But probably since they have been featured and since voters who follow meta are likely to look at the questions tagged election, this is probably unnecessary.
@Daniil Yes, I know that. But still, it would be a useful information. (Knowing that the candidate was suspended and why that happened helps voters to form the opinion on that user.)
@MartinSleziak Actually that's not how suspensions are supposed to work. After the suspension ends, users should be allowed to be upstanding community members without their past constantly hanging over them as long as they don't repeat the bad behavior.
For a couple of years now, candidates with recent suspensions are shown a message like this when nominating:
This, coupled with the meta FAQ, should make it clear to nominees that they're not being singled out.
> A nominee must be "in good standing." Any nominee who was [suspended at any time during the past year][6] on any site in the network will not be allowed to take part in the election (unless the suspension was in error or was reversed on appeal).
@amWhy No problem. I know there has been a spread of ranks/ages in the past, but I think it is better to focus on the current team. (In particular, if there had previously been a female moderator that would not be an argument for not trying to appoint one now!)
Incidentally, is there anything we could or should do to get more females applying? Although females have applied in the past, the vast majority of candidates have been male or anonymous.
@user1729 to my knowledge there was a single woman who applied in the past. An obvious problem is that there aren't many active women (who didn't remain anonymous) on this site (including meta).
And regarding your first question, as a start, I believe nominating a woman in that thread would definitely give a boost of confidence into applying.
@Zacky Males are also sometimes anonymous, so it's not just women who choose anonymous usernames. In any case, one problem is our culture, and one's success on this site, is a huge motivation for women to remain anonymous. I still regret having declared I am a woman. I think my standing here would be much better had I not. How do we create a culture on this site, that does not, usually indirectly, undermine a woman's credibility, when she openly declares she is a woman??
2
^^^Anyone can contemplate and consider the above question. But methinks few have a ready answer, unless they don't take the question seriously. (Which is another problem: women tend not to be taken as seriously as men.)
We've had a fair number (not a lot, by any means) of women contributing, as answerers, on this site, over the years. But most don't stick around. Why is that??
@user1729, @Zacky I appreciate you both raising these questions and suggestions.
For a couple of years now, candidates with recent suspensions are shown a message like this when nominating:
This, coupled with the meta FAQ, should make it clear to nominees that they're not being singled out.
