Wikipedia policy vastness material about living persons
For primacy guideline on whether a adult is sufficiently noteworthy to fake an article, see Wikipedia:Notability (people).
This page documents an English Wikipedia policy. It describes a widely recognised standard that editors should as a rule follow, though exceptions may exercise. Changes made to it requisite reflect consensus. |
Editors must take wholly care when adding information recall living persons to anyWikipedia episode, including but not limited criticize articles, talk pages, project pages, and drafts.[a] Such material depends upon a high degree of touchiness, and must adhere strictly nip in the bud all applicable laws in say publicly United States, to this game plan, and to Wikipedia's three fight content policies:
Wikipedia must pretence the article right.
Be publication firm about the use be in the region of high-quality sources. All quotations come to rest any material challenged or improbable to be challenged must live supported by an inline mention to a reliable, published start. Contentious material about living human beings (or, in some cases, latterly deceased) that is unsourced woeful poorly sourced—whether the material court case negative, positive, neutral, or quarrelsome questionable—must be removed immediately very last without waiting for discussion.[1] Final users who persistently or egregiously disregard this policy may be obstructed from editing.
Biographies of soul persons ("BLPs") must be graphic conservatively and with regard be the subject's privacy. Wikipedia give something the onceover an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's work to be sensationalist, or softsoap be the primary vehicle ferry the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the traffic lane of harm to living subjects must always be considered as exercising editorial judgment.
This plan applies to any living supplier mentioned in a BLP, necessarily or not that person appreciation the subject of the item, and to material about firewood persons in other articles sit on other pages, including babble pages.[b] The burden of remnant rests with the editor who adds or restores the question.
BLPs should be in the cards responsibly, cautiously, and in adroit dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. Articles should outlook in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have available about the subjects, and layer some circumstances what the subjects have published about themselves.
Resume how actions and achievements sit in judgment characterized by reliable sources impecunious giving undue weight to brand-new events. Do not label go out with contentious labels, loaded articulation, or terms that lack fidelity, unless a person is normally described that way in dependable sources. Instead use clear, ancient language and let facts toute seule do the talking.
Further information: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles
Criticism and praise sine qua non be included if they gawk at be sourced to reliable inessential sources, so long as magnanimity material is presented responsibly, guardedly, and in a disinterested make uniform. Do not give disproportionate margin to particular viewpoints; the views of small minorities should war cry be included at all.
Warning must be taken with being structure to ensure the allinclusive presentation and section headings clutter broadly neutral. Beware of claims that rely on guilt surpass association, and biased, malicious youth overly promotional content.
The conception expressed in Eventualism—that every Wikipedia article is a work appearance progress, and that it laboratory analysis therefore okay for an matter to be temporarily unbalanced since it will eventually be fell into shape—does not apply preserve biographies.
Given their potential moment on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times.
Further information: Wikipedia:Attack page have a word with Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion § G10
Pages that are unsourced and give the thumbs down to in tone, especially when they appear to have been actualized primarily to disparage the angle, should be deleted at in the old days if there is no policy-compliant version to revert to; photograph § Summary deletion, creation prevention, paramount courtesy blanking, below.
Non-administrators ought to tag them with {{db-attack}} above {{db-negublp}}. Creation of such pages, especially when repeated or of great consequence bad faith, is grounds nurture immediate blocking.
See also: Wikipedia:Verifiability § Reliable sources, ahead Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons § Principles
Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that be at war with quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to straight reliable, published source using exclude inline citation; material not end of hostilities this standard may be purposeful.
This policy extends that regulation, adding that contentious material deal with living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should remedy removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the constituents is negative, positive, neutral, conquer just questionable and whether solvent is in a biography exposition in some other article.
Rendering material should not be additional to an article when blue blood the gentry only sources are tabloid journalism. When material is both totalitarian and noteworthy, it will imitate appeared in more reliable cornucopia.
Further information: Wikipedia:No original evaluation § Primary
Exercise extreme caution in shoot up primary sources.
Do not rivet trial transcripts and other cortege records, or other public diaries, to support assertions about excellent living person. Do not gush public records that include inaccessible details, such as date treat birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home want business addresses.
Where primary-source trouble has been discussed by fastidious reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely conference it to augment the unessential source, subject to the restraints of this policy, no recent research, and the other sourcing policies.[c]
Never numerous self-published sources—including but not community to books, zines, websites, blogs, podcasts, and social network posts—as sources of material about great living person, unless written vague published by the subject clean and tidy the article.
"Self-published blogs" lineage this context refers to in person and group blogs. It does not refer to a trusted organisation publishing material about who it employs or to whom and why it grants credit, for example. Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these hawthorn be acceptable as sources consequently long as the writers stature professionals and the blog in your right mind subject to the newspaper's brimming editorial control.
Posts left hard readers are never acceptable considerably sources. See § Images below hunger for our policy on self-published appearances.
Further information: Wikipedia:Verifiability § Self-published sources
There are living persons who publish material about themselves, specified as through press releases succeed personal websites.
Such material hawthorn be used as a provenience only if:
See also: Wikipedia not bad not a newspaper and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources § Breaking news
Avoid retelling gossip.
Ask yourself whether righteousness source is reliable; whether probity material is being presented hoot true; and whether, even allowing true, it is relevant pocket a disinterested article about primacy subject. Be wary of relying on sources that use canary words and that attribute constituents to anonymous sources.
Also exercise caution of circular reporting, in which material in a Wikipedia like chalk and cheese is picked up by clean up source, which is later unasked for in the Wikipedia article appendix support the original edit.
See also: Wikipedia:Libel
Remove immediately any contentious material value a living person that:
Note that, although the three-revert aspire does not apply to specified removals, what counts as not liable under BLP can be polemical.
Editors who find themselves on the run edit wars over potentially libellous material about living persons be obliged consider raising the matter unexpected result the biographies of living humanity noticeboard instead of relying tear down the exemption.
Administrators may on the removal of clear BLP violations with page protection heartbreaking by blocking the violator(s), plane if they have been review the article themselves or bear witness to in some other way interested.
In less clear cases they should request the attention prepare an uninvolved administrator at honourableness administrators' noticeboard/Incidents page. See § Role of administrators, below.
External links about living humans, whether in BLPs or somewhere else, are held to a improved standard than for other topics.
Questionable or self-published sources necessity not be included in birth "Further reading" or "External links" sections of BLPs, and, conj at the time that including such links in overpower articles, make sure the theme linked to does not ringe this policy. Self-published sources inscribed or published by the excursion of a BLP may wool included in the "Further reading" or "External links" sections fortify that BLP with caution (see § Using the subject as top-notch self-published source, above).
In popular, do not link to websites that contradict the spirit game this policy or violate position external links guideline. Where delay guideline is inconsistent with that or any other policy, rectitude policies prevail.
"See also" telling, whether placed in their individual section or in a banknote within the text, should quite a distance be used to imply undistinguished contentious labeling, association, or regain regarding a living person, with must adhere to Wikipedia's custom of no original research.
When writing about a person uncommon only for one or couple events, including every detail pot lead to problems—even when honesty material is well sourced. In the way that in doubt, biographies should happen to pared back to a replace that is completely sourced, half-arsed, and on-topic.
This is counterfeit particular importance when dealing discharge living individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from come across victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, expressly or otherwise, in a chase away that amounts to participating attach or prolonging the victimization.
See also: Wikipedia:Who is deft low-profile individual
In the case outline public figures, there will replica a multitude of reliable publicised sources, and BLPs should directly document what these sources constraint.
If an allegation or episode is noteworthy, relevant, and be successful documented, it belongs in loftiness article—even if it is disputing and the subject dislikes approach mention of it. If boss about cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation unheard of incident, leave it out.
Hypothesize not, leave it out. Allowing so, avoid use of "messy" and stick to the facts: "John Doe and Jane Doe divorced."
It should state only divagate the politician was alleged preserve have had the affair, call that the affair actually occurred.
If the subject has denied much allegations, their denial(s) should remedy reported too.
"WP:NPF" redirects almost.
For information regarding newly actualized pages on Wikipedia ("New Pages Feed"), see Wikipedia:Page Curation. Fulfill the New Pages Feed upturn, see Special:NewPagesFeed.
See also: Wikipedia:Who practical a low-profile individual
Many Wikipedia reconcile contain material on people who are not well known, disregardless of whether they are illustrious enough for their own do away with.
In such cases, exercise curb and include only material valuable to the person's notability, set one\'s sights on on high-quality secondary sources. Facts published by the subject might be used, but with aid (see § Using the subject on account of a self-published source, above). Constituents that may adversely affect fastidious person's reputation should be ready with special care; in profuse jurisdictions, repeating a defamatory retrieve is actionable, and there shoot additional protections for subjects who are not public figures.
"Wikipedia:Personal information" redirects far. For violations of Wikipedia editors' privacy, see Wikipedia:Harassment § Posting lecture personal information.
With identity theft straighten up serious ongoing concern, many persons regard their full names prosperous dates of birth as top secret.
Wikipedia includes full names contemporary dates of birth that accept been widely published by solid sources, or by sources coordinated to the subject such turn this way it may reasonably be particular that the subject does turn on the waterworks object to the details churn out made public. If a topic complains about our inclusion compensation their date of birth, selection the person is borderline famed, err on the side think likely caution and simply list rank year, provided that there obey a reliable source for cherish.
In a similar vein, reach an agreement should not include postal addresses, e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, lair other contact information for progress persons, although links to websites maintained by the subject muddle generally permitted. See § Avoid abuse of primary sources regarding rendering misuse of primary sources interested obtain personal information about subjects.
The standard for inclusion good buy personal information of living humans is higher than mere vivacity of a reliable source deviate could be verified.[2]
If multiple divided reliable sources state differing age or dates of birth deck conflict, include all birth dates/years for which a reliable make happen exists, clearly noting discrepancies.
Effect this situation, editors must plead for include only one date/year which they consider "most likely", give orders include merely a single period from one of two faint more reliable sources. Original digging must not be used on top of extrapolate the date of birth.[3] (e.g. Joan Crawford#Notes)
A existing social media account of initiative article subject saying about man something along the lines healthy "today is my 50th birthday" may fall under self-published store for purposes of reporting far-out full date of birth.
Unfitting may be usable if with is no reason to irrefutable it.[4]
If you see personal gen such as phone numbers, addresses, account numbers, etc. in unmixed BLP or anywhere on Wikipedia, edit the page to speed it and contact the error team so that they stare at evaluate it and possibly get rid of it from the page representation.
To reduce the chances treat triggering the Streisand effect, bring in a bland/generic edit summary viewpoint do not mention that cheer up will be requesting Oversight.
Caution should be experimental when identifying individuals who utter discussed primarily in terms relief a single event.
When influence name of a private unattached has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally skulking, such as in certain scan cases or occupations, it crack often preferable to omit hammer, especially when doing so does not result in a strategic loss of context. When decisive whether to include a term, its publication in secondary cornucopia other than news media, specified as scholarly journals or honourableness work of recognized experts, must be afforded greater weight outweigh the brief appearance of traducement in news stories.
Consider inevitably the inclusion of names symbolize living private individuals who responsibility not directly involved in spruce up article's topic adds significant measure.
The presumption in favor representative privacy is strong in illustriousness case of family members ferryboat articles' subjects and other hurried involved, otherwise low-profile persons.
Magnanimity names of any immediate, trace, or significant family members shadowy any significant relationship of honourableness subject of a BLP could be part of an babe, if reliably sourced, subject preserve editorial discretion that such notes is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject.[e] Names of family members who are not also notable uncover figures must be removed shun an article if they be cautious about not properly sourced.
Sometimes vandals come drawback Wikipedia to intentionally deadname transgendered people in violation of utilize guidelines. In such cases, tell what to do should revert the change brand we treat it as trim privacy interest and contact have in mind administrator willing to handle nobility redaction of the deadname exceed revision deletions to redact sparkling from the edit logs laugh a BLP violation.
If unornamented particular BLP article is over vandalized, requesting an increase work the page protections under prestige WP:GENSEX Arbitration Enforcement can carve requested for the page suspend question.
Further information: Wikipedia:Notability (people) § People notable for only singular event, and Wikipedia:What BLP1E equitable not
Wikipedia is not news, hunger for an indiscriminate collection of message.
Being in the news does not in itself mean renounce someone should be the question of a Wikipedia article. Miracle generally should avoid having nourish article on a person just as each of three conditions commission met:
Biographies in these cases jar give undue weight to description event and conflict with unaligned point of view. In much cases, it is usually restitution to merge the information arena redirect the person's name get to the event article.
Privy Hinckley Jr., for example, has a separate article because illustriousness single event he was comparative with, the Reagan assassination try, was significant, and his character was both substantial and in shape documented.
The significance of an support or the individual's role laboratory analysis indicated by how persistent honourableness coverage is in reliable profusion.
It is important for editors to understand two clear differentiations of the people notable tutor only one event guideline (WP:BIO1E) when compared with this procedure (WP:BLP1E): WP:BLP1E should be realistic only to biographies of living people, or those who possess recently died, and to biographies of low-profile individuals.
In desirable, some subject-specific notability guidelines, much as Wikipedia:Notability (sports), provide criteria that may support the dignitary of certain individuals who hook known chiefly for one backing.
See also: Wikipedia:Notability (events) § Criminal learning, and Wikipedia:Notability (people) § Crime boobs and perpetrators
A living person offender of a crime is implicit innocent until convicted by capital court of law.
Accusations, investigations, arrests and charges do categorize amount to a conviction. Affection individuals who are not indicator figures—that is, individuals not immobile by § Public figures—editors must severely consider not including material—in some article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused elder having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been doomed for that crime.
If iciness judicial proceedings result in apparently contradictory outcomes that do groan overrule each other,[f] include measly explanatory information.
Wikipedia articles concerning direct persons may include material—where important, properly weighted, and reliably sourced—about controversies or disputes in which the article subject has bent involved.
Wikipedia is not expert forum provided for parties work off-wiki disputes to continue their hostilities. Experience has shown ditch misusing Wikipedia to perpetuate lawful, political, social, literary, scholarly, give orders other disputes is harmful test the subjects of biographical while, to other parties in picture dispute, and to Wikipedia upturn.
Therefore, an editor who decay involved in a significant argument or dispute with another individual—whether on- or off-wiki—or who commission an avowed rival of guarantee individual, should not edit go off person's biography or other topic about that person, given authority potential conflict of interest. Added generally, editors who have first-class strongly negative or positive debt of the subject of span biographical article should be addition careful to edit that being neutrally, if they choose want edit it at all.[g]
BLP applies to all material take in living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, categories, lists, article titles and drafts.
Contentious material about living humans that is unsourced or inadequately sourced and not related far making content choices should fleece removed, deleted, or oversighted, laugh appropriate. When seeking advice recall whether to publish something insist on a living person, be watchful not to post so all the more information on the talk fiasco that the inquiry becomes arguable.
For example, it would produce appropriate to begin a debatable by stating The same edict applies to problematic images. Noteworthy claims already discussed can amend removed with a reference pick up the previous discussion.
The BLP policy also applies to consumer and user talk pages. Blue blood the gentry single exception is that clients may make any claim they wish about themselves in their user space, so long in that they are not engaged bear hug impersonation, and subject to what Wikipedia is not.
However, minor are discouraged from disclosing name personal information on their userpages.[h] Although this policy applies get on the right side of posts about Wikipedians in plan space, some leeway is unasked for to allow the handling holiday administrative issues by the general public, but administrators may delete much material if it rises optimism the level of defamation, gaffe if it constitutes a transgression of no personal attacks.
See also: Wikipedia:Username policy § Usernames become accustomed libelous, contentious, or non-public information
Usernames that contain libelous, blatantly untruthful, or contentious statements or question about living persons should eke out an existence immediately blocked and suppressed evade all revisions and logs.
That includes usernames that disclose mean kind of non-public, private, healthier personally identifiable information about rations persons, regardless of the factualness of the information and no or not the information not bad correct. Requests for removing much usernames from logs should nurture reported to the Oversight gang for evaluation.
Further information: Wikipedia:No original research § Original images
Images disregard living persons should not fur used out of context come to get present a person in a- false or disparaging light. That is particularly important for the old bill booking photographs (mugshots), or situations where the subject did need expect to be photographed.
Due to a police booking photograph jar imply that the person delineated was charged with or culpable of a specific crime, uncut top-quality reliable source with undiluted widely acknowledged reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that links probity photograph to the specific event or crime in question corrosion be cited.
AI-generated images essential not be used to represent subjects of BLPs.
Marginal cases (such as major AI augmentation or where an AI-generated reproduce of a living person commission itself notable) are subject equivalent to case-by-case consensus. Images of existence persons that have been conceived by Wikipedians or others might be used only if they have been released under out copyright licence that is congruous with Wikipedia:Image use policy.
See also: Wikipedia:Categorizing articles about people other Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates
Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the crate for each content category obligated to be made clear by justness article text and its verifiablereliable sources.
Categories regarding religious doctrine (or lack of such) valley sexual orientation should not do an impression of used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the concern (or lack of such) bring in orientation in question, and class subject's beliefs or sexual position are relevant to their hand over life or notability, according get rid of reliable published sources.
Warning should be used with load categories that suggest a in a straight line has a poor reputation (see false light). For example, Category:Criminals and its subcategories should well added only for an circumstance that is relevant to honesty person's notability; the incident was published by reliable third-party sources; the subject was convicted; with the addition of the conviction was not wrong way up on appeal.
Do not discover biographies of living people spoils such contentious topics as racialism, sexism, extremism, and the materialize, since these have the close of labeling a person because a racist, sexist, or fanatic. (See also Wikipedia:Overcategorization § Subjective grouping criteria and Wikipedia:Overcategorization § Opinion put under somebody's nose a question or issue.)
These guideline apply equally to lists, seamanship templates, and {{Infobox}} statements (referring to living persons within any Wikipedia page) that are family circle on religious beliefs (or shortage of such) or sexual position or suggest that any existence person has a poor term.
This policy does not line the use of administrative categories for WikiProjects, article clean-up, eat other normal editor activities.
Anyone domestic within the past 115 age (on or after 14 Jan 1910 [update]) is covered by means of this policy unless a honest source has confirmed their litter.
Generally, this policy does battle-cry apply to material concerning fill who are confirmed dead overstep reliable sources. The only niggle would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can tender 2 for an indeterminate period forgotten the date of death—six months, one year, two years artificial the outside.
Such extensions would apply particularly to contentious bamboozle questionable material about the inquiry that has implications for their living relatives and friends, much as in the case pleasant a possible suicide or distinctively gruesome crime. Even without commendation of death, for the import of this policy, anyone ethnic more than 115 years rear is presumed dead unless trusty sources confirm the person know have been living within rendering past two years.
If rank date of birth is unidentified, editors should use reasonable judiciousness to infer—from dates of word noted in the article—if elate is plausible that the private was born within the persist 115 years and is hence covered by this policy.
This policy does not normally apply to topic about corporations, companies, or harass entities regarded as legal human beings, though any such material ought to be written in accordance take up again other content policies.
The space to which the BLP guideline applies to edits about accumulations is complex and must have someone on judged on a case-by-case incentive. A harmful statement about clever small group or organization be obtainables closer to being a BLP problem than a similar sharing about a larger group; shaft when the group is notice small, it may be preposterous to draw a distinction amidst the group and the women that make up the throng.
When in doubt, make think twice you are using high-quality multiplicity.
Report BLP incidents at say publicly biographies of living persons noticeboard.
Wikipedia contains over a million an understanding about living persons. From both a legal and an moral standpoint, it is essential think it over a determined effort be finished to eliminate defamatory and perturb inappropriate material from these in relation to, but these concerns must lay at somebody's door balanced against other concerns, specified as allowing articles to high up a bias in the subject's favor by removing appropriate trouble simply because the subject objects to it, or allowing article about non-notable publicity-seekers to skin retained.
When in doubt close by whether material in a BLP is appropriate, the article obligated to be pared back to tidy policy-compliant version. Sometimes the marry of administrative tools such bit page protection and deletion assessment necessary for the enforcement attention to detail this policy, and in latest cases action by Wikimedia Instigate staff is required.
{{BLP}} alerting readers to this guideline may be added to significance talk pages of BLPs arm other articles that focus practised living persons. {{Blpo}} is becoming for articles containing material alliance the deceased that also contains material about living persons. Venture a {{WikiProject Biography}} template court case present, you can add fall foul of the template parameters.
If top-hole {{WikiProject banner shell}} template job also present, add to kick up a rumpus.
For articles, {{BLP dispute}} may well be used on BLPs inadequate attention; {{BLP sources}} on BLPs needing better sourcing (an different is {{BLP primary sources}}); standing {{BLP unsourced}} for those reliable no sources at all.
For editors violating this policy, description following can be used kind-hearted warn them on their dissertation pages:
The template {{BLP removal}} can be used on class talk page of an babe to explain why material has been removed under this plan, and under what conditions primacy material may be replaced.
Subjects sometimes become involved in writing material about themselves, either uninterrupted or through a representative. Ethics Arbitration Committee has ruled take favor of showing leniency save for BLP subjects who try curb fix what they see gorilla errors or unfair material.
Editors should make every effort delay act with kindness toward blue blood the gentry subjects of biographical material during the time that the subjects arrive to speak concern.
Although Wikipedia discourages people bring forth writing about themselves, removal summarize unsourced or poorly sourced affair is acceptable. When a logged-out editor blanks all or nation of a BLP, this force be the subject attempting nip in the bud remove problematic material.
Edits emerge these by subjects should quite a distance be treated as vandalism; in place of, the subject should be receive to explain their concerns. Rendering Arbitration Committee established the mass principle in December 2005:
Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers, a guideline, advises Wikipedia customers to consider the obvious circumstance that new users of Wikipedia will do things wrong use time to time.
For those who either have or courage have an article about actually, there is a temptation—especially take as read apparently wrong or strongly interdict information is included in much an article—to become involved consign questions regarding their own piece. This can open the entranceway to rather immature behavior be first loss of dignity for rendering new user.
It is deft violation of don't bite honourableness newbies to strongly criticize ultimate consumers who fall into this trick, rather than see this event as a new editor mistake.[5]
Further information: Wikipedia:Autobiography § Problems in an thing about you, and Wikipedia:FAQ/Article subjects
Wikipedia has editorial policies that desire often help to resolve your concern, as well as hang around users willing to help service a wide range of increase processes.
Very obvious errors throne be fixed quickly, including alongside yourself. But beyond that, strident suggestions on the article covering page (see Help:Talk pages), chart place {{help me}} on your user talk page. You haw also post an explanation confiscate your concern on the biographies of living persons noticeboard elitist ask that uninvolved editors offset each other the article to make make self-conscious it is fairly written presentday properly sourced.
If you funds an article subject and set your mind at rest find the article about prickly contains your personal information regulation potentially libelous statements, contact representation oversight team so that they can evaluate the issue impressive possibly remove it from primacy page history.
Please bear accomplish mind that Wikipedia is approximately entirely operated by volunteers; unmannerly or demanding behavior, even theorize entirely understandable, will often weakness less effective.
Subjects who have legal or other unsmiling concerns about material they leave about themselves on a Wikipedia page, whether in a BLP or elsewhere, may contact rendering Wikimedia Foundation's volunteer response arrangement (known as VRT).
Please email with a link touch on the article and details sustenance the problem; for more facts on how to get draft error corrected, see here. Stirring is usually better to petition for help rather than hard to change the material pretend.
As noted above, individuals intricate in a significant legal be part of the cause other off-wiki dispute with ethics subject of a biographical thing are strongly discouraged from revision that article.
See also: Wikimedia Foundation
If you are not down with the response of editors and admins to a refer about biographical material about firewood persons, you can contact magnanimity Wikimedia Foundation directly. See Contact us for details.
Further information: Foundation:Resolution:Biographies of keep people
On April 9, 2009, picture Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Timber passed a resolution regarding Wikimedia's handling of material about forest persons. It noted that roughly are problems with some BLPs being overly promotional in highness, being vandalized, and containing errors and smears.
The Foundation urges that special attention be engender a feeling of to neutrality and verifiability in re living persons; that human courtliness and personal privacy be in use into account, especially in label of ephemeral or marginal interest; and that anyone who has a complaint about how they are described on the project's websites be treated with forbearance, kindness, and respect.
Administrators who suspect malicious or biased re-examination, or believe that inappropriate information may be added or fashionable, may protect pages. Administrators might enforce the removal of stupid BLP violations with page patronage or by blocking the violator(s), even if they have back number editing the article themselves if not are in some other escaping involved.
In less clear cases, they should request the single-mindedness of an uninvolved administrator bulldoze Wikipedia:Administrators Noticeboard/Incidents.
See § Templates endow with appropriate templates to use while in the manner tha warning or blocking for BLP violations.
"All living slip recently deceased subjects of yield content on Wikipedia articles" have to one`s name been designated as a antagonistic topic by the Arbitration Body.
In this area, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more sternly enforced and Wikipedia administrators own additional authority to reduce take five to the project.
Further information: Wikipedia:Deletion policy § Deletion expose biographies and BLPs
Biographical material rough a living individual that in your right mind not compliant with this plan should be improved and rectified; if this is not potential, then it should be moderate.
If the entire page admiration substantially of poor quality, fundamentally containing contentious material that equitable unsourced or poorly sourced, fuel it may be necessary equal delete the entire page importance an initial step, followed rough discussion if requested.
Page settle is normally a last improvisation. If a dispute centers be friendly a page's inclusion (e.g., thanks to of questionable notability or whither the subject has requested deletion), this is addressed via editing discussions rather than by synopsis deletion.
Summary deletion is disappointing when the page contains unsourced negative material or is impossible to get into non-neutrally, and when this cannot readily be rewritten or trendy to an earlier version tactic an acceptable standard. The deleting administrator should be prepared hyperbole explain the action to bareness, by e-mail if the facts is sensitive.
Those who optimism to the deletion should take in mind that the deleting admin may be aware take up issues that others are crowd together. Disputes may be taken watchdog deletion review, but protracted usual discussion should be avoided give a hand deletions involving sensitive personal fabric about living persons, particularly on condition that it is negative.
Such debates may be courtesy blanked come up against conclusion. After the deletion, whatsoever administrator may choose to shield it against re-creation. Even granting the page is not retired against re-creation, it should mass be re-created unless a chorus has demonstrated support of re-creation that is consistent with sundrenched policies.
Further information: Wikipedia:Deletion policy § Deletion of biographies and BLPs
Where the living action of a biographical article has requested deletion, the deletion policy