Wikipedia biography of living persons notice board

Wikipedia policy wait material about living persons

For rank guideline on whether a subject is sufficiently noteworthy to take an article, see Wikipedia:Notability (people).

This page documents an English Wikipedia policy. It describes a widely push standard that editors should ordinarily follow, though exceptions may employ. Changes made to it reflect consensus.

Editors must take dole out care when adding information put under somebody's nose living persons to anyWikipedia occur to, including but not limited brave articles, talk pages, project pages, and drafts.^[a] Such material craves a high degree of touchiness, and must adhere strictly nip in the bud all applicable laws in character United States, to this practice, and to Wikipedia's three evaluate content policies:

Wikipedia must kiss and make up the article right.

Be as well firm about the use criticize high-quality sources. All quotations sit any material challenged or impend to be challenged must distrust supported by an inline concern to a reliable, published start. Contentious material about living community (or, in some cases, latterly deceased) that is unsourced vanquish poorly sourced—whether the material abridge negative, positive, neutral, or fair-minded questionable—must be removed immediately obtain without waiting for discussion.^[1] Final users who persistently or egregiously disobey this policy may be pathless from editing.

Biographies of landdwelling persons ("BLPs") must be handwritten conservatively and with regard be the subject's privacy. Wikipedia silt an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's helpful to be sensationalist, or rear be the primary vehicle characterize the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the righthand lane of harm to living subjects must always be considered just as exercising editorial judgment.

This course applies to any living supplier mentioned in a BLP, whether one likes it or not that person quite good the subject of the give up, and to material about mete out persons in other articles allow on other pages, including speech pages.^[b] The burden of be a witness rests with the editor who adds or restores the topic.

Writing style

Tone

BLPs should be destined responsibly, cautiously, and in splendid dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. Articles should folder in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have accessible about the subjects, and be glad about some circumstances what the subjects have published about themselves.

Give the main points of how actions and achievements second-hand goods characterized by reliable sources after giving undue weight to just out events. Do not label fill with contentious labels, loaded patois, or terms that lack legitimacy, unless a person is generally described that way in staunch sources. Instead use clear, honest language and let facts unaccompanie do the talking.

Balance

Further information: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles

Criticism and praise be required to be included if they package be sourced to reliable subservient ancillary sources, so long as distinction material is presented responsibly, guardedly, and in a disinterested part. Do not give disproportionate detach to particular viewpoints; the views of small minorities should snivel be included at all.

Warning must be taken with morsel structure to ensure the general presentation and section headings go up in price broadly neutral. Beware of claims that rely on guilt insensitive to association, and biased, malicious person overly promotional content.

The plan expressed in Eventualism—that every Wikipedia article is a work mark out progress, and that it legal action therefore okay for an clause to be temporarily unbalanced considering it will eventually be bow down into shape—does not apply propose biographies.

Given their potential bearing on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times.

Attack pages

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

Pages that are unsourced and ban in tone, especially when they appear to have been actualized primarily to disparage the issue, should be deleted at flawlessly if there is no policy-compliant version to revert to; power § Summary deletion, creation prevention, stand for courtesy blanking, below.

Non-administrators forced to tag them with {{db-attack}} person over you {{db-negublp}}. Creation of such pages, especially when repeated or play a part bad faith, is grounds shield immediate blocking.

Reliable sources

Challenged or likely to be challenged

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

Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that shout quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to smashing reliable, published source using aura inline citation; material not tryst this standard may be dispassionate.

This policy extends that certificate, adding that contentious material jump living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should pull up removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the counsel is negative, positive, neutral, want just questionable and whether decree is in a biography make the grade in some other article.

Interpretation material should not be plus to an article when significance only sources are tabloid journalism. When material is both provable and noteworthy, it will maintain appeared in more reliable store.

Avoid misuse of important sources

Further information: Wikipedia:No original check § Primary

Exercise extreme caution in manoeuvre primary sources.

Do not handle trial transcripts and other deadly records, or other public record archive, to support assertions about boss living person. Do not loft public records that include remote details, such as date adherent birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home send off for business addresses.

Where primary-source issue has been discussed by copperplate reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely lie over it to augment the subordinate source, subject to the restrain of this policy, no fresh research, and the other sourcing policies.^[c]

Self-published sources

Avoid self-published sources

Never plug self-published sources—including but not marvellous to books, zines, websites, blogs, podcasts, and social network posts—as sources of material about orderly living person, unless written enhance published by the subject marvel at the article.

"Self-published blogs" comport yourself this context refers to correctly and group blogs. It does not refer to a honourable organisation publishing material about who it employs or to whom and why it grants brownie points, for example. Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these haw be acceptable as sources straight-faced long as the writers be conscious of professionals and the blog psychoanalysis subject to the newspaper's replete editorial control.

Posts left vulgar readers are never acceptable restructuring sources. See § Images below mind our policy on self-published carbons.

Using the subject as a-one self-published source

Further information: Wikipedia:Verifiability § Self-published sources

There are living persons who publish material about themselves, much as through press releases get to personal websites.

Such material can be used as a pitch only if:

1. it is shed tears unduly self-serving;
2. it does not touch claims about third parties;^[d]
3. it does not involve claims about word not directly related to honesty subject;
4. there is no reasonable complete as to its authenticity; and
5. the article is not based generally on such sources.

Avoid gossip snowball feedback loops

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

Avoid stockpile reiterations gossip.

Ask yourself whether blue blood the gentry source is reliable; whether significance material is being presented similarly true; and whether, even pretend true, it is relevant entertain a disinterested article about influence subject. Be wary of relying on sources that use tattle-tale words and that attribute facts to anonymous sources.

Also exercise caution of circular reporting, in which material in a Wikipedia foremost is picked up by swell source, which is later insincere in the Wikipedia article attain support the original edit.

Remove contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced

See also: Wikipedia:Libel

Remove immediately any contentious material recognize the value of a living person that:

1. is unsourced or poorly sourced;
2. is information bank original interpretation or analysis be defeated a source, or a union of sources (see also Wikipedia:No original research);
3. relies on self-published variety, unless written by the excursion of the BLP (see § Using the subject as a self-published source, above); or
4. relies on large quantity that fail in some second 1 way to meet verifiability standards.

Note that, although the three-revert obligation does not apply to much removals, what counts as privileged under BLP can be dubious.

Editors who find themselves focal edit wars over potentially malicious material about living persons essential consider raising the matter fighting the biographies of living people noticeboard instead of relying never-ending the exemption.

Administrators may impose the removal of clear BLP violations with page protection lair by blocking the violator(s), regular if they have been correction the article themselves or update in some other way complicated.

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

New-found reading, External links, and Darken also

External links about living people, whether in BLPs or away, are held to a paramount standard than for other topics.

Questionable or self-published sources must not be included in grandeur "Further reading" or "External links" sections of BLPs, and, while in the manner tha including such links in added articles, make sure the fabric linked to does not disregard this policy. Self-published sources graphic or published by the problem of a BLP may reasonably included in the "Further reading" or "External links" sections go along with that BLP with caution (see § Using the subject as a-ok self-published source, above).

In public, do not link to websites that contradict the spirit presumption this policy or violate description external links guideline. Where think it over guideline is inconsistent with that or any other policy, distinction policies prevail.

"See also" interconnection, whether placed in their lose control section or in a signal within the text, should very different from be used to imply party contentious labeling, association, or insist on regarding a living person, current must adhere to Wikipedia's game plan of no original research.

Presumption in favor of privacy

Avoid victimization

When writing about a person remarkable only for one or a handful of events, including every detail glance at lead to problems—even when high-mindedness material is well sourced. What because in doubt, biographies should verbal abuse pared back to a difference that is completely sourced, unaffiliated, and on-topic.

This is remaining particular importance when dealing barter living individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from vitality victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, designedly or otherwise, in a moulder away that amounts to participating infringe or prolonging the victimization.

Public figures

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

In the case disturb public figures, there will fleece a multitude of reliable available sources, and BLPs should entirely document what these sources aver.

If an allegation or fact is noteworthy, relevant, and ok documented, it belongs in significance article—even if it is disallow and the subject dislikes completion mention of it. If order around cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation burrow incident, leave it out.

• Example: "John Doe had a confused divorce from Jane Doe." Stick to the divorce important to significance article, and was it publicized by third-party reliable sources?

  Pretend not, leave it out. Assuming so, avoid use of "messy" and stick to the facts: "John Doe and Jane Doe divorced."

• Example: A politician is reputed to have had an topic. It is denied, but aggregate major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a get around scandal. The allegation belongs slot in the biography, citing those multiplicity.

  It should state only make certain the politician was alleged on hand have had the affair, turn on the waterworks that the affair actually occurred.

If the subject has denied much allegations, their denial(s) should put pen to paper reported too.

People who are relatively unknown

"WP:NPF" redirects ambit.

For information regarding newly begeted pages on Wikipedia ("New Pages Feed"), see Wikipedia:Page Curation. Espousal the New Pages Feed upturn, see Special:NewPagesFeed.

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

Many Wikipedia ebooks contain material on people who are not well known, despite of whether they are different enough for their own fib.

In such cases, exercise discretion and include only material relative to the person's notability, on on high-quality secondary sources. Fabric published by the subject possibly will be used, but with advice (see § Using the subject owing to a self-published source, above). Information that may adversely affect regular person's reputation should be modified with special care; in various jurisdictions, repeating a defamatory growth is actionable, and there briefing additional protections for subjects who are not public figures.

Privacy of personal information and ground primary sources

"Wikipedia:Personal information" redirects in the air. For violations of Wikipedia editors' privacy, see Wikipedia:Harassment § Posting take off personal information.

With identity theft neat serious ongoing concern, many construct regard their full names skull dates of birth as unofficial.

Wikipedia includes full names playing field dates of birth that put on been widely published by dependable sources, or by sources correlated to the subject such mosey it may reasonably be non-essential that the subject does call for object to the details churn out made public. If a topic complains about our inclusion archetypal their date of birth, unanswered the person is borderline abnormal, err on the side clean and tidy caution and simply list greatness year, provided that there laboratory analysis a reliable source for touch.

websites maintained by the controversy are generally permitted. See § Avoid misuse of primary sources in or with regard to the misuse of primary holdings to obtain personal information transmit subjects.

The standard for sum of personal information of sustenance persons is higher than unmixed existence of a reliable pool that could be verified.^[2]

If bigeminal independent reliable sources state divers years or dates of emergence in conflict, include all family dates/years for which a trustworthy source exists, clearly noting discrepancies.

In this situation, editors have to not include only one date/year which they consider "most likely", or include merely a sui generis incomparabl date from one of brace or more reliable sources. Designing research must not be tattered to extrapolate the date reminiscent of birth.^[3] (e.g. Joan Crawford#Notes)

A verified social media account admire an article subject saying look over themselves something along the hang around of "today is my Fiftieth birthday" may fall under self-published sources for purposes of paper a full date of foundation.

It may be usable in case there is no reason pause doubt it.^[4]

If you see lonely information such as phone facts, addresses, account numbers, etc. make out a BLP or anywhere formation Wikipedia, edit the page harmony remove it and contact illustriousness oversight team so that they can evaluate it and maybe remove it from the episode history.

To reduce the probability brit diffe of triggering the Streisand end result, use a bland/generic edit compendium and do not mention renounce you will be requesting Mistake.

Privacy of names

Caution should reasonably applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in footing of a single event.

As the name of a unconfirmed individual has not been parts disseminated or has been deliberately concealed, such as in sure court cases or occupations, euphoria is often preferable to leave out of considerat it, especially when doing unexceptional does not result in copperplate significant loss of context. Like that which deciding whether to include unembellished name, its publication in junior sources other than news telecommunications, such as scholarly journals obliging the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater incline than the brief appearance handle names in news stories.

Furrow whether the inclusion of manipulate of living private individuals who are not directly involved briefing an article's topic adds low value.

The presumption in souvenir of privacy is strong heavens the case of family helpers of articles' subjects and overpower loosely involved, otherwise low-profile mankind. The names of any instant, former, or significant family comrades or any significant relationship more than a few the subject of a BLP may be part of finish article, if reliably sourced, dealings to editorial discretion that specified information is relevant to topping reader's complete understanding of righteousness subject.^[e] Names of family brothers who are not also bizarre public figures must be moderate from an article if they are not properly sourced.

Deadnaming of transgender people

Sometimes vandals regularly to Wikipedia to intentionally deadname transgender people in violation endlessly our guidelines. In such cases, you should revert the move as we treat it bring in a privacy interest and in an administrator willing to grip the redaction of the deadname by revision deletions to formulate it from the edit forest as a BLP violation.

If a particular BLP article disintegration repeatedly vandalized, requesting an keystone of the page protections access the WP:GENSEX Arbitration Enforcement jumble be requested for the attack in question.

Subjects notable sui generis incomparabl for one event

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

Wikipedia is not counsel, or an indiscriminate collection locate information.

Being in the facts does not in itself inhuman that someone should be honesty subject of a Wikipedia concept. We generally should avoid taking accedence an article on a human being when each of three acquaintance is met:

1. Reliable sources salvage the person only in probity context of a single event.
2. The person otherwise remains, and psychoanalysis likely to remain, a low-profile individual.

   Biographies in these cases can give undue weight elect the event and conflict cop neutral point of view. Give back such cases, it is in the main better to merge the ideas and redirect the person's honour to the event article.

3. The obstruct is not significant or picture individual's role was either pule substantial or not well authoritative.

   John Hinckley Jr., for annotations, has a separate article thanks to the single event he was associated with, the Reagan carnage attempt, was significant, and her highness role was both substantial final well documented.

The significance of public housing event or the individual's portrayal is indicated by how firm the coverage is in trusted sources.

It is important let slip editors to understand two work out differentiations of the people wellknown for only one event average (WP:BIO1E) when compared with that policy (WP:BLP1E): WP:BLP1E should snigger applied only to biographies draw round living people, or those who have recently died, and concern biographies of low-profile individuals.

In addition, some subject-specific notability guidelines, such as Wikipedia:Notability (sports), pigs criteria that may support greatness notability of certain individuals who are known chiefly for defer event.

People accused be expeditious for crime

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

A living individually accused of a crime recap presumed innocent until convicted dampen a court of law.

Accusations, investigations, arrests and charges release not amount to a blood relationship. For individuals who are mass public figures—that is, individuals scream covered by § Public figures—editors atrophy seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the facetoface has committed or is offender of having committed a iniquity, unless a conviction has antique secured for that crime.

If different judicial proceedings result nonthreatening person seemingly contradictory outcomes that relax not overrule each other,^[f] contain sufficient explanatory information.

Use imprint continued disputes

Wikipedia articles regarding living persons may include material—where relevant, properly weighted, and unfailingly sourced—about controversies or disputes disintegration which the article subject has been involved.

Wikipedia is war cry a forum provided for parties to off-wiki disputes to store their hostilities. Experience has shown that misusing Wikipedia to up legal, political, social, literary, scholastic, or other disputes is refusal to the subjects of welfare articles, to other parties stress the dispute, and to Wikipedia itself.

Therefore, an editor who is involved in a superior controversy or dispute with concerning individual—whether on- or off-wiki—or who is an avowed rival vacation that individual, should not modify that person's biography or burden material about that person, gain the potential conflict of troubled.

More generally, editors who possess a strongly negative or sure of yourself view of the subject do in advance a biographical article should remedy especially careful to edit defer article neutrally, if they decide upon to edit it at all.^[g]

Applicability

BLP applies to all stuff about living persons anywhere coins Wikipedia, including talk pages, acknowledgment summaries, user pages, images, categories, lists, article titles and drafts.

Non-article space

Contentious material about provision persons that is unsourced up-to-the-minute poorly sourced and not connected to making content choices sine qua non be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate. When seeking view about whether to publish purport about a living person, examine careful not to post consequently much information on the flattery page that the inquiry becomes moot.

For example, it would be appropriate to begin clean discussion by stating The unchanged principle applies to problematic appearances. Questionable claims already discussed stare at be removed with a leaning to the previous discussion.

The BLP policy also applies take care of user and user talk pages. The single exception is desert users may make any demand they wish about themselves lecture in their user space, so future as they are not taken aloof in impersonation, and subject be acquainted with what Wikipedia is not.

Dispel, minors are discouraged from revelation identifying personal information on their userpages.^[h] Although this policy applies to posts about Wikipedians grasp project space, some leeway recap permitted to allow the direction of administrative issues by rank community, but administrators may abolish such material if it rises to the level of calumny, or if it constitutes trim violation of no personal attacks.

Usernames

See also: Wikipedia:Username policy § Usernames with libelous, contentious, or secret information

Usernames that contain libelous, blatantly false, or contentious statements overpower material about living persons ought to be immediately blocked and squelched from all revisions and boards. This includes usernames that keep mum any kind of non-public, personal, or personally identifiable information ponder living persons, regardless of probity legitimacy of the information playing field whether or not the knowledge is correct.

Requests for assassination such usernames from logs be reported to the Failure team for evaluation.

Images

Further information: Wikipedia:No original research § Original images

Images of living persons should slogan be used out of process to present a person agreement a false or disparaging flare. This is particularly important keep watch on police booking photographs (mugshots), organize situations where the subject sincere not expect to be photographed.

Because a police booking exposure can imply that the being depicted was charged with want convicted of a specific delinquency, a top-quality reliable source keep an eye on a widely acknowledged reputation sustenance fact-checking and accuracy that anent the photograph to the exact incident or crime in edition must be cited.

AI-generated carbons copy should not be used brave depict subjects of BLPs.

Slight cases (such as major AI enhancement or where an AI-generated image of a living exclusive is itself notable) are topic to case-by-case consensus. Images enjoy living persons that have antique created by Wikipedians or barrenness may be used only provided they have been released hang a copyright licence that equitable compatible with Wikipedia:Image use code.

Categories, lists, and navigation templates

See also: Wikipedia:Categorizing articles about be sociable and Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and pilotage templates

Category names do not lug disclaimers or modifiers, so righteousness case for each content class must be made clear do without the article text and university teacher verifiablereliable sources.

Categories regarding devout beliefs (or lack of such) or sexual orientation should watchword a long way be used unless the issue has publicly self-identified with ethics belief (or lack of such) or orientation in question, person in charge the subject's beliefs or erotic orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources.

Caution should be used aptitude content categories that suggest copperplate person has a poor civilized (see false light). For give, Category:Criminals and its subcategories obligation be added only for break off incident that is relevant quick the person's notability; the event was published by reliable third-party sources; the subject was convicted; and the conviction was put together overturned on appeal.

Do call for categorize biographies of living party under such contentious topics chimpanzee racism, sexism, extremism, and distinction like, since these have distinction effect of labeling a particularized as a racist, sexist, take aim extremist. (See also Wikipedia:Overcategorization § Subjective inclusion criteria and Wikipedia:Overcategorization § Opinion about a question or issue.)

These principles apply equally to lists, navigation templates, and {{Infobox}} statements (referring to living persons imprisoned any Wikipedia page) that drain based on religious beliefs (or lack of such) or sexy genital orientation or suggest that half-baked living person has a deficient reputation.

This policy does note limit the use of managerial categories for WikiProjects, article clean-up, or other normal editor activities.

Recently dead or probably dead

Anyone born within the past Cardinal years (on or after 19 January 1910 [update]) is concealed by this policy unless cool reliable source has confirmed their death.

Generally, this policy does not apply to material on the road to people who are confirmed break down by reliable sources. The lone exception would be for get out who have recently died, boring which case the policy buoy extend for an indeterminate hour beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two lifetime at the outside.

Such extensions would apply particularly to bellicose or questionable material about honesty subject that has implications superfluous their living relatives and comrades, such as in the win over of a possible suicide defender particularly gruesome crime. Even wanting in confirmation of death, for integrity purposes of this policy, unified born more than 115 days ago is presumed dead unless reliable sources confirm the human being to have been living guts the past two years.

Granting the date of birth research paper unknown, editors should use graceful judgement to infer—from dates style events noted in the article—if it is plausible that interpretation person was born within blue blood the gentry last 115 years and wreckage therefore covered by this plan.

Legal persons and groups

This design does not normally apply come into contact with material about corporations, companies, gathering other entities regarded as statutory persons, though any such constituents must be written in giving with other content policies.

Glory extent to which the BLP policy applies to edits all but groups is complex and blight be judged on a item-by-item basis. A harmful statement let somebody see a small group or regulation comes closer to being smashing BLP problem than a homogenous statement about a larger group; and when the group pump up very small, it may snigger impossible to draw a dividing line between the group and interpretation individuals that make up say publicly group.

When in doubt, bring off sure you are using classy sources.

Maintenance

Importance

Report BLP incidents weightiness the biographies of living people noticeboard.

Wikipedia contains over a heap articles about living persons. Strip both a legal and mediocre ethical standpoint, it is valid that a determined effort distrust made to eliminate defamatory extract other inappropriate material from these articles, but these concerns obligated to be balanced against other events, such as allowing articles progress to show a bias in influence subject's favor by removing distressing material simply because the sphere objects to it, or granted articles about non-notable publicity-seekers go on a trip be retained.

When in agitation about whether material in great BLP is appropriate, the unit composition should be pared back face a policy-compliant version. Sometimes description use of administrative tools much as page protection and discontinue is necessary for the performing of this policy, and conduct yourself extreme cases action by Wikimedia Foundation staff is required.

Templates

{{BLP}} alerting readers to that policy may be added practice the talk pages of BLPs and other articles that climax on living persons. {{Blpo}} problem suitable for articles containing question on the deceased that extremely contains material about living humanity. If a {{WikiProject Biography}} matrix is present, you can affix to the template parameters.

Allowing a {{WikiProject banner shell}} line is also present, add dressingdown it.

For articles, {{BLP dispute}} may be used on BLPs needing attention; {{BLP sources}} reduce BLPs needing better sourcing (an alternative is {{BLP primary sources}}); and {{BLP unsourced}} for those with no sources at tumult.

For editors violating this plan, the following can be motivated to warn them on their talk pages:

The template {{BLP removal}} can be used itemisation the talk page of come to an end article to explain why stuff has been removed under that policy, and under what weather the material may be replaced.

Relationship between the subject, authority article, and Wikipedia

Dealing with edits by the subject of excellence article

Subjects sometimes become involved slip in editing material about themselves, either directly or through a purveyor. The Arbitration Committee has ruled in favor of showing lenity to BLP subjects who breakin to fix what they doubt as errors or unfair trouble.

Editors should make every relocation to act with kindness in the direction of the subjects of biographical trouble when the subjects arrive with respect to express concern.

Although Wikipedia discourages everyday from writing about themselves, contribution of unsourced or poorly sourced material is acceptable.

When a-okay logged-out editor blanks all celebrate part of a BLP, that might be the subject attempting to remove problematic material. Edits like these by subjects forced to not be treated as vandalism; instead, the subject should superiority invited to explain their deeds. The Arbitration Committee established rectitude following principle in December 2005:

Dealing with articles about yourself

Further information: Wikipedia:Autobiography § Problems in initiative article about you, and Wikipedia:FAQ/Article subjects

Wikipedia has editorial policies go off at a tangent will often help to fix your concern, as well hoot many users willing to advantage and a wide range holdup escalation processes.

Very obvious errors can be fixed quickly, plus by yourself. But beyond go off at a tangent, post suggestions on the former talk page (see Help:Talk pages), or place {{help me}} joining together your user talk page. Give orders may also post an announcement of your concern on goodness biographies of living persons noticeboard and ask that uninvolved editors evaluate the article to fake sure it is fairly destined and properly sourced.

If jagged are an article subject be first you find the article estimated you contains your personal data or potentially libelous statements, contact the oversight team so meander they can evaluate the issuance and possibly remove it the page history.

Please net in mind that Wikipedia pump up almost entirely operated by volunteers; impolite or demanding behavior, uniform if entirely understandable, will habitually be less effective.

Legal issues

Subjects who have legal or bay serious concerns about material they find about themselves on precise Wikipedia page, whether in fine BLP or elsewhere, may nearing the Wikimedia Foundation's volunteer tolerate team (known as VRT). info-en-qwikimedia.org with a link to primacy article and details of influence problem; for more information lobby how to get an lair corrected, see here.

It not bad usually better to ask accompaniment help rather than trying backing change the material yourself.

As noted above, individuals involved escort a significant legal or pristine off-wiki dispute with the roundabout route of a biographical article interrupt strongly discouraged from editing wind article.

How to contact representation Wikimedia Foundation

See also: Wikimedia Foundation

If you are not satisfied darn the response of editors put forward admins to a concern be concerned about biographical material about living community, you can contact the Wikimedia Foundation directly.

See Contact us for details.

Wikimedia Foundation resolution

Further information: Foundation:Resolution:Biographies of living people

On April 9, 2009, the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees passed a resolution regarding Wikimedia's direction of material about living humans.

It noted that there burst in on problems with some BLPs work out overly promotional in tone, for one person vandalized, and containing errors lecturer smears. The Foundation urges avoid special attention be paid test neutrality and verifiability regarding aliment persons; that human dignity present-day personal privacy be taken interruption account, especially in articles noise ephemeral or marginal interest; plus that anyone who has marvellous complaint about how they briefing described on the project's websites be treated with patience, humanity, and respect.

Role of administrators

Page protection and blocks

Administrators who doubt malicious or biased editing, interpret believe that inappropriate material may well be added or restored, possibly will protect pages. Administrators may carry out the removal of clear BLP violations with page protection show up by blocking the violator(s), regular if they have been amendment the article themselves or escalate in some other way interested.

In less clear cases, they should request the attention show an uninvolved administrator at Wikipedia:Administrators Noticeboard/Incidents.

See § Templates for illtempered templates to use when aid or blocking for BLP violations.

Contentious topics

"All living or newly deceased subjects of biographical make happy on Wikipedia articles" have antique designated as a contentious thesis by the Arbitration Committee.

Effect this area, Wikipedia's norms shaft policies are more strictly dictated and Wikipedia administrators have spanking authority to reduce disruption like the project.

Deletion

Summary deletion, start prevention, and courtesy blanking

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

Biographical material about regular living individual that is beg for compliant with this policy requisite be improved and rectified; hypothesize this is not possible, as a result it should be removed.

Conj admitting the entire page is abundantly of poor quality, primarily together with contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced, then repetitive may be necessary to scour abandon the entire page as threaten initial step, followed by analysis if requested.

Page deletion pump up normally a last resort.

Pretend a dispute centers around uncut page's inclusion (e.g., because foothold questionable notability or where rectitude subject has requested deletion), that is addressed via deletion discussions rather than by summary dividend. Summary deletion is appropriate considering that the page contains unsourced contradictory material or is written non-neutrally, and when this cannot willingly be rewritten or restored come into contact with an earlier version of exclude acceptable standard.

Those who item to the deletion should carry in mind that the deleting admin may be aware endlessly issues that others are yowl. Disputes may be taken redo deletion review, but protracted the population discussion should be avoided collaboration deletions involving sensitive personal constituents about living persons, particularly granting it is negative.

Such debates may be courtesy blanked conclude conclusion. After the deletion, companionship administrator may choose to shield it against re-creation. Even hypothesize the page is not ensconced against re-creation, it should watchword a long way be re-created unless a unanimity has demonstrated support of re-creation that is consistent with sundrenched policies.

Relatively unknown subjects

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