User talk:CaroleHenson/VP proposal

Comment: If I understand correctly, the two templates under "Starting points" are good templates to use for changes to other existing block templates. The other three templates are ones that could be improved and are replicated (somewhat, the best this non-techy person can do) and the verbiage changed under the "Drafts" section at User:CaroleHenson/VP proposal

Thoughts and questions:

• I am not quite sure that I understand, though, when the {{Blocked user}} template should be used; It kind of looks like an indef scenario.
• I don't know if the email address is correct on the indef block. And, would anyone have their talk page blocked if it was just for a period of time.
• Would it be helpful to add the link to Commons:Blocking policy#Appealing a block?

Removal of talk page access

Removal of talk page access is not determined by the length of a block, or shouldn't be. The purpose of removal of talk page access is to prevent personal attacks, or using their talk page as a forum for what they got blocked for. There are times when a blocked editor takes on a "so what?" attitude and continues the problem on their talk page. It sometimes takes the form of profanity, racism, canvassing, or even turning their talk page into a personal advertisement for their services or other entity where COI exists. That's when access is removed following the block, but not at the moment of blocking. Removing talk page access at the moment of blocking is an option, but not necessarily the norm. Maile66 (talk) 01:52, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Maile66 That's helpful. It sounds, then, that there shouldn't be a need for the email address on anything other than the indef template. Right?

Any thought about whether the link about appealing the block should be on the templates?CaroleHenson (talk) 03:16, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

CaroleHenson Every editor, even if they are a first-time editor, should have the right of appeal, and it should be on every blocking template. Lack of that leads to a judgement call each time by the blocking admin. It should be a basic right. Assume good faith. Admins make errors in judgement. Just because somebody gets blocked for a short period of time, doesn't mean it was fair block, or even a block that should have been made. Blocks are on a user's record forever (at least at Wikipedia). So, the next time around, an admin looks at the record and makes it a longer block based on the length of the previous block. Maile66 (talk) 13:11, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, Maile66. I will add it.CaroleHenson (talk) 15:05, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Ready

Maile66, Do you think they are ready to move to proposals? And, I have been debating in my mind whether they should go for one vote (easiest for voters) or three votes (easier to keep track of issues with each template)? Seems like one vote makes the most sense, but your input would be helpful.CaroleHenson (talk) 23:25, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Probably as ready as they can be, since this will be a new process at Commons. What is the hierarchy at Commons? Do Commons:Bureaucrats have to ultimately approve the process and set it up? I wouldn't specify a vote limit. Let each voter decide for themselves, and we'll see how it goes. Thanks for the initiative, and for the quick work you put into this. Maile66 (talk) 00:06, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

My pleasure. I just meant should I made them have three separate voting sections, I think not. Thanks, Maile66, for helping me along the way!CaroleHenson (talk) 00:24, 13 July 2018 (UTC)