Talk:Ructions

IMPORTANT QUESTION:

I have judged that quoting emails is the best way to give an impartial account, as written records are the only solid thing we have. However, Jonathan argues that this may not be wise as it could come across as a bit of a character assasination. I see his point, but am not sure whether I agree or not. Opinions would be greatly appreciated!!! Rowan 16:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

For those of us interested in the events, this full account is brilliant. However, for those newer to the society, they may not be so bothered by the blow-by-blow... but then again, how do you simplify it without making it sound even worse? What we've got at the moment is an accurate account of the event (I trust!), which might be better than cutting it down and making it biased. Rick 16:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I know Rowan will endeavour to make this as impartial as possible as we're long past point scoring, but my initial worry would be with the publishing of personal e-mails that James never intended to make public (at least outside ystv) without his permission. Although it in a way gives him a voice in an article where he can't give his side of the argument, it's also feels a bit invasive. I think if this was pared down to state just what happened instead of the reasoning behind why it happened that would give it a more impartial feel overall. Kate 17:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's an interesting idea... could we maybe have a simpler version here which is more of a brief summary, and doesn't go too much into what James did "wrong" (only says that his leadership style was not in accordance with the opinions of some members), then have some kind of YSTV members only page with more detail? I must admit I am worried about James' future collegues/employers/etc googling him and finding this - much as I disagreed with the way he handled some things at the time I really don't want to harm him or his prospects... Rowan 17:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps put a page on the YSTV Wiki in the Members Section? Kate 17:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. Here's what I'm going to do for now... finish the article in the level of detail it's at, then probably remove great chunks(!) I'd like to have a complete version for myself if nothing else, and the full version can maybe go on the YSTV Wiki. Then we can work out what's the best way to approach it on here. I definately think we need to be careful, for James' sake... Does that sound OK? Rowan 17:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Gets my vote! Anyone else? Kate 17:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me... Er, though, the history of this page will have all the old edits of it, so anyone could go through to find what you removed. We'll have to find a way of clearing that somehow (even if it means wandering into the database...) Rick 17:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Good point! Could you look into that?? Pretty please? Make a database backup first though! Oops, you're not Tole... ;) Sorry Tole! Rowan 17:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Bloody hell, 3rd time trying to post this but people keep getting in before me and it says I can't! I wasn't concerned about the emails per se (although Kate makes a good point about the personal side of it), just the level of detail which seems a bit excessive and could be seen as a bit personal towards James. One of the things he was concerned about the most was his name being "sullied" on campus in his future endeavours if it made it into the papers (although as he later proved at Halifax he was perfectly capable of doing that himself what with all the "president" nonsense). However with jobs etc it does become a bit more problematic. I'm sure it'd be possible to summarise each event more consicely (whilst still keeping the key nature of each dispute in so as to demonstrate how we all got pissed off so quickly, such as standing up in the station meeting so it was quicker in return for drinks - remember that?) and I'd be happy to do that myself if the page was unlocked. Also to save him a bit of face the title "Criticism of Richard Ash" is a bit strong and seems to be covering a fairly minor point thgat at least doesn't deserve it's own section.

I'm not knocking the effort you're putting in Rowan - I think we can all say we appreciate the effort you're giving this! (even if most of us should be working...) Jonathan 17:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Jon - no offence taken, I absolutely want and need everyone's input here. I think we're reaching some consensus. Will it be OK by everyone if I sort it out tomorrow? (though I might do it tonight...) Rowan 17:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I have done about as much as I think I can. I propose the following:

• I have kept a full copy of the article as it stands
• I've stepped back and read it whole. I agree that the level of detail is unnecessary and potentially damaging
• I think it might be best if someone not called Rowan de Pomerai does the next bit - cutting it down quite a lot
• Rather than change my name, may I suggest that Jonathan do it, since you volunteered??
• I have unprotected the page so you can do this
• It's up to everyone, but I recommend keeping some of the short inline email quotes where the specific wording is of interest, whereas I agree that many of the larger quotes should go. Do as you see fit I guess...
• Once Jon's done, it becomes public domain, and we can all tweak as necessary I guess
• Rick - could you look into deleting the article's history

Is that a good plan?? Please do give us your opinions - as I've said, I need this not to just be done by me. I also suggest that once Jonathan has done the trimming we make a decision about whether to put the full version on the internal wiki (or similar) - it may well not be necessary, but it all depends on what Jonathan leaves us with... Hope that's OK with everyone - if not, do let me/us know! Rowan 20:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

p.s. - wondering whether it would be a good idea (or at least just interesting!) to see if we can find the minutes from the no confidence meeting while we're in York this weekend...? Rowan 20:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Right, I think I can remove old edits (by deleting the page, then just restoring what we want). Can you take a look at Help:Interwiki_linking and see what past info you can see? This was deleted after 4 revisions, and I've only restored the most recent edit. I can see some log stuff but then I'm a sysop... and so is everyone other than Kate and Jonathan, so could one of you take a look and see what info you can get from the history/etc page? Rick 21:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll by all means have a go at scaling it down a bit, although it might be after this weekend (assuming I'm in York!). As goes the minutes I wouldn't get your hopes up - MDP was minute taking at this period, and was notoriously bad at actually returning the minutes he wrote to the society. I think the only time I saw the minutes of this was on the back of a YSTV Week script once and that was the last I saw of them...Jonathan 21:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Dirty laundry?

As it's Friday, I'll stick my nose in.

I fail to see why this merits a page all of its own and in quite so much detail. At most it would require two or 3 lines to summarise on a page of general 'no confidence' somewhere else, maybe hung off the officer's page. It's nothing unusual I don't think, there were at least 3 no confidence votes in my 4 years (one passed, two rejected) as well as a host of personal disagreements. People leave for URY, people join having left URY, the world keeps turning. Sprow 08:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Sprow - first, as you'll see from the discussion above, we agree about the level of detail being too much, and this will be cut down. As for whether it merits its own page, I think it absolutely does. This was a very big deal - it dominated an entire term of YSTV and almost ripped the place apart. And I don't know about your time at YSTV, but votes of no confidence are absolutely not the norm now. Something has to be seriously wrong for one to be called. Also, surely a vote against an SD is seriously big news compared to any other post. This series of events had a more marked impact on the society than almost anything else I can recall during my time at YSTV, and I think those of us who were there at the time feel it needs recording. Finally, we're not in some Wikipedia-style regime of "it has to be proven to be noteworthy to be written about". I for one would like all members of YSTV over the years to share as much as they like about their experiences of YSTV, without people telling them that those experiences are not important enough. Rowan 10:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

It does need documenting - as Rowan says it was a very big deal indeed, and really soured the atmosphere of the society for a good few weeks if not the whole term (and the lack of an SD hung over the whole summer). There are other elements I think could be included to better reflect this and I will include them when I go through this in a few days...there are also factors to this whole saga which can't really be included and others which already are which probably shouldn't (such as the "rumours" bit)which made it a bigger deal for those at the time. I appreciate the point that no confidences happen all the time but this was really the mother of all no confidences!! The only reason it's being written now is that all the people involved have finally left uni. The main thing I think needs to be altered is the way it perhaps comes across (unintentionally) as a bit personal with all the detail after all these years when we're all (as far as I know) on good terms with the guy in question now. Jonathan 10:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

For reference, the 3 no confidences I was referring to were Treasurer, Station Manager, and Director (spread over 4 years - not all on one night!). These were also highly devisive and generally split everyone into two groups (obviously), though I still wouldn't stretch to a whole page on any of them - they're in the minutes and generally only of interest to those directly involved. I'm not favouring anyone's point of view here since these Ructions mean nothing to me but it does read like dirty laundry being aired. Sprow 10:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

On notability I wasn't trying to suggest it wasn't significant. I've certainly dribbled all manner of technical detail into this Wiki, but have tried to place it in a similar context - that was the basis for my suggestion about having a general page about 'no confidence'. This text, in compact form, would be ideal on such a page and other ex-members could add their no confidence recollections too: hence "I fail to see why this merits a page all of its own". Sprow 10:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think we've established that a good group of us do think this is worthy of its own page, and since this Wiki is for the benefit of all members and ex-members, if we want to record our experiences of the time I think it is only reasonable to allow us to do so. To reiterate again, Jonathan will be heavily cutting this article soon, and the extraneous detail will be removed from the page history too. If you wish to add pages for the no confidences which happened during your time in YSTV, you are welcome to, or if you prefer not to (as it sounds) then that's fine. Do as you see fit. We see fit to include this page and record our experiences, so we will. As for it only being of intrerest to those who were directly involved, I don't agree (and the number of subsequent members who have asked the story of these events bears testament to this) however I don't really think it's relevant anyway - much of the detail on this Wiki is not interesting to me, but then much of it is - nothing has to appeal to everyone. If sharing our negative experiences counts as "Dirty Laundry" then I wonder why we share anything at all. A general no-confidences page may be a good idea if someone wishes to write it. Rowan 12:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Cutting The Article

I'm starting to amend sections of this now as and when I get the time. I hope you don't mind Rowan but I've changed the remaining quoted sections to be highlighted with quotation marks rather than italics - partly because it reads better but it also draws attention to it actually be quotes, rather than just looking like rather unusual formatting! Jonathan 14:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. And be as harsh as you like with the cutting - I promise I won't be offended :) So far so good with what you've done... Rowan 14:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

p.s. also feel free to re-organise, add or remove sections as you see fit - in particular I feel 'remove' may happen with a couple. My layout may not necessarily be the best... Rowan 14:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Just to say I'm loving your work Jon - greatly improving the article bit by bit :) Not always 100% how I would have done it, but that's definately a good thing, and in particular the 'constitution' section is miles better now. Thanks! Rowan 10:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

DONE

Why thank you :-) I do hope I haven't ruined it, more made it a bit more snappy and slightly less wordy...I think I'm done now. I've tidied it up a little bit, moved some sections around, moved one or two and even deleted one entirely (although I won't go into it as it's tedious the "personal rumour" was just something started by one of my housemates when drunk, and he later apologised, so it is entirely unrelated to this episode). I've also added in an extra paragraph to "leadership style" about the general atmosphere of the place in that period as I felt it was missing from the article otherwise. This does stray a bit from the "facts only" approach of the piece, mainly as it's impossible to point to a specific incident when talking about how a place felt, but I felt it was needed...if anyone disagrees then feel free to take it out. Jonathan 17:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I've also tried to remove as many references to his name as possible (or at least keep them a minimum), as part of a general attempt to make it feel less like a character assassination of James and more about the issues that we faced. I'd also suggest that maybe the "link" to this article should not be put on JF's page - when you search on Google for James Flinders you get his own page here but nothing else from this site. It'd probably be fairer given this is all years ago to not have a link to all this stuff from that point in case any friend/employer searches for him, perhaps instead from the SD page? Alternatively we could start writing general long-form articles about academic years at YSTV and link it from that. Jonathan 17:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)