This is not a copyright issue. If someone places material on Wikipedia, they do so, they have the right to do so and as long as that information is not defamatory or breaking any laws there should be no prohibition against posting any such information. << It is partially a copyright issue if it is asserted that it must remain available because it was released under the GFDL. That is misapplication of the intent of the GFDL here, though - it's not there to keep personal information available but to build the Wikipedia encyclopedia. We need to do what is right, even if there is a GFDL right to keep the information around. It's simply wrong to compel people to keep personal information around when they no longer want it around, or to assist others with harassment. Even if the project has the legal right to do so. This reasoning doesn't apply to things like "I don't want a user page at all" or similar silliness. The internet includes password-protected communities and lots of other things regulated by contracts before access is granted, where access is conditional on accepting the contract. In those places, that information is not fully public. However, on to your real point: yes, it is expected that on an open access public site, if the information is there personal information like email addresses could be harvested and used for purposes like spamming or taken and used for harassment. However, that doesn't absolve those operating the sites from any social responsibility for helping people to manage their privacy, including allowing them to remove personal information if they change their mind (which is a legal right in Europe, though not the US). Since the Wikipedia wants broad contributions it should, where practical, accommodate those who expect European rights to remove their personal information, to the extent that it doesn't get in the way of the project. It's simply good for the project and socially responsible. There is some merit there but it's not applicable to the personal information argument, assuming it's not in the articles themselves. For the articles: o there's the general right to contribute anonymously and the copyright and legal responsibility which anonymous contributors retain, even thought they are anonymous. o there's the email address supplied to the Wikipedia for registration, which provides a contact route even in the absence of any information which used to be on user pages. o at least one court has accepted the serving of a legal notice on an anonymous person via a public post on a public message board which had been frequented by the person and where the alleged infraction (share price manipulation accusations rather than copyright) had happened. Can you think of any legal or rights negotiation purpose which can't be reasonably facilitated by those means and which isn't already redundant because of the very broad GFDL license grant? The most likely one which comes to my mind is a publication which doesn't want to use the GFDL. Such a publication is already in serious trouble when it comes to anonymous contributions. Can I make a complaint to the arbitration committee about that? << Absolutely! Can I make one as well?:) This is one reason why I'm trying to make the legal articles clear to normal people - I've had to correct so many errors over the years, even though I'm not a lawyer...:)