Amicaveritas

HISTORY

April 2009 Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Syed Ahmed (entrepreneur). When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. TNXMan 19:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC) Please do not violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, as you did with this edit to Syed Ahmed (entrepreneur). Thank you.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 19:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC) Please do not continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, as you did with this edit to Syed Ahmed (entrepreneur). If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. Nuβiατεch Talk 19:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC) Your recent edits to Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that this is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 20:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC) I am an editor who has legitimate concerns about a biography of a living person, and Jimbo Wales' comments about such cases would appear to apply. I am happy to discuss any of my edits with other editors and to pursue dispute resolution if required. I have already raised an editor assistance request. Amicaveritas (talk) 21:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC) Now under discussion [Cabal Mediation] Amicaveritas (talk) 13:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC) Third Opinion I have asked another editor, User:Gwen Gale, to offer an opinion on this article. TNXMan 22:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC) Blocked You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violation of the three revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Black Kite 23:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC) Moreover, please see Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC) {{unblock|3RR does not apply to Biographies of Living persons when dealing with "Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material Policy shortcut: WP:GRAPEVINE Remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research); or that relies upon self-published sources (unless written by the subject of the BLP; see below) or sources that otherwise fail to meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability. The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals. Editors who find themselves in edit wars over potentially defamatory information about living persons should bring the matter to the Biographies of Living Persons noticeboard for resolution by an administrator. Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked. See the blocking policy and Wikipedia:Libel. Administrators encountering BLPs that are unsourced and negative in tone, where there is no neutral version to revert to, should delete the article without discussion (see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion criterion G10 for more details)."}} WP:BITE Through no fault of any one particular editor, this new user has been treated in an excessively bureaucratic manner in his first interactions with Wikipedia, resulting in a failure of our policy on do not bite the newbies. I ask that his technical violations of policy be overlooked for the moment and I feel he should be given a clean slate. Thank you to Black Kite for revoking the block.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 23:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC) April 2009 Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. — Dædαlus Contribs 10:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC) You came to the article and started removing the material. You are not going to get your way while the material is under discussion, only after, and only if consensus is with you. Currently consensus is against you. You are removing sourced information, from a reliable source, not a tabloid, from and article. If you continue, you can guarantee you'll find yourself in a block for vandalism.— Dædαlus Contribs 11:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC) This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. — Dædαlus Contribs 11:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC) I dispute this is vandalism as for disruption you are being highly disruptive. You are the one making threats. I refer you to WP:BITE. I again respectfully request you desist. I have left a comment on your talk page. I have requested arbitration via open email. Amicaveritas (talk) 11:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC) This does not fall under BITE, as you have been warned several times by polite editors to stop removing sourced information, and, as you are removing sourced information, it is vandalism. You do not get to have your way just because you are new, the information stays until you get consensus for it's removal, period. You want to keep removing it? Fine, get blocked.— Dædαlus Contribs 11:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC) Do not template the regulars, this is a notice. I've been here longer than you, so it is quite rude to treat me as if I am new here. Again, this is your last warning, if you want to continue to edit war, fine, you'll find out what happens.— Dædαlus Contribs 11:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC) (edit conflict) Hi, Amicaveritas, I know I said I'd back out of this, but I want to make one final plea to you to stop making reverts to the article while the discussion is ongoing. It goes directly against some long-held community standards of editorial conduct that, while they don't supersede the strict requirements for biographies of living persons, will bias outside editors against your case. Ceasing reverts won't be taken as capitulation on your part, and in fact will be seen as a sign of extraordinary good faith on your part. I don't agree with Daedalus that your reverts are vandalism at this point, but the whole issue could simply be avoided by temporarily agreeing to cease reverting. If you can't do that, I promise you that someone will request page protection to prevent further edits to the article while the dispute is ongoing, and you'll be forced into it. I ask of you, please, be the better man and use the dispute resolution process as you had begun to previously rather than persisting in this fruitless revert war. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 11:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC) OK. Thank you. Point taken. I will cease reverting. Although I in no way capitulate on this and I draw attention to my comments below regarding a bigger issue and what, with all reason, should surely be the appropriate action pending resolution. Amicaveritas (talk) 11:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC) I should be thanking you- by ceasing reverts you've taken the first step towards resolving that bigger issue, which affects all of us. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 11:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC) Also, please note that harassment is a pretty big thing here. Accusing me of it for warning you against removing sourced material is without merit and without base. I suggest you retract that accusation of harassment, as I am following policy, in that we are supposed to warn editors against removing sourced material a pre-determined amount of times before they are reported to WP:AIV so that they can be blocked.— Dædαlus Contribs 11:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC) I really am trying here. I've gone through virtually every avenue dispute resolution process. I feel strongly that the page protection should be applied, but to the edit removing the defamatory and titillating material. I just don't understand why you are so dead set on protecting it. Do you really believe this is an appropriate use for the Biography of Living person? This goes way beyond this one profile. Clearly there is a major issue here that needs better management, policy and procedure. This isn't about me - but let me ask you if I (or anyone else) had included defamatory, titillating and potentially libellous material about you in your wiki profile - what would your view be? That it should stand while discussed for all to see or that it should be removed pending mediation / arbitration / discussion or whatever. With regard to the latter point regarding harassment - I'm not looking to make trouble for you Daedalus969, but I am aggrieved by your actions and attitude to the point where I do feel both harangued and harassed by your actions. There is a policy conflict here. Your stating one and I am stating another. Surely the correct course of action is to strike the comment pending resolution not re-instate it. There is a duty of care here, not just regarding this profile but ALL Biographies of Living Individuals. I'd welcome a serious and detailed discussion on this but not one that blithely throw policy vs policy. There is a big issue here and it does need to be resolved.Amicaveritas (talk) 11:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC) Syed Ahmed (entrepreneur) You have broken WP:3rr at Syed Ahmed (entrepreneur). Please don't revert any articles or other pages again for now. If you do, I'll block you for edit warring. en.Wikipedia has very strict rules about unflattering content in biographies of living persons and a thread about this has been started at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Syed_Ahmed_.28entrepreneur.29. Although I think the cited source is reliable, there may be a meaningful question as to whether this coverage is too thin under WP:WEIGHT to support these claims. Although I think you may have a conflict of interest on this topic, this doesn't sway my thinking that the content should not be in the article until we've looked into this further. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC) The article has been protected from editing, with the questioned BLP content removed, for the time being. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC) Firstly thank you for your action on this. It's very much appreciated. I accept I may have a conflict of interest however this in no way automatically invalidates the arguments I have put forward. I have already agreed to cease reverting (see above). But for the record I dispute that I have broken 3RR see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Daedalus969#Syed_Ahmed_.28entrepreneur.29 - your comments below mine there would also seem to support this, so I am little suprised to see the 3RR claim; 3RR does not apply to my actions in this case, but in any case I will not edit or revert this article until the dispute has been resolved regardless of the fact that the current protected status makes this impossible. Thank you again. Amicaveritas (talk) 13:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC) You're welcome. Please understand that if you hadn't edit warred so much to begin with, I would have seen the BLP worries much sooner. Back and forth reverts (edit warring) are a very big deal here. I'm not blaming you, I think you fell into it by mistake, I've warned you in the hope you've learned that edit warring over this thwarted what you were trying to do for many hours. Anyway, only so you know, we don't block here as "punishment," only to stop harmful things from carrying on. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC) Point taken and noted. It was just pure frustration. I have a better understanding of how to do things properly round here now. Won't happen again. Amicaveritas (talk) 13:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC) I know it was. Thanks for listening. As for the BLP content, my main worry is that some of the content had only to do with claims cited to a single source, written as an entertainment topic. The claims were likely made, but putting this in the article could be dodgy because I don't see any hints these ever grew into anything more than claims. In an article of this length, it can skew and overwhelm the text to where the encyclopedia seems to be only disparaging the subject. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC) Well put and to my understanding correct: it never grew into anything more than claims and in from my reading of it any misleading (if it did occur, which cannot be certain)would appear to be have been done by Syed Ahmed's business partner not Syed Ahmed, and from reading other articles it would seem the worst he (Syed) was guilty of was naively helping a friend. I did not delete this in it's entirety I only actually sought to disambiguate the reference to "Ahmed". But, on reflection - given the points that you raise - if it is to be reinstated it, I think it needs to be more thoroughly edited to reflect this. If he had ever been charged or face trial then the case would be somewhat different. With regard to the Bollywood comment - this is arguably not only defamatory but racist as well. I agree that given the bervity of the article that there was a tendancy to overwhelm and skew the article - which is the main reason I raised this intially. Amicaveritas (talk) 14:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC) After some editors have had time to read and think about these posts, one can talk about how to deal the source(s) in the article. If any of this stuff does go back in, it'll need to be very heedfully worded. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC) I forgot to say, a stand-alone, one off comment like that (Bollywood) in such a short article comes off more like a smear than anything else. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC) Note, I was only fighting for that specific version of a page because you were warned against removing sourced information by the admin Gwen Gale, and several other experienced users. Now that Gwen sees a BLP problem, I no longer have any purpose here. This article is off my watch list, as is your talk page.— Dædαlus Contribs 22:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC) Replied on your 2Talk Page - Amicaveritas (talk) 06:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC) You're welcome for the above entry, and again, I am sorry for any misunderstanding we had.— Dædαlus Contribs 07:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC) Mediation You requested mediation about Syed Ahmed. Is there still a dispute? If so, has the scope changed? Geoff Plourde (talk) 17:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC) There is still a dispute. It would seem to be only: User:WebHamster who disputes and is causing problems by vandalising an article which has consensus. Can you assist please?Amicaveritas (talk) 09:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC) Mediation is not required thank you. However your input would be welcome. Amicaveritas (talk) 14:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC) With regards to the dispute, I do think that his arrest should be included somehow. I don't really see a BLP issue, as its public record. However, we could include it as detained for questioning? See the below section for ideas. Geoff Plourde (talk) 19:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC) Police Inquiry On 14 August 2006, Ahmed was questioned by police and detained as a result of a money laundering investigation. Terry Brady, a former Portsmouth Football Club director, complained that Syed misled him resulting in him loaning Syed's business partner, Aftab Ahmed (no relation), £400,000. Subsequently Aftab deposited the money into a "dormant" company account of IT People, a recruitment agency Syed and Aftab had set up together. Aftab then transferred half of the monies to his personal account with a view to buying a flat. Whilst abroad Aftab requested that Syed transfer the rest on his behalf. Syed's lawyer, Scott Ewing, stated that this was Syed's only involvement and was done purely as a favour to a friend. I think that your suggestion goes some way towards appropriate treatment. I'd be happy for it to be combined with suggestion outlined by WebHamster. My problem is that in my view the whole incident is simply media hype and C list celeb titilation. The entire incident should not have been handle the way it was, it was really entirely to do with his business partner and there was no question of him being charged let alone tried. Brevity (the preferred option) in this case would lead to assumptions of guilt by association and full detail was not reported on in follow up stories as clearly it went nowhere and the media lost interest. I also think that the reference to "money laundering" is unnecessary and against BLP. Your above edit is also factually incorrect. At no time did Brady EVER allege Syed misled him, nor was this reported in on. The complaint was against Afted Ahmed - Syed was questioned in response to this. In also most certainly does not warrant its own heading. I'd be happier with something like: On 14 August 2006 Syed Ahmed was questioned by police in conjunction with a complaint made against Afted Ahmed, by Terry Brady, a former Portsmouth Football Club director.(cite) No further action was taken as there was no case to answer, the matter should have been dealt with as normal dispute.(cite) included in the main biography section. I think the length is appropriate given weight considerations. It covers the heart of the matter without going into detail. It's also neutral. Just need a source for the outcome. Amicaveritas (talk) 17:07, 16 May 2009 (UTC) Works for me, just clarify Afted's relationship. Unfortunately, the outcome is not sourced. I would just use the first sentence, because no one can find a source as to whether the charges were dropped. See below, Geoff Plourde (talk) 20:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC) On 14 August 2006 Syed Ahmed was questioned by police in conjunction with a money laundering complaint made against one of his business partners, Afted Ahmed (not related) by Terry Brady, a former Portsmouth Football Club director. Works for me, seems neutral, accurate, sourced. Outcome can be added when sourced. Amicaveritas (talk) 22:24, 16 May 2009 (UTC) i will propose it on the talk page and put it in if no objections Geoff Plourde (talk) 22:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC) That would be great - but I'm sorry I jumped the gun - just copied it there. Happy for you go sign it of course... Amicaveritas (talk) 22:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC) Works for me, glad to see I can clear this case out of the bin. :) Geoff Plourde (talk) 22:36, 16 May 2009 (UTC) Thanks for taking the time :) Hopefully it will be acceptable to the others.Amicaveritas (talk) 22:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC) Re: Help Please Roger, Please would you revert edits to Syed Ahmed's biography by User:WebHamster and prevent him from editing again. He has just reverted to text which had been removed under a concensus of editors and which clearly violates Wiki policies. This has been debated and agreed over a period of months. He has no right to revert this without concesus - which he does not have. Please assist? Thanks Amicaveritas (talk) 09:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC) It is probably best to ask Gwen Gale to look at this. She is much more familiar with the dispute than I am.  Roger Davies talk 09:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC) No Legal Threats This string of edits could be taken by some as a legal threat, which is not allowed on en.Wikipedia. Your legal rights are your own to follow, but you cannot use a threat of legal action to sway other editors. If you do this again, I'll block you. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC) Don't call good faith edits vandalism, don't call sourced edits defamation, don't make legal threats. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC) If you carry on calling good faith, sourced edits vandalism, I may block you from editing. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC) : Gwen I do not accept that is in good faith. Webhamster has from the outset sought to include as much defamatory material as possible. His user page is clearly indicative of the type of individual he is. User:WebHamster Retracted Amicaveritas (talk) 14:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC) I am an editor who has legitimate concerns about a biography of a living person, and Jimbo Wales' comments about such cases would appear to apply. Dispute resolution and mediation procedures have been followed. Consensus was agreed - how can you dispute that edits that fly in the face of this are anything other than wanton vadalism? You also cannot take my comments to be any sort of legal threat. I am simply drawing attention to policy. I'm not going to template you but the policy is clear. The burden of proof lies with Hamster. He has a duty to ensure that edits he makes are true. I'm telling you they are not. Having been alerted to this action needs to be taken. This is what was done before. In addition this there all of the previous considerations which I do intend to restate, but which had consensus. There are also your own weight concerns. You also saw sufficient merit to remove the material originally and protect the article - why are you now defending an editor in clear violation of wiki policy. Amicaveritas (talk) 11:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC) I'm not defending anyone. I've already said the edits do bring up undue weight and BLP worries, owing mostly to the length of the article. I've also said that one or two of the sources don't look too reliable to me. However, your comments could be taken as a legal threat, which isn't allowed here. Moreover, you have called good faith edits vandalism, which they were not. Your behaviour and your conflict of interest (which you have acknowledged) are stirring up other worries, hence you're making me wonder about the depth of your assertions. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC) If you are not defending him - why are his edits still in the article? They were removed before. This was the consensus. Please explain how am I supposed to accept that a single editor can amend a semi-protected article, without consensus, immediately after concerns have been raised again (the same concerns that removed the text in the first place) as an act of good faith? It was accepted before I have COI, it was pointed out by myself, other editors (including you) that this does not automatically invalidate my concerns or my arguments. Consensus was achieved. Under your mediation the article was rewritten. It was agreed no further edits without discussion and consensus. What is the new issue here? This has not happened. Is there a COI with established editors vs new ones? Amicaveritas (talk) 12:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC) (edit conflict) Hi Amicaveritas; coming back to this issue, I really must suggest that if you want users to assume that you are acting in good faith, you behave in kind towards other users- in this case WebHamster. I apologize if this is not your intent, but your comments above appear to be an attempt to discredit his position by labelling him as a POV-warrior... which frankly, through my experience with said user, is likely untrue. Labeling such edits as vandalism, when it's not blatantly obvious that it is vandalism by Wikipedia's definition (read WP:VAND) is considered a personal attack. And, as to the legal threats issue... it's been established that you in some way represent Ahmed, and edits such as this, where you tell a user in no uncertain terms "You have been informed the content is defamatory. You are now liable for any consequences by reposting it" and then demand said user's contact details, come off as threatening litigation against that editor as a consequence of his good faith edits. That is in no way acceptable, WP:DOLT or not (and by the way, WP:NLT is a binding policy, DOLT is not). You are in a content dispute, and you should never use what appears to be threats of legal action against an individual editor as a specific argument. It spoils all hopes of good faith. Anyway, I'm sorry if I come off as angry or aggressive above; this sort of issue seriously upsets me however, as the sorts of comments you're making in that article can have a serious chilling effect on Wikipedia's policy that "anyone can edit" the encyclopaedia. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 11:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC) I understand your point(s). You don't come off as aggressive at all, there is no need for you to apologise for anything. I am quite open to discussion, points being made (whether I agree or not) and for that matter opposing points of view. I apologise if my comments were perceived as threats. They are not. I asked for his identity as he asked for mine (which is far more transparent than his). I accept you know him - I do not, I can only judge him by his current actions. I most certainly do not want to undermine the editiabilty of Wikipedia by anyone. It's its greatest strength but equally its greatest weakness. In general I am huge fan and benefactor of the site. I am however adamant that as an editor myself (albeit new) that I want to see Wikipedia edited responsibly. I do not view specifically or in general that the biographies of living people are being handled responsibly by all editors. I am fully committed to ensuring that they are (not just in regard to this one). I am sick and tired of people being undermined or having their lives ruined by irresponsible half-baked reporting. Hamster quite clearly made the edits in direct response to the concerns I raised about his desire to reinstate them. It is quite wrong from him to do so. I am aggrieved that it's apparently permissible for one editor to undo what was agreed after months of debate and after consensus has been achieved. For the record I do not represent Mr Ahmed, although I do know him and I do have limited concurrent business interests with him (which I would not have if there were any doubts regarding his integrity); my COI is limited in this respect as I have nothing directly to gain from my views here. I'm certainly not sock-puppeted either. He did send me a bio which was nothing more than a publicity piece and suggested I uploaded it - a request I rejected out of hand. COI does not prevent me from voicing valid views and in this particular instance Hamster's edits restore factually incorrect information which I edited out months ago only to have them reinstated. The ensuing debate removed them on WP weight and other grounds. They should not be restored without first full discussion, debate and consensus. This to my understanding is how Wikipedia is supposed to operate - please correct me if I am wrong. If this is simply a misunderstanding (as given you know him - is likely the case) I'd ask Hamster to remove his edits (pending discussion and consensus) and also retract his highly defamatory comments (which are original to him) from the discussion page. Were he to do so it would restore my opinion he is acting in good faith. I don't thik this is unreasonable. Amicaveritas (talk) 12:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC) Semi-protection only means the article is protected from being edited by IPs. Please stop saying other editors are not editing in good faith, comment on content and sources, not on other editors. Webhamster has not edit warred (see WP:Edit war). Webhamster's edits were not vandalism (see WP:Vandalism). Calling them bad faith, edit warring and vandalism when they are not is a personal attack, which is not allowed (see WP:NPA). If you don't like someone's edits, even if they stir up BLP worries, it doesn't mean they have been made in bad faith (see WP:AGF). Calling such edits libelous or defamatory hints at legal threats, which aren't allowed (see WP:NLT). This is my last warning: If you carry on making personal attacks and making legal threats, I will block you. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC) Gwen - I'd ask you to take a step back. You are the one making threats here. You are assuming that my comments are not made in good faith. You are not addressing my concerns, you are just quoting template. 1) Hamster edited the article directly after I raised specific concerns about the very edit he made. 2) He did so WITHOUT DISCUSSION or CONCENSUS I have NOT removed the edit. 3) I have asked you to do so on exactly the same grounds as last time. 4) He HAS posted an exceedingly defamatory comment about Syed Ahmed on the discussion page: "This guy has been implicated in several unlawful shenanigans" this is his direct comment , it is untrue and potentially libellous. 5) This and other of his comments are far from Neutral. This is good faith? The fact I have raised this as issue is an act of good faith. I ask you again - please address my concerns. Amicaveritas (talk) 13:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC) You also know that Biography of living people's policy allows me (or any other editor) to remove contentious text immediately and prevents the authoring editor from reinstating it. I am not going to edit war on this however permissible it is. This is an act of good faith. Please address my concerns. Amicaveritas (talk) 13:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC) You can't skirt warnings from an admin by attacking back. I've warned you about your behaviour, which has nothing to do with the article content. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC) Gwen, I'm not attacking - you are. It's quite wrong. As an admin your duty is to display a higher standard of behaviour. As you persistently refuse to even comment on concerns let alone address them I have raised a request for editorial assistance. I will also pursue dispute resolution. Please desist from barracking me. You may consider this a level 1 warning - I am assuming you believe you are acting in good faith.Amicaveritas (talk) 13:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC) You can't skirt warnings by making up your own warnings and it will not get you what you want. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC) I'm not doing any skirting. You are. I am fully entitled to warn you under Wikipedia policy. My warning is as equally valid as yours. Please stop barracking me. Amicaveritas (talk) 13:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC) If you make legal threats or make personal attacks I will block you from editing this private website. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:48, And if I were to make a legal threats you would be quite within your rights to do so according to policy. However I have not made any such threats, nor was it my intention to do so and nor will I do so. In response to Mendaliv's comments above I have already stated this and apologised if I my comments were construed that way. This was not my intention. I do however think it perfectly reasonable to request another editor to disclose their identity if they request the same from me. The rest of my comments are simply (as previously) highlighting issues that require consideration in line with relevant Wikipedian policy. Amicaveritas (talk) 13:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC) 14 May 2009 (UTC) (undent) (edit conflict) In response to your response to me Amicaveritas, it looks like I've misconstrued your statement and connection to Ahmed, and for that I do apologize. From a less-involved perspective (as many Wikipedians will likely take), your comments did appear as a legal threat, and a request for information to further such legal action. But as you've unequivocally stated, you did not intend it as such, and I'm fine with that, and I'm sure most others would be as well- you should just take care in your verbiage as your connection to Ahmed can and will confuse other editors and lead them to make assumptions of bad faith. I do, absolutely, 100% agree that you are trying to do the right thing from a WP:BLP perspective. That said, it's important to be careful in doing so, and to maximally use the dispute resolution process. You're right- it's kind of unusual to suddenly jump in and reverse something that appears to have been decided before. However, and I'm not sure to what degree it has been followed, but the appropriate protocol is generally considered to be the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, wherein an editor (e.g., WebHamster) makes a BOLD edit, another editor (e.g., yourself) reverts it for one reason or another (in this case, WP:BLP, and that there's a preexisting consensus), and both parties involved discuss the matter civilly at the article talk page. If this hasn't happened, and instead an edit war ensued, the appropriate action to take is to complain via WP:BLPN or even WP:ANI if you believe it's something that requires immediate attention. As to the actual content... here's a question: if there's been misreporting that Syed Ahmed was so implicated, might it be worth commenting in the article on the fact that there was such misreporting (provided appropriate references exist to support such a statement)? It's sketchy from a WP:WEIGHT perspective I'll admit, but I would definitely not consider it harmful. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 13:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC) Thank you. I have therefore in line with your comments above reverted the article pending discussion. I will in the discussion highlight the points you suggest. I have also been BOLD and removed the specific section and included it into the main body. Amicaveritas (talk) 13:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC) I think it's ok that you made this edit, but please do not make further edits to the article itself, given your conflict of interest and your earlier agreement not to edit the article. The behavioural warnings stand. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC) Thank you! Amicaveritas (talk) 13:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC) If the content is restored and you try to deal with it again through the kind of legal threats and personal attacks you have made today, I will block you from editing. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC) I dispute that I have made any leagl threats or personal attacks. I could consider your continued statement of this a personal attack. For the record I have not made a legal threat, nor have I made any personal attacks. If you continue to insist that I have I will raise a complaint. Amicaveritas (talk) 13:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC) If (as you did) believe this to be the case a single warning is quite sufficient. More than this is wrong. Especially given my other comments. Amicaveritas (talk) 13:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC) Well... looks like that didn't work out right. WP:BRD is generally a tough thing to call for during a dispute... I guess my advice at this point is to be careful. I'll take a look at the article and sources being used in the specific section and try to comment at the article's talk page. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 14:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC) It was twinkled. Have reverted the twinkle and noted that human discussion is required. Amicaveritas (talk) 14:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC) It was not an automated edit. I've fully protected the article owing to this edit warring and pending discussion on the article talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC) How can you support an edit (above) and then protect the article with the edit reverted? Amicaveritas (talk) 14:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC) I have tried very hard to address your meaningful concerns about the article content whilst dealing with your unacceptable behaviour, which is not the same topic. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC) I accept that you are trying to separate two issues. I note you've restored a stable version pending discussion. Thank you. Amicaveritas (talk) 14:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC) I dispute that I have done anything unacceptable. I can understand why you thought I did. This matter is dealt with in my conversation with Mendaliv above. Please see hamster's talk page. Please seriously consider what he's done and his attitude. I am not in the wrong here. I really do feel I am bullied by a couple of existing editors into submission on this. I have raised legitimate concerns. The correct action is to remove the text until the concerns have been dealt with. It is not correct to leave it in during discussion. This was agreed before. By many editors. Amicaveritas (talk) 14:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC) How many times must I warn you not to make personal attacks? Comment on sources and content, do not comment on other editors. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC) My comment above - which I was trying to strike through after noticing that you had reverted to a stable version is NOT a personally attack. IF you read Hamsters talk page he most certainly does make a personal attack. Amicaveritas (talk) 15:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC) Doesn't matter. Comment only on sources and content. Do not comment on other editors. I'm not going to keep warning you about this "forever." Webhamster is being a little harsh with you, it's true, but he's mostly referring to your conflict of interest and lack of editing on any other topic. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC) I disagree "...however, when there are disagreements about content, referring to other editors is not always a personal attack." this is all I have done. The warning above is not warranted. Nor are the repeated warnings. Hamster's comment on his talk page is clearly a personal attack. He's made another. I see no warnings on his page. I have made a complaint regarding this matter. Amicaveritas (talk) 15:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC) Talkback Hello, Amicaveritas. You have new messages at S Marshall's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. —S Marshall Talk/Cont 18:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC) Talkback Hello, Amicaveritas. You have new messages at S Marshall's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. ... again! —S Marshall Talk/Cont 21:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC) Your recent edits Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 09:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC) David Copperfield I meant that my view that the whole thing should be tossed out was in the minority. I get the impression that most people think it is just a question of wording. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 19:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC) I think there is at a minimum a question of wording. But - as it per WP:BLP, including or restoring editor MUST demonstrate compliance with ALL wikipedia policies. There was a question on TMZ as a reliable source and in general it would appear that it should be (see RS noticeboard) - but that cae must be taken with regard to BLP. Looking at NE the consensus seems to be not reliable enough to use as single source. Amicaveritas (talk) 06:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC) WP:BITE BITE hardly works here, as the user in question used more than one personal attack in their post. They had shown that they have been here in the past, this is hardly a new user.— Dædαlus Contribs 20:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC) It's not so apparent that this is not a new user and in anycase WP:GOODFAITH don't be so quick to wade in with the warnings please. Amicaveritas (talk) 21:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC) You & me & three Looks like our little scheme worked, and we can now make whatever edits we want at David Copperfield without any fear of reverts. Uh, mmmm, I just can't think of anything right now...Moses, maybe? :D Flowanda | Talk 03:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC) Little scheme? I wasn't aware of any scheme. I want to be sure the article is edited in line with BLP, edit warring is counter productive - but I'm not going to accept a whitewash either. I've no issues with debate from all on the talk page. But BLP is important. Couldn't resist wrt Moses... :D Amicaveritas (talk) 07:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC) I was joking as well...I think for a brief moment we were the only editors there not in danger of 3RR. Adding Moses will have to wait, I guess. Flowanda | Talk 13:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC) LOL. Well only if someone finds those tablets... Amicaveritas (talk) 14:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC) Then they'd be self-published primary sources that couldn't be verified online or easily checked by readers. Flowanda | Talk 16:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC) Syed Ahmed I have put the article as an FA please leave comments or suggestions if you can thanks! Bangali71 (talk) 23:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC) Yes thank you very much. I think the coverage of him in the Apprentice needs to be expanded more, because that was what made him famous, this can be done by adding what other candidates and the judges described Syed's character etc., the comments which he has made about others, Iook at the candidate of Katie Hopkins, there is a lot of coverage about her in the show and the aftermath of it. Bangali71 (talk) 10:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC) I will take a look at Katie in detail. With all Biographies of the living we have a duty of care with wikipedia being an encyclopedia to use neutal langauge and ensure that entures are not harmful to those concerned. Providing entries are encyclopedic and refelect this I fine with the content. I also think that the sky documentary Hot Air is worthy of greater coverage and activities post apprentice. I'd be hapier with a section title "post apprentice" rather than aftermath perhaps. Keep up the good work! Cheers. Amicaveritas (talk) 12:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC) Vandalism Hello Amicaveritas, I am writing to ask you to block permanently this user Special:Contributions/199.119.235.176, here is his/her vandalism. Persons like this must never be allowed to edit in wikipedia! --g. balaxaZe✰ 21:12, 27 November 2014 (UTC) References

November 2021

Please refrain from abusing warning or blocking templates, as you did to User talk:Deb. Doing so is a violation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thank you. Favonian (talk) 15:11, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Favonian to be crystal clear it was a legitimate caution against vandalism and biting new editors. It is not in the interests of Wikipedia to take arbitrary decisions lacking meaningful discussion and with out consideration of merits. This behaviour is toxic. It diminishes the quality or Wikipedia, puts off new editors and gives existing editors a bad name. Amicaveritas (talk) 17:39, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Amicaveritas. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam#External link spamming);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. MarioGom (talk) 15:33, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Harassment - Please stick to making points on topic and not making unfounded personal attacks

WP:HA It appears I have stumbled onto another cabal of editors. Initial comment withdrawn.

Please cease and desist MarioGom - I am not a paid Wikipedia editor. I dislike arbitrary power mad editors who feel they can throw their weight around as they see fit without any sort of rational consensus. I am familiar with this mode of operation of some Wikipedia editor and I will take whatever steps are necessary to combat it. Editor User:Deb removed a post without consensus which is entirely in keeping with other entries in this field. It was also entirely within the policy requirements for an article. Amicaveritas (talk) 16:46, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

It'll be interesting to see what steps you intend to take to "combat" the efforts of administrators to enforce the Wikipedia guidelines. Deb (talk) 16:49, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Deb With the greatest of respect you are not enforcing guidelines you're abusing them. You arbitrarily deleted a page of new editor. Without discussion. Without review of any similar pages. Without acknowledging the relevance of the technology to the field of study. I on the other hand made some suggestions to improve the entry. if you adopt an attitude that bites newbies you create a toxic and unproductive environment. Provide rational discourse on a talk page of the article by all means. You should know better.

Not certain what you're attempting to do, but it's peeving a growing # of editors. GoodDay (talk) 16:57, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

GoodDay In what way? I am making fair point fairly. What's your issue here with my point? Amicaveritas (talk) 17:30, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not angry with you. Merely pointing out that you've got a growing # of editors peeved. PS - don't forget to sign your posts. GoodDay (talk) 17:13, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

GoodDay, who and why? I have not seen a single reply focused on the point. They're all unfounded personal attacks, which is hugely disappointing. Any meaningful contribution to the original matter is welcome. Arbitrary personal attacks are not. This a perfectly reasonable stance and in line with both policy and spirit of that policy. Amicaveritas (talk) 17:30, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Please, take the time to read the notice I posted above and the linked pages. The notice is not just about paid editing. If you have any personal connection to Andrew Burnett-Thompson, you may have a conflict of interest. WP:COI contains guidance for such cases. If you are employed or contracted by SciChart Ltd or have any other connection to it, WP:PAID contains the relevant guidance. MarioGom (talk) 12:55, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. I've checked the relevant guidance again. I do know Andrew Burnett-Thompson and accept that you might infer I have an apparent COI. However, "How close the relationship needs to be before it becomes a concern on Wikipedia is governed by common sense." - I have no vested interest in whether Scichart has or has not a Wikipedia entry. However, I consider the company and founder worthy of note given the field of study and should have entry in-line with Wikipedia policy. The material on the Scichart page was edited by me to bring it in line with the "no puffery" objection raised by another editor. My observations on arbitrary deletion have not been addressed and stand. Amicaveritas (talk) 13:08, 21 November 2021 (UTC)