This page is a redirect. The following categories are used to track and monitor this redirect:
|
apply in some cases. Shortcuts WP:BLPUNDELWP:BLPUNDEL WP:BLPRESTOREWP:BLPRESTORE WP:BLPREQUESTRESTOREWP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE To ensure that material about...
Click to read more »after April's Fool day and the failure of the community to execute WP:BLPRESTORE. Given this was my statement on gamergate case, and the statements by...
Click to read more »advisory council development Added 18 January 2026, archived 11 March 2026 BLPRESTORE: Meaning of "deleted" Added 17 February 2026, archived 19 March 2026 LLM-assisted...
Click to read more »WP:BLPPRIMARY violation. Restoring it without consensus would violate WP:BLPRESTORE. More broadly, I would imagine that most people who BLPREQUESTDELETE do...
Click to read more »editor restored the content, which I then removed again ([105]) citing WP:BLPRESTORE. The IP editor restored it a second time, for which I issued an edit war...
Click to read more »how these edits violate it 05:33, 18 July 2022 (UTC): violation of WP:BLPRESTORE and WP:BLPSPS, straight revert of what was a good faith claimed BLP violation...
Click to read more »disputed BLP present [6], removes protection [7] when referred to WP:BLPRESTORE policy A DHeyward changes target of attack page [8] A Gamaliel reverts...
Click to read more »Klibanski for 72 hours, due to his edit warring in violation of WP:3RR and WP:BLPRESTORE. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 14:54, 18 August 2026 (UTC) The following discussion...
Click to read more »Klibanski for 72 hours, due to his edit warring in violation of WP:3RR and WP:BLPRESTORE. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 14:54, 18 August 2026 (UTC) The following discussion...
Click to read more »of Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Ariel_Fernandez_&_BLPRESTORE Darren-M talk 16:57, 8 January 2022 (UTC) They were at already at 3RR...
Click to read more »Klibanski for 72 hours, due to edit warring in violation of WP:3RR and WP:BLPRESTORE. See: AE Thread. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:00, 18 August 2026 (UTC)...
Click to read more »and there is an edit/wheel war over the disputed material ignoring WP:BLPRESTORE. I request admin intervention and page protection of the article while...
Click to read more »put it in your watchlists, and warn the editors who are violating WP:BLPRESTORE. Might help to have a message on the talk page that begins, "As an uninvolved...
Click to read more »is that in fact MicroSupporter is in violation of both WP:3RR and WP:BLPRESTORE here. I had hoped giving them this advice on my talk page would lead to...
Click to read more »called it a BLP violation to begin with, explicitly, then sure, per WP:BLPRESTORE EEng should not have restored it. But she didnt. I dont think the slightly...
Click to read more »August 2022 (UTC) Unless I'm misunderstanding the situation... per WP:BLPRESTORE, in situations where BLP does apply, the default when there is a conflict...
Click to read more »block by Mitchel lwas overturned. MarkBernstein topic ban is irrelevant. BLPRESTORE does not apply as it was not an admin and was sourced as a direct quote...
Click to read more »(UTC) A: Discuss it with the administrator and express my concerns around BLPRESTORE and the content while there is on-going good faith discussion on BLPN...
Click to read more »redirect, but instead we got Take it to BLPN! (showing ignorance of WP:BLPRESTORE) and It's an evil gamergate plot!! And had Gamaliel's wiki friends stepped...
Click to read more »WP:BLPPRIMARY violation. Restoring it without consensus would violate WP:BLPRESTORE. More broadly, I would imagine that most people who BLPREQUESTDELETE do...
Click to read more »Special:Diff/1354655501 and Special:Diff/1354663821 appear to be incompatible with WP:BLPRESTORE unless there was a consensus for re-adding these words. If there was,...
Click to read more »goes against WP:BLPRESTORE as the content removal was justified by several policies. I asked the editor to self-revert per BLPRESTORE however they have...
Click to read more »now extending to Peter S. Beagle, where I'm reverting as well due to WP:BLPRESTORE. Cross-posting to the BLP noticeboard. ~ Rob13Talk 04:36, 1 August 2016...
Click to read more »integrate the endorsement into the article is to gain consensus per WP:BLPRESTORE. The non-primary media you refer to are also opinion pieces rather than...
Click to read more »2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1237127569 by PerSeAnd (talk) Please see WP:BLPRESTORE and WP:ONUS. Continued reversions will also mean you are in breach of...
Click to read more »an option. It is incompatible with WP:EW, WP:ONUS and to a degree WP:BLPRESTORE. Whichever related policy you look at, these things need to be discussed...
Click to read more »times without attempts to discuss on the talk page as required under WP:BLPRESTORE. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC) What's the problem...
Click to read more »minutes between the edit and your revert to check if it complies with WP:BLPRESTORE? Because I doubt any of the Huggle users did, and I can't find a talk...
Click to read more »their quality. Daniel Case (talk) 16:03, 23 October 2024 (UTC) See WP:BLPRESTORE. Zaereth (talk) 16:19, 23 October 2024 (UTC) That does not say anything...
Click to read more »is not just a suggestion but a very clear part of the policy. See: WP:BLPRESTORE. In other words, it's a very bad thing to do and would not look good for...
Click to read more »inserting contentious matters like caste into the article per WP:BDP and WP:BLPRESTORE. Consensus can be obtained on the article talk page through an WP:RFC...
Click to read more »Klibanski for 72 hours, due to edit warring in violation of WP:3RR and WP:BLPRESTORE. See: AE Thread. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:00, 18 August 2026 (UTC)...
Click to read more »of Administrators" section, the BLPRESTORE section wasn't targeted in particular. 5 sections were moved, and BLPRESTORE probably was too because it partially...
Click to read more »preemptively improved a BLP. There's really no reason to rush to restore, and WP:BLPRESTORE is clear that, when challenged, the material needs consensus to reinsert...
Click to read more »have reverted back to a decent version and request editors to respect WP:BLPRESTORE and WP:BLP itself in regards to this content. Wikipedia:Pending changes...
Click to read more »([prior discussion]) This seems to be a clear breach of WP:3RRNO and WP:BLPRESTORE. Contentious BLP material challenged in good faith must have consensus...
Click to read more »negatively link a BLP subject to an organization. As I've invoked WP:BLPRESTORE reverting the restoration of that material I'm bringing it here for review...
Click to read more »right and BLPRESTORE would apply. But editors have worked hard to make sure that the material is added in a manner that is WP:DUE, and BLPRESTORE would appear...
Click to read more »the article that there is no BLPvio that would necessitate invoking WP:BLPRESTORE, so in the interest of not splitting discussion, I'm closing this to keep...
Click to read more »ONUS is being flipped on its head, and doubly so in BLPs that have WP:BLPRESTORE requirements too. Until there is a consensus for inclusion, it stays out...
Click to read more »without having found a consensus on the article's talk page first (WP:BLPRESTORE). If there is something you would like to remove, you can do so now. If...
Click to read more »on Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull, restoring content in contravention to WP:BLPRESTORE despite being warned by multiple editors on their talk page and in edit...
Click to read more »changes to an article while it is being discussed here unless there are WP:BLPRESTORE concerns. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:55, 26 April 2022 (UTC) The...
Click to read more »where they've been reinstating contested BLP content in violation of WP:BLPRESTORE, I've indefinitely topic-banned them from WP:CT/AP as an arbitration enforcement...
Click to read more »Tax, you've been here for almost a year now; please lead by example. WP:BLPRESTORE exists and the talk page was last edited over a month ago. At the very...
Click to read more »minimum, given the BLP concerns, you would need consensus on talk per WP:BLPRESTORE. If the text seems uncontroversial, the text could be left with a fact...
Click to read more »(talk) 21:32, 14 March 2024 (UTC) Additionally, I have now enforced WP:BLPRESTORE and created a discussion at Talk:Naseem Hamed § British / British-Yemeni...
Click to read more »talk:Biographies of living persons § RfC: BLPRESTORE for an RfC about whether the word "deleted" in WP:BLPRESTORE should refer to the removal of text or...
Click to read more »version is to be preferred in Wikivoice. Both sides have pointed to WP:BLPRESTORE, but a quote seems much safer on BLP grounds, and that the claim supported...
Click to read more »talk:Biographies of living persons § RfC: BLPRESTORE for an RfC about whether the word "deleted" in WP:BLPRESTORE should refer to the removal of text or...
Click to read more »reverted and warned that as it was a BLP issue so needed consensus per WP:BLPRESTORE and WP:BLPCT. Apache disregarded that warning and reverted again. As I...
Click to read more »who was the editor who most recently restored it to self-revert on WP:BLPRESTORE grounds three times ([20], [21], [22]) and they have refused once ([23])...
Click to read more »edit summary: "two editors have raised good faith BLP concerns. Per WP:BLPRESTORE please establish consensus before restoring. Any further reversions without...
Click to read more »a logged warning under WP:NEWBLPBAN for violating WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLPRESTORE. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 16:42, 1 July 2023 (UTC) I recently...
Click to read more »WP:BLPRESTORE, but you should be careful with labels like "SEALION" when Joshua Jonathan – apart from reverts that formally indeed violate BLPRESTORE –...
Click to read more »be undeleted and unsalted. I T B F 📢 09:39, 29 August 2025 (UTC) WP:BLPRESTORE is clear that To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally...
Click to read more »February 2023 (UTC) MBlaze Lightning continues to edit war ignoring WP:BLPRESTORE without addressing the actual OR issue.[6][7] Morbidthoughts (talk) 10:19...
Click to read more »consensus for removal, which is in stark contrast to BLP policy per WP:BLPRESTORE, WP:BLPUNDEL and WP:ONUS. The editor has been exhibiting WP:OWN behavior...
Click to read more »while removing more reliable English-language ones in violation of WP:BLPRESTORE (once a good-faith objection was known) and WP:BLPSOURCES. Claims that...
Click to read more »remove. Not to add new material. Not to restore disputed content (WP:BLPRESTORE forbids this even for a single revert). Not even if you are 100% sure...
Click to read more »should have been found before its restoration (WP:ONUS, arguably also WP:BLPRESTORE). Please stop removing a whole section before engaging in a discussion...
Click to read more »07:11, 30 October 2025 (UTC) Page protected. Catjerine needs to read WP:BLPRESTORE and WP:ONUS. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:48, 30 October 2025 (UTC) Page: Terence...
Click to read more »September 2025 (UTC) "/* Promotion / résumé */ new section" Comments: WP:BLPRESTORE applies. The user had been informed about this in addition to the regular...
Click to read more »Policies that actually prefer specific revisions are WP:ONUS, WP:BURDEN, WP:BLPRESTORE. Perhaps there are more but these three seem to be the most relevant....
Click to read more »We're both familiar with WP:BLPRESTORE, and that revert goes against that part of the policy. The whole point of BLPRESTORE is that it applies to any good...
Click to read more »revert due solely to "no consensus" is an essay not a policy, but WP:BLPRESTORE is a policy, and part of BLP policy to boot. It says if someone feels...
Click to read more »controversial material and cite BLPRESTORE and ask this be taken to talk. [19] Fred Zeppelin reverted this, I reasserted BLPRESTORE and asked it be taken to...
Click to read more »is very undesirable when that outcome is a lack of consensus. Even WP:BLPRESTORE, which we have to have due to the high risk of harm, has caused this problem...
Click to read more »mean heck, even more clear-cut BLPRESTORE violations don't generally lead to sanction if the editor stops when BLPRESTORE requirements are made clear to...
Click to read more »discuss before reinstating per WP:BRD, but elsewhere I believe that WP:BLPRESTORE applies. JeffSpaceman (talk) 13:58, 15 July 2025 (UTC) Mmm - Classic Rock...
Click to read more »Altruisticmeta and Realtent, you have been edit warring there and WP:BLPRESTORE is a thing. It should be easy to find a consensus for inclusion if the...
Click to read more »citation from the article as not being from an acceptable BLP source per WP:BLPRESTORE. JeffSpaceman (talk) 00:19, 27 May 2025 (UTC) Seems like there may be...
Click to read more »material's relevance/neutrality, it shouldn't be re-added (WP:ONUS / WP:BLPRESTORE). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:33, 19 July 2025 (UTC) Thank you very much for...
Click to read more »InSneider with them when I did. I only removed when I was unable to do so. WP:BLPRESTORE makes it clear that the onus to restore material removed for BLP issues...
Click to read more »disputed and reverted, multiple times. You are also editing against WP:BLPRESTORE, do not restore it unless you can get consensus for doing so. -- LCU...
Click to read more »23:43, 15 December 2024 (UTC) This is a bit more complicated than "WP:BLPRESTORE". The disputed content in this case is context for the rest of the section...
Click to read more »Bridge), you'll need a third opinion or an RfC, not further reverts. WP:BLPRESTORE applies and the content may not be restored without consensus. Page protected...
Click to read more »ToBeFree (talk) 21:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC) Filer informed about WP:ONUS/WP:BLPRESTORE; closing. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC) Page: Saving...
Click to read more »there yet. However, I see and have undone at least one violation of WP:BLPRESTORE from the reporter. Find a consensus on the talk page before restoring...
Click to read more »wouldn't do so before a talk page discussion (attempt) exists due to WP:BLPRESTORE, but if I had intended to enforce this strictly and technically, I'd have...
Click to read more »04:20, 20 November 2024 (UTC) VolatileAnomaly, please have a look at WP:BLPRESTORE and seek a consensus on the talk page before restoring the disputed content...
Click to read more »disputed material about living persons that was re-added in violation of WP:BLPRESTORE. You may be right about the issues identified with Thedayandthetime's...
Click to read more »repeatedly that defames the subject in violation of WP:BLP and especially WP:BLPRESTORE.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 23:26, 16 January 2023 (UTC) Already blocked. Page...
Click to read more »consensus on those favoring inclusion of the material (WP:ONUS, WP:BURDEN, WP:BLPRESTORE et cetera). If there is a debate about whether something should be in...
Click to read more »The IP insisted on re-adding the material three more times (against WP:BLPRESTORE) just in the time it took me to compose this filing! Newimpartial (talk)...
Click to read more »this does look like edit warring behavior. I will note, though, that WP:BLPRESTORE may be relevant for this sort of thing. RFA (WP:GREL) is reporting about...
Click to read more »be remove-on-sight. If anyone has restored it in contravention of WP:BLPRESTORE, I'd suggest taking them to WP:AE immediately. It's a blog with no reputation...
Click to read more »it was challenged. Here [14] you (partially) restored against ONUS and BLPRESTORE despite an active RfC which would find against inclusion, even though...
Click to read more »section. MeltingDistrict restored it and I reminded them of ONUS and BLPRESTORE. At this point they removed all the information I added about the case...
Click to read more »among other things. I suggest editors open an RfC per WP:ONUS and WP:BLPRESTORE since it's pretty clear this is a contentious topic and there is no clear...
Click to read more »the anonymous user. This user edit-warred repeatedly in violation of WP:BLPRESTORE (diff diff diff diff diff) even after a warning (permalink), showing a...
Click to read more »2025 (UTC) Hi JFHJr, I'm a big proponent of WP:ONUS, WP:BURDEN and WP:BLPRESTORE. If the current revision had the disputed material, I would probably have...
Click to read more »(UTC) Yeah. Nothing will change until we start enforcing the policy. WP:BLPRESTORE violations should be strictish-liability things, like WP:3RR. 24-hour...
Click to read more »(UTC) You need to gain consensus for disputed edits for inclusion per WP:BLPRESTORE. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:45, 15 April 2024 (UTC) I would support including...
Click to read more »title, which attributes every bit of trivia to the company owner. WP:BLPRESTORE applies to adding Musk's name back to the article title. I am not opposed...
Click to read more »with repeated attempts to re-insert the content rather than following WP:BLPRESTORE, and "consensus required" restrictions favor the content that was present...
Click to read more »@Raladic has exercized WP:BLPRemove. Raladic correctly surmised from WP:BLPRestore that the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete...
Click to read more »who attempted to strike their personal attack, and the one who violated BLPRESTORE to reintroduce content against GENDERID) and who "really want" to see...
Click to read more »characteristic" is not about a living person, and so isn't covered by BLPRESTORE. It's a sentence in a BLP article with a poor citation, but it's not about...
Click to read more »with the first being here. I had previously noted to the editor that WP:BLPRESTORE applied to this type of allegation, and the editor clearly went on to...
Click to read more »bad faith. Zaathras (talk) 21:18, 20 April 2023 (UTC) I do not believe BLPRESTORE applies here, as the content is not damaging or damning to the subject...
Click to read more »removals are covered by WP:BLPRESTORE which was recently clarified here. EEpic (talk) 12:18, 22 March 2026 (UTC) BLPRESTORE is also not an exception to...
Click to read more »be undeleted and unsalted. I T B F 📢 09:39, 29 August 2025 (UTC) WP:BLPRESTORE is clear that To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally...
Click to read more »the restoration of content others have objected to in good faith, WP:BLPRESTORE (and thus a requirement to gain a consensus for those favoring inclusion)...
Click to read more »changes (I should have used a third opinion when I felt I was facing BLPRESTORE issues with regular editors of the article, and to my recollection I had...
Click to read more »it was well sourced and not a BLP vio.[312] Nil Einne reverted, citing BLPRESTORE.[313] IP restored it again because it was well sourced.[314] I then reverted...
Click to read more »Blocked for two weeks for edit warring on three pages in violation of WP:BLPRESTORE. If it continues after the block, please simply let me know on my talk...
Click to read more »48+ hours, I am going to remove the sentence from the article per WP:BLPRESTORE and start a talk page discussion to establish consensus either way, per...
Click to read more »Afus199620 restored was challenged on grounds of being poorly sourced. WP:BLPRESTORE is imperative to follow, and as the material was already challenged once...
Click to read more »accusations up. —C.Fred (talk) 13:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC) I'll add that WP:BLPRESTORE requires consensus before restoring material removed "on good-faith BLP...
Click to read more »reverted for nonsensical reasons, and which I removed a second time per WP:BLPRESTORE; this wound up contributing to their eventual GENSEX TBAN (and btw is...
Click to read more »up again. There was already a consensus that satisfied WP:ONUS and WP:BLPRESTORE under the previous RfC. The current RfC instigated by a bunch of sock/meatpuppets...
Click to read more »TalkPage prior to removal and the edit summary pointing towards both BLPRESTORE for removed BLP content as well as ONUS, which was ignored before going...
Click to read more »Valjean (talk · contribs) then reverted my removal apparently in violation of WP:BLPRESTORE. I then started a talk page discussion Talk:Julian_Assange#undue_text_in_heading...
Click to read more »now?] 12:40, 18 May 2025 (UTC) Thanks for the ping. The wording of WP:BLPRESTORE is If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must...
Click to read more »there's clearly no consensus for any specific text on the issue. Per WP:BLPRESTORE, if an editor has expressed good faith BLP consensus, there needs to be...
Click to read more »describing it even then though, and there is a risk of you violating WP:BLPRESTORE with these reverts. If this turns out to be a sockpuppet, please let me...
Click to read more »of living persons/Noticeboard#Zehra Sayers. Despite being told per WP:BLPRESTORE the material cannot be added without consensus, they have restored the...
Click to read more »(talk ☉) 22:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC) Hob Gadling failing to yield to WP:BLPRESTORE, apparently missing both the discussion and RSN link from the talk page...
Click to read more »"widely described as far-right". Seek consensus before restoring per WP:BLPRESTORE." https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Douglas_Murray_(author)&oldid=1207060141...
Click to read more »that if you warned Editorkamran bout edit-warning and pointed them to WP:BLPRESTORE, they wouldn't have backed down, or at least moved the discussion to talk...
Click to read more »Persistent IP user(s) re-adding BLP info without consensus in violation of WP:BLPRESTORE. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:48, 12 December 2025 (UTC) Automated comment:...
Click to read more »the edit summary Rolling back contested material. Please refer to WP:BLPRESTORE. 2) The argument that Platner has not received that much publicity is...
Click to read more »multiple other editors over contentious BLP material in the face of WP:BLPRESTORE is clearly sanctionable. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:13, 2 November...
Click to read more »appears to be a content dispute in already contentious topic area. WP:BLPRESTORE is worth considering as well. If so clear consensus can be found it can...
Click to read more »WP:BLPNAME violation, doesn't get added back without consensus per WP:BLPRESTORE 22:09, 6 June 2026 Adds poorly referenced alleged perpetrator name at...
Click to read more »