Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 04:23, 21 September 2010

Pending changes
Interface: Pages with pending edits · Pages under pending changes · Pending changes log ·
Documentation: Main talk · Reviewing guideline · Reviewing talk · Protection policy · Testing · Statistics

2010 Trial and 2012 Implementation

Historical: Trial proposal · Specifics · Reviewing guideline · Metrics · Terminology · Queue · Feedback · Closure · 2012 Implementation
Discussions:

Summary information for editors

Current status - Pending changes (level 1) was re-enabled on December 1st, 2012 by community consensus according to the 2012 RFC.
Logged in users – Logged in users (or users choosing to view pending changes) will see all edits as usual (unless the relevant setting has been changed in their preferences). All edits will still be added to the wiki and inappropriate edits must still be reverted or fixed as usual.
Logged out users – Until checked for obvious vandalism or superseded by appropriate editing, edits by new and unregistered users to "pending changes protected" pages will not be seen by users who are not logged in until approved. Edits by autoconfirmed users are approved automatically at level 1 when the prior revision is approved.
Policy – See the pending changes usage policy and the guideline on reviewing
Reviewer rights – Become a reviewer!.
Support and testing – Test page: Wikipedia:Pending changes/Testing. Bugs: Report them at WT:PC. For more information visit the IRC channel: #wikipedia-en-pc ^connect
Provide feedback and suggestion – Feedback page: Wikipedia talk:Pending changes. Your feedback and suggestions are appreciated.

Introduction

The two month trial of Pending Changes ended with "407 in favour of implementation in some form, and 217 opposed, with 44 other responses." As a result of this poll, which indicated significant support for that version of PC, but not consensus, Jimbo asked the Foundation to work on a new version to address the most common concerns which could be addressed in software in a reasonable period of time.

It has been announced that a new version is slated for release on November 9.

The community should now decide if the current implementation should still be used between now and the release of the new version. This poll is only about that question, and will set no precedent for future use.

This poll will run for 7 days, and started at 12:14 (UTC) on 20 September 2010.

Straw poll instructions

There are two options: close or keep.

Keep:Temporary continuation of PC on most of the currently PC'd articles is preferred over the temporary removal of PC from all articles - Prefer keeping Pending Changes active until the November release with little change in current deployment, over the alternative of removing it from all articles. It can be removed from pages where it is causing problems, and added sparingly to pages where it has clear benefits (in its current incarnation) over semi-protection. If this option has support, a hard stop date of December 31, 2010 will be set for a new poll on interim use of Pending Changes in the event that the release of the new version is delayed. Any new use of PC during this interim period should be sparing and focus primarily on BLPs.

Close:Temporary removal of PC from all articles is preferred over the temporary continuation of PC on most of the currently PC'd articles - Remove Pending Changes from all article pages until a new trial after the November release is preferred to the alternative of keeping PC enabled on most of the currently PC-protected articles. Revert all pages to their pre-trial protection status unless otherwise indicated. It may still be used within the wikipedia namespace for testing.

Again, this vote is only about what happens between now and release of the new software, a short-term question, and the vote will set no precedent for the future. Opposing the poll is not a voting option. Such votes will not be counted. If you oppose the poll, please indicate such on the talk page.

Brief comments are, as always, welcomed and will guide community thinking.

Straw poll

Please add brief comments but refrain from discussion inside the poll.
Vote in the section titled with your choice.

Keep: option 1

The alternative is to go through all pages currently protected by PC, and either apply semi-protection or remove protection. This is (a) a lot of work (to either create a bot or do it manually), and (b) either shuts out IP and non-auto-confirmed editors, or exposes the pages to the problems that initially prompted PC protection. TFOWR 12:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per TFOWR. This is a pointless intermediary though, and I don't really care about it. We need to get a stable version running for a little under several hundred thousand articles, so as long as that is accomplished, it doesn't really matter to me what happens in the interim. NW (Talk) 13:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Magog the Ogre (talk) 13:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seemed to work well and annoyed IPs less than stopping them entirely. Dmcq (talk) 13:21, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've found it to be a useful tool and see no disruptive potential in maintaining its use until the new implementation in November. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 13:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
— Andrew Garrett • talk 13:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is a good feature. IP vandals fight specially PC protected pages. It must be something good for Wikipedia, if IP vandals do not like it. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 13:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1. Keep per TFOWR. I don't like the current PC implementation (though this is more to do with the process than anything else) but it seems sensible to allow such issues to be addressed, and removing PC's temporarily just sounds like more work :) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 13:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The WMF will be less willing to put resources into a new version of PC if it is not being used. Ronk01 talk 15:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- keep on while the tool is tweaked, it is doing no harm at all and I am reviewing on articles where it has worked very well indeed. Off2riorob (talk) 15:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per a cross between TFOW and Off2riorob. Not worth the work of removing and then re-adding PC to the articles it's currently in use on; as well, I do not see any harm that keeping PC temporarily on until the next vote could inflict upon WP or its users. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 16:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Chaoticfluffy above, --Bsherr (talk) 16:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly will help fight vandalism. TYelliot (talk) 18:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen some good IP edits get accepted that otherwise wouldn't have been made if the pages were semi-protected. But regardless, turning PC off temporarily pending the new version's release would cause more trouble than it's worth. 28bytes (talk) 16:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It needs some improvement, but is not a good ground to close PC. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 16:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not worth the administrative inconvenience of changing the effective status quo for such a short period. — Richardguk (talk) 16:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to be working well enough to be continued through the time where improvements can be rolled out. Gnome de plume (talk) 16:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Chaoticfluffy & Armbrust. Saebvn (talk) 16:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It works on some pages on which it is already placed and there is no sense in removing it. Even if removed, however, I will be eager for Nov. 9 to come for the trial of the new version and am happy to keep testing. Also, more data can be collected now if we keep it on. CycloneGU (talk) 16:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep PC running as it would require too much work to manually unset PC for the articles and reset protection on a case-by-case basis. And, more importantly, it has opened up articles to IP editing that would have to return to protection. — Becksguy (talk) 16:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Selective use of PC serves our anonymous editors better than semi-protection and is a useful level of protection. Clearly, the tool needs to work better but I don't see why it should be turned off while it is being improved. Seems to be a Pareto efficient solution. --RegentsPark (talk) 16:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Vandalism is a problem, this needs some work, but is part of the solution. Semi-Protecting all articles currently Under pending changes would make the site less open for editing. Ϣere SpielChequers 16:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
per TFWOR. Skäpperöd (talk) 16:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a useful tool for editors. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 16:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Skäpperöd (talk · contribs) and Saebvn (talk · contribs). -- Cirt (talk) 16:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - works well enough for now. - BilCat (talk) 17:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Humans must carefully select which articles are included, and the results should be monitored. This concept can both reduce vandalism, but also encourage the new IP user to make worthwhile edits and, I would hope, become a registered and active editor. Sue Gardner's talk in NYC in August convinced me that careful selection and monitoring is needed to get the results that she and others hope for.--DThomsen8 (talk) 17:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Far, far better than semi- or full-protection Bevo74 (talk) 17:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per previous comments. Count Iblis (talk) 17:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More options than just semi or full protection is good. Ravensfire (talk) 17:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Was the previous poll well run? No. Was the originally agreed upon 2 months not followed? Yes. Was that 2 months ever long enough to have a trial run AND make a decision? No. The massive switch over of all PCd articles to semi or full protection (level 2 would go to full I assume? Maybe not which could be another issue itself) would hurt us and create more of a mess then leaving PC on for now. The Statistics (that sadly only came out half way into the last poll, another problem) clearly show many good things that the test has done. Turning it off "for the sake of fairness" doesn't help us, if we want to be fair we should make a decision based on the facts and go from there. James (T C) 17:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The opposes below seem to be procedural in nature. I'm more interested in what is best for the project than in procedural technicalities. Wknight94 ^talk 17:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep it going.--Echetus Xe 17:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Need to keep PC running so that people can experiment with it further.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's worked very well to prevent BLP violations on some pages I've been watching, such as those targetted by the Runtshit vandal and the Wisconsin Hoofers defamer. I'd be very sorry to see the PC turned off, and either legitimate IPs edits prevented by Semi-Protection, or the articles opened up to BLP violations, which in the case of the Wisconsin article in particular, have languished for days. Yes, things need to be improved, but let's keep the things are are working well, working well in the meantime. Slp1 (talk) 17:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a pilot project - keeping it running gives us more information. Switching lots of articles back and forth doesn't serve much of a purpose. Will Beback talk 18:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it on the most used pages, but in a worst case scenario I'll accept removing from all pages.--intelati^(Call) 18:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep TFOWR is right, and it seems rather pointless to end this right before another version comes out. Nolelover 18:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is still preferable to semi- or full-protection and keeping it running allows a little more time for people to try it out for themselves. Keristrasza (talk) 18:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It appears to me to serve it's purpose adequately. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep {{Nihiltres|talk|edits|⚡}} 19:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's worked pretty well on all the pages I have interacted with, Sadads (talk) 19:23, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.... wonderful for BLPs and articles brutalized by factual errors, but bad for highly vandalized pages. Tom my! 19:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because it is working, so it can give us more data, and so that the transition from this version to the next will give a clearer comparison. First Light (talk) 19:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any reason to turn it off and soon after that on again. Svick (talk) 19:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's already in place, may as well. It's not like it matters much, it's not doing much harm. -- œ ^™ 19:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sort out the speed bug and the revert button. Don't have any mass listing or delisting of pages under pc, allow this on an article by article basis. Develop a policy page detailing how pending changes should be applied.--Salix (talk): 19:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because of support in the most recent poll, and to avoid churn. But adjust what articles to use it with: it seems to work best for less-popular articlesw and current-events --NealMcB (talk) 19:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, would like to expand in the future and make it a bit easier to add.W Nowicki (talk) 20:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think it has been effective and should continue for the time being. Captain panda 20:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
--Mkativerata (talk) 20:21, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Duh, when do we expand this to all articles? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 20:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep removing PC from articles to add it back is not wikignoming, it's wasting time.--Terrillja _talk 20:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is hardly a big deal, so I'm not sure what there is to get worked up about. We get a new version to try in November, and we'll have better continuity (hence less time wasted, and a better trial) if we keep this version ticking over in the meanwhile. Geometry guy 20:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alfie ↑↓© 20:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it is beneficial in some articles, and like everything else in Wikipedia, naturally, it needs refinement. - Theornamentalist (talk) 21:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I know the pending changes from German Wikipedia. It helps reverting vandalism because you see all edits which are potential not OK. --Morten Haan (talk) 21:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are certainly area's in which pending changes could use improvement, but as of current i see no real reason to remove it altogether. Some article's receive a decent amount of good contributions, yet would normally be protected for excessive vandalism or sock-puppetry. In these cases pending changes should be applied - however, man should be conservative regarding applying it while we have not made a final decision in regards to pending changes. In other words: Only apply when it is virtually certain that PC would be a better option then semi or full protection. When in doubt: Use regular protection. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 21:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum - I understand that people aren't to happy that it was supposed to be a two-month trial which didn't end as agreed. I believe that leaving it on may benefit some (But perhaps not all) article's on which it is enabled. Equally it will provide some extra data to consider and measure for improvement. However, i am equally fine with shutting it down for now if leaving it on would sour the "Seeking a middle ground" process on the basis of trust. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 21:23, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It works. Sometimes. Not always, but where it does work (Pixie Lott, Deepwater Horizon oil spill and several others), it works well. The problem is that it was rolled out on dozens of high-profile, heavily vandalised pages where it didn't work and had no chance of working. This was a mistake and I fear it may have put so many people off the feature that we can't get a consensus to keep it on the pages where it does work. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per HJ. There may be some failures, but they outweigh the positives. Keep. Buggie111 (talk) 21:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Bmcln1 (talk) 21:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's fine for improvements and their performance analysis to be gradual and ongoing, that's the way things usually evolve. "Big bang" improvements which work exactly as desired from the outset (both technically and in terms of the community figuring out how the tool is best deployed) would be wonderful but are an unrealistic expectation in most cases. The worst option would be to go "back and forth" - adding tools, removing them for evaluation, returning with improved versions, then maybe removing them again... TheGrappler (talk) 21:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep —Chris!_c/t 21:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's good to have another layer of protection short of s-protect. BillMasen (talk) 22:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's no good reason to suspend such a useful tool. Of course, keep talking about it, keep working on it, but don't take away something that will just be replaced with semi-protection. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Useful for the time being. A. Z. Colvin • Talk 22:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (leaning a little towards temporary removal of PC itself). —I-20 the highway 22:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A useful protection tool. keep it until the new version comes on stream Prestonmag (talk) 23:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. -- Schapel (talk) 23:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WikiCopter^Radio_Checklist^{Formerly AirplanePro} 23:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per my vote on the previous Straw Poll. —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 9:27am • 23:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 23:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I like the extra layer of protection and that problematic articles in my watchlist. I can see no reason to remove it now. AniMate 23:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It works and it's helpful. Why not? --- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 23:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - "The perfect is the enemy of the good." Haus^Talk 23:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Comes in very handy for watching potential vandal edits, without having to "semi-protect" the article. Eliminates need for anon IP to request their changes on the talk page, they can just add the edit for a reviewer to check, and the editor can "see" what their changes would look like, almost "live" in the article. --Funandtrvl (talk) 23:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I joined the experiment long after it started, never knew about that it's two-month... So, basically, I don't care. We have become a noticeable reviewers team during the trial. It showed itself as a successful experiment rather than not. The original purpose of having edits on certain articles be approved before going public has been carried out. Keeping the pending edits feature until the next version is out sounds more than acceptable. %Gryllida^talk 01:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per HJ, essentially. It is not effective on all articles, but some benefit from this. Airplaneman ✈ 23:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep, the results of the original poll were clear enough. Kbrose (talk) 23:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Matthias Alexander Jude Shapiro (talk) 23:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Allmightyduck  What did I do wrong? 23:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I'm with these people, it's fine for now. --The Wing Dude, Musical Extraordinaire (talk) 23:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I support closing the trial, I would keep the system operational until we close the straw poll, lest the community vote to retain it. I think it would be more disruptive to kill it and restore it, if the final decision is to keep it, than it would be to leave it as it and then kill it, if the final decision is to kill it. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 23:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Tyrol5 [Talk] 23:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's not hurting anything to keep it on. Turning it off, however, would require everyone to re-request protection on a couple thousand pages once it's turned on again. An unnecessary waste of everyone's time. SnottyWong ^confess 23:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per TFOW.--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 23:56, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I felt more data was needed to decide on PC's final fate. I'm glad there will be another iteration of testing, and from what I've experienced there is little harm in allowing it to continue under the current settings until the next round of testing is ready. --Falcorian ^(talk) 23:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Peter.C • talk 23:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Themeparkgc Talk 23:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A useful tool, especially for BLPs and article which are prone to vandalism but don't warrant page protection. Also there does seem to be a high level of support for the tool based on the previous poll.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see no reason to hassle with officially turning it off. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm all for this great tool. --Interchange88 ☢ 00:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It might not suit everybody, but for the most part, it is good and necessary. --HighKing (talk) 00:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We need to keep this tool, especially on BLPs. Willking1979 (talk) 00:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have had no problems. History2007 (talk) 00:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't think the chips are in on whether it's necessary, useful, or the best way of doing it, but I have noticed little if any harm, and we will know a lot more by continuing to try it in order to see what happens than we will by withdrawing it. In my observation, even as-is, it does more good than harm. Also, it has been useful in the few non-BLP articles I've seen it attached to, so that is a helpful experiment as well. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While the current implementation is fundamentally flawed and must not be expanded until those flaws are dealt with, PC does have a role to play even now. Please note though that I would have voted to close if it were not for the hard deadline. At the risk of further hardening understandable concerns below, this deadline must be adhered to. --W F C-- 00:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I feel that Pending Changes is a useful tool to implement in the community, that will allow IP's to be able to edit more freely, while still restricting vandalism from IP's and new accounts. Silverseren^C 00:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. — $Jeff G. ツ$ 00:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Intelligentsium 00:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep To much work to change, not worth 2 months of clean. A p3rson ‽ 00:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it doesn't really make sense to have a yea-nay-yea-nay here. If there's really something being worked out, there shouldn't be any temporary extra-work to remove, then re-instate (after all, the new version will have to be tested in some way), and then remove it again should the final vote be "nay". Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Tool is useful as it it is, better than nothing whilst the new version is rolled out. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Definitely useful. Flatterworld (talk) 00:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep / voting is evil. The Foundation needs to just step in and say, "this is a part of the service we are offering - deal with it". There are too many BLPs that get trash added to them and nobody notices for months. That's unacceptable. --B (talk) 00:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It makes more sense to continue as is for the time being rather than remove it from all articles, then replace it all again in a few months when trial phase 2 is underway. elektrik SHOOS 00:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It works. Maria202 (talk) 00:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see a benefit of turning our current version off for a short period of time when it's not causing mass chaos. Shep^Talk 00:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No need to disable for a short period. VMS Mosaic (talk) 00:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure The flagged revisions extension is again pending changes. For six weeks why go through the hassle of on/off/on(/?) and likely corresponding rights removal and restoral. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 00:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes, we can live with this while improvements are made. Jclemens (talk) 00:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because there's no good reason not to and that's the easiest thing to do for the short interim period before update. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 00:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep as not even a close call Collect (talk) 01:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sympathetic to the frustration expressed in the "close" section, but I don't find many actual reasons there to turn it off in the interim given the scenario we find ourselves in. ErikHaugen (talk) 01:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really find it a shame that "We should keep our promises and not be deceitful" isn't considered an "actual reason". You aren't alone, but I'm going to comment at your spot. Not ending the trial is simply dishonesty on a scale that is rarely seen here. "Two months" is a phrase with meaning, and constantly calling for new votes and polls without turning the two month trial is dishonest scheming at its peak.—Kww(talk) 01:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - simpler, safer than turning off. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 01:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Ther's no point in turning it off now, just to turn it on agan in less than two months. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 01:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Safer on then off.--Steam Iron 01:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's working well in the cases I've seen. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If PC in some form is a done deal for now, there's no need to remove it only to have a modified version restored. Let's keep it going. We may even develop more insights for improvements. Cresix (talk) 01:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand gently. Jim.henderson (talk) 01:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nicolas1981 (talk) 01:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: invaluable. AGK 01:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The trial proposal was, unhappily, unclear if not silent as to what would happen after the two months ended and community opinion was being determined; its drafters probably expected more clear-cut and more rapid results. Given the relatively strong level of support that PC received, and the fact that one of its principal goals is more effective implementation of BLP policy, which was enacted by the Foundation and not subject to enWiki consensus, it is more prudent to extend the current status quo, allowing the existing cadre of active reviewers to continue to develop greater skill in handling the process, during the relatively brief interim period required to address identified deficiencies in the tool. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. To minimize admin work. Gerardw (talk) 01:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I voted against Pending Changes but switching back and forth does not seem like a good idea to me. If we will be going back to some form of pending changes on the 9th of November anyway for a new trial, keep pending changes until the whole question can be decided up or down. I think I will just hold back on my vote at that time and support whichever side seems closest to consensus. --Fartherred (talk) 01:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Pending changes protection has been shown to be a useful tool by which to prevent vandalism and BLP violations from being seen by the general public, without the editing restriction caused by semi-protection. When invoked at the level two setting, it works even in situations where semi-protection is bypassed by motivated vandals or slanderers. Discontinuance would result in more semi-protection, and real-life harm to the subjects of biographies. The living people about whom we write deserve better. Peter Karlsen (talk) 01:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Given the present circumstances, which I do not think were foreseen by those who drafted the original proposition, it seems more sensible to continue with the status quo now that the introduction of PC in some form seems a fait accompli. Nevertheless, I feel that the present predicament might have been better handled. Rje (talk) 01:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Folks who are trying to improve Wikipedia deserve some slack.--agr (talk) 01:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per TFOWR, NW, and the fact that this all seems like a mess that just needs a bit of cleanup, not shutdown to be cleanedup and reimplimented. -- DQ (t) (e) 02:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While it needs some improvements, and doesn't fit all situations and articles, it's much less drastic than measures like semi-protection. It's particularly well suited for articles with more moderate edit volumes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rwessel (talk • contribs) 02:16, 2010 September 21

--Kmhkmh (talk) 02:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Look at my comments in the first straw poll if you want to know more. superluser_tc 2010 September 21, 02:50 (UTC)

Weak keep open, because I still think its a good idea. A new trial with changes is warranted and it will cause confusion and distress to turn it off and on.--CastAStone /^/(talk) 02:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very valuable for BLPs, less so for other articles. I see no harm it allowing it to keep running. Winston365 (talk) 03:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think it's proven itself to be invaluable for BLPs, etc. While it needs refinement, we're more than ready to move forward - Alison ^❤ 03:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Others have probably said my reasons above. It's been enormously beneficial to me on the pages I've watched with PC enacted, and especially for notable but less-watched pages like BLPs. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 03:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lurching from one off to on to off to on seems too disruptive. The main complaint seems to be that it needs software improvements, not that the system is objectively bad. As such, leaving the imperfect status quo in place until the more perfect version comes along makes more sense to me than switching it off, changing a bunch of articles to semi-protection, turning the new PC on, then releasing the semi protection. Three months with it on will also help people continue to acclimate to the PC regime. -Rrius (talk) 03:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Red Flag on the Right Side 03:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Worthwhile even in current implementation. R. S. Shaw (talk) 03:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per TWOFR and partially per NuclearWarfare. Worthwhile initiative worth continuing and further investigation. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 03:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: "It works". CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--Canniba loki 03:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Might as well go from trial to implementation.--Bkwillwm (talk) 04:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is kind of like the Obama healthcare initiative. The people who don't like it will make those who do water it down to the point that it won't really do what it's supposed to do. In any case, this is better than shutting it down, so enable this thing and be done with it. Kindzmarauli (talk) 04:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pending is more open and better for some articles than preventing editing thru semi. -- Jeandré, 2010-09-21t04:23z

Close: option 2

Close Since this was a trial, it should end. Phearson (talk) 01:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close Should have been turned off at the end of the "two-month" trial as promised. Speaking as a programmer, this should be easy enough to turn off with a bot. So let's turn it off until it actually works properly, to avoid the problems (which have been accepted as problems and are to be fixed) from effecting these articles. Also I think turning it off will mean the community pays more attention to the opposition and dealing with concerns, which can only be a good thing. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 12:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close per agreed trial period. Clear disregard for procedure. Close it, fix it, then suggest a new trial. Don't try to force it in. Chzz ► 13:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close the consensus for the original trial was for two months only. Without consensus to keep the feature enabled - and a poll to try and establish that didn't demonstrate consensus - it should be turned off. We shouldn't even be having a poll on this issue, let alone one closed by majority vote. Hut 8.5 13:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close ~~continuation appears underhanded and preconceived~~ Jebus989^✰ 14:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close consensus for the trial was for two months only, which is now over. Daicaregos (talk) 14:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The trial was over weeks ago. Until the new version comes out, there's no point in keeping PC live as we're still not sure as to whether it is effective or not, and the technical issues/speed concerns are still in this current version. /ƒETCH COMMS / 15:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close we've had the two month trial, time now for reflection and analysis before the next attempt. A "two month trial that turns into a longer one after two months" is not what was agreed. DuncanHill (talk) 15:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close the two month trial is over. In order to facilitate consensus and goodwill, PC should be turned off until further trials. Revcasy (talk) 15:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close - It's clear that Pending Changes is seen by some as a BLP magic bullet against potential liability issues. What it actually is is confusing, cumbersome, and ineffectual. Carrite (talk) 15:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close. We were told it was a two-month trial. Then instead of it being switched off after two months there was a poll. Then the poll wasn't closed by an uninvolved admin. When it attracted just over a third in opposition, we were told there had to be a second poll. Now this poll will be decided by a simple majority. Doing things this way is alienating people over what has the potential to be a very fundamental change. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close as per agreement of a simple trial period.Moxy (talk) 15:56, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close: I found it useful too, but if a significant enough portion of the community was opposed that consensus wasn't reached AND a better software solution is on the way, then what's the rush? Wikipedia managed for over six years without such a system; it can survive six more weeks. RGTraynor 15:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close. What Slim said. This clearly isn't working properly, and the efforts of those who want it active come-what-may to present it as a fait accompli are becoming tiresome. – iridescent 15:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close 5 months != 2 months. They said two months, make it two months. Pilif12p : Yo 16:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close Any potential gain or loss from having PC for a few weeks is dwarfed by the perceived lack of procedural fairness. --Xeeron (talk) 16:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close – I like pending changes and I will almost certainly support its use in the future. However, the agreed conditions for the current trial had a clear time limit, and 65% is not sufficient consensus to extend that. – Smyth\^talk 16:23, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close or don't bother with polls. The original agreement was a two-month limited trial with a requirement for broad consensus to continue. If you want to stick by the idea of community consensus, you have to close the trial; if you want to use the original agreement as a wedge to push Pending Changes forward regardless, you need to abandon the pretext of consulting community consensus. — Gavia immer (talk) 16:23, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close The trial period ended. One of the conditions of the trial was that it would be turned off after it was over. It was to remain off, pending further decision. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 16:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close - Mlpearc powwow 16:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close - Though I supported the continuation, and felt that am almost two-thirds majority should have seen it so continue, I do feel that as per RGTraynor it is only six weeks - so lets wait till they have the new version ready and have a speedy re-trial then. Codf1977 (talk) 16:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close - Like PC but trial period terms must be followed. Keep will have to be changed in any case so yank for now and come up with better for next time. CompRhetoric (talk) 16:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close per the original agreement. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close per agreement - whether you like or hate PC, you can't change the rules in the middle of the game. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close This was forced on us willy-nilly and the options in the preceding poll were set up to make it a done deal; all we can do now is go back to some semblance of the stated ethos of the project until November 9 when it onmce more becomes "You can edit if you have friends in high places." Yngvadottir (talk) 16:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close It does not reduce the workload of fighting vandalism. In fact, it makes just as much work as having an unprotected page. The benefits of permitted IPs to edit semi-protected pages directly, pending approval, as opposed to requesting edits on the talk page, are minimal at best, while it is less work to incorporate good changes than it is to revert all the bad ones made under the pending changes model. Semi-protection is the better option. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 17:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, what am I doing in this section? I disagree with most of the "close" arguments here, and I support PC. But we're talking about a removal that a bot can do, and it's (hopefully!) only for a few months, until the much-needed improved version is ready. Even many of us who like PC have said that it needs to be improved. No big deal. I see this short-term removal of the version that's still in beta as being a sign of good will towards those members of the community who have felt ill-treated by the previous poll. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close. The trial is over. There was no consensus for keeping it in place beyond the trial. Let's wait until the new version is ready (and some of the issues are worked out) before we deploy further. Kaldari (talk) 17:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close Good lord, apparently everything is a vote now. WP:CONSENSUS is a joke. Close this before we take more chunks out of WP polices that encourage debate and good faith. Regardless of how often you say "will not set a precedent for the future" every time you do something it sets a precedent. User A1 (talk) 17:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close. Get rid of it. — ξ ^xplicit 17:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close We were promised that the trial would end, but it has not. I will not agree to let this run until the next version comes out, I demand it be shut down in the interim. TomStar81 (Talk) 17:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close for now The trial was completed and no consensus was established for continuing with pending changes at this time, so in order to fufill the understanding that led to the trial being established it should be closed for now. If we don't close now people are going to not support any trials of anything ever again for fear that they will be continued regardless of whether there is consensus for them continuing. Once the changes promised have been made then we can have a new trial of pending changes with a clearly defined level of support established at the beginning for whether it should be continued once the trial is complete. Davewild (talk) 17:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close I find the whole thing problematic so I want to see it end sooner rather than later. Hekerui (talk) 17:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close I was for keeping it with no expansions in the last poll.. but now I feel like we are electioneering for a certain result. I don't want to see the usage of the tool expand until it is fixed. And I have a feeling that if we decide to "keep" here, it will end up being decided we meant "keep and expand" after the fact. Better to just turn this thing off now and fix it. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close and if it never comes back, I'm fine with that. Courcelles 18:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close, with an added "what's the point" for this straw poll. If the decision is to close the pilot project it will just be magicked into overwhelming support and the complaints ignored. Factual arguments are also a little pointless as those will be dismissed with argumentum ad Jimboneum, but PC is exactly the opposite of what this site needs. We have to scale up with increased edits to a larger set of pages and adding a new review process with a new user group does the opposite of scaling up. More automation and force multiplication is needed (the edit filter being a great example of this), not more backlogs. Protonk (talk) 18:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close even when this whole question reeks of we're going to push this on nonetheless I'm opposed. This just ain't functioning. (Apologies accepted, Nolelover.) Qwrk (talk) 18:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close a trial is a trial, not a foothold for keeping forever. The argument that it is a lot of work to end now is invalid, it was billed as a two month trial which would stop after that period. SpinningSpark 18:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close The last trial did not appear to be terribly successful, and has, indeed, already been reverted in some cases by admins. It is clear that, whatever use we find eventually for pending changes, it won't be as a lighter version of semiprotection. I think we should close it out. Ray^Talk 18:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close and this poll does have future reference. The Christian libertarian approach. JJB 18:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
close Close and Retool, Do another trial once our software concerns addressed The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 18:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close - Agreed with above All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 19:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close - --Rockfang (talk) 19:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close - we agreed on a trial period of two months, and we've already gone past that. Time to close it down until the tool can be substantially improved. Nomader ^(Talk) 19:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close, per "two-month trial". I also oppose this poll, oppose active undiscussed trial extension, oppose majority vote, and oppose forced Nov 9 trial, but support the PCC. --Yair rand (talk) 19:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close, two months means two months. Nakon 19:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close, it's been two months and the implementation failed. It's ok to fail and it's ok to try again, but please turn off this botched, time wasting software. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close. Trial is over. I hope this feature will never be reinstated. Offliner (talk) 20:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close. The trial was supposed to end after two months. Two months have passed and the trial has not ended. This is unacceptable. It needs to be disabled until we can reach consensus on how to proceed. That is how it was always supposed to work. Reach Out to the Truth 20:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close. Trial is over. Period. Guoguo12 --Talk-- 20:22, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to the trial information page, "the trial will last for two months and then a community discussion will decide the future of the implementation, the default being deactivation." Absent consensus to the contrary, therefore, the feature should be disabled. Sandstein 20:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close per SlimVirgin and others above. No need to keep clunky, ineffective "feature" beyond its trial date; doing so is a violation of the original agreement (and the community's trust). //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close The trial is over - and there is no clear consensus to continue. I am not going to comment on whether the new version due in November should be used or not, as that is not the issue here. The issue is "should we keep it ticking over after the trial until the new version is ready" - and the answer is "no!" -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
get rid of it already Gurch (talk) 21:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close The trial is now over and there is no consensus to go ahead with it.EngineerFromVega (talk) 21:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close - anything else is bad faith. Personally, I would be happy to see a further trial under pre-agreed conditions - which should be included in the code, so that this does not happen again; but this version is not so useful that we need to keep it running until it is fixed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close and compile results from the experiment. Continuing the period means that there is no definitive outcome to be cited from the trial, just ongoing sets of preliminary results. Closing the trial means that you can stand back and analyze the effect of the trial, and also examine whether vandalism increases (for example) after the trial is discontinued - it also permits the trial period to be compared to an averaged pre- and post- trial period, compensating for changes in prominence of the article subject over time. While there are some fair comparisons to make — such as a calculation of the amount of time spend reviewing all edits per vandal edit reverted, versus the time required to deal with each by usual editing practices — in the end subjective priorities may be more important to most people than any experimental outcome. This close vote should not prevent a new experiment with a modified version of PC, if the community supports it. Wnt (talk) 21:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close, which was what should have happened weeks ago. SlimVirgin puts it well. C628 (talk) 22:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close. Keeping pending changes going beyond the trial period was a bait-and-switch. We were told it would be turned off after the trial, and now it should be turned off. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close - originally voted the reverse, but SlimVirgins argument is extremely persuasive and I have had to change based on supporting that! --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 23:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close was a 2 month trial that is nearing 4 months.Sumsum2010 · Talk · Contributions 23:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'Close. We don't have enough evidence that the current version of PC is actually doing what it's supposed to do (prevent visible vandalism while allowing more open editing than semi-protection). Furthermore, the current implementation is a bit unwieldy because of the inability to process batches of pending changes (especially for pages with high traffic), and at times it is difficult to tell how to properly accept changes. It is possible that the new (post-November) implementation will render the process more smooth and functional; if so, we can more accurately way cost/benefits at that time. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close I supported a trial. Should have expected this type of deception from Jimbo and fanclub. -Atmoz (talk) 23:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close. A deal was a deal. There was no consensus to continue the project. Disable the feature, work on it, and come back with another trial. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 23:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close! For god's sake, THE TRIAL IS OVER. So instead of the trial ending after two months as promised, we have one poll after another, while the current incarnation of PC protection continues to run, alienating users and making make more work for reviewers. Let the damn thing die for now, fix the problem, and have a new trial when it's ready again. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close I said delete earlier and I say it again. It takes forever to load and it is a complete waste of time/ recourses. Just erase it completely. This page shouldn't even exist. Also per Slim Mr. R00t ^Talk 23:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close. I had several concerns over the current implementation of PC, which remain unaddressed. They might or might not be serious enough for WP, but they are serious enough for me to firmly oppose. Materialscientist (talk) 23:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close. No point in keeping it limping along. Mokele (talk) 23:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close The current iteration is unsatisfactory, so remove it. When the new version is ready begin with a new trial. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 23:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close. There is no consensus to keep. It should be turned off as was stated at the start. meshach (talk) 23:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close I honest find it amazing that we keep having to go over this. It was a two month trial. Supporters are dragging the polling out longer than the whole trial was supposed to last. Turn the damn thing off until you have a consensus for something new.—Kww(talk) 23:56, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close. I opposed Pending Changes for a reason and that reason is still valid. Fleet Command (talk) 23:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close per agreement for two-month (not indefinite) trial, long since finished. With PC turned off, yet more data on PC'd articles can be gathered, and the complaints/bugs/difficulties can be worked out in the new version of software that's coming "soon". — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 00:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close, already. Please don't keep holding elections until you get the right answer. -- Doom (talk) 00:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close, current implementation is buggy, and closure at the end of the trial was one of the required safeguards for that trial. It seems that certain individuals are trying to force this down our throats. --G W… 00:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close --Hordaland (talk) 00:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close, I thought long and hard about this. In my view we should hold another trial of the software, and it is a waste of time to disable it until then. BUT, it is the right thing to do. We agreed to a two month trial, and we need to honor such agreements with our fellow editors. And I reiterate, Pending Changes is a vandalism visibility prevention system, it is not a replacement for semi-protection. The tool will be most useful in areas that are little edited, the problem here of course will be that measuring its usefulness will be a lot more difficult. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 00:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Close The trial is up. Our last vote was heading towards a close when it was closed and this vote was started. To quote Doom above Please don't keep holding elections until you get the right answer. --Selket ^Talk 00:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close and object to the concept that this should be a "simple majority vote". We agreed to a trial. The trial ended. No consensus was gained to continue the use of the process. That should've resulted in an immediate shutdown, and if the tool could be improved, a new attempt at consensus to try again after improvements were made. As to the proposed difficulty in removing and if necessary reinstating PC, that could be easily done by a bot. Regardless, it was known in advance that this was a trial only, so I don't see any difficulty in undoing it as a valid argument against doing so. Everyone knew going in that there was a possibility this would not be permanent...right? So let's do the right thing now, and shut it down. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close It is appropriate to stop the experiment and re-evaluate at this time. If the process of consensus is substantially and provably damaged in implementing a policy or function, then the disputed item must be struck down until a clear consensus can be achieved. The community is very divided on the issue, and anything with the potential to seriously damage the community should be evaluated with utmost caution. --Xaliqen (talk) 00:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close The whole PC is mostly a bad idea, and the status during the redesign will inevitably influence whether or not it gets kept vs. dropped in the long run. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close Whilst 99.9% of my objections to PC have been allayed by Jimbo, I must agree that it needs closing for now. The trial was two months, the two months is well over. Let's stop, regroup, reassess and work out a better solution for PC to become a usable project rather than a mistake most people would prefer to forget. Barking Fish 00:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC) +1EC[reply]
Close. A break in use gives us another chance to see before-after differences. I doubt the bot is all that much effort, and there is value to keeping one's promises. The system is already inducing enough cynicism as it is. --Gwern (contribs) 00:51 21 September 2010 (GMT)
Close Because I actually support PC as a concept, and feel the community's support will, in the long run, as evidenced here, be diminished if the concept is felt to be forcibly rammed down its throat. I have actively used the feature a great deal as a reviewer, and concur that the software needs to be altered to meet the speed and usability concerns. I wonder if the implications on long term community acceptance for PC of holding a seemingly endless series of polls until the "desired" answer is attained, under whatever altered "rules" are necessary, has truly been considered. Stick to the original rules. We had a trial, identified problems, and no consensus was established to continue. So turn it off, make the changes, and hold another trial. This way you will avoid the distinct possibility that a significant number of people's support for PC will be damaged long term. Begoontalk 01:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close. The trial is two months past its expiration date. Stop filibustering, programmers, and uphold your end of the bargain. Don't cook up half-assed cockamaimie bull about it being a pain to turn off - if it was a temporary trial, shouldn't being able to flick the switch been something you already had developed before it started? —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v PC/SP is a show-trial!)} 01:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close- get rid of it. It's awkward, confusing, and doesn't work. Reyk _YO! 01:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close per Wikipedia:Pending changes/Trial defined terms The trial will last for two months and then a community discussion will decide the future of the implementation, the default being deactivation emphasis added and the discussion that took place didn't reach a consensus as such the predefined default is deactivation. Given that was the communites decision this poll should not even take place. Wikipedia integrity should be unquestionalbe we should be holding ourselves to standards we expect from our ediotrs, that is to abide by consensus. Gnan garra 01:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close PC really should have been turned off when the two-month trial ended. Access Denied^{(Bad revert?)} 01:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close as was originally agreed. If you're going to implement this no matter what the community says or does, please stop wasting our time with the illusion of choice and consultation. ElKevbo (talk) 01:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close I disagree with the premise of this vote. The declaration that this 'on or off' decision be decided on by majority vote is anti-consensual, and in total violation of one of the founding principles of the project. Now, the two months 'trial' of PC are over, and so it ought to close/lapse if we followed any conventional definition. But, hey, it's still going on. The need to vote on keeping the life-support on is a red herring, a smokescreen, a trojan horse. We need to have a reflection period, where there should be serious qualitative evaluation of the success and failures of the two-month experiment according to previously defined criteria. Only after such analysis has been delivered and thoroughly debated are we capable of developing any sort of plan going forwards; such a plan ought to gain consensus. Instead of insisting on a divisive binary poll about keeping the life-support on, we should have a straight poll of Pending Changes vs extension of Semi-protection for BLPs. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close – this was only supposed to be a trial. Jared Preston (talk) 01:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close keeping it open threatens the good faith of having a two month trial. You also risk is not being credible about future trial time spans, potentially impeding their acceptability. 0¹⁸ (talk) 01:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close - to prevent the possibility of bad problems while the feature's being improved. Jsayre64 (talk) 01:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close for now—while I don't think the current Pending Changes system was necessarily bad, I do think that terminating the trial to allow for analysis of the results, as well as the development of a better system, is a better idea than allowing the current system to keep running indefinitely. –Grondemar 02:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You promised a two month trial, you get a two month trial. It's that simple. Two months is two months is two months. T. Canens (talk) 02:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close because it was a trial. It should have automatically turned off at the end of the approximately 60 days anyway. How is this even a legitimate question? Now users can see what it was like before it was implemented. EdEColbert^{Let me know} 02:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close, unfortunately PC is an amazing tool, a step down from semi-protection that wikipedia desperately needs. Some pessimistic promises (close after trial instead of a poll?) seemed to have been made, however. I am nevertheless confident that honoring these promises will not mean the end of PC.-Tesseract2 (talk) 02:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close per community's understanding of initial proposal for length of pending-changes trial. Shearonink (talk) 02:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close as trial, I can't even figure out how the stupid thing works. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close - the trial found some we need to make some software improvements; not much point keeping it running until the improvements have been made. Barrylb (talk) 03:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close The trial has ended. Keep it that way. After all, it's a trial right? Bejinhan talks 03:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Two months is over. Lets wait until the upates come. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 03:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close two months is up, no more living on borrowed time. Royalbroil 04:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close, the prescribed trial time is over. --Sable232 (talk) 04:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose poll/abstain: option 3 (this is unofficial, the votes here do not count)

I will not dignify this poll with a vote if it's very existence is breaching protocol. If anyone was promised the trial would end, then it must end (i.e. not with a poll, but with the close that everyone agreed to). This poll creates the illusion that this is a matter of gathering community opinion, rather than a deception. Does anyone realize I first voted keep because I love PC? And that's the thing, PC will be too great to pass up in a few months. We don't need to force it down people's throats. Let's have the patience that was promised to so many important members.-Tesseract2 (talk) 02:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain: Morally, I agree with closing the trial, however, from a practical sense, this doesn't seem feasible. The consensus was to close the trial at the end of two months, and I'm leaning towards that. PC has been helpful on some articles, but it's quite slow, tedious, n'stuff. I believe we should implement a "karma" rating, and better tools; PC is useless on many articles as the edit filters can't keep up. Aaargh 03:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose poll: (I'd like to note that I voted already.) Per my reasoning on the talk page, this poll is absolutely useless and only serves as a way to continue pushing the PC agenda, even though there was an established result of "no consensus" on the first straw poll. Don't get me wrong, I'm for the idea of PC, but definitely not in its current state. And that's why this was set as a two-month trial, with a default motion to close it in the event of a lack of consensus. But this was ignored, and we are now in the midst of yet another vote! This isn't a majority / minority issue (especially when the end result will obviously be reflective on what we saw in the previous poll, making this one automatically useless): a deal was a deal, and this is shattering trust. I'm losing faith in Wikipedia. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 04:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this poll, and while I also stated to close above, that should already be done. Absent a consensus to continue, this should already be shut down, not getting put to some joke of a majority vote. I agreed to a trial. The trial is over. There wasn't sufficient consensus to continue after the trial. Shut it down. If a better version is developed later, we can always seek a new consensus to trial that one. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 174: / Line 174: @@
 #'''Keep'''.  Might as well go from trial to implementation.--[[User:Bkwillwm|Bkwillwm]] ([[User talk:Bkwillwm|talk]]) 04:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 #'''Keep'''.  This is kind of like the Obama healthcare initiative. The people who don't like it will make those who do water it down to the point that it won't really do what it's supposed to do. In any case, this is better than shutting it down, so enable this thing and be done with it. [[User:Kindzmarauli|Kindzmarauli]] ([[User talk:Kindzmarauli|talk]]) 04:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
+#Pending is more open and better for some articles than preventing editing thru semi. -- [[User:Jeandré du Toit|Jeandré]], 2010-09-21[[User talk:Jeandré du Toit|t]]04:23z
 ===Close: option 2===