Talk:David Ross (businessman)

This article in the press

"Mystery of the Wikifixer: who is the secret image-cleansing agent?", The Telegraph, 10 June 2011:

"..the entry for David Ross, and deleted the final six lines on his personal life, which recorded that Ross has a son with Michelle Ross, a former lap dancer, and was now dating Emma Pilkington, a 22-year-old he had taken to a party hosted by Prince William on a yacht owned by the Getty family. When another Wikipedia editor restored the missing material, the mysterious computer user in Clerkenwell deleted it again, this time at 8.12am on a Wednesday, in the first of several cyberspace duels fought with that same computer. In November 2010, the computer was used three more times to edit the entry on David Ross, until a warning was posted that "in the event of persistent vandalism from this address, efforts may be made to... report abuse". After that, there were no more edits from that computer.

Someone is astroturfing a series of Wikipedia articles on high profile wealthy Brits. --Green Cardamom (talk) 04:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Question

can the CPS 'clear' people? Isn't that why we have courts? --Robert EA Harvey (talk) 22:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Pluralisation of Ross

Have we forgotten the rules for pluralisation? "This appointment was made by Ross friend". There is absolutely nothing wrong with Ross's. Thank you. Regnerps (talk) 09:54, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Use of Definite article

I removed The because it not part of the formal name of the Carphone Warehouse chain, or the holding company, nor is it being used as a singular like The Taj Mahal. Although some sources use the definite article, I suggest it is an error for the reasons stated and my edit should be restored. Philip Cross (talk) 11:13, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Bizarre paragraph

The opening paragraph of the "Prior to Carphone Warehouse" section makes no sense to me. There is definitely some repetition in the thing but the phrasing is atrocious even if that is ignored. Can anyone improve on it? - Sitush (talk) 21:57, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Someone with more interest in business articles than myself should perhaps also look at Cosalt. In fact, there seems to be quite a network of articles that simply don't seem to follow our policies. I can't make my mind up if it is praise or a hatchet job, so muddled is this entire situation, but either way there is a lot of cleaning up to do. - Sitush (talk) 01:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Private Eye and other mainstream press

We are citing Private Eye in the Cosalt section. I like the thing, when my eyesight is up to reading the incredibly small print, but it is fundamentally a satirical magazine that sometimes does exposés that are (commonly) then picked up by news sources with greater circulations etc. I really don't think we should be using it for this section, when there really should be far more mainstream sources out there. - Sitush (talk) 01:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I believe that satirical comment does have a place in society. The events at Charlie Ebdo confirm this. However you are somewhat hypocritical. You dismiss articles in the mainstream Independent, Guardian, and even the Grimsby Telegraph, as speculative and censor their content, whilst allowing speculative estimates from the Times which are hidden behind a paywall so cannot be verified. We would be interested to know which mainstream press meets your approval, perhaps the Spectator?(Saskia2309 (talk) 01:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC))

You misread me yet again. Nowhere have I said that satirical magazines do not have a place in society and nowhere have I dismissed articles in the mainstream Independent, Guardian and Grimsby Telegraph while allowing paywalled stuff from The Times. This repeated inability to understand even the most simple comments raises some grave doubts regarding your competence to edit articles. If something is reliably sourced then that is fine; if it is not thus sourced then it is not fine. Simple, really. - Sitush (talk) 01:44, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I beg to disagree. The statement regarding OFSTED was backed up by references from the Guardian, Independent and Grimsby Telegraph. You deleted the information. You are being disingenuous. I did not state that you said anything about satirical magazines having a place in society, I merely put my own opinion, perhaps your lack of reading skills raises grave doubts too? (Saskia2309 (talk) 01:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC))

Please read WP:TPG re: indenting and re: introduction of irrelevancies that do not appertain to improvement of an article. Also, please tell me what statement regarding OFSTED you are referring to. I'm not aware that I have removed such a statement, sourced to those newspapers, but I do know that there are still extant statements sourced to, say, The Guardian.

Look, you are either here with the intent of improving the article or you are not. If the latter, please just walk away from it; if the former, demonstrate it. - Sitush (talk) 02:13, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

7th January 00.42 you removed the OFSTED information, it appears you have a selective memory and are not being entirely honest. Please stop baby sitting this page.(Saskia2309 (talk) 02:21, 8 January 2015 (UTC))

You mean this edit, which contained info that was not present when I started editing here, not mentioned in the edit summary when added and which had been reverted by others such as Sarek. This is an example of why it helps if you use diffs, rather than an example of dishonesty or failing memory. As for the removal: the guy didn't even make the shortlist and the sources are based their stories on speculation - "it is believed" etc. I can see some stuff in those sources that might be useful for inclusion in the article but, really, you need to get a grip of our policy regarding biographies of living people. - Sitush (talk) 02:33, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

When the Grimsby Telegraph mentions Ross You can be sure the article is accurate as they will not let anything unflattering through. The editor also sits on the board of the David Ross foundation. It was also published by the BBC and the Daily Mail. As head of an academy chain and a major donor to the conservatives this appointment would have been extremely questionable. I cannot understand your objection to it being mentioned. You are being unreasonable. (Saskia2309 (talk) 02:48, 8 January 2015 (UTC))

Now you seem to be engaging in original research regarding the editorial practices of the Grimsby Telegraph. While the practices of Private Eye are well-documented through numerous court cases, I know nothing of the GT. We don't usually rely on the Daily Mail, which is something of a rag per numerous discussions at our reliable sources noticeboard. Obviously, the BBC is sound as a source but that doesn't mean we record everything that the BBC says, and in this instance I have no idea what they did say because you have not linked to anything.

I am not being unreasonable here: I am guiding you regarding our policies etc and I'm doing so despite your past insults aimed in my direction. You may not like our policies and, yes, they are sometimes open to interpretation, but as long as you are here you have to abide by them and by the overarching one found at WP:CONSENSUS. I have no horse in this race: I'd never heard of this guy until a couple of days ago. - Sitush (talk) 02:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

This is too hard, just google "David Ross OFSTED" and there are dozens of links. As you think I am incapable of editing, I do not have the advantage of an Oxbridge education or mix with the British establishment elite, I have already stated that I will no longer be amending articles, so you need no longer worry about me declaring war on anyone. (Saskia2309 (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC))

• I have been through my backcopies of Private Eye but cannot find that edition. I probably gave it away to someone. I've asked whether anyone can assist at WP:RX. - Sitush (talk) 11:43, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

May need page protection

The disagreements between users on this article has caused many problems. If this keeps up, I think this page should be fully protected. Any opinions? -- Orduin ^⋠T⋡ 02:43, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support A mix of discussion on ANI and diffs i have seen here shows that it's a great idea to protect this article. At the very least, it should be semi'd. Lor^Talk 07:49, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
• Comment How is semi-protection going to achieve anything? The two most disruptive accounts would not be affected by it. Full protection might be necessary in due course but, really, there has been almost no discussion by either "side" regarding recent edits - I've probably contributed more words to this page in the last few hours than everyone else combined in the last few years. - Sitush (talk) 09:16, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

What breathtaking arrogance. Sitush you have not contributed a single fact to this page, all you have done is delete other's comments and rewrite. It is you and others that consider themselves Wikigods that are the threat to free speech. If you don't like something, block the author. Why do you think it is that ordinary editors do not bother with the talk page, what is the point? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.168.85.64 (talk) 12:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Eh? I haven't mentioned a block and I'm querying how semi-protection would assist. Although, oddly enough, now that you have turned up there may indeed be a case for it in due course. - Sitush (talk) 12:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

@Sitush: I was talking about full protection, meaning administrators only. -- Orduin ^⋠T⋡ 20:07, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I realise that, thanks. My initial response was to Lor's "at the very least" point. I don't actually see any need for full protection yet. If people keep edit warring and ignoring this talk page then it may become necessary but there are other venues, such as WP:AN3, that are less draconian and arguably likely to be less burdensome on the time of admins. WP:DRN, WP:NPOVN, WP:BLPN etc are also available if ever Andcarr etc come up with something that actually has decent sources yet the disagreement here persists. Even India-related articles, which are something of a specialism of mine, are rarely full-protected despite them often having far more problematic activity than has gone on here. - Sitush (talk) 20:48, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

As stated above dismissing Andcarr sources such as The Independent and the Guardian as not 'decent' is the draconian action. (Saskia2309 (talk) 01:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC))

You can block me if you like, I had thought that the IP and account were linked so did not realise I was being a sock puppet. However as I have stated on my talk page I will no longer be making any contribution to articles as I am tired of being bullied. (Saskia2309 (talk) 03:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC))

Please note, that like myself many editors will use mobile devices to edit. On the mobile view the talk option is not available therefore criticism of not using the Talk page is disingenuous considering the PC is a device used by a minority, perhaps you can wiki fix this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andcarr (talk • contribs) 09:22, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

When you edit using a mobile device, your edit summary usually automatically includes as note to that effect, although I'm not sure whether you see it or it is just everyone else who sees it. You can also switch to the desktop version using the mobile interface. In addition, most experienced editors say that editing using mobiles doesn't work that well - perhaps find an internet cafe or something if you don't have access to a PC? Certainly, I've always found it a complete pain. - Sitush (talk) 09:28, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

PwC and Cosalt

This reinstatement is bizarre. The source is effectively dead, auditors do not usually give reasons for their resignation in their formal notices, and it is perfectly normal for auditors to do their work at all of the companies controlled by one person or family.

If there is a complaint lodged with ICAEW, please provide the evidence for that here and please explain the relevance of it. We do not do "guilt by association". - Sitush (talk) 09:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Obviously you do not understand ICAEW rules regarding the independence of administrators and potential conflucts of interest, there is no point explaining it here, you will just ignore it. What a waste of space. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.168.85.64 (talk) 12:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Obviously you do not know my background. Either address the issues that I have raised or desist from reinstating the material. - Sitush (talk) 12:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

It is not normal for partners of the audit firm to sit on boards of companies controlled by the self same single person. These sinecures produce a conflict of interest. Neither is it normal for an administrator to be selling a business to a person when they also act as his auditors for his other businesses. This also is a conflict of interest, both have happened with Ross and Cosalt. (Saskia2309 (talk) 01:44, 8 January 2015 (UTC))

So, you need to find a source that shows that one or more partners of the incumbent auditors was on the "boards of companies controlled by the self same single person" and that an administrator sold "a business to a person when they also act as his auditors for his other businesses". And the source needs to relate to the specific circumstances of companies controlled by (presumably, in this case) Ross and audited etc by PwC. This was not in the information that I removed. Please read our information pages regarding verifiability and synthesis. - Sitush (talk) 02:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

When I go to all that effort you just delete it as "an almost dead link" as you did before regarding PwC being auditors of Kandahar. You really are being completely unfair. (Saskia2309 (talk) 02:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC))

Being auditors of Kandahar proves nothing and I'm sure that if the point was relevant then we could find a source for it. You can't present one source that says X were auditors, another that says Y was a seller and another that quotes ICAEW rules regarding "if X = Y then you've broken these rules". Not that you seem to have even got that far, although the article might have been implying it. The X/Y thing is synthesis, and not even getting that far is a failure to satisfy WP:V. Basically, we need a source that says something like PwC did in fact contravene the rules in this case. - Sitush (talk) 02:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, we will have to wait for the verdict of the ICAEW committee (Saskia2309 (talk) 02:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC))

Good that you now seem to understand. This was the crux of my opening post in this thread, which concluded "We do not do 'guilt by association'". I feel sure that any such decision would be widely publicised if it put a negative light on either or both of Ross and PwC. - Sitush (talk) 02:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Cosalt did fail to produce accounts in 2012, that is why the shares were suspended. (Andcarr (talk) 21:00, 8 January 2015 (UTC))

I'm not sure what your point is here. - Sitush (talk) 09:30, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

In the spirit of open-ness ...

As I noted above a few hours ago, I'd never heard of Ross until very recently. I've just added some stuff to the article and noticed that (a) Andrew Roberts is one of his fellow trustees at the National Portrait Gallery and (b) Mark Bolland is a trustee of the David Ross Foundation. Although I have little to do with either of those people, I do know both of them in a pretty vague sort of way: I went to university with Roberts, and Bolland is the partner of someone else with whom I went to university. Aside from Christmas cards and the occasional text message, I've not spoken with either in years and I have never been involved in the circle of Oxbridge cronyism. I say this now because it is likely that I am going to be outed big time in the next few months and I don't want any accusations to follow me here. - Sitush (talk) 04:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

You have once again removed the article that criticises your behaviour. I will not put it up again as I do not enjoy ping pong, however I repeat if you think it libellous you should sue SBS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.182.12.137 (talk) 13:44, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Editing mistakes

Sitush, following your comprehensive tidy up there appears to be errors with references 21 and 23. These refer to Ross's failure to obtain the OFSTED post. I would alter them myself but you would probably dob me in to the administrators for warring or such like and have me blocked again. It is a pity that you do not think the OFSTED issue relevant, however life is too short for me to pursue the matter further. (Andcarr (talk) 07:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)) sorry due to other alterations the mistaken references are now 22 and 24!

I can't read your mind, sorry. The Ofsted thing is now included in a format that should comply with our policies. What are you complaining about? What are the errors? - Sitush (talk) 07:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Reference 22 is attached to a statement about Ross's donations to the conservatives but is about OFSTED

Reference 24 is a attached to a statement about free schools so I don't know if the guardian OFSTED reference is appropriate.

Thank you for the OFSTED comment. The whole article is certainly a lot clearer now. (Andcarr (talk) 07:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC))

The sources uses for the Ofsted stuff also support the other points for which they are used. This is perfectly acceptable practice. - Sitush (talk) 07:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Shooting

Does anyone know what type of shooting interests him? I'm guessing game birds, given the grouse moor, but it might be clay-pigeon or even target shooting. We could do with disambiguating the link. - Sitush (talk) 08:17, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't even bother to link "partying" or "shooting". It seems like overlinking to me. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Subscription sources

The article uses some subscription sources. I've managed to replace a few with non-subscription versions but we're still left with stuff sourced to The Times/Sunday Times and to the Financial Times. I've tried to get to those things using the Wayback Machine but it hasn't worked. Bearing in mind the long-term pov-warring, it would be very useful if a contributor in good standing could at least verify those citations. There may also be other information in the things that has been omitted because it went against the pov of whoever inserted them. - Sitush (talk) 00:25, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I used the reference 'title' as an exact search time, found the url of the reference in the search result list and then looked at the cached page. eg Ross set to escape action by FSA over disclosure But depends when last snapshot was as to effectiveness. GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

That's a useful tip, thanks. A fair few of the titles in this thing weren't actually the titles in the sources when I arrived here a few days ago but, yes, a very good tip! - Sitush (talk) 09:53, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Private Eye and other 'dubious' sources

Hi Sitush

You have asked if anyone can back up the Private Eye reference. I can, but think you should research it yourself, so that you do not think it 'dubious' Firstly I was a Cosalt shareholder, I am using a proxy server to protect my identity as I do not wish to be threatened by Ross's defamation lawyers Harbottle and Lewis, (see Private Eye, again) as have the editors you have chased off this article. Secondly I think that you should declare that your friends partner, Mark Bolland, is not only on Ross's Foundation board but also his PR representative who accompanies Ross to his press interviews. You are extremely naive if you think a billionaire does not pay to clean up his image and release favourable information to the press on a regular basis. Can I firstly suggest that instead of taking press articles verbatim, which are based on Ross's PR releases, you research factual statements such as Cosalt (and associated companies) accounts for the last five years. Stock market Regulatory announcements. The administrator's list of creditors. Letters from Ministers to MPs. Letters signed by 33 MPs to Mr Ross (which he did not answer). Letters from regulators, senior civil servants, MPs and Peers to shareholders. Of particular interest should be an appendix to the Oval offer document for Cosalt, namely a letter from Cosalt to Survitec titled Cosalt pension Holiday, which shows that Mr Ross was first on the list of creditors pocketing £1m, and the Cosalt Workwear/Ballyclare accounts which show that £3m of Mr Ross's Cosalt loans were ring fenced within that subsidiary so he did not lose the money. Your statement that 'nobody files accounts on time' is false, ignorant, and an insult to the accountancy profession. Mr Ross's statement that the Cosalt company was only worth half of its pension deficit followed his low ball offer as Chairman which caused shares to fall 90%. The actuarial valuation of the pension deficit was three years overdue and it was not until the 31/12/2012 RNS that the Directors admitted that the deficit was substantially higher than previously thought. It turned out a couple of weeks later to be £52m as oppose to £9m. Your insistence on removing the SBS article which is critical of yourself, and based largely on a 2013 MIT analysis of Wikipedia that the organisation itself commissioned, is disappointing. It shows, that just like Mr Ross, you cannot accept criticism. It also shows that the Wikipedia establishment resists change. If you consider that SBS have been libellous why not sue them, they are not a blog. Mr Ross has cost pensioners, suppliers, shareholders and the taxpayer a lot of money. As a billionaire this shows his greed, taking millions from others in order to make a few million for himself. Your manipulation of this article is not only inaccurate but condones and supports this behaviour. Shame on you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.182.12.137 (talk) 13:09, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I am researching but you could save me some effort by giving links. I'm not sure where I've said "nobody files accounts on time" (what I do know is that accounts when filed are always outdated but that is a truism). I've also not said that Bolland is a friend of mine and I was not aware that Ross is or was a client of Bolland. Finally, I have not said that the SBS story is libellous - it is simply irrelevant to the discussions here and was wrapped with other stuff relating to other blogs that most definitely are libellous. Get your facts straight, please. - Sitush (talk) 13:40, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry Sitush but it is obvious that you do not accept anyone's research but your own. You have dismissed other's research which was based on a three year investigation into the matters above, whilst admitting that you have been interested for three days and then rewriting the whole article. You are not a reasonable person. Mr Ross has got away with what he did at Cosalt, there is no point pursuing this matter further, I just wonder about your own motives. No further comment from Anonymous. Signed off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.182.12.137 (talk) 13:52, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Former shareholders in Cosalt

I can well understand that former shareholders in Cosalt feel aggrieved and this is noted in the article. However, we have policies here and Wikipedia is not intended to be a soapbox for grievances etc. If such people have reliable sources that provide verifiability to their claims about Ross, and if those claims do not fall foul of WP:BLP or WP:DUE, then there is probably no reason why those claims should not be mentioned. However, until someone actually comes up with material that aligns with our policies, we should not be using it here. There is nothing to stop those people publishing their grievances elsewhere on the web, other than possibly the laws of libel.

I will stress again that I know of Bolland only through a university acquaintance. I've never actually met the man, nor spoken or corresponded with him directly. My very sporadic contact since leaving university has all been through his partner and has usually amounted to a couple of "how are you?" text messages and a Christmas card over any 12-month period. The "how are you?"s are understandable: I am not, and for long time have not been, a person favoured with good health.

If anyone really thinks that I have not been neutral here then I suggest they refer the matter to our conflict of interest noticeboard. Equally, if anyone actually has some material that is policy-compliant then they are free to add it to the article. - Sitush (talk) 13:37, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Recent revert

I have just reverted this. As the above threads should indicate, I went through the sources with a pretty fine-tooth comb recently. It seems from the edit summary that the concern here is primarily one of WP:BLP but it seems very heavy-handed. - Sitush (talk) 20:17, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

@Sitush: My attention to this was drawn by an email to WP:OTRS, although these edits were made in my personal capasity. I was just trying to clarify a few bits of the article, and removing some things - for example, the January 2010 incident was later dropped by the victim, so I thought it was fine to remove, and the resignation appeared to be separate from the allegations, so I clarified this too. Mdann52 (talk) 15:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I will take another look in a few hours. The voluminous history of this talk page shows how I have tried to move the article away from being a hit piece and also, at the other extreme, how people associated with Ross have attempted to censor. I find it odd that OTRS get an email around the time that the UK general election campaign has just got underway but, hey, probably just a coincidence. - Sitush (talk) 23:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

BTW, I presume you mean the 2008 resignation? - Sitush (talk) 23:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

• 2010 incident: I agree and have removed it. It looks like no-one other than Ross and Sniezana Kobeniak know the full story, and neither is talking. - Sitush (talk) 00:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
• Ross resigned from Carphone Warehouse, National Express and Big Yellow in December 2008 after using a large proportion of his shares in the businesses as collateral for personal loans without informing the companies, which is a breach of stock market rules seems to be correct. For example, Carphone Warehouse specifically said his resignation was because of the issue. However, I've expanded the paragraph slightly. - Sitush (talk) 00:29, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Official website

A new contributor recently added this, which I reverted because it was misplaced. Do we think it is indeed Ross's official website and thus eligible to go in an External Links section? The thing looks slick but the whois detail is vague and the registrar is, well, not the sort of registrar I would expect to see acting on his behalf. - Sitush (talk) 11:41, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

"Philanthropy"

@Dappergent456: this edit seems to relate to the existing Education section and the academies are run as businesses, not as some philanthropic deed. They are generally a fancy wrapper for a political purpose, ie: the privatisation of UK education by the back door and in many instances (not saying this applies to Ross) the brainwashing of pupils. That they may be registered as charities means little - so, too, are most public schools (Eton, Harrow etc), which is basically just a tax fiddle nowadays. - Sitush (talk) 11:08, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

@Sitush: Ok fair comment but I think we can keep in the updated press as citations?? Dappergent456 (talk) 13:29, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

We are not a news website and we have to be careful not to overcite. If the updated media stories add something then we need to say what they add; if they merely support what is already cited then they probably are not necessary, although I suppose there might be scope for replacing older cites with newer ones provided that they do cover the same ground and are at least as accessible as the current ones (eg: not behind paywalls etc). - Sitush (talk) 17:52, 21 December 2015 (UTC)