Can I ask that there be a neutral tendency or a balanced commentary to the report. Either
- no commentary about the candidates; or
- means that we let the voters read and determine themselves, and Meta is seen free of a potential for bias
- support/oppose summary for candidates.
- rather than just speaking about the reasons for opposition, that there is also a reason provided for support.
My reasoning is that providing only a negative aspect to each person focuses opinion on one thing only, which could be seen to misrepresent the candidates. Once not people appealing against an election due to an allegation of bias or misrepresentation. billinghurst sDrewth 06:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- I agree, especially with the first option. There is no need for commentary, especially if it is going to be a subjective rundown of all the oppose reasons. This is an election, not a popularity contest. riffic 21:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- Despite the potential to skew voting towards herd thinking, I found the summaries to be unbiased and useful commentary. Dhatfield 21:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Steward presences as users
I am concerned at the almost universal lack of user pages with any significant human content for the steward candidates (after much hunting through the various projects). Given their role, should stewards not be more visible as real, approachable entities on Wiki than others? Dhatfield 21:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you mean. So far as I know all stewards have a user page on Meta. Are you talking about userpages on other wikis? I assume you don't want our stewards to waste hours on end creating pages on ~750 wikis — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 05:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)