Jump to content

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2012/Option 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Position #2

Click "show" to view the draft policy
Pending changes protection (level 1)
Pending changes protection (level 1)
  • When a page with Pending Changes (PC) protection is edited by an unregistered user or new user, that edit and all following edits by any user are not included in the article displayed to the general public (that is, for readers who are not logged in), until the edits are approved by someone with the "reviewer" user right. PC protection is intended to quash inappropriate editing while allowing good faith users to submit their edits for review.
  • Reviewers are users with a similar level of trust to rollbackers (including all administrators) and the right can be granted and removed by any administrator. Reviewer rights are granted upon request at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions. Potential reviewers should recognize vandalism, be familiar with basic content policies such as the policy on living people, and have a reasonable level of experience editing Wikipedia. Reading the reviewing guideline, where the reviewing process and expectations for a reviewer are detailed, is recommended.
  • Pending changes should be used on pages where the disruption to good-faith editing caused by existing protection tools would be disproportionate to the problem the protection seeks to resolve. Suitable issues for pending changes protection include persistent:
Vandalism;
Re-insertion of rumor, error, and NPOV/V/OR violations;
Edit warring by large groups of unregistered users;
Disruption by users on highly variable IPs.
  • These standards are to be interpreted more liberally on biographies of living persons, or in any situation involving content related to living persons. As with other forms of protection, PC protection should not be used preemptively.
  • As with other forms of protection, the time frame of the protection should be proportional to the problem. Indefinite PC protection should only be used in cases of severe long-term disruption.
  • Like semi-protection, PC protection should never be used in genuine content disputes, where there is a risk of placing a particular group of editors at a disadvantage.

Click here to edit this section

Users who endorse this position
  1. During and after the trial, PC was shown to be an extremely helpful tool for combatting bad-faith edits while still allowing easy submission of good-faith edits. We shouldn't let the various problems with the trial prejudice us against the tool itself. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:42, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Long overdue; get it right this time. (I would have been first but it was protected (or something like that)). Alarbus (talk) 17:45, 23 March 2012 (UTC) Self-admitted sock of Jack Merridew. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:55, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. PC worked good during and after the trial and it would be a shame to let a useful thing dry up and blow away in the wind. Simply put PC is perfect in allowing good faith edits while combating bad faith edits.--Dcheagle 18:04, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Although it just adds one more level of complexity to Wikipedia, I think it will be very helpful and sounds good to me. Jesse V. (talk) 18:17, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 18:23, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support PC, especially on BLPs to prevent defamation. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:56, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Per Beeblebrox, essentially. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:59, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I had experience with flagged revisions in Russian Wikipedia for about three years, and I obviously have experience with NPP here (I always patrol NPP from the back of the list, trying to find smth out in the oldest articles). I think there are obvious problems with the new page patrol: (1) the backlog is only 30 days long. It is not currently a problem, since the backlog in practice is never longer than a week, but potentially it is a problem. (2) one can only patrol new articles, never old articles and never the same article twice. If you start thinking about it, this is actually a serious restriction. Basically, patrolling an article is a way to state it is actually ok. However, the article may be ok at some point and become not ok at a different point, for instance, after being vandalized or after copyrighted material has been introduced or whatever; conversely, an article which initially was not ok can become ok after references and categories have been added. The logical extension is flagged revisions, which is patrolling (potentially) not just an article once but every revision so that one knows that the article is ok at some given point (even if it was not ok before and may become not ok in the future). I am convinced that flagged revisions is what we will ultimately come to, since it is just a logical and convenient extension of the patrol idea. However, it is not what we are discussing now, and not what can be realistically speaking implemented now. I believe pending changes is a step in the right direction (though an incomplete one) and I certainly endorse implementation of pending changes.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:08, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Per Reaper Eternal, with the additional comment that we need a community commitment to use PC in order to signal the developers that their efforts to improve PC will not be wasted. Jclemens (talk) 19:09, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Per Beeblebrox and Dcheagle. jcgoble3 (talk) 19:21, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Strong support, with the understanding that re-interpreting or changing the policy to something radically different than what we are voting for here requires a new consensus --Guy Macon (talk) 19:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  11. I've been championing some form of this process since I started editing Wikipedia in 2005. To paraphrase Shimon Peres (and others), an imperfect PC is better than a perfect editing war. Grika Ⓣ 19:45, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  12. As I expect problem edits to get worse, all options should stay open --Chris.urs-o (talk) 19:50, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Strong support; seems like a perfect mid-way point between page protection and open editing. It will help IPs Be bold and fix our mistakes, even on controversial pages. Achowat (talk) 19:58, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. I don't have any experience with pending changes, but the proposed idea seems reasonable. --Karl.brown (talk) 20:00, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Blurpeace 20:09, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Pending changes works. It allows users who might not otherwise be able to edit with a means to contribute, while allowing us to screen out unhelpful edits before readers can see them. I understand the frustration with the way the trial ended (or rather didn't end), but by ending its use over those issues, we are cutting our nose off to spite our face. As a community, we should welcome with open arms anything that offers a solution to our problems of vandalism without totally shutting out new and unregistered editors. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:16, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support per Beeblebrox and HJ Mitchell. Geoff Who, me? 20:46, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  18. A supporter of option 1 commented that, in their experience, the editor time used rejecting unwanted edits outweighed the benefit that a small number of useful edits could be waved through. That's different from my experience, where the balance was the other way. Obviously, it may vary depending on the article. But I think the answer to that is make sure, as best we can, that both PC and SP are used where they are most appropriate, and for admins to be flexible in upgrading from PC in cases where editors are experiencing genuine difficulty in administering it. Oh, and the process of removing PC from anyone who abuses it should be efficient and not held back by sentiment. FormerIP (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Unconditionally support. Yeah, it could use some tweaking, but implement it, then work out the remaining bugs. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 21:14, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Per HJ Mitchell. The minor problems encountered in the trial did not demonstrate the unworkability of the system; instead they demonstrated that it basically did work. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:16, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Morten Haan (talk) 21:31, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  22. I do have some concerns, but not enough to put me among the supporters of #3. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 21:32, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support ~FeedintmParley 21:40, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Noting that it will only work if pending changes are rapidly accepted or rejected and hence a large and willing community of reviewers is needed. I am experienced with FlaggedRevs on another project and the most common cause of alienation of new good f aith editors is the perceived lack of trust that a "pending changes" system creates. QU TalkQu 21:57, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  25. "As with other forms of protection" says almost everything we need to know. It's not some incredibly arcane process. We should use it in ways that are consistent with how the English Wikipedia does everything else. We can flesh out the details later. (I'd particularly like to see it replace indefinite semi-protection on some lower-traffic pages (to be chosen case-by-case, using our best judgment, etc.), since the data from the last round indicated that this was a particularly functional use.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:02, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  26. PC is much more open to editing than the alternatives like semiprotection. I don't understand why we ever stopped using PC. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support. --Teukros (talk) 22:27, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  28. [[File:Support.png|20px]] Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 23:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Edit requests will be easier to handle in this system. →Στc. 00:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support - there are too many problems with vandalism on Wiki, and the existing options are poor, especially for the less active pages. Obviously to be used in moderation. Rwessel (talk) 00:37, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support-- While it has been pointed out that this tool could be considered against the spirit of the project, I would like to note that it would stop IP vandals from rushing rapidly through high profile pages and vandalizing them. It strikes me as a sensible thing to implement on high profile pages. And it is hardly a barrier to editing. Edits will still be made, pending approval, and if that is really that annoying to honest editors, they can register. --Pstanton (talk) 01:16, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Vital and basic, especially for BLPs. JN466 02:42, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support: Pending changes are a much better alternative to semi-protection, since semi-protection is overkill and pending changes also help keep many problematic articles clean. They worked perfectly last trial. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 03:36, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Endorse the proposal. PC is useful especially in BLPs. Suraj T 04:22, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  35. We lose credibility in the eyes of our readership when vandalism is present. This is one way to attempt to address vandalism and while not perfect we need to add to add it to the others. I would support its use on many of the articles that are currently under my watch and semi protected.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:41, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. A great help against vandalism and on controversial pages. Night of the Big Wind talk 04:44, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support: I think the benefits outweigh the possible disadvantages, as long as it doesn't end up getting applied to far too many articles Pesky (talk) 05:15, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  38. My76Strat (talk) 05:25, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  39. This is a useful weapon against vandalism ϢereSpielChequers 05:27, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support per above.--Ankit MaityTalkContribs 07:24, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support. Ariconte (talk) 08:24, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support. Pending changes is a useful tool that should be available to administrators. The proposed policy is an adequate working draft.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Eluchil404 (talk • contribs)
  43. Support. HJ Mitchell has come closest to my sentiments here. It would be a mistake to throw out a very useful "baby" with the "bathwater" of the messy trial ending. PC would be enormously valuable in BLPs, and as someone said above, is almost like a kind of enhanced {{edit-protected}} in many ways. I'll say this, though - the success or failure of PC will depend in large part on the quality of the reviewers, and that selection process was far too "loose" last time - perhaps partly because it was a trial. Begoon talk 11:33, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support Pending changes simply takes what we already have in the form of protected and semi-protected pages (and the {{editprotected}} and {{edit semi-protected}} templates) but makes it user-friendly. Currently, if you want to edit a semi-pp'd page, you can't. Being able to have semi-pp with pending changes for non-confirmed users just provides a more user-friendly anyone-can-edit implementation of requiring people to go and leave a message on a talk page with a special magical template, and waiting for a user or admin to come and update the article based on their often vague instructions. PC makes it a better experience for the editor, and reduces the workload on confirmed users and on admins. Seriously, there's nothing to worry about, let's get on with it. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:12, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support--Aervanath (talk) 13:52, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support – A useful extra tool against disruption: given time to bed in I think it will become so widely adopted we'll wonder how we coped without it.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 14:17, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support – Let's work out the bugs and reinstate it. – Confession0791 talk 14:32, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support Its a highly useful tool against vandalism. Its a much user friendly system then the current one of semi and full protected pages. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 16:10, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support per HJ Mitchell and the fact that this is to be one more tool in a set that includes the various types of page protection, rollback, etc, all designed to help combat vandalism. Imzadi 1979 → 16:20, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  50. This is a step towards a wider introduction in order to control malicious content more flexibly. It also will help against self-promoters, allowing established editors in good standing to contribute and sockpuppetters to be blocked. There are plenty of long established editors who get caught by full-protection because they don't want to get involved in the politics of becoming admins. A lot of these editors are better able to make good content decisions than the typical admin in it for the powergaming.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:08, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support with the caveat that the policy must state that semi-protection is preferable to PC on very heavily edited articles such as current event articles. Problems with edit conflicts on such articles are massively exacerbated by PC, whereas there are by definition numerous editors working on such articles who are able to revert vandalism within moments. PC has no benefit and big disadvantages in such situations and I'd like to see its use on such articles explicitly discouraged. --Pontificalibus (talk) 18:32, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support Having read right through the opinions expressed here, I sense that, behind the problems of detail, there lies a "philosophical" concern: those who reject PC want to maintain a free and open community which values the participation of all and sundry while those who support it want to protect the quality of the product even if it means a certain reduction in freedom and openness. For my part, I am on the side of quality, since lack of quality will in the long-run mean people sense the project is not worthwhile and therefore stop participating. On exploring the site, I have come across concerns about the lack of knowledgeable editors, burnt-out and people who simply stop participating. This seems a reasonable way of encouraging editors to stay by reducing the hassle. The one caveat I would make is that PC should be seen as an on-going process open to fine-tuning in the future. Perhaps it may turn out to be unsuitable for some articles with intensive editorial interventions, but I suspect there are many where it would make editing easier and allow us to concentrate on improving the article in question.Jpacobb (talk) 20:14, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support A very effective tool, based on my use of it during the test, especially for WP:BLPs. First Light (talk) 21:00, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support Badly needed and desirable. I also think that this will reduce complexity rather than increase it - the main alternative now is semi-protection and the process for that is much more involved both for applying it (request have to be made, administrators have to get involved), and for new accounts trying to make legitimate edits (now they have to a request post to the talk page, which then may or may not be seen and reviewed) - PC would just streamline the (beneficial) idea behind this process and make it easier to work with.VolunteerMarek 23:35, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support – You can't have freedom without accepting some responsibilities. Unfortunately, too many people desire freedom without responsibility. Revising articles, especially BPL's, create real-world consequences. Editing BLP's irresponsibly actually makes the subject of the biography less free since the subject would become affected by forces (i.e. the irresponsible revisions) outside of his or her control. Freedom without responsibility is actually freedom at the expense of others. This means that we're unfortunately playing a zero-sum game, which means that we need to strike the right balance between the freedom of Wikipedia contributors and the freedom of subjects of biographies (i.e. we need to compromise some of our own freedom so that it doesn't come at the expense of others). Human society has been playing this zero-sum game for a long time. Human society decided to create governments that could outlaw thievery even though it came at the cost of some of their freedoms because they felt that governments were a necessary evil. I believe that Pending Changes is our necessary evil. My experience with Pending Changes has been a pleasant one. I didn't have any problems with the interface. MuZemike has also made an interesting observation. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:09, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  56. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 00:46, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support. The question of the essential nature of our project should be kept in mind and considered carefully, but I think that PC does not represent a phase change in our philosophy. Even with PC, the ability of anyone in the world to contribute to our database is vastly greater than almost anywhere else (and a huge step up from the dark days before the internet). I think that we are not on a slippery slope to exclusivity here, any more than PixieBot represents a threat to the Guild of Copyeditors. We serve two masters - openness and accuracy; the value to the larger community of readers, to my thinking, outweighs the other concerns. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:05, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 07:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support Sensible to many ends. – sgeureka t•c 07:46, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support --Dlrohrer2003 08:39, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support. I opposed before and reconsidered because of this: the fact that changes will not be visible until reviewed might quench motivation to vandalize. Materialscientist (talk) 11:53, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support - I am most concerned with the status of BLPs on this project, and this tool can be effective protection those lightly watched articles that have been shown to suffer from subtle vandalism. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 14:14, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support full pending changes, without any conditions of its use - I support adding pending changes to prevent ip vandalism, if somone is serious about editing on wikipedia, they would make an account. When i say full pending changes, i mean it should be on all pages and not just added to a page like how "page protection" is added to a page i.e on request. thats useless, not revolutionary to take the site forward and wont help much--Misconceptions2 (talk) 16:30, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Pol430 talk to me 16:40, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support per HJ Mitchell. Also, I admit to having been a little concerned about the potential consequences of being too liberal in applying pending changes - we don't want to end up with a situation where our reviewers are spread too thinly. However, the draft policy seems good, and if the protection is applied sensibly I don't think this would be a problem. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 17:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  66. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 17:39, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support Hallows Aktiengesellschaft (talk) 21:22, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support I dont have problem with a hierarchy of editors as long as positions are based on merit and all have the opportunity to earn higher positions. There are too many important articles which are a mess, not only because of vandalism, but with "too many cooks" all wanting to add something to a popular article. One good example of this is Mexico City. Ive been asked to work on it but I refuse because I know any work I do on it will revert one way or another back to the mess we have now.Thelmadatter (talk) 21:30, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  69. While I do have a problem with the fact that a page that is protected by PC can not be edited by certain users and that could - potentially - drive away those users that may have the potential to be great editors down the road, I believe that Pending Changes works and support this position per HJ Mitchell. StrikerforceTalk Review me! 21:33, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support per HJ. Hot StopUTC 21:45, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support per Beeblebrox and HJ Mitchell. Haseo9999 (talk) 22:01, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, not the encyclopedia anyone can damage, undermine, or subvert. It is heartening to see, with the healing passage of time, a greater understanding of Wikipedia's principles, and corresponding support for a flexible tool to help realise Wikipedia's goals. Geometry guy 22:51, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support - a reasonable extra tool to combat improper editing. An experience with semi-protection shows that the admins were cautious and gradual with the introduction of a new edit restriction. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support with two caveats: First, and obviously, this should be used sparingly. Second, policy should contain a provision to address a backlog overflow. Automatically approve the edits if they are more than twenty-one days old, perhaps? I see PC to be eminently more practical that the current tiers of protection, as it allows a decent barrier to vandalism and BF edits with less time investment from administrators and far less disruption to regular users, as editing for them will be much easier than under page protection currently. It will get out of hand if it is used too often, though, so standard expiration times should be established. CittàDolente (per me si va) 00:44, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support - I didn't see how it was ineffective earlier.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:06, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support It's not a panacea, but it will be a useful tool in many places. Zagalejo^^^ 04:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support per HJ Mitchell. —Bruce1eetalk 06:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support, useful tool. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Support, it can get some vandalised pages finally out of the full protection, and some even out of semi-protection, and it will help us protect other pages which are sensitive (especially BLPs). --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:29, 30 April 2012 (UTC) Moved up as a duplicate. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:12, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Useful tool, good policy-draft Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 09:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support as a useful option that will help improve the quality of the project. As Wikipedia matures, we have to be willing to consider new options to reflect the changing nature of the site. The PC option allows us to better protect the quality of what has become a widely used resource that many readers depend upon while still allowing for input from all. --Ckatzchatspy 10:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support - Ltr,ftw (talk) 10:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support - I've always felt that the good things about this far outweigh any disadvantages. Dougweller (talk) 11:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support - A good policy draft to work with, as I think the tool does have a place on the English Wikipedia. CT Cooper · talk 11:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support. I believe that it will reduce the amount of vandalism (vandals want their vandalism to be seen, after all) and its visibility, while allowing newcomers to edit positively on the same articles. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support. I wholeheartedly agree with HJ. Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:18, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support  Badgernet  ₪  14:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support Terminator92 (talk) 15:43, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support-While it does, obviously, need to be used sparingly, PC is an excellent tool and offers a less disruptive alternative to other forms of protection.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 16:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support - Essentially per Hj. A really valuable tool. Edinburgh Wanderer 18:41, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support - years of usage in German and Russian wikis demonstrate the lack of fatal flaws in the idea, as well as long term quality improvement potential. --illythr (talk) 20:08, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Absolutely. About time. 28bytes (talk) 20:15, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Absolutely Support Does the content of Wikipedia have "value"? Yes, else why are we spending time editing it and reverting vandals. If it has value, it is worth "safeguarding". This is an essential step towards the "safeguarding of Wiki-assets" created through the efforts of hundreds of thousands of editors. History2007 (talk) 21:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support (though hoping "liberally" wrt BLPs is not misunderstood - I take it to mean edits are more thoroughly vetted on BLPs under PC) Collect (talk) 21:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support. It's not an unreasonable bar to legitimate editing, and anything that stops/slows vandalism (and hence my need to revert it) is only a good thing, especially on those "magnet" articles that seem to just attract such vandalism. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 22:30, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support. This is probably the best idea I've ever heard, and keeping bad edits from reaching anyone other than the capable editors of Wikipedia is a common sense sort of thing. Lucasoutloud (talk) 23:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support--Phospheros (talk) 02:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support Yasht101 :) 02:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Strong support especially for BLPs, but also for other articles subject to attacks. We've discussed this ad nauseam - no one thinks it is the perfect solution, but the problem continues to mar the encyclopedia while we talk and talk. It worked well enough in the trial - we can fix problems as we go. Let's just do it already. Tvoz/talk 03:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  99. support i have seen too many semi obscure articles suffer from terrible POV / BLP issues. With the incredible number of very obscure articles that never see regular review by experienced editors, I cannot imagine how many awful items are out there on the top search engine result. this is a good first step to combat those problems. -- The Red Pen of Doom 04:53, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Strongest support I have been using this feature @ a testing wiki website, and found it very helpful. This is one of the best tools. Dipankan says.. ("Be bold and edit!") 10:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Without a doubt Pending changes works, it reduces vandalism and allows good edits through. It's also a visible entry for non-SPA editors to get into Wikipedia (getting reviewer right was one of the largest factors in getting me into wikipedia). It's a massive positive to the encyclopedia, and should be used. WormTT · (talk) 10:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support Well overdue, to my mind, and the policy seems to cover all the necessary caveats and other requirements in order for this to be used properly. Anaxial (talk) 11:34, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support Same as last time. Doc talk 12:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support. Not perfect, but better than the existing semi-protection, which stone-walls new IP editors. LouScheffer (talk) 14:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support Neutron (talk) 15:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support As one of the more active admins (off and on) at RfPP, I came across many occasions when pending changes would have been by far the best option, but after the decision to quit using it, I would more often than not simply use long term semiprotection instead. Pending changes is a useful addition to the none/semi/full system we have been using. AlexiusHoratius 16:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Support I echo AlexiusHoratius's view on the matter and think pending changes is an excellent addition to the existing methods of protection. Sure, there may be a few kinks that need to be worked out, but I don't see that there's any reason not to implement pending changes. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 20:48, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support I can definitely see how this can be a useful tool to combat vandalism before it hits the books. I looked over a lot of the opposing arguments and while many have merit I think the over all effect would be positive, especially on pseudoscience pages that are constantly bombarded by SPAs looking to promote their pet cancer "cure" or perpetual motion machine. In response to one particular argument, namely that this would fundamentally change WP, I would say that there's no problem with changing WP - fundamentally or otherwise - if the consequences are an overall positive, which I think this tool will be. SÆdontalk 21:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Support. demize (t · c) 21:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Support Makes sense. MBisanz talk 21:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  111. This option seems reasonable to me. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 22:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Support. Cla68 (talk) 00:49, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Support. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 01:37, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Support - As a very limited anti-vandalism tool only. Carrite (talk) 01:39, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Support while initially not too keen on this, after seeing its use with little-watched BLP articles, I see the necessity Skier Dude (talk) 02:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Support varying levels of protection. The German WP can take days to approve pending changes on lesser trafficked pages. - Gothicfilm (talk) 04:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Support - it works well when used properly, and if it doesn't work on a particular page it can be removed or replaced. -- zzuuzz (talk) 09:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Support Increasing the levels of protection will possibly even diminish the need for semi- and espacially fully-protected pages. JHSnl (talk) 13:27, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  119. This seems to be a good idea. Allowing PC protection on some articles should help reduce vandalism and the like while allowing users to still edit these pages, which can only be a good thing. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:37, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Support as long bar for becoming a reviewer is low and Reviewers should themselves be reviewed before their edits can be made visible.War (talk) 21:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Support I believe that, in particular, PC2 has a rare but important place in the protection toolbox for infrequently-edited biographies subject to sustained insertion of attacks. In many such cases, the confirmed vs. non-confirmed bar of SP and PC1 isn't helpful, but FP can be overkill. PC2 seems a superior alternative to FP in these cases. I don't believe that PC1/PC2 make a lot of sense on very frequently-edited articles, though, nor am I ready to support applying PC to most articles we wouldn't consider protection on today using some other mechanism. --joe deckertalk to me 22:13, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Support I am not quite understanding how introducing PC would invalidate the catchphrase "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" when SP and FP already exist. Such measures are as necessary to implement as blocking misbehaving users are. I was not around when PC underwent its trial, but I do not see how pending changes could be so backlogged if it is a tool used sparingly and the "reviewer" right isn't very difficult to obtain. I have come across plenty of articles in which there were as many anonymous IP users contributing constructively as there were contributing vandalism, so I believe PC would be a better option than SP because SP would deter those editors who were making constructive edits. Sure they could make a request on the talk page, but I would like to know what percent of requests are 1. requested in the proper format, 2. understandable, and 3. actually carried out. An anonymous IP user is much more likely to correct a typo on a PC page than going through the trouble of making a request on the talk page (and if the user doesn't know much about Wikipedia, chances are they do not know such a feature exists to begin with). As a newcomer, I believe it is important to expand Wikipedia's features in order to keep up with the growing community and increasing amount of information. Yes implementing more features/tools requires more knowledge, but Wikipedia is already very complex and personally I don't find the idea of PC to be very complicated. – Jonadin(talk) @ 23:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Support Themeparkgc  Talk  23:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Support. The original trial showed that the process improved Wikipedia. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:40, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Support Bentogoa (talk) 12:20, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Support No system is 100% perfect and problems and flaws can come at any point of time. The main thing is to discuss and correct those things as they come up. Pending Changes is very useful tool and will help build the project and encyclopedia more better. This (Pending Changes) tool is also used on many other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation and has proved useful. TheGeneralUser (talk) 13:00, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Support TBloemink talk 14:11, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Support - yes, yes, yes yes yes yes. Such a simple solution. The Cavalry (Message me) 16:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  129. Support I wasn't around during the trial period, but this makes perfect since. It would allow anons to edit while reducing the load on the anti-vandal team. Very good idea. --Nathan2055talk - review 17:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  130. Support Josh Parris 11:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  131. I've been following the PC debate somewhat, but this is the first time I comment about it. I see two problems: 1) it creates more work; 2) admins and reviewers can let edits pass while others disagree, instigating conflicts. I believe these issues can be compensated when PCP is... 1) ...used sparingly, only for high-risk articles; 2) ...not applied during content disputes; 3) ...used with at least one reviewer watchlisting the page, preventing PC backlogs on Wikipedia.
    I'm not completely sure, but still, I support. – theFace 19:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  132. Support' I think admins should have the power to approve or disapprove of all edits. There should be a comments box during editing to send messages to admins. Once your edit has been approved or disapproved you should recieve a notification of which admin a/d it. This will create more work and I think there should be a special type of admin especially for a/d articles. When you are notified of you edit being a/d, you should recieve a message from the admin. this feature should also have a way for you to defend your edit post a/d. More admins should be acquired and trained. Thepoodlechef (talk) 22:37, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  133. Support as a anti vandalism tool --Stefan talk 02:44, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  134. Support. MER-C 05:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  135. Support - as one of the users who questioned the prior RfC, I believe that pending changes already had a greater proportion of community approval when it was discontinued. I had personal experience with the tool on System of a Down, where constant genre "trolling" by IPs disrupts the article and leads to its inevitable indefinite semi-protection. Pending changes is a far less disruptive filter by which we can improve the quality of the encyclopedia without hindrance to the fundamental policy of Wikipedia being available for everyone to edit. It would be a disservice to not welcome this amazing anti-vandalism tool with open arms, as HJ Mitchell put it. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 08:04, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  136. Support as it can help to reduce the number of protected pages; the only negative effect is confusion when an editor finds a different version when starting to edit. −Woodstone (talk) 08:38, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  137. Support, especially as an anti-vandalism tool, but the #2 position statement describes my thoughts exactly :-) Mark Hurd (talk) 09:33, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  138. Support Peter (Southwood) (talk): 13:14, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  139. Support - Flawed (like almost everything) but helpful. Cresix (talk) 17:54, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  140. Support - Yes. Twozenhauer (talk) 20:42, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  141. Strong Support Puffin Let's talk! 16:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  142. Yes please. Stifle (talk) 17:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  143. Support Indubitably. Tyrol5 [Talk] 22:41, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  144. Support Agree. CanuckMy page89 (talk), 01:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  145. Support - It is a powerful tool that will serve a clear function. Limiting its use is always possible, but throwing it away would be foolish. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 04:05, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  146. Support - Absolutely! It's well past time - Alison ❤ 05:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  147. Support Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 08:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  148. Support – In de.wikipedia it is an indispensable tool for fighting vandalism. --Leyo 17:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  149. Support It works fine in de-wp and it appears to be very useful for BLP articles. --AFBorchert (talk) 17:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  150. --Thogo 18:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC) As long as there is so little vandal fighting on enwiki that even years-old vandalism keeps undetected, it is an absolutely necessary tool to keep pages clean of crap for the readers. Example: undetected for more than two weeks[reply]
  151. ☮Soap☮ 03:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  152. Support - I endorse this position. AGK [•] 16:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  153. Support, PC proved its usefulness. vvvt 16:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  154. Support, good start... expanding it to all articles as on dewiki would be a good thing (in the far? future) - Hoo man (talk) 17:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  155. Support as one of those who believes that the trial period was less-than-brilliantly managed yet who has since come to appreciate the value of this feature. Application should reflect that of semi-protection. SuperMarioMan 22:36, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  156. Support - I was never a reviewer when it was alive, but I have seen the pending changes trial go forward, and I thought it was a good idea at the time. In fact, I thought it was still alive until I picked up Wikipedia back in December. I have read the draft policy and agree with it. --Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 23:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  157. Support PC has shown effectiveness. John Carter (talk) 00:09, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  158. Support useful tool - Youreallycan 17:20, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  159. Support --John (talk) 18:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  160. Support Mark Arsten (talk) 20:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  161. Support PC has proven itself capable of significantly reducing the volume of problematic edits while still allowing anonymous editors to submit changes. --Allen3 talk 21:32, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  162. Support Useful tool with the right policy. William Avery (talk) 21:53, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  163. Support - Very useful, especially for BLPs and related articles. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:32, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  164. Support I am confused by the arguments against, stating that PC hinders an anonymous user's ability to make direct edits to the encyclopedia, when in fact it does exactly the opposite, when compared to protection/semi-protection. I like PC from both an anon and a reviewer's perspective. --SubSeven (talk) 00:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  165. Endorse the draft. I've witnessed the usability of pending changes. And, as asserted above by many users, we should welcome anything that helps us to keep away vandalism. — Bill william comptonTalk 03:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  166. Support I believe PC is a useful tool, which alongside our current processes of PP, reverting and blocking could help to both open articles for editing by anonymous users without damaging the reliability of our content, and limit the amount of effort regular editors need to exert to maintain reliability while making proposed changes (clearing out the ESp queue, etc). More tools are better, and this one has a great purpose.   — Jess· Δ♥ 05:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  167. Support - overdue. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:11, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  168. Support, especially considering BLPs: better to review than to rollback. --Mark91it's my world 21:27, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  169. Support - PC was a useful tool in certain specific circumstances when we had it, and I believe the community is competent enough to use it appropriately. There are potential issues with the impact of pending changes on new-user interactions, but as it is unlikely it will ever be applied to a very large number of articles, hopefully this can be mitigated. Shimgray | talk | 22:18, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  170. Support useful tool for discouraging vandalism, and concomitantly make editing more attractive to serious users tired and frustrated to see their work being constantly vandalised. Works well on other Wikipedias, and should be the way forward for improving encyclopaedic quality. --ELEKHHT 23:07, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  171. Support It's a useful tool, especially for BLP articles. -Jhortman (talk) 03:05, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  172. Support, a useful tool.--wdwd (talk) 09:21, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  173. Bmusician 10:00, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  174. An excellent tool. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:11, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  175. Support While I was not active in Wikipedia at the time of the Pending Changes trial i feel that it will be an excellent tool in combating vandalism while still allowing new and unregistered users to make good faith edits to protected pages.Andrew Kurish (talk) 15:31, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  176. Support. It worked. There were problems, but we need to close down editing a bit. When the visual editor comes out, we will need this. theMONO 16:02, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  177. Support I wasn't a user when this was in beta, and I'm still not autoconfirmed yet, but I've been around Wikia a lot, and this sounds like a good idea. I know I could put it to use on the wikis I'm admin on. --Brovie (talk) 18:49, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  178. Support Baseball Watcher 22:07, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  179. Support I think this sounds nice, but why not use it as a replacement for semi-protection? Zaminamina (talk) 11:51, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  180. 71.175.53.239 (talk) 22:42, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  181. Ironholds (talk) 03:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  182. Sceptre (talk) 15:12, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  183. Support PC, as proposed in this RfC, improves the project. It does not alter en.wikipedia as "the encyclodedia that anyone can edit". It simply says that "anyone can edit" does not mean "anyone can edit, in real-time, without regard to whether the edit is an improvement". Not every contribution is an edit. Some contributions are vandalism. Not every edit complies with our "rules of the road". Some violate policy unintentionally, others quite intentionally. PC simply recognizes that not every edit improves en.wikipedia. Some make it worse. This gives the community a better chance to minimize harm and maximize benefit. David in DC (talk) 19:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  184. Support Only major issue I ever saw with it was the dramatically reduced load time of certain pages. Complaints from others do not sway my opinion - the fact that it is "complex to manage" has NOTHING to do with how easy it is for new users to use. From their perspective they just make an edit. I make no assertion as to whether or not it is easy to manage - I thought it was, but I'm also a software engineer. Point is, it opens the project beyond what is currently possible. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 20:42, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  185. Support – This will only help Wikipedia's reputation for being reliable. This is definitely a good thing. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 20:45, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  186. Support - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:43, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  187. Support - The tool was efficient, and still would be, if used appropriately.  Hazard-SJ  ㋡  21:07, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  188. Support. It is important to deter vandalism, soapboxing and death-of-person hoaxes, in high-profile articles, especially for emotionally charged topics, where pre-screening by stable editors greatly reduces the trash-talk contents. -Wikid77 (talk) 08:13, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  189. Support - SudoGhost 10:24, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  190. it could be useful. Could we expand this to templates and the Userspace? --Guerillero | My Talk 18:59, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  191. Support - It is a useful tool. The draft actually doesn't go far enough, especially in the case of BLPs, but it is better than nothing. Rlendog (talk) 20:15, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  192. Support - Pending Changes is a useful tool to prevent bad edits of IP's (1) and most users (2). The draft is a good start, but level 2 + SP should be able to be used for strong vandalism instead of FP. James1011R (talk, contribs) 01:21, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  193. Support, much needed, negatives are far outweighed by the positive effect it has on our articles in the long run. Fram (talk) 10:13, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  194. Support - I was not active during the "never ending trial" so I have no first hand experience with the tool, but I have taken the time to read through others experiences with it. I have some issues with the draft policy, and feel other issues will arise over time. However, I feel the tool itself, when properly used, will enhance Wikipedia. Thus, it makes more sense to implement it now with the draft policy and work on improving the policy as we gain experience in its use. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  195. Support - Needed. Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 14:42, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  196. Suppport - I like. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:24, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  197. Support for a multitude of reasons.
    1. PC protection level 1 is just like semi-protection except that IP can still submit an edit that needs to be reviewed.
    2. PC protection level 2 is just like full protection with the exception that reviewers can also edit and everyone else can submit an edit to be reviewed.
    3. It can stop an edit warned still allow everyone to edit.
    4. Researchers can have more confidence in the fact that the article will only change if submitted edits are approved first.
    5. I have more reasons but the instructions told me to keep it short so, I will.
    —cyberpower ChatOnline 21:43, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Support with caveat — I think, overall, it's a good thing, however, those in Position 3 have exceptionally valid points that still need to be addressed, e.g., users Tryptofish and Wizardman. / Sctechlaw (talk) 22:34, 14 April 2012 (UTC) Changed my mind. — Sctechlaw (talk) 01:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  198. Support - I found this to be a very useful tool to combat multiple incidents of repetative vandalism to the same articles where anon editors were pushing PPOV edits or attempting to delete factual info they did not aggree with. Richard Harvey (talk) 10:53, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  199. Support Per Beeblebrox and Dcheagle. 1exec1 (talk) 12:48, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  200. Support As long as we treat it as a weaker form of protection, it may be a helpful addition to our arsenal. Crucially, it should affect only a small number of articles (unlike on pl wikipedia, where it is the default for all). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 04:38, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  201. Support per Piotrus. Qwfp (talk) 12:15, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  202. Support I am no longer a very active editor on Wikipedia because of IP vandalism frustration. --CutOffTies (talk) 13:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  203. Support This a useful tool. It shouldn't be abandoned. Naŋar (talk) 22:15, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  204. Support. Pending changes is not a panacea that would fix all the problems with Wikipedia, but on balance it's more of a positive than a negative. Robofish (talk) 23:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  205. Support Would definitely make it easier to fight vandalism. I understand that English Wikipedia users might be unhappy not to see changes made to the Russian, Polish or Turkish Wikipedias directly, but hiding occasional changes by frequent users of other projects is definitely preferable to having vandalism on pages. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  206. Support if only to counter the !voter who said that openness is more important than quality on Wikipedia. The staggering cost of that attitude has already taken its toll here, and it really needs to stop. -- Robster2001 (talk) 02:26, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  207. Support. We are well beyond the point of needing quantity over quality. The general viewing public has never criticized us for not having enough content; it's the quality of the existing content that is constantly under fire. If such a small (and temporary) limitation discourages an editor so much that he quits editing, then he probably wasn't cut out for this anyway. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 03:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  208. Support. Quality of quantity, see the previous comment. Pim Rijkee (talk) 05:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  209. Support per Beeblebrox far above me. --Wiki13 (talk) 11:16, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  210. Support. I am aware that this tool can end up creating inconveniences at times, as not all non-registered editors mean harm or create trouble. However, this tool can help in reducing potential vandalism to a great extent, and it will also avoid making certain articles look absolutely silly. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 13:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  211. Support but plain semi-protection should be removed IMO. The other options would cater to all the project's needs, IMO, and the progression of protection levels would be linear and more intuitive. --Waldir talk 14:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  212. Support as per HJ Mitchell/Jonadin & others. FM [ talk to me | show contributions ]  15:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  213. Support Something better may eventually be invented, but until then, this is the closest thing to being ready for implementation to address an ongoing problem. • Astynax talk 16:43, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  214. Support This tool and the proposed policy for its use make far too much sense to not be implemented. ‑Scottywong| yak _ 21:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  215. Support A potentially essential tool that could combat vandalism significantly, and also improve the quality of articles on the wiki where unconstructive edits are often ignored.--SUFC Boy 00:34, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  216. Support Would be a great tool to combat vandalism, while allowing good edits to go through, without sending them, for example through Huggle. Dan653 (talk) 01:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  217. Support a great counter-vandalism tool. If an article is semi-protected with pending changes, it won't tell new users to 'go away' or force them to register, just makes them wait a bit. Matthew Thompson talk to me bro! 11:02, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  218. Support as a viable alternative to semi-protection in many cases. --NYKevin @866, i.e. 19:47, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  219. Support - an appropriate solution to certain important problems. An inappropriate solution (or not a solution at all) to others. This just means that its use should be carefully regulated, not that the technical capacity for it should be withdrawn! TheGrappler (talk) 19:51, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  220. Support Another form of protection in the toolbox that allows users a way to contribute who would be unable to at other protection levels. Yep, the trial had problems. Don't conflate the two issues. Mojoworker (talk) 20:18, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems that many of the Option 1 !voters aren't reading the proposal and comments very carefully (or at all) – although, to be fair, that's probably true of the !votes in all sections. But, I'm seeing a fair amount of FUD among the supporters of Option 1. From conflating PC with Flagged Revisions, that PC amounts to censorship, disenfranchises editors, and contravenes the policy of being "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit". How is PC anything but less disenfranchising than semi or full protection? Some have expressed the conviction that PC will be used far more liberally than other forms of protection. What evidence can possibly support that view? Way to AGF in our admins. That issue can be handled with final guidelines on the application of PC. Same goes for the argument that the reviewer right was handed out promiscuously – so, delete all reviewer rights and have them reapply. It seems that, based on much of the rationale presented, many of the support !votes for option 1 really should be supporting Option 3. Mojoworker (talk) 22:51, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  221. Support This tool has proved extremely useful on German Wikipedia and its introduction here is long overdue. Even as a non-admin I can tell that admins are so busy going after vandalism and other unconstructive or problematic edits these days that they don't have time to actually improve Wikipedia anymore. Many less-watched articles (the vast majority of articles being in that group, after all) seem to become worse instead of better. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:15, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  222. Support No further comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HistoryRewriter (talk • contribs)
  223. Support In spite of the difficulties with the trial, having another tool in the box does far more good than harm. Sailsbystars (talk) 13:36, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  224. Hesitant Support I understand the necessity for this tool, I am not happy with that necessity, but I think the good outweighs the bad. I am concerned about the potential backlog, but if it becomes unmanageable I'm sure the topic can be re-addressed. Nightenbelle (talk) 16:57, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  225. Support. Sometimes it is simply necessarily to prevent editing to a page as vandalism or BLP issues reaches intolerable levels which cannot be dealt with trough blocks. This works, but at times there are also productive IP editors on a page who will be hit as well by this form of protection. Pending changes may not be perfect or entirely without flaws, but it should be seen as a tool that can complement or outperform the existing tools (blocks and protection) in some cases. When used with care it will definitely do more good then harm. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 20:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  226. Support  Ancient Brit 
  227. Support as per Florian (224) Bailo26 03:29, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  228. Support It worked, darn it! It's a lighter touch than semi-protection and it allows new editors to be greeted by and guided by experienced ones who are more likely to be neutral about the article in question. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 08:54, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  229. Support - Pending changes was useful, easy to understand, and reduced vandalism. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 16:26, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  230. Support We can discuss specific issues if/when they arise, so there's no need to throw out the entire proposal. Let's try it (again). Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 00:56, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  231. Support Semi-protection is overkill, but pending changes are a reasonable way to combat vandalism. This is because unregistered users can edit the page, but they cannot view the changes unless approved by the reviewer. This way, constructive edits made by unregistered users can go through, while obvious vandalism can be detected quickly. Wikipedia is so much better with pending changes. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 16:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  232. Support -> a significant reduction of vandalism. --MisterGugaruz (talk) 20:23, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  233. Support Of the three options given, this is the best. I would prefer having pending changes enabled on all articles and giving readers the choice of which versions to view (with the default being set in a similar way to this proposed policy), but this will have to do for now. --Tango (talk) 09:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  234. PC would be useful on articles that are in need of update or improvement. Peter E. James (talk) 22:58, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  235. Support I feel the system will work in countering vandals and false information, thus making Wikipedia better in the long run. Any changes to the system can be implemented based off consensus over time as we see it become more intergraded. DrNegative (talk) 04:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  236. Support; I think PC is a valuable tool. It's not always the best tool for the job; that's why we have semiprotection and so on. (And other tools such as blocks of IPs and ranges of IPs). However, I think we should have PC in our toolbox; implementing it would be a net positive. The fine details of process would presumably evolve as we go along, just as has happened with other tools. bobrayner (talk) 10:07, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  237. Support: I understand that PC level 1 may at some times make an autoconfirmed user wait for their edits to become live, however I don't think this will happen very often. In all other aspects it seems like a lower protection than semi, which will overall make it easier for users to edit some pages. I don't think this proposal is intended as a way for some users to tower over others with more permissions. –meiskam (talk•contrib) 09:55, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  238. Strong support. Flagged Revisions / Pending Changes is a very simple thing after all: another protection level. And this protection level is good and useful. The policy may have weaknesses, but the policy can be improved. Instead of trying too hard to predict the weaknesses, it's better to start using the tool widely and to improve the policy later. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 12:18, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  239. Support Gives us a useful option for discouraging vandalism, even if some of the details could be improved. CWC 15:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  240. Support Utility of Flagged Revisions / Pending Changes should be used as a tool rather than assuming weakness. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 19:02, 29 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  241. Endorse: It allows bad edits to be filtered out and also allows the good ones to make an edit. Everyone's happy. The Master of Mayhem (t c) 22:17, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  242. Support, many editors are IP editors & most IP editors are constructive (WP:IPs are human too) so Semi-Block bars lots of good users.--Николай95 (talk) 15:47, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  243. Support, better than nothing. Klausness (talk) 18:14, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  244. Support, has always seemed a good idea to me --xensyriaT 18:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  245. This is still another way of putting more power into the hands of those (administrators included) that manipulate WP rules to remove and control knowledgeable contributors and push their own twisted agenda. Bureaucracy is already a problem on WP - we do not need more of it! Much of WP is ruled by people getting together in groups and pushing new editors out. It's ugly and this rule would only enforce that!~ty (talk) 19:51, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  246. Support. Deli nk (talk) 20:47, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  247. Support, this is good idea. --Bff (talk) 21:39, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  248. Support. I like the idea of pending changes, and as long as it doesn't become the standard for all articles and pages, I think it will be a valuable tool once the creases are ironed out. Cloudbound (talk) 22:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  249. Support. It is a good tool to have at our disposal, and the policy can be refined. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:50, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  250. Stong Support Wikipedia is 'the encyclopedia that anyone can edit' but eith Semi-Protection this has been limited. Pending Changes in my opinion provides that Happy Medium between anyone editing and semi-protection as anyone can still edit (well, except blocked users); but the vandalism doesn't get out on the live version of the article. Jamietw (talk) 17:13, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  251. Support We need a tool that protects pages without completely locking a large number of potential editors out. AIRcorn (talk) 00:47, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  252. Support. If pending changes is applied sensibly, it will enable more newbie participation on popular articles than was previously possible. That is most definitely a good thing. Concern for PC's impact on Wikipedia's editing community should be dealt with by fine-tuning the policy and monitoring use of the tool; not by throwing it out entirely. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:29, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  253. Support Quality control should far outweigh any anonymous editor's desire to see immediate results of their edits. Such instant gratification is wholly unnecessary. Jim Miller See me | Touch me 17:59, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  254. Support. KLP (talk) 16:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  255. Support with caveats. Like some in the third section, I see that some clarity in the responsibilities of the reviewers is needful, and I suggest the draft policy (while it's still "draft") be modified to make clear such responsibilities; of course by the usual concensus process. That said, I think some review of new articles is a necessary evil, given the size and popularity of Wikipedia.Marikafragen (talk) 18:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  256. support this makes absolute sense especially when it comes to BLPs. -badmachine 19:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  257. --Mitch Franklin (talk) 04:56, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  258. Support. Pending Changes sounds like a great way to improve Wikipedia without sacrificing the freedom to edit. I think it will improve the credibility of Wikipedia. Reviewers will have to be careful about backlogs, however. A huge backlog would end up hurting an article, especially if it is semi-protected while reviewers catch up. —SuperRad! ☎ 13:10, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  259. Support for BLP articles. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 16:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  260. Support, because it seems the likely effect will be to make editing more accessible rather than less accessible, because the blunt tool of semi-protection will be used less often than is currently the case. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 03:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  261. Support It would make Wikipedia more difficult to vandalize, but still allowing freedom to edit. —HueSatLum 15:55, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  262. Support Especially for BLP problems, I feel that Pending Changes is a useful tool. ~ Matthewrbowker Talk to me 16:06, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  263. Support I wouldn't want to see knee-jerk over-application, but as an alternative to protection it's clearly better in most cases. Homunq (talk) 17:39, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  264. Support –sumone10154(talk • contribs)
  265. Support' This is the right direction. -- Taku (talk) 03:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  266. Support The up sides outweigh the down sides by far. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 18:40, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  267. Support. Fences&Windows 23:37, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  268. Support PC appears to solve vandalism while opening routes for new users to edit pages currently locked by PP. I am worried about the complexity and vagueness of the policy and hope it can be further refined after we've lived with it for awhile. However, not doing anything while we wait for perfection seems silly at this point. -- Ultracobalt (talk) 07:37, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  269. Seems a no-brainer to me - to have such a tool available and refuse to use it makes no sense to me. waggers (talk) 07:47, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  270. Full Support I'll be honest, I havent seen the effects of, nor used PC myself. But even a cursory overview of the wiki page show me the obvious choice, given bugs are worked out. PC is a brilliant idea, but we also need better protection against non-protected articles being vandalized. Libertarian=Truth? (talk) 01:30, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  271. Support Definitely a positive move, especially for sites continually targeted by hate speech in one direction or the other (e.g., religion, atheism, controversial historical figures, etc.).--Dsschmidt (talk) 13:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  272. Support --Koopashell (talk) 16:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  273. Support --debdebtig (talk)
  274. Support I was a reviewer and found that it was useful. In my experience, there was less vandalism even attempted since the editor knew there was very little chance of it gettign through. There were only a few edits that I had to reject, mostly for unsourced contentious material. Psu256 (talk) 19:02, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  275. Support While the current system of protection and semi-protection may be adequate, I think the continued drop-off of experienced editors will put a strain on that system. PC allows more policing by fewer people without giving them "super-editor" privileges or a greater voice in discussions. The proposed guideline is sensible. RJC TalkContribs 19:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  276. Support It's about time we had an alternative to full protection and an effective semi protection. Alan.ca (talk) 20:39, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  277. Support The pending changes trial worked well for its purpose of letting unregistered users edit pages that would otherwise be semiprotected and unavailable for their edits. —Ute in DC (talk) 20:52, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  278. Support I think this is needed. -- Donald Albury 21:31, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  279. Support Wikipedia should be the encyclopedia that anyone responsible can edit. We do waste too much time reverting vandalism, and the policy can always be adjusted as we learn its limitations from experience. And just in case: if the tool is to be limited only to certain type of articles, BLP and country articles should definitively be a priority, and may I suggest that FA and GA rated articles should also be protected to preserve the effort of the editors who went the extra mile to produce such quality articles.--Mariordo (talk) 03:56, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  280. Support Despite flaws, pending changes will reduce the vandalism viewable to end users and improve the overall quality of Wikipedia. --Trödel 11:19, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  281. Support A useful tool for dealing with vandalism.--agr (talk) 15:29, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  282. Support useful tool indeed. --Atlasowa (talk) 16:10, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  283. Support digit. --Jayron32 04:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  284. Support Sayan rc (talk) 20:01, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  285. Support --Ceradon talkcontribs 19:02, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  286. support This was useful during the test with no real problems noted Hmains (talk) 22:08, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  287. Support ArishiaNishi (talk) 16:33, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  288. Support This seems the best way to enable our mission to go forward while blunting some of the negative aspects of such an open system. Fully support. Freedomstan (talk) 19:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  289. Support Others have said everything I need to say. Egg Centric 20:42, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  290. Support The new pending changes policy would be far more beneficial than problematic. Vandalism and lack of accountability is definitely among WP's worst issues. Voyaging (talk) 19:41, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  291. Support Although they will never be truly finished, the vast majority of (at least heavily trafficked) articles have matured to the point where it simply isn't necessary for them to exist in a state that "anyone can (immediately) edit" (and this proposal isn't stopping anyone from having input). In fact, if done right, I'm hoping that this mechanism will be better than semi-protection (found on so many popular articles) which effectively is a complete lockout for IP and newbie editors. I'm aware that the Pending facility will be open to abuse by those who crave power, however I'm hoping that the slow consensus-building process will be enough to rescue those cases; but of primary importance in my support is the ability to prevent (the often high levels of) vandalism from reaching readers who are expecting a continually high-standard of product from a more mature WP. The ability to have reliable check points for downstream processes (books, dumps, etc.) will also be nice. GFHandel ♬  05:27, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  292. Support As someone who has sorted through a large number of ill-formed Semi-protected edit requests, I would love to have this option. Seeing a diff view of a change is much easier trying to decipher "The third part in the under the early history section is clearly incorrect and should be fixed. Please replace it with ________." Besides, it would be nice to have a third option for those articles that aren't quite bad enough for semi-protection, but still get a lot of vandalism. ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:16, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  293. Support Have been registered years and edited very little. It's very easy to register, and reliability is the most important requirement for WP. If a user cares enough to edit and enough to want their edit immediately visible, registration is not a huge burden. LynnD71 (talk) 22:25, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  294. Support Makes senses. --MisterGugaruz (talk) 07:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  295. Endorse. With Wikipedia's current volume of content and overall popular use, I feel it has reached a point where it is necessary to minimize vandalism. This tool is necessary. PolicarpioM (talk) 08:12, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  296. Support Despite a lack of statistics on vandalism, I still support this as anecdotal evidence from user(s) cites a need for it,. I don't see it as a violation of any Wikipedia principals as quality control is certainly important, and vandalism needs some way of being checked. This system is rather soft, and that's good. If it wasn't a simple matter of being auto confirmed in order to edit without pending changes, then I don't know I would agree, but as it stands this seems like a great idea!Supaiku (talk) 09:20, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  297. Support I see no difference between PC and semi-protection and full-protection, except that PC is less restrictive. Druid816 (talk) 18:03, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  298. Endorse - Pending changes only helps. --'J (t) 23:55, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  299. Support as it has shown in DE:WP that the benefits outweigh the negative effects at length. --Matthiasb (talk) 10:48, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  300. Support useful tool. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  301. Support Let us go ahead. Chandan Guha 21 May 2012 Chandan Guha (talk)
  302. Support looks alright. CorrectKnowledge (talk) 12:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  303. This sounds close to my position on the issue. It would be a problem if we used PC too much, but if we only used it on articles that would otherwise be semi-protected, it would allow more users to edit without creating too much extra work. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 19:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  304. Endorse since no one can tell if his or her article will be subject to disruption of good-faith editing, and PC acts as a useful tool in reducing the seriousness of the issue when some inappropriate edits really occur. Sachreeko (talk) 02:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  305. Support A valuable, and long overdue, move to improve Wikipedia's reputation as a quality encyclopedia. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 15:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  306. Support Pending changes protection is a very good alternative to regular page protection as nobody is prevented from constructive, encyclopedic editing. --Iste (D) 16:53, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  307. Support for BLP's and controversial pages. Targaryenspeak or forever remain silent 22:52, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  308. Support because the basic principle seems sound on organizational economic and mechanism design grounds, which are the basis of my moral stances, towards Wikipedia as well. I do worry about the extra complication caused by the system, to the editors in charge, because they might disincentivize people from joining the project and even the extant editors from doing what they do best. But still, in its current incarnation, I'd judge the basic idea behind the tool is right, and could also be rapidly developed further come feedback from widespread adoption. Especially since it takes much of the base incentive out of edit wars within contentious articles. Decoy (talk) 23:21, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Pending_changes/Request_for_Comment_2012/Option_2&oldid=1223234147"