User talk:Ron liebman

Elisabeth Hasselbeck

Hello, please stop removing information as you did on the Elizabeth Hasselbeck article. This is considered vandalism. I see from your contributions that you have contributed mostly to only this article and ones related to old sportscasters, which might indicate that you are personally acquainted with her. Even if this is the case, you cannot edit information without sources, and removing things like her political views is whitewashing, and vandalism. Please do not do this again. Thanks! John the Apostate 17:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I never removed any information or added any about Elizsbeth Hasselbeck's political views. I merely corrected her date of birth.

You have yet to provide any actual evidence for any of your date changes, and you will continue to be reverted, and eventually blocked, if you persist in your approach. Wahkeenah 15:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Streaks

Even though rule 1024 (c) as it is written would suggest 518 consecutive games for Matsui, he suld be credited with game #519 since he left the game in the top of the first with a certifiable injury, not a bogus attempt to extend the streak. Common sense shouldsometimes supersede the letter of the rule. Please do not be a fool and change this back!

I will change it as often as I have to, because you are wrong. You do not decide MLB's rules. I do not decide MLB's rules. MLB decides MLB's rules. The rule is what it is, the streak goes down in history as 518 games, case closed, end of story. Vidor 12:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC) The rule is only a guideline and is meant to discourage bogus attempts to end a streak (as Musial and E#d Yost did in the 1950's). Randy Johnson was credited with a strikeout record and Barry Bonds a league lead in on-base percentage which is contrary to the letter of the rule but within the spirit. If you want, I will go back and forth with this for years. Cut the crap - it violates internet etiquette.

Christy Mathewson etc.

You need to provide actual evidence, not just your personal research, regarding Mathewson's birth year and other birth information you've been revising. Wahkeenah 15:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Since you continue to post your personal opinions and unverified personal research, I have asked an admin for guidance in dealing with your edits. Wahkeenah 17:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Sam Rice birth date

Ron - I wrote a book about Sam Rice that is currently in editing. I noticed you changed his birth date to 1889 here and at a baseball research site.

Can I ask where you found the genealogical research? Because I want to correct the book if I have to before it hits the printer.

Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JeffCarroll3877 (talk • contribs) 14:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC).

Baseball birth year changes

Please provide some evidence for your changes to baseball players' years of birth. Modifying those years without verification is causing disruption that needs to cease. Thank you. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Now I see

So basically, your plan is to find any single record which disagrees with all other records and that is the one you are going with. In the case of Mike Sharperson, Social Security records suffice so you change his birth year to 1960 - even though all other sources say 1961. But, in the case of Larry MacPhail, Social Security records agree with all other sources that his birth year was 1890 so instead you use his draft records - apparently the only source that shows 1888 - and change all references to his birth year to 1888. Except in the case of MacPhail - as well as Casey Stengel and Chief Bender - his own gravestone disagrees with you (yes, there is a picture here)! Doesn't that mean that MacPhail faked his date of birth for the draft and not the other way around?! And Stengel's fake birth certificate was the one that said 1889? You say Chief Bender's sister found his birth certificate in 1942 and it said he was born in 1883. Then why did he have 1884 put on his gravestone when he died - 12 years later?!

COMMENT: SIMPLY BECAUSE A NUMBER IS ON A GRAVESTONE DOES NOT MAKE IT CORRECT. I've seen false ages on gravestones before, it's more common than you imply.Ryoung122 07:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

This tactic of yours gives the appearance that records are only good enough for you when they make you look like the hero investigator - the one who cut through all popular misconceptions and "found the truth once and for all". Social Security records are gospel in one case (Sharperson) but are bunk in others (MacPhail and others). If you're really writing a book using this tactic - and without pointing out that those dates are the lone exceptions - then you should really be ashamed. And if your editors and publishing company don't point out the error of your ways, they should likewise be ashamed. And if you think that research like that is going to be permitted on Wikipedia, then you are mistaken. Please do read WP:ATT and its related pages and understand that your lone exception style of research is the exact opposite of how we do things here. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Your comment is 100% untrue. I am a trained researcher and an award-winning researcher, and I have taken many classes in the use of the geneological tables of the internet. I try to use several sources. The social security records (according to my teachers and observation) has a correct birth record for most American-born whites from 1910-on and for American-born blacks where official records were kept (many were delivered by mid-wives). Usually if a draft card or social security or "tree" record is the only record besides the player's own word (especially on people born prior to 1910) it is more likely to be trusted. I have also spoken with many players and people who knew the players. I am not trying to be a hero! My forte is actually baseball records (for nearly half a century) and I have been asked to help out in biographical research. Much of my work is creeping into publications and will be published in the future - though the SABR Biographical Committee head Bill Carle is ailing and slow and some of tahe changes may not immediately be published. My list of credits is long - I really even deserve my own page in Wikipedia (but I will sidetrack that for now - maybe a year or two). I realize the internet serves millions. I have many reports of different ages which I don't submit because of insufficient evidence. Some may have a higher standard of proof than me - but that's life. Some other researchers have used all of my changes. I have attended 34 consecutive National Conventions of the Society for American Baseball Research, and I am a trusted member of the Records and Biographical Committee. Please give me some respect. I am not an idiot!

It looks like the SABR people need to also be warned about your approach. Meanwhile, you need to sign your posts, by ending them with four tildes. Wahkeenah 15:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

SABT know me since 1972 and I am highly respected by them. I have edited and contributed to dozens of books - though I haven't written my own. I have a long-standing positive (and well-deserved) reputation. I just entered some positive contribution on Bender, Larry Macphail, and a few others and it didn't click in. Eitehre I didn't press "save" (I thought I did) or you were making comments on the page at the same time. Bender's 1883 date is valid (may be question about 5/3/ or 5/5) but I don't wich to comment more on all this stuff. I am exhausted and I have a lot (besides the internet) to do today. If your reputation on internet is anwhere near mine in SABR, then you are pretty well off. Your approach is sad. (You also don't seem to know about or care about internet geneological lists other than social security death list - and many of these back up my claims). Repulski, proven by maybe half-dozen internet sources as 1928 (one year younger than his listed age) has been already accepted by SABR and most other published sources.

Comment: you misspelled 'genealogical' (and 'either' etc). I work for the Social Security Administration as a consultant and their records are NOT reliable for birthdates, in part because many persons claimed to be older than they really were so they could retire early.Ryoung122 08:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

You also fail to provide any evidence of your own self-promoting claims. That, along with your refusal to abide by simple wikipedia policies and courtesies, casts further doubt upon your credibility. Wahkeenah 15:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

You seen to be calling me a phony! Pete Palmer and many others can vouch for my research capabilities. In a year or two, I should have my own Wikipewdia page.

"Wiki-pew-dia?" You're as anonymous as anyone else here, and you have yet to cite one iota of evidence for anything you have claimed. You have refused to work within the wikipedia rules. You have not even promoted yourself on your own talk page here. So we have to draw the obvious conclusion. Wahkeenah 16:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Wahkeenah, tha's baloney and you may know it. For one point, I said that social security records are valid for American born whites (according to my computer courses which were taught by trained professionals0 since 1910, and American born blacks (where official record was not entered such as in South and in Pennsylvania) since 1940. This accounts for records being a questionable source for Stengel, Rice, Macphail, etc. but being valid for Repulski, Sharperson and others. I learned this in schoool - this is not a figment of my imagination!

I and/or Wknight94 and/or someone else will likely revert your recent changes again once you get off work. This will continue until you decide to conform to wikipedia's rules and courtesies rather than your own. Wahkeenah 20:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if I'm supposed to butt in here, but I feel it's necessary to comment on something above. Someone wrote, "It looks like the SABR people need to also be warned about your approach." Unfortunately, many in SABR, including the Biographical Committee chairman, use the same approach as the user above. I have numerous examples to prove my claim. Whatever is the newest info becomes the official info due to hapharzard amateur genealogists who think they are coming up with new information. -- Baisbal

Unsaved changes?

Technical point, in reference to one of your earlier comments... sometimes a change will not "take" due to the database being locked or due to an edit conflict. But it will tell you that. Another possibility is failing to hit save before pushing the Back button. Also, it is possible to get a "time out" that will cause your session to have its changes lost. Wahkeenah 17:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Ron liebman = Ron Liebman

I got the idea from your edits to Ron Liebman that you are not the same person. Could you overtly verify that? Thanks. Mangojuice^talk 23:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

Ron, I have blocked your account for 31 hours for WP:3RR violations and sockpuppetry actions with the other accounts you've been using.

If you have actual verifyable sources for this, and can verify your identity, then we can talk about how you can edit going forwards.

If you keep using different accounts and IP addresses as you have been, if necessary we will block and protect as required to keep you from further apparent vandalism edits.

If you're a real historian, you need to work with us to contribute in a manner consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. You have rather firmly failed to do so to date, and continued noncooperation will simply result in your being prohibited from contributing further.

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. Please stop. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Georgewilliamherbert 21:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Unblock request

(From Ron Liebman) - I was unfairly blocked on May 11 - and then there were copycat edits, and apparently legitimate users blocked because their research was similar to mine - or they used terminals that I did. I am seeking reinstatement. I am not trained at the moment in using attachments, but I will stay away from "controversial" edits such as birthdates (everyone I submitted, even many that are "official" or widespread was turned back), military service streaks, and consecutive game streaks (i.e. Matsui). I will study the edits of other baseball users on the baseball project. If I gain reinstatement, I will likely not regularly edit Wikipedia right away - at least not on a regular basis. I will stick to soft edits (edits that are in 100% agreement) and non- baseball edits - not involving birthdates - and will stay with the "Ron Liebman" identity If I seem that the same nonsense starts up again (automatic reversion and people making fun of "Ron Liebman", I will probably stop all edits (under any identity) immediately. (Some, like Cicotte, where I have 100% certainty) were atomatically reverted. I will try to co-operate with the Wikipedia editors. I am disturbed that the "ban" has been picked up by Google and other search engines, and that another open website has also banned me ( which I will appeal) on the basis of an anonymous complaint (a "63 IP #). I have been working since the 1960's to maintain a good reputation (baseball and otherwise) and this is disturbing From July 26-29, I will be in St. Louis for Sabr's annuial convention, my record 35th in a row. Please let me know what additonal steps I need to take to gain full reinstatement. --Ron Liebman 14:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

To reviewing admins: see below, and Wikipedia:Long term abuse#Baseball Vandal aka Ron liebman - Georgewilliamherbert 20:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

As the blocking admin, I won't respond to your unblock request directly (we're supposed to let someone else review that). However, I am going to comment to you and any other admins reviewing this block.

At this point, I think that we would need to see some sort of ID proof that you are in fact the Ron Liebman associated with SABR and not someone impersonating that Ron. Given the wide number of fake identities you have assumed, we have to know who we are dealing with for real to consider this. You shouldn't post anything to Wikipedia itself; this would normally involve working with someone on the unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org mailing list to verify your identity.

We also need you to explain what your reasoning was in assuming all those false identities rather than responding to any of our earlier attempts to discuss the situation with you. This is many months worth of false identities and abuse that you've perpetrated here. You need to explain what you were thinking and why you thought this was an acceptable course of action. Georgewilliamherbert 20:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, could you explain what other site blocked you? Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert 20:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

How do you want to know my identity. When I registered January 30, I gave my e-mail address (not used by anyone else) - and Baseball Bugs (nee Wahteenah has exchanged e-mails with me). Baseball - Bullpen, which I edited by took a wiki-breat from, barred me during the break based on negative comments from a 63--- IP number than I vandalized IPs 207--- and 12---. I have not appealed to the supervisor of Bullpen (Sean Forman) who smoothed out an earlier dispute with them. They accepted most of my edits (I thought I had adequate proof of birthdates and other things - and a majority of people have agreed with me). You have my e-mail address. My password is confidential. I have a SABR username and password which is also confidential - and has not been stolen. I am listed on the SABR members website (which can only be entered by a username & password which is confidential). What proof do you want of my identity. I am willing to work with you guys to seek reinstatement - but I need to know what you want. I am not a vandal or a nut as I have been portrayed. Please reply and I will co-operate best I can.))--Ron Liebman 22:25, 9 July 2007

Let me know where I go from here. I am not allowed to give you my SABR password and username - and I don't think SABR would reveal it to an outsider. I am "the" Ron Liebman of SABR. The edits since mid-mMay have been copycat edits. I was overconscientious. I did not add "false information" to baseball articles. My birthdate changes were painstakinglyt researched -= and I starting to catch on elsewhere (Wikipedia turned back every single one - whatever the reason. I did provide proof in many cases that even a kid could comprehend. I am not trained in attachments. I at lease want to gain reinstatement to restore my reputation. I will then see how and how much to edit Wikipedia (if and when reinstated). The birthdates and certain streaks I will avoid. Butr the editors (such as Baseball Bugs, Ebyabe, NoGuru, Wknight94, and Momusfan have to stop gunning for me. SABR has long considered me one of its most talented researchers and trivia experts. Just tell me, please, hiow to proceed with the reinstatement> Thanking you.--Ron Liebman 16:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

If SABR is willing to release my code to Wikipedia, I can confirm it via e-mail if you give me the e-mail of the appropriate administrator. I will not disclose myu social security number, credit card number or bank account number under any conditions. ((Unblock)) --Ron Liebman 17:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

We would not want your SABR account password; that would be a privacy violation for us to ask for it.

The normal method for identification is a photo ID of some sort, faxed to or shown to someone of trust within the Wikipedia organization. As I said, send an email to unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org and someone can work with you on that.

Your account was tracked down with usage from the same IP address ranges that the other vandals were using. You haven't addressed adequately your involvement in the ongoing vandalism. Your current IP address is different, but that's not where you started out logging in from.

We aren't "gunning for you". We have a persistent vandal on the site here. You've admitted your account was the start of this all. You have not provided us with any sort of evidence that the rest of it wasn't you as well, though you now claim it was not. Until we are convinced as to the extent of your participation, who is the actual human being behind the "Ron liebman" account here, and get an explanation for the abuses, we can't stop treating this as an ongoing abuse case.

The behavior in this case was blatantly abusive. Creation of dozens of fake name accounts for ongoing abuse normally leads to long-term bans from the site. If you can't convince us as to your real identity, what you did and didn't do here in this, we can't change that policy. Particularly after this long of an abuse incident. Georgewilliamherbert 19:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I'm not going to respond to the unblock request, since I have blocked some of the "Ron liebman" socks, but I have to agree with Georgewilliamherbert that there has been a very serious problem with vandalism and sockpuppetry on many baseball articles, and your responses above do not adequately address the problems. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

There is still a lack of understanding of what Wikipedia is about. You need to seriously read WP:RS, WP:NOR, etc. If MLB.com and Baseball-reference.com and ESPN, etc. all say player X was born in 1871, then we post that player X was born in 1871. If you do independent original research and find a census record that says that player X was born in 1870, we don't want it. That is not good enough. Wikipedia posts what reliable sources say, not what "the" Ron Liebman says. I have done exhaustive personal genealogical research and know better than some that census records and even birth certificates are just as prone to errors as MLB.com. I have said that I would be open to a discussion about different ways to present your research - perhaps a note saying "born 1871 (although a census record indicates born 1870)" but you didn't want to have a discussion. You just reverted and tried to force your information on to us in any way you wanted whether it fit our policies or not. Thus your being blocked. This is not Ron Liebman-opedia so you need to work with others to come to a consensus.

As for your claim that there were copycat editors, I'm not sure how you can expect us to believe that. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ron liebman is damning evidence. We store information about where edits come from and all of the edits of those accounts came from the same physical location - probably the same two or three New York Public Library computers that you seem to use all the time. Do you really claim that it is a coincidence that other people were copying your exact same behavior and from the exact same machines at the exact same location?! Inconceivable. —Wknight94 (talk) 05:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

(From Ron Liebman) - I realize that to reason with you on the birthdates and on certain streaks is a complete waste of time - untless a new bunch of reviewers comes in. Wknight is dead wrong when he says that any document is likely to be wrong. Much new genealogical information has become available since the first comprehensive baseball encycloopedias of the 1950's. Some sources are more reliable. I request that some editor who is not involved review the case. If I were were the devel I am portrayed to be, I would deserve never to be reinstated - not even in 5 years. The head of SABR's Bio Committee (Bill Carle) is ailing and, as long as he's in charge, not too many birthdates wil be charged (Carle has a 1980's mindset). I am seeking to clear my good name. Please have somebody not involved in my case (not Wknight - who was one of the perpetrators of the original abuse; Georgewilliamherbert; or Atkilleus). There are 62 branches of the Queens library which use only 2 IP #s (12+ & 207+) and the hundreds of computers in the 62libraries use these numbers interchangeably. Many SABR members use these libraries. Please have an impartial editor review mycase - one not involved in the reversion. Could I meet with somebody in person from the Wikipedia community. If faxing my NYState ID card will help, I can do it (if you give a fax address). --Ron Liebman 16:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I will be in St.Louis for the annual SABR Convention at the Adams Hotel on Julky 26-July 29 (my record 35th in a row). Could I meet with a Wikipedia person then. I am not the devil I have been portrayed to be by Wikipedia Wknight94 is dead wrong in a practical sense with his theories on birthdays - but I said I will not do birthyears if reinstated. I can't control copycat edits, though, or other credible researchers entereing the corrected (even if Bill Carle, Wknight94, Ebyabe, or the others) won't acknowledge them. I will enter baseball stats, personal date, etc. and will try to give sources when available. Please bring in an editor not involved in my case. If not reinstated (I surely will be if any sort of common sense prevails), I will seek arbitration at some point soon after my convention. If it were up to Wknight94, Ebyabe, georgwilliam herbert, Atkilleus,. etc., I would be permently barred and sent to jail (Momusfan told one of the copycat editors, on the Miller Huggins editor, that he hopes "Ron Liebman" is arrested someday - I never have been. Find me an impartial editor not involved in my case - possible even a female - so I would have a chance for reinstatement without going to arbitration. Of course, I was wrong to persist in the edits as long as I did - but my data was researched. Let's have an impartial editor - I would be willing to meet with him or her in person in NYC or at St.Louis Convention. Sincerely.--Ron Liebman 16:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, I won't be "deciding" your case and I doubt anyone else involved will be either. But I can and will give my opinion on the matter. I am also not saying that you are the devil. I am simply saying I do not see evidence that you will adhere to Wikipedia policies if reinstated. I also now see you claiming that people are using the exact same library to make edits exactly like yours with edit summaries exactly like yours. Difficult to believe. As for your theories about genealogical data, we'll apparently have to agree to disagree. All I know is that if I look at census and birth certificates and ship passenger lists, etc., etc., I can often find three or four different birth years - and other detailed data - for any given person. If we did that here, we would end up with wars over details like that at every single article. That's why we try to cut through such things and go with the most reliable and accepted secondary sources and that does not generally include an individual member of SABR, no matter how skilled a researcher you may be. Your skills seem much better suited for leading-edge information sources like SABR itself. I can see you doing well at getting the secondary sources to change their data some day. But until they do, the best we can do is present the most oft-used data. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Please contact unblock-en-l

Ron, would you please send an email to unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org so that someone on that list can work with you to try and verify your ID and identity? Verifying your identity is a non-negotiable (as far as I am concerned) part of this process. I am on that list, but we'll have someone who hasn't previously been involved in your case here handle the verification. Either unblock-en-l or the Foundation itself (info-en@wikimedia.org) will have to get involved, and usually in cases like this it's unblock-en-l.

This is completely unrelated to whether you are correct about dates. This is entirely related to the 40-odd accounts you've used here. Georgewilliamherbert 18:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

FYI, there are apparent socks operating even today. See Ken raffensberger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Steve grinberg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). If these truly are not you and they turn out to be editing from the same library, then you may have more important issues than whether or not you can edit on Wikipedia. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

And today: User:KrazyChicken Rklawton 20:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Ron liebman (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

"copycat"

Decline reason:

From the evidence of the existing socks, I see no reason to unblock. — SirFozzie 20:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

((Unblock-copycat edits)) - Please move ahead with the process.--Ron Liebman 17:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC) ((unblock request)) - "copycat edits" - Please contact me as soon as possible.--Ron Liebman 16:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC) ((unblock request - copy cats edits, following unwarrented abuse from other editors)). Please contact my talk page or e-mail me so I could continue to move towards unblocking and reinstatement. --Ron Liebman 20:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Ron, everyone who has reviewed your case so far has declined to take further action to unblock. The last appeal you have is to the Arbitration Committee, which you need to make via email to an active member of the arbitration committee (see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee#Active and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. Georgewilliamherbert 21:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I will seek arbitration, but I am going away for several days on July 26 to the Society for American Baseball Research annual Convention - and I will follow through after my retur. I really hope that justice and common sense will prevail on this issue. --Ron Liebman 15:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)((Unblock))

Can you explain Ronald liebman (talk · contribs)? Stalking my contributions? —Wknight94 (talk) 19:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I did not do edits or any internet work under "Ronald Liebman" or "Forgettable Ben" (There is not even a list of edits). People are continuing to pull dirty tricks on me. When, hopefully, I am reinstated, maybe I will get a code so that others won't try to mimick my edits or be accused, falsely, of being sockpuppets. --Ron Liebman 12:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)--Ron Liebman 13:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC) ((Unblock - Continued copycat edits after perpetuar abuse by supervisors and administrators. Please let me know if my case can be reviewed before going to arbitration. If turned down again, please describe hou my case can be brought to arbitration. Thank you))--Ron Liebman 16:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

SABR as a source?

Since Liebman's various socks are citing SABR as a source, and since he himself contributes to SABR, then any citations he makes using SABR sources have to be assumed invalid unless independently verified elsewhere. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Do we know if Ron Leibman is really a member of SABR? But if he is, then he is a source, like it or not. We don't assume sources to be invalid. Note, for example, Phil Rizzuto was born in 1917. Leibman was banned for creating sockpuppets, not for invalid research.Ryoung122 08:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

He was banned for sockpuppetry, but the chain of events began with his continual posting of unverifiable information, and his refusal to use proper citations (which his sockpuppets continue to do, FYI). We know for certain that he's in SABR, and that he has invoked the names of living and dead SABR members among his sockpuppets. We also know he's a SABR contributor, hence his citing of SABR as a source runs the risk of being circular citations of his "original research". You may ask User:Wknight94 for more information, as he has been closely involved in my on-and-offline discussions on this issue. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Community sanction noticeboard

Are you aware of the discussion at Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard#Proposing a ban on Ron liebman? Banno 21:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
((Unblock)) I am not putting in these sockpuppet edits, and i deserve to be unblocked without going to arbitration - which I will do if not unblocked soon. Baseball Bugs, Wknight94, Ebyabe, and Georgewilliam herbert think may people editing the same articles, or editing different articles using what they consider a similar style, or from a NYC area library, as being made by me. Some of these legitimate editors have had some or all of their stuff reverted. I donb't even agree with all the stats and facts presented in those edits. I have been blocked (my account # that is) and they are still attributing edits to me. This is bizarre. ((Please help me)) I should not have to go through arbitration. My research organization (SABR) backs me all the way. The issue was raised at the National Convention this year in St. Louis. Time for common sense. The above mentioned editors and administrator are trying to ruin my reputation - solid in the bb research community wince the 1960's. I will seek to follow all Wikipedia rules if unblocked (reinstated). I am obviously victim of conspiracy here. Plain and simple. ((Help me)) --Ron Liebman 17:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC) Banno has right idea, it seens. --Ron Liebman 17:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Banno came into this with no prior exposure to this situation, and also no particular interest in baseball as he admits on the noticeboard page. You say you're willing to "follow all wikipedia rules."

• Are you willing to start posting specific and verifiable citations in the articles you edit?
• Are you willing to stop claiming that Hideki Matsui's streak is 519, rather than 518 as both MLB and SABR agree?

Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Ridiculous! Wikipedia is not the place for enforcing narrow views of things. All we have to do to resolve the '518'/'519' dispute is to cite '518' 'according to MLB rules' and then note in a 'trivia' note that Matsui actually started a 519th game, though it didn't count because he didn't get an at-bat. I note that Babe Ruth hit a '715th' home run in 1918 that was ruled a double (or was that triple?) because the rule then was that only one run could score in extra innings. Wikipedia is the place that allows for these types of nuances to be included. It's not too much to take a pluralistic viewpoint (and I note, many newspapers do).Ryoung122 08:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

And we're not. The article already contained an explanation of the rule that made the number 518 instead of 519, and pointed out that SABR itself lists 518 as the number. Liebman kept posting 519 and and saying that an exception had been made, but that was not true, it was just Liebman imposing his own "it ought to be this" interpretation. And the extra Ruth homer-that-wasn't is well-known and is (or was) in the Ruth article or somewhere else. The article already explained the 518 vs. 519. The problem was Liebman continually falsely claiming that 519 was the accepted figure. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I bring these points up because they are what caught various editors' attention to start with, and what caused this situation to accelerate to where it is now. This problem is, and always has been, within your power to solve. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Ron, it's quite obvious these are your sock puppets. They repeatedly add the same false information to articles. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 02:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC) The entries for the last few months were not sockpuppet entries. Other editors made similar edits or copycat edits. Some editors did different articles but they were said to have a similar style or be from the NYC area. I agree to abide by the stipulations laid down by Baseball Bugs. I will not change 518 to 519 even though I feel my figure is right. If there is a disputed item, I will discuss it on the talk page or eliminate it altogwether. I will cite sources, wherever possible, but I cannot provide attachments (I am snot trained in that). I was abruptly banned in May. BB Bugs bullied me by turning back all of my edits (saying I was a vandal) and not accepting any of my changes - even when sourced. He got Wknight, Georgewilliamherbert, Ebyabe (who says he cares little about baseball) to back him up. I stopped using sockpupuppets soon after BB Bugs (nee Wahteenah) came back a few days after saying he would quit. I will focus on soft, noncontroversidal edits in the beginning (if reinstated) and possibly non-baseball edits. ((Please unblock)) --Ron Liebman 21:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

They LOOK like the same style to me! Seems to be sockpuppets.Ryoung122 08:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you willing to admit to the sockpuppets confirmed at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ron liebman? Banno 10:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC) I have said that most ofthe sockpuppets after May are not mine - and that is the way it is. I have not knowingly put false information into baseball articles. I attempted to put in some birthdates different from those in Wikipedia - some spotted by me and some by other baseball researchers. Another problem was that I, as most statisticians, believed that if a man led the league a number of consecutive years before and after his World War II service (a/la Ted Williams that his streak should be intact (such as 1941-1942; 1946-1949 with U.S. service - streak should be 6 years). That would have stood in Wikipedia except for Baseball Bugs (nee Wahteenah). Also, when I corrected certain pronunciations and other stats, Baseball Bugs reverted them and called them vandaliksm - whereas if an administrator or a long-term user (one operating prior to my tenure) changed it, it wouldautomatically be accepted. Also, if I point out ethat a Wisconsis birth record clearly indicates Al Simmons was born with 1st name "Alois" BB Bugs turned it back because he says if Ron Liebman belong to SABR, it cannot be accepted. It is not SABR - it is public internet records. Also, many legitimate editors, who put in different stats (often disagreeing with mine) were blocked from Wikipedia because BB Bugs thought they were put in by Ron Liebman). Some of these editors will return with different account numbers - if not, I will restore some of their edits (if I agree with them) later. Wknight doesn't believ ein changing birthdates - enen though dozens were changed before Wknight and Ron Liebman were involved with Wikipedia. Several SABR members and officers (including some who don't especially like me) admitted the signs of a conspiracy against me at the St. Louis annual convention. I don't deserve to be typecast as a "troll" or a "baseball vandal" It is a false tag. Also, BB Bugs and Wknight tried (with some temporary success) to diry my name at another open Wiki website. It's time for common sense. I will try to avoid convtroversal edits. My main goal is to clear my name - not to edit Wikipedia. If the same garbage is hurled at me again, I will withdras - not editing undr any identity. BB Bugs and Wknight are more apropriate for a ban than I am at Wikipedia. (Imagine, a list of articles I occasionally vandalized when I entered verifiable information - most of which appears in other websites and publications without my input. Enough, or as they say in Jewish, genug. --Ron Liebman 21:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC) It appeared that I have been unblocked - but it looks like I have not been. I nevere information into baseball articles (I might have erred a few times but not on a major scale. Most of the sockpuppet entries since late may are not mine - and good editors have been penalized. I was prematuresly blocked in May. ((Please unblock - harassment, false accusations, prematurely blocked)) ((Help me.))

It's clear from the Checkuser evidence that you have edited using sockpuppets since May. Your denial leads me to conclude that you are not sincere. In any case, the Wiki has more than enough editors who can neither spell nor structure a paragraph. I am unwilling to unblock you. Given that it appears no other admin is willing to unblock you, you are effectively banned under Wikipedia:Banning policy#Community ban. -Banno 21:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Liebman, may I ask why your IP matches at least some of these puppets and yet you say these people are copycats? Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 03:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Ron Liebman has been told many times that the reason his edits keep getting reverted is because he refuses to cite specific citations in the articles. He would only give vague citations, such as the ones above, and only in the edit summaries. He has been told time and time again that this not acceptable form of citation. His continual refusal to do things the right way is what led directly to his problems, and the proper way to "clear his name" is to pledge to do things the right way, which he continues to refuse to do. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC) I am not going to lie and sasy that all of those sockpuppets were mine - even if costs me my reinstatement rights or results in lengthy arbitration. I explained the situation at the SABR Convention, and the people there they would even go to Court for me, if necessary. The checkuser only said that edits were done in the NY area and were similar. The NY Public Library, Queens Public Library, and CUNY have several branches, floors, and buildings and copycat edits are possible. There are some people in SABR who, because of rivalry in trivia quizzes (I won 7 National titles before retirement) and rivalry for awards (I won several, and was a finalist in others), dislike me and are opponents. Other editors merely tried to put in the same stats as me. Still more editors used a different style of editing and pinpointed different

accounts and were falsely blocked as alleged "sockpuppets." My reputation in the baseball research communtiy is solid since the late 1960's wheen I worked for Associated Press and for The Sporting News. Almost everyone who writes an encyclopedia or major record book calls me or e-mails me or writes me for guidance or information. Many SABR members will never edit Wikipedia because of the vendetta against me. I also have reason, in studying the edit patters and reversions, to feel that anti-Semitism (which has plagued me in the past and led me to successful legal battles) is the prime factor. Wknight94 is afraid tochange birthdates (many were changed before hje and I had anything to dowith Wickipedia, Ebyabe keeps doinbg what "Baseball Bugs" says and saying "sigh", Baseball Bugs has made himself judge and jury as to what edits are OK, and Georgewilliam herbert perpetuates the vandalism idea and saysthat I repeately added false information to the article which is blatantly untrue. Al Simmons' Wisconsin birth records wenton the internet and showed a 1902 birth (previously shown as 1903) and a birth first name of "Alois". The birth year was corrected before Baseball Bugs (Wahteenah), Wknight94, Ebyabe, Georgewilliam herbert, andRon Liebman were involved in Wikipedia; The birth first name was often ignored by websites and publications, or changed to "Aloys" rather than "Aloysius." Thanks to me and others pointing out to the source, many places have changed it or will in the near future. When I and other independent editors pointed this out, Baseball Bugs said he could not use it because "Ron Liebman" is unreliableand "Ron Liebman" is a member of SABR - meaning he coulkd contribute the data and voiding what SABR said. When Ron Liebman, Baseball Bugs, and company are all dead, the Wiisonsin birth records showing "ALois" will still be on the internet. I could site dozens of similar instances. I did agree to co-operate in the future - and I said I will stay away from controversial edits, and not keep reverting the reversions which Baseball Bugs and company are sure to do. If my last name were not "Liebman" a lot of this would not be happening. All I said was that I felt it was my job to prvoide sources - not attachments, which is the job of administrators, supervisors, and mebers of the Baseball Project - which I have no desire to ever join - I could not work with these dishonorable men. I'd rather work with SABR, as I have with distinction for 35 years. I also saidthat I would not lie by falsely admitting that all of these Sockpuppet names were mine. If my unwillingness to lie about the soco-puppets and to provide attachments is not good enough, then I will have to go to arbitration. I am disappointed, also, that a concerted, documenteeffort has been made by these unscrupulous Wikimen to discredit me before Bullpen. If they go much further, there might have to be legal action. I feel that I have gone far enough to deserve unblocking. There are obviously some "bad people" in Wikipedia who are trying to destroy me. Why? So, as a matter of common sense ((Unblock/ copy cat edits, unscrupulous dealine by supervisors and editor, and latent anti-Semitism))

--Ron Liebman 16:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

My spelling and paragraph structure should not be challeged (I have been a spelling champ too in my school). I have limited time inthe libraries and computer centers and I have to work fast - limited time and others waiting. I did not impersonate "Mischa Gelman" of Bullpen. He (or someone posing as him) put in an edit ratifying my "titles leaders" lists (many of the corrections ultimately made by other editors, supervisor, or administrators. He (or the person posing as him) were reverted and he was slammed as a sockpuppet. I do not know if hem made the edit or not - I know that the edit was sound and that it was not me (or someone designated by me) making the edit. How much phoniness can Wikipedia higher-ups exercise? --Ron Liebman 16:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

((Help me/ Unblock so I won't have to go to possibly time-consuming arbitration to gain reinstatement))--Ron Liebman 16:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I am married into a Jewish family. HOW DARE YOU play the anti-semitism card on me. Everything that has happened to you here YOU BROUGHT UPON YOURSELF. And you refuse to change your approach. THIS IS YOUR FAULT, NO ONE ELSE'S. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

You need to appeal to Arbcom

Please stop posting further block appeals here. You need to take this to arbcom for review. Georgewilliamherbert 18:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Community ban

Your case at Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard has been closed and as a result you have been placed under a community ban [1] Banno 21:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't be disgusting

It's one thing to try to force baseball statistics here despite Wikipedia policy but please stop with the disgusting genitalia references as you keep doing here. "rod + balls"?! Grow up. You're a grown man for Godsake. You should be ashamed. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

UTRS appeal #73684

is closed. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:16, 19 May 2023 (UTC)