The major issue with WP:OFFICE as I see it is an admin/non-admin problem. When [[Paul Barresi]] was stubbed per WP:OFFICE in April, the article was still editable, so an interested editor simply had to adopt the article and add carefully sourced statements one by one. No problemo. In the case of [[Pacific Western University]], the article is only editable by admins. Several good non-admin editors have developed serviceable scratch articles in the last four months. I suppose there's a question whether these scratch articles should even be on Wikipedia if the actual article is in lockdown. There's really no clear system to discuss those proposed versions, come to a consensus, and incorporate those changes. What we end up with is multiple people saying on the article's talk page, "Hey, check out this version I wrote," or "Let's add this well-sourced statement," but then there's no one coordinating or incorporating the consensus-based additions. Instead, and I have found this extremely frustrating in the case of the PWU article, we get unilateral decisions made by admins regarding changes. For instance, an editor who created a well-sourced scratch article also created a [[List of Pacific Western University people]] containing a rather crufty but well-sourced list of people claiming degrees from PWU, some of whom are notable. The article was put up for AfD, but was instead quickly deleted in its entirety, edit history and all, with the sourced statements about notable alumni removed as well. I understand the need for caution, but this kind of unilateral decision to completely delete articles containing useful material that could be merged into other articles is what drives good people from the project. The information can't even be retrieved by non-admins and adds to the growing sense that non-admins are less important/less valued contributors. Because they were redlinked in the PWU scratch article, I gathered a lot of information and started articles on three officers of PWU, including the founder, president, and owner, all of which were similarly deleted on sight by JzG. The simultaneous lack of process with WP:OFFICE and the unilateral deletion of all ancillary PWU articles made today my least favorite Wikipedia user experience to date. My from-the-trenches suggestions: - Impartial admin(s) assigned to each OFFICEd article at the moment it is protected (preferably someone with no edits to the article prior to WP:OFFICE). Perhaps randomly chosen from an existing pool of volunteers and an a WP:COI clearance for the article in question. That person would be listed on the talk page as the coordinator and would check back in each day and respond to proposed changes. - A registration system for articles locked down by WP:OFFICE for impartial non-admins to make edits, perhaps with a high threshold (edit number, WP:COI clearance, etc.). - Barring that, a centralized location where a scratch article can be prepared and discussed by admins and non-admins alike, possibly registration-only or off-site. I recommend adopting the first suggestion immediately, and then discussing the other options somewhere before implementing them. All the Office has to do is lock and stub the disputed article, then the WP:OFFICE admin pool would take it from there. I believe articles would slowly but surely move toward unprotection from there, rather than languishing for many months under the current system. Jokestress