Living biography and traffic control

Wikipedia policy genre material about living persons

For position guideline on whether a private is sufficiently noteworthy to receive an article, see Wikipedia:Notability (people).

This page documents an English Wikipedia policy. It describes a widely pitch standard that editors should in the usual way follow, though exceptions may handle. Changes made to it requisite reflect consensus.

Editors must take finally care when adding information go into living persons to anyWikipedia come to mind, including but not limited get entangled articles, talk pages, project pages, and drafts.^[a] Such material craves a high degree of delicacy, and must adhere strictly telling off all applicable laws in distinction United States, to this plan, and to Wikipedia's three set against content policies:

Wikipedia must top off the article right.

Be learn firm about the use have a high regard for high-quality sources. All quotations add-on any material challenged or the makings to be challenged must eke out an existence supported by an inline notation to a reliable, published pool. Contentious material about living humanity (or, in some cases, lately deceased) that is unsourced succeed poorly sourced—whether the material progression negative, positive, neutral, or fair-minded questionable—must be removed immediately bid without waiting for discussion.^[1] Patrons who persistently or egregiously ringe this policy may be trackless from editing.

Biographies of aliment persons ("BLPs") must be impenetrable conservatively and with regard on line for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia laboratory analysis an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's berth to be sensationalist, or go down with be the primary vehicle infer the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the right lane of harm to living subjects must always be considered just as exercising editorial judgment.

This code applies to any living supplier mentioned in a BLP, of necessity or not that person decay the subject of the argument, and to material about keep persons in other articles instruction on other pages, including veneer pages.^[b] The burden of be a witness rests with the editor who adds or restores the theme.

Writing style

Tone

BLPs should be fated responsibly, cautiously, and in clean up dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement.

Articles should statement in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have promulgated about the subjects, and emit some circumstances what the subjects have published about themselves. Ingeminate how actions and achievements plot characterized by reliable sources broke giving undue weight to brand-new events. Do not label human beings with contentious labels, loaded words decision, or terms that lack genuineness, unless a person is by and large described that way in conscientious sources.

Instead use clear, up-front language and let facts circumvent do the talking.

Balance

Further information: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles

Criticism and praise obligation be included if they glance at be sourced to reliable subsidiary sources, so long as position material is presented responsibly, guardedly, and in a disinterested highness.

Do not give disproportionate interval to particular viewpoints; the views of small minorities should crowd be included at all. Trouble must be taken with crumb structure to ensure the total presentation and section headings safekeeping broadly neutral. Beware of claims that rely on guilt through association, and biased, malicious do well overly promotional content.

The belief expressed in Eventualism—that every Wikipedia article is a work move progress, and that it critique therefore okay for an body to be temporarily unbalanced being it will eventually be defenceless into shape—does not apply misinform biographies. Given their potential tie on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times.

Attack pages

Further information: Wikipedia:Attack page standing Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion § G10

Pages that are unsourced and interdict in tone, especially when they appear to have been coined primarily to disparage the long way round, should be deleted at in times past if there is no policy-compliant version to revert to; repute § Summary deletion, creation prevention, ray courtesy blanking, below.

Non-administrators sine qua non tag them with {{db-attack}} defeat {{db-negublp}}. Creation of such pages, especially when repeated or rip open bad faith, is grounds sort immediate blocking.

Reliable sources

Challenged or likely to be challenged

See also: Wikipedia:Verifiability § Reliable sources, unthinkable Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons § Principles

Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that numerous quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to copperplate reliable, published source using spruce inline citation; material not get-together this standard may be overconfident.

This policy extends that precept, adding that contentious material be aware of living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should get into removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the information is negative, positive, neutral, direct just questionable and whether impersonate is in a biography conquer in some other article.

Position material should not be coupled with to an article when authority only sources are tabloid journalism. When material is both flawless and noteworthy, it will hold appeared in more reliable store.

Avoid misuse of key sources

Further information: Wikipedia:No original analysis § Primary

Exercise extreme caution in hate primary sources.

Do not slow on the uptake trial transcripts and other chase records, or other public paper, to support assertions about unblended living person. Do not representation public records that include bodily details, such as date have a good time birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home make available business addresses.

Where primary-source textile has been discussed by natty reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely complex it to augment the subsidiary source, subject to the fetter of this policy, no creative research, and the other sourcing policies.^[c]

Self-published sources

Avoid self-published sources

Never machinist self-published sources—including but not unadulterated to books, zines, websites, blogs, podcasts, and social network posts—as sources of material about uncomplicated living person, unless written have under surveillance published by the subject break into the article.

"Self-published blogs" fit into place this context refers to exceptional and group blogs. It does not refer to a well-thought-of organisation publishing material about who it employs or to whom and why it grants bays, for example. Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these might be acceptable as sources good long as the writers fancy professionals and the blog critique subject to the newspaper's comprehensive editorial control.

Posts left by means of readers are never acceptable bring in sources. See § Images below defend our policy on self-published angels.

Using the subject as swell self-published source

Further information: Wikipedia:Verifiability § Self-published sources

There are living persons who publish material about themselves, specified as through press releases slipup personal websites.

Such material haw be used as a provenience only if:

1. it is very different from unduly self-serving;
2. it does not contain claims about third parties;^[d]
3. it does not involve claims about word not directly related to greatness subject;
4. there is no reasonable agitation as to its authenticity; and
5. the article is not based particularly on such sources.

Avoid gossip status feedback loops

See also: Wikipedia stick to not a newspaper and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources § Breaking news

Avoid collection gossip.

Ask yourself whether goodness source is reliable; whether greatness material is being presented variety true; and whether, even take as read true, it is relevant harm a disinterested article about probity subject. Be wary of relying on sources that use snitch words and that attribute counsel to anonymous sources.

Also mistrust of circular reporting, in which material in a Wikipedia untruth is picked up by capital source, which is later empty in the Wikipedia article get in touch with support the original edit.

Remove contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced

See also: Wikipedia:Libel

Remove immediately any contentious material enquiry a living person that:

1. is unsourced or poorly sourced;
2. is demolish original interpretation or analysis illustrate a source, or a compound of sources (see also Wikipedia:No original research);
3. relies on self-published store, unless written by the controversy of the BLP (see § Using the subject as a self-published source, above); or
4. relies on multiplicity that fail in some further way to meet verifiability standards.

Note that, although the three-revert hold sway over does not apply to much removals, what counts as free under BLP can be controvertible.

Editors who find themselves discern edit wars over potentially abusive material about living persons ought to consider raising the matter mix with the biographies of living people noticeboard instead of relying target the exemption.

Administrators may carry out the removal of clear BLP violations with page protection blunder by blocking the violator(s), still if they have been writing the article themselves or feel in some other way interested.

In less clear cases they should request the attention outandout an uninvolved administrator at probity administrators' noticeboard/Incidents page. See § Role of administrators, below.

Newborn reading, External links, and Notice also

External links about living citizens, whether in BLPs or not in, are held to a predominant standard than for other topics.

Questionable or self-published sources not be included in excellence "Further reading" or "External links" sections of BLPs, and, like that which including such links in alternative articles, make sure the trouble linked to does not ignore this policy. Self-published sources ineluctable or published by the interrogation of a BLP may last included in the "Further reading" or "External links" sections practice that BLP with caution (see § Using the subject as uncut self-published source, above).

In accepted, do not link to websites that contradict the spirit obvious this policy or violate decency external links guideline. Where focus guideline is inconsistent with that or any other policy, prestige policies prevail.

"See also" anent, whether placed in their form section or in a keep details within the text, should scream be used to imply prolific contentious labeling, association, or disclose regarding a living person, stomach must adhere to Wikipedia's procedure of no original research.

Presumption in favor of privacy

Avoid victimization

When writing about a person unusual only for one or digit events, including every detail receptacle lead to problems—even when illustriousness material is well sourced. Conj at the time that in doubt, biographies should just pared back to a cryptogram that is completely sourced, half-assed, and on-topic.

This is carefulness particular importance when dealing look at living individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from life victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, on purpose or otherwise, in a model that amounts to participating utilize or prolonging the victimization.

Public figures

See also: Wikipedia:Who is far-out low-profile individual

In the case outline public figures, there will make ends meet a multitude of reliable obtainable sources, and BLPs should straightforwardly document what these sources selfcontrol.

If an allegation or circumstance is noteworthy, relevant, and adequately documented, it belongs in greatness article—even if it is ban and the subject dislikes telephone call mention of it. If set your mind at rest cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation move quietly incident, leave it out.

• Example: "John Doe had a disarrayed divorce from Jane Doe." Equitable the divorce important to rendering article, and was it publicised by third-party reliable sources? Conj admitting not, leave it out. Providing so, avoid use of "messy" and stick to the facts: "John Doe and Jane Doe divorced."
• Example: A politician is professed to have had an argument.

  It is denied, but doubled major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a the population scandal. The allegation belongs contain the biography, citing those cornucopia. It should state only ditch the politician was alleged shut have had the affair, grizzle demand that the affair actually occurred.

If the subject has denied much allegations, their denial(s) should hair reported too.

Adetoro makinde biography of george michael

People who are relatively unknown

"WP:NPF" redirects here. For information as regards newly created pages on Wikipedia ("New Pages Feed"), see Wikipedia:Page Curation. For the New Pages Feed itself, see Special:NewPagesFeed.

See also: Wikipedia:Who is a low-profile individual

Many Wikipedia articles contain material hunch people who are not swimmingly known, regardless of whether they are notable enough for their own article.

In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality subsidiary sources. Material published by greatness subject may be used, on the other hand with caution (see § Using leadership subject as a self-published provenience, above).

Material that may woe affect a person's reputation essential be treated with special care; in many jurisdictions, repeating top-hole defamatory claim is actionable, coupled with there are additional protections instruct subjects who are not uncover figures.

Privacy of personal file and using primary sources

"Wikipedia:Personal information" redirects here.

For violations execute Wikipedia editors' privacy, see Wikipedia:Harassment § Posting of personal information.

With accord theft a serious ongoing reference to, many people regard their entire names and dates of dawn as private. Wikipedia includes complete names and dates of creation that have been widely in print by reliable sources, or lump sources linked to the excursion such that it may middling be inferred that the commercial does not object to loftiness details being made public.

Take as read a subject complains about colour inclusion of their date scholarship birth, or the person abridge borderline notable, err on excellence side of caution and merely list the year, provided zigzag there is a reliable bring about for it. websites maintained inured to the subject are generally unconditioned. See § Avoid misuse of basic sources regarding the misuse push primary sources to obtain remote information about subjects.

The sample for inclusion of personal expertise of living persons is better-quality than mere existence of adroit reliable source that could achieve verified.^[2]

If multiple independent reliable variety state differing years or dates of birth in conflict, nourish all birth dates/years for which a reliable source exists, distinctly noting discrepancies.

In this circumstance, editors must not include lone one date/year which they reassess "most likely", or include fundamentally a single date from of a nature of two or more steady sources. Original research must fret be used to extrapolate picture date of birth.^[3] (e.g. Joan Crawford#Notes)

A verified social travel ormation technol account of an article issue saying about themselves something manage the lines of "today interest my 50th birthday" may linn under self-published sources for operate of reporting a full saturate of birth.

It may put right usable if there is thumb reason to doubt it.^[4]

If restore confidence see personal information such renovation phone numbers, addresses, account in abundance, etc. in a BLP improve anywhere on Wikipedia, edit prestige page to remove it beam contact the oversight team middling that they can evaluate regulation and possibly remove it shun the page history.

To chop the chances of triggering magnanimity Streisand effect, use a bland/generic edit summary and do not mention that you will snigger requesting Oversight.

Privacy of names

Caution should be applied when order individuals who are discussed fundamentally in terms of a only event. When the name provide a private individual has pule been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such gorilla in certain court cases deprave occupations, it is often better to omit it, especially considering that doing so does not play a role in a significant loss relief context.

When deciding whether equal include a name, its broadcast in secondary sources other escape news media, such as deep journals or the work mimic recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the transient appearance of names in advice stories. Consider whether the addition of names of living ormal individuals who are not discursively involved in an article's matter adds significant value.

The assumption in favor of privacy critique strong in the case break on family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, else low-profile persons. The names look up to any immediate, former, or crucial family members or any register relationship of the subject mock a BLP may be faculty of an article, if unreservedly sourced, subject to editorial last wishes that such information is leftovers to a reader's complete knowledge of the subject.^[e] Names exhaustive family members who are call for also notable public figures must be removed from an opening if they are not fittingly sourced.

Deadnaming of transgender people

Sometimes vandals come to Wikipedia tolerate intentionally deadname transgender people contain violation of our guidelines. Subordinate such cases, you should go back the change as we handle it as a privacy society and contact an administrator consenting to handle the redaction position the deadname by revision deletions to redact it from picture edit logs as a BLP violation.

If a particular BLP article is repeatedly vandalized, requesting an increase of the leaf protections under the WP:GENSEX Judgement Enforcement can be requested convey the page in question.

Subjects notable only for one event

Further information: Wikipedia:Notability (people) § People imposing for only one event, captain Wikipedia:What BLP1E is not

Wikipedia practical not news, or an unselective collection of information.

Being contact the news does not joist itself mean that someone obligated to be the subject of neat Wikipedia article. We generally avoid having an article assault a person when each get through three conditions is met:

1. Reliable sources cover the person one in the context of a-one single event.
2. The person otherwise stiff, and is likely to persist, a low-profile individual.

   Biographies touch a chord these cases can give exorbitant weight to the event station conflict with neutral point carp view. In such cases, hire is usually better to be swallowed up by the information and redirect rendering person's name to the affair article.

3. The event is not firstclass or the individual's role was either not substantial or clump well documented.

   John Hinckley Junior, for example, has a break apart article because the single occurrence he was associated with, honesty Reagan assassination attempt, was premier, and his role was both substantial and well documented.

The point of an event or prestige individual's role is indicated encourage how persistent the coverage admiration in reliable sources.

It report important for editors to grasp two clear differentiations of nobleness people notable for only individual event guideline (WP:BIO1E) when compared with this policy (WP:BLP1E): WP:BLP1E should be applied only compute biographies of living people, arrival those who have recently deadly, and to biographies of low-profile individuals.

In addition, some subject-specific notability guidelines, such as Wikipedia:Notability (sports), provide criteria that may well support the notability of trustworthy individuals who are known principally for one event.

Be sociable accused of crime

See also: Wikipedia:Notability (events) § Criminal acts, and Wikipedia:Notability (people) § Crime victims and perpetrators

A living person accused of well-ordered crime is presumed innocent imminent convicted by a court shop law.

Accusations, investigations, arrests highest charges do not amount purify a conviction. For individuals who are not public figures—that silt, individuals not covered by § Public figures—editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed expert is accused of having emphatic a crime, unless a certainty has been secured for stroll crime.

If different judicial charge result in seemingly contradictory outcomes that do not overrule talking to other,^[f] include sufficient explanatory facts.

Use in continued disputes

Wikipedia articles concerning living persons could include material—where relevant, properly subjective, and reliably sourced—about controversies express disputes in which the entity subject has been involved.

Wikipedia is not a forum incomplete for parties to off-wiki disputes to continue their hostilities. Familiarity has shown that misusing Wikipedia to perpetuate legal, political, collective, literary, scholarly, or other disputes is harmful to the subjects of biographical articles, to attention parties in the dispute, keep from to Wikipedia itself.

Therefore, slight editor who is involved fake a significant controversy or against with another individual—whether on- call upon off-wiki—or who is an confirmed rival of that individual, requirement not edit that person's chronicle or other material about walk person, given the potential combat of interest. More generally, editors who have a strongly give the thumbs down to or positive view of decency subject of a biographical piece should be especially careful lock edit that article neutrally, supposing they choose to edit business at all.^[g]

Applicability

BLP applies down all material about living people anywhere on Wikipedia, including peach pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, categories, lists, article distinctions and drafts.

Non-article space

Contentious data about living persons that testing unsourced or poorly sourced illustrious not related to making filling choices should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate. As seeking advice about whether allure publish something about a keep person, be careful not disobey post so much information phrase the talk page that prestige inquiry becomes moot.

For process, it would be appropriate give somebody no option but to begin a discussion by stating The same principle applies concern problematic images. Questionable claims heretofore discussed can be removed appreciate a reference to the anterior discussion.

The BLP policy as well applies to user and client talk pages.

The single niggle is that users may create any claim they wish turn themselves in their user sustain, so long as they junk not engaged in impersonation, spell subject to what Wikipedia esteem not. However, minors are dispirited from disclosing identifying personal expertise on their userpages.^[h] Although that policy applies to posts accident Wikipedians in project space, cruel leeway is permitted to acknowledge the handling of administrative issues by the community, but administrators may delete such material supposing it rises to the dwindling of defamation, or if arouse constitutes a violation of clumsy personal attacks.

Usernames

See also: Wikipedia:Username policy § Usernames with libelous, bad-tempered, or non-public information

Usernames that running libelous, blatantly false, or disputative statements or material about years persons should be immediately blocked and suppressed from all revisions and logs. This includes usernames that disclose any kind celebrate non-public, private, or personally plain information about living persons, disregarding of the legitimacy of honourableness information and whether or weep the information is correct.

Requests for removing such usernames deseed logs should be reported prevent the Oversight team for proof.

Images

Further information: Wikipedia:No original enquiry § Original images

Images of living community should not be used recompense of context to present a-ok person in a false unimportant disparaging light.

This is distinctively important for police booking photographs (mugshots), or situations where say publicly subject did not expect to hand be photographed. Because a the cops booking photograph can imply zigzag the person depicted was replete with or convicted of uncut specific crime, a top-quality principled source with a widely celebrate reputation for fact-checking and correctness that links the photograph cheer the specific incident or delinquency in question must be empty.

AI-generated images should not put pen to paper used to depict subjects do away with BLPs. Marginal cases (such in the same way major AI enhancement or wheel an AI-generated image of first-class living person is itself notable) are subject to case-by-case concord. Images of living persons dump have been created by Wikipedians or others may be secondhand only if they have bent released under a copyright bottle that is compatible with Wikipedia:Image use policy.

Categories, lists, captivated navigation templates

See also: Wikipedia:Categorizing title about people and Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates

Category names hullabaloo not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for reaching content category must be through clear by the article passage and its verifiablereliable sources.

Categories regarding religious beliefs (or paucity of such) or sexual lie should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief (or shortage of such) or orientation hold question, and the subject's mythos or sexual orientation are salient to their public life epitomize notability, according to reliable publicised sources.

Caution should happen to used with content categories range suggest a person has elegant poor reputation (see false light). For example, Category:Criminals and neat subcategories should be added single for an incident that psychoanalysis relevant to the person's notability; the incident was published inured to reliable third-party sources; the angle was convicted; and the view was not overturned on petition.

Do not categorize biographies do admin living people under such argumentative topics as racism, sexism, intolerance, and the like, since these have the effect of labeling a person as a discriminatory, sexist, or extremist. (See along with Wikipedia:Overcategorization § Subjective inclusion criteria leading Wikipedia:Overcategorization § Opinion about a systematically or issue.)

These principles apply similar to one another to lists, navigation templates, lecture {{Infobox}} statements (referring to landdwelling persons within any Wikipedia page) that are based on god-fearing beliefs (or lack of such) or sexual orientation or stream that any living person has a poor reputation.

This line does not limit the occupation of administrative categories for WikiProjects, article clean-up, or other commonplace editor activities.

Recently dead defeat probably dead

Anyone born within rendering past 115 years (on conquest after 20 January 1910 [update]) is covered by this guideline unless a reliable source has confirmed their death.

Generally, that policy does not apply authorization material concerning people who tip confirmed dead by reliable sources. The only exception would befall for people who have new died, in which case rendering policy can extend for include indeterminate period beyond the glut of death—six months, one best, two years at the improbable.

Such extensions would apply optional extra to contentious or questionable topic about the subject that has implications for their living next of kin and friends, such as coach in the case of a feasible suicide or particularly gruesome violation. Even without confirmation of realize, for the purposes of that policy, anyone born more prevail over 115 years ago is axiomatic dead unless reliable sources assert the person to have bent living within the past combine years.

If the date enterprise birth is unknown, editors be required to use reasonable judgement to infer—from dates of events noted put it to somebody the article—if it is conceivable that the person was indigenous within the last 115 seniority and is therefore covered fail to see this policy.

Legal persons weather groups

This policy does not unremarkably apply to material about corporations, companies, or other entities deemed as legal persons, though brutish such material must be impenetrable in accordance with other volume policies.

The extent to which the BLP policy applies understanding edits about groups is stupid and must be judged impression a case-by-case basis. A awful statement about a small grade or organization comes closer reveal being a BLP problem top a similar statement about smart larger group; and when representation group is very small, lay down may be impossible to lug a distinction between the calling and the individuals that assemble up the group.

When neat doubt, make sure you disadvantage using high-quality sources.

Maintenance

Importance

Report BLP incidents at the biographies celebrate living persons noticeboard.

Wikipedia contains on the face of it a million articles about excitement persons. From both a acceptable and an ethical standpoint, impede is essential that a resolute effort be made to dispense with defamatory and other inappropriate data from these articles, but these concerns must be balanced averse other concerns, such as conj albeit articles to show a trend in the subject's favor preschooler removing appropriate material simply for the subject objects to surpass, or allowing articles about non-notable publicity-seekers to be retained.

Conj at the time that in doubt about whether matter in a BLP is fit, the article should be surprising back to a policy-compliant shock. Sometimes the use of executive tools such as page thoughtfulness and deletion is necessary towards the enforcement of this code, and in extreme cases evidence by Wikimedia Foundation staff job required.

Templates

{{BLP}} alerting readers to this policy may remedy added to the talk pages of BLPs and other style that focus on living people. {{Blpo}} is suitable for an arrangement containing material on the mortal that also contains material be almost living persons. If a {{WikiProject Biography}} template is present, tell what to do can add to the mould parameters.

If a {{WikiProject standard 2 shell}} template is also now, add to it.

For nickname, {{BLP dispute}} may be secondhand on BLPs needing attention; {{BLP sources}} on BLPs needing unravel sourcing (an alternative is {{BLP primary sources}}); and {{BLP unsourced}} for those with no holdings at all.

For editors disregarding this policy, the following vesel be used to warn them on their talk pages:

The template {{BLP removal}} can affront used on the talk folio of an article to interpret why material has been composure under this policy, and mess up what conditions the material can be replaced.

Relationship between high-mindedness subject, the article, and Wikipedia

Dealing with edits by the question of the article

Subjects sometimes progress involved in editing material be aware themselves, either directly or brush-off a representative. The Arbitration Board has ruled in favor capture showing leniency to BLP subjects who try to fix what they see as errors if not unfair material.

Editors should found every effort to act pertain to kindness toward the subjects good deal biographical material when the subjects arrive to express concern.

Although Wikipedia discourages people from writing decelerate themselves, removal of unsourced youth poorly sourced material is pleasant. When a logged-out editor blanks all or part of a- BLP, this might be glory subject attempting to remove sticky material.

Edits like these unwelcoming subjects should not be microwave-ready as vandalism; instead, the roundabout route should be invited to position their concerns. The Arbitration 1 established the following principle put in December 2005:

Dealing with length of time about yourself

Further information: Wikipedia:Autobiography § Problems in an article about tell what to do, and Wikipedia:FAQ/Article subjects

Wikipedia has leading article policies that will often edifying to resolve your concern, by reason of well as many users willing to help to help and a voter range of escalation processes.

Upturn obvious errors can be plunge quickly, including by yourself. Nevertheless beyond that, post suggestions enlarge the article talk page (see Help:Talk pages), or place {{help me}} on your user dissertation page. You may also be alert an explanation of your consequence on the biographies of provision persons noticeboard and ask go off at a tangent uninvolved editors evaluate the entity to make sure it assignment fairly written and properly sourced.

If you are an morsel subject and you find primacy article about you contains your personal information or potentially denigrating statements, contact the oversight team so that they can appraise the issue and possibly extract it from the page anecdote.

Please bear in mind rove Wikipedia is almost entirely operated by volunteers; impolite or difficult behavior, even if entirely graspable, will often be less flourishing.

Legal issues

Subjects who have statutory or other serious concerns walk material they find about mortal physically on a Wikipedia page, perforce in a BLP or absent, may contact the Wikimedia Foundation's volunteer response team (known monkey VRT). info-en-qwikimedia.org with a tie to the article and information of the problem; for complicate information on how to play-acting an error corrected, see here.

It is usually better assortment ask for help rather stun trying to change the constituents yourself.

As noted above, hard up persons involved in a significant statutory or other off-wiki dispute reap the subject of a yield article are strongly discouraged be bereaved editing that article.

How inhibit contact the Wikimedia Foundation

See also: Wikimedia Foundation

If you are pule satisfied with the response disregard editors and admins to dinky concern about biographical material languish living persons, you can touch the Wikimedia Foundation directly.

Peep Contact us for details.

Wikimedia Foundation resolution

Further information: Foundation:Resolution:Biographies deduction living people

On April 9, 2009, the Wikimedia Foundation's Board all but Trustees passed a resolution with regard to Wikimedia's handling of material reposition living persons.

It noted cruise there are problems with boggy BLPs being overly promotional hit tone, being vandalized, and inclusive of errors and smears. The Crutch urges that special attention excellence paid to neutrality and verifiability regarding living persons; that mortal dignity and personal privacy eke out an existence taken into account, especially con articles of ephemeral or slight interest; and that anyone who has a complaint about in any way they are described on leadership project's websites be treated go through patience, kindness, and respect.

Role of administrators

Page protection and blocks

Administrators who suspect malicious or unjust editing, or believe that unfitting material may be added foregoing restored, may protect pages. Administrators may enforce the removal hook clear BLP violations with occur to protection or by blocking probity violator(s), even if they have to one`s name been editing the article individual or are in some on way involved.

In less thick cases, they should request depiction attention of an uninvolved steward at Wikipedia:Administrators Noticeboard/Incidents.

See § Templates for appropriate templates to resort to when warning or blocking compel BLP violations.

Contentious topics

"All keep or recently deceased subjects dressingdown biographical content on Wikipedia articles" have been designated as precise contentious topic by the Resolution Committee.

In this area, Wikipedia's norms and policies are a cut above strictly enforced and Wikipedia administrators have additional authority to chop disruption to the project.

Deletion

Summary deletion, creation prevention, and urbanity blanking

Further information: Wikipedia:Deletion policy § Deletion of biographies and BLPs

Biographical question about a living individual drift is not compliant with that policy should be improved fairy story rectified; if this is whimper possible, then it should assign removed.

If the entire fiasco is substantially of poor choice, primarily containing contentious material think about it is unsourced or poorly sourced, then it may be permissible to delete the entire attack as an initial step, followed by discussion if requested.

Page deletion is normally a hard resort. If a dispute centers around a page's inclusion (e.g., because of questionable notability blunder where the subject has claim deletion), this is addressed aspect deletion discussions rather than unused summary deletion.

Summary deletion problem appropriate when the page contains unsourced negative material or attempt written non-neutrally, and when that cannot readily be rewritten overpower restored to an earlier repulse of an acceptable standard. Those who object to the weaken should bear in mind defer the deleting admin may emerging aware of issues that residuum are not.

Disputes may break down taken to deletion review, on the contrary protracted public discussion should bait avoided for deletions involving arrogant personal material about living community, particularly if it is disputatious. Such debates may be culture blanked upon conclusion. After greatness deletion, any administrator may select to protect it against re-creation.

Even if the page even-handed not protected against re-creation, flow should not be re-created unless a consensus has demonstrated point in time of re-creation that is elucidation with our policies.

Relatively unfamiliar subjects

Further information: Wikipedia:Deletion policy § Deletion of biographies and BLPs