User:Thryduulf/Desysoppings by arbcom

This is a working space to develop a proposal to modify Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Removal of permissions, it is not an official Arbitration Committee project, nor is it necessarily endorsed by the Committee or any of its members.

Minor changes may be made directly; more significant changes should be discussed on the talk page first.

Existing preamble:

When an account with advanced permissions appears to be harming the project, the Committee may authorize expedient removal of these permissions via the procedures below. If the account in question has multiple sets of advanced permissions, removal will generally apply to all of them. The use of these procedures by the Committee is not intended to constrain the authority of the Wikimedia Stewards to undertake emergency removal of permissions on their own discretion, pursuant to the relevant policies governing Steward actions.

Circumstances in which the ArbCom may wish to remove advanced permissions from an account, other than as part of an arbitration case

Circumstance		Emergency?	Discussion required?	Notification required?	Arbitration case or motion required?	Requirements for return of permission?	Other notes
1	Account has been or may have been compromised	Yes	No	Account talk page WP:BN ? ?	No	ArbCom and/or 'Crats satisfied the account is not/is no longer compromised	Establishing the account is not compromised should happen privately and at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard.
2	Unable to contact account holder to verify they are still in control and acting in good faith when there is reason to believe they may not be.	Yes	No	Account talk page WP:BN ? ?	No	ArbCom and/or 'Crats satisfied the account is not/is no longer compromised	Establishing the account is not compromised should happen privately and at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard
3	Arbitration Committee has reason to believe that the person in control of the account is not currently able to act with the level of judgement required for the use of advanced permissions (for example due to reasons of health)	Possibly	Except in an emergency, discussion should happen first. This will usually need to be non-public.	At ArbCom discretion, taking note of the circumstances and what information the user has made public.	No	Arbitration Committee is satisfied that there is no ongoing danger to the project at the current time.	This may or may not be self requested, and does not necessarily have to go via ArbCom. All users need to be aware that private information may mean full details cannot be made public.
4	Account is or appears to be actively using advanced permissions to cause harm in a rapid or apparently planned fashion	Yes	Yes, after removal	Account talk page Arbcom noticeboard AN/ANI/other noticeboards if discussed there	Usually, unless removal was in error.	ArbCom satisfied removal was in error, or New request for permissions in most cases Other requirements as determined by arbitration case	ArbCom to formally inform crats if removal was in error. Arbitration case can substitute for discussion if opened promptly after removal See 6 for non-emergencies
5	Account is wheel warring	Yes	Yes, after removal	Account talk page Arbcom noticeboard AN/ANI/other noticeboards if discussed there	Yes	New request for permissions in most cases Other requirements as determined by arbitration case	Arbitration case can substitute for discussion if opened promptly after removal
6	Account's behaviour is inconsistent with the level of trust required for its associated advanced permissions	No	Yes, before removal	Account talk page Arbitration page where it is being proposed AN/ANI/other noticeboards if discussed there?	Yes	New request for permissions in most cases Other requirements as determined by arbitration motion or case	Includes statements of intention to disrupt the project See 4 for emergencies

This is intended to determine what should happen, how it should happen is for a later stage of discussion after agreement is reached here.