Let's talk about LDS editors

[Kelly Martin]

A strict reading of the tban would indeed mean that you cannot place COI notices on article talk pages. But at the same time one of the main demands was that you declare your COIs as transparently as possible. So there is an inherent conflict here.

this is almost certainly intentional. they want her to go away, and they're more than willing to create a situation where she is both required to and prohibited from some thing so that no matter what she does they can find her in further violation of Da Rulez and move to ban her permanently

rachel, it's time to go. wikipedia is done with you. this judgment is permanent and irreversible

[tarantino]

The Harold B. Lee Library has has a huge collection of public domain material, a great deal of which has nothing to do with Mormonism. Rachel, you could upload some to commons, or use it for references.

[ScotFinnRadish]

I personally wouldn't block for adding COI notices, although just to dot my ts and cross my is I would drop a note at AN asking if there was any objection. I think that's a show of good faith that would be looked on positively. Also, what tarantino said.

[Rachel Helps]

[...]

Thank you for your sincere advice. I didn't initially understand that a TBAN includes talk pages (even though you mentioned this before). I guess that means I can't finish adding the COI talkpage banners to Mormony pages or even ask someone else to do that (at the AWB request page)? I wasn't able to get to the University Archives sub-category of our editing maintenance category on the day I was adding them and I feel like that's the most important one.

A strict reading of the tban would indeed mean that you cannot place COI notices on article talk pages. But at the same time one of the main demands was that you declare your COIs as transparently as possible. So there is an inherent conflict here. I would recommend asking at ANI for permission to post the COI declarations (and nothing else) and notify ScottishFinnishRadish (T-C-L) (as the admin who closed the discussion) about the request on his talk page. If people allow you to post the notices you're good to go. If not, at least no-one can blame you for not posting the notices.

oh, I just saw this. I asked him on my talk page. I will see what advice he gives me, but I suspect it will mirror yours.

[Rachel Helps]

I personally wouldn't block for adding COI notices, although just to dot my ts and cross my is I would drop a note at AN asking if there was any objection. I think that's a show of good faith that would be looked on positively. Also, what tarantino said.

ahhh dude you're right here! I will write something up. We have uploaded a lot of great stuff to archive.org! Thanks for noticing. I know this is going to sound crazy to you, but would linking to a work the library uploaded to archive.org in a reference, assuming it was not related to Mormonism, violate the TBAN? What about to a work hosted on the library's own contentdm servers? I am asking about "how removed does a subject have to be to not be on the "topic" of Mormonism."

[Jester]

On that penultimate piece of advice, don't past accounts HAVE to be declared on new accounts except for super-specific circumstances?

If she successfully appeals her TBAN, she may create a WP:CLEANSTART (T-H-L) account. However, it's generally recommended not to return to the topic that caused controversy immediately otherwise you might resume the behaviour that got you punished(of course, Vigilant suggests waiting a year before moving on to Mormonism topics). However, if two years from now an editor declares themselves a paid editor from BYU and starts editing Mormonism-related articles, I think most of us would be able to figure out it's Helps.

She really only has two viable choices to continue editing enwiki: violate a policy/guideline by not disclosing PAID on a sock or try to repair her reputation. I'd strongly advise the latter and do not normally (including in this case) condone violating the PAGs.

Can you point me to several accounts where your recommendation succeeded?

To clarify, are you asking me to name users who suffered a major sanction due to a high profile discussion and later regained all of their rights as well as all or most of their trust?

One might want to see evidence that a course of action has any possibility of working prior to embarking on it.

My question was about how specific my answer should be. Should it be restricted to paid editors, all high profile blocks, or something else? I realized why you asked, but I phrased the question poorly. Sorry about that.

To answer, Koavf is at 5 indefs now with several giant AN threads and was most recently unblocked after 5 days last January. If Justin behaves, I fully expect the 1RR restriction to be removed in a year or two. Like Helps, if he were to sock and return to the same behavior, he'd probably get blocked because we extend less leniency to new editors.
Floq had the second most high profile desysop in history. The community somehow now trusts him enough that we ignore him editing policy to manipulate arbcom cases.
Will add more later.

IIRC one of the participants in the gamergate fiasco got their TBAN removed.
Several community banned editors have returned.
As long as you don't act like a complete asshole like Fæ or sock like Eric Corbett, appeals a year later are likely to be granted.

[AirshipJungleman29]

As long as you don't act like a complete asshole like Fæ or sock like Eric Corbett, appeals a year later are likely to be granted.

A few thousand uncontroversial, constructive edits on general topics from the whole BYU cohort, proving they can contribute productively outside LDS topics, would all but seal that.

[Giraffe Stapler]

You may have noticed an editor named Big Money Threepwood (T-C-L) treading clumsily through this topic area recently. Looks like they created a sock named Mormon Avenger (T-C-L) for a bit of trolling and got their main account blocked as well. Apparently socks of someone called Raxythecat (T-C-L)?