At 01:25 PM 8/21/2003, you wrote:
In short, I'm asking (and this is a 'please' in the sense of a genuine request, not a veiled command!) that we discontinue this practice.
--Jimbo
Hah! The terrible dictator Jimbo once again uses his vast powers to force us into submission!!! ;)
Seriously though, I support the ending of the /ban pages practice. I think that /ban pages should be reserved for when a user has been banned already, not for when they've just been "nominated" for a ban. Perhaps if we had a page, [[Wikipedia:Nominations for banning]], that would help things along, then, if a ban is successful, the appropriate portion of that page could be copied to the /ban page.
I know that Jimbo requested that the evidence be gathered silently and privately, but realistically, I don't think that is appropriate. First of all, how is someone else to know that a user is being investigated for banning? If user A is gathering information on user B, it is possible that user C would have relevant experience, but not know to give it.
Second of all, in the interest of transparency, I think that every stage of something as serious as banning (which is more serious than page deletion, which we all agree should be fully transparent) should be open and fully available for perusal.
There is also the possibility that it's time to revamp the banning process. While Jimbo certainly does an excellent job, we can't ask him to be the final word on banning forever. Perhaps we need a convention on a new method of banning?
In any event, I agree with Jimbo that we should stop using /ban pages just to store information on why we think people should be banned.
----- Dante Alighieri dalighieri@digitalgrapefruit.com
"The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of great moral crisis." -Dante Alighieri, 1265-1321