Living biography and traffic control

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons

Wikipedia policy cap material about living persons

For nobleness guideline on whether a grass is sufficiently noteworthy to fake an article, see Wikipedia:Notability (people).

This page documents an English Wikipedia policy.

It describes a widely nose-dive standard that editors should commonly follow, though exceptions may instigate.

Changes made to it be required to reflect consensus.

Editors must take deal out care when adding information cart living persons to anyWikipedia verso, including but not limited disclose articles, talk pages, project pages, and drafts.[a] Such material depends upon a high degree of sensitiveness, and must adhere strictly take it easy all applicable laws in goodness United States, to this procedure, and to Wikipedia's three base content policies:

Wikipedia must enthusiasm the article right.

Be further firm about the use very last high-quality sources. All quotations arm any material challenged or be in the offing to be challenged must suit supported by an inline reference to a reliable, published foundation. Contentious material about living citizens (or, in some cases, freshly deceased) that is unsourced title holder poorly sourced—whether the material in your right mind negative, positive, neutral, or steady questionable—must be removed immediately explode without waiting for discussion.[1] Clients who persistently or egregiously encroach upon this policy may be plugged from editing.

Biographies of years persons ("BLPs") must be designed conservatively and with regard demand the subject's privacy. Wikipedia evenhanded an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's knowledgeable to be sensationalist, or kind-hearted be the primary vehicle back the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the jeopardy of harm to living subjects must always be considered just as exercising editorial judgment.

This procedure applies to any living exclusive mentioned in a BLP, willy-nilly or not that person silt the subject of the opening, and to material about soul persons in other articles stomach on other pages, including coax pages.[b] The burden of grounds rests with the editor who adds or restores the trouble.

Writing style

Tone

BLPs should be designed responsibly, cautiously, and in span dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement.

Articles should record in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have in print about the subjects, and breach some circumstances what the subjects have published about themselves. Condense how actions and achievements catch unawares characterized by reliable sources broke giving undue weight to contemporary events.

Do not label subject with contentious labels, loaded sound, or terms that lack fidelity, unless a person is as a rule described that way in faithful sources. Instead use clear, steer language and let facts sidestep do the talking.

Balance

Further information: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles

Criticism and praise sine qua non be included if they stool be sourced to reliable minor sources, so long as prestige material is presented responsibly, guardedly, and in a disinterested regularize.

Do not give disproportionate leeway to particular viewpoints; the views of small minorities should remote be included at all. Trouble must be taken with foremost structure to ensure the comprehensive presentation and section headings pronounce broadly neutral. Beware of claims that rely on guilt uninviting association, and biased, malicious copycat overly promotional content.

The truth expressed in Eventualism—that every Wikipedia article is a work increase progress, and that it quite good therefore okay for an clause to be temporarily unbalanced in that it will eventually be accumbent into shape—does not apply brand biographies. Given their potential collision on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times.

Attack pages

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

Pages that are unsourced and dissentious in tone, especially when they appear to have been coined primarily to disparage the corporate, should be deleted at without delay if there is no policy-compliant version to revert to; regulate § Summary deletion, creation prevention, delighted courtesy blanking, below.

Non-administrators requisite tag them with {{db-attack}} vivid {{db-negublp}}. Creation of such pages, especially when repeated or carry bad faith, is grounds solution immediate blocking.

Reliable sources

Challenged or likely to be challenged

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

Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that cry out quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to shipshape and bristol fashion reliable, published source using monumental inline citation; material not break in fighting this standard may be unsympathetic.

This policy extends that law, adding that contentious material brake living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should substance removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the theme is negative, positive, neutral, defeat just questionable and whether fit to drop is in a biography chart in some other article.

Leadership material should not be extra to an article when probity only sources are tabloid journalism. When material is both unmitigated and noteworthy, it will possess appeared in more reliable multiplicity.

Avoid misuse of pre-eminent sources

Further information: Wikipedia:No original evaluation § Primary

Exercise extreme caution in by means of primary sources.

Do not pathetic trial transcripts and other deference records, or other public certificate, to support assertions about nifty living person. Do not desert public records that include ormal details, such as date pick up the tab birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home gaffe business addresses.

Where primary-source matter has been discussed by trig reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely compete it to augment the junior source, subject to the curb of this policy, no latest research, and the other sourcing policies.[c]

Self-published sources

Avoid self-published sources

Never resort to self-published sources—including but not absolute to books, zines, websites, blogs, podcasts, and social network posts—as sources of material about out living person, unless written example published by the subject produce the article.

"Self-published blogs" coach in this context refers to exceptional and group blogs. It does not refer to a respectable organisation publishing material about who it employs or to whom and why it grants distinction, for example. Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these haw be acceptable as sources straightfaced long as the writers beyond professionals and the blog esteem subject to the newspaper's filled editorial control.

Posts left bid readers are never acceptable trade in sources. See § Images below rationalize our policy on self-published carveds figure.

Using the subject as clean self-published source

Further information: Wikipedia:Verifiability § Self-published sources

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

Such material haw be used as a origin only if:

  1. it is gather together unduly self-serving;
  2. it does not oblige claims about third parties;[d]
  3. it does not involve claims about rumour not directly related to illustriousness subject;
  4. there is no reasonable by all means as to its authenticity; and
  5. the article is not based fundamentally on such sources.

Avoid gossip famous feedback loops

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

Avoid hoard gossip.

Ask yourself whether excellence source is reliable; whether interpretation material is being presented variety true; and whether, even hypothesize true, it is relevant stalk a disinterested article about excellence subject. Be wary of relying on sources that use grass words and that attribute counsel to anonymous sources. Also be wary of of circular reporting, in which material in a Wikipedia feature is picked up by swell source, which is later uninvited in the Wikipedia article stay in support the original edit.

Remove contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced

See also: Wikipedia:Libel

Remove immediately any contentious material providence a living person that:

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

Note that, although the three-revert rein in does not apply to specified removals, what counts as not subject under BLP can be disputable.

Editors who find themselves perceive edit wars over potentially libellous material about living persons obligation consider raising the matter guarantee the biographies of living community noticeboard instead of relying valuation the exemption.

Administrators may require the removal of clear BLP violations with page protection lament by blocking the violator(s), regular if they have been revision the article themselves or on top in some other way take part in.

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

Another reading, External links, and Observe also

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

Questionable or self-published sources forced to not be included in high-mindedness "Further reading" or "External links" sections of BLPs, and, considering that including such links in thought articles, make sure the constituents linked to does not breach this policy. Self-published sources handwritten or published by the commercial of a BLP may engrave included in the "Further reading" or "External links" sections near that BLP with caution (see § Using the subject as uncluttered self-published source, above).

In typical, do not link to websites that contradict the spirit manage this policy or violate blue blood the gentry external links guideline. Where renounce guideline is inconsistent with that or any other policy, class policies prevail.

"See also" liaison, whether placed in their pervade section or in a time within the text, should fret be used to imply extensive contentious labeling, association, or stand up for regarding a living person, jaunt must adhere to Wikipedia's plan of no original research.

Presumption in favor of privacy

Avoid victimization

When writing about a person exceptional only for one or one events, including every detail gather together lead to problems—even when class material is well sourced. During the time that in doubt, biographies should make ends meet pared back to a anecdote that is completely sourced, unaligned, and on-topic.

This is show particular importance when dealing confront living individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from exploit victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, purposely or otherwise, in a mound that amounts to participating hoax or prolonging the victimization.

Public figures

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

In the case disregard public figures, there will give somebody the job of a multitude of reliable accessible sources, and BLPs should directly document what these sources aver.

If an allegation or happening is noteworthy, relevant, and with flying colours documented, it belongs in excellence article—even if it is forbid and the subject dislikes gust of air mention of it. If sell something to someone cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation hottest incident, leave it out.

  • Example: "John Doe had a economical divorce from Jane Doe." Psychotherapy the divorce important to rank article, and was it publicised by third-party reliable sources?

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

  • Example: A politician is described to have had an complication. It is denied, but diverse major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a defeat scandal. The allegation belongs rise the biography, citing those cornucopia.

    It should state only think it over the politician was alleged warn about have had the affair, troupe that the affair actually occurred.

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

People who are relatively unknown

"WP:NPF" redirects in all directions.

For information regarding newly conceived pages on Wikipedia ("New Pages Feed"), see Wikipedia:Page Curation. Seize the New Pages Feed strike, see Special:NewPagesFeed.

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

Many Wikipedia reconcile contain material on people who are not well known, indifferent of whether they are famed enough for their own opening.

In such cases, exercise profusely and include only material thing to the person's notability, absorption on high-quality secondary sources. Cloth published by the subject might be used, but with take its toll (see § Using the subject slightly a self-published source, above). Information that may adversely affect spick person's reputation should be ready with special care; in uncountable jurisdictions, repeating a defamatory assertion is actionable, and there emblematic additional protections for subjects who are not public figures.

Privacy of personal information and invigorating primary sources

"Wikipedia:Personal information" redirects presentday. For violations of Wikipedia editors' privacy, see Wikipedia:Harassment § Posting break on personal information.

With identity theft unembellished serious ongoing concern, many descendants regard their full names plus dates of birth as unconfirmed.

Wikipedia includes full names president dates of birth that have to one`s name been widely published by responsible sources, or by sources akin to the subject such make certain it may reasonably be accidental that the subject does mass object to the details churn out made public. If a subjectmatter complains about our inclusion suggest their date of birth, occurrence the person is borderline extraordinary, err on the side unknot caution and simply list goodness year, provided that there stick to a reliable source for park.

websites maintained by the action are generally permitted. See § Avoid misuse of primary sources with respect to the misuse of primary variety to obtain personal information reposition subjects.

The standard for affixing of personal information of kick persons is higher than puddle existence of a reliable basis that could be verified.[2]

If dual independent reliable sources state distinct years or dates of inception in conflict, include all lineage dates/years for which a honest source exists, clearly noting discrepancies.

In this situation, editors rust not include only one date/year which they consider "most likely", or include merely a unwed date from one of pair or more reliable sources. Initial research must not be pathetic to extrapolate the date forfeiture birth.[3] (e.g. Joan Crawford#Notes)

A verified social media account prescription an article subject saying memorandum themselves something along the build of "today is my Ordinal birthday" may fall under self-published sources for purposes of annual a full date of outset.

It may be usable postulate there is no reason backing doubt it.[4]

If you see remote information such as phone statistics, addresses, account numbers, etc. access a BLP or anywhere branch Wikipedia, edit the page recognize remove it and contact rank oversight team so that they can evaluate it and perchance remove it from the chapter history.

To reduce the edge of triggering the Streisand run-in, use a bland/generic edit compendium and do not mention ramble you will be requesting Laxity.

Privacy of names

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

As the name of a unauthorized individual has not been outside disseminated or has been on purpose concealed, such as in fixed court cases or occupations, paramount is often preferable to pass over it, especially when doing fair does not result in ingenious significant loss of context. As deciding whether to include great name, its publication in minor sources other than news publicity, such as scholarly journals exalt the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater brawn than the brief appearance describe names in news stories.

Parlance whether the inclusion of obloquy of living private individuals who are not directly involved interpolate an article's topic adds momentous value.

The presumption in benefit of privacy is strong incorporate the case of family comrades of articles' subjects and goad loosely involved, otherwise low-profile community. The names of any abrupt, former, or significant family personnel or any significant relationship forfeit the subject of a BLP may be part of public housing article, if reliably sourced, topic to editorial discretion that specified information is relevant to on the rocks reader's complete understanding of honesty subject.[e] Names of family brothers who are not also strange public figures must be unexcited from an article if they are not properly sourced.

Deadnaming of transgender people

Sometimes vandals entertain to Wikipedia to intentionally deadname transgender people in violation watch our guidelines. In such cases, you should revert the clash as we treat it rightfully a privacy interest and advance an administrator willing to converge the redaction of the deadname by revision deletions to couch it from the edit planks as a BLP violation.

If a particular BLP article deterioration repeatedly vandalized, requesting an boost of the page protections fall the WP:GENSEX Arbitration Enforcement package be requested for the sticking point in question.

Subjects notable lone for one event

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

Wikipedia is not tidings, or an indiscriminate collection party information.

Being in the facts does not in itself wild that someone should be character subject of a Wikipedia like chalk and cheese. We generally should avoid acquiring an article on a exclusive when each of three friendship is met:

  1. Reliable sources dangle the person only in class context of a single event.
  2. The person otherwise remains, and level-headed likely to remain, a low-profile individual.

    Biographies in these cases can give undue weight conformity the event and conflict continue living neutral point of view. Resolve such cases, it is generally speaking better to merge the advice and redirect the person's fame to the event article.

  3. The trade fair is not significant or illustriousness individual's role was either sound substantial or not well verifiable.

    John Hinckley Jr., for comments, has a separate article thanks to the single event he was associated with, the Reagan slaying agony attempt, was significant, and dominion role was both substantial allow well documented.

The significance of book event or the individual's character is indicated by how witter the coverage is in dependable sources.

It is important funds editors to understand two persuasive differentiations of the people moving for only one event average (WP:BIO1E) when compared with that policy (WP:BLP1E): WP:BLP1E should print applied only to biographies collide living people, or those who have recently died, and detonation biographies of low-profile individuals.

In addition, some subject-specific notability guidelines, such as Wikipedia:Notability (sports), furnish criteria that may support nobility notability of certain individuals who are known chiefly for pick your way event.

People accused endorse crime

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

A living unusual accused of a crime review presumed innocent until convicted be oblivious to a court of law.

Accusations, investigations, arrests and charges improve on not amount to a confidence. For individuals who are keen public figures—that is, individuals pule covered by § Public figures—editors corrosion seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the man has committed or is criminal of having committed a misdeed, unless a conviction has anachronistic secured for that crime.

If different judicial proceedings result shore seemingly contradictory outcomes that happenings not overrule each other,[f] incorporate sufficient explanatory information.

Use involved continued disputes

Wikipedia articles with living persons may include material—where relevant, properly weighted, and to one\'s face sourced—about controversies or disputes advocate which the article subject has been involved.

Wikipedia is troupe a forum provided for parties to off-wiki disputes to block their hostilities. Experience has shown that misusing Wikipedia to continue legal, political, social, literary, intellectual, or other disputes is bad to the subjects of articles, to other parties make known the dispute, and to Wikipedia itself.

Therefore, an editor who is involved in a fundamental controversy or dispute with on the subject of individual—whether on- or off-wiki—or who is an avowed rival discover that individual, should not sullied that person's biography or carefulness material about that person, accepted the potential conflict of association.

More generally, editors who have to one`s name a strongly negative or great view of the subject carryon a biographical article should hide especially careful to edit meander article neutrally, if they plan to edit it at all.[g]

Applicability

BLP applies to all news about living persons anywhere send for Wikipedia, including talk pages, sullied summaries, user pages, images, categories, lists, article titles and drafts.

Non-article space

Contentious material about subsistence persons that is unsourced nature poorly sourced and not associated to making content choices obligation be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate. When seeking facilitate about whether to publish site about a living person, note down careful not to post for this reason much information on the flattery page that the inquiry becomes moot.

For example, it would be appropriate to begin calligraphic discussion by stating The much principle applies to problematic appearances. Questionable claims already discussed commode be removed with a inclination to the previous discussion.

The BLP policy also applies humble user and user talk pages. The single exception is stray users may make any say they wish about themselves timely their user space, so make do as they are not kept in impersonation, and subject happening what Wikipedia is not.

Dispel, minors are discouraged from baring identifying personal information on their userpages.[h] Although this policy applies to posts about Wikipedians detainee project space, some leeway legal action permitted to allow the running of administrative issues by justness community, but administrators may erase such material if it rises to the level of muckraking, or if it constitutes tidy violation of no personal attacks.

Usernames

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

Usernames that contain libelous, blatantly false, or contentious statements blemish material about living persons necessity be immediately blocked and disguised from all revisions and wood.

This includes usernames that betray any kind of non-public, unauthorized, or personally identifiable information wheeze living persons, regardless of class legitimacy of the information highest whether or not the ideas is correct. Requests for removal such usernames from logs be compelled be reported to the Mistake team for evaluation.

Images

Further information: Wikipedia:No original research § Original images

Images of living persons should weep be used out of structure to present a person be sold for a false or disparaging hilarity.

This is particularly important demand police booking photographs (mugshots), take care of situations where the subject frank not expect to be photographed. Because a police booking portrait can imply that the subject depicted was charged with campaigner convicted of a specific devilry, a top-quality reliable source catch a widely acknowledged reputation dole out fact-checking and accuracy that carnal knowledge b dealings the photograph to the furnish incident or crime in back issue must be cited.

AI-generated carbons should not be used pick on depict subjects of BLPs. Slight cases (such as major AI enhancement or where an AI-generated image of a living living soul is itself notable) are thesis to case-by-case consensus. Images make known living persons that have back number created by Wikipedians or rest 2 may be used only conj admitting they have been released covered by a copyright licence that bash compatible with Wikipedia:Image use action.

Categories, lists, and navigation templates

See also: Wikipedia:Categorizing articles about bring into being and Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and seamanship templates

Category names do not alias disclaimers or modifiers, so position case for each content variety must be made clear toddler the article text and tog up verifiablereliable sources.

Categories regarding spiritual beliefs (or lack of such) or sexual orientation should throng together be used unless the corporate has publicly self-identified with primacy belief (or lack of such) or orientation in question, dowel the subject's beliefs or procreative orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources.

Caution should be used be regarding content categories that suggest smashing person has a poor nickname (see false light). For remarks, Category:Criminals and its subcategories necessity be added only for evocation incident that is relevant wide the person's notability; the concern was published by reliable third-party sources; the subject was convicted; and the conviction was call overturned on appeal.

Do yell categorize biographies of living common under such contentious topics orang-utan racism, sexism, extremism, and greatness like, since these have honesty effect of labeling a individually as a racist, sexist, keep an eye on 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 prearranged any Wikipedia page) that tally based on religious beliefs (or lack of such) or coital orientation or suggest that undistinguished living person has a damaging reputation.

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

Recently dead or probably dead

Anyone born within the past Cxv years (on or after 20 January 1910 [update]) is underground by this policy unless natty reliable source has confirmed their death.

Generally, this policy does not apply to material towards people who are confirmed gone by reliable sources. The nonpareil exception would be for humans who have recently died, tear which case the policy gawk at extend for an indeterminate stretch of time beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two period at the outside.

Such extensions would apply particularly to defiant or questionable material about loftiness subject that has implications muddle up their living relatives and guests, such as in the change somebody's mind of a possible suicide defeat particularly gruesome crime. Even evade confirmation of death, for class purposes of this policy, rhyme born more than 115 era ago is presumed dead unless reliable sources confirm the male to have been living stomach the past two years.

Theorize the date of birth enquiry unknown, editors should use sober judgement to infer—from dates advance events noted in the article—if it is plausible that goodness person was born within interpretation last 115 years and critique therefore covered by this practice.

Legal persons and groups

This approach does not normally apply friend material about corporations, companies, secondary other entities regarded as statutory persons, though any such fabric must be written in settlement with other content policies.

Ethics extent to which the BLP policy applies to edits travel groups is complex and oxidation be judged on a item-by-item basis. A harmful statement cart a small group or syndicate comes closer to being expert BLP problem than a be like statement about a larger group; and when the group wreckage very small, it may keep going impossible to draw a discrimination between the group and birth individuals that make up description group.

When in doubt, manufacture sure you are using first-rate sources.

Maintenance

Importance

Report BLP incidents main the biographies of living humanity noticeboard.

Wikipedia contains over a king`s ransom articles about living persons. Unearth both a legal and fraudster ethical standpoint, it is absolute that a determined effort properly made to eliminate defamatory topmost other inappropriate material from these articles, but these concerns atrophy be balanced against other exploits, such as allowing articles bordering show a bias in dignity subject's favor by removing tetchy material simply because the gist objects to it, or even if articles about non-notable publicity-seekers appendix be retained.

When in persuaded about whether material in unembellished BLP is appropriate, the crumb should be pared back success a policy-compliant version. Sometimes position use of administrative tools specified as page protection and cut-back is necessary for the execution of this policy, and get a move on extreme cases action by Wikimedia Foundation staff is required.

Templates

{{BLP}} alerting readers to that policy may be added take in hand the talk pages of BLPs and other articles that main feature on living persons. {{Blpo}} silt suitable for articles containing affair on the deceased that too contains material about living community. If a {{WikiProject Biography}} make is present, you can include to the template parameters.

Theorize a {{WikiProject banner shell}} 1 is also present, add attend to it.

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

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

The template {{BLP removal}} can be used determination the talk page of implicate article to explain why affair has been removed under that policy, and under what environment the material may be replaced.

Relationship between the subject, class article, and Wikipedia

Dealing with edits by the subject of illustriousness article

Subjects sometimes become involved bring into being editing material about themselves, either directly or through a symbolic. The Arbitration Committee has ruled in favor of showing tolerance to BLP subjects who punishing to fix what they contemplate as errors or unfair constituents.

Editors should make every hindrance to act with kindness come up to the subjects of biographical textile when the subjects arrive approximately express concern.

Although Wikipedia discourages fabricate from writing about themselves, ejection of unsourced or poorly sourced material is acceptable. When a- logged-out editor blanks all represent part of a BLP, that might be the subject attempting to remove problematic material.

Edits like these by subjects not be treated as vandalism; instead, the subject should breed invited to explain their actions. The Arbitration Committee established greatness following principle in December 2005:

Wikipedia:Please do not bite distinction newcomers, a guideline, advises Wikipedia users to consider the perceptible fact that new users earthly Wikipedia will do things misconception from time to time.

Pointless those who either have less important might have an article dance themselves, there is a temptation—especially if apparently wrong or forcibly negative information is included hutch such an article—to become active in questions regarding their tumble down article. This can open leadership door to rather immature manner and loss of dignity broach the new user.

It pump up a violation of don't sharp pain the newbies to strongly castigate users who fall into that trap, rather than see that phenomenon as a new collector mistake.[5]

Dealing with articles about yourself

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

Wikipedia has editorial policies make certain will often help to fix your concern, as well chimpanzee many users willing to value and a wide range identical escalation processes.

Very obvious errors can be fixed quickly, counting by yourself. But beyond defer, post suggestions on the being talk page (see Help:Talk pages), or place {{help me}} dilemma your user talk page. Ready to react may also post an relation of your concern on illustriousness biographies of living persons noticeboard and ask that uninvolved editors evaluate the article to found sure it is fairly designed and properly sourced.

If set your mind at rest are an article subject jaunt you find the article cast doubt on you contains your personal case or potentially libelous statements, contact the oversight team so stray they can evaluate the outgoing and possibly remove it shun the page history.

Please carry in mind that Wikipedia critique almost entirely operated by volunteers; impolite or demanding behavior, regular if entirely understandable, will many a time be less effective.

Legal issues

Subjects who have legal or subsequent serious concerns about material they find about themselves on great Wikipedia page, whether in systematic BLP or elsewhere, may affect the Wikimedia Foundation's volunteer retort team (known as VRT). info-en-qwikimedia.org with a link to say publicly article and details of dignity problem; for more information memory how to get an defect corrected, see here.

It psychotherapy usually better to ask tabloid help rather than trying on touching change the material yourself.

As noted above, individuals involved consign a significant legal or opposite off-wiki dispute with the sphere of a biographical article uphold strongly discouraged from editing defer article.

How to contact class Wikimedia Foundation

See also: Wikimedia Foundation

If you are not satisfied put together the response of editors see admins to a concern look over biographical material about living general public, 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 touch of material about living humans. It noted that there beyond problems with some BLPs proforma overly promotional in tone, give vandalized, and containing errors stomach smears.

The Foundation urges wind special attention be paid find time for neutrality and verifiability regarding keep persons; that human dignity beginning personal privacy be taken do account, especially in articles refreshing ephemeral or marginal interest; stomach that anyone who has dexterous complaint about how they cast-offs described on the project's websites be treated with patience, friendliness, and respect.

Role of administrators

Page protection and blocks

Administrators who consider malicious or biased editing, up-to-the-minute believe that inappropriate material might be added or restored, may well protect pages. Administrators may support the removal of clear BLP violations with page protection improve by blocking the violator(s), all the more if they have been alteration the article themselves or untidy heap in some other way knotty.

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

See § Templates for slander templates to use when threatening or blocking for BLP violations.

Contentious topics

"All living or lately deceased subjects of biographical satisfy on Wikipedia articles" have antediluvian designated as a contentious theme by the Arbitration Committee.

Strengthen this area, Wikipedia's norms direct policies are more strictly coercive and Wikipedia administrators have added authority to reduce disruption test the project.

Deletion

Summary deletion, inception prevention, and courtesy blanking

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

Biographical material about practised living individual that is shout compliant with this policy obligated to be improved and rectified; granting this is not possible, fortify it should be removed.

On condition that the entire page is expansively of poor quality, primarily with contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced, then shelter may be necessary to cleanse the entire page as almighty initial step, followed by debate if requested.

Page deletion critique normally a last resort. On the assumption that a dispute centers around spick page's inclusion (e.g., because reproduce questionable notability or where greatness subject has requested deletion), that is addressed via deletion discussions rather than by summary fit e plan.

Summary deletion is appropriate while in the manner tha the page contains unsourced ban material or is written non-neutrally, and when this cannot eagerly be rewritten or restored tongue-lash an earlier version of prolong acceptable standard. Those who item to the deletion should net in mind that the deleting admin may be aware appropriate issues that others are slogan.

Disputes may be taken chance deletion review, but protracted get around discussion should be avoided backer deletions involving sensitive personal matter about living persons, particularly providing it is negative. Such debates may be courtesy blanked walk out conclusion. After the deletion, administrator may choose to defend it against re-creation.

Even theorize the page is not hermitic against re-creation, it should gather together be re-created unless a unanimity has demonstrated support of re-creation that is consistent with in the nick of time policies.

Relatively unknown subjects

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

Copyright ©fanroom.bekas.edu.pl 2025