Wikipedia talk:Right to vanish

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Proposal

I've moved this page from meta, rewritten the lead, and made a few copy editing changes. We should probably develop our own policy, rather than relying on meta's, because there have been a few cases recently of attempted abuse of the policy by people who "vanish," then return with various sockpuppets. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Or perhaps the discussion on meta should include these practical considerations. In general, user rights should not be used in an abusive way... the right to vanish just as the right to edit falls under this rule of thumb. I don't know that many would argue against being able to vanish and reappear with a single new account, avoiding controversy. Sometimes people ask explicitly to do this; sometimes this would defeat the purpose. The real trolls aren't going to obey any policies laid down in the first plac; the question is what if anything to do for community members who run afoul of poor judgment or foul tempers and later want to leave this behind. +sj + 07:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Left under a cloud"?

I have no idea what that idiom means, so I removed it.[1] Idioms are often not intercultural, and should probably be avoided on policies. Please replace it with something more international. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 01:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

It's from an ArbCom case and I would say is well-understood, but it's not important to keep it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I am simply idiom-impaired, but I do not know what is meant by it. Not knowing what it means, I have no objection to it besides the lack of understandability. If it is from an ArbCom case, that does make it important. Perhaps there are other words you can use? — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 01:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a standard English language idiom, and answers.com certainly defines it [2]. To use language from another arbcom decision, "in controversial circumstances" would, I think, cover a generally similar set of cases. Alai 20:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed change

SlimVirgin has recently added the following two sentences to this page:

• "This policy should not be used to assist users who have been abusive or disruptive, or who have been banned."
• "The right to vanish does not extend to pages retained for the purposes of protecting Wikipedia against disruption; for example requests for arbitration, requests for check user, or sockpuppet categories."

I understand (and support) the principle behind these changes, but I am concerned that they may be too severe in their present form. During the recent discussions over Gnetwerker's situation, some editors proposed a sort of probationary period for banned users (refer: [3]). This strikes me as a reasonable and balanced approach to situations like this.

Accordingly, I would propose that the page be amended to read as follows:

• "Users who have been abusive or disruptive, or who have been banned, do not have an automatic right to vanish. If such users are able to demonstrate good behaviour over a probationary period of [x number of months], they may have their pages removed on request. These pages may be returned if the user subsequently engages in inappropriate behaviour."
• "The right to vanish does not automatically extend to pages retained for the purposes of protecting Wikipedia against disruption; for example requests for arbitration, requests for check user, or sockpuppet categories. Users who demonstrate good behaviour over a probationary period may have such pages removed upon request. The pages may be returned if the user subsequently engages in inappropriate behaviour."

Comments welcome. CJCurrie 01:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem with it is that these users would be asking for the pages to be deleted under a "right to vanish" provision, and yet would be demonstrating good behavior by, presumably, editing appropriately, which means they're not vanishing. Also, I don't think anyone ever intended that arbitration pages and the like would be deleted upon request, regardless of the circumstances, so I would object to that, with or without good behavior. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I intended "good behaviour" to mean "fulfilling their part of the bargain, and not editing on Wikipedia". I'd have no problem revising the language, if you think it should be made more specific.

I'm prepared to wait until others have addressed the second point, before I respond. CJCurrie 01:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify: this is a "right to vanish" policy, so it's about users who genuinely want to leave and stop editing Wikipedia entirely. This isn't for people who simply want to change their names, and anyway users aren't allowed to change their names in order to detach themselves from previous bans. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand the nature of this discussion.

I believe that a "probationary period" clause would encourage banned users not to sockpuppet, by giving them a chance to have their record "cleared" from public view after a certain period of time. Similarly, a warning that the materials could be restored in the event of more disruption would be an effective disincentive against the resumption of sockpuppetry at a later date. The problem with a "no deletions" policy is that is doesn't provide either the carrot or the stick, and is less effective for limiting disruptive behaviour.

We should also bear in mind that administrators will still be able to access the documentary records of banned users, one way or the other. CJCurrie 15:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• We should not automatically deny help to people just because they are banned. Of course, we should not automatically delete their stuff either. I'd say WP:MFD works well for the borderline cases. >Radiant< 09:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)