Talk:Australian Unemployed Workers' Union

COI disclosure: I am a member of the AUWU. Zatarra86 (talk) 09:17, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

False flagging of 'neutrality', 'partisan sources', 'advertising' and 'dubious content', all by the same IP, without any attempt to substantiate claims about such things within this talk page

I have just had to revert more spontaneous, unilateral, unjustified tagging/insertion of maintenance templates on the article. The IP made no endeavour to post here to try and achieve consensus about which content he believes is not "neutral", which content he believes is "partisan", and which content in the article he believes is "advertising", or "dubious" and no attempt to articulate why he might believe so.

I believe this flagging is spurious and inappropriate, not justified under Wikipedia policy. I have reverted those actions. JayBee00 (talk) 17:47, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

This is simply false. The justification was written at 06:35, 1 September 2020 further below in the article. It is disruptive to continue posting your commentary at the top of the article and ignoring indentation as per formatting standards, and continuously removing templates without consensus having being reached as relating to the discussion is nothing more than vandalism. 200.118.112.139 (talk) 17:50, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

You sought to unilaterally insert the templates without any consensus within this talk page about doing so. And no, you clearly did not provide justification there. Inserting the templates is vandalism, and disruptive. You didn't even post about doing so before you did. And not for the first time :(

Perhaps my response is somewhat strident now, but I am feeling quite frustrated by all this. I believe these actions are totally inappropriate. JayBee00 (talk) 18:00, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Please note that consensus is not required to place a maintenance template when accompanied by discussion on the talk page - but it is generally required to remove one. With accompanied discussion it is not vandalism. If you disagree with the template you are welcome to discuss in the appropriate section on this page (rather than the top of it as new entries). 200.118.112.139 (talk) 18:34, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I note the page you are quoting from does not in fact represent Wikipedia policy, hence that statement about placing templates is invalid. If templates are placed without sufficient attempt to discuss on the talk page and articulate a basis for any of them, or if such templates are clearly opposed by other users, as is the case here, I believe it is entirely appropriate to remove them as per Wikipedia policy. It concerns me especially that literally no attempt was made to even try to specify content somehow deserving such labelling. JayBee00 (talk) 18:38, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism issues

I am concerned that there have been a large number of attempts to vandalise this article, including repeated attempts to remove legitimate NPOV sourced information and insert inaccurate and misleading statements without any NPOV notable sourcing, often without sourcing at all, and also other vandalism as well including vandalising the article name itself, and IPs inserting flags about supposed lack of neutrality or notability without attempting to argue such in "Talk". I have requested protection of this article. JayBee00 (talk) 05:33, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Whatever your other concerns might be, your description of my edits as "vandalism" is absurd and a violation of wikipedia behavioural guidelines. I'm asking that you apologise. VineFynn (talk) 02:20, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Reading other discussions here and your previous dispute with another IP, I've come to the conclusion that your concerns regarding "vandalism" specifically are unfounded. I'm not seeing bad faith edits or attempts to make the article worse.

To quote policy: "The malicious removal of encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), verifiability and no original research, is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia."

Don't be so quick to accuse others of sabotaging wikipedia unless you are ready to report them for it. It's toxic and creates a personal, unconstructive atmosphere. VineFynn (talk) 02:36, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I do apologise for my initial response to you in the edit history VineFynn - evidently you haven't been aware of the history of problematic editing with this article in recent times and I do believe you were acting in good faith, that response of mine to you was far too knee-jerk. There were issues with the IP in question and other IPs & users clearly only registering on WP to make tendentious edits on this article, replacing NPOV content with unsourced claims and claims otherwise only sourced from a YouTuber who they were clearly 'fans' of, it all did reach the point where I lodged a protection request previously, and the situation between me and the IP ended up going to ANI.

The issues occurring during the course of this overall episode have included attempts to change the title of the article without justification, frequent attempts to change the description of the subject of the article without justification, removal of content from NPOV reliable, published sources, frequent attempts to insert the same non-NPOV poorly sourced content over and over again, among other such problematic editing. At least it seems like that episode may be mostly over now, although as you'll see in the edit history of the article, there have been another couple of recent reoccurrences of the same pattern which I and another user had to revert. JayBee00 (talk) 04:01, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, that's fair enough too. Too bad about the edit warring. It gets very confusing.VineFynn (talk) 05:40, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

As the IP mentioned just wanted to chime in to reiterate that the dispute was never resolved and that my attempts at constructive editing to the article were also reverted by JayBee00 as "vandalism". As you can see from my edit history I'm not a single-issue editor. Between having my good-faith edits reverted, my commentary on this talk page deleted and attempts to seek a third opinion extinguished, all by the same user, I left it alone - however I can see that other users are facing the same issues now and having their work almost instantly removed as someone seems to have an interest in constantly monitoring the page. JayBee00's attempt to have the page protected was rejected by administrators as they determined his claims insufficient in meeting the criteria for such action. The page still has several issues which won't be resolved so long as any attempts to address them are continuously reverted. Unfortunately anyone arriving and attempting to read the discussion here will have a tough time given that said user has carved up and restructured the talk page multiple times beyond all recognition of its original chronology. 200.118.112.139 (talk) 15:12, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Clearly I am not the only one who has monitored this page on and off, nor am I the only one to have designated sections and subject headings for "Talk" content here, despite the IP seemingly implying otherwise. Since the IP has appeared again and is continuing to attempt renewed versions of some of the same dubious and unsupported claims about me that he has attempted to make previously, I should point out he sought to bring a list of claims of this nature and other claims about me to ANI some time ago, I responded to all such claims made by him there, and no other editor who viewed that page there felt his claims were worthy of consideration, as nobody else sought to engage with the IP's request, his dispute appears to have been subsequently rejected and removed by WP admins long before now, I can't even find it in the ANI archives at this point.

I believe that reasonably reflects the verdict of WP about the IP's claims to do with me as a WP user, that said dispute has been closed, that despite the IP's objection, these issues are resolved.

The reverts he now seeks to claim I have somehow wrongfully done, were reversion of the same problematic editing already reverted previously. And I am certainly not the only WP registered user to have reverted such edits on this article, the IP appears to be implying this, but anyone who views the article 'edit history' can see such an implication is untrue. No user sought to justify those edits here in "Talk", including at least two accounts having recently appeared that evidently only registered in order to attempt one single tendentious edit targeting this particular article. It seems like the IP believes those edits were appropriate on WP, and believes it is wrong for me or anybody else to be reverting such edits including the "hit and run" tendentious edits, but again as far as I can see he is presently alone in expressing this view.

The IP is the only person continuing to seek to dispute the integrity of this article and assert (never with any substantive basis provided by him) that there are somehow "several issues" with it. His repetition of the same unsupported claims does not give them any more weight. I further note multiple registered users have stated we believe the article is balanced, there are now three WP registered users who've engaged in this "Talk" page including me, who have said we believe my actions in reverting were fair and warranted, and another IP who clearly also agrees, and of the other two participants in this "Talk" page who have not, only one is sufficiently involved in WP as to have a user page as such, the other is red-linked.

Furthermore, if the IP believes that removal of Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view content from reliable, published sources within an article, insertion of non-neutral content from unreliable non-published sources, and other edits supported by nothing at all but the unsupported opinion of a user who clearly only registered on WP in order to do an WP:OR edit on one particular article, somehow are appropriate, don't constitute Wikipedia:Vandalism and that it's somehow wrong to revert these edits, including edits previously described as vandalism also by other registered users when attempted and reverted further back in this article's edit history, and described as vandalism by other registered users when the same editing was attempted previously and reverted on the Retail and Fast Food Workers Union article, then the IP stands at odds with longstanding Wikipedia policy regarding Neutral point of view content, Wikipedia:Verifiability, WP:NOR and Wikipedia:Vandalism. WP is an encyclopedia (Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia). What it is not (Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not) is an anarchy, a forum for free speech or otherwise a vehicle for anyone's opinions, it has a clear "no original research" (Wikipedia:No original research) policy, and its decision-making process is based on consensus, not unilateral spontaneous decisions by any individual. JayBee00 (talk) 17:15, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Other discussion

A maintenance template was inserted within the article by an IP without any prior explanation being made about this template being inserted within "Talk", and without any other user supporting this as such, therefore not appropriate to do so, so I removed the template as per Wikipedia policy as detailed on the Maintenance template removal page, since there was no clear basis for the template challenging article neutrality and no explanation given. The IP has subsequently sought to lodge a request for discussion about "neutrality of article, edits and potential edit-warring", reliant heavily on claims which are actually contrary to fact as I have stated further below in my replies to the IP. I believe insufficient basis has been provided by the IP to justify that request, I believe that discussion has run its course and consensus isn't going to be reached, the IP has stated he does not wish to prolong what he describes as being unproductive debate, I also believe further discussion in that regard is not likely to be helpful. Therefore as per Wikipedia policy described on the Request for comment page, and as the only active Wikipedia registered user here for a few days now, I have removed the {{rfc}} template within this "Talk" page. JayBee00 (talk) 08:05, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Furthermore, the only source claiming "Australian Unemployed Workers' Union" membership (as opposed to the number of people who are AUWU officials hence members of the incorporated association which funds the union) is somehow only 42, is the same non-NPOV and non-credible source, info from which was already removed from the page previously. Hence that assertion about membership numbers has no credible basis, and the membership number has been reverted back to 16,000, the number reported by NPOV credible media outlets in Australia as being the total of AUWU membership. JayBee00 (talk) 16:11, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

The source is the actual registration listing for the Incorporated Associations Register from the State Government of Victoria. You have said in your edits that it's wrong because those are 42 "officeholders" but that's simply not true. There are not even 42 offices that can be held in the AUWU, and many other unions on the register including highly specific ones like the 'Melbourne Poets Union' list having 138 members. 200.118.112.139 (talk) 17:56, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

The IP has no basis for this new claim of theirs about how many official positions exist within the AUWU, and has not attempted to substantiate that claim in any form, nor has attempted to support the claim that the registration listing he links actually constitutes total AUWU membership, any more than, for instance, the same registration listing for the Retail and Fast Food Workers' Union Incorporated Association is applicable to total membership of the "Retail and Fast Food Workers' Union", it also is not, and nobody has attempted to insert such an assertion on the RAFFWU page. Multiple credible, reliable NPOV major media sources have stated AUWU membership as being approx 16,000, Therefore that number remains in the text of the "History and Membership" section together with solid credible NPOV sourcing (News.com.au and also Pedestrian.tv). JayBee00 (talk) 10:11, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry but there is clear supporting evidence and substantiation in my comment above, with direct references to multiple registry entries as proof. If you refuse to see that then I suspect you are pursuing an agenda on behalf of the subject of the page. The RAFFWU does have a registered member count on the Victorian Incorporated Associations Register as 1401 members. Do you believe that the RAFFWU has 1401 officeholders? No, because that is in fact the actual registered member count as required to be filed by Victorian state law. In equal measure the AUWU has 42 members registered. There is no credible evidence that they have '16000 members' anywhere apart from their website, and referring to media coverage that is directly referring to the claim on their own website is not evidence either. 200.118.112.139 (talk) 12:55, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Issue of unsupported and repetitious claims by an IP, seeking to dispute the validity of NPOV reliable, published sources and content from these as used in the article, despite clear Wikipedia policy about NPOV, reliable published sources

The IP now appears to be essentially repeating his previous claim still without substantiation, while also apparently disputing the validity of NPOV reliable, published sources and content derived from them, sources which clearly state AUWU has approx. 16,000 members, seeking to deny that this constitutes credible evidence, as it clearly does per Wikipedia policy, and making a further claim also without evidence about where those media sources got their information, plus a groundless ad hominem claim about me. Simply saying you've proven something doesn't substitute for doing so. Attempting to deny that NPOV reliable, published sources constitute credible evidence is pointless. There is no evidence AUWU somehow only has "42 members" aside from comments in a very obviously non-NPOV YouTube video - from a YouTuber who describes himself as a comedian, mind you, not a journalist - about what he wishes to believe that Victorian Incorporated Associations Register link represents. That YouTube video is clearly a completely unreliable and inappropriate source for any Wikipedia content. JayBee00 (talk) 13:05, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Again, I have repeatedly substantiated the claim with the official registration of the organisation as every other union in the country has on their own respective registrations. Anybody reading my comment above will plainly see this. You can deny the official government record and registration of this organisation (that is the clear and objective evidence here) all you like but that is the best and most reliable data that is available to the public. I have no idea what Youtube video you're referring to - it sounds like you have a personal angle here that shouldn't form part of NPOV Wikipedia curation. Further, your blatant misrepresentations of the 42 member figure in your edits contravene the policy of this website. It is not an 'ad hominem' to point out that your contribution history being solely made up of edits to this one topic are cause for concern in relation to Wikipedia's Single-purpose account policy, suggesting some degree of advocacy or a conflict of interest. As I have already presented credible evidence in support of my argument I no longer see any use in continuing this back-and-forth, and will leave the discussion open to other users. 200.118.112.139 (talk) 01:21, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Credible evidence has not been provided, only repetition of claims asserted without sufficient evidence to support them, and those claims have been answered by me. I do not believe it is in any way coincidental that IPs and certain user accounts have sought to insert statements contrary to fact as verifiable by NPOV media sources and to wrongly remove NPOV sourced content to that effect from the article since the publishing of that YouTube video, the only person to have made such statements asserting 42 as a membership number is the YouTuber in question. I do not believe stating this in any way misrepresents anything, that figure stems from assertions made by a non-credible non-NPOV source. The insertion of such content into the article is contrary to Wikipedia policy, my pointing this out is not. The fact I disagree with claims made by this IP, and am a relatively new user, that my first actions on Wikipedia have been undoing outright vandalism of this article in recent days (including even attempts to vandalise the name of the article itself) does not amount to any credible basis to claim I have a "personal angle", or that I am somehow a "single purpose user", any more than the persistence of the IP about this whole subject could justify such implications, now even seeking to deny me the right to participate in Wikipedia purely because I do not agree with them. I should also point out these claims are coming from somebody via an IP who is not a registered user of Wikipedia. I believe no credible dispute exists about my rights as a Wikipedia user and no argument for flagging neutrality of the article exists. JayBee00 (talk) 05:56, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I repeat for the umpteenth time that the credible evidence for the 42 member claim is the official registration of the organisation by the Victorian Government. I do not know what you keep referring to in relation to Youtube. At no point have I 'sought to deny you the right to participate in Wikipedia', this is merely a dispute about the standards of the article in question, aside from me taking issue with you deleting my comments on this talk page. I note that I have made a grand total of 2 edits to the article (3 if you include me undoing one of those) and I'm simply trying to resolve the dispute here. 200.118.112.139 (talk) 06:04, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Seeking to challenge the validity of my account as per Wikipedia policy certainly appears to be an attempt to challenge my rights as a registered Wikipedia user, and once again I point out that a) repetition of a claim does not add any weight to said claim, b) claims made are coming from an IP, not a registered user of Wikipedia. I believe no credible dispute exists. JayBee00 (talk) 06:09, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Other discussion

Just to follow-up as JayBee00 seems to be going back to edit his original comments to disrupt the logical flow of the conversation from an outsider's perspective; claims that "IPs falsely inserting flags about supposed lack of neutrality or notability without even seeking to raise any issue here first" are unfounded as I clearly wrote my concerns about neutrality days ago in the talk article below. 200.118.112.139 (talk) 05:44, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I have not sought to disrupt the logical flow of the conversation, I have not intended to change the meaning of any of my posts during this conversation in any editing I have done which was purely to improve syntax, other than this edit on this response of mine here, as a not hugely experienced Wikipedia user, I have sometimes made posts without being able to word them as I thought best. I unfortunately did make some posts otherwise here without having included all the information on them which was necessary so acted to fix that. I responded to the IP about this issue of neutrality, what he referred to as the article somehow being "totally off-balance", days ago as anyone can see for themselves, I responded to the claim in question and he did not seek to further argue this issue, he has still not provided any further basis to argue this issue. I believe no credible dispute exists. JayBee00 (talk) 07:44, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

If any real concern is raised about this page, I'm more than willing to add info from the range of news articles from major media sources over time reporting the activities of AUWU if need be, I'm sure others are also more than prepared to do so. The only attempt to dispute notability and/or balance, comes from a user who has wrongly added reference to unsubstantiated non-NPOV comments made by somebody during their YouTube video (hardly "a better quality of cited sources", in the words of said user), into the article, and there appears general consensus otherwise that such comments definitively do not constitute a "credible source". I note nobody else has sought to dispute notability or balance in the three years since this article was published. Clearly that user's claims about either notability or balance are invalid. Moreover, circumstances make it arguable such claims stem from a bias against AUWU. As far as I can see, no real dispute exists. JayBee00 (talk) 12:40, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

I notice no credible source, let alone a credible NPOV source has ever been referenced disputing description of AUWU as a union, while numerous references exist easily available from many credible major media sources describing AUWU thus. Hence I believe there is no basis for Locochoko to challenge this description. I would also point out Sally McManus has a long-established personal animus against unions not affiliated with either Australian Council of Trade Unions or Australian Labor Party, seeking to deny their legitimacy. She's previously implied on Facebook that Retail and Fast Food Workers Union somehow isn't a "real" union, an implication also easily proven false. I saw her make such comments directly on the day in question. Many Australians believe, with strong justification, based on a massive body of media reportage, that Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees' Association is not a real union, due to their manifest failure to genuinely represent those who believe they are SDA members, having been successfully sued not long ago owing to said failure. I doubt Locochoko is calling for removal of either of those articles, clearly rather selectively applying such an intepretation of "notability" and "union" to AUWU. Meanwhile AUWU has a sizeable public profile, easily proven to be so, and its activities widely reported throughout Australian major news media over an extensive period as such, where, again, AUWU is recognised as a union. Aside from other trade unions who certainly also recognise AUWU as a union. JayBee00 (talk) 12:24, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

As mentioned on the talk page previously, this page was written by a member of the AUWU. Most of the references are from their website. The entirety of their membership is only 42 people, they don’t seem to have really achieved anything (happy to stand corrected on this), and Sally McManus declared on Twitter that they’re not a union. I don’t think Lee Rhiannon once saying she gave them $300 necessarily means that they pass the notability test. If this organisation somehow does pass the test, this article needs to be far more balanced and have a better quality of cited sources. Locochoko (talk) 03:46, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Take your pick. https://www.google.com/search?q=auwu&safe=off&rlz=1CDGOYI_enAU887AU891&hl=en-GB&sxsrf=ALeKk02mq1rs1LxzctbfqaPCjWpjwH_rUw:1598591682237&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjA_PCKkr3rAhWQSH0KHdIbCVkQ_AUoAXoECBYQAw&biw=1269&bih=2219&dpr=3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:D059:9A00:C18C:B31C:3B64:673D (talk) 05:16, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Please try making a good contribution to Wikipedia articles instead of adding google search links. Many people work hard on maintaining article standards. Cheers. Locochoko (talk) 07:49, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the page is totally off-balance and appears to be nothing more than an advertisement for the organisation itself. The majority of the sources are just links to their own webpage, and there's no credible evidence anywhere apart from media reporting on their on website that they have their stated member count. 200.118.112.139 (talk) 16:56, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Given the large body of media reportage about AUWU, if anybody considers more information from notable and NPOV sources to be necessary for balance, that's pretty easy to fix. There clearly is more than enough credible evidence corroborating AUWU's membership total as stated, two credible NPOV notable media sources are referenced now on the article confirming the stated AUWU member count, and as of now the majority of sources referenced are NPOV credible media sources, the majority of sources are no longer just links to the AUWU website, I believe that removes any reasonable basis for argument about the page somehow being off-balance. JayBee00 (talk) 19:36, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Article is written like an advertisement, relies heavily upon partisan sources and makes a dubious claim regarding membership

The article appears to rely heavily upon a mix of sources of questionable quality (pop news websites such as Pedestrian.tv and Junkee) as well as many citations linking directly back to the organisation's own website. Sections of the article read more like a brochure rather than a neutral description of the entity. The membership figure is disputed, with no reliable source confirming a '16,000 member' figure with the Incorporated Associations Register from the State Government of Victoria showing far less than this. Discussion on the talk page has not been fruitful as the official records from the Victorian Government are being rejected as not credible by single-purpose accounts. Further to this, SPAs have blanked other user comments on the talk page and attempts to place a neutrality template on the article in an effort to promote discussion and improvement of the topic have been reverted. Any outside comment on this matter and the editing activity would be much appreciated for clarification and hopefully resolution. 200.118.112.139 (talk) 06:35, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Responding to renewed attempt to make unsupported assertions denying the credibility of NPOV reliable, published media sources and content derived from them

The membership figure is not in dispute, not by any credible NPOV source, NPOV reliable, published, credible media sourcing including News.com.au clearly confirms a "16,000 member" figure, however the IP appears to be refusing to recognise News.com.au (or Pedestrian.tv) as a reliable, published credible media source, though both clearly are as per Wikipedia policy.

The IP's claims to the contary are entirely reliant on the "Incorporated Associations Register" link he refers to, and no evidence exists to support the claim that said link is applicable to the organisation that is the subject of the article, other than comments made by a YouTuber in the course of his video, a video which was clearly non-NPOV and not a reliable source. The IP has wrongly sought to assert my account is a "single-purpose account" purely because my first actions as a registered Wikpedia user during recent days have been to address what I see as being clear vandalism of this article that I have responded to, even the article name itself had been vandalised prior to my involvement.

I wrongly blanked one other comment on this talk page, by the IP, I apologise for doing so. The assertion that multiple comments on this talk page have been blanked is categorically false. The assertion that any comments by a Wikipedia user have been blanked is categorically false. The neutrality template placed on the article by the IP was done without any attempt by the IP to make any argument about article neutrality for two days prior to his actions in that regard, after I responded to the argument in question as clearly viewable by anyone here. Hence the neutrality template inserted on the article by the IP was removed under clear provisions as per Wikipedia policy referred to in the note on my edit undoing the template. JayBee00 (talk) 06:59, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

The issue has been discussed by multiple IPs and multiple users as can be seen above - the discussion being ongoing after 3 days does not mean that it has gone away. My discussion of the neutrality of the article along with another user was available to see prior to the placing of the neutrality template. Despite clear misrepresentations of the facts in the previous comment, I am unwilling to further prolong unproductive debate and will leave other responses to external comment. 200.118.112.139 (talk) 06:54, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

The issue has not been discussed by multiple IPs or multiple users. Only one IP is seeking to dispute neutrality, no other Wikipedia user besides me has discussed anything on this "Talk" page since August 28th except me pointing out the completely invalid and incorrect nature of claims made by the IP. The only other Wikipedia user to have been actively posting on this "Talk" page prior to now is someone who directly tried to insert material into the article sourced from a clearly non-NPOV YouTube video, assertions made with no other corroboration, from a YouTuber with a very obvious previously publicly stated agenda against AUWU, and to pass that off as somehow being a credible and appropriate source of content to include in a Wikipedia article, it very obviously is not and such action is obviously against Wikipedia policy.

No explanation was given by the IP here in "Talk" prior to his attempt to place a neutrality template on the article. No attempt was made by the IP to respond to my reply to his previous claim about neutrality back on August 30th before he sought to place a neutrality template on the article. Hence no clear basis exists for the neutrality template, no satisfactory explanation given for it by the IP, therefore it was removed by me with the appropriate note left in edit history also stating this.

The IP has not even attempted to provide any credible basis to dispute my statements that a) the membership figure is clearly backed by NPOV credible, reliable, published media sourcing; b) the validity of the IP's claims to the contrary relies heavily on comments made by a YouTuber during the course of his video making assertions without meaningful basis; c) multiple user comments have not been blanked, in fact no comments by Wikipedia users have been blanked here. Once again I believe no credible dispute exists. JayBee00 (talk) 07:26, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I have explained reasons and posted as such towards the top of this page about why the RfC inserted here earlier today by the IP was removed by me, I will further elaborate in this section of the "Talk" area also. There is nobody else who has been active in this "Talk" page for well over three days now, hence nobody else supporting a call for an RfC. Even if the IP's unilateral insertion of an RfC was justified which I believe it was not, as per Wikipedia policy, it appears perfectly permissible to end an RfC or remove an RfC manually. Quoting some excerpts from the Request for comment page about Wikipedia policy, "An RfC should last until enough comment has been received that consensus is reached, or until it is apparent it won't be.", "Someone should end it manually, as soon as it is clear the discussion has run its course.", "To end an RfC manually, remove the rfc template from the talk page."

The discussion appears conclusively ended. It was clear consensus was not reached and would not be. The IP said he did not wish to prolong debate. I also demonstrated in my other post towards the top of this page, as per referenced Wikipedia policy, that the original unilateral insertion of an RfC was not justified to begin with. In lieu of further advice from any more experienced Wikipedia user which I may seek later to ensure correctness, I believe either basis provides sufficient grounds to remove the RfC as I did. JayBee00 (talk) 14:47, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Editorial neutrality

There seems to be an effort to repeatedly delete noteworthy criticism and concerns raised about the conduct of the AUWU. I have provided several, sourced edits which appear to have been removed because they do not fit with other users' position regarding the AUWU. The only concern I have is that the neutral character that Wikipedia's body of work is being somewhat mistreated, both by people who are fans of Jordan Shanks, who has recently criticised the AUWU, and its ardent defenders.

The membership of the incorporated association is exactly 42, as stated by the official data provided by Consumer Affairs Victoria, the state governmental body that regulates associations and corporations. 42 members. This goes against their stated claim of 16,000 members, and should be treated in the same way other disputed memberships are treated. That is to say, both should be treated, or perhaps clarified with a footnote.

I have no problem believing that 16,000 are "members" in the sense that they have signed up to a mailing list, or donated money to the organisation, but to outright deny that, on paper and on the Victorian government's records, there are only 42 registered members of the AUWU is patently false.

Secondly, it is legally not a union. It is an incorporated association. This may be semantics and not affect the work that they do, this is a noteworthy and demonstratably proven legal distinction that should be made clear. This is the source of their conflict with members of the ACTU such as Sally McManus. It is important to mention.

Finally, while I did cite the Shanks video "my apology" as a primary source, this was relevant to the discussion at hand. He is the first-hand sources for the majority of accusations made. They are allegations, right or wrong, made by a public figure in a public forum. It is noteworth. As this become a widely known issue in the Australian union politics sphere, it is a noteworthy source - even if not a reliable one.

Also removed is any criticism of the AUWU, which does not give the reader of this article a clear picture as to people's concerns, right or wrong, with the AUWU.

I would also suggesting locking this article to IP edits, as it is clear that both supporters of the FriendlyJordies and AUWU have taken to vandalising the page, a phenomenon not too uncommon with online disputes.

I'm not suggesting this should be a one-sided hit piece, but work needs to be done on this article to make it a fair reflection of the AUWU's work, and of ongoing criticisms from other trade unions and the internet drama they have embroiled themselves into. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VibeMaster999 (talk • contribs) 16:17, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with locking this article to IP edits. However, it actually appears that VibeMaster999 may be suggesting that the Jordan Shanks YouTube video somehow constitutes a legitimate source for Wikipedia content. It is manifestly non-NPOV, non-credible, not a reliable, published source, and claims made within it have predominantly been made by Shanks without any corroboration at all.

Vibemaster cannot possibly seek to assert issues with editorial neutrality in the article while advocating for the inclusion of content that is completely biased. Clearly that video and comments derived from it are not a legitimate source for Wikipedia content, nor are Twitter comments, nor are Facebook comments.

Legitimate, NPOV, reliable published sources as included within the article, clearly state the AUWU has approx. 16,000 members. Opposing such sourced content is clearly against Wikipedia policy. Whether or not Vibemaster believes that something is "noteworthy", does not mean it is legitimate content that is appropriate on Wikipedia.

And frankly, there's no such thing as "legally not a union". Just because a union isn't a "registered union", does not somehow mean it isn't a union.

AUWU is also recognised as a union by multiple other trade unions, just as RAFFWU is, and there is no more basis to insert content negating the status of AUWU as a union than there is to do so in the case of RAFFWU.

There is no more basis to insert "incorporated association" or "disputed membership" content about AUWU than there is about RAFFWU, inappropriate in both cases.

If Vibemaster has any NPOV reliable, published, credible content he wishes to add to the article about criticism of AUWU, he's more than free to do so, obviously.

However, his claim that "any criticism of the AUWU" has been removed is clearly not true. Anyone who wishes to read the article can see there is some criticism of AUWU included there.JayBee00 (talk) 16:35, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

As an outsider to this article, I agree that VibeMaster999’s edits citing YouTube and Twitter were reverted with good reason. The article also does contain criticism and so, in my opinion, is balanced. AussieWikiDan (talk) 16:46, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

As can be seen from discussions above, I am in agreeance with the view that there is an issue with editorial neutrality on this article despite JayBee00's denial of such concerns taking place. I haven't been aware of or followed anything related to a Youtuber's claims, but I am drawing verifiable information regarding membership from the official government registration of this organisation. It is particularly concerning that an account disputing this appears to be a single-purpose account based on this one issue and topic, 'creating a legitimate reason for users to question whether their editing and comments appear to be: neutral; reasonably free of promotion, advocacy and personal agendas; aware of project norms; not having improper uses of an account; and aimed at building an encyclopedia'. I have made a range of constructive edits on a variety of topics on Wikipedia under this IP and have never vandalised, but I am happy to create an account if it lends confidence to my editing activity. I have not done so for now as I do not want to appear to be sock-puppeting between this IP and the new account whilst this discussion is ongoing. 200.118.112.139 (talk) 16:50, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I note there are three of us now on this "Talk" page, myself, AussieWikiDan, and another IP, who believe the article is balanced, hence no basis to dispute editorial neutrality.

I certainly agree with AussieWikiDan and the other IP about this. JayBee00 (talk) 16:55, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I find it particularly concerning that the IP appears to be repeatedly making unsupported claims about my integrity as a Wikipedia user, is repeatedly seeking to claim my account is a "single-purpose account", (and seemingly now seeking to claim my comments are somehow not "neutral", somehow contain "promotion" or "advocacy" or "personal agendas" and that I am somehow using this account "improperly") simply because I am relatively new to Wikipedia and my first actions have been to intervene about vandalism/wrongful editing of this article, and I firmly disagree with his opinions about this.

Would he be making such claims about me if I was agreeing with his claims about "neutrality" to do with this article, rather than believing those claims are without merit?

Would he be making such claims about me if I had gone along with his unilateral insertion of a neutrality template into the article? Or if I had gone along with his unilateral attempt to insert an RfC into this "Talk" page?

I have no more personal agenda to do with this article than the IP seems to have.JayBee00 (talk) 17:00, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

By that count there are also two users and myself who also dispute the neutrality of the article. Therefore it is untrue that there is 'no basis to dispute editorial neutrality'. Discussion of hypotheticals is irrelevant. 200.118.112.139 (talk) 17:43, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, also true. (And I was stating that the three of us believe there is no basis to dispute editorial neutrality) Therefore there is no consensus to support actions you have unilaterally taken such as flagging to assert the existence of non-neutral content, partisanship, advertising etc. within the article. Actions made worse due to no attempt being made to discuss and substantiate any such issues in this talk page first. In any case, no consensus.JayBee00 (talk) 18:05, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

This article really is a pigs breakfast.

It seems to be edited by Liberal party supporters to demonise the unemployed. It needs more sources that represent the pros of better representation... Even if you are unemployed... Where sometimes you need more protection than the average person. Almost all of the criticisms of the AUWU come from a Neoliberal perspective, and there is nothing in support of the traditional labor movement or the rights to labor representation which have been under greater and greater attack by successive neoliberal governments in Australia --120.22.233.191 (talk) 07:05, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

A pretty spectacular claim being made in the above comment, lacking evidence to support it.

There is no basis to dispute the neutrality of this article, there never has been, no evidence-based argument to justify it has ever been offered, and a majority of registered users here in "Talk" agree on this point. So I think it's fair for me to remove that template on the article. However, yes, in my opinion anyone wanting to add more reliably-sourced NPOV content to provide more information such as you describe would be good. If you want to do that and are able to do that, it would be very welcome as far as I'm concerned.

In point of fact except for your comment, the only others who've sought to dispute article neutrality have appeared to be right-wingers, right-wing Labor and Liberal Party types seeking to undermine advocacy for unemployed people. I've personally dealt with numerous attempts to compromise the integrity of this article by such people, almost entirely red-linked accounts or IPs by the way, trying to remove NPOV content & insert what's been invariably not even properly sourced content, often entirely unsourced content, denigrating AUWU.

And... of course criticisms of AUWU are from a neoliberal perspective, those who attack AUWU are neoliberals/neocons.

I think more content from sources positively about the AUWU and rights of unemployed people to representation, how important it is that AUWU exists, would be great, I'd encourage you to search for such content & add it to the article, as long as the content is well enough referenced, in keeping with Wikipedia policy. JayBee00 (talk) 05:09, 2 January 2021 (UTC)