Contents 1 Requests for arbitration 1.1 Folco Quilici 1.1.1 Involved parties 1.1.2 Statement by Paolotamag 1.1.3 Statement by Lugnuts 1.1.4 Statement by {Non-party} 1.1.5 Folco Quilici: Clerk notes 1.1.6 Folco Quilici : Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/3/0> 2 Requests for clarification and amendment 3 Motions 4 Requests for enforcement 4.1 Hyper9 4.1.1 Request concerning Hyper9 4.1.2 Discussion concerning Hyper9 4.1.2.1 Statement by Hyper9 4.1.2.1.1 Second Statement by Hyper9 4.1.2.2 Statement by Robert McClenon 4.1.3 Statement by Nagadeepa 4.1.4 Statement by D4iNa4 4.1.5 Statement by MagSGV 4.1.6 Statement by Francis 4.1.7 Statement by (username) 4.1.8 Result concerning Hyper9 Requests for arbitration Use this section to request the committee open an arbitration case. Requests may be referred to as "case requests" or "RFARs". Before requesting arbitration, read and familiarise yourself with the arbitration guide. Then follow the instructions below. You must not take more than one hour to complete these instructions; requests that are incomplete for more than an hour will be removed. If necessary, use your userspace to prepare your request. If you wish to request enforcement of an existing arbitration ruling, please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. If you wish to clarify or change an existing arbitration ruling, please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. To make an arbitration case request: Click here to file a new request This page is for statements, not discussion. If you must reply to another person's statement, do so in your own section (see also this part of the arbitration guide). Compose your request or statement in your user space or an off-line text editor before posting it here. This busy page is not the place to work up drafts. Statements (including responses to other statements) must be shorter than 500 words as rendered in the browser (Word Count Tool). Extensions may be requested prior to posting the material. Arbitrators or clerks may summarily remove, refactor, collapse ("hat") or move inappropriate material, including off-topic or unproductive discussions, without warning or notice. Please do not try to open cases yourself; only an arbitrator or clerk may open accepted requests as a case. Arbitration requests from banned users should be made by e-mail to the committee (contact page). Banned users may not edit this page without permission from the committee, no matter the circumstances. Only arbitrators and clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request unless you are in either of these groups. After a request is made, active arbitrators will vote on whether to accept or decline the case. The <0/0/0> tally corresponds to arbitrators' votes to, respectively, accept/decline/recuse. Declined case requests are logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Declined requests. Accepted case requests are opened as cases, which are then logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Cases once closed. Shortcuts: WP:ARC • WP:A/R/C • WP:RFAR


Folco Quilici Initiated by Paolotamag (talk) at 21:42, 24 February 2018 (UTC) Involved parties Paolotamag (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), filing party Lugnuts (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request [diff of notification Lugnuts] Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lugnuts#Folco_Quilici https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folco_Quilici paolotamag.github.io Statement by Paolotamag Greetings, I am Paolo Tamagnini, son of Luca Tamagnini, step-son of Folco Quilici. Folco Quilici died today in Orvieto and we are still grieving. I am sorry to write you regarding the behavior of the admin user Lugnuts. I understands this user is an authority in the filmography pages of Wikipedia. Despite this, this user is not helping me in save information regarding my grandfather onto Wikipedia. My understanding is that Wikipedia gives the possibility to store information safely for future generations. The website folcoquilici.com had material I would like to save on wikipedia before such old website would have gone offline. Following the wikipedia rules we: set at the bottom of the page http://folcoquilici.com/en/biografia.html the message stating the content is under Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License. copy the content from such website to the wikipedia page of Folco Quilici properly citing every paragraph to our website Then Lugnuts delete the whole content stating it could not be done a copy paste from a website already existing. After this we stopped paying the bills for such website and it went offline and such website no longer exists. Now the content is lost and unavailable on the day of the artist's death. All I want to do is to make sure such content is available, Lugnuts is just threatening me with bans without giving any explanations. I think he is jealous that someone else can edit a page he has created and he lost track of what Wikipedia is really about. I hope this commission will at least fairly answer me. Thanks Paolo Statement by Lugnuts Statement by {Non-party} Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information. Folco Quilici: Clerk notes This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals). Folco Quilici : Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/3/0> Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse) Decline, not a matter for ArbCom. Paolotamag, I will echo Seraphimblade's comment on your talk page and say that I am sorry if you've been misinformed about the nature and purpose of Wikipedia. Unfortunately, we are not simply an archive of information, but an encyclopedia intended to reflect information from reliable sources. I suggest you have a look at WP:OUTLET, which Seraphim linked on your talk page. It may provide helpful suggestions as to where you can archive this material. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:09, 24 February 2018 (UTC) While this is ultimately not a matter for arbitration, and so I'll vote to decline, I think it's worth voicing that conduct should have been better here. @Lugnuts: Before you remove content as a copyright violation, please check that it isn't released under a free license. As of January 28, this content was released under a suitable license. [1] The new editor tried to communicate this to you here, which you did not respond to. Nevertheless, you continued reverting without further discussion. [2] The edit summary on that last edit is also unnecessary and serves only to escalate the situation. This should have proceeded via talk page discussion aimed at incorporating encyclopedic information from the proposed source, if any was there. Repeated reverts, a lack of discussion, and templating is not going to achieve the best results. ~ Rob13Talk 22:31, 24 February 2018 (UTC) Decline - but agree with the points made by PMC and Rob. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:56, 24 February 2018 (UTC) Requests for clarification and amendment Use this section to request clarification or amendment of a closed Arbitration Committee case or decision. Requests for clarification are used to ask for further guidance or clarification about an existing completed Arbitration Committee case or decision. Requests for amendment are used to: ask for an amendment or extension of existing sanctions (for instance, because the sanctions are ineffective, contain a loophole, or no longer cover a sufficiently wide topic); or appeal for the removal of sanctions (including bans). To file a clarification or amendment request: (you must use this format!) Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window: Click here to file a request for clarification of an arbitration decision or procedure. Click here to file a request for amendment of an arbitration decision or procedure (including an arbitration enforcement sanction issued by an administrator, such as through discretionary sanctions). Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended. If your request will affect or involve other users (including any users you have named as parties), you must notify these editors of your submission; you can use {{subst:Arbitration CA notice|SECTIONTITLE}} to do this. Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request. This is not a discussion. Please do not submit your request until it is ready for consideration; this is not a space for drafts, and incremental additions to a submission are disruptive. Arbitrators or Clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment. Requests from blocked or banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Arbitration Committee. Only Arbitrators and Clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request or any statements or comments unless you are in either of these groups. There must be no threaded discussion, so please comment only in your own section. Numerous legacy and current shortcuts can be used to more quickly reach this page: Shortcuts: WP:ARCA • WP:ARA • WP:A/R/C&A • WP:A/R/CL • WP:A/R/A • WP:A/R/CA • Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and .../Amendment Motions Shortcut WP:A/R/M This section can be used by arbitrators to propose motions not related to any existing case or request. Motions are archived at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Motions. Only arbitrators may propose or vote on motions on this page. However, you may make comments on this motion in the section titled "Community discussion". Unless it's in the "Community discussion" section where threaded replies are allowed, reply to another person's comment in your own section. See the relevant section of the arbitration guide. Arbitrators or Clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment. Requests for enforcement Click here to add a new enforcement request For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}} Important information Shortcuts WP:AE WP:ARE Please use this page only to: request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a discretionary sanction imposed by an administrator, request discretionary sanctions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area subject to discretionary sanctions, request other administrative measures, such as revert restrictions, with respect to pages that are being disrupted in topic areas subject to discretionary sanctions, or appeal discretionary sanctions to uninvolved administrators. For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard. Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests. If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.(Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions. To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete request may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a discretionary sanction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}. Important: Appeals and administrator modifications of sanctions Note: On 3 May 2014, the Arbitration Committee updated its procedures by motion. These state that: Appeals by sanctioned editors Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may: ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment at "ARCA". If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org). Modifications by administrators No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped. Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied. Important notes For a request to succeed, either (i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or (ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify. These provisions apply only to discretionary sanctions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature. Information for administrators processing requests If you participate on this page you should be prepared to mete out potentially long term bans and you should expect reactive behavior from those banned. Administrators who consistently make questionable enforcement administrative actions, or whose actions are consistently overturned by community or Arbitration Committee discussions may be asked to cease performing such activities or be formally restricted from taking such activities. The enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally in order to protect Wikipedia and keep it running efficiently. Not all enforcement requests will show behavior restricted by ArbCom. It may, however, violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines which you may use administrative discretion to deal with. More than one side in a dispute may have Arbitration Committee conduct rulings applicable to them. Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags, after which a bot should archive it in 7 days. You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other discretionary sanctions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages. Arbitration enforcement archives 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 This box: view talk edit


Hyper9 This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Request concerning Hyper9 User who is submitting this request for enforcement  Nagadeepa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 15:48, 16 February 2018 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested  Hyper9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log Sanction or remedy to be enforced Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan#Standard discretionary sanctions To ban Hyper9 from editing the Malayalam page (and other Indian history pages) where he has been propagating fringe theories not widely accepted by most scholars. Hyper9 has also been repeatedly deleting accurately referenced widely accepted views on the history of the Malayalam language. He has also been brazenly distorting the following accurate source and completely misinterpreting it to suit his fringe theories: https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/24157306.pdf?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents Finally, he has refused to engage in dispute resolution procedures on spurious grounds: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_160#Talk:Malayalam I note that this not a new problem and he has been banned in the past for similar disruptive behaviour. Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it  - 18:38, 12 February 2018‎ Accurate history of Malayalam language with scientific references. Hyper9 has consistently been deleting these referenced edits of mine based on the work of reputed linguists and historians which jettison the theory that Malayalam had an independent origin from Tamil. 16/2/18 14:47 This is the current version of the page where Hyper9 has ensured that a biased and fringe history of the Malayalam language is left unchallenged. A full argument between Hyper9 and two other editors Cpt.a.haddock and me Nagadeepa can be seen in the talk page. Anyone who reads the whole exchange and particularly the research article by S.V Shanmugam (which I have quoted from extensively in the talk section) can see that Hyper9 has been distorting this source and is being disruptive and obstructive. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Malayalam#Debates_on_the_origins_of_Malayalam_-_June_2017 Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any  [3] Hyper9 was previously banned on 7th July 2017 from all articles related to Indian history for the exact same reasons that I am submitting this request. If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts) Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above. Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above. Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on [4] (7/7/17) by SpacemanSpiff (talk · contribs). @SpacemanSpiff: @Doug Weller: Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above. Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on [5] 7/7/17. Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on [6]. Additional comments by editor filing complaint  Apologies for not attaching correct diff links earlier. I am new to wikipedia editing. I think this is what is requested as a 'diff': https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Malayalam&type=revision&diff=825503445&oldid=825317310 Nagadeepa (talk) 18:23, 16 February 2018 (UTC)--> Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hyper9#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nagadeepa (talk • contribs) 18:23, 16 February 2018 (UTC) Discussion concerning Hyper9 Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks. Statement by Hyper9 The article under dispute has a problematic regional history to it. It is therefore understandable that it can be controversial - but that is true for a lot of other topics as well. I have searched for sources for these pages and all of the content that I have added are from reputed and estabilshed sources. I have also addressed this filing editor properly, despite his abuses, incivility (I have already been called - 'dishonest', 'charlatan', 'madman' on WP by this editor) and a series of incoherent arguments on the Talk:Malayalam page. Yet, no action has been taken against this editor. Not only this, this other editor was never interested in a discussion, but after one response from me, went ahead and opened a DRN on 10th Feb. The response after which this editor raised the DRN can be viewed here - and only highlights their unwillingness for discussion - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Malayalam&diff=prev&oldid=824718203 (Only the bottom part where I have signed off is my contribution) This editor, who has filed this complaint, has been resorting to all sorts of tactics to get the version of the page that he wants without any discussion on the Talk:Malayalam page. The first action that he did is to file a DRN even before we had any serious discussion. I would like to point out I have made exactly 5 responses to this editor, which can be viewed here - 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Malayalam&diff=824981462&oldid=824944902 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Malayalam&diff=825312813&oldid=824983593 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Malayalam&diff=825504100&oldid=825366118 4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Malayalam&diff=825548041&oldid=825531524 5. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Malayalam&diff=825954678&oldid=825879648 I have been extremely polite and restrained in my responses in this stint - and if there is something that the WP administrators would point out as inadmissible in my replies above, I would be surprised. In my previous experience, the Appeal procedure to a ban request on me did not even allow me to respond to accusations. In this instance, I do hope that my case would be considered more carefully by the Admins. I have contributed significantly to improving these pages as any editor who will examine these pages can tell and much of the sources that I had added in my previous Enforcement case have not been removed - even after the disputing editor cross-checked them. Thanks. Hyper9 (talk) 21:55, 17 February 2018 (UTC) User:EdJohnston, User:Dennis_Brown, User:Sandstein, User:RegentsPark - It would have been fair if you could have at least waited for me to provide a First response before arriving at conclusions. Also, to base the present dispute on any previous dispute is to fail to see what is going on now. I am eager to be shown anything that amounts to a transgression in any of my edits and I have been extremely patient in dealing with this filing editor. This filing editor begins their edits on February 8th, 2018 and by February 9th-10th - they file DRN cases thinking that it is some form of 3rd party judgement. This clearly indicates that they were never interested in resolving the dispute through discussion. They have in fact, been trying to use such blocking mechanisms from the beginning - knowing that they can harp about how I was banned previously (which is a whole different story on a different page Chera_dynasty). The discussion on this page had been in fact settled by me and the other disputing editor with a consensus DRN version and can be viewed here - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Malayalam&diff=prev&oldid=787916353 In the lede on this page Malayalam, the portion on origins has been made neutral to show the existence of Two views after all this effort by me. There is no need for me to sit and take all these attacks by these other editors if there wasn't any substance to it. All these editors including the previous ones have been trying to push the first view in that origin portion all this while. In fact, before I edited this page, all these disputing editors sat on this page without allowing for the second view to be expressed at all. It is in attempting to neutralise this bias that I have had to do research and add good sources and have been the subject to all these attacks. I dare say that it would be patently unfair as responsible WP Admins if you do not look at my responses more carefully and the nature of the disruptive behaviour and personal attacks by this other editor. If you can then genuinely provide any conclusive examples or reasons why such a drastic action such as a ban on me is warranted, I would accept it willingly. Hyper9 (talk) 09:26, 18 February 2018 (UTC) Second Statement by Hyper9 I am surprised to know now that it was this same editor who tried to edit Talk:Malayalam using an anonymous IP earlier. There was no attempt by this editor to clarify that it was them earlier, which is obviously some form of deception. User:Francis_Schonken: As I have mentioned somewhere in the talk pages, I am perfectly willing to take part in any process for dispute resolution. I have done so successfully in the past and I have shown that I can maintain decorum. In my defence, I did not know that the 1st DRN case would be closed down because I requested an apology (which this other editor has still not been decent enough to provide). I was under the impression that there would be an apology (as I have done in the past) and we would carry on into the main discussion. Despite this having happened, in the 2nd DRN case, this editor opens a case using words such as "madman" in their opening statement. Obviously, this editor is not interested in having a discussion purely on content as a DRN case ought to be. I must point out that it would be ridiculous if the one editor can launch personal attacks in every alternate sentence in a moderated discussion - and the other editor has to focus on content only. If anything, I have been patient with this immaturity and not responded similarly, but have only asked for such statements to be deleted or an apology given. Hyper9 (talk) 10:13, 20 February 2018 (UTC) User:Francis_Schonken - For whatever its worth, in answer to your question - I dont have any problem in participating in a content-only discussion. I have done so once in the past and arrived at a consensus with the disputing editor. Hyper9 (talk) 18:10, 21 February 2018 (UTC) The filing editor resurrected their old ID solely for the purpose of disruptive editing and filing a slew of disputes and cases against me. And they still have not shown any sense of basic civility or change in their behaviour. Despite discussing in a wholly reformed manner and being patient with this highly disruptive and uncivil editor, I see that a greater sanction is being called against me with barely any supporting evidence for this. In a sense, I am not surprised by this irrational position by the Admin User:SpacemanSpiff. I have pointed out the biased behaviour of this Admin in the past as well (in July 2017). I am sure that they are a great Admin in other areas but as far as these topics are concerned, unfortunately I have not seen anything but biased and illogical interventions. However, there is probably very little that a contributor can do in this regard and once the Admins conclude the discussions, I am sure I can adhere by whatever decision is reached. Hyper9 (talk) 01:36, 23 February 2018 (UTC) Statement by Robert McClenon This is not "just a content dispute". It is a content dispute that is compounded by conduct issues. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Malayalam . As you can see, there has been incivility on both sides. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:26, 17 February 2018 (UTC) Well, I see that User:Nagadeepa is ranting at great length. My original comment had been that there was incivility by both editors, and Nagadeepa seems to be proving that sometimes the Original Poster gets hit by the boomerang. In other words, I concur with the pending result of topic-banning both parties. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:09, 21 February 2018 (UTC) Statement by Nagadeepa It is very clear from my extensive comments on the Talk:Malayalam page that I have exhausted all avenues of discussion with Hyper9 (whether moderated or non-moderated) and his claim that I want to edit the page without discussion is an outright falsehood.Nagadeepa (talk) 18:45, 18 February 2018 (UTC) "While we are at it, it is necessary to look at the conduct of Nagadeepa, who has been frequently repeating himself by copy pasting same messages, [13][14] typing in caps." This message by D4iNa4 has angered me. The only reason why I repeated that message in caps is because Hyper9 had repeatedly ignored it and refused to address it. Hyper9 himself requested me to highlight the quotations from the said scholars to differentiate them from my own words. In fact, this quote alone from the paper by S.V Shanmugam exposes Hyper9 whole argument and shows he has manipulated the paper. He did not directly address any of my critical questions and would instead go on a tangent with his responses. Debate with him was impossible hence why 3rd party mediation was crucial.Nagadeepa (talk) 20:06, 19 February 2018 (UTC) I note that D4iNa4 has been tagged as a suspected sockpuppet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Yogesh_Khandke/Archive Nagadeepa (talk) 20:12, 19 February 2018 (UTC) Just to clarify IP address 80.229.155.49 in the talk page is also me. I have been engaged in discussion with Hyper9 for a much longer time than has been implied.Nagadeepa (talk) 21:32, 19 February 2018 (UTC) Nice try MagSGV. That is not sock puppetry by any stretch of the mind. I only searched for my log in details when I needed to open the DRN. There was a gap of many days between my eventual log in. Nagadeepa (talk) 06:57, 20 February 2018 (UTC) Francis Schonken I accept that my behaviour has not been perfect, and I should have restrained myself from referring to Hyper9's character. I was infuriated by his stone walling and his brazen distortion of S.V Shanmugam's source. Regarding the assertion that Tamilakam refers merely to a political structure, I dispute that strongly. Both S.V Shanmugam and Prof. Sreedhara Menon (Kerala's foremost historian) refer to it as a linguistic/cultural region. For most of its existence it was divided into three warring states all of which spoke Tamil. The internal evidence from the ancient literature also supports this.Nagadeepa (talk) 08:10, 20 February 2018 (UTC) MapSGV well that was clearly was not my intention. It was a case of me not bothering to dig out my long forgotten log in details with my initial discussion. You can believe what you want. But that was not my motivation at allNagadeepa (talk) 08:13, 20 February 2018 (UTC) Francis yes I would be open to take part in a 3rd party mediated discussion. "Hyper9 seems to correctly indicate that some of the scholars quoted by Nagadeepa rather speak about political and other historical splits". Could you please direct me to which scholar I quote says this. S.V Shanmugam, my main source clearly states that ancient Tamil Nadu and Kerala (Tamilakam) was a Tamil linguistic region i.e. region where the Tamil language was spoken. There is no consciousness in the ancient literature of any other language being spoken substantially.Nagadeepa (talk) 10:10, 20 February 2018 (UTC) Francis I will be willing to take part in a 3rd party meditated discussion and will refrain from making any offensive comments to the other editor.Nagadeepa (talk) 13:29, 20 February 2018 (UTC) Francis one of my main concerns regarding any 3rd party mediated process, is that will the 3rd parties actually read the source material under scrutiny? There has been blatant untruths said about one reliable source which anyone can see if they can actually read the research paper. If this does not happen then it will degenerate into a "his word against mine" argument which will go no where. Nagadeepa (talk) 17:21, 20 February 2018 (UTC) @Francis Schonken: Is there a way to combine both 'Language and linguistics' with 'History and geography'? This dispute is easily resolved when these two disciplines are looked at together and not in isolation. The linguistic evidence coupled with the historical evidence (garnered from the ancient literature and inscriptions of Kerala which are all in Old Tamil) leaves no doubt that Hyper9's position is a fringe theory. The fringe academic that Hyper9 depends on (Govindakutty) is completely silent on the historical record for example.Nagadeepa (talk) 19:44, 20 February 2018 (UTC) 'posting unexplained poetry' @Bishonen: the poetry is self explanatory to anyone who has basic specialised knowledge of the topic (which Hyper9 has). It's an ancient poem from an Old Tamil anthology Pathitrupathu which was composed in Kerala during the early centuries of the Christian era (1st-2nd century AD). It proves that the people from Kerala regarded themselves as being part of Tamilakam, the common Tamil linguistic cultural region.Nagadeepa (talk) 11:35, 21 February 2018 (UTC) "their jumping from an IP to their account on the talkpage without acknowledgement was beyond nonchalant (if not outright deceptive)". I did not realise it was such a big sin. The whole premise of the talk page in my estimation was based on the merits of the arguments/evidence, not on who says it. I did not think it was huge deal whether I wrote it under my old handle which I had to dig up from obscurity (so i could request the 3rd party meditation) or written under my IP. To call it deception is extreme. To have such an innocent mistake used against me is unfair.Nagadeepa (talk) 13:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC) Well now the gloves are off, and I'm expecting the inevitable ban, I'm not going to bite my lips. Everything I said about Hyper9's personal character I genuinely believe. Was it uncivil for me to say it out in a public forum? Yes and I should have restrained myself. However, I know I will be vindicated in the future when Hyper9 comes up again in yet another dispute mechanism with yet another editor. As for me I am not going to waste any time with editing Wikipedia anymore and I would prefer if you would give me a permanent ban from all topics (disable my account please). If I could delete my complete account including all online evidence of it that would be preferable. Thanks.Nagadeepa (talk) 19:21, 21 February 2018 (UTC) Statement by D4iNa4 While we are at it, it is necessary to look at the conduct of Nagadeepa, who has been frequently repeating himself by copy pasting same messages, [7][8] typing in caps. Such disruption only creates hostility. D4iNa4 (talk) 17:23, 19 February 2018 (UTC) "I am afraid talking to you does feel like I'm talking to a mad man."[9] Clear violation of WP:NPA. D4iNa4 (talk) 17:29, 19 February 2018 (UTC) @Nagadeepa: if my above message really "angered" you so much then I am sure you can't deal with content dispute. You believe that because next one is not agreeing with you that means they are not reading your messages and you can copy paste same messages until next one stops. Your failure to address your bludgeoning, personal attacks, is visible. Talking about a 4 years old block of mine is not going to legitimize your ongoing disruption. Your IP edits seem to be violating WP:NOTFORUM.[10] Nagadeepa has CIR issues and since he came with unclean hands, he needs to be sanctioned as well. Or otherwise close the report as content dispute (per Sandstein) and urge the users to try an RfC. D4iNa4 (talk) 15:04, 20 February 2018 (UTC) Nagadeepa could have apologized but this recent comment[11] further confirms that he is going to personalize these incidents and refuse to accept any mistakes. D4iNa4 (talk) 14:28, 21 February 2018 (UTC) Statement by MagSGV @Nagadeepa: did you confessed your sock puppetry with IP on talk page? I wouldn't be surprised if Hyper9 was not aware of it. MapSGV (talk) 02:21, 20 February 2018 (UTC) Nagadeepa can you just answer my question? Yes that is sock puppetry. Trying to show up that different people are saying same thing when there is one person using the IP and account. — MapSGV (talk) 07:39, 20 February 2018 (UTC) Bishonen, still Nagadeepa had to confess on talk page that he is behind the IP and he had enough time for that. This issue is not that one sided like you are thinking. Nagadeepa has engaged in disruptive editing. MapSGV (talk) 12:06, 20 February 2018 (UTC) Statement by Francis @Nagadeepa: it seems important you realise that your behaviour has been all but exemplary, e.g. at the DRN, as already mentioned by Robert McClenon: "there has been incivility on both sides" (emphasis added). Yours was at least as much a cause to sinking the DRN as Hyper9's (I even thought yours slightly more offensive). You've edited en.Wikipedia for over ten years now, although apparently not always using the Nagadeepa account. Like for Hyper9 it is a pity you apparently rather stayed away than edit outside your area of interest (an apparently very narrow area of interest). Your latest additions to this AE show little or no improvement regarding the tone of your comments, so I suppose at least a symbolical but firm warning to change your ways would be in place. If needs be in the form of an AE sanction. Re. "... who's right about the content ..." (mentioned by one of the admins below): scholars disagree, classical story, and opponents try to get their preferred scholars in line for being designated as the "mainstream" in the article, thus discussions devolve in a classical fight, and since neither gets the upper hand on content, in a series of insults. From the more interesting content arguments: Nagadeepa remarks that the scholars which are regarded mainstream by Hyper9 do in fact recognise that the other theory is mainstream. Hyper9 seems to correctly indicate that some of the scholars quoted by Nagadeepa rather speak about political and other historical splits, which are not necessarily the same as the split of the language from its surmised predecessor languages (which is the topic of the dispute). So, if scholars don't agree, maybe mention what scholars say in their own name without attempting to distil a "mainstream" indicator for the lead section out of this lack of agreement, which might be a practical application of NPOV instead of this cesspit of a discussion. To me at least Nagadeepa and Hyper9 seem equally lacking in behavioural skills to bring this to a consensus conclusion, and it is a pity that the DRN sank (for which both seem somewhat equally responsible, although Hyper9 should probably have been the wiser one, and Nagadeepa should have been aware that being offensive usually boomerangs), so that the discussion would ultimately have centred around presenting the material in a NPOV way in mainspace instead of being ultimately about editor conduct. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:50, 20 February 2018 (UTC) @Nagadeepa: would you be prepared, after this AE closes (whatever way it closes) to participate in a content dispute resolution process (RSN, official mediation, RfC, or whatever seems most advisable and gets accepted by those having a say in it) about the topic at hand without launching *any* offence to fellow editors? @Hyper9: same question to you of course. It might be possible (but it is up to admins to decide whether anything in this vein would be viable and/or desirable) to close this conditionally, say, that the first incivility by either of you would immediately result in a block of at least a week, with increasing block times when returning from block periods with new insults, etc (and/or other discretionary sanctions if any from the original ArbCom case are still in force). --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:33, 20 February 2018 (UTC) @Hyper9: I grouped your statements. You didn't really answer my question, at least not too clear whether you could agree with "content only" in the discussions (no transgression whatsoever outside of the content issue that needs to be addressed). @Nagadeepa: now you started to discuss content here, on a noticeboard that is a conduct noticeboard. I asked a question about conduct (i.e. your future conduct, whether it could adhere to certain principles), which you didn't answer. You had the opportunity to talk content exclusively, at the DRN (and it failed in part while you couldn't). Now we're at a conduct noticeboard, addressing conduct issues, and in your latest replies you seem to try to switch topic to content issues. If unclear about the difference (conduct vs. content), I must say that wouldn't promise too much regarding having future discussions either exclusively on content or exclusively on conduct: separating the two aspects is one of the methods used in Wikipedia to bring interminable discussions back on track. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:38, 20 February 2018 (UTC) Anyhow, placed an IPA-related ds alert on Nagadeepa's talk page ([12]). Reason: Nagadeepa filed this AE request without mentioning any arbcom case (someone else filled it out for them, linking to the IPA case). Formally, this sort of meant Nagadeepa could have been unaware of the ds system. Thought it better to make this clear. In general I still think it best both editors would resume the discussion about the content (which seems interesting enough) without commenting about each others behaviour. This would be the best solution for Wikipedia I suppose: I'm not convinced the current version of the Malayalam article is unbiased, but I'm sure both editors can help hammer it out (if only they'd concentrate on content, not post vaguely related poetry on the article's talk page, walls of texts, boldface repeats of upper-case text, etc.) For that plan to work Hyper9 should be able to take part in discussions too, so I see less benefit in topic-banning them from anything. Nagadeepa seems wise enough not to need mediation in such content discussions: either they stop commenting on co-editors, or they incur the sanctions foreseen by the IPA ds system. Whether or not the discussion is mediated makes no difference. I'd recommend an RfC instead, which might attract other views instead of just two editors running in circles chasing each other's tails. In other words: close this AE request as content dispute, with a stern warning to both editors that IPA's ds sanctions will be applied if any of the former bad behaviour returns (which applies to both now). --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:56, 20 February 2018 (UTC) @Nagadeepa: re. "will the [mediating] 3rd parties actually read the source material under scrutiny" – at DRN not, afaik. Afaik the same is true for formal mediation. RfC, e.g. when inscribed in the "History and geography" and "Language and linguistics" sets, has a higher potential of attracting people somewhat knowledgeable in the topic area, and interested in reading available sources. It would also be possible to take the source material to WP:RSN, but that is rather for sorting out limited sets of article content (half a paragraph or so) + underlying sources (less than a handful mostly), but this noticeboard is less suitable for the balance in an article as a whole. Other possibility: WP:NPOVN, rather for the over-all balance, but less focus on detailed assessment of actual sources. Or WP:FTN, but that is only if wanting to brandish one of the alternative theories as "fringe" (might give more discussion than it resolves). So all in all, RfC seems best imho. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:44, 20 February 2018 (UTC) Statement by (username) Result concerning Hyper9 This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. User:Hyper9 was placed under a six-month topic ban from 'edits or pages pertaining to Indian history' in July 2017 by User:SpacemanSpiff. The ban was unsuccessfully appealed at AE in July 2017. The six-month ban expired in January 2018. Edits by Hyper9 of Malayalam during the month of February don't violate any currently active ban, but we might consider whether reinstatement of the ban with a new expiry might be justified. I am filling out some of the fields in this complaint above with the relevant ban information. EdJohnston (talk) 16:50, 16 February 2018 (UTC) Though the complaint here is less than perfectly organized, Hyper9's original arguments against his ban don't persuade. To see more background, read the editor's talk page starting at User talk:Hyper9#Discretionary sanctions alert, which was in June 2017. I'm leaving pings for User:MelanieN, User:RegentsPark and User:Doug Weller since they participated in earlier discussions. Note that, when banned from Indian history, Hyper9 stopped editing the encyclopedia for precisely six months and then resumed where he left off, arguing about the same articles. This somewhat works around the rationale for timed bans, which are intended to let the editor contribute in other areas while avoiding the trouble spot. Hyper9's interactions with administrators were very indignant and they suggest two possibilities: either (a) the admins had no idea what they were doing, or (b) Hyper9 was really off the rails but refused to reflect on the problems they were causing. I suspect that (b) is more likely to be correct. EdJohnston (talk) 04:30, 17 February 2018 (UTC) A cursory view of the available discussions gives me the impression that an indefinite topic ban might be in order. I'm happy to be persuaded otherwise, but I'm seeing a strong case of WP:IDHT and an unwillingness to discuss in good faith, at DRN or the talk page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:15, 16 February 2018 (UTC) Pinging User:SpacemanSpiff who placed the original sanction, as I assume they are familiar with editor. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:56, 17 February 2018 (UTC) I don't see how this is actionable. The supposed diffs being reported aren't diffs. And the explanation given for the report doesn't make clear how this is not just a content dispute. Sandstein 17:17, 16 February 2018 (UTC) I agree the report as given isn't, but there is a problem to be found if you look elsewhere. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:20, 16 February 2018 (UTC) I concur with the topic ban. Though the discussion on the talk page is rather confusing, Hyper9 is clearly obfuscating and not assuming good faith. Given that they've had similar issues in the past, an indef topic ban is warranted.--regentspark (comment) 14:18, 17 February 2018 (UTC) I'm on the fence, and would like some more information about recent editing. As EdJohnston says, Hyper9's six-month break after he got a six-month topic ban is a striking circumstance. I don't want to make too much of it, though, as "any edits or pages pertaining to Indian history" was a pretty wide topic ban. If Indian history is the user's area of interest, they can't be blamed too much for simply waiting out the ban. Especially as I didn't see anybody telling them at the time that they needed to edit Wikipedia during the topic ban in order to improve their 'Wikipedia CV'. (I may have missed it.) The break is unfortunate, though — editing other areas would have been a learning experience re how to edit Wikipedia and how to fit into a collaborative community. However, Ed, while I too was pretty appalled by Hyper9's complaints against his ban, on his page and in his appeal here, that was in June 2017. I'd agree he was "off the rails" then. But after his return in January he has clearly made an effort to discuss civilly. Dennis Brown, are you looking mainly at the linked June discussions, or at anything recent? And, most importantly for me to form an opinion about a possible re-ban: RegentsPark, could you explain more fully about obfuscation in the January-February discussion on Talk:Malayalam? It's somewhat over my head. P.S., Dennis, unfortunately SpacemanSpiff hasn't edited since 1 February. It would be a big help if he was here. Bishonen | talk 13:26, 19 February 2018 (UTC). His blowing off the DRN really rubbed me the wrong way. You might could argue that it was too early, but it was accepted and he should have accepted a 3rd party mediating. Not all of his recent stuff is bad (I'm on the fence as well) but I'm not convinced he is here to work with others, after just sampling some of his edits. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:49, 19 February 2018 (UTC) Bishonen, the discussion is confusing because I can't figure out who's right about the content (but then, I rarely can!). My main concern was with the way Hyper9 handled the discussion. We have a newish editor who is bringing sources to the table but getting no traction. They then tried a DR but Hyper9 shot that down leave one very frustrated new editor. There appear to be some ownership issues as well. If they're not willing to go to DR, then I don't see much choice other than banning them from, at the minimum, Malayalam related pages. --regentspark (comment) 17:00, 19 February 2018 (UTC) While I'm pondering. I'll just point out that Nagadeepa isn't technically a new editor, they've been editing since 2007. However, there was a break between 2010 and 25 January 2018. I suppose that kind of explains their IP editing on Talk:Malayalam from 80.229.155.49 between 22 and 25 January, which they acknowledge above; presumably they had pretty much forgotten about using the account. "I only searched for my log in details when I needed to open the DRN" is a bit cavalier — if you have an account you should either use it or abandon it, not be on and off, which is confusing for others — but calling it sockpuppetry as MagSGV does is overly harsh, and I assume no sneaky motives. OK. Considering that Hyper9 has made an effort to be more collaborative this time round, and may reasonably not have expected the DRN to be shut down over their demand for an apology (Hyper9 says above that he didn't), I feel another topic ban from Indian history would be overly draconian. I propose a six-month topic ban from all pages and discussions related to the Malayalam language. Better bold that so it stands out in my ramblings. For myself, I would also urge them to stop demanding apologies in any forum, as it never leads to anything good. I see they're still harping on above about how the other editor "has still not been decent enough" to provide an apology. Just move on, please. Bishonen | talk 11:52, 20 February 2018 (UTC). I've been away so I haven't followed this issue when it began to unravel but now that I've had time to look at it, I think the original topic ban should be reinstated, indefinitely, with an appeal allowed in six months based on non-problematic contributions elsewhere, or else we're just going to be revisiting this issue again pretty soon (just like this time where the issues started after expiry of the prior topic ban). That said, I don't think the filer's conduct here is any better and they should also be subject to a topic ban from anything related to Indian languages. —SpacemanSpiff 04:05, 21 February 2018 (UTC) Great to see you back, Space. I'm coming round to your view, they should have identical topic bans from Indian languages (not Indian history this time, right?). I.e., indefinite, appeal allowed in six months, will only be viewed favorably if they've contributed constructively in other parts of Wikipedia or in the sister projects. Apart from the way Nagadeepa gets personal, their jumping from an IP to their account on the talkpage without acknowledgement was beyond nonchalant (if not outright deceptive), and posting unexplained poetry there is a waste of other people's time that approaches trolling. But depending on how other admins feel, I would also be on board with merely a strong warning to both, with a request to them to read Francis Schonken's good advice carefully. Bishonen | talk 10:11, 21 February 2018 (UTC). I think Indian history which includes history of Indic languages would be the right scope as the problems lie in the broader area, primarily related to the event history, not just this language article. —SpacemanSpiff 13:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC) Not opposed to both, even if it just a fixed time, to remove the disruption and create an incentive for the future. Not sure a warning would be sufficient. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:35, 21 February 2018 (UTC) Space, I'll certainly defer to your opinion in this, as you know the area and incidentally also the sockfarms very well. But you wrote "I don't think the filer's conduct here is any better and they should also be subject to a topic ban from anything related to Indian languages". So, are you saying Hyper9 should be indefinitely t-banned from Indian history, but Nagadeepa from Indian languages? With the appeal in 6 months etc for both? I'd be cool with that, if so, but we'd better make sure it's clear. Bishonen | talk 16:07, 21 February 2018 (UTC). @Bishonen, that is my opinion, since we've seen Hyper9 be disruptive in the wider area, however, based on what I've seen currently I can only find disruption by Nagadeepa within the languages area. Therefore I'd suggest an indefinite TBan from "anything to do with Indian history including languages/linguistic history" for Hyper9 and an indefinite TBan from "anything to do with Indian languages" for Nagadeepa. Needless to say, both bans should apply across any and all namespaces of en.wiki and can be appealed here after six months, subject to evidence of non-disruptive editing in other areas. —SpacemanSpiff 04:08, 22 February 2018 (UTC) Perhaps the easiest is to ban both from Indian languages. That way we get to see if Nagadeepa has broader interests and if hyper9 can edit constructively in the other Indian history topics. But, I will defer to Spiff on whatever they think best. --regentspark (comment) 16:51, 21 February 2018 (UTC) Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests&oldid=808972465" Categories: Wikipedia arbitrationWikipedia requestsHidden categories: Noindexed pagesWikipedia semi-protected project pagesWikipedia move-protected project pages


Navigation menu Personal tools Not logged inTalkContributionsCreate accountLog in Namespaces Project pageTalk Variants Views ReadView sourceView history More Search Navigation Main pageContentsFeatured contentCurrent eventsRandom articleDonate to WikipediaWikipedia store Interaction HelpAbout WikipediaCommunity portalRecent changesContact page Tools What links hereRelated changesUpload fileSpecial pagesPermanent linkPage informationWikidata item Print/export Create a bookDownload as PDFPrintable version Languages AzərbaycancaবাংলাČeštinaDeutschEspañolفارسی한국어MagyarNederlandsPolskiРусскийSuomiSvenskaТатарча/tatarçaไทยУкраїнська Edit links This page was last edited on 6 November 2017, at 10:33. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization. Privacy policy About Wikipedia Disclaimers Contact Wikipedia Developers Cookie statement Mobile view (window.RLQ=window.RLQ||[]).push(function(){mw.config.set({"wgPageParseReport":{"limitreport":{"cputime":"0.356","walltime":"0.503","ppvisitednodes":{"value":3035,"limit":1000000},"ppgeneratednodes":{"value":0,"limit":1500000},"postexpandincludesize":{"value":293201,"limit":2097152},"templateargumentsize":{"value":23581,"limit":2097152},"expansiondepth":{"value":14,"limit":40},"expensivefunctioncount":{"value":14,"limit":500},"entityaccesscount":{"value":0,"limit":400},"timingprofile":["100.00% 273.645 1 -total"," 32.40% 88.661 1 Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Header"," 24.11% 65.988 1 Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement"," 20.32% 55.597 1 Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case"," 17.12% 46.851 1 Template:Pp-protected"," 16.32% 44.659 3 Template:Ombox"," 12.65% 34.608 1 Template:ArbComOpenTasks"," 12.63% 34.572 1 Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Header"," 9.73% 26.619 3 Template:Shortcut"," 8.32% 22.772 1 Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header"]},"scribunto":{"limitreport-timeusage":{"value":"0.075","limit":"10.000"},"limitreport-memusage":{"value":3011158,"limit":52428800}},"cachereport":{"origin":"mw1272","timestamp":"20180224225659","ttl":1900800,"transientcontent":false}}});});(window.RLQ=window.RLQ||[]).push(function(){mw.config.set({"wgBackendResponseTime":74,"wgHostname":"mw1274"});});


Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests - Photos and All Basic Informations

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests More Links

This Page Is Semi-protected.Wikipedia:ArbitrationWikipedia:Arbitration CommitteeWikipedia:Dispute ResolutionWikipedia:Dispute Resolution RequestsWikipedia:Assume Good FaithWikipedia:EtiquetteWikipedia:CivilityWikipedia:NegotiationWikipedia:Talk Page GuidelinesWikipedia:Responding To A Failure To DiscussWikipedia:Editor AssistanceWikipedia:Dispute Resolution NoticeboardWikipedia:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard/requestWikipedia:Third OpinionWikipedia:Requests For CommentWikipedia:Requests For CommentWikipedia:Mediation CommitteeWikipedia:Requests For MediationWikipedia:Administrators' Noticeboard/IncidentsWikipedia:Arbitration CommitteeTemplate:Dispute-resolutionTemplate Talk:Dispute-resolutionWikipedia:Arbitration CommitteeWikipedia:ArbitrationWikipedia Talk:Arbitration/RequestsWikipedia:Arbitration/PolicyWikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser And OversightWikipedia:Arbitration/Guide To ArbitrationWikipedia:Arbitration Committee/NoticeboardWikipedia Talk:Arbitration Committee/NoticeboardWikipedia Talk:Arbitration Committee/NoticeboardWikipedia:Arbitration/IndexWikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Ban AppealsWikipedia Talk:Arbitration Committee/Ban AppealsWikipedia:Arbitration/CurrentWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/CaseWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification And AmendmentWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/MotionsWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/EnforcementWikipedia:Arbitration/Active SanctionsWikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary SanctionsWikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary Sanctions/LogWikipedia:General SanctionsWikipedia:Editing RestrictionsWikipedia:Arbitration CommitteeWikipedia Talk:Arbitration CommitteeUser:Arbitration CommitteeWikipedia:Arbitration Committee/MembersWikipedia:Arbitration Committee/ProceduresWikipedia:ElectionsWikipedia Talk:ElectionsWikipedia:Arbitration Committee/HistoryWikipedia:Arbitration Committee/ClerksWikipedia Talk:Arbitration Committee/ClerksWikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks/ProceduresWikipedia:Arbitration Committee/AuditWikipedia Talk:Arbitration Committee/AuditWikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Audit/StatisticsWikipedia Talk:Arbitration Committee/Audit/StatisticsWikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Audit Subcommittee/ReportsTemplate:ArbCom NavigationTemplate Talk:ArbCom NavigationWikipedia:ShortcutWikipedia:ArbitrationWikipedia:Dispute ResolutionWikipedia:Arbitration CommitteeWikipedia:Arbitration/PolicyWikipedia:Arbitration/Guide To ArbitrationWikipedia:DSWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/EnforcementWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/CaseWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification And AmendmentWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/MotionsWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/EnforcementWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/EnforcementWikipedia:Arbitration CommitteeTemplate:ArbComOpenTasksTemplate Talk:ArbComOpenTasksWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/CaseWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/CaseWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Joefromrandb And OthersWikipedia Talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Joefromrandb And OthersWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Joefromrandb And Others/EvidenceWikipedia Talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Joefromrandb And Others/EvidenceWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Joefromrandb And Others/WorkshopWikipedia Talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Joefromrandb And Others/WorkshopWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Joefromrandb And Others/Proposed DecisionWikipedia Talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Joefromrandb And Others/Proposed DecisionWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility In Infobox DiscussionsWikipedia Talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility In Infobox DiscussionsWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility In Infobox Discussions/EvidenceWikipedia Talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility In Infobox Discussions/EvidenceWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility In Infobox Discussions/WorkshopWikipedia Talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility In Infobox Discussions/WorkshopWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility In Infobox Discussions/Proposed DecisionWikipedia Talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility In Infobox Discussions/Proposed DecisionWikipedia:Arbitration/Index/CasesWikipedia:Arbitration/Index/CasesWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification And AmendmentWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification And AmendmentWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Magioladitis 2Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/MotionsWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/CaseWikipedia:Arbitration GuideWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/EnforcementWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification And AmendmentWikipedia:Guide To ArbitrationWikipedia:Arbitration Committee/ClerksWikipedia:Arbitration CommitteeUser:Arbitration CommitteeWikipedia:Arbitration CommitteeWikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Declined RequestsWikipedia:Arbitration/Index/CasesWikipedia:ShortcutWikipedia:ARCWikipedia:A/R/CWikipedia:RFARUser:PaolotamagUser Talk:PaolotamagUser:PaolotamagUser Talk:PaolotamagSpecial:Contributions/PaolotamagSpecial:DeletedContributions/PaolotamagSpecial:Block/PaolotamagUser:LugnutsUser Talk:LugnutsSpecial:Contributions/LugnutsSpecial:Log/block/LugnutsSpecial:Log/protect/LugnutsSpecial:Log/delete/LugnutsSpecial:Log/move/LugnutsSpecial:Log/rights/LugnutsSpecial:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia:Requests For Adminship/LugnutsWikipedia:Dispute ResolutionWikipedia:OUTLETUser:Premeditated ChaosUser Talk:Premeditated ChaosUser:LugnutsUser Talk:LugnutsUser:BU Rob13User Talk:BU Rob13User:CallaneccUser Talk:CallaneccSpecial:Contributions/CallaneccSpecial:Log/CallaneccWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification And AmendmentWikipedia:AC/DSTemplate:Arbitration CA NoticeWikipedia:Arbitration Committee/ClerksWikipedia:Arbitration CommitteeWikipedia:ShortcutWikipedia:ARCAWikipedia:ARAWikipedia:A/R/C&AWikipedia:A/R/CLWikipedia:A/R/AWikipedia:A/R/CAWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/ClarificationWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/AmendmentWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/MotionsWikipedia:ShortcutWikipedia:Arbitration/Index/MotionsWikipedia:Arbitration GuideWikipedia:Arbitration Committee/ClerksWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/EnforcementTemplate:Arbitration Enforcement AppealWikipedia:ShortcutWikipedia:AC/DSWikipedia:AC/DSWikipedia:AC/DSWikipedia:AC/DSWikipedia:Dispute ResolutionWikipedia:ARCAWikipedia:AutoconfirmedWikipedia:NPAVexatiousTemplate:Arbitration Enforcement AppealWikipedia:Arbitration CommitteeWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/EnforcementWikipedia:Administrators' NoticeboardWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification And AmendmentUser:Arbitration CommitteeTemplate:HatTemplate:HabTemplate:Uw-aeblockTemplate:AE SanctionWikipedia:Administrators' Noticeboard/Arbitration EnforcementWikipedia:Administrators' Noticeboard/Arbitration Enforcement/ArchiveWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive1Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive2Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive3Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive4Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive5Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive6Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive7Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive8Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive9Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive10Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive11Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive12Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive13Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive14Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive15Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive16Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive17Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive18Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive19Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive20Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive21Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive22Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive23Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive24Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive25Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive26Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive27Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive28Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive29Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive30Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive31Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive32Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive33Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive34Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive35Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive36Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive37Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive38Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive39Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive40Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive41Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive42Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive43Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive44Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive45Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive46Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive47Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive48Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive49Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive50Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive51Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive52Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive53Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive54Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive55Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive56Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive57Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive58Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive59Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive60Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive61Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive62Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive63Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive64Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive65Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive66Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive67Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive68Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive69Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive70Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive71Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive72Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive73Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive74Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive75Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive76Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive77Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive78Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive79Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive80Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive81Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive82Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive83Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive84Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive85Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive86Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive87Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive88Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive89Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive90Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive91Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive92Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive93Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive94Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive95Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive96Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive97Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive98Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive99Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive100Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive101Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive102Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive103Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive104Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive105Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive106Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive107Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive108Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive109Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive110Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive111Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive112Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive113Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive114Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive115Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive116Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive117Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive118Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive119Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive120Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive121Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive122Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive123Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive124Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive125Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive126Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive127Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive128Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive129Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive130Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive131Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive132Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive133Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive134Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive135Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive136Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive137Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive138Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive139Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive140Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive141Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive142Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive143Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive144Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive145Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive146Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive147Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive148Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive149Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive150Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive151Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive152Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive153Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive154Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive155Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive156Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive157Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive158Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive159Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive160Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive161Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive162Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive163Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive164Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive165Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive166Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive167Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive168Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive169Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive170Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive171Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive172Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive173Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive174Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive175Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive176Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive177Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive178Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive179Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive180Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive181Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive182Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive183Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive184Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive185Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive186Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive187Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive188Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive189Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive190Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive191Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive192Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive193Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive194Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive195Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive196Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive197Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive198Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive199Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive200Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive201Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive202Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive203Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive204Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive205Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive206Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive207Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive208Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive209Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive210Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive211Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive212Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive213Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive214Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive215Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive216Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive217Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive218Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive219Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive220Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive221Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive222Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive223Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive224Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive225Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive226Template:Arbitration Enforcement/Archive NavboxWord CountUser Talk:NagadeepaSpecial:Contributions/NagadeepaSpecial:DeletedContributions/NagadeepaSpecial:Block/NagadeepaUser:Hyper9User Talk:Hyper9Special:Contributions/Hyper9Special:DeletedContributions/Hyper9Special:Block/Hyper9Template:Ds/logWikipedia:Requests For Arbitration/India-PakistanWikipedia:DIFFWikipedia:AC/DSWikipedia:AC/DSUser:SpacemanSpiffUser Talk:SpacemanSpiffSpecial:Contributions/SpacemanSpiffUser:SpacemanSpiffUser:Doug WellerUser Talk:NagadeepaWikipedia:SignaturesUser Talk:NagadeepaSpecial:Contributions/NagadeepaWord CountTalk:MalayalamTalk:MalayalamUser:Hyper9User Talk:Hyper9User:EdJohnstonUser:Dennis BrownUser:SandsteinUser:RegentsParkChera DynastyMalayalamUser:Hyper9User Talk:Hyper9Talk:MalayalamUser:Francis SchonkenUser:Hyper9User Talk:Hyper9User:Francis SchonkenUser:Hyper9User Talk:Hyper9User:SpacemanSpiffUser:Hyper9User Talk:Hyper9Wikipedia:CIVILUser:Robert McClenonUser Talk:Robert McClenonWikipedia:CIVILWikipedia:BOOMERANGUser:Robert McClenonUser Talk:Robert McClenonUser Talk:NagadeepaUser Talk:NagadeepaUser Talk:NagadeepaUser Talk:NagadeepaUser Talk:NagadeepaUser Talk:NagadeepaUser Talk:NagadeepaUser Talk:NagadeepaUser Talk:NagadeepaUser Talk:NagadeepaUser:Francis SchonkenUser Talk:NagadeepaUser:BishonenOld TamilPathitrupathuKeralaTamilakamUser Talk:NagadeepaUser Talk:NagadeepaUser Talk:NagadeepaUser:D4iNa4User Talk:D4iNa4Wikipedia:NPAUser:D4iNa4User Talk:D4iNa4Wikipedia:BLUDWikipedia:NOTFORUMUser:D4iNa4User Talk:D4iNa4User:D4iNa4User Talk:D4iNa4User:Hyper9User:MapSGVUser Talk:MapSGVUser:MapSGVUser Talk:MapSGVUser:MapSGVUser Talk:MapSGVWikipedia:CIVILUser:Francis SchonkenUser Talk:Francis SchonkenUser:Hyper9User:Francis SchonkenUser Talk:Francis SchonkenUser:Hyper9User:Francis SchonkenUser Talk:Francis SchonkenUser:Francis SchonkenUser Talk:Francis SchonkenWikipedia:RSNWikipedia:NPOVNWikipedia:FTNUser:Francis SchonkenUser Talk:Francis SchonkenUser:Hyper9User:SpacemanSpiffMalayalamUser:EdJohnstonUser Talk:EdJohnstonUser Talk:Hyper9User:MelanieNUser:RegentsParkUser:Doug WellerUser:EdJohnstonUser Talk:EdJohnstonUser:Dennis BrownUser Talk:Dennis BrownUser:SpacemanSpiffUser:Dennis BrownUser Talk:Dennis BrownUser:SandsteinUser:Dennis BrownUser Talk:Dennis BrownUser:RegentsParkUser Talk:RegentsParkUser:EdJohnstonUser:Dennis BrownUser:RegentsParkTalk:MalayalamUser:BishonenUser Talk:BishonenUser:Dennis BrownUser Talk:Dennis BrownUser:RegentsParkUser Talk:RegentsParkTalk:MalayalamUser:BishonenUser Talk:BishonenUser:SpacemanSpiffUser Talk:SpacemanSpiffWikipedia:SISTERUser:BishonenUser Talk:BishonenUser:SpacemanSpiffUser Talk:SpacemanSpiffUser:Dennis BrownUser Talk:Dennis BrownUser:BishonenUser Talk:BishonenUser:SpacemanSpiffUser Talk:SpacemanSpiffUser:RegentsParkUser Talk:RegentsParkHelp:CategoryCategory:Wikipedia ArbitrationCategory:Wikipedia RequestsCategory:Noindexed PagesCategory:Wikipedia Semi-protected Project PagesCategory:Wikipedia Move-protected Project PagesDiscussion About Edits From This IP Address [n]A List Of Edits Made From This IP Address [y]View The Project Page [c]Discussion About The Content Page [t]This Page Is Protected. You Can View Its Source [e]Visit The Main Page [z]Guides To Browsing WikipediaFeatured Content – The Best Of WikipediaFind Background Information On Current EventsLoad A Random Article [x]Guidance On How To Use And Edit WikipediaFind Out About WikipediaAbout The Project, What You Can Do, Where To Find ThingsA List Of Recent Changes In The Wiki [r]List Of All English Wikipedia Pages Containing Links To This Page [j]Recent Changes In Pages Linked From This Page [k]Upload Files [u]A List Of All Special Pages [q]Wikipedia:AboutWikipedia:General Disclaimer



view link view link view link view link view link