Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

This poll ran for 7 days from 12:14 (UTC) on 20 September 2010 to 12:14 (UTC) on September 27 2010.

The result was 289 votes for temporary continuation of PC (59%), and 199 for temporary removal.

Following the two month trial of Pending Changes, an initial straw poll ended with "407 in favour of implementation in some form, and 217 opposed, with 44 other responses." As a result of that 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 was announced that a new version is slated for release on November 9. The community was asked to decide if the current implementation should continue to be used until the release of the new version. This poll was only about that question, and set no precedent for future use.

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.

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

Straw poll

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

Keep: option 1

 * 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)
 * It's unfortunate that being honest is sometimes difficult. Two month trials don't go on forever and ever while people schedule discussion after discussion until they get the answer they want. Two month trials last two months and then stop. Dishonesty is frequently the more convenient choice, but that doesn't make it right.&mdash;Kww(talk) 04:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't believe I've been dishonest. I don't believe I've scheduled discussion after discussion, either. I'm open to diffs showing otherwise, though. TFOWR 00:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You, individually, dishonest? That isn't really the question. Continuing this trial after its promised end was a dishonest act. Continuing it when even the poll about whether it should have been shut down on the promised date failed to achieve consensus was a dishonest act. Running a third damn poll over whether the trial which was supposed to have ended should be continued until the beginning of a trial that there is no consensus to start is a dishonest act. Endorsing such things may not specifically be a dishonest act on your part, but it is endorsing dishonest acts.&mdash;Kww(talk) 00:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) 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)
 * 2) Magog the Ogre (talk) 13:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Seemed to work well and annoyed IPs less than stopping them entirely. Dmcq (talk) 13:21, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) 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's Ponyo bons mots 13:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) &mdash;  Andrew Garrett  •  talk  13:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) 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)
 * 7) 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)
 * 8) PC is, I believe, a good comprimise between Wikipedia being "an encyclopedia that anyone can edit" and the need to stop vandalism. We should keep it going. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 11) I agree with Chaoticfluffy above, --Bsherr (talk) 16:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 12) It certainly will help fight vandalism. TYelliot (talk) 18:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 14) It needs some improvement, but is not a good ground to close PC. Armbrust  Talk Contribs 16:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 17) Agree with Chaoticfluffy & Armbrust.  Saebvn (talk) 16:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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.  Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  16:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 22) per TFWOR. Skäpperöd (talk) 16:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 23) Keep as a useful tool for editors. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 16:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 24) Keep, per and . -- Cirt (talk) 16:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 25) Keep - works well enough for now. - BilCat (talk) 17:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 27) Keep Far, far better than semi- or full-protection Bevo74 (talk) 17:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC). Think having a vote is better than so called consensus, which seems to be dominated by those shout loudest and often. Bevo74 (talk) 15:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 28) Per previous comments. Count Iblis (talk) 17:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 29) Keep More options than just semi or full protection is good.  Ravensfire  (talk) 17:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 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  (<font color="#000">T <font color="#000">C )  17:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 32) Keep Keep it going.--EchetusXe 17:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 36) Keep it on the most used pages, but in a worst case scenario I'll accept removing from all pages.--<font color="#FD0000">in <font color="#FF5500">te <font color="#FF8000">la <font color="#FFC000">ti (Call) 18:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 37) Keep TFOWR is right, and it seems rather pointless to end this right before another version comes out.  Nole  lover  18:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 39) Keep It appears to me to serve it's purpose adequately. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 40) Keep {&#123; Nihiltres &#124;talk&#124;edits&#124;⚡}&#125; 19:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 41) Keep it's worked pretty well on all the pages I have interacted with, Sadads (talk) 19:23, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 42) Keep.... wonderful for BLPs and articles brutalized by factual errors, but bad for highly vandalized pages. Tom my! 19:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 45) Keep. It's already in place, may as well. It's not like it matters much, it's not doing much harm. -- &oelig; &trade; 19:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 49) Keep I think it has been effective and should continue for the time being. <font color="orange" face="comic sans ms">Captain <font color="red" face="Papyrus">panda  20:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 50) --Mkativerata (talk) 20:21, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 51) Keep Duh, when do we expand this to all articles? -- Kim van der Linde at venus 20:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 54)  Alfie  ↑↓ © 20:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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. <font color="#191970">Excirial (<font color="FF8C00">Contact me ,<font color="FF8C00">Contribs ) 21:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 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. <font color="#191970">Excirial (<font color="FF8C00">Contact me ,<font color="FF8C00">Contribs ) 21:23, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) 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  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   21:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Per HJ. There may be some failures, but they outweigh the positives. Keep. Buggie111 (talk) 21:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Keep. Bmcln1 (talk) 21:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) 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)
 * 5) Keep —<font face="Cambria" size="3"> Chris! c / t 21:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) Keep. It's good to have another layer of protection short of s-protect. BillMasen (talk) 22:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 7) 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)
 * 8) Keep. Useful for the time being. <font color="Green">A. Z. Colvin  • <font color="Green">Talk  22:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 9) Keep (leaning a little towards temporary removal of PC itself). — I-20 the highway  22:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 10) Keep A useful protection tool. keep it until the new version comes on stream Prestonmag (talk) 23:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 11) Keep. -- Schapel (talk) 23:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 12) Keep WikiCopter RadioChecklistFormerly AirplanePro 23:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 13) Keep as per my vote on the previous Straw Poll. — <font color="Red">Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм •  Champagne?  •  9:27am  •  23:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 14) keep Active Banana   (  bananaphone  23:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 15) 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)
 * 16) Keep It works and it's helpful. Why not? --- cymru lass (hit me up)⁄(background check) 23:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 17) Keep - "The perfect is the enemy of the good." Haus Talk 23:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 18) 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)
 * 19) 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. % <font style="color:black;">Gryllida <font color="DarkGreen">talk 01:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 20) Keep per HJ, essentially. It is not effective on all articles, but some benefit from this. Airplaneman   ✈  23:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 21) keep, the results of the original poll were clear enough. Kbrose (talk) 23:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 22) Keep Matthias Alexander Jude Shapiro (talk) 23:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 23) Keep <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #0000FF"><font color="#FFFF00"><B>Allmightyduck</B> <font color="#FFFF00"><B>&#xF8FF;</B> </SPAN> <FONT SIZE="1">What did I do wrong?</FONT>  23:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 24) Keep:  I'm with these people, it's fine for now. --The Wing Dude, Musical Extraordinaire (talk) 23:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 25) 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  TalkContribs 23:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 26) Keep <font color="#960018">Tyrol5 <font color="#960018"> <font color="#960018">[Talk]  23:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 27) 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.   <font color="#DD0000">Snotty <font color="#225DC8">Wong  confess 23:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 28) Keep per TFOW.--<font style="color:#191970">White Shadows <font style="color:#DC143C">Your guess is as good as mine 23:56, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 29) 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)
 * 30) Keep Peter.C  •  talk  23:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 31) Keep Themeparkgc   Talk  23:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 32) 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.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  00:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 33) Keep I see no reason to hassle with officially turning it off. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 34) Keep I'm all for this great tool. -- Interchange88 ☢ 00:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 35) Keep It might not suit everybody, but for the most part, it is good and necessary. --HighKing (talk) 00:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 36) Keep. We need to keep this tool, especially on BLPs. Willking1979 (talk) 00:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 37) Keep. I have had no problems. History2007 (talk) 00:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 38) 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)
 * 39) 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)
 * 40) 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. Silver  seren C 00:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 41) Keep.   —  Jeff G.  ツ  00:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 42) Keep. <font style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"> Intelligent  sium  00:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 43) Keep To much work to change, not worth 2 months of clean. A p 3 rson  ‽   00:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 44) 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)
 * 45) 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)
 * 46) Keep Definitely useful. Flatterworld (talk) 00:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 47) 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)
 * 48) 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)
 * 49) Keep It works. Maria202 (talk) 00:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 50) 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)
 * 51) Keep No need to disable for a short period. VMS Mosaic (talk) 00:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 52) 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. <font face="Georgia"><font color="#ff69b4">delirious & <font color="#ff69b4">lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 00:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 53) Keep Yes, we can live with this while improvements are made. Jclemens (talk) 00:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 54) Keep because there's no good reason not to and that's the easiest thing to do for the short interim period before update. Wiki Dao  ☯  (talk)  00:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 55) keep as not even a close call Collect (talk) 01:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 56) 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)
 * 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.&mdash;Kww(talk) 01:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Keep - simpler, safer than turning off. ʘ  alaney2k  ʘ ( talk ) 01:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Keep. Ther's no point in turning it off now, just to turn it back on in less than two months. Salvio  Let's talk 'bout it! 01:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Keep Safer on then off.-- <font color="#ffffff">Steam <font color="#ffffff">Iron  01:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Keep. It's working well in the cases I've seen. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) 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)
 * 6) Keep and expand gently. Jim.henderson (talk) 01:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 7) Keep Nicolas1981 (talk) 01:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 8) Keep: invaluable.  AGK   01:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 9) 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)
 * 10) Keep. To minimize admin work. Gerardw (talk) 01:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 11) 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)
 * 12) 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)
 * 13) 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)
 * 14) Keep Folks who are trying to improve Wikipedia deserve some slack.--agr (talk) 01:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 15) 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)
 * 16) 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
 * 17) --Kmhkmh (talk) 02:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 18) Keep Look at my comments in the first straw poll if you want to know more. superlusertc 2010 September 21, 02:50 (UTC)
 * 19) 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)
 * 20) Keep Very valuable for BLPs, less so for other articles. I see no harm in allowing it to keep running. Winston365 (talk) 03:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 21) 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 - A l is o n  ❤ 03:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 22) 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. <font color="#cc6600">Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (<font color="#ff6600">talk ) 03:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 23) 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)
 * 24) <font color="#BA181F">Red Flag on <font color="#BA181F">the Right Side  03:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 25) Keep. Worthwhile even in current implementation. R. S. Shaw (talk) 03:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 26) Keep Per TWOFR and partially per NuclearWarfare. Worthwhile initiative worth continuing and further investigation. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 03:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 27) Keep: "It works". CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 28) --<font face="Tahoma" size="3"> C  anniba loki  03:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 29) Keep. Might as well go from trial to implementation.--Bkwillwm (talk) 04:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 30) 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)
 * 31) Pending is more open and better for some articles than preventing editing thru semi. -- Jeandré, 2010-09-21t04:23z
 * 32) Default Keep I'm not wholly satisfied with how it's been implemented. But I think keeping it is better than the alternative, even if only in the interim. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 33) Keep per TFOWR Rahul  Choudhary  04:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 34) Keep. I am very influenced by SlimVirgin's argument, and I think that the voting thing has been a mess, but ultimately I must make the decision on the margin: Will wikipedia be better with pending changes in the meantime, or without? Technically, I think it's a good tool, and useful, so I must support - despite concerns about the procedural stuff (which I think is unlikely to be malicious though no doubt many people will be keen to see a conspiracy in it). bobrayner (talk) 04:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 35) Keep Even with the present technical shortcomings is useful for many articles. I am in favor of continuity as well. -Elekhh (talk) 05:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 36) Keep - this appears to best reflect previous consensus to keep in some form, and is the most likely to effect a smooth transition to whatever new PC system is implemented. VQuakr (talk) 05:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 37) Keep - The system worked well and led to some valuable contributions from IP editors. I see no reason why it should not continue. Best, epicAdam(talk) 05:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 38) Keep. This should be used sparingly in place of semi-protection. - <font color="#21421E" face="Harrington">EdoDodo talk 05:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 39) Keep only on the pages it is helping, and remove it from the pages where it isn't helping per the previously agreed (paraphrased) "we agree this is only a 2 month trial". Even if that entails removing it from 90% of the instances, but leaving it on at 10%, wouldn't everyone be satisfied? NuanceForTheWin! -- Quiddity (talk) 05:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 40) Keep It's working well in the cases I've seen. Its nice to have. <font color="#007FAA">KuwarOnline  <font color="#AA22CC">Talk 06:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 41) Keep it's currently oing a good job protecting vunerable articles, and like people have said before, removing pc would create alot of work replacing the protection with semi or not protecting pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomd2712 (talk • contribs) 06:10, 21 September 2010
 * 42) Keep per above. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 06:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 43) Keep this excellent tool. DVdm (talk) 06:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 44) Keep it, as doing otherwise doesn't make sense. Roeme (talk) 06:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 45) Keep it does an excellent job --<font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">Snowded <font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK  06:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 46) Keep as per Richardguk above. —Bruce1eetalk 07:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 47) Keep From what I've seen pending changes has been working well on the pages where it has been implemented. Also, TFOWR above makes a good point about how closing would expose myriad pages that need some sort of protection. LK (talk) 07:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 48) Keep it does its job, so there is no need to turn it off. --Saddhiyama (talk) 07:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 49) Keep – Advantages outweigh disadvantages. --Leyo 08:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 50) Keep - despite warts its an opportunity to continue the experiment and learn from it. David Hollman (Talk) 08:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 51) Keep a very good tool to at least slow socking and keeping the articles cleaner for our readers. -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  08:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 52) Keep - It has been very useful by stopping spam voting on some sites I patrol. I think we should keep it, it has demonstrated it's usefulness. Sir Stupidity (talk) 08:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 53) Keep. It has proven useful.  Axl  ¤  [Talk]  08:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 54) Keep. It's a helpful feature. It's got me looking at pages that I'd never have, and I think that's a "Good Thing".-- <font style="color:#ffffff;background:#008000;"> WORM <font style="color:#008000;">MЯOW  08:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 55) Keep – No one can disagree with its effectiveness in curbing vandalism. Definitely has a lot more advantages than disadvantages. <font face="Arial"> Managerarc  [Talk]  09:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 56) Keep – it is an advancement, even if not a cure. &bull; Astynax talk 09:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 57) Keep – no method will ever be perfect, of course, but this system gives us a valuable tool for heading off vandalism. --Ckatz <sup style="color:green;">chat <sub style="color:red;">spy  09:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 58) Keep – Fast and effective. ~ Elitropia (talk) 09:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 59) Keep ajdlinux | utc 09:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 60) Keep It can (and should) be improved, but it is already very useful for quite a few pages. CWC 09:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 61) Keep  Oreo Priest  talk 10:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 62) Keep on-off-on, is illogical to me! DocOfSoc (talk) 10:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 63) Keep -- Even though some issues need to be worked on in the software, it seems to me to be working well on the articles in which I've seen it. N2e (talk) 10:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 64) Keep I am unmoved by the "broken promise" argument. This poll seeks consensus for an extension to the original trial period and there's nothing wrong with that. We have to manage Wikipedia in its best interest day by day. We agreed the PC is beneficial, and since we are going to implement an improved version in November what's the point in switching it off for 2 months ? Lumos3 (talk) 11:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 65) Keep. We like the feature, might as well keep using the trial version until the improvements are ready. Thundermaker (talk) 11:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 66) Keep, working well and would be a net negative to remove. Stifle (talk) 11:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 67) Keep a very useful tool in the on going war against Wiki-Vandals. It's in Wikipedia's best interest to keep this switched on for as long as p;ossible. Cannonbolt2 (talk) 11:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 68) Keep - the current version is much better than nothing at all. waggers (talk) 11:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 69) Keep This seems to be a no-brainer - the trial application of PC was on a limited basis, and it should continue given until the final arrangements are decided given that there's general support for PC continuing. PC should be turned off in the articles in question on a case by case basis per the discretion given to admins though. Nick-D (talk) 12:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 70) Keep Openskye (talk) 12:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 71) Keep <font style="color:#ff8c00;background:#000000;">BEVE  <font style="color:#FF8C00;"> (<font style="color:#FF8C00;">talk ) 12:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 72) Keep Keep it on! There is no pressing reason to shut it down. We're not Vogons so we can certainly leave it running while improvements are made instead of shutting it down just because this was a "trial". There's a much greater incentive to improve an active tool than one not in use. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 12:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 73) Keep Works well enough for now.  Any problems can be solved with future software upgrades.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 74) Keep Better safe than sorry. ~  Nerdy <font color="#0F0">Science <font color="#8d7">Dude  13:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 75) Keep Switching it off might even encourage the vandals in the meantime because some of them no doubt read these pages as well - Skysmith (talk) 13:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 76) Keep A limited trial is a limited trial. Keep it until a final decision has been reached. Noles1984 (talk) 13:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 77) Keep — If we were to end it, the only other options for these pages would be to either unprotect them, which would open sensitive pages to vandalism, or to semi-protect them, which would stop IPs from being able to edit. This option simultaneously keeps pages safe and allows IPs to edit, so I'm in favour of its use on any pages that would otherwise be semied until the I see what the new version looks like. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 13:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 78) Keep. &mdash; MrDolomite • Talk 14:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 79) Keep Stephen 14:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 80) Keep Despite what many "close" arguments are saying, it is not unusual for a trial period to be rolled into a more permanent situation if it's successful. As far as I've seen, it worked out well, so I believe we should make it more permanent. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 14:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 81) Keep It works well in certain situations. That being said, if indeed there was a promise made to end the trial after two months, breaking that promise has already hurt future proposals; why should I vote for something if it might be another bait and switch? Next time, specify that a vote to extend will happen at the end.  Guy Macon  14:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 82) Keep – allen四names 14:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 83) Keep It's working well and the removal of it will only serve to increase vandalism and confuse. — Half  Price  14:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 84) Keep - There seems to be a reasonable chance that the proposal may be enacted; that being the case, I can see no reason to potentially needlessly undo it all now and potentially have to redo it all again shortly. John Carter (talk) 15:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 85) Keep, since there is a good chance that the PC will continue to be used, there is no point stopping it between now and the next release. Schutz (talk) 15:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 86) Keep and expand. --<font color="#990000">Ja <font color="#000099">Ga <font color="#000000" size="-1">talk 15:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 87) 'Keep - RMS Titanic, 'nuff said. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 88) Keep--GwydionM (talk) 17:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 89) Keep-- The Taerkasten ( talk ) 17:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 90) Keep It has been very helpful on the Ken Cuccinelli article. Racepacket (talk) 17:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 91) Keep This tool has been useful on balance. There is room for improvement, and much potential for it as well.--JayJasper (talk) 18:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 92) Keep Let's move on with improving this useful tool. As mentioned above, it would increase confusion if we were to temporarily remove it and then reinstate it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveMcCluskey (talk • contribs) 18:25, 21 September 2010
 * 93) Keep It's only a few weeks; we might as well keep things running as they are until the improvements come along, since it doesn't seem (to me) to be doing actual harm. Anaxial (talk) 18:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 94) Keep. Useight (talk) 18:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 95) Keep - I don't see the point of removing it, only to re-activate later. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 18:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 96) Keep - The system works well for articles thaat don't necessarily need a hard or semi-block. It also encourages people to register, and that to me is all for the good. Rapier (talk) 19:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 97) Keep - The last straw poll showed obvious support, and certainly any reasonable reading of the results would suggest trial extension as one of the possible fair outcomes.  BigK HeX (talk) 19:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 98) Keep. It makes no sense to change the current policy for such a short period of time. --Church of emacs (Talk) 19:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 99) Keep and improve, per user comments.  AJRG (talk) 20:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 100) Might as well Keep. I see no problems with the system yet, and why not keep it going until we can make it even better? Here's the only new, improved Finalius! 20:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 101) Keep, but the poll is silly as its going back on in six weeks. -- KelleyCook (talk) 20:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 102) Keep. -- LilHelpa (talk) 20:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 103) Keep As with others, I find it funny yet also sad we need this poll which is only going to be relevant for about 6 weeks but I somewhat understand why we're here Nil Einne (talk) 21:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 104) Keep. While the process isn't perfect, it solves a real problem on Living Person Bios. There may be a better way to protect these pages, but in the meantime, this is better than either protection or non-protection. --LinkTiger (talk) 21:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 105) Keep - works well enough for now. --BatteryIncluded (talk) 22:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 106) Keep <B>--  RP459 </B> Talk/Contributions 22:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 107) Keep  - per emacs. <font color="#21421E" face="Papyrus">Marcus  <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">Qwertyus   23:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 108) Keep The joy of procedure. SoLando (Talk) 00:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 109) Keep  <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">    ←   ZScarpia  00:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 110) Keep November 9th is just around the corner. We've kept it this long, so I figure we might as well continue with the current version until the next one becomes available. Forever  Dusk  (talk) 00:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 111) Keep and extend to all IPs, including established ones, such as educational establishments and commercial premises. It's doing what it says on the box and denies disruptive IPs the ability to be lunchtime pests. Richard Harvey (talk) 01:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 112) Keep--Mbz1 (talk) 01:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 113) Keep:  It works well. - Ret.Prof (talk) 01:47, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 114) Keep great way to stave-off vandalism. <font style="color:#660000">~DC  <font color="#003300" face="Tahoma">We Can Work It Out 04:56, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 115) Keep helpful tool. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 116) Keep it works.  <font color='Indigo'>Matto <font color='DodgerBlue'>paedia <font color='Olive'> Say G'Day!  10:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 117) Keep The benefits of having it in place while a better option is being worked on outweigh the costs and inconvenience of removing it from all articles where it is in place at present. SBC-YPR (talk) 10:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 118) Keep William Avery (talk) 11:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 119) Keep It'll be loads of hassle for no good reason, for what's the point of turning it off when a new version is on the way? Beeshoney (talk) 11:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 120) Keep Wiki Tome  Talk 12:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 121) keep - I'd like to see it's use expanded, actually. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 122) Keep - its usage is better than the other alternatives. HarryZilber (talk) 18:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 123) Keep It works, it's useful, it will be a tremendous hassle and a backwards step to turn it off, and having the system running will continue to generate feedback towards improving it. It's not perfect, true, but Wikipedia is a process, not a final product; opposing it being left on in some sort of misguided belief that perfectionism should triumph against practicality is not a valid objection. — <font style="color: black; font-style: italic;">Chromancer talk/cont 19:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 124) Keep Very good for avoiding libel and hoaxes on little watched BLPs. Apply it to all of them.--Charles (talk) 19:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 125) Keep I had no problems figuring out how to use this tool. Good tool against 'clever' vandalism. Kneale (talk) 19:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 126) Keep. Since it's not going away permanently, we don't need to shut it off just simply because of a pre-existing date. Saying that we should shut it off in the interim is not going to improve the project. We didn't vote to end the usage of pending changes, so we should be able to ignore this bureaucratic obstacle. Swarm Talk 20:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 127) Keep good way to stop IP vandalism Gfoley4 (press to chat) (what I've done) 21:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 128) Keep it: anything is better than nothing --dwdp (talk) 22:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 129) Keep and expand use to all BLPs. --JWSchmidt (talk) 22:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 130) Keep and expand use to all BLPs. --Spt51 (talk) 23:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 131) Keep. What Richardguk said. Mirokado (talk) 01:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 132) Keep good for articles which attract subtle and low intensity vandalism. not necessarily for all. hope the software and article choices will improve over time. --<FONT FACE="Benguiat Bk BT"  Color="##003399">Car</FONT><FONT FACE="Benguiat Bk BT" Color="	#254117">Tick</FONT> 02:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 133) Spellcast (talk) 05:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 134) Keep Pending changes has worked well on several formerly contentious articles on my watch list. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 05:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 135) Keep.  Can't hurt.  --  Wikipedical (talk) 05:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 136) Keep. I think we have more important things to worry about in the meantime (~1.5 months). Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:04, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 137) Keep Seems to be working OK in the interim. Colds7ream (talk) 09:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 138) Keep Whilst I would generally agree that a two month trial should end after two months, there isn't really any damage done to WP if we keep it on in the interim. If people want PC off a particular article, then just request it at RfPP.  Ged  UK  11:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 139) Keep and expand use to all BLPs.  Peter <b style="color:#02b;">Symonds</b> ( talk ) 13:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 140) Keep the momentum going, then look at the new & improved version when it arrives. Walkerma (talk) 14:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 141) Keep  wholly support better regulation.Bleddynefans (talk) 16:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 142) Keep Has potential. Mootros (talk) 16:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 143) Keep, although it was introduced for a "trial period", there is sufficient support to carry on using it while it is enhanced. Some have suggested changing the articles it is used for; if this is done, please use it for anything with  or, like Renoir (surname) and Robert, since these get a lot of vandalism and vanity edits. - Fayenatic (talk) 17:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 144) Keep. Coroboy (talk) 18:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 145) Keep. It's very useful in the fight against IP vandals, it should expand to more and more articles. - Sthenel (talk) 19:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 146) Keep. --Ziko (talk) 19:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 147) Keep. It works. <font color="#00FFFF" face="Garamond">Şłџğģő  20:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 148) Keep. It does, indeed, work, although some Admins seemed to dislike it and removed it from pages where it was a very big improvement over the status quo. &mdash; <b style="color:black">Uncl</b><b style="color:darkred">eBubba</b> ( T @ C ) 21:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 149) Keep. Any other is virtually a keep for vandalism. --Matthiasb (talk) 23:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 150) Keep. It'll make wikipedia more reliable for information. -- Addi hockey  10  23:24, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 151) Keep: per TFOWR. — Waterfox ( talk ) @ 00:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 152) Keep and expand to all BLPs. It has to be said though: how many bloody times are we going to have to vote on this?  It's had overwhelming support all 4 or 5 or whatever other times it was voted on, so just switch it on and quit making the same people vote every couple of weeks. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  01:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 153) Keep and expand. Anything possible should be undertaken to control the vandalism, including this method and whatever else it takes. Hmains (talk) 01:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 154) Keep: If pending changes still remains on this far after the initial trial period ended, it really makes little sense to turn it off now and then reactivate it within such a short amount of time in November. Turning it off and then on again might cause more disruption than just letting it be -- things will probably be smoother by just letting the changes roll in in November instead of the whole system once again. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 05:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 155) Keep, no point turning it off if we're just going to turn it back on again. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC).
 * 156) Keep. Does PC have problems? yes. Is it as useful as originally hoped? no. But it still is a useful tool for some articles (particularly insufficiently watched ones). We might as well keep it.  Rami  R  10:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 157) Keep. Shenhemu (talk) 10:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 158) Keep: there are a few concerns on usability, but better than nothing on critical pages. -- Cycl o  pia  talk  14:44, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 159) Keep: It's not perfect, but keeping it for the time being is far more productive than getting rid of it, individually deciding on (and reinstating, as needed) the appropriate level of protection on every one of those pages, then later reinstating something similar to pending changes all over again. --Orlady (talk) 16:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 160) Keep: useful tool. mgiganteus1 (talk) 21:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 161) Keep - The opposers need to grow up and stop pretending like they've been horribly wronged in some way because some random person promised them this would be closed after its trial before being implemented. You have to be extremely naive to think we won't continue to learn from the process by keeping it up, and other options like reducing its use in Wikipedia etc. will be discussed after the decision is made to keep using it following this trial period. The system will keep adjusting and was always meant to be flexible. It's a useful tool, and if its killing you, then WP:IGNORE some of its rules or just don't use it. Mkdw talk 23:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 162) Keep: An easy way to keep one's guard up until the more sophisticated version is ready. Hertz1888 (talk) 02:54, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 163) Keep Hpvpp (talk) 04:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 164) Keep I haven't heard a compelling argument for why we should turn it off before we turn it back on. <font face="Verdana" color="333300">Gobonobo T C 05:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 165) Keep Same reasons as in first comment. 1exec1 (talk) 19:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 166) Keep Turning it off now makes no sense - we need to expand it to all BLPs and the community has said so repeatedly. Can we get this show on the road already?  Tvoz / talk 21:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 167) Keep I'm with Tvoz (and all of the others above her who have said the same)--keep and expand to all BLP articles.  Horologium  (talk) 21:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 168) Keep I don't know whether I'm writing anything that hasn't already been pointed by one or more people. What purpose would it serve to disable an option, which isn't by any account significantly disruptive, only to re-instate an improved version a while later? In any event, the longer it runs in any form, the better for ironing-out or possibly deciding to drop it.--Atavi (talk) 22:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 169) Keep So we have 2:1 in favor of implementation as is, as a result of the two month trial, i.e., already a supermajority for keeping it, and yet somehow the idea that it was a "two month trial" should mean that it must be turned off? Isn't that minority rule? That's backwards! Lack of higher consensus means we keep working on improving it, not that we toss it. --Abd (talk) 00:28, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 170) Keep Works for me: allows productive editors to get in their info but filters out vandalism. Keep it until the update comes out. Jay-Sebastos (talk) 10:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 171) Keep Shutting down Pending Changes just because the trial was supposed to be only two months is bureaucratic nonsense. If it works, use it.  Steven Walling  18:05, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 172) Keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrmewe (talk • contribs) 01:34, 27 September 2010
 * 173) Keep until the new version arrives. --<font color="#0000FF">JN <font color=" #FFBF00">466  03:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 174) Keep Seeing as we all voted for as least PC or an expansion I really don't see why we wouldn't want to keep this going until the expansion is released. --Fshoutofdawater (talk) 04:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 175) Keep By the way, PC is the only manner of article protection which allows the article history to accurately attribute contributions to the editor entitled to the attribution IAW CC by SA. That should matter as well.  My 76 Strat  04:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Keep By the way, PC is the only manner of article protection which allows the article history to accurately attribute contributions to the editor entitled to the attribution IAW CC by SA. That should matter as well.  My 76 Strat  04:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

(Poll closed)


 * Keep per TWOFR. The Thing  //  Talk  //  Contribs  12:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Close: option 2

 * 1) Close Since this was a trial, it should end. Phearson (talk) 01:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) 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)
 * 3) 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)
 * 4) 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. <font color="#FF0000">Hut 8.5  13:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Close continuation appears underhanded and preconceived <font color=#81BEF7>Je <font color=#58ACFA>b <font color=#0080FF>us <font color=#0174DF>9 <font color=#045FB4>8 <font color=#084B8A>9  ✰  14:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) Close consensus for the trial was for two months only, which is now over. Daicaregos (talk) 14:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 7) 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)
 * 8) 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)
 * 9) 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)
 * 10) 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)
 * 11) 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)
 * 12) Close as per agreement of a simple trial period.Moxy (talk) 15:56, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 13) 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.   Ravenswing  15:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 14) 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. – <font color="#E45E05">iride <font color="#C1118C">scent 15:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 15) Close 5 months != 2 months. They said two months, make it two months. Pilif12p : <font style="color:#accC10;background:#0000FF;"> Yo 16:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 16) 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)
 * 17) 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)
 * 18) 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)
 * 19) 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)
 * 20) Close - Mlpearc   powwow  16:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 21) 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 Ravenswing 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)
 * 22) 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)
 * 23) Close per the original agreement. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 24) 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)
 * 25) 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)
 * 26) 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  TalkContribs 17:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 1) 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)
 * 2) 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)
 * 3) Close. Get rid of it. —  ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  17:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) 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)
 * 5) 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)
 * 6) 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)
 * 7) 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. &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk 18:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 8) Close and if it never comes back, I'm fine with that. Courcelles 18:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 9) 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)
 * 10) 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)
 * 11) 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.  Sp in ni ng  Spark  18:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 12) 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)
 * 13) Close and this poll does have future reference. The Christian libertarian approach. JJB 18:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 14) close Close and Retool, Do another trial once our software concerns addressed The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 18:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 15) Close - Agreed with above All Hallow&#39;s Wraith (talk) 19:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 16) Close - --Rockfang (talk) 19:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 17) 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)
 * 18) 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)
 * 19) Close, two months means two months. <font color="#C50">Nakon  19:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 20) 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)
 * 21) Close. Trial is over. I hope this feature will never be reinstated. Offliner (talk) 20:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 22) 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)
 * 23) Close. Trial is over. Period. Guoguo12 <font color="blue" size="1">--Talk--  20:22, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 24) 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)
 * 25) 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)
 * 26) 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!" -- <font color="#307D7E">Phantom <font color="#55CAFA">Steve /<font color="#008000">talk &#124;<font color="#000080">contribs \ 20:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 27) get rid of it already Gurch (talk) 21:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 28) Close The trial is now over and there is no consensus to go ahead with it.EngineerFromVega (talk) 21:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 29) 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)
 * 30) 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)
 * 31) Close, which was what should have happened weeks ago. SlimVirgin puts it well. C628 (talk) 22:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 32) 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)
 * 33) 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)
 * 34) Close was a 2 month trial that is nearing 4 months.<font color="#007AFF" >Sumsum2010 · &#32;<font color="#7FFF00" >Talk  · &#32;<font color="#FF7F00" >Contributions  23:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 35) '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)
 * 36) Close I supported a trial. Should have expected this type of deception from Jimbo and fanclub. -Atmoz (talk) 23:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 37) 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. <font color="#4B0000">Eric <font color="#550000">Leb <font color="#660000">01 (Page &#124; Talk)  23:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 38) 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)
 * 39) 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)
 * 40) 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)
 * 41) Close. No point in keeping it limping along. Mokele (talk) 23:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 42) 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)
 * 43) 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)
 * 44) 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.&mdash;Kww(talk) 23:56, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 45) Close --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 46) Close. I opposed Pending Changes for a reason and that reason is still valid. Fleet Command (talk) 23:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 47) 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". &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 00:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 48) Close, already. Please don't keep holding elections until you get the right answer.  -- Doom (talk) 00:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 49) 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. --<font color="#115566">G <font color="#496636">W … 00:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 50) Close --Hordaland (talk) 00:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 51) 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. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 00:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 52) 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)
 * 53) 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)
 * 54) 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)
 * 55) 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)
 * 56) 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. <font color="red" face="Arial">Barking <font color="blue" face="Arial">Fish  00:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC) +1EC
 * 57) 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)
 * 58) 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.  <font face="Arial" color="#0645AD">Begoon •<font style="color:#808080;font-weight:bold;">talk  01:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 59) 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? —<font color="228B22">Jeremy <font color="00008B"> (v^_^v PC/SP is a show-trial!) 01:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 60) Close- get rid of it. It's awkward, confusing, and doesn't work. Reyk  <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  01:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 61) Close per 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. Gnangarra 01:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 62) Close PC really should have been turned off when the two-month trial ended. Access Denied ( Bad revert? ) 01:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 63) 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)
 * 64) 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)
 * 65) Close – this was only supposed to be a trial. Jared Preston (talk) 01:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 66) 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)
 * 67) Close - to prevent the possibility of bad problems while the feature's being improved. <font style="font-family:Rockwell">Jsayre64 <font style="font-family:Rockwell">(talk)  01:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 68) Close for now&mdash;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)
 * 69) 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)
 * 70) 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. <font color="0000FF">EdEColbert <font color="FF0000">Let me know 02:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 71) 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)
 * 72) Close per community's understanding of initial proposal for length of pending-changes trial. Shearonink (talk) 02:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 73) 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)
 * 74) 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)
 * 75) Close The trial has ended. Keep it that way. After all, it's a trial right? <font color="#8000FF">Bejinhan <font color="#FF00FF">talks   03:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 76) Two months is over. Lets wait until the upates come. <font style="color:#006400">Hi <font style="color:#DC143C">8 <font style="color:#800000">7 <font style="color:#FF4500">8   <font style="color:#0000CD">(Come shout at me!) 03:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 77) Close two months is up, no more living on borrowed time. <font color="#000000">Royal <font color="#FFCC00">broil  04:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 78) Close, the prescribed trial time is over. --Sable232 (talk) 04:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 79) Close. As I've stated in the previous poll, we don't have enough manpower to watch the pending changes. Leaving it on for another two months just increases the size of the backlog. Removed own confusing comment. My vote to close the PC trial is unchanged. Deryck C. 15:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC) --Deryck C. 04:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 80) Close. Biophys (talk) 04:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 81) Cloase - Amgine (talk) 05:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 82) Close It's a bit of a scalability design flaw that this cannot be turned off automatically with a simple click, although we can get a bot to do it in a somewhat inefficient manner. II  | (t - c) 05:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 83) Close. Apart from all the faults with flagged revisions mentioned earlier, the promise was that this was a trial period. There shouldn't be any becking off from that promise through polling. Sjakkalle (Check!)  06:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 84) Close It was a trial and it highlighted that the system is not working as claimed. The interface is too complicated and the backlogs have increased steadily - why should we want to prolong this situation? We tried it, we have the results - now we should restore the status quo ante as originally planned. Regards  So Why  06:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 85) Close. This proposal was originally slated as a trial that would--in no uncertain terms--require consensus for continuation beyond two weeks. And instead of living up to that simple promise, we are now engaging in a second round of filibustering and forum shopping that many of us would argue violates community trust, as well as established procedure, policy, guidelines, consensus, and even common sense. Adding insult to injury, this latest poll seeks approval on the basis of simple majority--a methodology used for consensus building nowhere else on this project; a methodology so antithetical to consensus building that it is explicitly disparaged in WP:CONSENSUS, which states that "more than a simple numerical majority is generally required for major changes" and "consensus is ultimately determined by the quality of the arguments given for and against an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy, not by a simple counted majority. Responding YES/NO/AGREE/DISAGREE is not useful except for moral support". Furthermore, several editors have expressed concern that this is a fait accompli disguised by means of bait-and-switch and/or systemic polling bias, which has now discernibly reached a point of alienating regular contributors by stifling their voice for no other reason than that they are aligned with the minority. Ultimately, I can reach no other conclusion than that, in moving forward, this entire series of events should be cited retroactively as a textbook example of how not to do things in the future. —  C M B J   06:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 86) Close – The trial is long over. The work needed to turn it off isn't a concern; there are plenty of people disgusted with the situation who would much rather be turning it off then spending time on yet another poll. The new trial may be on a different set of articles, so we may still need to turn it off on the current ones. Even if some of the same articles are retained, getting some current stats on them while not under PC would be valuable. The best way to rebuild trust and bring the community together is to turn it off temporarily. A large number of the keep votes aren't really in favor of it, they just don't want to make work for someone else to turn it off. Please only vote keep if you want to see it actively used in it's current problematic form until November 9. If you have no opinion on the actual use of PC, please abstain. —UncleDouggie (talk) 07:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 87) Close – The trial is done to mixed reviews. Shut it down, and if there is consensus restart a fresh trial with the new version of the system when it is ready. CooperDB (talk) 08:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 88) Close. For me, this tool was complicated and non-functional. Instead of making the project more attractive, I am afraid we are trying to complicate it with such problematic tools. The outcome is to repulse people . If the new version is simpler, more functional, and really innovative, let's discuss it, but for this version I think we should close it for now.--Yannismarou (talk) 08:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 89) Close. I previously thought we were on track for consensus, so I silently supported the new option, because it seemed useful enough and didn't bother me much. It still seems useful enough, but the whole idea now is so rough around the edges, both technically and socially, that it really seems better to keep it off until a more polished version is ready. That way the idea can maybe get a fresh start and finally stick, rather than be entangled in all this mess. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 08:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 90) Close. It was a two month trial. Turn it off. Dalliance (talk) 08:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 91) Close - Close per agreed trial period. Adrian (talk) 08:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 92) Close - Let's back off and start anew with a fresh interface that actually works and is not confusing. The thing should not exist while the usage is terrible. HumphreyW (talk) 10:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 93) Close <font color="#00A693">Wackywace  converse 10:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 94) Close - Like it or not, the trial period is over. Improve then try again. Luka666 (talk) 11:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 95) Close as per #3 User:Chzz. He stated it better than me. -- Alexf(talk) 12:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 96) Close. While I tend to think this tool could be useful, I think the continuation of the test against consensus was poorly considered. Make the changes and come back to the community; one imagines that Wikipedia will still be here regardless. Cheers, Archaeo (talk) 12:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 97) Close. Trials aren't meant to be indefinite. The new version in development should be judged on its own merit and only be introduced if there is consensus for it. Sakkura (talk) 12:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 98) Close down for good. Artem Karimov (talk | edits) 13:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 99) Close - It was voted on and approved as a 2 month trial. 2 months have passed. As far as I can recall, the poll didn't say 2 months, then we'll check to see if 51% or more want to keep it going while we look at the issues that the trial uncovers. (P.S. That this poll even exists sucks.) --Onorem♠Dil 14:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 100) Close - I actually am in favor of pending changes in general, but given how high emotions run on this, I think that closing the current implementation until the new one is ready is the best way to express good faith with the Wikipedia community. Tim Pierce (talk) 14:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 101) Close - I like it, but a two month trial period was agreed, and that's over. Continuing the trial would require consensus, not a majority vote. --Avenue (talk) 14:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 102) Close, gotta stick to the agreements and furthermore, PC aren't the solution to our problem anyway. --The Evil IP address (talk) 15:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 103) Close - In the absence of overwhelming consensus to approve, close the trial in the terms originally proposed. --Metsasarv  15:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 104) Close - In the previous poll, I voted in favor of "option 4" (massive expansion), and I still feel that's the best course of action.  But, as SlimVirgin points out, the outcome of the last poll was alienating people.  We committed to remove PC after 2 months if there was no consensus to keep, and there was no consensus to keep.  Once the new PC is released, it will be a fresh slate and we can start from square one.  (And let's be clear: this does NOT entail a lot of wasted effort.  A Bot could easily add the new PC to articles that had the old PC.)  AGradman / last edit of


 * / talk 18:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) Close - The trial period is over, and for the next version you want to be able to compare it with the normal situation, not with a failed attempt.  – Daniel Mahu (talk&#124;contribs) · 18:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Close - The trial was not successful. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 18:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Close for so many reasons all of which someone else has stated above. It failed. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Close. Trial does not mean it continues from now till forever. It's time to stop. <b style="color:#0000FF;">OhanaUnited</b><b style="color:green;">Talk page</b> 19:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Close We should not even be having this poll. If there was no consensus then the feature was supposed to be removed a few months ago. Argel1200 (talk) 19:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) Close - Any other outcome would be moving the goalposts. Good faith must work both ways in this project, or the project won't work.  I support PC and look forward to a better version.   Ka renjc 19:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 7) Close. I supported PC at the last poll and continue to do so - but with a new version due out so soon, there seems little point in continuing with the current one for a few more weeks when so many users are opposed to it. Alzarian16 (talk) 20:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 8) Close for now and evaluate the new version when it is available to see if it adequately addresses community concerns. Karanacs (talk) 20:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 9) CLOSE: utterly unhelpful. Protector of Wiki (talk) 20:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 10) Close. In its current form 1) the trial ended some time ago 2) there was no clear consensus to continue. Perhaps when the new version arrives run a new trial with refined parameters. As Daniel Mahu said: better to compare with "normal" instead of with the last trial. Jarkeld (talk) 20:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 11) Close. --M4gnum0n (talk) 22:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 12) Close Maybe (just maybe) the idea is good, though the execution was poor. But mostly per SlimVirgin. Doubtless we're going to get PC one way or the other because the Higher Powers want it, but no need to continue with a flawed implementation. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 13) Close I just see no good usage for it. <font face="Tahoma"><font color="#3399FF">Candy <font color="#CCCCCC">o32 03:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 14) Close Per my comments on Pending_changes/Closure and some discussion at User_talk:Courcelles/Archive_14. Ryan Norton 04:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 15) Close - the trial was promised to end, promise should be kept. jonkerz♠ 06:36, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 16) Close --Fox1942 (talk) 10:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 17) Close Trial had the clear premise of being limited to two months. Letting it go on, even with a straw poll, is too much of a bait and switch. It will hurt our decision making process down the road, and the community's willingness to try out any fundamental new feature. No opinion on the usefulness of PC, but process is important. Amalthea  11:43, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 18) Close - it was supposed to be time bound trial. I voted keep in the previous poll. But this "straw poll" is an obvious attempt to railroad a change atleast a third of the community is uneasy with. Fix the identified problems, roll out a new version and conduct a new trial.--Sodabottle (talk) 15:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 19) Close - mostly on process grounds.  I'd hate to see the entire PC proposal, broadly-writ, go down in flames because this process was seen as having been mishandled. &mdash; e. ripley\talk 17:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 20) Close - Per the agreement.Philipmj24 (talk) 19:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 21) Close, I love PC, and love to see it implemented. Too bad there wasn't consensus (yet). Let's just hope we don't need a next poll to determine if there was consensus on this poll. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:57, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 22) Close till it opens again...Modernist (talk) 23:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 23) Close Good idea, good trial, but it should be removed from use while the developers work out the significant issues discovered during the trial, not kept running with them unresolved. MeekSaffron (talk) 23:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 24) Trial has ended, it won't be expanded in this form, and it's slowing down the servers. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 23:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 25) In the straw poll after two months, I voted Option 3, but since I have thought about users seeing different revisions of pages. It is confusing. Us441(talk)(contribs) 00:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 26) Close Can't retire in peace, can I? - F ASTILY  <font color="#4B0082">(T ALK ) 00:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 27) Close Enough issues have been identified with how PC was implemented in the trial that the most benefit would be gained by shutting it down so that the new proposed trial can be compared to the baseline, rather than the first trial run. - BanyanTree 01:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 28) Close I like PC, and hope it'll work well when the software is updated, but the trial period should (have) be(en) respected. -- Scray (talk) 02:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 29) Close Pending Changes is a nice idea, but in practice it's been far too unreliable to be continued. Let's remove it for now, get our ducks in a row, and try a new version in November.   →Twentydragon  02:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 30) Close I think continuing PC after its trial period is extending it against what the trial's original purpose was. Let's go back to no PC until we have a better replacement.-- Novus Orator 03:04, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 31) Close I never saw any-thing before about a straw poll, just lots of almost entirely negative comments on talk pages.  Instead of these changes, why can't we make Wik user-friendly? Kdammers (talk) 05:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 32) Close This is an example of "It's easier to ask forgiveness than permission." It's easier to keep something going (that was supposed to be temporary) than to shut it down. I expect the "Keep"s to prevail, but this is not the right way to make important decisions on Wikipedia. We have promises to keep. Ntsimp (talk) 05:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 33) Close Let's honor our commitments to limit the time of the trial. We know enough already to guide the next version. GreenRoot (talk) 05:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 34) Close The rules seem to be ever changing regarding this "trial." I endorse Slim Virgin's point 100%. I have no doubt that ultimately Jimbo will have his own way, whatever concencus and Wikipedia's original principles dictate, but I see no reason to endorse.  Giacomo   08:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 35) Close, per arguments made by SlimVirgin and others above...but since this is just a simple-majority vote then I guess I don't even really need to give a reason. It was supposedly based on consensus, but then, when that doesn't work, we just change the rules and try again??!!!  WTF?!  It almost looks like somebody's just *trying* to make Wikipedia look bad, I bet all the Wiki critic and satire sites will have a field-day with this one! -Helvetica (talk) 09:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well yes, but it's not all bad. At least you managed to figure out that it is going to be judged by majority :-) - I was fortunate enough to have seen that in another discussion - but it's not in the introduction, or instructions here, as far as I can see. <font face="Arial" color="#0645AD">Begoon •<font style="color:#808080;font-weight:bold;">talk  10:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)   Actually, looking a bit further, it was in the original wording, but subsequently removed -  <font face="Arial" color="#0645AD">Begoon &#149;<font style="color:#808080;font-weight:bold;">talk  12:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC) 
 * 1) Close The whole thing is confusing and error prone, and does very little good in practice. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Close 1) This poll is a waste of time. 2) Dude, the trial period is over! 3) And I'm sick of politics! 4) End of story. <font face="Segoe Script"> Arteyu ? Blame it on me ! 10:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Close The trial was only for two months. If you refuse to respect this timeline, how do you expect us to trust you again on the next trial? --Enric Naval (talk) 10:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Close. The trial, such as it was, did not produce particularly useful results and the entire thing is taking way too much of everybody's time. Also, pushing the trial period way beyond the originally promised and agreed upon two month period is dishonest and unseemly and undermines the credibility of the future trials. If promises made last time are not kept now, why in the world should anyone believe the new promises on the same issue? Nsk92 (talk) 12:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Close - Remove PC from all currently protected pages, return them to semi-protection if necessary on a case-by-case basis. The wording for the trial stated that PC would be removed at the end regardless of the trial's outcome. I am in support of PC becoming a regular part of page protection measures, however keeping it open past the trial just rubs salt in the wounds of those who think this is the worst thing ever. Fix the problems with the user interface, speed and wording of just how this protects pages versus semi and full protection. Offer another trial only after those things have been done. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 13:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) This whole pending changes episode has been an exercise in bad governance. Risker's insightful post explains some of it; add to that a poll that someone decided to set up, lots of confusion, and another poll that someone else decided to set up. Get rid of it and do it again the right way (determining in advance what we want to achieve with PC and how we are going to make a decision on it). Ucucha 14:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link to that post. You are correct, that is a truly insightful and thoughtful assessment. Sould be compulsory reading, imo. <font face="Arial" color="#0645AD">Begoon •<font style="color:#808080;font-weight:bold;">talk  08:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Close Not seeing a good reason to continue, lots of process issues with the trial continuing. Hobit (talk) 14:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Close Two months. As was agreed, right. -Koppas (talk) 22:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) A promise is a promise. What promises are going to be broken next? Malleus Fatuorum 23:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Close, never to be reopened again hopefully! If changes to a page are not immediate, you may demotivate vandals, but unfortunately also many (especially casual) editors, especially if new versions are not approved in a timely fashion. The German WP pending changes are a particular joke in that regard. I don't think WP-EN has to retread all dead ends from WP-DE, does it? --Morn (talk) 00:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Close-This was originally approved under the auspice that this would be a trial. Polling isn't the appropriate method for extending that trial.Smallman12q (talk) 01:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) Shut it down as promised. When fixed, redeploy it. If the community is against bringing it back, we'll just move to the next step - liberal protection of BLPs as needed. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  02:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 7) Close I gave it a fair chance and even added a number of bios to it myself. But the above people are right - this was only meant to be a trial, and it would be a breach of good faith by those promoting it to regard it as otherwise. I am not convinced by what I have seen that this measure actually works better than semi-protection did, and some evidence that it allows through improper, BLP-violating edits which semi-protection would not allow. Orderinchaos 02:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 8) Close for now. As pointed out numerous times above the trail period is/was for two months. Even though there is a clear majority for continuing the trial it is not at the level of support that would usually be considered a consensus. While I do support a full and permanent implementation of Pending Changes in the long term I think this trial has gone way beyond it's initial mandate and fear that the longer it is on the project the harder it will be to turn off if a consensus is not reached. You can find numerous examples of "temporary" things in the real world, such as the Israeli West Bank Barrier. Additionally turning the trial on, then off, then on again may provide some interesting data that can better help give us an apples to apples comparison on the exact effects which pending changes have in a per article basis. I'd imagine you could do it at the software level in the configuration without having to individually go to each article and change protection, so I don't think that would be a significant amount of work. While some people have done some statistical analysis I don't think enough has been done to empirically explain exactly what the effects are, and the current method of analysis mainly focuses on reverted to unreverted edits, which since it relies on edit count doesn't give a fully accurate picture since quality is far more important than quantity. --nn123645 (talk) 03:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 9) Close per Hobit and others. This was a trial, evaluate the results and then come back later would be most prudent. Outback the koala (talk) 05:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 10) Close until next version come. If that one passes, i strongly suggest for those who voted close to not use their "Reviewer" rights if they have it and leave the burden to the editors who support continuation of this version of PC. There is certainly a majority to impose PC yet there is also enough opposition to make this version PC a failure in practice. --KrebMarkt (talk) 14:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 11) Close - a short trial is what was agreed to in the first place. Now we need to end it, regroup and see what improvements need to be made. SteveBaker (talk) 17:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 12) Close, but my vote is largely a procedural one. The previous poll closed with no consensus to extend, and rather than respecting that, it was thrown out and replaced with a majority vote, the result of which is almost certain. This is not the wiki way, and I can't endorse what appears to be an attempt to force FP/PR upon us. The Wordsmith Communicate 17:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 13) Close - if running for only two months was agreed, then so it should be. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 14) Close - a trial is a trial. If it must be implemented, it needs to go back to beta for some improvements. Bob talk 21:49, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 15) Close. It's cumbersome, difficult to understand, and counterproductive. My preference is toward more semi-protection. I'm tired of spending a huge chunk of my time reverting IP edits rather than creating content or refining existing content.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 16) Close - Not a fan of the "tool" and if it's been decided that the next version will be different, there's no point to keeping this one. This is all a sham anyway.Willcrys 84 (talk) 16:54, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 17) Close per Phearson, Slimvirgin, Koppas and others. --Shuki (talk) 21:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 18) Close - The failure of the previous poll (both in design and consensus-building) has made this one trivial. Functionally stated, we have the option of voting and then living with this un-Wikipedia-like system, not voting and still living with this un-Wikipedia-like system, or leaving Wikipedia. BitterGrey (talk) 21:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 19) Close - given that the conclusion of the trial should have entailed the suspension of Pending Changes, and that the last discussion resulted in the noticeable absence of consensus in favour of continuation, it is rather strange to find oneself now voting in a majority poll while the fact that previous promises have been broken has conveniently been forgotten. Wikipedia can do better than this. <font color="#D40000">Super <font color="#FF2000">Mario <font color="#FF8C00">Man  22:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 20) Close The trial is at an end and in my experience the current problems with the tool are too pervasive to warrant continuing the trial until the new version is available for testing. Millahnna (talk) 07:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 21) Close Need to see the improvements and real benefits. Googly75 (talk) 18:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 22) Close I checked my calendar and confirmed that two months is still two months. Strom (talk) 19:05, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 23) Close' This is pathetic to even have a poll like this. The trial should have ended, as there was absolutely no consensus to continue. The community cannot agree on PC, so it should not continue until a resolution is reached. There should be no trial in November, as there is no consensus for one. <font face="Century Gothic"> THENEW M O  NO   19:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 24) Close I agree with others that the trial is over. Wikipedia should stick by the original agreement. There is no consensus for PC to continue. The pages I'm editing are rife with edit warring, vandalism, and disruptive behavior. I prefer having a page semi-protected than to have to go through the long process of removing all the bad edits by IP addresses. Sometimes a banned editor hides behind a spoofed IP address. It's very hard to prove even if an IP address is traced to a spoofing website and the editor exhibits the same behavior as a banned user. CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 00:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 25) Close on principal. The trial is over. Pburka (talk) 03:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 26) Close - CáliKewlKid (talk) 04:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 27) Close I gave it a chance but it failed right every time. Article's which used the Pending Changes were slow to load (unlike a semi-protected article), the unaccept (or what ever the button was meant to be) was always greyed out (IE: it never worked so what was the point of it?) and having to use the undo instead! I suggest we have a new trial once those issues highlighted are fixed. Bidgee (talk) 06:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments on the Poll
Before voting here, please consider the following statement made by Jimbo: "It doesn't matter to me if such a section exists or not. Votes to oppose the poll won't be counted, but if people want to oppose the poll, I see no harm. I'd be interested to learn more about the reasons people might oppose taking a poll. Perhaps they just want me, or the Foundation staff, to make a decision without community input?"
 * 1) 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)
 * 2) 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. <span style="border:2px solid grey;background:black;padding:1px;color:gold;text-shadow:white 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em"><font face="Papyrus"> A  aargh   03:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) 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. <font color="#4B0000">Eric <font color="#550000">Leb <font color="#660000">01 (Page &#124; Talk)  04:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) 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)
 * 5) Oppose this poll, per two-month trial, and the supposed forced November 9 trial is insanity. The creation of this poll is an extremely dishonest action. Trying to make this a majority vote is ridiculous. Extending the trial without consensus is lunacy. -Yair rand (talk) 04:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) I voted to stop it above. I voted to continue it in the previous straw poll.  I've changed my mind per the incorrect closing of the one I supported (even though the supports won). - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose this poll, even though I've already voted to stop it above. If we need another straw poll, it would be because the previous poll has flawed options, rather than because we're waiting for a new version to come out. --Deryck C. 04:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 8) Sort of - my preference was to either stop it or do a proper trial of PC on all BLPs - not continuing as is. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, in a proper test you wouldn't apply it to all biographical articles on living people: you need a control population, so some would be left alone. And then, to properly determine that any effects of a change were actually caused by the change, a subgroup of those upon which PC was applied would be reverted. However, nothing like this was attempted. This simply seems to be a Trojan horse stratagem to get Pending Changes added to Wikipedia, & too bad so sad if it doesn't work. -- llywrch (talk) 22:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose this poll, even though I have already voted above. There needs to be clear consensus on something that has such an impact on Wikipedia. Although I support the use of PC, I think that we should wait until the revised version is available. What I object to is this "Oh, we didn't get consensus - hey, let's have another poll, and this time go for majority" approach. Consensus is how we work here, not majority voting. As such, I feel this poll is wrong - in the same way that if I opened an AfD and the article was kept, and then the next day I opened a 2nd AfD to try to get the result I want, that would be wrong -- <font color="#307D7E">Phantom <font color="#55CAFA">Steve /<font color="#008000">talk &#124;<font color="#000080">contribs \ 06:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If you have a 65 - 35 result in an AFD you would have a result. Off2riorob (talk) 17:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No, you need consensus. You should need census here as well. <font color="#4B0000">Eric <font color="#550000">Leb <font color="#660000">01 (Page &#124; Talk)  20:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose this poll, I voted, but voting is not consensus, it is tyranny of the majority, which can easily flock to a muddled outlook. There was a consensus to end the trial after two months, the two months are up now. Moreover, as SchuminWeb and CMBJ have noted, this does smack of a bait and switch and has, to me, all along. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) I object to this poll for the reasons that I outlined above; moreover, in accordance with all of the relevant policies, guidelines and consensuses, its numerical results should be considered non-binding by the closing administrator. —  C M B J   06:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose the poll, though I've voted to close and don't want to strike my vote. I agree with Casliber, either stop it completely or test it on all BLPs and BLPs only, in addition to semi-protection if the latter's needed too. But neither of the polls has offered that option. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 07:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) I object to this poll for the reasons outlined in my ! vote. I also object to the necessity of striking the "!", and the addition of the phrase 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. to the poll instructions after 200+ votes had already been cast The instructions are part of the "ballot paper", the altering of which during an election would be inconceivable. Guess I'm being "objectionable" today, but there it is. <font face="Arial" color="#0645AD">Begoon •<font style="color:#808080;font-weight:bold;">talk  07:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Abstain Although I like the functionality, the trial should have ended and consensus should be gained as to what happens next, not some arbitrary vote. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 07:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) No opinion, either way: I'm leaving flagged revision pages to other editors until better UI appears; leave it to those still responding.<span style="font-family: 'Brush script MT', cursive;font-size:1.4em;vertical-align:middle;"> Trev M ~  08:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 7) I object to this poll The last poll should have settled the issue, not another poll. My opinion still is that this will cause more issues then reduce them.  If highly visited/vandalized articles are switched from semi-protection to PC, then editors will be spending more of their time chasing down vandals then contributing to those articles.  It doesn't matter that the public will see the vandalism or not, but it does matter that editors will have to spend more time checking on PC edits then being able to edit on their own. This will result in inhibited editing on highly visible/vandalized articles.  Brothejr (talk) 10:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose poll I voted above, but I also oppose the poll format and majority voting process. More than anything, the process is damaging to community trust. Properly integrating minority perspectives is a key tenet of the entire project. No single feature should be more important than that philosophy. --Xaliqen (talk) 11:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose poll. THIS IS NOT OBAMACARE! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markvs88 (talk • contribs) 14:09, 21 September 2010
 * Whatever that's supposed to mean. Nothing to do with the task at hand. Tom my! 15:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * He's (presumably) referring to comments made by Kindzmarauli. —  C M B J   18:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I don't agree with his comment either. Tom my! 00:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose poll. Like others, I have voted. This poll is inapppropriate; its terms violate clear policy; and the fact that it is necessary at all is evidence of bad faith. We operate by consensus - apparently except when somebody wants to abuse the system - and declare something they really, really want a subject of majority vote. On the merits, I think PC needs an awful lot of work, but could have a minor role in the spectrum of anti-abuse tools. But we should not tolerate abuses of process. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose poll I thought the point of having a policy was to follow it, not break it! Argel1200 (talk) 19:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose poll I heard that the two-month trial ended, not was extended. If you guys really love the feature that much, you can save everybody some time by simply convincing somebody with policy-making privilege to declare the feature permanently enabled. More votes will not make PC look good to a majority large enough to induce consensus. Just end this bound-to-fail attempt to seek consensus. There will be no consensus by any reasonable definition no matter how many votes are held. Kxx (talk | contribs) 20:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose poll per what I already said at ../Straw poll: Polls are evil; they are the wrong way to make decisions on Wikipedia. —Angr (talk) 21:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Abstain – Judging from the talk page, the opposition apparently believes that the Wikimedia Foundation is Weyland-Yutani. That's an over-simplistic point of view. There isn't an evil conspiracy forcing Pending Changes "down your throws". If Jimbo and the WMF wanted to do that, they would've made PC permanent after the first poll, when two thirds of the community supported it. The fact that Jimbo closed the last poll as "no consensus" despite the 2/3rds majority support and that the WMF is developing a new, refined version of PC shows that they're taking the opposition's objections into consideration. The reason that this poll is taking place isn't to win <abbr title="Public Relations">PR points with the media; it's because the WMF has doubts (or worse, are confused) about PC's direction. The WMF isn't alienating the opposition; the opposition is alienating the WMF. The WMF and its projects conform to the <abbr title="Free / Libre / Open Source Software">FLOSS ideology, which believe in transparency and working communities. This poll isn't a trick to create the illusion of consensus. Isn't loss of peer review or oversight one of the major criticisms of Wikipedia? Doesn't PC address a part of the issue? We all seen the Wikipedia hoaxes and accusations of libel. I disagree with any claim on the talk page that supporters of PC are somehow mindless lemmings or a mob. The only reason I'm abstaining from this vote is since I don't have experience with the reviewer tools, and the opinion of the reviewers weight more than mine. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No, PC isn't peer review. It's vandalism prevention. Even FAC often isn't peer review, and to expect PC reviews to do even what FAC does is fantasy; and I speak as a reviewer. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Then I misunderstood. Thanks for clearing that up. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note – I see that Jimbo has finally arrived on the scene. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Abstain It doesn't matter how I vote in this matter. The PTB want Pending Changes, & we're going to get Pending Changes, whether it works or not. I'd feel more comfortable with it if I knew it would fix some definite problem. And I'd know that if someone bothered to provide the data. Or at least a rational argument for it. -- llywrch (talk) 22:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Abstain I honestly can't see the reason for this pole wikipedia is not a democracy. Mo ainm  ~Talk  20:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose this whole thing I think PC is a good idea. It just wasn't implemented well. What really makes me mad is that you guys up there in Florida have reneged the deal we all made with this. We were doing TWO MONTHS and then deciding whether or not there was consensus. If there wasn't consensus we were going to close it. News Flash! There was no consensus! That means close! Not see if we can maybe drag out enough supports to keep it going. I voted oppose last time because of the slowness. I opposed this time because of it's slowness and the broken deal. This is a NO. You guys will have to make a ton of a change for it to be accepted. You lost a lot of people's (people, not editors) trust with this.  Mr. R00t    Talk  00:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Please read the discussions – There are several very valuable threads on the discussion page as to why continuing PC in the interim isn't a good idea. I especially recommend anything with my signature. ;-) But, if you're in a hurry, may I suggest this rather interesting real-life example of how a PC-protected BLP went horribly wrong thanks to different types of mistakes by three good faith reviewers who thought they knew what they were doing. Thanks. —UncleDouggie (talk) 05:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Shouldn't need a poll on this. PC may be useful, but a promise is a promise, and a promise unkept is IMO worse than a utility unused for another month and a half. That thing that we always talk about as editors, WP:DEADLINE, applies here. Better to do the right thing: keeping promises sustains happiness, and happy Wikipedians write! Awickert (talk) 08:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) Agree with this, though I voted above and I'm not striking that vote. It just blows my mind that something like this would happen.  I mean I know a lot of not-so-on-the-level stuff probably happens behind the scenes, with the "cabal" and whatnot, but something so blatantly going against consensus, right out in the open and everything...Wow! -Helvetica (talk) 09:27, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose this poll, even though I voted Close, I would like to add the following. The longer I continue reading these comments and discussions, the more I am convinced that a significant number of editors in the end will vote with their feet.  Highly likely I'll be one of them.  Qwrk (talk) 09:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 8) I voted "close" above but, seeing that the organizers of this poll apparently do not feel obligated to play by the rules, I don't see why I can't vote in this section as well. Let me get this straight: this is a "straw poll" on whether to break a promise, backed by the clear community consensus at the time, that the PC trial period was to last two months only? Nice. Clever. Reeks of integrity and inspires truckloads of trust for the future trials. Nsk92 (talk) 12:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 9) I voted to close, but I feel this process is clearly unwise. Why is this a majority vote again?  Why is the test extending beyond the promised parameters?  You can bet I'll be very unlikely to support future tests of pretty much anything as it looks like we'll need assume they could run forever.  Hobit (talk) 15:04, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 10) I am uncomfortable with activity outside of protocol - if I have understood correctly, the test has ended. Please be consistent and do as agreed and promised.  Then, if there is a case to be made for alternatives, make the case.  But this is looking like a hijack of process - not a good sign.  User:4POD 21:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 11) per above.  Ray  Talk 00:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 12) Violation of policy. ¦ Reisio (talk) 07:38, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Except it's not. Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy. That does not mean polls are prohibited. Swarm Talk 20:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Except it's. ¦ Reisio (talk) 02:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The original proposal stated that the trial would run for two months, and then "the Wikipedia community will decide whether to continue or discontinue using flagged protection". The default way to make decisions at Wikipedia is by consensus. A simple majority vote does not establish consensus. Sakkura (talk) 21:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You're right. I agree. That's common sense. Any editor could tell you that. You're completely and utterly correct. But still, that doesn't mean polls are prohibited. They're not. There's no consensus against them, and, traditionally, they're allowed and are used often. Therefore, they don't violate policy. Oh, look, we've gone in a circle. Sw &spades; rm Talk 07:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The poll itself doesn't violate policy if you ask me, but if the majority (no matter how slim) opinion is followed without other attempts to establish consensus, that would be a policy violation. Sakkura (talk) 08:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree, but that's not what's happening. Read the intro to this poll, it said the last poll garnered a large amount of support (a majority in fact) but there was no consensus. Sw &spades; rm Talk 18:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It isn't? If you'll look at the instructions, at the end it says "The poll will be closed strictly according to majority vote." Sakkura (talk) 18:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Comment I think some of these opposers need to start using common sense and bare in mind that they can always ignore WP rules if they get in the way of improving WP. — Half   Price  18:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree completely. Swarm Talk 20:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The system wasn't made to be inflexible. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 23:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That's right, you can always get banned for not following the rules. ¦ Reisio (talk) 02:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You're right; we all know Internet is serious business . --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 02:30, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Absolutely right, WP:IAR is often discounted, but this is a perfect example of why we still have it. Ronk01   talk  03:30, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Is using a nuclear option to end debate really advisable? Real world examples tend to suggest such things are ill-advised and may encourage long-term instability. --Xaliqen (talk) 17:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, I would rather PC be turned off for a few weeks than see mass instability on Wikipedia. Ronk01   talk  19:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with following the rules. This has to do with trust in the community and the leaders of the site. They said it would shut down after two months. Four months later, without consensus, it's still open, and we're voting with a lower threshold on the basis that we should IAR. This is faulty logic because IAR says that we should ignore if it improves Wikipedia: but there was no consensus as to whether PC does! IAR is completely invalid here! <font color="#4B0000">Eric <font color="#550000">Leb <font color="#660000">01 (Page &#124; Talk)  19:26, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:CONSENSUS isn't invulnerable to IAR, and many would argue that this extension does improve Wikipedia. Ronk01   talk  21:03, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You'd need, erm, consensus that this would improve Wikipedia. IAR is not about ignoring consensus, in fact the explanation is that if you ignore a rule and someone objects, consensus will decide what happens. Sakkura (talk) 22:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what this poll is about, Jimbo is trying to gauge to opinions of the community in regards to PC. Ronk01   talk  23:53, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No, that was what the original straw poll was about, and it did not reach a consensus. This is about whether or not we should break the initial promise to end the trial after two months and keep using it contrary to the results of the original poll. On the top of that, the bar to accept the interim version is much, much lower, and resembles the process of a democracy, something which NOTDEMOCRACY states is wrong (and we've already established that IAR doesn't work here, as there was no consensus as to whether or not this aids in the progression of the wiki). <font color="#4B0000">Eric <font color="#550000">Leb <font color="#660000">01 (Page &#124; Talk)  02:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, if you want to go at this from a standpoint of pure policy, Jimmy Wales has the authority to override any policy, including NOTDEMOCRACY. He could easily make this decision by fiat, along with the Wikimedia Board, but he has decided to hand the decision to the community, albiet in a rather unorthodox form. Please read the talk page of this poll before raising arguments that both parties have decided to avoid. Ronk01   talk  03:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Um no he doesn't. The board does but that would require a complete vote of the board and I can't see them doing that. There are several employees of the foundation who effectively have the power to do so. Jimbo however has no more power to create policy than any other single board memeber.©Geni 00:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:Consensus, it states: "Declarations from Jimbo Wales, the Wikimedia Foundation Board, or the Developers, particularly for copyright, legal issues, or server load, have policy status." Ronk01   talk  04:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Keep all current changes. This is the best way to use the system and I've never gone back to the old antiquated lookLostinlodos (talk) 20:12, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe that you are in the wrong place. This poll is about pending changes, not the vector skin. —UncleDouggie (talk) 23:38, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose poll. Why are we still voting on this? The trial was supposed to close after 2 months.  Sp in ni ng  Spark  23:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Grow up the fact you feel wronged because you were 'promised' it would be over is ridiculous. If something is good, you keep it. This "oh my god they promised us it would be over and I demand it be closed" is simply childish and in no way a sincere vote to look at the benefits of counter vandalism. Most of these people haven't even considered that there will be compromises after this decision is made such as keeping it, but reducing its coverage, continuously adapting the rules and standards in which it may be implemented, etc. I think we all recall the first vote where they had several options to keep but with different outlines, but the same whiners hated that poll and wanted a new one. I can understand people who would oppose this because they feel the system is make work or other reasonable opposition, but saying you feel cheated is pathetic. Mkdw talk 18:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe part of the larger community discussion here is the idea that some of the essential characteristics of being 'grown up' are the attempt to remain consistent, honour your agreements and remain respectful with the expectation others will, in-turn, honour their agreements. I would argue it's a non-trivial issue of building trust and certainly relevant in this instance due to the number of editors who raised it as noteworthy. Whether or not you agree with the conclusions reached by some (that trust was breached), the population of Wikipedians who see this as an issue make it an appropriate, relevant and respectable part of the discussion. --Xaliqen (talk) 19:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose the poll for patently obvious reasons. Of course, it doesn't matter, because whoever has paid attention to Wikipedia knows what the cabal wants the cabal gets. -Halo (talk) 22:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)