I saw ideas tossed about previously of a group of "senior BLP analysts" for lack of a better term--people that have demonstrated to the community their fair and common-sense take and approach to BLP matters. OTRS people, perhaps. The group would need to be a mixed grouping of people. I'll call them BLP People from here. Administrator status should not be a requirement--there are plenty of very skilled senior people, for example, with years of experience who aren't admins. Ideally the group of BLP People ought to be rather large--perhaps a dozen or three dozen individuals. Set them up with a simple private mail list, ala ArbCom, that people can submit to. Idea for BLP opt out to tie into this: If the subject of a BLP article demonstrates/illustrates that they have suffered harm from their article, they can submit it for review by the BLP group. Note, this means that they demonstrate/illustrate the article itself has harmed them, they can ask for it be gone. If it's borderline, or their maybe/maybe not notable, these BLP people can simply do a standard AfD nomination. If it is determined however by this group that the article HAS caused this person harm and they meet very simple but precise criteria, the article is deleted, and the reasons (omitting anything salacious of course or personally identifying) are publically noted and logged, including who contacted the BLP People. The methods the BLP People use to positively identify subjects of BLP articles can be hashed out internally amongst themselves, with the final methods used posted publically afterwards. A strict consensus among the BLP People internally would be required to qualify for this. Note, any of them could still AfD an article--but this opt-out auto-deletion would be controlled neatly to prevent any abuse, internal or external. What could qualify? The person needs to demonstrate or illustrate harm that Wikipedia has caused them. "I don't want an article on me," doesn't count. Wikipedia itself in it's role as a Huge Ultra Mega Site With Stuff On You needs to be causing you harm counts--show us and tell us what happened, and we'll help you if we can. If you drove drunk, embezzled money, or are a notable whack-job, and we simple report on that, no, that doesn't count. You're a notable drunk or whack-job already. Assuming the BLP People (consensus again, this especially needs to be vetted by more than one person) agree that Wikipedia's article's existence caused you harm, you may count for an opt-out if "several" of these qualify (again, the BLP People would need to agree case-by-case, but any of them could always go the AfD route still): a) The person illustrates/demonstrates to the satisfaction and consensus of the BLP People that the article on Wikipedia about them caused them harm. NOTE: Not "may" cause harm, or they think it "could" cause them harm. We're not seers. Hammering the point: if any of the BLPers want it gone for the coulds or maybes, AfD is right there for you outside of this method. b) If the person is a private person, or semi-private. c) If their notability/fame/infamy tied into one event. d) If their notability/fame/infamy happened once, and doesn't appear likely to occur again. I.e., someone mentioned several times or more in April 1999, but never talked about again in the media or any notable literature. If the person shows up in the media year after year, odds are their notability/fame/infamy is persistent. e) f) g) I'm sure other qualifiers can be found, and filled in by others, but those are the main ones. Very Public People obviously are forfeit this option. Everyone from Tonya Harding level infamy, up through any elected politicians or higher don't get to do this for obvious reasons--Michael Jackson's public persona and image aren't going to be really impacted by Wikipedia's article on him. Either way, he's a public person, so he doesn't qualify here. NOTES: * These deletions are emphatically *not* subject to DRV review or general peanut gallery review for all their details, obviously. The review process is through the BLP People and their group. If someone is not satisfied with that, you have ArbCom to judge the actions of the BLP People. This would be a good use of the idea that Fred posited yesterday of ArbCom overseeing application of potential BLP deletions, and what gave me the idea for all this. * If a representative contacts the BLP People for an opt-out, we need to know that the rep actually works for/represents the person--we need proof or evidence. Someone pro-actively being an advocate without the endorsement of the subject doesn't count. The *subject* has to want the article gone like this. I need to want my article gone--not you wanting my article gone for my own potential good. * Anyone on the BLP People group obviously is going to be seeing some sensitive information. They don't/should not need to be admins--but they can and will disclose their real life identities to the Foundation. Won't disclose? You don't get to participate on this for privacy and security reasons. At all. * The BLP Group should include a mixture of veteran non-admins, veteran admins, and of course Check Users. Streamlined process: I believe my article on Wikipedia has caused me harm. I mail the BLP People. They ask, "What harm? We want to help, please show or tell us," and I do. They then verify I'm really me. Variety of ways this can be done, and they can sort that out. If the BLP People collectively agree that I'm me, and yes, my article did indeed cause me harm, they consider if I meet the criteria for Opt-Out Deletion. If I don't, they let me know why I don't, and that's that. If I'm unhappy with that, I can always take it up publicly on-Wiki, go to Jimbo, ArbCom, whatever. If the BLP People do agree that I qualify, one of them writes up a neutral public detailing and posts the following: 1. What article? 2. Who contacted them (name the person--is it me, or a representative? Who's the rep? Is the subject aware of the representation?). Transparency here is *essential* in case the BLP People theoretically got it wrong and I really didn't want it gone, nor did the named representative. The person requesting the deletion needs to understand and accept that a requirement here is that we note who asked for the deletion. 3. Why was it deleted? Nothing salacious. Bare bones, skimpy, to the point, tailored to not hurt the person further. 4. The reasoning of why the person qualified for the BLP opt-out. One of the admins on the BLP People group then nukes the article, and either recreates as a protected redirect, a disambig, or salts it as the case requires. Done. Reposting/recreating such articles is a Seriously Bad Punishable Thing. Undoing such an Opt-Out deletion: Simple! Option 1: An editor(s) on Wikipedia feels the person has now grown in notability/fame/infamy to the point they no longer qualify. They mail BLP People. Easy enough to review, yes/no. Done. If the editor(s) disagrees: there's ArbCom over there. Be a dick about it with them if they politely disagree as well, there's the Disruption Penalties over there. Option 2: Ask the person if they don't mind. If they don't mind any longer, ask them to tell the BLP People on the record. If I tell the BLP People two years later, "Hey, I changed my mind. Put it back up." It goes back up if it meets standard notability etc. yadda yadda. If someone (the subject) plays games with the BLP People process ("put it up! take it down! No don't take it down!!") the group can simply come to a decision of "Enough, we're now ignoring you for jerking us around in violation of our Don't Jerk Us Around Like A Dick policy. Regards, Joe http://www.joeszilagyi.com