Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/2015 CUOS appointments: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Roger Davies (talk | contribs) →Some stats: Community % support by candidate: reply Ched |
Courcelles (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 81:
**As a guess, perhaps because CU is seen as being more about trust in the individual than OS and therefore perhaps more people want to chime in on the trust issue. [[User:Roger Davies|<span style="color:maroon; font-variant:small-caps">'''Roger Davies'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Roger Davies|''talk'']]</sup> 17:40, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
*'''Comment'''. For me personally, I only supported those who I knew something about. My "lack" of a "vote" simply means that I don't have an impression or choice one way or another (usually because I'm not all that familiar with the candidate). Would that have the same end result as a "neutral"? (so I know for future elections). — <small><span class="nowrap" style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>[[User:Ched|Ched]]</b> : [[User_talk:Ched|<font style="color:#FFFFFF;background:#0000fa;"> ? </font>]]</span></small> 17:34, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
:*Yeah, in an election, it would be. But in this format, there's really no way for us to consider "didn't comment on that candidate" in any way. Nor would it matter in a straight election, the way neutrals don't count in ArbCom elections. [[User:Courcelles|Courcelles]] ([[User talk:Courcelles|talk]]) 17:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
| |||