Talk:Ray Williams (businessman)

Reversion on 17 Jan, 2008
I am going to revert this edit by User:Mooseskin305. Here are my reasons: To say Ray Williams helps out charities is unverified, but if news references can be found, the point could be re-added. To describe Ray Williams as an "elusrious lifetime" is odd. Maybe it was meant to be illustrious. Even so, "illustrious" means well known, respected, and admired for past achievements. All media coverage indicates that Williams is one of the most despised people in Australia. "Illustrious" sounds like he wrote the article himself. There are countless newspaper sources that say Williams put assets in his wife's name. Williams denies doing it "at the time of the collapse", but doesn't deny putting the assets in his wife's name. Thanks,  Lester  11:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Same content re-added by user:131.244.3.45. I also reverted it. Content did not coincide with what was portrayed in the references. Lester  01:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

"Highly Positive Material"
I find it an outrage and disturbing that users can edit a page and publish information with little to no knowledge of the actual subject, or blatantly disregard major contributions and information regarding the subject. Anybody who truly knows this man can attest that to every negative "fact" there are a hundred more positive ones out there. Anybody who thinks that because this man's page has highly positive material in it that it must therefore be unbalanced is obviously and aptly on toxic "dihydrogen monoxide". The fact is, anyone who feels that there is too much "highly positive material" in this page must realise that perhaps this is because this man has lead a highly positive life and one or two negative things can not and will not draw from this fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maximum Exposure (talk • contribs) 04:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I suggest you read Conflict of interest. You are obviously much too close to the subject of this article to offer any sort of unbiassed opinion. "One or two negative things"? He's a convicted criminal! Wikipedia is not here to provide a blank canvas for apologists. WWGB (talk) 04:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia reflects the coverage the subject gets in reliable sources published elsewhere. If you look at the recent news coverage, it says similar things to what this article does. Yes, he once held an Order of Australia medal, until the Governor General stripped it from him. Maybe you could write to the Governor General to complain, if you think he was unjustly treated. He has swapped his Order of Australia for a criminal record. If the rest of the world sees the subject as a criminal, it's not Wikipedia's job to paint him in a different light. Lester  04:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * For the record, I'm not toxic. Discuss the content, not me. Also, most of the positive stuff in his life (OA medal, etc.) has been taken away from him - he's now "negative" on a scale of -10 to 10. Sorry, no dice. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 05:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

AndonicO
Describes himself as a "pessimist". Enough said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marjorie Keek (talk • contribs)
 * I fail to see how that justifies your actions. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 02:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I do not understand how that is relevant. If you'd like to discuss my way of thinking, go here; if you want to discuss Ray Williams (and/or the edit war), stay on this page. · AndonicO  Hail!  02:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I must also say that it is immensely troubling to know that someone who has the power to control what people believe is a pessimist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruce Vrai (talk • contribs) 04:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * My actions? I haven't done anything.  Be careful what you're insinuating H20!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marjorie Keek (talk • contribs) 05:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You've given your personal point of view an undue weight. We don't do that here. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 09:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

So many single-purpose accounts, all of them only interested in Ray Williams/HIH: Mooseskin305, Maximum Exposure, Marjorie Keek, Bruce Vrai. Fascinating! WWGB (talk) 06:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It is fascinating. Maybe the article should be limited to experienced editors. That would filter out the start-up accounts. I can't imagine the person making these edits is going to give up any time soon.  Lester  06:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * All of the accounts are more than 4 days old, so semi-protection wouldn't stop them. It's all or nothing, unfortunately, until they agree to compromise. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 09:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I suppose this is the inherent problem with Wikipedia. Truth = what newspapers say.  And anyone can write on a subject with no in depth knowledge or understanding of it.  Tusk tusk.  Cheers.  Dewie Shannon (talk) 01:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * We don't report the truth. We just report what others have said. See also WP:V and WP:NPOV. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 08:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Make that FIVE single-purpose accounts. WWGB (talk) 01:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Why is there a need for this article? Btw, WWGB, are you a teacher?  And curiously what does WWGB stand for?  Just curious thasall.  And I nearly burst at the seams when I saw your link from above.  HAHAHA!!  I do indeed wonder if they have that disorder.
 * Mooseskin, Cowhide whatever - don't change my comments please. Cheers (you got that part right at least).  Dewie Shannon (talk) 01:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I've had a checkuser run on a variety of single purpose accounts from this article, most notably those in WWGB's 06:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC) comment above. "I'll be doing some blocking", according to the checkuser :) Daniel (talk) 11:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Administrator edits to protected page
I strongly object that User:Daniel has made edits to this article while it is protected from edits by other editors. This truly smacks of double standards and implies that editors are inferior to administrators. The editing of a protected article by an administrator puts them "above the law" and provides no access for genuine editors to refute or vary the admin changes. This action suggests elitism and puts in place a "two-tier" system that I am sure was not envisaged by Wikipedia founders. This is a really poor outcome. WWGB (talk) 10:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Why have you started forking this discussion? Regardless, administrators are allowed to — and, according to some, are expected to — remove violations of our biographies of living persons policy on sight, regardless of whether the article is protected or not. Administrators are also allowed to make non-controversial edits which aren't in dispute, like the second one which I fixed a couple of references, where it clearly benefits the encyclopedia. See also . Daniel (talk) 11:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I acknowledge that I came on a bit strong here. I'm still concerned about admin edits of protected pages, but I understand that these were good faith edits. WWGB (talk) 12:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll make non-controversial formatting edits for anyone that asks (see for the general rules), and my other edit — the removal of the paragraph — is explained below. Daniel (talk) 12:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't surprise me if the multiple-account editor was Ray Williams himself. Probably objected to being described as a 'corporate criminal'. There are now a lot of references attached to this article, so I think the article is pretty solid in fact. Lester  12:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I most certainly wouldn't contest that he's a corporate criminal — that'd be just silly. The paragraph I removed, however, was leading, used fragmented quotes, and quite clearly (and deliberately) implied skepticism about Williams' private money affairs. Given the findings of the Royal Commision, I don't think it's our place to do that, and it was a violation of our biographies policy, hence why I removed it. Daniel (talk) 12:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser
✅

The following accounts are operated by the same user:



Note two IPs were used, not one.

FT2 (Talk 11:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * All blocked, thanks FT2. Daniel (talk) 11:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't blocking all of them give this person no say in this debate? And if so, is that allowed? dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 09:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Abusive editing is not a good thing. But be that as it may, the problem is puppetry; we can accomodate a user (or subject) with a striong viewpoint, if they act within communal norms. If you look at the blocks you'll see all are blocked indefinitely except one account that Daniel blocked for 3 hours . In other words, 'welcome to contribute within norms; do not stack the debate'. If conduct from now on is within norms, no reason for it to be a problem. If still not, then that's different.


 * Norms relevant here (and links for the user's convenience) are that bio subjects and people with a strong COI (which this seems to be) should generally:
 * contribute cordially (WP:CIVIL) and within the wiki process (WP:CONSENSUS) with other editors,
 * should edit via the talk page rather than edit contentiously on the article (WP:COI),
 * should not make the wiki a battleground (WP:NOT) or disrupt normal editing processes (WP:DE),
 * should follow dispute resolution (WP:DR) if a problem exists, and
 * should not use multiple accounts (WP:SOCK) to do so.
 * FT2 (Talk 11:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have swapped the blocks over, so that User:Dewie Shannon is considered the main account (per the templates and the editing and the former userpage). The "3 hours" block was a mistake—it was meant to be a week—so the new block on DS is 48 hours taking into consideration time served. See my comment on User talk:Dewie Shannon. Daniel (talk) 01:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Why has my section been deleted?
I have clearly referenced the contribution and shown its source to be reliable (more reliable than newspapers anyhow). Not sure why this section is so intent on presenting only biased views. Cheers, TumblerMcDrop54 (talk) 07:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:RS. The cited reference was written by a personal friend of Williams and has no credibility as an independent reference. WWGB (talk) 11:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with 'WWGB'. With respect to Father Ray, his blog is not a reliable reference according to Wikipedia policy. We must take the mainstream view, and that means using references from major, known sources, such as metropolitan or national newspapers.-- Lester  12:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Ray Williams (businessman). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080113100618/http://www.news.com.au:80/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23043309-5001021,00.html to http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23043309-5001021,00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 13:44, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 03:58, 30 April 2016 (UTC)