Talk:Right to vanish

Wikipedia seems to be suffering from a surge of sockpuppetry - people who are creating IDs just vandalize the project. Many of them are hit-and-run accounts. Created, used to commit vandalism until they are caught then abandoned. I've been cleaning up after one calling himself the "Pelican shit vandal". See en:user:Beanzoo, en:user:Hatdood, en:user:Whizzer, en:user:Bubbaloo, en:user:Nofer, en:User:Aguilator, en:User:Foosballz, en:User:Dead Battery, en:User:Poppett, en:User:Fishtail for the accounts caught so far.

Looking forward (arguably, very far forward), should we be worried about those vandal accounts consuming easy-to-remember user IDs? The policy makes a very strong statement that accounts will never be deleted. Should we insert a caveat into the policy that would allow Wikimedia to delete abusive accounts in certain cirmumstances at its discretion? Rossami 16:09, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

For the record, any time a user removes their name from the signature of a comment they have left on my talk page, I will revert it. --Alterego 23:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Why 6800?

What's special about that number? It sounds like a magic number to me. --69.111.163.161 20:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why the limit is 6800. However, that is the limit; if you have bureucrat access somewhere, you can see it in the page source of Special:Renameuser. Jon Harald Søby 18:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

And I just checked, and now it's 20 000… Jon Harald Søby 18:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

"software upgrade allows up to 200000 edits" 69.177.58.73 01:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Which is enough reasoning ...

« which is enough reasoning for us to continue to offer this service. » [1]

This new text was added by an anonymous user on February 14th 2006. I am not sure this addition is really useful, although it does not look harmful either. Theo F 12:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Policy status

What is the policy status of this document, and in what manner does it constrain the different version Wikipedia's? We've had a couple cases on en: of users requesting their pages be deleted under the provisions of this page. Every time it comes up, the decision has been that the user may have his user page and any subpages deleted, but the talk page should not be deleted. There are several reasons for this. The talk primarily consists of edits made by other users and the user in question should not have the authority to remove those edits from their contribution histories (in particular, comments may be referred to later in other discussion, RFA or RFAR, etc.). A page which has been edited only (or virtually only) by a single user can be deleted if that user requests it under one of our criteria for speedy deletion, but the takl page obviously fails that. Also, it contains information about the user which should not be removed, particularly for users who in fact are not leaving a Wikipedia (we have one user on en: who repeatedly requests his talk page be deleted under the provisions of this page, despite not actually ceasing to edit). If this page is cited, common objections are that it is not official policy and that further, it applies only to user and user talk subpages, not the talk page itself (which I think is logical). Has there been any discussion regarding these issues and how they set policy for individual Wikipedia's? I would like to see this clarified, if possible, so that we do not need to have the same debates over and over again. I would support a clear statement like "Users may request their user page and any subpages be deleted. User talk pages should not be deleted." Alternatively, a statement like "You may request your personal pages be deleted, although this is subject to the local policies of your Wikimedia project." What do others think? Knowledge Seeker 19:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

This was originally part of the Wikimedia Foundation's Privacy Policy. You could have figured this part out yourself by reading the edit history for the page (it's the very first edit): http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Right_to_vanish&oldid=96097&diff=prev (see also: http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Privacy_policy&diff=77381&oldid=77380). —Locke Cole • t • c 23:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and in case it wasn't clear from your harassment of me on en:, I absolutely object to any language which leaves the decision about whether certain pages are exempt to individual projects. It's not called Right to vanish because it's somehow optional afterall. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

How many edits to change username?

It says with fewer than 200,000 edits you can change your username. But, on the Changing_username pages, it says 20,000 edits. Which is it? 66.32.78.127 20:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

No, it says 200,000.--68.233.38.229 00:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Can be merged?

Can this page merge with Changing username?

—Nethac DIU, always would speak here—
23:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

deleting talk page

So, its ok for me to delete my talk page (and archives)? Even if I'm an admin? (Presumably, other admins can come and see/restore my pages if they wanted).

For the most part, I don't think that's an accepted practice anymore. Talk pages are very often used to document warnings about vandalism. Deleting those pages or even blanking them is often seen as an attempt to cover up the notices about vandalism. I suppose that's less important for a logged in user but the talk pages of anon IPs are almost never deleted (though they may occasionally be pageblanked if the vandal has been gone a long time). Rossami 22:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Proposals

1. Change instances of "delete" to "blank and protect" (perhaps we can make a "vanished user" template?)
2. Do we request that the account be blocked? Is it right to be able to "unvanish"? Is there a method, perhaps, to insure that nobody "vanishes" in haste and regrets it later?
   1. Perhaps require a "cooling off" period after the initial vanish.

Thoughts, gripes, ? ~Kylu (u|t) 06:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Does right-to-vanish actually exist?

The topic of right-to-vanish was brought up on the English-language Wikipedia recently [2], and I don't like what I see. It seems there is total disagreement as to where and how this applies. From the recent conversations, it seems that community consensus is:

• this doesn't apply to talk pages [3] [4]
• this doesn't apply to "pen names", only if the username is their real name [5]
• this only applies to meta-wiki, not to other wikis like the English-language wikipedia [6] [7]
• this is for OFFICE matters [8] [9]
• pursuing right-to-vanish is a waste of time [10]

I'm new to Meta-wiki, but not to the English-language Wikipedia. Is this just words that cannot be backed up? Do users not have the right-to-vanish? If this doesn't exist, then this page and the user guideline page on the English-language Wiki needs to be updated. Otherwise, if this can indeed be done, I know of 1 user who has requested this but has been denied. --S charette 18:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I should have stated the user in question is not a vandal, but a valid contributor and a classic case for right-to-vanish who left because he was sick and tired of the problems around w:WP:SCHOOL and AfD debates. --S charette 18:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

And *should* it exist? In the infamous Essjay's case, it seems to have been invoked as a Right To Cover Up Past Misdeeds. -- CRConrad

Right to vanish extension

Recently here a user has requested that the Right to Vanish be extended to cover deleting Requests for Adminship, and I suppose then, all administration pages. The main page here should address whether the Right to Vanish would cover this sort of thing. My own personal feeling is no. Wjhonson 23:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll repeat my "no" here as well. The contributions to RfAs are not of a single user and are of historical interest here. It is not possible, as is clearly spelled out in the policy, to actually vanish. Deleting a user page, ok; deleting a user talk page, only with extenuating circumstances to do so; deleting project pages, almost never. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 23:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I've added wording to that effect. I've seen several abuses of the "right to vanish" recently, with disruptive editors trying to use it to have their sockpuppet categories deleted. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I've suggested an amendment on Wikipedia; I'll raise it here as well:

• • "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 01:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought SlimVirgin's edit (which she discussed here) was a very sensible one, but it was reverted three days later by an anon who said that there was no consensus.[11] The anon hasn't joined in the discussion here. I'd just like to say that I support SlimVirgin's edit.

To CJCurrie, I have a comment or a question. What does "demonstrate good behaviour over a probationary period" mean, when applied to someone who has presumably left Wikipedia, or is pretending to have left? I can see that if a user makes a lot of personal attacks from his only account, is put on probation, and then becomes very polite for several months, while continuing to edit from his only account, one could say that he had "demonstrated good behaviour". But in the case of someone known to use sockpuppets, and who then completely stops editing from his main account, your suggestion would seem to carry the (unintended) meaning of "Users who are not caught using sockpuppets over a probationary period may have such pages removed on request. The pages may be returned if the user is subsequently caught using sockpuppets." I apologise if I'm missing something, but it seems that to "vanish" and to "demonstrate good behaviour over a probationary period" are self-contradictory. ElinorD 11:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I strongly support SlimVirgin's edit as well. We do need a rule against the many attempts to vanish after having disrupted the community and the project. In this case it should be guarranteed that it will not happen again only because some pages had been deleted and nobody can remember the previous handlings of a user. -jkb- 13:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

200,000 edits?

Am I reading this right? Does it say less than 200,000 edits? That seems so high I wonder there is even a number. Quadzilla99 10:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of RTV implementation and wording

This section is still being drafted, please do not reply or comment until this notice is removed. thanks.

The Right to Vanish is a respected and well established policy on Wikimedia projects. Recently (especially on en:) there have been some abuses or questions which make clear to me the wording has not been updated, clarified and sharpened by vigorous discussion, as might have been the case if it were on en: rather than a soft redirect. Without being certain what exact wording is best, I'd like to propose a significant rewrite of this page to bring it up to a more current standard of style, specificity and clarity.

Proposed outline (draft in progress) Introduction The Right to Vanish is a long standing right of any user on Wikimedia projects. It means that under certain conditions, a range of material testifying to your actions and existence on the project may (at your request) be removed or obscured. Right to vanish applies typically to three circumstances: You have personally identifying information on publicly visible pages on the project, or linked to your username, or there is a risk of harassment under your existing username, and you wish to avoid such problems. You have a negative track record and you wish to make a clean and honest new start without being dogged by prior misconduct. You plan to permanently leave a project. Note that the extent to which your activities will be removed or obscured is limited. The details are described below. Also note that despite its name, the Right to Vanish is made available by goodwill of the Foundation and its projects and exists only as a social courtesy. Status of Right to vanish Right to Vanish is essentially, a social courtesy extended to all participants in general, and should be seen as such. It does not imply that all information will be removed. Legally all information is retainable since it has been made available under the GFDL, and in practice much information cannot, or will not, be removed due to the practical disruption and difficulty involved. Users should be aware therefore that the Right to Vanish is in practice, fairly limited, and not robust against serious inquiry. Limitations on removal For example, once created, user accounts usually cannot be removed or deleted. It may be possible for a bureaucrat to change your username, in many cases - see en:Wikipedia:Changing username. There is no guarantee provided by the Wikimedia Foundation in the privacy policy that a name will be changed on request. Limitations on the Right to Vanish

Submitted for discussion.

FT2 08:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)