As the trial of Pending protection is over, community consensus is required for its continued use. The community should now decide if the implementation should be continued or not: Vote commenting will last 14 days (336 hours) from the time of the first vote. Previous discussion can be found and continued here or can be started on the talkpage here.

Please respond to the questions below with a single number. In deciding consensus all the keep vote comments for option 2,3 and 4 will be first counted together to establish a keep or oppose consensus and if the result is keep then the consensus support between option 2, 3 and 4 will be assessed (as a keep consensus will have already been asserted to have got to this point then this consensus with be just whichever has the most supports).

• 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)

• - Please keep any discussion at the talkpage, thanks.
• - Please vote under the header you choose.

1. Support 1 - The process practically turns non-auto-accepted users into criminals, making one really have to think hard about accepting them, vs. rolling back. Good idea in theory, but in practice, I'll take a pass on this one. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. 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]
3. Support 1 Is this really worth keeping? ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 00:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support 1, discourages new editors from editing.Sumsum2010 · Talk · Contributions 00:22, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. 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]
6. 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]
7. 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]
8. Support 1 Slow with unclear and not followed standards.Cptnono (talk) 00:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
9. 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]
10. Support 1 Bejinhan talks 03:03, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support 1 Unfortunately I do not desire the 2-4 alternatives per my comment at Wikipedia:Pending_changes/Closure. Ryan Norton 03:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
12. 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]
13. Support 1 it doesn't seem useful to me, doesn't stop socks, etc per Jeske Pilif12p :  Yo  03:17, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support 1. Concerned about the implicit hierarchy created by this (content ownership), and similarly, the inevitable widening of scope of edit rejections, de facto, regardless of what policy says; and it's somewhat confusing conceptually; and the user interface/tools are definitely confusing/lacking. This change only raises the bar for contributing and invests more power, as if there weren't enough, in the core contributors. Riggr Mortis (talk) 03:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support 1 Due to reasons given on the comments page. Layona1 (talk) 04:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
16. 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]
17. Support 1. Unnecessary complication.Biophys (talk) 04:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support 1. A Wikipedian approving an edit of a non-Wikipedian before it becomes visible goes against the most fundamental values of this project. --Yair rand (talk) 05:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support 1. Creates extra work for good edits and allows more vandalism to be inserted for articles that should be semi-protected instead. Plus: hiding edits, either good or bad, creates confusion. HumphreyW (talk) 05:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support 1. No real benefit for the creation of tons of busy work. Courcelles 05:40, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support 1 Slow speed and the issues raised by Jeske make it undesirable in its current incarnation. Jarkeld (talk) 08:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support 1 or 4 - Myfeelings are like Courcelles above, so I am not oppoed to closing, but we do a proper trial scaled up for what it was supposed to be for (BLPs), or we drop it, I am not a fan of sitting somewhere in the middle. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support 1 Such a review process (if indeed practicable in an "anyone can edit" environment) would need far more than a vandalism check. Even if not obvious vandalism, an edit can be potentially misleading and harmful. (Besides, the page may already have other problem.) Yet we would deem it "Accepted" by a "Wikipedia Reviewer"? Methinks not. Anyone can edit: reader beware. PL290 (talk) 08:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. Support 2 The Thing // Talk // Contribs 23:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. 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]
3. Support 3 - if this option is successful, hopefully after improvements, we can then expand further. PhilKnight (talk) 23:28, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. 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]
5. Support 3 Gobonobo ^{T C} 23:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support 3--Wetman (talk) 23:35, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support 3 Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:37, 21 A ugust 2010 (UTC)
8. Support 2 —Soap— 23:38, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support 3 and definitely also shift it from high traffic to lower traffic articles. -84user (talk) 00:00, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support 3 My76Strat 00:03, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support 3 Ғяіᴅaз'§Đоом | Spare your time? 00:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
12. 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]
13. 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]
14. Support 2- tool was useful. Off2riorob (talk) 00:34, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
15. 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]
16. Support 3 but where do these vote comment guidelines come from? --Mkativerata (talk) 00:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support 4 , but seriously consider usability. --Cyclopia^talk 01:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
18. 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]
19. 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]
20. 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]
21. 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]
22. 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]
23. Support 2 - and revisit again. --Threeafterthree (talk) 02:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
24. 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]
25. Support 4 Nil Einne (talk) 03:18, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support 3  ℳono  03:54, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support 3 with emphasis on improvements. DocOfSoc (talk) 04:06, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support 3 ErikHaugen (talk) 04:34, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support 3 Some good and valid points made by those who support option 1 - however, I believe this tool is still positively effective when used on low-traffic pages. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 04:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support 2 (edit conflict) If you know how to use it, is useful. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 04:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support 3. From personal experience, I accept about 1/3 of the edits and reject 2/3 of the edits. Without pending changes, that 1/3 (still a significant amount) would be prevented by semi-protection. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support 3--Cannibaloki 05:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support 3 After seeing how it works from an anonymous editor's view, and knowing how much 1.4k is, I support keeping the pending changes tool and expanding how much an anonymous editor can add onto an article. --K. Annoyomous (talk) 05:11, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support 3 From what I have seen, this is helping the project. --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support 3 - Though I don't like the attitude that seems to have developed which wants reviewers to decide if it's a "good" edit. That belongs in a talk page, not a reviewing hierarchy. I believe in the official guideline, which is to curb blatant vandalism. This protects the pages and allows edits to be viewable quickly.‡ MAHEWA ‡ • talk 05:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support 2 - I want to see this work, but the fact of the matter is that there are too many issues with the current implementation to justify expansion just yet. --WFC-- 05:25, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support 4 —Where's '5'? Future is thataway→ Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
38. Support 3 or 4 --Diannaa ^(Talk) 05:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support 3 or 4 BLPs and low-traffic are the article types where this makes absolute sense (unless RecentUnwatchedChanges or similar gets implemented). --Cybercobra (talk) 06:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support 2 or 3 - I think the idea is sound and needs to be continued. The how of it needs to be tweaked, but we need to get this confirmed to continue before we get too worried about the tweaks.  Afaber012  (talk)  06:40, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
41. Support 2, for ultimately being a net positive. -- œ^™ 06:46, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support 4 sorta I think rollout to all low traffic BLPs is an excellent use of the feature, especially with some of the discussed improvements, but high traffic articles (whatever the type) aren't a good fit. I also think we should leave this in control of humans unless we can agree on a unambiguous metric for "low traffic". Shell ^babelfish 06:49, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
43. Support 3 - This system is a net positive for the project and should be slowly expanded.--Sodabottle (talk) 07:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
44. Support 3 or 4 - This has been an astounding success. It should be rolled to BLP's on a large scale. Just, you know, please tweak the little flaws. Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 07:17, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
45. Support 3 keeping to low-traffic articles. My feeling is that it doesn't work well on high-traffic articles, and will put off new editors. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 07:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
46. Support 3 — Glenn L (talk) 07:26, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support 3 - useful alternative to either semi-protection or no protection in some cases. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 07:30, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support 3 or 4 Dodoïste (talk) 07:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support 3. Revision/clarification of guidelines for reviewers might be in order, though. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
50. Support 3. Would consider support 4 once wrinkles are ironed out. TFOWR 08:06, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
51. Support 3 or 4 10k is a bit low. ϢereSpielChequers 08:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
52. Support 1 or 4 - we do a proper trial scaled up for what it was supposed to be for (BLPs), or we drop it, I am not a fan of sitting somewhere in the middle. I favour this slightly more than dropping altogether. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:19, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
53. Support 3 I like this idea but it needs expansion if it is going to stay. Iamcool234 08:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. Confused. I still don't understand how this works, so I can't tell whether it's doing what it's supposed to. If it could be made radically clearer and more transparent, then it's worth continuing the experiment. But for all I know, it's better to close it. —— Shakescene (talk) 08:17, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]