Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Middayexpress

I am lost

I was asked to make some contribution but I am not experienced in these matters. Is this page formatted properly because I cannot make heads or tails out of it. Sections seem unsigned and duplicated. Where am I supposed to make an observation? While not endorsing or anti-endorsing anything?--Inayity (talk) 20:52, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

UN

I would just like to briefly comment on a matter StoneProphet alluded to. This is a user I interacted with one time years ago on a separate page, when I was still relatively new. The situation he describes is not quite that which transpired. It was actually the CIA that indicated that Somalia had maintained a healthy informal economy [1]. I did, though, point out to him that certain bodies within the UN were not neutral when it came to the country. Because he did not have a full understanding of the nuances involved in Somali politics, he could not comprehend how this was possible. The reality is that political spoilers (including within the international community) have long been a significant impediment to the Somali peace process, as the U.S. government itself has acknowledged [2]. To this end, the law firm Shulman Rogers has accused one particular UN agency of misrepresenting the situation in Somalia for political gain, and has consequently issued a lawsuit against its Director [[3] [4]]. That said, this old issue has nothing to do with the matter at hand on the Armed Forces. I also don't see how any user genuinely interested in fairness can condone the admission of using baiting tactics made therein. Middayexpress (talk) 15:45, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Hounding

I'd like to briefly touch on a remark by Gobonobo. This is another user who has no idea what the armed forces issue is about, is not a significant contributor to the Somalia WikiProject and related WikiProjects, nor is he/she particularly knowledgeable about Somalian geopolitics. He/she and I have, however, dealt with each other on three occasions, ironically none of which include the off-topic FGM page that he alludes to (a page where the content dispute was resolved satisfactorily; I agreed to delegate editing to one of the regulars there [5] [6]). Our first actual encounter was on the Sheeko Magazine page two years ago, where he/she insisted that the publication's latest issue was best for the infobox there (although no wiki policy indicates this, I deferred to him/her then for the sake of argument [7]). The second was on the Dada Masiti page, where he/she sought to describe the woman as a "slave" in a Did You Know hook (although the only history on her that has actually been corroborated by both her own family and herself is her elopement as a teenager; my alternative hooks were instead chosen before the DYK as a whole was eventually scrapped [8] [9]). The third was on the Mohamoud Noor page, where he/she insisted that a hatnote was necessary to distinguish the man as a politician (although he is not an officeholder and the other hatnoted wikipages point to individuals with the given name Mohamed rather than a variant of the separate Mahmud). That said, a note at the top of this page clearly indicates that "this must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users." Outside users can thus comment, but it must remain on the actual armed forces matter at hand, not devolve into petty and obvious attempts to settle old scores. The latter is actually a breach of WP:HOUNDING. Users must also genuinely consider both sides, including the admission of using baiting tactics, and offer solutions in line with the process' actual purpose (i.e. as a tool for developing voluntary agreement). The constructive recommendations by User:AustralianRupert and User:Dougweller are great examples in this regard. Middayexpress (talk) 16:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I've made you feel defensive Middayexpress, but making personal attacks like this isn't going to help your case. Hounding is a serious charge, and when unsubstantiated, is itself harassment (WP:AOHA). Please stop making ad hominem attacks and strike those remarks where you claim that I have "no idea what the armed forces issue is about" and am not "particularly knowledgeable about Somalian geopolitics".

Your mischaracterizations of our past interactions are unfortunate, but not at issue here. You insist that this RFC is solely about the armed forces issue, but it is not. It is about your user conduct. And your pattern of disruptive editing clearly extends to all manner of Somalia-related articles. The bullying tactics you have used here and elsewhere suggest that you are additionally attempting to silence editors who hold a critical view of your contributions. Combined with canvassing your friends and coaching them on how to respond, I am concerned that you are compromising the integrity of this process. gobonobo ^{+ c} 01:34, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

User:GobonoboThis has been a mess since the beginning. The filer, who isn't around right now, started by canvassing other editors and didn't notify Middayexpress and asked for an outcome which IMHO is neither helpful nor within the guidelines. RfC/Us are meant to be precursor towards bans, blocks, etc, and cannot enact them. Dougweller (talk) 05:45, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry Gobonobo, but pointing out your wikihounding (your only reason for being here since you weren't part of the armed force discussion) is unfortunately not a personal attack. It's reality. It's also a breach of the instruction at the top of the page that the process is reserved for "the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users". Middayexpress (talk) 15:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

This appears to be the case. I would also like the point how Gobonobo was never informed about this on his talk page to begin with. AcidSnow (talk) 16:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Inscriptions

I would like to briefly touch on the remarks by Bobrayner. His claim that I canvassed User:Inayity, User:AcidSnow and User:26oo among other users is both absurd and hypocritical since a) 26oo was one of the users involved in the armed forces discussion, b) the canvassing policy permits talk page notification of users with expertise in this area i.e. (Somalia/Africa), and c) I only contacted these users after Buckshot had canvassed a number of other random wikifriends and aquaintances of his, including ironically Bobyrayner himself [10], while somehow forgetting to notify me and 26oo, his actual interlocutors on the armed forces page. And that's not even mentioning the sinister, stealth canvassing via emails that Chuckupd reveals above. That said, the material on Ancient inscriptions in Somalia that Bobrayner alludes to was certainly not misrepresented. Indeed, it was confirmed as well presented by User:A.Tamar Chabadi, a professional linguist and specialist on Northeast Africa ("I did some more searching and I have found two things one of which may validate Middayexpress' claim about the ancient Somali inscriptions" [11]). That off-topic content dispute was also resolved with an agreement to start a new "Ancient inscriptions in the Horn of Africa" page [12]. Middayexpress (talk) 16:31, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I think it's safe to say given the overwhelming evidence of canvassing that this is a "witchhunt" more than anything else. I also want to point out the attempt to project his and possible cohorts own activities onto others as a feeble attempt to divert attention away from the off-site coordination going on here. I say this because the member doesn't seem to realise that we are members of the WikiProject yet were not allowed the same privilege as User:Buckshot06 allowed random individuals, many not even involved in the discussion. That's my problem with this. That said, I strongly recommend an admin to look into the stealth canvassing. 26oo (talk) 16:53, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

This is clearly a "witchhunt". Anyways, despite User:Bobrayner claims of your "coaching" and diffs "supporting" it, I have yet to see that take place anywhere. All I saw was Midday give instructions on how you are post to respond in those sections but not what to say. Why? Because many of us have never been here let alone knew such a thing can take place. As anyone can see, this claim is only a defamation of character. The irony in all of this is that in the heading of this page, it clealry states: "This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users.", yet not a single user that User:Buckshot06 has canvased with was ever involved in the dispute. Yet, Midday is forbidden to inform user that are members of the project or at least have contributed significantly to it? I am not surprised that User:Bobrayner, User:Gobonobo, User:Chuckupd, or User:StoneProphet have yet to explained themselves let alone how they were informed about this in the first place. AcidSnow (talk) 01:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Setting aside the groundless, angry rhetoric about witchhunts - I don't think AcidSnow really wants to discredit themselves any further - I would only point out that Middayexpress canvassed supporters to this debate. And here they are. This is an RfC/U on Middayexpress, and there is clear, unambiguous evidence that Middayexpress canvassed, as well as various other problematic behaviour. Accusing other people of canvassing doesn't make it go away. bobrayner (talk) 18:20, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

That's putting the cart before the horse. Per the relevant policy, the onus was on Buckshot to notify me and User:26oo -- his actual interlocutors on the armed force page -- about the discussion. Instead, he canvassed random wikifriends and aquaintances of his, including yourself. That's indeed your only reason for being here. Your gripe was about an unrelated discussion on the Ancient Somali script page that didn't go your way. You also posted within hours after User:Inayity and I had cleaned up a nonsense claim regarding lack of writing systems on the Sub-Saharan Africa page, a blurb which you had repeatedly sought to keep [13]. This is despite the fact that policy clearly states that "this must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users". The irony is that at least one of the other posters that Buckshot had canvassed actually turned out to be fair, giving genuinely objective and helpful advice instead of towing the company line. Even more tellingly, all longstanding members of the Somalia and Africa WikiProjects that weighed in vouched for my hard work on the armed force page and general project, particularly User:Somaliweyn10. All that remains now is to find out who was behind the sinister, stealth canvassing campaign that Chuckupd alludes to below, and which user(s) besides Chuckupd he/she enlisted so that they may be appropriately dealt with. Middayexpress (talk) 20:33, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

@Bobrayner: Yes, I was notified. Why aren't you just as upset with Buckshot's canvassing and failure to notify Middayexpress? Isn't that worse? His message to you[14] was hardly neutral. And where is he? Seriously, Buckshot had no business canvassing in that way, should have notified Middayexpress, should have had clear objectives for this RfC/U, not a ban which the guidelines say should not be one of the objectives. Dougweller (talk) 20:53, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

"groundless" and "angry", those are some bold claims since I am not the only user who has pointed out what this is all about neither was I angry. Let alone have I discredited myself in any form or way; which itself is an odd claim. Even Dougweller, an uninvolved admin has pointed out what's going on and what this discussion really is about. "Accusing other people of canvassing doesn't make it go away", the same can be said about you guys as well. Hence why I am not surprised that you (once again) choose not to explain how those diffs supported you. You instead choose to make false accusations. AcidSnow (talk) 22:06, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Dougweller: I'm angry about all canvassing. Two wrongs don't make a right. That is why I'm particularly frustrated that on an RfC/U about problematic behaviour by Middayexpress, any attempt to highlight problems with Middayexpress' canvassing is quickly glossed over with complaints about other editors, crying about "witchhunts", and so on - anything at all to avoid recognising that Middayexpress canvassed supporters and coached them on how to provide support. We have the same response to Middayexpress' abuse of sources - this section's title hints at "Inscriptions" but the discussion here completely ignores the extensive pov-pushing and misuse of sources around those inscriptions. Oh, no, we can't possibly mention that, because somebody else did something else bad on a different page! bobrayner (talk) 19:59, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

If you had really been a neutral party as you appear to be suggesting above, you would have taken exception to the fact that a) Buckshot on-wiki canvassed not only you [15], but several other random wikifriends and aquaintances of his, b) he did so using a generic, non-neutral notification, as User:Dougweller quite rightly points, c) he did all this while never even bothering to notify me and User:26oo of this discussion, although we were by contrast his actual interlocutors on the armed force page, d) this was despite the fact that the process is reserved for "the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users", and e) there was apparently also some extensive, off-wiki stealth canvassing by a detractor(s) of mine, as Chuckupd inadvertendly intimates below. In other words, the process was rigged from the start. This is an indisputable fact that you have repeatedly glossed over. Instead, you have griped about my having the audacity to attempt to redress this imbalance by contacting actual regulars on the Africa WikiProject, and doing so on-wiki and using a neutrally-worded, generic notification at that. As for the Ancient Somali script page, I invite Dougweller to have a look for himself, including the agreement to start a new "Ancient inscriptions in the Horn of Africa" page [16] [17]. All that indeed remains now is to find out who exactly was behind the sinister, stealth canvassing campaign that Chuckupd alludes to below, and which user(s) besides Chuckupd he/she enlisted so that they may be appropriately dealt with. Middayexpress (talk) 16:47, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Response to Statement of dispute

I want to start off with the fact that the users you bid for your claim are not part of WikiProject Somalia thus either do not understand the entirety of the subject or willfully helping you settle a grudge with another user. I make this claim because you did not bother to inform User:Middayexpress or any other notable members of the project including AcidSnow (talk) and myself. This is quite disappointing. However I do understand the need to have two users to press ahead these claims.

It must also be pointed out that you've been moving the goal posts since the dispute began. The initial dispute on the Somali Armed Forces Talk page was the structure of the Armed Forces. And even in that subject you were moving goalposts from the structure/existence of an Armed Forces --> pre-Federal government structure --> Regional involvement in Mogadishu in 2008 --> Existence of institutions. I personally tried to clarify the political reality surrounding the structure of the army pre-Federal Republic which was not touched upon by either party at the point, namely the Garowe Principles and relations between the government and regional powers, and the legal standing of the government troops. Another problem I did identify was the removal of whole sections provided they did not agree with you. 1 2. This one in particular is really evident of your tactics and one removal which users from WikiProject Somalia could easily have referenced given its obvious nature.

Such text may not have the right citations or be referenced at all but at least you could put a template so active users such as myself could fix the mistake. I think such actions will inevitably lead a user correcting your mistakes into a situation like this. Though I do not agree with Middayexpress (talk) in other cases however on this particular issue I do. And this is a user I've previously come to loggerheads with over the years including over nominating articles for deletion. A topic ban for an active user like him would not only be detrimental to a very small WikiProject, it shouldn't even be considered given the nature of this dispute. 26oo (talk) 02:27, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

RfC/U's are not for bringing up 5 year old disputes.

The incident User:Chuckupd refers to happened in July 2009. It should not be used here as this is about a current dispute. I would also like to know how Chuckupd learned about this RfC since it was only listed today as it was filed incorrectly. Dougweller (talk) 07:49, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I suspect his "parting shot" at the subject of this RfC/U is pertinent: [18] [19] inter alia (note that the last ones are mild compared with some earlier rants) comes off as a rather blatant personal attack. Collect (talk) 17:00, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Point taken re the 5 years. I would know better by now about the prevailing norms here if only I had not been driven away by that nutjob. I was informed of this page in an fyi email from another target of Middayexpress' enmity. We are many. Chuck @ UPDmedia.com (talk) 22:42, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Indeed User:Collect and User:Dougweller. Besides the continued personal attacks, notice the admission above by Chuckupd that there was apparently some widespread off-wiki canvassing as well ("I was informed of this page in an fyi email from another target of Middayexpress' enmity"). Looks like someone's trying really hard behind-the-scenes to "nail" me, just as I had thought. They seem to have contacted various users they know I've had run-ins with in the past, while conveniently avoiding the many more users they know I've had good dealings with. The irony is that I was recently awarded the Africa Barnstar for my "prolific work on northeast Africa for countries like Somalia, Ethiopia, Eritrea and Djibouti" and for "improving general quality standards" [20]. Middayexpress (talk) 15:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Collect and User:Dougweller, I forgot to ask, but could you follow up on who is behind the off-wiki canvassing that Chuckupd alludes to above? Specifically, could you ask that user to reveal who exactly contacted him? I'm sure he has an idea; he also apparently has their email address. Since it has now been established that the process was rigged behind-the-scenes, it should be closed asap. The off-wiki canvasser(s) and the users he/she enlisted for the purpose should also be appropriately dealt with once they are identified. Middayexpress (talk) 17:31, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

With the clear canvassing by Buckshot06 on wikipedia, and the admission by Chuckupd of stealth canvassing through emails against Middayexpress, it is clear that this RfC/U has lost all credibility and should be closed promptly. This is really absurd, there is no opportunity to achieve a consensus here with this kind of bad-faith attempt at stacking votes. --Somaliweyn10 (talk) 04:23, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

"Admission"? Seriously?? I have done nothing wrong. I only told the truth about my horrid experience here at the hands of that nutjob. I have volunteered in service to a Somaliland maternity hospital for many years, and the biggest downside in all that time was when I happened to wander into here and got ambushed and maligned as a thief and a liar by somebody who clearly has an agenda. Chuck @ UPDmedia.com (talk) 05:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, User:Somaliweyn10. Middayexpress (talk) 16:31, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Everybody obviously was always free to disregard my 5-year-old report, but I'm not remotely amused at being further maligned here ("admission") by the nutjob's ally. I said then that I might come back if she is banned but, no. It's good riddance for good this time. This is a mean place. Chuck @ UPDmedia.com (talk) 05:32, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not surprised you see "nothing wrong" with the stealth canvassing since you of course just admitted to being involved in it. Unfortunately, it is very much against policy and will now have to be resolved accordingly. Middayexpress (talk) 16:31, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Warned the above editor about these personal attacks. Dougweller (talk) 07:20, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks User:Dougweller. However, the stealth canvasser(s) and his/her other cohorts that Chuckupd alludes to are still at large. Chuckupd knows their identity and has their email address, so he should be pressed to reveal who they are so that they may be appropriately dealt with. Middayexpress (talk) 16:31, 2 September 2014 (UTC)