I think it should be made clear, though, that these bans are being proposed not because of the /content/ these folks produce, but because of their /abuse of the process/. It is their actions that cause problems, not their words. Think of it like the court system: even if you're on the right side of an argument, if don't file the pleadings correctly, don't make your court dates, disrupt the courtroom with out-of-order rants, or otherwise refuse to work within the process, the court can and should rule against you by default. That's the only way to keep the process working. The content of any article will change many times, so it's not that important what any one person adds, removes, or changes. What's important is the process, and Lir and DW are showing flagrant disrespect for the process. In the early days of Wikipedia before we had specific processes and guidelines, it was right and good that we were a free-for-all; we were in the process of discovering what works and what doesn't. But we're in a new phase now. We have a process, and we know it can work, and we know what doesn't work. We should take advantage of that knowledge and /enforce/ the process we know works. I do agree that a short-duration "cooling off" ban is silly. People should either be banned or not, and if they have been banned, they should have to appeal to a sysop for reinstatement, showing that they understand and will abide by our standards. A simple test to think about is this: if the person in question took exactly the same actions, but was on the other side of the argument, would his actions be just as disruptive? I think Lir and DW pass that test. If they can't learn to contribute to the process of Wikipedia as a whole, I think the fact that they may contribute a useful sentence or two to other articles, or the fact that they are sincere, are irrelevant to the bigger picture that they are disruptive of the process, and we would lose nothing by getting rid of them.