This entry is at version 1.0. That means I consider it ready for the Italics to look at and consider whether they feel it is a good idea. If anyone has any comments, whether employed by the BBC or not, please do so in the forums below - thank you. I've submitted it for Natalie's consideration and for the community's consideration. There is also some related discussion on the forums off the original entry

This entry follows on from the original A661097 - see that entry for the rationale behind this suggestion, related discussion, and an excess of strange footnotes.

Sunset on previous trangressions

Transgressions older than six months will be automatically wiped from a Researchers record. Thus, if a Researcher behaves well for six months and one day, they will have a clean slate. The Editors may, at their discretion, wipe transgressions earlier than this for good behaviour.

The following factors may be taken account when the Editors decide whether to wipe transgressions sooner than the maximum of six months.

• Apologies to the Editors
• Apologies to people who have been hurt
• Acceptance that the punishment was correct
• Acceptance that their behaviour was indeed against the house rules
• Evidence that the researcher's behaviour has changed for the better
• Other factors

Wiping of transgressions do not mean Editorial amnesia: further repetition of the original offences may still be dealt with slightly more severely than offences of a different nature. They are also non-negotiable.

Parole for Banned Researchers

No Banned Researcher will be allowed back on h2g2 within six months of their ban, in any form, whether they cause trouble or not. Thus, the same rules apply to banned researchers as to suspended researchers in this regard.

Every six months, the Editors will decide whether to start a discussion on lifting the ban. They will normally do so, but the Researcher will be automatically disqualified if any of the following has happened during the last six months:

1. Breaching the terms of the Ban
2. Harassment of any Researcher (Online and Offline)
3. Harassment of any member of the BBC (Online and Offline)
4. Other grossly unacceptable behaviour

In addition, if the Researcher has made it clear that they would prefer not to go through the parole process, they need not do so.

If the ban is considered in more detail, a 'community soapbox' thread will be set up for Researchers to add character witnesses and evidence that may be relevant to the Editors decision. This will be left running for one week, and during this time the Editors will not normally post to the conversation. After one week, they will read through the thread, make a decision, and post it there. A week later, the thread will be moved to the relevant 'discussions relating to the lifetime ban of...' page.

The Editors may apply additional restrictions for a time period of their choice, in addition to the House Rules, to Researchers who return under parole. These may include pre-moderation, restrictions on specific people, restrictions on specific places, and restrictions on specific subjects. Other than these restrictions, the returning Researcher has a clean slate.

Such a Researcher will be required to start up a new identity, rather than re-using any old identity, to help enforce the break from the past. This new identity will not necessarilly be secret, but neither will it be publicised in any way by the Editors.