257:
have a PhD in underwater basketweaving and there's no way to tell whether or not I'm telling the truth. I could even post a picture of the diploma - you have no way to know whether it's mine, my fathers' or something I downloaded off google.) We are used to deferring to the authority of experts in a particular field and relying upon their judgment. When you don't know who the "authorities" really are, how do you know whose opinion to trust? On the third hand, it removes our reliance on credentials. The positive side of this is that we are all forced to justify our statements based on facts, sound reasoning and external references and sources. If my facts are sourced and my reasoning clear, it no longer matters whether I hold that PhD or am merely an informed amateur. The facts speak for themselves.
242:
part, we don't worry about it because we rely on the reputation that we build here based on our contribution history to show that our opinions should be given weight. (If someone really wants to put in the time to create thousands of thoughtful, in-depth and good-faith edits, they're unlikely to take the time to deliberately split those edits across two accounts just so they can someday bias a future decision. It wouldn't work anyway since our decisions at
Knowledge (XXG) are based on the ideal of
412:
264:
of contribution a useful proxy for non-sockpuppethood, it is generally a very good indicator of the degree to which the editor has had a chance to be exposed to and to assimilate
Knowledge (XXG)'s established policies, standards and precedents. Whether or not there is an allegation of sockpuppetry, the opinions of new users will always be read in light of their relative experience.
211:"It's very plausible, even probable, that these are two separate people. The fact that Cyber Shepherd was a single-purpose account, regardless of whether he was a sockpuppet or not, was known to whoever closed the DRV. No further action is needed, and I assume good faith and will consider these accounts as two separate users. I suspect that Cyber Shepherd will not return.
214:"To Omeomi: please calm down. We investigate these cases precisely because we don't want to jump to conclusions. When we see two users with very few edits voting in the same discussion, we get suspicious. Sometimes these users are the same person. Sometimes they're not. We don't know until we do an investigation."
142:"Housekeeping note: Knowledge (XXG):Suspected sock puppets/Omeomi - There is legitimate suspicion, but no solid proof, that User:Cyber Shepherd may be a sockpuppet of User:Omeomi. Regardless, Cyber Shepherd has no edits outside this DRV and his userpage. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 04:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)"
273:
Second, there is no need to prove or disprove the allegation. In the immediate instance, I will tell you that my decision in closing that
Deletion Review thread was not affected by the comment. The weight of opinion in that case was an endorsement of the deletion discussion. Your own opinion in that
263:
mean is that it is very important that you build up your reputation over time. The opinions of editors who have been here longer and who have demonstrated a pattern of positive contributions are given more weight during our discussions. This works well for us for two reasons. Not only is the length
256:
is both a strength and a weakness for the project. On the one hand, it frees us from retaliation by employers, governments and others who have a vested interest in one side of a particular topic. On the other hand, it removes the ability to rely on the credibility of credentials. (I can say that I
217:
The only words I would retract from that are: "I suspect that Cyber
Shepherd will not return." You did return, and I am very thankful to you for that. I have been involved with a previous case of a new user who was falsely accused of being a sockpuppet, was blocked for it, and I helped exonerate
188:
When new users immediately come to an obscure part of the project for the first time, only make edits to that discussion, and make edits to a discussion that are extremely similar to another party, it is routine to do this sort of inquiry. The case has now been closed, as you can see there. If you
241:
First, it is almost impossible to disprove an allegation of sockpuppetry. Anything I could offer as proof of my identity could be fairly easily mimicked by another person and anything I said to distance myself from another contributor could be said just as easily by the puppetmaster. For the most
289:
Anyway, I've rambled on a bit and I apologize for this windy answer. As I said at the start, I hope at least a little bit of this helps. Don't worry about the sockpuppet comment. Enjoy your time here. Edit wisely and trust that your contribution history will be recognized over time.
125:. I simply ask that these users do what is fair. FYI, my home IP address was blocked shortly after my first post, so I was unable to write again for a few days after that post. (It was suspected that I was using my account for a single purpose!)
286:
when crafting our articles. If those external, reliable sources don't yet exist, we have to wait for them. (This, by the way, is an ideal that we try hard to live up to - but sometimes don't. We're working on it, though.)
218:
him, then he promptly quit in protest. This has happened with experienced users also. (I'll not post the usernames here, but you may ask me if you really need to know.) I hope the outcome here will be more positive.
266:
Remember that for most editing, this doesn't matter because we are seeking consensus based on sourcable facts. Credible evidence gets considered regardless of who presents it. It is only the statements of
524:, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the
274:
discussion was discounted not because of your credentials but because it was an expression of personal experience - something which we are enjoined from including in the encyclopedia. (See
526:
131:"Rossami, I am writing to request help in mediating a matter involving a false accusation and the tarnishing of my reputation. I am a new user and my first post was here:
423:
Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been
173:
However, I am a real person, I do work at
Teachers College, Columbia University, and I do intend to (attempt) to create and add positively to WikiPedia. Many thanks." --
514:
132:
58:
250:. It's also unlikely that a person with that kind of malicious intent would be able to hide it long enough to build up that good reputation.)
221:
To that end, I leave you with the standard welcome message for new contributors. Welcome, and I apologize for any hurt feelings on your end.
326:
22:
399:
278:
for more on that topic.) Encyclopedias are, by definition, tertiary sources. We synopsize the writings of others. We must rely upon
275:
348:
48:
433:
403:
536:, a friendly space on Knowledge (XXG) where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there!
343:
163:
also cast his doubts about my existence as a real person. Can these users either prove their case or redact their statements?
53:
208:
I fully agree with both the words and sentiments expressed by VanTucky. I repeat the words I used in closing the SSP case:
283:
353:
247:
333:
322:
39:
34:
388:
226:
360:
364:
279:
65:
239:
Good afternoon. I received your note and have a few thoughts. I hope at least some of them may be useful.
376:
368:
243:
77:
69:
532:
338:
25:. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
29:
384:
222:
174:
495:
329:. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
195:
156:
146:
136:
118:
98:
81:
375:(~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out
76:(~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out
530:. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the
301:
293:
484:
418:
153:
by conducting a checkname or performing some other verification test, then I feel that
490:
472:
190:
160:
122:
93:
297:
253:
114:
44:
513:
150:
411:
500:
392:
305:
230:
202:
182:
103:
432:
If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at
379:, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place
149:
would like to prove or disprove this suggestion that I am a sockpuppet of
439:
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
421:
has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time.
21:
Hello, Cyber
Shepherd, and welcome to Knowledge (XXG)! Thank you for
372:
73:
135:
regarding a
Zulupad page. At the end of the deletion review log
189:
have since diversified your contributions, you need not worry.
410:
442:
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the
450:
443:
84:, or ask your question on this page and then place
113:I have posted the following on the talk page of
133:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion_review/Log/2008_May_23
8:
485:real-time chat help from experienced editors
359:I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
383:before the question. Again, welcome!
92:before the question. Again, welcome!
159:should rescind his accusation. User
7:
292:And in case no one has said it yet,
276:Knowledge (XXG):No original research
334:The five pillars of Knowledge (XXG)
139:had the following to say about me:
40:The five pillars of Knowledge (XXG)
417:Your recent article submission to
325:to Knowledge (XXG)! Thank you for
14:
462:contributions to Knowledge (XXG)!
512:
54:How to create your first article
527:Articles for creation help desk
445:Articles for creation help desk
434:Draft:Bernardo Ruiz (filmmaker)
404:Draft:Bernardo Ruiz (filmmaker)
35:Introduction to Knowledge (XXG)
1:
349:How to write a great article
321:Hello, Cyber Shepherd, and
109:False Sockpuppet Accusation
554:
59:Simplified Manual of Style
393:21:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
377:Knowledge (XXG):Questions
306:21:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
231:21:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
203:21:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
183:20:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
78:Knowledge (XXG):Questions
501:10:06, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
104:10:06, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
49:How to develop articles
415:
419:Articles for Creation
414:
400:Articles for creation
271:that get discounted.
451:reviewer's talk page
296:to Knowledge (XXG).
252:Our ability to edit
471:Please remember to
398:Your submission at
312:Shalom and welcome!
64:Please remember to
475:to the submission!
460:Thank you for your
416:
344:How to edit a page
327:your contributions
45:How to edit a page
23:your contributions
541:
540:
483:You can also get
367:your messages on
304:
68:your messages on
545:
516:
509:
508:
498:
493:
453:
382:
369:discussion pages
300:
284:reliable sources
200:
101:
96:
90:
89:
553:
552:
548:
547:
546:
544:
543:
542:
537:
504:
503:
496:
491:
465:
463:
449:
408:
380:
354:Manual of Style
314:
244:rough consensus
237:(edit conflict)
196:
111:
99:
94:
87:
86:
72:by typing four
30:Getting started
19:
12:
11:
5:
551:
549:
539:
538:
522:Cyber Shepherd
519:
517:
506:
489:
488:
480:
479:
478:
477:
461:
459:
457:
456:
455:
440:
437:
429:
428:
422:
409:
407:
396:
357:
356:
351:
346:
341:
336:
313:
310:
309:
308:
291:
288:
272:
265:
258:
254:pseudonymously
251:
240:
206:
205:
175:Cyber Shepherd
171:
170:
169:
168:
167:
166:
165:
164:
154:
110:
107:
62:
61:
56:
51:
42:
37:
32:
18:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
550:
535:
534:
529:
528:
523:
518:
515:
511:
510:
507:
502:
499:
494:
486:
482:
481:
476:
474:
469:
468:
467:
466:
464:
452:
447:
446:
441:
438:
435:
431:
430:
426:
420:
413:
405:
401:
397:
395:
394:
390:
386:
378:
374:
370:
366:
362:
355:
352:
350:
347:
345:
342:
340:
337:
335:
332:
331:
330:
328:
324:
319:
318:
311:
307:
303:
299:
295:
285:
281:
277:
270:
262:
255:
249:
245:
238:
235:
234:
233:
232:
228:
224:
219:
215:
212:
209:
204:
201:
199:
194:
193:
187:
186:
185:
184:
180:
176:
162:
161:User:VanTucky
158:
155:
152:
148:
144:
143:
141:
140:
138:
134:
130:
129:
128:
127:
126:
124:
123:User:VanTucky
120:
116:
108:
106:
105:
102:
97:
91:
83:
79:
75:
71:
67:
60:
57:
55:
52:
50:
46:
43:
41:
38:
36:
33:
31:
28:
27:
26:
24:
16:
531:
525:
521:
505:
470:
458:
448:, or on the
444:
424:
358:
320:
316:
315:
268:
260:
236:
220:
216:
213:
210:
207:
197:
191:
178:
172:
115:User:Rossami
112:
85:
82:my talk page
80:, ask me on
63:
20:
371:using four
157:User:Shalom
151:User:Omeomi
147:User:Shalom
137:User:Shalom
119:User:Shalom
88:{{Help me}}
381:{{helpme}}
361:Wikipedian
280:verifiable
259:What this
70:talk pages
363:! Please
533:Teahouse
425:resolved
406:(May 18)
339:Tutorial
317:Welcome!
17:Welcome!
520:Hello!
385:Yechiel
323:welcome
298:Rossami
294:welcome
269:opinion
223:Yechiel
145:Unless
497:Faddle
492:Fiddle
389:Shalom
373:tildes
302:(talk)
248:voting
246:, not
227:Shalom
121:, and
100:Faddle
95:Fiddle
74:tildes
198:Tucky
473:link
365:sign
261:does
179:talk
66:sign
47:and
192:Van
402::
391:)
282:,
229:)
181:)
487:.
454:.
436:.
427:.
387:(
225:(
177:(
117:,
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.