Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkuser/Case/ChrisGriswold

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Response

I took into consideration very carefully the sockpuppet rules before deciding to use any. Neither of these socks has done anything I haven't done as ChrisGriswold. Additionally, I have used these for editing separate areas of Wikipedia. Never have I used these to alter votes or to create any sort of false consensus. In the case of Taylor Allderdice, I was using Superburgh mainly to maintain a Pittsburgh-related watchlist that I would then log in and edit as ChrisGriswold, but in this case I appear not to have properly made the switch. I have experience in these areas that makes me especially suited to editing them, but unfortunately, because I use my real name, I may be affected by some of the edits I feel need to be made. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 17:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I would appreciate diffs showing wrongdoing because none are stated in the checkuser request. Sockpuppets are allowed for the reasons I have cited. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 17:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I also would appreciate coming to some sort of understanding so that I can continue to use these sockpuppets in an undisruptive manner. As I said, Superburgh was really more for maintaining a separate watchlist, which I have seen other admins do before. And TIC took over editing tasks that I didn't want my name attached to anymore so that I could be more objective in my edits. Either way, I would appreciate my name not being too attached to these accounts. I am considering changing my user name completely. Because I just can't do the type of editing I feel needs to be done under my own name. I have deleted the two socks' userpages for now solely because of my anonymity worries; I would appreciate it if we could finish this discussion before a decision is made in that regard. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 17:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
The aggressive editing style of Superburgh raises concern that you were using a sock to avoid scrutiny on your main account. If you were aware of consensus discussions on the talk page and the mediation for this article (Taylor Allderdice), why did you revert and not discuss your changes with the Superburg account? Avoiding Wikipedia dispute resolution is not the appropriate use of a sock account. FloNight 17:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Again, it was accidental that I made the edits with that account. I would have made the same edits with this account. I do understand that because this was a sockpuppet, it appears abusive, and I am sorry that it appears so. My life has been chaotic recently and I have had maddeningly spotty Internet service, so my edits have become somewhat scattered. I no longer make long, committed edits like I used to because I don't know how long I will be on, and when I am on, I have often forgotten what it was I last worked on. I have been very careful to keep these accounts separate, but the use of the Superburgh watchlist tripped me up. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 17:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I was proud to edit with my own name, but the sort of abuse an admin gets thrown at him made that extremely difficult and I found it hard to edit as myself in addition to that. In the end, I will accept whatever judgment is given, but I ask that I be able to change my account name and that these socks be attributed to the new name. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 18:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I think that you need to stop using the sock accounts if you are prone to making errors that appear to be abusive use of a sock account. Can you agree to stop using socks now. And do you have other sock accounts? And if so, why? I think it is best that you use a single account going forward. You pick which account or are you saying that you want a totally new one? FloNight 18:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I will stop using sock accounts. I have no more. I would keep this one and continue with that, if the sock accounts could not be linked to this one. I would just have to go back to editing only comics articles, and I suppose I am OK with that. As for why I have them, as I said above, I was overwhelmed by the sort of abuse directed at me as an admin without the sort of shield an anonymous username would provide, but I also became overwhelmed by the size of my watchlist and became unable to edit with any comfort unless I split my watchlists up into something more managable. Previousl;y I proposed the idea of an "active watchlist" that shows only maintains a watchlist of articles you edit with regularity, but it's a while off before something like that is implememented. It's pretty clear I just need some time away from the project, and I would like to volunteer to do this myself. I just really am concerned about backlash against me personally, and I would appreciate being removed from the connection to Truth in Comedy, which was never used abusively, even accidentally, and whose edits I didn't feel as comfortable making with my own name. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 18:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Then, if you are proud to use your name, why should you use sockpuppets? Superburgh is specially controversial. Please, just don't use that accounts anymore. Be aware you're an admin, you must be an example to the rest of us. And also be aware that your postition means greater responsabilities: if you continue using them as the way you have, you'll surely get an admin abuse report against. And attribution should be done to your current account, of course. --Neigel von Teighen 18:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I am proud of my work with the WikiProjects I have been involved with or even started. I am proud of my handling of certain situations prior to this debacle. I was putting together a project on my own to use Wikipedia as part of an assignment in the history and English classes in my old high school. A series of unfortunate things happened, unfortunately, and my use and feelings about Wikipedia changed due to some amazing (at least to me) pressures and changes in my life. I would like to continue to work on and better this project, but it's clear that I'm burnt out and have been for some time. I need to take some time away so that I can come back and contribute with the strength that I used to. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 18:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Very wrong

OK...this is really wrong. As Truth in Comedy you got into an edit war with SpyMagician (see this talk page) but then you went to SpyMagician's talk page as admin ChrisGriswold to "sort it out". [1]. You were even disingenuous about it saying "Additionally, I edit with my own name, so I am upfront about any such conflicts of interest." (which you obviously weren't doing) and pretending you didn't know your other identity saying "I have seen the way you follow Future Whatever around from article to article" (as Truth in Comedy you always signed posts "Future Fun Jumper (TIC)"). Not right at all. IrishGuy talk 18:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the edits I was making were those of the sort I had been making with my main account but had not been questioned because I was an admin, and I tried to approach the situation from another angle. Since then, I have avoided any such gray ethical areas completely. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 18:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
What is really disturbing to me is that SpyMagician pointed out that "ChrisGriswold" had a COI on at least one comedy article...and all this time you were editing numerous ones as TIC and denying any knowledge of it. Even defending TIC in your capacities as an admin. That is abuse of your position. Chris, I have never had a problem with you. I have gotten along with you fine before this...but you even asked me to step in with SpyMagician [2] when the truth was you were edit warring with him using two accounts. IrishGuy talk 18:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I have never hidden any conflicts of interest I have had. I don't have conflicts of interest in the articles I edited as TIC. I don't know the subjects of those articles. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 18:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Why were you making contentuous edits (many other users had issue with TIC's edits) and then continuing to edit war with the ChrisGriswold account? Not just edit war, but chastise others in an admin capacity in defense of TIC. You have to realize that this creates an appearance of multiple editors sharing an opinion when in fact it was a single editor with multiple accounts. IrishGuy talk 19:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi, this is SpyMagician here. I came across this page when just visiting Wiki—after a long absence—due in part the the incredibly abussive attitudes I received from Chris Griswold. I'm a web developer by day, comedy writer when the gigs come in, and right now killing some time. I'm floored that Chris Griswold and Truth in Comedy are the same person. At the time, I had a slightly 'paranoid' feeling they were, based on the ways I was attacked. But I didn't have the time or energy to pursue. Now, this? This is incredible! And I'll explain why. The absolute worst offense I made on Wikipedia is the 'offense' of using a thinly veiled handle as an account. I did this for two reasons (1) at the time I set up the account I felt I needed to distance myself from The Onion, yet felt a need to share the knowledge I had in a way that positively added to the experience. (2) Conflicts that I—and other ex-Onion staffers had—with the old owners in Madison, WI made me genuinely fearful of being harassed in the real world by the lunatic old owner. Thus the handle. I also slowly participated in the wider world of Wikipedia comedy, and—frankly—it's not that big, so one notices things. So when I saw Truth in Comedy 'slashing/burning' TONS of aticles for no valid reason, I was angered. Yes, there are vanity pages on Wikipedia. But it's also a place to share information that is not well known from sources that won't get heavy mainstream appeal. The idea that these groups/comedians were being targetted and deleted angered me to no end because—like Rodney Dangerfield would say—comedy gets no respect. No respect at all. And now, some anonymous loon is deleting articles. It drove me nuts. And I tried to fight the good fight, but was ultimately discouraged by the behavior of Truth in Comedy and the defense of the admin known as Chris Griswold. Now, I login and see this fiasco? Un-fudging-believable! This is obscene and if there is a clear way to notify anyone who has been hurt by Chris Griswold's behavior about this, it should be done. And I'd be happy to help. At one point I insulted Chris Griswold saying I have contributed more to comedy in the real world than he ever did. Days later I felt bad about it, but was sick of Wikipedia. But now in light of this, I will take back that statement and say I was too harsh. The reality is Chris Griswold is simply an abusive petty coward. It's amazing. He could have been a part of growing the comedy world of Wikipedia, but instead chose to burn those who did not fall in his realm of taste. This is simply horrible and should not be allowed now or ever. Step down as a sysop or be prepared for others—like me—to lobby for it. It's a disgrace what you did and the best thing Chris Griswold is admit mistake. —SpyMagician 04:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
He already stepped down. He was wrong in that he supported himself using sockpuppets, but I'm not convinced that alone invalidates his original arguments and concerns. You might be pissed right now, and rightfully so, but no editor here is perfect, and it is not the sum of who he is. -- Ned Scott 05:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not as much pissed as I feel vindicated to an extent. And perosnally, I quit a bad job on May 1st and now I have better/more-fulfilling one. Then I login—now that I have time—and find out that someone who has laid watse to lots of decent comedy articles is outted as a sock puppet of an admin. Looks like the first week of May this year was something special to me personally. And my 'rage' is more of the shock of it mixed with my 'Brooklyn' way of expressing myself. And pissed? Well, yes I am. But I don't understand why someone would not be and why you—and Chris Griswold—are so blind to the effects of what he did engaging in this behavior. On a most basic level, isn't the concept of good faith a main cornerstone of Wiki philosophy? If that's the case, then how can one assume 'good faith' when a user who has been awarded with an 'admin' title abuses his position by using sock puppets to do his 'dirty work'. In the case of the edits done under Truth in Comedy were quiet brash and abusive in nature; no assumption of good faith made or implied. And if you dared question these edits, slash/burn and no discussion. This is all retreading of what others have discussed, but characterizing what this person has done as 'no editor here is perfect' is beyond belief. We're not talking about an editor using the wrong tag or being naive. We're talking about someone with power abusing that power and then setting up sock puppets to further his personal agenda. Honesty is the best policy. And it's not hard to be honest. —SpyMagician 05:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Don't assume I feel nothing from this situation, I just don't wish to jump on the bandwagon and drive off an editor off the site. Yeah I'm disappointed to hear about this, but I trust he'll do what he needs to do to make sure this doesn't happen again. Had he not shown that he understood how much of a big deal this was, maybe I would have been more vocal. I'm sure he feels like shit about the whole thing, and I just don't see the need to make him feel worse about it. And again, I do not believe this to be the sum of who he is. -- Ned Scott 06:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:SOCK

(edit conflict)As I said above, I reviewed WP:SOCK before deciding that this was an appropriate use of socks.

from Legitimate uses of multiple accounts:

  • A user making substantial contributions to an area of interest in Wikipedia might register another account to be used solely in connection with developing that area.
  • Someone who is known to the public or within a particular circle may be identifiable based on his/her interests and contributions; dividing these up between different accounts might help preserve the person's anonymity. Users with a recognized expertise in one field, for example, might not wish to associate their contributions to that field with contributions to articles about less weighty subjects.
  • A person editing an article which is highly controversial within his/her family, social or professional circle may wish to use a sock puppet so that readers unfamiliar with NPOV policy will not assume his/her information edits are statements of personal belief.
  • A person editing an article as part of their work or professional life as an academic, for example or an expert in a field of advocacy who wants or needs to keep their personal interests which may be considered controversial separate.

These were all reasons I felt my use of socks was appropriate. Because I understood my TIC edits to be more controversial, editing and AFDs for comedy group articles, I kept it entirely separate from my main account. Because Superburgh was primarily just a second watchlist, I made the mistake of editing with that account on an article that months ago I had a disagreement on while using my main account. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 18:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

As I noted above, when your TIC actions were controversial, your admin account got involved to defend those actions. That is incredibly wrong. IrishGuy talk 18:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I have responded above. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 18:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


A second account's not a "right", it's something "tolerated". - David Gerard 18:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The page detailed legitimate uses, so while some editors may dislike sock puppets entirely, it seemed like it was something that was recognized as an option. I apologize for my misunderstanding. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 18:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Corrective action ASAP

Chris, you need to take corrective action ASAP. Pick one account. Promise never to use socks again. Promise to stop aggressive editing non-consensus style editing. FloNight 18:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Please see the below section. Of course I promise all of those things and I apologize for the inconvenience this has caused everyone. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 18:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My suggestion for an end to this.

I will take 1-2 months' time away from Wikipedia. When I return, I will use this username to guarantee that my actions will again be sound. I would like to have another admin I could check in with to verify that I am acting appropriately. I will note the prior, mistaken use of sockpuppets on my user page. I ask only that the socks remain blocked but that the TIC one not be linked to my real name.

Additionally, I would like to make an apology where it is deemed appropriate.

This was a lapse in judgment during a time in which I probably should have taken time away from Wikipedia. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 18:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Why do you not want the TIC one not to be linked to your real name? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 18:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Because I am a comedian. With the amount of abuse and threats I was getting as an admin, I was getting paranoid about editing anything that might lead someone to be able to attack me in real life. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 18:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Then I think you need to seriously consider giving up the admin bit. If the threats are getting to you, is it worth it? Then you could create one account with any name you like and edit in peace. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Taking a break

I am stepping away for a short while today due to exhaustion. I didn't want anyone to think that my upcoming lack of response has anything to do with any disinterest in the situation; instead, I am already very sick today and ought to be in bed regardless. I treat this situation very seriously, and while I went into it with good intentions, I do see the problems, and I do want to rectify the my errors in judgment. I'd rather my responses be well reasoned and fully committed to the discussion than fevered ramblings powered by caffeine. You all have taken time out to look into this situation, and you deserve my undivided attention. I will be back to further answer questions and address concerns. Thanks, Chris Griswold (☎☓) 18:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

That is fine. You might want to rethink your offer to take off 1-2 months. For someone addicted to editing Wikipedia that is a very long time. Personally, I would be fine with a shorter break and an offer to return and work on administrative tasks with long backlogs. Using your admin tools to help the community is a good thing. FloNight 19:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Flonight, this isn't a case for a little vacation. It's a case for gently removing the bit from the administrator's fingers in order to limit the potential for harm. I would suggest that we ask Chris to surrender it voluntarily, and then if he won't I think I'll propose an arbitration case if that's what it takes. --Tony Sidaway 19:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Arbitration and desysopping seem like a bit much for this. Wikibreaks are good. I suggest CG stay away until he stops feeling an unhealthy urge to return (this can be as little as a few weeks or can be much longer), then come back in a relaxed and gradual way if he feels like it. 75.62.7.22 22:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

No. Wikibreak is not meant to be a way to ellude a sanction. An arbitration would be something excessive that could lead into an unfair result, but to atribute those accounts into User:ChrisGriswold will be enough. A de-sysop and a short ban should be performed if another incident like this is discovered (everyone deserves another opportunity), --Neigel von Teighen 17:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] another suggestion for an end

Posting this apology to the people who have found him out is fine, but one would hope ChrisGriswold would deem it appropriate to apologize to the people he disrupted. I think ChrisGriswold should revert the disruptive edits Superburgh made to Taylor Allderdice High School which contradicted the consensus in which ChrisGriswold was a participant. ChrisGriswold should then notify the other editors of his actions on the Taylor Allderdice High School talk page. 0-0-0-Destruct-0 19:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chris Griswold 'Cleaning' His User Page to Avoid Acknowledging His Past

FYI, Chris Griswold and a "friend" (meat puppet?) Ned Scott have taken to deleting any comments/tags on his page that discuss his 'puppet master' past. I realize he did step down, but I am baffled why someone who claims to want to 'come clean' is making an effort to have any tags that acknowledge what he's done removed. Admins and others know of his past, but most casual users won't know or understand where to look. I believe a tag needs to be placed so most anyone else can see what's happened and why. Why is it that normal 'editors' can get warned/tagged to know end, but this user who has abused his position is avoiding having these tags placed on his own page? Smells of hypocrisy. —SpyMagician 07:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

AFAICT, User:Ned Scott is acting in good faith. I've encountered him elsewhere on Wikipedia, and he's an editor that I've been friendly with, and that I think I can claim to respect. As for the rest, I think the best thing to do is to drop it for now, and Assume some good faith yourself. I think at this point, others have this well in hand. - jc37 09:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Ned Scott has also blindly defended Chris Griswold when the user in question was an admin and engaging in abusive editing with the sock puppets in question. I have assumed good faith with most anyone I come across here. But patterns of behavior are patterns of behavior and I don't use the term 'meat puppet' lightly. Ned Scott tells me to 'grow up' when I call 'bull' on Chris Griswold's behavior. Nearly two months later, lo and behold there is a method to Chris Griswold's madness and this page and the stripping of admin rights exists. The only thing preventing me from 'dropping' it is the dubious fact that any attempt to acknowledge this past on Chris Griswold's page is being blocked... When the offense in question is quite heinous to say the least. It's just a double-standard that somehow users can have tags placed on them like crazy for relatively minor offenses... But an admin abuses power and what happens? He is stripped of power, but there's a strong desire for no public talk of this on his own page. That's a clear double-standard. —SpyMagician 09:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Let's take your concern "head-on". How do you think having a template on the user page will "make things better"? Do you feel that those who are actually handling this (the bureaucrats, checkusers, and arbcom) are any less inclined to action based on whether a template is on the user page? Yes, Chris could be gaming the system. Yes, he could be trying to avoid furture detection. But since the diffs in his edit hostory are there "forever", I don't think there's much to worry about at this point. As I stated elsewhere, I think that those who are handling this, have this well in hand, and histrionics are likely not helping generate the open-minded interest that you seem to wish to hear your voiced POV. (Note to whomever it may concern: at some point, I think this discussion went rather off-topic, and wouldn't oppose moving it to SpyMagician's talk page.) - jc37 11:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Generally, I have 'moved on'. Ultimately it seems that a lot more energy is being spent defending this ex-admin who abused power than truly thinking of the others he's harmed with his behavior. It's clearly gotten to the point where I am sounding like a broken record, and the same group of admins are popping up to 'defend' the user in question blindly and levy veiled threats—harsh 'warnings' and quoting of Wiki-this, Wiki-that—when I dare mention anything. The fact is that his '20,000 edits' seems to have given him a 'get out of responsibility' card. And it seems that the general Wiki consensus is that he's stripped of admin/sysop rights but beyond that, 'Don't ask/don't tell'. I personally think that's wrong since not everyone will truly know his history, but obviously not much will change; the mob has spoken. Defending an ex-admin who abused power is something people seem more passionate about than the dozens—if not hundreds—of comedy/improv articles he slashed/burned with his behavior. I don't understand that attitude, but accept that I'm 'screaming at a wall' at this point. I'm through discussing this. Good luck! —SpyMagician 11:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Attempt to Remove Sock Puppet Tags from Sock Puppet Accounts

Newyorkbrad has taken it upon himself to attempt to remove puppet tags from the three identified sock puppet accounts used by ChrisGriswold: Superburgh, Truth in Comedy & 24.3.194.217. He has cited a discussion on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents as a source of his decision. This is pattently ridiculous. The named puppets Superburgh & Truth in Comedy have been proven to have been used as 'sock puppets'. The IP address 24.3.194.217 has not been proven officially, but is named explicitly in the request for arbitration page for this user and the adress itself traces back to an IP address used by 'te-8-1-ar01.pittsburgh.pa.pitt.comcast.net', the ex-admin in question is from Pittsburgh and it has only been used to edit aricles ChrisGriswold has in the past. Furthermore the discussion page for that IP address has a warning placed that Chris Griswold responded to while logged in, and then a week later was mysteriously blanked by the same IP address. The evidence that this IP address was/is ChrisGriswold is quite solid. But that's all moot. The point is while I understand there is a discussion hinged on whether ChrisGriswold's user should carry a 'puppet master' tag, that does not mean that the proven 'puppets' should be cleared of the tags that clearly identify what they were and how they were used. —SpyMagician 21:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

"...I'm through discussing this..." - Changed your mind? - jc37 11:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I am indeed through discussing the issue of adding the tag to the main puppet master account. But I did not expect to see that the actual 'sock puppet' accounts would have their tags removed. Thus the new heading and the new discussion. Cheers! —SpyMagician 15:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Frankly, your comments here have convinced me that you're just trolling to stir people up. I suggest you drop this now. -- ChrisO 16:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but I do not understand the Wiki-logic behind defending an admin who ruined the lives of others and downplay the damage done. l will take your suggestion as a suggestion; no more, no less. Cheers! —SpyMagician 16:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I have discussed this issue on three other pages and don't feel the need to repeat my views for a fourth time, except to say to SpyMagician that when you criticize another user by name on a page they haven't contributed to before and probably don't have watchlisted, it is considered courteous to tell that person you are doing so. Newyorkbrad 20:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)