Talk:Chowdhury Tanbir Ahmed Siddiky

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Stop Bbb23 from vindictive edit warring[edit]

We want to see how long Bbb23 and his Wikipedia goons can go on edit warring with us from multiple sites worldwide. Let's see who wins. We will continue to revert posts and we will continue to create new accounts and revert your edits from many locations around the world. Let's see who wins before a decision is taken to delete the page itself.82.73.35.159 (talk) 12:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

you need to stop making accusations against other editors right now. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:14, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COATRACK[edit]

This article is about Chowdhury Tanbir Ahmed Siddiky. Excessive details about the improper activities of his son are NOT suitable for this article - his son did something bad, he did not react appropriately, he got dumped from the party. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:53, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

note: oops in the initial posting i left out the very important "NOT" which I have just added. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:15, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • With respect, off course details about acts of one's son does not fit into his biography. But when the person is a politician and acts of the son has been the direct reason of a significant event (expulsion from the subject political party) in his political career, which has been properly cited with news sources from highly circulated media outlets of the subject country, how does that information becomes simply excessive and becomes subject to removal without any discussion? --M. Tawsif Salam (talk · contrib) 14:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Red Pen is correct. The reason for the expulsion clearly needs to be given - but beyond that, what the son did is unnecessary detail. The section appears to be properly sourced, and if it is to be revised, further published reliable sources will need to be provided to justify any changes. Edit-warring will achieve nothing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Going through the already published reliable sources again, the request to add ‘additional’ sources does not seem to make any sense. I request to all involved editors to go through the already provided reliable sources. And as I have explained earlier, son’s particular act that had direct impact on politician father’s political career, is indeed not an excessive information for father’s biographical article. I would explain more if someone still has problem in understanding that. --M. Tawsif Salam (talk · contrib) 14:12, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
the details of the son serve only to enhance a guilt by association completely inappropriate in an article about a living person. Revert yourself now. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:17, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It appears not to be a problem of 'understanding' - it is instead a question regarding the extent that the actions of an individual not the subject of the article need to be reported here, with due regard to WP:BLP policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:17, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed ‘actions of an individual not the subject of the article need’ is not to be added in an article at the first place. But the news sources used for citation in here, if anyone talking in here has ever gone through them, clearly mentions that expulsion of the subject person from his career political party happened due to a chain of events, where the son, not just a son but the one appearing to have planned to enter politics through that party, had a significant that he played. The son’s act at the circumstance very clearly calls for being added in here as supporting information. Appeals and actions of other users here are seeming to be more focused at removing the son’s acts rather than purifying the information in the article. --M. Tawsif Salam (talk · contrib) 14:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"its in the source" is the minimal criteria for content. however it is most certainly NOT a guarantee that the content is included in an article. WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE and WP:NOT and WP:COATRACK require that the content also be appropriate for the particular article it is being added to. You yourself have stated several times that the content is not about the actual subject of this article and therefor your reliance on "but its in the papers" is NOT sufficient for it to be included in this article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:31, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for making clear your reasons for attempting to turn this article into a coatrack attack on the son - why else would him intending to enter politics be relevant here? Since you have made your disregard for Wikipedia BLP policy clear, I suggest you self-revert your edits before sanctions are taken against you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:28, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe if there is a biographical article about a politician who has been expelled from his career party because of the acts of his son, the article must include what act was done by the son. The act that had direct impact is important in here, not the relation whether who is father who is son. This is what I think and there has been no reason to change that thinking. So certainly I am not going to self-revert. Wikipedia:3RR allows me to have 24-hour break from this as it is not allowed to make more than three reverts in 24 hours as I understand. I am coming back after that time and I probably will not stop bothering about this issue until you convince me why a son’s act that laterally ended the subject person’s political career (since he tried to get back party posts, was refused and remains inactive without an announcement of retirement from politics) seems irrelevant to you. Thank you. --M. Tawsif Salam (talk · contrib) 14:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Given your declaration above that you intend to continue edit-warring over this, rather than discuss the matter in the appropriate way, combined with the fact that the relevant passage was first added by you - in unenencyclopaedic and hyperbolic language ("an enraged Irad Siddiky", "ripping Tanbir Siddiky off all party posts", "Tanbir remains without any political allegiance since then") [1] - It would seem to me that perhaps a topic ban might be in order. I suggest you calm down, take another look at WP:BLP policy, and then consider whether you might be better off leaving decisions regarding the issue to contributors less emotionally involved. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:54, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am pleased to see that editors are now discussing the article's issues in some detail, as opposed to the unreasoned blanking by IPs. At the same time, TawsifSalam, you need to step back and reconsider your position on this article. There's certainly nothing wrong with your discussing your points here, but if there is a consensus that your edits are inappropriate, you have to defer to that consensus, or escalate the matter through dispute resolution. Although it is true, that a breach of WP:3RR occurs only when you have made more than 3 reverts in a 24-hour period, an editor can be blocked for edit-warring even if they don't breach 3RR. Your comments above cannot be read in any other way than as a threat of evading the constraints of 3RR and a promise to edit-war on the article. That won't go over well if an admin looks at your behavior.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:53, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23, I want to contest in that issue of ‘edit war’ as I did never have and I never do have the attitude of engaging in an edit-war. To ‘not stop bothering about the issue’ meant from my side my getting upset about continuous removal of the properly sourced information that I inserted. I am totally clear on the matter that there is no place ‘my information’ or ‘his information’ in the spirit of Wikipedia and I would be more than glad if a properly cited information appears that would prove wrong my contribution which some users keep removing. But I am afraid that is not happening.

By the way, the notification of AndyTheGrump about "an enraged Irad Siddiky", "ripping Tanbir Siddiky off all party posts", "Tanbir remains without any political allegiance since then" indeed struck me and now I realize those were certainly not proper words to use in an encyclopaedia, hence I would have been grateful if someone edited and corrected them. But what happened is that the whole piece of information disappeared and I now receive threats of ‘law enforcement agencies’ including mention of my family because I reverted them a few times.

I am quite sure that the cut of my time this particular article has taken so far, I perhaps did manage to finish translating articles Hu Jintao, Xi Jinping, Li Keqiang and Erwin Rommel for Bengali Wikipedia in a time much lesser than that. My prime purpose of getting involved in Wikipedia is to contribute with absolute honour to its norms and spirit of purity of information and join hands with some of the finest people, but of course with good management of time and of course only in where I understand my contribution helps. In this article right at the moment, many users have already got involved, some got banned for several times and many administrators stepped in, so I do not feel an ordinary Wikipedian like me has anything left to contribute in here. I perhaps would make good use on my time in areas except this article. Thank you everyone. Gosh I type too much! --M. Tawsif Salam (talk · contrib) 17:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Based upon your actions of reverting multiple times and your statements such as "So certainly I am not going to self-revert. Wikipedia:3RR allows me to have 24-hour break from this as it is not allowed to make more than three reverts in 24 hours as I understand. I am coming back after that time and I probably will not stop bothering about this issue " (emph added) would have required more than WP:AGF to not be interpreted as an intention of continuing to edit war. But I am glad that you are not going to. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:55, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was not very nice to quote me with half of what I said. --M. Tawsif Salam (talk · contrib) 18:02, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry. I was just highlighting the parts of your comments that, in the context of the time, gave me (and apparently other editors) concern. I did not intend to misquote or put anything in any context that wildly misrepresented your original intent and I apologize if I did. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:28, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your explanation was proper TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom and off course no offense has been taken. I never meant to engage in an edit-war by that mention which you say gave you concern. Wikipedia is too nice to be considered a place to fight someone I believe. One of the nicest things of this movement is what we are doing now- discussing amongst contributors and making things happen. I really come to contribute in Wikipedia to give me the feel that I am doing something that might come to others benefit. It upsets me when too much time is spent for 'disputes'. None in here including you was wrong to assume what was going on as an 'edit-war', because even I would have assumed in that way if I were a stranger looking into here. This is so undesired and upsetting. Anyways, way way lot of time has been given for this article and people concerned. I am out of here. Thank you and good day. -M. Tawsif Salam (talk · contrib) 19:31, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article Subject to Vandalism Drives[edit]

This is becoming somewhat depressing that this article keeps on being subject to acts of vandalism despite a number of administrators got involved and a number of users/IPs have been banned subsequently. As a Wikipedian this might be some point to get upset that the means of contribution in here is not only being to add information, but also to engage in commotions because some just want to remove properly cited information abruptly. The question usually occurs to me that why the users do not support their thoughts on the issue with added referenced information instead of removing existing referenced information. I have this article in my watch-list so any undue change would be notified to me at once. In that case instead of bothering administrators who remain busy with more serious stuff I believe, I would keep reverting if any edit in the article is consistence with Wikipedia:Vandalism. --M. Tawsif Salam (talk · contrib) 13:55, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

before you edit war revert, you will need to justify why detailed content about the son's activities are relevant to the article of the father.WP:COATRACK / WP:BLP -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

General sanctions[edit]

Upon getting more familiar with the details of this article, it would appear that it falls under Wikipedia:General sanctions/South Asian social groups? "standard set of discretionary sanctions on all pages about social groups, be they castes/communities/tribes/clans/kootams/gotras etc., explictly including caste associations and political parties related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal. " -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:56, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Salvio is probably in a better position to answer your question given that he proposed the sanctions, but FWIW, I would agree that the article is subject to sanctions.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:08, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disclaimer: this is strictly IMHO.

Short answer: qualified yes.

Long answer: the discretionary sanctions in this area were authorised by the community, because our articles dealing with castes were being targeted by POV-pushers, users who, probably in good faith, were trying to change them so that they reflected that their particular caste or tribe was one of the best, one of the most powerful or of the most courageous or descended from this God or that. Political parties were explicitly included, because they're often caste-based. So, if we look at the spirit of the restriction, this article should probably not be under discretionary sanctions, but, if we look at the wording of the community decision, then yes, discretionary sanctions are authorised. Now, personally, I'd prefer to impose hypothetical restrictions under WP:BLPBAN, if necessary, but I see nothing preventing another admin from invoking WP:Castes. Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chowdhury Tanbir Ahmed Siddiky. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:15, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chowdhury_Tanbir_Ahmed_Siddiky&oldid=1210370374"