Slates are specifically banned from arbcom elections. The majority of candidates who are running this year (and the past several years, for that matter) have stated they were very pro-civility. However, I'm not sure that it makes a difference, since Arbcom decisions and actions have so little impact on the project as a whole. Aside from actions against individual editors (i.e., banning or otherwise sanctioning individuals), pretty much everything else they "decide" has to be implemented by the broader community, and the committee has no way to leverage these things. Better than half the time when Arbcom asks the community to review certain things, it's ignored; discretionary sanctions are entirely based on who is willing to risk the boomerang effect of reporting someone at the DS noticeboard; and there is no apparent willingness of the community to proactively address these issues.

Again, I think you're caught in the trap of believing Arbcom has more power and authority than it really has.  

 

Risker/Anne