Wikipedia talk:Deceased Wikipedians/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Created

I hope people will add to Decease Wikipedians page as needed. If anyone has any questions or comments about the page, drop me a line. --SouthernNights (talk) 12:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Buttered Bread

I am worried about User:Buttered Bread. His userpage says he was born in 1983 with HIV, he edited regularly starting in november, stopped editing in mid-December, and popped back in at Christmas to say he had been very sick and was in and out of the hospital. He has not edited since, and an email I sent a week ago asking if he was OK was not replied to. Raul654 21:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm also worried. I noticed the same thing a few weeks back but I did't know how to find out any more info on him. Does anyone know his real name so we could try and find out if he is okay?--Alabamaboy 23:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, his first name is Frederick and his last name starts with an E. He's hispanic, lives somewhere in Illinois, and is unemployed. That's not much to go on. If someone had the time and inclination, I suppose (s)he could contact the church of scientology and ask them, um, no... Raul654 23:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to open an old wound here, but for anyone that cares to know, I searched through the Social Security Death Index. Couldn't find ANYTHING on anyone named Frederick that was born on July 29, 1983 (as his userpage says). Looks like he just up and disappeared. Matt (talk) 19:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to be a bit mean chaps, but buttered bread is a common English rhyming slang for dead (brown bread, horse's head etc etc). Just a thought. Time for some archiving on this page noting the date stamps. Pedro : Chat 19:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to be even meaner, but buttered bread isn't rhyming slang for anything. Brown bread is rhyming slang for dead. DuncanHill (talk) 19:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

See my above where i said exactly that brown bread is also valid- it is down my way. But never the less do we really need to hit WP:RS over a three year old conversation to have a debate? Pedro : Chat 19:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Qualifying for being listed

Please do not add people to this list who were never an integral part of the community.

So being an integral part of the Wikipedia community (say: being a wikipedian) starts with 'several hundert edits'? I think it is thoughtful and of a humanist tradition to commemorate those who passed away but on the other hand I feel that every person who registered him or herself to this community is part of the community already. I know that there are significant efforts by some, while others do not have time or intellectual ability to create or enhance/deepen new articles. Therefore I demand that even users who only contribute now and then are being enlisted and therefore commemorated on here. LIllIi 02:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with listing editors who only edit now and then and that's why I tried to define "integral" rather loosely, being several hundred edits OR substantial contributions to certain articles. I think that definitions loose enough that any editor who has logged on here more than a few times should qualify.--Alabamaboy 18:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I think "please do not add yourself to this list" goes without saying in this case... =) JIP | Talk 07:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
My mom passed away last week, and that got me thinking. I'd like to get pre-approved for inclusion. I'll work harder if I don't qualify. Alabamaboy, I don't think I know you, but I think the charter Wikipedians could vouch for me. See my userpage for a summary of my involvement. Can I get a ruling, please? -- tbc (talk) 23:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
- I have reviewed your contributions and approved you for listing. Tisane ^talk/_stalk 19:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Great idea

Very, very good idea for a page. I've often thought about what happens to dead wikipedians. Nice to see you can get a decent burial online. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 22:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Help finding if this user has died?

I fear user User:David91 | talk has died due to a medical condition sometime after April 12, 2006, when he stopped editing and was admitted to hospital for some tests. From my research I am reasonably certain he lived in Singapore (likely in or near Ang Mo Kio which he edited 3 times--but with detail), and was probably the oldest Wikipedian at the age of 94 (based on a reference from 2003 when he said he was 91). I searched for a long time with Google, but didn't come up with much other than his age and his location. I couldn't find his e-mail address anywhere. Apart from his wisdom and knowledge shown in his numerous contributions in law (it seems clear he was a retired lawyer of some kind) and linguistics articles and sociology, he was interested in science fiction (and maybe even wrote some of his own). On Wikipedia he was part of Wikipedia:WikiProject International law (though it didn't really get off the ground) and he made nearly 5000 edits by a quick count. From my research he was also a well-respected member of other Internet communities he was involved in during his retirement.

I don't know if bureaucrats can do this, but he did use an e-mail address to register, and it would be good if someone who has access to it could try e-mailing him, or use his e-mail address to try to find more information. I searched through obituaries, but it's very difficult when all you have to go on is his first name (quite common too) and his age and no definite date. 02:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I've posted a note on my local noticeboard, with this amount of information we may be able to know of his status. - Mailer Diablo 04:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

scary

Its a bit frightening to see that 3 out of 4 late Wikipedians appear quite young. EVERYBODY: For God's sake, watch your health! Rama's Arrow 07:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that an overwhelming majority of Wikipedians are "quite young", which would explain this. So I don't think there's anything to really worry about...but yes, it's good to stretch, leave the house, get some sunshine...and find the nearest wireless hotspot where you can keep editing. --C S (Talk) 08:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I do agree. --Bhadani 17:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

How can living wikipedians ensure that news of their death reaches Wikipedia?

I'd been thinking about this for quite while. What should I do to ensure that the news of my eventual death is clearly established in Wikipedia? I have people in Wikipedia whom I know in person too. And those are likely to know if I'm dead for sure. Probably I should officially endorse a list of such guys so that their word becomes authentic. What else can be done? -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 15:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Unless you want to use your real name at Wikipedia, the best thing is to do as you've done and let other editors here know who you really are. If anything happens to you, I'd assume your friends would pass the word.--Alabamaboy 15:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I was involved in a boating accident about 2 months ago. Nobody was hurt, but afterwards, I started thinking about this. I came to the same conclusion - two other wikipedia editors know me in real life, and should I pass on, I believe they would relay news to Wikipedia. Raul654 17:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Man, it's weird. I've only been editing here for about 2 months or so, and haven't really become enough a part of the community to think of fellow editors as, well, normal people. This page made me think about that. I used to think of them as blank faces behind computers. Now I'll think differently... — the preceding signed comment was added by riana_dzasta • t • c • 13:22, 3 July 2006

The same thing happened to me. I've always thinked wikipedians were part of a computer program or something like that but when i saw this page... This is not the first time i think about those people, but also in forums (as once someone was involved in a hurracan and i could do nothing but wait till he posted something). What i mean is that its shocking to watch a page which tells you right in the face that some articles were wrote by somebody who's dead and tells you all his contributions...--MoniMimi (talk) 18:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually the lack of known dead contributors reflects the youthful nature of the project and in the real world writers, musicians etc who are dead don't raise an eyebrow. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't let it change your experience. Very, very few Wikipedians end up dead — in our entire worldwide interlingual Wikipedia community, only four people have died. —THIS IS MESSED

OCKER (TALK) 05:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't want to be a downer, but that's confirmed deaths. There could be other people that we just don't know about. Yank sox 05:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, all Wikipedians will end up dead eventually. Unless you know something I do not. Sosobra 00:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd assume you could get a partner or parent to write it on here if you knew you were going to die... ~Crowstar~ 20:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Are we supposed to include our password and username in our will or something, so our executor can post something here and on our userpage? Edison (talk) 04:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

If you are not notable, then you die and nobody cares, including wikipedia :(. I was quietly away for 6 weeks, and only 'bots and wikilawyers with their obtrusive warnings were talking my talk page. Nobody asked are you alive or dead? :-) `'Míkka >t 15:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, while I've asked my wife to leave a note on Wikipedia should I die, I figure that in any case I'm notable enough that the local paper would carry my obituary, & that at least one other Wikipedian here would see it & pass the information on. Of course, I live in the same city as Ward Cunningham & we know each other, so it might just happen that he will inform Wikipedia about my demise. (Then again, since I am younger than him, it's far more likely that I would attempt to update his Wikipedia article...only to find someone else had done so several hours before me.) -- llywrch (talk) 07:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

User:HolyRomanEmperor

I'm afraid we'll have to add him to the list now. sighs All so terribly young... —Nightst a llion (?) 09:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I've been following the discussions about HRE on Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship and I think we need more info before adding him. Best, --Alabamaboy 12:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Apparently he's still alive - he posted on his talk page on 5 July. - THE GREAT GAVINI {T-C} 16:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, there's a lot going on around this. Sounds like a sick prank or something.--Alabamaboy 16:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Several people in RFA talk are saying that HRE account was hijacked by one of those Anti-Serb editors, I'm too confused, he's not dead that is for sure. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 22:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Friends

You asked for any info on User:Xulin, I am the one that set his Testimonial page, feel free to contact me --RzR 01:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I was just wondering...

...should there be a disclaimer or info-verification policy for this endeavour? I mean, it is conceivable that a person may fake his death with an accomplice or sockpuppet, and then try to sue WP for maligning him or something. Rama's arrow 03:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The same standards for any Wikipedia article apply here--i.e., referenced information and a willingness to correct the article if info is found to be misleading. The truth is that any Wikipedia article could be subject to fake info and WP sued over that but the project has still managed to succeed without a disclaimer or info-verification policy. I think using the same standards here means we are ok.--Alabamaboy 13:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

There was a successful suit against WP over the biography of some American civil servant, whom the article accused of involvement in the Kennedy assassination. I think it would be wise to issue a disclaimer at least. Rama's arrow 19:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Um, no. You are thinking of the Seigethaler incident, but your comment is factually incorrect in almost every respect. Raul654 20:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Paulpinson

According to User:Paulpinson's userpage, edited by an anon, he died in a car wreck in 2005. He didn't make many edits, but he started The Ill-Made Knight article. His account made an edit the day the anon made the death announcement, so it may just be another hoax. He provides a lot of information about himself on his userpage, so it shouldn't be hard to check out.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this is an actual death and seems more like a poor-taste comment made to explain why the editor left Wikipedia. In addition, the editor only made about ten edits overall.--Alabamaboy 19:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The user appears to have edited the article April 1 fifteen hours after the death announcement was made. --Jetman 04:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Coma

My buddy User:Rydel stopped replying to my emails and his website was offline for quite a while. Apparently he is in the state of coma. Not dead, thank God, but it is a notable condition for which i didn't find a category. See his blog here - br23 blog. Scroll down, see it at the comments. --Amir E. Aharoni 16:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I added him to Missing Wikipedians. If you want to comment there further, please do.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. --Amir E. Aharoni 19:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

new redirects/shortcuts

On Wheezier Plot, could you explain why you think we need all these new shortcuts? WP:RIP seems reasonable to me, but I have trouble imagining people finding "WP:LATE", "WP:DEMISE", "WP:LOSS", or "WP:GONE" to be particularly useful ways to get to this page. --Allen 07:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear Allen aka Amcbride, before should you ask, please see, read, view, and notice the history page first (that is, the past versions of this page) of this Wiki-article, particularly of all the edit summaries that I have "written" them down. Somehow, you might know the true reason which underlies them on why I am including those new shortcuts. Suppose or if you really regard those likely "short" words such as "late", "demise", "loss", and "gone" are deemed as simply redundant to be dealed with for this obituary article, think again! Do think twice and try to look and contemplate at those words especially their general meaning and their relevance carefully and more observantly! But on whatever you have stated here, I will try to consider this matter for myself and will attempt to alter and reduce them to some certain degree though! Thanks! --onWheeZierPLot 07:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Please don't call other users' good faith edits vandalism. You have not explained why you think we need all those redirects listed here, beyond them being synonyms for "deceased."--Cúchullain ^t/c 07:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

They're unneeded, I agree. Ral315 (talk) 23:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. The existence of the redirects is probably harmless. Mentioning them all here on the page tends to turn this into a macabre joke. - Jmabel | Talk 05:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Push

I corrected the error in his listing, but as far as I know he only added a few edits to one article, not "hundreds". He has other tributes on the web at the locations where he made more contributions. I do think it makes sense for his home page to point here, but I am wondering about what this says for the criteria of who gets to be "deceased". --Jaibe 08:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I know. To be honest, I agree with you on this one. However, I also have no desire to remove a deceased editor if another editor felt he/she was worth mentioning, as in this case. Best, --Alabamaboy 12:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your last sentiment, especially in the case that it can be verified.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I was going to mention his lack of edits, but I thought there was something probably wrong with the "user contribution" function. Not to sound disrespectful to the deceased, but he made a total of eight edits, five of those being main space edits; that's hardly "an integral part of the community". Who added him in the first place? Jumping cheese

^Cont@ct 06:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Push Singh was added by Raul654. Further edits to his listing were made by Raul654, Alabamaboy, 128.2.247.134 and Jaibe. A ecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 14:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow...thanxs for the research! So what's the consensus on Push? Keep or remove? Jumping cheese

^Cont@ct 06:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Given that the two who edited are an integral part of the community, I think the decision should be theirs. Raul? Alabamaboy? - Jmabel | Talk 07:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Being that he had only a miniscule handful of edits, I don't object to removing Push. Raul654 07:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Whilst on the topic... perhaps a guideline can be created for when someone makes the "Deceased" list-- active time? number of edits? Nephron T|C 07:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Right now it's a vague "several hundred edits". Throwing a random number out there...maybe 500? Jumping cheese

^Cont@ct 11:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

David91

I believe he's been posting as an unregistered guest on the Citizendium forums. ★MESSED ROCKER★ 05:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment moved from project page. A ecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 11:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Can I see the evidence? 18:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

This is one of many areas where David91 has been spotted making posts. ★TWO YEARS OF MESSED ROCKER★ 04:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Is it really appropriate to list unclear cases?

I am not saying one way or the other, but though the page itself I find respectful, I do question how healthy an idea it is to list people who are "suspected" of dying. Should not extreme conservatism reign on this page. It is one thing to commemmorate real dead, and another to list people who have fallen off the edge of the earth as far as contacting them has proven. For whatever reasons some wikipedians may deliberately choose to avoid contact with their old wikipedian friends, but are in rudely good health. I would ask people to ponder this possibility seriously. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. 08:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Concur. If I walked out in a huff, I'd hate to see myself described under "Maybe he's dead". - Jmabel | Talk 22:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Prediction

I predict that this page will fill up a lot within the next 100 years. -dogman15 21:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

A wise prediction.--Alabamaboy 23:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Probably not...since most accounts on Wikipedia are anonymous. Unlike MySpace and mydeathplace, there are no names to associate the accounts with. For example, if John Doe died in a car crash, his friends or people who read his obituary can search for his MySpace account and post farewell messages. On Wikipedia, there are no names to search by. If based on account inactivity, every Wikipedian in WP:MIA can potentially be dead (or retired from Wikipedia without even a message). Only Wikipedians that have revealed their true identity and later died can be properly placed in the page with news sources attached. =) Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 11:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Also we may be able to live greatly extended lives due to modern technology and even most of the older editors may still be alive. Re Jumping Cheese it's a classic case of "how well to people manage their digitalm lives in anticipation of their death?" SqueakBox 15:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

It depends on whether most Wikipedians decide to stop editing once they reach a fragile age. Either way, every substantial contributor to Wikipedia will either go to this list or to Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians. Unless of course if someone becomes a troll and is blocked indefinitely! Gizza^Chat ^© 02:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Pushsingh

He has only made eight edits. According to The purpose section, he shouldn't be mentioned here, "at least several hundred edits or be known for substantial contributions to certain articles." His contributions weren't very substantial. This list could become very long if people with ten edits are allowed here. Gizza^Chat ^© 02:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The problem is that I have no desire to stop someone from placing a Wikipedia editor on this page if they are truly dead. As you state, there are a number of editors who've made a few edits here then passed away (such as User:EC).--Alabamaboy 14:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Having just seen this, Push made eight edits over the span of almost two years. His blurb makes it sound like he made huge contributions here, and Raul stated above that he wouldn't mind if Push was removed. He's not at all in the same league as the other entries here, who had made tangible long-term contributions to Wikipedia(s). Some criteria need to be in place, and I would err on the side of the contrib level of the majority of the people already listed. Admittedly, editcount isn't the only way to contribute, but these were dedicated folks, and then there's Push. The article he created has barely been changed, so I am loath to say it was a great contribution. The other one got redirected, again with no addition of content. It's nice to eulogize and praise, but there's honestly nothing here to merit it given the company he is in. Would it be a huge issue if he was removed? MSJapan 01:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Removed per my reasoning above. MSJapan 18:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Rydel

According to his user page, Rydel passed away today after several months of illness.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting people know. I've added him to the main page.--Alabamaboy 18:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Month of May

There seems to be a rather large number of deaths in May alone...Uladzimir Katkouski, Tron Øgrim, and Емил Петков. Sniff... =( Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 19:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Osterritter

I removed the guessed reason for his death. There is no proof whatsoever und the User who stated the message on the german lost wikipedians left shortly after that. Such things are way too serious to just guess an state without proof. 80.245.147.81 08:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Evidence?

The user Trynton Shines has claimed that Wikipedia has gotten an email about User:Curps's death. I am requesting for someone to look into this. -Yancyfry 02:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

That user is the North Carolina Vandal. Vandals say users are dead all the time. Could it be real, yes. Probably not though. It will still be good to have someone look into it though. --(Review Me) R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 03:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Gaimhreadhan

According to this edit to the Irish Wikipedians' notice board, prominent Irish editor Gaimhreadhan has died.--Cúchullain ^t/c 08:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Per confidential info I have received, this editor is not a candidate for this page. I'm afraid I can't share info more at this time.--Alabamaboy 19:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Deceased Dutch Wikipedian

Dutch Wikipedian JacobavanBeieren died this past July. Can someone gather more information on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.237.153.147 (talk) 05:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Move to meta

I like this page a lot. But I feel its presence on en.wiki is a bit disrespectful to non-en.wikipedians. Because this list isn't exclusively on deceased en.wikidedians, I think it is better of being on meta.wikimedia. This is exactly what meta is for. Mind you there would be a soft redirect left on this particular page so finding the page would be a click away. -- Cat ^chi? 16:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Page would be multilingual there, an obvious + of such a move. -- Cat ^chi? 16:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Korenyuk

Based on this edit attributed to a fr.wiki editor (edit summary), User:Korenyuk, who according to his userpage was suffering from Polymyositis and whose Ukranian userpage also seems to have been deleted, died on October 6. I don't know what his level of activity was in either of those Wikipedias, but perhaps a French or Ukrainian speaker can clarify that and whether he should be listed here. Tewfik^Talk 03:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Sadness

This is a very sad page, their edits will always appear on articles history, but they aren't here, no more. --Emijrp (talk) 21:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

They might not appear forever. Certain users can delete edit histories, I believe there is a way to redirect or move a page in such a way that its edit history is vanquished (a copy-and-paste followed by deletion of the husk), and of course Wikipedia might eventually be rebooted, or altered in a fundamental way, or there might be a future legal requirement that edits are tied to a verified individual, or some other change in the law. The soil piles up on top of the bones until there is only soil. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 00:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Removed several users from this page

I just removed several users from this page because they did not meet the criteria of being integral members of Wikipedia. We are very generous in defining what it means to be an integral member of the WP community, but it is hard to justify including editors who made only a few edits on this page (especially when these editors were usually editing articles about themselves). Several people have raised this issue with me recently so I decided the time had come to remove several names. I should also point out that the names recently removed were all people who are remembered elsewhere on the web for doing amazing things with their lives; this simply means their talents were not directed at Wikipedia. If there are any concerns about this, please let me know. Best, --Alabamaboy (talk) 16:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Utilisateur:Stéphane Tendon

fr:Utilisateur:Stéphane Tendon just left us. If someone speaking french can add him. Thanks. (No memorial has been created at this time). Like tears in rain (talk) 05:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. Sorry for the delay. haz (talk) 16:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Quick question

for future reference (possibly, but hopefully not!!!) what are the criterions for being "an integral part of the Wikommunity???" Smith Jones (talk) 03:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Arístides Herrera Cuntti

Arístides Herrera Cuntti has died. He was active on es.wikipedia.org. He had published several books. http://es.wikisource.org/wiki/Arístides_Herrera_Cuntti . His death was announced at http://es.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Café#Infarto .--Youssef (talk) 18:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

http://es.wikihow.com/index.php?title=Usuario_Discusión:Miasea&diff=prev&oldid=24361--Youssef (talk) 19:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Laura Minguell

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usuario_Discusión:Laura_Minguell#Que_en_paz_descanse. Sad news.--Youssef (talk) 19:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Jsanchezes

Jsanchezes was contributor on Wikipedia in Spanish. http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usuario:Jsanchezes --Youssef (talk) 19:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Jon-Erik Beckjord has died

Jon-Erik Beckjord, who edited as User:Beckjord (and several alternate accounts) died of prostate cancer on June 22. [1] I don't know if others would consider him an "integral part of the community" --he was banned, after all-- but he did make several hundred edits over his time here, and was well-known to certain editors. Zagalejo^^^ 19:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree with you. Beckjord made a substantial number of contributions. — The Man in Question (gesprec) · (forðung) 23:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Jeffpw

According to a message left by one of his relatives, he has passed away. I didn't speak to him much, so if anyone around here did speak to him a lot, please fill in a new section for him on the main Deceased Wikipedians page. D.M.N. (talk) 08:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Can we please nip this in the bud right now? As far as I can tell, this page only includes Wikipedians who had divulged their full name, and for whom sources are cited wrt their deaths. I don't know who else knows Jeff's full name, but I'm certainly not divulging it to anyone and I will encourage his family not to do so, and if anyone convinces any member of his family to post it to Wiki, I hope it will be quickly oversighted while others have a chance to discuss the reprecussions with them. I hope this page will be left for cited, sourced deaths including full names, and please let Jeffpw rest in peace. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, if this page can handle using only an editor name and only sources to his own page, then there's no problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't his identity clearly indicated through simple [in the off-chance it isn't that simple, I am not explaining how] means? Four different pages currently use his real name, not to mention blogs and articles reveal the name. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Jeff was "out" on Wikipedia, as you can see here and here. Additionally, when Isaac died, he set up a Memorial page for "Isaäc Koole" (nobody ever raised an issue about his name), taking care to use the umlaut. He put his wedding photos on the Same-Sex Marriage in The Netherlands article.& He used his initials for his User name (Jeff P. W.). He responded to any e-mail with his full name. etc. He also has long been out about his substance abuse issue and everything else. Jeff once was at the heart of one of the many User page controversies for the exact reason that he *was* out about himself and his life. As you can see from his page in 2006, he had, amongst others, user boxes for NA and AA (also the subject of one of his final posts), "living with Hepatitis and/or HIV", and yes, "This user believes in Santa Claus." I realize some people have appointed themselves Jeff's representative now, but they are applying their own perspective to someone who was out, large and proud. More than almost anyone else on here. --David Shankbone 17:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused. Why cannot there be a memorial without mentioning his real name? Doesn't seem necessary to add it. --NellieBly (talk) 20:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Because a real person died, not an account. Respecting the individual who possessed a wiki account is more appropriate. This isn't V for Vendetta. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposition of Protection

Though I am not a user of Wikipedia, nor do I possess an account, I would like to suggest that all these deceased wikipedians' user pages and discussion pages be protected, in an effort to make sure that their memory be sustained perfectly. I happen to know that there are people out there who would take no greater pleasure than in vandalizing a deceased wikipedian's pages, and so I would like to stop this from happening, before it happens. No matter what the outcome of my proposition may be, may these deceased wikipedians Rest In Peace and forever be remembered. Thankyou. 139.168.248.134 (talk) 09:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Not a bad idea, anon. Anyone else want to chime in on this topic? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I have to fully support this, although I haven't really known anybody on Wiki that has died, I had a friend on a message board that died. And there were people who vandalized the board with things such as "Hahajamesisdead" and it really hurts. I fully support it in respect of the deceased. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 17:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

This makes perfect sense. A separate memorial user subpage can be left unprotected, but the rest of it could easily be protected. --NellieBly (talk) 19:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

When dealing with this rather sensitive issue in the past (and I've done quite a few, unfortunately), I've always fully-protected their userpage as-is, with a short note at the top, like this. I tend to move-protect the talk page only and block the account ABD with a respectful message[2] Sadly, I'd blocked him for edit-warring previously :( - Alison ^❤ 06:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking the exact same thing whilst reading through deceased users' userpages, before I read this discussion. So, yes, I'd agree with this too. Craigy (talk) 03:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd also support this.--SouthernNights (talk) 00:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I have just began protecting all deceased user pages. It should also be noted that Jimbo Wales has previously protected a deceased Wikipedian's user page, so this action not only has consensus here but also precedence.--SouthernNights (talk) 00:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Pete Fenelon

It seems that Pete Fenelon, who made hundreds of edits (primarily to motorsport related articles) has died. [3] I didn't know him, but saw of his death on another message board and posted news here after discovering that he had an account under the same name. A great loss. Gran² 22:01, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I've had a go at adding him to the page. I only had one conversation with him here, but still very sad news. RIP.--Diniz (talk) 00:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I've also requested that his user page be protected, as per the above discussion.--Diniz (talk) 00:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sad to hear of this. Pete was awesome. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

All of the Deceased Wikipedians?

is there a page with all known Deceased Wikipedians? like a Category? --150.140.226.7 (talk) 11:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

No; this page effectively serves as a list of those known to have deceased, negating the need for a category. haz (talk) 17:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

CanadaGirl (talk · contribs)

I did not know Carli Anne Ward (CanadaGirl), and only learned of her WP activities through an oblique reference on another userpage. That said, she died nearly a year ago and seems to qualify for inclusion. Dppowell (talk) 04:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Emil Petkov (Espetkov) unsourced!

I don't want to jump in with both feet. But Emil Petkov (Espetkov) is unsourced and I am minded to remove it. Thoughts?--Scott Mac (Doc) 19:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

You should leave it. While we prefer sourced info, we also accept information from trusted Wikipedia users who have personal info on a death. That's what happened in this case. --SouthernNights (talk) 01:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that's too risky. If there's no source, it really should be removed. We can't go listing people as dead without verification. As for as I can see all other entries have an external source.--Scott Mac (Doc) 01:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

It is not too risky. If a trusted admin or long-time editor received information about the death of an editor, that info is valid. In addition, his Bulgarian user page contains information on his passing, along with links to additional information. Unless you can get consensus to remove this item, please don't do so.--SouthernNights (talk) 01:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, no. We remove unreferenced stuff, and only reinsert when there's a consensus that it is safe to do so. If the sources are available then please feel free to replace the material with the verification linked. I'd do it myself but I lack Bulgarian.--Scott Mac (Doc) 09:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I am removing this again, and invite those reverting me to provide sources and discuss them here rather than edit warring. We need verification here, and not a wikipage in Bulgarian.--Scott Mac (Doc) 18:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

This is not wikipedia article, whis is a wikipedia community page, the policy WP:V is not applicable in all its rigor, and verification within wikipedian's community is reasonable enough. I don't believe that a group of respected Bulgarian wikipedians would conspire to pripagate a hoax. - 7-bubёn >t 19:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I posted a notice at the bulgarian wikipedia willage pump. I hope they will care, and I am recusing from the issue. - 7-bubёn >t 19:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I know it is not an article. However, at the recent MfD, the keep decision was predicated on good sourcing. A wikipage utterly fails.--Scott Mac (Doc) 20:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I 100% agree with Scott Mac (Doc). It seems that this page is maintained by grieving friends who for whatever reason forget that any real-world info entering wikipedia anywhere must be verifiable. For example, I nominated for deletion a memorial page Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Jeffpw/Memoriam, and was suprized to see that it is OK to keep various private stuff in wikipedia. Laudak (talk) 21:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

There likely won't be any external sources for Wikipedians who edit with a pseuodonym. As this isn't article space, I see no harm in it, so long as the information comes from a trusted wikifriend or family member. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

If there are no sources then we should not host the information. There's certainly no harm in excluding it. The "this isn't article space" mantra does not explain why having unverifiable information about real people on the servers should be permitted. "We trust wikipedians" will not do either, since without verification we don't know where the information has come from, or how reliable it was, or whether the wikipedian has done any fact checking at all. This page got kept on the recent MfD precisely because a number of people said that it should include only sourced information. Perhaps the sourcing demands can be a little lighter than article space (although I see no reason why) but we still need something. Our only quality control is that a user reading the page can fact check. Without that we are wide open to abuse. Bottom line, this page serves no crucial purpose, and is at best harmless, but once we allow unsourced information about real people to be included it becomes "potentially harmful" with no real benefit.--Scott Mac (Doc) 23:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The discussion level is escalated to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard‎‎#Deceased Wikipedians. (Scott, next time you do so, please leave this kind of notice on the relevant article talk page as well). - 7-bubёn >t 22:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

There are quite a few people who think quite strongly and quickly otherwise: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Jeffpw/Memoriam. Laudak (talk) 22:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree, Scott--the next time you bring up a discussion like at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard‎‎#Deceased Wikipedians, inform people. Wikipedia is a community and as a community, you should notify people when pages like this are being discussed for possible removal or revamping. I also find it poor form that you bring all this back up so soon after the MfD resolved the issue.--SouthernNights (talk) 17:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't get the MfD point. The MfD decided to keep basically because many people felt we could source and maintain the page. However, this item was not sourced. The MfD result is not a mandate to keep unverifiable entries - quite the reverse.--Scott Mac (Doc) 19:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

You are correct--this item isn't sourced. So remove it until a source is given. But to use that as an excuse to open up a discussion about this entire page--and then not notify involved parties--strikes me as wrong.--SouthernNights (talk) 23:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I did remove it and was repeatedly reverted. I opened a discussion here, which was ignored. So I went to a noticeboard to ask for more eyes. If you have a problem with that, tough.--Scott Mac (Doc) 00:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought y'all were done fighting over the bones of dead Wikipedians. Recent edits to this page say otherwise. --C S (talk) 02:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

People need to use some commonsense here. We can't apply mainspace policy because many Wikipedians are not going to have independent reliable sources writing about them, and almost none will have such sources for their pseudonyms. That means mainspace rules can't apply. Therefore, we need to accept information from trusted Wikipedians who may be in touch with family and friends of the deceased. It's unseemly to go back and forth removing people's names or tagging the entries, so discuss further here, but please leave the page alone in the meantime. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 08:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry no. AGF will not do when we are talking about entries on living people. If the verification is not available that is not an excuse to relax the rules to get the material in anyway, but to exclude material that is, after all, unnecessary to project aims. Yes, this is not article space, but the casual reader may not know that, and it is just as much "on line" as article space. Perhaps we can relax the rules a bit, but not so much as to remove all need for verification. Please leave the disputed material OUT until this dispute is resolved, or verification provided.--Scott Mac (Doc) 09:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

We could put a big box at the top that says, "This is not an article." Aleta ^Sing 02:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Scott, I take pretty strong exception to what you are doing here. First, these were kept, so fighting over who does and does not get remembered is, as SlimVirgin said, "Unseemly". Your tone and attitude reflects a lack of shame about what is something you should show some respect whether you think it belongs or not. A memorial for the dead. Do you know who first alerted me to this issue? Jeffpw's mother. Why do you have to stir the turd here? Without knowing you nor looking at your contributions, I find this whole issue prima facie evidence you have no idea about what furthers this project. If you care so much about WP:ENC then why henpeck over which dead person gets to stay, and which one has to go. You might want to think about how you further WP:ENC with how you spend your time. Because playing Dead Cop is just an offensive way to waste yours and ours. And that goes for any other bureaucrats who spend time on macabre, petty arguing instead of focusing on how to improve our articles. --David Shankbone 22:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you are simply too close to make a judgement call here. It's simple, we don't post stuff on this high profile internet site about people being "dead" unless we can verify that they actually are, and "trust me" will not do as long as "anyone can edit". That's about protecting the dignity of living (and yes dead) people, and if you can't see that here, I strongly suggest you recluse yourself from this debate. (And as for "this page was kept" - yes it was, largely because the balance of people thought that error could be excluded by asking for verification)--Scott Mac (Doc) 00:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not close to it, and I agree with David and the others. So far as I can tell, most people commenting want to be able to keep entries even if there are no reliable sources in the mainspace sense. There are never going to be reliable published sources for Wikipedians who use pseudonyms, for example (such as yourself). What do you suggest we do in those cases? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I suggest we let logic triumph over sentiment and exclude them. That way we avoid the potential of harm. This encyclopaedia is full of people who "know" things to be true. Fortunately, we don't accept that as as a basis for publishing things as fact.--Scott Mac (Doc) 00:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Then you're suggesting we exclude most Wikipedians. There's nothing logical about that. Please allow people to add material here based on discussion with family and friends. If that ever leads to a problem, we can rethink how to approach things at that point. So far, it ain't broke. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

No. You have no idea (no, actually you should) how often that type of "personal knowledge" special pleading is used to justify things on wikipedia. AGF must NEVER overrule the requirement for verification. And we don't wait until there is a problem on a particular page before applying out principles - they are designed to prevent such problems. But you know this, why are we arguing?--Scott Mac (Doc) 01:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I shouldn't AGF about your name but instead should request verification? Come on. We allow things in project space all the time that we wouldn't allow in articles. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

If I was named here, yes you should. I keep hearing this "this isn't article space so different rules apply". Well, perhaps - but are we saying we don't need verification before making claims about a real person? Why, other than wikilaw, is it safer to ignore verification here? AGF never applies to content overruling WP:V and certainly not to real people. I might agree this page was qualitatively if we "no index".--Scott Mac (Doc) 09:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:V only applies to articles. There are no rules that apply to this, except that we should use common sense. If the family of a well-known pseudononymous editor were to contact Jimbo and tell him the person had died, and if Jimbo were to alert the wikifriends, and they started leaving messages on the editor's talk page, but otherwise nothing was published anywhere, are you really saying we shouldn't add it here? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 10:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

You are still repeating the same mantra, when I asked for a justification. Why is publishing stuff about real people here less serious than on articles? Why is the potential for harm different here? As for the Jimbo hypothetical, that's not what happened, so it is a strawman.--Scott Mac (Doc) 12:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Scott, above you wrote "perhaps we could relax the rules a bit..." Does that not mean that you see the situation here as "less serious" than on articles? Or are you retracting your above comment? In addition, earlier (and in the afd) you used an example of a "casual reader" not knowing the difference between namespaces. How does this figure into your arguments? If a "casual reader" would be made aware of the namespace difference, does this affect your argument? Since you also refuse the answer SlimVirgin's query above, I will assume that your answer to SlimVirgin's question is yes, if that happened, then it would be ok. So would you be ok if all entries were cleared through higher-ups? --C S (talk) 13:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Another issue that has been brought up is: how can we be sure the Wikipedian is the person that their login name indicates? For example, nobody ever verified that Oded Schramm was in fact User:OdedSchramm. Should the entry be removed? If so, should we also modify the userspace pages, as we would be doing a disservice to readers to imply that this is the actual real life Schramm? --C S (talk) 13:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Userspace pages are not indexed (AFAIK) and, in any case, it is obvious to an inteligent reader that they are the work of one user and may be totally fabricated. No one believed User:Sarah Palin is the genuine article. However, this page (like an article) is indexed, and implies that "Wikipedia" says x about y, that puts it in a different category. So, we do need some level verification, which will serve as "quality control". The reader needs also to know "on what authority" the information is given. Having to look through the history to discover who posted it, and then decide whether to AGF or not is really not enough. I disdain hypotheticals, but I suppose in Slim's hypothetical a footnote saying "attested by Jimbo Wales" might do, given that Jimbo is not a pseudonym, and that even a non-wikipedian will be able to make assessment of the reliability of the source. When I said "relaxed", I think I used "perhaps" and I implied "only in a way that still demands some level of verification/quality control" and allows the reader to know/see/assess the source.--Scott Mac (Doc) 13:49, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

What about we no-index this page, then? We could also fully protect this page so only (supposedly) trusted admins can add entries, or demand some kind of OTRS verification that the entries are genuine (when there are no other sources). Just a few random ideas. --Conti|✉ 14:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Titch Tucker

A heads up: it appears that Titch Tucker (talk · contribs) has passed away. He had apparently been fighting cancer. I have no independent corroboration of his death, so I won't add him to the page myself. Aecis·(away) ^talk 12:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I am currently in email communication with his son about adding him here. Rockpocket 18:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

His son told me he would prefer his father remain anonymous, and simply be remembered as Titch. Therefore its best he is not listed here. Rockpocket 19:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

How about adding him to the Signpost, to notify the community of Titch's passing? Aecis·(away) ^talk 07:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems like if anonymity is preferred here, adding him to the Signpost would be contrary to that wish. --C S (talk) 02:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. But thanks for the thought (and my apologies for the delay in responding.) Rockpocket 05:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

More

I'd really like to see more done in this area. — Ched : Yes? : © 10:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Judging from the heated discussion in this talk page, the best thing to do is for each wikipedian to write a will which would state in part:

a survivor (friend or family member) is to
- publish an obituary clearly stating wikipedian's login name
- notify wikipedia
- prove it (obituary) was not a stupid joke

What are your suggestions? - 7-bubёn >t 00:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The will idea is a great suggestion! I'm not really sure here. I posted a "Thank You" kind of banner here. I suppose it struck really close to home because Nitelinger was the exact same age as I am, and had a heart attack doing something I had done just weeks earlier (shoveling snow). I know admins protect the user page - that's good. I also know it can be a tough subject given all the different religions, and beliefs (or lack of). I saw hat on User talk:Jeffpw which links to User talk:Jeffpw/Memoriam which is kind of along the lines I was thinking. Another problem is the obvious situation that many users don't want their real life names to be used on Wikipedia. I'm open to any and all suggestions really. I think I'll do the "will" thing by the way too - that is simply a great idea. Thank you Sembubenny. — Ched : Yes? : © 02:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I think proof should not necessarily be a requirement, evidence should be. People are not necessarily going to want to prove that their loved one is dead to people that they don't even know. We have some lunatics about on Wikipedia, and revealing 'proof' containing personal information could be potentially compromising to the person submitting the information. We need trusted users to handle things if we want to deal with evidence, or we could perhaps make use of OTRS. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 03:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

What about confiding the input for a hash to someone, and then displaying it somewhere, and then having the person claiming you are dead giving the input to verify that the user trusted them to deliver the news? — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 10:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I like Conti's suggestions just a few sections above. No-index this page, have a submission process perhaps where only approved entries can get added, and the approval is due to either an RS or OTRS type action (including having trusted admins in contact with deceased's family/friends). --C S (talk) 11:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Well the will idea is a little pessimistic, in my humble opinion. I'll think about creating a will a little later in life :|. Don't want to condemn myself just now. But then, death is inevitable, often unexpected. TechOutsider (talk) 03:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that on this talk page other editors have already stated that having a trusted admin in touch with people's families isn't a valid source of information. Personally, I think that would be sufficient, but we'd have to seek consensus on it.--SouthernNights (talk) 15:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Neuro makes a good point on the semantics as far as proof vs. evidence. I also think that we need to respect the wishes of the individual editors on this - (which can be tough if they haven't specified a desire in one direction or the other). We obviously want to respect the anonymity wishes of editors. But I do really like the idea of some sort of remembrance of the fact that we have real people, with real feelings, on the other end of this encyclopedic effort. I like the way Pedro handled the Nitelinger page, and the Jeffpw space has a nice memorial page as well. I can't imagine that this particular section of Wikipedia would ever draw much traffic, for multiple reasons. I think it's going to be up to a few individual editors to try to do what's right. I'm not sure what direction to go in relation to the Titch passing is though. — Ched : ? 01:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Beckjord

Beckjord, alias of Jon-Erik Beckjord, died in 2008, but was never added. He was banned, but he was a wikipedian nonetheless. William Andrew Smith (talk) 22:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I would not support adding this user to the page. My reasoning is that Beckjord didn't make many constructive edits to Wikipedia. Most of his edits were to his own talk page and the talk pages of others, where he mainly argued about himself. As you can see here, he only had 144 total article edits and was only here three months before getting blocked, all of which makes him a "not" on whether or not he was an "integral part" of the Wikipedia community (which is the criteria for being included on this page). When you combine that with his being blocked and using sock puppets, I say he should not be listed here. But if the consensus is to do otherwise, I will support that consensus.--SouthernNights (talk) 00:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

As someone who dealt with Beckjord when he was here I can say he definitely made my personal Wikipedia experience much more memorable, even if he was not, as you say, an "integral part" of the community. Regardless of whether he is added to this list I was very sorry when he passed.--Cúchullain ^t/c 02:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the contribs, I'd be inclined to include the user. Even if some of the efforts weren't effective, I think the real person should be respected. — Ched : ? 04:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Were they a non-banned member at the time of their demise? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Since he has a wikipedia article, he is notable. He was quite of age at wikipedian's time, so his nuisance may be humanly forgiven regardless ban. I think he deserves a mention. Laudak (talk) 01:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

A note has been placed on his user page and talk page, I would be in favor of archiving his talk page, but won't do so without the support of others. Also, have we decided that it's acceptable to place him on the RIP page? — Ched : ? 09:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, I think that if an editor were shown the door, we lock the banned user's talkpage (kinda thought we did that already). These pages are for wiki editors in good stead, not ones who couldn't follow the rules. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I know at least two wikipedians who were quite valuable contributors, but they obviously had real mental disorder which prevented them from painless communication with other editors. They were banned because they created disruption (wikipedia is not "equal opportunity employer", not a democracy, etc.), but their ban does not prevent me from quite respecting and remembering them. There are other less dramatic cases. So unless a person is a clear-cut vandal, they may have a piece of little respect. - 7-bubёn >t 23:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposal

I've added a proposal to discuss possible practices to be followed at: Wikipedia talk:Deceased Wikipedians/Proposal to establish practices to be followed for deceased Wikipedians — Ched : ? 16:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Seems like a very good proposal. I hope people take part.--SouthernNights (talk) 02:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Verification

The topic of verification has now been opened up at: Wikipedia talk:Deceased Wikipedians/verification — Ched : ? 09:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

follow up

There was a thread here stating that User:Teenly had passed away. Has anyone followed up on this, and should it be listed here? — Ched : ? 09:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Please add her to the list, she was an 8 year old girl who was home-schooled and died of Leukemia as you can see from comments here and from her time at Simple Wikipedia, please add her now..for someone who died of leukemia and couldn't go to school would have found a lot of love on wikipedia ....--Warpath (talk) 14:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Guidelines

The proceedures discussion has now been closed. The guideline proposal is now posted here: Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians/Guidelines — Ched : ? 08:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOT#MEMORIAL

Because some people seemed to misunderstand that the above was related only to the article space I have now fixed it. [4]. Comments welcome. Pedro : Chat 21:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

well done! — Ched : ? 18:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Template

work is currently underway at User:LessHeard vanU/rip-template to establish a method to communicate with family members. All comments, efforts, and suggestions are welcome. — Ched : ? 18:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The first thing we're going to put on family member's talk pages is a standardized template? Seriously? --Conti|✉ 18:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe that "template" is not the proper term as this has developed. I think our end goal is to be able to point any family members to a help page that would provide them with suggestion and links to communications with WP and OTRS in general, and more specifically to solicit the desires of the user and family members on how they would prefer us to proceed. I'll admit, I've been flying in the dark on day one with this, and I think many of us are a bit outside the standard Wikipedia issues that arise from day to day. I'm sure we'd most certainly welcome any thoughts or suggestions you'd have on it Conti - or really, anyone. While WP:RIP is not a day to day issue, I think as we mature as a community, the more we'll be looking at this from time to time. Hopefully it won't become a common item, but I do honestly believe there is a community desire to move forward in positive directions here. A very vague idea that's been floating around in my head is that a temporary link to this "help template" - and as you note, not the proper word, but rather "help guide" be offered on the users page. I'm open to any and all suggestions ... please fire away. ;) — Ched : ? 17:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, why not? Read your local papers' for the death notices and "in memorium" inserts, these are standardised messages which are used to quickly and respectfully convey a message with a minimum of potential hurt and embarrassment. Not everyone who is going to be the first to see the message noting the death of an editor is going to have the experience, empathy or simply the desire to respond appropriately - a formalised standard response saying "we note the sad news of X's death, and would be grateful if you would help us close the account in a dignified manner and to preserve it as a memorial to them and their contributions" may be a very useful tool. That is one reason why Ched has asked for as much input as possible - he and I are of an age where death has already become commonplace for our parents generation and has started to impact ours, but we need input from others perhaps not as familiar in dealing with such news; the "template" is as much for the WP editor as it is for the notifier. When you have seen a few death certificates, and local authority notices, and responses from banks, solicitors and various others following a persons death you will realise just how many of them are in standardised forms designed not to offend but to convey the necessary details. It is a fact of life today. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Sheldon Brown - Sheldon Brown (talk · contribs) Died February 4, 2008

Not exactly a prolific contributor but he had has own article.. could be a candidate for this list? -- œ ^™ 07:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

How do we know that Sheldon Brown is Sheldon Brown? - Altenmann >t 17:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I guess we won't know for sure. -- œ ^™ 19:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

?

User:Siggis

http://lt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naudotojas:Siggis

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Siggis —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.186.54.230 (talk) 22:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Trend

Most of our lost colleagues were French and died of cancer. May they all rest in Peace.yousaf465

Sadly we lost another editor

Frank "Fg2" Gualtieri died on August 23, 2009. -- œ ^™ 19:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Mirwin

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Deceased_editors#Mirwin was a english wikipedia adminstrator. The question is what should we do with the tools of the editor. He haven't edited since 2003 passed away in 2008. Thanks Secret ^account 20:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

JuJube aka Danny Lilithborne

According to this thread, User:JuJube (formerly known as User:Danny Lilithborne) passed away on January 2, 2010. More info can be found in this diff from a few days ago. Although I read much of what he wrote during the time before I was a highly active editor, I've never actually spoken to him or edited his talk page, so I would leave it up to someone who knows him better to decide whether to add his name to the page. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 00:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I interacted with him plenty of times before, in IRC and here on wiki, very sad, let another editor place him on the page. Secret ^account 21:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Injinera

According to [5], Injinera (talk · contribs) died July 30, 2009. He didn't contribute much to en.wiki, but he was notorious for being community-banned by the Bulgarian Wikipedia (see this page for the ban discussion) - his account there was indefinitely blocked after the ban discussion but was unblocked recently after an administrator learned of his death. 128.2.116.177 (talk) 20:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

IMO insignificant for en:. - Altenmann >t 18:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Templarion

I stumbled across her page last October (don't remember exactly how), and an IP address had posted several times (it kept getting removed/reverted) that she'd died of complications during childbirth. However, I hadn't really ever encountered her on-wiki and don't know her real name, so I can't confirm that she actually died, though the fact that she stopped editing altogether after March 3 is pretty convincing. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 05:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

She still lives, it seems. =) 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 18:52, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

What about them - banned users?

I know at least 2 deceased users who meet the other criteria for inclusion here (several thousand content edits) but aren't listed here because they were later banned. Do we really need to take site policies that seriously and forget about humility, empathy and respect for the deceased just because they were banned?

Also, some people just want their loved ones to forget everything about them after death and cause minimal grief by their returning memories; is there a way for users to "opt-out" from being listed here, a decision they can make when they're still alive? Maybe Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians/opt-out list?--Dihitcher (talk) 18:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I would say, if you or anyone else wants to opt out, go ahead and create that page. As for banned users, it is probably okay to list them. The way I see it, there are a lot of people in society who commit crimes, but do you really care whether your grave, or the grave of a loved one, happens to be next to a serial rapist's? It shouldn't matter. They're dead, and they won't harm anyone anymore. Likewise here. But we should probably omit mention in the listing of their banning, much as tombstones typically don't say, "He was a serial rapist." Anyone with thousands of edits probably has some good edits, much as anyone who has lived 70 years probably did some good deeds. So, let's keep the focus on the positive. Tisane ^talk/_stalk 20:52, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Done thanks --Dihitcher (talk) 17:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course, this does not negate the instruction, "Please do not add people unless you can supply verifiable information that they have died." With banned users, it's probably all the more important. Tisane ^talk/_stalk 18:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Ndsg

Very belatedly, I'm not aware that these posts have been picked up here: [6] and [7]. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request

Please add "of quantum mechanics" after "Thompson, who had written papers on the subject" (unless she wrote papers about the subject of cancer). -anon

Good point - done. DBaK (talk) 08:25, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Mnbitar

This was not his home project, but he did contribute here so I thought it would be worth reporting that Mnbitar (talk · contribs) died in February 2011. I have fully protected his user page and added a note following receiving the news on Commons at his Producer account (a different person on the English Wikipedia). More information can be found on the Arabic Wikipedia at w:ar:ويكيبيديا:ويكيبيديون رحلوا (google translation). CT Cooper · talk 20:17, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Johan Lont

Similar to the above, I notice that the above user has been declared deceased, referenced by a link to his page on Dutch Wikipedia[8]. Should he be added? Robofish (talk) 01:12, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Vaoverland

Mark Fisher (User:Vaoverland) has passed away, according to this article in School Bus Fleet magazine, a popular publication in the industry that Mr. Fisher was once an active member of. –BMRR (talk) 20:24, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Euphemisms for death

I know this is not in article space but does WP:EUPHEMISM apply here or not? I really don't know but off the top of my head I thought that "passed away" > "died" was a good change and that the revert was not - but that is only my personal opinion. One argument might be that since these people were Wikipedia editors and presumably wanted to work here within the guidelines then they would have appreciated people sticking to WP:EUPHEMISM on their behalf; but another might be that their friends and colleagues memorializing them, (is that even a word?) here should be allowed, out of sensitivity and sympathy, to use (within reason) whatever wording they prefer, despite the fact that in article space these circumlocutions are not acceptable: it's not article space so it does not matter What do you think? Is any chance that we can build a consensus on this; or do you think it doesn't need one and the status quo is acceptable; or is there some existing clear guideline that can help here; or what? Or shall I just go and have a nice cup of tea and not worry? All views gratefully read! Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 10:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I would strongly favour die over pass aaway for this simple reason that I see no need to use euphemisms. To die is simple and to the point. (air)Wolf (talk) 10:17, 1 July 2011 (UTC) PS Commemorating, you mean? :)

Does it really matter which is used? Miss E. Lovetinkle (talk) 10:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

This page was not created to be "simple and to the point", it was created as a memorial for deceased Wikipedians. This is not a Wikipedia article, and should not be treated as such. --Conti|✉ 10:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I think either should be acceptable. Just because one person writes an entry one way, doesn't mean others have to do the same. I also agree with Conti that this is not an article and so we might relax our slavish observances of style and form. Miss E. Lovetinkle (talk) 11:07, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that using "passed away" under any circumstances shows an inability to just come right out and say it. We know they died; don't try masking it with euphemism. This is a major pet peeve of mine. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 13:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, but does that inability matter here? As it's not an article, do we need to hold it to the same standards? It is this that I cannot get my head around. DBaK (talk) 13:43, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

To clarify - I hate death euphemisms myself, and would gladly jump on them in article space. I agree entirely with the negative comments about this, the "pet peeve" bit etc. But this isn't article space, and part of me says "leave it be", on the assumption that it's for the friends/colleagues, not the public, and they worded it as they liked it, and maybe their version should be respected for that reason. I honestly just dunno, and was partly hoping that an existing guideline covered this. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 13:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

That a particular usage of words might peeve someone is not a reason to change them. Frankly the use of words like "peeve", well, peeves me. Miss E. Lovetinkle (talk) 20:07, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, let's assume on of my wikipedian friends dies. I write about him (or her) here: John This and That was blah blah blah, he died on June 14, 2010. Will anyone feel inclined to change this into pased away? (air)Wolf (talk) 14:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Gosh, no, I hope not! :) DBaK (talk) 14:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

In the obituaries section of my local newspaper, I've seen everything from died to passed away to went home to be with the Lord. None of these bother me, and I assume that it's left up to the family/friends of the deceased. Since this page is basically an online obituary, with entries mostly contributed by friends/colleagues of deceased Wikipedians, I'd be inclined to leave it up to the person writing the memorial. –BMRR (talk) 15:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Extent of this page

Reading the header of this page I see "This is a memorial listing of Wikipedians who have died". But I guess this shouldn't be read in a restrictive way and include also other wmf projects, so I added Philippe Remacle from wikisource. - phe 11:40, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Questions about a death of which I have been advised

I have received the very sad news of the death of an experienced wikipedia editor with whom I collaborated. I received the news from his family, via the email address he used for wikipedia emails. I would like to post an obit here, and his family are also happy with that course. I have two questions. (a) What verification is required -- is the email sufficient? I see from the page that an email from family is in other cases and I'd rather not ask the family for more. (b) Is it an issue that the editor concerned did not reveal his off-wiki identity while alive? The family are happy for his off-wiki identity to be disclosed now. I wanted to test views on these questions befure essentially outing a wikipedia editor on the basis of an email. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I think you could just forward the email to OTRS if anyone here is unwilling to take you at your word; that's accepted in cases of copyright permission-granting, so I don't see why a deceased editor would be any different.
If the family consents and he did not express any opinion on the matter, I personally don't see any problem. --Gwern (contribs) 23:55 20 September 2011 (GMT)

Sorry about the loss, a post of the email on the user talkpage should be sufficient (I don't see anybody not taking your word being a trustworthy adminstrator). OTRS isn't for wikipedians deaths but ArbCom should be contacted if the editor was an adminstrator. Secret ^account 07:15, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Manstaruk

I have been informed of the death of User:Manstaruk by an email from his wife. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Alecwh

Alec Henriksen (User:Alecwh) passed away a year ago on September 30, 2010. His online obituary can be found here, with his Wikipedian username confirmed on his old website preserved here. Other articles are available online.[9][10] — Io Katai ᵀᵃˡᵏ 23:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 27 November 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Please add the following notable decesed wikipedians:

Death citations can be found in articles. According to them and the -should-be- reliable Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles they are what them.

46.246.172.29 (talk) 00:42, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

100% solid WP:RS. or no chance. Chzz ► 21:54, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

This page isn't a listing of everyone that's ever edited Wikipedia and died, but editors who made significant contributions to Wikipedia before their passing. For example, not to slight Jerry E. Smith, but he made 68 edits; not exactly a massive contribution to the project. Sheldon Brown (bicycle mechanic) made 18; Tom Van Flandern made 25; Ian Castles made a whopping one edit. I don't want to sound ungrateful for their contributions, but they just weren't anywhere near as active as some other contributors (for example, bahamut0013 had 21k edits).
Alan Myers (translator) made about a thousand edits, however, so I think he'd fit on this page. Having an obituary in the Guardian satisfies a requirement for a reliable source for their passing, I'd imagine. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:59, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

GerardusS

User:GerardusS has died on December 30. Eventually protect his userpage. --Túrelio (talk) 12:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Mkpumphrey

He passed away July 25, 2010. Here is his obit 66.83.126.102 (talk) 05:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Also here. I'll update the page here tomorrow - Alison ^❤ 06:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Obituary

I have recently found this amazing thought Wikipedia:User_page_design_center/Decor#Thoughtboxes. I suggest to add it in the article. --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 11:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I have slightly changed it and added in my talk page.--Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 11:39, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I also have it on my user page.....--Vyom25 (talk) 06:08, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Redesign propsal !

I am interested to redesign this page. In this edit I have added edit count link. I am interested to add edit count link in all.most of the entries. I have also seen, in some entries we have written like this: "This editor has created ABC, DEF etc articles. I think we can easily link all the articles created by the editor.
So,
Firstly, I want to rewrite a section like this:
Name: Example
Edit count: [toolsever count URL 1234].
Articles created: [toolsever pages created by this user]
I am also interested to make some design change, create some userboxes (if there is not any already) etc. --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 12:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that the purpose of this page should be for user statistics; it's to serve as a memorial for Wikipedians who have died. I think the current prose format of the page suits it fine; I think that the people that write these memorials are the best judges of what work of that user is important and I don't feel that we need all entries to be the same. Thanks, JYolkowski // talk 00:39, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

One suggestion: If you're really interested in making those updates, maybe creating a new page would be better? Cheers, JYolkowski // talk 00:44, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I like the idea, but I agree with JYolkowski that it's not right for here - I think you should propose a template design along the lines of what you mention here for their Talk page, or some template that leads to a page that ~~lists~~presents in a pleasant to look at manner their official stats. --David Shankbone 05:54, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Of course! What do you think about adding "last edit" (we can easily find it from contribution page, I suggest to add "last edit in an article" if someone made his/her last edit in any talk page, we'll ignore it and add the last edit in an article)! What do you think? --Tito Dutta ✉ 18:49, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Claude A. R. Kagan (Claude A. R. Kagan)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result is no consensus. This discussion has been open for a full lmonth but has attracted very little attention. There just isn't enough here to be able to say there is a clear consensus one way or the other. The "common sense" argument would carry more weight if it were more clearly explained how his contributions on Wikipedia qualified him for an exemption. Perhaps this should be revisited another time and these issues explored more thoroughly. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:58, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Addendum: Normally a no consensus result is interpreted as preserving the status quo. Although it had been removed once Mr. Kagan's entry was present pn the page at the time this discussion was closed. As such it seems appropriate that it remain unless and until a consensus for removel becomes clear. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:52, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

(October 7, 1924 ~ April 26, 2012) CAR Kagan, author and visionary pioneer of information technology, in a 1967 paper wrote "it is vitally and crucially important that the computer and all of it's dependent disciplines is within the grasp of everyone to use, understand and enjoy." More than three decades later, once the Internet and Wikipedia came into being, Claude A. R. Kagan provided the project with a valuable study into accessibility, when in his 80's, he suffered problems including age-related blindness. The RFC is not about the above content, but simply to ask the question, does the circumstances of this editor warrant a relaxing of the usual requirements for making the list. There is associated discussion here on my talkpage, it had come to my attention at ANI, where someone had asked if it was ok, wanting it on the list. Specifically, is it a problem to allow Claude to be recognized for his contribution, given his efforts were hampered by his blindness and wikipedias accessibility issues.

Further reading about Claude can be found here Penyulap ☏ 13:28, 25 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Comment The requirements are designed to limit those who are added to this list to those that have made a significant contribution to WP. The number of edits is not so important as is the quality of their contribution. CAR Kagan seems to fit the bill in this regards. Jschnur (talk) 23:20, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Common sense says not only should he be here, but he should be added at once. Penyulap, since you're here I have refrained from adding him immediately but I recommend you do so and will point it out on your talk page after I make this remark. It can do no harm adding him; his presence diminishes none of the others. It can though do a great deal of good to have him here as soon as possible. Egg Centri c 01:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

well it was reverted, so either way a few extra names as a show of support makes it easier where commonsense fails. Penyulap ☏ 22:01, 23 Jul 2012 (UTC)

While Kagan made useful contributions in a number of fields outside of Wikipedia, his edits to Wikipedia, at least in article space, do not appear to have been suitable for retention. Many are his personal experiences, eg Houdan, Stinging nettle and Incendiary device. His principal contribution to SAM76 was a paste from a manual. In all, he made 34 edits to article space, 12 of them to articles which have since been deleted (e.g. Killer Mailbox). He certainly meant well, but I do not think we should be honouring him as a contributor to Wikipedia.-gadfium 02:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I would like to thank Beeblebrox for the care that has been shown in closing the RfC.

Whilst naturally I agree with any future consensus which does develop, and the fact that many things cannot be included in this particular project, I do hope, firstly that I might have the chance to live as long as Mr Kagan did. I would be envious of the opportunity to have health as good at such a great age that it would allow me to battle, against great obstacles, to make a positive difference or die trying. Further I would like to thank you gadfium, for pointing out his work, at that it still can be found by people who may wish to document sam76 properly. Penyulap ☏ 04:00, 26 Jul 2012 (UTC)

Dickkuil

The following was removed in March 2012:

Dick Kuil passed away on 22 December 2011. He was highly knowledgeable of the history of the province of Groningen.

Dickkuil was a very active contributor on the Dutch Wikipedia. We have other entries here for editors who worked on other Wikipedias besides the English one; should this one be restored?Cúchullain ^t/c 16:35, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

If he made significant contributions to the English Wikipedia, then he should be listed. If Dick was mostly just active on the Dutch Wikipedia, then its best kept on his respective wiki. The contributors listed here made significant contributions to the English Wikipedia even if they were most active elsewhere. Regards, — Moe ε 08:59, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Looked it up and User:Dickkuil appears to be created, but there isn't a userpage, no talk page and no contributions, so it's probably not best to list here (unless he contributed here under a different username). Regards, — Moe ε 09:02, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Howard Zimmerman

Howard Zimmerman, a chemist, was also a Wikipedian (User:Hezimmerman) from 2009. Double sharp (talk) 13:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

747 edits. Good enough to be included! We should go ahead as soon as we'll get more info! --Tito Dutta ✉ 13:56, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I have started the section, it should be revised and expanded now! --Tito Dutta ✉ 13:36, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

John Bruno Hare

John Bruno Hare (1955 - April 27, 2010), the founder of Internet Sacred Text Archive (estb. 1999) was also a wikipedian, User:Brujo, since 2004. [11] death- Ekabhishek^talk 07:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

It does appear this editor made a near-significant number of contributions and is now deceased (If we consider a couple hundred edits signigicant enough to list here). If you feel like writing a short biography on this page, feel free. If you want me to, I can for you. Regards, — Moe ε 09:24, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

We can add at least one or two line(s) here! --Tito Dutta ✉ 13:38, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Done Regards, — Moe ε 21:10, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Ben Yates

What was the cause of Ben Yates's (Tlogmer) death? The article doesn't say, and neither does the linked obituary. Many thanks, --Viennese Waltz 10:05, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Obit

I wonder what "obit" means. 108.218.10.79 (talk) 17:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

An abbreviation of Obituary?--Ymblanter (talk) 17:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Aaron Swartz

Is anyone working on Aaron Swartz's (User:AaronSw) obituary? Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 15:47, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

You mean here on Wikipedia? I expect there will be some in outside media. There is a blurb on this project page but I think it should be written a bit differently. I'm not sure if it was ever established what he wanted to do with the JSTOR downloads. And the blurb should mention some of his Wikipedia stuff, such as Who Writes Wikipedia?. He was also a WMF board candidate in 2006.[12] 67.117.146.66 (talk) 17:52, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

It should also mention that he founded Open Library, a bibliographic wiki with 40+ million editable pages as of a few years ago--around 2x as many as English Wikipedia. 67.117.146.66 (talk) 18:30, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

The entire front page of Hacker News is currently full of stories about him. I'm sure some suitable info can be found there. 67.117.146.66 (talk) 21:29, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

His website says his 2006 Who Writes Wikipedia? essay is influential. This factoid was picked up by Digital Journal and mentioned in The Signpost. Include it? Any other info specifically about his work on Wikipedia would be a good addition. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 21:59, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Could someone please fix the assertion that he downloaded the JSTOR stuff with intent to redistribute? The prosecutors alleged that he did that, but he pled not guilty, and there was not (and presumably won't be) a jury finding. I've never heard anyone claim that he actually redistributed any of the JSTOR stuff. Unless he actually made some kind of statement about his intentions (it's possible that he did), then Wikipedia should not repeat the FBI's attempts at mind reading as accepted facts. My understanding is that the stuff was on his hard drive, but as far as I know he didn't give any copies to anyone. 67.117.146.66 (talk) 22:23, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

My understanding is that he couldn't because he was arrested moments after retrieving the materials. At minimum I can change it to "presumably". Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 22:31, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I think where criminal allegations are concerned, presumption is supposed to be in favor of the defendant, so "allegedly" is more appropriate than "presumably". I didn't pay close attention to the mechanics of the download or his arrest, but I thought the download went on over a long period and that not all of it was done at MIT. I also thought he was arrested a fairly long while after getting the laptop (they ID'd him from video footage) and I don't have reason to think his getting the laptop was to retrieve "the materials" rather than retrieving the hardware (since its task was completed). He probably could have gotten the "materials" from the laptop over the MIT campus network. 67.117.146.66 (talk) 22:55, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, a lot of the stuff in the download was public domain and that part did get put on the net, so (my inference, not confirmed) he probably had his hands on the other part too, but refrained from disseminating it. 67.117.146.66 (talk) 23:09, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I think "Who Writes Wikiipedia" should certainly be included in the item here, since it's relevant to his WP participation, whether or not it was influential in the larger world. I can tell you that it influenced me as it's one of the reasons I keep editing from IP addresses. 67.117.146.66 (talk) 22:28, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Lawrence Lessig[13] and Quinn Norton[14]] have also written online tributes. Lawrence Lessig has edited WP a few times as User:Lessig. I don't know if Quinn Norton has edited here. 67.117.146.66 (talk) 22:49, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
- (Note) I'll be away for the weekend but will try to stop by here next week to see if there's anything more to add. 67.117.146.66 (talk) 23:09, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Official Statement from the family and partner of Aaron Swartz 67.117.146.66 (talk) 23:24, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Is there any reason that this entry doesn't use the word "suicide"? It already references that he suffered from depression, and the habit among some of not mentioning suicides is associated with a social stigma. Obviously this is a sensitive situation, so I won't change it myself (I'd read about Swartz in the past, but didn't even know he was a Wikipedian), but I thought I'd put that out there for those who've been working on this obit. If there's really a feeling that the suicide shouldn't be mentioned, then it would probably be better to not reference the depression either. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 05:19, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

There are already conspiracy theorist fueling the fire of speculation that there is more to this than meets the eye. I have no opinion to that train of thought except to suggest that this is a bad time to circle the wagons with any statements beyond established fact. Even reliable sources are holding the line at "apparent suicide".[15] --My76Strat (talk) 05:33, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Subdividing

This page needs, or soon will do, to be subdivided, for length.

We should do that now, rather than at a time when a lost friend is being actively memorialised.

Should we just a sub=page for each year? Should we still list all the names on the main page, but the details on the sub-pages?

Can we remove the pink banners from two entries, as the rest don't have them? We don't want an unseemly arms-race for the most prominent memorial. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:13, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, year wise splitting will be a good idea. What do you think? The page is very poorly designed where I have been continuously trying to bring attention for last few months! --Tito Dutta (contact) 23:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

All very good proposals. Yes, remove pink banners, and yes, list all the names on the main page, but the details on the sub-pages. Lova Falk talk 09:00, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

(ec w/ Tito) Agree on removing the pink temps, they're not necessary. Kudos T.D. on the redesign! The Interior (Talk) 00:51, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

The primary layout has been made (following the suggestion above (eg. listing only the names in the main page))! --Tito Dutta (contact) 00:50, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I made this suggestion on Tito's talk, I'll repeat here to see how people feel: "One suggestion: the "members" page could be renamed "facilitators" or "co-ordinators". "Members" suggests they are members of "Deceased Wikipedians", and therefore deceased." The Interior (Talk) 01:21, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I like the changes made, I was going to it myself, but I had got lost in other things to do. Good work. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 03:59, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
- Excellent work. This is not an article that I particularly wish to visit, for obvious reasons, but Tito's efforts are a vast improvement. - Sitush (talk) 02:22, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
  - Yes, good job! Lova Falk talk 15:24, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I love the redesigned page. Excellent work.--SouthernNights (talk) 17:41, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Add Pelican S**t

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I have information that Banned user Pelican S**t has died but is not listed on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.65.238.157 (talk) 01:34, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Not done: We need to verify that a Wikipedian has actually died before adding their name to the list. See these guidelines for details. Also, deceased Wikipedians with at least a few hundred constructive edits or who have otherwise served considerably to improve Wikipedia alone are added to the list, and a banned user (whose contributions are not even visible) clearly does not qualify for having their name in the list. smtchahal^talk 06:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

John Thomas Riedl (1962 - July 15, 2013)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Could some helpful person please add John T. Riedl who edited Wikipedia as Riedl (talk · contribs)? He did a bunch of research on Wikipedia, some of which led to SuggestBot (talk · contribs) and was concerned about the lack of women editing Wikipedia. See also WMFblog:2013/07/18/researching-collaboration-better-world-john-riedl-1962-2013/ for more information. Thanks. 64.40.54.131 (talk) 15:46, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-07-24/News and notes#In brief. Thanks. 64.40.54.47 (talk) 03:56, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the sources. --SamX‧☎‧✎‧S 15:57, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Lady Whistler

Could please someone add Lady Whistler. She died on June 4, 2013. And please could you add this link: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzerin:Lady_Whistler/Kondolenzliste - thanks! --Kantischüler (talk) 15:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Her "real-life name" was Sabine Krenzer. --Kantischüler (talk) 15:02, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Time to update the "On Account" section?

I'm looking at the section titled "On the account" and can't help but thinking that the list of potentially harmful userrights that should be removed should include AccountCreator and TemplateEditor. What's everyone else think? Technical 13 (talk) 02:29, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Xulin

I was looking around I found Xulin's real name, I think. [16] This is a thread about French localisation and the name given was Xavier Bonnafous and his e-mail was xulin@free.fr I put two and two together. — The King of Kings 16:36 July 20 '06

User:Teenly

I was browsing through User Pages and came across User:Teenly, a child who died in 2009 who did some editing on en.wiki. I checked to see if she was mentioned here but it looks like you require a real name to include individuals, not just a username. Is that true? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:33, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Yep. Phil roc 18:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

How they died

I think that some of the summaries are kind of tasteless, going into details about how people died (and not always tactfully). Is there a policy on how these are formatted, or should I remove the offending content? Sven Manguard Wha? 02:18, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Personally, Sven, I find it difficult to say without seeing the offensive content. It probably is a good idea to have the "how" there (as it is what many will want to know if available), but it should also be as tastefully and tactfully formatted as possible. Technical 13 (talk) 02:32, 21 November 2013 (UTC)