User talk:Cyber Shepherd

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Cyber Shepherd, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Fiddle Faddle 10:06, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

False Sockpuppet Accusation[edit]

I have posted the following on the talk page of User:Rossami,User:Shalom, and User:VanTucky. 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!)

"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: Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_May_23 regarding a Zulupad page. At the end of the deletion review log User:Shalom had the following to say about me:

"Housekeeping note: Wikipedia: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)"

Unless User:Shalom would like to prove or disprove this suggestion that I am a sockpuppet of User:Omeomi by conducting a checkname or performing some other verification test, then I feel that

User:Shalom should rescind his accusation. User User:VanTucky also cast his doubts about my existence as a real person. Can these users either prove their case or redact their statements?

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." --Cyber Shepherd (talk) 20:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 have since diversified your contributions, you need not worry. VanTucky 21:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree with both the words and sentiments expressed by VanTucky. I repeat the words I used in closing the SSP case:

"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.

"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."

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 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.

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. Yechiel (Shalom) 21:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Good afternoon. I received your note and have a few thoughts. I hope at least some of them may be useful.
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 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 Wikipedia are based on the ideal of rough consensus, not voting. 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.)
Our ability to edit pseudonymously 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 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.
What this does 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 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 Wikipedia'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.
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 opinion that get discounted.
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 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 Wikipedia:No original research for more on that topic.) Encyclopedias are, by definition, tertiary sources. We synopsize the writings of others. We must rely upon verifiable, reliable sources 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.)
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.
And in case no one has said it yet, welcome to Wikipedia. Rossami (talk) 21:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shalom and welcome![edit]

Welcome!

Hello, Cyber Shepherd, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Yechiel (Shalom) 21:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Draft:Bernardo Ruiz (filmmaker) (May 18)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time.
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 resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Draft:Bernardo Ruiz (filmmaker).
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page.

Thank you for your
contributions to Wikipedia!

Please remember to link to the submission!

You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Fiddle Faddle 10:06, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Cyber Shepherd, 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 Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there!