Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk) Case clerks: AGK (Talk) & Seddon (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Wizardman (Talk) & Rlevse (Talk)

Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks + Talk Clerk procedures
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes

Case Opened on 23:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Case Closed on 02:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly, unless you are 1) an Arbitrator, 2) an Arbitration Clerk, or 3) adding yourself to this case. Statements on this page are original comments provided when the Committee was initially requested to Arbitrate this page (at requests for arbitration), and serve as opening statements. As such, they should not be altered. Any evidence you wish to provide to the Arbitrators should go on the /Evidence subpage.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.

Editors may add to the #Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions as needed, but this page should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification, and report violations of remedies at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement.

• Ottava Rima (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• RegentsPark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jehochman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Moreschi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Requests for comment[edit]

I am appealing my editing restriction via what Carcharoth has described. I am appealing on the grounds of inappropriate actions in the closing and determining of these. 13:09, 25 September 2009, User:Jehochman adds my name to the editing restriction list.

He cites this discussion in which he is involved. He does not cite the full discussion as seen here, which reveals that three people opposed it NuclearWarfare, Durova, and ChildofMidnight express direct statements that it was out of process and only two expressed direct support. There was no consensus to allow it.

After Jehochman started telling people that I was under restrictions, it was revealed that he put them up himself. This thread was started because of 1. lack of consensus on the matter and 2. he did not follow as what Carcharoth earlier states was part of the editing restriction: "could we have some discussion of whether the person logging the restriction here could be the person (hopefully an 'uninvolved' admin) that both assesses consensus at the community discussion, closes that discussion, and records the restriction at a user subpage (if needed) and on the user's talk page?". Not only was there no assessment of consensus, there wasn't even a true proposal.

I asked on the talk page for it to be closed. Ncmvocalist said it was not an appropriate forum, even though it was stated it was not supposed to be there and Jehochman even said "The list is a convenient index; nothing more. Any editor in good standing can fix what is written here if it is not correct." at Jehochman Talk 00:30, 17 August 2008 on that same page. Ncmvocalist knew this, but also knew that there was disputes at ANI and even made threats regarding it (". Again, would you like me to spell out what will happen if you continue to be disruptive by keeping this discussion here?" Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:08, 3 November 2009). I informed them that I asked Carcharoth to explain what he stated before at this thread. Before he could, an ANI discussion was opened.

RegentsPark closes the discussion as passing. He cites "22 supports, 8 opposes". He previous posted multiple times expressing opinions: [1], [2], [3], and [4]. It was also pointed out on his talk page by myself that the actual tally was not 22 to 8 (73%) but 18 to 14 (53%). This is a far different gap than what he claimed existed.

I am asking that this sanction be lifted as out of process and that the actions of the two admin in determining their sanctions be investigated in their 1. involvement with the issue as a whole and 2. inappropriate use of determining consensus in such restrictions.

I think it is fairly clear from the discussion that there is community consensus on some sort of civility restriction on Ottava rima even beyond the numbers counted in the !votes. A requirement that an editor be civil and assume good faith on the part of other editors is generally a good idea and enforcing that is not a bad idea if the editor has been uncivil in the past and, of the various suggestions thrown around in the discussion, this one is the least onerous and has the advantage of being a restriction that is already in place. In this case, I think I've correctly called consensus and suggest that if the editor continues to focus on content and attempts to be civil in his dealings with others, there should be nothing to worry about.

I have had very few interactions with Ottava rima himself, the most recent one being on the Byron talk page. While I was surprised at the tone and tenor of his statements in that discussion, at no point did I feel that it was necessary to take the matter further or consider a block or ban (Ottava expressed the desire to take it further but, since he did not, I assume he did not consider the matter particularly serious either). I do feel that rudeness is detrimental to the goals of a collaborative volunteer project and that is the only way in which I consider myself to be involved in this issue. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 11:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ncmvocalist has asked me to explain why I chose the original sanction over the alternative plan. The 'support difference' between the two was slight and the original plan was already in place and a great deal simpler. The alternative plan has clear support as well, but it is both more complicated as well as more punitive. Since there was clear consensus that there be some restrictions placed on Ottava, and since the original plan both has 'expressed support' and is as well the absolute minimum restriction that can be placed on an editor, I concluded that it has consensus support. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 18:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to questions from Ottava rima: I counted straight down, ignoring comments (unless they clearly stated a preference) in the Original thread section whereas your numbers include interpretations (for example, I would not have included the three editors who seem to be throwing up their hands at 'the whole mess' in the oppose section) across the entire thread. My views were expressed in purely general terms (I have nothing for or against you and, somewhat like you, feel that the community should either ban you or just agree to put up with you) so I see nothing wrong in my closing the thread. By 'previous dispute' I assume you refer to the Byron article naming dispute. I'm not sure why a purely content dispute, particularly a one-off thing that neither of us considered serious enough to take further, should preclude an editor from closing a thread of this sort. We would never get anything done if that were the case.

Regardless of the counting of 'votes', I would (if I were you and I do realize that I'm not you!) focus on the general opinion that your tone is less than civil. Civility is largely a social construct - what passes for polite conversation amongst a group of stevedores would scarcely pass muster at a gathering of the lords and ladies of the court - so one has to take cues on what is polite from other members of a particular society. You can see what sort of message you're getting. Durova reminds us (above) that there is a human being behind the virtual Ottava, and I urge you to bear in mind that the people you communicate with are also human, with the same need for a 'measure of dignity' that you have. (My apologies for this digression, which is doubtless both uncalled for as well as unwelcome, but I can assure you that I mean well.) --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 22:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (8/1/0/0)[edit]

• If this request to have a case opened, I decline. It is not onerous to be required to avoid edits which are uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith. It is what everyone should be doing. Ottava has merely been put on notice. I would accept an appeal after a month or so of peaceful editing. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept to review all aspects of the matter, including the standards and procedures for imposing community sanctions as well as Ottava Rima's underlying conduct. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to hold temporarily in light of Ottava Rima's apparent wikibreak announcement. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Return to accept since Ottava Rima has resumed editing, with scope of case as indicated above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept per Newyorkbrad. I don't think that declining the request will fix the situation in a way that provides long term resolution. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 15:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. As NYB and FloNight allude to, I don't think giving it to the community will move this any further than it has. Gotta be nipped in the bud. Wizardman 21:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept - the community handle this sort of thing poorly. ArbCom don't have a great record either (there are several other editors who make good content contributions but are abrasive when interacting with certain others, and are famed for so-called "special treatment"). However, it looks like it falls to us to try and resolve this. I would make an appeal to Ottava Rima to take a long hard look at your conduct and why it upsets people, and how that sits with your content contributions. I would also urge those who may have unnecessarily escalated some of these issues to ask themselves why they did so, as that may be noted in the case, and if a consistent pattern emerges over several cases of editors who feud with other editors, that will be just as damning. Carcharoth (talk) 01:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Ottava, the point I was making is that LessHeard vanU's statement that he intended to block indefinitely swayed me to accept. Part of arbitration is deciding what course of action may be best for the encyclopedia. I don't think highly productive content contributors should be indefinitely blocked without other options being explored first. If an admin says they intend to block indefinitely and urge the case be accepted on that basis, then the situation has, in my opinion, escalated to the stage where ArbCom need to step in and resolve the dispute, to (as the phrase goes) "examine the conduct of all parties". My reference to unnecessary escalation was directed at LessHeard vanU's statement about indefinite blocks (since we obviously don't want a situation to develop where admins state their intention to indefinitely block in order to get cases accepted), and also some other comments made here, such as Moreschi's failure to take this seriously. Sandy, I will respond to your point on your talk page, if you don't mind me moving that point there. Carcharoth (talk) 03:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Accept - the issues here are long overdue for arbitration. Also per NYB. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept; this issue has been festering for some time, and the conduct of the parties needs to be examined. — Coren ^(talk) 23:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept per the comments of my colleagues; whether or not Ottava Rima decides to participate in this case, it appears there are sufficient editors on all sides of this question to ensure that appropriate evidence is brought forward on the salient points. Risker (talk) 05:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. --bainer (talk) 11:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Final decision[edit]

All numbering based on /Proposed decision, where vote counts and comments are also available.

Casting aspersions[edit]

1) It is unacceptable for an editor to continually accuse others of egregious misbehavior in an attempt to besmirch their reputation. Concerns, if they cannot be resolved directly with the other users concerned, should be brought up in the appropriate forums with evidence, if at all.

Passed 8 to 0 at 02:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Vested contributors[edit]

2) Editors will sometimes make mistakes, suffer occasional lapses of judgment, and ignore all rules from time to time in well-meaning furtherance of the project's goals. However, strong or even exceptional contributions to the encyclopedia do not excuse repeated violations of basic policy, not even from highly experienced, knowledgeable editors who produce quality content. All editors should work within Wikipedia's collaborative consensus environment and if a dispute arises, avoid personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith and recognize that Wikipedia is a communal endeavor, with communal routes to dispute resolution.

Passed 8 to 0 at 02:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair criticism[edit]

3) Editors are encouraged to engage in frank discussion of matters affecting the project, and are encouraged to share even those facts and opinions which demonstrate the shortcomings of the project, its policies, its decision making structure, and its leaders. Such discourse is limited by the expectation that even difficult situations will be resolved in a dignified fashion, and by policies which prohibit behavior such as personal attacks and legal threats. Editors who have genuine grievances against others are expected to avail themselves of the dispute resolution mechanism rather than engage in unbridled criticism across all available forums.

Passed 8 to 0 at 02:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Recidivism[edit]

4) Users who have been sanctioned for improper conduct are expected to avoid repeating it should they continue to participate in the project. Failure to do so may lead to the imposition of increasingly severe sanctions.

Passed 8 to 0 at 02:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Editorial process[edit]

5) Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through the use of polite discussion—involving the wider community, if necessary—and dispute resolution, rather than through disruptive editing. Editors are each responsible for noticing when a debate is escalating, and for helping the debate move to better approaches by discussing their differences rationally. No one owns an article.

Passed 8 to 0 at 02:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Purpose of Wikipedia[edit]

6) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited.

Passed 8 to 0 at 02:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

User conduct[edit]

7) Wikipedia's code of conduct, which outlines some of Wikipedia's expected standards of behavior and decorum, is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia that all editors should adhere to. Even in difficult situations, Wikipedia editors are expected to: project a constructive and collaborative outlook, behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other editors, and avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Administrators are expected to adhere to this at a higher standard. Uncivil, unseemly or disruptive conduct, including, but not limited to, lack of respect for other editors, failure to work towards consensus, offensive commentary (including rude, offensive, derogatory, and insulting terms in any language), personal attacks, failure to assume good faith, harassment, edit-warring, disruptive point-making and gaming the system, are all prohibited as they are inconsistent with Wikipedia's expected standards of behavior and decorum. Users should not respond to such misconduct in kind; concerns regarding the actions of other users should be brought up in the appropriate forums.

Passed 8 to 0 at 02:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Gaming the system[edit]

8) Attempting to force an untoward interpretation of policy, or impose one's own novel or excessively strict view of "standards to apply" rather than those of the community is an example of gaming the system and should be avoided. Users who do so should consider their subsequent approach carefully if they find they are the only ones arguing when the community clearly has reached a different view, and should balance their own wishes and views with the reality of any widespread disagreement.

Passed 7 to 0 (with 1 abstention) at 02:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a battleground[edit]

10) Wikipedia is not a battleground. Consequently, it is a not a venue for the furtherance of grudges and personal disputes.

Passed 8 to 0 at at 02:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Ottava Rima's content[edit]

1) Ottava Rima is a productive and skilled editor. Since September 2007 he has been a primary or significant contributor to 210 "did you know" entries (DYKs), approximately 42 good articles (GAs), and 9 featured articles (FAs).

Passed 7 to 1 at 02:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Ottava Rima's history[edit]

2) Ottava Rima's editorship has been punctuated by repeated disputes and blocks [5], with a lengthy gap in the latter between July 2008 and September 2009.

Passed 7 to 1 at 02:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Nature of dispute[edit]

3) The disputes and blocks have mostly related to content matters and content policies and guidelines, where Ottava Rima's interpretation has at times led to heated dispute and accusations, a spiral of accusations of bad faith, incivility, bullying, wikistalking and, at times, personal attacks, often requiring administrator attention. The catalyst to this case was in September 2009, when a question over the reliability of a source for Oscar Wilde at the Reliable Sources noticeboard led to a heated dispute. The dispute ultimately led to a civility restriction [6] imposed on Ottava Rima by Jehochman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an administrator. Ottava Rima appealed the restriction to this Committee.

Passed 7 to 1 at 02:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Ottava Rima and BLP[edit]

5) Ottava Rima has violated the Wikipedia:Biographies of Living Persons policy by attacking a professor, misinterpreting the BLP policy, and saying his comments did not count under BLP because they were not directly included into the subject's article.

Passed 6 to 2 at 02:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Allegations of meatpuppetry[edit]

6) Ottava Rima's allegations of a group of meatpuppets who are out to get him, supposedly composed of a number of administrators as well as various regular editors, do not appear to have any basis in fact,[7] though the Articles for Deletion similarities could arouse suspicion to an outside editor.[8]

Passed 5 to 0 (3 abstained) at 02:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Ottava Rima's insults of other academics[edit]

7) Ottava Rima has insulted other academics and their universities, including those from fields in which Ottava is not an expert.[9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]

Passed 6 to 2 at 02:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Ottava Rima's dealings with criticism[edit]

8) When Ottava Rima's work is criticized, he has often been unable to deal with the criticism in a civil and reasonable fashion.[15] Instead of bettering himself as an editor if problems are found with his editing,[16] (unlike his collaborators[17][18]), he has accused others of provocative attacks[19] and of sockpuppetry.[20]

Passed 7 to 1 at 02:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Moreschi[edit]

9) Moreschi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) exacerbated the dispute with Ottava Rima by bringing Ottava Rima's real life work into the dispute, including a violation of the posting of personal information section of the harassment policy.[21]

Passed 8 to 0 at 02:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Ottava Rima banned[edit]

1) Ottava Rima (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of 1 year.

Passed 6 to 2 at 02:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Moreschi admonished[edit]

2.1) Moreschi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is admonished for posting editor-specific information that directly leads to the private identity of pseudonymous editors.

Passed 6 to 1 at 02:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Ottava Rima - Conditions for return to editing[edit]

3) Should Ottava Rima elect to return to editing Wikipedia, he shall be placed on probation for a period and under conditions to be determined prior to his return to editing. Should he wish to return to editing, Ottava Rima shall contact the Arbitration Committee via email after completing not less than half of his scheduled ban to discuss terms of the probation; the discussion may include the involvement of the community at the applicable noticeboard or as a motion of the Arbitration Committee.

Passed 7 to 0 at 02:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Community and administrator imposed restrictions[edit]

4) The imposition of discretionary sanctions, paroles, and related remedies by the community is done on an ad hoc basis in the absence of clear documented standards. The community is strongly encouraged to review and document standing good practice for such discussions. As a related but distinct issue, the community is encouraged to review and document common good practice for administrators imposing editing restrictions as a condition of an unblock and in lieu of blocks.

Passed 6 to 1 at 02:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Log any block, restriction, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.

• 21:38, 19 December 2009 Seddon (talk | contribs | block) blocked Ottava Rima (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 year

Ottava Rima (talk · contribs)

The Arbitration Committee does not usually comment publicly on ban appeals unless they are successful; however, in this case, Ottava Rima has publicly posted the text of the email he sent to the committee appealing his ban on an external website, and multiple editors have posted on Ottava Rima's talk page indicating varying degrees of support or opposition to the reinstatement of this user's editing permissions, with or without conditions.

Background[edit]

Ottava Rima was banned from English Wikipedia following a self-initiated request for arbitration which closed on 20 December 2009. Findings of fact in this case focused largely on Ottava Rima's difficulty in addressing criticism of his work, his involvement in multiple disputes on a wide range of subjects, his violations of the biography of living persons policy, and his contentions that other editors were acting as meatpuppets for each other in opposition to him. The decision of the Arbitration Committee was to ban Ottava Rima from the English Wikipedia for one year and, in addition, "[s]hould Ottava Rima elect to return to editing Wikipedia, he shall be placed on probation for a period and under conditions to be determined prior to his return to editing." Ottava Rima was given leave to appeal the ban after six months.

The Arbitration Committee has long supported the notion that good work within policy on other Wikimedia Foundation projects will be viewed favorably when an editor's ban or long-term block is appealed to the Committee. In this case, however, it is noted that Ottava Rima is currently under editing restrictions at the sister project Wikimedia Commons(Commons Admin noticeboard/Blocks and protections…) following multiple blocks[22], and has also been placed on moderation on the Foundation-L mailing list.[23] In both cases, he has demonstrated behavior similar to that which led to his English Wikipedia ban and, in both cases, the sanctions were instituted in the few weeks before Ottava Rima's ban appeal. This is not the sort of participation in other projects that bodes well for an early return to this project.

Ottava Rima has been in correspondence with the Arbitration Committee (either as a whole or with individual members) periodically throughout his ban, and had earlier proposed a return to editing which was later followed by his ban appeal. His appeal is focused on gaining editing access to a large number of literature-related articles, and named 12 administrators to be assigned directly to "deal" with him, specifying that they would not be "mentors." None of the administrators with whom the Arbitration Committee checked had been approached by Ottava Rima in advance of his ban appeal specific to taking on this role and, in fact, at least one of those named has not been active in the project for many months. Ottava Rima also indicated that he wished for these administrators to act as proxies for him in other areas of the project in which Ottava Rima would not be permitted to participate. Finally, he wished to have an entry in his block log revision deleted; this is inappropriate as the block log accurately reflects the reason for the change in his block status (adding talk page editing restrictions).

Decision[edit]

Ottava Rima's actions in other areas under the Wikimedia Foundation umbrella, his communications with this Committee, the content of his ban appeal, and his apparent inability or unwillingness to recognize and correct the behavior that led to his ban, all indicate that he has not yet come to understand the collaborative nature of this project. His request to be unbanned is denied. As he has exercised his option to appeal the ban, his block will now be converted to an indefinite block, reflecting the original remedy restricting him from returning to editing until conditions for his return are determined and approved in advance. He may next appeal his ban after 15 January 2011.

It is noted that this editor has, like tens of thousands of other editors, produced content on other Wikimedia projects with licenses compatible with those of this project. Any editor may of course routinely import any such material to the English Wikipedia providing they either (i) attribute in the edit summary the originating source and include the exact difference of the material imported or (ii) post comparable information on the article's talk page. Editors remain responsible for their own edits, including imported content from other sources.

Supporting the motion: Carcharoth, Coren, Kirill Lokshin, Mailer Diablo, Newyorkbrad, Risker, Rlevse, Roger Davies, Shell Kinney, SirFozzie
Opposing the motion: None
Recused from Motion: Cool Hand Luke
Not Voting on motion: FayssalF, KnightLago, Steve Smith

For the Arbitration Committee, SirFozzie (talk) 17:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per [24] I have changed the expiration of Ottava Rima's block from its previous one year date, to indefinite. SirFozzie (talk) 19:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Following a successful appeal, the amendment to the Ottava Rima restrictions case is rescinded, and Ottava Rima is unbanned. His participation on the English Wikipedia is strictly limited to:

• Editing Lamia (poem), its talk page, and any future GA, FA, or peer review of this article
• Drafting articles or edits to articles within his own userspace, which may be moved into the mainspace by other unrestricted editors
• Editing his own user talk page, with the additional restriction that he may not use his talk page to discuss other editors

Additionally, he is limited to one revert on a single page in any 24 hour period (1RR), subject to the standard exemptions. Any edits outside of these boundaries are violations of the unban conditions, as is the use of the Wikipedia email feature.

Anyone found to be goading or baiting him may be two-way interaction banned, as an arbitration enforcement action, for no longer than one month. Enforcement blocks (including of Ottava) may be no longer than three days for the first block, and up to one month for repeated violations.

Should Ottava violate these restrictions he may be blocked, as an arbitration enforcement action, for up to one month for the first violation by a consensus of uninvolved administrators. If, after the first block, he violates the restrictions again, the siteban may be reinstated by a consensus of uninvolved administrators and he is to be blocked indefinitely with no email or talk page access.

Support – Callanecc, Casliber, DGG, Doug Weller, Drmies, GorillaWarfare, Guerillero, Keilana, Kelapstick, Opabinia regalis, Salvio giuliano

Oppose – Courcelles

Not voting - DeltaQuad, Gamaliel, Kirill Lokshin

For the committee, Drmies (talk) 17:20, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]