Talk:Rob Levin

Criminal Record/Controversy

Added information concerning his criminal record, as well a cited source.

General Info

How old was he? -Anonymous 21:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

His birthday was:

<wood_europe> 12-16-1955 is Rob's birthday

according to http://lists.grok.org.uk/pipermail/full-disclosure/2006-June/047380.html

And just to preserve this, before he pings out or something:

[opn] lilo!i=levin@freenode/staff/pdpc.levin (Rob Levin)
[opn]  channels : #postgresql
[opn]  server   : irc.freenode.net - http://freenode.net/
[opn]  away     : Whoops, I've stepped away. For URGENT freenode help (channel flooding, trolling users, network problems or access issues), please email my pager at
                  4iiygyvs@freenode.net . It's my job and I'm happy to respond. For ROUTINE issues, please see http://freenode.net/faq.shtml#gettinghelp ....  Please
                  take a look at my personal blog when you get a chance: http://spinhome.org .... Thanks!
[opn]           : is identified to services
[opn]  idle     : 1 days 2 hours 43 mins 2 secs signon: Thu Sep  7 14:14:39 2006

You can only see #postgresql as you are in the same channel with him. His main client had the umode i, meaning all channels you do not share with him are hidden. -- RichiH 07:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[opn] somegeek!i=levin@tor/regular/somegeek (Rob Levin, http://spinhome.org/)
[opn]  channels : #xorg ##xen #worldwind #wordpress #winehq ##windows #WindowMaker #wikipedia #web #vorbis #ubuntu #tor #tapthru #svn #suwcharman #suse #spinhome #space
                  #somegeek ##slackware #scheme #samba #s9y #rubyonrails #ruby-lang #redhat #python #ppc64 #postgresql ##politics ##php #perl #netfilter #mysql #mozilla
                  #mklinux #mepis #lisp #linux-kernel #linuxhelp ##linux #linpeople #lad #kde-devel #kde #joiito #irssi #iptables #icecap
[opn]  channels : #Hyperion #hwug #httpcraft #hlug #handhelds.org #gstreamer ##grsecurity #gnu #git #gentoo-hardened #gentoo #gcc #gaim #freevo #freenode-wallops
                  #freenode-testing +#freenode-social #freenode-dev #freematrix #freedesktop ##freebsd #foaf #flood #fedora-devel #fedora #esp ##electronics ##earth
                  #debian #CSS #commits #cia #callahans ##c++ ##c +#blender ##australia #asterisk #apache
[opn]  server   : irc.freenode.net - http://freenode.net/
[opn]           : is identified to services
[opn]  idle     : 2 days 4 hours 24 mins 39 secs signon: Thu Sep 14 18:16:12 2006

(Excuse the poor markup...) 217.22.89.209 22:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC) Kate

<+christel> Debs requests has been that people who knew Rob could donate to PDPC in his memory, or those wishing to make a more general contribution could give something to a bicycle safety campaign in their area.

217.22.89.209 22:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Pictures

If you find any good pictures of lilo, add them here.

http://www.arctic.org/~trockij/als/l/als0041.jpg.html

Condolences

Please insert your condolences here

Note: The condolences website is up, so I would suggest using http://lilo.freenode.net instead dougk (Talk ˑ Contribs) 20:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a memorial. --Tim1988 ^talk 22:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• The Guy was great. RIP
• RIP Lilo --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 21:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Shine on you crazy diamond, your diligence and devotion to the Free Software movement will be an example for many. Project2501a 22:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• A truly sad day for the IRC community. :( --Filip (§) 22:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Today's been a total disaster :-( Ultramancool 01:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Thanks for all. Jfingers88 01:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC) P.S. There's also a memorial starting on User:Linuxbeak/Lilo, to be sent to freenode.

Just a note: the freenode news page has an e-mail you can send condolences to, Wikipedia is not for such things. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 02:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• Freenode just won't be the same without you, Rob, but we will carry out your mission as best we can. Rest in peace, my friend. -- beu 13:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Rest in peace, Lilo. --Nkcs 18:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
• I only had the chance to talk to you one time, which was more like an accidential /msg - and even though you probably got tons of random requests, you still had the time to answer me politely. May you rest in peace. Pacroon 19:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• Although me and lilo often disagreed with eachother, I must say, I do miss him. RIP Lilo. --PEAR 10:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Bad link on death

http://www.khou.com/news/local/crime/stories/khou060911_ac_bikeauto.8af6ff6f.html is not Rob Levin.

[15:47:55] <Jed_S> Can you crush the http://www.khou.com/news/local/crime/stories/khou060911_ac_bikeauto.8af6ff6f.html rumor in #freenode-announce?
[15:48:12] <Jed_S> That's not Rob, it's a day too early, obviously.
[15:48:33] <christel> thank you
[15:48:37] <Jed_S> No, thank you.

Christel on Freenode confirms that this link is not Rob Levin. Stop adding it to places. It's a day early (READ the datestamp). --JStalk 23:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Redirect to Peer-Directed Projects Center

Since the biographical version of this page was already deleted here, and I don't see how the subject's death (with all due respect) increases his notability, I have restored this page back into its redirect form to the PDPC article. --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 02:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I feel that an new AFD is needed for this. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying we should (re-)delete the article, just that it should stay as a redirect to the PDPC article. Really, aside from the subject's passing away, has anything changed since the original AfD that would affect his notability? --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 06:01, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I was surprised to see that this redirect had turned into an article. There's nothing in this article that isn't already in the Peer-Directed Projects Center article, it only duplicates information; and dying is the last thing that would increase somebody's notability. I think the redirect should be restored. _{J Di}^talk 12:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

And this has to be done now? Give it a rest. He died yesterday. People are linking to this article. They want to see the person in the title, not some organisation. --Stesch 14:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Why not now? The stub article was re-created upon his death (here), which is the only reason it's even come up as an issue. I say that to clarify that this isn't a bunch of folk suddenly wanting to remove an article now that the subject has passed away; it's folk wanting to keep the page as a redirect, despite the subject having passed away. And as much as he might be missed by those who knew and respected him, his article doesn't do anything to assert notability, or even to provide much information for those linking to this article. It reads like a very short obituary, and I really don't think that's doing Mr. Levin or Wikipedia any justice. I think the PDPC article could have everything on both the organization and its founder; but if we have to wait on restoring the redirect until this is a less sensitive issue for some people, then I guess, so be it. --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 17:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

A lot of peoples' names link to articles about something related to them instead of an article about them. Nothing should make this person any different because he recently died. I'm not totally heartless, and I can understand that many people respected and liked this guy, but on Wikipedia, this person's article is no different to any other; and while it is on Wikipedia, it should be treated as an article on Wikipedia, where all notability guidelines and the neutral point of view policy should apply. _{J Di}^talk 18:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with restoring the redirect to Peer-Directed Projects Center. The article is a stub, and almost all the information is on the PDPC article anyway. The only things I don't see in the PDPC article regard Rob's personal background with computers, although none of this is cited (the only thing cited are articles pretaining to his death). Ideally, I would suggest citing the information somehow and perhaps merging it with the Peer-Directed Projects Center article to reduce redundancy and a stub article, where there may not be a whole lot of additional information available. Dougk 01:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• oppose it is fine to be a short stub. it looks like it is intended to be kept, as per the delete, we should infer that to mean kept as is. thus making this whole rude discussion sort of needless. beyond that, because it is a stub today, does not mean it will be in the future. let it rest for a few years and see if the irc content of wikipedia is expanded. we need a policy put in place that makes people wait a month before discussing this sort of thing after a death.--Buridan 10:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• I don't think having a frank discussion about the topic is rude or insensitive; Levin's passing is unfortunate, tragic even, and it seems that everyone who voiced their opinion either way has been sensitive to that fact. No-one here is claiming that Levin was a weiner, and thus doesn't deserve a Wikipedia article. We're just trying to figure out what makes the most sense: having a redirect with everything in the PDPC article, or keeping Levin's biography as a stub. And as you mention, the masses have spoken in the recent AfD, so we're keeping the bio as is. Hopefully it will indeed be expanded soon.

  I'd also like to dissuade people, as gently as possible, of thinking of this article as some sort of memorial that Levin earned through his service to Freenode, the PDPC, or the OS community in general. The memorial should be in memories and the respect he garnered from others; in the context of life and death, a Wikipedia article is utterly insignificant, and this whole activity of the AfD and this discussion is just after-hours clerical work. It isn't a reflection of what kind of person Levin was. Cheers. --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 16:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I think.... it is insensitive but perhaps rude is the wrong word, i should have used gauche. I think, as i mentioned in the afd, that it is precisely because you and others brought up deletion and redirect so soon, that you cannot avoid memorialization. It could have been clerical work, but now it cannot help but take on other meanings. A 30 day wait policy would resolve this for the future. this is something that should be tossed up to the policy level for discussion, as while rob and his friends were nice people, it is easy to see how this could blow up in the future and a delay policy will help alleviate that as a possibility. --Buridan 17:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I suppose you're right in that it does polarize the issue when such a discussion takes place so soon after someone's death. I'm not sure that more policy (30 day wait or otherwise) is what is needed, but then, that's a discussion better left to the policy level, as you said. Cheers. --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 18:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I will strongly oppose said policy. This page was only recreated because he died; that's why I AfDed the article now. Yes, now. This article was successfully deleted in January. Nothing has changed. I will AfD it again when he has been forgotten about again.

I am incensed that User:Buridan is calling my actions 'gauche', 'rude', and 'passé' simply for trying to keep Wikipedia to a standard. He did so on the AfD, as well, which probably polarized several voters in his direction. Mr. Levin's death did nothing to improve his notability. (Read that guideline before suggesting another.) Such a "30 days after death until we can delete" policy would let everyone come along and put up a page on Wikipedia because their favorite X died, and they feel X deserves an article. Then, guess what? We couldn't speedy it, prod it, or AfD it for a month under your "policy".

I'm not attempting to be passé or rude to Mr. Levin. I run a mid-size IRC network of my own, and I knew him. I've talked to him many times, and for a brief period considered linking my network to freenode. (I did not share his sentiment on GNU, so it never completed.) I'm simply being objective. Yes, there's a popular image of him being a champion for open-source -- which he most certainly was not -- but ask anyone on the street who he is that doesn't IRC and they won't have a clue. I'm sorry, he's not notable. Emotion cannot be brought into an encyclopedia to determine the notability of a subject.

Your suggested "policy" is utterly ridiculous, particularly when the catalyst for this article's recreation and the resultant AfD (which disappointingly failed, I knew it would, given human behavior in the face of the death of someone they didn't even know) was Mr. Levin's tragic death. It's all tragic, we agree. I felt bad, and sent my donation. But this isn't the time to make rash policies and alter Wikipedia merely because you think we need to be caring and compassionate. This is still an encyclopedia.

Tell me, Buridan, what changed from January about Mr. Levin? What did he do between January and now that increased his notability -- other than die? He ran Freenode in January. He still got deleted. --JStalk 21:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Sweet, I am happy that you are angry. You should be, but not at me, but at yourself for what is in my opinion being disrespectful to the family and friends of colleague and user of wikipedia. Notability was established for the bio, I am sorry that you think otherwise. He is notable because he takes a place in the history of IRC and IRC networks. It does not have to be relevant to the history of the man on the street. There was no difference in this articles notability to the past either. My position is that the past was a mistake that has been rectified. I suspect the other afd did not gain the attention to reject it outright like this one did in snowball. If people had known, I suspect the same result would have occured then. I did not know that happened and we have frequently seen things deleted in the past that have been added back later. In this case, i think the precedent, that you are citing is now irrelevent. It was a mistake to delete it before, and the mistake has been rectified. The policy that I put forth as a suggestion is to protect sensibilities of the friends of families of an entrant. In that regard, I don't think you should speedy it, prod it, or afd it for a month if the person died and there is proof. They can have their memorial for a month before you start deleting things without caring about emotions or feelings. I will say that the apparent 'not caring' is in fact, one of the problems. In short, I think you are barking up the wrong tree with me. --Buridan 22:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a memorial (wow, that's on WP:NOT, was just making that up there). You haven't answered JS's question about what has changed since January and now. Having a second look at WP:NOT just now, I found this text:

---

Memorials. Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must have a claim to fame besides being fondly remembered.

---

Unless you are able to tell us why he is notable, and provide a source, without using what's already in the article, I'm in agreement with everybody else that thinks this article should be a redirect. I can't speak for other people, but if that one thing is done, I'll be happy. _{J Di}^talk 22:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

---

For me, this is not a memorial. Keep in mind that almost all of the people in AFD said keep, and very few said redirect. The notability that I stand by is that he is clearly now a historical figure in the history of IRC and IRC networks. He made significant contributions to both the technical and the social and cultural management of networks. The outcomes of his work is widely known and used by a large community. The dismissal of that before, as Kevinmarks noted, by Lilo was self-effacing. Now after death, the significance is clear.--Buridan 22:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC) This is not a memorial, it is a short biography, which will hopefully be expanded over time to be more encyclopedic. With Rob's death, the distinction between him and PDPC becomes more significant not less, as perforce someone else will head PDPC now. He was, as discussed here and in the AfD, notable within the IRC and social software field, especially for maintaining an environment for civli discourse that continues to support many Open Source projects. What has changed since the earlier, premature deletion is that more people have taken notice of Wikipedia's articel on him, and voted accordingly. They voted a snowball keep, with a small minority of votes for merge. JS et al seem to want to dissolve the electorate and pick a new one Kevin Marks 23:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) AfD is not a vote, and I dislike the early closure of many AfDs based on the number of votes rather than what is said. This AfD was closed early because the keeps outnumbered the deletes, and to use the fact that an article was kept because of a snowball keep as reason to say this article should be here just sends all the wrong signals - that the popularity of the subject is above all Wikipedia guidelines. The question remains unanswered; what has changed since January that means this man deserves an article? Why is a redirect so bad? More attention doesn't necessarily mean the subject is notable. Let's look at this article properly and see how much of it is actually notable.

• Rob Levin (a.k.a. lilo) was the founder of the freenode IRC network and Executive Director of the PDPC charity that helped fund freenode.

Again, why is a redirect so bad?

• A computer programmer since 1968, he worked as an administrator and an applications programmer from 1978 onwards.

This is the sort of thing that gets articles deleted, if on its own...

• From 1994 onwards, he worked to encourage the use of Internet Relay Chat for Free and Open Source projects.

I'm sure heaps of people do this, what makes him special?

• He died September 16, 2006 after being struck by a car in Houston, Texas on September 12, 2006 in a hit-and-run accident. He was riding a bicycle at the time.

Heaps of people get hit by cars when they are on bikes; again, what makes him special?

• Levin is survived by his wife Debbie and son Benjamin.

Not interesting, but I'll admit it is relevant to the article.

• Rob often recommended to the users of the networks he built a book called The Tao of Pooh.

Wha..?

• He taught the operators of the network that they should learn to deal with difficult situations and the people who create them with understanding and comfort rather than aggression and control.

Unsourced padding, methinks.

So again, what has changed since January, and why is a redirect so bad? _{J Di}^talk 23:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

isn't the argument supposed to be on your side saying why the redirect is necessary? It is clear to me that the person is not the organization, I do not know why you wish to equate the two. it is not like Bill Gates forwards to microsoft or Bill Gates senior forwards to the Bill Gates foundation, is it? Two differen things, two different pages. January is outside of the scope of this argument. The argument is 'is he notable?' the answer is, 'yes'. Should it be redirected? I've not seen any positive argument beyond 'that is the way it was before death', keeping in mind, that biography standard after death is not the same as before. --Buridan 23:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

"'that is the way it was before death'" is the argument - nothing has been put forward to suggest that this guy is more notable after death than he was before. Bill Gates doesn't redirect to Microsoft or Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation because he is notable. As it stands, Rob Levin is apparently notable for only one thing, and because of that, there is no point in having a separate article with duplicated information. If this guy is so deserving of an article, why have you yet to tell us all something he is notable for that isn't already in the article? _{J Di}^talk 23:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

and i argued above that he is a. notable and b. that the prior deletion and redirect was in error given the recent events. --Buridan 23:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Saying that somebody is notable is not enough for them to have an article. Reasons for this notability need to be given, and it needs to be sourced. Please do this. I would also like to know how the deletion of an article after consensus can be a mistake. Recent events hadn't happened when the article was first deleted. Seriously, you need to say why he is notable, and by that I mean tell me something significant that he has done, other than what is already stated in the article. _{J Di}^talk 00:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

oh deletion after consensus can be a mistake, if the consensus was not gained from interested parties. I said why he is notable. If there was a print encyclopedia of internet systems of substantial size, he would be in it. please read the above discussion before saying the reason was not provided, and if the reasons above are not evidence enough, then think that we have a ton of likely deleting and forwarding to do. as a historical figure in the history of irc networks, he qualifies. if you don't think that qualifies, then you have to tell me at what point someone who has made history does not qualify to be in an encyclopedia, because right now, i'm trying to see why you are rejecting it, and all i'm getting is 'we rejected it before', to which the response is 'so, it is clear after this afd, that before must have been a mistake. if before is not a mistake, then you need to account for the difference, and as you said, the explanatory power cannot be found in relation to death. so why again do you think he is not significant ?--Buridan 01:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, interested parties are the last people that should vote on some AfDs, as a lot of the time their opinions are biased and it is sometimes difficult for a person's personal feelings not to influence something that should remain neutral.

---

"He made significant contributions to both the technical and the social and cultural management of networks. The outcomes of his work is widely known and used by a large community. The dismissal of that before, as Kevinmarks noted, by Lilo was self-effacing. Now after death, the significance is clear."

---

This piece of text, something you said, does not assert notability. It doesn't speak of specific events that make him notable, or of what "the outcomes of his work" are. I'm "rejecting it", as you say, because you haven't spoken of any of these things in detail. You say he would have an entry in a printed encyclopaedia of Internet systems, but how can you be sure of this? Are you saying this because your own personal feelings and opinion of this man are so high that you think he should get an entry? Or are you looking at it from a neutral point of view and deciding that he is notable enough? If it is the latter, then you need to tell us what's inside your head; what's come out of it so far hasn't convinced me that this guy should have an article. _{J Di}^talk 01:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

no those were adjunct statements, the notability is that he founded the network, that is a historical fact, the network has 30k+ users, that is more than many standards of notability accept as minimal. as for your assertion of personal feelings, I actually don't have any in this, I knew and argued with the gentleman. if you think i'm not being neutral, wait a few months and come back and read what you are writing... it very much reads like there is an agenda to erase him from the notariety that he has because you refuse to recognize it. is he notable enough, yes. end of story. you don't have to be convinced, we just need consensus, and since we are not getting it through discussion, we should just poll for a vote. the vote comes down to either founding and managing an irc network for several years is a notable act or not. my claim is that it is and that it a historical fact that will be documented in the future, so we should as well document it today. I however, have not seen any reasons on your side other than 'we did it before'. all you have done so far is provide a null position, put forth a positive argument to say why he is not notable, why what he did is not significant, or i think we should drop this discussion, because if there isn't a rejoinder to the merit of the historical fact, then it has to stand. --Buridan 01:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I've not once said that I think this page should be a redirect because "we did it before"; I have better reasons than that. I don't think a straw poll is suitable for this situation, I think something like this needs discussion. I think you do need to convince me if you want to acheive consensus, as any conesnsus that is acheived would probably involve me. You'd also need to convince everybody else that thinks this article should be redirected, for the same reason. Okay, Rob Levin founded an IRC network. What makes the fact that he founded this network notable? What makes more than 30,000 users a notable amount of users? You need a better reason than the fact that this guy founded an IRC network, as that alone wouldn't make me think somebody is worthy of their own article. _{J Di}^talk 02:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

actually, i don't need a better reason. my reasons are satisfied. all you say is that you disagree, you provide no argument against mine other than you disagree. i respect your disagreement, but without any backing, I don't see its merit. I don't have to convince you any more than you have to convince me. we can straw poll it if we need to, and i'm perfectly willing to see where the chips fall on whether 'founding an irc network is notable'. I don't think there is much of an everyone here actually, there seems to be the same old, same olds gentlemen and ladies, but I'm pretty sure that your interest in the matter is in the best interest of wikipedia standards, so tell me why this does not meet the standards. if you can't say why, then i think the argument has to be over, because without reason on your part, then all I am doing is arguing against opinion.--Buridan 02:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The article doesn't say what makes this guy notable enough to have an article. The fact that something that somebody founded has its own article is not reason enough to have an article about the founder; they still need to be notable in their own right. I've already said that other peoples' names redirect to articles about something they have founded instead of an article about them, and I don't see why there should be a problem with doing that in this case. If this article can be expanded properly, and I mean properly, not just some random padding, I'm sure a lot less people would have a problem with it; but as it is now, the article speaks of one thing, and the rest of it is definitely, with no arguments, non-notable. Let me pick a (bad) example. Big Brother is a television game show, and each series of it has its own article (see Big Brother (Australia series 6) for one). Each contestant gets their own section in the season's article, but an article about a single contestant isn't made unless that former contestant has done something outside of the television show that makes them notable enough. If that doesn't help you understand where I'm coming from, I don't know how else to explain it to you. _{J Di}^talk 03:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

that still does not make him non-notable, what you have instead is eatablished a category of 'notable enough' which seems arbitrarily defined. i said he was notable for what he had done in the world, which puts him on par or past the standards of many other articles in wikipedia, such as internet trolls and such, and you respond with 'not good enough for you'. I think you fail to make the argument that he is not notable. he meets: "The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field." if you don't agree, show me how what he did, is not a part of the historical record of irc, and is not widely recognized by those that know the field. --Buridan 12:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Being the founder of something that has a Wikipedia article doesn't automatically make a person notable enough for their own article. Several people have repeatedly asked what has changed since January, except for his death, which is when people that voted on the AfD decided that this person wasn't notable enough for his own article; and instead of answering this, you've told me that "January is outside of the scope of this argument". What has changed since January is quite important, as it makes all the difference in whether or not his notability has changed. As you haven't told anybody what has changed since January, I can only assume that nothing has, and that this man accomplished as much when he died as he did at the beginning of the year, which according to the article I think is very little. Whether or not somebody deserves an article isn't based on popularity in a small group of Internet users. There is very little encyclopaedic information in this article, and I think that would be better placed in other articles. Tell me how founding an IRC network is "a widely recognised contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field", and show me articles of other people that are as notable as this guy. _{J Di}^talk 13:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I should be angry with myself, you're right, Buridan. I should be angry with myself for attempting to keep Wikipedia objective, fair, and adherent to policy in the face of ungrounded personal attacks from you and countless others. I am not disrespecting the family of Mr. Levin at all (and I have said that). There's a difference between being objective and being disrespectful. So Robert Levin died, article mysteriously gets recreated in the face of a prior AfD and stays because of posthumous sentiment. Here's the arguments I'm seeing so far for keeping this article:

1. Robert Levin is more notable now than he was in January, when he was deleted by consensus. (There is no sourcing or factual proof of this in the article, just editors -- namely Buridan -- saying it on the talk page and the second AfD.)
2. The editors disagreeing with the unfounded assertions of Robert Levin's notability are disrespecting his family in a rude and offensive manner, and policy should be put in place to hinder them from objectively discussing a person's notability for a period after the person's death. (Unfounded, and uncivil. WP:NOT battleground.)
3. The editor that submitted a fair, maybe hasty, AfD on this article is being disrespectful to his fellow Wikipedia editors and should be reprimanded with new policy. (Just how disrespectful am I for being objective? Also uncivil.)
4. The previous AfD on this article is irrelevant, and discussion on Robert Levin's notability is needless. (Discussion on Mr. Levin's notability is very appropriate at this time. The article was recreated simply because he died.)
5. Prior deletion and the presence of a redirect on this page since January were mistakes, because Robert Levin died this month. (As asked by another editor, how could a future death make a consensus delete a mistake at the time?)
6. If there existed a print encyclopedia of Internet systems of substantial size, Robert Levin would be in it. (This is not a print encyclopedia of Internet systems of substantial size.)
7. The AfD was a "snowball" keep, because 98% of the "votes" were keep in two days of "voting". (In actuality, 83.3%, 25 out of 30, "votes" were keep. Many were weak. 5 out of 30 votes -- 16.66% -- and a couple of comments established an argument for deleting or redirecting, and the AfD was closed early without clear consensus by User:Tawker.)

Did I sum those up correctly? Nothing about Rob Levin's life, save his breath, has changed since January. He ran Freenode then. Freenode hasn't changed much in popularity since January, it's somewhat hovering and took a big drop this year before rising again. I'd search Koders to find his contributions to programming, but it's down. From personal experience when researching the article, though, I've only seen Rob's contributions on things like IRC daemons (Ctrl+F for Rob Levin) and nothing notable in the way of open-source.

And guess what? We're being cited and we don't even know if he's dead. (See comment below. I also find User:Stesch's comment amusing.) WP:V comes strongly into play on this article, and we're twiddling our thumbs debating his notability. Consensus has proven he fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines, as 'irrelevant' as people feel a Wikipedia consensus is.

For all we know, this could be a huge rumor put out by an angry Freenode operator! Show me a verifiable news story from a reputable source; after all, we're being cited on it! If Rob comes back from vacation and sees that this was a net rumor, and then sees that we bought it, what do you think that'll do for our credibility? We need to delete this now or remove the shaky information.

I've cited my side of the argument. Do us a favor and do the same? --JStalk 23:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

If you are upset about something, perhaps you should deal with it instead of taking it out on us. My arguments have been made, if you want to do a straw poll we can. I suspect that the straw poll will say that founding an irc network is sufficient notability given the population involved. as for the rest of the huffing and puffing, i suggest you leave it be. consensus on afp was that it should be a keep, plain and simple. if that is insufficient, we can do a straw poll here and it will probably be a keep as notable, plain and simple. this is not something to fight over, he is notable, you all know that he is more notable than some and less notable than others, the question then becomes where you are arbitrarily drawing that line. You make claims based on prior consensus. Let me be the first to say, consensus changes, wikipedia articles do get added back, and some things that we don't like happen. we should give it a rest and either do a poll or forget about it. --Buridan 00:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

This isn't something we don't like that's happening, this is something you don't like that is happening. Again, you have failed to provide sources or anything to suggest that the guy is more notable than he was in January, and you're using the fact that an AfD was closed early because the closer treated it as a vote rather than a discussion. Trying to sort this out with a straw poll is ridiculous, as it's pretty obvious that there will be heaps of opposes from people that think this guy is worthy of an article just because he died. At the end of the day Wikipedia is based on verifiability, not facts (did I get that right?). What we have verified is that you haven't told us what has changed since January, that your notability standards are way different to Wikipedia's, and that you're willing to throw anything at us to try and keep this article here. Let me tell you now, the result of the straw poll is not going to affect what happens to this article, as it is using a straw poll in the worst possible way. This doesn't need a vote, it needs assertion of notability; that means providing sources to back up your claims of how notable this man is. A straw poll isn't going to achieve that, and if nobody else can, this page will get turned into a redirect whether the straw poll wants it to be or not. _{J Di}^talk 08:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)]

ok, let me get this right. the standard is one thing, which is equivalent to what i've posted, but you disagree and are going to do whatever you want anyway? if the standard is historical contribution/fact supported and recognized by a large community. the article meets that. the subject is notable, not notable in different ways from the prior consensus, but then he was notable then too, but we dealt with why that likely happened in the afd discussion. that's the end of the story. there are a few people supporting a redirect, they can do that, the current evidence that we have does not support that action. wikipedia is not consensus run only when you approve of the consensus. let's be clear, there does not seem to be a consensus anymore to support redirection or deletion. --Buridan 10:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm not going to do what I want. You're right about Wikipedia being consensus-run (for the most part), and consensus is what got the notability guidelines that we have today. You haven't provided anything to support your claims that this man is notable - the number of people that support keeping this article cannot be used to support this. You need reputable sources to back up your claims, and so far you haven't done this. If he is so notable, finding sources shouldn't be that difficult, and I'd have expected that to have been done by now. The fact that no sources have been supplied is another thing that makes me think that this man is not notable enough for an article. Find reputable sources to back up your claims, and there'll be less of a problem. _{J Di}^talk 11:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

what sort of evidence do you need about facts and population? the facts are clear, the population is clear. the notability guidelines are clear that historical contribution supported by a population is both necessary and sufficient to objectively establish notability. google has 348,000 hits for 'rob levin' and freenode, and 92 hits for 'rob levin' founding freenode. technorati has 1500+ blog posts. i mean... come on now.. he's notable. --Buridan 11:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Since this conversation thread is essentially taking over the whole talk page with zero progress apparently being made, might I suggest the temporary compromise that we instead focus on expanding the article from its current form into something more useful? If this is still a stub in another two weeks or month, then the issue of redirecting can be brought up here again, and the possibility of another AfD can even be discussed if it's deemed necessary. But for now, the community consensus has spoken through the latest AfD, and so we should respect that community consensus whether we agree with it or not. Let's give this some time, put our heads down and try to expand this article a bit, and once the "immediacy" of Levin's death has passed then maybe some more fruitful discussion can be had. Cheers. --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 12:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

How are we expected to expand the article when nothing has been provided to assert notability? Nobody here wants a number of Google hits; we, or at least I, want pages that speak of this historical contribution which in all reality is nothing more than an IRC network. I've already said, and I'll say again, if just one source is given to back up this claim of notability, I'll be satisfied. The last AfD was closed early, and it has already been pointed out that there were 83.3% of keeps instead of the stated 98%. Seriously, one independent reliable source that speaks of his notability, and another that speaks of his contributions as historical, it's all I'm asking. _{J Di}^talk 14:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Peruvianllama. People need time to critically evaluate their standpoints and their actions. --Buridan 14:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreeing with somebody else doesn't change the fact that you still haven't given us sources for the things I've you've mentioned above. _{J Di}^talk 14:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

and now you are just making things up, the sources for what i've said are readily available in the article itself, no one disputes them, they are covered on more sites than are cited. if you want to dispute facts, bring your own citations, don't just say 'these don't count', find a reason why they do not count, find a reason why your opinion is correct even though it contravenes the current opinions. so far, all you've done is sit here and demand me to provide what is readily available. if you don't agree, provide reasons, provide an argument. My argument is simple, mr. levin founded an irc network, the irc network is widely used and recognized, that passes the standard of notability for an article. you've not impugned that position at all, and you continue to fail to undermine that position unless you can provide any evidence whatsoever to doubt that. your only argument is that 'it does not meet the standards for notability', which as i've said and argued is clearly wrong, given the description of the standard. I am pausing my end of this discussion until you provide any contravening evidence or any evidence that supports your position of non-notability. my positive argument has been put forth. --Buridan 15:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Um, I think this section is where the dispute about the sources is, and the only references in the article all speak about the same thing and are all used in the same place. The whole point about something not being notable is that there are no sources to back it up - why would you need sources to prove that something isn't notable? At the same time, you need sources to prove that something is, and you still haven't done that. The only other links in the article are Rob Levin's blogs, and they definitely don't help with the whole questionable notability thing. Even if he does pass a notability standard, that doesn't change the fact that sources are needed anyway, so if you won't provide sources to satisfy me and any other people that may be waiting for them, at least add some to the article to help what's there. Provide a source to prove that freenode is a widely used and recognised IRC network, and another to show that this actually means something. Telling me that Rob Levin is notable isn't enough to make me believe that he is. _{J Di}^talk 16:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm being a bit facetious here, but see freenode for how/why it's a widely used and recognized network. :) Again, the consensus has been to keep this article as a non-redirect. If things change, then the issue can be brought up again in the future, but for the time being there's no sense beating a dead horse. The opinions on this talk page, the result of the AfD, and to some extent Jimbo's comment below - these things together should be more than enough to convince us that the community wants this article to stay. Cheers. --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 19:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

That article doesn't even have a source for the figures, and I still don't think that this guy is notable enough for his own article. _{J Di}^talk 19:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Redirect Poll

This poll is to decide whether or not this page about the founder of the freenode network should be forwarded to the nonprofit url. 'oppose=against the redirect.

• Oppose Founding an irc network of significant population passes the notability test. --Buridan 00:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support not notable enough. VegaDark 01:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support, I don't know why I'm doing this, but I may as well if it's here... My reasons are pretty much summed up in the three quarters of page that is conversation up there ^. _{J Di}^talk 14:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• oppose - And I have to say: ARE YOU KIDDING??? Please give it a rest! What's all the fuss about? Wait until everybody has forgotten who Rob Levin is and then make whatever you want. That's really ridiculous. --Stesch 17:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment. So if it's not notable then, why wait? --Neurophyre^(talk) 08:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment. because notability depends on context, and it is pretty clear that this article is notable now, read Jimbo's post below.--Buridan 11:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• oppose --Filip (§) 20:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. --Neurophyre^(talk) 08:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• oppose Everybody who is anybody knows who lilo is. Consequently, the rest of the population needs this article so that they, too, can find out who lilo is. The fact that his is is now a was is not significant. The fact that an earlier CfD succeeded is meaningless. I don't support the earlier CfD and frankly there are WAY too many pages worth keeping to prevent their CfD votes from succeeding. So, it's not notable that a few Wikipedia editors think somebody isn't notable. RussNelson 17:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Replace your comment with "few Wikipedia editors" (action taken per WP:CIVIL, go whine there). Your definition of "everybody who is anybody" is also quite flawed, given that you are relatively WP:HOLE. It might be my distaste for GNU, but I've never heard of you, even in your brief tenure as president of -- in my opinion -- open-source's greatest asset. Google sure loves you, too. --JStalk 17:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I think we have an issue here where... some people judge notability by 'who they have heard of' instead of actually looking to see 'who else had heard of'... it seems very clear that some people will never hear of anyone that supports GNU and related things. However, lack of information is not the standard, the standard is notability.--Buridan 19:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

And you still haven't told anybody what has changed since January that saves him from failing the guidelines (unless I've missed something now). jd || talk || 10:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

and i don't need to, because the january incident was a mistake predicated on some false assumptions, as we argued above. the notability standard was met then, and it is met now. founding an irc network of significant population of users is notable.--Buridan 11:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think you do. Your statement goes by the assumption that the majority of people know what an IRC network is, and that they understand why doing this is noteworthy. It also doesn't demonstrate that this significant population of users is noteworthy, or how it is significant in comparison to other IRC networks. You may think it has been discussed, but discussions have pretty much been one-sided. I'm not going to continue this argument, as it's pretty clear this would just be a repeat of what has happened previously, but there are guidelines and policies, and your statement satisfies none of them. WP:V, WP:BIO, WP:RS, WP:CN, WP:NOR. jd || talk || 11:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

so... what you are saying is that... the standards of notability don't count, for instance... do the people who buy the books of the author who sells 10k copies understand why doing this is noteworthy? etc. etc. etc. the parallel arguments are obvious, this is verifiable, it is a fact, it is notable and it maps perfectly well into similar situations of notability where we have clear guidelines. this meets the guidelines and policies, it meets the first notability standard for people 'The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field.' It meets reliable sources, though we could use more. It even meets common knowledge, at least to a higher degree than say the article on Mereological nihilism does. Finally, it is clearly not original research any more than Sky Mangel. --Buridan 12:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Why are you comparing this to an article I've made only minor edits to? Doing this doesn't help the fact that you have yet to provide a single link to confirm notability. Sky Mangel is a fictional character in a television soap; Rob Levin is a real person. If a person who has an article on Wikipedia had sold 10,000 books, there would at least be a source to back this up. Just having the figure isn't enough. Stop comparing this artilce to others you think don't meet standards, and do something about this one so that it does. The only sources in this article are all used for his death, and as I've said before, if this guy is so notable, finding a single reputable source would not be that difficult; so why don't you do that instead of making assumptions about "everybody who is anybody" knowing who this man is? jd || talk || 16:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

the notability factor was already noted. i don't find any links anywhere that say most people on wikipedia are notable, people know who is notable based on several contextual factors. two important ones are accomplishments and audience, those are the two that we are recognizing, those are the two that you want citations on. the audience citation is the google numbers, the fact of his founding the network is noted on the page. everything else in your position ends up to some level of arbitrary judgement about what you want to count. for instance, if we had an encyclopedia, that would work, but there are key points where some encyclopedia do not work, or are not good evidence. the question then becomes one of judgement, with the number of google hits, the number of freenode users, and the blunt fact of his having founded the network, we have much more than many articles. so what is your beef? it seems to be that you have as jimbo describes it a platonic definition of notability where for all times and places if someone is decided as nonnotable, he or she will always be nonnotable. as i've argued, the notability is clear now, the references are provided as appropriate and the information is widely agreed upon. there will be more information in the future of course, as it becomes available. --Buridan 17:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Rob Levin's notability is clear to you, but it isn't clear to me, so please do something about that. Jimbo Wales didn't describe anything as "a platonic definiton". I don't agree with your statement of my believing that somebody who is decided to be non-notable remains non-notable forever, as the majority of people are born non-notable. From what I've gathered, nothing has changed since January, when non-biased editors decided that Rob Levin was not notable enough for his own article. Death does not increase a person's notability. As I've said before, the only sources in this article are about his death. The whole first paragraph, where all the real information unrelated to his death is, is unsourced, and I am more than able to remove that whole paragraph; but I'm not going to because by doing so I would only be trying to prove a WP:POINT. And what are we waiting for? Future information about events that have yet to occur? Or information about things that have already happened, which should already be there? jd || talk || 17:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support --Tim1988 ^talk 22:11, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Unreliable sources

I don't think we can consider a post on slashdot reliable, and the other source's website released an article right arterward stating there was no confirmation on Levin's death by any reliable sources. Can anyone find an article on his death from a real news site? VegaDark 03:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I tried to use the Houston Chronicle and I found no obit posted or even an article about the accident that claimed Rob's life. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

---

I went *many* steps further. On 19 September 2006, as soon as I deduced there was no bona fide evidence of his passing, I did the following for myself, which was particularly easy as I work less than 5 miles from the PDPC:

• called KHOU and Local2 stations and asked if they had any news concerning a bicycle hit and run in the last 7 days. they said they only had one report for the last 2 weeks and that was one Victor Williams.
• called the Houston Chronicle, after searching the obituaries, and they said they only knew of the Victor Williams crash, and that most hit and runs would have been reported (and thus public records) to the police.
• called Houston PD. They said that they had no complaints regarding a hit + run bicyclist in the month of September but that any time an ambulence is summoned or some one is hospitalized for something like that, a defacto police report is always issued. They further told me that had it happened inbetween Downtown and 10100 Main St (near 610 W) that the most likely hospital with a suitable trauma ward would be Ben Taub hospital, of which I am intimately familiar.
• called Ben Taub, they wouldn't give me any information due to HIPPA restrictions; contacted my doctor at Ben Taub, his nurse searched the Harris County Patient database and could not find a single Robert Levine in the database. Further inquired on how unlikely a fatality in a hospital would not make it to the obituraries, they said family members could personally restrict the newspapers from publishing information, but otherwise, a death in a hospital is published.
• Called Houston Morgue. wouldn't give me any information, told me to contact the Office of Vital Statistics, of which all records of death are public information.
• Contacted the Texas branch of the Office of Vital Statistics, they had no record of a Robert Levine but said it may take till the 1st of October for their database to be fully updated.

There are thus far three possibilities, as far as I see:

• Robert Levine was inducted into the hospital as a John Doe, ostensibly because no ID was found; family did not bother to notify the hospital of the error, or there was a paperwork screw up, and this persisted to his burial
• It may be possible his family took out of the ordinary steps to hide his death from both police, media and the general public. I've been told that under HIPPA they may even restrict some police cases from being public, especially if it was an open investigation as to who hit him.
• Left to your intuition.

I've been told by PDPC staff that he was Jewish and that Jewish people keep funerals and deaths secret. I have not researched this and have no opinion. Regardless, at this stage, one must simply take his death on faith and faith alone. There is *no* corroborating evidence to the 3 paragraph note pasted on Freenode. I talked to him at 23:45 PM on 11 September 2006. I would personally like to know if i was indirectly responsible for him leaving the office so late on the 12th. I really wish I had more information. I know I should accept this news on faith, but that is so against my ethos. Sorry. — HopeSeekr of xMule (Talk) 03:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• Um, I'm Jewish and I don't think we normally keep funerals and deaths secret. Generally Jews have funerals quickly (within 24 hours of death if possible) but the post funeral mourning is not at all secret. See Shivah and Bereavement in Judaism for more details. JoshuaZ 03:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I was told by some admin with a 'ch'* nick that Jews didn't do obituaries nor make published statements about deaths. That's really the only answer I received when I asked for clarification.  ::shrug:: — HopeSeekr of xMule (Talk) 03:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I can't be the only one who is concerned with the infomation we have. I think the responsible thing to do would be to remove the information about his death until is is confirmed by a reliable source. It's just too strange for the police, hospitals, and media to not know anything about this death. As for "Jews being secretive about death" I've never heard such a thing. VegaDark 03:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I think we generally don't go out of our way to post obits but if a newspaper wants to run one they generally won't be stopped and nothing is considered taboo or inappropriate about running them. My impression is that families just have too many other things to do at the time. JoshuaZ 03:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• HopeSeekr - perhaps it was just a typo (albeit a consistent one) in your explanation above, but it's Rob Levin, not Levine. I hope you didn't do all that legwork using the wrong last name! :) --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 04:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I was so surprised by my consistent typo that I went back and reviewed my notes and even browser history. I wrote down 'Levin' in every instance except this page. For a search on 'Levin' death certificates in the United States, try the Texas Office of Vital Statistics search page, although as I mentioned, the website may not be updated with any mid-September deaths until the 1st October. — HopeSeekr of xMule (Talk) 04:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Okay, so long as the typo was only in one place, that's good to hear! Cheers. --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 05:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

A few thoughts

1. I find this a very strange discussion.

2. Any event in anyone's life, either something that they do, or something that happens to them, could affect their "notability" for our purposes.

3. "Notability" ought not to be some abstract Platonic conception, but should always be considered _in context_, and one of the main contexts that an encyclopedia ought to consider is the context of the _reader_. Does some event make it more likely that our readers will be seeking a separate article here, as opposed to them merely seeking the article for the organization? Clearly, yes. This is news right now, and people will be looking for information about it -- a merged article does not serve their interests. Does this tragedy affect notability? Obviously, if we define notability as being in part determined by the legitimate interests of readers.

4. At times it makes sense to merge the article for a person and an organization, because the reader who is interested in one is likely to be equally interested in the other... to tell the story of one is to tell the story of the other. But at times it makes sense to separate the stories, because they have, due to events, become distinct. This is clearly such a case.

--Jimbo Wales 15:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, why do you find this a strange discussion? Mr. Levin was successfully deleted by community consensus in January. His death aside, nothing has happened to heighten his credibility since then. Why is someone suddenly "deserving", so to speak, of an article posthumously?

Granted, I do see your point. People want to read about this. But who? The news of Mr. Levin's death didn't break on a single credible news organization (sorry, Slashdot). Instead, its spread was relegated to computer-savvy twentysomethings via outlets like Slashdot, "Chatmag", and digg. Which begs the question -- who wants to read about this? There is a comparatively small audience for this man. I have my doubts that anyone will be coming to Wikipedia hoping to cite Rob Levin for a term paper.

If we continue to ignore established guideline because of context, as you suggest, articles such as this one will make Wikipedia even more computer-savvy twentysomething. That's just the nature of the game; the editing audience is primarily in that demographic because of where the Internet is (that's not our fault). Wikipedia already has a broad selection of more-or-less complete biographical articles for an extremely narrow audience (e.g. List of minor residents of Tatooine) and too many important biographies missing.

I would just like to see a little more discretion on notability given established guideline, or those guidelines appended to say:

None of this matters anyway, because disk space is cheap and we need to appease every audience.

If a policy said that, hell, I'd be all for this article. Call me bureaucratic. --JStalk 17:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

You are bureaucratic. --Stesch 18:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

About the truthfulness on the death claim

I am freenode staff and thus obviously biased. As such, i have refrained from doing anything to any of the articles except cleaning up an old link and answering two times on this talk page.

In any case, as there are still people who do not believe he is dead, i can provide information that will enable anyone to check for themselves. I do not want it to be too public as we have a long-standing history of GNAA having fun with us. Please either write me on my talk page or poke me on irc if you want that info. As to why there is no obituary yet, his wife wished to delay it for some time. -- RichiH 18:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I've contacted RichiH about this, and I'm now waiting for information back from... somebody, but I'm not sure if I'll be able to get that information. If I do, I'll tell what I can here when it happens. _{J Di}^talk 18:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I've got information from a source that's 100% reputable. Date and cause of death is confirmed, but incorrect on the article; I'll correct it now. _{J Di}^talk 20:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Is the source a person or a document that confirms the death? (As I read on some weird internetpage claims that policemen were denying it, although I think some persons can be trusted, it might be best to have a document confirming it to exclude all possible discussion) A document could be: report by police or governmental organization, in memoriam advertizement in a local newspaper before the news came outside, statement of a doctor or notary etc. (and possibly a whole bunch of other types of documents) effeietsanders 22:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I guess it'd come under statement of a doctor or notary. _{J Di}^talk 22:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

To be exact, it is the morgue where his body was located at until Monday. -- RichiH 22:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The hallmark of WP is verifiability. Until this information is verifiable by the rest of us, it should not be considered a valid Wikipedia fact. Pudge 22:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I know, but the problem is that without everybody phoning the medical examiner, or unless somebody orders a copy of the autopsy report, there's no way at the moment that this information can be verified by everybody else. I didn't like adding it to the article without an Internet source, but you could always call? _{J Di}^talk 22:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

My point is only that the claim itself, that he is dead, should not be considered true for the sake of this article, until it is verifiable. Indeed, the top link for the claim (Chatmag News) now itself says that the claim is not verifiable. However, I am not opposed to, say, waiting a few days before modifying the article if the verifiable information is forthcoming. I am not trying to be a jerk or get this stuff removed, just saying, it isn't verifiable right now. Heck, I could call all the area morgues myself and then post the verifiable information, but I think some things are more important than verifiable information ... Pudge 23:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

You are of course right that there needs to be proof. As of right now, we are in the process of getting official police documentation. As J Di pointed out, you are free to call the morgue yourself. Please either tell me your email address or visit me on IRC for the phone number. Chatmag never once contacted us in this whole episode to check any facts and proofs we might have. I wrote an email to their editor, offering proof and asking why they did not contact us. Up to now, i did not receive any answer from them. I hope that they will apply the uttermost basic journalistic principles in the future or stop reporting about this issue at all.

And while i can understand your concern, not being able to cite a web source right now should not be too much of a problem considering that two contributors to Wikipedia, J Di and myself, with an excellent edit history have independently confirmed what proof there is. Especially considering that that information is there for the asking.

In fact, i would like to ask you to call the morgue and put your own confirmation below J Di's as a personal favour to myself.

RichiH 10:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm Pete Carr, owner of Chatmag.com

Let me explain the sequence of events.

On Saturday, christel posted a global notice in Freenode IRC network, informing the network that Rob had died, as a result of a hit and run accident some days before. I obtained the telephone number of the PDPC, called that number, and left a message, stating who I was, and that I was seeking confirmation. I have yet to recieve a response. That call was late Saturday/early Sunday. My own telephone records will show that I did make an attempt to contact the Freenode/PDPC telephone number.

As an aside, the recording has been changed on the PDPC answering machine, from a greeting from PDPC, to a woman's personal greeting, with no mention of PDPC or Freenode.

As christel stated that he was in a hit and run, I then did a Google News search, and found nothing. I did see another story, from the day before, the 11th, and determined it was a Mr. Williams, not Levin.

I then contacted my source at KPRC television's news department, in Houston, and asked him to see if they had any information. They did not.

Checking other sources to confirm the original posting by christel proved fruitless. No one had any information.

A hit and run is a felony, a crime, and the Houston police, both the Hit and Run Detail, and the Detective Bureau had no information. That information is a matter of public record, the police do sometimes keep certain details private until the end of an investigation, but the fact that a hit and run occurred is public.

As the death was announced on a Saturday, I had to wait until Monday to continue to follow up on this, to get outside confirmation. Any journalist checks facts, this is nothing personal, it is my duty to verify what was said on an IRC network. We all know not to rely solely on anything spoken on IRC, that any statement made in any chat network is to be verified as true or not.

As I was running into a problem with verification, I then messaged christel late Monday, and asked her. She provided no additional information. Logs of that conversation are available.

In the meantime, I kept checking the news outlets in Houston, Police, etc. and found nothing.

I did call the Medical Examiners on Monday, they have yet to return my call.

At no point have I said nothing other than official sources and the local Houston media have not confirmed the death.

Apparently some in Freenode's discussion channel think the media/TV/news people do not print the truth, in explaination as to why the local Houston media do not have the story. That is all I want, the truth.

If sensitive information is forthcoming from Freenode/PDPC, then I will make the decision as to releasing it or not. I do not release information that may be embarrassing to a family.

Given the lack of outside confirmation by official sources in Houston, I posted the second article stating such. We've all seen the phrase, "unconfirmed reports" in news articles, and the only thing I would of changed is to add that statement to our original article announcing the death of Rob Levin. That was an oversight on my part, and I apologize for that. I do not apologize for wanting official confirmation from officials in Houston and reporting the truth based on verifiable facts gathered in a responsible and professional manner. Pete Carr (edited to change KPRC new to KPRC news) Chatmag

First of all sorry for our mixup, i did not know that you had contacted either pdpc or christel. That was our fault and i will try to double check in the future. We are understandably in a bit of a turmoil, still.. In any case, as information for the rest of wikipedia, i am talking to Pete Carr right now and he tells me that he talked to both Houston PD and the medical examiner and they do confirm his death. RichiH 14:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I can confirm that Robert Levin is deceased, the date of death was given to me by the Harris County Medical Examiners office by telephone as the 15th of September, 2006. Cause of death was injuries sustained in a traffic related accident. This was verified by a telephone call to the Houston Police Department, Accident Division. The accident report is not completed, and will not be available for another 6 to 8 weeks.

The accident report number is available by a telephone call to the Houston Police Department Records Section, and giving the name Robert Levin, date of death 15 September 2006. I consider this verification by the Houston Police Department adequate to accurately report as factual information regarding the death of Robert Levin. This information will be posted in our news section as soon as possible.

Our condolences to the family of Robert Levin, and all who worked with him at PDPC and Freenode. Chatmag

Date of death

In the opening paragraph, it says he died on the 15th. Later it says the 16th and then goes on to say the 12th. Which one is it? --Tim1988 ^talk 16:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

if you read it closely, it is clear. the death was the 15th, it was reported as the 16th, and the accident happened on the 12th. --Buridan 17:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

It *still* doesn't explain why Houston PD would not tell me about the Hit and Run... As I have told numerous Freenode staffers over the last week, you really do need to publicize the incidendent to find the perpetrator, at least I would think.

Look, say you're driving at midnight and you accidentally hit a guy on a bike. 99% of the people riding bikes in Houston are wine-oes. You might think to yourself, "well gosh, he's probably OK...no one will miss him any way." If you saw this report about a hit and run and that the guy didn't make it, perhaps you would feel bad about it. Or more likely, maybe your wife who saw you drag your ass to bed at 2 am after visiting a bar a block from the scene, maybe she would turn you in.

Also, this actually jades me. I would hate to live in a world where awesome people can be basically murdered and it go w/o mention and there being official denial by the local police when concerned people inquire. — HopeSeekr of xMule (Talk) 15:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

confirmation report says that they are not releasing the info on the hit and run because the report is not finished.--Buridan 12:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

It isn't clear at all Buridan. The date in brackets says he died on the 15th. It says the accident happened on the 12th. So apparently he was in hospital for a few days and then died. Maybe not. Nothing about that is mentioned in the article. That's what made me believe there was confusion over the dates. --Tim1988 ^talk 22:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

He was in a coma from the 12th to the 16th. -- RichiH 10:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Memorial Link

• While this is certainly related to Rob Levin, and the notability of the article has been asserted in two previous AfDs, is the memorial link in good taste with WP:NOT (specifically, "Wikipedia is not a memorial")? I agree that there's a significance to that link, is it something that should be included in the article? Honestly, I'm not opposed to it, but it does make me wonder. What's everyone else's thought on this? However, I will update the relevant sections on this talk page. dougk (Talk ˑ Contribs) 20:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Pretty important, as it shows the importance of the individual. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The memorial section in this discussion page is arguably off topic. The link to the memorial site is in 'External Links' and it is just that, an external link. While it does not hold any information in its own, it does show that he was in fact known to quite a few people which you could call as meta information. In any case, as he is demised, the memorial page is the logical end of the article, so to speak. Please note that i am naturally biased, as i am freenode staff and i helped with the site itself. -- 203.153.34.237 10:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

An Insult to Humanity

It is outrageous that the first site on google about Rob Levin is an Encyclopedia Dramatica page slandering Lilo's good reputation. See Google search Rob Levin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunset's Light (talk • contribs) 01:57, 2 November 2006

Unfortunately, this is something beyond our control; in the meantime, we should attempt to make this article, and all others on Wikipedia, the most accurate, comprehensive, and factual as possible. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

P.S. When I searched, the first site was not ED; Google ranks vary. Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, Levin's personal pages come up first, but I'm surprised that ED is ranked higher (two pages higher) than Wikipdia. Hbdragon88 20:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not officially recommending this, but a Googlebomb can knock The Other Wiki out of the Top 10 results. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 11:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Allegations of impropriety

I have replaced the sentence fragment "and in fact supported himself totally through his status as the sole paid employee of PDPC." Even if DMack is not aware of it, or even if it doesn't sound like it should be controversial, it is. Why? Because it looks very suspicious to create a 501(c)(3) corporation for allegedly charitable purposes, and then proceed to hire yourself as its sole employee, and pay yourself enough to make a full-time living. This does not, in and of itself, imply any wrongdoing--but it was certainly a controversial move at the time.

Also, I'm new here and I would like to have some idea of what, exactly, constitutes a "reliable source". DMack is probably right that information potentially harmful to an individual's reputation--even if that individual is dead--should be cited, but I would like to have some idea of what is considered acceptable. Your Beloved Uncle Jimbob 20:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I can see why that would look suspicious to some people. We have a couple of documents available describing the kinds of reliable sources that are useful for ensuring that Wikipedia content is verifiable and doesn't look too much like original research or other opinions (no matter how "reasonable" they might be) of Wikipedia's editors. DMacks 21:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you think IRC logs would suffice? Certainly, I wouldn't dream of using them as a source for saying that Levin did indeed engage in improper behavior; but all the article says is that there was speculation of improper behavior (which is a far cry from stating that he actually did behave improperly), and as much of that speculation took place on IRC I would think IRC logs would be an excellent source. Your Beloved Uncle Jimbob 21:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Origin of "lilo"

Here's a copy'n'paste from the cited source:

13:29 < lilo> I'm named after a favorite science fiction character, in John
13:29 < lilo>  Varley's THE OPHIUCHI HOTLINE.  I am *not* named after the
13:29 < lilo> LInux LOader, and I didn't write it! :)
13:29 < lilo>                         -- lilo, winter 1993
13:29 < lilo> ;)
13:29 < lilo> hmmm, my latest version is on my other client, it's a bit more complete
13:29 < SNy> ok, you never stop learning, right?
13:30 < lilo> I'm named after a favorite science fiction character, in John Varley's THE OPHIUCHI HOTLINE.  I am *not* named after the LInux LOader, and I didn't write it! :)  -- lilo, winter 1993  ||  Nor am I named after the little girl in the movie, nor the air mattress, nor Last In Last Out. ;)  -- lilo, summer 2003

The "|| Nor…" part is in the same single unified quote of his (at 13:30), not a separate one here. He's quoting two quotes of himself, but here it's all together. Probably could go either way for the wikipedia article (one blockquote or two) since it's two different statements on different topics, but it's the expalanation of this edit is not correct, nor do I see evidence of the character-formatting change that was made there. DMacks 22:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality

I was close to Rob Levin, going by the nick trelane on the Freenode Network. There is quite a bit which is, I believe, encyclopedic about Rob that is missing, and this article is still in need of cleanup and a strong look towards acheiving NPOV. I've reworked this article in anticipation of the one year anniversary of Rob's death. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.72.20.110 (talk) 15:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

You introduced sections, but someone might remove them as a matter of style, because one-paragraph sections are generally deprecated. You also removed one sentence, which I since restored, because it was accurate and relevant - he did make requests that were explicitly based on "we need money to pay bills", the bills weren't just for external services (such as paying for bandwidth, hosting, etc), and that is something that many people frowned upon (because few other free software-related organizations actively solicit funding for such matters). Everyone is welcome to add missing encyclopedic content, please feel free to do that. --Joy [shallot] 17:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Says you. If there really was that much controversy about it, then you should find it easy to find sources to back this up. Until then, I've nuked the "controversy" material. Lewis Collard! (baby i'm bad news) 22:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

in interests of full disclosure the 208/8 address is from work. Personal experience is non-encyclopedic, and since your experience wasn't documented at the time it is also not a contemporary source as Rob has since passed. I agree further information is needed, and am interested in getting it added. My interest was strictly in cleaning up the article. That sentence struck me as being specifically malicious NPOV and unsourced. Because I deleted it I marked the article NPOV for further peer-review. 66.93.203.152 23:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

First of all, it's my word against his, isn't it? Also, why did you remove the entire paragraph that the other user *didn't* remove?

I have yet to see a rebuttal of the said sentences. Are any of them false? How exactly is the sentence about personal appeals for money malicious, when it simply explains what had happened? The sentence is not berating Rob Levin for doing so, it's simply saying that he did it. Is such a thing interesting enough to be part of an encyclopedia? Perhaps not, but then, is the PDPC interesting enough, when at the same time there is no explanation of it being more notable than any other legal entity?

The reason why these things have so few references is fairly general - people rarely find IRC sessions important enough to keep, let alone keep in any sort of a published article. --Joy [shallot] 22:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Read this. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. See particularly the bit about "burden of evidence" and Jimbo's view of "random speculative 'I heard itsomewhere' pseudo information" (that Levin is dead doesn't change the point at all). Your disagreement is with community policy, not with us; material like this, which would be horribly malicious if it weren't true, needs sources. Lewis Collard! (baby i'm bad news) 04:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

All right. I explained why it's hard to verify this. But let me just reiterate WP:NPOV again, from my point of view - we can't have articles sounding like hagiographies just because the person is deceased. De mortuis nil nisi bene is all right elsewhere, but this is an encyclopedia which is supposed to cover all relevant aspects of a biography. It's not hard to verify that PDPC was a peculiar charity during Levin's times, given the motorhome affair and that it was not in good standing with the tax authorities for at least one year, or that OFTC was created by former members of freenode staff, whose first task in their new organization was to make a written constitution, limiting people's powers. --Joy [shallot] 09:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I did read what you said about why it's hard to verify it; I understand that fully, and I don't care, because according to WP:V, I shouldn't. My point wasn't "speak no ill of the dead", or that we should write hagiographies, as you have misunderstood my position. My point was that you shouldn't malign a person, living or otherwise, if what you say cannot be substantiated from reliable sources, however important (or true) you think it is. Lewis Collard! (baby i'm bad news) 10:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

"But let me just reiterate WP:NPOV again, from my point of view". Please, think very carefully about what you said there. 208.72.20.110 16:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I know that that sounds a bit strange, but that's the whole basis of the NPOV policy - that different people have different perspectives. --Joy [shallot] 00:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Was it ever solved?

Poking my head into a really old thread here. Was the hit-and-run ever solved? If it was, I presume a local newspaper may have covered it and it would be worth inclusion in the section regargins his death. On a personal note, I had the honor of chatting with "lilo" quite a bit in the late 90's and even did a video-chat with him and his wife once. At that time it was a surprise to learn that lilo was actually a male as he had been purposefully ambigious up to that time as he felt it was easier to control the IRC channel and settle disputes using a female online persona. Clever guy! --StuffOfInterest (talk) 15:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Nope man it's a lie.

Put the article under pending changes

Recently, this article has been subject to some fairly vicious vandalism. I was about to semi-protect it but realized that in a case like this, PC could work just fine, and will still allow anons to make good faith edits to the article. Under the interim usage policy, we should focus primarily (but not exclusively) on BLPs, but if anyone objects, this is the most likely grounds. My view is that Mr. Levin's passing is fairly recent, and the kind of vandalism we are seeing here could be quite hurtful to his family and friends, so I am treating this as essentially a BLP-style case.

In order to make sure that I am not doing anything "drastic" I additionally set the protection to expire in one month.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, I am ignorant to the vandalism that this page has apparently experienced, and even after trying to see what has been done I am unable since the history for these has been erased. However, as someone who until recently had no idea who Mr. Levin was, I have to say that coming to this article and then the discussion, it seems that this article is being continually whitewashed. For instance, I just decided to click on one of the sources at the bottom becasue it had an article name that sounded interesting ( http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/01/29/buy_a_piece_of_net/ ) though the tiny bit of information this wiki article uses from the article is that the openprojects.net domain was put on sale, there is a wealth of information, which is not even brought up in this wiki article, or has even been removed. Additionally, some events that I saw come up in this discussion page, were accepted as true, but dismissed for not having a sufficient source to include in the article are located in this Register article. Disregargind other possible negative information which may be out there, just the fact that he hired himself as the sole full-time employee of his own NPO I have noticed has been removed several times, without explanation or defense in the section of the discussion page addressing this. Sorry if these things have been worked out, but I would like the people editing this article, and the people protecting this article to ask themselves if they have a personal bias for this subject, and if so, how it is affecting their view of the information, neutrality, and controversy, truth, and see how those biases are affecting what is considered THE truth by most people who come to Wikipedia for information. Maybe it is because of the continual the continual whitewashing that this page has recently had so much vandalism. Doubting this page will ever express a more full and balanced perspective, Awhislyle (talk) 23:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)