User:Geogre/Demotion

The argument over "recalling" administrators has peaks and valleys in terms of anger and hollering. Right now, despite evidence of incivility and hostility, we're in a valley, and that's why I think it's time to propose the following. Forgive the prologue, please, but it's necessary, I think, to set the stage and make the rest comprehensible.

Scope of action
The following proposal is intended to add a new procedure/option for the arbitration committee alone. This is not designed to be a general noticeboard or category.

Overview
Demotion of administrators has been one of the most enduring problems at Wikipedia. While everyone knows that some administrators have been demoted, and some have even been banned, the circumstances are ancient by wiki-memory and the instances have been quite rare. Generally, once a person is an administrator, he or she can be blocked, blocked, blocked, and blocked without losing the status of "administrator." Persons can even be found to have abused administrator powers and retain their administrative status. Those who feel aggrieved by the "abuse" are naturally fuming over it, and even regular, long time Wikipedians can be aghast that certain individuals retain their status even after repeated infractions.

This proposal begins with the assumption that blocking should be a worse fate than mere demotion, that administrative powers really only apply to a small set of actions, while administrative status has a great deal of worth. Therefore, the proposal is simply that a person who is found by the Arbitration Committee to have committed offenses against procedures be demoted for a period of time commensurate with the offense and degree recidivism and that demotion not be confused with being "stripped" of one's powers. If we take the horror and exceptionalism away from demotion, we should be more capable of using the sanction and more placid in accepting it.

Process
There are two grades of offense: common editorial offense and administrative offense.


 * 1) For administrators found to have engaged in common editorial offenses (3RR violation, copyright violation repetition, vandalism, etc.), the administrator would, on first offense, be demoted for a period of two weeks and then automatically reinstated. There would be no need for a new RFA.  On a second offense, the demotion would be three weeks, and for a third offense in a calendar year the demotion would be for a month.  The penalized administrator would retain the title but lose the powers of "admin" for this time.
 * 2) For administrators found to have engaged in administrative abuse (vindictive deletions, edit war protections, vindictive blocks) that demonstrate ill will, a first offense would involve demotion for a month, with an automatic promotion at the end. A second offense in a calendar year would demote the administrator and require a new RFA no sooner than six weeks after demotion, and a third offense would demote and strip the administrator of title, requiring a new RFA no sooner than three months after demotion.

These demotions would be in addition to any other sanctions imposed by ArbCom and would not be mandated, if ArbCom believes that they are not appropriate.

Appeal
Demotion should not be considered punishment. Blocking a user's edits is a far more severe punishment/preventative than merely disallowing delete/undelete and blocking powers. It should, therefore, be a sanction that can be applied fluidly. Similarly, appeals should require no more than three ArbCom members to hear and overturn. In a case where ArbCom splits, the default or presumptive answer should be to not demote.

Apology/RFA, etc.
Going through a new RFA is humiliating, and it should be reserved for cases of clear recidivism or incompatible temperament for being an administrator.