There's a new proposal that's getting ArbCom approval: "Should Ottava Rima elect to return to editing Wikipedia, he shall be placed on probation for a period and under conditions to be determined prior to his return to editing. Should he wish to return to editing, Ottava Rima shall contact the Arbitration Committee via email after completing not less than half of his scheduled ban to discuss terms of the probation; the discussion may include the involvement of the community at the applicable noticeboard or as a motion of the Arbitration Committee."
As much as I think the ArbCom is doing the right thing here, that isn't quite the approach I'd take. If Ottava was willing to behave in a rational and respectful manner, and made a public statement to that effect, I'd say let him come back whenever he wants--subject to being blocked again at the first hint of trouble. You should only ban someone to keep them from causing trouble and to give a signal that "we mean business"--you shouldn't treat it as a sentence which ought to be served to allow time for reflection or to demonstrate contrition. So if there's some good reason to think someone will not cause trouble anymore, and particularly if they have a history of good content work, then by all means, let them back whenever they want. There just needs to be a good reason--in Ottava's case that seems exceedingly unlikely, but I think the principle's worth stating.
|