don't think anybody was asking to give it undue weight, at that point in the history it merely looked like people were just asking to give it some weight, period.

The history also shows that Weazie is the clear tool of the group; his focus on complete deletions for whatever excuse he can give. Sempi (talk) 06:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The bottom line is, there are two paths you guys could have taken, the collaborative where you helped new people edit and properly format and source their contributions, including the Law of Nations, or the exclusive where you simply delete new contributions for any reason.

Weazie, Mystylplx‎, Loonymonkey, Johnuniq, and Fat&Happy, have been choosing the latter. And for some unknown reason RichWales has been backing them, even though he knows better. Sempi (talk) 07:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I posted a link to the above new material on the RFC/U page, so people reviewing this case can see what you wrote. You apparently tried your own (unsuccessful) posting a couple of hours before your block expired.  As best I can tell, you are now able to edit anywhere on Wikipedia once again, so you are free to edit the RFC/U page directly (as long as you do so responsibly and don't get yourself blocked again).


 * I'll review the list of users whom you would like to have contacted, and at my discretion I'll let them know about the RFC/U. Please note, BTW, that the correct way to write a "user" link is   , with curly braces, not square brackets.  The links you wrote are linking to the Wikipedia article on the word "User", rather than to information about the named users.   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 15:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

There's no need to be sending out written invitations to the RFC based on who you feel agrees with you on an issue, Sempi. The RFC is not based on the article where this all started. The RFC is based on your conduct. I'd advise you to make your comments there (when you're unblocked), and comment directly on your own behavior and not that of others. You are the subject of the RFC. Dayewalker (talk) 16:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I see no real harm in making sure everyone who might potentially have relevant comments is aware of Sempi's RFC/U. I'd rather err on the side of over-thoroughness than risk even the appearance of bias — especially since Sempi clearly considers me to be biased against him and inclined to marginalize those who might defend his position.  FWIW, I did review the contributions of each person on Sempi's list, and I chose not to notify a few people who either had not chimed in on the Vattel issue at all, or who had indicated on their talk pages that they were no longer interested in participating in Wikipedia.  In any case, we should all remember that the RFC/U is not about the content dispute as such, but about user conduct, and while we should be reasonably generous to those who may feel these two issues are hopelessly intertwined, any indisputably irrelevant comments should (and, I trust, will) be removed.   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 17:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Outing and article talk pages
Please review the talk page guidelines to determine what type of comments are appropriate on the talk page for an article. It is rarely appropriate to discuss other editors on an article talk page, and it is never appropriate to accuse other editors of ignorance or lying. Linking to a page which purports to show information about an editor is WP:OUTING and is strictly prohibited, and if repeated will lead to a block. Johnuniq (talk) 07:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * You cannot 'out' someone who already publicly volunteers their name in their username and info on their user page, nor by posting publicly available information. To 'out' something, you have to reveal something that is private. Sempi (talk) 09:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You need to read the links provided, as your summary of the situation is entirely defective. Johnuniq (talk) 10:12, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I did not post anything that was not already public. Sempi (talk) 22:07, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Please stop
Please stop reposting to the wrong section at Requests for comment/Sempi. Your comments have already been reposted into the appropriate section, the Response section. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 08:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Please stop deleting, and editing my responses to you in the conflict you are a party of. How can I even defend myself if you edit and delete what I have to say? Totally Orewllian! Sempi (talk) 08:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * This is a notice to all that my response in the Requests for comment/Sempi, has been altered, deleted, my edits reverted, and I have been blocked from correcting, adding to, or clarifying my response. Since my response does not state what I want it to say, and I have effectively been gagged, any conclusions will be false and unjust. Sempi (talk) 09:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

ANI notice
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 08:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Account blocked
This account has been blocked 24 hours by admin, for: "Repeatedly posting link that outs an editor - do not post again". -- Cirt (talk) 08:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * This is ridiculous! The editor already has their real name as their username. They cannot be "outed," by something already public. Further, the very link itself proves the editor has a conflict of interest in an action taken against me. How can I defend myself unless I am able to show the conflict? Sempi (talk) 08:59, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You may not have noticed, but the link gives the editor's specific street address. That is why you must not post it. Dcoetzee 09:01, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how you keep public information private. I did not post anything that was not already public. Further, I don't see where on that donor page any address is listed. A general map is given, but no specific address. Sempi (talk) 22:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The point is, isn't it just the least bit disingenuous to be supporting people that delete contributions on an article, and filing complaints against those that point out the repeated deletions and dishonesty, when the very article itself could affect politics they've invested thousands of dollars into? Sempi (talk) 09:33, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I was able to get someone to send me the "outing" link just now — and, as it turns out, the person identified in the link is not me, but someone else who shares my name, lives in an upscale suburb a few miles from me, and presumably has a lot more money than I do!  Rich wales (talk · contribs) 23:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * @Sempi: The home address of the person was clearly displayed at the link you repeatedly posted. However, that is not particularly relevant since any linking to sites off Wikipedia to disclose any information about another editor is strictly prohibited. The best procedure would be to simply accept that and remember to never take any action that might be regarded as outing again. Debating the merits of the situation would not be profitable.
 * @Richwales: It is best to never confirm or deny any outing attempt (what are you going to do if someone does out you?). While I am handing out advice (sorry!), it is almost never desirable to reveal anything about your personal life on the Internet ("a few miles from me"). Also, the question of whether that person is you is totally irrelevant as far as editors are concerned—any attempt at outing is strictly prohibited, regardless of its accuracy. Johnuniq (talk) 03:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

RFC closed
I've closed Requests for comment/Sempi because of inactivity, and because you've stopped editing. If you return, please improve your behavior as requested in the RFC. Chester Markel (talk) 06:13, 23 May 2011 (UTC)