Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sempi

I'm closing this discussion because it's inactive and user is AWOL. The matter can be taken to arbcom or a community ban discussion started if the user returns and causes more trouble. Chester Markel (talk) 05:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

In order to remain listed at Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 03:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).



Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute
is editing and "discussing" in a tendentious and disruptive fashion at Natural born citizen clause of the U.S. Constitution. He is insisting that the article must prominently identify Emerich de Vattel's 1758 treatise, The Law of Nations — originally published in French as Le Droit des gens — as the definitive source for the meaning of the Constitution's "natural born citizen" clause. Sempi has added and re-added his material several times, claiming that he is reverting vandalism (namely, the removal of his claim by others who insist it is inadequately sourced and has no credible basis). He has rebuffed numerous appeals to work collaboratively, assume other editors' good faith, and respect consensus. He has been acting disruptively on the article's talk page — claiming everyone else is part of a broad conspiracy to suppress the truth about Vattel's work from the article, and accusing several other editors of stupidity, dishonesty, and vandalism.

Cause of concern

 * [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [] — Repeated attempts to insert material about The Law of Nations and its presumed link to the meaning of "natural-born citizens"; this material is removed many times by several different people, then reinstated by Sempi, often with edit summaries accusing the removers of vandalism.
 * [], [], [], [], [], [], [] — Sempi repeatedly accuses other editors (those who disagree with his view) of a conspiracy of abusive editing, censorship, and vandalism.
 * [] — 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.

Applicable policies and guidelines

 * WP:V and WP:RS — Claims such as Sempi's need to be substantiated by sources (and sources of the kind commonly accepted as reliable for use in Wikipedia), not simply considered self-evident or backed only by blog posts.
 * WP:NOR — Speculation as to what a source "obviously" means has no place in Wikipedia.
 * WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE — Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence (certainly a lot more than simply saying it's obvious and that anyone who claims not to see it is blind to the truth or conspiring to hide the truth).
 * WP:AGF — Editors have a right to be assumed to be acting in good faith unless there is clear evidence to the contrary.
 * WP:CIVIL — Accusations that other editors are acting disruptively, if made at all, should be made in the appropriate forum (such as an RFC/U), not in talk pages or edit summaries.

Desired outcome
Sempi needs to accept other editors' good faith, make an honest effort to improve the article by consensus rather than confrontation, and be willing to accept (gracefully) the possibility that his ideas may not ultimately shape the consensus. If he feels his views regarding The Law of Nations belong in the article, he needs to present reliable sources (ideally, high-quality secondary sources confirming that his views are appropriate for inclusion), and he needs to work with other editors in a non-confrontational way. If Sempi is unable or unwilling to do this, he should recuse himself from this article and allow editors who can work on it in the proper way to do so.

Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute

 * Requests to follow Wikipedia principles regarding the use of sources: [], [], [], [], [], [], [], []
 * 3RR warnings: [], [], [], []
 * Requests to refrain from personal attacks: [], [], []
 * Requests to work collaboratively: [], []
 * Requests for more editors to participate: [], [], []

Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute

 * [] — An exchange between Sempi and three other editors (Dayewalker, Cirt, and Richwales) who were trying, in vain, to get him to stop making personal attacks and try to reach an honest consensus regarding the content of the article.
 * [] — Sempi singles me (Richwales) out for criticism: "Incredibly, you wrongly accusing me of calling people names, for pointing out their ignorance, and lies, rather than helping to improve the truthful history of the Law of Nations as the source of the 'natural born citizen' clause. The only reason these dishonest people here are getting away with denying, lying, and hiding this source is because those like you are defending their antics, rather than discouraging them. That makes it look like you are not interested in defining and sourcing the clause either. Weazie is clearly an abuser of policies, editing, and the discussion, and yet you get upset with me calling him a vandal and reporting him? Shame on you."
 * [], [] — material posted by Sempi on my (Richwales) user talk page. The reference to material being "deleted" from the article talk page may, I believe, refer to the placement of a collapse box (see Template:Collapse top) around the "Vattel" section of the talk page — something which I'm guessing that Sempi apparently misinterpreted as an actual deletion or censoring of the discussion rather than just hiding it by default.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute.


 * I have tried, but failed, to resolve this dispute with .  Rich wales (talk · contribs) 05:59, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I have been repeatedly attacked, and incorrectly accused of vandalism [report ] [unblocked], by . I have unfailingly attempted to explain why the edits  desire violate numerous, basis wikipedia tenets (notably WP:SYNTH) all the while assuming good faith and remaining civil.  I repeatedly and expressly stated if any editor (including ) had a reliable source that supported the proposed assertion, to please include it, but none have been produced.  --Weazie (talk) 06:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I have tried, but failed to resolve this dispute with . I suggested the user try dispute resolution, I pointed him to WP:THIRD or WP:RFC, but the user refused to take either of these suggestions. See diff followed by page blanking. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 06:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I have also tried to get to use various forms of dispute resolution, which has been ignored. Dayewalker (talk) 16:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

---

Additional users endorsing this cause for concern.



Questions
''Any users may post questions in this section. Answers should be reserved for those certifying the dispute.''

Q. Shouldn't we just get to discussing a topic ban? This is primarily a case of WP:FILIBUSTER and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, all of the violations of WP:RS, WP:AGF, WP:NPA, etc. are just the by-product of obsessively editing this one article against all consensus. Does anyone believe that this behavior will change after a stern talking-to (which has already happened, many times)? --Loonymonkey (talk) 15:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

A. I agree. (But I suspect the behavior will move to other, related topics.) And the recent WP:OUTING violation (and false reports of edit warring and vandalism) also merit some sort of total block, IMO. --Weazie (talk) 15:35, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The WP:OUTING violation itself doesn't bother me as much as Sempi's apparent refusal to understand why anyone had a problem with it. And I would be more inclined to characterize his edit-warring and vandalism reports as misguided, rather than false.  What does concern me is Sempi's seemingly pervasive paranoia — his apparent conviction that anyone who disagrees with his views must either be part of a corrupt conspiracy, or be in a conflict of interest (even as a result of holding mainstream political opinions which evidently differ from his), or both.  Sadly, I have to agree with Loonymonkey that this type of mind-set is not likely to change anytime soon, and any sort of limited sanctioning proposal needs to take into account the fact that Sempi has thus far refused to moderate his behaviour in any way because he appears to be convinced that he is right and everyone else is wrong.   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 16:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Also FWIW, I've seen the alleged "outing" link, and the contents of the page refer to someone else who happens to have the same name as me.  Rich wales (talk · contribs) 01:47, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Which is among the reasons why a WP:OUTING violation is so serious: to avoid involving (and perhaps defaming) a totally uninvolved, innocent person. --Weazie (talk) 01:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Q.

A.

Response
''{This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed. Users not named in the request or certifying the request should post under Additional views below.''}

I refuse to take part in this because it will be completely bias. First of all, your statements are inaccurate. I never "insisted" anything be "prominently identified," nor the definitive source. Those are your words, and I recognize them from reply to the Edit War report I made. Unfortunately, I had not identified you as the ringleader yet, and did not name you in it, because you are sly as I shall show below!

Second, there were multiple contributions from multiple editors, and I did not delete any of them, ever. The only thing I ever did was revert deletions by others. It was In fact, all the deleting by others, which I reported as vandalism and edit warring. You are defending the actions of those that did the deletions, Fat&Happy, Loonymonkey, Mystylplx and Johnuniq. Most recently, Weazie, who must be a 'sockpuppet' as I've seen you call them, and Johnuniq who locked the discussion after I posted something similar to this on your talk page:


 * ==Anythingyouwant==


 * I'm not sure if you saw this. Weazie just deleted it.


 * Did any of you notice what happened with Anythingyouwant above due to Weazie's deletions Anythingyouwant, had this to say, "I'm not going to bother arguing with you, or trying to satisfy you, because instead of modifying or rephrasing you prefer to completely delete material that is obviously relevant. Banging my head against the wall would be more useful. :-) Cheers" Anythingyouwant, appears to have given up and been chased away due to Weazie's repeated deletions. The outright deletions of multiple contributors, without any consensus from them at all, was simply wrong. Sempi (talk) 06:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * How does Weazie get to delete everything, and then decide the discussion is closed? Are Johnuniq and Weazie one and the same?

Further, I never accused anyone of "stupidity," either, so that is a lie. It makes sense you would stoop to doing the things of those you are defending. Apparently this whole thing about me is going to based partly upon lies? Third, I've never done one of these before and don't know what to do, and clearly you are an expert. I'm totally disadvantaged.

How convenient! Sempi (talk) 08:01, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * In fairness, I believe the precise word Sempi used in his talk page comments was "ignorant" (as illustrated, for example, in the second item under "Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute" above). My apologies if anyone was confused; this is the first RFC/U I've ever done, and I tried to explain the issue as accurately and succinctly as possible, but if I made any material errors, I'm welcome to having them corrected.  I'm sorry to see that Sempi got himself blocked, but it appears that he can still edit his user talk page (presumably as long as he doesn't repeat the same misbehaviour there that got him blocked elsewhere), so if he feels other things need to be corrected, he can post them there, and I or others will see that his comments are passed along to this page.   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 14:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Sempi's actions and response really do speak for themselves. But, "for the record," I do not know any of the other editors.  And, as my user history indicates, I am not a sockpuppet.  It would appear Sempi cannot accept the fact that different people have come to similar conclusions.  --Weazie (talk) 14:59, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * On Sempi's behalf, since he is currently blocked, I am posting this [ link] to material he wrote on his own talk page. I believe this is material relating to Sempi's case which he would like everyone to read.  I am posting this as a link, rather than copying the text, so it will be clear who said what (and also so it will be clear that I didn't modify his wording in any way).   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 03:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Here is [ another link] to material which Sempi wrote on his own talk page before his block expired. Again, I believe this is material relating to his case which he would like everyone to read.   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 14:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Response to concerns
{Add summary here.}

Applicable policies and guidelines
List the policies and guidelines that apply to the response.



Questions
''Any users may post questions in this section. Answers should be reserved for the user named in the dispute.''

Q.

A.

Q.

A.

Outside view
This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute.

Outside view by
{Enter summary here.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Proposed solutions
''This section is for all users to propose solutions to resolve this dispute. This section is not a vote and resolutions are not binding except as agreed to by involved parties. ''

Sempi banned
1) is community banned for a period of three years.


 * Comment by parties:
 * Oppose. This seems way, way excessive as an initial response.   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 17:01, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Proposed. Outing, conspiracy theories, and edit warring against everyone else? We don't need this. Chester Markel (talk) 06:54, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Sempi cautioned
2) Here is my proposal. Everyone (especially Sempi), please understand that everything in this part of the RFC/U is a proposal of sanctions and not (yet) an actual sanction.   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 21:56, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


 * is strongly cautioned to follow WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. If he believes other editors are acting inappropriately, he is to seek advice from an uninvolved administrator rather than directly confront other editors himself.
 * Sempi is reminded of key Wikipedia policies and guidelines such as WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH, WP:CONSENSUS, and WP:EDITWARRING, and he is strongly cautioned to make sure his editing and discussion activities conform at all times to the accepted norms.
 * Sempi is strongly admonished in connection with his violation of Wikipedia's policy against "outing" (or attempted outing) of other editors — a violation for which he was recently blocked for 24 hours. He is expected to carefully study both WP:HARASS and WP:COI, paying particular attention to how Wikipedia's policy against harassment (of which the policy against outing is a part) takes precedence over conflict-of-interest concerns and applies even when another editor has already publicized some personal information.  Sempi is additionally advised to note the potentially severe consequences of harassment on Wikipedia, and he is strongly cautioned not to violate this policy again.
 * Sempi is to limit himself to a maximum of one revert per day on any topic relating broadly to the United States Constitution, United States citizenship, or eligibility for the office of President of the United States, and he is not to attempt to claim the exemption for reverting vandalism, but is to allow others to take care of vandalism if possible, or else seek assistance from an uninvolved administrator.
 * If, after carefully studying WP:CONSENSUS, Sempi feels the overall consensus of editors on a given issue is ill-advised, he is advised to use accepted procedures for dispute resolution, seek assistance from an uninvolved administrator, or simply accept the result and move on. Sempi is specifically reminded that repeatedly bringing up the same arguments on an article talk page, without trying in good faith to participate in a true exchange of ideas with other editors or paying attention to a contrary consensus, is considered disruptive and will not be tolerated; see WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.
 * The above instruction to seek aid from an uninvolved administrator is not to be taken as a licence for Sempi to engage in forum shopping in an effort to find some administrator who will agree with him.
 * Failure on Sempi's part to adhere to any of the above, after having been warned, will result in appropriate editing restrictions, beginning with a topic ban to last one week for the first violation, with progressively longer durations for subsequent violations. Sempi is reminded that persistent, obstinate refusal to work with others in a constructive and civil manner may ultimately lead to a complete and permanent ban from Wikipedia, and he is strongly advised to read WP:RESTRICT and WP:LOBU in order to get a better idea of expectations and consequences.
 * Sempi may request to have the above conditions relaxed by community consensus after one year. Any decision along these lines will take Sempi's conduct over the past year into account.


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * It's ironic that Sempi is accusing everyone of conspiring against him, when one of the users with whom he is in a dispute is prepared to let him off with a warning, a lenient revert restriction, and a topic ban. Perhaps Sempi should recognize that the community has bent over backwards to accommodate him. Chester Markel (talk) 02:50, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Topic ban
3) Banned from topics relating to President Obama's eligibility for the office of President of the United States, i.e., Natural born citizen clause, Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, Vattel, Law of Nations.  Time period TBD.


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Topic ban requests should be brought to WP:AN, not here. Tijfo098 (talk) 08:23, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Template
4)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Reminder to use the talk page for discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.