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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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.....