Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Removal of advanced permissions (proposed)

Pursuant to item #5 on the Committee's agenda of 20 January ("Determine procedure for emergency rights removal "), the Committee has drafted a proposed set of procedures governing the removal of advanced permissions by the Committee.

This draft is now presented for community consultation. You can provide feedback in two ways: by participating in the straw poll below, and/or by leaving comments on the talk page. The community consultation period will continue for two weeks, until 28 February 2009; please comment by that date.

Proposal

The Arbitration Committee is responsible for identifying and responding to situations in which an account with Administrator, CheckUser, Oversight or Bureaucrat permissions ("advanced permissions" or "permissions") is harming the project. The Committee is authorized to initiate non-voluntary removal of permissions from such accounts, and may do so in an emergency, or temporarily, or permanently.

Emergency removal

An emergency exists if one or more of the following criteria is met:

1. An account appears to be obviously compromised.
2. An account appears to be intentionally and actively using advanced permissions to cause harm in a rapid or apparently planned fashion.
3. Multiple accounts are actively wheel-warring.

The procedure for emergency removal is as follows:

1. An arbitrator, on becoming aware of the emergency, will send a brief message to arbcom-l (a) stating the name of the account involved, (b) providing examples of the suspect behaviour, and (c) specifying why it needs to be dealt with under emergency provisions.
2. Any available arbitrators will respond using whatever communication medium is available, and will update the thread on arbcom-l to keep the remainder of the committee informed.
3. A request for emergency removal of advanced permissions will be made when three or more arbitrators concur that an emergency exists and that removal of permissions is required, with no dissenting opinions from other arbitrators. The arbitrators will then:
   • Directly request removal from a steward.
   • Make a formal statement on the Meta-Wiki permissions page to confirm that the request is based on (a) an emergency as defined by the Committee and (b) the authority of the Committee as defined in such emergency situations.
   • Post a notice to WP:AC/N, WP:AN, and the user's talk page, including a brief explanation of the reason for emergency removal and the names of the arbitrators who have authorized the removal.

If the account in question has multiple sets of advanced permissions, the emergency removal will apply to all of them.

The full Committee will review, as expeditiously as is practical, all emergency removals of permissions and either endorse or rescind the action. The Committee's decision will be documented on-wiki in appropriate detail to the circumstances.

Temporary removal

Advanced permissions may be removed temporarily when either (a) it seems probable that the account is compromised or (b) the account's behaviour is inconsistent with the level of trust required for its associated advanced permissions, and (c) no satisfactory explanation is forthcoming.

The purpose of the removal is protective, to prevent harm to the encyclopedia while investigations continue, and the advanced permissions will normally be reinstated once a satisfactory explanation is given or the issues are satisfactorily resolved.

The procedure for temporary removal is as follows:

1. The initiating arbitrator will (a) leave a message on the account's talk page, asking the account to contact the arbcom-l mailing list urgently by email and (b) send a similar message to the account by Wikipedia e-mail (if enabled).
2. The initiating arbitrator will then send a message to arbcom-l, stating (a) the name of the account, (b) the nature of the issue, proving examples of the contentious conduct, and (c) recommending temporary removal.
3. The Committee will then consider the appropriate course of action and set a time-scale for further discussion.
4. Removal of permissions may take place once a motion to do so has been endorsed by a majority of active arbitrators. Once the motion has passed, an arbitrator will:
   • Make a formal statement on the Meta-Wiki permissions page including (a) the text of the motion and (b) the names of arbitrators endorsing it.
   • Post a notice to WP:AC/N, WP:AN, and the user's talk page, including (a) the text of the motion and (b) the names of arbitrators endorsing it.

Permanent removal

The Arbitration Committee may permanently remove advanced permissions on various grounds. These include, but are not limited to, the grounds applying to emergency or temporary removal described above. Usually, permanent removal of permissions is appropriate when (a) permissions have been chronically misused or (b) long-term behaviour has been inconsistent with the community's expectations for trusted users.

Permanent removal of permissions may occur in two ways:

• As part of a routine arbitration process, in which case the removal will follow normal case procedures.
• As a result of an investigation carried out off-wiki for security/privacy reasons, in which case the removal will follow a procedure similar to that for temporary removal.

Appeal

Any removal of permissions may be appealed to the Arbitration Committee. Appeals must be initiated by the party whose permissions have been removed.

Straw poll

Please indicate your broad agreement or disagreement with the proposal. Extended discussion is best held on the talk page.

Support

1. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
2. Aye - with reservations for the rather loose explanation of temporary removals, no real explanation of if and when they turn into permanent removals.--Tznkai (talk) 04:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
3. Should be within the purview of ArbComs duties and responsibilities. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
4. seems satisfactory enough, but I would like any user to be able to report the possible evidence for emergency desysop or removal of rights--I'd rather not wait for an arb to stumble upon it or have to be filled in. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 04:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
5. This sounds like a good idea for Arbcom-related removal of accesses. The proposal should however fully acknowledge that in case of obvious abuse, stewards have the authority to, and should act on their own accord. -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. de-sysop/oversight/checkuser in cases of obvious ongoing abuse should be a "shoot first, ask questions later" type thing. Especially in the case of "An account appears to be intentionally and actively using advanced permissions to cause harm in a rapid or apparently planned fashion." - This should be handled by someone pointing quickly pointing a steward to the user's logs, not a little mini-conference on a mailing list. Mr.Z-man 04:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
2. Disagree due to the Emergency removal section. Grabbing a steward in cases of obvious misuse and/or hijacked accounts is a more efficient way of handling this issue than having a meeting on arbcom-l. As for the rest of the proposal (in regards to wheel-warring and long term abuse), I'm glad to see progress there. Perhaps this proposal should be split into two; one focusing on emergency measures and the other focusing on other causes for desysoping. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
3. The arbitration committee has not learned from its previous policy proposal. You do not make policy in a back room, forego consulting with the community, and then present a policy for rubber-stamping as a fait accompli. The proposal also has numerous shortcomings. Emergency desysopping is working fine with the "Bug a steward, and they decide if it's an emergency", why add more bureaucracy to the process? Finding three ArbCom members will take at least half an hour, whereas finding a steward usually takes just a few minutes. The proposal on temporary desysopping is interesting, but the proposal on regular desysopping is still toothless, and essentially no change from the status quo. Ironically (or perhaps predictably), this is also the most difficult area, where we have the most problems, and where we need the most leadership. Arbcom would do well to focus on the areas where we are in need of leadership, rather than to inject bureaucracy and red tape into the areas where we aren't. — Werdna • talk 04:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
4. Do you seriously think arbcom will actually have any say over the initial desysoping of someone gone rouge? You won't. Prodego ^talk 04:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
5. If a policy is needed here, it needs to lower the bar for desysopings in arbcom cases (that is, establish stronger expectations for admins), rather than raise the bar for emergency desysopings that are by their nature easy to make and easy to undo. I second Werdna's opinion as well. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
6. Per Rjd0060, Mr Z, Prodego... not because having policy formalised is a bad idea, but because emergencies don't have time for 3 arbs to reach consensus. If there is a true emergency as serious as the criteria given, stewards will act. Bits can be restored later, with apologies if needed. ++Lar: t/c 05:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
7. The proposal should acknowledge that in case of emergencies, stewards have full authority to remove rights, it's not the scope of Arbcom, which fundamentally is not meant to deal with it. Wheel wars is a completely different matter and is indeed within the purview of the committee, but not emergencies (it would be a temporarily removal, not an emergency removal to remove rights due to wheel war). In clear, #Emergency removal should be left out completely except wheel wars that should be moved in temporary (and I would strongly oppose to treat wheel warring as an emergency as written, but rather like in Temporary removal). Cenarium (talk) 05:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

   And in case of emergency removals the committee reviews the steward decision, as we normally do. No change needed for this. Cenarium (talk) 05:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

8. Oppose due to the "emergency removals". It's an emergency and "three arbitrators having a chat" is the fastest response we can come up with? Seriously? If it is an emergency then get someone to poke the nearest steward and we can ask questions AFTER the "emergency" is over. Ironholds (talk) 05:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
9. Oppose. Cenarium I think has the balance right. there have actually been a few occasions where there would not have been time for this. (At at one point when a Steward was not available immediately, i believe a Developer acted, reasonably enough). DGG (talk) 05:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
10. Instruction creep. >Radiant< 11:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)