User talk:83.61.231.21

Thank you

Thank you for the undos. I'm being more careful to check every revert now, because Livio had a habit of undoing his sockpuppets sometimes and confusing the issue. Elizium23 (talk) 13:46, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

KingPhoto

I am not 100% sure but I believe KingPhoto is a sock of you-know-who, and he seems to be reactivating. Elizium23 (talk) 00:20, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

@Elizium23: That is because he was never blocked. If you review that he continues uploading files and imposing them among projects, I'll suggest you to report him first in Commons. 83.61.231.21 11:45, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

@Elizium23: I found a possible ghost sock –or sleeping sock– who was never reviewed too. Their name's style remember to that user by an older confirmed sock, but I'm not 100% sure and I don't want to presume bad faith if I'm wrong about this, because this user can also be a completely different new one and may be nothin related with you-know-who. But I think asking for checking or similar might help. 83.61.231.21 09:48, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, this is a difficult case. He has only ever (cross-wiki included) made one edit, which is that photo upload. But it is intriguing that the photo upload is exactly the same as one Commonists made there. Who knows how many sleepers there are? Why didn't CheckUser catch them? Oh, I know. Whack-a-Mole city. Elizium23 (talk) 16:47, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Frankly at this point, my dear IPv4 friend, I don't give a damn. I only chase abusers insofar as it helps the administrators and the overall community. In the case of this dude, the community has made it crystal clear that they really don't mind him uploading lovely new photos, and as far as administrators go, they can't do a blessed thing to stop this guy, they really can't. So why should I waste time and effort on this? It's terrible for my mental health. You know what these socks do is that they push good editors to do bad things. I was blocked on enwiki, in part because I allowed some abusers to get the better of me and push me over the edge. I do not appreciate that kind of stuff because I value my good standing here and on Commons, and I intend to stay in good standing. If that means not vainly Don Quixoting sockpuppets all over the place, then so be it. Elizium23 (talk) 16:56, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Unblock

Unblock request granted This blocked user asked to be unblocked, and one or more administrators has reviewed and granted this request. 83.61.231.21 block log • ipblocklist • crossblock • luxo's • unblock • remove gblock • contribs: +/-

---

Request reason:

@Multichill: I was not treating to vandalize, but adding a new different painting. You can see that an older entry for this painting already exists (here, to which I imported the RKDimages ID, pendant painting and iconclass locations ([1]). Please, consider to unblock me, because, appart from this incident, I only made constructive editions and, if you cannot allow me to change this duplicate, then please consider to almost merge it with Q18686035. Sincerely. 83.61.231.21 23:04, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Unblock reason:

Seems to be an editor mistake instead of intentional vandalism. Never ever try to re-use an item for something else. That's something we never want on Wikidata and will be seen as vandalism (as in this case). If you intend to edit more paintings, can you create an account? Multichill (talk) 12:14, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

This template should be archived normally.

---

беларуская (тарашкевіца) | български | čeština | English | español | français | македонски | português | português do Brasil | русский | svenska | 中文 | +/−

Editing from 83.61.231.21 has been blocked (disabled) by ‪Multichill‬ for the following reason(s):

Vandalism

This block (ID #45465) has been set to expire: 22:54, 17 May 2023. 83.61.231.21 23:33, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Administrator's noticeboard discussion

Greetings, your case is under discussion at WD:AN#Block review for 83.61.231.21. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 09:24, 11 May 2023 (UTC)