Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Middayexpress

The following discussion is an archived record of a user conduct request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the page.

To remain listed at Wikipedia: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 ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 05:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 10:17, 18 October 2024 (UTC).

Middayexpress (talk · contribs · logs)

Users should not edit other people's summaries or views, except to endorse them. All signed comments other than your own view or an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page.

Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

Desired outcome

This is a summary written by users who have initiated the request for comment. It should spell out exactly what the changes they'd like to see in the user, or what questions of behavior should be the focus. Topic ban for nine months from all Somalia military and political articles, broadly defined. By observation rather than participation, it is hoped that the necessity to follow the fundamental wikipedia rule of WP:NPOV will be learned during that topic ban.

Description

{Add your summary here. You must use the endorsement section below to sign it. Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but do not change other people's views. Editors writing this section should not normally add additional views below.}

Middayexpress is in long-standing, continual violation of WP:NPOV, continually rolls back edits that do not reflect his views (IDONTLIKEIT/Disruptive editing, plus WP:UNDUE over-positive views of the Somali situation), and continually attempts to WP:OWN a wide range of Somalia articles.

My focus on Wikipedia is armed forces, with some special emphasis on areas not well covered because of our systemic bias. In my editing I’ve encountered POV editing regarding the Azerbaijan, Poland, and Afghanistan armed forces articles, among others. But none has matched the subtle but distorting effects this user has had.

On the recent history of Somalia he has a major blind spot; he is absolutely opposed to any material being included that criticises the transitional governments of 2004 onwards, or that emphasises Ethiopia's significant role in the war. This is not new, as @Stoneprophet: said recently: “That's kinda funny that this guy is still around. About 4 years ago I had a big argument with said user about the Somalia country article. Basically the whole article written mostly by him omitted everything which was only slightly negative about the country. Somalia was/is usually referenced as #1 failed state, but the article depicted it as some kind of heaven with only minor problems. The piracy issue, the starvation, the (back then) almost powerless government, the civil war and general disorder, some general (negative) key data most country articles have - almost nothing was mentioned. All those problems according to him are exaggerated by the UN and other international agencies due some kind of "conspiracy" against Somalia. Anyway, although I was able to get some of the most important points into the article (other editors had raised those issues before), it wasn't really worth the days wasted and I am afraid to look at that article again..” [1]

The resulting version by Middayexpress can be seen here [2] – note the description of the devastating 20-year civil war as ‘civil strife and instability’ in the fourth paragraph of the introduction.

Some years later, Middayexpress repeatedly removes material that criticises the transitional government, sometimes with misleading edit summaries along the lines of "c/e". [3] He repeatedly waters down critical material (WP:Weaselwords) in a way that misrepesents the political leanings of the people, and cheapens the suffering of those involved. The talkpage record at Somali Civil War will show that I have repeatedly attempted to challenge his watering down of statements and subtle changes of emphasis from the sources, on issues as varied as the actual start date of the civil war, the role of UNOSOM in local peacemaking, and the relative roles of the TFG versus the AU intervention force, AMISOM. For example: (my words): your "clear record of emphasising the central government's reach and power, and reducing its bad record, you have. The most recent fix I've had to make is *yet* another example. This edit of 5 January 2012 was reporting a source that said AMISOM was understaffed, and the sentence didn't mention the TFG. You changed the key word to 'underequipped,' and changed the whole meaning by emphasising that AMISOM were assisting the TFG."

He flatly denies WP:Third Party sources are more authoritative than involved parties such as AMISOM, or Hussain Farah Aideed. When faced with world-standard third-party sources such as the IISS contradicting his claims (eg [4], he simply repeatedly deletes the material concerned and reinserts claims from involved parties (such as Hussain Farah Aideed in this case, or the UN SRSG in the case of 2012-2014 areas of claimed terrain control in southern Somalia).

He is bitterly opposed to the repeated, unimpeachable evidence of neighbouring countries being involved in the war.

one example was removal, then distortion, of a sourced number of Ethiopian troops in the country (c.2013)
second, as above, denial of Ethiopian army’s involvement in capture of Baidoa, June 1999 [[5], where he repeatedly removed the IISS reporting on number of troops, and use of tanks and artillery. I am baffled about how one can write a proper discussion of a civil war if one doesn’t mention sourced use of tanks and artillery!! For two more supporting third-party source on this particular incident, see the London Independent of June 25, 1999: http://www.geocities.com/~dagmawi/NewsJuly99/June22_Gilkes.html, and United Nations Panel of Experts Report S/2003/223, p.22.
Hussain Farah Aideed’s admittal of support from Eritrea: see repeated revert ([6]) where the IISS and United Nations Panel of Experts S/2003/223 both clearly state that Aideed has admitted support from Eritrea (p.24, Panel of Experts).

He’s opposed to valid inclusion of core-subject material on Somali units, as will be seen by his justification of the removal of the Otago Daily Times article regarding the Fifth Brigade on the basis that it was ‘outdated and does not reflect the current reality in 2014.’ Taken to its logical extreme, you can see how unwise this is. This would remove all the historical data on units in toto, except for that of the current year. This would include material on the TFG’s brigades I’ve found but not yet added: Hansen’s ‘’Al-Shabaab in Somalia 2005-2012’’, cf. [7] This runs against all common practice on national army articles and WP:RECENTISM.

Second, your removal of material on the 5th and 6th Brigades. The thing that makes your actions most baffling is the listing of six brigades immediately above in the text, from an undisputed source. I added another source, the Otago Daily Times article, which corroborated it. But the six brigades established in Mogadishu are well documented across a range of sources, which only increases my irritation as the documented record for them I’m trying to increase is repeatedly removed. The IISS lists brigades in 2013 and six brigades in 2014. The UN’s Group of Experts corroborates the six brigades in Report of the Monitoring Group on Somalia and Eritrea pursuant to Security Council resolution 2060 (2012): S/2013/440, 25 July 2013, paragraphs 51 and 52. A further report of the Monitoring Group, S/2013/413, p.122, specifically names the 3rd Brigade and again the 6th Brigade. The Fifth Brigade is again mentioned in October 2012 on http://sabahionline.com/en_GB/articles/hoa/articles/newsbriefs/2012/10/29/newsbrief-04, in reference to the killing of its commander, Gen. Mohamed Ibrahim Farah “Gordon”.

He reverts accurate but critical quoting of sources re the Somali government, and has constantly misled edit summary readers of his rollback of critical material by the use of “c/e” and ‘remove OR’ eg. [8] at Transitional National Government Distorts sources to say Somali govt took the lead when the source only mentions the AU intervention force: [9]

Basically I cannot write an accurate description of the war and associated articles without criticising the central government of the time at points. If I cannot insert peer-reviewed journal article descriptions without having certain bits cherry-picked and removed, I don't get very far without bogged down in useless edit-warring. This is really frustrating because there's masses of good data to be added.

His disruptive editing and attempts to argue the point tendentiously can be seen at Talk:Somali Armed Forces#CIRCULAR and Talk:Somali Armed Forces#Strength and units. WP:Milhist coordinator Anotherclown’s exasperation can be seen towards the bottom of the second section. OWN is also displayed at the continual fighting of reference requests for Somali leaders (presidents) at Somali Armed Forces, plus the ridiculous removal of citation needed tags at [10], his edits to Bakool, which would have removed any mention of a declaration of a sub-state unless I had insisted.

Evidence of disputed behavior

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

above
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Somali_Civil_War&diff=599863551&oldid=599846973 – minor example of use of ‘C/e’ to change content

Applicable policies and guidelines

Middayexpress is in long-standing, continual violation of WP:NPOV, continually rolls back edits that do not reflect his views (IDONTLIKEIT/Disruptive editing, plus WP:UNDUE over-positive views of the Somali situation), and continually attempts to WP:OWN a wide range of Somalia articles.

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(Provide diffs of the comments. As with anywhere else on this RfC/U, links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

Attempts by certifier Nick-D

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Middayexpress&diff=595538949&oldid=595468764 - by @Nick-D:

Attempts by certifier Anotherclown

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Somali_Armed_Forces&diff=614731015&oldid=614550239 - beginning of attempt to intercede by @Anotherclown:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Somali_Armed_Forces&diff=616652003&oldid=616645269 - last attempt to intercede by @Anotherclown:

Other attempts

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

As Buckshot notes above, I attempted to intervene in this dispute (with my editor hat on, and not my admin hat), and was not successful. I certify Buckshot's statement above, and will post my own statement over the next week Nick-D (talk) 08:50, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Although my involvement in these issues has been limited, I too attempted to get involved to allow these articles to be developed collaboratively, but admit that I ultimately gave up because it quickly became too difficult (my failing I admit). Regardless, during my brief involvement I found the actions of the other party to be entirely disingenuous and I certify Buckshot's summary above to be reflective of my understanding and experience of the issues. Anotherclown (talk) 09:34, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary

{Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but do not change other people's views. RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it. Discussion of this view or other people's endorsements belongs on the talk page, not in this section.}

Based on what I have seen here and on the talk pages, I see multiple attempts by Buckshot to resolve the situation, which are ignored each time. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:35, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Response

This section is reserved for the use of the user whose conduct is disputed. Users writing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section, and the person writing this section should not write a view below. Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but no one except the editor(s) named in the dispute may change the summary here.

{Add your summary here. You must use the endorsement section below to sign it.}

I'll start off by pointing out that Buckshot never bothered notifying me of this report. I found out about it on my own, although it's apparently dedicated to me. He did, however, find the time to contact a few wikifriends of his and random users who have no relation to WikiProject Somalia/WikiProject Africa let alone the Somali Armed Forces discussion in question. I can't say I'm surprised that he didn't bother contacting the other actual participants, notably User:26oo, who can vouch for my qualitative work on the project.

That said, my dealings with Buckshot on the Somali Armed Forces, Somali Police Force, Somali Civil War and related pages have admittedly been a challenge, and this is almost entirely due to Buckshot's own, self-admitted aversion to the Somali government. For whatever reason, this user has something really personal against the Somali authorities, which has made it nearly impossible for him to edit related pages neutrally. In one rather telling exchange, for example, Buckshot went as far as to declare that the Somali Transitional Federal Government "does not (yet?) deserve loyalty" [11]. This personal animus of his toward the Somali authorities is something other regular contributors on WikiProject Somalia have noticed as well, including 26oo. As one user aptly put it, "I really don't see how either Middayexpress or 26oo can come to a concensus with someone that harbours such blatant schadenfreude at the current state of affairs" [12]. And try in good faith to address Buckshot's various "concerns" we have certainly have, as the many content discussions on the Somali Armed Forces talk page alone show. The actual facts on the various claims he makes above can be found on those talk pages, in their original, full context.

The more I dealt with Buckshot, the more I sensed that this user did not really want to resolve any outstanding issues, but was instead trying to set me up for something. It's now clear what that something was. I first gained this realization when he started to employ obvious baiting tactics in both said articles and their talk pages, as outlined in WP:GOAT. This ranged from him making deliberately inflammatory remarks on the talk pages, to moving the goalposts in discussions on what appropriate policy to follow, to making false accusations, to blanking standard military organization, nomenclature and equipment information, to deliberately pasting copyright violations onto articles -- all in an apparent attempt to get me to lash out and/or revert him. Here is just a sampling of this systematic disruption, though there are many more examples:

He replaced the Somali military's official infobox title "Armed Forces" with "No formal name cited in Provisional Consitution" [13]. In reality, both the Provisional Constitution [14] and the preceding Transitional Federal Charter [15] repeatedly refer to the military in capital letters as the "Armed Forces".

He added public domain material from the Library of Congress onto the Somali Armed Forces page verbatim, with no inline citation (viz. "The ringleaders urged a separation of north and south[...] Northern noncommissioned officers arrested the rebels, but discontent in the north persisted" [16], from the original LOC [17]). Despite this, he chided me for later following his example and pasting public domain material from the same LOC work on the Somali Police Force page (mind you, the material was already listed in the references section using an attribution template per WP:PLAG). His argument was now 180 degrees in the other direction, insisting that inline citations were required. When I pointed out to him on the talk page that he was being hypocritical, he stopped responding altogether [18].

He blanked the entire Somali Police Force section on the pretext that there was "no referenced cite to claim as part of the armed forces today" [19]. In reality, a link was already included in the infobox establishing that the police force was indeed part of the armed forces.

He removed the Somali Armed Forces' leadership table on the pretext that it was "unreferenced" [20]. In reality, it too was already sourced in the link-thrus, though I later provided additional inline citations for good measure [21].

He claimed that the Somali Armed Forces did not include an SM-1019 among its aircraft in 1981, and used this as a pretext to then remove that aircraft from the equipment table [22]. His justification for doing this was that the aircraft was allegedly "not mentioned" in the cited LOC link, that "no numbers" (i.e. no inventory) were noted either, and that this was basically a "distortion of reference" on my part. The link at the time had expired, so these claims of his on the surface seemed plausible since they could not be verified. However, in reality, both the SM-1019 and its inventory were indeed included in the LOC's inventory table, as I shortly afterwards demonstrated via an actual screenshot of the table's paper [23].

He copied and pasted text verbatim on the Bari page. But, again, since Buckshot often does not include full citations let alone links to the original documents, this WP:COPYVIO was not immediately verifiable until I managed to track down the actual link ("Barre Fatah Said there were possibilities of starting negotiation between Puntland Government and the founders of Raas Assayr state" [24]; copied verbatim from the original by Puntlandi [25]).

The above could perhaps be attributed to a lack of WP:COMPETENCE on Buckshot's part, were it not for the fact that he personally admitted to employing baiting tactics ("You may not be entirely aware that I deliberately used the inflammatory wording I did precisely to goad any potential person with knowledge to reveal some further details" [26]). It's thus especially unfortunate that this deliberate, apparently personally-motivated disruption came at the expense of the encyclopedia's reliability.

Users who endorse this summary:

RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it. Discussion of this view or comments made by people endorsing this view belong on the talk page, not in this section

Views

This section is for statements or opinions written by users not directly involved with this dispute, but who would like to add a view of the dispute. Users should not edit other people's summaries or views, except to endorse them. RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it. All signed comments other than your own view or an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" or "Response") should not normally edit this section, except to endorse another person's view.

Outside view by Inayity

There is no way I can grasp every single thing that has transpired, so excuse any false assumptions, they come from glancing--but I have no horse in this race. But I have noticed that anyone connected to any article will have a passion, when does passion become a serious problem? I think when it destroys the objectivity and quality of an article such as Racism in Israel(I am plugging). From what I can see, there will be errors in Middayexpress passion. But on the other side those issues can be resolved point by point. Request for comments, etc, Noticeboards where any inclusion of ref can be put to non-involved editors etc. I mean I doubt he would then go against the policy of Wikipedia and revert changes or consensus from those things. Maybe the outcome could be to make it clear that more compromising, more collaborative editing is needed and to submit to third party opinions in a dispute. relative to what else is wrong with Wikipedia, I do not think Middayexpress actions that you have gone into the red yet. If this is not the first time Middayexpress has come under the gun, then he needs to review the pattern and be prepared to surrender a little. --Inayity (talk) 22:02, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

--Inayity (talk) 23:09, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
--Dougweller (talk) 14:21, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
--CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 19:03, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
--Gyrofrog (talk) 14:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Dougweller

I can't understand why Middayexpress wasn't notified as soon as this was created. That should never happen. And ok, I haven't been that involved in RfCs for user conduct, but normally they seek a change in behavior, not an outright ban. Ban requests belong at AN or ANI, not here. I point to a recent one raised by some very experienced editors/Administrators, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dan56#Desired outcome, which starts "It is hoped that Dan56 can continue to contribute to the project, specifically music related articles, by agreeing to refrain from the problematic behaviors that inhibit his ability to work in a collaborative online social environment." It then goes on to list certain specific goals. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment/QuackGuru2 and other examples at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Archive. See specifically Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jax 0677 where the closer explicitly states "As it seems discussion is moving on toward a topic ban, which a user RFC cannot impose, this procedure is closed in anticipation of a formal request for a topic ban to come." In other words, this RfC cannot impose the desired outcome. If a topic ban is what is desired then this should have gone straight to AN.

I don't believe that I've been involved in the disputes being discussed, so I can't comment on that. All I can say is that all of my contacts with Middayexpress have been pleasant, that where I've noticed his edits they have been helpful, and I've seen no violations of NPOV in those articles where we have interacted.

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view by StoneProphet

I am not involved in this dispute, but since my name was mentioned, I just want to explain why I wrote that based on my sole encounter with said editor a longer time ago.
I am not surprised about this at all. Middayexpress is is almost the sole editor of lots of Somalia-related articles. He certainly had added a lot of valuable contents. However, on a closer look it was pretty clear that the picture drawn on those articles was extremely positive as a result of rampant cherry-picking of sources and content. Back then I and several editors have pointed this out on the general Somalia country article and I just tried to add in a few things which were completely omitted: like general country data (e.g. he mentioned positive things like a low HIV rate, but negative things, like an extreme low life expectancy or high infant mortality, were ofc omitted etc.) or things like the rampant piracy problem which was pretty prominent back then. He however was completely against that and reverted everything (ofc I used official UN sources and such). His arguments went like that there was some kind of big conspiracy by the UN to paint the picture in Somalia worse than it is, so they can continue to completely fuck the country up. Therefore official UN sources are not valid here and we better should cherrypick from some private anarcho-capitalist institutes from the USA. Anyway the whole thing was so weird, when he tried to prove with strange sources that the #1 failed state (he fought like a lion to keep this term out of the article) in the world has in a fact a totally healthy economy (his words) and is in no trouble at all. Nope, no problems in Somalia, just go along. I also was accused of having Schadenfreude about the situation in Somalia. After he brought me to 3rr (despite he was the guy constantly cold reverting while I toned my additions down with every edit) and we both got "warned" I simply went out and left his articles to him. Not time for that. First and only time I was on the Admin noticeboard in 6 years WP.
As I said before I am not involved into this current dispute, but it is obvious that said user has a history of selective editing. Therefore I am supportive to the editors who opened this RFC.

Users who endorse this summary:

StoneProphet (talk) 22:14, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Binghi Dad (talk) 22:43, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This has also been my experience with Middayexpress Nick-D (talk) 05:59, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am completely uninvolved, having never (to my knowledge) interacted with Middayexpress. Given Buckshot is a Milhist member, and I am a coord of that project, I have had occasional interaction with him. Having had a good look at the editing in question, I can only endorse this summary. It reflects demonstrated behaviour. From my own experience in areas covered by Arbitration Committee rulings in the Balkans, I believe that the only effective method of dealing with the style of editing employed by Middayexpress is a time-limited topic ban. If the topic ban expires, and there is a return to the same behaviour, in the interests of WP, an indefinite ban from Somalia-related topics may be necessary. Of course, if Middayexpress chooses to edit in a manner that reflects consensus and the full range of reliable sources, then obviously a return to editing in this area would be appropriate. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:56, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Chuck @ UPDmedia.com (talk) 19:31, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
gobonobo ⁺ ^c 03:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:49, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My experience of Middayexpress's methods are limited to a single discussion in January 2010, but this accurately reflects that experience. I cannot comment on the case at hand because I am uninvolved and have not looked at the case in detail. Kahastok talk 19:45, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by AustralianRupert

As someone who has not been privy to all interactions between the parties in dispute, and who lacks an understanding of the topic area, it is difficult to delve too deeply into the issues. From a quick review of the links provided the topic area appears to be fraught with considerable nuances that make it hard to get at the heart of the dispute. Having said that, at the end of the day, I think that this essentially began as a content dispute between two editors who are trying their best (in their own ways) to improve the encyclopaedia, although evidently it has now moved beyond that. In this regard, I think that what we should be driving towards is a middle-ground solution, as ultimately the key to building the encyclopaedia is collaboration and one of the keys to collaboration is compromise. As such, I'd like to offer the following suggestions/observations:

One of the key aspects to Wikipedia's success is the ability of editors to work collaboratively and to seek consensus. This requires meaningful talk page engagement. It also requires editors to respect other people's points of view and to seek compromise solutions. An all or nothing approach is not conducive to creating a productive and collaborative editing environment.
Neutral point of view. In topic areas that are hotly contested it is important that we balance the competing viewpoints (positive and negative) that exist, using the best quality sources that we can. Ideally these should be third party sources. If we have sources that disagree, the best solution is most likely to discuss both in the article, contrasting them in a balanced way in the article. The exact wording could be discussed on the talk page prior to inclusion if necessary.
Issues with recentism/currency of information in articles. If the situation is evolving over time and things are changing, it seems reasonable to discuss the previous state of affairs in an article in a historical manner, albeit noting that things have changed/improved, etc. if sources back this up. This would help to provide full coverage of a topic and information shouldn't be removed solely because it is out of date, but rather it should be discussed within an appropriate context to build a history/chronology.
Edit summaries. In situations where there is tension among editors, the use of accurate edit summaries is important in ensuring that misunderstandings do not occur. If editors take more time to clarify why they are changing things, it might help to alleviate any misunderstandings/future tension.
Copyright concerns. I haven't been able to check this out in due to my poor internet connection, but I actually think it might be a misunderstanding. If text is in the "public domain" it is essentially not a copyright violation to include it, although it is probably not the best solution and there are other policies that need to be considered such as appropriate attribution/quotation etc. If concerns remain, I'd suggest this be discussed at talk page of the article concerned, and if that doesn't resolve the situation, potentially at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems.

In terms of resolving this matter, perhaps in the interests of seeking a compromise the best way is for all parties to make a positive undertaking to abide by the points listed above. This could possibly be reinforced by both editors accepting the imposition a one revert rule on the articles in dispute. That would perhaps act as a means of ensuring that edit waring in the topic area is reduced and encouraging the use of the talk page to resolve issues. If problems persist, then there would be the potential for administrator involvement, but this should be a last resort. Additionally, it would probably help for all editors to take a short break from the articles concerned and focus on editing something else for a few days. Editing Wikipedia is meant to be a hobby that is enjoyable. Taking a break from this topic area and working on something else might help to bring that back for everyone concerned, which in turn might help produce a more collaborative environment later on. Anyway, that is about all I've got time for at the moment. I have a young baby sitting on my knee at the moment, who is quite indignant that I am typing instead of playing with her. Anyway, hopefully this can be resolved amicably in a manner that meets everyone's needs and helps build the encyclopedia. Take care and have a good weekend. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:18, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view by Chuckupd

Five years ago I was just beginning to be involved in Wikipedia and I made a number of contributions. After encountering Middayexpress, I withdrew from here entirely and have not been back. I found her behavior bizarre and insufferable.

Very prominent on my profile page was mention of my involvement with the Edna Adan Maternity Hospital in Hargeia, Somaliland for which institution I serve as website administrator and where I have visited, and I posted photos of the hospital here. Middayexpress objected when I edited something in an attempt to reflect the de facto independence of Somaliland, and it was soon clear that she had come to regard me as her declared her enemy. Edna, who served both as Somaliland's Foreign Minister and (much earlier) as Somalia's First Lady, is likely the world's most prominent and vocal advocate for recognition of Somaliland independence while Middayexpress clearly belongs to the opposing camp.

First, she pounced saying she had 'discovered' my connection with Edna (by glancing at my profile) and I was denounced as Edna's secret agent here. Middayexpress next accused me of stealing hospital photos from Edna and posting them here without her permission. I pointed out that these two accusations are, in addition to being simply false, are mutually contradictory. She would have none of that, and insisted that these two foul crimes are proof that I am a doubly wicked person.

It was her gleeful twisting of facts to come up with baseless, personal accusations of villainy that drove me away, and I stated as much on my profile page in 2009 upon leaving here. "I give up on Wikipedia. Middayexpress has accused me with so many lies that it has become unbearably depressing. I'm not the only one being attacked without mercy. One of these days, I hope she will be banned and then I might consider returning here."

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view by Gobonobo

Middayexpress can be a difficult editor to work with. They tend to exert ownership over Somalia-related articles, employing an editing style that is combative and adversarial, often refactoring other's contributions and/or edit-warring to preserve their preferred version of an article. Sometimes Middayexpress exhibits tendentious behavior, removing sourced material that is critical of Somalia or Somali people. A recent example of the problematic behavior can be seen at Talk:Female genital mutilation#Inclusion of Edna Adan Ismail, with Middayexpress placing conditions on other's edits and demonstrating a failure or refusal to "get the point" (WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT). I hope that in the future Middayexpress can approach editing as a collaborative endeavor, but given the severity of the concerns outlined here and above, it would be best to bring this to a venue where disciplinary measures can be considered.

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view by Somaliweyn10

This is clearly a witch-hunt against Middayexpress. I can't believe disputes from the last decade are being invoked with the intention to portray Middayexpress, a prolific contributor, as some kind of evil wikipedia editor. His work on the Wikipedia Somalia project is unequaled by far, which was a much neglected project page before his presence. This sounds more like an attempt to silence a regular member of wikipedia.org because the other members, including Buckshot10, couldn't put across their points well enough or simply lost the consensus. Seriously, get over it, no need to drag all of your personal issues from the ancient past to demonize a specific member. The request for a ban - long term or limited - are laughable and unacceptable, considering the amount of good work he has done, including in the form of bold editing. --Somaliweyn10 (talk) 00:50, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As some of the above so-called outside views are nothing but sly attempts at character assassination, it would be prudent to point out the amount of barnstars, invitations and thanks Middayexpress has received from a diverse stock of wikipedians dealing with various subjects and continents, such as the African Barnstar, the Civility barnstar, the Pakistan National Merit barnstar, etc. Not to mention the amount of cup of teas and coffees he has been given for his valuable contributions; 1, 2, 3, 4, etc. This is just from the last two years and I left out the multiple original barnstars, thanks and invitations, so kindly let's keep our personal vendettas out of this - ridiculous - request for comments page. There are plenty of contributors that consider Midday's edits valuable, which obviously includes me. --Somaliweyn10 (talk) 01:25, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update: It should be pointed out that of all the users Buckshot06 inappropriately canvassed; 1, 2,3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 NONE are part of the Wikiproject Somalia, nor have they ever participated in any of the articles in question, so their expertise on the matter is limited. Worse, a specific individual by the name of Chuckpd has admitted on the talk page that he was contacted via email to attack Middayexpress in a concerted effort. His direct words being; "I was informed of this page in an fyi email from another target of Middayexpress' enmity. We are many." There is therefore clear cut evidence of stealth-canvassing which discredits this entire RfC, and it should be dismissed immediately for the sake of wikipedia's stance against systematic bias. This is not a genuine request for comment with the purpose of finding a solution, this is a classic witch-hunt. --Somaliweyn10 (talk) 20:02, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by bobrayner

I share Buckshot06's concerns. However, I feel the problem may be more widespread, as I have seen Middayexpress doing the same kind of pov-pushing on other articles related to Somalia and the surrounding region. Just look at the lengthy misrepresentation and misuse of sources in the history of Ancient inscriptions in Somalia, for instance. bobrayner (talk) 16:42, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I am saddened to see that Middayexpress has been canvassing supporters and coaching their responses here: [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] etc.

Users who endorse this summary:

Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:39, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.

As noted at the top of the page, keep discussion on topic; posts must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. Please also adhere to WP:HOUNDING.

Summary

I am not used to closing RfC/Us, so please pardon any formatting or procedural errors. The instructions offer guidance on formatting but very little in the way of what a closer should actually do, so I will ad a brief summary here, which I hope will be useful for the parties in moving forward.

First of all, I would like to dispel a couple of notions: first of all, RfC/U is a dispute resolution process, and so is mainly a talking shop, where editors express their vies in the hope of reaching a conclusion. It is thus not the appropriate forum for requesting sanctions. Second, an editor need not be a member of a wikiproject nor have any expertise in the subject area to participate in a RfC/U. Any good-faith contribution by those who are willing to compare the text added by an editor with that in the source or to otherwise evaluate the allegations made in the filing of the RfC should be welcomed.

It is clear from reading this discussion that several good-faith editors feel aggrieved at Middayexpress's conduct, some even to the point of believing that Middayexpress has behaved tendentiously. At least part of this dispute seems to be an inter-personal dispute between Middayexpress and Buckshot06, which has grown out of a content dispute. Allegations against Middayexpress include POV pushing by removing or watering down material unflattering to the Somali government, ownership of articles, and selective use of sources. Middayexpress rejects these allegations, directing his own series of allegations at Buckshot06 and pointing out that their edits are supported by several other editors.

Without either side giving any ground, voluntary dispute resolution is impossible, as it effectively relies on the two parties finding a middle ground. This is what AustralianRupert attempts to do in his outside view, for which he is to be commended. If Buckshot06 and Middayexpress can agree to work together, I thoroughly endorse AustralianRupert's suggestions of a "positive undertaking" to conduct themselves professionally, voluntarily limit themselves to one revert per day, and perhaps take a break from the topic area. Failing that, the only way to progress the matter would be either to take the topic-ban request to ANI or to seek arbitration. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:16, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.