Wikidata:Requests for comment/Right to vanish
An editor has requested the community to provide input on "Right to vanish" via the Requests for comment (RFC) process. This is the discussion page regarding the issue.
If you have an opinion regarding this issue, feel free to comment below. Thank you! |
THIS RFC IS CLOSED. Please do NOT vote nor add comments.
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.
- There is currently no consensus, after two weeks of discussion, to implement a right-to-vanish policy. Some are opposing over the lack of specific details in the policy that was originally included in the bureaucrat policy (and was subsequently removed pending this RfC). Some are opposing over the usefulness of such a mechanism and/or its effects on Wikidata. Therefore, a RTV policy is not enacted for now.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:20, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Right to vanish edit
In my opinion the previous RfC didn't contain any substantial opposition to the implementation of right to vanish here on Wikidata, according to other users it did. I'm opening this RfC in order to clarify the situation. Anyway as Legoktm wrote in the previous discussion common sense is probably the solution, simply bureaucrats should be allowed to delete (or suppress) redirects and even hide some logs, they are supposed to be trusted enough to avoid any risk of overuse. --Vituzzu (talk) 22:20, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it's the other way around. The previous RfC didn't contain any substantial arguments in favour. I asked where the point in such a policy is and until now nobody has explained it to me. I see exactly 0 arguments for implementing RTV to the bureaucrat policy in the RfC (just "support, it is standard" votes). Regardless of that, I don't see the point in making RTV a policy. Using common sense (which is a Wikidata guideline) is absolutely sufficient, in my eyes. Every user can leave the project at any time. Nobody is forced to contribute. Furthermore, any user can request account renaming, regardless whether he wants to vanish or not. Regards, Vogone talk 23:56, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Vogone, but, mainly the question of the logs is still open. We would need consensus to do this part. The redirects could either way be deleted soon (or immediately) after, especially if it isn't really linked to (apart from in signatures etc.). I planned to go through, closing different sections of the RfC with obvious consensus (and leave the ones without consensus open), but at the time I considered it I thought it might have been a little too soon after it started, and when I went back to do it it had already been closed. Hazard-SJ ✈ 02:29, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- We need to formulate exactly the proposal first (note that whereas it would be indeed more familiar to en.wp users it might be less familiar to users from other projects: For instance, last time I checked it did not exist on ru.wp), and we need to give our opinions not just on the general issue (which is kind of trivial, since nobody could prevent me from stopping using one account and starting using another one), but on the implementation - how to contact the crats, how many times can the same user vanish, indeed the hiding issues etc.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:01, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. Hazard-SJ ✈ 02:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I oppose bringing right to vanish to this project, period. If someone has a life-threatening/life-critical reason to need to vanish, they can take it up with the WMF and have a global vanish. RTV is frequently abused on other projects, sometimes deliberately and maliciously, and I can think of no reason that a local policy would be needed. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:29, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I see no reason why vanishing should be specifically allowed by policy. Like Vogone said, per WD:UCS a user can just request a rename and go inactive if they want to. Ajraddatz (Talk) 12:24, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I support adding a right to vanish. While yes, UCS says people can just go inactive if they so desire, RTV is more than that. RTV is basically the closest to account deletion we have. It is removing someone's username from their contributions, essentially. This is important to codify as a right that the user has, so that users interested in vanishing are not subject to possible obstructionism ("oppose, does the user REALLY need to vanish?"), and so their exercising that right is not hampered by reluctance to encounter such obstructionism (whether real or simply feared). —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 20:24, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Again the question: what is RTV? If it's just requesting account rename everybody could do that. If RTV includes suppression of log entries, I would strongly oppose it due to transparency reasons. Regards, Vogone talk 20:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]