Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2016/Candidates/Calidum

My first thoughts
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)
 * 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)
 * 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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:55, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Strong 'No'
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)
 * 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 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)
 * Advice to Calidum: don't feed.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:56, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

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

Yes: Wikipedia needs to tilt the balance of power to editors, not admins
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)