I would suggest adding this violation of WP:HARASS --Weazie (talk) 07:29, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sempi is presently blocked until 08:24, 12 May 2011. I propose this RFC remain open for a reasonable amount of time after the block has been lifted, to give an opportunity for further response. --Weazie (talk) 22:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or for Sempi to solicit other comments, questions, responses, etc. --Weazie (talk) 03:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure where to put this on the main page, but I am the IP editors 86.164.13.4, 86.161.121.19, and 86.161.122.72 from the talk page of the article in question (due to having a dynamic IP address and generally not bothering to log in when editing, as I don't edit much) who disagreed with Sempi. I am not entirely sure if Sempi includes me as part of the purported 'conspiracy' or not, but the summary of what I can see, giving Sempi every benefit of doubt I can, seems to be of an editor getting understandably confused by the weird way they had of doing capitalisation back then, and genuinely believing that the reference to 'Law of Nations' in the Constitution is referring to Vattel's work, and so concluding the Constitution enshrines adherence to it - including the definition of 'natural born citizen' Sempi refers to in Vattel's book. However, instead of accepting the criticisms given to him as to why this material should not be in the article, Sempi instead bullishly insisted on repeatedly re-adding it, with the only indication he even read the criticisms made being finding a source that did not support the claim being made. This was pointed out to him (by myself, as 86.164.13.4), which was met with the dismissive comment 'grasping at straws'. Instead of then trying to find a better source, or rewording the claim so that it matched the source, Sempi simply continued to argue he was right, and that other editors were either ignorant or deliberately trying to get Vattel's work blocked from the article in some kind of conspiracy or cabal. Another user, Anythingyouwant, re-added the material, using two different sources. However, this was again removed, after a while, because these sources also did not support the claim being made. Instead of getting into a huge argument about it, this user instead accepted the comments made as to why that material did not belong there, and, instead, reworded and reinserted it where it did belong in the article. So, it seems to me, at best, Sempi is simply a very rude and abrasive editor who is convinced he must be correct, so is very dismissive of any comment he disagrees with, even ones which explain to him why he cannot do what he's trying to do, and what he needs to do to sort it, and, at worst, is an editor who, for his own reasons, is determined to insert that Vattel was the inspiration and source for the 'natural born citizen' clause in the Constitution, whether that's actually the case or not. Zmidponk (talk) 23:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Zmidponk's last point, Vattel is a birther coatrack; Sempi's comments about a perceived conflict of interest due to donations to President Obama's campaign are evidence of that. --Weazie (talk) 23:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've touched on the "outing" issue in one of the points of my proposed solution (proposal #2). Regarding the various objections Sempi has raised in connection with this RFC/U, I will certainly apologize and be open to correction if my attempts at summarization resulted in any material errors. But I am perplexed by some of Sempi's comments, especially given comments on the article's talk page and my own user talk page which seem to show that he does consider Vattel's book to be of crucial importance. I am certainly willing to see Sempi participate if (and only if) he is willing to do so in a proper fashion and with respect for others. Richwales (talk · contribs) 02:06, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For whatever it may or may not be worth, Sempi has not returned since his block expired, and has apparently not done any editing at all for the past six days. What is the accepted procedure when the subject of an RFC/U simply seems to disappear? Do we continue anyway, because he may (and probably will) come back? If the case is closed on account of inactivity, I trust it can be reopened if and when Sempi reappears. Richwales (talk · contribs) 01:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've closed the discussion because of inactivity and the user's disappearance. If he returns and causes more trouble, a request for arbitration can be filed, with this RFC as evidence of prior dispute resolution. Alternative, a community ban/editing restriction proposal can be made on WP:AN. Chester Markel (talk) 06:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]