[WikiEN-l] bans and blocks - proposed modificaion

[martin at myreddice.freeserve.co.uk]

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