Talk:Melbourne University student organisations

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Flag
Portal
 Melbourne University student organisations is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
This article is supported by WikiProject Melbourne.
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics.
This article is supported by WikiProject Education in Australia.
Assessment comments
Notice: User:DarrenRay, 2006BC and AChan are indefinitely banned from editing this article.
The users specified have edited this article or related articles inappropriately. The users are not prevented from discussing or proposing changes on this talk page. The ban is indefinite, This ban was mandated in the arbitration case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/DarrenRay and 2006BC and is also registered on the administrators noticeboard.

Posted by User:Tony Sidaway for the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee.
Peer review Melbourne University student organisations has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
Wikipedian A subject of this article, Melbourne University student organisations, has edited Wikipedia as User:2006BC.
Wikipedian A subject of this article, Melbourne University student organisations, has edited Wikipedia as User:DarrenRay.

Contents

[edit] Talk:July 2005

OK. let's discuss this. Quinobi 10:14, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

AngryTeddy, please read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. This shouldn't even need discussing - it's one of the more blatant examples of biased editing I've seen here in quite some time.

  • you called Robert Menzies "Australia's greatest Prime Minister"
  • source of income paragraph is both biased and incorrect - they were not expelled from university if they paid the alternative fee to the uni itself
  • adding "purport to provide" - do the services pretend to exist?
  • "a senior management who enjoy some of the highest salaries of union officials in Australia" - evidence?
  • "It is estimated that as much as $1 million per annum is stolen from the Union by its management and left-wing officials." - unsourced, defamatory and incorrect considering that MUSU was most often run by the right-wing
  • "Frequently Socialist Left aligned candidates form close association withe extreme left candidates, including carnal relations." - including carnal relations? Adding this to the article boggles the mind.
  • you removed the Ben Cass cite, which is very much against Wikipedia policy
  • the previous version stated that the election was controversial due to the expulsion of the opposition ticket, but you added in the mention of electoral fraud - this is a serious allegation to be making without a source
  • "the Left Focus aligned company First Preference Elections, run by Greens activist Stephen Luntz." - source?
  • you removed all mention of the property deal, which was the entire reason MUSU collapsed (or at least was what The Age, the Herald Sun, and all the rest of the media attributed it to), and blamed it on the Socialist Left
  • the final paragraph about VSU is written with a clear bias - the information there is useful, for once, but it is written with a definite anti-MUSU slant

Every single edit you made to the article was either biased, incorrect, or plain defamatory. Ambi 10:29, 16 July 2005 (UTC)


Ah. Mr AngryTeddy. Interesting. Please don't use wikipedia for political games will you? It's impolite. Have a nice day! Kim Bruning 10:59, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] unsourced assertions

  • Critics argue they ought to be currently focused on providing the services they are legally obliged to provide.
  • Many of these operations lose considerable sums of money, particular one called the U-Bar, a bar which lost $10,000 per trading week until it was closed in 2002. An internal union report credited the losses to staff theft and excessive staff rostering.
  • It is estimated that as much as $1 million per annum is stolen from the Union by its management and left-wing officials.
  • Frequently Socialist Left aligned candidates form close association withe extreme left candidates, including carnal relations.
  • It is understood as few as 5% of students would voluntarily join a left-wing dominated union, even with a drastically reduced fee.
  • On February 6, 2004 the Union was placed into liquidation at the request of students aligned with the Socialist Left by the Supreme Court of Victoria.

What are the sources for these assertions? -Willmcw 09:51, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

They're not the only problems with that version - see above for a more complete list. However, the issue appears to be moot for the moment - while AngryTeddy continues to create a new account every day and pretend they're different people (as confirmed by IP evidence), the socks can be shot on sight. If he decides to play by the rules and stick to one account, then we can revisit this issue. Ambi 12:47, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Source?

  • Of the $12 million budget of the student union, less than $1 million goes towards the funding of Union Departments, which includes funding Farrago, the Women's Department and the Queer Department. In 2005, this also includes funds set aside for possible payment for NUS affiliation fees.

If this page is biased, no-one will take it seriously. - 210.49.162.195 11:55, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

There are publically available budget papers for MUSU in Union House with this information.Theusualsuspect 22:32, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Erm, anon - what is surprising about this? Frankly, I'm surprised that the total is this high - if this is the case, the departments get a quite larger portion than those at ANU. Ambi 23:39, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
The Union Departments include funding for Farrago, the Academic Advice Unit, Clubs and Socities, and the staff costs relating to them. ANU is a very small uni, so I'm not surprised that the ratio is different.Theusualsuspect 00:31, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] More work still needed

Well done on the efforts to lift this article! I've just done some edits to (a) remove perceived bias and (2) reword the current activities so they are representative of 2005's activities.

But some points...

[edit] Budget

If mention is going to be made of money, which I think is a good idea, it needs to be in terms other than "Over 70% of money is spent on student services!" and "Less than $1m is spent on controversial elements!" A simple breakdown - maybe even a table - would be a much better way to say how the union spends its money.

[edit] Names at the bottom

People have limited time, but the list of office bearers really needs improving.

First, it should be split in some way, e.g., the executive and others. It's too wide at the moment.

Second, the use of question marks in this 2005's entries is pretty poor - but worst of all is the reference to the Activities Officer as "Steelo"! Anyone who can figure out this guy's real name really needs to add it. El T 05:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Apparently he'd changed his name by deed poll, or so the editor who added it said, IIRC. I completely wouldn't object to getting rid of the officebearers section completely. Listing approximately seventeen new names every year doesn't really scale to an organisation with as long a history as MUSU. Ambi 06:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Good point about the longevity of the union. I think current office holders' names are probably worth having, and so too the names of those of the first executive back in 1868 or whenever it was. But all intervening ones are probably too much; anyone who wants them all should probably put them into a separate page, which this one can then link to.
(And if that guy really has deed polled into "Steelo", then I can only sigh in despair.) El T 15:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
A list of former presidents would be worth having. There is a list somewhere online, I think. Theusualsuspect 08:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External POV links

DarrenRay has asked for a pointer to guidance on the use of clearly (and admittedly) biased external links. Points 3 and 4 of Wikipedia:External links are relevant here.

3 On articles with multiple Points of View, a link to sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link. The number of links dedicated to one POV should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other. One should attempt to add comments to these links informing the reader of their point of view. If one point of view dominates informed opinion, that should be represented first.
4 Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article. Ideally this content should be integrated into the Wikipedia article, then the link would remain as a reference.

See also point 9 in "links to normally void":

9 A website that you own or maintain (unless it is the official site of the subject of the article). If it is relevant and informative, mention it as a possible link on the talk page and wait for someone else to include it, or include the information directly in the article.

However, point 1 in the same section could lean towards including it, if the article really includes "multiple points of view", in which case, we should probably have links representing the other points of view.

Does that help you at all? Stevage 23:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes thank you. Clearly the site is relevant, hardly dominates the article. If there was a site with the counter point of view, I'd be happy to link to it but I don't think there is one unless we can include links to blogs. DarrenRay 23:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Heh, I think you're misinterpreting the guidelines. The idea is for the range of POV links (if necessary) to be balanced. Having only one is obviously not balanced - and not being able to find an opposing one is hardly an excuse! As to linking to blogs - well, yes, you can link to blogs. With respect, isn't musulies.com effectively a blog? In any case, it's your website, so according to that other guideline (#9), it's probably better you didn't put it there. I'll leave it up to your demonstration of good faith whether you remove it or not. Just remember, we're here to write a neutral, balanced encyclopadia. Stevage 23:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I've encouraged Darren to consider compiling a range of links before he adds in his own again - he has made an effort to do so [1], which is a good start. I'm happy for Darren's link to stay, alongside other links - [2] fairly prominent Crikey story on the liquidation might be linked (it is already linked inline, a references section could well be compiled so that this is shown at the bottom), or perhaps piece in Green Left Weekly. There's also media stories such as one in The Age which could be linked to. --bainer (talk) 09:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Green Left Weekly? I don't think so, unless there's a desperate need to resort to comedic material. I also object to Crikey being considered a credible source of anything. DarrenRay 09:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Careful, Crikey might have the same to say about your blog :) Anyway, we now have two opposing views, which is good. A third, neutral article would be even better. Note that I've moved both links to the relevant section, as they only refer to the liquidation. Maybe we should make an article just on that event? It's certainly notable. Stevage 13:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Whoops, I take that back, the MU link isn't even relevant. Anyone have a better one? Should contain a criticism at least as impassioned as DR's defence :) Stevage 13:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unnecessary revert

Darren, you removed this text:

, after a series of highly publicised controversies involving an undisclosed property deal,

citing "the property deal was disclosed, debated, analysed and approved, please leave out the "POV" where possible"

I'll assume you have the best intentions here, but reverting in this manner is impolite. The reason for the liquidation is obviously relevant to this paragraph. So what reason would you give, in a NPOV way? Why not just add "allegedly" to "undisclosed", if that is your concern? Or do you not think the liquidation was in any way related to highly publicised controversies about the property deal? Please explain what aspect of that sentence is not neutral. Thanks. Stevage 12:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The liquidation was related to internal political manoeuvres at the Union and the University, a fact never seriously disputed by anyone involved. That's my opinion.

Your opinion seems to be The Age caused it all.

I'd rather leave both opinions out of it, in the interests of a neutral exposition on the events. Your assertion that the property deal was undisclosed is 1) false, 2) not greatly relevant and 3) your opinion. Adding the word "alleged" to a nonsense claim hardly improves matters. DarrenRay 12:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you need to read up a little more on how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia:Verifiability is the most important one. "Your opinion" that the liquidation was due to "internal political manoeuvres" is unverifiable (unless there is a reliable source). A hypothetical Age story stating that the liquidation was triggered by the property deal would be verifiable, and thus should be included. "Neutrality" does not mean avoiding stating viewpoints - particularly predominating ones. It means stating them in balance, and with justification. I believe there is a widely held belief that the property deal triggered the liquidation. I'll refrain from adding anything until I have the time to get a source though.
This sentence that we have now "In February 2004it was placed into liquidation after a resolution of its Executive Committee supported by members of the Socialist Left faction of the Australian Labor Party." is extremely misleading. It seems to imply somehow that the Australian Labor Party was implicated in liquidating the Union! How bizarre.

I reiterate what I said earlier. There are probably many differents opinions about it, and none of them particularly relevant. A property deal costing nothing because it didn't proceed is hardly a trigger for a liquidation and to say so is self-evidently false. What triggered the liquidation was a vote from the Union's executive to seek a voluntary liquidation. What triggered the individual decisions of the three persons who voted for it is the territory of pure speculation in my submission. DarrenRay 14:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, publicly given reasons are all we have to go on, whether we like it or not. We may not believe Bush's reasons for going into Iraq, but we're obliged to report them. I seem to recall the VC stating publicly that the controversies surrounding the Optima deal were the reason for liquidating, taking control of the union etc. You may not personally believe that - and I'm sympathetic to you if it's not the case - but we can't rely on unpublished recollections of the events. Stevage 15:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
What facts are at issue though? Fortunately for those interested in the nitty gritty of this subject there is no limit really to informed commentary on what happened, supported by documents. I'm not interested really in speculation and nor should an encyclopedia article in my submission. The Vice Chancellor did not apply for the liquidation of the Union, an uncontested fact so I'm not really sure of the point you are making. The best way of dealing with this is to isolate what's at issue. I'm not suggesting relying on unpublished recollections of events as you characterise it. My suggestion is to isolate the facts at issue or in dispute and to work back from there. But asserting that a deal that cost the union nothing "triggered" a liquidation is not valid, on its face. The assertion that it did makes little sense, as I suspect you know. DarrenRay 16:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Given your admitted involvement in these events, anything you write is automatically suspect as POV. Perhaps confine yourself to editing parts of this article that don't relate to 2000-2004. I'm sure you are aware of a lot of the history of the 90s for example, that would be invaluable to improving this article.Theusualsuspect 07:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I welcome the extra scrutiny my editing should be exposed to on these subjects. You are an anonymous/pseudonymous user, whose involvement in the subject matter of the article is undisclosed. I would welcome you disclosing your that before seeking (outside of Wikipedia guidelines) to preclude me from editing. DarrenRay 07:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
My anomimity does not preclude me from making contributions, and it is the accuracy of this article that is under discussion. Nor does your stated identity preclude you from contributing, but it does make your contributions subject to extra scrutiny.Theusualsuspect 07:53, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Your anonymity makes it impossible for us to know that you are not actively involved with the subject matter of the article. I'm not saying you ought not contribute, I'm just pointing out the obvious issues with writing using an alias. Your contributions will be subject to extra scrutiny too, in the circumstances. DarrenRay 08:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
"Your anonymity makes it impossible for us to know that you are not actively involved with the subject matter of the article." This is nonsense - by this logic, all anonymous users could be involved in MUSU/UMSU. You however have openly declared your interests, and your first edits were blatantly POV.Theusualsuspect 08:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Your edits clearly indicate an interest and a strong bias. I have openly declared my interests, as you say. I suggest you do the same. DarrenRay 08:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Darren, again, you would do well to read up on some Wikipedia policies and guidelines before making assumptions about what acceptable behaviour is. Generally, proudly declaring one's bias and challenging others to prove that your edits are indeed biased, is not the way we work. Why? It's hard work on everyone else. Have a look at WP:NPOV and WP:AUTO for starters.

Now, to get back to more important matters, you claimed that the property deal was not a trigger for the liquidation. I'll put that matter to rest by quoting from Alan Gilbert's email to all students, dated 12/12/2003.

Earlier this week the University learned that a member of the 2003 Student Union Executive had filed an application in the Supreme Court for provisional liquidation of MUSUI. Around the same time, the University received a letter from Mr Scott Crawford, President, MUSUI indicating that the Student Union's potential liability as a result of the contract it had entered into on 27 December 2002 with Optima Property Group Pty Ltd, a contract which has been the subject of considerable media attention during this year, may be as high as $ 11 million.
Legal advice received by the University in relation to these matters indicated unequivocally that it was no longer proper for the University to endeavour to implement the new dual-structure arrangements described in my earlier letter by way of negotiated agreement with MUSUI representatives. While the objective of the new dual-structure remained desirable, the application for provisional liquidation and the threat of significant financial liability hanging over MUSUI makes it imprudent for the University to enter into agreements that might put at risk any Amenities and Services Fees or other funding paid to MUSUI pursuant to those agreements.
The application for provisional liquidation was heard in the Supreme Court this morning. The application was supported by MUSUI by a decision of its Executives. On the basis of legal advice indicating that such action was the best means of safeguarding the interests of student Amenities and Services Fees paid to MUSUI, and the interests of MUSUI staff and the University, the University also joined the proceedings and supported the application.

So, you might say that the application for liquidation by "a member of the 2003 sudent union exec" was the trigger, but clearly it wasn't the only one. Not even mentioning the property deal in the liquidation paragraph is, well, wrong. Stevage 22:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge Dean McVeigh

This guy is not notable other than via a limited connection with MUSU liquidation. Current McVeigh article is predominantly focussed on POV issues and needs to be cut down and cleaned up.

Bottom line is that even if every assertion in the article is true (although I'm not suggesting that), it still seems that this would not be noteworthy of a distinct article given the number of minor businessmen of dubious intent in the world. Garglebutt / (talk) 03:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest that it be deleted rather than added to an already polarised and overflowing article. That McVeigh is mentioned as the liquidator is more than enough. Theusualsuspect 06:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
There's just been a discussion about deleting/merging the article so I doubt we should take another vote on that. There was no consensus to do delete/merge. I would strongly oppose any merger/deletion of the article as it is clear that Dean McVeigh is sufficiently notable, and is involved as the central figure in the MUSU Liquidation, aside from his other activities. Do a search on him in the main newspaper archives and on Google etc and the issue of his notability is removed beyond doubt. DarrenRay 07:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I get more hits searching for my own name so this is not sufficient justification for notability. Unfortunately the opinion of those directly involved in legal issues has to be weighed up against those with no vested interest who are just looking for even handed articles. Garglebutt / (talk) 21:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge: Given that there was no concensus to delete, I would support a merge. The result of the AfD was no concensus to delete on the spot, it did not preclude a merge. Given the lack of concensus and the lack of improvement in the article, I would also uppot a delete vote in a 2nd AfD round.--A Y Arktos 19:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Since we don't actually need to vote on Wikipedia and the consensus from those involved in the legal action will be to keep Dean McVeigh as a separate article, while everyone else thinks it is non-notable, I have WP:BOLDly merged the relevant part of the Dean McVeigh article here and redirected Dean McVeigh here as well. The bio stuff on McVeigh is non-notable or irrelevant or POV.

Note that any revert war will be dealt with swiftly within the bounds of standard editing practices. Garglebutt / (talk) 21:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merger from MU Student Union Limited

The content of MU Student Union Limited could form a section of this article. There appears no justification for a break away article. The article was created by User:DarrenRay on 4 March.--A Y Arktos 20:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I would support a merge. It seems to be mainly used to "name" MUSUL staff members. The business itself is small enough to not be noteworthy.Theusualsuspect 22:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

No, it's quite large I think, it runs all the student services now. It is quite a separate organisation from UMSU too. DarrenRay 22:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

But entirely non-notable. At best, it too will end up being absorbed into a larger article. Resistance is futile. Garglebutt / (talk) 22:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Perhaps the articles could be named Melbourne University Services for Students to give them an umbrella title not specific to any one legal entity, as the entities have changed over time but there is some continuity in the sorts of services provided to students. The history of those entities could then be covered in a section.--A Y Arktos 23:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Agreed per the section I added below before seeing this comment. Garglebutt / (talk) 23:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Factual Error and Bias

This article has been turned into a vehicle for attacking former officers of MUSU. An anoymous/pseudonymous editor has imposed a very strong POV on the area dealing with MUSU's liquidation.

S/he has also unilaterally merged Dean McVeigh's article with a strong POV twist into this one.

This is little more than an attack page, it's a mess, it is riddled with error. Is anyone actually interested in collaborating and improving the article in a way that we can all be pleased with? Am keen to do that.

There's also the issue of whether articles about MU Student Union Ltd, University of Melbourne Student Union and Melbourne University Student Union should be merged. I don't mind about that but perhaps that should be resolved first before addressing the massive bias and error in these articles. DarrenRay 22:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, I am very keen for a factual history of the MUSU to be established on this page. There are currently several different biases competing in the article. Before we worry about removing non-NPOV material, can I suggest we first assemble all the relevant facts into the article, then worry about getting them in balance? Clearly, the examples of what each president did or didn't do have been cherrypicked to present a particular case. Let's try and correct that by adding more material, not removing it. There are also a number of unsubstantiated claims - could the UBar possibly lose $10,000 a week? It seems unlikely, and certainly needs a source. Stevage 23:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually I/me/we merged a chunk of the Dean McVeigh article without copyediting it as starting point. Since I have no knowledge around the litigation I do not presume to edit the content for factual accuracy. Garglebutt / (talk) 23:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge the lot

Ideally all these bits and pieces of articles should be merged into one article called University of Melbourne student services since they have, and will, come and go. Garglebutt / (talk) 23:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I think this article provides the most history which should make it easier to merge the other articles into this one. I will continue to be WP:BOLD. Garglebutt / (talk) 03:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I've merged MUSUL and Farrago and reworked the intro a bit. I'm inclined to think the UMSU article may be better off being separate due to its size with a stub in this one and a link to the main article. Then again the UMSU article is mostly a large chunk of history which can be deleted/merged to this article and a long vanity list of non-notable office bearers. Garglebutt / (talk) 04:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Before you get too deep into revert wars

...and so on, has anybody stopped to think "are these events and people notable"? Fellow admin User_talk:2006BC#Garglebutt_3RR immediately questioned notability of e.g. McVeigh, and so did I. I'd hate to see you folks drag each other into blocks for 3RR and other transgressions only to find that the article involved gets nominated for deletion. --kingboyk 09:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

The article survived AFD but has been POV pretty much from the start which is what some of us have been trying to address by playing down one liquidators importance, with a compromise of retaining some of the article in the MU student services article. I have no skin in this other than trying to address POV articles that are potentially libelous for WP. Garglebutt / (talk) 09:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Garglebutt, guilty of breaking the 3RR, seems to have a passion and interest in these articles that goes substantially beyond a professed concern for libel.

Those wanting to examine that should look at the highly defamatory content of the material dealing with the Liquidation. I want to the think the best of all involved in editing but I can only judge an anonymous/pseudonymous user like Garglebutt on the merits of what I see. And it's not pretty. DarrenRay 10:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Darren, please stop accusing people of being "anonymous/pseudonymous". On Wikipedia, it's like accusing people of being bipeds. We have a right (and many different reasons for it) to edit "pseudonymously", as you put it, and implying that people who do not declare a real name are trying to insert some POV is unjustified and unreasonable. See wikipedia:username. Thanks. Stevage 16:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bias and Factual Error and Clean up Required

1) This article is self-evidently a mess

It's just been merged from several different articles, and had an influx of new editors. It's a work in progress. Not beyond help. Stevage 16:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

2) There are serious issues with the title which I can't understand. At Melb Uni, University of Melbourne Student Services actually refers to a department of the University, totally separate from the student union, UMPA etc. So that won't work at all.

I agree. What's wrong with "Melbourne University Student Union", with the lead specifying that there have been various official names for effectively the same body?Stevage 16:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

3) The article is strongly biased in favour of particular political causes and the material on the MUSU Liquidation is self-evidently libellous.

Which political causes? I don't think there's only one single bias at play here. You would do well to specify the individual paragraphs, and what the exact bias is here. Unfortunately "the material on the MUSU Liquidation is self-evidently libellous." is too vague to be actionable. Stevage 16:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

4) The are too many factual errors to list here. If anyone wishes to get a Top Ten of them, I'll do it but I see little point as things stand. DarrenRay 10:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Since you have slapped tags all over the article I suggest you do make a list otherwise the tags may be removed. A number of editors have gone to some effort to create a chronological history of student services. Perhaps contributing rather than criticising would improve the article. Note that the article deliberately uses lower case for student services to avoid confusion with any particular body on campus. Garglebutt / (talk) 10:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Darren, the onus *is* on the person adding the {totallydisputed} tag to make a good faith effort to highlight the specific problems, rather than just saying it's all a mess. A top ten would be a great start. Stevage 16:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
We may need something on Optima and GTS to maintain balance on historical issues with MUSU. Garglebutt / (talk) 11:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Clearly. Anyone wishing to keep the Optima deal out of this article should be viewed with suspicion. Stevage 16:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

The article is going to need a complete rewrite, which I'd volunteer to do but I doubt you want that so until then, do not remove indicators that are certainly linked to the discussion here. DarrenRay 13:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

From experience, I can tell you that rewrites don't solve anything - they just alienate and upset the people who worked on the old article. By all means attempt one in a temporary space, but I suggest that it would be a lot more productive to fix this article. What are the specific problems that would be solved by a rewrite? POV can be fixed on a sentence-by-sentence basis, or by adding new sources or material. Stevage 16:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Feel free to create a draft for comment per the Dean McVeigh draft. Garglebutt / (talk) 21:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Top 10 list of problems with this article at present (8 March 2006)

  • User:DarrenRay offered, in relation to problems with the article at present: "If anyone wishes to get a Top Ten of them, I'll do it". I think that would be most helpful and constructive. I think a rewrite, even in a temporary space would just produce an incompatible fork and would be best avoided if at all possible.--A Y Arktos 22:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NUS?

Is the university still an affiliate of NUS since it won't have been able to pay membership dues since 2004? Garglebutt / (talk) 10:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Why is this article existing at all? It is a duplicate of the MUSU article. Ambi 22:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

The MUSU article and others have been merged together here to provide a better chronology and reduce the chaff in each individual article at the same time. Garglebutt / (talk) 22:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
This is a total mess, the University of Melbourne student services is a department of the University Administration and quite different from MUSU/UMSU/MUSUL/UMPA/Sports Union. I don't know if they need their own article each. But I do know that this title is incorrect. 2006BC 23:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DarrenRay, play nicely please

User:DarrenRay reverted two paragraphs of factual, NPOV (as far as I can tell) material with no explanation beyond the two letters "rv".

Kindly demonstrate your good faith in working towards achieving a balanced, comprehensive article on this topic by restoring the two paragrahs, or rewording them if appropriate. Thank you. Also, can I strongly recommend that you take the time to read wikipedia:civility. Insensitive behaviour such as reverting the contributions of others is unlikely to gain any sympathy towards your cause.

Regarding your other comment "please don't remove merge proposal, not up to you to do so", I removed the mergeto tag with University of Melbourne because it seemed self-evident. In fact, I seem to recall having made the original split nearly a year ago, because the University of Melbourne article was getting big, and the activities of the student union really had nothing to do with it. I'm not sure what your reasons for merging are, but anynone is within their rights to make a good-faith removal of a merge tag. If you disagree with it, fine, let's discuss it - explain why they should be removed. But can you please leave the confrontational language out of your edit summaries? Stevage 23:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Update: DarrenRay didn't take me up on my suggestion to demonstrate that his efforts on this article are in good faith, and chose not to reinstate the material he had reverted. Pity. Stevage 17:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Footnotes

I have changed the inline external links to Wikipedia footnoting. 2006BC has added a 2006 section that needs to be fleshed out and we are missing a 2005 section. Garglebutt / (talk) 06:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tags

The article is gradually improving. The title is good. It is being gradually purged of bias but until it is finished the article cannot be said to be neutral or correct. Readers should be warned.--2006BC 07:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, a warning is appropriate at this stage. DarrenRay 07:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

However neither of you have given any indication of what is specifically wrong nor made any constructive edits so bye bye tags until you complete the process of identifying your objections specifically. As very inexperienced editors I trust you will defer to the greater experience of other editors about appropriate protocols for editing regardless of the topic. Garglebutt / (talk) 07:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh and you two agreeing with each other in some charade of consensus is ridiculous. Garglebutt / (talk) 07:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Consult first and you might get a better response. Do you think the article doesn't require cleanup? I would agree in some ways that it is now less biased and has fewer mistakes. But why not ask first. Show some respect for people. You would get more respect that way. --2006BC 07:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is that when you whack tags on an article that you make constructive remarks on the talk page. This has not occurred and the only edits from you and Danny have been disruptive. Note that I am no longer pretending to assume good faith as you have made it evident with your vandalising edits on multiple articles that you have no intentions of honouring wikipedia policy and instead continue to push your POV. Garglebutt / (talk) 08:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

-- Introduction - doesn't explain what the article is about and because it's an artificial subject it probably needs it.

-- Not all the organisations are listed. There are plenty especially including historical ones

-- I would try to do more but I do not expect to get a fair hearing. I think you know your conduct - not just on your 3RR violations - is outside of the policy and rules you say I am violating. This seems very petty. And I think you should disclose your own interest in these articles so we can start to have honesty in this discussion. --2006BC 08:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

A couple of very weak comments that vaguely relate to the cleanup tag and don't have anything to do with the totallydisputed tag. Anyway, it is very apparent you have no positive contributions to make so I won't waste time responding further. Garglebutt / (talk) 08:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The Bias and Disputed tags as you call them depend on which version we're talking about. DarrenRay 08:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge with University of Melbourne

So, why exactly is this tag here? Can we get rid of it? There is no discussion on this page suggesting sucha merge, and I can't fathom why it was put there. Stevage 12:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Removed given there is no support at Talk:University of Melbourne. Garglebutt / (talk) 21:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Identification of participants in article

I see there is now a dispute over whether to have tags indicating that DarrenRay and 2006BC are people referred to in this article itself. Before removing them, have a think about why those tag templates were invented in the first place. They exist to warn people about biases that certainly exist for those users. In this case, I was not aware of who 2006BC was.

I have to say, I object to your removal of such tags with a comment "completely unnecessary", whereas you reverted my removal of a merge tag on the article, claiming I had no right. Be consistent at least, yeah? You're starting to cross the lines of acceptable behaviour on Wikipedia. Stevage 15:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV removal of information - please stop

Ok, this is getting out of hand. DarrenRay just changed this: "A draft report from auditor PWC had warned in June 2003 that a property deal the Union had entered into with Optima Property Development Group might..."

to this:

"A draft report from an accounting firm which was later revised substantially had warned in June 2003 that a property deal the Union had entered into might..."

citing "not relevant" as the edit summary. This beggars belief. How can the name of the company, with whom a highly controversial $46 million dollar deal was signed - and which is widely referred to as the "Optima property deal" (58 google hits) - not be relevant? How can the name of the auditor not be relevant? I'm loath to play conspiracy games, but what are you getting at here? What are you trying to achieve by removing the names of these two companies from the Wikipedia article? What is going on?

Looking forward to seeing this "openness to discussion" and "willingness to debate" you wrote about on my talk page. Thanks! Stevage 20:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Replacement of actual article title references with weasel words is also inappropriate and suggests a POV bias. Garglebutt / (talk) 23:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks like it's not just removal. What was this addition all about: "The Union's secretary Alex White handled the contract negotiations."? On the one hand, DarrenRay is removing the name Optima as "irrelevant", and 2006BC is adding in trivia like this? It's all very curious. Stevage 23:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

You have an interesting definition of curious. ;) Garglebutt / (talk) 23:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge from University of Melbourne Student Union

Merge history but leave the rest As I noted elsewhere, the history from the other article should probably come over here, but given it is the active body it can probably stand on its own to document the current service with a link from this article. Garglebutt / (talk) 22:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I've moved some of the leadin history from UMSU and added it into the chronology here but it needs a bit of copyediting. There is also further history around politics in the early 2000s which should come across too. Garglebutt / (talk) 10:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Renaming source article titles

DarrenRay and 2006BC, could you please stop renaming links to Age articles? It is misleading to describe a factual article entitled "Landeryou threatened me, says liquidator" as "The Age's commentary on Liquidation Examinations". The article is not a commentary, and is not about "liquidation examinations", save the following line: "In a day of legal manoeuvring, Mr Landeryou, Mr Cass and Mr Ray made an application before Justice John Coldrey in the Practice Court in a bid to stop the liquidator's examination."

I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to achieve, but it's not helpful to the Wikipedia project, so please stop it. Thanks! Stevage 23:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

What is also not helpful to the Wikipedia project is defaming people. That's what's going on here. No reasonable person could read this article and see otherwise. I don't think anyone involved (of whichever viewpoint) regards The Age as a neutral or balanced source on this subject. The article is obviously going through many changes and will continue to probably but I am going to do my best to remove the bias and error of anonymous editors and one-sided sources. --2006BC 23:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Before throwing the word "defamation" around, could you narrow down your concern to an individual paragraph or even a sentence? Defamation is taken very seriously here, so it's not an accusation that should be made lightly. Who do you think is being defamed? In what sentence? Why is that sentence defamatory?
I'm afraid that people *do* regard the Age as neutral or balanced - certainly compared to contributions made by subjects of the controversy itself, anyway :) Rather than "removing the bias", why not find better sources, if you know of any? Better that the article has 50 sources from a range of pubications, rather than just the two or three that suit you personally. Stevage 23:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
This is very sad. Every time we appear to be making progress it slips back into a farrago of propaganda. The first paragraph with breathless talk of turbulence, controversy. All tabloid journalism. Any interest in compromise seems to be vanishing. --2006BC 23:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Do you not think that 2002-4 was a turbulent time for the union? It went from being a union success story to accusations of financial mismanagement, fraud, potential bankruptcy, liquidation, and rebirth as a new structure. "turbulent" seems quite an apt word to me. I'm not sure what you think Wikipedia is, but there's nothing immediately troubling about that word to me. Can you point me to a Wikipedia policy or guideline that suggests otherwise? Stevage 23:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Again "union success story", I don't think that could ever have been used as a fair description. I probably would have laughed had I heard it at the time. Accusations of fraud and wrongdoing occur every year there. Even this year, there is some controversy over the appointment of a Greens Party official to conduct "independent elections." Every year there is a group caleld Students Against Corruption - run by whoever is in opposition. That's reality. An article that doesn't have that perspective is not fully informed.

Turbulence, controversy, any other excited words that can be in use add nothing. It is always turbulent, always controversial and may be in some ways that's the point. The liquidation was simply a political tool used by the Left to get an outcome they could not get at the ballot box. Now that's my view but when the Right try to the same stunt years from now, no doubt there'll be lefties on here saying hang on let's be fair, let's have some perspective. I'm just saying let's fast forward that and make a fair article that keeps McVeigh in context and tells the essential truth about a political dispute. If you want to call me and discuss this please do so. I'll email you my contact details. The words, the allegations etc. that I am concerned about are the ones I've tried in good faith to remove several times, please go through the edit history and you'll see what I mean. Thanks for engaging in the discussion, one day we should perhaps catch up for a beer. You can look in my eyes and see a real person, no more of a fraudster than you are who has been the victim of one big contemptible politcal stunt. Until then I hope you can see your way clear to acting with some decency on this article. That's all I ask. --2006BC 00:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rug's Galore case

The Rug's Galore case had multiple sources in the old Dean McVeigh article. It was deleted by somebody here. I suggest those responsible dig it up. --2006BC 00:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The sentence in this article provided no indication on its relevance to the MUSU liquidation so I removed it. If there is a similarity in the proceedings then of course it can be readded, with references of course. Garglebutt / (talk) 06:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I confess I don't see a huge relevance in this Rug's Galore case. Let's see, the article is about unions. Unions -> MUSU -> Liquidation -> Dean McVeigh -> Rug's Galore? But if it's keeping you happy, let's leave it there for the moment. Stevage 07:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Similarly, who added this: "The court granted the application and appointed Dean McVeigh as liquidator. He went on to spend nearly $7 million in total as Liquidator, generating nearly $2.6 million in professional fees for himself, lawyers and others." I understand you're angry about stuff, but this isn't the way to express it. It doesn't even sound remotely neutral. It's sort of like listening to an old couple tell a story, where Grandpa states the facts, and every two seconds Grandma chimes in with "oh, he was a mean old man! You know he once stole money from the Salvos!"

There are ways of including these sorts of balancing information, often headed by a "Critics have argued that...", which works well if you actually have a source. But just throwing these allegations in all over the place to try and discredit the person is tacky at best. Stevage 09:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

2006BC added that one. I've tagged with {{fact}} so we can get clarity as to where this information came from on to ensure it is in context. Garglebutt / (talk) 09:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redirects

You have numerous double redirects pointing here. It would be nice if you could fix them (and rather more productive than squabbling). --kingboyk 01:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I fixed a lot after the first move but will resist more right now given the article might move again. Where's that redirect bot when you need it? Garglebutt / (talk) 03:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The article will no doubt move again. And will probably demerge again. That's the problem with unilateral non-consultative behaviour. It rarely sticks. --2006BC 05:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Consensus, WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL. I had a look at your blog; what a load of defamatory drivel. And you whinge about imbalance on Wikipedia! I'm almost inclined to remove references to it since it is non-notable and apparently irrelevant to this article but it can stay if we get a reference to McVeigh trying to take it down. Garglebutt / (talk) 05:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I've fixed the remainder using WP:AWB. Now that is a time saving tool! Garglebutt / (talk) 10:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Creditors?

I don't understand lines like this: "The MakeMcVeighPay[6] blog is run by Benjamin Cass, a creditor of MUSU being pursued by McVeigh in connection with the affairs of the Student Union."

A creditor would be someone to whom the Union owed money. Usually, a creditor pursues the liquidator, wanting their money back. It's not the liquidator who pursues the creditor. Is this term misapplied, or is there something going on here that I don't understand? Stevage 10:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not across all the details but I believe some of the uni services were owned by some of these guys and the suggestion by McVeigh is they took more than their fair share from the student union. I'm certain someone else can provide a more accurate description. Garglebutt / (talk) 10:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
In that case, they would not be a creditor. 2006BC, do you want to clarify? Stevage 10:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I will if you like, Cass is owed money by MUSU, that's what makes him a creditor. Separately he is also being sued in a lawsuit practically no one expects to go to trial let alone succeed. Does that clarify? DarrenRay 14:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Yep, thanks. :) Stevage 16:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please use edit summaries, guys

A general request: with the frequent editing that has been going on lately, could you all please respect WP:EDIT? Particularly with so many accusations of violations of NPOV, it's critical that each edit summary is an accurate summary of the changes that were made. Otherwise everyone ends up having to check each and every edit by hand, which is pretty tiresome. Thanks. Stevage 15:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Returning officers

Recently there is more and more focus on the returning officers of the MUSU elections. Is there a reason for this? The returning officer in 2003 was relevant as there were allegations of a conflict of interest. Is there such a situation in 2006? If so, it should be spelt out, rather than just throwing the word "left" around as if it was synonomyous with "corrupt" or something. Stevage 16:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Left is not the same as corrupt. If the political associations of one returning officer company are notable then they are notable for all. Political opponents will always make allegations of a conflict of interest in this situation, whether justified or not. In Luntz's case, from what I hear about him and his (and Jamie Adam's) involvement in elections, they are more than justified. For the article though, just noting the facts neutrally should be OK. --2006BC 21:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Garglebutt's alleged defamation and error

[3] Garglebutt added some material which I have reverted.

He/she is confused about the blog being referred to so I've deleted that.

I've also deleted a false assertion about McVeigh's lawsuit. Garglebutt should not be using this page as an attack page. Referring to claims in a highly speculative lawsuit before it ever reaches trial - which it won't - is defamatory and wrong. Garglebutt is clearly trying to return to a POV edit war and that's very unfortunate. --DarrenRay 00:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I was quoting verbatim from a newspaper article. The previous info was out of context and an attempt to criticise McVeigh by making statements out of context. Let's be realistic boys, you have pending legal action against you regardless of whether the allegations end up being true or not. Removing those facts from the article is vandalism. Garglebutt / (talk) 03:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

The case brought by McVeigh against four defendants has already failed, he has settled with five others for tiny amounts. And he is running out of money with the University unwilling to kick in millions more. So the pending legal action is no more pending than that. Noting a lawsuit is fair enough, if you want the allegations and claims in there, then you must have the balancing response. But you don't want that so let's leave it out. The lawsuit was a joke, the Master said so, I think we'll leave it at that unless you want to a lot more information about this so readers aren't left with a false impression by you. Please be conscious of personal attacks and defamation in future. --2006BC 03:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

You're making a number of claims there - do you have any sources for them? So far, we have The Age on one side, and a polemical (I hope you don't mind my use of that term - permission to replace it if you like) weblog on the other. Which is more reliable? What do you mean by "the lawsuit was a joke, the Master said so"? Stevage 21:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reversion of facts

The MakeMcVeighPay blog is run by Benjamin Cass, a creditor of MUSU being pursued by McVeigh in connection with the affairs of the Student Union. Evans was also critical of the "somewhat precipitative" timing of civil court proceedings issued by McVeigh alleging conspiracy by four former union presidents and four employees of the union to defraud the union by "secret and inordinate financial advantage to friends and mentors".

This section is being repeatedly reverted by Ben Cass as defamatory despite the fact it is exactly in line with the article referenced."Landeryou threatened me, says liquidator" The absurdity of removing facts because they are critical is vandalism but I'm sick and tired of revert wars with these [refactored] editors. Garglebutt / (talk) 03:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

It is blatant POV to put one side of a highly speculative lawsuit up, why do you insist on disturbing what we'd mostly agreed. The article had settled down and now you intend to go on one last POV push. I don't know what's prompting it but I wish you read Wikipedia guidelines, you have engaged in vandalising user pages, you have violated 3RR, resorted to personal attacks calling people idiots and other names and you are pushing a strong POV in this contentious article. I wish you would really consider taking a break and stop playing these hateful games. --2006BC 03:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I would love to see the other side backed up by references but noone is adding them. That does not make the facts I've added one sided or POV. Garglebutt / (talk) 03:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
An obviously defamatory reference put in by someone with a contempt for Wikipedia policy. Nowhere does the lawsuit make any allegation of "fraud." Behind a cloak of anonymity/pseudonymity you make serious allegations of criminal conduct. This itself is a serious breach of Wikipedia policy. Stop it. DarrenRay 04:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh dear, you probably should write a letter to the editor of The Age then since that came from the article about ex union presidents making personal threats. Maybe we can have a poll for another word to describe "secret and inordinate financial advantage to friends and mentors". Garglebutt / (talk) 04:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
It should be in there. It's a sourced quote accompanied with the word "alleged." You guys can't sanitise these articles. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 04:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Sanitising is not needed. Sanity is. If you put alleged in front of a claim such as "alleged war criminal" or "alleged racist" or whatever it does not make it any less defamous. This is merely an attempt to introduce sensationalism into this article, it has no place in an encyclopedia on the subject, something that will no doubt be eventually concluded. Wikipedia strongly opposes the use of false statements that attack the reputations of people. So do I. --2006BC 05:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
It is amazing to see all these complaints about what is documented in the press with no attempt to expand or progress the facts, instead reversion of hurty remarks. Garglebutt / (talk) 11:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
DarrenRay, quite honestly the greatest contempt for Wikipedia policy has been shown by you on this article. Unjustified and unexplained reversions (WP:CIVIL), lack of edit summaries(WP:EDIT), clear violations of neutrality (WP:NPOV - deletions of relevant and NPOV material, spurious mention of office bearers' salaries). And you might as well drop this "Behind a cloak of anonymity/pseudonymity" line - it simply doesn't wash on Wikipedia. This is not some online forum for intellectual debate. This is an encyclopaedia. What counts is adding WP:Vverifiable material to substantiate an informative and neutral encyclopaedia article. See WP:NOT. Stevage 21:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
"One side of a highly speculative lawside" - if there is another side, please add that. What is a "speculative lawsuit"? Do you have a source to indicate that that lawsuit is "speculative"? Also, what do you mean by "hateful games"? To me, it looks like one or two contributors strongly attempting to "cleanse" this article while a number of others attempt to restore Wikipedia's position of neutrality. Can you be more specific? Stevage 21:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
One last objection: "why do you insist on disturbing what we'd mostly agreed. The article had settled down and now you intend to go on one last POV push." - Who is "we"? There is agreement between yourself and DarrenRay on a number of points. Other than that, I don't see anything "settled down" or "agreed" about this article at all, other than general agreement that there is general disagreement. Please try and avoid claiming consensus when there is none. Alternatively, demonstrate that there is consensus, as opposed to simply refraining from editing. Stevage 21:48, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
A speculative lawsuit is one highly unlikely to succeed at trial. Let me clarify, McVeigh sued one person for $5 million. In December last year the highly speculative, nuisance lawsuit was settled for thousands of dollars. What does that tell you? It tells me there was and is very little in the lawsuits he filed which have been criticised by one of the Court's judicial officers. An encyclopedia article won't go into judging the merits of a legal proceeding, this is why great caution should be taken. In relation to hateful games, I ask you to look at the edits of one person who has accused other editors of being idiots, corrupt, etc that's what I mean. Substantial material has been deleted about Dean McVeigh, which should be restored. And other material that leaves a totally false impression is being constantly added. I think I have done the right thing by attempting to correct the public record. What are my other alternatives ?
Purely and simply, Wikipedia is not a venue for "correcting the public record", any more that it is a place to, as you correctly put it, judge the merits of a legal proceeding. It's a place for verifiable information, not original research. If you have a source, such as a newspaper story that says that this lawsuit was "speculative", by all means include it. If the only source we have says there is a lawsuit, and you believe that it is speculative, then we say there is a lawsuit, and state only the objective facts. This isn't complicated. Stevage 21:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
The Age ran a campaign on this issue and is most certainly not a valid sole source.
Do you have a reliable source that says The Age is unreliable? I think you're clutching at straws there - it's a major newspaper, and at the moment we don'tt have any better sources to back up what you say. We should not rely on a "sole source", but relying on no sources at all is far, far worse.Stevage 21:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
For example, it made a huge issue of the appointment of GTS (a company I was involved with) being the returning officer company. It has so far made no issue of the recent appointment of Stephen Luntz's company Above Quota Elections. What's the difference? And it's safe to say it will not do so. So an article based around The Age on this issue is going to be entirely sensationalist and unfair and above all misleading. Newspapers have a job, to sell more copies.
If it made a "huge issue" out of GTS being the returning officer, it's probably because the Optima property deal was in the news anyway, and GTS being the returning officer - which concerned a lot of people - was relevant. If, as you say, Above Quota Elections is now the returning officer, and features someone who was once a member of Left Focus, then I would be inclined to also think you're comparing apples and oranges. There's a bit of a difference between the immediate former president (if I understand the chronology) acting as returning officer, and someone who was once a member of a political party. If you have a news story on this, please bring it to my attention, but I'm not convinced by your argument so far. Stevage 21:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
This means that the story McVeigh sues for $5 million is always going to be a nice story while McVeigh settles for $5000 on the quiet less than a year later is not going to be as big. There's no great conspiracy about, it's just the big number is more interesting to people. An encylopedia article should have more integrity though. --2006BC 21:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean about an encyclopaedia article having "more integrity". This is Wikipedia. It has an established set of conventions, goals, quality guidelines and so forth. The most important are verifiability, no original research, and neutrality. If you can reframe your complaint in terms of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, we might have a more meaningful discussion. Stevage 21:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page move

Whoever moved this article recently has created a zillion redirects and broken links. I hope these are gunna get fixed.

I've moved it back since this creates a substantial number of broken links which need to be fixed. Also this article is currently about student unions. I think it will get out of control if we bring organisations into it as well. Also we are having continuous issues with content so expanding the content is just going to make it even more unwieldy. Garglebutt / (talk) 11:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Happy to do the housekeeping. It's clearly a better article title don't you think? I'm not sure why it was changed initially. DarrenRay 12:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Darren, I'm not sure what title you're referring to over which other title. "Student organisations" is vague - isn't More Beer a student organisation? Or perhaps Students For Christ? I see two genuine possibilities here:
  • Melbourne University student unions (or similar name using the word "unions") to discuss the history of all the different "student unions" that have existed (MUSU, MUSUi, MUSUl etc).
  • University of Melbourne Student Union, which would focus on the current beast, but contain a history explaining how it came to be. That history would explain the previous incarnations. It would be misleading to suggest that UMSU is somehow not a continuation of or re-incarnation of MUSU.
In either case, I don't see the relevance of the postgrad assocation here. It's a different, *unrelated* organisation, and could well have its own article, if someone wanted to write it.
So, I'm not sure what your motivations are for removing the word 'union' from the title, anymore than I understand your motivations for removing "Optima" or "PWC". But if you wanted to explain them, you'd be doing us all a favour. Stevage 18:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move-protected

In a horrible abuse of admin powers I've protected the page from moves until everyone can agree on:

  1. which articles will be merged into this one (and which ones won't be merged), and as such
  2. an appropriate name for the article.

This is about the tenth different name this article has had in the past week, and not only does moving it break links but it makes it almost impossible for anyone to follow what is going on. --bainer (talk) 12:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the catch-all "organisations" works better than "unions" or the alternative which is "associations" --2006BC 12:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

The trouble is it catches a little too much. A student union has a very specific meaning. See Student unionism in Australia, for instance. A "student organisation" could be anything. If we rename it that, we will very shortly have more organisations listed which have nothing to do with MUSU. Which will then lead to the article being split up again, into UMSU/MUSU, and all the other organisations, and we'll be back where we started. Stevage 18:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I know what you're saying Stevage but the groups you refer to above are student clubs, for example Students for Christ. MUSU/UMSU/UMPA/MUSUL are student organisations not clubs. 'Organisation' is a term in common enough use in the student union industry. And while the dictionary defs of these terms are probably not very apart the way they are used by people involved offers some guidance. --2006BC 21:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that student unions were an "industry". But in any case, in what way is "organisation" a better term for a student union, than "student union" is. And why exactly is UMPA suddenly part of this article, which had previously been about MUSU? MUSU/UMSU/MUSUL are all student unions - you might even say they are the same student union. UMPA even describes itself as a student union - "UMPA is the postgraduate student union at the University of Melbourne, Australia. We provide independent support, representation and advice for postgraduates, by postgraduates."[4]. So we have 3 organisations that feature the word "union" in their name, and one describes itself as a union in its raison d'etre on its homepage.
Anyone still have an objection to renaming this page "Melbourne University student unions"? Stevage 21:39, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes I object to it being changed for the reasons stated above. Any ambiguity can be removed by creating a student clubs page. That addresses all concerns expressed. Is there much "industry" in student unions? No. I was being kind to them. --2006BC 21:55, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Student organisations This is the official term used by the University [5] statutes that create these organisations. That links reminds me of an omission which is the Melbourne University Sports Association. I'll add them in. --2006BC 22:00, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, students' union is the main article about student organisations, and in it different sections for different countries each use different terminology within that section (student union, organisation, body, government etc). --bainer (talk) 22:56, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Agree with bainer, from that article A students' union, student government, or student council is a student organization present at many colleges and universities, often with its own building on the campus, dedicated to social and organizational activities of the student body. The University statute clearly refers to them as student organisations, two use the term association, two use the term union so I don't think there's any doubt now that organisation covers both. One way around this is to demerge the article but I doubt there is much support for that now. So I am suggest sticking with organisation. --2006BC 23:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm having trouble seeing your point. You just used the term "student union" twice to describe the bodies we're discussing here, then proceed to argue logically for organisation? Your last argument is not sound either. It would be like saying "some people call them hurricanes, some people call them cyclones, but since they're both meteorological events, we'll just call them "meteorogical events"". Can I ask - *why* do you not want this article to be about the Melbourne University student union, when it's actually about the Melbourne University student union? Stevage 05:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
The official term is Student Organisations[6]. I think that settles the matter. This article is the product of merging different articles in. I didn't support the merger but I went along with it in the interests of compromise. I oppose the merger with the Dean McVeigh article, a position vindicated by the now very limited material there about him. But as for the title, student associations and student unions fall under the category of student organisations, as defined under University Statute. If you want to demerge the articles again, fine but if not this is clearly the right choice for title. --2006BC 07:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually it doesn't settle the matter. The link you give gives a chapter heading in a statutes document. By your logic:
  • This article would have to give equal parts to MUSUi, UMPAi, and the Melbourne University Sports Assocation
  • An article about the various colleges at Melbourne University would have no choice but to be called Affiliated Colleges and Other Establishments and Institutions, because that's what the statute says.
In any case, Wikipedia defines its own terms, and does not rely on "official terms". We use the terms that are the most widespread and cause the least surprise.
Do you have a real argument for using the term "student organisations"? Or even some real evidence that this is an "official term", as opposed to a term that was coined as a chapter heading in the MU statute, because they needed something that would cover both unions and the sports association?Stevage 21:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Seems obvious that organisations covers all possibilities, is the official term and reflects that half of the organisations involved are not called unions. Easily the simplest and most logical choice. DarrenRay 11:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
What brilliantly circular logic - wish I'd thought of it.
  1. 2006BC changes the name to "organisation" on the basis of a chapter heading in the UM statute
  2. I pointed out that the statute says organisations cover the sports association as well
  3. 2006BC adds sports association info to the article
  4. DarrenRay points out that since the article refers to unions and the sports association, we must call it "MU student organisations"!
Can we start again, this time making the article just about the union itself? We could even call it, you know, University of Melbourne Student Union, or something. What do you think? Stevage 14:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I think it was actually User:Ambi who changed it to organisations, after someone else had changed it to services, and then someone changed it to unions (plural) and then Benjamin changed it back to organisations which seems to work best. Is there a problem with having an article that covers all of these organisations? If so, I don't really see it.
Putting all four organisations in one article probably makes sense as I doubt they are each notable enough to merit an encyclopedia article on their own. Part of the problem with just making it UMSU is that if it is to include MUSU's history, most of MUSU's functions have ended up with MUSUL. That is one of many problems. And looking further back, before 1988, the MU SRC and the MU Union were separate organisations as well. So we're dealing with a multitude of student organisations, some of which are unions, some associations and some called councils. Sometimes with intersecting history and overlapping activities and sometimes not. All of this confusion supports the change to organisations and also supports Stevage's suggestion of starting again, as the article is still in need of a major re-write. So let's stick with the name and focus on improving the quality of the article. DarrenRay 23:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Darren, how exactly do you plan to support the contention that MUSU is not "notable", when it was the largest and most active union in Australia, and there was a period not so long ago that it was front page news of major newspapers? Perhaps you should read up a little on WP:N. Stevage 17:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually Darren Ambi he changed to Student organisations at University of Melbourne. This is a better title than Melbourne University student organisations I think. No-brainer-- must be organisations. Unions is old fashioned names. My preference is Student organisations at University of Melbourne, looks good. AChan 00:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

That's fine with me too, as long as it reflects accurately the breadth of the organisations referred to in the article, I think is the main point. DarrenRay 01:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Curiouser and curiouser. There are now three people claiming that calling an article about student unions "student organisations" is a "no-brainer". I'm inclined to just watch this for a while until I can figure out what is going on. AChan, if you have some evidence that "union" an "old-fashioned name", would you like to present it? Perhaps we should rename Student unionism in Australia as Student organisationism in Australia? Stevage 17:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grouping/merging

There have been a number of separate discussions about individual merger or split proposals, but little cohesive overall plan of what subjects we want in which articles. It seems quite reasonable that MUSUi and MUSUl should share an article, because they are basically the same body, with similar aims, representing undergraduate students, and so forth. Similarly, it seems clear to me that UMPA should not be in the same article, as it is quite clearly a separate topic. No one would ever say "well, UMPA is kind of the same thing as MUSUi". And there is plenty that could be said about both bodies, so there's no particular reason to merge them. We could well have an article on all the different bodies in general, which would summarise the smaller organisations, and link to the bigger ones.

In summary, I propose:

  • University of Melbourne Student Union
    • History of the various bodies, MUSUi, MUSUl etc
    • Dean McVeigh, to keep 2006BC happy :)
    • Discussion of the Optima deal, election controversies etc
  • Melbourne University student organisations
    • Link to and summary of University of Melbourne Student Union
    • Link to and summary of Melbourne University Sports Association, if it's notable enough to have an article dedicated to it. (probably)
    • Link to and summary of Melbourne University Postgraduate Association, if it's notable enough to have an article dedicated to it. (likewise, probably)
    • Summary of any other organisations?
  • Melbourne University Sports Association
  • Melbourne University Postgraduate Association

Comments? Stevage 17:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I personally would like to see one article, some of the organisations may not be worth having an article each. Keep them together AChan 23:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

With respect, that's not a good argument for lumping them *all* together. It's like saying, "We should make one article for all musical composers ever. Some of them aren't worth having an article each." Stevage 08:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I respect what Stevage is trying to do to unscramble the mess created in the first place by unilateral article merging and dislocation. Stevage raises the valid argument that MUSA and UMPA might not merit their own article, and equally I'd say UMSU/MUSUL/MUSUI/MUSRC/MUU might not either on their own. And that's the concern. UMSU is not really the successor to MUSU, most of its revenue and activity has gone to MUSUL. The complexity of this, the multitude of organisations I think we can deal with in this article, without having individual ones for MUSA, UMPA, MUSUI, MUSUL, UMSU, MUSA, MUSRC, MUU which would not survive a notability discussion probably. If a notorious Liquidator Dean McVeigh doesn't merit an article (an unresolved issue), I'm not sure how the defunct Melbourne University Student Representative Council could get one. DarrenRay 01:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Darren, are you deliberately muddying the waters? I quite clearly suggested putting all *undergraduate student union* bodies in one article, and putting the sports association and postgrad union elsewhere. I'm also not suggesting for a minute creating an article for the "defunct Melbourne University Student Representative Council".
I'm not sure what you're getting at with "UMSU is not really the successor to MUSU, most of its revenue and activity has gone to MUSUL." A good encyclopaedia article would clarify exactly the nature of these bodies, how the functions of MUSU split into these new bodies, what effect this has had on things, and so forth. Stevage 08:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree with your last sentence, certainly. UMSU is hardly at all the successor to MUSU, except it has elected officials. MUSUL is the much larger organisation that has most of its functions and services. Btw, it's not true to say that UMSU is just for undergraduates, it and MUSUL and MUSA provides services to postgraduates too. I agree the point is that the article should explain these distinctions, and explain the history of these organisations. I'll ignore the unconstructive questioning of good faith. The fact is I am tirelessly trying to compromise and listen and make positive suggestions, it was certainly not my idea to merge these articles, as I think you would acknowledge. I think the edit conflicts over this article are hopefully over so I just want to encourage the best article with the most logical title that can include all the official student organisations and the history of predecessor organisations too. There are eight of them, most of them not notable enough for their own article so I think we can do a good article that deals with all of them. DarrenRay 10:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I have no idea whose idea it was to merge which articles, nor is it relevant to anything. That's how Wikipedia works. Two articles can be merged today with consensus, and split again tomorrow, again with consensus. I look forward to seeing your "tirelessly trying to compromise and listen and make positive suggestions". The actual article page here has barely been touched in a week. Shall we get to work? Stevage 15:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough but it wasn't merged with consensus but quite unilaterally. Anyway, it's only relevance is that it forced us to find an appropriate title. I'm going to suggest we work out the changes here first to avoid any future edit warring. Or at least both of us good peeps out of it. Have we reached consensus about the title? DarrenRay 21:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Darren, let me help you understand. Wikipedia: Be bold explicitly disclaims the need for consensus before acting, as long as you act in good faith. If we waited to build consensus before making any change on the Wiki, it wouldn't really be a wiki anymore, and it would slow down enormously. On the other hand, some sort of basic consensus should be achieved before reverting a change. Your terms "unilaterally" and "forced" aren't really applicable at Wikipedia. "Unilateral" changes are generally quite welcome, if the end result is better. And similarly, we are never "forced" to respect decisions made by previous contributors (see Wikipedia:No binding decisions, for example). Nothing has changed at all with respect to our rights to rename, split or merge this, or any other article. Really. Stevage 09:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for that, I understand what you're saying and I think you understand my point too. A meeting of the minds. May we go on and prosper. DarrenRay 10:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Stevage - I see no objections to your proposals and there are some good editing opportunities amongst the reorg so I'd say be bold. Once the stubs are in progress we can sort out the linking mess caused by the most renaming. Garglebutt / (talk) 04:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

There are still lots of broken links and double redirects after the last page move that didn't get fixed. If we have consensus about the article titles I'll start looking at them. Garglebutt / (talk) 21:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC)