As recent events showed, there is a need for a mechanism that allows a ban of a very active community member to be reversed if it is deemed important by enough community members
In a comment to https://physics.meta.stackexchange.com/a/2716/7924, bmike asked me:
I'm asking for where you'd draw the line when someone repeatedly and vocally attacks another person (clearly making it about them and not their actions). Also - I'm not saying you are wrong until I hear what you propose. I'd like to know where you would draw the line. Do you vote on who gets to ignore the rules? Do you set it at a certain reputation? Do you give someone a free shot at a different person for each 1k reputation? Make a proposal we can debate if you'd like to change the rules.
Here my request (slightly modified compared to my reply there):
It should be possible to undo a ban upon the intervention of 5 users with enough reputation to merit the privilege of reversing a ban. This could for example taken to be at the level of 250 reps where one earns the privilege of voting to close, or at 2000 reps where one also earns the privilege to vote on edits; any other threshold would be ok, too.
Alternatively, the ban should be undone if 5 people pay a ransom of perhaps 500 reps (or any other reasonable amount, perhaps an amount proportional to the banning time) to show that they are serious about the need to have someone back. This would mean that the sin has been paid for, so justice has been done, as in ordinary life. If less ransom comes in, the ban time should be shortened according to the fraction received.