Wikipedia talk:WikiProject IPv6 Readiness

WT:IPv6

user vs IP detection

bugzilla:15352 mentions a hack to detect a username vs ip address.

{{#ifeq:{{lc:{{PAGENAME}}}}|{{uc:{{PAGENAME}}}}|IP|not IP}}

Is this being used anywhere? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd expect that hack is already broken for any username in entirely non-ASCII text, such as Chinese or Japanese Unicode characters. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 06:56, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What about new IPv6-parsed addresses...or at least usernames that look like them? (Like mine, but more maliciously!) Anyone have a quick link to the repo section that handles that stuff? I'd be interested to review it... (Edit: and one more thing to consider...if you don't have whatever the secure non-MAC extension thingy is enabled, your MAC address becomes the last /64 of your IP...even between networks, potentially. keep that in mind when you consider this type of proposal, too; although then we have to consider the implications of tracking or possibly even displaying that.) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 07:29, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RFC

I've opened an RFC at User talk:Jasper Deng/IPv6.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:14, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IPv6 edits

Users here may be interested to note that we have at least one edit from an IPv6 address: while performing some testing, User:Catrope made edits from ::1 (talk · contribs). Since nothing went "bang", IPv6 seems to work on enwiki. (BTW, is there any way we could get {{user-multi}} to normalise IPv6 addresses?) — This, that, and the other (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

heres one more -- 2A02:2770:0:0:21A:4AFF:FEB4:8B00 (talk) 13:22, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are consecutive 0s not collapsed at all, right now? (I think the rule is, greatest number of consecutive 0s wins, rightmost for a tiebreaker?...or is it first rightmost set?) But then we have the alternate of never compressing in the first /64...which would preclude the above user from being compressed. (And that's kind of the "normal" behavior I've seen with networks, even if there is something compressible in the leftmost /64...e.g., the above rule applies, but only to the last /64.) If someone wants to point me at a source code link for the parser that'd be appreciated, since I have no clue where that stuff is... :) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 07:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We support IPv6, right?

This article seems to suggest that Wikipedia does not support IPv6, but I've seen edits by IPv6 anon users! Is the article wrong, or do I just not understand it? -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 20:05, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blatantly wrong article. We do support IPv6.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:13, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Make edit summaries longer

Just reverted one of these monster IP addresses twice and because the username is so long, it cut off most of the content from my edit summary. There's barely any space left. Could we make edit summaries longer, or maybe just shorten the userlink in rollback summaries to the first few characters followed by ...? So rather than "Reverted 1 edit by 2001:638:504:C07C:4C24:7E1B:E3F5:130C (talk):", "Reverted 1 edit by 2001:638... (talk):" - filelake shoe 12:08, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abbreviating the IP address could be helpful. Going down to about the level you described limits us to just the ISP possibly, or maybe just the registry region, or possibly even less...so I don't think we'd want to do that. We could cut off the last /64 though, as far as basic display goes...so something like that becomes "2001:638:504:C07C*/64" or "C07C..." or whatever maybe, with some way to expand it. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 07:32, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, 6 Jun 2012 was passed...what still needs to be done?

I'm coming in a bit late to this...but really, what needs to be done IPv6-wise? – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 04:01, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of user-written scripts and tools are broken and need updating, plus we need new policies addressing changes brought by IPv6.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:04, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What needs updating that's in publicly-accessible user space? And yes, Wikipedia in need of IPv6 updates; 2620::860/46 (as I currently see advertised, though this has changed a bunch) is in need of proper routing and BGP advertising...

So, that part is pretty straightforward...is there a useful IRC channel or other method to figure out how to integrate all the IPv6 stuff now? – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 04:10, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think BGP sessions for several subnets (probably not all of the /46) are working fine because IPv6 is on right now. Bugzilla (search for "IPv6") has issues requiring developer attnention, except for on-wiki gadgets that need fixing by their writers.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:19, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems some recent OS X update has caused IPv4 to be preferred, when IPv6 was preferred in the past...confused me as far as that part goes. I can get to it fine from a couple different remote locations that have native IPv6, so that's all good compared to a few months back. :) – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 07:51, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IPv6 is blocked but IPv4 is not blocked

Trijnstel has blocked whole big Czech ISP (wedos.com) 2A02:2B88/32 and she refuses to block IPv4 range of the same ISP 46.28.104.0/21. (Whether the ISP should be blocked or not is off-topic here.) This means users like me have to turn off IPv6 for Wikipedia so that one can edit. I do not find right Wikipedia is degraded for IPv6-enabled users. The reported IPv6 attacker can use IPv4 if s/he ever repeats the attack again. So IMO all blocks should always apply to both IPv4 and IPv6 the same, is it a right policy? Jankratochvil (talk) 20:23, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]