User talk:JackTheVicar

Talk page of JackTheVicar. I don't keep stuff on here for long or care to archive anything. I like the aesthetic of a blank page and don't understand the need to keep useless stuff.

GA Review

Hey. I am still active. Just been busy. I'm looking forward to the outcome of your review. Ltwin (talk) 00:36, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

autopatrolled

Hi JackTheVicar, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Katie^talk 23:02, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:White Egret Corson's Inlet near Strathmere Cape May County New Jersey.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:White Egret Corson's Inlet near Strathmere Cape May County New Jersey.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:58, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Triadenum fraseri for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Triadenum fraseri is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Triadenum fraseri until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:59, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

From Anna

All this work. All that work. This is not good for anyone. We are not losers, right? And somehow we are all losing. Do you want to talk? :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:26, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

• Anna Frodesiak ... I think someone made a overeager mistake and my only wikicrime is living in the same area as a known sockpuppeteer who died in July 2015. When ArbCom responds to my email requesting they look into this, it should be rectified within days. JackTheVicar (talk) 19:57, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Ah, okay! That is good to hear. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:00, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

• Anna Frodesiak ... You really should do something about Winklevi. He's pointy tagging all the articles I've worked on, pictures I've uploaded. He has wikistalked me for months, I consider that kind of behavior disruptive, provoking, and in the wake of this mistaken block is like gravedancing. JackTheVicar (talk) 20:04, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Maybe he should stop until this is sorted out. I do not know. I've posted at his talk to see what he has to say. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:16, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Anna Frodesiak ... the reason I ask is he's also removing material from articles I have edited or contributed to. Many of them are being deleted and there is NOTHING wrong with them. He won't stop until there's an administrative action stopping him. And the way he's taking a hatchet to content seems to me like vandalism, especially since reverting his pointy damage will take someone else's time (he has been at it for almost 3 and a half hours), and since I am ready to prove to ArbCom that I'm not a dead sockpuppeteer. I defy anyone to show that any content I have added to any article is in anyway improper. JackTheVicar (talk) 20:22, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I've asked him about holding off until this is sorted out. Let's see how he responds. The thing is, it is common to delete perfectly good creations by proven socks. It is a deterrent. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Anna Frodesiak ... I am not a sock. I can prove it, if ArbCom will ever respond to my email. This seems to be a lot of "shoot first ask questions later". JackTheVicar (talk) 20:41, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, I think everyone deserves the benefit of the doubt. I see no harm in User:Winkelvi waiting a day or two, if he would be so kind, until ArbCom can give their final say. I see he hasn't done anything since I posted at his talk. 20:51, 31 October 2015

If ArbCom responds by saying they think you are ColonelHenry and must not be unblocked, can we continue to talk here? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:53, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

• If ArbCom thinks I'm ColonelHenry, that's a belief that would be hard to sustain considering he is six feet under and that is easily provable. It is rather difficult to be mistaken for a dead guy. JackTheVicar (talk) 21:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I gather you knew him. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:09, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Anna Frodesiak ... Not personally, just from the same really small town/area. ColonelHenry was politically involved in the area, died in a car accident in July. Once the accusation was made today, it would've been easy for the Checkuser to do a small amount of research to find out the guy was dead and can't be sockpuppetting. When ArbCom emails me, I will send them a copy of his obituary and other documents if they need it. JackTheVicar (talk) 21:19, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

And you just happen to have the same IP address, operating system version, and browser settings that he had (as confirmed by CU)? Care to explain how that happened? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:04, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Guy Macon as for IP address, I don't pay for Internet since my house is within range of the County Library's wifi so I've just used that (it is the only thing I seem to get for my tax dollars, and it saves me about $100 a month). As for same operating system...I do a lot of editing on my phone, two laptops (win 7 the other win 8.1), one win 10 desktop. Browser settings, depending which one I'm using, it's IE 10, Edge, Android/Samsung's basic Internet browser, or Chrome on my desktop and phone (when I upload pictures on my PC I use Chrome just because it works easier). I don't use any of them consistently. And the desktop is 2 months old, so I can't see how a 2-month old computer can be the same as one belonging to a guy who hasn't edited in 19 months and has been dead for 5. So I think that statement about browser settings can't be likely. JackTheVicar (talk) 02:04, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm. The phone would nicely explain both operating system and browser settings. Samsung android devices are well-known to all give out the same generic OS and browser info even if one is years older than the other. Both on the same library WiFi would explain the same IP. My evaluation of the above is Plausible Explaination. Feel free to quote my evaluation in your efforts to get the block lifted. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:51, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Guy Macon and from what I understand CU users don't need the same IP to act, often it is just a narrow range of similar IPs. That's tough, considering I am in a small town with two ISPs (one a cable company, the other a landlines telephone operator) that contract with the same internet company in Pennsylvania. JackTheVicar (talk) 09:47, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

That's a pretty darn good question. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:06, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

And where was any of this confirmed? Alakzi (talk) 22:18, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Look at the block notice below. In order for CheckUser to determine that one account is a sockpuppet of another, the two accounts need to have the have the same IP address, operating system version, and browser settings. You and I cannot directly confirm CU information (even admons cannot, only certain trusted users have CU access) because CU information can be used to violate a user's privacy, but all CU actions are reviewed by another CU user to avoid abuse or errors. In this case (email to arbcom challenging the block) the CU will be looked at a third time. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:47, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

No, they don't need to be the same. CUs compare the data; sometimes they get it wrong, but they usually don't. Alakzi (talk) 23:02, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Here is how it works. If the data is different (as it was in your case) the result is "inconclusivive". If they are very similar but not the same (IP in the same small range, browser version upgrade, etc.) the result is "probable match". if they are the same -- no differences at all that CU can see -- the result is "technically indistinguishable". In the case of JackTheVicar, I don't see the place n SPI where I go to check this, so I am taking an educated guess that the results are technically indistinguishable, and I asked that the SPI be updated (see my "where is the SPI for this?" question at the bottom of this page). If it turns out that my educated guess was wrong I will strike my comment above and apologize to JackTheVicar for making the incorrect assumption. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:18, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Guy Macon ... It's hard for me to be a dead guy. Does CU check for that? Because whenever ArbCom emails me back a response to my email, they'll have to ask how CU made such a screwup. Would this be the first time they accused a productive editor of being a dead sockpuppeteer? No hard feelings, just wish this would be resolved faster, Winklevi blocked for disruptive going after all my work out of his animosity (something Liz and other users see at the Triadenum fraseri AfD), my contributions restored (which no one has ever questioned). If you want to email me, if Anna Frodesiak wants to email me, I'll prove I'm not a dead sockpuppeteer. I'm not keeping anyone waiting. I'm just waiting for ArbCom to ask for whatever they need or anything they want to know to clear up what I will call, despite its understatement, a colossal mistake. JackTheVicar (talk) 02:41, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

In response to Anna's question "If ArbCom responds by saying they think you are ColonelHenry and must not be unblocked, can we continue to talk here?" blocked users are allowed to continue conversations on their talk page as long as it doesn't disrupt Wikipedia (personal attacks, spam links, that sort of thing). It is pretty normal to have a conversation about getting unblocked, as you are having here, lasting up to several months in some cases. Some blocked editors actually continue to improve the encyclopedia by posting suggestions for editing various pages. This is also allowed, and may even help convince the blocking or reviewing admin to lift the block. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:12, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. And if you are ColonelHenry, it is okay to own up. Please read this and the very beginning of this thread. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:19, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

As someone who's been unjustly accused of being a sock by prominent members of the community on more than one occasion, I'd be inclined to take their word for it. Does it even matter if they're lying? What harm are they doing now? Alakzi (talk) 22:30, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

In your case, the CU information led to the following conclusion: "There are certain elements of the technical data that leads to an Inconclusive result". See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alakzi/Archive. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:53, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

That's a good point about harm, Alakzi. I'm just starting to give ColonelHenry SPI archives a good read, and something is missing. The 21 April 2014 report lists two. (The first two on 15 October 2013 were struck.) So, the 21 April 2014 two are confirmed to on another, but not to CH. Plus, where do we see at that SPI that CH used other accounts abusively? He may have, and I'm saying this based on a cursory look, but that is a prerequisite for filing in the first place. So, about the harm point, it has to do, of course, with the behaviour of the master, the socking details including how many, what they did, and why. In some cases, the latest sock goes undiscovered for ages and during that time was a great contributor. That is a consideration too. And there are other considerations. Anyhow, there are still a lot of questions regarding CH that I have to find out about. As for JTV, well, there is the CU stuff that is damning. There are the photo uploads for both that is remarkably similar. There are the edit summaries for both that look quite dissimilar. More digging needed. That said, I am reluctant to invest a lot of time when CU results show what they do. Plus the old saying "Fools rush in where fools have been before." and that could be me. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:53, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, now I encounter this. I'm going to step away from this. I would have to start at square one. I only came here to talk him out of socking. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:00, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Anna Frodesiak ... I appreciate you coming to find answers, but I'm not a sock or a sock puppeteer. Especially not a deceased one. As for continuing to talk, I am always open for a conversation. JackTheVicar (talk) 03:06, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

At the moment we have nothing to discuss. If ArbCom decides you are not CH, then you will be free to edit and we won't have anything to discuss. If ArbCom decides you are CH, yes, let's talk. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:11, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I too am waiting for the response. In my case I am particularly interested in the possibility that CU gave the person looking at it the wrong answer, and if so whether we can prevent similar problems in the future. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:51, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Anna Frodesiak I seem to get the impression reading through the CH drama that many Wikipedians have met CH in person, or had long correspondences with him...including prominent one's like well known admins and even an Arb or two (I think I read that NewYorkBrad had contact with him). Any of them with personal knowledge would find out quickly that I'm not CH if they were asked or looked into it. Even when I prove to ArbCom that I am not CH, I'd always welcome talking Anna. Why not make a friend? You have been conversing with Winklevi, it does anger me that he is stirring the pot. Definitely time for him to put down the stick, he's caused enough damage tonight. I hope when the truth will out his damage can be repaired. JackTheVicar (talk) 03:23, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I understand. Anyhow, I'm reluctant to spend further keystrokes until ArbCom decides. Until then... Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:26, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

• Kevin Gorman thank you, I appreciate your effort to save one of my articles. Hopefully in short time there will be cause to undelete the rest. Now, if ArbCom would stoop to say hello and reply to my email I can prove very quickly and comprehensively that I am not CH...something I could've proved yesterday. Hello, ArbCom? JackTheVicar (talk) 22:05, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

It's a bit of a funny situation, since people failing to read ANI threads or understand WP:INVOLVED meant that my previous block of you was spurriously overturned, but I do view it as an example of G5 overstep, and beyond that think that when an article like that comes up it's at least temporary restoration is all but necessary to allow anyone without the ability to view deleted contribs to contribute to the discussion. I have no idea as to whether or not you are CH, but if you are unblocked after all this... please keep in mind that I meant my prior warnings, and fully expected the next AN or ANI interaction involving the two of us to be asking for your c-ban, not undeleting one of your articles, heh. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:12, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

• I am quite surprised too that you came out in support of one of my articles and it wasn't another block for WV interaction...even though i will be bringing up his conduct of this deletion mess to ArbCom...if you have some time and want to show some mercy to some content, I would ask if possible, if could you consider undeleting other articles. Some of it is of similar GA and FAC quality, and it deserves to survive. I am not a sock or a hoaxster, and whenever ArbCom decides (or even bothers to respond to me), that will be proven. It will be very easy to prove that I am not CH. If you know a way to make ArbCom move faster, I'd be grateful. Maybe you're not so bad after all, Kev. ;-) JackTheVicar (talk) 22:29, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

• Bluntly, I doubt you'll have the opportunity to bring WV's behavior to arbcom, particularly since as a court of last resort it would likely autodeny any request you made regarding WV before additional pathways pursued through AN or ANI (I wasn't lying when I said that I was fairly confident that the next time something happened involving the two of you happened, I would take the time to produce an AN section that would not go in your favour - and I'm normally correct when I say that. I don't say that out of insane arrogance, just my past track record in similar situations.)

That said, I also don't like seeing good content go to waste, especially when I don't suspect it was written for commercial benefit. If you can point me to any other articles that, like this one, were significantly contributed by someone who *wasn't* you, I'll consider restoring them quickly. If you can point me to other well-written well-sourced articles that you'd especially like a look taken at, I'll add them to my article to-do list (which, as a warning, is stored offline and is long - I tend to pull articles from it for editathons and classes among other things, so it's not just FCFS,) and will keep your articles in mind as a potential place to pull back in encyclopedic content from. None of these (except other situations where other editors contributed significantly to your article pre-deletion) is likely to happen instantly, but some of it is likely to happen eventually (and if I base my work off your earlier CC-by-SA work, I'll use revdel so that you receive appropriate credit. Per comments at the ANI section, I'll also be trying to verify sourcing in the one article I did restore, since apparently CH had some allegations of hoaxing and there is concern they may persist. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:17, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

• Kevin Gorman. That's fair as I see it. I've only created 25 to 30 articles, all were listed on my user page before it was replaced with a block notice. Very noticably, that block notice no longer claims the accusation or category of being a CH sock (the notice I get when I log in, unless I'm reading it wrong). Perhaps someone is starting to see the big mistake. All but the one article you restored were deleted at WV'S urging. I notice at the ANI as you have stated here as well, you have concerns about sources you might not have ready access to online. If you doubt a source in any of the articles I have worked on, I will gladly scan them and email the scanned images to you for your verification. Full transparency and cooperation. I promise, I am not CH, not a sock and I do not create hoaxes. If ArbCom tells me where to send a copy of my driver's license, I will be glad to show them I am not CH. JackTheVicar (talk) 02:26, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

• I'll actually quite gladly take you up on that. I'll look through the article tomorrorow and see what sources I can verify myself and which I significantly doubt. If you can provide evidence that any sources I question (and I'm not going to be a dick and make you scan every source) support the article then I'll both argue strongly for this article staying in place, and be willing to work with you through some means in the future to resurrect other high quality articles that have been G5ed as a result of your block (be warned I have a lot on my plate, so that doesn't at all mean that they will be resurrected in any form instantly.) Nice job finding this source, let alone an online version of it where Uzal Ogden's name was faded enough that it couldn't be OCR'ed - that does at least suggest this is an area of expertise, and makes me hope there's no malicious falsification in the article. Given the closeness of dates I can easily imagine it being due to a host of factors and don't think it would be a falsification even assuming there are falsifications - but out of curiosity, why did you say Ogden left in 1784 to be ordained by Richard Terrick? I would think that Robert Lowth's appointment as bishop of London would've been known about in New Jersey by then, since it was a seven year old appointment. Just the American War of Independence messing with the news pipelines for a while? (The dates do match up nicely - at the commencement of the war, Terrick would've been bishop, and I can see the news of Lowth's appointment not exactly being a stop-the-presses moment for people in the colonies.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:30, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

• Kevin Gorman ... Ogden was ordained in 1773 during Terrick's tenure. After returning to NJ, he continued to serve at CC,N until 1784. Perhaps the sentence about Ogden being ordained by Terrick and the next sentence that from Ogden's 1784 leaving CC,N until 1823 the pulpit was empty could be rephrased clearer. JackTheVicar (talk) 04:05, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
• Kevin Gorman don't take this the wrong way, but for Winklevi to continue adding his two cents in on the matter is disruptive and pointy. If you were going to block me for mentioning him to a third party, a similar response should be for his gratuitous self-insertion into this matter. It shows an obsessiveness on his part to keep inserting himself in places in order to strike at me and my work where other people, impartially, could have interceded (and noticeably did not...as nothing likely would have been deleted if not for his strident desire to salt the earth). It smacks of wikistalking. JackTheVicar (talk) 15:51, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

• I'll reword it to be a bit more clear, but yeah, that makes sense. One reason why I'm intentionally avoiding taking an admin role in any of this is starting late tomorrow, I'll be spending nine days in Berkeley... partly to visit old friends, and partly to pressure our administration about Geoffrey Marcy, a couple other people, and the California Public Records Act - so I won't have time to see any action I take through (or at least timely time.) I have yet to check anywhere near everything in this GA, but everything I have has checked out absolutely fine. If that's the case through the whole GA, we should certainly retain the GA, and I'll probably look through your past articles and as I have time use your work as a basis (and use revdel to ensure CC-by-SA requirements are met) to work on getting those articles back in some form. This all presupposes no hoaxing or anything is found, but I certainly haven't found any yet, and so far have to say... nice GA done in conjunction with Drmies. It's well-written and the sources I've checked up on so far are both accurate and not the easiest in the world to find. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:03, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you Kevin Gorman for your compliments. My offer still stands--if you see any statements or sources you would like to check, I will be glad to scan it or photograph it and send it to you. If you question anything, even the placement of a period, I will be glad to provide you an explanation. If you e-mail me (through the Email this user), I'll send you a copy of my DL and other stuff. I've provided it to an arbitrator from BASC, Euryalus, and two other admins, Graeme Bartlett and offered to send it also to Nyttend. JackTheVicar (talk) 23:55, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Block Notice

CheckUser evidence has determined that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely to prevent abuse. Administrators: CheckUsers are privy to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy, and therefore must be consulted before this block can be removed. Administrators undoing checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser risk having their administrator rights removed by the Arbitration Committee (per this announcement). -- Mike V • Talk 14:07, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Mike V ... I believe you've made a mistake confusing me with another user who I am not. It is not possible to be that other user, identified elsewhere, as further research would have shown that individual died several months ago in real life. I have emailed the Arbitration Committee to rectify the matter. JackTheVicar (talk) 14:40, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

---

User:Mike V, where is the SPI for this? I don't see JackTheVicar listed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ColonelHenry or Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ColonelHenry/Archive, but the username is listed at Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of ColonelHenry. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:55, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

The issue was raised on the functionary mail list. The template on the user page adds the account to the category. Mike V • Talk 23:06, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

clear statement for ArbCom members who may stop by here

I have contacted you with several emails to the BASC to contest this block. I have stated it has to be a colossal mistake. I am not nor have I ever been ColonelHenry or any sockpuppet or sockpuppeteer. It is impossible to be. This can be resolved very quickly as I am ready, willing, and able to prove it if you ever respond to any of my emails and attempts to contact you. I have not even heard any confirmation that my appeal is being processed or even that it was received. Please respond. JackTheVicar (talk) 14:39, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

P.S. to regular users, this section isn't for discussion. JackTheVicar (talk) 14:39, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I have received a response earlier this afternoon from BASC member and arbitrator Euryalus and I have responded with my drivers license and other requested information. Earlier this morning, I had my attorney file a request for a copy of CH's death certificate, which if that application is approved and one is provided, I will provide to ArbCom, with other documents. I have also been in contact with Graeme Bartlett with whom I have exchanged emails and provided a copy of my DL. I have also reached out to Nyttend and am willing to provide that as well. Kevin Gorman if you email me using the "Email this User" link, I will provide a copy to you too. I trust, as very well respected administrators, they will keep my personal information private but also be able to verify though my disclosure that I am not ColonelHenry. JackTheVicar (talk) 23:52, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

• @Newyorkbrad: - you are well positioned to comment here. From what I've seen, death certificate or no, I'm 100% ready to say that JtV is not a sock of Colonel Henry. I'll await your feedback for a bit (I'll ping you via email too,) but even without a death certificate I'm positive that JtV is NOT Colonel Henry. I don't want to undo a checkuserblock before @Mike V: and others have their say so, and I am getting ready to travel a little bit so it may take me a day or two, but just based on what he's provided me I don't believe that G5 applies to a single article created by JtV and will restore them all within the next few days unless NYB or someone else with more info than I have disagrees. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:19, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

AN discussion

You should've been pinged, but in case you weren't, I've raised the matter of your block at WP:AN. Alakzi (talk) 15:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

• Alakzi I appreciate your effort and advocacy on my behalf. Please let it be known, part of how I intend to prove my innocence of this mistake is that it is easy to prove ColonelHenry is dead in real life and I'm prepared to identify myself to ArbCom with a copy of my driver's license and other information. My only crime is living in the same town/area. Once again, thank you. JackTheVicar (talk) 15:28, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Block of User:JackTheVicar needs to be reviewed by the community --Guy Macon (talk) 21:06, 2 November 2015 (UTC)