User talk:GabiloveAdol

Welcome!

Hello, GabiloveAdol, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Soupforone (talk) 03:41, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Soupforone Thank you! GabiloveAdol (talk) 04:27, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NOR

Greetings GabiloveAdol! While I can understand and appreciate your frustration, please note that per WP:DR, arbitration is not for content disputes. It's also an absolute last resort after all of the various other dispute resolution processes have been attempted. Thus far, only talk page and fringe board discussion have taken place, so this filing will almost certainly be rejected. I therefore suggest you retract the filing and instead post a query on the no original research noticeboard regarding the stuff on the Amhara, Shewa, Dawaro and Fatagar provinces. Explain there, with direct links to Pankhurst and Braukämper, that they are discussing expeditions in old provinces, not population-specific raids. This is pretty obvious original research (synthesis), so it will in all likelihood be identified as such. Doing so will only make this official, after which point we can clean up that o/r as well as the already confirmed fringe phrase. Kind Regards-- Soupforone (talk) 03:34, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Soupforone I already emailed with 'The English Wikipedia Oversight team' and that's where they refer me too. Since October 2016 the history section has been gutted in halve and those two sections has been added, 2/3 of the history section is about slavery and social stratification, it's defamatory to a group, it misrepresents and it's no longer a neutral article. There are other things i discussed with the Oversight team which i will further elaborate. So it won't remove it. See you there Sincerely GabiloveAdol (talk) 03:52, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's unusual that the oversight folks would recommend that since most of the wikitext is either pretty obvious fringe, synthesis or undue (almost laughably so vis-a-vis the provinces). Anyway, I must reiterate that the filing (which is a long, drawn-out process; not at all time-sensitive btw) will almost certainly be rejected since other steps (plural) in the dispute resolution have not been tried. Please retract it, as it will only serve to prolong the content dispute. To quickly resolve the issue, ask EthiopianHabesha to instead formalize his slavery proposal on the talk page into an RFC question. It won't be difficult to establish that there is no consensus for the fringe/synthesis/undue stuff. I've also queried on the no original research noticeboard whether the sultanate expeditions in the old provinces are synth [1]. Kind Regards-- Soupforone (talk) 05:07, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Soupforone I got send to the wrong place, one volunteer refered me to arbitration, so i did. Then another from the Oversight team said, i will have to fill in a form regarding supression/revision delete, so i'm going to do that. GabiloveAdol (talk) 08:24, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EthiopianHabesha, please see GabiloveAdol above. Kind Regards-- Soupforone (talk) 15:30, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Parphrasing out of context

@GabiloveAdol, @Soupforone please see admin notice board me explaining regarding to one case MS Sarah deliberately paraphrasing out of context. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 15:19, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Revdel

Okay GabiloveAdol, I see. Anyway, it seems that the actual standard is WP:BIGOT (or, more broadly, perhaps WP:ATTACK). Also, I've contacted the Orientalist scholar Richard Pankhurst regarding the slavery stuff. I've asked him if his work has been misrepresented to insinuate that the Amhara specifically were targeted during the Adal sultanate's expeditions. I'll let you know what he indicates. Kind Regards-- Soupforone (talk) 15:30, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Caution: no PA in wikipedia

@Soupforone:, @EthiopianHabesha: That BIGOT claim is unjustified speculative accusation. Please stop the personal attacks. The WP:BIGOT article cautions, "Be careful linking other editors to this essay as direct accusations of bigotry can be interpreted as hostile, even when justified. An unfounded or speculative accusation of WikiBigotry could be considered a WP:Personal attack." Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:52, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, my revdel comment above was addressed to GabiloveAdol. Please do not indent it, as it clearly was not intended for EthiopianHabesha or you. Soupforone (talk) 16:36, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Creed

GabiloveAdol, Pankhurst indicates that many Amhara Christians embraced Islam. This would actually have protected them against the Adal sultanate's expeditions [2]. Kind Regards-- Soupforone (talk) 16:36, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I case where you are mentioned

Please see this. Thank you, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:29, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pankhurst

Richard Pankhurst wrote me and directed me to an earlier paper of his, which quantifies the slave trade [3]. The work indicates that-- "Dr Me’rab observed that the labour force in Addis Ababa was mainly made up of Gallas and Gurages, as well as Shanqellas, Beni Shanguls and Walamos, the last three categories being mainly slaves. The tribes producing large numbers of slaves were in both cases considered of low status." Ergo, per Pankhurst, most of the slaves (rather than just laborers) were Shanqella and other southwestern tribes. He indicates that other captives that were shipped abroad were mainly children and adolescents; among these were 100 kidnapped Christian children sent through Massawa. There's no mention of Amhara specifically, which is not surprising given Pankhurst's assertion above on the main southern production area. Shewa and more northern territory was instead primarily a caravan transit area-- "We now turn from the areas of production to those of transit. One of the two main directions for the movement of slaves was from south to north. Numerous caravan routes were used. Beke in the 1840's estimated that 2000 slaves passed yearly through Shoa in a northerly direction, and that no fewer than 7000 travelled by way of Karara on the northern route across the Blue Nile.[...] Another major slave route led across Shoa eastwards to the Gulf of Aden ports." Kind Regards-- Soupforone (talk) 04:46, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may have misunderstood Pankhurst^[1] paper, which discusses slave trade in the 19th and early 20th century. See his discussion starting at page 220. It does not contradict anything in the Amhara people article either about the medieval era, and about trade routes from the southern and southwestern regions. I may add one or two summary sentences from it into the article, along with a few more sources. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 06:15, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Pankhurst, Richard (1964). "THE ETHIOPIAN SLAVE TRADE IN THE NINETEENTH AND EARLY TWENTIETH CENTURIES: A STATISTICAL INQUIRY". Journal of Semitic Studies. 9 (1). Oxford University Press: 220–228. doi:10.1093/jss/9.1.220.

I understood Pankhurst just fine, thanks. His other work doesn't mention Amhara either. Soupforone (talk) 07:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect again. See the embedded quotes in that article, for example. If you include the synonymous terms such as Abyssianians in the context of traditional provinces of Amhara, more so. If you are alleging or implying Amhara were not Abyssinians, that is puzzling OR, and not what the reliable sources state. It is also inconsistent with the Abyssinian people article you have edited over a 100 times since May 2016, and I haven't yet. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:31, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that simple. Most of the so-called Abyssinian slaves were not actually Abyssinian (much less Amhara), but rather folks originally from the southwestern areas [4]. Also, Pankhurst's other work has one phrase on Amhara Christians embracing Islam - he doesn't mention Adal enslaving Amhara [5]. Soupforone (talk) 15:54, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Soupforone If it doesn't directly mentions Amhara, they you could have removed it, or that text would have been more fitting in Slavery in Ethiopia page. But anyways the Oversight team has accepted the case, and said they have 'enhanched verification methods' and will look in to it. So it's up to them now what to do with it.GabiloveAdol (talk) 09:18, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GabiloveAdol, Pankhurst indeed doesn't mention Amhara. Kind Regards-- Soupforone (talk) 15:54, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstood/misrepresent Richard Pankhurst, Abdussamad Ahmad and other sources, just like you have misunderstood/misrepresent WP:BURDEN and other policies of wikipedia. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:48, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question How is an "Amhara" defined? How is an "Abyssinian" defined?HarryDirty (talk) 05:04, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Soupforone Hey i didn't actually contact the Oversight team yet, i'm still saving it as a last resort. But glad that you came out and confessed your source didn't mention the Amharas. GabiloveAdol (talk) 17:40, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the italicized text and url above. Cheers-- Soupforone (talk) 18:51, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amhara people arbitration case request declined

In response to your request for arbitration of this issue, the Arbitration Committee has agreed that arbitration is not required at this stage. Arbitration on Wikipedia is a lengthy, complicated process that involves the unilateral adjudication of a dispute by an elected committee. Although the Committee's decisions can be useful to certain disputes, in many cases the actual process of arbitration is unenjoyable and time-consuming. Moreover, for most disputes the community maintains an effective set of mechanisms for reaching a compromise or resolving a grievance.

Disputes among editors regarding the content of an article should use structured discussion on the talk page between the disputing editors. However, requests for comment, third opinions and other venues are available if discussion alone does not yield a consensus. The dispute resolution noticeboard exists as a first point of call for disputes that are not resolved by discussion, and the Mediation Committee provides formal mediation for advanced content disputes.

In all cases, you should review Wikipedia:Dispute resolution to learn more about resolving disputes on Wikipedia. The English Wikipedia community has many venues for resolving disputes and grievances, and it is important to explore them instead of requesting arbitration in the first instance. For more information on the process of arbitration, please see the Arbitration Policy and the Guide to Arbitration. I hope this advice is useful, and please do not hesitate to contact a member of the community if you have more questions. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 03:45, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ms Sarah Welch

I've deleted the above case. I've reverted all your posts to clerk Talk pages about the case. If you file another completely frivolous, retaliatory case at SPI, you risk being blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:09, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Frivolous? As in how, i added a second time, before i saw your comment?

You have an agenda. In pursuit of that agenda, you have been to multiple forums, including ArbCom. SPI is your latest forum because you are not getting what you want. You named editors at SPI with whom you disagree because, at bottom, this is a content dispute. You even named an administrator. I almost blocked you indefinitely just for the filing, but perhaps you can still find some other more constructive way to spend your time at Wikipedia than you have to date. Consider this a final warning.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:19, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23 Arbcom was my first forum, i haven't openend anything else! Which one did i open besides Arbcom? If you look at it, they said i was aiming for the right things in the wrong place. Euryalus said if i had a content dispute go noticeboard: reliable sources, if i was worried about editor conduct which i was, i needed to go to your forum. Did you even bother to look at those diffs? I did name an administrator.... for good reason. thanks for the warning Bbbb23, but if you bother to look at it, you would see they work as group. GabiloveAdol (talk) 15:30, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at the diffs if you want, and if they don't edit war together, stroll the same pages and talkpages together,. Then feel free to block my account. GabiloveAdol (talk) 15:50, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say you opened requests at multiple forums. I said you have been to multiple forums. In addition to ArbCom, you also commented at ANI. It all amounts to the same thing and it's all part of a piece. Not only do you disagree with many editors, but you also seem to think there is some special urgency to resolve this quickly. You are a crusader, which is not the type of editor who benefits Wikipedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:15, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23 I commented ONCE on 1 ANI because someone mentioned me, those people are all in my user talk page, there's no need for the crusader comment Have you ever considered, that i am not experienced on Wikipedia and i thought i had to be @Arbcom? I thought thats the place where the decisions happend and that's were i filed the case. The commitee members there said i was aiming for the right things in the wrong place. They showed me several ways to go about. Do you want me to prove it with diffs?? GabiloveAdol (talk) 16:27, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need diffs; I know what they said. No one told you to go to SPI. The only conduct board one mentioned was ANI, but that was a relatively generic comment saying that's a common forum to use when questioning other editors' conduct and requiring administrative action. I also don't need all your bolding (a bad habit of yours) in your comments. This is most likely my last comment here. I do not wish to mentor you because you're inexperienced.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:37, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a crime to disagree with many editors, especially if it's still contentious and not investigated, life is boring if you agree all the time. GabiloveAdol (talk) 16:42, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23 Okay bye, you only mentor when they are experienced? How challenging must that be. GabiloveAdol (talk) 16:45, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

GabiloveAdol, these days I was realy worried and just like you even were wondering how come I was dealing with users who seems to have somehow similar causes. I was intimidated by them like I have nothing to say, and they were even trying hard to get me blocked for issues that is not clear for me, the one accused, let alone for other uninvolved administrators. Anyhow, I still continued to work with them and try to convince one another in case if that works. Just to comment on your investigation filling, you could move the comment you wrote under "Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments" section to the upper section and then I think it will be fine. Cheers — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 15:14, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How do i do that? GabiloveAdol (talk) 15:16, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's better to try to convince the editors and if we can not convince them at least we will have a clear idea as to why they oppose. Once we have a clear idea as to why they oppose then we will take that to Request for Comments for a vote and we will invite many more editors who specialize in the topic (on ethnicgroups of Africa or other countries), and then once we have 10s of editors opinion then depending on the outcome of the discussion then we will take our convincing points to arbitration for approval. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 11:04, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another Caution

I am not an administrator, only an old experienced editor. I don't understand the details of what issues you are concerned about with regard to the Horn of Africa. The fact that I don't know what issues you are concerned about, only that you are being combative, isn't a good sign, because you haven't demonstrated anything except that you are angry. Please remember that the purpose of Wikipedia is to build an encyclopedia collaboratively, not just to defeat other editors. I see that you requested arbitration. Requesting arbitration about content disputes without trying other less drastic remedies is a mistake that other new editors occasionally make. However, I also see that you apparently then filed a sockpuppet investigation, twice, and it had to be deleted. I don't know why you thought that was a good idea. I certainly don't see any evidence that any of the content disputes about the Horn of Africa are being affected by sockpuppetry. Please do not abuse Wikipedia processes simply because you are angry about something. You run the risk not only of being blocked if you abuse Wikipedia processes but of being banned. I don't know what the problem is, but I don't think it was worth the trouble that you have caused. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:16, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon You were one of those in the SPI case along with Ms_Sarah_Welch. How nice of you to somehow find my page and caution me, i'm not angry, they didn't bother to look at the diffs, I will wait for now, and make it less frivolous in the future, thank you for you comment, it has been usefull. GabiloveAdol (talk) 03:33, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Pankhurst, Richard (1964). "THE ETHIOPIAN SLAVE TRADE IN THE NINETEENTH AND EARLY TWENTIETH CENTURIES: A STATISTICAL INQUIRY". Journal of Semitic Studies. 9 (1). Oxford University Press: 220–228. doi:10.1093/jss/9.1.220.

[1]