This is the talk page for discussing a candidate for election to the Arbitration Committee.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Use third-level headers for new sections. Example: === Heading title ===. Unsure about the election process? Please review the election rules. Issue with inappropriate commentary or questions? Please notify an election volunteer.	Be civil No personal attacks Refrain from canvassing and harassment Discuss the election, or ask questions here
v t e Arbitration Committee Election 2016 candidate: Calidum Candidate statement Questions for the candidate Discuss this candidate

Leaning towards support; Anyone who has been trying to help with ArbCom since 2011 is likely serious.--Mr. Guye (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's also nice to have non-admins on the committee. We need someone to represent the perspectives of that key group in our community. Edge3 (talk) 18:43, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've long thought this as well. ArbCom is too admin-topheavy. While there's going to be a natural tendency for those the community trusts well enough for adminship to also be good candidates for ArbCom, there are innumerable long-term, content-creation-focused editors who do not want to be admins, sucked into a daily grind of administrative tasks, but who do have the time to set aside for deliberative, slow-moving arbitration work. While trust is involved in both roles, they're very different. Adminship is about addressing the urgent (which is often not important, just time sensitive) and the tedious (and sometimes the fragile), while arbitration is about addressing the important and the intractable. It's not a good thing for ArbCom to be 100% admins, as this introduces a pro-bureacracy, pro-enforcement, less content-editor-supportive and less learning-to-get-along institutional approach, one that has been the primary source of dissatisfaction with ArbCom.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:55, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a loose cannon editor with tendency toward drama and petty vindictiveness. ARBCOM is like the Supreme Court of Wikipedia. Calidum in such a high position would be a disaster of huge proportions, in my opinion. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 08:06, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The irony of someone who was just given a two-month timeout for harassment calling me vindictive is not lost on me. Looks like I'm about to lose the coveted somehow still allowed to edit despite being blocked ten times in two years demographic [1] demographic. Oh well. Calidum ¤

Not all harassment is harassment, and not all harassment is attributed to the actual individual perpetrating the harassment, is it, Calidum? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:20, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Advice to Calidum: don't feed.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:56, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do think we need to think of ways to encourage more non-admins to apply to the ArbCom. I understand you may have concerns with this particular candidate, but the non-admin voting bloc is a very important (and sometimes ignored) part of the community. Edge3 (talk) 00:40, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that.Halbared (talk) 10:57, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Editors are the lifeblood of Wikipedia. In recent years, the number of editors has been dropping off. This is in large part because Wikipedia is being taken over by admins, moving toward a hierarchical culture that drives off editors, particularly new ones, who thrive in a more egalitarian environment. We need a demonstration that nonadmins can win elections like this as a first step toward returning Wikipedia to an editor driven environment rather than an admin ruled environment. For this reason I've voted in favor of Calidum and against all the other candidates. Warren Dew (talk) 03:41, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]