User:CaroleHenson/VP draft

Feel free to update

There appear to be some holes in the block process, as evidenced by the recent blocking of Rowan Forest. The issues are:

Premature blocking before understanding the nature of the issue.
Performing an indef block with a notice that provides no information about recourse.
Indep blocking the user's talk page, so that they cannot even post an unblock request.

It would be helpful if Wikimedia could standardize the process across the board. Commons blocking is not the same process as English Wikipedia blocking, but the two sites are often frequented by the same editors. One key difference is the lack of a Commons Unblock Ticket Request System, while English Wikipedia does have one.

It would be helpful if the block notices provided information about recourse. And, be allowed to follow-up on commons, instead of sending an email which then could become a black hole and difficult to trace follow-up activity.

Blocks on Wikipedia can be accompanied by removal of talk page access, but built into the Wikipedia block templates is an automatic message if talk page access is denied, "You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System." Commons does not provide UTRS resolution. It would be consistent with policy allowing public access editing, to give a resolution recourse to that same public. Administrators make mistakes, and editors should have a recourse.