User:FT2/Article supervision

Editor note: Background and brief analysis of rationale is at the top of the talk page.

One of Wikipedia's fundamental principles is that editors assume good faith. However, under the shield of this guideline, an established group of editors can abusively dominate and control the viewpoints reflected in an article.

Article supervision (or 'supervision') is a branch of Wikipedia's dispute resolution process process that specifically addresses hostile editing environments, where there is an exceptional need for close supervision of editor conduct and policy compliance, due to entrenched article dominance, control, or abuse.

Similar to mediation, supervision takes place over a period of time. In contrast to mediation, article supervision is used where there is significant reason to doubt good faith, and to believe that progress based upon appropriate use of policies and guidelines will remain stalled unless actively enforced.

Further links:

• Request supervision for an article
• Supervisor nominations (appointment, removal, and current and past supervisors)

What is article supervision

Article supervision is a dispute resolution process suited to hostile editorial environments. Articles under supervision are overseen by one or more experienced editors who act as supervisors and monitor both conduct and policy compliance.

Article supervision is used in situations where viewpoints are possibly being established and maintained by one or more editors using 'stonewalling', tendentious editing, strong suspicion of puppetry, incivility, misrepresentation, or gaming.

Under article supervision, compliance with Wikipedia policies and guidlines is strictly enforced. Good editorship is supported, but any substandard editorship or disruptive editing will result in a rapid warning and escalating short term blocks. Supervision effectively creates an untenable environment for editors who are unable or unwilling to comply with established policies and guidelines and community expectations.

Article supervision typically lasts no longer than two months.

Effects of supervision

Supervision adds the following changes to an article's editing approach:

1. The leash, for policy-breaching conduct, is much shorter. Policy-based editing is enforced by means of (zero to two) warnings, and/or short-term (but escalating) blocks of 24 - 48 hours upwards, to encourage editors to find such approaches unprofitable.
2. Tendentious editing or other maneuvers that are not directly constructive to debate will result in warning and/or short-term escalating blocks.

   (This includes a tighter rein on features commonly found in edit wars, such as persistent use of unhelpful reverts, deletions, insertions, incivility, straw man and spurious arguments, rhetoric or bare assertation rather than discussion, evasion or dancing around direct questions, contested edits lacking evidence of balance or cites, unhelpful edit summaries, repeated borderline or unhelpful behavior which would usually escape sanctioning, and the like. It also includes supervisors' judgement as to constructive/good faith editing and problematic/bad faith editing, and the former - whoever engages in it - being given more leeway than the latter.)

3. Debates between editors may be supervised. When a 'debate', 'decision', or 'vote' taken, does not in fact address the legitimate concerns of other editors, or is not policy and guideline compliant, any 'decision' will be reverted and editors will be directed to restart the 'debate', 'decision' or 'vote' in a manner which does address the concerns. Editors perceived to be stonewalling or be unconstructively blocking policy-based discussing, will be subject to warning and/or escalating short-term blocks.
4. Balance and undue weight may be checked. Supervisors may check as they see fit for a fair balance, or that a notable view is appropriately included (or minority view appropriately marginalized), and ask editors to present their evidence and reasonings for, and against, such views, for discussion.
5. Appropriate use of cites will be checked to ensure that they are not selective, that they represent their sources, etc. Gaming or cherry picking quotes which misrepresent the source, will be subject to warning and/or escalating blocks.
6. Wikipedia is not a battleground, a place for advocacy, or a place for gaming the system. Wikipedia is a neutral, verifiable, communally run encyclopedia and that's the goal of editing. Editors who don't "get this" will probably face a warning and/or escalating short-term blocks.
7. If the editorial community, for the article, appears to be incapable of a level field, or the editing environment is not a productive and positive one, then steps will be taken to rectify this.
8. If full protection is in place, a strategy of "reduce protection and address unhelpful editing patterns" is usually invoked after a time, when IP vandalism is not an issue; supervision seeks to allow editing to resume on stalled articles.
9. To prevent long-term dependence, supervision typically lasts for a maximum of 2 months (shorter timeframes are preferred). It ends by decision of the supervisors (at their own choice or in discussion with editors) or of the arbitration committee. Subsequent supervision requests for the same article will be considered on a case-by-case basis. Repeat cases, where it is established that one group is consistently thwarting the process will be referred directly to arbcom.
10. Supervisors may choose to ban an editor from an article or group of articles for a short time rather than blocking that editor. However, such bans may be enforced by block against editors who defy them.

Preliminary acceptance of a case is an indication that all the requirements for supervision have been met at that time. Cases are not assigned to supervisors; each supervisor is granted free reign to help with cases at his or her discretion.

Requesting supervision

Before requesting supervision, articles or discussions will typically have reached an entrenched non-policy compliant position, due to persistent conduct of a dominant clique of editors rather than because of subject matter complexity or range of viewpoints. Supervision is likely to be appropriate if there is a sense that if gaming were prevented, the stalled discussion towards consensus articles would recover.

To request supervision, at least two editors (involved or uninvolved) must request a review of the article's talk pages and edit history, and offer a short description and evidence. The evidence should tend to show that WP:NPOV and policy based collaboration has persistently failed to be established, and is unlikely to become established, without help, and that there are long-term conduct, stonewalling, warfare or group ownership issues actively preventing this.

It should be visible in discussion that policy-based editing has been sought but is being blocked by these issues, that collaborative forms of dispute resolution such as request for comment, administrator intervention or third opinion have not resolved the issue, and that mediation has either failed or is deemed inappropriate.

Supervision should not be requested while a request for mediation covering misconduct issues is pending or in progress.

The role of supervisors

Supervision is a role requiring considerable experience and policy awareness. As well as supervising the conduct of editing on the article and its discussion page, supervisors are expected to explain and clarify Wikipedia policies, and act with good judgement in a supportive, fair manner. Supervision is therefore a form of mentorship, supporting collaborative, enjoyable editing, by both explaining policy, and removing sources of persistently disruptive behavior. To make this possible, there is a high standard of experience and balance required for supervision, and supervisors will usually have demonstrated this many times.

It is therefore stressed that although supervisors will deal with persistent disruption or policy breaches, they will not block editors just for disagreeing, or for discussing to-the-point questions in an appropriate, reasonable manner. Nor will they jump to conclusions without reasonable evidence of a problem. The supervisor of your article would much rather see you thrive, than sanction anyone on it :) They will do all they can to help well-meaning editors. However they will probably warn and summarily sanction for conduct they consider problematic, non-policy compliant editing, and other unhelpful behavior (including "refusal to get the point"), because their aim is to help get the article on track and deal with obstructions to good editorial handling, within a time-frame.

What supervision is not

Supervisors are neutral, uninvolved outsiders who have been asked to monitor, check, and ensure policy compliant editing. They will not write the articles, nor become parties to the article-writing debate beyond the extent needed to establish a good editorial environment, and address policy based issues and disruptive or unhelpful editing.

Supervisors comment to further the goals of supervision, rather than to engage in content debate. It is for editors to decide whether to accept or decline any additional suggestions, so long as good practice is followed in the decision.

As such, supervisors' primary role is supervisory and mentoring, not editorial -- to monitor and address editorial conduct that continues to fall below policy standard; all contributions should be such as to further the dispute resolution goals of supervision.

Appointment and removal of supervisors

{Description of how supervisors are appointed to an article or removed from it: - to finalize}

Article supervisor nominations contains a list of editors who can supervise articles, together with detailed approval criteria and process. This page also covers the removal process, and list of past supervisors. In summary:

• Removal - Removal of editors (either from one or more supervised articles or from the supervisors' list altogether) is by resignation, by consensus discussion and evidence of involved and uninvolved parties (usually at WP:ANI), by decision of Jimbo Wales, or by Arbcom ruling.

Review

(To add, see talk page)

Other points to note

Note: - These may be somewhat more subject to review than the main sections, above. The question of "what else needs to be said" is a work in progress.

1. Other editors and admins are absolutely encouraged to contribute in any policy-compliant way they wish, and to help the article recover from previous conduct, which should rapidly become easier under supervision. Note that both new and existing editors are equally subject to the same additional conditions (see above), and therefore new and returning editors should take care to contribute in a policy-based manner that encourages respectful positive collaboration, and should not disrupt or attempt to override the supervision.
2. Supervision is not a judgement on individuals, but a judgement on a dispute. The good or bad faith of the requestors is not a factor in deciding whether to accept a request for supervision, since if approved, supervision will impact on non-policy conduct on the article by all editors equally.
3. Supervision applies to articles, not editors, and applies to all editors whilst they are working on the supervised article(s). However the same standard may be applied to editors from these articles, if they move or edit elsewhere on Wikipedia, and an extension may be requested to cover other articles, since the aim of supervision is to enforce policy compliant editing, not to provide new forms of loophole.
4. As part of supervision, supervisors may need to seek evidence or information, in order to independently check facts for themselves, and initiate debate to obtain views on information found. They may choose to edit or improve the article and take part in debates, but must take care that any edits are appropriate and reflect a policy based approach, their conduct is always of a high standard, and that their actions as supervisors are strictly based upon conduct and evidence, not upon a preference for a given viewpoint.
5. Supervisors are adept at assessing conduct and editing dispute issues. They may often begin by addressing some aspects and conducts before others. Arguments such as "They did worse" or "I only did it because", and other wikilawyering, carry little or no weight. Experience usually directs where they turn their attention, and how they address the conflict. The decision to direct attention to specific editors, viewpoints, edits, or issues before addressing others is a common and ordinary part of many supervisions. Editors need only respect the fact the article is under supervision, follow the spirit and practice of policies, and edit appropriately for themselves, to avoid problems.
6. A focus on the conduct or edits of one 'side' in a dispute, or focussing initially on one issue or proposal, should not be confused with editorial collaboration or editorial involvement.
7. Admins should usually not override supervisors' conduct-handling decisions (good-faith mistakes being one possible exception). Any concerns or complaints should be discussed in the first instance on the article or supervisor's talk page, and beyond that, the administrators noticeboard. In some cases requests for comments or third opinion may be relevant. Supervision is a serious step for an article that has a serious editorial problem, and a tight line on conduct is the norm.
8. Supervisors should not supervise articles in which they have been involved in major debate or controversy. In the event a supervisor believes that such an article does require supervision, the request should be deferred to another uninvolved supervisor.

(Comments, q's and discussion, on talk page)