The criterion for a block is actually preventing
damage - not
punishment, which is why mere past policy violation isn't reason for a
block and blocks for old 3RRs are ill-favoured.
So presumably de-adminning would also be for prevention of damage.
Well, yes. Violating policy is how "damage" is determined. If there is
no reason to believe that there will be future violations, then action
isn't required. That is where the admin/crat discretion comes in.
Examples would be useful as well, so we aren't
talking entirely in the
abstract. Probably with names removed.
I'd rather avoid real examples. Even with names removed, people will
be able to identify most of them, and it will cause upset. At the
moment this is a friendly civilised discussion. I'd like to keep it
that way. Fictional examples would be fine, and possibly helpful,
though. We have to be careful to avoid making things too rigid,
though. If examples end up in the final formulation of the policy,
crats will be expected to follow them, even if circumstances dictate
otherwise, which would be a problem.