Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2019/Candidates/Calidum

Concerns Compounding
I find it difficult to see how a candidate who hasn't responded to several valid concerns about their temperament in over a week but finds time to bicker with users with whom they have taken issue in the past would be qualified for this role. hewhoamareismyself 23:41, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Assumes bad faith happily
I don't see how a candidate who automatically assumes bad faith of regular contributors with unsubstantiated reasoning (seen at the bottom of this revision just moments ago, completely unapologetically: ) could be trusted with reasonable arbitration. Just saying. I don't get into the bureaucracy votes much, but knowing Calidum was a candidate and seeing such a blatant "you gave no indication of bad intentions but I'm going to accuse you of it" attitude that was particularly unnecessary to the discussion made me feel the need to mention this. Kingsif (talk) 00:41, 23 December 2019 (UTC)