User talk:Ivanvector

Revdeleting Harassment comments from talk page history

Please can you revdelete the racial snarks by sock user from my talk page history. I can't take the unnecessary abuse as I am facing mental issues. They are added by this account (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/117.228.176.138 ). Regards Io5678 (talk) 22:46, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Io5678 has posted this request on several user's talk pages. I didn't see anything offensive in the IP edits to their talk page but then I don't speak Hindi. In their ANI complaint and in their edit summaries on the article Uddhav Thackeray, this new editor is trying very hard to get this IP editor blocked for sockpuppetry but I don't see any evidence of misconduct. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:35, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

the only hindi word 'andhbhakt' is translated as blind follower of party or ideology. It's not racial or offensive. 117.233.73.20 (talk) 16:48, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

A Barnstar For You!

		The Admin's Barnstar
		Please take this my barnstar as my appreciation to you for seeking my request in my talk page that i thought it will look forever or maybe centuries to unblock me. Thanks! Royiswariii Talk! 02:36, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom Notice

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Mistreated and Inhumanity blocking to Royiswariii and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, Royiswariii Talk! 05:50, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

The case request has been declined as premature because other dispute resolution steps would need to be used first before requesting arbitration. SilverLocust 💬 10:39, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at [[ There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Disruptive Editing of Current Events by Ivanvector. Thank you.]] regarding Disruptive editing after being given a valid source you asked for. The discussion is about the topic Portal:Current Events. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.189.54.128 (talk • contribs) 18:16, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

@142.189.54.128: the proper code for this is {{subst:ani-notice|thread=Disruptive Editing of Current Events by Ivanvector}}, which will produce the correct links. No matter, I found it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:25, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Corrected 142.189.54.128 (talk) 18:29, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I understand you as an admin of Wikipedia may enjoy an untested power that basically erodes 300 years of human progress, your fellow admin decided to grant your biased edit and lock others out and the ANI thread is hopeless because its run by your fellow admins, but Wikipedia needs a systematic unbiased method to ensure fairness unfortunately there really isn’t one now. 2605:8D80:6E2:BFF1:E125:29E9:D1F0:7AE7 (talk) 20:00, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I have no more authority to edit here than you do, friend. Just like anyone else, you can discuss the changes you want to make on the talk page, or point out what you think it is that's wrong with my or anyone else's edit. You can also see the options at dispute resolution, or if you think I'm abusing my rights as an administrator you can ask the arbitration committee to review or start a recall petition. Do hold off on the personal attacks, though: that is a fast way to a block, as the anonymous editor above you found out. Cheers. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Also I think it's worth pointing out that I objected to that page being protected. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:09, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Unban_request_for_Wikiuser1314. Thank you. Yamla (talk) 21:10, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Reminder to participate in Wikipedia research

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Question

Hello, Ivanvector! It's been almost a week since you help me to unblock, I'm asking if it will affect my account on requesting user rights like requesting rollback, new page reviewer or other rights here in wikipedia? Thank you very much. Royiswariii Talk! 10:14, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

213.233.154.158

It is high time that the WMF take serious action against such abusers, and in this case it shouldn't be hard. Drmies (talk) 14:39, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't actually know much about that IP, NinjaRobotPirate blocked them. I just happened to see that they were posting copyrighted song lyrics on their talk page and put a stop to it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:48, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Those weren't the original Pink Floyd lyrics: they adjusted them in some childish way to harass other people, particularly User:Imzadi1979 (sorry for pinging you again, Imzadi, but I did it so you can correct me if I'm missing something), and some random admins including me who reverted their nonsense (and we typically revdelete, which is why I thought you knew). This is User:Bluebird207, and they've been at this for a while. It's of MidAtlanticBaby level. Imzadi, I believe you told me at one point you reported this to the WMF, right? Drmies (talk) 16:34, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Ah, no I wasn't familiar with them, and IMO the lyrics weren't different enough to not be a copyvio. Not worth nitpicking over an LTA, anyway. Their edits come up on the same report I'm using to root out new MAB socks, so I'll keep an eye out. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:38, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

OK--thanks. Drmies (talk) 16:56, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Lyrick Studios

Why did you remove my stuff even though I provided links that proved that American Tall Tales and Legends was originally released by Playhouse Video, Mother Goose Rock and Rhyme was originally released by Media Home Entertainment, and Kipper was originally released by Hallmark. Tall Tales and Legends: https://vhscollector.com/movie/shelley-duvalls-tall-tales-legends-johnny-appleseed Kipper: https://www.ebay.com/itm/204795919703 Mother Goose Rock and Rhyme: https://www.ebay.com/itm/276626720459 66.164.104.47 (talk) 21:26, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Btw sorry for being kinda obnoxious. 66.164.104.47 (talk) 21:32, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I removed it only because you are edit warring. Please discuss your proposed changes on the article talk page. But also note that you cannot use eBay as a reliable source. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:44, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Paint thinner page protection

Thank you for the page protection measure.

Unfortunately, this was applied after MrOllie and Augmented Seventh, without any warrant, deleted relevant content added - simply commenting "better before" and "still not an improvement" - instead of trying to understand and adapt the edit. If they disagree with the new content then it should have been raised in the talk page - unused for over 2 years, which raised the issues of health & flammability.

MrOllie started edit warring on this without due cause. He appears to be an editor who takes pleasure in just deleting other peoples' work for no good reason. I would recommend a warning on this negative and noncontributing behaviour as it brings down the name of Wikipedia by preventing the plurality of evidence and understanding. If he continues then a restriction or withdrawal of editing rights would be applicable.

Please can you restore the version with version including volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and their hazards to health as these are important points. 94.196.120.99 (talk) 23:14, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk page deletion

Hello. First I want to say I am not very familiar with nominating articles for deletion so I don't know the ins and outs. I ran across this Talk:° ′ ″ ≈ ≠ ≤ ≥ ± − × ÷ ← → · § Sign your posts on talk pages: Cite your sources: ref/ref. and thought I'd put it for deletion here Wikipedia:Proposed deletion as it's clearly nonsense. But it gave me a message saying that that is not for talk pages. But since there's no article, I figured an admin would know what to do. Masterhatch (talk) 19:32, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

@Masterhatch: there is a speedy deletion criterion (WP:G8) for talk pages of nonexistent pages, I've deleted the page under that criterion. If you're not familiar, the speedy deletion page lists the various criteria where admins are empowered to delete a page without prior discussion, and instructions for how to tag a page under each of the criteria. If none of the criteria apply, then deletion of talk pages would be discussed at miscellany for deletion. Thanks. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:20, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll have a look at that. Masterhatch (talk) 20:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:19, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

One question

Hello, it's me, the person who once requested International reactions to the 2024 United States presidential election for page protection. I would like to ask you one question. How did you block the IP I reffered to with the /64 thing? I personally need it for Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents for two reasons: 1. The IP is back and he almost broke the three-revert rule today. 2. I checked the IP's edit history and the most that he did is remove anything related to Palestine, making the articles he edited more biased towards Israel (and as a Zionist myself I think that this behavior needs to be stopped on Wikipedia). Thank you in advance Underdwarf58 (talk) 09:32, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

@Underdwarf58: I've blocked that IP again, for longer this time. Unregistered users and users whose accounts are less than 30 days old or have fewer than 500 edits are not permitted to edit anything related to the Arab-Israel conflict, and they've been repeatedly breaking that rule.

As for your question, I don't know how much you know about IP addressing so some of this might seem pretty elementary. You can see our article on subnets for a start, and we have help guides for m:Help:Range blocks and m:Help:Range blocks/IPv6.

An IP address is broken up into two parts: for our purposes the first part typically represents a group of networked connections (i.e. an internet service provider) or route, and the second part represents a particular user connected within that network, or the host. In an IPv4 address (which looks like 102.54.7.105) which is 32 bits, often the first 16 bits represent the route and the last 16 bits represent the host. In that network, everyone who connects to it will have an IP starting with 102.54.x.x, and the second half of the address represents their specific connection. If we want to refer to the network and all of its hosts, we can write the shorthand 102.54.0.0/16, which means "the 16-bit subnet starting at 102.54.0.0", which we know represents every IP address between 102.54.0.0 and 102.54.255.255. That's called CIDR notation, and it's handy because not every ISP uses the same subnet size: 24 bits is common (102.54.7.0/24 represents every address between 102.54.7.0 and 102.54.7.255), and there are odd lengths like 19 bits (102.54.0.0/19 represents every address from 102.54.0.0 to 102.54.31.255).

In IPv4, typically while you're connected you will have the same IP address, but if you disconnect and re-connect, your ISP might assign a different address within the same subnet, so you might go from 102.54.9.33 to 102.54.136.12. Vandals exploit that to evade blocks, so administrators are able to block a range of addresses instead of chasing each new connection individually.

IPv4 has a theoretical maximum of about four billion addresses, so about fifteen years ago the internet started to move towards IPv6, which is a 128-bit IP address that looks like 2403:106:34f7:fe8:3e8a:2341:17:1a46, with a theoretical limit of about 340 undecillion addresses, or 2¹²⁸. Because there are so many addresses available, it's become a standard for ISPs to assign an entire 64-bit block of addresses to one end-user, and then because each 64-bit group is still about 18 pentillion addresses, any individual user typically keeps the first half of their IP address over a long period of time, while the last half changes sometimes from one minute to the next without the user doing anything. For our purposes we really only need to think about the first 64 bits of the address and can ignore the rest, which we write as 2403:106:34f7:fe8:0:0:0:0/64, or we can shorten that even further to 2403:106:34f7:fe8::/64, with the double-colon basically saying "the rest doesn't matter".

Since it's a pretty widespread standard for IPv6 networks to be addressed this way, administrators typically skip straight to blocking the entire /64 range for disruptive IPv6 users. We still have the ability to block larger ranges (smaller subnets) for users who exploit address-switching, but it's not as simple to do with IPv6. You shouldn't need to know this for reporting, though: when a user has a complaint about an anonymous IPv6 user, admins should know to deal with the range.

I hope that helps! Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

JayCubby

Hello, I wanted to contact you about something. I saw that you blanked the user page of this editor after they were blocked in April -- they have since been unblocked per WP:SO. Would you be OK with it being restored, seeing as how they are no longer blocked? As a non-administrator, I typically try to avoid editing other editors' user pages, but I did want to ask you as you were the admin who blanked the page. Thank you. JeffSpaceman (talk) 14:50, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

@JeffSpaceman: well, I blanked it really as a matter of taste - the only thing "wrong" with it is that it reminds me of a Geocities website circa 1994, but there's no policy against that. I'd be inclined to let the user do what they want with their userpage, but I can't give you a reason why you shouldn't restore it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:55, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

OK, I appreciate you explaining your issue with it. I found the user page to be one of the most unique on here myself, hence why I wanted to ask you. I think I'll probably ask the user themselves what if they'd like it restored, and go from there. Thank you for the response. JeffSpaceman (talk) 00:04, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Clarification regarding protection

Hey Ivanvector. I stumbled across something that had me curious, so I thought it best to follow up with you about it. A user requested protection for their user space, which you granted, stating This is a regular admin action, you're allowed to request protection of your own user page, regardless of what's on it. I'm not requesting it be removed or anything, but I don't believe I'm seeing this reflected at WP:UPROT. I'm hung up on the text there, which states User pages and subpages within their own user space can be protected upon a request from the user, as long as a need exists. Pages within the user space should not be automatically or preemptively protected without good reason or cause. In the instance of the user who's page was protected, there had only been 3 edits by someone other than one edit by an admin based on WP:POLEMIC, one userbox "fix", and a global renamer moving the page, all of which predates the protection by a bit over a year. There's also only a single hit in the abuse filter log for that page, made by the user themselves. I guess what I'm looking for is clarity whether this is actually something we're okay to do with user pages without a need existing. If so, I think the text at WP:UPROT should be changed a bit to reflect this. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:39, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh: hmm, seems I never read that section very closely. My own page has been protected a few different times just because I asked; I guess I thought that just asking was reason enough, but the policy does seem to say otherwise. To me, a user page "belongs" to the editor moreso than other pages on the site, and if they want to protect it at a reasonable level then I'll do it for them. We already have a filter blocking anon and new editors from editing other editors' user pages, which is effectively the same as semiprotection, so escalating to EC at a user's request seems reasonable to me just because they bothered to ask. I'm not sure if any changes should be made to the policy but it's not something I can take on now anyway. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:12, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not as active protecting pages as I could be, and I was confused based on that wording, so I wanted to see if I was perhaps reading that wrong. Again, not asking for the protection to be removed, just saw something I thought was odd and wanted to take an opportunity to try to learn. I do generally share your view that a page should be protected if the user wishes, and it's certainly a common enough practice among admins, but I think I'll personally stick with not protecting user pages unless a need is demonstrated, based on my limited experience and comfort in that area. Thanks for the reply, I appreciate it! Hey man im josh (talk) 15:30, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Unblock appeal by User:HackerKnownAs

Hi. Checking in to see if you have any further views on this unblock appeal. To be blunt I don't believe their story and would be inclined to prevent further dispruption by declining the request and suggesting a "standard offer." But happy to leave it with you given your previous involvement and greater knowledge of the case. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:36, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

@Euryalus: I'm not sure how you read that - CU supports their explanation, I can't say more without breaking privacy but it lines up. The explanation itself is not great but they've apologized to the user they were attacking, and the exchange between the two of them seems genuine. A few days ago they said they're attending a conference and asked for time to prepare a proper response, and I was just going to let them have it. They've been a productive editor up to this incident, and I can't tell you what to do but I don't think that dropping the standard offer on them now is really going to help anyone. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:43, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, will leave it with you. -- Euryalus (talk) 17:37, 23 November 2024 (UTC)