User talk:FT2/Article supervision/Article supervisor nominations

This discussion page is purely for discussion of the Article supervisors' list, and the criteria and process for editors wishing to supervise articles.
The general discussion page for Article supervision can be found here.

I considered adding, "Editors whose editorial conduct on Wikipedia raises concern about their fitness as supervisors, may be subject to review by the community as above."

Is this implied already? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the nature of the supervision role, I feel that a high standard of approval is appropriate. I was also wary of allowing appointment to such a role to be left entirely in the hands of a self-certifying clique.

In order to keep it simple and yet address these concerns, I've opted (as a starting point for discussion) for an approval process requiring three things from the requests:

• Consensus (and no serious objections) by existing supervisors,
• Consensus (and no serious objections) by the community, and
• A bureaucrat closing the debate and adding the conclusion (so it's visibly neutral, not self-regulating).

Does this strike a good balance of simplicity, low-to-zero creep, and appropriateness? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Following Seraphimblade's edit, I checked the section for other ambiguities, and found a few:

• Removal suggested that any grievances should go via ANI. There'll be a proper way to handle these, to not clutter up ANI and to filter out bogus requests in the first instance, so I linked to that at the start of the section.
• Clarified that admins and "similar groups" is intended to mean "higher levels of responsibility", which was ambiguous.
• Clarified the case of temporary desysopping which was overlooked. If arbcom etc haven't seen fit to remove adminship permanently, then I don't think supervision should be perm removed either. Temp removal would be disruptive. So I've provisionally set it that removal applies to perm removal only.
• Added that "involuntary removal" would include when an editor receives a long-ish block or ban. Provisionally set to 2 months as a simple test, because it's hard to see a 2 month or more removal of editing privilege being given for other than serious concerns. This wasn't allowed for.
• The expression "unless otherwise decided" was a big problem. Originally it meant "if there was an arbcom decision then unless they explicitly state..." however, resignation in face of controversy and many other circumstances don't have that kind of ruling, and it's often not clear who it is that has "decided". So I've reworded this for clarity, that if there is permanent, involuntary removal (including resignation in face of possible removal), then removal of supervision is automatic unless review considers otherwise. This leaves them free to seek review and check if they still have communal confidence in their supervision role, if they wish it.

I left out the other criteria, a general "catch all" that inability to supervize effectively could lead to removal. (For example, someone who supervized but wasn't an admin, but it turned out was unable to actually do the role for that reason). Too much like WP:CREEP to add that case in. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 07:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]