Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/2015 CUOS appointments: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Some stats: Community % support by candidate: well, it's immaterial |
Courcelles (talk | contribs) →Some stats: Community % support by candidate: cmt to Risker |
||
Line 73:
:Roger, does this also include any comments submitted privately? —[[User:DoRD|DoRD]] ([[User talk:DoRD|talk]]) 14:35, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
:What DoRD said; I'm going to lay odds that a very significant portion of unsupportive comments have been submitted directly to Arbcom - that was certainly the case in the past. The fact that few are achieving "net 25 support" is immaterial to anything, because nobody's suggested to the community that that would be a factor at all in this selection process. It's kind of like comparing who would be elected to the UK Parliament under the current riding-based, first-past-the-post system with the results of a proportional-representation, slate-based system. While not quite apples and oranges, it's pretty darn close. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 15:51, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
::{{repky to|Risker}} I'm going to say a few things that inevitably come up in these things. First, there were no candidates who returned the questionnaire who were not put through to the community consultation phase. Second, I can find less than five emails that were sent to us in private. It just didn't happen this round in any "significant proportion", the vast, vast majority of comments were made in public. ANd, yeah, "net 25" here is sort of meaningless. [[User:Courcelles|Courcelles]] ([[User talk:Courcelles|talk]]) 16:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
| |||