Wikipedia talk:Deceased Wikipedians/Proposal to establish practices to be followed for deceased Wikipedians

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

This proposal is an attempt to establish either a consensus, or at least a way to proceed in developing a set of organized procedures for administrators and editors to follow in the event of the death of one of our community members.

Discussion opened: 12:11, April 20, 2009

Discussion scheduled to close: 12:11, April 27, 2009

proposed closing date by: — Ched :  ?  17:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

seconded by Administrator:LadyofShalott 18:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Discussion closed 03:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC) by bibliomaniac15, results of the discussion here

Relevant Links

• WP:RIP
• meta

Statements

Statement By Ched

I know that this can be an unpleasant and uncomfortable topic for discussion; however, as the community matures, these situations will need to be addressed. I think it's important that we establish some sort of parameters to be followed when we do lose community members.

In my brief time here I've become aware of a need to establish some guidelines to follow upon the death of our community members. It's my hope that we can develop some consensus on good practices to follow when we are faced with these circumstances. As such, I'll list the things that I'm aware of, and hope the community will assist in the development of some policy and procedures to follow. While our primary goal here is to develop an on-line encyclopedia, I believe that we should never lose sight of the fact that there are real, living, breathing people behind each keystroke that is added to our endeavor. I would also think that common sense, and respect for individual members desires to maintain anonymity if desired should be respected. As such, the following items are what come to my mind, please feel free to add to, or amend anything you feel could improve this proposal.

Another item that has been brought up is the verification that an editor has died. Terms such as "Proof", "Verification", "Referenced", have all been bandied about. There is a brief guideline at the beginning of the WP:RIP page which mentions this. I haven't added anything to this particular proposal because I can foresee it becoming a difficult item to reach any consensus on. If someone else feels it should be added, I guess we'll deal with it at that point.

Statement By root

Like Life insurance, working this up as policy (I'll settle for guideline "in name") is a good idea for when these rare situations do come up, so that no one can play the fool. We've had recent incidents with disruptive XfDs of memorials, random methods of handling accounts of blocked users, suspicions of family members, and a Bureaucrat outing the fact that one WP user committed suicide, very distastefully. Work this up, thus, and we can use it to keep order in the firm manner that this--again, rare, but very sensitive--sort of situation requires. Accusations of policy creep and nonsensical "but it's a wiki, wikiway, etc." foolishness can be ignored. This needs to happen. rootology (C)(T) 16:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Statement By Pedro

Largely taken from my talk page when discussing this proposal with the originator [1] but with some refactoring
I think we need a policy / guideline on this. It's a simple fact that the longer the project goes on the incidents of well established editors dying will increase. Without clear direction on how this is handled we will see issues on every occurence and at a time that is by defenition highly emotional this is not a good thing. Yes, there will be people who argue that this has nothinig to do with improving an enyclopedia; however without editors there would be no encyclopedia. My take, FWIW, is that nothing should be done in terms of blocking / user rights unless we have a good confirmation the editor is dead. This may not need to come up to the standards for the encyclopedia (Reliable sources / Verifiability) but we should have something.

Above all we must respect the rights of the deceased and their family. If we have reasonable confirmation an editor has died (trusted user confirmation, third party reliable sources, whatever can be agreed on) then we are likely to be in contact with the family - and their wishes should be paramount.

I'm horribly aware of the posibility of WP:CREEP but we need to do something. Pedro :  Chat  06:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Full protection of user page

Discussion

• I believe that this is becoming a standard practice already — Ched :  ?  04:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Support I think that protection of the user page is an important step, and should be done as soon as possible. There are some very childish vandals out there, and it would seem that this could become an easy target for those wishing to fly under the radar.— Ched :  ?  04:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
2. Support -->David Shankbone 16:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
3. Support Logical sense. I decide what's on my user page 99.9% of the time; if I'm gone, it should be left as-is (be it deceased, retired, "vanished"). rootology (C)(T) 16:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
4. Support. Seems a common sense step. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 17:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
5. Support See my support below under indefinite blocking --Tznkai (talk) 20:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
6. Support - so that only admins can edit - is sensible. Bearian (talk) 20:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
7. Support we often do this when a user retires, so this only makes sense. — Jake Wartenberg 21:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
8. Support Royalbroil 01:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
9. Support Icestorm815 • Talk 02:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
10. Support Makes sense. CardinalDan (talk) 03:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
11. Support Seems to have become established through precedent. Pedro :  Chat  08:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
12. Support. Agree with Ched that these pages could too easily be targets for vandals. Matt (talk) 08:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
13. Support If it can be confirmed, then absolutely. ~ Amory (talk) 14:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
14. Majorly talk 15:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
15. Strongest possible Support - while I think talk needs to remain open for a while (confirmation, etc), full protection of the user page makes a lot of sense. There are a lot of ass clowns out there who think that vandalizing these sorts of pages is a funny little joke. As that sort of sentiment is what creates a ton of drama, I opt for protection.
16. Support. Seems like common sense to prevent vandalism on pages 1) never used again and 2) that won't get much of a look at now, and therefore could have vandalism there for a long time if they are left open. Ironholds (talk) 17:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
17. Support The proposal reflects the practice that has emerged. Edison (talk) 17:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
18. LadyofShalott 19:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
19. Support seems a pretty sensible practice. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
20. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
21. Support protecting both user and talk page to prevent vandalism. Create a separate subpage that visitors can add comments to. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
22. Support with Steveozone's suggestion that we leave a hatnote telling loved ones how to communicate with Wikipedia.--Cúchullain ^t/c 02:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
23. Support--SouthernNights (talk) 02:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
24. Support, seems a sensible move to make. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC).
25. Support. A very necessary and entirely appropriate first step. AngoraFish 木 09:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
26. Support Vandalizing a user page is bad enough, but when it's one of a late user it just adds to the sorrows of those who knew them. --BlueSquadronRaven 21:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
27. Support - Of course. Not only do I think it's appropriate for the matter of protecting against vandalism, but for some people, just as in real life when a love one is lost, it can be a comfort to leave their room (in this case user page) as they left it. A reminder of how they were; in this medium, a reminder of who they were. A banner at the top that alerts viewers that they have passed away, along with the suggested hatnote seem appropriate as well. لennavecia 13:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
28. Support, with the caveat that reasonable and verified requests from family members trump this.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
29. Support - -- Banjeboi 03:16, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
30. Support - Griffinofwales (talk) 03:45, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
31. Support as applied common sense. Jclemens (talk) 03:50, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
32. Support sensible. --Apoc2400 (talk) 11:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
33. Support with the possibility of honoring reasonable requests from verified family members. Plastikspork (talk) 15:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
34. Support to prevent missed vandalism because such pages will not be notable enough to be kept on actively watched watchlists. -- Jeandré, 2009-04-25t17:24z
35. Support, with Fabrictramp's sensitive caveat. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:41, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
36. Support unless I die, then my userpage should be deleted after being vandalized for 6 months. --Moni3 (talk) 14:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
37. — neuro^(talk) 02:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
38. Support This seems to make a lot of sense. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 02:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
39. Support unless the party of the deceased (via OTRS) wants the userpage to be deleted specifically. Vandalizing a deceased userpage is simply a horrible thing to do, plain and simple. MuZemike 06:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
40. Support Pastor Theo (talk) 20:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
41. Support - regarding the comments about users specifying their own hopes, I could go with that in the rare cases that people specify such things, which I doubt will be very often. John Carter (talk) 23:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. Anyone, family, old colleagues, should be free to add information without barriers. Vandalism is easily reverted. Full protection should be readily applied on request or apparent need, but not by default. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
2. Oppose. Let each user specify in advance what they personally wish. jmcw (talk) 10:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
3. Oppose Yes, let each user specify his/her wishes. Otherwise, I'd say protect. Actually, I agree with SmokeyJoe too. hmwithτ 12:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Abstain

This may prevent communication from associates of the deceased which editors have found valuable in the past; "Now that Lucy is dead I should close her page on that website she used and tell her friends what she thought about them... oh no it's blocked me from changing it, oh well." Skomorokh 20:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Could be fixed by adding a delay to the protection, blocking, etc.--Tznkai (talk) 20:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Should the family wish to remove the user page, they can always contact an admin or leave a post on the talk page. Icestorm815 • Talk 02:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you overestimate how easy it is to grasp communication for newcomers, especially those in a state of mental anguish. Skomorokh 02:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

An appropriate hatnote or other message box could provide simple directions to a friend/family member who wishes to access the userpage. The directions would advise that the page was locked to protect it in view of our understanding that the owner had passed away, and provide a link to send an email to a specific admin. Having a specific contact person would help to reassure and encourage a newcomer under these circumstances. The admin could then handle, or post to AN for guidance from others if needed. Steveozone (talk) 21:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

We already have some standardized examples in these situations, like User talk:Jeffpw, perhaps an actual template should be created with specific language and link for newby friends/relatives. -- Banjeboi 03:20, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Addition of a hatnote to the user page and user talk page

Discussion

• I've seen this done at User:Nitelinger's page — Ched :  ?  04:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Support — Ched :  ?  04:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
2. Support -->David Shankbone 16:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
3. Support No harm. rootology (C)(T) 16:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
4. Support. Seems a common sense step. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 17:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
5. Support AFTER confirmation.--Tznkai (talk) 18:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
6. Per Tznkai.  GARDEN  19:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
7. Support - again, common sense, but after confirmation, per Tznkai et al. Bearian (talk) 20:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
8. Support, my preferred option. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
9. Support — Jake Wartenberg 21:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
10. Support Royalbroil 01:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
11. Support - doesn't even have to be a "standard" template - or indeed if it was there could be a choice. Pedro :  Chat  06:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
12. Support. Seems that this would be, at the very least, a basic show of respect for the user. Matt (talk) 08:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
13. Support ~ Amory (talk) 14:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
14. Majorly talk 15:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
15. Support - so long as it s obvious (noting NVO's abstention, below). It's important that whatever we decide to do, it's clearly obvious to any visitors. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
16. Support. Ironholds (talk) 17:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
17. Support. The note should reflect the family's wishes, though,; they might just want it to say the person passed away on a certain date, without mentioning it was from a particular disease,or from suicide or murder. Obituaries often do not say what the person died from. Sensitivity is the key.Edison (talk) 17:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
18. A simple straightforward statement in compliance with family desires is appropriate. LadyofShalott 19:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
19. Support. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
20. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
21. Support. This is crucial, especially if the page is locked.--Cúchullain ^t/c 02:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
22. Support with the caveat that the note should link back to the Deceased Wikipedians page, so people can read the user's memorial listing.--SouthernNights (talk) 02:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
23. Support - respecting the wishes of the family. لennavecia 13:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
24. Support - I think a user-friendly template easily modifiable would make sense. Template instuctions could offer some examples of wording employed elsewhere so editors trying to deal with this emotionally charged arena have extra support. -- Banjeboi 03:23, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
25. Support - Griffinofwales (talk) 03:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
26. Support The anonymity complaint is mooted by the fact that in order for such a hatnote to be placed, the identity of a deceased Wikipedia editor and the facts of their demise would need to be known to another Wikipedia editor. Jclemens (talk) 03:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
27. Support I think this is likely to be a situation where events will drive us to the best variant(s) of such a notice, but the principle is sound. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:45, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
28. Support. Intending but unknowing correspondents need to be advised. Friends may modify the notice. At the very least, a deceased wikipedians user and talk page should say "no longer active". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
29. Support --Moni3 (talk) 14:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
30. Support Although we don't need much information about it. We don't need to say, for example, if a user committed suicide. However, if a user specifies he/she doesn't want this in advance, don't do it. hmwithτ 12:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
31. — neuro^(talk) 02:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
32. Support, provided it's appropriate to do so. Obviously, we shouldn't be obliged to divulge, per hmwith, of anything such as suicide. That could be very well construed as very offensive to the deceased. MuZemike 06:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

#Oppose, I think that template looks rather ugly and the colours may well be inappropriate for the users page. I'm not against the idea, just want to improve the users page and not trash it. SunCreator (talk) 01:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The vote is not over this template, which was only used as an example, but over the use of some template. -->David Shankbone 02:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Withdrawn opposition. SunCreator (talk) 03:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

1. Oppose. I am pretty confident that many editors would prefer to be as anonymous in death as they are in life, regardless of what their family might argue later. Tagging an account of someone who has died is clearly making that account more identifiable, particularly in cases where there are suspicions about an editor's identity but otherwise no definitive proof. There will be instances where someone is aware of a medical problem that could lead to death and may choose to get their own page in order prior how ever they like, but I think that it is presumptuous to assume that this would be welcomed by most editors. While my primary objection is against this being done automatically, I also have concerns per WP:NOTMEMORIAL and, more generally, WP:UP#NOT, which this proposal appears to me to breach, at least in spirit. While I understand the need to express one's grief, ultimately we all are and should be pretty insignificant cogs in the much wider Wikipedia machine. Personalizing accounts in this uniquely personal way sets a problematic precedent. This is an encyclopedia, we enforce restrictions on personal commentary unrelated to the work of the encyclopedia pretty aggressively at times and in my view this falls into a similar category. User pages are to facilitate communication between editors about the work of the encyclopedia and a RIP template doesn't on the face of it do much to facilitate that. There may be wording that I would find less objectionable, but in the absence of a good suggestion I have to oppose. AngoraFish 木 10:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
2. Oppose Leaving a hatnote may in fact draw unwanted attention to the death of the user, in so far as some people are sick enough to capitalize on it if they happen across it. Still others might be disturbed to go to a user's page and find out that this happened. Best to leave the death the knowledge of those who knew their work here while alive, as much as is possible. Protecting the page and listing the individual at WP:RIP should be adequate. --BlueSquadronRaven 22:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
3. Oppose per my argument under the WP:RIP section - privacy concerns, user has no practical opportunity to object. Townlake (talk) 02:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
4. Oppose. Let each user specify in advance what they personally wish. jmcw (talk) 10:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
5. Oppose with the proviso that we would follow the wishes of an individual user or his family at their explicit request. In many cases, even after death, it could conceivably be less than positive to find out a certain editor were a certain real person. John Carter (talk) 23:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Abstain

1. Hatnotes are, usually, quite inconspicuous; they are designed to be a part of plain encyclopedia text. I'm afraid a plain hatnote, while visible against plain text, will be lost on a more colourful page. So its usability depends on the userpage appearance. NVO (talk) 14:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
2. I don't think this should be a standard practice, but allow addition of such things by users who knew the deceased, or at family request. –xeno ^talk 00:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Listing of account name at WP:RIP

Discussion

• There was an issue brought up at Wikipedia talk:Deceased Wikipedians when a person who had some vandal edits on their account. If there also good edits, and/or communication contributions associated with this account, I'd think they should be listed. If it's a vandal only account, I'd see no need to list, but I'm open to other opinions. — Ched :  ?  04:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: User category? List information can be misedited and lost, but categories, especially when combined with page protection, are more permanent. -Freekee (talk) 05:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. I'd support people being listed who'd edited often enough to be part of the community -- no hard and fast rules about what that means -- question of common sense. I wouldn't say that vandalism edits should affect that. There are some famous Wikipedian vandals who are part of the community, even though we might wish they weren't. :-) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 07:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
   • Does this mean that you'd support one for Grawp when/if he goes belly-up? Matt (talk) 08:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
     • I'd say his infamy has guaranteed him a heartfelt memorial. :-) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
       • There are a lot of Wikipedians who have left, both constructive contributors & troublemakers, about whom I (for one) wonder what happened. This would help to bring some kind of closure. (And serve as a warning to various troublemakers not to do anything that is both dangerous & embarrassing.) -- llywrch (talk) 17:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
2. Agree with SV. -->David Shankbone 16:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
3. Support Again, no harm. If the family validates themselves and asks via OTRS to take it down, we do so without discussion, however, and if any user or IP then plays games with re-adding it, we block them so fast and hard their heads AND asses will hurt with the specific nature of what they did eternally branded on their block log. The only time a user frankly would deserve a nasty Scarlet Letter. rootology (C)(T) 16:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
4. Support. Agree with the above, more a mark of respect that anything. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 17:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
5. Support IFF care is done to confirm aspects of the death itself as well as all the contents of the obit.--Tznkai (talk) 18:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
6. Support per David Shankbone's and Tznkai's comments. Bearian (talk) 20:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
7. Support — Jake Wartenberg 21:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
8. Support Definitely, a classy way to deal with it. Royalbroil 01:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
9. Support Agree with the statements above. CardinalDan (talk) 03:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
10. Support But I think it should be opt-IN not opt-OUT. Presumably such information would be verified by family members, friends, etc., who could then be contacted as to their personal preferences. Making assumptions about their wishes in their absence as well as their "worth" to the Community is improper. ~ Amory (talk) 14:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
11. Majorly talk 15:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
12. Support as per Slim, David and especially Root; we should offer the "Astonishingly Brutal Bat of Punishment"™ to any who would vandalize the page. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
13. Support for good-edit users. Ironholds (talk) 17:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
14. Support for good-faith contributors. Most people for whom this will be a question are good faith contributors. We do not need to memorialize Grawp, but someone who gets mad and throws a tantrum every now-and-then should, of course, be included. LadyofShalott 19:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
15. Support per SV. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
16. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
17. Support.--Cúchullain ^t/c 02:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
18. Support--SouthernNights (talk) 02:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
19. Support though how and what is said should be left to the members of the community who best knew the individual, if at all. --BlueSquadronRaven 22:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
20. Support - respecting the wishes of the family. Also, I don't believe indef banned vandals to be a part of the community. There could be exceptions to this, for editors who may had once been productive and suddenly went rogue in their last days, as there obviously may have been an understandable reason. This, of course, is a hypothetical. As noted by SV, common sense should be applied. لennavecia 13:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
21. Support - Good luck to those 80 years from now who get to sort us into subcats! -- Banjeboi 03:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
22. Support per Slim, David, and Root. Griffinofwales (talk) 03:51, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
23. Support in principle, so long as there are reasonable guidelines (common sense) for who would be included. Plastikspork (talk) 15:35, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
24. Support but without any hard rules. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:55, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
25. Support Guess I missed this earlier. — Ched :  ?  09:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
26. Support unless the user specifies otherwise. hmwithτ 12:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
27. — neuro^(talk) 02:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
28. Support – use common sense. I see no problems in listing. MuZemike 06:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
29. Support per SV's suggestion. As for content, why not just quote the obituary if one exists? That would best reflect the desires of the deceased's family: obituaries of non-public people are never written without their input, advice or permission. -- llywrch (talk) 17:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. Per my comments above. AngoraFish 木 11:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
2. Oppose. Such a list can't possibly even approach inclusive. Also it will quickly grow to unmanageable size. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. Furthermore, wikipedians may appear on the list who never wanted their real life identity revealed. Most editors do not wish to associate their online lives with their working/family lives. .froth. (talk) 19:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
3. Oppose I understand the positive, classy, and good-hearted spirit of the RIP page. However, I'm concerned that the users listed here will often have no opportunity to decline inclusion. (Asking for pre-mortality opt-in, or asking the family to go through an OTRS process to remove a relative, seems impractical to me.) I oppose the hatnote and "memorial page" suggestions for similar reasons: I don't see why a well-intentioned memorial effort would trump WP's important presumption favoring privacy in the absence of firm justification for an article entry. And I personally can't favor the argument that user space should be exempt from this presumption for this purpose. Townlake (talk) 15:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
4. Oppose. Let each user specify in advance what they personally wish. jmcw (talk) 10:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
5. Oppose allowing for exception at the express wishes of the editor himself or his immediate family. John Carter (talk) 23:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Abstain

Blocking the account from future editing

Discussion

• I believe this was touched on here and [2]. I believe the items to be considered are: 1.) That a computer that may have an automatically logged into Wikipedia under an established user name setup may exist; and, could be used to forge or disrupt our normal operations. 2.)This may be the only means of communication the family has to Wikipedia, as the deceased user may be the only family member familiar with logging in to, and posting messages. 3.) A perception that we in some way are showing disrespect of the deceased user. 4.) Access from that account may be a way of establishing confirmation that an editor has died (perhaps a CU could or would become involved) — Ched :  ?  04:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
• I saw that User:Pedro had mentioned at one point the possibility of amending a blocking edit summary to include "in memoriam". — Ched :  ?  05:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
• I think a user should be able to designate someone - perhaps an executor - to manage the person's user page, but I'm not sure how. I'm open to ideas. Bearian (talk) 20:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC) A memorial page (see below) is a good option, especially for admins. Bearian (talk) 20:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
• Is there a way to have a special templated message appear to people--e.g. friends and family--who try to use the account to send messages that explains why the account is blocked, and that if they wish to use it to contact the Wikipedia community, that they can still edit on the user's talk page using the account? Without this template becoming too long, possibly also directing them on the simple process to register? -->David Shankbone 14:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• I should think there is already a point of contact, which is the individual who notified the fact the editor has died - I haven't read through, yet, but a lot of these issues could be dealt with by agreeing how we respond to the individual notifying us (family, friend, colleage, WP editor). LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:51, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

• I don't know if this is just the actions of one admin speaking, but blocking the deceased users could cause an admin to delete their user page/user talk page under the pretense of CSD:G5, such as was done at User talk:Rydel. (Note that I've notified the admin and requested the page be undeleted.) How should we prevent this from happening? Matt (talk) 19:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
• To those who oppose blocking the account, but support removing user rights, I have to ask, why? They seem rather similar to me. Say I work for, I dunno, the FBI. I have an identity card that allows me access to secure areas of the building, their mainframe, and so on and so forth. If I die, I presume that that entire access is voided. The identity card, any permissions associated with it such as access to certain rooms in the building and my complimentary coffee at the cafeteria. Editing privileges and the other permissions seem to belong to the same category, and should come and go together.--Tznkai (talk) 23:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • In answer - because if you remove the user rights then there's no point in blocking the account...... Pedro :  Chat  07:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Unfortunately, but probably would be for the best to 'retire' that account in a different fashion. Block them to note the passing, but that will still leave them to edit their talk page if families wish to leave a message, after their user rights (admin etc) have been removed. rootology (C)(T) 16:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
2. The block needs to be done with care and grace. The block would be done cautiously, but in memoriam. The account belonged to the passed member, and no one else should have it, it was theirs. The account is not a piece of property to be passed around, but the integral part of their identity as we as a community know it. It is our Wikipedia equivalent of embalming our dead to block these accounts. --Tznkai (talk) 18:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
3. Support per above. Family members probably shouldn't use the same account, and there is no other reason to leave it open. — Jake Wartenberg 21:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
4. Majorly talk 15:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
5. Support - Rootology and Tznkai expressed the valid points of concern. The account is not property, but a record of contribution and input. A Memorial Block allows for family members to contribute to usertalk discussion without allowing access to the project. In RL, when someone dies at a trading firm or publishing house, we don't grant access to widows/Significant Others to make trades, edit books or otherwise act in thei deceased's capacity. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
6. Support, but such a thing should be done 1) with utmost caution and 2) with talkpage editing and email abilities left open in case it turns out to be a fuck-up/family members and similar want to communicate. Ironholds (talk) 17:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
7. Support Isn't this required by a policy or guideline that an account belongs to an individual and not a group or a family? No one should be able to inherit someone else's account any more than an account could be sold on Ebay. What would an admin account sell for? Could be a valuable part of an estate. Edison (talk) 17:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
8. Support although I have sympathies for family members etc. An account is only intended for one person. This blocking need only take place after some final confirmation. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
9. Support - Other family members can create other accounts of their own. One person per account is still a valid rule. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
10. Support with caveat Absolutely must be done to prevent vandalism and distraction; but there must also be a means for a loved one to request and effect a revision to userspace that is otherwise acceptable according to community rules. Death is often about the living. Having a clear means for family to contact "somebody in charge" who has the ability to implement a requested edit over the block or release the block is not that hard (certainly no harder than correcting the situation here and there where someone is erroneously reported deceased). Steveozone (talk) 02:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
11. Strongly Support To do anything else would blatantly violate WP:NOSHARE. Only one user per account is policy, and an entirely appropriate one for a great many good reasons. Blocking new edits on an account also prevents any possible confusion that might be created by a confirmed deceased editor apparently continuing to make edits. AngoraFish 木 11:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
12. Support. It seems to me the opposition is focused only on one possible outcome: no one other than a family member of the deceased has access to the computer, and that family member can't figure out how to contact anyone on Wikipedia any other way (including the many obvious "email this user" links, with their own account or as an IP), they can only figure out how to use the deceased's account, and for some reason they need to edit pages other than the talk page of the deceased (otherwise there would be no problem with blocking), and neither they nor anyone else who uses that computer says anything unsettling, and no one on Wikipedia is creeped out by the fact that the user they're apparently talking with has just died. There are so many things that can go wrong here. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 01:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
13. Strong Support. Most of this is focusing on the wishes of the editor's survivors. We get enough accounts created on a regular basis attacking Jeffpw. Imagine if one of these vandals decided to try hacking his account. Given enough time, it's certainly possible, and then we have an account making edits and vandalizing the place when the editor who is supposed to control it has died. That's a great legacy to leave someone. As AngoraFish said, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever that an account controlled by a now-deceased editor should be allowed to continue editing. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
14. Support - I deliberately sat with this one for a while before commenting. On the whole, I think it is the wise thing to do. I am sympathetic to the idea of not cutting out grieving family members who may not be familiar with Wikipedia. However, the blocked account could still be allowed to edit its own page, it is pretty easy to set up a new user account, and one can edit in most places as an IP. Preventing a vandal from hacking an account and editing maliciously is important. LadyofShalott 16:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
15. Support - I agree with those above that it is best to block editing, using a considerate and descriptive block summary, indicated the member has passed and their account is being preserved in memoriam. Family members can still use the account to post on the talk page, at which point we can explain to them how to create their own account. Care should be taken with the block to only block the account itself, not the IP, and to allow all options (editing talk page, email and account creation). لennavecia 13:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
16. Support per Root. Griffinofwales (talk) 03:55, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
17. Support to prevent password guessing. -- Jeandré, 2009-04-25t17:26z
18. Support Loved ones can get their own accounts. --Moni3 (talk) 14:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
19. Support Keeps users from faking death. It sounds terrible, but people do it. hmwithτ 12:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
20. Support -Blocks imply nothing other than what is stated in the block log. If we can eliminate a few accounts from hijacking (and potentially particularly nasty hijacking since the person is dead), then so be it. — neuro^(talk) 02:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
21. Support – with the possibility of the account becoming compromised and the relatively low volume of Wikipedians listed as deceased, we must err on the side of caution and indef block. It would serve as a huge insult of those related to the deceased Wikipedian if said account all of a sudden started editing again. MuZemike 06:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I see no need for this. A family member might want to use it to post a message, as Ched writes above. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 07:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

   Question: it's so easy to set up an account, as User:Jeffssister did for Jeffpw, why would it be more sound to allow the deceased User's account to be used by someone else, even if for good, as opposed to encouraging the quick process to sign up (or even just edit as an IP)? -->David Shankbone 16:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

   I was thinking of the situation described by Ched, where a family member or friend might find it easier just to hit a key and be automatically logged in, in order to post a message about the death, or if they were asked to log into the account as a way of proving who they were. But I don't see it as a big deal either way. And of course, even if the account's blocked, family/friends could still post to user talk, as Root points out, which I'd forgotten. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

2. There just seems something wrong about blocking the account pre-emptively. By all means, remove the powers. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 17:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
3. Disrespectful and without significant benefit. Skomorokh 02:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
4. I'd support the removal of all user rights as below. If they have been removed then blocking seems pointless. Any account can get autoconfirmed, and the risks associated with misuse of an account without extra access is minimal to say the least. Pedro :  Chat  06:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

   Further comment - since we do not block the accounts of users who have left the project through retirement I can't see the justification for blocking because they have left due to dying (sorry to be blunt). I appreciate there is an argument that someone retired could in theory return but take one example - User:Oldwindybear was desysopped under a cloud and has not edited in almost two years - return is unlikely in the extreme - yet the account is not blocked. Preemptive blocking of accounts with no rights beyond autoconfirmed seems pointless to me. Pedro :  Chat  10:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

5. Oppose, at least to outright blocking of the user as soon as we find out. This prevents family members from using the user's account to communicate with other well-wishing users via those users' talk pages. However, we could implement a timer of some sort -- e.g., "block the deceased user after one month of notification of their death". This would allow said family members the opportunity to communicate with us, but would also put a time limit into place that says "ok, enough is enough, you need to register for your own account now." Matt (talk) 08:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
6. Oppose unless, as noted above, some very tactful, unusual procedure is proposed. There must be, however, a bot reporting edits from deceased accounts (probably limited to admins only or even narrower). These edits shouldn't be very frequent, should they? NVO (talk) 14:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
7. This is very easy to screw up, so let's not even try. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 23:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
8. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
9. It just seems wrong. --Conti|✉ 23:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
10. Oppose, per User:Titoxd, the potential risks of messing up seem to outweigh any benefits we'd gain by doing this. By all means have a bot set up to monitor edits from such accounts though. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC).
11. Strong Oppose per WP:BLOCK No reason to ignore all rules on this. — Ched :  ?  12:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
12. Oppose Unnecessary. How exactly you appeal this block without giving out personal information? --J^mundo 18:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
13. Oppose - this would seem to be loved ones rather than vandals speaking from beyond the grave. Deal with each situation ina customized way. -- Banjeboi 03:27, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
14. Oppose. See no need. Could be very painful to someone falsely declared as dead. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
15. Oppose. Let each user specify in advance what they personally wish. jmcw (talk) 10:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
16. Oppose early false reports of death do happen, and would screw things up big time if they happened here. John Carter (talk) 23:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Abstain

Blocking the account from future editing after a suitable amount of time has passed

Discussion

• Forked from the above section to try to allay some of the opposition.--Tznkai (talk) 10:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. First choice: Generally speaking, voiding the access of a deceased person can be, and often is, a sign of respect. It has practical benefits for security, but also can serve as a ritual for the community. Such messages should be respectful, and done only after suitable confirmation of the person's death. Blocking serves in this case, as a respect done in memoriam: the account belonged to the passed member, and no one else should have it, it was theirs. The account is not a piece of property to be passed around, but the integral part of their identity as we as a community know it. It is our Wikipedia equivalent of embalming our dead to block these accounts. We should however, delay blocking for a reasonable time after the other steps have been taken. This will allow family members to communicate, and community members to communicate back exactly what is being done, and why.--Tznkai (talk) 10:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

   Support good idea, good option. (see below) — Ched :  ?  14:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

2. Majorly talk 15:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
3. Support. (This WAS my idea, wasn't it?) Matt (talk) 18:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
4. Support. as per above. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
5. Support Based on the suitable time having passed being zero, per my comments above, in particular WP:NOSHARE. AngoraFish 木 12:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
6. Support While I agree with suspending the access of a user who is confirmed deceased, leaving an account open for six months where it is not confirmed is a good idea, just in case, to paraphrase Mark Twain, rumours of their death are greatly exaggerated. This would cut down on anyone using this procedure as an opportunity to get back at a particular user by "declaring" them dead, if they knew they were simply on a wikibreak. --BlueSquadronRaven 22:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
7. Support - Griffinofwales (talk) 04:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
8. Support A "mourning" period, during which the page is likely to be watched over anyway. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
9. Support if previous suggestion fails. hmwithτ 12:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
10. — neuro^(talk) 02:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose as per my concerns above. It is easy to post sentiments to individual editors by the deceased, even as anons. The account should not be usable to go out an potentially make edits, which would make an awkward situation worse. By blocking the account immediately after confirmation, we are not interfering with familial communication in usertalk whatsoever; we are specifically not allowing our grief to interfere with the operation of the encyclopedia, as per my aforementioned examples. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
2. What's the benefit? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

   First, I'm not trying to change anyone's mind. Speaking from a computer technician's point of view, Wikipedia login names and the passwords that go with that name are stored on a computer's hard drive (cache). Anyone inheriting a computer from a former user who had a WP login, could have access to that account. Again, I'm not trying to change minds, just mentioning it in case someone isn't aware of the technical side of things. — Ched :  ?  01:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

   Good point, thanks for that info. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

3. Oppose Per my arguments above - no benefit so why bother? Pedro :  Chat  10:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
4. OpposeThe proactive security tech part of me was inclined to support this, but after reading in close detail our blocking policy once again (along with a couple years of talk page archives), there simply is no pre-emptive intent in the 4 purposes and goals of blocking. Preventing damage, sure; but we have plenty of substantial mechanisms in place should this come up. Strong oppose after considered thought. — Ched :  ?  12:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
5. Oppose Imagine coming back from a long Wiki-break and finding out that you have been blocked because you are presumed dead. Unnecessary drama. --J^mundo 18:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
6. Oppose. See no need. Could be very painful to someone falsely declared as dead. Length of absence is irrelevent. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
7. Oppose. Let each user specify in advance what they personally wish. jmcw (talk) 10:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
8. Oppose per Jmundo. Only on a notification basis. MuZemike 06:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
9. Oppose except at express wishes of user or immediate family. False reports of death at sea or war do happen. John Carter (talk) 23:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Abstain

Development of a memorial page

Discussion

• An tasteful example can be found at: User talk:Jeffpw/Memoriam
• I'd think this would be best left to the users who knew the editor, although kind thoughts and condolences I'd think would be fine too.
• Best left to the users who knew the editor. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
• What's being proposed here, that a memorial page must be developed or that it can be developed by editors who knew the deceased? Seems like an obvious answer, but this section is worded less strongly than those above. --Moni3 (talk) 14:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Support — Ched :  ?  04:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
2. If people want to do it, no reason not to. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 07:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
3. Definitely support. -->David Shankbone 16:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
4. Obviously, and per previous repeated overwhelming support. Recommend stern actions against anyone messing with these pages (xfd, vandalism, etc.). rootology (C)(T) 16:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
5. Support: it makes for a nice (if that is a fitting word) collection of tributes. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 17:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
6. Support To be held to a lower standard of scrutiny than the entries on WP:RIP. --Tznkai (talk) 19:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
7. Just don't make it required.  GARDEN  19:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
8. Support if it is left as optional. Bearian (talk) 20:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
9. Support should be a suggestion. — Jake Wartenberg 21:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
10. Support Royalbroil 01:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
11. Support Not a mandatory process, but it would help if we had a guideline confirming that 1) WP:NOTMEMORIAL applies to the mainspace only and 2) That limited use of resources to host these pages is acceptable thus preventing wasted MFD's like this. Pedro :  Chat  06:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
12. Support, including Pedro's proposal. Matt (talk) 08:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
13. Majorly talk 15:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
14. Support so long as it isn't required, and some sort of template is used.My only concern would be if it were used as a soapbox for one thing or another, like handgun violence or some such thing; that would be in exceedingly poor taste. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
15. Friends and colleagues need a place to express sorrow and grief over a loss, and people do develop friendships through this project. LadyofShalott 19:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
16. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
17. Support death is for the living. If soapbox patrolling is wanted, the family can request it, and the rest of us can easily ignore it. If its vandalized, it can be blocked, perhaps under the same circumstances as any user/talk page. Steveozone (talk) 02:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
18. Strong support for this one. As is seen with Jeffpw's memoriam page, these grant those who knew the deceased an opportunity to express their grief, and for the family to see (and perhaps even take comfort from) the loving messages left by those who cared about the editor. In Jeff's case, some of us were hit particularly hard with his passing, for various reasons, and appreciated this outlet for our emotion. NOT#MEMORIAL doesn't apply to user space. لennavecia 14:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
19. Support - policy pages should spell out this is an option but hardly required, the talkpage may serve this purpose best but just wait til we get memorail junkies posting on every page as these at the expenses of doing anything else. -- Banjeboi 03:30, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
20. Support per Root and Pedro.
21. Support Definitely not mandatory though... and I wouldn't be a fan of having one for every user who had 1 edit, and their RL family/friends try to use WP as a webhost. hmwithτ 12:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
22. — neuro^(talk) 02:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
23. Support – Yes, there is WP:NOTMEMORIAL, but there is also WP:IAR, which I think we can safely apply here. MuZemike 06:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
24. Support Per Jennavecia's cogent insight. Pastor Theo (talk) 20:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
25. Support As I understand the question, it is a matter of allowing such pages to exist (within reason) rather than requiring them. WP:NOTMEMORIAL could still be invoked as to any egregiously unreasonable development and expansion (such as the webhost for RL family and friends). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steveozone (talk • contribs) 06:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
26. Support no reason to stand in the way if other users want to do it, barring express wishes of user or family. John Carter (talk) 23:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose Per WP:NOTMEMORIAL and the spirit of WP:UP#NOT. I understand some of the opposing arguments made under 'abstain' here, however user pages are provided in order to facilitate communication between editors about the work of the encyclopedia. Creating a memorial does nothing to facilitate the work of the encyclopedia and indeed is a very poor precedent to set. AngoraFish 木 12:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

   Comment (not to AngoraFish directly but this seems a good place to put it). Part of my statement above is that WP:NOTMEMORIAL (which at present indicates that it only applies to article space) should be updated to reflect the consensus here (whichever way that consensus goes). It also does have other ramifications for WP:NOT that need to be considered should consensus be that memorial pages are acceptable. Pedro :  Chat  15:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

   Agree. I started a thread at Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#WP:NOTMEMORIAL_does_not_apply_in_userspace_for_wikipedians. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

2. Oppose. Let each user specify in advance what they personally wish. jmcw (talk) 10:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Abstain

• Should not be de rigeur, but the proposed practices should advise how memorial pages, if they are created, are to be conducted. Skomorokh 16:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
• Added discussion 21 April 2009: Wikipedia is not a memorial. However, I'm no stinker so I wouldn't object to a memorial page. User F203 (talk) 17:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
• Unsure Wikipedia is not a memorial site. SunCreator (talk) 03:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Sun, I understand where you are coming from, but that's really for article space and not for WP and User space. The logic behind that idea is that often when someone dies, perhaps in a tragic murder, or by being hit by a drunk driver, there is a flurry of news stories about the incident. Additionally, obituaries are printed. The logic behind this application (for articlespace) is that we don't want WP:RS used to essentially memorialize someone who will only then receive an article because...they died. -->David Shankbone 14:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• No solicitation of funds. The family should not be able to ask that funds be sent to the survivors,or to the deceased's favorite charity, nor should they be able to link to a memorial site which requests funds, or which promotes the family business. Edison (talk) 17:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Edison, including the struck bit to be honest. No solicitations of any kind. That's not the point Pedro :  Chat  19:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, but whoever tells that to the family should do so with... well, a lack of jackassery.--Tznkai (talk) 23:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

For the most part, I agree with this, but consider this entirely plausible scenario: User:JohnDoe dies, and his obituary is published in his hometown newspaper, which has a website that displays recent obituaries among other things. The obituary contains a sentence near the end saying, "In lieu of flowers, contributions may be made to X." Are we really going to forbid a link to that obituary? I would oppose that idea. LadyofShalott 03:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

A good point Lady of Shalott. No, of course we should not forbid linking to external sites that in passing mentioned a donation request. But I don't think we need a solicitation at the top of any memorial page or in the proposed hatnote. My reasoning is that the compromise situation we are trying to broker within this request ("memorial pages are okay v. WP:NOTMYSPACE) will likely cause issues in the future if we start going down the line of alowing such solicitation on the wikimedia servers themselves. Pedro :  Chat  06:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, I didn't really think anyone would want to do that, but didn't want to let it get by without a comment. Otherwise if someone wanted to be a jerk, they could invoke this criterion as a reason not to include an extremely relevant and appropriate link. LadyofShalott 18:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Seeing as the above example was started by a family member, I suppose some leeway could be granted in that regard. Otherwise, a memorial by the community who knew the deceased at WP:RIP should be best. --BlueSquadronRaven 22:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Leeway would easily be appropriate here. Reverting the first contribution of a family member of a recently deceased committed wikipedian would be wrong. Removing a fundraising component from a notice for a notable person who happened to create a wikipedia userpage and barely edited otherwise, would be appropriate. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Development of a template which could be left on a user talk page

Discussion

• I started something along the lines of what I'm thinking at User talk:Nitelinger (the Thank You banner) — Ched :  ?  04:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
• A standard template that is tasteful and secular would be useful, but I'm not sure it's as important as resolving other issues on this page. It might be best left to other editors who new the preferences of the deceased on a case by case basis. Pedro :  Chat  08:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
• There is no need for an RFC on the question of the development of a template. If it is a good idea, do it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Support (since no one else is going to ante up, I might as well). Obviously it's not a top priority on the list, but yes, a standardized message (probably used as the hatnote) would be nice. Matt (talk) 09:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
2. Majorly talk 15:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
3. Support - I would say incorporate the hatnote issues with this so it is standardized and automatically adds the appropriate categories. -- Banjeboi 03:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
4. Support per above. Griffinofwales (talk) 04:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
5. Support hmwithτ 12:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
6. Support we don't know how or when each Wikipedian is going to die in RL. Something simple should suffice. MuZemike 06:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose per my opposition to leaving a hatnote on a deceased user's talk page above. --BlueSquadronRaven 22:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
2. Oppose. Let each user specify in advance what they personally wish. jmcw (talk) 10:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
3. — neuro^(talk) 02:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Abstain

Removal of User Rights

Discussion

• Primarily: sysop, rollback, Checkuser, Oversight, and Bureaucrat
• These flags in the wrong hands allow editors to inflict a great deal of damage to the project in my opinion.
• A note could be made on the users page at the time of protection stating the various functions a user has held.

Support

1. Support While I understand that we don't want to indicate that a user's contributions are diminished because they've died, I think the potential damage is too great to ignore as well. — Ched :  ?  16:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
2. Unfortunate, but a good idea. rootology (C)(T) 16:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
3. Difficult to imagine a corpse or their usurper having a legitimate use for such tools. Skomorokh 16:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
4. I prefer this to full blocking. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 17:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
5. We revoke permissions in a sense to preserve the integrity and memory. Voiding permissions is a sort of embalming: see my above comment under blocking.--Tznkai (talk) 19:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
6. Support. Agree with the above comments. tempodivalse [☎] 20:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
7. I can see what you mean.... Bearian (talk) 20:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
8. Good idea, and perfectly respectful. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
9. Support Too dangerous, especially with advanced powers. A note should be made with the functions that they user held. Royalbroil 01:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
10. Support A better proposal than blocking the account. Icestorm815 • Talk 02:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
11. Support Way better then blocking the account. SunCreator (talk) 03:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
12. Support per my recommendation to Ched on my talk. This seems important, and certainly prefered over blocking. Pedro :  Chat  06:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
13. Support -- we revoke his user rights. That way, his zombie doesn't come back still trying to fight vandals. However, on a serious note, although it will, 99% of the time, be family members using the account to notify us, we don't know that is the case, or will always be the case (e.g., the user's computer could be passed down to a no-good relative who has no interest in being productive). Matt (talk) 09:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
14. Majorly talk 15:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
15. Support - this seems a given. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
16. Support. Ironholds (talk) 17:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
17. LadyofShalott 19:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
18. This is a far better option than blocking. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
19. Support for fairly obvious security reasons. One person per account. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
20. Support, less potential headache for all involved.--Cúchullain ^t/c 02:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
21. Support, family can and should be able to request admin assistance where necessary like any other editor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steveozone (talk • contribs) 02:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
22. Support but make sure they're dead.. .froth. (talk) 19:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
23. Support subject to the same requirements of confirmation and passing of length of time as I noted above. --BlueSquadronRaven 22:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
24. Support - of course. لennavecia 14:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
25. Support - as long as friends/family can user the account to post the rest can likely go. -- Banjeboi 03:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
26. Support basic good infosec practice. Jclemens (talk) 03:55, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
27. Support per above. Griffinofwales (talk) 04:07, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
28. Support Naturally. If it is just rollback, it can be left though. I think the user page should also be removed from categories like Category:Wikipedia administrators. --Apoc2400 (talk) 11:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
29. Support to prevent missed vandalism because such pages will not be notable enough to be kept on actively watched watchlists. Resurrected users should reapply for tools. -- Jeandré, 2009-04-25t17:28z
30. Support Per Matt, we have no way of knowing if the pc with cookies enabled is going to be passed on or sold without the deceased files being wiped (the relatives may be careless or otherwise not pc savvy). LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
31. Support, where there is significant potential for damage. This applies for bureacrat, oversight, checkuser. Does not apply for normal editing rights. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
32. Support As per SmokeyJoe, for the protection of Wikipedia. jmcw (talk) 10:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
33. Support --Moni3 (talk) 14:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
34. Support Again, helps keep people from faking. hmwithτ 12:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
35. — neuro^(talk) 02:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
36. Support, most certainly. Reduces the chance of seriously damaging the encyclopedia, just as with live users. MuZemike 06:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
37. Support not doing so could create serious problems. John Carter (talk) 23:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose, per my statement on blocking above. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC).

Abstain

Policy, Guideline, or Essay

Discussion

• If we can get enough input from editors, which direction should be proceed towards?
• I'm inclined to move in the direction of guideline; simply because I can see enough instances where this could lead to policy creep, and I'd be concerned that editors with the right intension's could be held up for ridicule without justification. — Ched :  ?  15:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
• Abstain for the time being. Will come back to this.--Tznkai (talk) 19:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Policy

1. I think certain sections of this should be policy -- especially removal of user rights, but possibly also things such as user page protection and blocking the user. As far as the other sections are concerned, I agree that those should be guidelines. Matt (talk) 09:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
2. Support per Matt. Griffinofwales (talk) 04:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Guideline

1. Guideline I think is the way to go, to allow some flexibility. Policy is too heavy-handed, and essays don't have as much "community support" cred behind them. -->David Shankbone 16:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
2. This certainly isn't important enough to the encyclopaedia to merit an official policy; social phenomena which do not directly impact encyclopaedia content are best governed by a guideline at the most. Furthermore, social norms change, and I can imagine the text to require more fluid alteration than policy generally allows. Skomorokh 16:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
3. Prefer the flexibility. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 17:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
4. This would be best. Bearian (talk) 20:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
5. — Jake Wartenberg 21:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
6. Support Allow flexibility. Royalbroil 01:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
7. This makes more sense, in hindsight. rootology (C)(T) 06:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
8. On balance yes - I agree with David above on the different merits. Pedro :  Chat  07:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
9. I wasn't sure what was proper here, so I wanted to get some opinion before deciding. Support per David and discussion with Pedro. — Ched :  ?  14:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
10. Majorly talk 15:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
11. Support. Ironholds (talk) 17:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
12. LadyofShalott 19:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
13. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
14. Icestorm815 • Talk 03:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
15. Guideline is best, as opposed to telling someone "No, you can't grieve this way!" --BlueSquadronRaven 22:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
16. Support - per David. لennavecia 14:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
17. Support - per David. -- Banjeboi 03:35, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
18. Support per David. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
19. Support Not set in stone, but recommendations, hints, and notes of common practice. I still think it should be more than an essay though, especially after this much discussion and support. hmwithτ 12:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
20. — neuro^(talk) 02:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
21. Support – Guideline seems very sensible. MuZemike 06:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
22. Support allows for easier exceptions at the express wishes of user or immediate family, which should take absolute priority in any event. John Carter (talk) 23:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Essay

1. This is being established entirely to serve a social purpose, and there are existing guidelines (notably right to vanish) that need to remain clearly paramount to these well-intentioned ideas. Since this whole program will be maintained primarily through community goodwill anyway, and will require lots of "mays" and "mights" in the language given the wildly different levels of editor involvement with the project, essay seems appropriate. Townlake (talk) 17:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

None of the Above

1. I think we're going to have multiple levels here, and the overall document will be a How-To with links to several parts of other policies. Removal of user rights seems like it has strong support, and should be made policy. More discretionary things with strong support like RIP, HAT, and user page protection may well fall within guidelines. User blocking is disputed with I think fairly strong reasoning on bothsides and should be as an option, but decided on a case by case basis by the discretion of the individual administrator.--Tznkai (talk) 15:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

   It sounds like you just described a "guideline" -->David Shankbone 16:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

   In normal people land? Yes. Wikipedia jargon tends to treat guidelines as policy, and policies as law.--Tznkai (talk) 18:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

   LOL - touche! -->David Shankbone 16:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

General discussion

Closing

Personally I would prefer that a 'crat, or at the very least, an administrator close these sections upon any consensus. I'm also not sure how long something like this should run.— Ched :  ?  15:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• Recommend a crat. rootology (C)(T) 16:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Advertise this on the village pump if you havn't already.--Tznkai (talk) 19:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I posted to VP proposals, AN, and WP:CENT, I wasn't sure about RfC, thought that was a bit of stretch on that one. — Ched :  ?  19:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Post to the 'crat board too. rootology (C)(T) 06:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

good idea, done — Ched :  ?  14:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Rootology. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• Disagree that the above needs to be, or even should be, closed. Take into account all opinion expressed above and write the guideline. Opinions may change upon seeing the text of the guideline, or upon seeing it in practice. Continued expression of opinion should be welcomed into the future. Asking crats to extend their limited exercise of discretion risks damaging their office. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think this was ever intended to be the actual guideline, and I agree that like other guidelines and policies that the discussion page should never be closed to anyone. This is merely an attempt to establish consensus among community members on what items should be included in that guideline or policy. In another day or so, perhaps after one or more of our bureaucrats have looked this over (hopefully), I think we'll have a pretty good idea on where to begin. Then we can all chip in and help get a well worded and acceptable procedure established, even if it takes a little time, effort, and collaboration. But then again, that's our strong-suit, so it should work out well. — Ched :  ?  07:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

A poll/RFC does not “establish” consensus. Consensus is not something that can be established. A consensus can be revealed by polling, and if it doesn’t exist then it needs to be worked towards. A consensus is something to be found, and finding a consensus is our goal. In the end, consensus support for a page is best achieved by collaborative editing of that page. This RFC was has been good for drawing attention and gathering opinions. I think we already have enough to begin writing this page.

Much of the above is already practice. This page will more describe than prescribe practice. There is little dispute that anything is wrong with current practice. Keeping userpages of no-longer-active wikipedians is established practice. Hatnotes (eg “on wikibreak”, “retired” or “deceased”) are common practice. The only actual problem is the occasional editor who feels a need to delete a memorial page due to their misinterpretation of WP:NOTMEMORIAL. This seems to happen a few times a year at MfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Evidence

We ought to address the issue of varying degrees of evidence of death. A one-size-fits all approach might not be appropriate for cases where the editor is clearly deceased and those where a new user shows up claiming to know of the death of an inactive editor. Skomorokh 16:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you, but I am glad that Ched left it out of this, since that's prehaps the most contentious can of worms to be addressed, whereas these are some simple things we can deal with drama-free (relatively). -->David Shankbone 16:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Right, but a guide on "what to do in case of x" is not much use without an agreed means of deciding when x has occurred. Skomorokh 17:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

But that's the situation we have now - we have confirmed deaths, and we are trying to come up with a way to handle those. When a death is unconfirmed is another story, and hopefully another discussion that will soon follow this one. -->David Shankbone 18:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

We MUST have proof of death. Otherwise, it is subject to abuse. I think there's no need to do anything after someone dies. If their password is stolen, there's a mechanism already in place for stolen passwords. User F203 (talk) 17:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• I believer some sort of confirmation of death is in order but it doesn't have to be an incredibly rigorous process, especially on the project side of Wikipedia. If the editor has a known public identity, non intrusive means can be used to confirm death, or friends of the editor can be relied upon. For other cases we'll have to try to the assume good faith of those telling us that someone has died, but double check anyway. The last thing we want to do is be in the situation of reporting a false death and causing the consequent suffering.--21:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully, I disagree. The process must confirm the death via citation/confirmation; there is too much potential for abuse. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't a supposedly dead "duck" who emails an administrator make a "quack" that would quickly correct any premature obituaries? What's good for the goose (in another context)... Steveozone (talk) 02:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

On the flip side of the coin, how would we know if they had passed away if most Wikipedians do not reveal their real name. Unless you are friends offline IRL with other Wikipedians it might not be discovered at all. Valley2city^‽ 21:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty unconcerned about that. This is for those we do identify, its not a mandate to go searching every inactive account for a death notice. This is more of a guide of what to do when the situation comes to you when you've been told someone has died.--Tznkai (talk) 23:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Assume good faith in reports of death but try to get an online source for claims. Griffinofwales (talk) 04:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Unless things have changed in many places, most obituaries of non-famous people are not online. In my case (although it shouldn't take anyone more than 15 minutes to discover my legal name), about the only way I expect anyone at Wikipedia to verify my death would be to track down a reliable Wikipedian who lives in Portland to either comb thru back issues of The Oregonian or call my home & talk to whoever answers the phone. (No, my wife doesn't have access to my email or Wikipedia account.) -- llywrch (talk) 18:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Anything

Why do we need to do anything? -Chunky Rice (talk) 17:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

If you're asking what prompted me to try this discussion: I noticed a recent non-agreement between 2 editors who were assisting in the necessities of a user's passing. Both good faith, both administrators, and both editors that I highly respect. It appears that we have very little to guide anyone in proper procedure when one of our members dies. I was hoping to generate some centralized discussion that people could look to for a general consensus on how things should be handled. If I'm not understanding the question, could you please elaborate? Thanks. — Ched :  ?  18:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

My question is why we need to take any special action at all when an editor dies? This poll makes the presupposition that some sort of action must be taken. Why can't we just leave the account alone and do nothing? That would be my preferred course of (non)action. Particularly given how difficult it will be to 100% verify that our information is accurate. -Chunky Rice (talk) 18:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Because people don't want that, as evidenced by the WP:DECEASED article. -->David Shankbone 18:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Why are we even having a discussion, then, if you already know what people want? I'm just giving my opinion. -Chunky Rice (talk) 18:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

People want to memorialize contributors; the discussion is over how to do so. -->David Shankbone 18:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

How does blocking and removal of rights have anything to do with memorializing? -Chunky Rice (talk) 18:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

That's only one topic on this page, and there's no harm in addressing that question in addition to the others. -->David Shankbone 19:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The discussion isn't that we have to do anything in the case of Wikipedian death, but instead to have policy/guidelines in place to cover such situations, should someone wish to do something afterward. After all, they aren't around to express the right to disappear or that their user pages should be protected. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Our little place here has in the past brusquely handled family members reaching out to try and notify friends here, in a hamhanded fashion that editors for the obituary section in the local newspaper would find appalling, largely due to uncertainty and debate. What a way to express our thanks to a departed editor; what a way to express how valued that departed editor's contributions were. Steveozone (talk) 02:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

New user page modeled after Living will

After resolving this new Policy, could we develop a new user page of options to specify how the user would like their affairs settled? I would like to be able to tell my executor to send a simple email to Wikipedia to request my death wishes to be implemented. jmcw (talk) 14:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

As an example, see User:Neurolysis's subpage death. jmcw (talk) 12:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Should this be flagged to everyone?

I think the only reason I saw this is that I recently put Village Pump on my Watchlist (I've been editing for a year, and only got around to inspecting the Village Pump last month). While this is a narrow and highly sensitive subject, any editor could suddenly become the very direct subject of any policies discussed, decided or deferred here, so perhaps this discussion should get at least as much general notice as the Date-Autoformatting RFC's, Copyright/left, and rearranging the higher corporate structure of WP have been given in the past.

I don't think, by the way, that this notice should be given in the form of a formal Request for Comment, let alone poll, but I think ordinary, even casual, editors might appreciate knowing what's being done now and what's being discussed, so that if so inclined they could offer their own thoughts, feelings, experiences or observations. —— Shakescene (talk) 20:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

This has been advertised, along with the other important discussions, through WP:CENT. Skomorokh 20:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps adding it to the watchlist notice?--Tznkai (talk) 20:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I think CENT is already too much; I doubt many editors care about this besides policy wonks and those engaged in the more social side of the project. Skomorokh 20:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the implication that this is a policy wonk sort of thing. I think it is one of the few things about the "social side" of Wikipedia that genuinely deserves a certain amount of seriousness and gravitas.--Tznkai (talk) 20:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Skomorokh - right now this issue is being handled by people who have dealt with the complexities of the issue. Opening it up further is going to be disruptive. The people who follow this issue are the ones who are most knowledgable about it, and sometimes inviting wider participation, especially on matters of sex, death and violence, can spin wildly out of control. -->David Shankbone 20:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

re: The CENT posting. The reason that I posted there was due to a recent discussion regarding an AfD change. The poll/discussion was in regards to extending the deadline for AfD closure from 5 days to 7 days, but several editors (admins as well) felt that the poll wasn't given a wide enough area of attention to garner true community consensus. When a thread was posted to AN, I assumed that those who are interested in community wide decisions, prefer to be informed about the discussions. CENT appeared to me to be a logical course of action. — Ched :  ?  21:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

[this may lag because of intervening edit conflicts]

I've been editing Wikipedia for a year, with several thousand edits and way too much discussion, and I've never seen WP:CENT. I may have seen reference to it once or twice, but even that's not a distinct image among the Wikipedia communities' two-dozen housekeeping and policy pages (MoS, AN/I, AfD, RfC's, Village Pump, Signpost, etc.) I doubt that one ordinary editor out of a hundred has seen it, or has more than the vaguest notion that it exists, let alone check it regularly or put it on a watchlist. But, since all editors are mortal, even the least-involved of us might be affected in sensitive ways by the results of this discussion.

As I said above, I don't want this to resemble the contentious, emotional free-for-all at the Date-Autoformatting RfC's (over something with far less inherent importance), but I'm not sure that it's sensitive to tell people after a traumatic passing that the matter's already been decided out of their sight two years ago by Far Wiser Heads. I think everyone should be told about this discussion now, but how to manage it responsibly while respecting Wikipedia's openness and equality is a very difficult question. —— Shakescene (talk) 21:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

In fairness, now that I flipped over to WP:CENT, I have seen it before, just didn't remember it. I need to put it on my Watchlist. —— Shakescene (talk) 21:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

One of the discussions publicized on Template:Cent is Wikipedia talk:Advertising discussions, which encompasses the topic of telling the Wikipedia community at large that a discussion on policy or a similar matter is taking place. Fg2 (talk) 11:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

How do we know they are deceased?

Many people are gonna die and you won't know it. For some you'll get hoax information about them dying. So how do we know they are deceased? How certain could we be? Seems like a can of worms to me. SunCreator (talk) 01:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• Hoaxes are especially thorny. A close friend's death was reported as an obituary in a reliable print magazine but thirty or forty years later he's still alive. The obituary was a hoax perpetrated by a rival. It gets harder to verify with people using pseudonyms, as different people on different online sites can share the same pseudonym. So I urge caution in verifying the facts. Fg2 (talk) 02:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
• I think we are focusing on this page, for now, on the less contentious issues surrouding people we know are dead (via obits, OTRS, whatever.) -->David Shankbone 02:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Some of these things are interlinked. Blocking the account from future editing maybe okay if someone is dead, but totally inappropriate if they are not. SunCreator (talk) 02:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
  • As I wrote, my friend's obituary was published in a reliable source (a printed magazine issued monthly by a major association of people in that field). We don't know someone is dead from an obituary. That's why I'm urging caution. Fg2 (talk) 03:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Taking fringe, rare incidents to influence general rules-of-thumb is the wrong way to go (I can't trust the news to tell me who became President because "Dewey Defeats Truman" was wrong). The nice thing about a wiki is that everything can be undone, so these "one time, one place, this strange thing happened" really isn't helpful in formulating guidelines. -->David Shankbone 03:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Actually, the planting and sometimes running of false obituaries is common enough that newspaper reporters have guidelines and procedures for obtaining information about people's deaths (ISBN 0805807640 pp. 93) and law textbooks have discussions of the possible legal liabilities of false obituaries (ISBN 9780766847613 pp. 163). Franz Liszt was reported dead at 17 by Le Corsaire, and Daniel Boone was reported dead by the Western Citizen in 1809. Jonathan Swift concocted and had published a false obituary to publicly embarrass John Partridge. Bob Hope's pre-written obituary was accidentally published by Associated Press in June 1998. Robert Brasillach wrote and published a fake obituary of André Gide in 1931.

        "One time, one place"? Think again! We have an entire list of premature obituaries. Uncle G (talk) 17:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

        • Understood, but two points: 1) bizarre occurrences that are out of the norm (out of the millions of celebrities throughout time who have died, that list is a small number) are not very useful for forming guidelines, which are meant to be flexible; 2) nothing is fool-proof and we can't ever, ever come up with ways to address every strange occurrence; and 3) celebrity deaths are one thing; Wikipedia editor deaths are another - it's a little apples vs. oranges. -->David Shankbone 17:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
          • As I said, you've probably not got the right idea of what actually is the norm here. And the "That only happens to celebrities, not us." argument fails on several grounds.

            I quote from the aforecited source: "Throughout the country there are those who delight in calling in fake obituaries — be it of their friends or enemies." The norm is in fact that this happens a lot. It happens to us regularly in article space, as Edison points out below. And both we, in article space, and newspapers (as the source goes on to explain) have come up with the same defence against it: only accept the information if there is a trustworthy source. In the case of newspapers, that is usually something like an established contact at a known funeral parlour, or a death notice with an accompanying death certificate. In the case of us, as Arcayne points out below, that is usually something like a known and reliable newspaper. This is the chain of trust that readers get to follow.

            As for the "That only happens to celebrities, not us." argument: that fails on multiple grounds. The first is quite a simple one: some Wikipedia editors are celebrities. I'm sure that you could name several. The second is that the motivation for false obituaries isn't because people are celebrities. Brasillach and Swift didn't publish false obituaries because Gide and Partridge were celebrities. They published them because they had a beef with them. Swift wanted to embarrass Partridge, and bring him down a peg or two. Brasillach was at the opposite end of the political spectrum to Gide (and pretty much on the opposite side of the Second World War). I'm sure that you can think of several erstwhile Wikipedia editors that people have beefs with, too. ☺ The third is that you've no reason to believe that this doesn't happen to celebrities and non-celebrities alike, and is simply underreported for the latter. One journalist who was an obituary writer for the Paterson News some decades ago has since stated that on slow news nights he'd put fake obituaries in the paper in the names of his friends. (Mark Singer (2002-07-08). "The Death Beat: What happens when a bunch of obituary writers get together". The New Yorker.) As observed in the quotation above, this happens to friends and enemies, celebrity and non-celebrity alike.

            Wikipedia isn't a small obscure project any more. It lives in the same world as the newspapers do, and is, in this case, subject to the same pressure from the maleficent. A newspaper wouldn't trust a death report from an otherwise unidentified telephone caller claiming to be "David Shankbone's sister". We cannot now afford to trust, for exactly the same reasons, someone about whom all we know is that they've registered the account User:David Shankbone's sister. We're in the same world, beset by the same problem, and it seems unlikely that we'll come up with a better defence against it than those who have suffered this problem for decades if not centuries have long since devised: only accept information from trustworthy sources. Uncle G (talk) 14:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

            • If I could just continue that analogy though Uncle G. Whilst a newspaper would not indeed act on a report from an anonymous caller claiming to be a relative of someone they might if they had additional evidence to add credence - say for example a call tracking method revealing the call was being made from the same house as the deceased. Wikipedia has this in Checkuser. Confirmation that the report regarding User:Jeffpw's passing was accurate was obtained from checkuser evidence. Now I know this may not apply all the time, but there are tools available that will help us establish the validity of certain claims and we should not ignore this fact. Pedro :  Chat  15:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
              • Who said anything about ignoring them? I explicitly said "someone about whom all we know is that they've registered the account". After CheckUser confirmation of a relation between two accounts, we obviously know more than just that. The point is that we use the same solution as people who already combat this problem do, and have done for a long time. They variously perform the legwork to check out things for themselves, demand death certificates, and exclude information that doesn't come from people with whom they have an established trust relationship. We either do all of the same things ourselves, or rely upon journalists who have done. Uncle G (talk) 21:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
• Wikipedia has some clever and persistent vandals, and it would be an obvious trick to try and incapacitate or inconvenience an editor or admin they dislike by faking their death, submitting a photoshopped obit clipping from a small town paper, or communication from an email that purports to be that of a family member. I recently heard from an elderly lady how hard it was for her to prove to burocrats at Social Security that she was still alive when they erroneously changed her status to deceased. She even showed them her passport, but they said the photo didn't look like her any more. I regularly see vandals add death dates to various bio articles. Edison (talk) 17:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, that's where the nifty citation thingie comes into play, Edison. Granted, some vandals could hijack the Washington Post and put an obit in place just to fuck with someone, but that kind of tomfoolery is going to backtrack to the source, and there will come to pass a great many arcronymic folk come knocking upon the hacker's door. I say we require the same sort of citationnecessary for any BLP, which should just about cover it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
• "Mistaken" deaths between CU and other checks should be easy enough to clear up, if they happen somehow. And, nothing for nothing, I'm sure many people would laugh for years at having their block log say, "The editor was merely resting." rootology (C)(T) 20:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
• I think AGF comes into play here, if there's fairly solid evidence that a user is deceased. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
  • The difficulty with that is that there's plenty of evidence that people report such things in bad faith, and that this is a widespread, endemic, and centuries-old, problem. See above for more. Uncle G (talk) 14:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
• Let each user specify a one or more email addresses that are authorized to send a death notice. jmcw (talk) 10:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Not enough. Anyone with a reasonable knowledge of SMTP can falsify names in headers. To use the analogous newspaper situation: You're suggesting that everyone nominate a contact name, and as long as a notice arrives at the newspaper's offices on a postcard with "From: Correct name" at the bottom, it be trusted. Clearly, that isn't enough. In the case of people who have been combatting this problem for years, such solutions have long since been rejected as unacceptable. Newspapers require death certificates for death notices, for example, and won't accept "X is dead because I've written a letter to you saying so, putting the correct name on the letter as the sender.". Uncle G (talk) 21:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
    • This is just a technical problem with known solutions (see SMTP AUTH). The social problem solutions should be defined by each user. jmcw (talk) 11:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

A message from deceased Wikipedian Jeffpw's mother

As some of you who have followed Jeffpw's memorial page know, I have become very close to his mother. I sent her a link to this page, and although she did not ask that I share this message, she said that if I felt the desire to do so, it was okay if I did. So here is a family member's view, which I think is important to the discussion:

Wikipedia was a very important part of Jeff's life. He believed in and supported its goals, and spent a great deal of time working to achieve those goals and make a contribution and he was proud when he received approval from fellow Wikipedians. So as he respected Wikipedia, it's appropriate for Wiki to respect him in return, IMO. And that's what having a memorial page does. He'd be proud of it. And from the point of view of Jeff's family, it's quite meaningful and comforting to have a place to go to where I can read the memories that people have of some of the things he did. And to read the tributes to him. I love the poems that people took the time to post and the pictures, and all of it.

I've just included this to inform the discussion from another (relevant) perspective. -->David Shankbone 02:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Death is, ultimately, for the living. There's a sense in the comments above that nothing but the encyclopedia matters, but I think most of us, if we thought about it a bit more, would admit at least to ourselves that there are bigger things in humanity, and that the important project of the creation and maintenance of these pages is, like all human endeavors, dependent upon the sense of connections to humanity that each of us needs and has with others. Steveozone (talk) 05:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Steve, that was very well said. Bravo. -->David Shankbone 16:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

David ... Thank you! Thank you so very much for sharing that message with us all. Steve - as David said, well done! As much as I've tried to stay objective and logical, I freely admit that these last couple posts have brought me to my emotional knees. It all reinforces my beliefs that there are good, kind, caring people with much in their heart behind this encyclopedic effort. — Ched :  ?  16:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

No, Ched - thank you for being a good host of this discussion and page, which had the potential of going badly. It hasn't. From my perspective, at the heart of this is how we all view each other on this site, and that's a philosophical issue behind a lot of discussions over various policies and guidelines that deal with editors. Are we automatons who are replaceable, regardless of what we do; or do we each, individually, matter in our own unique ways such that our disappearances fundamentally alter the project behind the scenes, and others' relationships to it. I've always steadfastly opposed the "Automaton" philosophy. What this discussion shows, to each of us, is: you matter. If you go, you will be missed. Although someone may fill your shoes, you are not replaceable and you will be remembered. We have to have humanity, whether it be with how we handle BLPs, or RIPs. -->David Shankbone 20:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Further to "How do we know they are deceased?"

Is there any point of discussing a guideline, or agreeing a procedure, on how we deal with the notification? My concern is that the notifier (who may not be familiar with WP/Internet) may need to be handled sensitively yet promptly; a reference page or even template may assist in dealing with emotional people - including the responding editor - at a difficult time. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Including advice to well meaning but socially incompetent people to hand it off to someone with more sensitivity.--Tznkai (talk) 21:38, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Suggest refactor Tznkai - will take to your talk. Pedro :  Chat  21:45, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I fall within that category too sometimes. In all seriousness, we tend to have serious problems with people responding to outside concerns with "Wikipedia isn't censored, so go away." or similar snappy lines. This is an issue where pussy footing around it is actually problematic - a large number of Wikipedians don't get it, and are too wrapped up in Wikipedia policy to understand how to talk to real people. This kind of proves my point in fact. What do you think is more important in this situation? Making sure the right people are handling family members properly, or chastising me for implying that there are well meaning but socially incompetent people?--Tznkai (talk) 22:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Here (Stolen from The Fat Man Who Never Came Back's ACE2008 page) is an example of the questionable sensitivity I'm talking about. I'm honestly not sure what else to call this but "social incompetence." Now sure, in that particular incident the IP was a twit and very likely not her brother, but that the response was a civility block has nothing to do with the incident at hand and everything to do with a problematic element in our culture. I want to avoid even a hint of this kind of response under any circumstances.--Tznkai (talk) 22:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

(mulit ec)If you continue to think that "socially incompetent" is a good use of words perhaps you need to consider where you sit within Wikipedia. As noted above, the discussion has gone rather well here, with positive input and thoughtful debate. You, Tznkai, have now turned up by kicking sand and insulting people with the broad generalisation of "social competence" that you seem to assume is evidenced by the ability to communicate on the en.wikipedia website. I suggest, politely, that if you cannot add value or cannot hold yourself to the standards we have seen in this discussion you refrain from commenting further here. Pedro :  Chat  22:16, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec) @Tznkai, The verification issues are not addressed within this particular proposal. Perhaps it would be better to discuss the matter as an individual RfC or talk page. The items listed on this proposal, conclude that the verification end of things has already been resolved, and addresses the proper procedures to follow at that juncture. Can we please stay focused on the items at hand, and not drift into various "what-if" scenarios? Thank you. — Ched :  ?  22:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be beter if Tznkai did not insult people by insinuating incompetence and attempting to destroy what had been one of the few discussions on Wikipedia that were calm and thoughful. Pedro :  Chat  22:27, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

(e/c)Proper notification and verification was mentioned by myself and many other respondents as a critical aspect any procedure. I think we do a great disservice if we don't approach the subject. How many times was "in accordance to the wishes of family" mentioned? That is an aspect that we must get right.--Tznkai (talk) 22:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Precisely who am I insulting? I doubt anyone on Wikipedia thinks there aren't others on Wikipedia who are socially incompetent? Is that to strong? How about awkward? Or how about, "wrapped up so badly within Wikipedia norms they have a hard time talking to outsiders?" Our policies and norms do not, and are not meant to prevent me, or others from having a frank discussion. The only person here could reasonably be offended, at least from where I sit, is LessHeard vanU if he somehow thought I was talking to him.

I am not throwing around the term "socially incompetent" arbitrarily. Dealing with the family of someone who has died takes real sensitivity, social competence, and compassion. Companies and organizations world wide have actual training seminars for things like this, because with the exception of compassion, it isn't something that comes naturally. I do not intend to insult anyone, and I doubt I've destroyed anything, and I most certainly have been thinking quite a bit over this. I let your comment immediately above provoke this response, but I won't let another one continue to derail us here. I am going to say this however - our normal hand-wringing over slights, perceived and real has not place when dealing with the family of deceased Wikipedians.--Tznkai (talk) 01:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

If it is acceptable to the community, could we possibly move this discussion to: Wikipedia talk:Deceased Wikipedians/verification? — Ched :  ?  22:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I have posted there.--Tznkai (talk) 01:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

likewise — Ched :  ?  09:29, 26 April 2009 (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.