View source for 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!!!
[[User:Rowan|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. [[User:Rick|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. [[User:Kate|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... [[User:Rowan|Rowan]] 17:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps put a page on the YSTV Wiki in the Members Section? [[User:Kate|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? [[User:Rowan|Rowan]] 17:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Gets my vote! Anyone else? [[User:Kate|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...) [[User:Rick|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! [[User:Rowan|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...) [[User:Jonathan|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...) [[User:Rowan|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! [[User:Rowan|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...? [[User:Rowan|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? [[User:Rick|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...[[User:Jonathan|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. [[User:Sprow|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. [[User:Rowan|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. [[User:Jonathan|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. [[User:Sprow|Sprow]] 10:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)