Augurar
Handled by Seraphimblade: Augurar made aware; Augurar warned. AGK ■ 07:15, 8 October 2018 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Augurar
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Augurar#Notice_of_Edit_warring_noticeboard_discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Augurar#3rr_warning_and_MOS_alert
I Pinged him on Brett Kavanaugh talk page and even gave him a heads up on his own talk page and time to self revert.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Augurar#1rr_violation_and_Self-revert Discussion concerning AugurarStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Augurar
Statement by (username)Result concerning Augurar
|
Debresser
No action. AGK ■ 18:26, 12 October 2018 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Debresser
Having previously been cautioned regarding civility, and having been topic banned for the exact offense of personilizing disputes and making attacks, and having repeatedly made unfounded AE complaints regarding others supposed incivility, Debresser continues to make outright personal attacks and uncivil claims in forums where they are wholly inappropriate. By Debresser's own standards he should be banned from the topic area as a toxic presence who repeatedly lowers the level of civility by making uncalled for personal attacks on other editors.
Discussion concerning DebresserStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Debresser
In general, I can't deny that I have a suspicion this was posted in revenge for Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Nableezy above, and that should definitely backfire to Nableezy. @Nableezy "Debresser was previously warned, indeed topic-banned, for precisely this behavior, for personalizing disputes and battleground behavior, and he has continued unabated since returning." The same can be said about you! And in my report above I did precisely that. The only difference between the two of us is, that I try to make good edits, firmly based in Wikipedia policies and guidelines, explaining them as I go, while you have stated many times over the last few days, that you couldn't care less about other editors' opinions. And your language reflects your contempt for other editors and the consensus process laying at the basis of this project in general. See the evidence collected by the other editors commenting here. QED. Debresser (talk) 17:12, 10 October 2018 (UTC) Statement by IcewhizIn regards to Debresser's assertions on Nableezy's editing practices, please see the following evidence from the last few days with Nableezy's comments:
All this while edit warring in - 15:12, 9 October 2018, 23:36, 3 October 2018, 15:11, 9 October 2018 - content that has been disputed on BLP grounds, with an open RfC, and an interim editor consensus at BLP/n that either rejects inclusion or is no consensus - BLP content sourced to a description of a documentary that Al Jazeera decided not to publish, and segments of which were leaked (causing coverage of the leak and AJ's choice not to publish this).Icewhiz (talk) 06:50, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Statement by BellezzasoloJust a short one, but Special:Diff/862197737 by Nableezy comes across as a very unsavoury approach. There's no attempt at compromise, and it comes across as GAMEey. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 11:36, 10 October 2018 (UTC) Statement by CoretheappleI was summoned by RfC bot to the discussion cited above by Icewhiz, and in some years as an editor I have rarely seen such tendentious editing behavior, and not by Debresser. I'm the target of the incivility cited by Icewhiz above. I have no idea who Debresser is and I don't generally edit in this subject area. But I do know that the user who commenced this case is threatening to bring an RfC at Talk:Canary_Mission [4] having failed to "win" on the identical issue in an RfC at Talk:Adam Milstein [5] that's been grinding along for a month, and two noticeboard discussions, both commenced by Nableezy [6][7], that are now winding down without consensus. All three repetitive discussions concern whether to add contentious, disputed material concerning Milstein. Rather than kick the can down the road I strongly recommend a boomerang. Coretheapple (talk) 16:47, 11 October 2018 (UTC) Statement by Sir JosephTo me this seems like it shoul be a tit for tat filing and that's something we don't need in this area. Statement by TritomexI didnt want to participate in previous discussion regarding the report against Nableezy, but it was clear that many of his comments and reverts went beyond the borders of objectiveness. Unwillingness to reach consensus combined with strong POV and tit for tat attacks could be very problematic in sensitive areas. I also had a lot of disagreements with Debresser, especially few years ago when I was more active here. In overall conclusion I support WP:BOOMERANG in this case.Tritomex (talk) 05:17, 12 October 2018 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Debresser
|
Mar4d
No violation, although the edits skirted fairly close to the line. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:19, 10 October 2018 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Mar4d
I first asked Arbcom on WP:ARCA if editors topic banned from India-Pakistan conflicts should edit Regional power with the purpose to debate the status of India or Pakistan as a regional power. Arbcom mainly said that I should instead file AE,[8] There was also some discussion with BU Rob13 on his talk page after ARCA, and he also said that I should use AE for soliciting community opinion. In my humble opinion, I would hope that admins here won't consider this report as request for seeking sanctions, but more about identifying if this is a topic ban violation. I think that this is a topic ban violation, when editors topic banned from India-Pakistan conflicts edit this article by focusing on India or Pakistan since status of India and Pakistan in the context of regional power heavily focuses on conflicts between India and Pakistan. Reliable sources emphasize on conflicts between two countries in this subject when they discuss their "power". Some more factors including "regional power" that falls within the India-Pakistan conflict area are mentioned by this reliable source. Also see [9]. Keeping the above explanations in mind, I believe that these edits probably violate the topic ban:-
While I am sure that Mar4d (or someone else) would dispute this topic ban violation and say that there was no direct of mention of India-Pakistan conflict, I believe that it really changes nothing since these edits still impact the Wikipedia's coverage of India-Pakistan conflict as much as edits from those who are mentioning India-Pakistan conflict. Orientls (talk) 05:02, 9 October 2018 (UTC) RegentsPark: I read your comment here and the discussion on your talk page. You should note that Mar4d's last block was also over a topic ban violation where he had never mentioned India-Pakistan conflict but he was discussing an editor banned from the same subject.[13] On Regional power he is defending status of Pakistan which is tied to India-Pakistan conflict. I believe that activity on Regional power is more clearer when it comes to topic ban violation. He is also replying the comments that are discussing "Indo-Pakistani War of 1971".[14] I don't see how that doesn't violate the topic ban that is "broadly construed" (Wikipedia:Broadly construed). Even if Pakistan is the only thing being discussed, still it doesn't change that the country's structure and balance of regional power is tied to India-Pakistan conflict.[15] GoldenRing is not available for months, maybe Seraphimblade should share his opinion since he also drafted this sanction that included warning for "disruption or testing of the edges of the ban".[16] Orientls (talk) 07:08, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Mar4dStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Mar4dStatement by (username)Result concerning Mar4d
|
Markbassett
No violation. Filer warned for meritless AE requests. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:39, 12 October 2018 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Markbassett
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Markbassett#1rr_violation_and_Self-revert
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Markbassett#1rr_violation_and_Self-revert Discussion concerning MarkbassettStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by MarkbassettBringing it to this level over placement of the exact same words at spot A vs B seems making a mountain out of a molehill. I think I'll mention I started a TALK for resolving this, and suggest we just let that run a bit in case the concern becomes moot. User:Galobtter posted this article is not subject to 1RR in TALK a 12:57 10 October, and User:ContentEditman repeated the 00:27, 10 October revert on 16:50 10 October, so it is back to the lower position and in TALK. Otherwise I'll point to what I previously put to his TALK page "- Thank you for your mention of the 1RR limit, and I felt I should offer you the same caution, though both of us have only done one revert here so are not actually in violation. Particularly note you have a history of prior reverts of various editors, prior 1RR claims (that may be taken as WP:THREATEN), and incorrectly claimed consensus before (which may be taken as WP:DISRUPT disruptive editing). How about lets just see what others say about where it goes and let them decide. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:29, 10 October 2018 (UTC)" I will also offer from todays article TALK "I'm not aware of a previous TALK similar to this other than the 29 September Worst polling ever sentence of User:Obsidri, from you reverting it back into lead and issues of editing into LEAD without article content, plus side-noted it as having issues of factually incorrect and poor cite, and then question of WEIGHT. I agreed and snipped it out of lead and you then reverted it back in on 30 September, Obsidri removed it again and you then put it down lower. I only noticed it this week as looking misplaced and shifted it up a section without alteration. I'd tend to regard the earlier one as a LEAD or Delete discussion, but can see if you view it as an ongoing where-does-thisgo discussion. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:31, 10 October 2018 (UTC)" I do regret undoing his first 10 October revert, revert of revert was a bit bad of me. I will offer mitigating circumstance that I did initiate TALK after and that I was somewhat provoked by overly aggressive editing plus repeated posturing that his easy undo must be left and claims that his edits have consensus. I will continue the TALK over placement for a bit, but this all seems like a bit of excessive effort for small potatoes. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:43, 10 October 2018 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Markbassett
|
Wickey
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 Wickey
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Shrike (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 12:27, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Wickey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel_articles#General_Prohibition :
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 12 October 2018 Participating in ARBPIA conflict in noticeboard while only exception is talk page particiaption
- 9 October 2018 Turning this article to I/P conflict article while writing on "Zionist propaganda" and "pro-Israel attitude" and writing about Gaza Conflict
- 6 -9 October Creating the article about anti-Zionist newspaper
- 4 October 2018 Editing article about Anti-Zionism
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- n/a
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
- Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 15 July 2018
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
- The user has less then 500 edits so he cannot edit I/P articles but its not main problem with this account.And he is well aware of the restriction see his edit summary in this [25]
- This account have the similar name and what most important he have similar POV with topic banned[26] Wickey-nl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).He ignored my question if he is the same account [27].
- I find comment by AGK are not consistent with ARBCOM decision the only requirement to enforce the sanction it so to be aware of it.The user obligation is to read the decision if he want to edit such contagious topic.--Shrike (talk) 13:34, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
- [28]
- I find view of AGK not consistent with part AE discussions.
- @AGK: He was notified specifically [29].
:Please note, that until you are WP:EXTENDEDCONFIRMED, you are not supposed to edit Arab-Israeli conflict related pages (see WP:ARBPIAINTRO) - you can post talk page comments, but not edit the article themselves.Icewhiz (talk) 07:02, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
. - @Sandstein: What about calling other editors a " pack of mad dogs" in his response bellow?--Shrike (talk) 11:45, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Wickey
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 Wickey
This is a bad faith action for which requester should get a firm warning. I am not aware of any misdoing. I found the Noticeboard while looking who is the guy who is hounding me since 15 July 2018, without some clear explanation.
As you can see, I have mainly been editing in the area of history, including Zionism. You may check the nature of them. In such an absurd broad interpretation you should also include all articles about Israel, Palestine, Judaism, Islam, Arabs, Arab countries en US and many history articles to censor.
User:Wickey-nl is another user, who is not even active. Moreover, I do not have any intention to edit in an area which is terrorized by a pack of mad dogs.Wickey (talk) 13:59, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Statement by Icewhiz
@AGK: I too have suspicions regarding wicky-nl. I alerted the user to the existence and applicability of the 500/30 restriction to their edits. See diff on their talk page.Icewhiz (talk) 13:12, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
- In regards to the rather bizarre hounding claim above, I interacted with Wickey on a single article as may be seen in the editor interaction tool (2 boards, 1 article he edited a year after I touched it, and 1 article with interaction). I will note that content related to the 2014 Gaza conflict, which Wickey edited, is very clearly ARBPIA. An editor that views his fellow editors as "I do not have any intention to edit in an area which is terrorized by a pack of mad dogs." - should not be editing the topic area.Icewhiz (talk) 14:37, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Wickey
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- The ARBPIA 30/500 restriction is patchily notified to users, and I find sufficient doubt in this case that Wickey was aware of it. (A) The complainant says Wickey was "well aware of the restriction" per this edit, but that falls after all the other diffs cited here. (B) Wickey was previously alerted to ARBPIA's standard discretionary sanctions, but this alert is for an entirely separate remedy to the one being enforced here. (C) Finally, the Reliable Sources Noticeboard and the other articles submitted as being edited by Wickey in breach of the 30/500 general restriction are, as far as I can tell, lacking any edit notice or other notice that this general restriction applies.
I am unwilling to enforce the expectation that editors ought to understand the 30/500 restriction without a notice being clearly delivered to them to that effect. That notice can be delivered by an eye-catching page notice, a clear notice sent to their user talk page, etc. I do not find that delivery took place here, and accordingly I would dismiss this complaint on the condition that someone make Wickey expressly aware of the 30/500 General Prohibition. AGK ■ 13:06, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Shrike: I noticed that too, but I do not consider the sentence appended to the discretionary sanctions alert to have clearly enough made Wickey aware of the second restriction (the 30/500). It read like a helpful postscript, and was some months prior to these edits. What new editor would know what WP:EXTENDEDCONFIRMED or WP:ARBPIAINTRO meant? I am not splitting hairs here. We write standardised, eye-catching alert templates for a reason – they unambigiously communicate a message to the recipient, in plain English that new users can parse. I do not think you can formally warn a new user about one remedy, throw in a single line at the end to an entirely different remedy, and be assured that the user has understood both the very different things that you are telling them not to do. My view took that diff into account and remains unchanged. AGK ■ 13:20, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
- The ARBPIA 30/500 restriction does not necessarily need notification, but in my view the more important issue is whether Wickey is an alternate account of Wickey-nl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) used to evade scrutiny or sanctions. Based on username and behavior, I believe this to be likely. Both accounts are focused on related topic areas (the I-P conflict for Wickey-nl, Judaism / Zionism for Wickey), edit with the same POV (anti-Israel) and are not native English speakers. If other admins concur with this assessment, I'll consider a non-AE indef-block of the Wickey account for ban evasion. Sandstein 14:28, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
- Speaking only to the issue of socking and not the merits of this case, I see two accounts with only a handful of edits in the same time period, and no overlap within those articles. That doesn't concern me. What does concern me is the block log [30] of the (alleged) first account. If these are the same people, then notification is moot as they would have plenty of experience to know about 500/30 and about sanctions, seeing they have been sanctioned twice in this area of editing. Looking at the edits of these two accounts, my opinion is that it is very likely they are the same person, and the second account was created before the block, but used to bypass the block. That they avoided the topic area for the 3 month duration of the block is meaningless. At a minimum, an indefinite TBAN of the entire ARBPIA topic area is due and justified for bypassing and ignoring the restrictions previously. Even though the socking started a long time ago, it would seem reasonable to consider action there as well, as a non-AE action, per Sandstein, to include some kind of block to the original account as well. As the previous block was 3 months and was socked around, that seems to be the minimum to consider here now. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:48, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Sandstein and Dennis Brown: Wearing my WP:SPI hat, the technical connection is Stale but, in terms of behavioural evidence, I am not convinced the accounts are related. AGK ■ 17:59, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
- If other admins aren't convinced that this is a case of socking and ban evasion, then I'd close this with a warning to obey the 30/500 restriction. Sandstein 11:41, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Sandstein and Dennis Brown: Wearing my WP:SPI hat, the technical connection is Stale but, in terms of behavioural evidence, I am not convinced the accounts are related. AGK ■ 17:59, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
VanEman
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 VanEman
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Debresser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:30, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- VanEman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- WP:ARBPIA3 :
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- [31] Undid an ARBPIA-related edit after 9 minutes instead of waiting at least 24 hours. Straightforward ARBPIA3 violation.
- [32] Edit against consensus, or at least with clear lack of consensus, per Talk:Birthright_Israel#Jewish_Voice_for_Peace
- [33] Another revert the edit history shows goes against consensus, or at least a clear lack of consensus.
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
I have noticed that this editor is prone to edit warring in other areas as well: June 2016 notification of my report on WP:3RR.
In addition I find it especially worrying that he should violate the restriction just five minutes after I wrote him a nice and detailed paragraph about it on his talkpage.
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning VanEman
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 Govindaharihari
This report is totally meritless, users portraying the Jewish Voice for Peace as pro palestinian are to blame for those edits - our own page doesn't do that. Not long ago, just above here in a recent report Sandstein said, We should consider sanctioning Debresser for trying to use AE to further their position in what are clearly normal content disputes.Govindaharihari (talk) 20:52, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Statement by Icewhiz
JVP is described in the source supporting the content as The controversial pro-Palestinian advocacy group Jewish Voice For Peace has launched a campaign to ...
[34]. Nor is JVP shy of this stance - it is stated rather clearly on their website. There was significant editor support for the label (3 v 1) at [35].Icewhiz (talk) 21:01, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Statement by Bellezzasolo
@Govindaharihari: there's clearly an I/P 1RR violation here (re-revert 9 minutes after reversion, not 24 hours). So the report isn't meritless. The whole reason we have that restriction is to prevent edit warring and move content disputes to the talk page. While I personally consider that section to be a bit confusing, which may factor into a final decision, the report of a 1RR violation certainly isn't frivolous. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 21:06, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Statement by Zero0000
@AGK: The reverts 3 minutes apart that you indicate, namely this one at 17:03 and this one at 17:06, are consecutive edits without intervening edits by another user. Therefore they do not count as two separate reverts by our usual rules for counting reverts. Zerotalk 01:37, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, this revert broke the "original author" rule according to one of the common interpretations of that rule. According to another common interpretation of that rule, VanEman didn't break it because he/she was not the original author (the same text having been in and out before due to other editors). Which interpretation is correct, I have no idea. However, I do have an idea about one thing: the usual penalty for an editor with a clean record who breaks a revert rule for the first time is something like 24 or 48 hours. It seems to me grossly excessive to consider a 1 year ban. Zerotalk 06:50, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Not clear if Shrike's alleged example of an older 1RR violation really is, since the second version is very different from the first, and finding a word in common doesn't make enough difference. Zerotalk 09:12, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Statement by Shock Brigade Harvester Boris
I usually try to stay well clear of Israel-Palestine stuff, but Zero0000 is correct. WP:1RR says The one-revert rule is analogous to the three-revert rule as described above, with the words "more than three reverts" replaced by "more than one revert". If we take WP:1RR as meaning just what it says, then the provision at WP:3RR stating A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert applies equally to WP:1RR. As a result, the two reverts three minutes apart count as a one, and do not constitute a technical violation of 1RR. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:32, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Statement by Galobtter
I agree with Zero and Shock Brigade; those two diffs cited by AGK are not violations because they are consecutive edits. However, the revert 9 minutes later cited by Debresser is a clear violation of "If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of the first revert made to their edit." Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:48, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Statement by Shrike
- Actually the report was not frivolous as the user broke the original clause restriction as pointed by Galobtter --Shrike (talk) 05:52, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
- The user have history of violation 1RR. Example from the last month [36] and [37] --Shrike (talk) 07:19, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Statement by (username)
Result concerning VanEman
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- The two reverts cited[38][39] are more than 24 hours apart. However, this edit, summary provide detail of criticism, was in fact a revert of an earlier removal. In conjunction with another revert 3 minutes beforehand, VanEman has consequently breached the general ARBPIA 1RR restriction. I am consequently minded to impose a 1-year topic ban from the topic area, and will pause for comment before taking action to that effect. AGK ■ 21:27, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
- Concur with the above. Clear violation, reasonable sanction. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:12, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with the assessment by AGK. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:17, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Enforcing administrator discussion – Debresser
I am raising this topic separately to request views from colleagues about the use of enforcement processes by Debresser.
- In #VanEman, immediately above, Debresser cited two diffs that were around 27 hours apart – and requested enforcement of a 1RR (one revert per 24 hours) general sanction. To be clear, I have recommended enforcement action in that case – but only as a result of different diffs of user conduct which I came across during a review of the request.
- In #Nableezy, above, a meritless request for enforcement was submitted.
- Nishidani, enforcement requested August 2018, was again closed without action.
I am concerned in general at an increasing use of AE for reprisal – and, in this case, at a scattergun or careless approach to enforcement requests. AGK ■ 21:37, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, we do see Debresser quite a lot here with, as far as I can recall, often non-actionable requests. I wouldn't object to a restriction against making new AE requests. Sandstein 11:40, 14 October 2018 (UTC)