feat: Support bulk banning in guilds

[NeloBlivion]

Summary

Guild.ban now accepts up to 200 members
Currently, this returns two lists:

successes, failures = await guild.ban(*members, reason="Hacked")

Alternatively, we could have a new GuildBulkBan object with attributes banned and failed

Information

• This PR fixes an issue.
• This PR adds something new (e.g. new method or parameters).
• This PR is a breaking change (e.g. methods or parameters removed/renamed).
• This PR is not a code change (e.g. documentation, README, typehinting,
  examples, ...).

Checklist

• I have searched the open pull requests for duplicates.
• If code changes were made then they have been tested.
  • I have updated the documentation to reflect the changes.
• If type: ignore comments were used, a comment is also left explaining why.
• I have updated the changelog to include these changes.

[plun1331]

Possibly make a new method instead (guild.bulk_ban) since they're different endpoints, and similar stuff is split as well (e.g. fetch_member vs fetch_members)

[NeloBlivion]

Possibly make a new method instead (guild.bulk_ban) since they're different endpoints, and similar stuff is split as well (e.g. fetch_member vs fetch_members)

I did consider this initially, but after mulling it over I figured it made more sense to compare to Member.add_roles/remove_roles, which similarly accepts 1 or multiple Snowflakes and incorporates different routes depending on the situation

[plun1331]

Possibly make a new method instead (guild.bulk_ban) since they're different endpoints, and similar stuff is split as well (e.g. fetch_member vs fetch_members)

I did consider this initially, but after mulling it over I figured it made more sense to compare to Member.add_roles/remove_roles, which similarly accepts 1 or multiple Snowflakes and incorporates different routes depending on the situation

My main issue is we end up having multiple different return types, which isn't a massive problem but might be confusing as some people might pass a list and not expect it to give None back (if the list had a length of 1), similar to some confusion that was discussed a while ago about the return types of ApplicationContext.respond

[Dorukyum]

I agree with plun, a new method should suffice.

[Lulalaby]

Upon implementing it myself I agree with doru, a seperate method is needed

[Lulalaby]

Revert changes and introduce bulk banning as new method bulk_ban.
Also we should finally remove delete message days

[NeloBlivion]

With this, 2.6 is officially breaking so please include the relevant warnings in any announcements

Resolved

[Lulalaby]

Before we merge it, @Dorukyum, do you agree on removing the obsolete parameter completely in this PR?

[Dorukyum]

Before we merge it, @Dorukyum, do you agree on removing the obsolete parameter completely in this PR?

It's fine. A seperate pr for each change would obviously be better, but the changes here are relevant enough I guess.