Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Belteshazzar

Belteshazzar ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)

04 September 2021

Suspected sockpuppets

Same POV at same article ( Bates method), after the sockmaster got indeffed. tgeorgescu ( talk) 15:46, 4 September 2021 (UTC) reply

I've the same concerns. Thank you writing this up. -- Hipal ( talk) 20:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC) reply
Okay, diffs: [1], [2]. What they have in common? They both claim that the word ineffective would violate encyclopedic neutrality. tgeorgescu ( talk) 02:19, 5 September 2021 (UTC) reply
@ Jmc: I saw that the signatures are different, but way of signing and style of writing can be faked. Also, two out of three editors have been indeffed in a very short time, so that raises eyebrows. Or there is a possibility wherein husband and wife are both editing from the same IP, it purportedly happened to the anti-porn activists Gary Wilson and Marnia Robinson. tgeorgescu ( talk) 02:37, 6 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

I tend to think there's not sockpuppetry here. I say that principally because of what I see as significant stylistic differences. Also, in the case of AlisonCary, their contribution history shows a range of different individual interests. There are many followers of the Bates method out there who are intent on resisting its characterisation as ineffective, so it's no surprise to me that we have a number of different people sharing the same agenda. -- Jmc ( talk) 19:59, 5 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • I believe these are three different people with similar POV/agendas, but not necessarily coordinating. Closing without action. GeneralNotability ( talk) 13:41, 7 September 2021 (UTC) reply

26 October 2021

Suspected sockpuppets


Belteshazzar is indef blocked on Wikipedia for their disruption on the Bates method related articles. Belteshazzar was blocked from editing on 26 June 2021 but was active on their talk-page until September 6.

Sslad created their account on 3 September. Both Belteshazzar and Sslad make the same long type of edit summaries on articles related to the Bates method for example [3] compared to [4].

Both these accounts have edited the Pseudomyopia, an article that not many users have edited. Based on the history of that article there is very little traffic there but both make the same sort of trivial edits. Both accounts have also edited the Presbyopia article and both accounts have made an edit on the Aldous Huxley. This is very suspect because they edit exactly the same articles out of millions of others that they could be editing. If you check the history of the Bates method [5] which Sslad is currently editing they are making trivial edits. This is something that Belteshazzar resorted to in their later edits before they were blocked.

Another piece of behavioral evidence for me though not as strong is Sslad editing the Li Ching-Yuen article on [6] 18 September. However, I had edited this article exactly a day before. You can see their edit directly after mine. I am not convinced this is a coincidence. Belteshazzar blames me and another user for reporting their account and getting them banned and this user used to edit some of the same articles as me because they looked at what I was editing. In conclusion I am convinced this account is Belteshazzar. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 16:10, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

I was interested in treatments for presbyopia, and noticed that a link did not lead to the cited paper, hence I created an account and fixed it. I don't think I had ever heard of the Bates method until I looked at the edits of AlisonCary, who had also recently edited Presbyopia. I then learned about the Bates method, and followed other related pages and users who had edited that article, including Belteshazzar. I may well have found Li Ching-Yuen via Psychologist Guy's recent editing history, and I may have originally found Pseudomyopia via Belteshazzar's history, though I had previously heard of pseudomyopia in connection to presbyopia, which apparently works against it by stopping accommodation. I recently found a source cited at Bates method which was indicated to be freely available at the doi link, but it wasn't, so I found a link where it was freely available and changed the citation. I don't know why that would be considered "trivial". Sslad ( talk) 21:16, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Well the thing is, I haven't edited the Bates method article in a while. Its unlikely you would randomly come across my account as you would have to scroll through a few pages of edits. It's unlikely a new user would do this or take that kind of interest in looking at hundreds of old edits in the page history then randomly single out my account.
If you check the history of the Bates method article [7] I have not been on there in a long time, you would have to go to the second page of edits to find a single edit I made. You say you "may" have found pseudomyopia through looking at Belteshazzar's edit history but this for me does not add up either. Belteshazzar last made edits on that article on 27 June 2020‎ since then no other editor has edited that article apart from you. That is suspicious because it is a low-traffic article that no user has taken any interest in and you would not have come across that article from his recent edit history, you would have to scroll back months.
The Bates method article does not mention the term "Pseudomyopia" so you were not linked to that article from editing another article, nor does the article Pseudomyopia mention Presbyopia or vice versa. So you would have to had previous knowledge about these words before editing the Wiki and as stated - Belteshazzar had edited these exact same articles, just not recently. In conclusion it is very unlikely you clicked on Belteshazzar's edit history and found these articles because this user edited these topics months ago those edits are not in that users recent history. I believe you are the same person based on this evidence. Why else are you editing the same articles?
Your first edit was on the Presbyopia article [8] (which Belteshazzar also edited) and you are making the same sort of edits that Belteshazzar made and leaving similar edit summaries. Strange things do happen indeed, but seriously you are editing exactly the same articles as that user did and making very similar edits. For me something is definitely suspicious about all this and that is why this SPI was filed. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 21:57, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Your reply to AlisonCary is still on the first page of the talk page history. As for pseudomyopia, I was probably looking at the talk page archives or the edit history of the Bates method article itself, where Belteshazzar tried to introduce or reintroduce it. Here, for example. Sslad ( talk) 22:21, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

17 December 2021

Suspected sockpuppets

LaLeLiLou is an obvious Belteshazzar sock-puppet. Belteshazzar was blocked for their disruptive edits related to Bates method and Pseudomyopia.

  • LaLeLilou edited the Margaret Darst Corbett article [9] an obscure article with not many other editors, this was a target of Belteshazzar [10] which you can see in the edit history.
  • LaleLiLous left a comment [11] on a user talk-page that mentions the Stephen Jones (attorney) article. If you check this article Belteshazzar had edited it [12]. It is a low-level traffic article with hardly any recent editors.
  • LaLeLiLou left a comment on the pseudomypia talk-page [13], the same place Belteshazzar left a comment (no other editor has ever commented there)
  • LaLeLiLou now editing the Bates method talk-page [14] Psychologist Guy ( talk) 21:12, 17 December 2021 (UTC) reply
Based on behavioural evidence I am convinced this account is Belteshazzar because of the edits on Margaret Corbett, Bates method, pseudomypia and comment about Stephen Jones (these are four articles that Belteshazzar edited), it's unlikely a brand new user would edit just these articles, several of these are low-traffic with virtually no other editors. This user was previously using the account Sslad (blocked on 26 October 2021). This same user also has a history of checking my recent user history and then editing an article I have edited in the last 12-24 hours. I noted this in the last SPI I filed against Belteshazzar on their account Sslad. It can be seen on the recent edit on the sunflower oil talk-page with the account LaLeLilou. I edited the talk-page of this article and within 24 hours LaLeLilLou edited it. The user did this many times on the Belteshazzar account as well. I never filed a checkuser because I suspected this user was using a proxy IP because its likely their home IP address is still check-user blocked. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 20:03, 18 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • CheckUser requested and endorsed by clerk - the behavioural evidence is highly suspicious, but given the small number of edits, I'd like Checkuser to confirm. Thanks, Spicy ( talk) 18:06, 18 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  •  In progress - -- TNT ( talk • she/they) 18:52, 18 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  •  On hold - proxy use, going to check back on this ​ -- TNT ( talk • she/they) 18:58, 18 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Proxy use, no further logins, so  Inconclusive -- TNT ( talk • she/they) 23:15, 20 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • The behaviour documented above, plus the apparent attempts to evade CU, convince me that this is Belteshazzar evading their block. Pink clock Awaiting administrative action - please indef LaLeLiLou. Thanks, Spicy ( talk) 04:37, 21 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Blocked per request. Bbb23 ( talk) 14:34, 21 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Sock tagged, closing. GAB gab 19:14, 21 December 2021 (UTC) reply

30 March 2022

Suspected sockpuppets

  • I have previously filed an SPI against Belteshazzar. His socks are quite easy to identify because he edits a specific area Bates method and pseudomyopia/presbyopia related articles. If you check the pseudomyopia talk-page history [15] which hardly any users have ever edited, he has used the socks Belteshazzar and LaLeLiLou in the past. The new account PseudoReview reads as an obvious Belteshazzar sock to me where this user has put review papers on the talk-page previously. Compare PseudoReview's edit [16] on the talk-page to LaLeLiLou's [17]. Both accounts use the term "review article" and only use the talk-page. I think it is obvious this is likely the same user. The user has also edited the Presbyopia article and William Bates (physician) which Belteshazzar has edited.
  • It should also be noted that PseudoReview has been involved in canvassing i.e. leaving messages on 3 users talk-pages. Odd behavior for a new user considering this was their very first edits. How would they know these other users Wikipedia accounts? The answer to that is because Belteshazzar has mentioned those very specific usernames before on the Bates method talk-page and if you check each one of these user talk-pages, Belteshazzar had previously contacted them, for example Ajeeshkumar4u's talk-page [18] and SamuelTheGhost [19] etc.

I suspect that Belteshazzar's IP address still might be check-user blocked and he is using VPN's which a previous SPI found. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 13:05, 30 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • Doesn't need a Checkuser. Blocked as a sock of Belteshazzar. Black Kite (talk) 17:37, 30 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Tagged, closing. Thanks, Spicy ( talk) 20:59, 30 March 2022 (UTC) reply

26 August 2022

Suspected sockpuppets

I have filed 3 SPI's against Belteshazzar in the past, all have been successful in blocking his socks so I am familiar with this user. It is not worth doing CU here as Belteshazzar is stale but I believe there is good behavioural evidence to block these accounts. As seen in the previous filings, Belteshazzar edits the Bates method, Aldous Huxley and Pseudomyopia related articles. However, as these articles are now heavily watched; this user has resorted to only making the occasional trivial edit on these articles but following me and editing any article I edit usually within 24 hours or 2 days of me editing an article (I have raised this in two previous SPI's), it is a very distinct type of editing behaviour. The user always leaves their user-page red, edits at the same times, makes similar edit summaries and makes very trivial edits.

SixteenSquared joined Wikipedia on 1 February 2022 to edit PaleoNeonate/Pitfalls ‎essay on pseudoscience [20] which is odd behaviour for a brand new user and PaleoNeonate also commented the behaviour is suspect. If you check out Belteshazzar's long term disruption on the Bates method talk-page you will see that Belteshazzar was debating many users about the Bates Method being characterized as ineffective or pseudoscience and one of these users he debated was PaleoNeonate, example [21]. SixteenSquared's interest in PaleoNeonate's essay is thus not a random occurrence. If you look at SixteenSquared's edits on that essay they are actually all trivial, a pattern that matches his editing.

On August 11 this user edited the Bates Method [22]. On the same day they edited Book of Dzyan, John A. McDougall, Jean Overton Fuller, ‎ C. E. Bechhofer Roberts. Note that I edited all these articles first on August 11, adding content. Within a few hours SixteenSquared edited all of these articles making tiny edits, for example check the page history of Book of Dzyan, Jean Overton Fuller and C. E. Bechhofer Roberts [23], [24], [25]. This user has a long history of looking at my edits, then going to the same articles I have edited and making trivial edits to them. On August 25, this was done again on Peter Anthony Bertocci [26]. The Bertocci article had not been edited since 2020 when I edited it on August 25, yet within hours SixteenSquared is editing it. As said this is very distinct and odd editing behaviour that I have raised in the previous SPI. It is clearly Belteshazzar, no other user does this. SixteenSquared also made an edit on Aldous Huxley an article which most of his socks have made edits on.

The same editing behaviour has occurred on Small Jars Lack Gold, an account that I was going to file an SPI against in January 2022 but the account was abandoned so I didn't bother. This account was created on 2 January 2022 with the first edits on Wikipedia_talk:Increase_your_chances [27] using the same writing style as Belteshazzar [28]. I am very familiar with how Belteshazzar writes, and that is definitely the same user. Again what is interesting here are the trivial edits on Evan Shute [29], Claus W. Jungeblut [30] and Great Amherst Mystery. These are all articles I have edited, yet Small Jars Lack Gold also edits them directly after me, making small edits to pronunciation or removing apostrophes. This is clearly Belteshazzar who has a history of doing this, clicking on my account then editing the same articles. This same user, did this on his previous socks Sslad [31] and LaLeLiLou [32].

If you check Small Jars Lack Gold's account history, there is the similar theme of making one off edits on William Bates (physician) and vision therapy. Both these accounts have the same editing pattern. This account also edited Alexbrn/A_POV_that_draws_a_source [33]. This is unlikely to be random. Belteshazzar dislikes the user Alexbrn who he encountered on the Bates method talk-page.

It should also be noted that if you look at the edit summaries of Small Jars Lack Gold and SixteenSquared they use exactly the same phrasing and writing style and also using quotation marks [34], [35], [36] and [37].

Belteshazzar on two of his blocked socks has commented that he is improving the website by fixing grammar or pronunciation and other minor edits, however, this user is blocked here. This user is not acting in good faith by repeatedly creating new accounts every few months to make minor edits on articles I have edited. I believe it is fair that his socks are blocked. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 20:26, 26 August 2022 (UTC) reply

  • SixteenSquared is continuing to make trivial edits on every article I edit, this is creepy to say the least but Belteshazzar is the only user obsessed with doing this, recent examples today on Paul Carton [38] and Frederick William Evans [39]. You only need to check the history of these articles to see that I have edited them and no other user has taken recent interest in them. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 10:46, 27 August 2022 (UTC) reply
SixteenSquared is aware of this SPI and as misdirection is now making trivial edits on articles that Drmies and GeneralNotability have recently edited, examples [40], [41], [42] Psychologist Guy ( talk) 10:51, 27 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

On the off-chance of something showing up I looked at 162 but found no other accounts--though I did see use of a proxy. Perhaps GeneralNotability has the memory of an elephant--they checked them last year. For me, it will have to be based on behavior, and I see that this is what Black Kite did last time--Black Kite, you mind having a quick look? Drmies ( talk) 20:35, 26 August 2022 (UTC) reply

I'm no Big Al today, sorry. Agree that there are proxies afoot here, but logs have the past account as probably not on a proxy, so nothing I can really add. GeneralNotability ( talk) 20:49, 26 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Speaking of creepy, now they're following me around-- [43], [44], [45], [46]. That kind of stuff is already enough reason to block. GeneralNotability, you too. Drmies ( talk) 14:38, 27 August 2022 (UTC) reply

  • I agree the behavioural link is strong, especially when combined with the proxy use. Not that it matters, given that – sock or not – there is no excuse for creepyposting of this sort.  Blocked and tagged. Closing. -- Blablubbs ( talk) 16:17, 27 August 2022 (UTC) reply

12 December 2022

Suspected sockpuppets

I have filed quite a few sock-puppet investigations against Belteshazzar and all have been successful in blocking this users socks. After they are blocked they usually turn up on a new account within a month or two. I am familiar with this users editing interests and style going back a few years. DefThree is a newish account created on 24 October 2022. If you check DefThree's edits they are a perfect match to Belteshazzar's socks. Belteshazzer's last blocked sock SixteenSquared was blocked on 27 August 2022.

Belteshazzar editing interests are all things related to the Bates Method and Myopia/ Pseudomyopia, Who Wants to be a Millionaire and various murders. When this user is not editing articles related to these topics, they make trivial edits on articles fixing spelling and on Wikipedia Essays. It is the same pattern of editing and edit summaries every-time.

DefThree has been editing Li Ching-Yuen, Bernarr Macfadden, Aldous Huxley, The Art of Seeing, Charles Ingram and mentioning Margaret Darst Corbett - these are all articles which Belteshazzar's blocked socks have edited. For example Belteshazzar edited the Charles Ingram article many times, just one example [47]. DefThree has been recently editing that article [48]. DefThree has been editing Aldous Huxley and The Art of Seeing - I have shown in previous SPIs that this users socks have been editing these articles but just take a look at the editing history [49] and you will see both Belteshazzar and DefThree making similar edits. The same is happening at Myopia. That is an article that Belteshazzar often spoke about many times. DefThree in a comment to SamuelTheGhost [50] has mentioned the article Margaret Darst Corbett. The Corbett article is low-traffic and is an interest of Belteshazzar's. Belteshazzer edited that article quite a few times and also edited it on their blocked sock LaLeLiLou [51]. They obviously won't touch that article because it is being watched but they are asking another user about it (SamuelTheGhost, an editor that Belteshazzar has contacted before).

As established in two of the previous SPI's - Belteshazzar has an obsession with checking my recent editing history and often edits articles I have created within two hours of me having done so. He makes very trivial edits attempting to move commas or fix spelling mistakes. On the 31 October I filed an SPI investigation against a different sock-puppeteer Dante8 [52] in my comment I listed the articles Timeline of reproductive rights legislation and Timeline of women's legal rights (other than voting) in the 20th century at a post at 2am in the morning. An hour later DefThree edits these articles [53], [54] at around 3am.

Another example on 23:15, 9 November 2022‎ I edited the Ancel Keys article within an hour later DefThree edits it [55]. This user does this many times. Another example is at Li Ching-Yuen where DefThree edited an hour after me on December 7.

Li Ching-Yuen is an article I first edited in 2021. A day after I edited that article Belteshazzar's edited it on his sock Sslad [56]. Since that time this user has edited that article on other socks, usually a day or so after I edit the article. A recent example is DefThree editing that article an hour after me [57]. The list goes on but it is clear this is all the same user per the same articles and editing interests.

Belteshazzar on their more recent socks SixteenSquared and Small Jars Lack Gold edits Wikipedia Essays making trivial edits to them. This is a perfect match to what DefThree has been doing on such essays as Wikipedia:Tendentious editing.

The clear give away to me is that DefThree has left a comment on SamuelTheGhost's talk-page [58]. I have raised this issue in a previous SPI where you will see that Belteshazzar's socks have also left comments to this user [59], [60].

I have no doubt that Belteshazzar and DefThree are the same user. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 13:30, 12 December 2022 (UTC) Psychologist Guy ( talk) 13:30, 12 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • Blocked, tagged, closing. Bbb23 ( talk) 13:58, 12 December 2022 (UTC) reply

24 December 2022

Suspected sockpuppets

User:DefThree was recently indeffed as a sock of Belteshazzar. User:Bbb23 reverted a load of their contributions. 200.17.137.40 shows up on some of the same articles and reinstates some of DefThree's changes, sometimes with minor differences, e.g. here, here and here. This looks like the same person anonymously trying to undo their reversions and also disruptively fiddling with policies to try to justify their behaviour. Finally, please note the blatantly dishonest edit summary here which is indicative of a deliberate attempt to avoid scrutiny by pretending to be doing something innocuous. DanielRigal ( talk) 02:31, 24 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • Blocked the IP for two weeks. Closing. Bbb23 ( talk) 02:52, 24 December 2022 (UTC) reply

11 January 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

This IP was blocked for 2 weeks back in December for being a sockpuppet of Belteshazzar. (Details: here.) Almost as soon as the block expired it started reverting the reversions of its edits and edits by other Belteshazzar socks. As always, it spends a lot of time fiddling with policy and instruction documents, sometimes making plausible minor corrections sometimes changing things substantially without discussion. Wikipedia:We shouldn't be able to figure out your opinions is the best example as you can see it reinstating its own reverted edit from before the block which was itself a reinstatement of an edit by User:DefThree, a previously blocked sock of Belteshazzar. The IP seems to be stable so I think a longer block is needed. DanielRigal ( talk) 09:48, 11 January 2023 (UTC) reply

This is definitely block evasion from Belteshazzar. Belteshazzar IP is probably still check-user blocked so they have resorted to proxy/vpn. 200.17.137.40 is a proxy. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 16:24, 11 January 2023 (UTC) reply
Thanks for reverting their edits. I was going to look at that once I had finished work. I see that you left the two harmless ones. I think that was the right thing to do. After this, they came back and did another revert, trying to argue in the edit summary, so I have reverted that too. I didn't look at the edit in any detail except to see that it was not an obvious and uncontroversial improvement. DanielRigal ( talk) 17:53, 11 January 2023 (UTC) reply
Also now editing User:PaleoNeonate/Pitfalls, which is an essay in userspace, and not in their user space either. That has also been fiddled with by a previous Belteshazzar sock, User:SixteenSquared. I've reverted. If PaleoNeonate wants to reinstate the edit then he can but Belteshazzar needs to leave it alone. DanielRigal ( talk) 18:00, 11 January 2023 (UTC) reply
There are at least three significant problems with the version of Porter and Jick that was restored. First, information is in the lede that is not mentioned in the body of the article, namely a co-author's first name and the date of publication. Secondly, "Methodological limitations from which the letter suffered" implies that there was a problem with the letter itself, whereas the only actual problem is the way it was misrepresented later. Third, the Jick quote at the end makes it sound like he is taking blame, whereas if you read it in context, he isn't taking blame, nor should he. 200.17.137.40 ( talk) 19:32, 11 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • IP blocked 3 months. Closing. Bbb23 ( talk) 19:37, 11 January 2023 (UTC) reply

15 January 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

Another IP reinstating reverted edits made by blocked IPs and sockpuppets belonging to Belteshazzar. e.g. this diff which reinstates an edit made by User:200.17.137.40 which was itself a reinstatement of some edits made by User:DefThree. They continue to argue the toss in their edit summaries. They are not getting the message that the content of their edits is no longer at issue because sockpuppetry and block evasion are not acceptable under any circumstances. DanielRigal ( talk) 23:27, 15 January 2023 (UTC) reply

If content is not at issue, then you should revert this edit also. 61.220.170.133 ( talk) 23:34, 15 January 2023 (UTC) reply
We are not here to play stupid games with you. You need to stop wasting everybody's time. Find a new hobby. DanielRigal ( talk) 23:37, 15 January 2023 (UTC) reply
You're the one wasting time, by reverting and reporting perfectly good edits. 61.220.170.133 ( talk) 23:40, 15 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • IP blocked one week. Closing. Bbb23 ( talk) 00:05, 16 January 2023 (UTC) reply

17 January 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

Another IP sock reinstating the reverted edits by various other Belteshazzar socks. Please can we get semi-protection on all their main targets so that they can't keep doing this with IPs? DanielRigal ( talk) 11:56, 17 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Any admin considering page protection should seriously consider the content of the edits, which only fixed problems (including borderline BLP issues at Porter and Jick) and added useful content. 190.220.8.90 ( talk) 16:15, 17 January 2023 (UTC) reply
None of us are getting paid. We don't have time to review your bullshit. You know that your behaviour is prohibited here and yet you continue. You are disrupting other people who could actually be doing some good. You clearly have no respect for Wikipedia and are cynically using your more innocuous edits purely as as way to probe the limits of what you can get away with before going back to making disruptive edits again. This is an encyclopaedia not a playground. You need to go and play somewhere else. DanielRigal ( talk) 16:35, 17 January 2023 (UTC) reply
I'm helping people, by making pages easier to understand. If you want to do good, don't waste your time summarily reverting good edits. 190.220.8.90 ( talk) 16:45, 17 January 2023 (UTC) reply
No. You are not helping anybody. You know that you are not. You are just abusing Wikipedia for your own amusement. You know this! We know this! Nobody is fooled by your insincere attempts at self-justification. Go away! Stay away! -- DanielRigal ( talk) 16:48, 17 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Recent IP socks of Belteshazzar have used IPs in Argentina, Brazil and Taiwan. Are there some proxy ranges we need to be blocking? -- DanielRigal ( talk) 16:57, 17 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • Blocked IP for 3 days. I don't see an obvious range to block. Page protection should be requested at WP:RFPP, but I'm not sure it will be granted. Closing. Bbb23 ( talk) 17:14, 17 January 2023 (UTC) reply

17 January 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

Turns up on the request for page protection to try to argue the toss as if being a blatant sock of a blocked user wasn't even an issue. Same old nonsense. Same old chutzpah. DanielRigal ( talk) 20:55, 17 January 2023 (UTC) reply

You're acting like content isn't even an issue. You and the others have never actually commented on the content of those edits. 103.103.3.6 ( talk) 21:03, 17 January 2023 (UTC) reply
You don't like the way Wikipedia works. Wikipedia doesn't like the way you work. Obvious solution: Go somewhere else! Other websites exist. DanielRigal ( talk) 21:14, 17 January 2023 (UTC) reply
Belteshazzar, per WP:EVADE (which you should read), users can revert your edits because you are blocked. Whilst it is true you have fixed some minor grammar issues your overall net contribution to this website has been negative so users will revert you. You have had many accounts causing disruption. You have annoyed too many admins and experienced users. We do not need to support you or your edits, you are pest here. You are not doing good on this website. It's time for you to move on and stop turning up every few months on different accounts and IPs making the same edits. Just cut it out and move on with your life. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 23:02, 17 January 2023 (UTC) reply
Thanks for pointing me to that. "While reverting edits, take care not to reinstate material that may be in violation of such core policies as Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons." Glad to see that actually is policy. That also supports the essay edits you reverted here. 103.103.3.6 ( talk) 00:12, 18 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • Blocked IP for one month, partly for socking and partly because it's an obvious proxy. Closing. Bbb23 ( talk) 01:03, 18 January 2023 (UTC) reply

18 January 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

Reinstating edits by previous socks, yet again. Same old same old... DanielRigal ( talk) 18:08, 18 January 2023 (UTC) reply

More concerning is that you keep restoring borderline BLP violations at Porter and Jick. 23.225.72.125 ( talk) 18:15, 18 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • IP proxy blocked one month. Closing. Bbb23 ( talk) 18:24, 18 January 2023 (UTC) reply

21 January 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

Block evasion from Belteshazzar who is continuing to use a VPN to evade his block. He's now on the talk-page of Addiction Rare in Patients Treated with Narcotics [61], at his usual obsession Charles Ingram and is again stalking my recent editing history and editing articles I have edited, i.e. [62]. There is no doubt this is Belteshazzar. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 15:06, 21 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

I also notice that that IP has made edits to a couple of articles that I have been involved with and which Belteshazzar has previously shown no interest in. I wouldn't call it stalking in my case, at least not yet, but that does corroborate what Psychologist Guy was saying. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 20:28, 21 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

28 January 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

Obvious block-evasion from Belteshazzar who is continuing to use a VPN service to evade his block and edit Addiction Rare in Patients Treated with Narcotics, Charles Ingram, Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep etc. His tactic now appears to make only 1 edit and then change IP. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 19:58, 28 January 2023 (UTC) reply

The IPs he is using are proxy IPs. I Googled 61.220.170.133 this was an IP he was previously using and now it appears a different user is using it. When you look that IP up it is listed on the website free-proxy-list.net which offers a VPN service, so this is likely what Belteshazzar is using. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 11:17, 29 January 2023 (UTC) reply
Belteshazzar is still using 61.220.170.133, Margaret Darst Corbett is a long-term target of his [63]. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 15:21, 31 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
  • That certainly seems to be Belteshazzar, reinstating their many times removed edits and continuing to try to argue the toss about it. DanielRigal ( talk) 22:28, 28 January 2023 (UTC) reply
Note: Added 62.211.205.169 above. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 23:17, 28 January 2023 (UTC) reply
Note: Added 151.24.37.115 above. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 23:19, 28 January 2023 (UTC) reply
Note: I have requested page protection of Talk:Addiction Rare in Patients Treated with Narcotics. DanielRigal ( talk) 23:24, 28 January 2023 (UTC) reply
  • I suspect that 151.38.160.141 is also a sock of this user based on their sole edit being a recent one on my talk page complaining about their edits to the Porter and Jick article being reverted. IntoThinAir ( talk) 01:56, 30 January 2023 (UTC) reply

61.220.170.133 went on an editing spree, including reversions, in the last 24h. That's going to take some unpicking. It would be better to block it sooner than later. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 09:07, 31 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

10 February 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

Continued block-evasion from Belteshazzar who is obsessed with editing Charles Ingram and has been making this same edit [64] on his previous blocked IPs. It's obvious that this is also Belteshazzar because they are now editing Timeline of disability rights outside the United States, Timeline of transgender history and Timeline of women's legal rights in the United States (other than voting). These 3 articles I mentioned in Dante8's SPI [65] on 7 February. A few hours later that I mentioned these articles on the Dante SPI - Belteshazzar is editing these articles (as established in 3 previous SPI's he just follows me around everywhere and edits the same articles I edit or mention).

It's probably worth getting page protection on Charles Ingram because Belteshazzar's obvious block evasion is just wasting other users time. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 01:23, 10 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

I'm certain that this is another sockpuppet IP of Belteshazzar. I assume the IP is a proxy. The editing around Charles Ingram and related topics is pretty conclusive, particularly reinstating an edit from one of his previous sockpuppet IPs. Also some of the seemingly "random" other articles edited correspond to articles that I have recently edited. That fits his pattern of stalking the edits of people who have reported him in the past. (One of the articles he has made an innocuous edit to is a new and quite obscure one which I really can't believe that he stumbled over any other way.) DanielRigal ( talk) 01:48, 10 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

13 February 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

The usual nonsense from Belteshazzar. He even confesses to it here! This is the second (maybe third) time this IP has been used by Belteshazzar. He likes to hop IPs but, for some reason he keeps returning to this one. I think it needs to be blocked for a good few months this time. DanielRigal ( talk) 23:01, 13 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

22 February 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

Obvious SOCK. tgeorgescu ( talk) 08:50, 22 February 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Bbb23: I was rather tired today, sorry, sometimes it is tedious to restate the obvious. tgeorgescu ( talk) 19:28, 22 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
  • Yep, it's him! Don't waste time checking them individually, just nuke all the edits. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 14:50, 22 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    Some of the edits are so insipid as to be obvious bulk to try to cover his tracks by diluting his edit history. I think he just presses the Random article link until he sees a very minor mistake which he can correct and then, when he thinks he has done enough not to look like an SPA and to avoid overlapping with his past edits then he goes for his real targets. I've reverted all the edits to his real targets without even reading them but I've let some of the other edits stand. There is no point in reinstating obvious minor grammatical and formatting errors but wherever he was editing more substantially I've nuked anything which is not very obviously correct. DanielRigal ( talk) 18:55, 22 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    And now he is stalking me to obscure articles that I have recently edited, making minor edits in a further demonstration of territorial pissing. This is another of his abusive long-term behaviours. DanielRigal ( talk) 19:14, 22 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • Blocked and tagged. @ Tgeorgescu and DanielRigal: Neither of you provided a single diff in support of this report. Nor did tgeorgescu explain why they requested a check. In the future, do not assume that the person evaluating a report knows the behavior of the master, forcing them to do the investigation their own. Closing. Bbb23 ( talk) 19:24, 22 February 2023 (UTC) reply

25 February 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

Continued block evasion from Belteshazzar who was recently editing The Carpenter's Pencil (film) and Charles Ingram on the blocked account One Ten Nine Ten. As you can see the IP (which is an open proxy) is editing the same articles [66], [67]

As established in 4 previous SPI's an obsessive editing behaviour of this user is to stalk other users recent edits, you can see he has followed the user Tgeorgescu to the article Perpetual virginity of Mary [68]

If you run an internet search on 89.17.214.10, it is listed as an proxy IP for hire so I think it should qualify to be blocked for longer. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 00:39, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

@ DanielRigal:, yeah it's definitely him, he's following me around again, see Wilfred G. Lambert. I have been putting up with this for nearly 2 years now, I am not really bothered anymore. Every account, IP etc he has had gets blocked and all his edits are usually reverted in 48 hours. The guy has never made any decent edits on this website. I have reported a lot of socks over the years, but this guy is the least productive of all the others I have come across. He is actually wasting his life by what he is doing on here because all his edits are reverted, but each to their own I guess. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 01:29, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
I absolutely have made decent edits. My edit summaries explained in detail why these were improvements: [69] [70] [71] No one addressed the content. 89.17.214.10 ( talk) 01:53, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Nobody ever will "address the content" because that is not the issue. The issue is your abusive behaviour. Continuing to argue for your preferred edits is a waste of time, both yours and ours. We have largely stopped even reading them beyond the need to determine whether a "new" editor is you in disguise. There is no amount of "decent edits" that you could do that could even begin to offset the damage done by your presence here as a sockpuppeteer who blatantly disrespects the integrity of our project. I don't know exactly what drives you to behave like this but I was sincere when I suggested trying therapy in my previous comment (below). Please try to get yourself back on the right track and then find some other hobby which you can enjoy without the frustration of constantly fighting against rules that you don't want to obey. Wikipedia is not the whole world. Other websites/places/organisations/activities are available with their own rules some of which might suit you better. Maybe you can accomplish something good somewhere else. DanielRigal ( talk) 13:55, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
  • I'm not sure if this reflects greater subtlety than before or just that you spotted him going at Charles Ingram again before he got round to the other one of his main targets ( Addiction Rare in Patients Treated with Narcotics) but I think this is him anyway. Returning to The Carpenter's Pencil (film) seals it for me. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 01:14, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    And now he is stalking Psychologist Guy to Wilfred G. Lambert. That's 100% him. DanielRigal ( talk) 01:30, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    I know enough about the Christadelphians to know that they are not usually called a "church", so I had to correct that when I saw it. 89.17.214.10 ( talk) 02:03, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    This isn't about any of that. This is about your sockpuppetry. Anything else is just irrelevant. You forfeited your right to edit Wikipedia when you engaged in sockpuppetry. You need to disengage from Wikipedia entirely. Continuing like this is neither good for us nor for you. Find another hobby. Find some grass to touch. Find a therapist. Be well but please be well somewhere else. DanielRigal ( talk) 02:10, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    So it's irrelevant that Charles Ingram was clearly promoted to Major in 1995, but his bio here says it was 1996, contrary even to the cited source? Or that events surrounding his trial are clearly out of order? 89.17.214.10 ( talk) 15:51, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    This is a sockpuppet report. Any blathering about anything else is off topic here. If you want to address your behaviour then this is the right place to do it. If you want to kvetch about anything else then that is disruptive and your comments will either be ignored or removed. This is not about Ingram. This is about you. DanielRigal ( talk) 16:08, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • Competing causes of block: socking on a proxy. Closing. Favonian ( talk) 16:30, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

28 February 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

Has edited Addiction Rare in Patients Treated with Narcotics and Wikipedia:Increase your chances, which are both past targets, in a similar way to before. This is an unlikely pattern of overlap for anybody who is not Belteshazzar. The other edits are probably just intended for distraction. DanielRigal ( talk) 18:23, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • Another day, another proxy. Closing. Favonian ( talk) 18:39, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply

01 March 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

Belteshazzar has used this IP address before. He is returning to abuse it again by targeting the usual topic areas around Charles Ingram. As Charles Ingram is semi-protected he has taken this to related article James Plaskett. Also returning to Wikipedia:Increase your chances. What is new is that he is trying to solicit help in his obsessive quest around Addiction Rare in Patients Treated with Narcotics by bothering User talk:Z1720 with his nonsense. I assume this is a proxy IP. I suggest a good long block. DanielRigal ( talk) 23:28, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • Blocked 3 months, closing. Bbb23 ( talk) 23:36, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Ponyo came in directly after me and blocked the proxy for 2 years.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 23:38, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
( edit conflict) I blocked it for two years as a gaping hole proxy, which conflicted with your block Bbb23. Sorry!-- Ponyo bons mots 23:38, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
No need to be sorry, Ponyo. I picked 3 months only because Favonian blocked the other one above for that amount of time. Two years is fine with me. Means the user will have to find other proxies for us to block.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 23:48, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
One of my fingers is in a splint (nothing too worrisome) and it's slowed me considerably. Speedy Gonzales no more, I'm afraid.-- Ponyo bons mots 23:50, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply

06 March 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

As always, its the Who Wants To Be A Millionaire nonsense and the Addiction Rare in Patients Treated with Narcotics nonsense plus stalking my recent edits to find Talk:List of unusual biological names. This ticks all the boxes for a Belteshazzar sock and the other edits are just random track covering. DanielRigal ( talk) 22:19, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Furthermore, I think this goes beyond the usual contribution stalking and rises to the level of actual harassment thus raising the question of whether we need to formalise Belteshazzars' many, many blocks as an actual complete ban. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 22:23, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • IP now blocked. Closing. Bbb23 ( talk) 14:27, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

09 March 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

The usual pattern except that this time he finds that many of his preferred targets are semi-protected so he goes for the talk pages instead. He asks, as if he doesn't already know, why his previous edits were reverted. ( Diff and diff.) He also stalks Psychologist Guy to Isis Unveiled ( diff) and myself to James Stephanie Sterling where he misgenders Sterling in the edit summary ( diff) although I suspect that this is because he has absolutely no idea who Sterling is, not because of any intent to misgender. DanielRigal ( talk) 19:54, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

11 March 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

Redoing edits of the indeffed socks. tgeorgescu ( talk) 15:15, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Now it is blocked for three months. Also a WP:PROXY. tgeorgescu ( talk) 15:37, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

I have added 154.202.98.218 to the list. That seems close in IP to the other one so maybe a rangeblock is possible? I'm also thinking of making an LTA entry. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 16:41, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • Reopening because of the added IP.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 17:14, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply

13 March 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

Returning to Shigechiyo Izumi with the same old same old. Also, editing Jamie Raines in a trivial way, which he almost certainly found by stalking my edits. DanielRigal ( talk) 19:18, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • Blocked as a proxy for one year. Closing. Bbb23 ( talk) 20:04, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply

25 March 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

This is obvious Belteshazzar block-evasion. Firstly, 45.173.12.138 is a proxy IP and he is yet again editing his favourite targets Shigechiyo Izumi and Christian Mortensen (leaving the same kind of edit summaries) [72], [73]) similar to his last blocked proxy socks [74], [75]. The same IP has now also followed me onto the Shirali Muslimov article which I edited recently. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 11:55, 25 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

08 April 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

This is continued block-evasion from Belteshazzar who now resorts to using vpns and proxy IPs. 103.189.231.206 is editing Belteshazzar's previous targets Daniel M. Lavery which he has edited on previous blocked socks [76]. Also established in several previous SPI's Belteshazzar is obsessed with editing articles that DanielRigal or myself have edited recently, so that would explain this recent edit [77].

He has then followed me onto the Victoria Braithwaite article [78]. Another target of Belteshazzar is Dwight Gooden which he has been blocked on this account for editing in the past [79].

He has also edited Wikipedia:Fringe theories [80] which he previously edited on the blocked account DefThree [81]. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 23:52, 8 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
  • I noticed some of those edits and I thought that they were a little bit odd without immediately connecting them to Belteshazzar or feeling a need to check up on them. I mean, updating the barely changed YouTube stats for somebody who has been dead for three years is definitely a bit strange. [82] It was only when I saw this report and checked their overall contribution history that I instantly recognised that this is exactly what Psychologist Guy says it is. DanielRigal ( talk) 01:42, 9 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • IP blocked for a bit, closing. Thanks, Spicy ( talk) 11:53, 9 April 2023 (UTC) reply

18 April 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

Here we go again. Has hit Wikipedia:Everything you need to know, which is a regular target. This IP was blocked for a week and Belteshazzar resumed using it on the day the block expired. I suggest a longer block this time. DanielRigal ( talk) 22:21, 18 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • IP reblocked, this time for a month. Closing.-- Ponyo bons mots 22:28, 18 April 2023 (UTC) reply

27 April 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

Continued block-evasion on this proxy IP by Belteshazzar which had previously been blocked [83] in January. He is editing previous targets of his Steven Crowder, Wikipedia:Fringe theories [84] and followed me onto the carnivore diet article [85]. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 18:54, 27 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Yeah, that's him. Most of the edits are innocuous but I've nuked the edits to Wikipedia:Dealing with sockpuppets as that is probably the single most inappropriate thing imaginable for him to be editing, irrespective of the edit content. I find it interesting that he is reusing a previously used proxy IP. That implies that he has quite a limited pool of usable addresses available to him. Probably most of those he could use are already blocked. There is hope that a really long block on this IP, and maybe just a few others, might see the back of him for a while. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 19:38, 27 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

05 May 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

This is obvious block evasion from Belteshazzar who has yet again followed me onto the carnivore diet article [86] but this time using the talk-page as the article is protected and Li Ching-Yuen [87] which he has edited many times before on IPs a few hours after me. The previous blocked IP he was using last week [88] you can see it is Belteshazzar.

Another target of his is Wikipedia:Dealing with sockpuppets [89] which he has been blocked on quite a few IPs going back to January. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 00:02, 5 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Sorry shortly before I filed this an admin has blocked the account. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 00:04, 5 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • I blocked them while you were filing this. Sorry for the wasted keystrokes! Spicy ( talk) 00:04, 5 May 2023 (UTC) reply

16 May 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

This is continued Belteshazzar block-evasion on a VPN who is continuing to stalk my recent edit history and edit the same articles as me. This has been mentioned in many previous SPI's. I am not happy about this stalking any longer, it's been going on nearly 2 years now. I would like to email the WMF, I believe this user Belteshazzar should be globally banned because this is long-term harassment.

Examples: 3HO [90], Hulda Crooks [91], Joe Greenstein [92] all edited after me.

Another target of Belteshazzar is the user DanielRigal which would explain the edit at For Women Scotland [93].

As per the previous SPI he also edits the article Li Ching-Yuen where he has been blocked many times [94], [95]. It might be worth protecting that article, I may request that. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 21:21, 16 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Belteshazzar is now using another proxy [96] to follow me around. WP:PSPITFALLS is also another target of his that he has edited in the past [97], [98]. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 18:49, 18 May 2023 (UTC) reply

He is back editing R v Ingram, C., Ingram, D. and Whittock, T.. This should be a quick block. There is no doubt these proxy IPs are Belteshazzar. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 10:35, 19 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Belteshazzar has now followed me onto the Dada Bhagwan article on a new proxy IP just to make a stupid edit that doesn't improve the article [99]. This type of behaviour as stated has been going on for well over a year, it does fit the criteria for a global ban because this type of creepy stalking is against policy. He has no interest in these articles but is merely editing to harass. If I edit an article he will turn up within 4 or 5 hours and make a pointless or trivial edit. This is a serial stalker and internet troll who has nothing better to do. Per WP:DENY it is probably best just to revert his edits on site very quickly and not talk about this user further. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 14:46, 19 May 2023 (UTC) reply
He's on the IP 49.49.51.160. He is very likely using a VPN service not a TOR browser. Many but not all of his IPs are proxies. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 17:01, 21 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Most of the other edits looks like innocuous edits to either to deflect attention or to annoy but the edit to Li Ching-Yuen is a very standard edit to one of his standard targets. That's definitely him. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 21:34, 16 May 2023 (UTC) reply

I've added 181.163.18.64 as that is also clearly him, hitting several of the usual targets. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 19:35, 17 May 2023 (UTC) reply
I've nuked the majority of edits by both IPs which were not obvious and entirely uncontroversial improvements so as not to encourage him. I have left a very few edits where reverting would not be in the interest of the articles in question. DanielRigal ( talk) 19:44, 17 May 2023 (UTC) reply
He's back on his Who Wants To Be A Millionaire related bullshit too at James Plaskett. DanielRigal ( talk) 22:17, 17 May 2023 (UTC) reply
User:Guy Macon/One against many (AKA WP:1AM) appears to be one of his targets. See [100] and [101] -- Guy Macon ( talk) 02:00, 18 May 2023 (UTC) reply
The edit summary here shows a willingness to make this personal and also that he is just playing stupid games with us. The disruption in ongoing.
Please can somebody block the two remaining IPs and maybe extend the block on the first one? I assume that all three are proxy or VPN IPs and Belteshazzar has shown a pattern of reusing IPs after blocks expire, so blocking them all for a longer period seems advisable. DanielRigal ( talk) 21:31, 18 May 2023 (UTC) reply
49.50.164.83 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is a proxy. Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Belteshazzar says "They often return to previously used proxy IP addresses once blocks on them expire suggesting that they have a fairly limited pool of IPs at their disposal. Such IPs can probably be blocked for long periods without risk of disrupting legitimate editors." I also suggest considering a temporary range block that cover the other IPs.
The ironic part is that if someone who isn't a disruptive sockpuppet were to raise a question -- on User talk:Guy Macon/One against many, not through edit warring -- about whether I should use "he" or "they" in my essay, we could have a nice civil discussion and I might very well agree with the change. Once you have shown us that you are willing to disrupt Wikipedia, you lose my willingness to even consider any changes you might want. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 06:04, 19 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Yeah. When I revert his changes it is not because he is automatically wrong about everything. It is because his very presence on Wikipedia is disruptive to the project and outweighs any possible good he could do by orders of magnitude. A lot of the time I revert his edits without even reading them. If you wanted to make a similar change then that would be perfectly reasonable. DanielRigal ( talk) 12:01, 19 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Note: The stalking is getting out of hand so I have opened a case on ANI about that: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Stalking by sockpuppets of Belteshazzar. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 17:40, 19 May 2023 (UTC) reply

I've blocked this range and this IP per WP:DUCK. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:13, 19 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Note: The thread got archived but if anybody wants to marvel in slack jawed awe at the unmitigated chutzpah of Belteshazzar actually trying to blackmail ANI into letting some of his vandalism stand by threatening further vandalism if they do not, then you can find it here. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 18:37, 27 May 2023 (UTC) reply

I've added 223.207.103.125. Same old, same old. Ugh... -- DanielRigal ( talk) 18:17, 27 May 2023 (UTC) reply

This time I'm reverting all edits by that IP without even looking at the content. I'm not prepared to waste my time separating out the harmless minor corrections from the vandalism. If there was ever a case where WP:DENY applied it is this. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 22:46, 27 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • The unblocked IP edits are too old. Closing. Bbb23 ( talk) 20:41, 17 June 2023 (UTC) reply

08 June 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

I'm pretty certain that 194.124.36.26 is Belteshazzar. Wikipedia:Guide to addressing bias is a frequent target. Their one other edit is to an article about a baseball player. Several of the previous socks have also made edits to articles about baseball players. I am fairly confident that 103.167.170.202 is also him. Wikipedia:Dealing with sockpuppets is a topic close to Belteshazzar's heart (for obvious reasons) and that IP has been blocked as a proxy in the past. Even so, it would be good to get a checkuser to make sure. DanielRigal ( talk) 00:22, 8 June 2023 (UTC) reply

And now 103.167.170.202 is making edits to articles about baseball players too. Time to nuke all edits by both IPs... DanielRigal ( talk) 02:13, 8 June 2023 (UTC) reply
I've added 213.52.102.30 and 223.207.100.232. The former admits to stalking and socking here, while the latter has attempted to trick User:I dream of horses into unwittingly defending his bad edits here. I mean, that was never going to work but the disrespect shown here is absolutely off the scale. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 17:35, 10 June 2023 (UTC) reply
@ DanielRigal Concerning! I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 17:38, 10 June 2023 (UTC) reply
I've added User:ContentIsWhatMatters. That one is already blocked, and I've already nuked his edits, so I'm only adding it for completeness. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 19:21, 17 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

These proxy IPs are definitely Belteshazzar block evasion. A favourite target of his is Li Ching-Yuen [102] which he followed me onto and has been editing for months on many proxies. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 17:25, 8 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • Nothing to do here. The named account is now blocked, and the unblocked IP edits are already old. Closing. Bbb23 ( talk) 20:44, 17 June 2023 (UTC) reply

19 June 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

Here we go again. He is reverting to his preferred versions made by his previous, now blocked, sock account. Doesn't he ever get bored with this nonsense? DanielRigal ( talk) 15:40, 19 June 2023 (UTC) reply

I'm nuking all his edits without even reading them because he has already wasted far too much of our time. If anybody else (I mean a real anybody else, not just another sockpuppet) thinks that any of his edits are worth keeping then I won't revert them if they redo any of them. DanielRigal ( talk) 15:45, 19 June 2023 (UTC) reply
For a second time he has tried to trick an uninvolved editor into helping him, here. DanielRigal ( talk) 22:40, 19 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

20 June 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

Reverting to reinstate the previous blocked IP's attempts to trick another user into helping him on User talk:Morganfitzp. DanielRigal ( talk) 13:39, 20 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Also, now reinstating reverted edits on several other articles. As before, I'm nuking them all without even reading them. If anybody (who is not Belteshazzar hiding behind a proxy IP) cares to resurrect any valid changes then they are very free to do so but I can't be bothered. DanielRigal ( talk) 16:24, 20 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Looking at the edit history here, I don't think that edits from this IP prior to today are him. If this is a proxy IP then I guess somebody else has been using it too. DanielRigal ( talk) 18:51, 20 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

45.166.16.228 is a proxy IP. The edits made on 20 June 2023 are definitely Belteshazzar. The edits made on the 8, 9, 11 and 18th of June are not Belteshazzar they are another banned sock-puppeteer who has an obsession with editing Japanese superhero character lists. This same user has shared proxy IPs with Belteshazzar in the past on multiple proxies. The best thing to do here is give 45.166.16.228 a long block. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 22:28, 20 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Ah, right. I was a bit worried about a long block potentially impacting on an innocent party but if the other editor is a wrongun too then a good long block is just getting two for the price of one. DanielRigal ( talk) 22:42, 20 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

25 June 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

Looks like he has yet another IP sock and is using it to reinstate reverted edits by the previous IP socks. So far, he is only reinstating some of his baseball related edits, which is often a prelude to reinstating the other, weirder, nonsense. Weird thing is that I'm pretty sure that he only started doing baseball edits as cover, or out of casual interest in the topic, but now he seems to be becoming obsessed with defending those edits too. The IP is probably a proxy. If so, I recommend a long block, either of the individual IP or of a range of proxy IPs that it is in. DanielRigal ( talk) 12:49, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Belteshazzar, if you see this, then please try to understand that you are not only wasting everybody's time by continuing to try to edit Wikipedia. This is not healthy for you. Please find some other activity that you can do instead. If you really do care about baseball then maybe participate in some baseball related forums, fan wikis or something like that? If you can't let go of Wikipedia on your own then please seek appropriate professional help to do so. It will be better for everybody, but mostly better for you, if you can do this. There is nothing for you here and staying here is only holding you back from finding somewhere else where you can achieve something more worthwhile than constantly having your efforts reverted. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 12:57, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply

He's still at it. I'm reverting all edits without even looking at them but it would save time and effort if somebody could block the IP for a good long time. DanielRigal ( talk) 21:38, 27 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

29 June 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

Returning to Das Fürlines (a recent repeat target) and also an edit about baseball. Similar tone in the edit summaries. Even after only two edits I'm confident that this is Belteshazzar again. DanielRigal ( talk) 11:26, 29 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

03 July 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

Five edits to three articles, all three of which are previous targets of his socks and which are otherwise mostly unrelated. DanielRigal ( talk) 18:04, 3 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
  • This seems likely to me. I did a quick comparison with this IP and the others above, and there's some commonalities here beyond the behavioural. This latest IP is a likely proxy. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 18:34, 3 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

09 July 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

I'm not 100% sure about this one, hence the request for a checkuser, but this IP has been editing in the WP space for a few days and hitting a couple of the usual targets pretty hard, Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep and Wikipedia:Increase your chances. The style of the edit summaries seems suspiciously similar to past socks. No sign of any baseball related edits but maybe he is finally learning that those are counterproductive when trying to cover his tracks. No sign of the ophthalmology stuff yet but I think four days in enough rope. I'm not nuking the edits this time, yet, just in case this is not him but the chances of an anonymous editor taking such an interest in the WP space legitimately is pretty low. DanielRigal ( talk) 13:01, 9 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Do we know if the IP is a VPN proxy IP? If it is then that fits the pattern of previous socks. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 13:39, 9 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Does anybody have any thoughts on this? If this is Belteshazzar then we really do need to nuke the edits before people start building on them making them harder to unpick. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 11:44, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply
I'm going to nuke the edits. An IP editing that extensively in the WP space is suspicious even if they are not Belteshazzar, and I'm 95-99% certain that they are. If anybody disagrees then please feel free to revert and discuss. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 18:43, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply
He reinstated my reversions using a different but adjacent IP address. The tone of the edit summaries makes me 100% certain that this is him now. It has his characteristic insistence that he be treated with the same grace as an editor in good standing and abusive demand that we owe him our time to assess his every edit individually for any potential validity. No! He was blocked and, de-facto banned, for very good reasons. He needs to accept that and just go away. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 11:22, 14 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Note: I've added 110.136.216.110. This is clearly in a fairly adjacent IP address range. This suggests the need for a good long rangeblock if such a large range can be blocked safely without hurting legitimate users. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 11:22, 14 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Note: I've added 103.178.42.233 which is more of the same nonsense. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 21:02, 18 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
  • The first IP is unlikely to be a proxy based on what I can currently see though I can't rule it out being one at the time of the initial report. The second IP is a possible proxy though. I would not recommend a rangeblock however, the range seems to be a /22 and it's a consumer ISP not a business or data centre. There'd be some collateral. I'd also not recommend a long block, the second IP is a residential proxy and these are typically short lived. No comment on any behavioural evidence. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 03:37, 15 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    The latest IP, 103.178.42.233 is both an open and residential proxy and should be blocked accordingly. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 21:09, 18 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

29 July 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

Here we go again. He is hitting many of the usual targets and reinstating his usual stuff, even after being reverted. His attempt to bend Wikipedia:Increase your chances to his own ends is the smoking gun here. As is often the case, he is being vocal in the edit summaries about everything except acknowledging that he is block/ban evading and hence has no right to edit Wikipedia. I did hold off reporting this one as reporting his IPs seems to do limited good as he has a reasonable sized pool of proxy IP addresses to cycle between. I had hoped that he would just go away for a bit if I nuked his edits but that isn't working and so I think that this IP does need a good long block although he'll probably be back with a new one next week... DanielRigal ( talk) 13:49, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply

In my opinion, the solution is to block the IPs as quickly as possible per Wikipedia:Open proxies, and whenever possible make the blocks range blocks. Eventually he will run out of proxies, and if many proxies are blocked it will tend to stop other abusers before they get started. It could even be that he is paying for proxies and we could exceed his budget.
I also question decisions such as this: [103] I think the answer should have been "we do not connect named accounts and IP addresses, but I checked the IP and it does not appear to be a proxy" (or "...is a proxy. Blocked"). (stricken because as explained below, you don't need a CU to do that. Thanks Girth Summit for the clarification!)
Are there any better tools we ordinary users can use to check to see if an IP is an open proxy? - Guy Macon ( talk) 18:04, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • Guy Macon - nice to see you around. Blablubbs' decline was correct - you don't need to request a CU to have an IP checked to see if it's a proxy. I use this tool, which anyone can use (and there are others out there). In this case, Shodan labels it a PPTP, and the behaviour is suspect, so I'll give it a few month off. Closing. Girth Summit (blether) 19:59, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply

07 August 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

Baseball related edits, some reinstating previous edits by previous socks. Also, Das Fürlines again and, of course, fiddling around in the Wikipedia namespace at Wikipedia:Recentism. DanielRigal ( talk) 23:57, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • 125.164.43.151 is a proxy. Blocked for a year. Courcelles ( talk) 14:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

13 August 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

This IP was given a short block three days ago. The block has expired and Belteshazzar picked up right where he left off editing Jerry Reinsdorf and then, for some reason, moved on to The Wonderful Wizard of Oz. Unfortunately for him, we are paying attention to the man behind the curtain. I suggest a rather longer block his time. DanielRigal ( talk) 14:05, 13 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Reporting 110.136.218.207 for reinstituting similar edits with similar edit summaries. Just glancing at the history of 1994 World Series and 1997 World Series makes this obviously Belteshazzar. Same thing with The Wonderful Wizard of Oz. Leijurv ( talk) 01:54, 14 August 2023 (UTC) Leijurv ( talk) 02:02, 14 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Whoops. Wow that is embarrassing. I had a totally different thought in my head and my edit summaries were thinking of the wrong user. I meant to write Belteshazzar ban evasion. Very embarrassing. Sorry. At least the other user I accidentally referred to is also indeffed. Leijurv ( talk) 01:56, 14 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • 91.187.113.102 is globally locked, and 110.136.218.207 is blocked for a year. Some of the affected pages have been protected. I'm open to more page protections for any that are targeted at least weekly, and you can reach me at my talk page. This is ready for closure/archiving. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 14:03, 14 August 2023 (UTC) reply

17 August 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

Same old same old. Baseball stuff and some other repeat targets. Smoking gun is this edit reinstating an edit made by a previous sockpuppet IP. Bullseye says: "proxycheck: True" so I think a long block is needed. DanielRigal ( talk) 00:06, 17 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • I have blocked 162.33.16.0/20 for a year. Case closed. Courcelles ( talk) 00:13, 17 August 2023 (UTC) reply

17 August 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

Clearly belteshazzar: reinstituted the exact same edit to WP:RECENTISM, and also made some edits to players in the 1997 baseball world series. Leijurv ( talk) 18:16, 17 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Despite only having made three edits using this IP address there is absolutely no doubt that this is Belteshazzar. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 18:29, 17 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

22 August 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

Usual repeat targets. Reinstating edits by previous socks. DanielRigal ( talk) 18:49, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

proxycheck.io lists this as a Compromised Server Proxy. [104]: Suggest lengthy block and closure. And a big thanks goes out to Belteshazzar, who single-handedly has helped us to identify and block multiple proxies, thus making it harder for other people to abuse Wikipedia. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 19:45, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • Blocked for a couple of weeks. Reblocks are cheap if anyone else is using it abusively after that. Girth Summit (blether) 17:19, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply

28 August 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

Clearly Belteshazzar: reinstituted the exact same edit to Roy Halladay's perfect game and Addiction Rare in Patients Treated with Narcotics, as well as some other articles. Leijurv ( talk) 19:30, 28 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

30 August 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

Same and related targets. Similar edit summaries. IP is in the same /16 as a recent previous sock, 110.136.150.254. DanielRigal ( talk) 22:18, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

The sockpuppeteer has been labeled a WMF-legal banned user. I don't know what the charges are, but this is only done for very serious charges. tgeorgescu ( talk) 17:51, 4 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

16 September 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

This is obvious block evasion from Belteshazzar. 1.54.250.26 is likely to be a proxy [105]

Belteshazzar is globally banned [106]. I will not disclose any specific details but I have been stalked by this user on site and harassed by them off-site. They still seem to be using proxies/vpn to evade their block.

On Commons, Belteshazzar was using this IP [107] but it has now been blocked as a proxy. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 19:44, 16 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Belteshazzar was using a proxy to contact Chamaemelum on 9 September which they were pretty open about on Commons [108]. Those comments were left a few days before the IP on Wikipedia left comments on DanielRigal's talk-page mentioning the same topic. I agree with Daniel, pretty much nobody else in the world would care about this apart from Belteshazzar and if you weigh in the fact these are proxies it matches his repeated block evasion on here. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 00:47, 17 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
  • This is quite different from Belteshazzar's normal bullshit but then, if it isn't Belteshazzar, then who else would be on my User Talk page trying to argue with Psychologist Guy about whether the emails he got from Belteshazzar were actually from Belteshazzar? Who else would know, or even care enough, to dispute it? I have absolutely no idea what the feuding with Chamaemelum is about but, whatever it is, it can't be anything good.-- DanielRigal ( talk) 21:07, 16 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • No edits since September 11. Closing. Bbb23 ( talk) 12:37, 17 September 2023 (UTC) reply

26 September 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

Already blocked ducky sock. Just noting it for the record; as it's been a while since there's been a registered account puppet. CU check requested in case there are sleepers. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 18:02, 26 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • They're using proxies. Nothing of interest, but that means little. I'm going to close the case. Courcelles ( talk) 18:56, 26 September 2023 (UTC) reply

30 September 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

Trying to censor their own LTA report ( diff1, diff2) is cheeky even by their standards of chutzpah. This is particularly egregious because they, a globally banned editor, are casting baseless aspersions as to the trustworthiness of another editor in good standing. DanielRigal ( talk) 22:46, 30 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Note: The IP is detected as a proxy by IPCheck. The IP has not been used by anybody else, neither has any other IP in the same /24. It should be safe to block it long term. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 22:54, 30 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Does anyone have a theory as to where this LTA is finding new proxies? Or are they just so easy to find that any attempt to proactively identify and block proxies would be playing a game of Whac-A-Mole? -- Guy Macon Alternate Account ( talk) 18:26, 2 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

01 October 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

Hitting a couple of the usual targets in the usual ways. DanielRigal ( talk) 22:24, 1 October 2023 (UTC) reply

As expected, IPCheck says it is a proxy. DanielRigal ( talk) 22:27, 1 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

IP now blocked. Closing.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 18:51, 2 October 2023 (UTC) reply

11 October 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

Returning to previous targets in the usual manner. DanielRigal ( talk) 11:35, 11 October 2023 (UTC) reply

And now he is trying to canvas another editor in the hope of tricking them into editing on his behalf: diff -- DanielRigal ( talk) 21:30, 11 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

17 October 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

The usual behaviour. 3/4 edits are to recent previous targets. DanielRigal ( talk) 15:51, 17 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

19 October 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

Usual behaviour. Several of the usual targets. DanielRigal ( talk) 11:34, 19 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

28 October 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

Same old same old. Literally reinstating edits by previously blocked and reverted sock 45.181.123.97 on Presbyopia and Opioid epidemic in the United States. DanielRigal ( talk) 03:47, 28 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • Handled below, closing. Thanks, Spicy ( talk) 19:05, 29 October 2023 (UTC) reply

28 October 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

Making identical edits to Wikipedia:Everything you need to know, with identical edit summaries Panian513 20:52, 28 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Upon further familiarization of myself with individuals banned for long-term abuse, both this IP address and ContentisWhatMatters appear to be sockpuppets of Belteshazzar, having identical editing interests, especially when it comes to making alterations to Wikipedia:everything you need to know in order to justify how they engage with the Wikipedia project. Panian513 15:26, 29 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • Pink clock Awaiting administrative action - Please, consider a short soft block. Thank you. MarioGom ( talk) 14:52, 29 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • The IP is a proxy. Blocked it for a while. I agree this is Belteshazzar, so I'll move the case there. Closing. Thanks, Spicy ( talk) 19:04, 29 October 2023 (UTC) reply

31 October 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

Usual targets. Usual nonsense. DanielRigal ( talk) 17:05, 31 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

01 November 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

The same nonsense. The literal same edit summaries as the last sock in at least some cases! DanielRigal ( talk) 18:02, 1 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

02 November 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

Identical edits and edit summaries to sockpuppets identified in the past couple of weeks. Panian513 19:25, 2 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

This is still ongoing, with him popping back every few hours to try his luck (and our patience) again. Is anybody able to deal with this? @ Firefangledfeathers: maybe? -- DanielRigal ( talk) 02:24, 3 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

04 November 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

Some of the baseball articles are protected now but this is clearly Belteshazzar returning to some of the others and some new, related, articles. Note this diff all but exactly restoring edits be one of his previous blocked socks (185.189.199.77). Also, several of the edits have the same argumentative, self-justifying tone in their edit summaries. DanielRigal ( talk) 20:44, 4 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Oh, and now he's back on his usual nonsense at Opioid epidemic in the United States and Mark Geragos. I'm just reverting the edits as they come in. DanielRigal ( talk) 20:55, 4 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

06 November 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

No sooner does one IP get blocked than another turns up. Mostly the usual targets, and some of the same edit summaries, as before. Hitting Private Eye is new though. DanielRigal ( talk) 16:40, 6 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
  • moved from clerk/admin section
    The focus has shifted more towards baseball recently but Presbyopia and Opioid epidemic in the United States are among his most perennial targets that he always returns to. I think that those topic areas are the real reason why he is here. He might be happy to move on to different baseball articles if his current targets get protected but those are more specifically close to his heart and protecting those might do the most to discourage him without having too much impact on other people. I'm thinking that Mark Geragos might be worth including too as that is a BLP and, of all the articles that banned editors should not be fiddling with, BLPs are among the most so. Depending on how far you want to go, there is a pretty big list of targets on the LTA page. DanielRigal ( talk) 19:05, 6 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    Protected those three. Not looking to dig into the big list, just hit some of the recent flare-up spots. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 19:11, 6 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

10 November 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

He had the astonishing, unmitigated, brazen chutzpah to try to report me to the BLP noticeboard for reverting his ban evading edits ( diff). The affronted tone is clearly his, as is his insistence on trying to defend his individual edits while completely ignoring the fact that he is banned. This was a personal attack but I'm not going to make a big deal about that. It has already been reverted and it's not like he can get any more banned than he already is. Please can we just do the usual and block the IP for a good long time? IPCheck says it is a proxy. DanielRigal ( talk) 04:35, 10 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

20 November 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

Only three edits but they all hit previous targets and reinstate the same or similar content as previous socks with similar style of edit summaries. Despite not noticing and reporting this one right away it seems to have gone quiet after those three edits. DanielRigal ( talk) 01:03, 20 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

26 November 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

Reinstating edits by previous sock IPs even with the same edit summaries. Also attempting to trick ElKevbo into reinstating his edits at User talk:ElKevbo#Reverts. DanielRigal ( talk) 15:21, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

30 November 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

IP stirring trouble at WP:HD#Reverts and extended-confirmed protection, requesting prior edits by blocked sock StuckWithBadVersions be reinstated. * Pppery * it has begun... 05:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

06 December 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

Usual edits, usual subjects Panian513 19:46, 6 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Same old same old. Baseball, fringe ophthalmology and kvetching about previous socks being reverted in the hope of recruiting unwitting assistance from whatever places that he hopes that he is not already known and recognised in. The baseball edits are incredibly nitpicky tweaks to spacing and pluralisations. That is not the work of a true baseball fan. That is him trying to probe what edits he can get away with and hoping to make us look petty by reverting him. It is intentionally disruptive. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 20:12, 6 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Also, I note that he is clearly using a timer so that he can get back in and revandalise protected articles as soon as the protection expires. He even got in a few minutes before MusikBot II took the protection tags off on a couple of the articles. This is taking vandalism to an obsessive level. I know we shouldn't speculate about people's mental health but, Belteshazzar, if you see this, please seek help to break out of this pointless cycle of behaviour and to find something more healthy, productive and enjoyable to occupy your mind and your time. It will be better for Wikipedia but, mostly, it will be better for you. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 20:25, 6 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Let's look at the big picture. We keep playing Whac-A-Mole with new proxies. https://proxycheck.io/threats/190.144.34.146 clearly shows 190.144.34.146 as a proxy. Is there any reason why we can't set up a bot that forces anyone using a known proxy to log in? What do we have to do to make that happen? -- Guy Macon Alternate Account ( talk) 20:35, 6 December 2023 (UTC) reply
I think that the most immediate solution is to protect the usual targets for much longer. Also, we should start putting edit filters for the LTA's edit summaries, as they've pretty much been using the exact same edit summaries for the past few months. Panian513 20:38, 6 December 2023 (UTC) reply
We have to tread carefully when restricting use of VPNs and proxies. We don't want to freeze people in countries with oppressive regimes out of editing, or compromise their anonymity, but I do think that something along those lines is worth consideration. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 20:49, 6 December 2023 (UTC) reply
I am fine with not restricting VPNs. I haven't seen a lot of abuse from VPNs, but maybe I am not looking in the right places. Does forcing someone using a proxy to log in (disallowing IP editing from that proxy) really interfere with editing or compromise their anonymity? -- Guy Macon Alternate Account ( talk) 22:31, 6 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

08 December 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

More baseball. More opioid stuff. More "Subject-verb agreement" in the edit summaries. IP is a proxy. DanielRigal ( talk) 16:16, 8 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

09 December 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

Another proxy IP. He is trying to be a bit sneaky this time by editing some articles not previously hit before moving on to reinstating edits on previous targets. This edit summary is the smoking gun. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 22:13, 9 December 2023 (UTC) DanielRigal ( talk) 22:13, 9 December 2023 (UTC) reply

I note that the entirety of 151.30.0.0/16 is blocked from editing some specific articles. If it really is a monolithic block of proxy IPs then maybe a wider block is possible. That said, there have been edits from this range in the recent past that do not seem to be abusive so maybe it isn't as simple as that? -- DanielRigal ( talk) 22:43, 9 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Unfortunately, Italy seem to use very large and very dynamic ranges, so it's tricky to target specific users with rangeblocks without a lot of potential collateral damage, hence the partial rangeblock. However, I'm personally of the opionion that if the disruption is significant enough, those ranges should be fully blocked and anon users using them should create accounts. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:00, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply
Thanks for the background. I don't think we're seeing enough for a full block of the range. Closing. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 18:05, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply

10 December 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

Same edits. Same edit summaries. Same globally banned nuisance. DanielRigal ( talk) 20:12, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

15 December 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

Another spree of trivial edits and then returning to previous targets to reinstate previous sock edits with the same edit summaries. This example is a smoking gun due to the edit summary kvetching about being reverted on some of his main targets. Is there anything we can do to get rid of him? His willingness to range widely makes it impossible to protect everything he touches. We can't protect every single baseball article, never mind all the other stuff. DanielRigal ( talk) 12:00, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply

The IP is detected as a proxy, btw. DanielRigal ( talk) 12:57, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • It's them. Blocked 3 months. DanielRigal, let me know what you think the top three (or so) most frequent unprotected targets are. I'm not sure there's any solution. You might consider a post at WT:BASEBALL to get some more vigilant folks on the case. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 13:11, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply

17 December 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

Some of the same edit summaries. DanielRigal ( talk) 01:12, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Also, continuing the last sock's (unsuccessful) attempts to embroil Yankees10 into his nonsense here. DanielRigal ( talk) 01:14, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

19 December 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

This IP is literally the next one along from the last one (177.93.44.69) and the editing pattern is the same, including the same offended tone in the edit summaries. DanielRigal ( talk) 22:19, 19 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

21 December 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

Using edit summaries to vent frustrations about previous reverts made against previous sockpuppets Panian513 01:55, 21 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

That's him. I guess his increased recent activity corresponds to a school holiday. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 01:58, 21 December 2023 (UTC) reply

And, of course, the IP is a proxy. All edits nuked. DanielRigal ( talk) 02:07, 21 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

21 December 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

He straight up admits it here, even while blatantly lying about who/why he got banned. DanielRigal ( talk) 19:32, 21 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

22 December 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

Usual targets, baseball, etc. Reinstating edits of previous socks.   Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me Seawolf35 T-- C 16:48, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

29 December 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

Quack! See User_talk:PaleoNeonate#Bad_reverts which links [109] which directly references this LTA. Seawolf35 T-- C 21:47, 29 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Yeah. That's him. Can't he even take a break for xmas? -- DanielRigal ( talk) 22:46, 29 December 2023 (UTC) reply

The switch to Christian themes mostly instead of baseball is odd. I've nuked all but few of the edits. DanielRigal ( talk) 23:07, 29 December 2023 (UTC) reply
Now he is calling people out by name in his edit summaries, e.g. this. DanielRigal ( talk) 16:29, 30 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

07 January 2024

Suspected sockpuppets

See, for example, User talk:Roo60, where he is focused on welcoming back an inactive user, and Jake Westbrook, where there is an identical edit summary in the page history associated with a sock. Larry Hockett ( Talk) 01:58, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • They do like proxies, don't they. Blocked three months, closing. Bbb23 ( talk) 02:36, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply

08 January 2024

Suspected sockpuppets

Tweaking spacing to tweak our noses. Also pretty much the same edits with the same edit summaries as some of the previous socks on the edits with more substantial edit summaries. DanielRigal ( talk) 00:14, 8 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Oh, and it's a proxy IP again. DanielRigal ( talk) 00:15, 8 January 2024 (UTC) reply
I see from the global contributions that he tried to have a go at the Commons that they blocked the whole /24 for three years. ( Details here.) Is that something we could do as well? DanielRigal ( talk) 00:22, 8 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Looks like the proxy bot threw a local rangeblock on top of the global one as well. Imma close here. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 14:34, 10 January 2024 (UTC) reply

11 January 2024

Suspected sockpuppets

Previously blocked sockpuppet is targeting the usual targets again upon the block's expiry. Panian513 17:19, 11 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

16 January 2024

Suspected sockpuppets

See the page history at Jake Westbrook, among others. Larry Hockett ( Talk) 02:40, 16 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Yes, that's him. Usual edit summaries and several of the usual target articles. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 14:03, 16 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • Proxy blocked as usual. Spicy ( talk) 14:39, 16 January 2024 (UTC) reply

18 January 2024

Suspected sockpuppets

Obvious block-evasion from Belteshazzar continuing to edit the same articles they were editing before they were blocked on their previous proxy [110]. Same pattern of disruptive obsessive trolling. Editing their usual targets Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep, Lenny Webster etc.

Off-site Belteshazzar has been posting on a blog that he wanted to join the forum wikipediasucks.co for recruitment purposes. It's probably worth watching his usual targets for possible meat-puppetry. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 16:36, 18 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

22 January 2024

Suspected sockpuppets

Trying to embroil PaleoNeonate again. "Unneeded space" again. Baseball again.

Proxycheck.io says it is not a proxy but IPQualityScore says that it is. I'm not sure what to make of that. DanielRigal ( talk) 00:31, 22 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

23 February 2024

Suspected sockpuppets

WP:DUCK. Reinstated edits, several with the exact same edit summary, on Mark Geragos, Presbyopia, Wikipedia:Guide to addressing bias, Wikipedia:Increase your chances, Wikipedia:Everything you need to know, Opioid epidemic in the United States, Addiction Rare in Patients Treated with Narcotics, and Charles Ingram. I really don't understand this, it's the EXACT same edits with edit summaries. WP:GAMING an account up to extended confirmed doesn't make it any less obvious when I have all these pages watchlisted. Noticed within ten minutes?? Leijurv ( talk) 00:32, 23 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
  • First up, yes, that's very obviously him. But there is more to this than just another sockpuppet like his previous ones. This account was created on January 23rd and made no edits until January 31st. It only switched to "The Belteshazzar Pattern" today, February 23rd, the one month anniversary of its creation and mere hours after it acquired Extended Confirmed status. Prior to this, the account had a very large number of innocuous edits to a lot of very random subjects. One remote possibility is that this was a legitimate account that was compromised and taken over by Belteshazzar. The much more likely explanation is that this was Belteshazzar from the outset and this shows a truly obsessive dedication to making a sleeper account and shepherding it to Extended Confirmed status. Even more insidious, I see that at least one of the innocuous edits involved reverting some pretty crappy antisemitism. I wonder if that was done as a deliberate trap for those of us who blanket revert Belteshazzar's edits? Was the intention to trick us into accidentally reinstating an antisemitic edit in order to make us look like the bad guys? Anyway, given the outrageous cynicism on show here, and the willingness to use sleeper accounts to game the page protection system, I suspect that he already has some additional accounts waiting in the wings. I definitely think this merits running a checkuser. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 01:35, 23 February 2024 (UTC) reply
I agree that this is obvious WP:GAMING at large scale, and that 600 edits over 30 days is obsessive. Whew. I went through and reverted the big edits, the ones that clearly matched the belteshazzar pattern, and one more that was a large deletion, then I kept reading and it seemed pretty normal from there on (maybe I reverted one too many). I think this is too much to blanket revert, for the reasons you said. Agreed on CheckUser being a good idea Leijurv ( talk) 04:30, 23 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • CheckUser requested in case there are sleepers.  Blocked and tagged due to the recent turn toward obvious sock behavior. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 04:09, 23 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Oh, I was wondering what was up with that account. Guess we know now. They're on proxies, unsurprisingly. Lock requested, closing. Spicy ( talk) 04:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC) reply

25 February 2024

Suspected sockpuppets

I've been watching this one for a bit as I was suspicious of the stats update to James Stephanie Sterling, which Belteshazzar has done before, but that's not conclusive. Lo and behold, the update to Presbyopia proves me right. It's him again. DanielRigal ( talk) 19:44, 25 February 2024 (UTC) reply

I see the same trick where some of the seemingly random innocuous edits before the usual targets are reversions of genuine vandalism intended to trick us into reinstating bad versions. DanielRigal ( talk) 19:52, 25 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • IP blocked 31h. Is this good-hand/bad-hand (where the 'genuine vandalism' are themselves by other socks of this master)? DMacks ( talk) 20:02, 25 February 2024 (UTC) reply
    I don't have any reason to believe so but I guess it is something to keep an eye out for. DanielRigal ( talk) 21:10, 25 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

27 February 2024

Suspected sockpuppets

Same targets. Same edit summaries. Same pest. DanielRigal ( talk) 21:38, 27 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

02 March 2024

Suspected sockpuppets

Manual reverts on recent targets such as Mark Geragos. Panian513 00:38, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

17 May 2024

Suspected sockpuppets

WP:DUCK reinstating reverted edits on: David Justice, Jake Westbrook, Roy Halladay's perfect game, Manny Ramirez Leijurv ( talk) 03:19, 17 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
I didn't think it was him on a first glance but seeing edits fiddling with whether RBI is pluralised as "RBIs" on one of the baseball articles made me more inclined to think that it might be. I'm still not sure. I'm thinking that we need a checkuser on this. If it is him (or anybody else) reverting their own bad edits then that's an extra layer of sockpuppetry and a checkuser on this IP (and maybe on the other accounts and IPs) should reveal it. My main doubt is that I don't really see any point in it for him. It is not like an IP can get autoconfirmed after a certain number of edits. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 16:08, 17 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Compare these two A and B or these two A and B. He's stopped reusing the exact same edit summaries, but the contents of the edits is basically the same. Leijurv ( talk) 17:36, 17 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Yeah, I think this is definitely more likely to be him than not. A checkuser would confirm and also help to flush out any other accounts or IPs which he might be using for the sort of stunts that Guy Macron suspects. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 21:18, 17 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Ah, and now we're getting copy/pasted edit summaries, see 1997 World Series. Reverting. Leijurv ( talk) 23:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • I blocked the IP for one year as a proxy. Closing. Bbb23 ( talk) 23:37, 17 May 2024 (UTC) reply

29 May 2024

Suspected sockpuppets

Baseball related again. Opioid related again. Fiddling with the same policies that previous socks have. This is one of his less subtle sockpuppets. Detailed, argumentative, edit summaries on the articles he actually cares about but not on the earlier random edits which were clearly just to test the water. DanielRigal ( talk) 13:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Belteshazzar/Archive&oldid=1226517285"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Belteshazzar

Belteshazzar ( talk + · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)

04 September 2021

Suspected sockpuppets

Same POV at same article ( Bates method), after the sockmaster got indeffed. tgeorgescu ( talk) 15:46, 4 September 2021 (UTC) reply

I've the same concerns. Thank you writing this up. -- Hipal ( talk) 20:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC) reply
Okay, diffs: [1], [2]. What they have in common? They both claim that the word ineffective would violate encyclopedic neutrality. tgeorgescu ( talk) 02:19, 5 September 2021 (UTC) reply
@ Jmc: I saw that the signatures are different, but way of signing and style of writing can be faked. Also, two out of three editors have been indeffed in a very short time, so that raises eyebrows. Or there is a possibility wherein husband and wife are both editing from the same IP, it purportedly happened to the anti-porn activists Gary Wilson and Marnia Robinson. tgeorgescu ( talk) 02:37, 6 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

I tend to think there's not sockpuppetry here. I say that principally because of what I see as significant stylistic differences. Also, in the case of AlisonCary, their contribution history shows a range of different individual interests. There are many followers of the Bates method out there who are intent on resisting its characterisation as ineffective, so it's no surprise to me that we have a number of different people sharing the same agenda. -- Jmc ( talk) 19:59, 5 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • I believe these are three different people with similar POV/agendas, but not necessarily coordinating. Closing without action. GeneralNotability ( talk) 13:41, 7 September 2021 (UTC) reply

26 October 2021

Suspected sockpuppets


Belteshazzar is indef blocked on Wikipedia for their disruption on the Bates method related articles. Belteshazzar was blocked from editing on 26 June 2021 but was active on their talk-page until September 6.

Sslad created their account on 3 September. Both Belteshazzar and Sslad make the same long type of edit summaries on articles related to the Bates method for example [3] compared to [4].

Both these accounts have edited the Pseudomyopia, an article that not many users have edited. Based on the history of that article there is very little traffic there but both make the same sort of trivial edits. Both accounts have also edited the Presbyopia article and both accounts have made an edit on the Aldous Huxley. This is very suspect because they edit exactly the same articles out of millions of others that they could be editing. If you check the history of the Bates method [5] which Sslad is currently editing they are making trivial edits. This is something that Belteshazzar resorted to in their later edits before they were blocked.

Another piece of behavioral evidence for me though not as strong is Sslad editing the Li Ching-Yuen article on [6] 18 September. However, I had edited this article exactly a day before. You can see their edit directly after mine. I am not convinced this is a coincidence. Belteshazzar blames me and another user for reporting their account and getting them banned and this user used to edit some of the same articles as me because they looked at what I was editing. In conclusion I am convinced this account is Belteshazzar. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 16:10, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

I was interested in treatments for presbyopia, and noticed that a link did not lead to the cited paper, hence I created an account and fixed it. I don't think I had ever heard of the Bates method until I looked at the edits of AlisonCary, who had also recently edited Presbyopia. I then learned about the Bates method, and followed other related pages and users who had edited that article, including Belteshazzar. I may well have found Li Ching-Yuen via Psychologist Guy's recent editing history, and I may have originally found Pseudomyopia via Belteshazzar's history, though I had previously heard of pseudomyopia in connection to presbyopia, which apparently works against it by stopping accommodation. I recently found a source cited at Bates method which was indicated to be freely available at the doi link, but it wasn't, so I found a link where it was freely available and changed the citation. I don't know why that would be considered "trivial". Sslad ( talk) 21:16, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Well the thing is, I haven't edited the Bates method article in a while. Its unlikely you would randomly come across my account as you would have to scroll through a few pages of edits. It's unlikely a new user would do this or take that kind of interest in looking at hundreds of old edits in the page history then randomly single out my account.
If you check the history of the Bates method article [7] I have not been on there in a long time, you would have to go to the second page of edits to find a single edit I made. You say you "may" have found pseudomyopia through looking at Belteshazzar's edit history but this for me does not add up either. Belteshazzar last made edits on that article on 27 June 2020‎ since then no other editor has edited that article apart from you. That is suspicious because it is a low-traffic article that no user has taken any interest in and you would not have come across that article from his recent edit history, you would have to scroll back months.
The Bates method article does not mention the term "Pseudomyopia" so you were not linked to that article from editing another article, nor does the article Pseudomyopia mention Presbyopia or vice versa. So you would have to had previous knowledge about these words before editing the Wiki and as stated - Belteshazzar had edited these exact same articles, just not recently. In conclusion it is very unlikely you clicked on Belteshazzar's edit history and found these articles because this user edited these topics months ago those edits are not in that users recent history. I believe you are the same person based on this evidence. Why else are you editing the same articles?
Your first edit was on the Presbyopia article [8] (which Belteshazzar also edited) and you are making the same sort of edits that Belteshazzar made and leaving similar edit summaries. Strange things do happen indeed, but seriously you are editing exactly the same articles as that user did and making very similar edits. For me something is definitely suspicious about all this and that is why this SPI was filed. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 21:57, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply
Your reply to AlisonCary is still on the first page of the talk page history. As for pseudomyopia, I was probably looking at the talk page archives or the edit history of the Bates method article itself, where Belteshazzar tried to introduce or reintroduce it. Here, for example. Sslad ( talk) 22:21, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

17 December 2021

Suspected sockpuppets

LaLeLiLou is an obvious Belteshazzar sock-puppet. Belteshazzar was blocked for their disruptive edits related to Bates method and Pseudomyopia.

  • LaLeLilou edited the Margaret Darst Corbett article [9] an obscure article with not many other editors, this was a target of Belteshazzar [10] which you can see in the edit history.
  • LaleLiLous left a comment [11] on a user talk-page that mentions the Stephen Jones (attorney) article. If you check this article Belteshazzar had edited it [12]. It is a low-level traffic article with hardly any recent editors.
  • LaLeLiLou left a comment on the pseudomypia talk-page [13], the same place Belteshazzar left a comment (no other editor has ever commented there)
  • LaLeLiLou now editing the Bates method talk-page [14] Psychologist Guy ( talk) 21:12, 17 December 2021 (UTC) reply
Based on behavioural evidence I am convinced this account is Belteshazzar because of the edits on Margaret Corbett, Bates method, pseudomypia and comment about Stephen Jones (these are four articles that Belteshazzar edited), it's unlikely a brand new user would edit just these articles, several of these are low-traffic with virtually no other editors. This user was previously using the account Sslad (blocked on 26 October 2021). This same user also has a history of checking my recent user history and then editing an article I have edited in the last 12-24 hours. I noted this in the last SPI I filed against Belteshazzar on their account Sslad. It can be seen on the recent edit on the sunflower oil talk-page with the account LaLeLilou. I edited the talk-page of this article and within 24 hours LaLeLilLou edited it. The user did this many times on the Belteshazzar account as well. I never filed a checkuser because I suspected this user was using a proxy IP because its likely their home IP address is still check-user blocked. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 20:03, 18 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • CheckUser requested and endorsed by clerk - the behavioural evidence is highly suspicious, but given the small number of edits, I'd like Checkuser to confirm. Thanks, Spicy ( talk) 18:06, 18 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  •  In progress - -- TNT ( talk • she/they) 18:52, 18 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  •  On hold - proxy use, going to check back on this ​ -- TNT ( talk • she/they) 18:58, 18 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Proxy use, no further logins, so  Inconclusive -- TNT ( talk • she/they) 23:15, 20 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • The behaviour documented above, plus the apparent attempts to evade CU, convince me that this is Belteshazzar evading their block. Pink clock Awaiting administrative action - please indef LaLeLiLou. Thanks, Spicy ( talk) 04:37, 21 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Blocked per request. Bbb23 ( talk) 14:34, 21 December 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Sock tagged, closing. GAB gab 19:14, 21 December 2021 (UTC) reply

30 March 2022

Suspected sockpuppets

  • I have previously filed an SPI against Belteshazzar. His socks are quite easy to identify because he edits a specific area Bates method and pseudomyopia/presbyopia related articles. If you check the pseudomyopia talk-page history [15] which hardly any users have ever edited, he has used the socks Belteshazzar and LaLeLiLou in the past. The new account PseudoReview reads as an obvious Belteshazzar sock to me where this user has put review papers on the talk-page previously. Compare PseudoReview's edit [16] on the talk-page to LaLeLiLou's [17]. Both accounts use the term "review article" and only use the talk-page. I think it is obvious this is likely the same user. The user has also edited the Presbyopia article and William Bates (physician) which Belteshazzar has edited.
  • It should also be noted that PseudoReview has been involved in canvassing i.e. leaving messages on 3 users talk-pages. Odd behavior for a new user considering this was their very first edits. How would they know these other users Wikipedia accounts? The answer to that is because Belteshazzar has mentioned those very specific usernames before on the Bates method talk-page and if you check each one of these user talk-pages, Belteshazzar had previously contacted them, for example Ajeeshkumar4u's talk-page [18] and SamuelTheGhost [19] etc.

I suspect that Belteshazzar's IP address still might be check-user blocked and he is using VPN's which a previous SPI found. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 13:05, 30 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • Doesn't need a Checkuser. Blocked as a sock of Belteshazzar. Black Kite (talk) 17:37, 30 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Tagged, closing. Thanks, Spicy ( talk) 20:59, 30 March 2022 (UTC) reply

26 August 2022

Suspected sockpuppets

I have filed 3 SPI's against Belteshazzar in the past, all have been successful in blocking his socks so I am familiar with this user. It is not worth doing CU here as Belteshazzar is stale but I believe there is good behavioural evidence to block these accounts. As seen in the previous filings, Belteshazzar edits the Bates method, Aldous Huxley and Pseudomyopia related articles. However, as these articles are now heavily watched; this user has resorted to only making the occasional trivial edit on these articles but following me and editing any article I edit usually within 24 hours or 2 days of me editing an article (I have raised this in two previous SPI's), it is a very distinct type of editing behaviour. The user always leaves their user-page red, edits at the same times, makes similar edit summaries and makes very trivial edits.

SixteenSquared joined Wikipedia on 1 February 2022 to edit PaleoNeonate/Pitfalls ‎essay on pseudoscience [20] which is odd behaviour for a brand new user and PaleoNeonate also commented the behaviour is suspect. If you check out Belteshazzar's long term disruption on the Bates method talk-page you will see that Belteshazzar was debating many users about the Bates Method being characterized as ineffective or pseudoscience and one of these users he debated was PaleoNeonate, example [21]. SixteenSquared's interest in PaleoNeonate's essay is thus not a random occurrence. If you look at SixteenSquared's edits on that essay they are actually all trivial, a pattern that matches his editing.

On August 11 this user edited the Bates Method [22]. On the same day they edited Book of Dzyan, John A. McDougall, Jean Overton Fuller, ‎ C. E. Bechhofer Roberts. Note that I edited all these articles first on August 11, adding content. Within a few hours SixteenSquared edited all of these articles making tiny edits, for example check the page history of Book of Dzyan, Jean Overton Fuller and C. E. Bechhofer Roberts [23], [24], [25]. This user has a long history of looking at my edits, then going to the same articles I have edited and making trivial edits to them. On August 25, this was done again on Peter Anthony Bertocci [26]. The Bertocci article had not been edited since 2020 when I edited it on August 25, yet within hours SixteenSquared is editing it. As said this is very distinct and odd editing behaviour that I have raised in the previous SPI. It is clearly Belteshazzar, no other user does this. SixteenSquared also made an edit on Aldous Huxley an article which most of his socks have made edits on.

The same editing behaviour has occurred on Small Jars Lack Gold, an account that I was going to file an SPI against in January 2022 but the account was abandoned so I didn't bother. This account was created on 2 January 2022 with the first edits on Wikipedia_talk:Increase_your_chances [27] using the same writing style as Belteshazzar [28]. I am very familiar with how Belteshazzar writes, and that is definitely the same user. Again what is interesting here are the trivial edits on Evan Shute [29], Claus W. Jungeblut [30] and Great Amherst Mystery. These are all articles I have edited, yet Small Jars Lack Gold also edits them directly after me, making small edits to pronunciation or removing apostrophes. This is clearly Belteshazzar who has a history of doing this, clicking on my account then editing the same articles. This same user, did this on his previous socks Sslad [31] and LaLeLiLou [32].

If you check Small Jars Lack Gold's account history, there is the similar theme of making one off edits on William Bates (physician) and vision therapy. Both these accounts have the same editing pattern. This account also edited Alexbrn/A_POV_that_draws_a_source [33]. This is unlikely to be random. Belteshazzar dislikes the user Alexbrn who he encountered on the Bates method talk-page.

It should also be noted that if you look at the edit summaries of Small Jars Lack Gold and SixteenSquared they use exactly the same phrasing and writing style and also using quotation marks [34], [35], [36] and [37].

Belteshazzar on two of his blocked socks has commented that he is improving the website by fixing grammar or pronunciation and other minor edits, however, this user is blocked here. This user is not acting in good faith by repeatedly creating new accounts every few months to make minor edits on articles I have edited. I believe it is fair that his socks are blocked. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 20:26, 26 August 2022 (UTC) reply

  • SixteenSquared is continuing to make trivial edits on every article I edit, this is creepy to say the least but Belteshazzar is the only user obsessed with doing this, recent examples today on Paul Carton [38] and Frederick William Evans [39]. You only need to check the history of these articles to see that I have edited them and no other user has taken recent interest in them. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 10:46, 27 August 2022 (UTC) reply
SixteenSquared is aware of this SPI and as misdirection is now making trivial edits on articles that Drmies and GeneralNotability have recently edited, examples [40], [41], [42] Psychologist Guy ( talk) 10:51, 27 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

On the off-chance of something showing up I looked at 162 but found no other accounts--though I did see use of a proxy. Perhaps GeneralNotability has the memory of an elephant--they checked them last year. For me, it will have to be based on behavior, and I see that this is what Black Kite did last time--Black Kite, you mind having a quick look? Drmies ( talk) 20:35, 26 August 2022 (UTC) reply

I'm no Big Al today, sorry. Agree that there are proxies afoot here, but logs have the past account as probably not on a proxy, so nothing I can really add. GeneralNotability ( talk) 20:49, 26 August 2022 (UTC) reply

Speaking of creepy, now they're following me around-- [43], [44], [45], [46]. That kind of stuff is already enough reason to block. GeneralNotability, you too. Drmies ( talk) 14:38, 27 August 2022 (UTC) reply

  • I agree the behavioural link is strong, especially when combined with the proxy use. Not that it matters, given that – sock or not – there is no excuse for creepyposting of this sort.  Blocked and tagged. Closing. -- Blablubbs ( talk) 16:17, 27 August 2022 (UTC) reply

12 December 2022

Suspected sockpuppets

I have filed quite a few sock-puppet investigations against Belteshazzar and all have been successful in blocking this users socks. After they are blocked they usually turn up on a new account within a month or two. I am familiar with this users editing interests and style going back a few years. DefThree is a newish account created on 24 October 2022. If you check DefThree's edits they are a perfect match to Belteshazzar's socks. Belteshazzer's last blocked sock SixteenSquared was blocked on 27 August 2022.

Belteshazzar editing interests are all things related to the Bates Method and Myopia/ Pseudomyopia, Who Wants to be a Millionaire and various murders. When this user is not editing articles related to these topics, they make trivial edits on articles fixing spelling and on Wikipedia Essays. It is the same pattern of editing and edit summaries every-time.

DefThree has been editing Li Ching-Yuen, Bernarr Macfadden, Aldous Huxley, The Art of Seeing, Charles Ingram and mentioning Margaret Darst Corbett - these are all articles which Belteshazzar's blocked socks have edited. For example Belteshazzar edited the Charles Ingram article many times, just one example [47]. DefThree has been recently editing that article [48]. DefThree has been editing Aldous Huxley and The Art of Seeing - I have shown in previous SPIs that this users socks have been editing these articles but just take a look at the editing history [49] and you will see both Belteshazzar and DefThree making similar edits. The same is happening at Myopia. That is an article that Belteshazzar often spoke about many times. DefThree in a comment to SamuelTheGhost [50] has mentioned the article Margaret Darst Corbett. The Corbett article is low-traffic and is an interest of Belteshazzar's. Belteshazzer edited that article quite a few times and also edited it on their blocked sock LaLeLiLou [51]. They obviously won't touch that article because it is being watched but they are asking another user about it (SamuelTheGhost, an editor that Belteshazzar has contacted before).

As established in two of the previous SPI's - Belteshazzar has an obsession with checking my recent editing history and often edits articles I have created within two hours of me having done so. He makes very trivial edits attempting to move commas or fix spelling mistakes. On the 31 October I filed an SPI investigation against a different sock-puppeteer Dante8 [52] in my comment I listed the articles Timeline of reproductive rights legislation and Timeline of women's legal rights (other than voting) in the 20th century at a post at 2am in the morning. An hour later DefThree edits these articles [53], [54] at around 3am.

Another example on 23:15, 9 November 2022‎ I edited the Ancel Keys article within an hour later DefThree edits it [55]. This user does this many times. Another example is at Li Ching-Yuen where DefThree edited an hour after me on December 7.

Li Ching-Yuen is an article I first edited in 2021. A day after I edited that article Belteshazzar's edited it on his sock Sslad [56]. Since that time this user has edited that article on other socks, usually a day or so after I edit the article. A recent example is DefThree editing that article an hour after me [57]. The list goes on but it is clear this is all the same user per the same articles and editing interests.

Belteshazzar on their more recent socks SixteenSquared and Small Jars Lack Gold edits Wikipedia Essays making trivial edits to them. This is a perfect match to what DefThree has been doing on such essays as Wikipedia:Tendentious editing.

The clear give away to me is that DefThree has left a comment on SamuelTheGhost's talk-page [58]. I have raised this issue in a previous SPI where you will see that Belteshazzar's socks have also left comments to this user [59], [60].

I have no doubt that Belteshazzar and DefThree are the same user. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 13:30, 12 December 2022 (UTC) Psychologist Guy ( talk) 13:30, 12 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • Blocked, tagged, closing. Bbb23 ( talk) 13:58, 12 December 2022 (UTC) reply

24 December 2022

Suspected sockpuppets

User:DefThree was recently indeffed as a sock of Belteshazzar. User:Bbb23 reverted a load of their contributions. 200.17.137.40 shows up on some of the same articles and reinstates some of DefThree's changes, sometimes with minor differences, e.g. here, here and here. This looks like the same person anonymously trying to undo their reversions and also disruptively fiddling with policies to try to justify their behaviour. Finally, please note the blatantly dishonest edit summary here which is indicative of a deliberate attempt to avoid scrutiny by pretending to be doing something innocuous. DanielRigal ( talk) 02:31, 24 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • Blocked the IP for two weeks. Closing. Bbb23 ( talk) 02:52, 24 December 2022 (UTC) reply

11 January 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

This IP was blocked for 2 weeks back in December for being a sockpuppet of Belteshazzar. (Details: here.) Almost as soon as the block expired it started reverting the reversions of its edits and edits by other Belteshazzar socks. As always, it spends a lot of time fiddling with policy and instruction documents, sometimes making plausible minor corrections sometimes changing things substantially without discussion. Wikipedia:We shouldn't be able to figure out your opinions is the best example as you can see it reinstating its own reverted edit from before the block which was itself a reinstatement of an edit by User:DefThree, a previously blocked sock of Belteshazzar. The IP seems to be stable so I think a longer block is needed. DanielRigal ( talk) 09:48, 11 January 2023 (UTC) reply

This is definitely block evasion from Belteshazzar. Belteshazzar IP is probably still check-user blocked so they have resorted to proxy/vpn. 200.17.137.40 is a proxy. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 16:24, 11 January 2023 (UTC) reply
Thanks for reverting their edits. I was going to look at that once I had finished work. I see that you left the two harmless ones. I think that was the right thing to do. After this, they came back and did another revert, trying to argue in the edit summary, so I have reverted that too. I didn't look at the edit in any detail except to see that it was not an obvious and uncontroversial improvement. DanielRigal ( talk) 17:53, 11 January 2023 (UTC) reply
Also now editing User:PaleoNeonate/Pitfalls, which is an essay in userspace, and not in their user space either. That has also been fiddled with by a previous Belteshazzar sock, User:SixteenSquared. I've reverted. If PaleoNeonate wants to reinstate the edit then he can but Belteshazzar needs to leave it alone. DanielRigal ( talk) 18:00, 11 January 2023 (UTC) reply
There are at least three significant problems with the version of Porter and Jick that was restored. First, information is in the lede that is not mentioned in the body of the article, namely a co-author's first name and the date of publication. Secondly, "Methodological limitations from which the letter suffered" implies that there was a problem with the letter itself, whereas the only actual problem is the way it was misrepresented later. Third, the Jick quote at the end makes it sound like he is taking blame, whereas if you read it in context, he isn't taking blame, nor should he. 200.17.137.40 ( talk) 19:32, 11 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • IP blocked 3 months. Closing. Bbb23 ( talk) 19:37, 11 January 2023 (UTC) reply

15 January 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

Another IP reinstating reverted edits made by blocked IPs and sockpuppets belonging to Belteshazzar. e.g. this diff which reinstates an edit made by User:200.17.137.40 which was itself a reinstatement of some edits made by User:DefThree. They continue to argue the toss in their edit summaries. They are not getting the message that the content of their edits is no longer at issue because sockpuppetry and block evasion are not acceptable under any circumstances. DanielRigal ( talk) 23:27, 15 January 2023 (UTC) reply

If content is not at issue, then you should revert this edit also. 61.220.170.133 ( talk) 23:34, 15 January 2023 (UTC) reply
We are not here to play stupid games with you. You need to stop wasting everybody's time. Find a new hobby. DanielRigal ( talk) 23:37, 15 January 2023 (UTC) reply
You're the one wasting time, by reverting and reporting perfectly good edits. 61.220.170.133 ( talk) 23:40, 15 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • IP blocked one week. Closing. Bbb23 ( talk) 00:05, 16 January 2023 (UTC) reply

17 January 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

Another IP sock reinstating the reverted edits by various other Belteshazzar socks. Please can we get semi-protection on all their main targets so that they can't keep doing this with IPs? DanielRigal ( talk) 11:56, 17 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Any admin considering page protection should seriously consider the content of the edits, which only fixed problems (including borderline BLP issues at Porter and Jick) and added useful content. 190.220.8.90 ( talk) 16:15, 17 January 2023 (UTC) reply
None of us are getting paid. We don't have time to review your bullshit. You know that your behaviour is prohibited here and yet you continue. You are disrupting other people who could actually be doing some good. You clearly have no respect for Wikipedia and are cynically using your more innocuous edits purely as as way to probe the limits of what you can get away with before going back to making disruptive edits again. This is an encyclopaedia not a playground. You need to go and play somewhere else. DanielRigal ( talk) 16:35, 17 January 2023 (UTC) reply
I'm helping people, by making pages easier to understand. If you want to do good, don't waste your time summarily reverting good edits. 190.220.8.90 ( talk) 16:45, 17 January 2023 (UTC) reply
No. You are not helping anybody. You know that you are not. You are just abusing Wikipedia for your own amusement. You know this! We know this! Nobody is fooled by your insincere attempts at self-justification. Go away! Stay away! -- DanielRigal ( talk) 16:48, 17 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Recent IP socks of Belteshazzar have used IPs in Argentina, Brazil and Taiwan. Are there some proxy ranges we need to be blocking? -- DanielRigal ( talk) 16:57, 17 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • Blocked IP for 3 days. I don't see an obvious range to block. Page protection should be requested at WP:RFPP, but I'm not sure it will be granted. Closing. Bbb23 ( talk) 17:14, 17 January 2023 (UTC) reply

17 January 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

Turns up on the request for page protection to try to argue the toss as if being a blatant sock of a blocked user wasn't even an issue. Same old nonsense. Same old chutzpah. DanielRigal ( talk) 20:55, 17 January 2023 (UTC) reply

You're acting like content isn't even an issue. You and the others have never actually commented on the content of those edits. 103.103.3.6 ( talk) 21:03, 17 January 2023 (UTC) reply
You don't like the way Wikipedia works. Wikipedia doesn't like the way you work. Obvious solution: Go somewhere else! Other websites exist. DanielRigal ( talk) 21:14, 17 January 2023 (UTC) reply
Belteshazzar, per WP:EVADE (which you should read), users can revert your edits because you are blocked. Whilst it is true you have fixed some minor grammar issues your overall net contribution to this website has been negative so users will revert you. You have had many accounts causing disruption. You have annoyed too many admins and experienced users. We do not need to support you or your edits, you are pest here. You are not doing good on this website. It's time for you to move on and stop turning up every few months on different accounts and IPs making the same edits. Just cut it out and move on with your life. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 23:02, 17 January 2023 (UTC) reply
Thanks for pointing me to that. "While reverting edits, take care not to reinstate material that may be in violation of such core policies as Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons." Glad to see that actually is policy. That also supports the essay edits you reverted here. 103.103.3.6 ( talk) 00:12, 18 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • Blocked IP for one month, partly for socking and partly because it's an obvious proxy. Closing. Bbb23 ( talk) 01:03, 18 January 2023 (UTC) reply

18 January 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

Reinstating edits by previous socks, yet again. Same old same old... DanielRigal ( talk) 18:08, 18 January 2023 (UTC) reply

More concerning is that you keep restoring borderline BLP violations at Porter and Jick. 23.225.72.125 ( talk) 18:15, 18 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • IP proxy blocked one month. Closing. Bbb23 ( talk) 18:24, 18 January 2023 (UTC) reply

21 January 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

Block evasion from Belteshazzar who is continuing to use a VPN to evade his block. He's now on the talk-page of Addiction Rare in Patients Treated with Narcotics [61], at his usual obsession Charles Ingram and is again stalking my recent editing history and editing articles I have edited, i.e. [62]. There is no doubt this is Belteshazzar. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 15:06, 21 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

I also notice that that IP has made edits to a couple of articles that I have been involved with and which Belteshazzar has previously shown no interest in. I wouldn't call it stalking in my case, at least not yet, but that does corroborate what Psychologist Guy was saying. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 20:28, 21 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

28 January 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

Obvious block-evasion from Belteshazzar who is continuing to use a VPN service to evade his block and edit Addiction Rare in Patients Treated with Narcotics, Charles Ingram, Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep etc. His tactic now appears to make only 1 edit and then change IP. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 19:58, 28 January 2023 (UTC) reply

The IPs he is using are proxy IPs. I Googled 61.220.170.133 this was an IP he was previously using and now it appears a different user is using it. When you look that IP up it is listed on the website free-proxy-list.net which offers a VPN service, so this is likely what Belteshazzar is using. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 11:17, 29 January 2023 (UTC) reply
Belteshazzar is still using 61.220.170.133, Margaret Darst Corbett is a long-term target of his [63]. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 15:21, 31 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
  • That certainly seems to be Belteshazzar, reinstating their many times removed edits and continuing to try to argue the toss about it. DanielRigal ( talk) 22:28, 28 January 2023 (UTC) reply
Note: Added 62.211.205.169 above. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 23:17, 28 January 2023 (UTC) reply
Note: Added 151.24.37.115 above. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 23:19, 28 January 2023 (UTC) reply
Note: I have requested page protection of Talk:Addiction Rare in Patients Treated with Narcotics. DanielRigal ( talk) 23:24, 28 January 2023 (UTC) reply
  • I suspect that 151.38.160.141 is also a sock of this user based on their sole edit being a recent one on my talk page complaining about their edits to the Porter and Jick article being reverted. IntoThinAir ( talk) 01:56, 30 January 2023 (UTC) reply

61.220.170.133 went on an editing spree, including reversions, in the last 24h. That's going to take some unpicking. It would be better to block it sooner than later. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 09:07, 31 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

10 February 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

Continued block-evasion from Belteshazzar who is obsessed with editing Charles Ingram and has been making this same edit [64] on his previous blocked IPs. It's obvious that this is also Belteshazzar because they are now editing Timeline of disability rights outside the United States, Timeline of transgender history and Timeline of women's legal rights in the United States (other than voting). These 3 articles I mentioned in Dante8's SPI [65] on 7 February. A few hours later that I mentioned these articles on the Dante SPI - Belteshazzar is editing these articles (as established in 3 previous SPI's he just follows me around everywhere and edits the same articles I edit or mention).

It's probably worth getting page protection on Charles Ingram because Belteshazzar's obvious block evasion is just wasting other users time. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 01:23, 10 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

I'm certain that this is another sockpuppet IP of Belteshazzar. I assume the IP is a proxy. The editing around Charles Ingram and related topics is pretty conclusive, particularly reinstating an edit from one of his previous sockpuppet IPs. Also some of the seemingly "random" other articles edited correspond to articles that I have recently edited. That fits his pattern of stalking the edits of people who have reported him in the past. (One of the articles he has made an innocuous edit to is a new and quite obscure one which I really can't believe that he stumbled over any other way.) DanielRigal ( talk) 01:48, 10 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

13 February 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

The usual nonsense from Belteshazzar. He even confesses to it here! This is the second (maybe third) time this IP has been used by Belteshazzar. He likes to hop IPs but, for some reason he keeps returning to this one. I think it needs to be blocked for a good few months this time. DanielRigal ( talk) 23:01, 13 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

22 February 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

Obvious SOCK. tgeorgescu ( talk) 08:50, 22 February 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Bbb23: I was rather tired today, sorry, sometimes it is tedious to restate the obvious. tgeorgescu ( talk) 19:28, 22 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
  • Yep, it's him! Don't waste time checking them individually, just nuke all the edits. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 14:50, 22 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    Some of the edits are so insipid as to be obvious bulk to try to cover his tracks by diluting his edit history. I think he just presses the Random article link until he sees a very minor mistake which he can correct and then, when he thinks he has done enough not to look like an SPA and to avoid overlapping with his past edits then he goes for his real targets. I've reverted all the edits to his real targets without even reading them but I've let some of the other edits stand. There is no point in reinstating obvious minor grammatical and formatting errors but wherever he was editing more substantially I've nuked anything which is not very obviously correct. DanielRigal ( talk) 18:55, 22 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    And now he is stalking me to obscure articles that I have recently edited, making minor edits in a further demonstration of territorial pissing. This is another of his abusive long-term behaviours. DanielRigal ( talk) 19:14, 22 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • Blocked and tagged. @ Tgeorgescu and DanielRigal: Neither of you provided a single diff in support of this report. Nor did tgeorgescu explain why they requested a check. In the future, do not assume that the person evaluating a report knows the behavior of the master, forcing them to do the investigation their own. Closing. Bbb23 ( talk) 19:24, 22 February 2023 (UTC) reply

25 February 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

Continued block evasion from Belteshazzar who was recently editing The Carpenter's Pencil (film) and Charles Ingram on the blocked account One Ten Nine Ten. As you can see the IP (which is an open proxy) is editing the same articles [66], [67]

As established in 4 previous SPI's an obsessive editing behaviour of this user is to stalk other users recent edits, you can see he has followed the user Tgeorgescu to the article Perpetual virginity of Mary [68]

If you run an internet search on 89.17.214.10, it is listed as an proxy IP for hire so I think it should qualify to be blocked for longer. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 00:39, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

@ DanielRigal:, yeah it's definitely him, he's following me around again, see Wilfred G. Lambert. I have been putting up with this for nearly 2 years now, I am not really bothered anymore. Every account, IP etc he has had gets blocked and all his edits are usually reverted in 48 hours. The guy has never made any decent edits on this website. I have reported a lot of socks over the years, but this guy is the least productive of all the others I have come across. He is actually wasting his life by what he is doing on here because all his edits are reverted, but each to their own I guess. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 01:29, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
I absolutely have made decent edits. My edit summaries explained in detail why these were improvements: [69] [70] [71] No one addressed the content. 89.17.214.10 ( talk) 01:53, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Nobody ever will "address the content" because that is not the issue. The issue is your abusive behaviour. Continuing to argue for your preferred edits is a waste of time, both yours and ours. We have largely stopped even reading them beyond the need to determine whether a "new" editor is you in disguise. There is no amount of "decent edits" that you could do that could even begin to offset the damage done by your presence here as a sockpuppeteer who blatantly disrespects the integrity of our project. I don't know exactly what drives you to behave like this but I was sincere when I suggested trying therapy in my previous comment (below). Please try to get yourself back on the right track and then find some other hobby which you can enjoy without the frustration of constantly fighting against rules that you don't want to obey. Wikipedia is not the whole world. Other websites/places/organisations/activities are available with their own rules some of which might suit you better. Maybe you can accomplish something good somewhere else. DanielRigal ( talk) 13:55, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
  • I'm not sure if this reflects greater subtlety than before or just that you spotted him going at Charles Ingram again before he got round to the other one of his main targets ( Addiction Rare in Patients Treated with Narcotics) but I think this is him anyway. Returning to The Carpenter's Pencil (film) seals it for me. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 01:14, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    And now he is stalking Psychologist Guy to Wilfred G. Lambert. That's 100% him. DanielRigal ( talk) 01:30, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    I know enough about the Christadelphians to know that they are not usually called a "church", so I had to correct that when I saw it. 89.17.214.10 ( talk) 02:03, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    This isn't about any of that. This is about your sockpuppetry. Anything else is just irrelevant. You forfeited your right to edit Wikipedia when you engaged in sockpuppetry. You need to disengage from Wikipedia entirely. Continuing like this is neither good for us nor for you. Find another hobby. Find some grass to touch. Find a therapist. Be well but please be well somewhere else. DanielRigal ( talk) 02:10, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    So it's irrelevant that Charles Ingram was clearly promoted to Major in 1995, but his bio here says it was 1996, contrary even to the cited source? Or that events surrounding his trial are clearly out of order? 89.17.214.10 ( talk) 15:51, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply
    This is a sockpuppet report. Any blathering about anything else is off topic here. If you want to address your behaviour then this is the right place to do it. If you want to kvetch about anything else then that is disruptive and your comments will either be ignored or removed. This is not about Ingram. This is about you. DanielRigal ( talk) 16:08, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • Competing causes of block: socking on a proxy. Closing. Favonian ( talk) 16:30, 25 February 2023 (UTC) reply

28 February 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

Has edited Addiction Rare in Patients Treated with Narcotics and Wikipedia:Increase your chances, which are both past targets, in a similar way to before. This is an unlikely pattern of overlap for anybody who is not Belteshazzar. The other edits are probably just intended for distraction. DanielRigal ( talk) 18:23, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • Another day, another proxy. Closing. Favonian ( talk) 18:39, 28 February 2023 (UTC) reply

01 March 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

Belteshazzar has used this IP address before. He is returning to abuse it again by targeting the usual topic areas around Charles Ingram. As Charles Ingram is semi-protected he has taken this to related article James Plaskett. Also returning to Wikipedia:Increase your chances. What is new is that he is trying to solicit help in his obsessive quest around Addiction Rare in Patients Treated with Narcotics by bothering User talk:Z1720 with his nonsense. I assume this is a proxy IP. I suggest a good long block. DanielRigal ( talk) 23:28, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • Blocked 3 months, closing. Bbb23 ( talk) 23:36, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Ponyo came in directly after me and blocked the proxy for 2 years.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 23:38, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
( edit conflict) I blocked it for two years as a gaping hole proxy, which conflicted with your block Bbb23. Sorry!-- Ponyo bons mots 23:38, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
No need to be sorry, Ponyo. I picked 3 months only because Favonian blocked the other one above for that amount of time. Two years is fine with me. Means the user will have to find other proxies for us to block.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 23:48, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply
One of my fingers is in a splint (nothing too worrisome) and it's slowed me considerably. Speedy Gonzales no more, I'm afraid.-- Ponyo bons mots 23:50, 1 March 2023 (UTC) reply

06 March 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

As always, its the Who Wants To Be A Millionaire nonsense and the Addiction Rare in Patients Treated with Narcotics nonsense plus stalking my recent edits to find Talk:List of unusual biological names. This ticks all the boxes for a Belteshazzar sock and the other edits are just random track covering. DanielRigal ( talk) 22:19, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Furthermore, I think this goes beyond the usual contribution stalking and rises to the level of actual harassment thus raising the question of whether we need to formalise Belteshazzars' many, many blocks as an actual complete ban. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 22:23, 6 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • IP now blocked. Closing. Bbb23 ( talk) 14:27, 7 March 2023 (UTC) reply

09 March 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

The usual pattern except that this time he finds that many of his preferred targets are semi-protected so he goes for the talk pages instead. He asks, as if he doesn't already know, why his previous edits were reverted. ( Diff and diff.) He also stalks Psychologist Guy to Isis Unveiled ( diff) and myself to James Stephanie Sterling where he misgenders Sterling in the edit summary ( diff) although I suspect that this is because he has absolutely no idea who Sterling is, not because of any intent to misgender. DanielRigal ( talk) 19:54, 9 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

11 March 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

Redoing edits of the indeffed socks. tgeorgescu ( talk) 15:15, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Now it is blocked for three months. Also a WP:PROXY. tgeorgescu ( talk) 15:37, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

I have added 154.202.98.218 to the list. That seems close in IP to the other one so maybe a rangeblock is possible? I'm also thinking of making an LTA entry. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 16:41, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • Reopening because of the added IP.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 17:14, 11 March 2023 (UTC) reply

13 March 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

Returning to Shigechiyo Izumi with the same old same old. Also, editing Jamie Raines in a trivial way, which he almost certainly found by stalking my edits. DanielRigal ( talk) 19:18, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • Blocked as a proxy for one year. Closing. Bbb23 ( talk) 20:04, 13 March 2023 (UTC) reply

25 March 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

This is obvious Belteshazzar block-evasion. Firstly, 45.173.12.138 is a proxy IP and he is yet again editing his favourite targets Shigechiyo Izumi and Christian Mortensen (leaving the same kind of edit summaries) [72], [73]) similar to his last blocked proxy socks [74], [75]. The same IP has now also followed me onto the Shirali Muslimov article which I edited recently. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 11:55, 25 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

08 April 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

This is continued block-evasion from Belteshazzar who now resorts to using vpns and proxy IPs. 103.189.231.206 is editing Belteshazzar's previous targets Daniel M. Lavery which he has edited on previous blocked socks [76]. Also established in several previous SPI's Belteshazzar is obsessed with editing articles that DanielRigal or myself have edited recently, so that would explain this recent edit [77].

He has then followed me onto the Victoria Braithwaite article [78]. Another target of Belteshazzar is Dwight Gooden which he has been blocked on this account for editing in the past [79].

He has also edited Wikipedia:Fringe theories [80] which he previously edited on the blocked account DefThree [81]. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 23:52, 8 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
  • I noticed some of those edits and I thought that they were a little bit odd without immediately connecting them to Belteshazzar or feeling a need to check up on them. I mean, updating the barely changed YouTube stats for somebody who has been dead for three years is definitely a bit strange. [82] It was only when I saw this report and checked their overall contribution history that I instantly recognised that this is exactly what Psychologist Guy says it is. DanielRigal ( talk) 01:42, 9 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • IP blocked for a bit, closing. Thanks, Spicy ( talk) 11:53, 9 April 2023 (UTC) reply

18 April 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

Here we go again. Has hit Wikipedia:Everything you need to know, which is a regular target. This IP was blocked for a week and Belteshazzar resumed using it on the day the block expired. I suggest a longer block this time. DanielRigal ( talk) 22:21, 18 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • IP reblocked, this time for a month. Closing.-- Ponyo bons mots 22:28, 18 April 2023 (UTC) reply

27 April 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

Continued block-evasion on this proxy IP by Belteshazzar which had previously been blocked [83] in January. He is editing previous targets of his Steven Crowder, Wikipedia:Fringe theories [84] and followed me onto the carnivore diet article [85]. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 18:54, 27 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Yeah, that's him. Most of the edits are innocuous but I've nuked the edits to Wikipedia:Dealing with sockpuppets as that is probably the single most inappropriate thing imaginable for him to be editing, irrespective of the edit content. I find it interesting that he is reusing a previously used proxy IP. That implies that he has quite a limited pool of usable addresses available to him. Probably most of those he could use are already blocked. There is hope that a really long block on this IP, and maybe just a few others, might see the back of him for a while. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 19:38, 27 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

05 May 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

This is obvious block evasion from Belteshazzar who has yet again followed me onto the carnivore diet article [86] but this time using the talk-page as the article is protected and Li Ching-Yuen [87] which he has edited many times before on IPs a few hours after me. The previous blocked IP he was using last week [88] you can see it is Belteshazzar.

Another target of his is Wikipedia:Dealing with sockpuppets [89] which he has been blocked on quite a few IPs going back to January. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 00:02, 5 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Sorry shortly before I filed this an admin has blocked the account. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 00:04, 5 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • I blocked them while you were filing this. Sorry for the wasted keystrokes! Spicy ( talk) 00:04, 5 May 2023 (UTC) reply

16 May 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

This is continued Belteshazzar block-evasion on a VPN who is continuing to stalk my recent edit history and edit the same articles as me. This has been mentioned in many previous SPI's. I am not happy about this stalking any longer, it's been going on nearly 2 years now. I would like to email the WMF, I believe this user Belteshazzar should be globally banned because this is long-term harassment.

Examples: 3HO [90], Hulda Crooks [91], Joe Greenstein [92] all edited after me.

Another target of Belteshazzar is the user DanielRigal which would explain the edit at For Women Scotland [93].

As per the previous SPI he also edits the article Li Ching-Yuen where he has been blocked many times [94], [95]. It might be worth protecting that article, I may request that. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 21:21, 16 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Belteshazzar is now using another proxy [96] to follow me around. WP:PSPITFALLS is also another target of his that he has edited in the past [97], [98]. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 18:49, 18 May 2023 (UTC) reply

He is back editing R v Ingram, C., Ingram, D. and Whittock, T.. This should be a quick block. There is no doubt these proxy IPs are Belteshazzar. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 10:35, 19 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Belteshazzar has now followed me onto the Dada Bhagwan article on a new proxy IP just to make a stupid edit that doesn't improve the article [99]. This type of behaviour as stated has been going on for well over a year, it does fit the criteria for a global ban because this type of creepy stalking is against policy. He has no interest in these articles but is merely editing to harass. If I edit an article he will turn up within 4 or 5 hours and make a pointless or trivial edit. This is a serial stalker and internet troll who has nothing better to do. Per WP:DENY it is probably best just to revert his edits on site very quickly and not talk about this user further. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 14:46, 19 May 2023 (UTC) reply
He's on the IP 49.49.51.160. He is very likely using a VPN service not a TOR browser. Many but not all of his IPs are proxies. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 17:01, 21 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Most of the other edits looks like innocuous edits to either to deflect attention or to annoy but the edit to Li Ching-Yuen is a very standard edit to one of his standard targets. That's definitely him. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 21:34, 16 May 2023 (UTC) reply

I've added 181.163.18.64 as that is also clearly him, hitting several of the usual targets. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 19:35, 17 May 2023 (UTC) reply
I've nuked the majority of edits by both IPs which were not obvious and entirely uncontroversial improvements so as not to encourage him. I have left a very few edits where reverting would not be in the interest of the articles in question. DanielRigal ( talk) 19:44, 17 May 2023 (UTC) reply
He's back on his Who Wants To Be A Millionaire related bullshit too at James Plaskett. DanielRigal ( talk) 22:17, 17 May 2023 (UTC) reply
User:Guy Macon/One against many (AKA WP:1AM) appears to be one of his targets. See [100] and [101] -- Guy Macon ( talk) 02:00, 18 May 2023 (UTC) reply
The edit summary here shows a willingness to make this personal and also that he is just playing stupid games with us. The disruption in ongoing.
Please can somebody block the two remaining IPs and maybe extend the block on the first one? I assume that all three are proxy or VPN IPs and Belteshazzar has shown a pattern of reusing IPs after blocks expire, so blocking them all for a longer period seems advisable. DanielRigal ( talk) 21:31, 18 May 2023 (UTC) reply
49.50.164.83 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is a proxy. Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Belteshazzar says "They often return to previously used proxy IP addresses once blocks on them expire suggesting that they have a fairly limited pool of IPs at their disposal. Such IPs can probably be blocked for long periods without risk of disrupting legitimate editors." I also suggest considering a temporary range block that cover the other IPs.
The ironic part is that if someone who isn't a disruptive sockpuppet were to raise a question -- on User talk:Guy Macon/One against many, not through edit warring -- about whether I should use "he" or "they" in my essay, we could have a nice civil discussion and I might very well agree with the change. Once you have shown us that you are willing to disrupt Wikipedia, you lose my willingness to even consider any changes you might want. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 06:04, 19 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Yeah. When I revert his changes it is not because he is automatically wrong about everything. It is because his very presence on Wikipedia is disruptive to the project and outweighs any possible good he could do by orders of magnitude. A lot of the time I revert his edits without even reading them. If you wanted to make a similar change then that would be perfectly reasonable. DanielRigal ( talk) 12:01, 19 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Note: The stalking is getting out of hand so I have opened a case on ANI about that: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Stalking by sockpuppets of Belteshazzar. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 17:40, 19 May 2023 (UTC) reply

I've blocked this range and this IP per WP:DUCK. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:13, 19 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Note: The thread got archived but if anybody wants to marvel in slack jawed awe at the unmitigated chutzpah of Belteshazzar actually trying to blackmail ANI into letting some of his vandalism stand by threatening further vandalism if they do not, then you can find it here. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 18:37, 27 May 2023 (UTC) reply

I've added 223.207.103.125. Same old, same old. Ugh... -- DanielRigal ( talk) 18:17, 27 May 2023 (UTC) reply

This time I'm reverting all edits by that IP without even looking at the content. I'm not prepared to waste my time separating out the harmless minor corrections from the vandalism. If there was ever a case where WP:DENY applied it is this. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 22:46, 27 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • The unblocked IP edits are too old. Closing. Bbb23 ( talk) 20:41, 17 June 2023 (UTC) reply

08 June 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

I'm pretty certain that 194.124.36.26 is Belteshazzar. Wikipedia:Guide to addressing bias is a frequent target. Their one other edit is to an article about a baseball player. Several of the previous socks have also made edits to articles about baseball players. I am fairly confident that 103.167.170.202 is also him. Wikipedia:Dealing with sockpuppets is a topic close to Belteshazzar's heart (for obvious reasons) and that IP has been blocked as a proxy in the past. Even so, it would be good to get a checkuser to make sure. DanielRigal ( talk) 00:22, 8 June 2023 (UTC) reply

And now 103.167.170.202 is making edits to articles about baseball players too. Time to nuke all edits by both IPs... DanielRigal ( talk) 02:13, 8 June 2023 (UTC) reply
I've added 213.52.102.30 and 223.207.100.232. The former admits to stalking and socking here, while the latter has attempted to trick User:I dream of horses into unwittingly defending his bad edits here. I mean, that was never going to work but the disrespect shown here is absolutely off the scale. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 17:35, 10 June 2023 (UTC) reply
@ DanielRigal Concerning! I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 17:38, 10 June 2023 (UTC) reply
I've added User:ContentIsWhatMatters. That one is already blocked, and I've already nuked his edits, so I'm only adding it for completeness. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 19:21, 17 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

These proxy IPs are definitely Belteshazzar block evasion. A favourite target of his is Li Ching-Yuen [102] which he followed me onto and has been editing for months on many proxies. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 17:25, 8 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • Nothing to do here. The named account is now blocked, and the unblocked IP edits are already old. Closing. Bbb23 ( talk) 20:44, 17 June 2023 (UTC) reply

19 June 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

Here we go again. He is reverting to his preferred versions made by his previous, now blocked, sock account. Doesn't he ever get bored with this nonsense? DanielRigal ( talk) 15:40, 19 June 2023 (UTC) reply

I'm nuking all his edits without even reading them because he has already wasted far too much of our time. If anybody else (I mean a real anybody else, not just another sockpuppet) thinks that any of his edits are worth keeping then I won't revert them if they redo any of them. DanielRigal ( talk) 15:45, 19 June 2023 (UTC) reply
For a second time he has tried to trick an uninvolved editor into helping him, here. DanielRigal ( talk) 22:40, 19 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

20 June 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

Reverting to reinstate the previous blocked IP's attempts to trick another user into helping him on User talk:Morganfitzp. DanielRigal ( talk) 13:39, 20 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Also, now reinstating reverted edits on several other articles. As before, I'm nuking them all without even reading them. If anybody (who is not Belteshazzar hiding behind a proxy IP) cares to resurrect any valid changes then they are very free to do so but I can't be bothered. DanielRigal ( talk) 16:24, 20 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Looking at the edit history here, I don't think that edits from this IP prior to today are him. If this is a proxy IP then I guess somebody else has been using it too. DanielRigal ( talk) 18:51, 20 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

45.166.16.228 is a proxy IP. The edits made on 20 June 2023 are definitely Belteshazzar. The edits made on the 8, 9, 11 and 18th of June are not Belteshazzar they are another banned sock-puppeteer who has an obsession with editing Japanese superhero character lists. This same user has shared proxy IPs with Belteshazzar in the past on multiple proxies. The best thing to do here is give 45.166.16.228 a long block. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 22:28, 20 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Ah, right. I was a bit worried about a long block potentially impacting on an innocent party but if the other editor is a wrongun too then a good long block is just getting two for the price of one. DanielRigal ( talk) 22:42, 20 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

25 June 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

Looks like he has yet another IP sock and is using it to reinstate reverted edits by the previous IP socks. So far, he is only reinstating some of his baseball related edits, which is often a prelude to reinstating the other, weirder, nonsense. Weird thing is that I'm pretty sure that he only started doing baseball edits as cover, or out of casual interest in the topic, but now he seems to be becoming obsessed with defending those edits too. The IP is probably a proxy. If so, I recommend a long block, either of the individual IP or of a range of proxy IPs that it is in. DanielRigal ( talk) 12:49, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Belteshazzar, if you see this, then please try to understand that you are not only wasting everybody's time by continuing to try to edit Wikipedia. This is not healthy for you. Please find some other activity that you can do instead. If you really do care about baseball then maybe participate in some baseball related forums, fan wikis or something like that? If you can't let go of Wikipedia on your own then please seek appropriate professional help to do so. It will be better for everybody, but mostly better for you, if you can do this. There is nothing for you here and staying here is only holding you back from finding somewhere else where you can achieve something more worthwhile than constantly having your efforts reverted. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 12:57, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply

He's still at it. I'm reverting all edits without even looking at them but it would save time and effort if somebody could block the IP for a good long time. DanielRigal ( talk) 21:38, 27 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

29 June 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

Returning to Das Fürlines (a recent repeat target) and also an edit about baseball. Similar tone in the edit summaries. Even after only two edits I'm confident that this is Belteshazzar again. DanielRigal ( talk) 11:26, 29 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

03 July 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

Five edits to three articles, all three of which are previous targets of his socks and which are otherwise mostly unrelated. DanielRigal ( talk) 18:04, 3 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
  • This seems likely to me. I did a quick comparison with this IP and the others above, and there's some commonalities here beyond the behavioural. This latest IP is a likely proxy. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 18:34, 3 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

09 July 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

I'm not 100% sure about this one, hence the request for a checkuser, but this IP has been editing in the WP space for a few days and hitting a couple of the usual targets pretty hard, Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep and Wikipedia:Increase your chances. The style of the edit summaries seems suspiciously similar to past socks. No sign of any baseball related edits but maybe he is finally learning that those are counterproductive when trying to cover his tracks. No sign of the ophthalmology stuff yet but I think four days in enough rope. I'm not nuking the edits this time, yet, just in case this is not him but the chances of an anonymous editor taking such an interest in the WP space legitimately is pretty low. DanielRigal ( talk) 13:01, 9 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Do we know if the IP is a VPN proxy IP? If it is then that fits the pattern of previous socks. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 13:39, 9 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Does anybody have any thoughts on this? If this is Belteshazzar then we really do need to nuke the edits before people start building on them making them harder to unpick. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 11:44, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply
I'm going to nuke the edits. An IP editing that extensively in the WP space is suspicious even if they are not Belteshazzar, and I'm 95-99% certain that they are. If anybody disagrees then please feel free to revert and discuss. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 18:43, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply
He reinstated my reversions using a different but adjacent IP address. The tone of the edit summaries makes me 100% certain that this is him now. It has his characteristic insistence that he be treated with the same grace as an editor in good standing and abusive demand that we owe him our time to assess his every edit individually for any potential validity. No! He was blocked and, de-facto banned, for very good reasons. He needs to accept that and just go away. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 11:22, 14 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Note: I've added 110.136.216.110. This is clearly in a fairly adjacent IP address range. This suggests the need for a good long rangeblock if such a large range can be blocked safely without hurting legitimate users. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 11:22, 14 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Note: I've added 103.178.42.233 which is more of the same nonsense. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 21:02, 18 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
  • The first IP is unlikely to be a proxy based on what I can currently see though I can't rule it out being one at the time of the initial report. The second IP is a possible proxy though. I would not recommend a rangeblock however, the range seems to be a /22 and it's a consumer ISP not a business or data centre. There'd be some collateral. I'd also not recommend a long block, the second IP is a residential proxy and these are typically short lived. No comment on any behavioural evidence. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 03:37, 15 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    The latest IP, 103.178.42.233 is both an open and residential proxy and should be blocked accordingly. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 21:09, 18 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

29 July 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

Here we go again. He is hitting many of the usual targets and reinstating his usual stuff, even after being reverted. His attempt to bend Wikipedia:Increase your chances to his own ends is the smoking gun here. As is often the case, he is being vocal in the edit summaries about everything except acknowledging that he is block/ban evading and hence has no right to edit Wikipedia. I did hold off reporting this one as reporting his IPs seems to do limited good as he has a reasonable sized pool of proxy IP addresses to cycle between. I had hoped that he would just go away for a bit if I nuked his edits but that isn't working and so I think that this IP does need a good long block although he'll probably be back with a new one next week... DanielRigal ( talk) 13:49, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply

In my opinion, the solution is to block the IPs as quickly as possible per Wikipedia:Open proxies, and whenever possible make the blocks range blocks. Eventually he will run out of proxies, and if many proxies are blocked it will tend to stop other abusers before they get started. It could even be that he is paying for proxies and we could exceed his budget.
I also question decisions such as this: [103] I think the answer should have been "we do not connect named accounts and IP addresses, but I checked the IP and it does not appear to be a proxy" (or "...is a proxy. Blocked"). (stricken because as explained below, you don't need a CU to do that. Thanks Girth Summit for the clarification!)
Are there any better tools we ordinary users can use to check to see if an IP is an open proxy? - Guy Macon ( talk) 18:04, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • Guy Macon - nice to see you around. Blablubbs' decline was correct - you don't need to request a CU to have an IP checked to see if it's a proxy. I use this tool, which anyone can use (and there are others out there). In this case, Shodan labels it a PPTP, and the behaviour is suspect, so I'll give it a few month off. Closing. Girth Summit (blether) 19:59, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply

07 August 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

Baseball related edits, some reinstating previous edits by previous socks. Also, Das Fürlines again and, of course, fiddling around in the Wikipedia namespace at Wikipedia:Recentism. DanielRigal ( talk) 23:57, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • 125.164.43.151 is a proxy. Blocked for a year. Courcelles ( talk) 14:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

13 August 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

This IP was given a short block three days ago. The block has expired and Belteshazzar picked up right where he left off editing Jerry Reinsdorf and then, for some reason, moved on to The Wonderful Wizard of Oz. Unfortunately for him, we are paying attention to the man behind the curtain. I suggest a rather longer block his time. DanielRigal ( talk) 14:05, 13 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Reporting 110.136.218.207 for reinstituting similar edits with similar edit summaries. Just glancing at the history of 1994 World Series and 1997 World Series makes this obviously Belteshazzar. Same thing with The Wonderful Wizard of Oz. Leijurv ( talk) 01:54, 14 August 2023 (UTC) Leijurv ( talk) 02:02, 14 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Whoops. Wow that is embarrassing. I had a totally different thought in my head and my edit summaries were thinking of the wrong user. I meant to write Belteshazzar ban evasion. Very embarrassing. Sorry. At least the other user I accidentally referred to is also indeffed. Leijurv ( talk) 01:56, 14 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • 91.187.113.102 is globally locked, and 110.136.218.207 is blocked for a year. Some of the affected pages have been protected. I'm open to more page protections for any that are targeted at least weekly, and you can reach me at my talk page. This is ready for closure/archiving. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 14:03, 14 August 2023 (UTC) reply

17 August 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

Same old same old. Baseball stuff and some other repeat targets. Smoking gun is this edit reinstating an edit made by a previous sockpuppet IP. Bullseye says: "proxycheck: True" so I think a long block is needed. DanielRigal ( talk) 00:06, 17 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • I have blocked 162.33.16.0/20 for a year. Case closed. Courcelles ( talk) 00:13, 17 August 2023 (UTC) reply

17 August 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

Clearly belteshazzar: reinstituted the exact same edit to WP:RECENTISM, and also made some edits to players in the 1997 baseball world series. Leijurv ( talk) 18:16, 17 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Despite only having made three edits using this IP address there is absolutely no doubt that this is Belteshazzar. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 18:29, 17 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

22 August 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

Usual repeat targets. Reinstating edits by previous socks. DanielRigal ( talk) 18:49, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

proxycheck.io lists this as a Compromised Server Proxy. [104]: Suggest lengthy block and closure. And a big thanks goes out to Belteshazzar, who single-handedly has helped us to identify and block multiple proxies, thus making it harder for other people to abuse Wikipedia. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 19:45, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • Blocked for a couple of weeks. Reblocks are cheap if anyone else is using it abusively after that. Girth Summit (blether) 17:19, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply

28 August 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

Clearly Belteshazzar: reinstituted the exact same edit to Roy Halladay's perfect game and Addiction Rare in Patients Treated with Narcotics, as well as some other articles. Leijurv ( talk) 19:30, 28 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

30 August 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

Same and related targets. Similar edit summaries. IP is in the same /16 as a recent previous sock, 110.136.150.254. DanielRigal ( talk) 22:18, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

The sockpuppeteer has been labeled a WMF-legal banned user. I don't know what the charges are, but this is only done for very serious charges. tgeorgescu ( talk) 17:51, 4 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

16 September 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

This is obvious block evasion from Belteshazzar. 1.54.250.26 is likely to be a proxy [105]

Belteshazzar is globally banned [106]. I will not disclose any specific details but I have been stalked by this user on site and harassed by them off-site. They still seem to be using proxies/vpn to evade their block.

On Commons, Belteshazzar was using this IP [107] but it has now been blocked as a proxy. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 19:44, 16 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Belteshazzar was using a proxy to contact Chamaemelum on 9 September which they were pretty open about on Commons [108]. Those comments were left a few days before the IP on Wikipedia left comments on DanielRigal's talk-page mentioning the same topic. I agree with Daniel, pretty much nobody else in the world would care about this apart from Belteshazzar and if you weigh in the fact these are proxies it matches his repeated block evasion on here. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 00:47, 17 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
  • This is quite different from Belteshazzar's normal bullshit but then, if it isn't Belteshazzar, then who else would be on my User Talk page trying to argue with Psychologist Guy about whether the emails he got from Belteshazzar were actually from Belteshazzar? Who else would know, or even care enough, to dispute it? I have absolutely no idea what the feuding with Chamaemelum is about but, whatever it is, it can't be anything good.-- DanielRigal ( talk) 21:07, 16 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • No edits since September 11. Closing. Bbb23 ( talk) 12:37, 17 September 2023 (UTC) reply

26 September 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

Already blocked ducky sock. Just noting it for the record; as it's been a while since there's been a registered account puppet. CU check requested in case there are sleepers. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 18:02, 26 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • They're using proxies. Nothing of interest, but that means little. I'm going to close the case. Courcelles ( talk) 18:56, 26 September 2023 (UTC) reply

30 September 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

Trying to censor their own LTA report ( diff1, diff2) is cheeky even by their standards of chutzpah. This is particularly egregious because they, a globally banned editor, are casting baseless aspersions as to the trustworthiness of another editor in good standing. DanielRigal ( talk) 22:46, 30 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Note: The IP is detected as a proxy by IPCheck. The IP has not been used by anybody else, neither has any other IP in the same /24. It should be safe to block it long term. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 22:54, 30 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Does anyone have a theory as to where this LTA is finding new proxies? Or are they just so easy to find that any attempt to proactively identify and block proxies would be playing a game of Whac-A-Mole? -- Guy Macon Alternate Account ( talk) 18:26, 2 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

01 October 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

Hitting a couple of the usual targets in the usual ways. DanielRigal ( talk) 22:24, 1 October 2023 (UTC) reply

As expected, IPCheck says it is a proxy. DanielRigal ( talk) 22:27, 1 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

IP now blocked. Closing.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 18:51, 2 October 2023 (UTC) reply

11 October 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

Returning to previous targets in the usual manner. DanielRigal ( talk) 11:35, 11 October 2023 (UTC) reply

And now he is trying to canvas another editor in the hope of tricking them into editing on his behalf: diff -- DanielRigal ( talk) 21:30, 11 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

17 October 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

The usual behaviour. 3/4 edits are to recent previous targets. DanielRigal ( talk) 15:51, 17 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

19 October 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

Usual behaviour. Several of the usual targets. DanielRigal ( talk) 11:34, 19 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

28 October 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

Same old same old. Literally reinstating edits by previously blocked and reverted sock 45.181.123.97 on Presbyopia and Opioid epidemic in the United States. DanielRigal ( talk) 03:47, 28 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • Handled below, closing. Thanks, Spicy ( talk) 19:05, 29 October 2023 (UTC) reply

28 October 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

Making identical edits to Wikipedia:Everything you need to know, with identical edit summaries Panian513 20:52, 28 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Upon further familiarization of myself with individuals banned for long-term abuse, both this IP address and ContentisWhatMatters appear to be sockpuppets of Belteshazzar, having identical editing interests, especially when it comes to making alterations to Wikipedia:everything you need to know in order to justify how they engage with the Wikipedia project. Panian513 15:26, 29 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • Pink clock Awaiting administrative action - Please, consider a short soft block. Thank you. MarioGom ( talk) 14:52, 29 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • The IP is a proxy. Blocked it for a while. I agree this is Belteshazzar, so I'll move the case there. Closing. Thanks, Spicy ( talk) 19:04, 29 October 2023 (UTC) reply

31 October 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

Usual targets. Usual nonsense. DanielRigal ( talk) 17:05, 31 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

01 November 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

The same nonsense. The literal same edit summaries as the last sock in at least some cases! DanielRigal ( talk) 18:02, 1 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

02 November 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

Identical edits and edit summaries to sockpuppets identified in the past couple of weeks. Panian513 19:25, 2 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

This is still ongoing, with him popping back every few hours to try his luck (and our patience) again. Is anybody able to deal with this? @ Firefangledfeathers: maybe? -- DanielRigal ( talk) 02:24, 3 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

04 November 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

Some of the baseball articles are protected now but this is clearly Belteshazzar returning to some of the others and some new, related, articles. Note this diff all but exactly restoring edits be one of his previous blocked socks (185.189.199.77). Also, several of the edits have the same argumentative, self-justifying tone in their edit summaries. DanielRigal ( talk) 20:44, 4 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Oh, and now he's back on his usual nonsense at Opioid epidemic in the United States and Mark Geragos. I'm just reverting the edits as they come in. DanielRigal ( talk) 20:55, 4 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

06 November 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

No sooner does one IP get blocked than another turns up. Mostly the usual targets, and some of the same edit summaries, as before. Hitting Private Eye is new though. DanielRigal ( talk) 16:40, 6 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
  • moved from clerk/admin section
    The focus has shifted more towards baseball recently but Presbyopia and Opioid epidemic in the United States are among his most perennial targets that he always returns to. I think that those topic areas are the real reason why he is here. He might be happy to move on to different baseball articles if his current targets get protected but those are more specifically close to his heart and protecting those might do the most to discourage him without having too much impact on other people. I'm thinking that Mark Geragos might be worth including too as that is a BLP and, of all the articles that banned editors should not be fiddling with, BLPs are among the most so. Depending on how far you want to go, there is a pretty big list of targets on the LTA page. DanielRigal ( talk) 19:05, 6 November 2023 (UTC) reply
    Protected those three. Not looking to dig into the big list, just hit some of the recent flare-up spots. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 19:11, 6 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

10 November 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

He had the astonishing, unmitigated, brazen chutzpah to try to report me to the BLP noticeboard for reverting his ban evading edits ( diff). The affronted tone is clearly his, as is his insistence on trying to defend his individual edits while completely ignoring the fact that he is banned. This was a personal attack but I'm not going to make a big deal about that. It has already been reverted and it's not like he can get any more banned than he already is. Please can we just do the usual and block the IP for a good long time? IPCheck says it is a proxy. DanielRigal ( talk) 04:35, 10 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

20 November 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

Only three edits but they all hit previous targets and reinstate the same or similar content as previous socks with similar style of edit summaries. Despite not noticing and reporting this one right away it seems to have gone quiet after those three edits. DanielRigal ( talk) 01:03, 20 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

26 November 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

Reinstating edits by previous sock IPs even with the same edit summaries. Also attempting to trick ElKevbo into reinstating his edits at User talk:ElKevbo#Reverts. DanielRigal ( talk) 15:21, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

30 November 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

IP stirring trouble at WP:HD#Reverts and extended-confirmed protection, requesting prior edits by blocked sock StuckWithBadVersions be reinstated. * Pppery * it has begun... 05:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

06 December 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

Usual edits, usual subjects Panian513 19:46, 6 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Same old same old. Baseball, fringe ophthalmology and kvetching about previous socks being reverted in the hope of recruiting unwitting assistance from whatever places that he hopes that he is not already known and recognised in. The baseball edits are incredibly nitpicky tweaks to spacing and pluralisations. That is not the work of a true baseball fan. That is him trying to probe what edits he can get away with and hoping to make us look petty by reverting him. It is intentionally disruptive. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 20:12, 6 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Also, I note that he is clearly using a timer so that he can get back in and revandalise protected articles as soon as the protection expires. He even got in a few minutes before MusikBot II took the protection tags off on a couple of the articles. This is taking vandalism to an obsessive level. I know we shouldn't speculate about people's mental health but, Belteshazzar, if you see this, please seek help to break out of this pointless cycle of behaviour and to find something more healthy, productive and enjoyable to occupy your mind and your time. It will be better for Wikipedia but, mostly, it will be better for you. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 20:25, 6 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Let's look at the big picture. We keep playing Whac-A-Mole with new proxies. https://proxycheck.io/threats/190.144.34.146 clearly shows 190.144.34.146 as a proxy. Is there any reason why we can't set up a bot that forces anyone using a known proxy to log in? What do we have to do to make that happen? -- Guy Macon Alternate Account ( talk) 20:35, 6 December 2023 (UTC) reply
I think that the most immediate solution is to protect the usual targets for much longer. Also, we should start putting edit filters for the LTA's edit summaries, as they've pretty much been using the exact same edit summaries for the past few months. Panian513 20:38, 6 December 2023 (UTC) reply
We have to tread carefully when restricting use of VPNs and proxies. We don't want to freeze people in countries with oppressive regimes out of editing, or compromise their anonymity, but I do think that something along those lines is worth consideration. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 20:49, 6 December 2023 (UTC) reply
I am fine with not restricting VPNs. I haven't seen a lot of abuse from VPNs, but maybe I am not looking in the right places. Does forcing someone using a proxy to log in (disallowing IP editing from that proxy) really interfere with editing or compromise their anonymity? -- Guy Macon Alternate Account ( talk) 22:31, 6 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

08 December 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

More baseball. More opioid stuff. More "Subject-verb agreement" in the edit summaries. IP is a proxy. DanielRigal ( talk) 16:16, 8 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

09 December 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

Another proxy IP. He is trying to be a bit sneaky this time by editing some articles not previously hit before moving on to reinstating edits on previous targets. This edit summary is the smoking gun. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 22:13, 9 December 2023 (UTC) DanielRigal ( talk) 22:13, 9 December 2023 (UTC) reply

I note that the entirety of 151.30.0.0/16 is blocked from editing some specific articles. If it really is a monolithic block of proxy IPs then maybe a wider block is possible. That said, there have been edits from this range in the recent past that do not seem to be abusive so maybe it isn't as simple as that? -- DanielRigal ( talk) 22:43, 9 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Unfortunately, Italy seem to use very large and very dynamic ranges, so it's tricky to target specific users with rangeblocks without a lot of potential collateral damage, hence the partial rangeblock. However, I'm personally of the opionion that if the disruption is significant enough, those ranges should be fully blocked and anon users using them should create accounts. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:00, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply
Thanks for the background. I don't think we're seeing enough for a full block of the range. Closing. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 18:05, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply

10 December 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

Same edits. Same edit summaries. Same globally banned nuisance. DanielRigal ( talk) 20:12, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

15 December 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

Another spree of trivial edits and then returning to previous targets to reinstate previous sock edits with the same edit summaries. This example is a smoking gun due to the edit summary kvetching about being reverted on some of his main targets. Is there anything we can do to get rid of him? His willingness to range widely makes it impossible to protect everything he touches. We can't protect every single baseball article, never mind all the other stuff. DanielRigal ( talk) 12:00, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply

The IP is detected as a proxy, btw. DanielRigal ( talk) 12:57, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • It's them. Blocked 3 months. DanielRigal, let me know what you think the top three (or so) most frequent unprotected targets are. I'm not sure there's any solution. You might consider a post at WT:BASEBALL to get some more vigilant folks on the case. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 13:11, 15 December 2023 (UTC) reply

17 December 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

Some of the same edit summaries. DanielRigal ( talk) 01:12, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Also, continuing the last sock's (unsuccessful) attempts to embroil Yankees10 into his nonsense here. DanielRigal ( talk) 01:14, 17 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

19 December 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

This IP is literally the next one along from the last one (177.93.44.69) and the editing pattern is the same, including the same offended tone in the edit summaries. DanielRigal ( talk) 22:19, 19 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

21 December 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

Using edit summaries to vent frustrations about previous reverts made against previous sockpuppets Panian513 01:55, 21 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

That's him. I guess his increased recent activity corresponds to a school holiday. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 01:58, 21 December 2023 (UTC) reply

And, of course, the IP is a proxy. All edits nuked. DanielRigal ( talk) 02:07, 21 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

21 December 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

He straight up admits it here, even while blatantly lying about who/why he got banned. DanielRigal ( talk) 19:32, 21 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

22 December 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

Usual targets, baseball, etc. Reinstating edits of previous socks.   Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me Seawolf35 T-- C 16:48, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

29 December 2023

Suspected sockpuppets

Quack! See User_talk:PaleoNeonate#Bad_reverts which links [109] which directly references this LTA. Seawolf35 T-- C 21:47, 29 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Yeah. That's him. Can't he even take a break for xmas? -- DanielRigal ( talk) 22:46, 29 December 2023 (UTC) reply

The switch to Christian themes mostly instead of baseball is odd. I've nuked all but few of the edits. DanielRigal ( talk) 23:07, 29 December 2023 (UTC) reply
Now he is calling people out by name in his edit summaries, e.g. this. DanielRigal ( talk) 16:29, 30 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

07 January 2024

Suspected sockpuppets

See, for example, User talk:Roo60, where he is focused on welcoming back an inactive user, and Jake Westbrook, where there is an identical edit summary in the page history associated with a sock. Larry Hockett ( Talk) 01:58, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • They do like proxies, don't they. Blocked three months, closing. Bbb23 ( talk) 02:36, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply

08 January 2024

Suspected sockpuppets

Tweaking spacing to tweak our noses. Also pretty much the same edits with the same edit summaries as some of the previous socks on the edits with more substantial edit summaries. DanielRigal ( talk) 00:14, 8 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Oh, and it's a proxy IP again. DanielRigal ( talk) 00:15, 8 January 2024 (UTC) reply
I see from the global contributions that he tried to have a go at the Commons that they blocked the whole /24 for three years. ( Details here.) Is that something we could do as well? DanielRigal ( talk) 00:22, 8 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Looks like the proxy bot threw a local rangeblock on top of the global one as well. Imma close here. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 14:34, 10 January 2024 (UTC) reply

11 January 2024

Suspected sockpuppets

Previously blocked sockpuppet is targeting the usual targets again upon the block's expiry. Panian513 17:19, 11 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

16 January 2024

Suspected sockpuppets

See the page history at Jake Westbrook, among others. Larry Hockett ( Talk) 02:40, 16 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Yes, that's him. Usual edit summaries and several of the usual target articles. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 14:03, 16 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • Proxy blocked as usual. Spicy ( talk) 14:39, 16 January 2024 (UTC) reply

18 January 2024

Suspected sockpuppets

Obvious block-evasion from Belteshazzar continuing to edit the same articles they were editing before they were blocked on their previous proxy [110]. Same pattern of disruptive obsessive trolling. Editing their usual targets Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep, Lenny Webster etc.

Off-site Belteshazzar has been posting on a blog that he wanted to join the forum wikipediasucks.co for recruitment purposes. It's probably worth watching his usual targets for possible meat-puppetry. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 16:36, 18 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

22 January 2024

Suspected sockpuppets

Trying to embroil PaleoNeonate again. "Unneeded space" again. Baseball again.

Proxycheck.io says it is not a proxy but IPQualityScore says that it is. I'm not sure what to make of that. DanielRigal ( talk) 00:31, 22 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

23 February 2024

Suspected sockpuppets

WP:DUCK. Reinstated edits, several with the exact same edit summary, on Mark Geragos, Presbyopia, Wikipedia:Guide to addressing bias, Wikipedia:Increase your chances, Wikipedia:Everything you need to know, Opioid epidemic in the United States, Addiction Rare in Patients Treated with Narcotics, and Charles Ingram. I really don't understand this, it's the EXACT same edits with edit summaries. WP:GAMING an account up to extended confirmed doesn't make it any less obvious when I have all these pages watchlisted. Noticed within ten minutes?? Leijurv ( talk) 00:32, 23 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
  • First up, yes, that's very obviously him. But there is more to this than just another sockpuppet like his previous ones. This account was created on January 23rd and made no edits until January 31st. It only switched to "The Belteshazzar Pattern" today, February 23rd, the one month anniversary of its creation and mere hours after it acquired Extended Confirmed status. Prior to this, the account had a very large number of innocuous edits to a lot of very random subjects. One remote possibility is that this was a legitimate account that was compromised and taken over by Belteshazzar. The much more likely explanation is that this was Belteshazzar from the outset and this shows a truly obsessive dedication to making a sleeper account and shepherding it to Extended Confirmed status. Even more insidious, I see that at least one of the innocuous edits involved reverting some pretty crappy antisemitism. I wonder if that was done as a deliberate trap for those of us who blanket revert Belteshazzar's edits? Was the intention to trick us into accidentally reinstating an antisemitic edit in order to make us look like the bad guys? Anyway, given the outrageous cynicism on show here, and the willingness to use sleeper accounts to game the page protection system, I suspect that he already has some additional accounts waiting in the wings. I definitely think this merits running a checkuser. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 01:35, 23 February 2024 (UTC) reply
I agree that this is obvious WP:GAMING at large scale, and that 600 edits over 30 days is obsessive. Whew. I went through and reverted the big edits, the ones that clearly matched the belteshazzar pattern, and one more that was a large deletion, then I kept reading and it seemed pretty normal from there on (maybe I reverted one too many). I think this is too much to blanket revert, for the reasons you said. Agreed on CheckUser being a good idea Leijurv ( talk) 04:30, 23 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • CheckUser requested in case there are sleepers.  Blocked and tagged due to the recent turn toward obvious sock behavior. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 04:09, 23 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Oh, I was wondering what was up with that account. Guess we know now. They're on proxies, unsurprisingly. Lock requested, closing. Spicy ( talk) 04:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC) reply

25 February 2024

Suspected sockpuppets

I've been watching this one for a bit as I was suspicious of the stats update to James Stephanie Sterling, which Belteshazzar has done before, but that's not conclusive. Lo and behold, the update to Presbyopia proves me right. It's him again. DanielRigal ( talk) 19:44, 25 February 2024 (UTC) reply

I see the same trick where some of the seemingly random innocuous edits before the usual targets are reversions of genuine vandalism intended to trick us into reinstating bad versions. DanielRigal ( talk) 19:52, 25 February 2024 (UTC) reply
  • IP blocked 31h. Is this good-hand/bad-hand (where the 'genuine vandalism' are themselves by other socks of this master)? DMacks ( talk) 20:02, 25 February 2024 (UTC) reply
    I don't have any reason to believe so but I guess it is something to keep an eye out for. DanielRigal ( talk) 21:10, 25 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

27 February 2024

Suspected sockpuppets

Same targets. Same edit summaries. Same pest. DanielRigal ( talk) 21:38, 27 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

02 March 2024

Suspected sockpuppets

Manual reverts on recent targets such as Mark Geragos. Panian513 00:38, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

17 May 2024

Suspected sockpuppets

WP:DUCK reinstating reverted edits on: David Justice, Jake Westbrook, Roy Halladay's perfect game, Manny Ramirez Leijurv ( talk) 03:19, 17 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
I didn't think it was him on a first glance but seeing edits fiddling with whether RBI is pluralised as "RBIs" on one of the baseball articles made me more inclined to think that it might be. I'm still not sure. I'm thinking that we need a checkuser on this. If it is him (or anybody else) reverting their own bad edits then that's an extra layer of sockpuppetry and a checkuser on this IP (and maybe on the other accounts and IPs) should reveal it. My main doubt is that I don't really see any point in it for him. It is not like an IP can get autoconfirmed after a certain number of edits. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 16:08, 17 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Compare these two A and B or these two A and B. He's stopped reusing the exact same edit summaries, but the contents of the edits is basically the same. Leijurv ( talk) 17:36, 17 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Yeah, I think this is definitely more likely to be him than not. A checkuser would confirm and also help to flush out any other accounts or IPs which he might be using for the sort of stunts that Guy Macron suspects. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 21:18, 17 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Ah, and now we're getting copy/pasted edit summaries, see 1997 World Series. Reverting. Leijurv ( talk) 23:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  • I blocked the IP for one year as a proxy. Closing. Bbb23 ( talk) 23:37, 17 May 2024 (UTC) reply

29 May 2024

Suspected sockpuppets

Baseball related again. Opioid related again. Fiddling with the same policies that previous socks have. This is one of his less subtle sockpuppets. Detailed, argumentative, edit summaries on the articles he actually cares about but not on the earlier random edits which were clearly just to test the water. DanielRigal ( talk) 13:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Belteshazzar/Archive&oldid=1226517285"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE