Talk:Simon Williams (chess player)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:David Pritchard (chess player) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 20:48, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Pension Scheme Determination

I'm not going to edit the article yet, but presumably this story will need to be covered in some form in the near future. https://www.pensions-ombudsman.org.uk/news-item/focus-administration-pension-scheme-determination Poemisaglock (talk) 19:13, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

A mention of this incident was added to the article on 25th November by an unnamed user. I have no connection to the subject of the article here, but I have removed the text added on 25th November on the basis that taking up the greater part of the article's lead paragraph in mentioning an incident with no relevance to the subject's main field of activity is clearly contrary to WP: UNDUE weight and probably also, in this case, WP: RECENTISM.

My feeling is that if any mention is required it should be brief and in a short separate section at the foot of the article. However, I'm not sure that inclusion of the story in this article is entirely appropriate. Axad12 (talk) 09:19, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

It's probably also worth bearing in mind the policy on WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE, which states..

'Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, regardless of whether they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability'.

For which, in the case of a relatively minor chess grandmaster, presumably we interpret 'only material relevant to their chess career'. Axad12 (talk) 15:45, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

The scandal has been covered in the Financial Times, a respectable 130+ year old broadsheet newspaper. I would say that would therefore tend to make the incident and Simon's connection to it "notable". 184.89.44.198 (talk) 19:17, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Well I'm well aware that the odds that there are sock puppets roaming around here, and I don't personally have the patience or time to spare digging up sources and getting in a pissing match, but this public scandal has been going on since something like 2015 (I don't have the timeline handy at the moment but it was certainly more than 5 years old)--the investigation just took a very long time for whatever reason--and from my understanding it resulted in a total loss of funds totaling nearly a million pounds. Which, unless I'm much mistaken, is significantly more than Mr. Williams has ever made during his chess career. (I was myself quite shocked to discover that Wikipedia has far more words on O.J. Simpson's alleged murder than it does regarding his illustrious NFL and acting careers!) 184.89.44.198 (talk) 19:27, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

In fairness, the OJ Simpson article clearly isn't subject to the policy on WP:NOTAPUBLICFIGURE, whereas the situation re: the Simon Williams article here falls under exactly the circumstances envisaged in that policy.

The Wikipedia guidelines on editing biographies of living persons exist to help us make judgement calls on whether or not to include certain information in articles. The policy cited above seems to be the one relevant in this instance.

It isn't enough to say 'This was reported in a broadsheet newspaper, therefore it belongs on Wikipedia'. Huge amounts of material covered in broadsheet newspapers doesn't end up on Wikipedia, especially when it relates to people who aren't public figures. Wikipedia policy decides what goes in and what doesn't.

If a consensus eventually develops in favour of inclusion here then fair enough, but the discussion needs to be couched in terms of Wikipedia policy on WP:BLP rather than personal opinions about the events in question. Axad12 (talk) 08:37, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Spamming links doesn't make your nonsense more objective or in alignment with Wikipedia policy, my dear. Fortunately for my sanity, I realized a long time ago that these kinds of "debates" with bad-faith people like you are not, for me personally, worth it. I thus leave my observations for someone else to pick up the gauntlet if they feel up to it and I would further observe that Simon Williams desperately WANTS to be a public figure and promotes himself as such (though I don't know offhand what kind of viewership numbers one would have to have in order to qualify as a public figure), that pension liberation scheme fraud is a major issue in the UK with tons of press coverage (which is doubtless why FT did this story, with a picture of Mr. Williams at the top), that criminals and major tort-committers are not omitted from mention by Wikipedia--even if they're *so* much NOTAPUBLICFIGURE that they don't even have Youtube channels--and that multiple official government and legal rulings are available here. Now, doubtless your fingers are at this point just itching to cry DONTUSEPRIMARYSOURCES and SOMEOTHERWIKIPEDIAPOLICYTHATIAMMISREPRESENTINGBECAUSETHISISHOWIGETMYJOLLIES, but my point is merely that WP policy on biographies of living persons does not exist in a vacuum, does not exist for no reason, but exists only of libel law plus perhaps the possibility of harassment--neither of these can possibly apply to simply reporting an official ruling from the UK goverment as confirmed by well-known, reliable news sources. But again, I will, as I say, leave the actual arguing and editing for someone else to take up, if they have the stomach for it. 184.89.44.198 (talk) 01:58, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

You're mistaken. I suggest you re-read BLP. It definitely doesn't only exist for libel plus harassment. It's primarily exists because what we say about living persons can have a significant affect on their lives in many ways beyond harassment, even when we are not committing libel. And note that for better or worse, en.wikipedia policies only really care about US law and US laws tend to allow far more without it being defamatory, especially in anything related to freedom of the press. (While Wikipedia may not technically be press, we're likely to receive the same level of protection.) So despite "public figure" arising from the way this affects defamation in the US, defamation tends to be something that comes up rarely provided we're properly sticking to basic wikipedia policy without needing to bring BLP. So no, defamation isn't what BLP is about, it arguably isn't even that important. (Defamation is, but concerns about us defaming people are less important since basic policy already provides decent protections against that.) Nil Einne (talk) 13:16, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Pensions again

I've once again removed material added to this article by an IP address regarding a judgement by the pension regulator.

In the thread above I have outlined the Wikipedia policy-based reasons for not including this material in this article.

If any user would like to suggest a clear policy-based reason for the material to be included, in accordance with Wikipedia policy on the biographies of living persons, then please do so and we can see if a consensus emerges. Axad12 (talk) 21:28, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Following an edit on 11/4/24 by user Bilorv which saw the pensions-related material again introduced to this article, I referred the issue to WP:BLPN to get a wider range of opinion and a consensus on a way forward. The result of that discussion was that although Simon Williams is not a 'public figure' in the everyday sense of that term, the application of that term on Wikipedia has a rather different meaning. Therefore the consensus was that WP:NOTAPUBLICFIGURE does not apply and that it is correct for there to be some reference in this article to the pensions regulator decision.

In that regard I have no particular issue with the recent edit by Bilorv and am happy to abide by the consensus decision. Axad12 (talk) 14:56, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing the matter to BLPN and I'm glad we could reach a conclusion. I've reinstated the edit (though wording improvements or more sources can be added in the usual cycle). — Bilorv (talk) 16:55, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

No problem. This article was the last one remaining on a list of several things that I'd wanted to get resolved before going into (?semi-?)retirement, so your edit on the 11th was timely.

I was only pursuing the matter to BLPN on curiosity grounds really. I didn't want to walk away having made a possibly misleading good faith statement on 6th March (above) about the application of BLP policy.

Thank you for having been reasonable and helpful here, I appreciate it. Axad12 (talk) 17:59, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Whitewashing by Axad12

I came here to see how wikipedia described the Simon Williams pensions scandal. I find almost all mention of it has been repeatedly removed by Axad12, who seems to know nothing about Williams. Or who is Williams, and pretending to know nothing. Utterly ridiculous.

Williams aka GingerGM is not a "a relatively minor chess grandmaster", well, he has become one now, thanks to this scandal, which seems to have destroyed what was his blossoming career as an online chess commentator on tournament broadcasts. He also has had a youtube channel and chess products company for many years. He would be one of the best known grandmasters of those not in the world's top elite players.

The pensions scandal was a major story in chess, and seems to have destroyed Williams' career as a commentator. He was often a main commentator on chess.com commentaries, now the biggest chess site/entity/broadcaster. People trusted him, now they do not. The matter went to court on at least two separate occasions, and in the second, in the length report the judge was scathing about Williams and sceptical of his professions of innocence and ignorance.

Axad12 says on their page that they have recently retired from editing wikipedia. Let's hope so. 122.148.184.131 (talk) 22:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I deleted a weird section about a rather silly game of Williams'. I wasn't sure why someone thought it should be covered at all, let alone at such length. Especially when the pension scheme scandal is apparently not deemed as of sufficient importance! Seems it must've been written by a huge Williams fan...possibly Williams. 122.148.184.131 (talk) 22:47, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

122 you really need to better explain what you're talking about. The current version of the article does mention the court case against him Simon Williams (chess player)#Pension company, and this is the version you edit to remove the chess game but you did not touch the pension company thing [1]. So we clearly in fact have deemed it of "sufficient important" as reflected in the discussion right above this one. Whatever the previous wrongs of Axad12, they agreed to abide by the consensus among others that the pension case should remain and have no made any efforts to do anything with it since this consensus and re-wording. So I see no reason to assume they will do it again in the future. If they do, there are ways we can deal with that. IIRC I was not involved in but did observe this earlier, the wording seems fine enough. It's generally not needed to go into excessive details when the person is fairly low profile and note that we are restricted to what reliable secondary sources have reported and cannot go by case documents etc. As for the "destroyed" his "blossoming career", this might very well be the case and it's probably something worth mentioning if there are sources. However you will need to provide them. I doubt they exist since he's fairly low profile so I find it unlikely any sources has bothered with this. We cannot do OR, so cannot make any such claims based how he no longer appears on chess.com or whatever. (Although IMO it's acceptable for this to be one reason why editors feel it belongs.) Nil Einne (talk) 16:22, 19 May 2024 (UTC)