[WikiEN-l] forgiveness of bans

[martin at myreddice.freeserve.co.uk]

I muttered to myself here:
http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/bans_and_blocks

about unbanning people who've been "hard banned". "Hard bans" would include Lir, 
DW, Helga, "142", possibly Zog, and no doubt others. I suggested that the best 
option is to say that bans are forgiven after three consecutive months of good 
behaviour - good behaviour in this case means:

* no coming back to Wikipedia under new pseudonyms, etc
* no threatening Wikipedia contributors

It's a simple strategy, with many benefits:
* If a banned user ignores the option of attaining forgiveness, then we're no worse 
off. In fact we're better off, because the ban will be respected by people who would 
not respect a ban with no possibility of reprieve.
* If a banned user is forgiven, and then immediately channels Satan and has to be 
banned again, then we're better off, because we at least had three months of peace 
and quiet.
* If a banned user is forgiven and turns into a model contributor, then we're much 
better off - plus one good contributor, minus one soure of conflict.
* If a banned user stops trying to come back for three months, in order to be 
forgiven, and finds a much better site than Wikipedia, decides Wikipedia is actually 
irrelevant, and moves on, then everyone's better off, including the banned user.

I fail to see the benefit of requiring an apology. Such an apology, given under 
duress, has no value. Only a freely given and sincerely meant apology can aid in 
healing the wounds of conflicts past.

Three months seems a sufficient length of time for non-dwarfs to bear grudges, so I 
commend this simple policy to the house. Or, failing that, the list.

-Martin "MyRedDice" Harper