Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

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.

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.

Brief comments are, as always, welcomed and will guide community thinking. The poll will be closed strictly according to majority vote.

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

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]
2. 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]
3. Magog the Ogre (talk) 13:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. Seemed to work well and annoyed IPs less than stopping them entirely. Dmcq (talk) 13:21, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. 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]
6. — Andrew Garrett • talk 13:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
7. 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]
8. 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]
9. - 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]
10. 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]
11. I agree with Chaoticfluffy above, --Bsherr (talk) 16:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
12. It certainly will help fight vandalism. TYelliot (talk) 18:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
13. 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]
14. It needs some improvement, but is not a good ground to close PC. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 16:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
15. 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]
16. 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]
17. Agree with Chaoticfluffy & Armbrust. Saebvn (talk) 16:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
18. 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]
19. 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]
20. 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]
21. 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. ϢereSpielChequers 16:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
22. per TFWOR. Skäpperöd (talk) 16:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
23. Keep as a useful tool for editors. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 16:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
24. Keep, per Skäpperöd (talk · contribs) and Saebvn (talk · contribs). -- Cirt (talk) 16:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
25. Keep - works well enough for now. - BilCat (talk) 17:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
26. 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]
27. Keep Far, far better than semi- or full-protection Bevo74 (talk) 17:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
28. Per previous comments. Count Iblis (talk) 17:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
29. Keep More options than just semi or full protection is good. Ravensfire (talk) 17:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
30. 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]
31. 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]
32. Keep Keep it going.--EchetusXe 17:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
33. 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]
34. 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]
35. 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]
36. 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]
37. 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]
38. 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]
39. Keep It appears to me to serve it's purpose adequately. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
40. Keep {{Nihiltres|talk|edits|⚡}} 19:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
41. Keep it's worked pretty well on all the pages I have interacted with, Sadads (talk) 19:23, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
42. Keep.... wonderful for BLPs and articles brutalized by factual errors, but bad for highly vandalized pages. Tommy! 19:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
43. 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]
44. 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]
45. 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]
46. 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]
47. 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]
48. 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]
49. Keep I think it has been effective and should continue for the time being. Captain panda 20:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
50. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:21, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
51. Keep Duh, when do we expand this to all articles? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 20:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
52. 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]
53. 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]
54. Alfie↑↓© 20:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
55. 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]
56. 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]
57. 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]

58. 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]
59. Per HJ. There may be some failures, but they outweigh the positives. Keep. Buggie111 (talk) 21:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
60. Keep. Bmcln1 (talk) 21:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
61. 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]
62. Keep —Chris!_c/t 21:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
63. Keep. It's good to have another layer of protection short of s-protect. BillMasen (talk) 22:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
64. 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]
65. Keep. Useful for the time being. A. Z. Colvin • Talk 22:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
66. Keep (leaning a little towards temporary removal of PC itself). —I-20the highway 22:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
67. Keep A useful protection tool. keep it until the new version comes on stream Prestonmag (talk) 23:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
68. Keep. -- Schapel (talk) 23:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
69. Keep WikiCopter^Radio_Checklist^{Formerly AirplanePro} 23:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
70. Keep as per my vote on the previous Straw Poll. —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 9:27am • 23:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
71. keep Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 23:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
72. 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]
73. Keep It works and it's helpful. Why not? --- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 23:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
74. Keep - "The perfect is the enemy of the good." Haus^Talk 23:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
75. 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]
76. 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]
77. Keep per HJ, essentially. It is not effective on all articles, but some benefit from this. Airplaneman ✈ 23:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
78. keep, the results of the original poll were clear enough. Kbrose (talk) 23:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
79. Keep Matthias Alexander Jude Shapiro (talk) 23:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
80. Keep Allmightyduck  What did I do wrong? 23:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
81. Keep: I'm with these people, it's fine for now. --The Wing Dude, Musical Extraordinaire (talk) 23:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
82. 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]
83. Keep Tyrol5 [Talk] 23:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
84. 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]
85. Keep per TFOW.--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 23:56, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
86. 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]
87. Keep Peter.C • talk 23:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
88. Keep Themeparkgc  Talk  23:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
89. 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]
90. Keep I see no reason to hassle with officially turning it off. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
91. Keep I'm all for this great tool. --Interchange88 ☢ 00:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
92. 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]
93. Keep. We need to keep this tool, especially on BLPs. Willking1979 (talk) 00:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
94. Keep. I have had no problems. History2007 (talk) 00:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
95. 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]
96. 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. --WFC-- 00:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
97. 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]
98. Keep.   — Jeff G.  ツ 00:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
99. Keep. Intelligentsium 00:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
100. Keep To much work to change, not worth 2 months of clean.  A p3rson ‽ 00:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
101. 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]
102. 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]
103. Keep Definitely useful. Flatterworld (talk) 00:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
104. 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]
105. 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. elektrikSHOOS 00:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
106. Keep It works. Maria202 (talk) 00:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
107. 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]
108. Keep No need to disable for a short period. VMS Mosaic (talk) 00:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
109. 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]
110. Keep Yes, we can live with this while improvements are made. Jclemens (talk) 00:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
111. 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]
112. keep as not even a close call Collect (talk) 01:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
113. 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]

114. Keep - simpler, safer than turning off. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 01:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
115. 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]
116. Keep Safer on then off.--Steam Iron 01:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
117. Keep. It's working well in the cases I've seen. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
118. 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]
119. Keep and expand gently. Jim.henderson (talk) 01:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
120. Keep Nicolas1981 (talk) 01:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
121. Keep: invaluable. AGK 01:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
122. 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]
123. Keep. To minimize admin work. Gerardw (talk) 01:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
124. 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]
125. 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]
126. 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]