At 10:35 PM 12/24/2007, Kurt Maxwell Weber wrote:
Q: Are they still banned?
A: Yes. If we find out, we block them and reset block lengths due to block evasion.
This is a horrible idea (not just for pedophiles, but for anyone permabanned for any reason).
If blocking is supposed to be preventative rather than punitive, then what preventative purpose is served by re-blocking this user, if every indication is that he will not resume his prior behavior?
Well, it's punitive, in a way, but it's also preventative. A permanent ban is issued, in theory, because a judgement has been made that the user is quite likely to abuse the editing privilege again. If a user will not respect the right of the community, through its chosen process (or, alternatively, the owner, WMF, through its chosen process), to restrict access, even if there is no current harmful activity, there is, supposedly, a reasonable expectation that the user will again be tempted to violate policy.
That is, that the user violates a ban is evidence that the user is likely to violate other policies, and, in the case described, merely has not done so yet.
In practice, the only socks of banned users that get caught this way are those of banned users who have *really* offended the community, such that those who might seem to have the same interests can get checkusered. I'm not sure if this is happening, but it seems to me from looking over checkuser cases, that socks *which were not the target of complaints* are getting caught. Presumably, the checkuser is looking at known IP for the banned user and perhaps other evidence, and sees new accounts matching. Some of these accounts, as far as I can tell, never edited (I can't see deleted edits, to be sure). I don't think it is policy to routinely check for permanent ban violations.
So if, in fact, a permabanned user was not so egregious that editors are suspecting him under every bed, the likelihood of a new account that keeps its nose clean getting caught is fairly low, if I'm correct; and I suspect that if a user actually did come back and edited cleanly for a substantial time, then was caught up in some checkuser probe without actually having done anything, there might be some possibility of appeal. "Yes, I was BadPuppetMaster, but I've seen the error of my ways, I learned my lesson, and I'd really like to continue to contribute to the project, if you will permit." Not very likely, though.