I note that there is a problem with some people on Wikipedia feeling ignored - feeling that they did not have a proper opportunity to express their feelings on the ban of EofT. I note that this compares to similar problems I experienced on h2g2. On h2g2 a "transgressions procedure" was implemented to increase the feeling of openness, while maintaining the single point of decision, and this turned out to be highly successful. I have therefore made some proposed changes to http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bans_and_blocks http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bans_and_blocks I would appreciate feedback. Jimbo has rightly expressed worries that public discussion of bans *prior* to a banning decision can cause heartache and misery. However, public decision *after* an initial banning decision is a separate matter. I can vouch for this policy from personal experience, having had someone I knew and cared for banned via this procedure. While I disagreed with the decision taken, I did at least get the feeling that someone was listening to my opinions on the matter. Of course, such discussion should not devolve into so-called "votes", and Jimbo should retain the final decision. I do not seek increased openness to overthrow Jimbo in some manner: merely to help Wikipedia exploit the healing properties of light in what are inevitably tough and divisive decisions. As with the logo vote, I can accept a decision that I disagree with easier, if I can accept the decision-making process that led to it. I commend the transgressions procedure to the cabal. -Martin "MyRedDice" Harper