departure policy

[a.a.s.]

What do we do with userpages of people leaving the project? I think there is a tension between the possible user's desire to disappear and the project's "desire" to keep at least some minimal traces of its authors/editors.

I believe something about it should be made explicit. My proposition is that

1) If author didn't contributed anything  we may do virtually whatever he wants to, e.g.  delete his userpage/talk (and this would be the default if the user does not express his wishes).

2) If the user contributed something as an *author*, we may by default leave his userpage alone.
However if the user explicitly requests to delete his bio/userpage, we do it leaving only short notice:
Name, joined on  date, left on date or something similar.
I think no red links in articles' histories are desirable -- it looks like a gap
in the system. Even a minimal userpage tacitly assures that he was our
"regular" and it makes a little part of our credibility.
On the other hand, the user is not expected to write essays
on the reasons he left. This is implicitly contained in our policy on
user pages, but IMHO we can make it more explicit in this regard  (esp.
for Wikipedians who are used to such essays..)

3) If it regards an editor -- esp one who has approved at least one article --
we may insist on leaving more info on the user page. At least his most
relevant degree and recent affiliations, if applicable.
(By default the page is intact). Editors are (and should be) given the concrete power
but the project's reliability hangs on them. This justifies a minimal obligation
of leaving some bio highlights accessible  -- at least  as long there are articles approved by a given editor.
For editors with no approved articles we may apply Author's rule (number 2).
This just-in-case-requirement for leaving editors
could be made clear for applying ones so that the "contract" is fair.

I think what we actually do is not very different from the above proposition.
The only thing I'd suggest is to make it more explicit somewhere in our policies.

Thoughts, comments?

[Derek Harkness]

I broadly agree with the above. I think the policy should be clearly stated somewhere. We should default to keeping information. Authors and editors should have to give a reason for their page to be deleted or summarized. Simply falling out with the project/members and going in a huff shouldn't be a good enough reason.

[Larry Sanger]

I pretty much agree with all of the above, too, including Derek's caveats.  I'd like to add however that we actually need a little more detail in the policy.  Must we (i.e., constables) indicate that someone has left?  Do we have the right to remove some things from a page that indicate otherwise?  Should we disallow "parting essays" that explain why a person has left?  I'm inclined to say no to the latter, purely in the interests of the health of the project.  Your leaving the project does not give you the right essentially to post a "negative advertisement" against the project.  The concern on the other side of this question will be the inevitable--freedom of speech.  But I don't maintain that there is a freedom to use one's user page however one wishes, and [[CZ:Project Home]] has made this clear for a long time.  User pages are in place first and foremost to support the project.

[a.a.s.]

OK, more details.

Following Derek's post I'd propose to do nothing with the userpage unless explicit request is issued. We can officially require a motivation, but consider that a leaving user may be frustrated enough to produce claims similar to "I'm so disappointed with the project that I want no my personal data here". A generic personal claim, not an objective "reason" -- and I feel we should listen to it. Consider that the law in many European countries requires the suppression of personal data on demand and a typical personal data transfer to an institution is always accompanied with acknowledgement of this law.
Now, the edits user made in the system justify that we retain some  basic informations, e.g.  the name. Releasing  under a CC license makes edits 'irreversible': once released they are freed and one can not demand to delete his work. This, BTW could be make clear in the policy too. From my experience on WP I recall a few cases of such requests.

On reflection, parting essay is *not* a bad thing. In fact, I studied pretty many ones on WP and it was instructive in a few ways.
Now, the problem is that parting essays are rarely neutral, to put it mildly.
On average, essays are unbalanced and express  frustration, complaints and rants against the project. Well, I do not expect the same average tone on CZ. But even two tones down,  in normal circumstances on CZ it would be speedy-replaced by {{noncomplaints}}. And even a very polite and IMHO really well meaning recent parting essay on CZ was written just from user's particular perspective. I was glad to be able to find project's perspective expressed alongside (it was on a forum). I could judge for myself.
Anyway, I feel it's not fair to let parting essays be aired freely. Yes, it's freedom of speech problem...

So a sketch of a proposal:

We allow parting essays but require it to be civil and as neutral as possible on the user's part. We put them on talk pages (the constables have right to move it from the user page). If a constable (Editor-in-chief?) feels that user's presentation is particularly unfair / just needs intervention, he may either
- replace a part of it with {{no-rants-in-parting-essays}} template in a way analogical to {{nocomplaints}}
or
- put a response to show project's perspective (signed not personally but in behalf of the Constabulary).
The latter theoretically opens a way to time-wasting disputes (user wants to reply etc.) So  I'd propose no discussion is allowed, just one "declaration" for the user and the constabulary. Any side is allowed --but openly discouraged-- to modify its statement. In practice this should work, considering that in a similar way people put they statements in mediation/arbitration procedures on WP.
A minor point: project's response is not obligatory.

Sorry it was long.
Just brainstorming. I'd like to see the comments. Are we ready to start the policy?

[JFPerry]

Just one suggestion. Establish a "cooling off" period, say, one week, before the parting essay would be accepted for publication be published.

[Larry Sanger]

I think we're ready to start the policy; it needs to be written down clearly and concisely though.  Please do!

[Derek Harkness]

Anyway, I feel it's not fair to let parting essays be aired freely. Yes, it's freedom of speech problem...

I don't see this freedom of speech issue. A journalist leaving a newspaper can't force the editor of that newspaper to publish his resignation letter. Likewise we can't be forced to publish anything we don't want to publish. Where we would have a freedom of speech problem is if we tried to prevent the person publishing elsewhere should he find a sympathetic editor.

Another cravat: Even if the page is summarised or removed completely, the constables should keep a record of the original in a private file somewhere just incase it's needed in some future dispute.

[a.a.s.]

Sysops are able to see deleted pages, aren't they. So "summarising" may mean technical deleting and re-creating with a new short text by the user if possible or by a constable if necessary.