Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll

Vote comment guidelines

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 two weeks from August 22, 2010. Previous discussion can be found and continued here or can be started on the talk page 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). Consensus will be judged by an Administrator on the basis of a simple head count (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.

Vote comment options

• 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 as is, 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)

Tally

Manually updated tally of votes numbers of votes are listed in this manner, (S1/S2/S3/S4).

Support for option 1	Support for option 2	Support for option 3	Support for option 4
10	2	15	1

Vote comments

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

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

• 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)

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

• 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)

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

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

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

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

• 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)

• 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)

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

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

• Support 3 Ғяіᴅaз'§Đоом | Spare your time? 00:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
• 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)

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

• 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)

• 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)

• Support 1, discourages new editors from editing.Sumsum2010 · Talk · Contributions 00:22, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
• 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)
• Support 3- at least, as per user Sip1. Off2riorob (talk) 00:34, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• Support 3 but where do these vote comment guidelines come from? --Mkativerata (talk) 00:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
• 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)
• Support 1 Slow with unclear and not followed standards.Cptnono (talk) 00:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support 1 - The cons outweigh the pros.   — C M B J   01:11, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support 4 , but seriously consider usability. --Cyclopia^talk 01:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
• 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)