As the Pending Changes trial is over, community consensus is required for its continuation. The community should now decide whether the implementation should be continued or not: Vote commenting will last two weeks from August 22, 2010. Previous discussion can be found and continued here or started on the talk page here

Please submit your vote once with the number of the option that is, in your opinion, suitable. In establishing consensus the keep vote comments for options 2-4 will be added together to establish a keep or oppose consensus, if the result is keep then the consensus between options 2-4 will be assessed (as consensus will have already been asserted to have reached this point; the consensus established will be the keep option with the most votes). Consensus will be esablished by an Administrator by counting the votes (as there are no policy decisions to be considered) on the basis that 6 - 4 is a minimum consensus agreement. A no-consensus outcome will default to close.

• 1 - Close.

• 2 - Keep as is. (this option still allows for adding and removing of articles to PP but with no major expansion) - (work on improvements)

• 3 - Keep with steady expansion ( from the present 1.4k to something around 5k to a maximum of 10k ) low traffic/BLPs and any articles as requested. - (work on improvements)

• 4 - Keep with expansion by bot to all BLP articles. - (work on improvements)

Manually updated tally of votes.

Last updated: 03:00, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• - Please keep any discussion at the talkpage, thanks.

• Support 2 The Thing // Talk // Contribs 23:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support 3 - Per my comments at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Closure, I am in support of the option. However, it does need some clearer guidelines for reviewers and the interface needs a little tweaking. I wouldn't mind seeing this expand to more articles as well, but full sitewide implementation is not necessary at this time. I guess that makes it a 3 for me. CycloneGU (talk) 23:19, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support 3 - if this option is successful, hopefully after improvements, we can then expand further. PhilKnight (talk) 23:28, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support 3 with an additional aim and special focus to curb sockpuppetry on pages known to be frequently targeted. BigK HeX (talk) 23:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support 3 Gobonobo ^{T C} 23:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support 3--Wetman (talk) 23:35, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support 3 Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:37, 21 A ugust 2010 (UTC)

• Support 2 —Soap— 23:38, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support 1 - I think the process is not very effective and would like to see it gone, so I believe I'm picking the correct option? SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support 1 - It's confusing, elitist, bureaucratic, off-putting, and unclear. I'll be glad to see the back of it. ☻☻☻Sithman VIII !!☻☻☻ 23:48, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support 3 and definitely also shift it from high traffic to lower traffic articles. -84user (talk) 00:00, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support 3 My76Strat 00:03, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support 3 Ғяіᴅaз'§Đоом | Spare your time? 00:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support 1 Weak and ineffective at stopping vandalism; the slow speed and technical issues only hinder the rate of reverts. Also, poor reviewing guidelines and blind reviews only let vandalism pass through easily. —fetch·comms 00:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support 1 Is this really worth keeping? ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 00:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support 3 (at least) Definitely worth keeping. A great tool, though some extra time is needed to find out what exactly it is best for. In my mind, low traffic articles with BLP concerns (ie not just the BLP articles themselves) are likely the most likely to be a fruitful place for use. --Slp1 (talk) 00:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support 3, though I hope the suggested improvements will be made before expansion of PC material. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 00:17, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support 1, discourages new editors from editing.Sumsum2010 · Talk · Contributions 00:22, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support 1- it just hasn't worked. It was confusing, slow, it discouraged new editors from editing and it hasn't really stopped vandalism. Reyk _YO! 00:25, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support 3- progressive expansion, tool was useful. Off2riorob (talk) 00:34, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support 3 - It works - not that confusing, became faster in time, does not seem to discourage new editors, and deterred vandalism on the pages I saw it used on, compared with vandal activity in the past foew months on those pages. Certainly needs some improvements, as discussed elsewhere. - BilCat (talk) 00:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support 1 - Flagged Revs on Wikipedia is pretty useless. I would support its use on good and featured articles (because of the fact they're supposed to be peer-reviewed). Diego Grez ^{what's up?} 00:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support 3 but where do these vote comment guidelines come from? --Mkativerata (talk) 00:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support 1. The potted trial hasn't made a case for PC level 1, and it has made the case against Level 2 clear. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:54, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support 1 Slow with unclear and not followed standards.Cptnono (talk) 00:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support 1 - Pending changes, in at least one of its currently envisioned forms, is an affront to several of the founding principles of this project. Moreover, even from a pragmatic standpoint, it is difficult to justify such a superfluous allocation of resources at this time.   — C M B J   01:11, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support 4 , but seriously consider usability. --Cyclopia^talk 01:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support 3 pending changes is a useful tool, but discretion is needed for where it's applied. Nick-D (talk) 01:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support 3 Pending changes has a lot of potential to help maintain the quality of Wikipedia. Tyrol5 [Talk] 01:19, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Very, very weakly support 2 - As per my comment at the other page, this needs some serious reform before being enabled. However, I would not like to see it be closed, as that is a net negative. However, mass expansion is also a net negative. (There needs to be an Option 5: Other) (X! · talk)  · @122  ·  01:55, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support 3 I admit that I only had, I believe, one page on my watch list that had been semi'd for a while turned into PC. Yes it got vandalized, but it wasn't really THAT much, and definitely slowed down a bit after some time. So long as the the number is left as an amount reasonable to manage -- that is, any semblance of "this'll just cause more more where other is needed blah blah blah so what if people are volunteers " then it's certainly the best way to go. Option 4 might be ok too, so long as that's not the ONLY use for it (that is, all BLP *plus* anything else deemed warranted). ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 02:07, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support 3. This system was perhaps being applied too liberally to areas that should have had a semi-protection, but its use as a tool for cases that should not be open, but still fundamentally follow the principals as a wiki, while still reducing vandalism under guardianship is favourable. Mkdw^talk 02:08, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support 2 - and revisit again. --Threeafterthree (talk) 02:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support 2 An effective tool on low traffic pages, though worthless on high traffic, keep PC-2 Ronk01 talk, ^{Editor Review} 02:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support 1 Bejinhan talks 03:03, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support 1 unfortunately I desire none of these per my comment at Wikipedia:Pending_changes/Closure. Ryan Norton 03:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support 1. Revision pollution... utter ineffectiveness against cabalism, sockpuppets, or out-of-the-blue en masse attacks... severe potential for controlling content... impossible to institute in such a way that it won't drive off the users it's intended to aid... The list goes on and on and on. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Carl Johnson)} 03:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]