User talk:SlimVirgin/Right to vanish

Comments
I agree we need to rethink the whole concept. I think you've made a great start, but I don't think we are "there" yet. I wrote a long paragraph on what I thought was missing, then realized I hadn't fully read to the end, so the good news, much of my concerns are alleviated, but I still think there are some style issues. I would prefer that we be more formally structured: e.g there are four ways in which a particular account will cease contributions. The conditions associated with each of these actions are laid out below: The above words are mostly a brain dump, so needs a lot of work, the main point is the structure – a list of all options and the actions to be taken in each case. While the Special Right to Vanish is arguably covered by the Arbitrator and bureaucrat discretion section, but it felt like an after-thought when I read it.-- SPhilbrick  T  19:15, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Simple Cessation A contributing editor has no duty or requirement to continue editing, and may cease, at any time for any reason.
 * 2) Clean Start Under carefully prescribed circumstances, an editor may abandon one user name, and begin editing with a different user name. The circumstances and requirements are: blash blah blah
 * 3) Right to Vanish An editor may choose to cease editing, and may request that the username be changed, and certain information on user pages deleted. This request is not granted automatically, but may be granted. This option is intended for users who do not ever intend to return to Wikipedia. However forever is a long time, and should such an editor desire to return to Wikipedia, such request may be granted, with a minimum of n years to pass before such a request, and the granting of the request will also involve the following steps, blah blah blah
 * 4) Special Right to Vanish (the name sucks, but treat it as placeholder)  In some cases, an editor may fear for their safety as a result on onwiki or offwiki actions which are linked to the editor's username. In such cases, even if the editor is not in good standing, the user's request may be granted, subject top arb/bureaucrat approval. The initial steps taken will be the same as those in an RTV situation, renaming of the user name and deletion of identifying material. The user is expected to remain away from WP as long as the threat exists, but in any case, may return no sooner than (a period of time to be defined, which may possibly be defined on a case by case basis).


 * Thanks, SPhil, this is helpful. The more I think about this, the more confused I get. I also wonder whether we're being too bureaucratic and harsh with people.


 * Anyone can leave by stopping editing and having their user subpages deleted on request.
 * In reality, lots of people have their user talk pages deleted too, though the policies say not to.
 * Anyone can have their contribs moved to a new name—and user pages deleted—then continue editing from that account.
 * Under Clean Start, anyone can stop editing, ask for their user subpages to be deleted, and return with a new account, though they are asked to avoid old haunts and interactions.
 * And if you first ask for your contribs to be moved to a new name, wait a bit, then invoke Clean Start, you are effectively "vanishing," but you're allowed to return with a new account because you did it under the Clean Start banner, not the RtV one.
 * Under RtV, anyone can stop editing, have their account name changed to something random and hard to remember (Vanished User 4500xyz), and have user subpages deleted. They may also ask for dispute-resolution pages involving them to be deleted or blanked. Under RtV you're supposed not to return, but in reality people do. And in reality people have user talk pages deleted as well.
 * Under Special RtV, all of the above, plus you may return with a new account (if there has been serious harassment or similar), and you're meant to avoid old haunts, etc, as with Clean Start.


 * So—it's a bit of a mess. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 17:04, 5 August 2011 (UTC)