Let's get something clear. And then I am going to return to planet Earth. Wikipedia is a journalistic venue, not a reference work. One hour going through its entries reveals dozens of factual inaccuracies, biased and defamatory editing, ignorant and amateurish interpretations of complicated historical and biographical circumstances. I am no worse or better than any other figure written about here. My accomplishments, such as they are, are so modest, relative to who belongs in a self-styled "encyclopedia" that I don't even know why I'm in here. But, unlike you, who operates from behind a veil of anonymity, my identity is clear here. I live in a community, with my wife and two children. all three of whom are affected by the biased editing you say you prohibit, end up allowing. I have every right to protect what people ANONYMOUSLY say about me in public. You keep asking me to abide by rules that you made up to suit your project as if they were moral laws conferred from on high. But they are arbitrary rules that happen to suit your purpose. The whole situation is Alice-in-Wonderland absurd.  

 You seem to think my entry is "balanced" and "neutral" now. Fine. If that's how you want it, then keep it like that. But keep the haters and defamers out of it. And then I'll stay out of it.  

 I would still love to know who you are, and what experience you have that warrants your being permitted to supervise the biographical accounts of controversial people. But according to your "rules," it is outrageous for me even to ask.