Wikipedia talk:Courtesy vanishing/Archive 1

Archive 1

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)

"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)

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)

Not bad

I pretty much agree with what the page says, but wouldn't it be easier to add a paragraph to the username policy explaining this? >Radiant< 11:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose policy

Right to vanish should stay an essay, or a guideline at most. It should not be a formal policy to be wikilawyered over. It should stay about like the meta version (or current version), saying these mechanisms for user vanishment exist and that there's a general culture on the wiki of granting reasonable requests to vanish; but it is at community/admin/bureaucrat discretion. Cases where someone is pressing the point are likely to be cases in which the encyclopedia has an interest in keeping the info around, that should also be weighed. The current version of the page is fairly reasonable in that it doesn't commit anyone to much of anything, but as such I don't see how it can be a policy. 64.160.39.153 02:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we can call it a guideline, given that this is what people do at the moment. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Any useful purpose?

Near as I can tell, "right to vanish" is usually invoked by drama queens in an effort to get us to to roll out red carpet and call a limousine when they claim to be leaving the project. People frequently use it as an excuse to delete user talk pages, which in general should not be deleted. I'm all in favor of deleting edits which may contain personally identifying info on request, but this has nothing to do with whether or not someone is leaving. Can we put this nonsense behind us and get rid of this page? Or does it serve some useful purpose I'm not seeing? Friday (talk) 00:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I would be willing to support a greater focus on identification and less about leaving. -- Ned Scott 23:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that would be good. Friday (talk) 14:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Meta

Someone had redirected this page to the meta policy, but in fact the practice on the English Wikipedia is very different from the meta policy, so we do need our own page. On meta, the RTV is invoked by people who want to leave the project. On the English WP, it's invoked by people who want to change their names for whatever reason — and sometimes several times by the same user.

It would be useful if we could work out the parameters of this, because it's causing user and talk pages to be deleted while the user moves on to another account, and sometimes his next set of user and talk pages is deleted too, while he moves on again. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I've seen many people saying "RTV says we delete user talk pages on request" - anything that helps prevent this silly practice is good, in my view. We do (and should continue to) delete personally identifying edits on request, but this has nothing to do with vanishing. Our "right to vanish" should mean one thing: you can hit "log out" at any time, and we won't chase you down. Friday (talk) 20:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Does the community really disagree with this practice, though? I find that many admins are willing to do this, suggesting that this is not necessarily supported by consensus. I'm ambivalent about it, personally. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Every page I've found, when talking about deletions at user request, specifically gives the condition that the author can request deletion of a page if nobody else has really contributed to it. This will not be the case with user talk pages. So, I don't know where people are getting the idea that they should delete user talk pages. There is no support for such a practice in any policy of guideline I have ever seen. Even m:RTV which people are fond of citing, does not say to delete user talk pages. But yes, people do it sometimes. Friday (talk) 14:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thebainer has just removed this: " ... in some circumstances, you may be permitted to have your talk page deleted too; contact an administrator to request the deletion of your talk page — if you are an administrator, do not do it yourself ..." [4]

Is there consensus for this removal or not? I know that many people are having their talk pages deleted as a matter of fact, so where do we stand on it? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what someone's talk page has to do with them vanishing, particularly because usually it's other editors that edit your talk page, meaning that it has nothing to do with you vanishing or not. And in some instances, like the one that has brought me to this page, this is being used to remove embarrassing comments, like being banned, etc. Nothing that would be libelous, or false in any way. That kind of stuff should not be what this policy is used for. -- JT^Holla! 19:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to see a full-scale discussion on this as well. Relata refero (talk) 23:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I've always considered the right to vanish being detaching one's self from an identity, and less about removing what you've said/done (at least in spirit). We should discourage needless deletions, especially in light of the AC RTV mess. -- Ned Scott 23:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with not deleting user talk pages. Protect it if you must to keep vandals away, but keep it available. --Kbdank71 15:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

When I started editing, and until about a year ago, talk pages were regarded as sacrosanct. People could have their user pages deleted, but talk pages were seen as composed largely of other people's comments, and therefore not something to be deleted. However, admins started deleting talk pages too on request, and then Jimbo said that he supported this, so the practice became more widespread. The result is that we have a very inconsistent application. I've seen users abandon an account, have the user and talk page deleted, open another account, abandon that one too with all the deletions, then open another one, each time leaving behind any criticism people might have had of them. That's not what's meant by a right to vanish. On the other hand, we have people who desperately want their talk pages deleted who are being told no. That inconsistency obviously isn't fair.

Does anyone have an idea for wording that strikes the right balance and might gain consensus? Once we have suggested wording, we can ask for input on wikiEN-l, WikBack, and the village pump. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

User talk pages have no lasting value to the encyclopedia. That's why they can be deleted if a vanishing user asks this. To deny this to someone, is inhumane. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 21:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Question about rtv

So in some previous versions of my userpage there is some info that could be used to identify me. I have removed it, however, how do I make it go away permanently? Do I use rtv? Sethie (talk) 20:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

If there's previous versions of your userpage you want deleted, you can send me an email and tell me what versions you want removed and I'll delete them for you. Sarah 08:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you much for your kind offer, I have realized I am just going to switch accounts. Do I get to leave a goodbye notice on my userpage/talk page? Sethie (talk) 04:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Links to Meatball?

Why does this page have links to Meatball (added by thebainer in this edit). That's a while ago and others have contributed since. --SVTCobra (talk) 02:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason for these links. Wikipedia has its own traditions- meatball is something else entirely. Friday (talk) 03:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

From what I recall the orginal tradition in this case comes from meatball.Geni 04:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It's "Right to Vanish", not "Right to a Fresh Start"

It may need to be made clearer that the "right to vanish" is not a "right to a fresh start" under a new identity. Vanishing means that the individual, not the account, is vanishing. There is no coming back for that individual. --John Nagle (talk) 16:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

A very good point. I think we need some more eyes on this page. -- Ned Scott 04:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I once mentioned someone who had apparently changed their name per RTV. That was not only odd to me but the person left behind a pretty hefty block log (and soon began a new one with the new name). The response was to smack me down that I had "outed" the person's former username. Seemed very un-RTV to me. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

This whole concept could easily just go away, and no harm would be done. Rather than trying to clarify, I'd rather see it marked as historical. Friday (talk) 14:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there has historically been a policy of treating "vanished" users as banned users 140.247.103.58 (talk) 01:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Dispute between WP:VANISH and WP:SOCK

Wikipedia:SOCK#Clean_start_under_a_new_name states that a user may start fresh under a new username if he discontinues the use of the other account, however, WP:VANISH states just the opposite: The "right to vanish" is not a "right to a fresh start" under a new identity. Vanishing means that the individual is vanishing, not just the account.. Which page would be the correct one to follow since obviously, they can't both be right.--Parthian Scribe 05:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes they can. You can either start fresh under a new username, or you can vanish. If you start fresh under a new username, then you did not vanish, and your old userpage, etc. should not be deleted. Mike R (talk) 20:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Better guidance on how to leave Wikipedia.

It would be helpful if there was a guide on "how to leave Wikipedia", independent of the more drastic "right to vanish". The ordinary way to leave Wikipedia should be simply to replace your talk page with a "Retired" box. Simple instructions on how to do this should be provided. Right now, users wanting to leave end up reading "Right to vanish", which is a more complex and controversial process that most don't need. Or worse, they're directed to right to leave, a long off-Wiki essay/rant that's irrelevant to most users. --John Nagle (talk) 16:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Mentioned the {{Retired}} template in the article. --John Nagle (talk) 20:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:LEAVE redirects to this article, so this is both the "Right to Leave" and the "Right to Vanish" article. I'd like to put a "Right to Leave" section near the top of the article, describing the ordinary process of leaving Wikipedia, i.e. put on a "Retired" template and just stop editing. We're giving the impression now that "vanishing" is the normal way to close an account, which it isn't. Any objections? --John Nagle (talk) 16:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a great idea, I'd say go ahead. --Elonka 19:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, see the text below. If nobody says anything more, I'll make the change after the US elections. --John Nagle (talk) 17:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. --John Nagle (talk) 18:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Did some cleanup; the "Effectiveness" section duplicated some of the "How to Leave" section, so I moved the info on how to delete your talk and user page, and removed the duplicate info. Any comments on the current version? --John Nagle (talk) 20:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposed text - Leaving Wikipedia

Proposed text to go near the top of the article per above.

All Wikipedia editors have the right to leave. The usual way to leave the Wikipedia project is simply to stop editing. Your contributions remain in Wikipedia. It is suggested that you place a {{retired}} template at the top of your user and talk pages to indicate that you are no longer involved with Wikipedia. This tells other editors that you are no longer active and that messages should not be left for you. If you ever want to return to editing, simply remove the {{retired}} template. Retiring will not prevent you from logging in at a future date.

If you no longer wish to be associated with your past edits, you can exercise your WP:Right to vanish. This is not usually necessary. The Wikipedia community will typically accord the right to vanish to users in good standing who exercise their right to leave and ask to "vanish" permanently.....

Returning RTVs

The talk pages deleted by vanishing editors shold be restored if the editors return, right? If they return they've no longer vanished and their history of interactions oth other users becomes relevant again, IMO. There's nothing in this guideline about handling returnees. It came up recently.[5] Any other thoughts?   Will Beback  talk  23:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it should be restored. –xeno (talk) 23:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

With the exception of privacy concerns yes it should be returned. Chillum 01:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

It should be restored in its entirety; if particular revisions need oversighted then so be it. RTV is meant to be permanent - allowing people to use it as a cloaking device will lead to further abuse. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

As someone who formerly did a RTV, I agree. RTV is a courtesy and priviledge, never a right nor entitlement, and if the user comes back with any connection to the original name (starts editing again, or gets a free sysop or other bit on a new admin handle) they need to be linked and restored for transparency and accountability at all times. If someone does a RTV or simply abandons an old name, and starts a new "career", for privacy or security reasons, that is totally fine. For example, if I abandon this username, or Chillum abandons Chillum, and starts a new account tomorrow-- we absolutely should NOT just get sysop. We have to earn the trust on the new name, unless we want to disclose to all who we were. And in that case, it's not a RTV situation; it's simply a rename. This site is built on trust, and trust is paramount. If I have to rename myself for privacy reasons or a danger to myself, that's a risk you take if you put yourself in the public eye in any forum or venue, Internet or otherwise. This is one of the most-read sites in the world, our "names" as semi-prominent or prominent editors are seen by thousands in a year. If WP usage were a risk to any user or their family, they should frankly be gone and back under a totally unrelated name with no connection to the previous name, activities, habits, or trends, if they were back at all. It's just a website, and not more important than any man or woman's family, ever. All that said, a RTV = you're gone; that old account is history and abandoned. Nothing should ever come "forward" from it--not deleted edits; not sysop, nothing. Ever. Or it's not a RTV. I know in the past some admins got sysop or higher 'free' in this sense, but I think it's time that practice were terminated. rootology (C)(T) 16:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The talk pages should not be deleted to begin with. That avoids the whole issue. Friday (talk) 16:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Seems like if they invoke the privilege of RTV, their account should also be blocked. If they return, they should use {{unblock}} and the attending admin should unblock and restore their talk page. Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 17:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Rootology on this. As to the talk pages, I think they should only be deleted in so far as is necessary to protect privacy. DuncanHill (talk) 21:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Tombstone has a good point - a user who has his/her talk page deleted as part of the right to vanish should have an indef softblock. The {{unblock}} process gives them a way back in - and the talk page should be restored at the same time. Vanishing admins should also loose their admin flag, and only be allowed to have it back once they have had their talk page restored. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Just a note here about current practice. I gave up my admin bit several years ago before a long wikibreak, and deleted my talk archives at that time (but not the talk page, where history remained). When I returned six months later and asked for the bit back, the bureaucrat who responded (Taxman) asked me to restore the archives. If that isn't regular practice it certainly should be. I don't notice any specific examples above--is this a current problem? Chick Bowen 04:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

It basically spawned from this conversation, I believe. rootology (C)(T) 04:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah--and yes, I see this was a very specific case with a very specific reason the edits were still deleted, and all was resolved after some amicable discussion. Well, that provides the answer, then, surely, and it's the same one as in my example above--just ask nicely. Chick Bowen 05:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that part of the reason that this was spun off was that it was developing into a general discussion, and it was inappropriate to associate the general discussion with the specific admin. The discussion also developed into a discussion of the propriety or otherwise of admins returning under a different username after exercising RTV and being given sysop tools without going thtough RfA. DuncanHill (talk) 17:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Returning under a different username, in my mind, is a very different issue from the talk page business. That has happened, and the bureaucrats have granted the tools without a public revelation of the associated account. As far as I know, though, it has not happened in a long time. When it did, my personal feeling was that the bureaucrats were on thin ice (after all, RFA grants adminship to the account, not to the person). If that issue is to be debated I would prefer it be separate from the question of talk-page archiving, which, as I've suggested, is easily enough solved even after the fact, while someone who has changed accounts without making it public probably has a reason to do so and will not make the connection clear even if it is requested. Chick Bowen 23:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The term "Right to vanish" is confusing

The term Right to vanish is confusing. It suggests that a 'right to vanish' exists, but under Vanishing from Wikipedia, it reads:

Vanishing is not a right, it is a courtesy extended by the Wikipedia community to make it easy for users to exercise their right to leave.

However, in the next section, it says:

The right to vanish is only available to users who are also exercising their right to leave. ...

---

I am not knowledgeable about the background of this issue, but I believe only one of the following statements can be true:

1. Users that meet certain requirements have a right to vanish.
2. No one has the right to vanish, but some may be granted the option to vanish at the discretion of 'the community'.

If statement (1) is true, the sentence "Vanishing is not a right" must be changed.

If statement (2) is true, it must be made clear in the introduction that the 'right to vanish' is a customary expression, but no such right actually exists. Also, the sentence "The right to vanish is only available to..." must be changed. Johan Lont (talk) 14:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I was about to bring up the same point. If "Vanishing is not a right" then why is this article called "Right vanish"? Kingturtle (talk) 16:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Because "Right to vanish" is a concept that extends beyond wikipedia. This page notes that wikipedia does not consider this a right, but will usually extend it as a courtesy. Taemyr (talk) 21:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

A Question

I want to ask you a question and hope you can help to solve this problem. Several days ago, I changed my account name into a new one. However, the old name still appears in the edit history as the following edit summary entry:

Reverted edits by '''BigFatBigCa(talk)''' to last version by Jiacklsd.

Here '''BigFatBigCa(talk)''' is my old name. How Can I change this name to my new name and make it totally disappeared?

Thanks very much. Pig 14:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

You can't. Sorry for the late reply :) Majorly talk 17:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

User talk

We don't delete user talk pages on request. This has been the case as long as I remember. Sometimes confused people delete them and cite RTV, but it's never been accepted as a useful thing to do, and this has not ever (in my memory) said that we delete them on request. Friday (talk) 17:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

What purpose do talk pages of vanished users have to writing the encyclopedia, other than to stir wikipolitics and drama? Majorly talk 17:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As far as I know, RTV always allowed this and I for one have deleted multiple pages based on this, so it existed in the policy surely for as long as I am an admin and was not changed recently. After all, one cannot vanish completely if there still is a talk page where there might be potentially revealing information in the history. Regards SoWhy 17:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've seen user talk pages deleted "per RTV" for quite some time, I think I've even performed a few myself. I've never been a fan of it, and I would support the cessation of deleting user talk pages even for RTV, especially for (former) administrator talk pages, whose user talk pages may hold useful and important discussion. –xeno (talk) 17:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Personally identifying information is deleted on request. This has nothing to do with whether someone is claiming to leave. Yes, I am aware that sometimes people do delete user talk per RTV, but it's never been a smart thing to do, and this page has usually advised against the practice. In most of these cases, the stuff ends up undeleted. So why bother? The general rule for deletion upon request applies only to pages where the requestor is the only contributor. This is not the case with user talk. Friday (talk) 17:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, in the above section Wikipedia_talk:Right_to_vanish#Meta, preponderance of opinion seems to be that user talk pages ought not be deleted without a good reason. And no, a user request is not a good reason. Friday (talk) 19:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, at the moment it seems to be a matter of policy either describing ideals or current practice. Current practice is that we delete user talk pages upon user request when they exercise their right to vanish. This guideline could be updated to say otherwise, but I'm not sure it will stop people from continuing to delete user talk pages. And, of course, you hit the issues of past users and whether you'd grandfather them in. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

For a real RTV, user pages, talks, and archives can probably be deleted, but one problem is if the person returns--under another name that is later validly revealed in dispute resolution, RFAR, etc., or if the user just plain returns. In such a scenario, no user is entitled to any right to keep that content deleted, and it should be restored by the nearest available administrator in general. rootology (C)(T) 01:08, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I notice some editors are holding the page hostage and reverting any changes without discussion.. ironically, all while saying "please discuss changes". So, if those who are doing this would care to pull your heads out of your asses sometime, you might notice the discussion going on right here. Friday (talk) 14:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Found another admin today who had a red talk page. What do you propose to do with those? If these people have left, I say leave them alone. We extend (and have extended) this right to all users in good standing for years. Whether this "behavioral guideline" says so or not, we'll continue to extend it to users in good standing. --MZMcBride (talk) 14:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm still opposed to admins using their powers to redlink their talk pages before they leave. If there's sensitive information in there, Wikipedia:Selective deletion or oversight is available. If not, for any admin who used their tools, those talk pages will have likely have important discourse. –xeno (talk) 14:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not overly bothered by that. It's been a long-standing tradition that you can request your talk page be deleted, and it's been a long-standing tradition that that request may be granted. I don't see any value in changing the current situation. Any potential issues can be worked around whichever position we take, so I think we might as well take the position we seem to have traditionally taken, that it is something that can happen depending upon the circumstances. Anything in an admins deleted talk page history is plausibly accessible, but I really doubt there's anything ridiculously insanely needed which exists only in a talk page of an admin. I'm willing to take the bet for the sake of doing right by people where we can. Hiding T 15:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

If the user is gone forever under that name, whats the point of saving the discourse? You leave, your ongoing participation and previous standing on consensus is gone for the people remaining. If I leave tomorrow forever on this name, I can delete every last thing under my user space as I turn off the lights. If I come back in 365 days, any admin can freely restore all of my talk pages and talk page archives except sensitive info, whether I want him to do so or not. rootology (C)(T) 15:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

There may be information about the administrators actions, such as why a particular page was deleted, restored, why a user was blocked, unblocked, etc. –xeno (talk) 15:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

And admins can view all those deleted revisions if the question comes up--any of them can. Being an admin doesn't lessen your RTV; it has nothing to do with it in fact. More importantly, NO admin action is sacrosanct, ever, so they can be undone if needed and consensus supports them regardless of whatever opinion the admin who did them has (or had, since he's gone, and his opinion no longer counts anyway). rootology (C)(T) 15:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone's talk page should be deleted per RTV, admins just have an even more compelling reason. –xeno (talk) 15:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

There's bound to be information contained within the pages, the question is whether or not the information useful to building an encyclopedia (I'm thinking not). John Reaves 15:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

@Xeno: How so? Majorly talk 15:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I already explained above. –xeno (talk) 15:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

If I leave my status and input cease as does my standing on ongoing consensus or discussion. I'm becoming a fixture on this RTV page, and I'm a semi-regular to regular on several article talk pages. If I leave, the weight or ongoing value of my contributions that is not on those pages is null and void. If I chose to RTV and nuke my talk, any "weight" of anything on their is gone--I've withdrawn from the process, the discussion, and the community. People can do anything they want then regardless of me subject to everyone else: I'm not any longer a factor or of any value to Wikipedia as I hit the eject button. Overturn everything I've done--I've left Congress, so I no longer matter, repeal all my bills. I no longer have a vote. That's how it works. Anything critical in my deleted talk? If so, ANY number of admins can review it. What's the point in light of all this of forcing a talk page to stay? None. rootology (C)(T) 15:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

We do not own our user talk pages, and user talk pages (especially admins) are often used to create consensus - sometimes completely void of that particular user's input! (i.e. heavily stalked user talk pages). –xeno (talk) 16:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, absolutely. But... consensus is never binding "forever", which is good for growth but also one of our greatest (maybe someday fatal) flaws. You have to constantly fight tooth and nail over everything. And anyone can try to change consensus later, regardless of who says what; only Jimbo is semi-immune to this, and only so long as he has popular support in general. Everything can change. Keeping all that mind, some random consensus on my talk or some admin's talk isn't permanent, and if that admin takes his ball and leaves, he and his talk are no longer a factor till he comes back. If he deletes his page--as I said, no admin action is ever sacrosanct--another admin can undo it. Policies are never prescriptive, they are all required to be descriptive. Practice is we delete user talks for people who cleanly RTV, so that's what the page says. I really haven't ever seen a fuss over this before this discussion, and it's been the practice forever.

Even I had that once, and that was way back in 2006. This has been our way of doing things for THREE years at least. Ownership has nothing to do with this. Aitias recently claimed a RTV, deleted his talk, and then kept on editing the next day. Admins overturned his deletion validly. If he stayed gone, his page would stay gone. If I leave RIGHT now, and delete it all, and never come back, they stay gone. If I return, they return. That's a totally reasonable balance and scenario. If I've left the pool, I never again matter--why force me to keep my stuff around? You can't block or desysop someone not editing, and if they're not editing, their previous feedback is irrelevant as consensus changes.

Unless you can get a lot of long-standing users and admins to buy into your interpretation of this policy, it is not going to change. RTV is too valuable for the well-being of good departed users. rootology (C)(T) 17:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The practice (and, as I recall, the explicit rule) was always that user talk pages wouldn't be deleted, because the posts on them belonged to other users, not to the user who was vanishing. People then did start deleting them in or around 2006, because Jimbo said he supported it, though other people would undelete, and really since then there's been no consistent practice that I'm aware of. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Honestly, I've seen pretty consistent treatment. We always delete the user talk page if the user leaves in good standing. (And even if they don't....) --MZMcBride (talk) 18:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

User talk pages belong to the community. By contributing here, an editor is releasing their edits under GFDL, as it says before you hit 'Submit.' If you want to vanish, then just leave. Oversight is available for sensitive matters. Deleting talk pages helps accentuate a two-tier society where admins have more information than others. BLP deletion is one thing, routine deletion of non-sensitive talk pages has no plausible justification. EdJohnston (talk) 20:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

RTV isn't a routine deletion however--it's a one time (in theory) avenue where it only lasts while you're gone AND in good standing. Come back and sock badly -- restore the pages. Come back and edit--restore the pages. Delete your whole user talk but no RTV? Any admin can restore with impunity. rootology (C)(T) 22:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• If the user actually vanishes, I have no problem with this. There is no reason to read the rules parsimoniously and demand that the vanishing user scour their talk page (which could contain thousands of messages) for potentially identifiable information and ask for selective deletion. We should just accept the RTV request, delete the talk page and move on. If the user comes back in any form, the talk page comes right back up (and if they come back under a new name gets redirected or soft-redirected to the new talk page). We need to work to protect RTV. It is an important tool for users who face harassment IRL or who don't want past WP actions to reflect poorly on them in the future. It helps us build a better community. Part of doing that is protecting RTV from frivolous or insincere requests. If someone abuses RTV, it goes away for them. No questions asked. Protonk (talk) 20:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• I'm with the folks saying deleting talkpages should be, as a matter of routine, discouraged. In some cases I can see how it could be justified, but its become far too common and accepted. I've seen admins delete their talkpages and start over, not because they were leaving but just because they wanted to see the history gone. A few times this has preceeded a desysopping, voluntary or otherwise, and most often the deletion is ultimately reversed. That it happens at all at this extreme shows that our tolerance for this sort of thing has gone too far, and making it clear that deleting talkpages should be the exception rather than the rule is worth doing. Avruch ^T 21:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• RTVs, though, are the exception. If you or I RTV and come back 5 months or 5 years later on these names, our talks return. If we come back in 5 months or 5 years and sock or screw up on new names that are tied to these, our original talks come back--we're no longer in good standing. If we come back in 5 months or 5 years under new names with no ties by IP, subject or voice to these names, whats it matter of Avruch or Rootology's talks are still deleted? We ejected and are no longer relevant for anything. rootology (C)(T) 22:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The point of the RTV is that the person doesn't come back, and talk pages often provide material that helps people to spot if a vanished user has returned. But the more important point for me is that the posts were written by other people. I don't think an editor should be able to decide to delete other people's posts. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no way to know that someone has actually vanished, or will actually vanish. So there is no "right" time to delete user talk. Therefore, don't delete them. The vast majority of the "look at me, I'm leaving" type people are really just whining for attention. Let's not feed that by giving them whatever they demand. Friday (talk) 19:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. It's really simple to just punch the delete button when someone says "I'm vanishing". If they come back then you go ahead and undelete them. Refusing to delete talk pages because we can't prove that someone will 'really' vanish would just cause more drama. I would prefer that we just block RTV accounts indef so that people coming back from vanishing have some barrier to entry, but I doubt I would find consensus for such a policy. Protonk (talk) 20:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Accounts that are "vanished" should be blocked indef. The user has canceled their account, and further logins should be prohibited. That's how "account cancellation" works on almost everything else that has accounts. If you only want to leave temporarily, use the "retired" template. Users who "vanish" and then "reappear" are usually involved in drama that's a headache for others. --John Nagle (talk) 18:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Am I reading the consensus right here that user talk pages should not, on the whole, be deleted when someone exercises the right to vanish? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I hope that isn't the resulting consensus. For my money, if someone contacts me and requests to vanish, I'll continue to delete their talk page and user pages unless they reappear. Protonk (talk) 20:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

But, why? I've never seen a valid reason given for helping someone cover their tracks. The people who want their talk pages deleted are often problem editors. It's useful to be able to identify them when they return, which they usually do. The closest thing to a good reason I've heard is that it's "courteous", but I'm far more interested in what's courteous and useful to current contributors. Those who aren't here anymore don't matter, and it does them no harm for their user talk to remain. I see no good coming from user talk deletions, and it's frequently bad. So in the balance, I think the practice of deleting them should be discouraged. Is there something I'm missing? Friday (talk) 21:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Exactly my experience. Before I was admin I came across that situation when an new editor made reasonable edits then got into trouble - then RTV'd. A little latter same process again under a new user name. All came up when I protested the the deletion of the talk page and it turned out that the history gone a lot further back.

The other issue here concerned is - you you delete somebody's talkpage you don't delete his contributions - you are deleting mine. That goes against anything wiki! Agathoclea (talk) 21:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

There are plenty of reasons. For one, a legitimate desire to erase obvious connections between wiki-history and the real world should usually be fulfilled without question. If someone edits under their real name or something connected to their real name and wants to leave few obvious traces of that when they leave, we should and do support that. It has been part of our practice for years. Again, if someone uses this to 'cover' their tracks the easy response is to undelete everything and point it back to the user. We need to preserve our ability to extend the courtesy of vanishing and allow the community to have some record of actions and behavior. I don't see how RTV makes those exclusive. Frankly, the less mess we have to undergo in order to delete the material in the first place, the less mess we will have to deal with when restoring it should the person return (under the same account or a different one). I don't really like the ethical calculus that stems from treating the experience of former editors as unimportant. I also don't really see the problem with just deleting the material. I really don't. Who (assuming that the vanished user doesn't return) loses when the talk page material is deleted? For whom is this discourteous? I recognize the very real problem that exists when an editor vanishes, has their talk page deleted and then returns as though the slate was wiped clean. I have pushed hard to ensure that we restore the material which was deleted and avoid misuse of RTV. Those misuses are real problems. But they don't stem from the talk page deletion. They stem from the unwillingness to delete or the inevitability of return for some editors. Protonk (talk) 23:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Deleting personally identifying information has nothing to do with whether someone claims to be leaving the project. We do that on request, period, and for good reason. Even when we do this, we don't delete the entire history if we can help it- we delete only what's required. Can we leave this separate issue alone now and discuss what's relevant? Once you disregard this irrelevancy, you've still provided no reason why it's helpful to delete user talk. You're only pointing out that it's easy to undo. Sure it is. But we don't go around deleting history for no good reason, despite it being easy to undo. As for who loses, it's everyone who ever contributed to the deleted page, and anyone who ever tries to read it. Sure, it's not a huge loss- it's probably only mildly annoying. But since there is no good reason to delete user talk, even a small reason not to do it still wins. It's balancing test, and one side of the balance is completely empty. Friday (talk) 23:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I could contest U1 deletions on that basis. I also don't want to sift through someone's talk page for thousands of personally identifying or damning comments just to avoid deleting the whole batch. I would much rather accept a RTV request and delete the bunch. That's the premise of RTV and I don't know what we are going to debate if we dismiss it. Sure, there is physically less content and history if we delete user talk pages. sure, some of the contributions won't be from the user requesting deletion. but barring a return of the editor, the user history is unimportant and frankly, most of the conversations on the talk page are pretty unimportant too. So really, I'm unconvinced. I'll continue to delete user talk pages on a RTV request. Protonk (talk) 01:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

"Bureaucrats?"

Where did "If you wish to contact bureaucrats to either alert them of a privacy issue, or to an emergency please use Special:Emailuser/Bureaucrats or email wikien-bureaucrats-at-lists.wikimedia.org" come from? It doesn't fit with the rest of the text. Privacy issues should go through OTRS, anyway. --John Nagle (talk) 16:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

If the user wants to be renamed to RTV, for example. –xeno (talk) 16:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

"Renamed to RTV"? Unclear. --John Nagle (talk) 23:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Rename the user in order to allow them to vanish. Protonk (talk) 02:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it'd be unlikely you'd get any assistance from OTRS, unless your account is linked to the subject of one of our articles. OTRS avoids getting involved with editorial issues involving experienced Wikipedia editors, including the statuses of accounts. Daniel (talk) 02:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, when would "vanishing" be an emergency? --John Nagle (talk) 03:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

So, should the "If you wish to contact bureaucrats" section be removed? --John Nagle (talk) 18:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The right not to have an article about oneself

Hi, there's a debate going on in id: concerning a person (id:Gusdi Sastra, an Indonesian linguist) who wished that his article should be deleted. It was deleted once, but a sysop, id:User:Borgx decided to rewrite the article anew, and thus the linguist is crying foul. Is there exists such right as to not having an article about oneself published in Wikipedia? Bennylin (talk) 11:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

There does not here. The wish of an article's subject might be considered in cases of borderline notability but generally it's irrelevant. If Barrack Obama requested his article to be deleted, noone would think it's the right thing to do, would they? But of course, id-wiki can have other local rules anyway, so asking for en-wiki's policy will not really help you in that case. There is no foundation rule about that as far as I know that would affect all wikis alike. Regards SoWhy 12:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks SoWhy. FYI most of the basic rules are imported. But we might create a new one just for this case. Bennylin (talk) 08:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the "right to vanish" should have a delay.

Perhaps the "right to vanish" should have a delay of a few months associated with it. If an editor requests the "right to vanish", the "vanishing" could be delayed a few months, in case they change their mind and come back. Any edit on the account would cancel the "vanish" request.

This would simplify the problem of dealing with editors who "exercise their right to vanish" and then come back, which one is not supposed to do.

The practical problem with the "right to vanish" is that it's usually exercised by editors involved with drama. It's not the ones who say "I'm retiring and am giving up Wikipedia to live on a boat.", or "I'm being deployed to Afghanistan and won't be able to contribute any more" who want to vanish. --John Nagle (talk) 18:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Simply ignoring all retirement announcements would achieve the same effect, with a bit less work. Friday (talk) 18:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Deleting user talk pages

There's a new discussion ongoing here: Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#CSD U1, user talk pages, and the right to vanish. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1

I don't get it

Why would an RTV'er have to change his username if he's not going to use the new name? It just seems to make it unclear that RTV means actual "vanishing" and not "clean start." Auntie E. (talk) 23:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, but imagine your actual name was Aunt Entropy. If you felt like vanishing, you might not want your name to pop up whenever someone went looking for you 'round the internets. The idea, as the project page says, is to dissociate the account from the owner, and to keep the identify as he or she might prefer it. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Listings of a vanished user

I've been going through CAT:FFD, and finding several images where the original listing had been overwritten due to a bug in Twinkle. I've been relisting these, and linking back to the edit where Twinkle overwrote the nomination. If the original nomination (possibly from 2008) was made by a user who had since vanished, should I remove/change the sig in the relisting, in order to help keep the user "vanished"? (It will still be visible in the diff which I link to) עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to require a waiting period

The right to vanish is a major step, and not one to be taken lightly. Editors take wikibreaks all the time, some with notice, some without. Some enforce the break through various means, with various ways of ending such a break.

The right to a fresh start is a bigger deal, but still involves an editor remaining with the project.

The right to vanish is intended to be permanent. Sorry for the soapbox, but I wanted the proper setup for my proposal - given the irreversible nature of the decision, I suggest that a request for a right to vanish should never be granted immediately. We should require a period of time to reflect. Depending on the circumstances, it may be a cooling off period, or it may just be some time away from the project.

I don't know what is a proper amount of time, but I'm thinking three months. I could e talked into a longer wait. What's the harm in letting an editor post the "retired" banner on their page, and waiting three months? Permitting an editor to make a lifetime decision at a time when either onwiki or offwiki stress may be high is not good for the project or the editor.

What do others think?--SPhilbrickT 17:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose to any waiting period I intend to always err on the side of protecting user's privacy, and thus I would be extremely opposed to any sort of waiting period, at all. We are not cognizant of people's personal lives and issues when we receive requests, and we have no idea if someone is being stalked, or is not in a good psychological frame of mind. If people want to leave immediately, and the involved bureaucrat's discretion (one of the reasons why RfB is so hard) approves, there should be no waiting period. People are responsible for their actions; it is not our place to act as "Big Brother", especially when it may cause psychological and emotional distress. -- Avi (talk) 18:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Remark: RTV basically involves (a) changing the username and (b) deleting userpages. B is done routinely anyway via {{userreq}} (though in some cases RTV might provide willingness to delete where the usual process wouldn't). So it's mostly A we're talking about. I don't see that renaming is that big a deal either - this too is done routinely (Wikipedia:Changing username). So about the only aspect of RTV that's different is not connecting the renamed account with the old one, isn't it? I'm not sure if the renamed account is then blocked (would have a certain logic), in which case, there's little scope for abuse, and it can in theory also be undone, by renaming back. Is this right? If so, there's no reason to wait. Rd232 ^talk 18:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

You'd be hard-pressed to find someone more in agreement with the principle that people are responsible for their own actions. We don't have to model our actions on the RL laws, but when one sees mandatory waiting periods to use a condo as collateral for a credit card, one thinks that a mandatory period for an irreversible decision should be considered.

Rd232, you objection is based upon the premise that it can be undone. Can we start by clarifying this? Some members of ArbCom believe it is permanent, although, to be fair, some take a different position. If nothing else is accomplished, it would be helpful to clarify the answer tot his question, as the uncertain status had led to actual distress. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change/Proposed_decision#Right_to_vanish

Avi, I'm not following your implication that the existence of a user page, talk page, and the possibility that one could edit in the future could cause distress. Presumably, an editor can enforce a wikibreak, so the potential distress at the temptation to edit can be removed. --SPhilbrickT 19:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

BTW, I'd happily support waiver of waiting periods if the 'crat has reason to believe that the waiting period will create more harm than it is intended to prevent. I actually considered including it in the proposal, and should have, but frankly, I couldn't dream up a situation in which case speed is necessary. I agree that RfB is tough because we expect our 'crats to exhibit extraordinary good judgement. I'm happy to report I've seen no counter-examples yet. Adding a waiting period, but allowing waiver gives the 'crat the ability to insist that the requester make an affirmative case for waiver. Under the present rules, as I understand them, the requested can insist on it being immediate, and the 'crat needs to have a positive reason for refusal. I think it is worth protecting those who might assert their RTV in a fit of pique, and might regret the irreversible decision. If, in fact, it is not irreversible, then ArbCom needs to be informed, as they are voting as we speak based upon this assumption.--SPhilbrickT 19:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the proposed arbcom decision is clear enough: "Editors who invoke this right should expect that, should they return, their previous identity will be fully restored and any possible sanctions will be reapplied." Your proposal seems substantially based on the premise it's an irreversible action; I don't think it is. Rd232 ^talk 22:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

It is also equally clear that Coren believes "Editors who exercise their right to vanish are expected to not return to editing in the future, near or distant." And Shell believes that "No, RTV is permanent." Some one needs to clarify whether RTV is permanent or not.--SPhilbrickT 00:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

My thoughts: nothing in life is permanent. RTV is implemented when a user intends never to return. What happens seven years from now, who knows? If someone returns in 2 years and no one can tell who they were; does it matter? If someone returns in eight years and it is obvious immediately who they are, I'd expect that some mention of that will be placed on their user page. -- Avi (talk) 03:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

It may be helpful to consider vanishing as permanent but reversible in the way an indefinite block is. I would strongly support Rd232's sentiments above. Skomorokh 16:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. Per Avi. --Dweller (talk) 21:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe right to vanish should be an option both in the case of a clean break, that is, in leaving the project, as we as in a clean start. The intent of right to vanish is that in cases where a username has not provided anonymity, inherently outs someone (using their real name), or where the user has been outed, that the user can have their identify removed to the extent that it is possible for us to do so. The records of long term abusers and other histories of abuse going away along with a vanished user is a separate matter that we may need to examine, but any delay in RTV cases is potentially harmful. At the minimum, evidence of long term abuse or serious misconduct needs to be preserved somewhere in case the user returns, and we need to decide how we can reassociate that when strictly necessary, without publicly linking to past accounts.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Triona (talk • contribs) 21:05, September 6, 2010

• Comment. First, there is no right to a fresh start on Wikipedia. Your actions on Wikipedia go on your Permanent Record. Most of the people who ask for a 'fresh start' want one because they've ruined their reputation and want to make trouble under a new name. We do not need to accommodate them. --John Nagle (talk) 18:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Deleting user talk pages

This has been raised a few times here before, but I don't think we ever established a clear guideline.

Sometimes when people leave, they ask for their talk pages to be deleted, and sometimes moved (to e.g. User talk:Former user 100). Sometimes when they return, the deletion or move is not undone, and sometimes it is, and several times the inconsistencies in treatment have led to arguments.

Can we try to come up with a clear guideline—specifically on the issue of talk pages? User pages are a bit different, because they contain mostly the user's own posts. But talk pages contain other people's posts, including warnings and blocks that the user might want to see gone, but that others might feel are important to preserve. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:12, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I think both RTV and CSD have been clear for a long time. User talk pages are deleted rarely, and then by MfD. What needs to change is the assumption by some admins that they can get away with what is not allowed to the rest of us. Especially admins who lie as much as the departed one who triggered the latest farrago. DuncanHill (talk) 01:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Please keep the discussion general, Duncan, otherwise people will have to start defending themselves (removing that last point of yours would help a lot). So in what circumstances is there consensus to speedy-delete talk pages, rather than moving them or taking them to MfD? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:51, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with DuncanHill. Policy says not to do this; the problem is that vanishing editors with admin bits (or with multiple friends with admin bits) frequently go against policy "just this once" and delete the talk page anyway. I'm not personally a big fan of the "right" to vanish, as opposed to the immutable right to leave; but regardless of bad terminology it is to Wikipedia's benefit to accomodate certain users' lingering concerns that prevent them from separating themselves from us, if they would not otherwise do so voluntarily. It is not in Wikipedia's best interest to interpret RTV as a reputational escape hatch for those with connections, especially if they cannot in fact separate themselves from Wikipedia. Note that the preceding is not specifically about the most recent incident, though of course the entire discussion here occurs in the shadow of it. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:59, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec) As far as I know, the only user talk pages that get speedied relatively consensually are those of banned/indeffed-to-near-ban-proportion editors. Even that is not wholly without opposition. Sorry, I can't bring myself to remove the last comment I made above, it's truthful and relevant. DuncanHill (talk) 02:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

• Perhaps there is a middle path available. Delete the talkpage (under the absolute proviso that should the editor ever return there is an immediate undeletion), and have the deleting admin recreate the page with text along the lines of "This user has invoked their right to vanish from Wikipedia. Any concerns should be directed to _____ (for example, ArbCom)."→ ROUX ₪ 02:51, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

That's not a middle path, that's a complete reversal of existing policy. I do not see any need (apart from massaging bruised egos) to delete usertalk pages. We already allow blanking, full protection, and oversight of specific diffs, which should surely cover all genuine concerns. DuncanHill (talk) 03:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

• In general I oppose all deletion of user talk pages, since they may contain my own valuable and freely-submitted contributions of wisdom - but seriously, utalk deletion is a huge impediment to the research of non-admins and should happen as little as possible. User talk is a definite indication of editor interaction with the community and should almost never be lost, as it reflects the ongoing progress of the community above and beyond the one individual editor. If one is truly vanishing, one should not be all that concerned with what is left behind. The exceptions would be usernames equal to living names and/or distinctive internet nic's, but even then I'd be furrowing my brow and asking why you got your distinctive ID into such a fix in the first place. Courtesy blanking and noindexing are equally valid solutions. Roux's idea is OK but I would be much more restrictive if/when I get control of the servers. ;) So mark me down as almost never on deleting utalk pages I guess. Franamax (talk) 03:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree with everything you've said. My suggestion was in the nature of expediency and attempting to stave off what I confidently predict will be a long, bitter, and acrimonious debate. → ROUX ₪ 03:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

The case which was the immediate trigger of this thread was not an RTV. It was retirement in a huff while blocked again. Long, bitter and acrimonious describes perfectly the events which led up to the retirement. DuncanHill (talk) 11:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

• We should only delete user talk pages in extreme cases, such as when much of the page history includes material that could be used for outing (such as user who used to use his/her real name to edit, but renamed due to RL harassment, etc.), or when the talk page contained only vandalism/spam/attacks by a new user, etc. Unless RTV is invoked for reasons such as offwiki threats the user does not wish to deal with, and much of the talk page's history poses a direct danger to the user, there shouldn't be any reason to delete it completely. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 20:57, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

• As it stands, it is up to the 'crat doing the RTV. Personally, I almost always err on the side of protecting the real-life person. Deletions are reversible; emotional harm usually is not. For people whose sole contributions were trolling and the talk page is full of warnings, especially if there is no link to a real-life identity, then there is less reason to delete the talk pages. But for people who were, overall, good contributors and , more importantly, if there is a connection between their usernames and posts and their real life identities, I will be more likely to delete even the talk page. Keeping the talk page as a way to "punish" wikipedians is wrong. We keep sockmasters not because we want them to suffer, but because we need to protect the project from the near-inevitable future socks they will create. People who leave out of frustration/anger/disappointment should not be forced to have a "scarlet letter" or "wall of shame" dog their internet history forever. -- Avi (talk) 04:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• Avi, I think there's strong consensus that talk pages should not be deleted, because the posts made to talk pages are largely made by others, not by the editor exercising the right to vanish. I can see exceptions being made from time to time, but as a general rule talk pages have not been deleted. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Currently, I believe it is still within the purview of the bureaucrat performing the RTV. Can you point me to a EnWiki-wide discussion which led to a consensus otherwise? Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 05:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I can't point you to any single discussion, but every time it has been raised in the six years I've been editing, there has been consensus against deleting talk pages as a rule (there will always be exceptions of course). As I said, this is for the simple reason that, unlike user pages, it is other people who have mostly written on a user's talk page, so it's other people's edits that single user is deciding ought to be deleted, which is something not normally done. Can you point to any discussion where it was decided to leave this to bureaucrats? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
  • RtV's are handled at bureaucrat discretion, and my understanding has been that all facets of RtV are so handled. -- Avi (talk) 07:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Avi, the guideline/policy is here, can you shew us the EnWiki-wide discussion which deprecated the RTV page and replaced it with unfettered 'Crat discretion? DuncanHill (talk) 13:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

RfC on deleting user talk pages

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Short summary: Deletion of user talk pages of vanishing editors should be the exception, not the rule and the final decision should rest with the bureaucrat.

Extended summary and rationale: Okay, it's been nearly a fortnight since there was any active discussion on this issue and I've been asked to take a look. The discussion seems to have fizzled out, so now would seem a good time to close it before it's forgotten. We have a large number of editors articulating a variety of viewpoints throughout the discussion and no one point of view seems to have overwhelming support.

There are good arguments presented for retaining the talk pages of vanished editors, namely, that they are the property of the community and not of the editor whose username is on them and that user talk pages often contain important discussions, especially where that editor has been involved in some kind of high-profile or decision-making role and there is the obvious desire to retain these discussions for the benefit of those questioning any such decisions in future. That said, we also have strong arguments well articulate in favour of deleting the talk pages, mostly at the request of the vanishing editor or where there are other concerns. The privacy of Wikipedians in their real lives is something that needs to be taken very seriously.

The consensus would appear to be that, on the whole, the deletion of user talk pages (and their archives and other pages where discussions are recorded) is generally not appropriate and that the talk pages should usually be retained. However, there also seems to be a consensus for leaving the final decision in the hands of the bureaucrat, who can take into account concerns such as privacy and the potential for real world harm, but that the use of discretion in deleting talk pages should only be used where there is a compelling reason not to preserve the discussion on that page, ie that deletion of talk pages should be the exception, not the rule. I commend this statement to the house. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:47, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

---

This is an issue that keeps being raised, so wide input would be appreciated. Users exercising the right to vanish may request the deletion of their user pages. Should they also be allowed to have their talk pages deleted by any admin, or should talk pages be moved to a new name (if so wished) but otherwise preserved, unless there is consensus to delete at MfD? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Past discussions (likely an incomplete list): Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 36#CSD U1, user talk pages, and the right to vanish; the archives for this page

Comments

• Keep talk pages, though they can be moved to whatever new account name the contributions are being moved to. The difference between user pages and talk pages is that other editors have largely written the latter, so it's not appropriate for the user in question, or for an admin, to decide unilaterally to delete them. Exceptions should be rare—e.g. when serious real-life issues are involved that for some reason necessitate deletion of the page. Otherwise, talk pages should be deleted via MfD like any other page that multiple editors have contributed to. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
• Keep talk pages generally per SlimVirgin and also per my own comments when this last came up here only 3 weeks ago. Franamax (talk) 06:30, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
• Keep talk pages: What Slim said. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
• Keep talk pages. Per SlimVirgin. Deleting user talk pages, especially those that have relevant information, under such circumstances is not compatible with WP:OWN. Talk pages of ban-evading socks etc. with no useful history are another matter.  Sandstein  06:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• Though Avi below makes an important point: we may need to note that talk pages may be deleted, in particular, in order to protect the real-life identity of the vanished user.  Sandstein  07:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• Delete talk pages per users requests. Administrators should request the deletions of their own talk pages versus deleting them themselves. If the user returns even under a new name, the talk pages should be restored.--Mbz1 (talk) 06:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
• Allow Deletion: In cases where users are truly making a break from Wikipedia, there is no need to keep these pages. I understand that in a lot of cases, RTV is being used as the illegitimate offspring of WP:CLEANSTART and WP:SOCK. However, if someone TRULY wants to make a clean break from Wikipedia, I see no reason (including those listed above) from requesting their talk page be deleted. At most I would allow deletion with a one-edit recreation that there WAS a user with such a name, and if there was signs that the editor has returned, to restore the previous edits. In a lot of these cases, those arguing against allowing such a deletion want the pages to remain as a bit of a Damnatio memoriae. SirFozzie (talk) 06:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
• Leave it up to the bureaucrat's discretion. Many times there is no need to delete the talk pages. Other times, personal issues such as emotional or psychological harm is a possibility when people believe that they are being "ganged up on" or attacked. Wikipedia pages of any sort should never be able to be used as attacks, and if someone is distressed enough to give up years of work due to on-wiki stresses, the bureaucrat in question should have the right to protect that person's real life identity and/or well-being. -- Avi (talk) 07:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
  • SirFozzie says it very well when he refers to Damnatio memoriae. I have always tried to err on protecting the emotional/psychological well-being of editors. Vandal-only sockmasters are one thing; editors of many years' status willing to throw it all out is another, which is why I maintain that bureaucrats should be allowed the discretion to delete the talk pages when they deem it necessary. -- Avi (talk) 07:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete at request of user. SlimVirgin's original statement assumes that people will return. That is a CLEANSTART, not a RTV. The general community rarely is aware of whether or not users are being harassed or RTV for other reasons that have nothing to do with Wikipedia. The theory that "other editors" should have the right to view their edits on someone else's talk page is illogical - "other editors" can't see their edits on any other pages that have been deleted, either, which would argue against ever deleting anything. One of the most important parts of the entire RTV process is the ability of users to leave the project; continued posting on their talk pages has the tendency to draw people back, particularly if they are littered with ill-considered comments. Deleting the user talk page assists in the transition from editor to non-editor. Risker (talk) 07:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete per request This needn't be a huge deal. If someone truly has decided to leave, their talk page can and should be deleted. I do think that any conversations an editor can demonstrate a need to view can and should be undelted. AniMate 07:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
• Leave to bureaucrat discretion/user request. As it happens, requests to vanish from vandals or generally unconstructive users are generally declined. The people who do vanish are, most of the time, people who have their "emotional/psychological well-being" (to quote Avi) at stake. In such a case, talk page deletion is primarily a form of protection and also a form of transition away, because for whatever reason, people keep coming back to Wikipedia, which vanished users are not to do. These are general trends though, and the circumstances may dictate otherwise, which is why discretion and request are important. bibliomaniac15 07:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
• Generally keep - user talkpages, especially of users who have been around longer, often, if not always, contain discussions regarding edits to mainspace articles, and removing such discussions can result in not finding the discussions which establish certain changes. Secondly, for editors who have been around short, but have had significant editing problems and have received numerous warnings, the fact that those warnings were issued, and that the user, under this username, was aware of the warnings, can affect future decisions on handling (a) new or 'new' user(s) or their actions. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
• Keep talk pages, except in extreme situations where IAR can be invoked. Talk pages are the contributions of many editors, and are a central part of the Akashic record tradition of Wikipedia. Virtually all privacy issues can be handled through oversighting or other tools that fix individual edits. RTV is intended to be permanent and is separate from the "clean start" alternate account. Nobody who exercises the right to vanish can ethically return with a new user name, especially editors whose contributions might otherwise come under additional scrutiny due to past problems.   Will Beback  talk  08:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
  • As I said above, Will.. you're confusing what apparently everyone considers RTV to be (CLEANSTART) with truly leaving the encyclopedia. Your theory fails under that test. No one argues that someone who RTV's and comes back under the same account or a new one should have the talk page stay deleted. If, and only if, they are truly vanishing, then the RTV allows them to make a clean break with Wikipedia. It's common courtesy. SirFozzie (talk) 08:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm not confusing the two, I'm distinguishing them. RTV is meant to be permanent. It's not meant for someone who wants to come back, which is the opposite of vanishing. I've started a thread on the privacy issue below. 08:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
• Keep talk pages if the user is an arbitrator. This should be pretty clear. The talk pages of arbitrators usually contain important discussions related to an arbcase. Every current and future arbitrator should be forced to give up the right to get their talk pages deleted -- if a person cannot agree to this, then he simply should not be an arb. I'm not sure about the general case of deleting talk pages of non-arb users. Offliner (talk) 08:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
  • No, at least in my case, 90% of an arb's talk page with regards to any ArbCase is people agitating for others to be blocked, or for their misbehavior to be treated less harshly. I cannot think of a case where significant user talk discussion played a role in a decision. Under your theory, the Committee should be forced to publish its archives of discussions to every closed case... after all it's important discussions related to an arbcase, right? SirFozzie (talk) 08:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
    • All public discussions related to an arbcase should be kept public, even if an arb decides to "run away". Offliner (talk) 08:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
• Do not delete user talk pages. These pages often contain material relevant to policy development, other users development, and sometimes even mainspace material. The contributions were irrevocably released your under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. RTV should be limited to renaming the account, retroactively to anonymise the departed user. Selective revision deletion may be used to remove personally identifying material from the talk page history, but only so far as it doesn't impinge on keeping the history of ongoing project interests. Deleting, even revision deletion, of one's own talk page should be absolutely forbidden. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

No problem with blanking and protection of a departed user's talk page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Exceptions should generally be debated at MfD. If there are over-riding personal or other concerns, it should be treated as a request for oversight. I would expect that oversighters have their own codes and checks for such requests. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

In an instance of a security breach, there may not be time for community debate or requests for action (such as oversight), nor may there be time for oversight to pick through an edit history to tease out relevant edits. In some cases, immediate action is necessary. Kingturtle = (talk) 03:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

In case of urgent need, one should do what needs to be done. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• Keep talkpage and associated archives Primarily as per SirFozzie. Delete userpage upon request. However, perhaps when someone requests RTV, their talkpage should be immediately locked from editing. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
• Keep but allow blanking - I was undecided until I read User:Beetstras comment. Talk pages often contain discussions that others need to reference after the user leaves. Even brief threads can potentially matter, such as confirming whether a file deletion was notified or any response on a content or file question. I can't see an exception for "allow if only trivial content" being viable, it's just too subjective. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
• Permit deletion at bureaucrat discretion only. We elect bureaucrats to handle these sorts of issues sensitively and responsibly. As a matter of routine, talk pages should not be deleted, but if there are exceptional reasons for deletion, they are likely to be reasons precluding much discussion, especially public discussion. Rd232 ^talk 10:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
• Keep talkpages ESPECIALLY the archives. One thing I appreciate about Wikipedia is the continuity of history, being able to trace any particular discussion from link to link to its root, the preservation of all information that contributes to Wikipedia's 'soul', basically the Akashic record thing WillB. mentioned above. And leaving a mass of broken links is the biggest problem of all. I really really hate broken links. When I enter a particular oldid revision number I damn well expect that page to be there unless it's oversighted for good reason. -- œ^™ 11:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
• Keep talkpages. Blanking, locking, renaming are all acceptable. Deletion of specific edits for good reasosn as well. Deletion of a complete talk page isn't, as many other editors may use it as a reference. Fram (talk) 12:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
• There is no simple answer. In most some cases deletion is not appropriate at all, but if I made use of RTV because some thug was targeting my child at school I would feel very strongly that my talk page should also be deleted completely and that there should be a general climate in which this doesn't cause a huge dispute. Oversighters etc. must use discretion, and they need a climate in which they can make use of it without causing further damage. Hans Adler 12:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC) Changed comment per Kingturtle below. Hans Adler 15:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
• Keep talkpages with selective revisiondelete where necessary. (This is not a comment on Rlevse, which is a special case. But hard cases make bad law. My point is for RTV users in general.)—S Marshall T/C 12:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
• Keep, only if editor is vanishing under a negative cloud. GoodDay (talk) 12:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
• Keep but blank if requested. This is even more important for long term editors and administrators as mentioned above. JodyB _talk 13:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
• Keep, we already allow blanking, and we also already allow oversight of specific problem diffs, and between the two this is entirely adequate. I see no need whatsoever for deletion. DuncanHill (talk) 13:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
• I think that keeping the talkpages should be the default, and I've declined at least one {{G7}} per RTV request on a talkpage. I've deleted one newbies talkpage per G7 and IAR when they left, but as the only edit to it was the equivalent of them saying "Hello World" I figured that was reasonable discretion. I've also deleted talkpages per G10 when the only edit was a personal attack. I'm not going to quibble if an uninvolved crat or Arb deletes talkpages in a RTV scenario per extenuating circumstances, but when we are talking about substantial editing and potentially important discussion history then I would like to see this tightened to an uninvolved editor who has identified themselves to the office, e.g. a checkuser. I think that would protect both the former Wikipedian and the person doing the deletion, and would also restrict this to necessary cases such as involving minors and other vulnerable people. ϢereSpielChequers 14:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
• Allow Deletion: We're talking about the right to vanish, not about clean starts or fresh starts. RTV is a courtesy not divvied out to anyone who wants it. It is allowed by the community for extreme cases to users in good standing on a case by case basis, and the deletion of pages (and on rare occasions edits) are done on a discretionary basis. Whether a talk page is deleted, blanked or left alone really depends on the case. Every RTV is different, and there needs to be some leeway in how they are administered. Also, there are safeguards in place to reverse or prevent RTV deletions. Kingturtle = (talk) 14:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
• Keep because talk pages remain useful for the community after a vanisher vanishes, and because controversial deletion raises the appearance of power users looking out for their buddies, especially when there's a cloud. Townlake (talk) 14:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
  • What if there is no cloud? Kingturtle = (talk) 14:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
    • That's why the word "especially" is there, sport. Townlake (talk) 04:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• Its obvious When a user flames out and deletes their user and talk page because they can't deal with whatever stresses are affecting them any more we should imemdiately threaten them and force them to undelete the page rather being patient and having some kind of supportive or understanding discussion with them to try and find solutions that suit everyone. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Spartaz, you may not have noticed that most editors cannot delete anything, let alone their talkpages, however stressed they may be. DuncanHill (talk) 15:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
    • {{csd-U1}} Doh! Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
      • If you had bothered to read CSD:U1, you would know that it specifically excludes usertalk pages. "Personal user pages and subpages (but not user talk pages) upon request by their user. In some rare cases there may be administrative need to retain the page. In exceptional cases user talk pages may be deleted via Miscellany for Deletion (see right to vanish); they are not eligible for speedy deletion under this criterion." Doh indeed! DuncanHill (talk) 15:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
• Keep; blank if desired. Vanished or not, there's no reason to delete content from the user talk page unless it meets one of the revdel criteria; the practice is liable to be open to abuse and have no benefits: The rest of the user's contributions will remain regardless, so why delete the contents of their talk page, and why would leaving it in place be an issue unless they want to cover up problems in their history? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete at request of user -... or at the discretion of an admin where appropriate and in exceptional circumstances. Generally an ordinary user can blank their user talk page anyway (it should be their choice on that too) and such blanking ought to be considered by itself to be generally equivalent to a deletion request as well. User talk pages are usually intended to be temporary discussion spaces even if there tends to be some semi-permanence after a fashion. All rules have exceptions and there are exceptions here, but in general I fail to see what benefits the community as a whole to insist upon keeping content on somebody else's user talk page. If a discussion is important to you, copy it onto your own user talk page or if it is something important to the project as a whole, into some place in the main project namespace (aka the "Wikipedia" namespace) instead. With some exceptions, I don't think there should even be a limit in terms of how many times a deletion request can be made, although repeated requests can be done as time and circumstances permit by admins and don't necessarily have to be done either. A user trying to vanish from the project who is also formally requesting a talk page deletion... there shouldn't even be a question that it ought to be deleted too. Such a request must come from the user of that account itself, not by somebody claiming it is an alternate account. --Robert Horning (talk) 16:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
• Keep - IMO, the "right to vanish" does not mean "the right to obliterate everything I ever did". Unless there are extremely specific and justifiable concerns of privacy, what anyone puts into this place should remain for good. The "You irrevocably agree to release your contributions..." line isn't just there for show. Tarc (talk) 17:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
• Allow deletion of all records made by the user who requests deletion from his talk page. Please make this a general policy, regardless to the right to vanish. Biophys (talk) 16:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
• Keep IMO, they should not be deleted. A user talk page is a centralized location for figuring out what a user is all about. The reasons for leaving, the kind of editor a person was, though they are available in other locations (ANI, Arb pages, etc.), are most easily examined on the user talk page. Courtesy blanking is fine but leave a viewable history for anyone who wishes to see it.--RegentsPark (talk) 16:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I do not understand why we remove garbage from main space, but can not do the same in the user space. Why can't we make an AfD discussion of a specific contentious user talk page to discuss all "benefits" of keeping it? Yes, I mean my own talk page, for example, even though I am not going to vanish. Biophys (talk) 17:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Both WP:CSD and WP:RTV already say that usertalk pages can be deleted via MfD, though they both make clear that this is in exceptional cases. DuncanHill (talk) 17:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Why? Whatever is not beneficial for the project may and should be removed per WP:IAR if nothing else. And what is beneficial should be decided by WP:Consensus, during an AfD-like discussion.Biophys (talk) 17:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Consensus (as reflected in both CSD and RTV) has long been that it is more beneficial in most cases to retain usertalk pages, but that they can be deleted via discussion at MfD if necessary. DuncanHill (talk) 17:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Then such matters should be decided at MfD.Biophys (talk) 18:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• Delete Per user request as it comes under Userspace.User Page and Talk Page come under UserSpace and it left best to a Users discretion and as a Talk Page is primarily meant to communicate with the concerned user. Now if the concerned user has left Wikipedia and wants it deleted or blanked as per a users wish it should be carried out.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
• Case-by case basis I don't see any compelling reason to always keep them, nor any compelling reason to always delete them. Crats are among our most trusted users, they should be able to make such a decision in the case of RTV. That being said, we should always allow a user who is departing voluntarily and is not blocked to have their archives deleted, and to blank their talk page as their last edit if they wish. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
  • But why allow deletion? I see no reason whatsoever for it. We might as well delete all talk pages (user and article and project) at whim. It's all very well for admins (who can see what has been deleted, and are also the most egregious in wanting to hide the evidence of their own misbehaviour) but it is downright condescending to the rest of us. We are left groping in the dark, not even allowed to see our own contributions, simply to suit those who have lied and cheated and now want to protect their own egos. DuncanHill (talk) 20:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
    • If you read my comments below, deletion of talk pages entails a great deal more than "lied and cheated and now want to protect their own egos". Kingturtle = (talk) 20:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Put bluntly, I don't believe you. Blanking, and oversight of specific diffs are quite sufficient to cope with any likely problems. Even in the one case I know of where a deletion of a usertalkpage stuck, the Arb who insisted on it has admitted that there was no sensitive information involved, and that it was purely to stroke the vanity of the dishonest departing admin. the last thing we need is a green light to further abuses, which will inevitably be used to favour the few. DuncanHill (talk) 20:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
• Keep but allow for IAR and special exceptions There's no real consensus over what would be a privacy matter or anything like that, but I don't think it would be too much to ask if a crat made the decision to delete a user talk page for a certain special cases involving the safety of the user and whatnot. (For example, if someone was trying to out someone else, there may be information in the user talk history about that user that the outer did not yet see, etc.) But no, they should not be deleted usually and not always on a "per request". The request needs to be more than just "I quit". /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• Keep talk pages - Courtesy blank, rev del or oversight if necessary. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• Keep as a matter of course, unless special conditions merit it in rare cases. --Jayron32 05:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• Keep. If necessary, delete specific edits containing inappropriate content, not the entire history. Page blanking via a normal edit is fine. --John Nagle (talk) 02:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
• Keep but allow for IAR and special exceptions - I know that User:Fetchcomms said it above, but they covered much of what I wanted to say. And courtesy blanking should be fine upon user request per normal, as it retains the edit history. - jc37 05:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
• Keep no pre-emptive deletion, unless the need arises. —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 8:42pm • 09:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
• Case by case. The last incident demonstrated the not-quite-vanished nature of RTV. It's not an "act of dissociating the identity of a user account from the identity of its owner". The account has been renamed, that's all. All the associations remain in place. I see no point of deletion in these circumstances: you delete talk page, but thousands of highly visible pages edited by the user (Arbcom decisions etc.) still list the old name. What's the point? On the other hand, RTV of a less public user may, indeed, be equivalent to vanishing, so I wouldn't rule out a well motivated deletion of talk page. East of Borschov 10:14, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support Keep talk page, weak support Case by case - Frankly, I'm not a fan of Wikipedia:Right to vanish as I think it is more likely to promote abuse by nefarious editors rather than protect well meaning ones. Being able to disappear and hide your past comments is against WP's general spirit of accountability and transparency. At the same time though, I do think that there are probably going to be some situations where it would be appropriate to delete. NickCT (talk) 15:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
• Keep. I think that talk pages should be kept. If somone makes an edit on an article then they talk page should be kept no matter what. If their contributions in an article stay then their talk page should too. In the cases where people are edit waring or consistantly violating WP:NPOV Their talk page helps put those edits in perspective/context. I have seen people on Wikiepdia who are flagrant POV warriors and I don't think it is right for their talk page to dissapear when their edits stay. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 01:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete restore as and when needed. Who's talk pages are worth saving? (A random archive of mine, User talk:Rich Farmbrough/Talk Archive 9 has been accessed 0 times in the last 3 months.) Anything really valuable should be migrated elsewhere anyway. Only overisght where policy dictates. Rich Farmbrough, 09:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC).
  
• Oppose mindlessness. Support thoughtfulness. Actually, that could probably be my response to nearly every question like this. We need to use judgment in these cases, balancing the possible harm against the possible benefits. A one-size-fits-all mindlessness is anti-policy. If we need to say something here, then something suitable pro-keeping and anti-mindless would work for me, e.g., "We usually don't delete user talk pages because they contain other editors' comments, although courtesy blanking is common." WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:17, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete talk pages unless the RTV was in bad faith, used as an excuse to sock or evade scrutiny. The whole purpose of a right to vanish is to allow editors in good standing to leave with their privacy in tact. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
  • With all due respect, that doesn't make any sense. If their privacy was intact when they left, then deleting their talk page isn't necessary. Locking it so no one can post an outing message would keep their privacy intact, if that were a potential issue, and so locking is standard. If there are certain edits that violate an editor's privacy then those can be oversighted.   Will Beback  talk  22:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• Enlighten the ignorant, devil's advocate me: What is the rationale for keeping them? Thus far, I've only heard "others wrote it" (I'm not talking about banned users or people who have a wall of vandal-warnings, and all that). Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• Risker, in response to your points, my statement doesn't assume that people will return. My point is that talk pages have been contributed to by lots of editors, and much less so (and sometimes not at all) by the user in question. That makes user talk pages community property, just like article talk pages. Where pages that multiple editors have contributed to are deleted, the normal route is to gain consensus at AfD/MfD. Exceptions for real-life emergencies should always be respected, but they shouldn't become the rule. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 07:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• That's an interesting concept. Should we now consider it a punishable offense to delete user talk pages? Should all edits to user talk pages be restored because they're community property? Should we punish users whose archives aren't maintained in an easily retrieved manner? (I can think of people who are commenting in this RFC to whom some if not all apply to their own user talk pages.) "Someone else wrote there so it must be kept accessible to every editor in the project in perpetuity" is what you're saying. My response is that we delete "community property" every single day, by the thousands. Risker (talk) 07:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we do delete material every day, but usually by MfD. Speedy deletion of pages written by multiple editors isn't the norm. And if it's my talk-page archives you're talking about, the old ones are easily retrievable, and I don't compile them anymore. Actually all I'm hoping will emerge from this is consistency, because as it stands when some people leave their talk pages are deleted, and others aren't. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 07:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Being that every case is different, there should be no consistency. Rather, each case should be handled on its own merits. This is one of the reasons we elect human crats and not deletebots. -- Avi (talk) 07:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• I think her point is that every deletion must be preceded by discussion... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:30, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• Ahhh, so we can all mull over whatever personal, non-public reason that a user decides to exercise the RTV. Of course. The fact that on rare occasions high profile editors also exercise RTV means that every editor must publicly discuss their reason for having their talk page deleted. Seriously folks - most of the time when someone exercises RTV, it's never noticed by anyone but a few colleagues. Risker (talk) 07:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• I was just explaining what was meant. Someone has yet to convince me of this logic. Thus far I'm leaning towards your stance, Risker. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• What if User:Jimbo Wales decides to invoke RTV? Is he just another user who deserves the "right" to erase his name from the Wikipedia record and have his talk page, the center of so many key discussions, deleted? I'd say 'no', that's preposterous. Also, there is difference between mere high-profile editors and senior functionaries. It's comparable to the difference between a private citizen and a politician.   Will Beback  talk  13:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• It's pretty plain that the correct policy is to not delete user talk pages except in extraordinary circumstances. That's the actual practice that will always get quoted in this regard, whether or not it officially written down anywhere. Unfortunately, it's somewhere between pointless and counterproductive to put this policy in writing. There are two issues here: Firstly, there will always be circumstances that anyone can conceive of where the talk page ought to be deleted, and those circumstances have actually occurred in the past. That means that a written policy will have to endorse that valid exception. Secondly, the really problematic uses of talk page deletion don't arise from a dispute about what policy and practice already are - the opinion of the community is already well-known on this score. Rather, as I posted in the above section, the problematic deletions come about when a long-term editor is on friendly terms with many admins - maybe they are one themself - and can therefore reliably find someone to think "I'll delete the talk page just this once, because my friend is in extraordinary circumstances". Put an "extraordinary circumstances" exception in writing - as noted above, we would have to, if we put the common practice in writing - and the well-meaning administrators who cause such stupid messes will read it as "policy says I can delete my friend's talk page" and wikilawyer it until the cows come home, because this time it's different, what with it being their friend and all. So, I can't support recording the correct principle in policy anywhere. I can only note that it would be nice if the community would enforce the policy as understood by everyone - which means, at some point, focusing on the administrators who violate understood community norms by enabling these deletions, and not only on the editors who request it. — Gavia immer (talk) 07:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• Who gets to decide what circumstances are extraordinary? What would constituted "extraordinary circumstances"? Risker (talk) 07:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean "What circumstances really are extraordinary enough to warrant deletion, in the opinion of an editor who opposes almost all such deletions?" - or do you mean "What circumstances will be interpreted as extraordinary?" Don't worry; I'll answer both. Extraordinary circumstances would include those where the talk page history could cause real harm to a real person. I do not mean bruised egos, much less a bruised reputation, but material of the sort that is already covered by the oversight policy such as threats or personal details used to harass - and even then deletion should only be used where selective oversight would fail. It might also include deliberate frustration of attempts to harass good-faith editors through the court system, which is definitely something we don't want to set down in any written policy, but which I would be perfectly willing to do if I had the bits to do so, even though I am in frank opposition to other deletions. Extraordinary circumstances do not include mere drama reduction. As to "What circumstances will be interpreted as extraordinary", the whole point of my position is that each and every administrator gets a bite at that apple, and some of them will be sympathetic to any given claim that the circumstances are extraordinary if they are already sympathetic to the editor requesting deletion, so that in practice any vanishing editor with many administrator friends can have the circumstances declared extraordinary if they make an effort at it - which is the whole substance of my comments. No specific standard for what "extraordinary circumstances" really are (we mean it!) will ever stop the pathology that leads to these deletions, and any recorded standard for it will give the chummy deleter that much room to claim that their actions are defensible - so we should not have a written standard, we should have an understanding that the underlying behavior is wrong. My apologies for the non-brevity in my comments so far. — Gavia immer (talk) 07:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• • For the record, I provided the same courtesy to other users in similar positions who were neither admins nor people with whom I had any interactions (ChrisO for example). I base my decision on usernames, real-life names, wikipedia history, and my best understanding of the psychological and emotional well-being of the users in question (and yes, I contact almost every one, especially if they request a talk page deletion). I never intend to play favorites and I hope that my record shows so. -- Avi (talk) 07:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• Avi makes an important point here. This occasion is noticeable to a larger segment of the community because the user involved is fairly high profile. Most of the time, the user involved is relatively unknown, leaves for reasons that are never publicly discussed, and any deletions are generally unnoticed by anyone but perhaps a few individuals. Why should high profile editors be treated with less dignity and respect than the average user? Risker (talk) 07:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• Everyone should be treated with dignity and respect, but that does not require deleting user talk pages. The definition of a high profile editor is one who is prominent and engaged. The more involved in the project an editor is the harder and more disruptive it is to try to make them "disappear". As I suggest below, we can't hide an elephant under a rug. So we should make reasonable efforts, such as deleting the user page, blanking the user talk page, and changing the username, but we should not be disrupting the project in a futile effort to make an elephant vanish.   Will Beback  talk  20:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

But Avi you didn't, so far as I can tell, delete ChrisO's talk page. The contribs still exist but under a different account. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 07:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I thought I did. Let me check. -- Avi (talk) 07:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I am getting forgetful in my old age; I deleted a slew of other things, but not the talk. Then again, checking my emails, he never asked for a talk page deletion either. You are correct, Slim, and I have struck the reference above. Sheesh, time to start taking gingko biloba or something -- Avi (talk) 07:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

No worries. I was thinking that would have been the best thing for R's talk pages—just make them hard to find for anyone who didn't know where to look and protect them against further editing. That removes the hostility factor. My intention here is not to have them undeleted, but just to introduce some consistency; there was a problem last month with another editor because of the same issue, so it's not just this occasion. I also wish R had taken more time to think about vanishing, because it seems very drastic, but that's a separate issue. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 08:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

There is some misunderstanding in the comments area above of what RTV does, and when it is to be used. The option to vanish is a courtesy extended to any editor in good standing (including those who "flame out") who have reason to disappear for good. Requests are not always granted. Ban-evading socks, users wanting fresh starts, and users wanting to hide from difficult users do not have a right to vanish.

There is a range of forms in which RTV is implemented, few of which entail deletion of talk pages. In its simpler form, the username is changed. In more complicated forms, userspace pages may be blanked, protected or deleted. It is extremely important, even essential, in some cases for talk pages to be deleted. There are situations in which lives, privacy, and even credit ratings are threatened or put at risk if talk pages are not deleted. Online stalkers, trolls and harassers can and do permeate to the offline realm. There are sometimes extenuating circumstances in which the reasons why a person vanishes must be erased. In some cases, action must be taken immediately. So there isn't always time for community discussion. But any talk pages that are deleted can always be undeleted. Every namespace deletion can be restored.

Lastly, I think it is best practice for important discussions about articles to take place on article discussion pages, and for important discussions about arbcases not to take place on user talk pages. Kingturtle = (talk) 19:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Privacy

Sandstein suggests that an exception should be made for privacy. If someone makes a occasional edit that reveals too much it can be oversighted. But if an identity issue extends across thousands of edits, then deleting those edits seems a bit like trying to buy up all the copies of a newspaper that prints an embarrassing story.

Hypothetically, let's say John Smith, a distinguished professor, edits Wikipedia for years as user:Jsmith. He is a prolific editor, gets involved in community issues, and discusses his Wikipedia editing in other venues. Then, after making tens of thousands of edits, he wishes to vanish. If he says that his privacy is breached due to the association of Jsmith to John Smith, would it make sense to delete his talk page while leaving all of the other talk pages he edited and signed? It's necessary to make reasonable efforts to protect editor's privacy, but if they spend years using their real name it's unreasonable to ask Wikipedia to erase thousands of edits by hundreds of editors just to partially erase it. In this scenario, how is Smith's privacy enhanced by deleting his entire user talk page?   Will Beback  talk  08:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The edits on the other pages will be renamed. It is most likely that connections will be made on the user and usertalk and it is a simple extra layer of protection. Also, the deletion of the user and talk page often brings a measure of surcease and closure to the leaving editor. The actual edits are still in the database if necessary as well. -- Avi (talk) 08:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

If they can be renamed on other talk pages then they can be renamed on the user's own talk page. As for closure, I think we should pay attention to how people leave (or are forced to leave), as a lot of problems arise from returning users. OTOH, Wikipedia is not therapy so emotional "closure" sounds does not seem like a valid deletion reason.   Will Beback  talk  08:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not therapy. But we shouldn't forget there's a human side to editing the encyclopedia as well. SirFozzie (talk) 08:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Compassion should be a tool in every wikimedian's, nay every human being's, toolbox. -- Avi (talk) 08:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

But again, how does deleting the talkpage of hypothetical user:Jsmith actually protect his privacy in ways that oversight, renaming, search and replace, and page blanking can't?   Will Beback  talk  09:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

With deletion, an editor who knows what they're looking for and how to dig into a contrib history, but who lacks the admin bit, cannot see it. Hence, this was done to hide the editor's whole talk page history from public view. I agree this should be handled with compassion, I don't yet understand why leaving his contrib history intact behind a new username and a new, courtesy blanked userspace at least for now would not be compassionate. However, if there are indeed privacy worries which trump any others, that cinches it under policy, practice and good faith here, privacy worries are always extraordinary worries and should be taken that way. It would be harmful to the project and its volunteer base if details of such worries were talked about on-wiki.

RTV is a kind of last ditch safety hatch through which a volunteer editor can leave, likewise the great heed given to editor privacy on en.WP. Some trust is needed for RTV to do what it's meant to do and like it or not, trust (mostly in arbcom) has taken a canny blow with this. Moreover, a few will use this as a further, sharp wedge by which to drive their own hoped-for outcomes. It's a messy sink of volunteer time. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

What aspect of privacy is regained by deleting an entire user talk page that can't be achieved just as well using other tools? Our hypothetical user:Jsmith has edited and signed hundreds or thousands of talk pages.   Will Beback  talk  11:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, it's very sloppy. However, the thinking is, one's userspace is where most of the privacy-spilling chitchat happens, where little bits dropped here and there can be tied together to mine personal information on someone. Skiving off the whole userspace takes care of a big swath of the worry in one swoop. Oversighting a sprawling TP contrib history post-by-post could take weeks of volunteer time. There will indeed be shreds littered here and there outside the userspace, but they'll be widely scattered and without the userspace and contrib history as a core from which to search, it'll tend to stop all but the most eager and time-rich from trying to data mine on a former user. As I said though, trust is needed for this kind of deletion to have a happy outcome. Most often, few care when a userspace goes poof. If JSmith was an arb who left messily and under a cloud, tongues will indeed cluck and even some teeth will gnash, no way to skirt that. All I can say is, JSmith is gone and isn't the worry anymore. If he's allowed to come back, the userspace will be restored. If he's allowed to come back and gather bits without being open as to his former user accounts, RTV is breached on the sly, which would be unfair and maybe even harmful. That does happen, by the way, which is why some editors would worry about it happening with JSmith. They can't believe he's gone forever. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

It's just so Orwellian, so like the memory hole and the changing slogan in Animal Farm, or less favorably, like Stalin's vanished foes, airbrushed out of photos. After RTV, does Jsmith become an "editor who may not be named" in discussions? We're tearing up a large volume of Wikipedia's history, even though no one has explained clearly how any actual privacy is regained by it. (If that's a WP:BEANS issue, please respond by email.)

As for deletion being used to prevent some editors' "hoped-for outcomes", whatever those might be, that implies that the deletion or undeletion of a user talk page has some political aspect, and that it isn't purely a privacy issue. As a policy matter, I don't see how that can be a legitimate reason for deleting pages.   Will Beback  talk  12:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Happily, his talk page history has now been restored (let's see if that sticks though). I'm not in on what any privacy worries may have been, I only know that there often are such worries and what the thinking is behind TP and contrib history deletion in dealing with them. Anyway, yes, it's Orwellian and woeful, but mostly because it's a messy glitch that this happened to a widely known and watched arb account. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The first point made in Vanishing from Wikipedia is "Having a bureaucrat change the username of the account". This does not make any sence if an old talk page is kept.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:30, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Then the talk pages should be moved, not deleted. Fram (talk) 14:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

This might be a very good idea. Why not to implement it right now for the current case?--Mbz1 (talk) 14:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Rug

It's simple to obscure the contributions and existence of low-profile editors. But it's no easier for a senior functionary to vanish than it is for an elephant to hide under a rug. I think this guideline should acknowledge that Wikipedia is neither an illusionist nor a fireman, and that there is a practical limit to what we can do for departing editors. Also, from an ethical point of view I think it's unwise to imply that we can do more than what is actually possible. "We can do these things and little more".   Will Beback  talk  10:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The way I look at is, if an editor is fairly new and unknown with a low edit count and few major contributions and they want to vanish without a trace then I don't have a problem with that, they haven't become ingrained in Wikipedia culture. But a high profile, long-term editor with multiple years and tens of thousands of edits, and many major contributions has become an integral part of Wikipedia's history, and the entire time has been editing with full knowledge and acceptance that everything they write will be public, and that once it's on the net it's not going away! Of course they should have the same right to vanish too but to delete their entire discussion history is unfair to the rest of the community. They cannot expect that their years of talk page contributions fully belongs to them anymore, that's like saying "Fine I'm leaving and I'm taking all my stuff with me! Hrmph!" just to rub it in. So it would depend on the circumstances of their departure as well if the decision should be made to delete their talk pages, it would have to be a very serious reason. If they have any privacy concerns I'm sure they would be aware of exactly what it is that they need oversighted, then simply request an oversighter to delete those specific revisions, so noone doesn't need to wade through all their edits for days looking for privacy issues. Rlevse: if you're reading this please understand it's not just directed at just you but any long-term/high-profile editors in general (including myself of course). It's just that your case brought the issue up and this is how I feel about it. You personally are an excellent Wikipedian, I respect you and all you've done for Wikipedia and I still want you to come back some day. -- œ^™ 16:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Request for clarification "their talk pages"

RE: "their talk pages". Are we talking about a user's main talk page, or about all user sub talk pages with multiple authors? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The main talk page and any user talk subpages that contain (copied) archives of the main talk page. -- œ^™ 22:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• On reviewing this RFC, I find this question as posed originally, and nearly everybody's comments, to be ambiguous. I assumed that we are talking only about the main talk page. The page where you go to talk to someone. The page that produces the orange bar. I would not have had a problem with someone deleting their copied talk page archives. You may have discovered a better way to manage your archives. Does archiving by moving the main talk page muddy things here? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Archiving by moving muddies the waters, as the history is moved too - not just making it harder to search talk history, but if such an archive is deleted then the history goes too. Archiving by copying, which leaves the history in place, is infinitely preferable. DuncanHill (talk) 22:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe what Duncan means is "…leaves the history of the main talk page in place…" -- Avi (talk) 22:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed I do! DuncanHill (talk) 22:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe that the logic behind this is that a user page normally only gets significant edits from one editor, and thus it qualifies for speedy deletion under G7: Author requests deletion. However talk pages are inevitably edited by many editors so they don't qualify under that same provision.

If an editor creates sub pages for discussions, or moves talk pages, then those would also not qualify under G7. Archives that are created through copying don't include any edit history, so can be deleted. (Often, because editors delete things before archiving, they aren't a complete record anyway).   Will Beback  talk  23:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

There is a small but important exception. If an article has been moved from mainspace to a userspace for "incubation" etc then it and its talkpage might need to be considered slightly differently, not a problem if the page was basically written by that user, but sometimes there is more than that, and if so even if the decision is deletion I'd prefer that it is first returned whence it came. ϢereSpielChequers 23:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, any pages that have significant editing by others shouldn't be speedy deleted under G7 or U1.   Will Beback  talk  00:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

And U1 and G7 (as very few admins know) already specifically exclude usertalk pages. What a pity we don't have a page where people could see what the speedy deletion criteria are. DuncanHill (talk) 00:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. There are no speedy delete criteria that allow for deletion of user talk pages, main or subsidiary.   Will Beback  talk  00:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Well there is G7 - "If requested in good faith and provided that the only substantial content to the page and to the associated talk page was added by its author.". ϢereSpielChequers 09:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

G7 specifically says Note that this does not apply to user talk pages, which are not deleted except under very exceptional circumstances: see WP:DELTALK. If you are going to quote it, please do not leave out the bits you find inconvenient. DuncanHill (talk) 12:31, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't find it inconvenient - I'm merely pointing out that there are some circumstances where the speedy deletion criteria does apply. My understanding of the policy is that it is the main user talkpage and archives created by moving rather than copying user talk that one is very reluctant to delete. But AFAIK subsidiary talkpages such as the talkpage of a sandbox are a different matter. ϢereSpielChequers 18:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

If the owner is the only one who has edited the talk page then I doubt there'd be any concern about deleting it. That would obviously apply only to fresh or inactive editors.   Will Beback  talk  09:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Even highly active current editors can have subsidiary talkpages that only they have edited, I deleted one such recently. Also, as I understand it G10 can apply to talkpages. ϢereSpielChequers 10:06, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but if there are other comments on a talk page the attacks can simply be oversighted or rev-deleted.   Will Beback  talk  11:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Of course, but that applies to any page. The examples I'm thinking of include where the only edit to a usertalk page is one that merits G10 deletion. ϢereSpielChequers 18:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. In that case deletion and oversight would have the same effect: removing the sole edit to the page.   Will Beback  talk  22:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• It's sounding like CSD#U1 should be removed? It is sometimes misused, and when used properly is always redundant with G7? I guess this would mean that users don't own their userspace - that's been written somewhere already, hasn't it? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not always redundant to G7, because G7 is limited to pages where one editor is the only author of substance, and U1 is not. If some other user insisted on creating pages in your userspace, for instance, you could presumptively have them deleted under U1, and this is plainly correct and desirable as a speedy deletion criterion. Likewise with userspace pages that you control, even if others may have edited. It just needs to be made very clear (perhaps repeat it in between each word of the CSD criterion, the {{db-user}} template, and the default deletion summary) that U1 is not applicable to the user talk space. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe this is true. I've never been aware of any way a user talk page could be speedied through a CSD category. The only way I've ever seen it done (or done it myself as an admin task, which hasn't been lately) has been through WP:RTV. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

SUL

If one chooses to vanish, does one have to request to vanish from each individual wikiproject that one has contributed to, or is there some way to request to vanish from all of them (ie: one stop shopping, like the Unified Login feature)? --nsaum75^{!Dígame¡‎} 07:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

RTV must be done separately for each individual wikiproject. Kingturtle = (talk) 05:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. If I choose to vanish and never edit again on En. Wiki -- does that prohibit me from also editing on Spanish Wiki? -- nsaum75 ^{!Dígame¡‎} 16:42, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Leaving

I wish to leave and want my Userpage to be forgotten! How do I apply for it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrissy Gilford (talk • contribs) 02:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

A right to vanish might not be what you want. A right to vanish means you're not coming back to Wikipedia, ever. Instead, I can change your username to something that doesn't give away your identity. Then you can still edit here. Let me know. Kingturtle = (talk) 05:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

RTV is getting abused - suggest rewording

Another user has been exposed as requesting RTV and having their edit history moved away from their account name and then returning to editing. Is there support for this RTV renaming and then returning under a new name to be acceptable practice? If not then what is the communities position on reaction for such situations when they are revealed? Off2riorob (talk) 12:41, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

My personal feeling is that such actions should merit an instant and permanent ban. → ROUX ₪ 16:02, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

If Off2riorob is referring to the case I'm thinking of, I'd say it's still suspected rather than proven that a vanished editor has returned. But as for the general question, the current language of the guideline is:

• Subsequent return should be notified to ArbCom. Return leads to the "vanishing" being fully reversed, any old account linked to any new account, and any outstanding sanctions or other matters being resumed.

Obviously, someone can regret their decision to leave and wish to return. If done in an open manner there should be no penalty, and everything should be restored the the status quo ante. OTOH, someone trying to sneak back by creating a new name is violating this guideline and also the WP:SOCK policy's prohibition on using alternate accounts to avoid scrutiny. The remedy should be similar to other socking violations, including a block of the sock account. The main account should probably be restored just as if the editor had returned openly. But I can understand that some editors, like Roux above, would think that more severe penalties should be used. Those are perhaps best decided on a case-by-case basis. But however it works it should be clear that RTV is intended to be permanent and is not to be confused with making a clean start.

Maybe the guideline would benefit from a section on returning from RTV, to flesh out the instructions in the lead?   Will Beback  talk  20:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I was not referring to that case, as you say , that is only currently an unconfirmed report - there is another case, but the identity is not really specific here, its enough to be aware that users are requesting Right to vanish and after moving all their contributions to another location they are returning under a new identity - and as the guidelines state this is not currently imo correct according to the RTV guidelines - I agree it needs tweaking up - Off2riorob (talk) 21:05, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

• People invoke "RTV" for many reasons. Those outside the full knowledge of a situation often make assumptions when that happens. The concept of "you left.. so now you can't come back" is simply beyond me. WP is a project that is "open to all"? ... yep ... we're sure making that an obsolete thought. — Ched :  ?  13:04, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

• • Ched, the objection isn't to people changing their minds about leaving, it's about people using RTV as a way of lying about their previous involvement. DuncanHill (talk) 13:10, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Duncan, I most certainly agree that it's wrong for anyone to use any policy or guideline to "game" the system and us. But I really hate when folks use the words that are written, and ignore the spirit of what WP is supposed to be. In this particular case, it doesn't even apply. I actually know what's going on (for a change). I've seen more than my share of folks rail-roaded out of town at WP, and I hate when I see good honest people getting treated like that. I'm just one voice, and I have to accept it when I can't change a damned thing. There's "he's a dick and a terrible singer" vandals at the door, and yet folks spend their time in trying to ensure that good content editors are hung on high. Sorry, I'm just not interested in buying the "zOMG, we have to know who you are" crap. Ya wanna write a good article about something? Hey .. have at it, and thank you. I honestly don't care if in some past incarnation you were some "Willie on wheels" account .. if you're adding to the project in your current account ... go for it. Just IMHO, and to be blunt. Some folks are soooo far off on their assumptions, and it pisses me off. — Ched :  ?  14:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
      • Hi, as I understand it, the community has previously come out against RTV being used and then users returning without re identifying - I don't think there is much support for Ched's position for users to use RTV in this way, if there is , we need to say that in the guideline and allow all users the ability to use it to remove their username from project space and let then start again with a new identity. This is the reason I opened this discussion - RTV is being used in this way, shall we allow it and alter the guideline?Off2riorob (talk) 20:10, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Notification about discussion of RtV

For anyone interested, there's a discussion taking place about the consistency of application regarding the Right to vanish and Clean start policies. Please see Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee#ArbCom support for Right to vanish and Clean start. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 20:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

There are a lot of words there. Could someone summarise it? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:54, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

RTV and deletion of the user talk page.

Reviewing a recent case, I think policy has separated from practice.

For a long time, there has been a mantra that we don't deleted user talk pages. Why was this? I had assumed it is because there can be a lot of article and policy related discussion on user talk pages. However, if this is the case, I think it would be better to discourage relevant article/policy discussions from user talk pages rather than keep all talk pages just in case.

Anyway, as per the above discussion, it seems that whenever reasoably asked, the user talk page does get deleted, and that the community is not concenred as long as it is reviewed and done by a highly trusted user. I think we may as well document this. Also, I don't think MfD is an appropriate venue to make the request. Unless it is a theatrical exit desired, filing a relatively high profile, never to be deleted, MfD nomination in order to vanish as if to have never been, seems counter-productive.

I would have thought that most RTV applications are pretty low level occurances, such as young real name accounts changing their mind, and that requesting it by email to OTRS would be suitable. However, when I look, I cannot even work out how to email OTRS. Emailing arbs seems to be taking the matter too high. Aren't the arbs already pretty busy. I would thnk that only complicated cases (eg. high profile users, RTV repeaters) should be referred to Arbs. The project page here comes close to saying that RTV applications should be made by emailing the Bureaocrats. I guess that htis is because bureacrats change usernames. Is this the default recommendation? If so, it should say so in simple terms. I would certainly trust Bureacrats to check out the situation, glance at talk pages to check for important article/project stuff that shouldn't be deleted, and quietly delete the User talk page if appropriate. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Every rule has exceptions. However in the cited MFD, it appears that none of the uninvolved users agree to the deletion. One said "don't delete" and the other said "just blank it". The closing admin invoked IAR, meaning she thought it was worthwhile making an exception to the rule in that individual case.

One of the principled reasons for not deleting talk pages is that they belong to the community. We only speedy delete pages based on requested when the request comes from the sole editor, such as a user talk page or a user draft. Pages that have been edited by more than one person, like most talk pages, fall under different rules. If someone has inadvertently disclosed too much information, then it'd be better to get it oversighted instead of deleted.   Will Beback  talk  07:02, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Will. Oversight of specific problematic edits (e.g. name, address etc, or libellous material) is of course appropriate, and this together with courtesy blanking should surely suffice for RTV cases. DuncanHill (talk) 07:39, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

With an RTV exercised, the talk page may be courtesy blanked, or oversighted. Listing at MfD is not to be encouraged if the reason is privacy. A speedy G7 deletion can be used if requested by the sole author. Is that the agreed position here? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:24, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

That's my understanding. An entire talk page wouldn't be oversighted, just individual edits that contain personal info. G7 would almost never apply to talk pages since they almost always have multiple editors. User pages sometimes have multiple editors, but the other edits are typically just vandalism and reverts.   Will Beback  talk  21:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Recent edits

Just noting here that I've made some edits to remove the contradictions about returning and not returning; these were added in October 2010. I also removed most of the repetition. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 06:19, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Upper edit limit

The guideline used to say that accounts up to 200,000 edits could be vanished, but it now says 50,000. Do we have a link to a page discussing that change? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 06:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The current limit at Wikipedia:Changing username is 50,000. Per WP:MOSTEDITS, that means there are more than 500 editors who could not fully vanish.   Will Beback  talk  20:51, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I believe the limit on renameuser is temporary until r84228/r83494 take effect, see [6]. Unfortunately it is unclear when that will be. WJBscribe (talk) 23:10, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

It's a technical limitation - if an account with more than 50,000 needs to be renamed, a bugzilla: should be filed and a developer will carry it out. (Could get a bureaucrat to endorse it, if necessary) –xeno^talk 04:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:OPTOUT

WP:OPTOUT

• - The same good faith should also be given to living people that don't want to be found on wikipedia - Please consider re-discussing and supporting WP:OPTOUT - a similar courtesy as this to the living subjects of our BLP articles. Off2riorob (talk) 18:11, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Users Deceased in Real World

Is there any way to protect/lock User pages of users who have passed away in the real world and would never return? --Pandaflex (talk) 04:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, see Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians/Guidelines ϢereSpielChequers 16:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposed changes

I've proposed some changes to this guideline to address concerns that it is misused (either intentionally or not) at User:Hersfold/Leaving Wikipedia. This proposal encompasses a rewrite of Right to Vanish/Courtesy vanishing as well as WP:Clean start. In summary, this proposal:

• Unifies acceptable means of leaving your account onto one page - simple retirement, clean start, and vanishing
• Limits vanishing only to cases where an editor is attempting to escape demonstrable harassment either on- or off-Wikipedia.
• For clean start and vanishing, formalizes the process to prevent misuse by:
  • Outlining more clearly who is eligible through a set of criteria
  • Requiring communication with the Arbitration Committee to ensure that there is oversight of those undergoing this process
  • Outlining what may and may not be done while clean start-ed or vanished, and penalties for violating that

I'm hoping these points will resolve many of the problems currently evident with this system, but of course comments and suggestions are greatly appreciated. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 15:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Is this proposal retroactive to include people currently editing under new identities? ScottyBerg (talk) 15:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not intended to be such, particularly as that would be rather difficult to enforce. Presumably, if people have been doing it correctly, vanished people no longer edit here and those who made a clean start haven't raised attention to themselves. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

So what is the recourse if they're not doing it correctly? How do you ever know if they are doing it correctly, is they don't disclose their old user ID. Let's say I encounter an editor whose behavior is problematic. He makes it known that he has had thousands of edits under a previous ID, which he won't disclose. What is the recourse here? ScottyBerg (talk) 17:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

One thing that should be remembered is that "vanish" and "clean start" are really just off-shoots of the WP:SOCK policy. –xeno^talk 17:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm aware of that. I've stumbled upon this issue previously, and found that existing policy was not sufficient to deal with editors gaming "clean start." I do like Hersfold's ideas, and maybe they can be tweaked and also written so that they cover people who previously invoked the policy. There is a lack of transparency to the whole process that is the Achilles Heel of "clean start." For instance, a currently blocked user cannot utilize "clean start," but a user with a long block record can do so, and additionally can resume his previous behavior pattern without any realistic chance of being caught. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Question Why does RtV or courtesy vanishing as it is now called get handled by Arbcom, and why does it remain so in your rewrite? If this is something that should only be done for someone who can demonstrate a real concern for their own safety shouldn't this be something that the Foundation handles directly? It is hard to imagine a situation that is actually serious enough to warrant this type of action not being taken seriously by the Foundation. However it is easy to imagine several scenarios where Arbs can screw this up, and either allow someone to put themselves in danger or grant someone this privilege when it isn't actually necessary to protect them. The Prioryman situation, for instance, comes down to one of these two options, since we are told editing Wikipedia poses him danger yet at the same time the Arbs have worked to facilitate his return. I trust that the Foundation would handle such situations with much more consistency because it is actually in their interest to do so.Griswaldo (talk) 17:21, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

"Proper" vanishing doesn't get handled by the Arbitration Committee at present, and I'm not entirely sure why Hersfold has factored the committee so prominently into proper vanishing in his proposed rewrite.

"RTV" is really just a procedure that ties together various interactional policies and guidelines (such as the deletion policy, the sockpuppetry policy, and the changing username guideline) to permit a user to disappear from Wikipedia.

Please be sure to separate discussion of "proper" vanishing and "disappearing to return under a new name" (for better or worse, the latter has been handled by the committee in the past).

No comment re: the Foundation. –xeno^talk 17:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I believe the attempt is to eliminate the nebulous 'disappearing to return under a new name in a way that is not covered by any policy but handled in secret by arbcom in whatever way they feel is right'.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. The proposed re-write seems to be completely missing the former "proper vanish" (that is typically extended to users fairly liberally as a courtesy), and the "Courtesy vanishing" (or "PtV") section seems to be specifically written to allow the "disappear-reappear" shuffle (see, especially, User:Hersfold/Leaving Wikipedia#How to vanish #6). –xeno^talk 17:50, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

That's how it appears to me. It combines the old RTV with a policy based method for what's apparently been going on with Arbcom support behind the scene. (This is not an endorsement or opposition at the moment, just analysis.)--Cube lurker (talk) 17:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Also without comment on the propriety of "disappear-reappear" maneouvers, I do not think that "proper" vanishing should be combined or confused with them. –xeno^talk 18:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

This is true. I added the possibility for users to return because if a user is trying to escape from harassment, they may still wish to edit. I suppose clean start may suffice for that, however. I'll change it to avoid any confusion. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 15:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Now it is just a very strict tightening of RTV. Remember that most RTVs simply involve: deleting userpages (most anyone can request deletion of their user pages); renaming (most anyone can request renaming); and stopping editing (anyone can stop editing). For most simple and proper RTVs, I do not think your changes are warranted (or even enforceable, for the most part). Some people want to be "a bit more vanished" (delete user talk pages, sanction pages, etc.) or "disappear and come back". These are the cases that need addressing. –xeno^talk 17:58, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of talk pages

Simple question, but it isn't clear from the policy: does the rule against deleting user talk pages apply to those which are simply redirects? My account was renamed and I'm thinking I would like to have the old user page and user talk page deleted. They don't have any content except redirects to my current user page and talk page. The user page won't be a problem, but can I have the user talk redirect deleted, or not? Robofish (talk) 18:33, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to repeal RTV

See Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Proposal: Remove the right to vanish. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Coming back from RTV

Though the intention RTV is a permanent exit, things change over the years and in practice some people have come back or have been alleged to comeback. My view is that the policy should explain what happens in such circumstances. Especially as there are some people who've gone through RTV but who we would welcome back. There is also a case for more clearly defining the difference between rtv and cleanstart. The most obvious difference is that for some RTV cases we delete user talkpages, but as we don't always do that it does not define the difference. Deleting userpages and even renaming the account don't define RTV as there is nothing to prevent someone who is contemplating a cleanstart from sprinkling U1s in their userspace and or applying for a rename immediately before they Cleanstart. The defining ingredients of RTV seem to me that the rename is to some version of vanished user and that if they were in any disputes such disputes end on their RTV. My preference would be that we combine both policies in one explanation which covers the common factors, defines the difference and explains how one should and should not return. ϢereSpielChequers 10:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I have made a concrete proposal about that on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Clarification proposal where most of the discussion on that seems to be taking place right now. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 00:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't get it too

I don't get it too, but maybe it's because I'm foreigner, and this formal wiki-language is unclear to me. So could anybody tell me how, the heck, do I remove my full name from Wikipedia (all languages) at all???7 — --ol_b (talk) 18:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

"Vanish" this account

I already have another account so could this one be changed to a random string and deleted/vanished? Thanks SuperStarJan (talk) 23:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Vanished users and "attribution" requirements

All text on Wikipedia is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License, which requires attribution. In addition, many users uploaded images released under cc-by or a related license, which require attribution, and then chose to vanish. Doesn't this violate the license?

The cc-by and cc-by-sa licenses require that "...the name of the Original Author (or pseudonym, if applicable) if supplied..." be kept with the work. But when a user vanishes, a random name is assigned to their account, which is not a pseudonym of their choosing. A pseudonym was originally supplied, but it is not kept with the work, and the author is not attributed. It would appear to me that a vanished user's works cannot be hosted on Wikipedia without violating the applicable Creative Commons license. Why am I wrong? – Quadell ^(talk) 01:40, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Vanishing is requested by the user, and the rename is a critical part of the process. Permission to be attributed by the obfuscated username is implicit in the request. I think that I read speculation about a licensing issue with WP:Changing username in general, maybe something to do with revoking licensing for the old username (unnecessary) or relicensing under the new one. Flatscan (talk) 04:32, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Not all text and other material on Wikipedia is under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License, we also have some Public domain content. If you release content under one license you are still free to broaden that, for example a simple statement on your userpage that all of your contributions can be treated as Public domain. So we could treat RTV as a declaration by one editor that the contributions of their old account can now be treated as Public domain. But I'd say it was neater and easier to continue current practice - cc-by-sa still applies but the pseudonym has changed. ϢereSpielChequers 06:12, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Not for commercial interests

I just added a point.

• It is not a way for accounts affiliated with organizations or interests opposed to the Wikipedia community to erase documentation that they edited Wikipedia. This could happen when an account associated with a business, for example, is criticized on their userpage for the way they edited Wikipedia.

If this is too specific to actually be front facing, then I think that this point should at least be considered as something implied by the "Vanishing is not a way to avoid criticism" point which everyone already accepts. I know of no problem with this but sometimes I wonder what would happen if organizations did realize that Wikipedia is sort of a public record of PR attempts. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:32, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Clarifications

The second sentence says that "A courtesy vanishing may be implemented when...

• a user in good standing decides not to return, and
• for whatever reason wishes to make their contributions harder to find."

So:

1. What is meant by "good standing"? Does it mean they are in good standard now (ie a returned previously banned user), or were in good standing when they left? What about an account that was being used as a sock?
2. "Harder to find" does not mean deleted. So why delete an account when it only needs renaming, and the user starts a new account?
3. If a user returns under a different username, should their (old) account be un-vanished?--Iantresman (talk) 17:28, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Also to do...

Once your account gets vanished after proposing it, it shall automatically change the password into a randomly generated gibberish because vanishing means to stop editing for life. And the vansihing process should be irreversible. It shall also automatically blank your email address stored in your preferences. In accordance with the username policy, effective August 2013, renames have to be done at the Meta Wiki. --[[Tariqmudallal · my talk]] 15:20, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

References

Huh? Trivialist (talk) 13:03, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

profile of myn

ytvm,nkgviujk

File:Boopathi123.jpg

— Preceding unsigned comment added by BRAMHA RAJA CHOLAN (talk • contribs) 14:23, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Vanishing

After being subjected to a tirade of abuse at WP:FOOTY (talk) i, who had decided to retire after the 2014 FIFA World Cup but failed to deliver, now wish to vanish, i want to make it like i never existed on WP.

Since it's a wiki-legal move and i am not asking for any preferential treatment, i'd like to know what am i doing wrong, i have followed the instructions in the proper page and retrieved one (then two) template to my talk page, to no avail.

Directions, please. Attentively --AL (talk) 21:21, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Updating the instruction to the new paradigm

Global renames are generally carried out by the global renamers rather than just stewards, and can be requested via Special:GlobalRenameRequest. It is a preferable way as it means that users can do it while logged in, and no longer required a confirmatory edit. It would also seem a worthwhile means for enWP to look to manage their requests if we could get an updated to the form used for requests. It would be useful to get the instructions updated for the GRs and to point to the form. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:00, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

billinghurst: I've made some tweaks. –xeno^talk 22:30, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Licensing

It seems somewhat illogical to me that someone would exercise their right to vanish, but still insist their contributions be on a license that requires attribution. Wouldn't it make more sense to encourage people who want to vanish to dual license their contributions {{userpd}} - deleting their userpage and replacing it with that template. ϢereSpielChequers

WereSpielChequers I don't think there are any licensing concerns that we need to worry about with regards to renaming; was there some incident you're referring to or just asking in general? –xeno^talk 22:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

The edits are still attributed, but to a random pseudonym instead of a somewhat less random pseudonym. -- Avi (talk) 00:39, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

@xeno, no specific incident, the thought came to me during a discussion about placeholdering vanished users at WP:EDITS. It seems logical to me that people exercising their right to vanish would want to relicense their contributions as CC0 or similar. I don't understand the logic of wanting ones username forgotten, but then to memorialise a random name that you haven't even chosen. @Avi, currently the default license is to require attribution to one's chosen username, which could be a real name, a meaningful nom de plume, or indeed a random but chosen pseudonym. If someone wants to vanish then why would they want attribution to a random name that someone else had chosen? ϢereSpielChequers 13:11, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

@WereSpielChequers:What attribution requires is a link between the author and the contributed text. By requesting vanishing, the author expressly wishes that the nom-de-plume formerly in use should be changed to something clearly not related to said pseudonym, and, in general, they do not care to what it should be changed. Otherwise, they could have simply retired. From our perspective, is the added text still directly related to the author? Certainly. So we are not in any violation since we have the exact same linkage between author and text. The only thing that has changed is how that author is referenced within the Wikimedia projects. -- Avi (talk) 15:41, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't dispute that what we are doing complies with attribution, I'm just pointing out that if someone is vanishing they would vanish more completely if they dual licensed their contributions {{userpd}}. ϢereSpielChequers 15:47, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Problems with old signatures after vanishing accounts

See also: User talk:Dsimic § Signature changes

In my case this vanishing rule wasn't implemented to the end:
"Note that signatures (on user talk pages, article talk pages and project discussion pages) will not be changed, and will, by default, be redirected to the new user name."
i.e. they are not redirected to the new user name.

Also, on bunch of talk pages I put my real name as signature. Because of some I can have problems in next time. I hope there is a way to change them.

Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.223.130.150 (talk) 11:47, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

The name you're supposedly trying to hide is almost a generic name in Serbian language, pretty much like John Smith is a generic name in English, for example. :) Thus, IMHO you shouldn't be concerned too much about the possibilities for having "problems in next time", whatever that may refer to. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 15:37, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

First, as you already read, vanishing is not did right in my case. I have a right to it.

Second, why do you have this psychologist attitude instead of one of Wikipedia editor? I do not want to debate your reasons.

If you know how to help me, please do it.

P.S.: I will consider User talk:Dsimic#Signature changes later, I hope. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.223.130.175 (talk) 16:42, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

As I already said, you should have a look at WP:SUPPRESS that describes the vanishing options you're interested in. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 16:49, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I hope I will see WP:SUPPRESS later, but as far as I know it's not vanishing.

This is copy of message from an other talk page of an informed user on this topic and can be consider as answer:

"Courtesy vanishing does not include anything to do with signatures. This is clearly spelled out on the courtesy vanishing page. Bureaucrats will do nothing with signatures. That is up to you and convincing anyone seeing you do it that you are the vanished user (which tends to greatly increase your exposure, so it's not recommended that you do it). ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:09, 24 August 2015 (UTC)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.223.130.137 (talk)

Well, that's the problem. We'd need to know that you, as an IP address, are actually the owner of the account whose signatures would be mangled. I know, it could be frustrating, but establishing the connection is actually a good thing as otherwise pretty much anyone could do anything with the talk page signatures. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 08:08, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

OK, I think I agree with you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.223.130.196 (talk) 08:25, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

ways to find vanished users

If your username (before the vanishing) was something that would give away your real life identity, it could be found by at least two ways. If you ever undid one of your own edits it would show (undid revision by "User") in the edit summary and this summary wouldn't change to your new vanished name. Your vanished username could also be discovered if you had earlier requested a name change as the saved version of the page could still be found in your contributions and at the page history at Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple. Df124r (talk) 00:12, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Just checking the contributions usually gives the old username away, especially when the user has commented on talk pages and left their sig there. Also, if the talk page has not been deleted but only renamed, the old name of the talk page is still visible in the history.

Personally, I find vanishing fairly pointless and doubt that it's effective against harrassment, unless your harrassers are very stupid or not technologically savvy like that. Covering your tracks completely is very hard on Wikipedia and the Internet in general: as they say, the Internet never forgets. I'm pessimistic about that: I fear that privacy is mostly an illusion; you can be as thorough as you want, but just a single slip-up, or a single hole you forget, or accidentally exposing a little bit too much about your real-world identity, can expose your identity to a determined sleuth, or analyst, who is able to intelligently put together disparate facts. (It's incredibly hard to avoid even advanced methods such as lexical analysis, your linguistic fingerprint.) Only perfect anonymity is true privacy, and perfect anonymity doesn't exist because nothing is perfect. You can only make it harder for people to find you. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:31, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I think vanishing is a form of security theatre. More likely to make someone feel safer than actually make them safer. As has been pointed out, it is generally a trivial exercise to find out who they were. HighInBC 16:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Privacy compromised

The Privacy is compromised even if the user is renamed and the talk pages are retained it becomes meaningless as the user's old name is shown in the Talk Page .Now Many users who joined Wikipedia years ago used there Real names or and something closer to there real life identity which later they regretted.Is it possible for Bot or developer to change the name across the Talk pages also. Further as the case with over Millions of users the Talk Page is primarily meant to communicate with the concerned user whether a user blanks or requests deletion should be entirely upto that user as it in his userspace . Important conversations are done in the Article or Wikipedia space not in a User's talk page as not all users will watching a particular user's talk page.It is not possible to cite a discussion based on what took in a user's talk page as other users who did not participate in it would not know about it.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Many important discussions about both content and behaviour take place in usertalk space. Discussions about deletion decisions, arbcom decisions, etc. DuncanHill (talk) 15:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Witness the current discussions at User talk:Jimbo Wales. If Wales requested RTV, then it'd be absurd to delete that talk page. If a user spends years actively editing under their real name, then there are limits to what we can reasonably do to erase it from the project. See WP:REALNAME, which warns that it may not be possible to erase all mentions of a username.   Will Beback  talk  01:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Policy as per WP:DELTALK Deleting your user page or user talk page Unless they meet the criteria for speedy deletion (copyright violations, attack pages, unambiguous promotion, no other significant contributor, etc) or you are permanently leaving Wikipedia, it is unlikely that your main user page or user talk page will actually be deleted.

The Policy states that User Talk Pages are not usually deleted except when it meets the criteria for WP:CSD or when the user is permanently leaving Wikipedia as is the case when user asks for WP:RTV Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you Will Beback about WP:REALNAME but We need to understand that when users including children join Wikipedia particularly a few years ago they were unaware of the potential of harassment stalking both online and even in Real Life.After contributing a lot to Wikipedia if they wish that to leave and request that there Talk Page which is the most easy place to locate be deleted ,I feel it should be complied with.The Discussion is about any user of the Millions in Wikipedia who wishes to leave after Problems(Most of those asking for WP:RTVdo so only due to Problems) not specifically for Jimbo Wales , Arbcom Members or Crats.Further if you want something from the Talk Page one can take it to there Page.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:58, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The thing is.. there are also many users who request RTV not because of any privacy or harassment problems, but simply because they left on bad terms and they're bitter, or they think everything they contributed belongs to them and they don't want Wikipedia having it, and other selfish reasons like that. This is why RTV requests need to be examined carefully and considered under stricter criteria. Per WP:RTV, It's not a right it's a privelage, and "The right to vanish might not be extended to users who have been abusive or disruptive, who left when they lost the trust of the community". -- œ^™ 21:26, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

or they think everything they contributed belongs to them and they don't want Wikipedia having it

Of course it doesn't work like that ... I think people really misunderstand, or overestimate, what vanishing means and can do. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:43, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Shortening the last paragraph of the lead

Should the last paragraph of the lead be shortened to "it is not possible to delete an account."?

Reasoning

Currently, the last paragraph of the lead reads:

Due to all contributions being licensed under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL, it is not possible to delete an account.

This is disingenuous. These licenses set out no such requirements. If we're to put aside community norms for a minute, the reason for not being able to delete accounts is technical; as anybody who's had their username changed would know, the software allows for accounts to be created under a previously-held username. The theory is, if we were to delete somebody's account, somebody else could register under the same name and assume authorship of the departed user's edits. There's ways to get around this, but none have been pursued for different reasons; foremost is the community's obsession with requiring editors to identify with only one handle - an obsession that is borne of misguided notions of professionalism. In any case, I suggest condensing the paragraph down to...

it is not possible to delete an account.

... which is strictly factual. Izkala (talk) 01:13, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

• Well, once an account has been renamed, the edits are all reattributed in the history... I suppose someone else then registering the old name would create confusion with signatures and links, but I'm not sure that's really an attribution violation. It used to be a thing to re-register the original name and scramble the password to prevent this problem. Anyway, how about just splitting up those two ideas so they aren't presented as causally related? "All contributions are licensed under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. Your contributions history cannot be removed and the licenses cannot be revoked. It is not possible to delete an account. " (Incidentally, this page badly needs an update to remove all the references to the bureaucrats. And I'm not sure the "unvanished without consent if you return under a new name" part still applies; I doubt a global renamer would do it.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:15, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

How/whether to refer to the crats

Section split from above for clarity. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:55, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I just now remembered to do this. References to bureaucrats have been removed. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:40, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Opabinia regalis From a privacy perspective, eliminating the option to email the bureaucrat mailing list is forcing customers to submit their sensitive request to an ever-growing list of 99 global renamers and stewards instead of a virtually static list of 17 local bureaucrats. I'm not sure complete removal was indicated here. Have requests to the mailing list been too slow or gone unanswered? (I can check in the morning.) I think this was discussed before also. –xeno^talk 02:27, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

@Xeno: That's a fair point; how about adding something like "Historically, bureaucrats performed user renames prior to mw:SUL finalization; sensitive or private requests may still be sent to the bureaucrats' mailing list at wikien-bureaucratslists.wikimedia.org, where they can be actioned by local bureaucrats who are also global renamers."? I'm not aware of any unanswered requests sent there, but it has occasionally caused confusion (and without explaining the context, it does seem strange to direct requests for action X to a group defined by their ability to do Y). I noticed this awhile ago because the intersection of current arbs and current renamers is the empty set :) It would make more sense to have a separate list for renamers who are also enwiki functionaries (and thus are cleared for private information), but maybe that's overkill. Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:31, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

That would strike a good balance. The rename queue will generally be faster and they won't need to reveal their email address. –xeno^talk 15:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Done, thanks Xeno! Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:55, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Proposal about guideline's status

Xeno is suggesting at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#About "courtesy vanishing" and unvanishing that this guideline has been made obsolete by meta:Global renaming policy, and that the latter does not allow vanishings/renamings to be reversed without the user's consent. Comments would be appreciated there from interested parties. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:35, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• This policy has never reflected the reality of how "vanishing" is used; the majority of vanishings were always done for reasons other than that mentioned in this policy. A very large proportion weren't even intended to be "vanishings" but sub rosa renames for so-called privacy reasons. This policy is based on an old Meatballwiki essay that was never really adopted anywhere other than English Wikipedia. It should have been deprecated years ago. I've been watching "vanishings" for almost the entire time I've been a Wikipedian, and this policy has caused far more harm than good. If people want to leave, they should leave. If they have a reason for renaming (even if it's a reason that many of us would consider silly), then they should get their account renamed; it used to be on this project, but now it's on Meta, and in either case a significant proportion of the requests were done by email. This policy has been ineffective for as long as I've been here (10 years now) and was not effective even before then from all that I've been able to research. Risker (talk) 04:23, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I tried to make the guideline reflect practice but I've been reverted. Seems to me there's consensus that the guideline doesn't reflect practice, but I don't want to edit war, so posting to confirm. I see we let users who were found to have used numerous socks be renamed, and don't reverse when vanished users return. Wikipedia should not be doing this contrary to policy - ie lying to users. So the guideline should change. We don't revert anymore without exception; can someone provide any recent evidence showing otherwise? I suppose we could mark the whole thing historical. Well, except we are still doing the vanishing part. --Elvey^(t•c) 22:42, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia hesabımı silin

Lütfen Reşat KARAKAYA kullanıcı adı altındaki hesabımı silin. Saygılarımla... Reşat KARAKAYA (talk) 18:41, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

We do not delete accounts. If you don't want to use your account just stop using it. - GB fan 19:07, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I will be deleting my Wikipedia profile

I am sorry to say but I am deleting my Wikipedia profile. {{db-user}}

I will delete it now Calb87 (talk) 17:54, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Allowing IP users to vanish to comply with EU GDPR

How is Wikipedia planning to handle the GDPR regulations gong into effect in Europe in May 2018 which treat IP addresses as personally identifying information and require that organizations delete all PII collected about a user upon the user’s request? Renaming the anonymous account alone per the current vanishing practices will not be sufficient if the IP address is still present in article or user talk page contents or logs. 2600:1003:B85A:F25B:B0AC:72EE:4431:F09A (talk) 04:59, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

User talk pages

If you ever monitor CAT:CSD, you know it's common to see user talk pages there, and virtually always it's because a new user decided that his talk page was a good page on which to place advertising for his company. Such deletions are not generally controversial (and when they are, it's generally for reasons unrelated to vanishing), so I adjusted WP:CVUT accordingly. However, it occurs to me that this may sound too restrictive; if a user has ten good-faith edits (and gets a couple of talk page messages) and then requests deletion of the talk page, we won't do it, even though the user's hardly established. Any ideas on how to tweak the bit I added, or any ideas on how otherwise to word it so it doesn't sound like it's talking about deletion for reasons such as spamming? Nyttend (talk) 03:18, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I would like to request courtesy vanishing this account.

I have decided that I will not be returning to this account anytime in the future. I feel it is right for me and the other wonderful users on Wikipedia. This is not a way to escape any backlash from other users, and I may have made some accidental bad edits that meant no harm, but I want to courtesy vanish my account out of the greatest respect for all the other users on Wikipedia. My user page, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RockNick85

Thank you RockNick85 (talk) 23:30, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Request to vanish

I'd like to vanish from Wikipedia along with my all global accounts. My userpage - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Renamed_user_2wz4ntr - Renamed user 2wz4ntr — Preceding unsigned comment added by Renamed user 2wz4ntr (talk • contribs) 03:53, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Blocking user talk pages

Yes, deletion of talk page can not be done. But blocking further edits to a vanishing user's talk page can be done globally, in order to avoid vandalism or anything since the user can no longer answer.--Xoristzatziki (talk) 06:43, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Request for vanishing/deletion

I know I'm not a very highly looked upon member of the community for my page vandalisms back in high school (particularly of Mark Dice), but I'd still like to request a courtesy vanishing/deletion of talk pages so that I can just get out of everyone's hair and not mess things up more than I already have. Thank you in advance. KillThad (talk) 12:48, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Captcha/image&wpCaptchaId=91809082

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Captcha/image&wpCaptchaId=91809082 DiegoHernandez45678 (talk) 23:46, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Request to vanish

I'd like to vanish from Wikipedia along with my other old accounts which you can find listed on my userpage. Auntie Beeb (talk) 13:21, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd still like to vanish please. The above still applies. Auntie Beeb (talk) 22:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm looking into it. Kingturtle = (talk) 05:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Auntie Beeb (talk) 18:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The same would apply for this and my other listed accounts. West Wallaby Street (talk) 18:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Because of the sockpuppetry involved, I am not granting this request. I went ahead and blocked the related accounts indefinitely. But I've left the Auntie Beeb active. You are still free to edit Wikipedia as Auntie Beeb, and I invite you to help out with editing Wikipedia. Please let me know if you have further comments or questions. Sincerely, Kingturtle = (talk) 12:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

That's very kind of you, although I don't mind you blocking this account too. Auntie Beeb (talk) 22:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I would also like to vanish. I simply do not wish to continue this account, yet i am confused on how too. Thank you. Misty lemon (talk) 11:04, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

I don’t want my account anymore DiegoHernandez45678 (talk) 23:47, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

When should vanishing be delayed?

Per Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests#Vanishing, in the case of a user who is under scrutiny from the community (in the middle of an Arbcom or ANI case) I think the policy should be to delay the vanishing until the case closes. Comments? --Guy Macon (talk) 05:46, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2022

OTRS has been renamed to VRT. Please replace any reference to "OTRS" with "VRT". --105.106.76.126 (talk) 11:01, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

 Done — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 12:40, 11 July 2022 (UTC)