Talk:Syed Ahmed (businessman)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Develop list

Early life

Details of his parents names, when or where they moved to the UK?

Business Career

Information or list of business owned, or currently now in. Salary details etc.

Television career

Add details of his appearance in British television, in The Apprentice, Cirque de Celebrité, Hot Air etc.

Relationship

His former relationship with Michelle (from Apprentice), miscarriage details and break up.

Sourced Content Removal

I am having a hard time understanding why you are removing sourced content from the article. All of the info is backed up by published sources and directly pertain to the subject. TNXMan 19:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The content I specifically object to relates to the money laundering probe. There are two Ahmeds. Some information pertains to Afted Ahmed not Syed Ahmed; that relating to the former this specifically has no place on this page. The remaining text that I ammended refe;ct accurately the article - the existing text deos not. The link to the article is maintained.

Content relating to religious conversion is misquoted - comments relating to his family were unsourced. It has no relevance here in either case. User:Amicaveritas 20:56 April 2009 BST

Actually, it seems that it is very relevant. To quote, "But Syed Ahmed's financial affairs have attracted the attention of the police after he helped a former business partner transfer money from a disputed £400,000 loan out of a joint account.". Also, the info pertaining to his parents is sourced directly from the article. Again, to quote, "He concedes. however, that his family, who are devout Muslims, would feel more comfortable with the situation if Michelle were to convert from Christianity.

"Yes, they would like it, but only if Michelle wants to. That's how I feel. It has to come from inside. She needs to feel it in her heart. There is no point doing it just to please me."" TNXMan 20:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I accept your quote regarding Ahmed's comments on his parents liking it if she converted. Liking and hoping are two entirely separate items. If you wish to use the quote: Yes, they would like it, but only if Michelle wants to. That's how I feel. It has to come from inside. She needs to feel it in her heart. There is no point doing it just to please me." I have no objection.

With regard to the charges:-

reading

"Mr Ahmed, who regularly clashed with Sir Alan on the BBC TV show in the spring, was quizzed by detectives over a £400,000 loan from self-made millionaire Terry Brady. It was allegedly used by Mr Ahmed's business partner Aftab Ahmed, who is no relation, to buy a flat. Mr Brady claims he was misled.

Mr Ewing said Aftab Ahmed paid the money into a dormant business account connected with IT People, the recruitment consultancy the pair set up, but which Syed Ahmed has since left.

Aftab Ahmed is understood to have transferred half of it to a personal account and then, while he was abroad, asked Syed Ahmed to transfer the rest. It was this transaction that Syed signed for. Mr Ewing said: 'That is the only involvement he had. I am confident the police interview will be the end of the matter.'

Mr Ahmed, who has confirmed that he is the father of the child expected by Michelle Dewberry, the eventual winner of The Apprentice, insists he did nothing wrong. A friend said: 'It was a personal

loan to Aftab and had no connection to Syed or the company. He is very angry that he is being connected with whatever happened between the other two men.

'Syed is a businessman with a lot to think about, not least the fact that Michelle is pregnant. This is the last thing he needs.' The source added that Mr Ahmed went to the police voluntarily. He said: 'Syed could never have known that one small favour could result in this.'

Last month Bangladesh-born Mr Ahmed appeared in court charged with drink-driving for a fourth time but escaped a jail term after claiming that taking part in The Apprentice had left him depressed and he was struggling to cope with the news that his mother had cancer."

from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-400186/Yes-Apprentice-parents.html and other material it is quite clear that he was guilty of nothing criminal and that any misleading was done by Afted Ahmed. The existing edits do not make this clear, they are hughly one-sided and contravene the wikipedia neutrality policy. They are also tantamount to libel in implying that Syed Ahmed did the misleading, when the article replrts otherwise.

I am seeking a fair representation. The facts are he went voluntarily, had to be arrested to questioned and was not charged - as quite clearly there was no evidence of any wrong doing.

User:Amicaveritas 20:56 April 2009 BST —Preceding undated comment added 20:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC).

Sourced Comment Removal

In regards to the multiple removal of this edit [1], how is it "libelous" to include the properly sourced comment "If there was a Bollywood version of The Office, he would be David Brent." How is it libelous to compare him to a humorous fictional character? I believe in WP:BLP, but this seems to be too much. It's a humorous comment, not libel. Dayewalker (talk) 04:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Your argument is flawed

So we've established that you find it funny to demean a person’s character. Personally I find humour that publically denigrates another human being disgusting. I’m really pleased that you have reported it. I am now requesting mediation on this issue. As previously stated this element of the article is the subject of dispute resolution. Simply because multiple editors make an interpretation of policy does not make it right. If you stand by your comments please pass your name and address to Wikipedia. The policy regarding defamation of the living needs to change. Amicaveritas (talk) 08:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I also draw your attention to following wording of the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons

"...Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment.

This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons on other pages. The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material, and this is especially true for material regarding living persons. Therefore, an editor should be able to demonstrate that such material complies with all Wikipedia content policies and guidelines..."

I believe this takes precendence over your claims that it's valid because in your opinion it's funny and correctly sourced. As the person who aledgedly said it not attributed it's hearsay and should be stricken as a poorly sourced defamatory comment. Amicaveritas (talk) 09:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

You're the only person here who disagrees with the sourced information. Just because it is under dispute does not mean it is removed during the resolution process. Since you are contesting the material, and it had previously existed in the article before, the material remains until you can gain consensus for it's removal, which you clearly do not currently have.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 09:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

To word it in a better way. You are the only user who disagrees with the material. You are not going to get your way while the material is being discussed, the material will stay until it is deemed able to be removed. You came to this article and started removing the material. It doesn't work like you continue to suggest.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 10:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a defamatory and potentially libellous comment about a living person that falls below Notability, serving no other purpose than titillation. On this basis alone it has no place in Wikipedia. The policy is clear. This is grounds for speedy removal. I've only not escalated it to this point only as I believe I'm following protocol by using the DR process first. I disagree that material remains. The policy is clear on this matter. Is this a close shop of frequent editors ganging up on newcomer? Dealing with this is like having to learn for a bar exam in a day. Yet I see no cogent argument against my points raised above. Read the underlying articles in full before quoting policy and re-instating comments. Titillation and or defamation have NO place in Wikipedia - or do you disagree with this? YOU have to prove that the inclusion satisfies ALL Wikipedia policies, not just the ones you choose to look at. The burden of proof is with the restoring editor or contributor. The fact that this has been allowed to persist unchecked for so long is quite disgraceful; it is most certainly not a valid argument for it's re-insertion. Amicaveritas (talk) 10:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

You're quite backwards, it is not our burden of proof. You are the only one disputing the material, several experienced editors and admins have disagreed with your assesement. The material stays until you gain consensus to remove it, period.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 10:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely not.

3RR WP:GRAPEVINE

WP:BLP

"We must get the article right.[1] Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[2]

Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment.

This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons on other pages. The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material, and this is especially true for material regarding living persons. Therefore, an editor should be able to demonstrate that such material complies with all Wikipedia content policies and guidelines."

Regarding biographies of living the burden of proof lies with the restoring editor. Not the other way round. Which admins? I have no way of knowing who is an admin and who isn't. I've followed all the correct procedures on this. See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests. I do not believe that the community of editor can possible condone titilation and defamation. Judging from the outcome on this link I would say that the admin jury is still out on this. Even Black Kite admits the issue is complex.

Can we take a vote?:

All those who believe Titilation & Defamation belong in wikipedia sign here:

Those that believe biographies of the living should adhere to policy above: Amicaveritas (talk) 10:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

If you want to build consensus for your edits, a good way to start is not assuming the motives of others.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 10:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Stop bickering the pair of you. Discuss the content not the conduct.  Roger Davies ^talk 12:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Roger, with all due respect if you read my posts relating to this you'll note that the overwhelming majority are entirely focussed on content and policy. Thank you for your protection during the dispute discussion and also for your comments below, especially regarding the nature of the essence of WP:BLP Amicaveritas (talk) 20:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit-warring

I've just fully protected this page for three days. This will enable cooler heads to prevail and, hopefully, give the community time to sort this out. Whether or not the information is sourced, the essense of BLP policy is that the article should not disparage the subject. It might be helpful if there was a calm discussion about this.  Roger Davies ^talk 12:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, you protected it as I was about to add some {{cn}} tags, specifically to the line about his having made 52 flights, and possibly to the line about his educational qualifications. Could you/someone do the honours please? --WebHamster 12:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Nope. Thrash out any additions/deletions/tags here first. One question you might all wish to ask yourselves is whether this article goes into an appropriate level of detail for someone of his level of notability.  Roger Davies ^talk 12:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I can't be arsed messing around with an admin who doesn't want to be bothered. I'll just wait the 3 days. --WebHamster 12:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for going through with the protection, WebHamster, though I think it may have been unnecessary considering that Amicaveritas agreed to cease reverting for the time being, while the dispute is under discussion. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I was about to protect the page myself. I've handed out edit warring warnings and have removed more questioned BLP content from the text while this is sorted out. Although the source is reliable, the coverage of the claims is thin, they are only claims and this brings up meaningful WP:WEIGHT worries. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Please see also my comments at User_talk:Amicaveritas#Syed_Ahmed_.28entrepreneur.29. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Query regarding a point of fact, and pointers to policy

Was Ahmed ever convicted in relation to the alleged money-laundering offence? Did he return to Court in October 2006 at all?

This is of critical importance to this discussion, in my view. The underlying principle is Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit—in other words, if not convicted, Ahmed is entitled to a presumption of innocence, and I feel this should be clearly reflected in any section of the article that relates to the controversy.

Another key point to bear in mind, as Gwen Gale has rightly pointed out, is due weight, which as a subsection of our policy on neutral point of view is a core Wikipedia policy. In other words, the "controversy" section of the article should comprise no more than a small part of its overall treatment of Mr Ahmed, and its previous length gave disproportionate emphasis to that event.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 20:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Reading between the lines, Ahmed wasn't even charged. He wasn't due to go to court in October but merely to answer to police bail. The Mail quotes Ahmed's solicitor as saying that "I am confident the police interview on Friday (August 14) will be the end of the matter".  Roger Davies ^talk 20:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

If that's so, then I would recommend the "controversy" section be cut to one sentence, reading:

"In 2006, Ahmed was arrested in connection with allegations of a financial irregularity, but no charges were brought."

We could optionally add Ahmed's solicitor's comments after that, though I'm anxious to keep such a section as brief as possible.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Except, absent a source, that's original research :)  Roger Davies ^talk 21:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Source :P—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

It's the bit saying he was not charged that is the OR/speculation. That's the problem with trying to cobble together biographies from press snippets. They don't give the whole story. Best, probably, not to say anything about any of it.  Roger Davies ^talk 22:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

So far, given the shorth length of the article, I don't yet see a need to even put that in, since readers could be misled. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think that there are very few situations where information that appears in reliable sources should be cut out of Wikipedia completely. Besides, I think a lot of people who read the article will remember the BBC's coverage and wonder what happened next. This is a chance to draw a line under the event, which (I note) the BBC has neglected to do.

But if the consensus is to cut the "controversy" section completely, I would not object.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Mr Marshal, I'm sure people wonder what happened next. It is my understanding that the matter was dropped and from what I’ve read that it was simply an innocent favour for a friend, that was not illegal, but backfired publically. But without a published sourced stating what happened, inclusion of this doesn’t seem possible. I am fairly sure that had there been more to it, e.g. charges or a trial, instead of - as Roger points out above - answering bail rather than a court appearance it would have been reported on in depth. The absence of this speaks volumes doesn’t it? In the absence of further publication on the story either way - I wouldn’t object if the controversies section was removed. Amicaveritas (talk) 08:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with both of you and I don't think the sources even support the word "controversey" for anything having to do with this topic. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Seconded on that. Amicaveritas (talk) 11:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Rest of the Profile

While we are discussing this can we cast an eye over the rest of the profile also? I've looked at and noted the publicity whitewash that Voicecommunications attempted - and have to say I would have reverted those edits myself. However - I question how relevant the entry on Michele's miscarriage is to a biography of this length and whether it belongs here in any case. I don't dispute the source, veracity or verifiability; I only question its relevance. It was (I'm sure) a painful experience for both of them. Are there any grounds to remove it? I’d say it’s reasonable to mention they dated and split up as they were both notable due to the Apprentice at the time.

In the same section I added information pertaining to Mr Ahmed's education. I cannot cite sources at present. However if it is not considered contentious (or overly publicising) can it stand or does it need to go? I added it to try to balance the section with really otherwise only talked about Michele's miscarriage.

I'd also propose that the tone of Television Appearances is set more neutrally, as it paints a negative picture currently. I have seen other reports as to why Mr Ahmed was fired and I think that the weight of all articles is inconclusive concerning the exact reasons as to why. Surely a neutral tone would just say that: he appeared on the show, was a member of Invicta and was fired in week 10 without going into detail? Amicaveritas (talk) 08:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Once a BLP is drawing this kind of heed, everything in it should be carefully sourced and (neutrally) written. If there are other sources to be had, say about the reality shows (and what's there now doesn't seem untowards or even all that unflattering to me, no shame in losing a public game which is likely rigged to begin with), the article should carry them. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

You should probably not write any of the material yourself, Amicaveritas, because there's a risk you could be seen as having a potential conflict of interest concerning the article. But I can rewrite it once the page protection is lifted. It would help me if you could try to locate sources and point them out here on the talk page.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

This is likely so, Amicaveritas. Your input here on the talk page is welcome. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I try to maintain detached professionalism in COI situations wherever they occur, but I understand your concerns and the perception that this could create. I've no objection to Mr Marshall doing the rewrite; thank you for the offer. I have somewhat limited time this week unfortunately; I will try to consolidate sources for you ASAP, would Monday be OK with you? Amicaveritas (talk) 20:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Whenever you can give it, your input is more than welcome. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. There is no deadline!—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 20:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Mr Marshal: in addition to previous cited links you may find the following useful. Some of the links are obviously his own material (please note I've not had a chance to review the content for each of the links personally) - but I'm sure you'll treat them appropriately. (As a point of interest the Daily Mail has now withdrawn the story from its website relating to the incident with Syed's business partner).

Biog links : http://www.ecademy.com/account.php?id=231140 http://www.linkedin.com/pub/a/56a/b19 http://syed-ahmed.com http://www.abfed.co.uk/index.asp?p=News-And-Events&s=News-And-Events-Archive&a=45

Savortex links : http://www.ecademy.com/account.php?id=231140 http://www.angelsden.co.uk/Applicants/AppOne.aspx?tag=191 http://www.etetra.co.uk/design_portfolio_business.html

Apprentice: http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2009/mar/21/the-apprentice-contestants http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-384402/Syed-Youre-fired.html

National TV awards nominee: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruth_Badger http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2006/nov/01/mediamonkey

Public speaking:

Young Chamber, spin off from the Chamber of commerce : http://www.youngchamber.com/CaseStudy-detail.asp?csid=14 http://www.iwcollege.ac.uk/news.php?id=16

Asian business federation : http://www.abfed.co.uk/index.asp?p=News-And-Events&s=News-And-Events-Archive&a=45 Oxford universities , trading places “pioneering ambitions”: http://www.tuduloo.co.uk/mcc/mcc4.html

Oxford entrepreneurs : http://www.oxfordentrepreneurs.co.uk/events/ http://groupspaces.com/oxfordentrepreneurs/emails/11335 http://www.syed-ahmed.com/page-news&page1=4.html

SEEDA : ( make your mark campaign) http://www.seeda.co.uk/Publications/Global_Competitiveness/docs/TheMark_Summer2007.pdf

Herst connections, Ecademy : http://www.danstorey.com/herts-connections-syed-ahmed/

Charities : Non Exec Director of restless beings, helped set this up from scratch : http://www.restlessbeings.org/pages/contact http://www.syed-ahmed.com/page-testimonials&page1=3.html

Breakthrough breast cancer : Standard charter, great city race : http://static.cityrace.co.uk/pdfs/apprentice.pdf http://www.syed-ahmed.com/page-testimonials.html http://www.timeout.com/london/sport/event/110612/standard-chartered-great-city-race-5k.html

Thanks again to both you and Gwen. Amicaveritas (talk) 18:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Amicaveritas. I'll work on the article in the next few days, you might want to check back in a week.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

← You folks seem to be doing well; do you still need mediation assistance?

I think mediation is unnecessary. All is progressing well now thank you. Amicaveritas (talk) 23:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• There is no information of Syed Ahmed being arrested for being involved with money laundering which has been all over on news articles in the past years, if there is denial to this then at least there should be some detail of the event. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.211.56.3 (talk) 15:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

• The key point is WP:WEIGHT. Ahmed was arrested but, so far as we can see, never even charged, let alone convicted. Therefore, having a lengthy section on that incident in the article is not acceptable; see the discussion above.

  At the moment, there appears to be a consensus that no reference to the incident should be made on Wikipedia. I disagree with this consensus, and I have argued that a brief mention should be made here, along with a clear statement that to the best of our knowledge, Ahmed was never charged or convicted. However, the issue is that there's no source for that statement.

  I think that what we need is a reliable source that describes the outcome of Ahmed's address, and it'll be hard to reach consensus without one.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

But these are obviously factual events which have taken place regards of whether the person likes it or not, it has been in the media for quite some time by the BBC, Sky News, the Daily Mail[2], Evening Standard and many others, how can it be neutral when it is taking the side of 'hiding it', other than the side of neutrality which is obviously breaking the rules of the site. I think it should be written that the the 'claimed' £400,000 misled loan from Mr Brady was actually a mistake, which does state that Syed was released on bail, that is looking at both sides of the story. Those coming to the article may be looking for this event but won't be able to find it, therefore the best solution is to add the correct details based on neutrality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.209.182.32 (talk) 22:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm certainly with you that well-sourced material belongs on Wikipedia. And I agree that articles should reflect what the sources say. But I think in this case there's a conflict between what the sources say and WP:NPOV; in other words, I think the press have been very unkind to Ahmed by printing that he was arrested, printing that he was on bail, but then not printing anything when the case was dropped. (The "bail" you're talking about is police bail, which in UK law doesn't necessarily mean Ahmed was charged with anything.)

So I think our guiding policies are in conflict with one another, and this is a biography of a living person, which means we need to seek local consensus before we add any material about this incident to the article.

It would probably help if you provided the actual wording you propose to use?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't say that I have any problems with what has been written so far. It's been referenced from a reliable source, it's certainly noteworthy that he was arrested, whether or not he was charged is immaterial so long as the article makes it clear that this is the case, and so far the new additions do just that. This gentleman has made a deliberate attempt to come into the public eye and with that comes a certain amount of acceptance that shit happens (whether he likes it or not), and when it does it's going to be written about. When the Old Bill comes-a-knocking on your door for something like money laundering then that is not something that wriggles out of an article using the WP:WEIGHT get out of jail free card. If it was something minor like enjoying the odd joint or not paying parking tickets then that's one thing, and I'm pretty bloody sure that if I was arrested for that same offence then I'd tick the box that says "yes I think I'll remember that for the rest of my life". So all in all given that this is adequately referenced and neutrally worded then I !vote that it should stay. --WebHamster 01:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I beleive that the article as it stands currently is largely neutral, adequately sourced and reasonably balanced. However with regard to your point of reinstating the arrest story - simply reporting this without qualification, or follow up is certainly not neutral and is definitely defamatory. There is no source for qualification because it's no longer newsworthy or noteworthy. The Daily Mail has now entirely withdrawn one of its articles on this, although I note that it still seems to have one you link above (presumably an oversight on their part). The others publishers will follow shortly or will publish a follow up. You can your own conclusions as to why this is but I can assure you that Jimbo Wales very much applies. I also dispute that just because one enters the public eye "shit happens, whether you like it or not" as you so eloquently put it; there are statutory recourses for "shit" that shouldn't have happened. I would also remind you that this discussion page is a public forum and as such comments here are "published" with all the due considerations that this brings (Note Reference 3 WP:DOLT). Amicaveritas (talk) 18:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you allude to WP:DOLT. Are you saying that if the mention of the arrest is included someone will be threatening legal action? Regardless, the fact of the matter is that he was arrested for quite a serious matter. Whether he likes it or not this is now public record. Also whether he likes it or not it's a notable incident both in his life and with regard to this article. You seem to have misunderstood what I wrote above though. I did actually mean that when his arrest is mentioned it should also be quite clearly mentioned that he was released without charge. To not mention this event in the article is very definitely a requirement to avoid POV. This guy has been implicated in several unlawful shenanigans whether by design or by accident and this requires an addition to the article to show this.

Now so far we've assumed good faith that your attempts at keeping these negative events out of the article were for purposes of BLP. With you bringing up WP:DOLT I am starting to doubt that. I'm also starting to doubt your neutrality and am starting to suspect that there is a WP:COI going on here, especially given that this is seemingly the only article you are interested in. I sincerely doubt that your interest is for the benefit of the project or for the article. So could you please declare any relationship you have with Mr Ahmed, or are you Mr Ahmed? Either way the mention of the arrest should be included if a reliable source is still available, although as I said earlier, it should be done in a balanced way that makes it clear that charges were not brought. Oh, and by the way, the truth is always a defence against defamation, at least here in the UK anyway. --WebHamster 19:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I can see no good faith on your part. There is plenty from the other editor involved in this discussion. Yes - there is an established COI - which I do not dispute. Gwen and MR Marshall are quite aware of this - which is why Gwen is mediating and Mr Marshal - an experienced biographer did the re-write.

As has been the basis of many discussions over the last month the COI in no way invalidates the mass of arguments I have put forward which to my understanding have consensus where as you do not. You have been informed the content is defamatory. You are now liable for any consequences by reposting it. Wikipedia is NOT a forum for the republication of tabloid sleaze. The policies are quite clear - I'm not going to restate it here yet again - reliability is NOT the only consideration. The other considerations of Neutrality, Weight, Defamation, DOLT, Living Persons Biography guidelines all carry greater weight and take precedence. Please revert your last edit. It is not neutral. It is defamatory. It violate wiki policies. It is against concensus.Amicaveritas (talk) 08:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

With regard to your defense of "truth" as you put it - you'd better be 100% certain that all facts have been reported "truthfully". Please supply your contact details. However that in no way alters the arguments that the comments have no place in wikipedia. It also in no way invalidates the fact the headings such as "legal problems" have no place in Biographies of Living. The a similar heading has already been removed by Gwen. Amicaveritas (talk) 08:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC) I should also add if you are not aware of the COI you clearly have not read all the debate realting to this article. You should do so before suggesting edits, let alone making them. Amicaveritas (talk) 11:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Firstly I don't respond to threats legal or otherwise, whether in the real world or on Wikipedia. I suggest you quit whilst you are ahead. Secondly you should be aware of WP:OWN, something you seem intent on doing with this article. The facts are that Syed was arrested, it's a fact he was arrested on suspicion of money laundering. What is also a fact is that the basic ethos of Wikipedia is not truth, it's verifiability. All the information in the section you are concerned with has been verified from multiple, numerous and reliable sources. I've just rewritten the loan paragraph to try to be as neutral as possible and to be as accurate as possible given the references. Whether you like it or not being arrested for a serious offence such as money laundering is notable both for him personally and for Wikipedia standards. As such I strongly feel it should be included. Don't forget, consensus, although desired, is not compulsory. My reasons for including this information and my methods for doing so are well within the rules here and don't even come close to being "vandalism". Unlike you I edit on varied subject matters. I have no personal interest whatsoever in Ahmed or what he does. What I do have is a genuine interest in WP. I wish the same could be said for you.

I do find it somewhat hypocritical that right from the outset you have wiki-lawyered with the best of them to prevent anything negative being said about Ahmed, but once those same rules start proving to be a hurdle you immediately start throwing accusations of others being unfair towards you because of the rules.

If you genuinely want to improve this article, rather than playing the defensive line-up for Ahmed, why don't you fill out the article with noteworthy positive information? That would sort out the undue weight accusations. Accusations which I personally think is bull. If this article was the article of a murderer then pretty much everything in it would be negative. As it is there are a couple of instances of Ahmed getting in strife with the Old Bill. So what, they're true, they happened and they are noteworthy. Both you and Ahmed need to learn to live with it and move on. --WebHamster 14:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• Expanded the biography section (looks small) with these informations (hope it meets to requirement):

Brought up in a devout Muslim family,Daily Mail his father worked as a tailor, and his mother a housewife, raising Ahmed and his five sisters at home. He attended the Sir John Cass school from the age of 11 to 17 achieving 7 GCSEs. He then attended at Hammersmith College, where he achieved a BTEC in Business and Finance. He worked in McDonald's and Burger King, including selling shoes, working as a waiter and managing restaurants. He trained at the Air Training Corps who had a prospect of becoming an RAF pilot, but decided to do business. Daily Mail bio

The relationship between both has been described as 'just friends'. Sky News report —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bangali71 (talk • contribs) 11:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Semi protected

I have semi-protected the article so that only established users can edit it, owing to meaningful WP:BLP and WP:WEIGHT worries which must be thoroughly talked through here on the talk page. Edits to the article itself should only be made with the consensus of other editors. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:45, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I've posted on the BLP noticeboard asking for input from other editors so that consensus can be reached.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

WebHamster is continuing to vandalise this article with defamtory content that clearly violates Wikipedia policy on Biographies of Living People. His edits are not Neutral and are against concensus. Amicaveritas (talk) 08:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Webhamster's edits are not vandalism. However, there are weight/BLP worries owing mostly to the short length of the article. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

We had a consensus to strike. This was your view, my view and Mr Marshal's view. Roger also voiced his concerns. Has this changed? How can Hamster be permitted to edit without consensus? In your comment above you state that edits should only be made with consensus achieved after discussion. This is clearly not the case.

Ironically his edits are similar in content to my original ones. Originally I was not opposed to the inclusion just the wording (I am still opposed to the wording and also it's inclusion) and while some of his commentary is laudable it is original research and cannot be published on Wikipedia. It was on this basis we all agreed to strike the comments. Additionally the heading "Legal Problems" is no better than "Controversies". The edit is also factually incorrect as it misleads readers to believe that the police suspected Syed Ahmed of misleading Terry Brady which was NEVER the case and has NOT been reported as such. It was Afted Ahmed that was accused of potentially misleading Brady. With this and the weight issues please remove his edits and replace the full protection. Amicaveritas (talk) 11:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Additionally given the weight of previous argument, the consensus reached, the fact his edit is a total reversal of the entire debate and that he's doing this without consensus I'd argue that it is clearly a "deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia" which most definitely falls under the heading of vandalism. Amicaveritas (talk) 11:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not vandalism. Some of the cited sources look ok, but one or two don't look very reliable to me and as I said, there are indeed meaningful weight/BLP worries here. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Please explain how am I supposed to accept that a single editor can ammend a semi-protected article, without concensus, immediatley after concerns have been raised again (the same concerns that removed the text in the first place) as an act of good faith? He made the edits immediately after I raised concerns. This appears to be one sided edit warring. It's wrong. It's against policy and it's not an act of good faith. If it's not vandalism then Hamster should remove edits (pending discussion and concensus) and retract his libellous comment above immediately. I also believe if he doesn't then they should be removed immediately in any case pending discussion and consensus. Amicaveritas (talk) 12:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I've commented on your talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

full protection

I have fully protected the article owing to edit warring. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Gwen, once again - it is quite wrong and against wikipedia policy to protect the article with contentious text in it. I ask that as before it is removed pending discussion, debate and concensus. The current content does not have concensus and should not remain. This view was accepted before. Nothing has happened to change this. Amicaveritas (talk) 14:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The content is factually incorrect. The article reports that "Ahmed" mislead - this refers to Afted Ahmed. The current article make it appear that this is Syed Ahmed. Amicaveritas (talk) 14:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

See The Wrong Version. I protected the article as soon as I saw the edit warring, the version I protected was happenstance. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

A call for calm, neutrality

Amicaveritas has asked me to step in and take a look at this, and while I had been previously involved in this dispute when Amicaveritas first showed up, to be honest I've been so embroiled in other things since, I can't remember a damn thing of what happened. Here's what I see now:

• We have a section that mentions the following:
  • Allegations of involvement in a money laundering incident, and discussion into the details thereof
  • Syed Ahmed's arrest/surrender to police during the investigation into that incident
  • No conclusion of this matter appears to be mentioned
• Amicaveritas objects to this section, though it is not clear to me which of the above points, if not all of them, he objects.
• This matter appeared to be resolved (judging from the article history) by S Marshall's 2 May revert, excluding the money laundering section, and calling for discussion per WP:BRD.
• WebHamster re-added the section with some decent references on 11 May. However, there are portions of that new section that aren't well-referenced or are unclear (e.g., the lack of conclusion).
• There are two arguments for excluding this content: WP:BLP (it is harmful) and WP:WEIGHT (it is not significant)
• There are two arguments I see for including it: WP:WEIGHT (it is significant), WP:V (the allegations themselves are verifiable as having been made)

What I suggest is that we can reach some middle ground here. I personally believe that an arrest for a white collar crime, whether Syed Ahmed actually committed a crime, is very significant in this case considering Syed Ahmed's background as a business executive, and therefore merits mention. However, in that same vein, misreporting it here can be extremely damaging to his career as a business executive, and therefore constitutes an enormous legal threat to Wikipeida which should not be overlooked.

Therefore, if we are to discuss Syed Ahmed's arrest, and/or the allegations of his involvement in a money laundering incident, we should at least take care to sit down and discuss the wording carefully. As a show of good faith to Amicaveritas, I would suggest that per S Marshall's 2 May call for WP:BRD on this specific topic and per WP:BLP, we should temporarily remove the money laundering section from the article until a consensus can be reached. Following this, a discussion as to under what terms Amicaveritas would consider including a treatment of the arrest and/or allegations of involvement in a money laundering incident appropriate, if any.

I would strongly admonish all involved to keep a cool head and avoid suggestions that any party is engaging in libel, defamation, disruption, or has a disruptive conflict of interest. Such comments will only serve to derail the discussion, and only reinforce prior feelings of bad faith. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec)My concern is also the last sentence in that I gave in to 'pressure' of trying to make the section neutral. Personally I would prefer to remove it because as you said it leaves it open-ended. I couldn't find anything anywhere that reported what the conclusion was which is why I worded the way I did. I put it in because of concerns (from the previous debate) that it wasn't mentioned. Personally I'd like to see it removed purely because it isn't referenced and isn't likely to be anytime soon. I've also attempted to reword the section to point out what exactly what Ahmed's role in the affair was, at least the role that was reported. Pointing out specifically that he voluntarily attended the police station and that he wasn't carted off in cuffs. That all he did was sign a transfer authority and why he did so. From my perspective the section is currently as NPOV as it's every going to be without indulging in grammatical semantics.

Ultimately I strongly believe that what is there has every right to be there, that what it says is accurate based on public reporting of the affair. Its inclusion does not come under the banner of WP:UNDUE. What I do find interesting though is Amicaveritas' username. Latin for (paraphrasing) "truth of a friend". I might be less cynical if it was just Veritas! --WebHamster 14:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

If Amicaveritas will agree to hold to his previous agreement not to edit the article, I will put the article back into semi-protection and, acting as an admin, remove the worrisome BLP content pending discussion here. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Having reviewed this, owing to edit warring, I think the page should stay fully protected for now. Since it's fully protected and following WP:BLP, I have restored the last stable version pending further discussion here. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

By stable you actually mean the censored version? The version that panders to Ahmed's publicist?--WebHamster 14:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Not censored. There are meaningful BLP worries when a short article about a marginally notable person brings up the term money laundering but there has been no criminal conviction and the incident was three years ago. Otherwise, I've already said why I protected the page and reverted to the stable version. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The brevity of the article is immaterial. The incident is noteworthy both to him and to us. Weight doesn't come into it. He's probably just as notable for that incident as he is for anything else. When his arrest hits all the tabloids then weight becomes pretty well moot. And frankly I do hate it when admins kow-tow to CoI publicity machines, even when it's not deliberate. --WebHamster 15:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Instead of attacking other editors and clumsy, hapless admins like me, I suggest any editors who care about this topic talk about the BLP worries here and try to sort them out. I'll lift the protection early if a consensus as to sourcing and wording is reached. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Content Discussion

I refer to:

"Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment.

This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons on other pages. The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material, and this is especially true for material regarding living persons. Therefore, an editor should be able to demonstrate that such material complies with all Wikipedia content policies and guidelines." Amicaveritas (talk) 16:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, you're absolutely correct. However, I believe it is possible for us to have a fair, balanced treatment of the arrest, while still staying well within the lines that WP:BLP defines. However, I do find that an interesting portion of WP:BLP, which says whomever adds or restores the material is responsible for ensuring that the content is in line with WP:BLP.

However, given the circumstances (namely, that we're having a decent-sized discussion here), we can forego the whole "responsibility" deal for the time being and agree that the content shall remain out until we establish a consensus as to both form and content.

I will ask all involved to please comment on content, not on contributors. No matter what the other party may do, be the bigger person and try to let things slide in the name of progress. In any case, those of us watching from the sidelines are quite capable of discerning between a personal attack and a genuine concern. I don't mean to direct this at any editor in particular- rather the group in general, in the hopes that we can resolve this as professionally as possible.

All that said, I'd like to ask of Amicaveritas to let us know if there are any conditions under which he'd consider a treatment of the money laundering arrest in this article to be appropriate. If not, please let us know if you are absolutely adamant in your position that there be zero mention, rather than just being unable to think of any conditions under which you think WP:BLP, etc. would be satisfied. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

It was in fact my original view it was included, disambiguated and the outcome detailed to neutrally reflect the true course of events.

While this is possible in part by ensuring that Afted Ahmed's full name is used when indicating who Brady alleged mislead him it is not possible regarding the outcome as it requires content not published and is therefore not possible under policy.

If it is to be included I would suggest that full wording similar to that used in the edit I objected to, disambiguating the "Ahmed" references and detailing more positive comments such as those made by his solicitor regarding it being unfortunate that a favour for a friend backfired publically - which is reported on although I need to find the source again.

If it is going to be in it should be fully detailed. I'd also suggest that neither the drink driving ban nor arrest deserve their own section and should be included in the main biography.

The facts as reported from the various sources are:

He went voluntarily to a police station, was arrested (it was not fully reported as to why it was deemed necessary to arrest him, whether this was procedural or otherwise only the what it was in connection with), was questioned regarding activities of his then business partner and friend Afted Ahmed (who had been alleged to have misled Brady) over the transfer monies in a loan. He was bailed. No further media coverage was given (this in itself is telling) and the matter was dropped. Why? Well this source gives a reasonable idea why:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-400300/Apprentice-star-400-000-money-laundering-probe.html

“Detectives began the investigation after a complaint by Mr Brady, Mr Ewing said. Mr Brady, a printing tycoon who is father of Birmingham FC managing director Karren Brady, loaned the money to Aftab Ahmed in circumstances now in dispute. "Terry Brady didn't get paid and the allegation is that Aftab Ahmed deceived him," said Mr Ewing, who also represents Syed's business partner. According to Mr Ewing, Aftab Ahmed paid the £400,000 loan into a dormant business account connected with IT People, the recruitment consultancy the pair set up. Companies House records reveal that Syed resigned from it in June. Some of the money is said to have been used to pay for a ten per cent deposit on property. "When Aftab Ahmed went on holiday, he asked Syed if he could transfer the rest of the money to his wife to complete the property deal," Mr Ewing said. "That is the only involvement he has had. I am confident the police interview on Friday will be the end of the matter." He’d resigned from the company in June, this was reported in August. Brady was disputing the “circumstances” of the loan.

There’s a whole load of detail missing, but to me it seems clear that this affair is entirely to do with Afted Ahmed and Syed was unfortunate to get caught up in it. There are for that matter no articles referring to Afted Ahmed being charged or even likely to be charged.

Also:

http://www.contactmusic.com/news.nsf/article/british%20apprentice%20star%20questioned%20over%20money%20laundering_1005217

Reports Syed's lawyer SCOTT EWING says, "Syed has been knocked for six and is devastated he has a stain on his business reputation which is wholly undeserved. "This should never have been dealt with as a criminal matter. It is a straightforward dispute."

That said we still have innocent until proven guilty, he was never charged nor was there ever any reported likelihood of him being charged. So without being able to make it clear he was innocent of any wrong doing I believe that given the relative weight it should be excluded in its entirety. If it can be made clear that there was no wrong doing by Syed I’d support the inclusion.

If he had been guilty of anything – I’d support the inclusion of that too – but he’s not.

You’ll note I have nothing to say on his driving ban – he was guilty, it’s fact and it’s covered neutrally. Amicaveritas (talk) 18:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• On reviewing the history of this talk page, I find my position is well covered in previous posts. For convenience, I'll copy the relevant parts here.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

S Marshall's position

(1) ...the "controversy" section of the article should comprise no more than a small part of its overall treatment of Mr Ahmed, and its previous length gave disproportionate emphasis to that event. (2) ...I would recommend the "controversy" section be cut to one sentence, reading: "In 2006, Ahmed was arrested in connection with allegations of a financial irregularity, but no charges were brought." (3)...I think a lot of people who read the article will remember the BBC's coverage and wonder what happened next. This is a chance to draw a line under the event, which (I note) the BBC has neglected to do. (4) ... You should probably not write any of the material yourself, Amicaveritas, because there's a risk you could be seen as having a potential conflict of interest concerning the article. (5) ... At the moment, there appears to be a consensus that no reference to the incident should be made on Wikipedia. I disagree with this consensus, and I have argued that a brief mention should be made here, along with a clear statement that to the best of our knowledge, Ahmed was never charged or convicted. (6) ... I'm certainly with you that well-sourced material belongs on Wikipedia. And I agree that articles should reflect what the sources say. But I think in this case there's a conflict between what the sources say and WP:NPOV; in other words, I think the press have been very unkind to Ahmed by printing that he was arrested, printing that he was on bail, but then not printing anything when the case was dropped.

Note

I've archived old content from this page as it was getting too long. The link to the archive is in the notice at the top of the page.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Why do people keep going on about what wasn't mentioned in the press? It's immaterial. WP is only interested in material that is published in reliable sources. It isn't our place to judge, either positively or negatively. It's a fact that he was arrested, whether procedurally or otherwise, it's a fact that the arrest was significant enough to be announced in many media outlets. It's a fact that Ahmed deliberately put himself in the public eye by wishing to go on the programme in the first place therefore the "do no harm" bit is redundant when all it is is a simple reporting of what has been publicly reported... primarily becausae he was already a so-called celebrity.

The position that we shouldn't include it because not all the facts are in the public domain is laughable, if that was the case there'd be bugger all in the Universe article. We limit ourselves to what is available and report that.

As regards the "undue weight" BS, well that isn't relevant here. This article is about a public figure (voluntary remember!) so he has to take the rough with the smooth. It's not our fault, nor should it be our concern that there is more information available that is rough rather than smooth. You don't dispense with significant negative material simply because there isn't enough positive to go round. If that was the case Harold Shipman wouldn't have much in his article!

I do wish Amicaveritas would actually read the rules he's copy and pasting all over the place as he seems to be interpreting them in a way that gets him and his client what they want. So here's a suggestion, why doesn't he relate back to Ahmed that this could all go away by sending an OTRS request on that grounds that Ahmed is only marginally notable and that he wants his article to be deleted? In my view it's better to have no article than one that is run by his PR department. --WebHamster 20:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's stop these accusations of bad faith and focus on policy and content.

I do not agree with WebHamster when he describes "undue weight" as "BS". Core policies are not BS.

As for Harold Shipman, he is (a) irrelevant per WP:OCE, (b) a convicted mass-murderer, and thus a little different from Syed Ahmed who was never even charged, and (c) dead, hence by definition not a BLP.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with S Marshall- as a BLP, we need to take care in how the article is written, both in content and in presentation. I don't think this means excising everything about this case from the article, but it certainly does mean at least addressing good faith suggestions that an article is problematic. WebHamster, please take a break and rethink your approach to this... I don't mean to offend, but it strikes me that you're making some very broad assumptions of bad faith that are only serving to inflame this situation. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I've never asked for it to be removed. I originally edited it with very similar wording to Hamster, with the exception that I disambiguated "Ahmed". The edit was not allowed as it in theory involves OR and speculation based on the facts. On this basis the consensus at the time suggested striking (not my suggestion). As I state above I'd personally be happy with full, balanced, clear and accurate inclusion. I'm sure Mr Ahmed would rather see it removed. All I ask is that if it is to be included it is clear and balanced. Any wording that insinuates guilt by association would not be agreeable under Wiki policies. Any wording would have to take the position of "innocence until proven guilty" which is the law of this land. The facts are there in the sources to support this. The only thing missing is a reported outcome. It's quite clear why an outcome was not reported. Amicaveritas (talk) 07:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Alrighty, I think we have the beginnings of consensus here! We can include a treatment of the arrest and alleged connection to a money laundering scheme, but with the caveat that such a treatment needs to abide primarily by WP:BLP. Now, this does not strictly mean that we cannot repeat negative claims or accusations- we can if they're appropriately sourced. However, WP:WEIGHT does also become a factor; while an arrest in connection with a white-collar crime is a significant and potentially career-ending event in any businessperson's life, the paucity of information in reliable, secondary sources regarding non-speculative details of said arrest in connection to said crime suggests that this is not a significant arrest or accusation. To draw a corollary between another profession, when attorneys file malpractice suits, they typically name all the physicians who were involved in treating a patient or group of patients, regardless of which physician was likely the guilty party- I've been told there's good reason for doing this, and it wouldn't surprise me if the same sort of strategy were typically employed in lawsuits over white collar crimes.

So where does that put us? What level of coverage is appropriate? I'm partial to S Marshall's suggestion of a one- or two-sentence mention that just says there was an arrest, that it was in connection to a white collar crime, and that as of May 2009, no charges had been filed. Nice and concise, appropriately neutral in my view, and thus I would consider it non-damaging. However, if more coverage is deemed appropriate, then so be it. However, I do not think anything more than five sentences forming a standalone paragraph are necessary. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

There are a couple of things that would complicate the above suggestion. Primarily the fact that there are no sources that state that he wasn't charged or if he was that all charges were dropped, so strictly speaking that can't really be added. Additionally, especially inline with my previous sentence, I feel that in an attempt to reduce the impact/weight by reducing the size of the paragraph to a few sentences in actual fact this would have the effect of reducing the neutrality and doing Ahmed a disservice in the process. What it needs is more detail. This detail needs to spell what his involvement was and as such show that he wasn't actually a criminal mastermind and was just doing a favour for a mate. It also needs to show that it was a procedural arrest after he submitted himself voluntarily to the police station. This is why I added the detail I did in the reverted version. It wasn't, as Amicaveritas accuses me of, an attempt to make it seem worse than it was or to put Syed in a bad light, the opposite is in fact true. I was actually trying to make it clear that he wasn't hauled off in cuffs, that his role was a relatively minor one. If it's just stated that he was arrested then that automatically gives a mental impression in the reader, an impression that just isn't true. --WebHamster 14:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm with WebHamster on this one.(WebHamster - please accept my apologies regarding my earlier comments. I clearly misconstrued your actions.) I think that just to say no charges were brought is given to misintrepretation and assumption of guilt by association. I will try to find a reliable source for further information. Amicaveritas (talk) 14:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I've lifted the full protection, the article is now back on semi-protection. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

With regards to WebHamster and Amicaveritas above... interesting thoughts. I'll dig around LexisNexis to see what I can find with regards to Ahmed's connection to the money laundering scheme... hopefully something will say that no charges were ever filed or something similar. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Daily Mail for June 16, 2007 has an article, "Is Syed all hot air?; The Apprentice put him on the map. So why doesn't Syed Ahmed have one good word to say about Sir Alan Sugar, asks Rebecca Hardy", here's one sentence that's probably very relevant: "Their offscreen romance along with illfounded allegations of money laundering and a conviction for driving while disqualified kept him in the headlines long after he'd left the boardroom."

Daily Star for August 24, 2006 has an article, "APPRENTICE MICHELLE LOSES BABY; TV girl is rushed to hospital", which says (of both Syed and Aftab) "Both were released on bail without charge." That may be a decent source.

Another noteworthy tidbit, The Evening Standard for August 14, 2006 specifies that Ahmed's bail was "until 20 October". That said date has passed with no action at least strongly suggests that no charges ever occurred.

There are a number of other sources that simply say "Ahmed was questioned" in regards to the laundering scheme of "a former business partner" (which might be a good way to avoid having to do the disambiguation). Others refer to the questioning in a very informal-sounding tone ("Ahmed was quizzed"). I've found absolutely nothing regarding Ahmed or this particular incident beyond that June 2007 article. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

That's all good stuff. We need to be clear that it was police bail rather than court bail (which is an important distinction in UK law) and that no charges were brought, and I still think we need to keep the word-count of this section to an absolute minimum.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

All reasonable sources and good points. Amicaveritas (talk) 17:26, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Given the length of the article would:

On 14 August 2006 Syed Ahmed was questioned by police in conjunction with a complaint made against his business partner Afted Ahmed by Terry Brady, a former Portsmouth Football Club director.(citations), which allegedly involved money laundering. However no further action was taken as there was no case to answer, the matter should have been dealt with as normal dispute.(citations)

or

On 14 August 2006 Syed Ahmed was arrested for questioning after voluntarily attending a police station to assist in conjunction with a complaint made against his business partner Afted Ahmed by Terry Brady, a former Portsmouth Football Club director, which allegedly involved money laundering.(citations) No further action was taken as there was no case to answer, the matter should have been dealt with as normal dispute.(citations)

.... or something similar be appropriate? Citations would obviously still link to the above sources. Does this assist in the desire for brevity whist retaining the heart of the matter? Any views on this? Amicaveritas (talk) 17:26, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems pretty good, but I don't know if we have a source for the reason why no further action was taken, and I'm not sure if it's appropriate to state that the matter should have been handled in a certain way. However, we could say all that if we attributed the claim; said something like "According to X, no further action was taken as there was no case to answer, and the matter should have been dealt with as a normal [civil?] dispute". —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:10, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

My preferred wording would be more like "On 14 August 2006, Ahmed was arrested in connection with allegations of a financial irregularity. After questioning, he was unconditionally released, and no charges were ever brought against him as a result of this incident."—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

This edit was suggested on my talk page:

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. Outcome can be added when sourced. Citations should link to most trusted sources. Any objections? Amicaveritas (talk) 22:29, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

We don't need to mention Terry Brady or Afted Ahmed.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

OK. Then noting Mendaliv's comment above how about:

On 14 August 2006 Syed Ahmed was questioned by police in conjunction with a money laundering complaint made against one of his former business partners.

Amicaveritas (talk) 22:55, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

"In connection with", not "In conjuction with"; "Police questioned Ahmed", not "Syed Ahmed was questioned by police" (brevity). If we use the above form of words then I'm happy with it. If an editor insists on specifying Ahmed was arrested, then I would say we also need to specify that no charges were brought.

NB: My agreement alone is not sufficient consensus to justify making changes to the article.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

This seems reasonable to me. WebHamster / Mendaliv / anyone - any thoughts? Amicaveritas (talk) 09:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

No I'm not in agreement with Mr Marshall. All the decent references refer to Ahmed being "arrested" not just being questioned. To change it to "questioned" is basically WP:SYNTHESIS. What I don't understand though is what's with this notion that it has to be as brief as possible? The whole point of a paperless encyclopaedia is to inform, not to keep things as brief as possible. There's no harm in giving more detail using more words. It's not as if there are rationed! My above opinion that keeping it brief will actually have the effect of reducing the neutrality of the section has not changed and quite frankly I don't feel SM's reasoning stands up to closer scrutiny. --WebHamster 10:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Your reasoning is faulty. Synthesis would be drawing a conclusion. The sources state that he was questioned and arrested. As we cannot ascertain the final disposition of the charges, it would be irresponsible to put in information that is prejudicial to Mr. Ahmed, i.e., the arrest. Geoff Plourde (talk) 15:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Then let it be said that he was arrested but never charged.

Brevity in covering this is about WP:WEIGHT and complying with the various WP:BLP concerns cited (mostly by administrators) much earlier in this page.

Another way of putting it: this article is called "Syed Ahmed", not "Allegations of Money Laundering Against Syed Ahmed". It should be essentially an overview of Ahmed's life and career, not a detailed account of the money-laundering allegations made against him with a few paragraphs of biography tacked on. See WP:Summary style.

The amount of detail that some editors are proposing to add would belong more properly in an article called "Allegations of Money Laundering Against Syed Ahmed"—though I should imagine that if anyone actually tried to start an article with this title, it would be deleted and salted under WP:BLP in very short order.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 10:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

In that case now would seem to be a perfect example of when to implement WP:IAR. In this particular instance WP:WEIGHT is a hindrance to neutrality and fairness to the subject. --WebHamster 11:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

No. Both length and wording have much to do with WP:WEIGHT and hence, WP:BLP. Given that there is no shred of a hint in the sources that charges were ever brought, even mentioning money laundering in such a short article would likely come off as an untrue (or at the very least, wholly unverifiable) smear. Likewise if 20-30% of the text is given over to this, however worded, many readers will be most likely to take away a notion that he was somehow tangled up in a crime. WP:BLP has sway over any other policy, even WP:V and WP:IAR, in that if sources are lacking as to the outcome of his brush with the police, the text must be handled so that there is no way a reader may misunderstand and think this person was guilty of a crime, even if that means leaving it out altogether (owing to the lack of sources for the whole tale). This said, hopefully something about this can be put in the article, but it must be short, heedfully worded, carefully sourced and skirt any inference that there was a crime. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, someone gets arrested but then there must be no mention of a crime? That's novel! --WebHamster 11:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no hint in the sources that there was any crime, hence, yes, there must be no mention of a crime. I don't see anything odd about that. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd hate to come from your neck of the woods where it's a case of "meh!" when someone gets arrested when there's no crime involved. In this instance the crime was money laundering. Which coincidentally all the sources refer to. Who knew eh? --WebHamster 11:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

If there is suspicion there may be a crime the police will investigate. This does not imply that a crime has been committed. It is normal to arrest and question inividuals during an investigation. It does not mean that people under arrest are suspected of being guilty of the crime. (This is waht the Met Police said). Amicaveritas (talk) 12:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Folks get arrested and released without charges being layed every day. If there are no verifiable charges (never mind no conviction), there is no crime to talk about. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Who's said anything about charges? When someone is arrested they are arrested for a specific crime (law being broken) whether or not they are charged is immaterial. There is always a crime involved when there's an arrest, there has to be otherwise there's gonna be anarchy.--WebHamster 11:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

You're (very) mistaken, there is not always a crime involved when there is an arrest. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Try telling that to the solicitor I work for. Being arrested and being charged are two wholly different things. Both require a law to be broken before either can be invoked. Whether or not someone is subsequently charged is immaterial. One has to be suspected of breaking a law before you can be legally arrested, ergo there has been a crime involved. I wonder what you'd say is a police officer arrested you and then couldn't say what for. Being arrested is a response to a crime regardless of whether you are guilty or not, whether you are charged or not, whether you're convicted or not, QED there's a crime involved. --WebHamster 12:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I've actually just spoken with the Met Police. They told me:

1) People can be arrested where there is no suspicion of guilt

2) It is normal process to arrest people for the purposes of questioning

3) Bail is a standard part of this process

4) The CRB hold full records and this can requested (a source!), but it may be that only Ahmed can request this.

They told me that this is covered here but I can't find it.

With regard to rest because I'm a bit stuck. I find myself agreeing with most of the above but with no idea how to solve it. I think including the words "money laundering" are reasonable and not a slur if it is handled as Gwen suggests. I have an issue with making the section too large as it gives undue weight. There is no question of Ahmed being involved in a crime - as the Met Police said “you are innocent until convicted”. It's my understanding charges were not brought because there was no case to answer (a view exposed by Ahmed's solicitor and reported on) rather than there being "insufficient evidence" which is not suggested anywhere. I think this distinction is important. Amicaveritas (talk) 12:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

There was potential for a crime to be involved otherwise no arrest could have been made. However the absence of charges means that there was no crime involved, by definition. Amicaveritas (talk) 12:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Webhamster, I'm not going to go back and forth with you on this further but to say, no verifiable charges, no verifiable trial, no verifiable conviction means no crime so far as handling this under WP:BLP on en.Wikipedia goes. If you, your solicitor and the Met Police have another outlook on this individual's status under UK law, please get it published in a reliable, independent source and we may be able to cite it. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:21, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

My comment on agreeing with the above actually was in reference to the bit above WebHamster's last comment. Had an edit conflict. The Met police view wholly supports what you've said Gwen. Amicaveritas (talk) 12:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) - Sorry folks but no-one is actually reading what I'm saying. Perhaps if I change the word "crime" to the word "reason" you'll get it? The crime doesn't have to exist, you don't have to be guilty of a crime, but the fact remains that at some point there is a crime whether implied, suspected or actually exists. The police cannot arrest anyone without good cause, even if it's for questioning. The questioning is related to either a suspected crime or an actual one, either way there is a "crime" or in other words a reason for the arrest. Now as far as this article goes if you just say he was arrested without saying why then again that is giving the reader only part of the story, they'll fill the rest in themselves. This is why these things have to be unequivocal with regard to neutrality. Whether you guys like it or not reducing the word count too much will only achieve that which you are trying to avoid. Meanwhile I'm off out to my daughter's for Sunday lunch... hopefully I won't be arrested on the way by a constable who just feels like doing it because he's bored. Now will someone just put in an arbitrary break for ease of access? --WebHamster 12:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

WH, I think there's a clear distinction between, on the one hand, being arrested, and on the other hand, having committed a crime. I think it's disingenuous to imply the correlation between the two is automatic.

Regardless of that, policy is policy and Gwen Gale's laid it on the line here.

There are circumstances in which it would be appropriate to disregard policy, but I think if that's what you seek, it should go beyond a talk page consensus and onto the BLP noticeboard for wider input.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 12:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The point I'm trying to make, whilst applying band-aids to my badly mangled forehead is that he was arrested for a reason. That reason needs to be given. It's not my fault that there's nothing publicly available that says he was or wasn't charged, or what happened after he appeared on Oct 20th. Perhaps it should be pointed out to Amicaveritas that the reference source doesn't need to be on the web/'net, it doesn't need to be in a newspaper. It can be in any non-virtual paper form. All that's needed is the details so that anyone with access can check it out. It doesn't need to be accessible by us few. All the references say "money laundering" so that's good enough for me, anything else will just be synthesis. And incidentally, just in case there's no doubt, I will be adding this back into the article whether the wording can be settled or not. --WebHamster 13:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

It may be "good enough" for you, but it is not "good enough" for WP:BLP. Don't make edits to the article without first gathering consensus here. Moreover, with or without consensus, if any edits stray from WP:BLP, they will likely be reverted anyway. If you want to talk about this further, please do so at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to answer "And incidentally, just in case there's no doubt, I will be adding this back into the article whether the wording can be settled or not."

Please, let's not turn a content dispute into a conduct dispute. The one is low-profile and can't lead to sanctions, while the other is an immense amount of totally unnecessary drama.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 13:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

With regard to the reason for the arrest - it's not reported. The only thing that is reported is the connected case and the allegation (even this is not reported well - only states Brady alleged Afted Ahmed misled him). What is reported is that it should have been dealt with as a normal dispute. What is clear - but not reported is that no charges were brought.Amicaveritas (talk) 13:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I remain opposed to anything that may construe guilt by association or be so enlarged as to give undue weight. I don't believe anyone here is opposed to this in principle - are we agreed at least on this? Amicaveritas (talk) 13:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

With regard to sources CRB would seem to be a reasonable one. I will see what I can do. Amicaveritas (talk) 13:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow! Looks like I missed a lot in this situation today. I really like the short wording that's emerged above, and has been by and large accepted, and think it's wholly in line with WP:BLP. As to getting sources from a records bureau, as I don't believe they're officially published, it's inappropriate to use them as sources. Even primary sources used on WP need to be published sources. I don't exactly understand WH's position at this point, though I may have just missed some key point in the page or two of replies above. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

What if they were published after being obtained? I'm not the short version has consensus at present. WH & GG seem to both have objections for different reasons. Amicaveritas (talk) 10:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm really uncertain in that regard, and am not comfortable even venturing a guess as to whether it'd be acceptable. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 11:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Police records of themselves are indeed primary sources. If they also happen to be published by a reliable source, putting them in an article, with no interpretation, spanning or spin, is ok (such as straightforward data from a published birth certificate). If they aren't published, the biggest worry is verifiability, since primary source records can easily be mistakenly cited, misunderstood, be incomplete, tampered with, lost and so on (for starters). Although unpublished primary sources cannot be cited here, they can still be helpful in encyclopedic research as a clue or hint about the underlying tale, where to look next and for what. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• I have added the disputed information and changed the wording a bit:

On 14 August 2006, the Police questioned Ahmed, in conjunction with a money laundering complaint made against one of his former business partners. He was questioned regarding a £400,000 property loan from former Portsmouth Football Club director, Terry Brady. Brady had complained that Ahmed misled him resulting in him loaning Ahmed's business partner, Aftab Ahmed, £400,000. Aftab Ahmed allegedly used the money to buy a home in New Providence Wharf in London Docklands. Ahmed was released on bail until 20 October 2006. Ahmed's solicitor Mr Ewing said, this should not have been a criminal matter but just a dispute. Ahmed was not charged and the dispute was a misunderstanding. Any changes needed to this, and please no threats of legal action? Bangali71 (talk) 16:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

same BLP worries as ever

The above brings up the same BLP worries as before, likely does not meet the ongoing consensus on this talk page and should soon be redacted from this talk page, too. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I would like to know what is that is in dispute at the moment?? All these informations stated are facts, and the neutrality is that he was not charged, should not have been dealt in a criminal matter, and was released without any convictions. How else can this be written, these informations cannot be hidden! There must be at least a mention of the person being arrested, i mean come on the person will remember in his lifetime that 'oh yeh i was arrested that day of 14 August because of some money dispute' plus it is backed up by references from Sky, Daily Mail and the BBC! You cannot hide information of a person being arrested, this was all over in the media, so why can't be on Wikipedia? Even if the arrest was wrong or a misunderstanding then this should be mentioned. Bangali71 (talk) 17:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not a question of hiding anything, but a question of undue weight, the arrest must not have too much sway in the bio as a whole and readers must not be left/misled, through either their own careless reading or the way in which the text is written, with any hint that the subject did something criminal. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm all for the inclusion but I'm not going all through my arguments all over again. The fact of the matter is that it's a matter of public record, it's not WP's responsibility to pick and choose what goes into the article based on whether it might hurt his feelings. He knows it happened, the readers of most UK newspapers know what happened so what is it the BLP apologists are trying to achieve by not including it. It's not as if Ahmed can sue over information that is public record. I really don't understand the reluctance. Incidentally, Undue Weight is merely a catch-all excuse when one can't think of any decent objection. It's not up to us to balance his life out. In any case one small paragraph is not undue weight. Unless of course Gwen, you have your thumb on the scale? --WebHamster 17:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

That crack was wholly out of line, WebHamster. Please stop that. Your opinion about WP:UNDUE is mistaken, weighting has very meaningful outcome on a BLP. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

If you'd been British you'd have got that joke... and I do so like cracking funnies that go over the head of Yanks! ;) --WebHamster 20:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Well on that note I think the information about the money laundering dispute should be mentioned, there should be a consensus about this, I do not believe editors should be prevented from adding these informations because of one user believing it will hurt this guy's feelings, its ridiculous. Bangali71 (talk) 17:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Who said anything about his feelings? I could care less what he thinks. The pith here is WP:BLP. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok well the information is neutral, verifiable with reliable references and is not original research. Please explain where this conflicts other than just stated it. Bangali71 (talk) 17:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

If it is going to be included GET THE FACTS RIGHT. The complaint was made against Afted Ahmed NOT Syed Ahmed. Amicaveritas (talk) 17:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Which is what it currently says. It says Syed was questioned but the complaint was against Afted. There's nothing in that para that says the complaint was against Syed. It's quite clear who was doing what and to whom... all that's missing is Col. Mustard and the lead pipe. --WebHamster 18:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

That was as a result of my edit and not what it said before. This inaccuracy was the root of my issue with it previously. I've tried many many times to correct it. Amicaveritas (talk) 18:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I've commented at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Syed_Ahmed. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Well looking from the edits I think everyone is in agreement with the current state of how the information is presented (?). Bangali71 (talk) 18:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec):In response to which (Gwen Gale's BLP notice) I'm commenting that I think it should not be included. It is WP:UNDUE to cover an incident of this minor significance in Ahmed's life in anything like the detail required to make clear the exact nature of Ahmed's non-involvement with a civil dispute in which the police inexplicably got briefly involved. Therefore it should not be included at all. Disembrangler (talk) 18:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Minor significance? Are you jesting? He gets arrested in connection with money-laundering, it hits all the UK papers the same/next day and you're telling us that's insignificant. I'd hazard a guess that he'll remember that 'til the day he dies. I'm pretty bloody sure I would! The fact he was innocent makes it more significant, not less. Or maybe you'd shrug off getting nicked like that when you knew you were innocent? --WebHamster 20:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

This is exactly the problem. Write "arrested in connection with moneylaundering" and it sounds very significant. The reality is there was a civil dispute a third party had with a business partner, which briefly involved the police, and which got Ahmed roped in because of his very minor involvement in that particular issue. Also "The fact he was innocent makes it more significant, not less." makes no sense at all to me. It also assumes there was something to be innocent of - we mustn't forget that his business partner wasn't (AFAIK) charged with anything either. No crime seems actually to have taken place - it was a civil dispute where one side managed to briefly get the police involved. Coverage or not: the fact remains you can't explain the insignificance of this without going into WP:UNDUE detail. Disembrangler (talk) 07:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think any of us disagree with you per se; but the stories are out there in the press. It was as you say a civil dispute in which the police became briefly involved. It is however cleary noteworthy isn't it? At present I am for inclusion with wording that makes it totally clear that there was no wrong doing on his part, but without giving undue weight. The fact that the article on the whole has been very much improved and expanded gives me less concern over weight. Amicaveritas (talk) 08:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The "money laundering" came from the sources being cited, and those related laws were indeed the ones he was arrested for. It's not non-neutral to use that phrase. The reality is that was what he was arrested for. It's not our job to decide it was just a "civil dispute". You don't get arrested for civil disputes, otherwise it wouldn't be "civil". If you were arrested for a major crime knowing you had done nothing wrong then I'm pretty sure it would be something you would find a noteworthy point in your life. You keep referring to it as insignificant, it wasn't, it was pretty bloody significant from his point of view and again you are synthesising that based on your own perceptions. That's a big no-no. The above arguments from earlier last month regarding undue weight are no longer relevant as the article is now a different beast. It's much larger, whereas before it was considerably smaller which could have made this incident stand out perhaps more than it should have done. This is no longer the case. I'm fine with the paragraph now, especially with Syed's brief having the last word which gets across his innocence in a way we editors can't given the limitations of available sources. --WebHamster 09:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

"You don't get arrested for civil disputes" - you do if people make vaguely credible accusations of criminal wrongdoing to the police, which they must then investigate. As to significance - the criterion I generally have in the back of my mind is whether it would be mentioned in a newspaper obituary. This, I think not. Suggestion: formulate an WP:RFC. Disembrangler (talk) 15:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course you don't get arrested for civil disputes, hence my point that it wasn't one. The arrest was due to suspicion of money-laundering, not because someone got conned into a loan. The civil aspect was just what got the ball rolling. It was the fact that it was done using business accounts, therefore possibly breaching money handling legislations. This is what made it criminal rather than civil. As for significance and obituary, well given that this article is about Ahmed, not his obituary writer and weight refers to how significant it is to the article's subject I can only suggest that your argument is specious. If you wish to start an RFC then by all means do so. Personally I don't think this particular article or situation merits one. --WebHamster 16:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand my position, and your remark "this article is about Ahmed, not his obituary writer" suggests you're not even trying. If you don't do an RFC, I probably will. Disembrangler (talk) 17:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand your position alright, I just think it's wrong. As regards starting the RFC, well you did actually read my comment didn't you? --WebHamster 17:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll bow to consensus for striking, but - given the current wording I believe it reports the facts neutrally without leading to any false assumptions of guilt by association. I think it was noteworthy at the time and may have caused him issue since. The wording here is not OR and gives closure to an incident which has not be followed up responsibly in the press. Amicaveritas (talk) 18:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Minor point though. The default position should be to remove contentious material before protecting. Not leave it in! Amicaveritas (talk) 18:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

RfC

Is it appropriate to include this paragraph? The paragraph explains the subject's brief arrest over a loan given by a third party to the subject's then business partner. No charges were brought against anyone. Some editors consider that explaining the issue in sufficient detail requires violating WP:UNDUE, and that therefore it should simply not be mentioned. Disembrangler (talk) 10:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Given previous discussions, points and those once again raised by Mr Marshall below I personally believe inclusion is only possible under BLP if the wording makes it clear that Ahmed was completely innocent. If such wording cannot be agreed then it should be ommitted on grounds of harm as without a conclusion it is simply gossip and has no place in a biography. Amicaveritas (talk) 16:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

As it stands I think the paragraph ending with Syed's solicitor's quote demonstrates there were no charges without any of us having to breach BLP by doing so without verifiable sources. It may be sneaky, but I feel it works. I've also amended the paragraph to show that the arrest was procedural and that Syed voluntarily attended the cop shop. I've also amended the paragraph as it said the complaint was about money-laundering, which of course it wasn't. The money-laundering aspect only came to be after the arrest and questioning. --WebHamster 16:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I think WebHamster's edit satisfies all Wikipedian Policies. Amicaveritas (talk) 16:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

With regard to Money Laundering "is the practice of disguising illegally obtained funds so that they seem legal.is the practice of disguising illegally obtained funds so that they seem legal." - would seem to clear that this relates to Afted Ahmed and whatever agreement he had with Brady coupled with the facts that the funds were then paid through a company account (which seems questionable as to why this was done and hence probably the reason Money Laundering was suspected). That sadi it's all pure conjecture and no charges were brought and no further reports were made by the media on the matter.Amicaveritas (talk) 16:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

"You're Fired"

As the article is now protected I cannot add the source http://www.the-apprentice.eu/ for the firing reason. Amicaveritas (talk) 18:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

We're finally getting somewhere, we're discussing it, there's no edit warring, yet the article gets protected? Not only that it gets protected with the problematic edit in. So what's the point in protecting it. Someone's working on a new train of logic that I'm just not familiar with. --WebHamster 20:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

My point exactly. Funny thing is, is that we are the ones who wanted to keep it in. But if it's going to be protected, it should be protected with it removed... and I agree, there's no edit warring... Amicaveritas (talk) 21:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

and the BLP / WEIGHT issuse still need to be addressed... Amicaveritas (talk) 21:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Reference #44

Reference #44 does not appear to verify that Ahmed was never charged for money-laundering. I want to draw your attention to remarks by Roger Davies earlier on this talk page about this.

Since Roger Davies is an Arbcom member with checkuser and oversight privileges, he is very familiar with potentially contentious matters on Wikipedia, and I think it's important to think very hard about what he said before disregarding it. (Translation: Wikipedia is a collaboration of equals, and there are no authority figures here. Roger Davies is one of the most important of the authority figures we don't have.)

We can disregard Roger's words on the basis of a local consensus, but until the matter's been given more thought I'm personally reluctant to do so.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I would not propose disregarding any of the arguments from either side and the points Roger makes are salient. The issue we had before with this paragraph is the lack of a source regarding the conclusion. Without the conclusion it is efectively just salicious gossip and potentially harmful at that. Therefore unless the wording is clear that Ahmed is innocent it should not be included in my opinion. Amicaveritas (talk) 16:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's a fact, Amicaveritas: I have unpaid invoices outstanding to the value of £24K, and for good honest hard work too. That's a solid fact. The company they were made out to has the same phone number that SAVortex now uses, and this isn't a coincidence, just as that both companies also share the same accountants. Lets talk about clarity, by all means, so long as clarity cuts both ways. My anger is justified! Don't dismiss it. --Drewpuppy (talk) 18:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Drewpuppy, I'm not dismissing your anger - you are clearly angry. I would suggest that there are proper mechanisms for resolving disputes of this nature, but an encyclopaedia is just not the right place for them. Amicaveritas (talk) 23:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I did go through the proper channels by forcing Magenta to go into voluntary liquidation. The creditors' meeting was an eye opener in that the liquidator reported that the amount of cash available to creditors was exactly the amount required to pay the liquidator's invoice in full and no more. I was effectively informed that I had no rights whatsoever. --Drewpuppy (talk) 23:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Look, I've checked your "facts" and they are not compatible with the official records. You did not have invoices outstanding to the amount you previously mentioned; publicly available records at Companies House show how much Magenta owed you. Mr Ahmed was not a Director of the Magenta when they went into liquidation and had not been for over a year. You have every right to be angry but you have no business using this as a forum to air it. This is an encyclopaedia, not a grudge page. Although this has nothing to do with him why don't you contact Mr Ahmed directly if you feel that it does? Alternatively you could pursue the directors of the company (which is where I believe your anger should be directed) if you believe there was any wrong doing; it's my understanding that if there was wrong doing on their part then the limitation of liability does not apply and you could pursue the directors as individuals for settlement of your debt. Amicaveritas (talk) 13:31, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I've checked the records from Companies House too. Now, that's all I'm going to say on this matter. I will, however, enquire about how to have this page removed altogether. It seems to have more to do with PR than anything else. --Drewpuppy (talk) 11:34, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Removal of my material

I'm not surprised that my material (see history) was recently removed, only that it persisted so long. I note that this article has become little more than a small PR piece of little value.

--Drewpuppy (talk) 20:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1