Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Privatemusings

Note from the Candidate
Happy to engage in discussion about any aspect of, well.. anything, herein; Privatemusings (talk) 23:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Phew!
I think this is a great 'workout' for those who feel they may be up for wading through arb processes! - I'm up to date on questions now, and await any follow ups, or discussion here with a smile :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 04:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you support separation of powers?
Under the governance model of corporate power, only the Chief Executive Officer is empowered to enact what the remainder of a committee decides to do. This means that the executor is a vassal of the other members and will take any action, within the limits of law and reason that the other members decide. In other words, NO ARBCOM member would be a sysop. 01:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.234.170.70 (talk)

Edit Analysis
A detailed breakdown of this candidate's edits in article and Wikipedia spaces can be found here. Franamax (talk) 02:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Privatemusings's lack of understanding of the core policies of WP:V and WP:RS
After a discussion of these issues, Privatemusings entered comments on Featured article review/Augustan literature. He has also entered similar comments on the talk page of Augustan literature, Talk:Augustan literature, both places defending the article's failure to follow WP:V and WP:RS and discouraging the improvement of the article so it could retain its FA status. These comments show, in my view, that Privatemusings does not understand the Wikipedia core policies of of WP:V and WP:RS. I believe this is a fatal flaw in a candidate for the Arbitration Committee. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 17:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * apologies for not having noticed this earlier - this page seems to be a bit quieter than the other election pages - I think the chat we've had on the questions page is probably a good one to refer folk too - because we covered a bit more ground. best, Privatemusings (talk) 01:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm a little concerned by PM's dismissal of Matisse. Not so much on Matisse's demand for inline citations, which is not a big deal on an uncontentious article such as Augustan literature, but on the way that Matisse is being abused. For example, this essentially accuses Matisse of stalking, "petty revenge", and parasitism. Here Matisse is tangentially called an idiot. These are typical examples. Such editors have made many rude comments across many pages, which has created an atmosphere of unpleasantness. In my view, your failure to condemn them is not acceptable in an arbitrator. Unfortunately, I think it is clear that you will side with editors who have a history of rudeness against editors who have a history of civility because "content is king" and you will allow the "true kings of the wiki" to be as rude as they please to anyone who questions them. I'm afraid although you may be civil in your own dealings, your candidacy becomes tainted by the company you keep. DrKiernan (talk) 16:37, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Matisse here. I found PMs arguments on the FAR to be simplistic (I wonder however if it might be possible to take a little step back for a moment and just consider whether or not we think the article itself is simply wonderful - as if we are not self-aware and are just blindly following policy), and his arguments amounted to little more than a plea to let the article 'slip through' the process. It was as far as I know his first contribution to FAR, and its hard not to believe that the adventure was not politically motivated. First edit to the discussion was to a long departed and highly respected arb.. Ceoil (talk) 20:14, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll drop you a note when the whole election thing has calmed, Ceoil - but I understand and respect your point about not butting into areas politically - I think I probably shouldn't have commented at the review, despite having commented on the talk page previously, and being engaged in discussion with Mattisse - bascially it was a bit too close to the electioneering bone... your 'butterfly' comment also gives me pause for thought, because I think you're exactly right in some ways... I'll be in touch in a few weeks to see if you've got a moment for a chat... best, Privatemusings (talk) 02:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I would appreciate that PM. My honest openion is that you are a sincear person, an openion wjich is widely held, and you reply here confirms that. It would be interesting to talk to you, to be fair I think it took a lot of stones to stand. Ceoil (talk) 20:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Unwillingness to accept consensus
My interactions with this candidate have been solely through seeing with astonishment Sexual content as a proposal that was then discussed at length and consensus reached overwhelmingly against.

Wikipedia talk:Sexual content shows the consensus building. Log analysis will show that the candidate was still beating the drum in favour long after the consensus "closed" against and was logged thus on the project page. Indeed discussions were reopened again today!

I am a firm believer in consensus, even, perhaps especially, when I believe I am right and consensus says otherwise. That is the way we do things around here.

I would be deeply concerned to see an Arbcom member elected where it appears that consensus is ignored. Thus, now voting has opened, I oppose this candidate and have registered that opinion on the voting page. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * no worries, Fiddle - we've covered more ground on the proposal talk page... Privatemusings (talk) 02:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately the ground that has been covered is considerably more of your disregarding consensus. This means that your candidacy for an important role inside Wikipedia is farcical. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)