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

Clear and obvious risk of no / low participation
300 actions in a year is way too low. We had a candidate last year who asserted participation in their ACE statement and, IIRC, did almost nothing. No promise of participation is honest - but not a risk to be taken when the attrition rate among active members is so high. Leaky caldron (talk) 10:47, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You're certainly right about the risk and I wouldn't fault anyone who opposes a candidate because of it. However, with our smoothing the way for snap elections I would suggest that the downsides aren't quite what they had been if some one steps aside (though this does nothing about someone who is inactive and doesn't step aside). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:48, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I also agree that this is insufficient basis for an assessment. Part of what makes wikipedia great is that anyone can participate and it might be time that the "occasional" user is also represented. Many users grew discouraged with the bias towards power-users and do not feel included making this a less diverse community when it was initially designed to be inclusive letting anyone participate. Instead, it creates an environment where edit-count is overly-rewarded in detriment or actual content creation or representing the values of Wikipedia, particularly the often forgotten WP:5P. Lo uk ⟟n ho  ≟ 08:06, 19 November 2019 (UTC)