As with Steelbird, I am unfamiliar with the details of how and why Gatekeeper came to be banned. I am also ignorant of the "sausage-making details" of how moderators and staff make the decisions they do. So, like Steelbird, I will offer some general comments from my own limited perspective.
I would like to draw a distinction between the kinds of posters who seem to exist only to cause trouble, and those who make useful contributions to the community yet have an unfortunate tendency to "wander over the line" on occasion. My perception is that the steeply escalating ban system allows for the rapid elimination of the former "troublemaker" type, but can be unnecessarily harsh when applied to posters who have a demonstrated record of interesting, useful contributions, such that when these members are banned, the community suffers also.
I understand that community standards must be maintained. If anything, I would prefer more intervention in relation to certain kinds of posts, but that is a discussion for another topic. My suggestion is that the "ban escalation path" should become less steep. A one-month ban could be followed by a two- or three-month ban, while the step after that could be a four- or six-month ban, and finally an annual ban before a permanent ban. This would provide more opportunities for those capable of genuine contributions to learn to moderate their unwelcome behaviour. I am also mindful that moderators are volunteers with limited time and energy. For dealing with "obvious troublemakers", a more rapid escalation path could be followed, more like the system that operates now. Of course drawing a distinction between different types of poster requires a greater level of personal judgment on the part of the moderator, but I think this is something we can all accept in the interests of the community.
