User talk:Ivanvector

SCAM WARNING! If you have been contacted or solicited by anyone asking for payment to get a draft into article space, improve a draft, or restore a deleted article, such offers are not legitimate and you should contact paid-en-wpwikipedia.org immediately. Please see this page for more information.

Welcome to my talk page!

If you are adding a new comment section, please post your new topic at the bottom of this page.
If your comment is about an article, please consider adding the comment to the article's talk page, instead of adding it here. Wikipedia is a community effort, and other editors might have valuable opinions. You could add a comment here to let me know about your comment on the article's talk page. If I think your comment is about an article I may move it there and leave a note here saying I did so.
I absolutely hate conversations that thread across multiple pages. If you add a comment here, I will reply here. If I left a comment on your talk page and you reply here, I will move your reply back to your talk page. Please add this page to your watchlist to be informed when I reply.
Thanks for stopping by!

⇒ Start a new Talk topic.

Click here to email me. Emails sent through this form are private, however I may share their content privately with other users for administrative purposes. Please do not use {{ygm}} on this page: if you email me I will have already received an on-wiki notification.

This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be auto-archived by if there are more than 5.

Brise de Mer

Gang de la Brise de Mer−This information about over 3-4 thousand members of the BdM gang is nonsense, this number was about 100 before the breakup, Wikipedia is really trash — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarcinTorun1971 (talk • contribs) 17:45, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MarcinTorun1971: I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, but thank you for finally making an effort to communicate. If you have spotted an error and want to suggest a correction, please see WP:EDITREQUEST for a guide on suggesting an edit on an article's talk page. I am busy today but if I check back later and see that you have posted a talk page question or suggestion, I will try to assist. Cheers. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:54, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. 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 2025 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) 00:32, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Suspicious linkspam possible-sockpuppet

Hi Ivanvector -- thank you for your help with User:Saratherohan's linkspam! From what I can tell, User:Mohanunnu has picked up exactly where they left off. Any chance you'd be willing to step in there as well, please? If that's inappropriate to ask of you directly, I'm also totally willing to take this to whatever noticeboard is most appropriate. Thanks! -- Avocado (talk) 14:24, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HackerKnownAs

Would you consider lifting the corresponding block on SirGallantThe4th as well? Or would you prefer for them to make an appeal? -- asilvering (talk) 01:49, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering: definitely not without an appeal. I don't think it would take much to convince me to unblock them, but they need to make the effort. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:15, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No confidence

I won’t be editing the remigration article anymore, because you (plural) have established firm, uncompromising, and non-neutral ownership there. The ability to do so is Wikipedia's greatest flaw, greatest temptation, and greatest danger. I don't know if its founders would agree, but at least one of them likely would. When the slightest effort at neutrality is opposed by a block of biased editors, and so many editors have given up trying, it's futile to resist. Consider this a vote of no confidence in you (and Wikipedia). Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:59, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Block reason for Vinluna

Your block reason contains a redlink to WP:LLMCHAT. Is there a target intended there, perhaps WP:LLMCOMM? If so, that feels like a valid redirect and should probably be created. ~ Matthewrb ^{Get in touch · Breadcrumbs} 19:30, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Matthewrb: yeah, I screwed that up. I did mean to link to LLMCOMM, but there's no preview for block summaries and they can't be edited, I figured the point was obvious anyway. I wasn't sure if LLMCHAT was valid as a shortcut, but I can't think of any other uses either, so go ahead if you'd like. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:33, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanvector: Yeah, the block system feels stuck in 2012 in that way. You'd think there would at least be a preview.

I've gone ahead and created the shortcut BOLDly. Thank you for your time! ~ Matthewrb ^{Get in touch · Breadcrumbs} 19:41, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ivan,

Thankyou for taking the bull by the horns so to speak. I just had one query, did you block them as a regular adminstrative action or are they CBAN'ed? TarnishedPath^talk 05:50, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I still personally hold to the view that blocks are merely a technical function used to enforce sanctions more commonly known as bans, and the banning policy is the only policy which grants the community authority to issue sanctions, therefore all community sanctions are de jure bans. Language in the policy supports this (under WP:CBAN: "Editors who are indefinitely blocked by community consensus, or remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community, are considered "banned by the Wikipedia community.") That language developed from this discussion, but I'll warn you in advance that I'm at the absolute height of my pedantry in that discussion; one editor called my comments "hyperlegalistic" and they weren't wrong at all.

But community practice doesn't always follow the letter of policy, and that's by design. I would say that unless the participants in that discussion had explicitly proposed a site ban, it's likely that if an administrator decided to unblock on their own without having a new community discussion, probably nobody would complain.

That's a lot of words for me to say this should be treated like a regular admin action. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:00, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. Words are good. TarnishedPath^talk 13:06, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]