Based on your post, I'm not sure you actually read the complaint or understand the situation or context. It had nothing to do with attacks or vandalism, both of which I defended Wikipedia against and never actually engaged in myself. It only had to do with the alternate accounts.
One more thing: Do you really think that anyone who doesn't edit Wikipedia finds this to be more than a mildly interesting bit of Internet drama? Which of these unaffiliated people do you expect to pore through Wikipedia backpages, which can read like 1200-page government reports with a dash of cranky blogger and a smidgen of nerdfight? The length of this article is appropriate to how interesting it is. I'm sorry you're still upset that I asked you to justify your additions to the article and to support your assumptions about the school with references. It just wasn't worth the energy and time I spent on it. I see that the discussion about how pro-drug the school was because some kid in a supercool jean jacket snuck in a joke or two about roach clips continued for about seven months, and I am glad I ducked out of it about six months back. It's been great not arguing about something so minor, and I highly recommend doing the same.
If you want to get together sometime and eat a Big Mac™ and discuss this like two grown men, I would be happy to do so, but this Internet stuff isn't accomplishing anything, and I'd prefer you put your talent to better uses than trying to tear me down. I'm sure you are a great guy and people really like you, but I haven't had the opportunity to find out for myself because you are so focused on this.
So again: Good luck. Peace be with you. May the sun be always at your back.
So now you're casting aspersions on Melissa Meinzer. Ms. Meinzer was assigned this story. Melissa didn't even recognize that I had been at the Pitt News until after she first interviewed me.
If you actually used your name and took responsibility for your actions as I have, you might have been easier to contact for this article.
As for me, what I did was use alternate accounts, something that is, in fact, allowed for on Wikipedia. What is not allowed is misrepresentation of alternate accounts as if they are not you. While I never said the accounts were not mine, my questioning another user's actions toward one of my alternate accounts was an indirect misrepresentation. I did this once, but it's clear to me now that using alternate accounts can be a slippery slope and that the practice lends itself to trouble like this, regardless of the user's intention.
As for the Taylor Allderdice article, I didn't know that mediation was going on, and when I later looked at the page, it looked as if mediation had been stillborn. Without digging through months of arguing on the talk page, I made some edits that I believed to be appropriate; unfortunately, I did so with the alternate account I mainly used to maintain a watchlist dedicated to Pittsburgh-related articles. I was making so many edits at the time, switching back and forth between those two accounts that night, that I didn't realize until too late that those edits were made under a different account. Had I realized, or had someone asked me instead of just taking it to checkuser, I would have explained the situation.
It was a simple accident, but the stigma against alternate accounts, which many users group with deliberate use of sockpuppets — there is a distinction — led people to see it as a bigger transgression than it actually was.
Regardless, I take ethics very seriously, so the appearance of wrongdoing was extremely embarrassing. This, on top of the Wikipedia editor/admin burnout that I was going through, led me to take the opportunity to step down as administrator. This continued campaign against me is just a small example of the type of abuse I took (and sadly continue to take) for acting appropriately and carrying out my duties as an editor and administrator. Frustrated bullies continually try to exploit what was a moment of weakness.
I have resumed editing on Wikipedia, but certainly not in the volume I had before. And after I accomplish a few things in my actual life that will benefit myself, I plan to turn my attention to improving the encyclopedia and again working to make editing it easier for users, now with a focus on clarifying policy and alleviating editor fatigue so that other well-intentioned users don't burn out and find themselves in the situation I have.
This was over almost three months ago. Everyone else has since moved on. I wish that you would do the same so that you can direct your energy toward positive endeavors. I wish you the best of luck.
I want to make something clear: Though I am a Wikipedia administrator, I do not represent Wikipedia in any authoritative way; I merely represent myself and my own actions. I'm not going to address Mr. "John Bo's" accusations against Wikipedia, Wikimedia, or Wales because I don't feel it is my place to do so. I will, however, address his cowardly attacks against me.
Incidentally, I find it wonderfully hypocritical of Mr. "Bo" to rant about anonymous users on Wikipedia when he is doing the same thing here.
I didn't reveal anything that the vandals hadn't already made public themselves by editing with only their IP addresses. As an administrator, I can't see registered users' IP addresses, but anyone can see the IPs of users who post "anonymously". Users are cautioned to register because of this. Contributors are not required to register because many unregistered users contribute positive work to the project, and a large number of these eventually register.
I use my real name edit when I edit Wikipedia because I stand behind my work there. You can, of course, pick out an edit or two and make them look bad by taking them out of context, which I see you have taken the time to do. The Legend of Zelda edit was in response to an editor who had added needless detail to a plot summary for a video game that had recently been condensed to better justify the material's fair use. This had all been discussed in the appropriate arenas previously, and I dealt with the situation more comprehensively elsewhere. In general, I tend to prune and maintain articles more than I add to them. The articles need shape and cohesiveness, and that's what I try to work on, in addition to general maintenance and organizational work — for instance, creating WikiProject Pittsburgh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pittsburgh).
With the Fred Rogers entry, as was mentioned in the City Paper article, the list of debunked myths is there because they are so persistent; it would be irresponsible for an article not to refer to them. Additionally, this does a great deal to prevent random users from adding these items to the entry as if they were true just because they "think" they are.
By comparing the debunking of the myths surrounding Rogers and insertion of attacks against Ravenstahl, you are creating a faulty analogy. The Rogers entry cites Snopes, which you call a rumor-mongering Web site, but which in reality does a public service by dispelling myths. Rogers is much more notable, and the myths are much more prevalent, than our young mayor and the angry opinions of hacks who can barely string a sentence together and won't even stand by their own comments, and this is why they do not merit inclusion in the encyclopedia. They're not even lies to expose so much as they are baseless derision impulsively typed out on a keyboard sprinkled with tears.
Your arguments are very clever, and I am sure you enjoyed sitting down with a dictionary and a guide to being an Internet crank to make yourself sound more knowledgeable than you actually are; unfortunately, because your accusations against me are based on taking my actions out of context to condemn me more easily, your argument is simply not very solid. I hope bluster works better for you in other aspects of your life, but it's transparent here.
Good luck,
Chris Griswold
Best Guy Ever
Recent Comments