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:
 * 4) * Directly request removal from a steward.
 * 5) * 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.
 * 6) * 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 uphold 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:
 * 5) * 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.
 * 6) * 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)
 * 6) Support I have significant issues with the proposal as written (see talk), but I don't waste my time giving detailed feedback on things I don't broadly support. And I certainly support the arbs bringing this forward.-- Birgitte  SB  04:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

 * The purpose of the discussion is to find solutions which the community support. Is the community really happy with bureaucrats, admins etc, being suspended on the say-so of one person? The emergency proposals, by the way, do not prevent anyone else from acting or make emergency desysopping Arbcom's exclusive bailiwick. They have been made to provide internal checks. Please provide alternatives on the talk page and let's see what consensus emerges. -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 23:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * 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. &mdash;  Werdna  &bull;  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. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 04:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) *I misunderstood the purpose of this proposal. If the goal is only to outline an internal procedure for emergency desysopings, the first two sections are reasonable enough. I still think that the section on Permanent Desysopings is somewhat vague and toothless, but I don't oppose the other two sections as expressions of an internal bylaw. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 14:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) 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)
 * 8) 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,  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)
 * 1) 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)
 * 2) 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)
 * Instruction creep.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  11:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) The emergency section seems particularly silly, so I'll make a bad analogy: your house is on fire, so instead of finding the nearest fireman, you e-mail Congress. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose just because it's not the Arbcom's call to emergency desysop a rogue admin. The English Wikipedia is like any other WMF project--a Steward can just do the right thing safely. I don't know if there's a value for this particular proprosal, since for **ANY** admin, up to and including Jimbo, to lose their bit temporarily in an emergency is a completely irrelevant scenario. Any admin, up to and including Jimbo **SHOULD** lose their bit for a few minutes or few hours in an emergency if the situation demands it. It's not any big deal. Instruction creep/beurocracy opposes should be discounted as no value, as the ever-growing scale of this site demands that we wear rules sometimes that aren't negotiable. But waiting for 3 arbs? Nonsense--if I or anyone else sees an admin suddenly delete the Main Page, block Jimmy, and start bot-torching pages with Delete, why should I wait? If some Steward actually refused to do something in that scenario, even if it was Anthere or Michael Snow (assuming they have Steward) I'd raise Hell twice over to make sure they were no longer Stewards for sheer incompetance. The permanent removal bit should be done through a full AC case or a motion, but in public after the +sysop is temporarily gone. rootology ( C )( T ) 17:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) As many people have mentioned above, this is needless instruction creep. If there is a possibility that an account with extra flags has been compromised, something needs to be done now (i.e. get a steward to flick the switch and de them), not after a mini-meeting.   Richard 0612  18:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Unnecessary instruction creep. &mdash; neuro  (talk)  20:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Dealing with an emergency requires a committee? That's crazy talk.  Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 21:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Determining an emergency doesn't require three people. During a true emergency, you shoot first and ask questions later. Temporary removal is unnecessarily bureaucratic. If it's actually temporary, they'll eventually get the perms back. So what's the difference if they lose them for an extra few minutes of days. Permanent removal should be the result of a request for arbitration. Appeal should be to the community not Arbcom. You don't have the same judge for both the trial and appeal. -Atmoz (talk) 21:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Pointless. We need to make it easier to remove powers, not less; any steward and member of arbcom should be able to remove any power they like from any user, provided they're willing to take the flak for it if they get the decision wrong. Why make it harder to arbcom remove checkuser/oversight from someone suspected of abusing it, than it is for an admin to block someone for writing "poopy face" on Barack Obama? Unless I'm missing something, this is pure process-for-the-sake-of-process. –  iride scent  23:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose - an emergency is an emergency. The bits can be easily restored with no drama if we've been over-cautious or there's been an error. Orderinchaos 23:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose per Lar as the Arbcom is not designed to handle emergencies. --AFBorchert (talk) 23:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose partly per Iridescent. We need more ways of removing inappropriate characters, not less, and we all know arbcom often works at a snail's pace.  I'd like to see someone unilaterally remove someone elses' powers though, that would cause a storm:)  In reality, the arbs are unlikely to remove those beloved of them, anyway, unless the account is obviously compromised. Plus, if people are acting as described in the 'temporary' section reason b. (not acting as we should expect from someone in a position of trust), I don't see why removal should be temporary, if decided upon. They should have to apply to the community again as after actions that lead to removal they may be less trusted than many other users who are prospective CUs/oversighters and have not proved untrustworthy.   Sticky   Parkin  00:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose, per Flopsy and MZMcBride. Handling an emergency by committee is something you'd see in Dilbert. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 10) I'd like to see which arbitrators thought this was a good idea. I'm having trouble imagining what thought process leads from "dealing with an emergency" to "requires the assent of three arbitrators and no dissents." Think of some other emergent situations you might encounter in life; if its your safety on the line (which, if there is privacy issues and significant risk of off-wiki danger for instance, it might be) do you want to wait for a group of deep thinkers to consider all angles? Avruch  T 01:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 11) If we didn't trust each of you to individually 1) determine a true emergency exists, 2) block admins appropriately, and 3) justify your actions after the fact, we wouldn't have made you ArbCom. Thank you very much for trying to insert safeguards into the process, but I'd rather err on the side of speed. Jclemens (talk) 07:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 12) If someone deletes the main page WP:ANI half of Category:Featured articles, then someone will very quickly flag down a steward, point at the deletion log, and the bit will be flipped. This is process for process's sake. Ditto if a crat +sysop's Grawp. Stifle (talk) 14:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose - This strikes me as a bit of instruction creep. I'm not aware of cases where our current process hasn't worked in an emergency... Stewards generally have good sense (that's why we elect them, afterall!) and know a compromised account pretty quickly.  If they call it wrong, then they apologize and give the bit back.  I don't see a pressing need to codify a new process.  Also, I think it's a bit outside the charter for the ArbComm.  This is, to put it simply, legislating - not arbitrating.  - Philippe  15:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 14) Oppose. You have got to be kidding. This is going to be used in emergencies, right? My definition of an emergency situation is something that needs to be dealt with now. Sitting around and talking about if there really is an emergency, followed by canvassing for support, and then dealing with the situation reminds me of Monty Python, and when that starts happening, something's wrong. My next point is the line between Arbitration, and policy-making: I always thought these were two different topics, so I'd be interested if someone could explain to me why ArbCom is putting forward policy proposals when there seems to be no real need for it from an arbitration point of view. Apologies if I've missed something.  Stwalkerster  [  talk  ]  01:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 15) Oppose - this doesn't accomplish anything. If an account is obviously compromised or trying to go out in a blaze of glory (deleting the main page, blocking Jimbo, etc), it doesn't take three arbiters to make that determination. --B (talk) 06:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 16) Oppose Emergency de should be done by stewards, its faster then having a discussion on the mailing list. Techman224  Talk  22:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) A clear set of processes for the removal of permissions under certain conditions is certainly required, and almost as certainly this set of proposals is premature to be presented to the community for polling upon. This should be re-introduced after the input on the talk page has come to some rough consensus of what will be supportable. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) What LessHeard said, but I still stand by my thoughts on the now-struck oppose vote. ANY policy that tries to give the AC the perceived authority to say, or even implied, "That only we can do an emergency desysop," and after doing their committee work, is not good. An emergency is an emergency. I strongly advise everyone to also read this section on the talk page here, for Misza13's idea for a frankly safe way for any administrator to rationally desysop anyone out of control in an emergency, instantly--but with a very, very strict safety valve in place automatically. Take a look. rootology  ( C )( T ) 23:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That extension is a horrible idea that will never be implemented. &mdash; Werdna  &bull;  talk  02:05, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The technical coding implementation is horrible or the idea behind it, of admins being able to temporarily shut each other down 1:1? If it's the latter, wouldn't that not be a developer matter to decide but a community one if the function has value? rootology ( C )( T ) 16:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Comment We're discussing the proposal, not just the concept, and, since I oppose the proposal, I did not move my !vote from "oppose".  I'll endorse the concept of having some sort of formal mechanism once it is proposed by itself. This particular proposal has clearly been rejected and should simply be withdrawn. I hope arb com does not go down the route of greater complexity, but of greater action.  DGG (talk) 02:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Despite my comments below, I think you are right, the community has rejected this as written. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  02:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Partial support, partial oppose:
 * Wheel-warring does not constitute an emergency unless #1 or #2 is also in play, so it's redundant. In the case of #2, all parties of the wheel-war should be looked at.
 * In extreme emergencies, "shoot first and ask questions later" may be in order, it may be sufficient for a single arbitrator to ask a steward to remove permissions. In this case there should be a very short time period before the permissions are automatically restored if there is no further action, such as 3 arbitrators agreeing with no opposes.  In most cases this will be less than a few hours.  I know this smacks of WP:PEREN, but I would also go so far as to allow any arbitrator or bureacrat to revoke another person's advanced permissions for up to 1 hour as an extreme-emergency measure.  I would prefer a "suicide" clause so that a non-steward also gave up his advanced rights for the same hour and, for bureaucrats, automatically subjected himself to further action by ARBCOM, but that's getting outside the scope of this discussion.
 * A committee-endorsed emergency removal effectively becomes a temporary removal, and should be treated as such. Please make this clear.
 * The time-scale for temporary removal should be reasonable, subject to continuances as needed. I would recommend no more than a week between each continuance.  This is to prevent "back-burnering."
 * For permanent removal, I recommend all security/privacy-related actions have some uniform formal process similar to the one for public hearings, just not public. The procedure for permanent removal should simply be "as part of a routine public arbitration process or as part of a routine private arbitration process."  The assumption is that in private cases, every reasonable effort is made to stay in touch with the person under investigation.
 * davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  02:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) I support this concept, but it needs a detailed procedure to review/confirm the removal of permissions once the emergency is over - the current wording around this is much too vague. Nick-D (talk) 03:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) And now there is a neutral section. :D (Check out my comment on the talk page)  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 19:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) While I have no particular opposition for the rules proposed. I find them utterly pointless. Are there any known instances where the current process has caused particular controversy or have shown themselves to be clearly deficient? -Drdisque (talk) 02:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Conditional Support
I accept the need for such a process, would like to see improvements in the structure.

i.e,:

1. better, more precise definitions

2. a more complete & explicit rule set

3. more requirement for openness & review: both review of decisions made under the proposed system, and review of the system itself & its implementation.

this stuff is the constitution & the laws of wikipedia. it matters that we get it right. the goals of wikipedia, including freedom, get lost when we don't.

Lx 121 (talk) 12:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)