Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ron liebman/Archive

Report date April 3 2009, 00:23 (UTC)
(listed in order of most recent to oldest)
 * Suspected sockpuppets

Here are some additional known puppets, dating back to late February or so:


 * Evidence submitted by Georgewilliamherbert (talk)

See Requests for checkuser/Case/Ron liebman abd LTA

Ron's been back with 4 new socks on my user talk page in the last 24ish hours - requesting another run of CU and rangeblocks as appropriate. He may be using NYC library or nearby university open computer labs again, per prior CU investigations and IP blocks, etc. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

+ - ongoing incident after initial report, that makes 5 in last 24ish hours. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

+ - still ongoing. Line 'em up, strike 'em out. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

+ and  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Evidence submitted by —  Dæ dαlus Contribs 

The evidence is that all of these accounts sole purpose is the harassment of the users each of the accounts is impersonating. Most, if not all of these accounts have already been blocked per the WP:DUCK test.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  06:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users
 * I've added a bunch more dating back to February 19th. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 07:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Requested by Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

Listed accounts have been blocked, behavior consistent with past socks and LTA report. Check endorsed to find other sleeper accounts and potential rangeblock ('tho as GWH said, past IPs have been public use in NYC). Avruch  T 01:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * IP range blocked; no other socks found. Dominic·t 10:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Avruch  T 15:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC) -- Kanonkas : Talk  10:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions

Report date July 11 2009, 14:25 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by BRMo

User:Willie Robinson made edits to Dobie Moore that introduced misinformation to the article. He cited SABR and Census records. Banned User:Ron liebman and his sockpuppets made similar malicious edits, often citing SABR and Census records as sources for maliciously introducing incorrect information into articles. I was alerted to the Ron liebman connection by User:Couillaud with this edit. BRMo (talk) 14:25, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Similar information that was placed in the Dobie Moore article here was also placed at least twice on the same article in Baseball Bullpen, by username "Ron Liebman" and  "64.61.181.198" on the 8th and 9th of this month, respectively. He first offered with absolute certainty the fact that the subject had died in 1977. We have a third offer from another new user, now using another bad source to claim that the subject died in 1963. -- Couillaud (talk) 04:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Requested by BRMo (talk) 14:25, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * per similar edit pattern that could indicate socking.  MBisanz  talk 02:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Conclusions
 * ✅. Could someone merge this SPI with Sockpuppet investigations/Ron liebman (the banned sockmaster). Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 14:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * ✅ Nathan  T 14:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Report date July 21 2009, 22:46 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * Evidence submitted by BRMo

User:Couillaude vandalized the birth and death dates Dobie Moore with this edit. This edit is similar to earlier edits by confirmed Ron liebman sockpuppet User:Willie Robinson (see Sockpuppet investigations/Ron liebman/Archive). The User's name is designed to be similar to User:Couillaud who identified his earlier vandalism of this article. BRMo (talk) 22:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users

Requested by BRMo (talk) 22:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments


 * : Obvious sock, impersonation, blocked by PeterSymonds. Nathan  T 22:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Tiptoety talk 00:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions

Report date July 22 2009, 22:18 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by BRMo

More vandalism to Dobie Moore similar to what we had yesterday. See. Is it possible to protect the article? BRMo (talk) 22:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.


 * Comments by other users


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

that the following match each other: – Luna Santin  (talk) 22:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've semi-protected Dobie Moore for one month; Whitey Ford is already semi-protected indefinitely (though I'll be inquiring in a moment about possibly setting an expiry). – Luna Santin  (talk) 22:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Conclusions

Report date October 1 2009, 09:14 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by Georgewilliamherbert

Badger Drink inserted himself into an unrelated thread on a admin's user talk who he hadn't interacted with before that I know of, with a rather nasty comment about me here, and then self retracted here.

This was wierd enough that I looked at his contributions. He was created in August 2007, has not previously interacted with me that I can see, and has had an on again off again tendency to focus on disruption and baseball articles. Which maps to the Ron Liebman pattern. Ron's still socking actively, as we have seen from prior CU / SPIs...

Ron is in / has been in New York City, tending to use the NYC libraries and college computer labs in the area. If Badger is in NYC then it's probably a sock we failed to notice for 2 years (good hand / bad hand). If not, the comment is wierd enough for someone to ask him about it, but I'll leave it to others rather than raise the drama level. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * As a comment to Wknight94 - I have seen Liebman socks do briefly coherent productive stuff in an attempt to slide under the radar. I would not put it past them to have created a good hand account and studiously avoided getting the wrong attention on it, until this incident.  The typical Liebman sock is a clear throwaway - but I think they know that.
 * Quite possible this isn't what's up here, but it could be... Not suspicious enough / similar enough for duck test, but I believe the similarity is high enough to check. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.
 * Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha, yes, there is only one person in the English-speaking world who thinks George William Herbert is a ridiculous, histrionic member of the Outraged Civility Police.


 * Give me a fucking break here - I'm actually quite sure I've criticized George's "mountains from molehills" nature before, (sometime, somewhere on the great mass of oft-nuttiness known as AN/I - I'd Google the archives for it, but I'm pretty sure those are noindexed now and the onwiki search engine is utterly horrid for this sort of stuff).


 * The entire Law dramabomb (of which the Daniel block is an offshoot) is hardly "obscure" (no moreso than the average Giano block/unblock/reblock/earnest discussion thereof)


 * Frankly I believe my behavior (as admittedly over-the-top as my original statement was) is about as "suspicious" as George himself deciding to get his panties in a twist over Daniel's original "epic win" statement and insert himself into the on-going drama as the Voice of Perfect Righteousness. Hmm (Badger said, too sincere in his earnest thoughtfulness to be entirely serious), have there been any anti-Daniel sockmasters?


 * As far as evidence goes - if I'm a sockpuppet, I'm a really darn disciplined sockpuppet - over two years of editing, both mainspace and occasional two cents at AN/I, RfA, AfD and elsewhere. All that time and effort into establishing a Wiki-persona, only to throw it all away at a one-off comment about George's silly Civility Brownshirt behavior - a comment which was self-reverted within a minute, at that. Almost tragic. Maybe we should get Durova on this case...


 * With regards to Baseball Bugs' earnest, good-faith concerns, I submit that Bugs is still hopping mad over my recent less-than-perfectly-uncontroversial edits to certain major league baseball articles - no doubt, his passion for Major League Baseball, Wikipedia, and the peanutty-chocolatey fusion of the two is clouding his usually-impeccable judgement.


 * With regards to Mr. Wknight94, I do think it's rather laughable (or hypocritical, can't quite make my mind up) for a user whose first edits displayed use of the "minor edit" checkbox and typical Wiki-abbreviations (" -> ") to be openly wondering about another user's legitimacy, or lack thereof. At least George had the eternal foresight to wait a week or so before regularly utilizing edit summaries. Badger Drink (talk) 06:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * As an aside, and to hopefully eliminate further sockpuppet-related bureaucracy, I am making this edit anonymously. Perhaps this will sooth George's eternally-rattled psyche. Or perhaps he'll just move on to accusing me of being Rob Liebman's south-of-the-Mason-Dixon account... 96.241.32.23 (talk) 06:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC) (Badger Drink via I.P.)


 * I confirm that the above was written by me. Badger Drink (talk) 06:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by other users
 * I concur with Wknight94 that it doesn't quite seem like Liebman's M.O. overall. But zooming in on George, who was on Liebman's small "enemies list", is enough to at least raise some concern. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 11:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Would be surprised if BD turned out to be Liebman. Just doesn't seem like him, and the evidence presented doesn't make good enough of a case to sway me otherwise. — neuro  (talk)  12:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Coincidentally or otherwise, we have on the talk page of one of Liebman's old arguing pages, Ed Cicotte, claiming to be a relative named "Ron Cicotte". Could just be a funny coincidence, and could be that an innocent user innocently stumbled into this mine field. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 23:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Badger's little rant up above reminded me to go check what the issue was that temporarily put him on my radar. I wasn't mad at him, I just wondered if he had more than a double-digit IQ, given that he was trying to label the San Francisco Giants as "defunct", which is something that Ron Liebman would be unlikely to do. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 11:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If I may humbly beg of you to pry yourself, even if just for a mere moment, away from the no-doubt many myriad concerns pressing upon a two-point-five digit IQ man such as yourself, and lay your exalted, Christ-like eyes upon my no-doubt unworthy rejoinder, I would submit that the New York Giants are just as defunct as the Montreal Expos, if not moreso. Badger Drink (talk) 12:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The Giants and the Expos are businesses that moved from one city to another. The names they call themselves are not important. But thanks for helping demonstrate that you're not Liebman's sock, since he would never make the claims you do. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 12:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Requested by Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests


 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * Notified Badger Drink. NW ( Talk ) 11:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sock? Maybe.  Of Liebman?!  I'd be totally shocked.  Badger Drink is too coherent frankly.  And sane.  Badger Drink has nominated articles for speedy deletion successfully, used terms like "POV", done category work, etc.  All of those would be totally beyond Liebman.   Wknight94  talk  11:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see it - given the history of Ron liebman and his style (at least what I see of it in the archives of this case, and what I recall from handling a couple of them as a clerk), Badger Drink doesn't map. But I'm going to turf the decline to a checkuser, just in case - . Nathan <strong style="color:#0033CC"> T 15:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * ❌. Brandon (talk) 17:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Conclusions

Evidence submitted by Wknight94
is a pretty clear sock of ancient banned user,, but they are often created in bunches. Please do a sleeper sock check. Thank you. Wknight94 talk 20:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments

 * - T. Canens (talk) 20:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

He edits from a library, so there are a lot of accounts and logged out edits that seem to have nothing to do with him. However, two accounts did stick out: I urge administrators not to block based purely on the technical data. Please only block if there are strong behavioural ties. --Deskana (talk) 21:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Blocked - The behavioral evidence is 100% in line with prior patterns he has exhibited. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Tagged. TN <b style="color:midnightblue; font-size:larger;">X</b> Man  22:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

20 May 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Has made accounts in the past focused on User:Baseball Bugs. I am One of Many (talk) 17:06, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

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

 * All blocked, closing. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 22:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Sock account, master and a new IP (192.160.131.66) are all very interested in pro sports. With one day of editing, both found their way to Long-term abuse/Ron liebman. One deleted material without comment, the other removed the material and asked for speedy deletion, claiming the page is "stirring up conspiracies". IP's edits fit entirely in a break in the new account's edits. Sum mer PhD v2.0 23:00, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

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

 * The IP is already covered by a range block. I've blocked and tagged the account. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:17, 27 October 2018 (UTC)