User talk:Hersfold/Leaving Wikipedia

Privilige vs. courtesy

I see this more as a courtesy, and think that wording would be better as "privilege" can be (and often is) misinterpreted as "right", which vanishing is not. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 20:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point there, although in my mind the term "privilege" implies something you have to earn through good conduct, whereas "courtesy" is more something that's available to everyone. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:09, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True, and that's what the word actually means, but not everyone understands that. To me, "courtesy" means that we're doing it to be nice, not because we are required to do so. (coming from a business view) ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 01:52, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, there is that as well. I'm not really sure which one would be best. I definitely want to get it away from "right," though - not everyone has the right to vanish, if they're not in good standing, and calling it that just raises more drama when the not-in-good-standing types do want to vanish. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 06:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I think "courtesy vanishing" flows better than "privilege to vanish". ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 04:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW I think it would be strange to use "PtV", and think it would be better to continue using "RTV" where the "R" stands for request. –xeno^talk 17:50, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retiring

Another potential issue with wording, one that especially peeves me, is using the term "retired". As if it was a career or something. Editing Wikipedia is a hobby, people don't normally 'retire' from their hobbies.. they just lose interest over time. -- œ ^™ 05:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's what's been used in the past, as with {{retired}}. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:11, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Involving ArbCom

Why are we including a step to ask ArbCom first as part of vanishing? Have they agreed to this? They already have a pretty decent workload, and this will increase it a fair bit. Just curious. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 16:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't asked, but clean start does currently strongly recommend contacting ArbCom to avoid problems down the road; additionally, ArbCom already deals with severe cases of off-wiki harassment, so if vanishing is restricted solely to users experiencing such harassment, it seems a natural add-on to ArbCom's duties (and one that doesn't add much more beyond what they already do). Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some comments at Wikipedia talk:Courtesy vanishing#Proposed changes. The page as currently written seems to be entirely missing the former and proper "courtesy vanishing" procedure where a user really does mean to leave forever. I think that courtesy vanishing should stay as it is, and the whole "disappear-reappear" shuffles that sometimes occur (if they are to be specifically allowed in policy) shouldn't be called vanishing at all. –xeno^talk 17:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What does "permanent" mean?

The section on vanishing refers to users who wish to leave Wikipedia "permanently" in the introduction, but later states "If you wish, you may return under a new account". Perhaps I misunderstand the word "permanent"? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That was a mistake on my part - it's now been corrected due to the comments at the other discussion. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 15:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]