Wikipedia talk:PC2012/Rivertorch

Any thoughts so far?

What changes would you like to see from the draft version, River? - Dank (push to talk) 21:31, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Getting there, Dank. Still collecting my thoughts and mentally drafting my draft of a draft. Probably not going to post anything till tomorrow at the earliest. Rivertorch (talk) 05:31, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Rather than working from the draft version, I've essentially started from scratch, dividing it into two parts: (1) how and where PC may be applied and (2) who are the reviewers and what standards do they follow. I was going to post a first draft of part 1 today but am inclined to hold off and see what happens here first. Rivertorch (talk) 07:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I now see there are a huge number of subpages of WP:Pending changes .... would it be okay to move your project page to WP:Pending changes/2012/Rivertorch? - Dank (push to talk) 14:28, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Scratch that, I don't like the editnotice on the WP:Pending changes/ pages. I went with "WP:PC2012", I hope that's okay. - Dank (push to talk) 17:36, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. As long as everything is clearly linked so it can be found, you can name it WP:dT!%mx8s3$/Rivertorch for all I care. ;) I'm more concerned about the master page. If WP:PC2012 is reserved for links to various contributors' subpages, is all the coordination and centralized discussion going to happen at WT:PC2012? Rivertorch (talk) 20:25, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I think so, Blade's on board with that ... until people want to vote on something and there's consensus, and then the results from each vote get added to the project page. - Dank (push to talk) 20:55, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Thoughts so far

This is turning into a monster. I've been working up something rough for several days, and it keeps getting bigger and bigger as one point leads to another, and so on. Talk about instruction creep! Unfortunately, if a bare-bones policy goes into effect, there will be so many gaps that we'll end up winging it on a daily basis, and that unquestionably would be a fiasco waiting to happen.

At this point, I'm dealing with five separate but interrelated things: the scope of PC (i.e., what pages are eligible), what a reviewer should and shouldn't do, how reviewers become reviewers, how specific pages get selected for PC, and how to organize the infrastructure to make the everyday (?) process of applying PC as systematic and rational as possible. I hope to post something tomorrow. Rivertorch (talk) 09:22, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Great, thanks for your work. - Dank (push to talk) 10:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I think this is going to be the big trick here. I readily admit that the draft policy is not sufficient for the long term, but we have to be aware that if we make it too complicated it is actually less likely users will read and understand the whole thing. Finding that balance is always tricky. The existing protection policy may be useful as a guide, it is fairly concise. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you're probably right. But I think I'd rather be as comprehensive as I can here and then see it whittled down (if not rejected entirely, of course!) than leave out something that might prove critical. If nothing else, I hope to identify some points that many editors may not have thought of. Anyway, I'm now shooting for tomorrow. Another balance to strike is the one between too much solitary off-wiki writing and posting something that looks half-baked to the point of foolishness. Rivertorch (talk) 09:34, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Get it all out there and then edit down later. Yaris678 (talk) 09:39, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, it's up. Just two things: I know some of it will be controversial, and I'd really appreciate it if those who come to a part they can't abide keep reading, just in case there's anything they like later on. Also, I want to note that I have deliberately avoided reading anyone else's proposals so far because I was afraid of getting pulled down more side paths in my own thinking, but I'm looking forward to looking at them soon. Rivertorch (talk) 14:46, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I read this page first ... that sounds like something I'd say, so I'm looking forward to reading it. - Dank (push to talk) 15:51, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Name change

Extended discussion begun at Wikipedia:PC2012/Rivertorch#Proposed_name_change:

Please indicate support or opposition, with a brief explanation. Extended discussion goes on the talk page.

• Support as proposer. Rivertorch (talk) 14:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
• Strong support for a big overhaul of terminology. I think terminology is one reason why PC is so confusing. I must admit that I hadn't thought of renaming the whole feature before but now you mention it, it makes perfect sense. However, I would suggest that "reviewed edits" could have the same problem as "pending changes" in that it could be taken to mean edits that have been reviewed, as well as the system as a whole. I think that if there is going to be any overlap of terminology, the feature should take its name from the protection, as is the case with semi-protection. So taking the lead from your reviewer idea, how about we call it "reviewer protection"? (Another word that appeals is occlusion, it sounds weird but Wikipedians are happy with transclusion).
  We should also come up with a glossary of terms that make sense. As a starting point, how about
  reviewer protection - a form of protection for pages, currently known as pending-changes protection
  reviewer protection feature - the feature that makes reviewer protection possible. This can be called simply "reviewer protection" in most situations
  approved edit - an edit that has been approved by a reviewer
  non-approved edit - an edit that has not been approved by a reviewer
  invisible edit - non-approved edit that is after the latest approved edit
  visible edit - an edit that has not been undone, up to and including the last approved edit.
  Yaris678 (talk) 17:56, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Yaris, thanks for your comments. It's true that "reviewed edits" could be taken two ways. My thinking was that in practice there'd be relatively little discussion of edits that had already been reviewed, compared to those still pending. I rather like "reviewer protection" but am a little bothered by it because it could be taken to mean protection of reviewers, not by reviewers. (I realize no one is likely to actually make that mistake, but that's the way I hear it in my head when I read the words.) Still, it's probably a better choice than what I suggested. Anybody else have ideas? (Note: anyone who proposes anything involving the word "sighted" is subject to immediate trouting.) Rivertorch (talk) 22:01, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm... I supose you could call it reviewer-based protection, or RBP for short. That has the advantage that it is a TLA :-) I would be interested to know what other people think. Yaris678 (talk) 11:47, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

• Hi , and thankd for your efforts is laying out some suggestions for improvement/progress - You say, "After several years of contentious discussion, the words "pending changes" carry a lot of baggage" - there is community consensus for Pending Changes - baggage is in the eye of the beholder - I call it, a difficult discussion over a lengthy period that brought the community to an agreement to implement the tool later this year. No amount of name tweaking with result in a reviewers responsibility for the edit being removed. - You say, "with the placement of judicious limits on PC's scope, could play a meaningful role in building broad community acceptance of PC" and "I see reviewed edits as a limited form of pending changes." - - but there is already broad community acceptance of PC and there is no consensus to especially limit the tool - we are working, with the benefit of consensus support, on a guideline for as much usage as is reasonably possible, not a judicious limiting so as to make it worthless. - I am not seeing any benefit at all to these suggestions - Many users that will work with the tool already have experiance with the prior names - without clear additional benefits changing them is a net loss. Youreallycan 20:04, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

  I'm really rather unconcerned about changing the name; it was just an offhand thought that occurred to me because, as I explained in my proposal, the phrase "pending changes" is inherently ambiguous. I disagree with you vehemently that that there's broad community acceptance for PC, and that was another reason why I proposed the new name. Sometimes words themselves impede people from finding common ground, and if we don't find common ground—i.e., if compromise is rejected and the default wording becomes policy, or if even worse wording gets rammed down our collective throat—then PC will not only fail but fail miserably and spectacularly, with vast collateral damage to the project and its editors. I do not want that to happen.

  While you're quite correct that there's no consensus to limit PC's scope, neither is there consensus not to limit it; where to draw the various limits is precisely rhe question that must be answered over the coming weeks.

  (Btw, to any fellow Option 1ers who may be reading this, my name-change proposal was a hesitant one because I have a particular aversion to doublespeak. I wasn't sure how many people would accept my distinction between ditching the term for multiple reasons including its negative connotations and rebranding it simply to make it more palatable.) Rivertorch (talk) 05:49, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

  In my opinion, any attempt to rename to disasociate PC from the past will backfire. I think changing the termniology, possibly including the name for the feature as a whole, would help because the terminolgy at the moment is confusing. If we pick some good names then people will be able to "get" PC a lot more easily than they do at the moment. One of the most edorsed statements in 2011 was "PC is confusing". Yaris678 (talk) 07:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

  I don't think we've fully argued the point about whether PC1 can only be used, ever, against vandalism; I'm leaning that way myself, but there really are valid arguments in favor of other uses. If the only-vandalism argument wins, then I really think we need to change the name to reflect that: something like "Vandalism protection", which would nail it down for the RfC voters ... and also make it much harder for the general public to criticize, or misunderstand. - Dank (push to talk) 21:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Initial response

Rivertorch, thank you for the effort you put in to Wikipedia:PC2012/Rivertorch. I have now had a read over it. I have put some thoughts on it below. Some of these may be cause to tweak the text, others may end up being something we bring forward for a focused discussion with the wider community. I will sign each point so that discussion can continue under each. Yaris678 (talk) 17:51, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

This is an easy format to follow. Thanks for setting it up! Rivertorch (talk) 06:17, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. N.B. I think we now now roughly how the focused discussions are going to fit into things. See WT:PC2012#An example of a focused discussion. Yaris678 (talk) 12:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

1 - Assumption of level 2 - It is an interesting idea. I can kinda see the logic. I certainly think that L2 could make sense on articles with few edits and few watchers. And it eliminates the strange inconsistency with L1 that a user will have their edits seen straight away if there are no edits pending but not if there are some. But there will be other situations when L2 would be impractical without SP because you’d just get loads of IP/new user vandalism. There will be other cases, where the vandalism has only ever been from IPs/new users and L2 will seem over the top. Why not L1? I guess you could argue that such pages should be SPed and that if they don’t require SP they don’t require L1… but I think you need to make the case. My own position isn’t that different but; it is that to get L1 a page must be borderline for SP. Yaris678 (talk) 17:51, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

By "borderline for SP", do you mean at the lower or upper threshold? Rivertorch (talk) 08:06, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Lower threshold. Use PC L1 on low-edit-rate articles with vandalism that is arguably sufficient for SP but at the lower threshold. Yaris678 (talk) 12:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

2 - Concentration on vandalism - I can see that this makes it easier. The current approach also covers threats and violations of both BLP and copyright. This can make it complicated to review a page and one of the big issues in the trial was that people let accepted edits that weren’t vandalism but were the main reason that the article was protected. There was also a certain inconsistency in that the review policy asked people to look for things different to what the protection policy said pages could be protected for! I think it is reasonable to expect reviewers to recognise most BLP violations… but copyright is a different matter. Most copyright violations could be found with a Google search, but that is an extra step to cover for what is a rare case… and it still wouldn’t cover all copyright cases. Expecting reviewers to recognise NPOV,V or NOR violations may also be asking a bit much. Protecting pages that are subject to edit warring could get problematic. I think we need a focused discussion on what sort of issues we are trying to control with this feature. Yaris678 (talk) 17:51, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The problem isn't recognizing "most BLP violations" (my emphasis) but rather finding agreement over the small but incessant minority of edits that some editors consider BLP violations and other editors don't. Disagreement over such edits has long been the trigger of many of the ugliest, bitterest disputes on the project. If screening out BLP violations is a stated function of PC (I'll call it that for the time being) under the policy when PC goes live, it is likely to worsen tensions significantly while doing far less to prevent unequivocal BLP violations than semi-protection does. Agree with you on most of the rest, especially copyvio, which is not a policy in which most reviewers should be expected to have any expertise. Rivertorch (talk) 06:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I think you have persuaded me on this one but I can see it will be a big one for some people to swallow. I think this is a good subject for a focused discussion. Yaris678 (talk) 12:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

One thing people might keep in mind is that my proposal will not prevent reviewers from using PC to reject BLP violations (or violations of any other policy, for that matter). It simply would prohibit BLP violations from being a reason to apply PC to an article in the first place. Rivertorch (talk) 19:40, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

3 - Reviewers notice board - I think this is a brilliant idea. If an edit is pending for ages it is probably because no one can decide. If this is brought to the attention of the community of reviewers they can discuss it and come to a decision more quickly. Such discussions will also help reviewers to get a better idea of what other reviewers do in hard cases and so improve the competency and consistency of reviewing. I can see someone raising an objection in terms of WP:DENY but I think the benefits outweigh the costs. Yaris678 (talk) 17:51, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Sure. Vandalism can be subtle. Occasionally something on my watchlist strikes me as a little odd in some way that I can't quite put my finger on. Then, in the next refresh or maybe not till the next day, I see that someone with more active brain cells than I have (or at least someone more conversant with certain cultural elements than I am) has reverted, and I suddenly "get it". Rivertorch (talk) 06:48, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

4 - Requests page - I can’t see why you would need a special one. Why not just use WP:RFP? Is it because you think a different process should apply to the one at RFP? What is wrong with how things are done there? Yaris678 (talk) 17:51, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Good question. RFP won't fit the bill for several reasons. For one thing, requests there tend to get archived too soon—approved ones almost immediately—and that's incompatible with the transparency and accountability I'd like to see embodied in PC; there should be a clear record of who requested what, who acted on it, and why, without combing through page histories or logs. Part of achieving transparency and accountability depends on all actions of applying PC being fully logged in one place, which my proposal addresses by barring admins from granting requests made at other venues than the Requests Page. I also want to see PC applied with extraordinary caution and careful deliberation, using a set of criteria that requires substantially more investigation than RFP requests do. I want to it to be seen not as a casual alternative to semi but an option reserved for very specific circumstances. Trying to achieve those objectives using RFP would be like cramming a square peg into a round hole, if not outright impossible. (Note also that my proposal includes a "hold" option which would direct discussion to the noticeboard. I don't think that's workable using RFP.) Rivertorch (talk) 07:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm... I'm pretty neutral on this one (and 5, below). If somone else could comment on these that would be great. Again, maybe this is something for a focused disussion. Yaris678 (talk) 12:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

5 - "Administrators must not act upon their own requests" - I guess this follows on from point 4 above. I think at the moment admins are given discretion to apply any form of protection that they think would be appropriate under the policies. It would be seen as bad to protect an article where they have a content dispute with a non-admin, but if they just come across a page that looks like it needs protecting they can do it. Why is PC special? Yaris678 (talk) 17:51, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

You're right, points 4 and 5 are closely related. PC is special because it places a new and different kind of burden on everyone affected by it. On articles where it's applied, it has the potential to profoundly change the way we all make edits and review the edits of others—in other words, to profoundly change our accustomed interface with Wikipedia and Wikipedians. So the decision to transform an article in that way isn't one that should be made lightly, unilaterally, or in private. At least two people—the editor making the request and the admin fulfilling it—should have to agree that PC is a good idea on a given page, and anyone else should be able to easily see how it came about, and why. Rivertorch (talk) 07:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

6 - Reviewer selection - This section is excellent. I think it covers exactly what is required. Minor issue: I think there is a missing word where it says “asking a different administrator listed at.” Yaris678 (talk) 17:51, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. Rivertorch (talk) 07:50, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

7 - Assessing pending edits - I think this text pretty-much gets it right. But it doesn’t deal with the case where there are edits by multiple users pending. See WP:Reviewing#Step-by-step "how-to" for reviewing multiple edits for the current attempt at dealing with that case. Yaris678 (talk) 17:51, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I realize I didn't deal with that, and I know it's a weakness of my proposal. Honestly, the instructions you linked above are the sort of thing that I can read innumerable times without every being quite sure I understand exactly what it means. Sigh. No, make that primal scream. I will say that I consider item 2 in the instructions to be deeply flawed. I wonder if Beeblebrox every set up his test pages. If I learned by doing, I'm sure I could write something a little more coherent. Rivertorch (talk) 08:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

That would be useful. Are you familiar with Wikipedia:Pending changes/Testing? Yaris678 (talk) 12:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

8 - Warning repeat vandals - I think this section gets the balance about right. We should deny recognition in most cases but eventually we’ll have to block and obviously you need to warn before you block. Yaris678 (talk) 17:51, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

9 - Reviewer conduct and competence - I mostly agree with what you have written about this but feel we should encourage users to constructively engage with each other before it gets to the point of "reporting" someone. Yaris678 (talk) 17:51, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Hmm . . . yes. I agree. Let me think about how to put that. Rivertorch (talk) 08:04, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Coolio. Yaris678 (talk) 12:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

reply to proposal

• Establishing two new pages for requesting and discussing PC.

I hate this idea. PC does not need all this elaborate bureaucracy to administrate. It is intended to be but one of several page protection options. It is merely another tool on the shelf for admins to consider when evaluating requests for page protection in the normal manner. It can and should be handled at WP:RFPP. if we trust admins to decide if semi, full, or no protection is required we can trust them to decide if PC is a better fit. I am unsure why many users do not seem to grasp that this is just another kind of protection and is intended to be used in accordance with the existing protection policy plus anything we decide to add to it specifically for PC. This will only confuse both users and admins and add a layer of complexity for no discernible purpose. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe I stated the purpose. Since you couldn't discern it, I guess I didn't state it very clearly! :) I'll work on making it plainer. One comment for now: what PC is intended to be isn't necessarily what it will turn out to be. (Lots of things at Wikipedia are like that.) It will place a significantly different set of demands on everyone who encounters it. Inasmuch as many of those demands can be foreseen, it strikes me as a better approach to plan for them explicitly in advance instead of fudging it when the time comes. Rivertorch (talk) 09:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox, I don't think it is that case that "many users do not seem to grasp that this is just another kind of protection". It's not that they don't grasp it. It's that they disagree with it. Not recognising that disagreement is part of the reason why people seem to be talking past each other when it comes to PC. Yaris678 (talk) 11:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

If we do even a halfway decent job with writing a policy on when it is to be used, users can simply request protection at RFPP just as they do now. Why complicate matters with a different forum? If we do that, users may end up being pointed in circles. I can see it now " you want pending changes, this is RFPP, go ask at the pending changes noticeboard" the user goes there and is told " semi protection is a better fit for this problem, go refile at RFPP." Or they could simply state the problem at RFPP, just as they do now, and reviewing admins can decide which of the protection options, semi, full, PC, or none at all, is appropriate. One of the complaints we had in the past was that PC is confusing. We should be endeavoring to make it simpler for users to undersstand, not creating a sprawl of new pages and moving it further away from familiar areas that users are already relatively comfortable with. I think we have the same goal here, to make this actually work, but I really don't believe viewing PC in isolation from RFPP and WP:PP is the right way to proceed. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• Criteria for granting the reviewer right.

The proposed criteria ae too restrictive. At its essence reviewing is the same thing as rollback or undo, just applied in certain specific situaitions. No criteria need to be met for undo, and rollback is much easier to get than this. I strongly believe that reviewing and rollback should have roughly the same requirements. The ability to recognize vandalism and differentiate it from other types of edits is of course essential, that is what the main criterion should be. If they can do that with rollback they can do the same when reviewing. Let's be honest here, the main people who will probably do reviewing are the same people who already pateol for vandalism. The more of them are granted the right, the less the chance we will experience the massive backlogs that some doomsayers have predicted. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. And the greater the chance that unconstructive edits will slip into articles, and the greater the chance that constructive edits will be misidentified as something else and reverted. Now, if PC were limited strictly to vandalism, I'd come very close to agreeing with you on this point. But if, as I've proposed, reviewers are allowed more discretion in their decisions whether to accept pending changes*, then they need to demonstrate that their skill set extends beyond the ability to accurately identifying vandalism. And if reviewers aren't allowed more discretion, I think we'll see a whole lot of established editors dumping PC-enabled pages off their watchlists because of an unwillingness or inability to deal with it.

* This is an example of the ambiguity of the term "pending changes". I'm referring here to edits that are waiting to be reviewed, but if I were skimming the sentence I'd think it referred to the feature called pending changes.Rivertorch (talk) 09:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Let me expand on the issue of unconstructive edits slipping into articles, as it relates to PC. Inexperienced reviewers, especially if acting under a policy that strictly limits rejection of PC to vandalism (or vandalism and BLP), are likely in many instances to simply accept edits that have other problems. Widespread acceptance of such edits without immediately fixing or removing them would constitute a new and significant means by which articles are corrupted. (Think of it as a disease vector, like rats and bubonic plague.) This is a whole different ballgame from unprotected articles, where undoing a problematic edit can be accomplished with one click, or semi'd articles, where someone making an edit request can be told, "No dice. Come back when you have something that's coherent, well written, and sourced." Rivertorch (talk) 19:11, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think I'm getting the point here. There is a range of opinions on what minimum competence reviewers should have; supposed we pick "zero". Assume for a moment that a reviewer's approval doesn't show up in the edit history. How would that approval corrupt the article if people didn't even know it happened, and were likely to treat it as not meaning much if they did know it happened? - Dank (push to talk) 00:31, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I was referring to accepting unconstructive edits without fixing or removing them. And that is something to be concerned about, especially if the reviewer flag is handed out freely to the sort of vandal patrollers who practice quantity over quality and may be unlikely to spend the time to actually work on improving content. It would be very easy for such a reviewer to say, "Okay, it's not vandalism—in it goes", thereby corrupting the article. Rivertorch (talk) 05:04, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• The role of reviewers.

Now this, I like. Well thought out and leaves some discretion in the hands of the reviewer just as we so with rollback. Perhaps a multi-tiered system such as Twinkle provides when rolling back could be developed to help reviewers select the best course of action Beeblebrox (talk) 20:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Sure. As for the chances of that being developed and perfected before the witching hour, I have my doubts. Point of clarification, though: lots of rollbackers don't use Twinkle, and they are permitted remarkably little in the way of discretion. There is a gray area—I once had my head taken off by an editor who saw carelessness or incompetence where I saw deliberate transgression—but it's pretty clear that the use of rollback per se is not acceptable except to undo edits that can be reasonably construed as meeting the thresholds defined at WP:VAND or WP:BLP. If we're giving reviewers more leeway than that, we'd better be confident they're savvy enough to handle it. Rivertorch (talk) 09:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• Name change

Ambivilent on this one. I underatand and appreciate the logic behind it but have little faith that it would have the desired effect. There is a possibility that we would get a bad reaction to it if it is seen as trying to "sneak in" PC under another name. Ot it might work just fine, we don't and can't know. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Right. I agree. Leaving aside for the moment how the larger community might see it, what's your personal opinion, especially vis-à-vis removing the ambiguity? (Please take a look at the discussion elsewhere on this page if you haven't already.) Rivertorch (talk) 09:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Removal and granting of the right

I support Beeble's position on granting the right, if I interpret him correctly .. - more or less equal to rollbacker, perhaps a little less even, but only a little - Removal of the right, as granting it, doesn't need to be complicated and should be a freely available option to an uninvolved Administrator - (as per rollbacker) the User can appeal at ANI and seek community support for overturning such decisions - Administrators acting negligently or in an involved manner would be also subject to the usual investigations and recriminations as per usual wiki process, no need for anything additional or convoluted here imo. I suggest simplicity is the way to go with this - we already have guidelines in regards to most of the usage and control issues surrounding this and similar tools/advanced permissions - Youreallycan 20:38, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

30 watchers

I had not yet seen this suggested as a way of what is usually discussed as high- or -low-traffic articles, but I quite like it as a clean test of whether an article needs an enhanced set of eyes on it. Nice. --j⚛e decker^talk 00:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)