Moderation:Policy Discussion/Banning Redemption

It is a fact that people can change. People can make bad mistakes, especially if they are angered by something. We should allow people to admit that they made a bad choice and that we can forgive them for it.

I suggest that when somebody has been banned, if they are able to make a certain number of actually helpful edits and are able to go for a period of time without breaking any other rules, that their bans can be slowly removed.

The amount of time needed before they can be forgiven is thrice the length of their ban duration, after their ban expires. Warnings expire two days later. So, if Boog had a week-long ban, he would go through the an, then three weeks later the week-long ban expires.

Certain rule-breaking edits will fall under exceptional circumstances and are treated differently.

For the good edits, they must be actually helpful to the wiki, not just an edit that doesn't break the rules, so trolling/ drama, generic messages, spelling/grammar edits, and guild/user page changes do not count. A warning-one day: 20 edits. Two days: 40 edits. A week: 50 edits. A month: 100 edits.

If many (20 or more) unbiased users feel that a particular user should have their bannings change, then a moderator may decide to change the above mentioned rules slightly in the feel of the general consent. The amount of users for a particular ruling must be 4/5 of for/total.

-- 12:21, 18 November 2006 (PST)