User talk:Tony Sidaway

 edit icons

I'm probably going to be busy for a bit. Try email but don't expect a prompt response. 25 Oct 2006

key punch

I noticed you added "and automatic generation of card sequence numbers in columns 73-80" to the program card functions in key punch. But wasn't it the case that only the 129 could do this (and the 129 didn't use program cards, but had the equivalent electronic memory)? I mostly used 029s and I don't remember that feature. (Also, presumably it could be in any columns.) -R. S. Shaw 03:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Please remove the reference. I probably misremembered. Of the punches I occasionally used at university in the late 1970s, the IBM punches were the more sophisticated but I don't recall a model number. I seem to recall a program card feature, suggesting an 029 punch. I think I made use of a sequence feature but on reflection I don't think it had to do with the program card. It is possible that another punch provided this feature. I held a temporary job that gave me access various models of punches, and when producing longer card decks I would use sequencing in order to guard against accidental scrambling of the card decks. --Tony Sidaway 13:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. (I now notice the article actually lists the codes - no seq number.) -R. S. Shaw 03:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Socks

Hi. I know you were involved with the arbcom case on Rovoam. This user is back to Wikipedia, vandalizing certain pages, such as these [1] [2] and there are a couple of suspicious accounts, which make edits similar to that banned user. Could please help investigate the issue? Please the evidence here: [3] [4] I might be wrong, but I suspect that User:Zurbagan and User:Pulu-Pughi are socks of that banned user. Thank you. Regards, Grandmaster 07:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

If there's a strong suspicion that he's Rovoam, I suggest that you put it to the community at Wikipedia:Community noticeboard. Rovoam's problem behavior included extensive sock puppeting, impersonation, and targeting another editor for personal attacks. Unless he has changed his behavior to be acceptable, a community ban may be in order. --Tony Sidaway 13:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the only way to check is to get the suspicious accounts checkusered, but checkuser was denied on the grounds that there's no evidence of community ban of Rovoam. Please see: [5] Was there any specific community ban of this user? And also, if it is not possible to establish whether or not those new accounts belong to Rovoam, it is really urgent to check if the accounts appearing one after another to edit the same article about Ziya Bunyadov belong to the same person. For some reason this is also rejected. Sorry to bother you with this, but I would appreciate your advice. Rovoam's behavior has not changed, he recently vandalised the userpage of Codex Sinaiticus. Grandmaster 15:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why the precondition for a checkuser is here being presented as a community ban. Rovoam was a very disruptive editor whose behavior was handled by arbitration and administrator action. The concept of a community ban, insofar as it existed in early 2005 when this occurred, was probably far less well developed than it is now, so its relevance to this case is questionable. I'll ask a checkuser if he can explain why this checkuser request is being refused. --Tony Sidaway 15:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Examining User:Zurbagan's edits, it's clear that he's up to no good and he should probably be blocked indefinitely. The extremely provocative behavior is strongly reminiscent of Rovoam. User:Pulu-Pughi's edits are apparently in good faith, and I see no grounds for a checkuser there unless, in future edits, he should engage in destructive editing. --Tony Sidaway 17:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I have a reason to suspect that Zurbagan (talk · contribs) and Pulu-Pughi (talk · contribs) are the same person. If you look at the history of Ziya Bunyadov article, you’ll see that it was created by MarkHessen (talk · contribs) and Վաչագան (talk · contribs), who both are proven socks of Robert599 (talk · contribs). Zurbagan appeared 2 days after the above 3 accounts were blocked, and made his very first edit to Ziya Bunyadov article. After a while another account, User:Pulu-Pughi appeared and made his very first edit to the same page about Ziya Bunyadov. It is very strange when new users make their very first edits to the same article, considering that it is quite an obscure one. I suspect that those accounts are socks of Robert599, and I also suspect that Robert599 himself is a sock of User:Rovoam. This disruptive edit [6] is indeed highly reminiscent to Rovoam, and was reverted by the admin. Whether it’s Rovoam or not, this still requires an investigation, however the checkuser request was denied. I would appreciate your help with investigation of this matter. Grandmaster 19:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm working on this. The key to dealing with Rovoam, I have found, is not checkuser but careful observation and analysis. He unmasks himself sooner or later. If it's him, we'll soon know and can then deal with him decisively. If it isn't him, then we will have benefited from the process of observation and deduction. --Tony Sidaway 19:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, he indeed will show who he is sooner or later. He can use different IPs, but he does not change his behavior. But it would still be good to know if Zurbagan and Pulu-Pughi are the same person or not, in case that it is not Rovoam. Checkuser is the only way to find out. Grandmaster 20:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, I think that the community ban on Rovoam should be formalized according to the current Wikipedia policies. I don’t know how it could be done, but it needs to be done to prevent checkuser requests being rejected on the grounds we discussed above, since Rovoam is unlikely to stop his disruptive activity here. Grandmaster 06:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom is and ts

WP:RFAR#Betacommand: Shouldn't every named party have their own section? That's why I made them one, but you seem to have deleted them. Was I wrong? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I just think it's tidier if we let people create their own sections. --Tony Sidaway 19:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Locus Beli for Falun Gong arbitration

you posted this, I think--let me know if I am mistaken:

"The dispute is over editing of articles related to the controversial Chinese movement, Falun Gong, including but not limited to the articles whose current titles are Falun Gong, Suppression of Falun Gong, Li Hongzhi, Criticism and controversies about Falun Gong, Teachings of Falun Gong, The Epoch Times, Theoretical and epistemological studies on Falun Gong. The overwhelming body of evidence submitted relates to edits on these articles, their talk pages, and the talk pages of the participants."

without making too much fuss about it, I would just like to kindly point out that one of the constant points of contention in these articles are definitions and how they are used. Here, Falun Gong is described as a "controversial Chinese movement"--I don't know who came up with that definition. If it is yours, I don't want to attack it, but just say that at least I disagree with it. In particular, if this is to be used as a kind of official arbitration assessment criteria, or whatever it is, I object to this definition. Some would have Falun Gong described as a dangerous, homophobic mind control cult, while others would call it a traditional Chinese cultivation practice, zillions of other definitions. So who decides? The above definition certainly isn't neutral in any case. Besides this, I think the definition can just be taken out in this case, because we all know or have our own ideas about what Falun Gong is. Maybe you did not even consider this would be an issue. Anyway, if that is your definition I would request you just have it read "The dispute is over editing of articles related to Falun Gong..." and leave it at that. There will be no agreement on a universal and legitimate definition. What we need to do in the articles is neutrally present the various definitions found in reliable sources, but since there is obviously no scope for that here, I think it would be best just to not make a definition. What do you reckon? I won't be able to respond for a while probably, but this is just my request/suggestion.--Asdfg12345 18:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

That seems reasonable, so I've removed the word "controversial." --Tony Sidaway 19:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I need to apologise though, because now I think I am making a fuss... :( --Asdfg12345 21:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Ian Paisley‎

Good work there. Jkelly 02:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)