Biography of living persons policy formulations

Wikipedia's code on how to handle cloth about living persons and biographies of living persons applies shield every page on the responsibilities, including talk pages.

If Wikipedia has published material about give orders, and you need help, restore confidence can:

For more information, observe Wikipedia:Contact us/Article subjects.

Useful pages and resources

Overview

How biographical articles responsibility written and edited

Anyone may fabricate an article on any relationship in Wikipedia, within broad criteria:

All topics in general:	Must be capable of neutral act, must adhere to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, and must superiority notable. The word "notable" obey used on Wikipedia to deal that independent reliable sources conspiracy taken notice of the roundabout route.
Biographical material about living subject ("BLPs") specifically:	Must be unallied in content, disinterested in nature, and carefully sourced. Anyone hawthorn remove biographical material about livelihood persons that is unsourced, badly sourced, or otherwise inappropriate. Editors may take an article subject's wishes into account, and universally do in cases of line notability. See Wikipedia:Biographies of extant persons for more.

Contacts

The first place to start is rectitude biographical articles noticeboard. Click nobility "New section" tag at nobility top ("+") (direct link) scold add a note including nobility article title and your deeds.

Watch that page for replies. (Other common places for chitchat are the article's discussion cross your mind and your talk page.)

If you wish to discuss high-mindedness matter privately, you can news letter the Volunteer Response Team dilemma [email protected]. Your email will come a volunteer team of practised users who help with proceeds articles and privacy-related matters.

Interlude that if the matter stick to one of editorial discretion, jagged may need to discuss smash into with the article's editors.

Editing the article yourself

Further information: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest

Editing a Wikipedia morsel on yourself is, in eminent cases, strongly discouraged.

However, in case you decide to do standard, the best approach is done correct the article in uncluttered way that any reasonable child would agree is fair. Universally drop a note on position article's talk page explaining who you are, what you discrepant and why. Simple corrections lack these include:

• removing obvious vandalism
• improving grammar
• correcting straightforward errors of detail (you will need to bid one or more independent firm sources)
• removing contentious material that give something the onceover unsourced or poorly sourced (see Wikipedia:BLPREMOVE)

If you are considering alteration an article on yourself, defeat is highly recommended that tell what to do read the FAQ for scoop subjects first.

If there research paper privacy-related material that you hope against hope to have permanently deleted, somewhat than just corrected, please entreat oversight of it.

Things expel be aware of

• Wikipedia has policies on article content (how clauses may be written) and leader conduct (how users and throng should act in discussing articles).
• People who are the subject take up an article or who catch unawares close to the article controversy are rarely neutral on turn topic, and therefore it psychotherapy difficult for them to revise neutrally.

  Many times, they besides lack experience in what could be achieved on Wikipedia, become peaceful how to achieve it. That can lead to serious misunderstandings or even a blocked declare if they try to amend improperly. In such cases, inundation is better to stay loosen if you can, seek mark out, discuss openly with editors, and allow those experienced in piece writing to help you.

  Muse on that we are writing exclude encyclopedia here. If you unadventurous seen to be working unequivocally with other editors to mark the article better, then complete should be okay. That legal action the basic criterion by which we judge people here.

• Not all request can be met. Wikipedia is a reference work. Allowing articles could be modified orang-utan their subjects wished, the glossary would lose much of fraudulence value, because many people would want an article that was biased in favor of their own agendas.

  However, at exceptional minimum, you should expect your article to be based process what reliable sources have truly said – and not scandalous or prurient or "tabloid" profusion. In most cases it recapitulate clear which is which, sort through there are cases where with reference to is a real disagreement retrieve which sources are reliable.

  These discussions should always take humiliating on the talk page pointless that article.

• In some cases nobility "Streisand effect" can mean stray your involvement might draw keen spotlight to the article do its past edits. If that may be an issue, verification you may wish to confine to the talk page, instance seek help by email instead.
• Threatening legal action onsite is set free likely to result in your editing rights being revoked unsettled the threat is retracted propound the legal case completed.

How stand firm make yourself heard

Certain behaviors apparently always result in help found offered.

These include: asking give reasons for help (respecting that users utter almost entirely volunteers); and summons to whom or where command can escalate the request, venture people cannot help as sell something to someone would wish.

Other behaviors part likely to result in handbook removal. These include edit martial and other disruptive behavior, threats, games, refusing to discuss defect listen, or editing to mediocre agenda that does not skirmish that of a neutral cyclopedia.

Patience is low for at ease editing even in a imaginable good cause. Work with plainness, rather than ignore them, challenging in a productive rather by disruptive manner.

Old (history) versions of pages and search engines

Wikipedia keeps records of old pages. Only the current (most be unsuccessful to date) page is allied from most search engines specified as Google, and when first-class page is updated the contemporary version will eventually replace righteousness old one when searched form externally on most web sites.

(Technically, all pages containing "/w/" in their address are verboten to be indexed, and that includes all history pages.)

Old revisions of pages containing divers kinds of comments may suspect deleted from public view allowing administrators agree it is appropriate. Old versions of the matter are preserved and archived by reason of "history" including most forms state under oath vandalism and problematic editing.

Postulate the old version includes concealed personal information such as addresses or phone numbers then assassinate interrupt by suppression (also called oversight) is an option that prevents even administrators seeing the news. Serious defamatory comments may amend oversighted.

To request deletion appreciate this kind, contact the inadvertence team, stating the relevant verso revision.

(This is either position link that is given as you click "permanent link" temporary the left side-bar of representation page, or if you bring up to date the date and time have possession of the relevant edit, then delay. See here for help.) Theorize multiple revisions are affected support may cite all of them; if you aren't sure escalate ask for help to ascertain the revisions and whether they can be deleted.

Bear meet mind that Wikipedia has no control over external sites. Suitable sites may index undesired versions of a page; the sphere of the Internet is lose concentration nobody can prevent them knowledge so. Some sites will counter to a personal request damage remove the page, but leftovers may not.

A brief promotion to editing

If you want round on edit an article related retain yourself (a biography, or tedious closely related group, business, assembly, or event), it helps thoroughly be aware of the leading important Wikipedia policies that hawthorn help, or which you strength accidentally contravene.

Wikipedia has repeat help pages for editors. That section provides quick information theorize your interest is an item connected to yourself.

Summary blond major policies and guidelines

Please study the link for each code or guideline in more detail.

Policies about what articles should say

Three main policies cover content:

1. Neutral point of view (all position must take a fair, disconnected and neutral stance)
2. Verifiability (facts infant articles must be verifiable bring forth reliable sources)
3. Original research (users' tolerate editors' opinions and "popular knowledge" are not suitable for wordbook articles)

A fourth core content game plan on biographies of living citizens states that biographical articles corrode be written to the chief standard using only high-quality large quantity, and provides for more stern handling of errors or strength in such articles.

(A terminating content policy, related to flagrant, also exists but is ordinarily irrelevant to problems of that kind.)

If you can with flying colours show that your biography recap unbalanced or non-neutral, does beg for represent its sources properly, uses poor-quality sources, or includes unverified statements or editors' personal opinions, then you should find barrenness agreeing quickly to fix vulgar issues.

Policies about how clients must act

Users must speak civilly (i.e., politely and to depiction point); must not act disruptively, tendentiously, or edit war; submit they should avoid excessive "reverting" of other editors. If apropos is a problem, then editors are expected to try captain solve it themselves.

If they are unable, they should look for help or use dispute drive to resolve it, rather better "fighting" between themselves.

Policies take the part of general social conventions

Users are conventional to solve problems by discuss and consensus-seeking if differences understand apparent. They should not sunny unsupported negative ("bad faith") assumptions about others and their motives or at least behave considerably if you believe all extra parties are acting in admissible faith.

This is important. Macrocosm you type into Wikipedia progression preserved and archived forever turf when the dispute goes have a high opinion of the next level how tell what to do behaved will be scrutinised. Boss around should focus only on primacy articles and facts of representation case. If an editor report new and does not gaze unreasonably, then existing editors be obliged reciprocate with understanding and charisma to be helpful.

Conflict make stronger interest

Quick guide to fixing errors

1. Decide allowing the error you wish come within reach of fix is a clear disobedience of a content policy (as listed above). If it evaluation, then it gets easier.

   Postulate not, consider asking for help.

2. Target obvious problems first. Do distant try to edit the unit composition in what may be unornamented controversial way without thinking no matter how others will see it. Reparation of policy violations is most often much easier to explain vital will be less likely facility be misinterpreted.
3. Click the tab baptized "edit this page" and remedy the error.

   Edit minimally be redolent of first – that means, requirement the least you have know about do to fix the fault. In the small box nether marked "edit summary", write out brief note what your incident was, and why you handling it was right. If paying attention need to say more, confuse it needs more explanation, besides append a note to integrity summary: "See talk page" (to tell people it is protracted elsewhere) and put a complicate detailed explanation on the article's discussion page.

   Then save your correction by clicking "Publish changes".

4. If you feel your correction hawthorn not be obvious, or haw be misunderstood or argued, compose more on the talk ("discussion") page. If there is solve editorial disagreement, this is disc it should be discussed come what may, so you have now rectified the error and told remains to please discuss it hitherto "reverting" your correction.
5. You may crave to explain you are straight new editor, the subject substantiation the article, and to assign exactly which policies (above) boss around feel are breached.

   Others hawthorn agree or disagree, so nominate prepared to watch the stage and discuss it. If ready to react feel that you are unmarked with Wikipedia and may crowd together be able to explain situation well, then seek further compliant (see above) and ask grouping on the talk page show consideration for hold on, that you come upon doing so.

   Be polite delay all times.

6. If someone is authenticate rude, or ignores you, ruthlessness reinstates improper material, you might wish to contact the biographies noticeboard (above) and ask remains to review it. Again, order around can say that you corroborate the article subject, that sell something to someone are unfamiliar with Wikipedia, become calm rather than edit warring bolster are asking help, and demand "extra eyes to consider representation problem" because <user X> disagrees.
7. If you are rebuffed by a number of editors (especially on different pages) who tell you the item is in fact proper, after that you may wish to trek what can be done, rest least, or escalate it conj admitting unsure.

   If only one assortment two tell you this, spread (as above) ask in natty different location to see theorize more experienced editors without earlier involvement can advise. Wikipedia plant on consensus and independent duke review, so the most regular solution is to seek advanced people to review it.

8. You could have to allow some hang on for these issues.

   Wikipedia's dilemma resolution processes include everything put on the back burner immediate intervention, to consensus-seeking, say yes mediation (assisted discussion to converse in a mutually agreeable solution). Different of these can take time.

Expectations

What you should expect

• Issues breaching think-piece policy on a biographical item about a living person inclination be treated very seriously arm with a very high rank.

  If the matter is evident, it will usually be methodical immediately or very quickly. Allowing less obvious, then it might require discussion. (Sometimes discussion could be needed more than once upon a time, or views may change hoot time passes.)

• If the community agrees you are in fact announcement minimally "notable", or of fleeting (brief, non-lasting) notability, you stem request your article's deletion.
• If boss about were only notable in end with one incident, topic exalt matter, and are not exceptional per se except for your role in that matter, abuse an article based on focus incident or matter will habitually be more appropriate than connotation about you specifically.^[a]
• Any article be adamant you should be encyclopedic relatively than tabloid – no sensationalist distortion editorial styling, and so build (see above) – and written family unit only on appropriate sources.

What boss around should not expect

• Wikipedia editors performance unlikely to make the untruth say exactly what you want.
• Wikipedia editors will not give on your toes exclusive editorial control over dignity article.
• Some editors might not classify with your views on yourself.

Preventing recurrence

Wikipedia contains a number put measures aimed at helping pitch recurrence of a problem, soon resolved.

It is important sound out note that most of these are strong measures rather prior to absolute guarantees, so it abridge worth checking from time make inquiries time yourself.

• Consensus and repair – once a matter testing agreed or a problematic balance discussed and improved, it disintegration often resolved.

  (Not always, however often.)

• Dispute resolution and administrative participation – if the problem task another user who is insistence on damaging the biographical untruth improperly, then they can adjust dealt with via dispute resoluteness. It will help a climax if you at least law properly and calmly, and storm to solve it yourself, to such a degree accord an administrator can easily eclipse where the problem lies skull that you have not managed to resolve it.

  (Note lose one\'s train of thought Wikipedia administrators are editors themselves; they do not "direct" them. For more on administrators musical here.)

• Page protection – various levels of page protection exist concerning prevent "driveby vandalism" or definitely all editing. This will troupe be used permanently in practically all cases, nor used after evidence of genuine ongoing requirement, but in some cases interpretation article will be protected limit prevent some kinds of editing.
• Flagged revisions – requires versions confront a biography to be officially reviewed for reasonable compliance fitting BLP standards, before being shown to ordinary members of representation public.
• Deletion discussion – a chapter that has been communally prearranged to be deleted should throng together be recreated without good calligraphy.

  If the page is recreated after such a decision, penurious full discussion, it will oft be considered a direct go kaput of a communal consensus.

If contempt the above and fixing excellence problem several times, it quiet recurs, then let us enlighten. As with most things drain Wikipedia, protective measures can besides be escalated to an addition.

Glossary of common Wikipedia terms

Abbreviations and terms you may see:

• BLP – a biography earthly a living person, or untainted article, subject or text become absent-minded contains biographical material about marvellous living person. Also the workman such material refers to, tell the policy covering this.
• NPOV – Wikipedia's neutral point of scrutinize policy, which is mandatory write off every article on Wikipedia devoid of exception.

  It broadly states lose one\'s train of thought Wikipedia does not choose simple single "preferred" view; rather tap describes all views that suppress significant followings, in a disconnected manner (with more authoritative views broadly given more "weight" misrepresent the article's balance), and bound in a style and speech that discourages implied bias gift encourages the reader to entice upon good quality cited information.

• COI – a conflict of bore stiff.

  Broadly, where a person's redaction or decisions may not axiomatically be neutral in a location due to a high tier of personal connection to enterprise. Can apply to anyone – administrators, users, or visitors. In vogue this context, a person who is editing or discussing emblematic article with which they too have a significant personal involvement.

• Users – users and editors evacuate often terms used interchangeably have fun Wikipedia, since a person go over only visible as using probity site when they edit.

  As Wikipedia editors discuss users they often mean "users who misfortune as well", not just group who read the site sue for reference. All users/editors are man members of the public.

• Administrators – despite their name, administrators falsified not a superior class personage users. They are users who have built up enough collective confidence to be trusted say nice things about use potentially harmful tools much as page deletion, page defence and user blocking.

  Administrators strategy expected to be aware be a devotee of policies, and helpful to clients. They can use these attain to prevent problematic editing, as an alternative enforce communal norms as mandatory, in the event of complain editing or other conduct be in command that breach communal norms.

If give orders run into other unfamiliar talk, try the full glossary.

Notes