diff --git a/accepted/0050-root-restrictions.md b/accepted/0050-root-restrictions.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..cb1f89ce
--- /dev/null
+++ b/accepted/0050-root-restrictions.md
@@ -0,0 +1,96 @@
+# Restricting `root`/`sudo` Behavior
+
+## Summary
+
+npm 9 [removed the owner-preserving behavior for npm-created
+files, and the permission-dropping behavior for npm
+scripts](../implemented/0012-running-as-root.md).
+
+This is almost certainly for the best, given the complexities and
+edge cases such behavior introduced.  However, it (re-)introduces
+a few unfortunate issues that could be addressed elegantly.
+
+## Motivation
+
+Installing packages with `root`, in a non-`root`-owned project,
+leads to the creation of `root`-owned files in `node_modules`
+which is mildly annoying, but easy to fix, as users typically
+have a fairly good understanding of their local project
+dependencies, and can be expected to feel comfortable modifying
+permissions there as needed.
+
+However, it also:
+
+1. creates `root`-owned files and folders in the npm cache, which
+   have obscure names based on the content hash.
+2. runs package scripts as root.
+
+Installing globally _requires_ `sudo` usage on many systems by
+default, and the expected behavior in such cases is that the
+installed files are owned by `root`.  (This was one of the issues
+fixed by the npm v9 behavior change!)  However, it still pollutes
+the user cache, which can be annoying.
+
+Lastly, running package scripts as `root` significantly increases
+the hazards involved.
+
+## Detailed Explanation
+
+1. Introduce a check at install time requiring `--force` (or
+   similar) to perform a local install as root in a project
+   folder not owned by root.  When this check fails, provide a
+   message encouraging the user to perform the local install as
+   their "normal" user.
+2. When running as root, use a separate cache folder from the
+   user's main cache.
+3. When a cache write fails with `EACCES`, provide the user with
+   the appropriate `chown` command to run in their terminal to
+   correct the cache.  Alternatively, this could done by `sudo
+   npm doctor fix`, or similar.
+
+This would sufficiently avoid at least the filesystem related
+issues arising from running npm as root, without impacting
+systems where the main user _is_ root, such as Docker containers
+and some single-user servers.
+
+It does not address the hazards introduced by running package
+scripts as root, except by encouraging users to avoid using
+`sudo` for local installs.  If those are worth addressing, it
+should be done in a subsequent RFC.
+
+## Rationale and Alternatives
+
+The main alternative to avoiding/detecting the problems that
+arise from mixed `root` and user usage is to try to avoid the
+problems altogether by carefully managing file ownership.
+However, as we've seen from the last 10 years of npm usage, this
+approach causes more problems than it solves, in performance as
+well as user experience.
+
+The other alternative is to simply do nothing, and address any
+resulting problems with documentation and messaging.  However,
+this is unlikely to be as effective.
+
+The runtime cost of this implementation would be a single `stat`
+call, which is far more efficient than the previous approach.
+The other downside is that fetches made as the `root` user will
+not benefit from a shared cache with the normal user, but this is
+a minor consideration (and arguably a benefit).
+
+## Implementation
+
+{{Give a high-level overview of implementation requirements and concerns. Be specific about areas of code that need to change, and what their potential effects are. Discuss which repositories and sub-components will be affected, and what its overall code effect might be.}}
+
+{{THIS SECTION IS REQUIRED FOR RATIFICATION -- you can skip it if you don't know the technical details when first submitting the proposal, but it must be there before it's accepted}}
+
+## Prior Art
+
+{{This section is optional if there are no actual prior examples in other tools}}
+
+{{Discuss existing examples of this change in other tools, and how they've addressed various concerns discussed above, and what the effect of those decisions has been}}
+
+## Unresolved Questions and Bikeshedding
+
+{{Write about any arbitrary decisions that need to be made (syntax, colors, formatting, minor UX decisions), and any questions for the proposal that have not been answered.}}
+
+{{THIS SECTION SHOULD BE REMOVED BEFORE RATIFICATION}}