View source for Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2012/Option 1

====Position #1====
<div id="talk" class="plainlinks" style="border: 1px solid #CC9; margin: 1em 1em 1em 1em; text-align: left; padding:1em; clear: both; background-color: #F1F1DE">
The negative aspects of pending changes outweigh the positive. Therefore the tool should not be used at all on the English Wikipedia.</div>

[{{fullurl:Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2012/Option 1|action=edit&section=T-1}} '''Click here to edit this section''']

;Users who endorse this position
#While I do understand the benefits of PC and why people support it, I still believe that any PC/FR-style protection is against the fundamental principles of the project, in that there should no difference between editors (except such differences that are unavoidable) and that everyone should be able to edit equally (while semi-protection for example blocks IPs, those users can easily get the status that allows them to edit regardless - PC on the other hand would restrict editing in those cases to a small group of users). I also think that the PC trial showed that this is a kind of "power" that a number of admins do not grasp correctly and I fear that PC will lead to further problems with incorrect usage and problems with anon / new users being scared away by overzealous "reviewers" who use their new-found "powers" to reject valid edits they don't agree with. Imho the problems of any tool that allows one group of users to decide which edits of other users are valid without discussion by far outweigh the benefits. Regards '''[[User:SoWhy|<span style="color: #7A2F2F; font-variant:small-caps">So</span>]][[User talk:SoWhy|<span style="color: #474F84; font-variant:small-caps">Why</span>]]''' 19:06, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
#That's pretty much it. I get the idea and all, but it just didn't work out. <span style="color:#FFB911">'''[[User:Rcsprinter123|<span style="font-family:cambria; font-size:10pt; color:gray">Rcsprinter</span>]]''' [[User talk:Rcsprinter123|<span style="font-family:calibri; font-size:8pt; color:black">(orate)</span>]]</span> 20:27, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
#Will be glad to see the back of it. [[User:HairyWombat|HairyWombat]] 20:34, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
#Use of pending changes over a significant fraction of our articles would contradict fundamental principles and create huge mountains of work. I was supportive of the alternative idea of using pending changes as a form of protection, but I don't think the benefits outweighed the drawbacks. Protected pages are by definition subject to abuse, most suggested edits to pages under PC were not constructive, and the edits which were useful did not justify the expense of editor effort to weed out the problematic edits. At the same time there is certainly the potential for abuse in the manner described by SoWhy. I don't think use of the tool can be justified except possibly in a handful of special cases. '''''[[User:Hut 8.5|<span style="color:#FF0000;">Hut 8.5</span>]]''''' 20:43, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
#Pending changes is strictly worse than any other antivandal/accuracy measure we've got, since it can very easily be gamed by vandals, is overly reliant on an ever-shrinking user pool (last time I pegged the rate of reviewers to potential PC candidates at 1:65), and does active harm to Wikipedia and its reputation if understaffed/ignored. There is no way in creation that this would serve any purpose for Wikipedia, other than depressing already-anemic membership numbers even further. No new blood means nobody to write the encyclopedia. —<span style="color:#228B22">[[User:Jéské Couriano|''Jeremy'']] [[User talk:Jéské Couriano|v^_^v]]</span> <sup><small>[[Special:Contributions/Jéské Couriano|Bori!]]</small></sup> 21:19, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
#I understand the good intentions, but I wonder if I would have been as likely to join WP if I had to start out as a third-class-citizen. Our radical openness and the immediacy of an edit is an essential part of the Wikipedia experience.  If we applied PC only to pages currently protected, perhaps it would help openness-- but I think we can reasonably anticipate that PC will be used more liberally, e.g. every BLP.   We're a wiki-- no one expects us to be perfect.  It's okay if a 'bad' revision is public for a bit-- that's an opportunity the readers to learn just how democratic WP is.   In some ways, "reviewing" could make things worse-- implying that an article has been 'screened for quality' in some way, when in fact, it's only screened for obvious vandalism.  In the balance between "Openness" and "Quality", we are too far towards quality.  "Quality Mania" has to stop before we drive all new users away. [[User:HectorMoffet|HectorMoffet]] ([[User talk:HectorMoffet|talk]]) 02:04, 24 March 2012 (UTC)    
#I dislike Pending Changes (and any derivative of flagged revisions) primarily due to the "third-class citizen" idea that it brings about, which has been brought up by others above. I also think that Pending Changes is largely only seen as good from the "vandal fighting" perspective, but there is more to Wikipedia than attempting to control the behavior of others and the content of articles which are in an editors personal interest area. It looks like a foregone conclusion that this RFC will show Pending Changes as being supported, but I believe that it's use is antithetical to the core principles of editing Wikipedia.<br/>—&nbsp;[[User:Ohms law|<span style="font-family: Courier New, monospace ;font-style:italic">V = IR</span>]] <span style="font-variant:small-caps">([[User talk:Ohms law|Talk]]&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;[[Special:Contributions/Ohms law|Contribs]])</span> 05:54, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
#I find the system unnecessarily complicated to use and administer. Wikipedia is already complex enough, especially for newbie editors. The aims of the draft policy below, to protect pages that need it from disruption, can just as well be achieved by applying the standard full or semiprotection tool. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<span style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">'''&nbsp;Sandstein&nbsp;'''</span>]]</span></small> 08:06, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
#Pending Changes would, I believe, make Wikipedia more authoritarian and less democratic. The fact is this is a free and open encyclopaedia that anyone - even the most malevolent and ignorant people on the Internet - can and may edit, and edit it without censorship. --[[Special:Contributions/Mátyás|''... there's more'']] [[User:Mátyás|''than what can be'']] [[User talk:Mátyás|''linked.'']] 10:45, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
#Right problem, wrong solution. Incomprehensible technical wizardry, confuses everyone as to whether they are in fact editing the article, and even as to what "the article" in fact means at a given time. I don't so much share the concerns about preserving "core principles" of openness and democracy - which are double-edged swords - but just want things simple and upfront. If an article is closed to public editing, then tell people so, tell them why, and tell them how they can still get changes made. [[User:Victor Yus|Victor Yus]] ([[User talk:Victor Yus|talk]]) 11:39, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
#As a purist, I think Wikipedia should remain instantly updateable, without allowing privileged users to "approve" content. As a radical, I think we should just remove all currently unsourced content and revert any new additions of unsourced content, to prevent any sort of "sneaky vandalism" or other unhelpful edits whatsoever. That would be a ore useful solution than pending changes, I think. Really, I think we should have a Wikipedia where anyone can write crap, and a second Wikipedia, which can claim to be reliable. Of course, Citizendium tried that and essentially failed. But I digress. Pending changes compromises my ideal of openness, and is inadequate in stopping vandalism or undesirable edits. <span style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;">'''/[[User:Fetchcomms|<span style="color:#000;">ƒETCH</span>]][[User talk:Fetchcomms|<span style="color:#000;">COMMS</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Fetchcomms|<span style="color:#000;">/</span>]]'''</span> 17:04, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
#This tool is fundamentally in violation of the idea of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia that anyone can edit.  I am not convinced that our coverage is so great or our problems so immense that we need to change this foundational policy and make it more difficult for new users to edit. [[User:ElKevbo|ElKevbo]] ([[User talk:ElKevbo|talk]]) 23:18, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
#Absolutely not. I quietly watched the first trial from afar and saw no saving virtues in it whatsoever. Moreover, we'll no longer be able to call ourselves the "encyclopedia that anyone can edit". Lock Pending changes up and throw away the key. [[User:Evanh2008|Evanh2008]] ([[User talk:Evanh2008|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Evanh2008|contribs]]) 23:49, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
#Pending changes has a cumbersome interface, is confusing to use and unnecessarily complex to administer, has the potential to drive away clueful editors, and fails utterly to address the most serious content problems we are facing. More troubling, we are again putting the cart before the horse by considering resurrecting PC in the absence of any credible evidence that it is needed. Effective tools to combat persistent vandalism, BLP violations, and other unconstructive edits already exist, and they work well; other options have been identified but not actively considered. Unless it can be demonstrated that there is a serious, intractable problem that pending changes is uniquely capable of solving, let's not go down this road again. [[User:Rivertorch|Rivertorch]] ([[User talk:Rivertorch|talk]]) 07:26, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
# Pending changes will make Wikipedia controlled by only some individuals in certain pages, which is entirely different from the main principle of the free encyclopedia. I am also in favor of comment number 1, 4, 5, 8 and 11. --[[User:G(x)|G(x)]] ([[User talk:G(x)|talk]]) 10:41, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
#--[[User:Michig|Michig]] ([[User talk:Michig|talk]]) 11:26, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
# [[User:Frood|Frood!]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Frood|Ohai]]</sup> <sub> [[Special:Contributions/Frood|What did I break now?]]</sub></small> 16:30, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
# [[User:Logan|Logan]] <sub>[[User_talk:Logan|Talk]]</sub> <sup>[[Special:Contributions/Logan|Contributions]]</sup> 16:34, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
#[[User:Bzweebl|Bzweebl]] ([[User talk:Bzweebl|talk]]) 17:00, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
# I think pending changes unnecessarily complicates Wikipedia even more for new users. I think that page protection and edit requests can accomplish the same task without adding unnecessary work for reviewers. <span style="font-family: Georgia">– [[User:GorillaWarfare|GorillaWarfare]] <small>[[User talk:GorillaWarfare|(talk)]]</small></span> 19:34, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
# Per SoWhy. -[[User talk:Branabus|Branabus]] 19:41, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
# Just complicates matters. As things stand it's easy enough to throw an edit request at someone when a page actually needs it, at least enough that a lot of people do figure out how, and they'd still have to do that even with PC in use, so what's the point? Thing doesn't even work on high-traffic pages, which seem like they'd need it the most; such pages would still have to be at least semi-protected. And as for other pages which might have use for it, well, present countervandalism measures aren't that ineffective, are they? Meantime it just makes everything that much more confusing. ''' — [[User:Isarra|Isarra]] <small>([[User talk:Isarra|talk]])</small>''' 20:34, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
# [[User:Jane023|Jane]] ([[User talk:Jane023|talk]]) 20:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
<!-- PLEASE ADD A HASH SIGN (#) BEFORE YOUR ENDORSEMENT. USE THE DISCUSSION SECTION TO REPLY TO COMMENTS IN OTHER USERS' ENDORSEMENTS. PLEASE DO NOT ADD ALTERNATE PROPOSALS -->
# Particularly as per HectorMoffet and GorillaWarfare. [[User:AllyD|AllyD]] ([[User talk:AllyD|talk]]) 21:05, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
# No, no and no. This has been resurrected and buried a couple of times now. Why will nobody let this corpse rest in its grave? The only thing to come of this is arguments, more arguments, and [[WP:DRAMA|Wikidrama]]. It's dead, for god's sake leave it that way. <span style="border: 1px solid red;">[[User_talk:BarkingFish|<span style="background:white;" color="purple">&nbsp;'''BarkingFish'''&nbsp;</span>]]</span> 21:22, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
# Although as a community we have dealt with vandalism and content disputes in the past, if there are serious flaws with an editors who are interested in an article who watch it can always revert it and begin a discussion if necessary. One of the virtues and responsibilities of Wikipedia is that ANYONE can edit an article (and we are to have good faith that for the most part that anyone will be editing in a positive manor that keeps with the [[WP:5P|pillars]] that guide our community), and with such freedom others can also alter those edits if they are deemed to not be keeping with guidelines and policies that have consensus by our community. Granted this means that involved knowledgeable editors need to patrol for vandalism or content they believe do not meet [[WP:V]] or [[WP:NPOV]] or something else (like [[WP:BLP]]), but that is the responsibility that keeps with the freedom of openness that makes Wikipedia so accessible.  --[[User:RightCowLeftCoast|RightCowLeftCoast]] ([[User talk:RightCowLeftCoast|talk]]) 00:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
# My views are summed up by many of the previous posters here. [[User:Dalliance|Dalliance]] ([[User talk:Dalliance|talk]]) 12:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
# Unnecessary complexity creep. [[User:TotientDragooned|TotientDragooned]] ([[User talk:TotientDragooned|talk]]) 14:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
# '''Oppose'''. I am concerned that this proposal will result in a more hierarchical system with more power to administrators and reviewers. The draft policy requires reviewer status to have similar requirements to rollback, but as others have noted the exact requirements to get the permission and what exactly reviewers should accept or not are not clear, which is unacceptable. PC protection is different from the existing semi-protect because AFAIK confirmed is an automatically granted permission; not one that requires beseeching one of our administrative overlords to allow you into the cool kids club, yet another potential dealbreaker for a possible new editor. [[User:OSborn|OSborn]]<sup> [[User_talk:OSborn|arf]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/OSborn|contribs.]]</sub> 15:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
# PC level 1 proved to be a spectactular failure: added complexity, reduced performance, conflicting views as to what editors should look for, and generally less usable than our current system. PC level 2, while underused previously, appeared to have actual merit and value. I would support a move to add PC 2 to our toolset, but oppose PC 1.&mdash;[[User:Kww|Kww]]([[User talk:Kww|talk]]) 19:27, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
# It simply didn't work properly. [[User:Reyk|<span style="color:Maroon;">'''Reyk'''</span>]] <sub>[[User talk:Reyk|'''<span style="color:Blue;">YO!</span>''']]</sub> 20:36, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
# There are over 3000 pages under [[:Category:Wikipedia semi-protected pages]]; of which I can only assume a good portion will eventually achieve "pending changes" status instead. This is not to mention [[:Category:Biography articles of living people]] which contains over '''500,000''' pages, of which it is safe to assume at least a small portion will achieve "pending changes" status as well. Let's assume that only 1% of BLPs eventually get saddled with pending changes: That's 8,000 articles. Who is going to review all of these? And more importantly, ''what projects will suffer from losing editors to pending changes''. I suspect [[Special:Newpages]] and [[Special:Recentchanges]] will lose some people, and those projects are incredibly backlogged already. There just aren't enough man-hours to go around, and not enough benefit to the Wiki. This is only one of my reasons for not supporting Pending Changes, but I feel a long-winded tirade would be unwelcome here. Great idea, but then again so is communism: It only works on paper. -<b>[[User:Runningonbrains|<span style="color:#000">Running</span><span style="color:blue;">On</span><span style="color:green;">Brains</span>]]<sup>([[User talk:Runningonbrains|talk]])</sup></b> 21:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
# Pending changes are confusing and ineffective, considering the sheer number of daily changes made to most popular articles. --[[User:DmitryKo|Dmitry]] <sub>([[User talk:DmitryKo|talk]]•[[Special:Contributions/DmitryKo|contibs]])</sub> 22:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
# Feeling that this RfC is [[WP:FORUMSHOP|forum shopping]] until the desired outcome is achieved. [[User:OhanaUnited|<b><span style="color:#0000FF;">OhanaUnited</span></b>]][[User talk:OhanaUnited|<b><span style="color:green"><sup>Talk page</sup></span></b>]] 01:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
# Never supported it. Never will. — [[User:Explicit|<span style="color:#FF4500">'''ξ'''</span>]][[User talk:Explicit|<span style="color:#000000"><sup>xplicit</sup></span>]] 06:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
# --[[User:M4gnum0n|M4gnum0n]] ([[User talk:M4gnum0n|talk]]) 14:13, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
#PC should only be used as an alternative to protection and semi protection on the ~3000 pages that currently use it. It should not be used on more than a small percent of all pages as PC can only combat blatant vandalism -- at the price of a more authoritarian and bureaucratic system, an unknown number of lost edits and editors, and encouragement of more subtle vandalism. This is what we should fear. In my ~8 years as a WP reader, I've only stumbled upon vandalism or broken pages (e.g broken infobox syntax) by causal browsing a few times in a few hundred of thousands page views; of course, this is thanks to all the time-consuming vandalfighting done by our community. Sure, this quick fix will reduce the workload of antivandal fighters, but it will increase the workload of reviewers. PC will not make WP less prone to errors, OR or SYNTH; ''at best'', it is a dangerous system that will save us some time, but this should be shown by the proponents of this idea. [[User:Jonkerz|jonkerz]] [[User talk:Jonkerz|♠talk]] 16:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
#In my opinion the PC is partial implementation of [[WP:PP]]. Given that it comes with an overhead and disputable benefits, I would propose to stick with the consistent and stable [[WP:PP]]. — [[User:Czarkoff|Dmitrij D. Czarkoff]] ([[User talk:Czarkoff|talk]]) 18:09, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
# Two reasons; one we don't have the manpower to create this huge backlog and time sink.  Two, despite being active in page protection for two years, I've never seen a single situation where I thought PC would be a better solution than just semi'ing the page. While not a perfect system, it serves without asking editors to devote dozens of man-hours a day keeping it straight.  Witness the Russian Wikipedia, where backlogs containing several hundred unreviewed edits on a single page are not uncommon, to see where an undermanned PC system could have us end up. [[User:Courcelles|Courcelles]] 21:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
# The trial was a failure in my opinion. Actually, if we had not discontinued the trial's system of mass unprotecting pages to implement PC, then it would have been a ''complete'' failure. Not only did it create more unnecessary work for users, a number of times that I've seen where people who have requested or suggested PC over semi-protection on an article/articles have done put in little to absolutely no effort in alleviating the workload on the requested/suggested articles. Considering that I work mainly with vandalism and anti-abuse, I don't see how PC will realistically help deal with the vandalism, the trial very clearly showed us this. I also agree with Courcelles's second statement, semi-protection is just plain better. <span style="font-family:Calibri;font-size:14px"><b>[[User:Elockid|<span style="color:#4682B4;">Elockid</span>]]</b></span>   <sup>([[User talk:Elockid|<span style="color:#99BADD;">Talk</span>]])</sup> 02:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
# In my opinion the experiment failed to show any benefit with Pending Changes. [[User:Edgepedia|Edgepedia]] ([[User talk:Edgepedia|talk]]) 06:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
# I had an experience with PC in Arabic Wikipedia and it scared me off for months. Another new editor who I invited made one big referenced edit, but left WP when it was refused. The bad thing about PC is that you either accept all changes or reject all. Unlike what many think here, I believe that just like with the Arabic WP, many articles will have multiple PCs forming a long backlog. I think this should only be used when semi-protection isn't effective enough. <b>[[User:Bahraini Activist|<span style="font-family:Segoe Script;color:#ff0000">Mohamed CJ</span>]]</b> [[User talk:Bahraini Activist |<sup><span style="font-family:Script MT Bold;color:#07517C">(talk)</span></sup>]] 16:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
# I would still say that semi-protection performs all the tasks of PC without adding a new reviewer user-right. If someone wants to edit a page, they can ask on the talk page for semi-protection. PC will add more complication, time, energy, and effort than exists now. [[User:Angryapathy|Angryapathy]] ([[User talk:Angryapathy|talk]]) 17:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
# Not needed. [[User talk:INeverCry|<font face="AR Cena" color="black"><b>INeverCry</b></font>]]  01:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
# Even though I am a respected user on en.wiki - I am an admin, an arbitrator, and I have FA and GA experience, when I edit on some other wikis, such as the German wiki, I have to have my edits approved as I have not edited there enough to be a confirmed user, and sometimes I have had fairly minor edits queried or refused. That has discouraged me from using wikis with PC. I would prefer registered editing - provide my email and personal details as I did when becoming an arbitrator, and then be allowed to get on with editing. A one time, simple registration rather than making a series of edits and then waiting several days. '''[[User:SilkTork|<span style="color:#8D38C9">SilkTork</span>]]''' '''[[User talk:SilkTork|<span style="color:#347C2C"><sup>✔Tea time</sup></span>]]''' 10:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
# I endorse Postion #1 for many reasons which are covered within the broad language of, "The negative aspects of pending changes outweigh the positive. Therefore the tool should not be used at all on the English Wikipedia."  [[User:Refrigerator Heaven|Refrigerator Heaven]] ([[User talk:Refrigerator Heaven|talk]]) 11:54, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
# Too clunky - in PC, editor makes edit which is left hanging until reviewed. The often-obscure change leaves a reviewer scratching their head as the editor who made the edit has long gone. Semiprotection means the requester has to explain the rationale for a proposed edit first. I find semiprotection a more useful tool in the situation. [[User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 12:40, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
#'''Endorse:''' Semi-protection and blocking individual editors is sufficient enough when dealing with vandalism. When necessary, an edit request can be made to the talk page for good faith editing IP addresses and non-autoconfirmed editors. Regards, [[User talk:Whenaxis|Whenaxis]] <small>([[Special:Contribs/Whenaxis|contribs]])</small> <sup>[[WP:DRP|DR goes to Wikimania!]]</sup> 01:17, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
#'''Endorse''' position 1. Although I like the idea and possibilities of this tool, it would create an enormous workload on administrators. I am not taking this position as a lazy admin, anyone who knows how I started along the admin path in the Cats for Deletion, knows I enjoy the work. Unfortunately, there is always a backlog of work somewhere. When I took over CfD, one admin was doing all the work, and he was wore out, I wasn't even an admin, but somebody had to do it. At first there will be a well groomed group of admins and a committee to ensure there is no backlog, but we have that now on several other admin boards, and there is always a backlog. At that point there is no difference from full protection requiring an admin to make a change and the new provisions, eventually an admin will have to not only make the change but research and verify it as well. After a time, there will be fewer admins actively working on the project and possibly even days where there is no admin monitoring it. I feel this will only negatively impact the constant updates by all users to improve on the Wikipedia project. [[Special:Contributions/Who|&laquo;&raquo;]][[User:Who|Who]][[User talk:Who|?&iquest;?]] 02:51, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
#In ru_wiki it's been imposed and caused nothing but trouble and dismay. Huge number of articles hang 'pending' there (and will be forever) for numerous reasons, including those mentioned above. 'Reviewing' business is tricky more often than not, while the 'protection' effect of PC is nil. --[[User:Evermore2|Evermore2]] ([[User talk:Evermore2|talk]]) 08:51, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
#Doesn't scale, and there's no way to fix it so it does.  Given anything like our current ratio between casual, occasional editors and regular contributors who could be recruited as reviewers (a ratio that is getting steadily higher), there's no way to institute a review-based system. [[User:Chick Bowen|Chick Bowen]] 19:05, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
#'''Endorse''' Position 1. I feel that at the moment, the negative outweighs the positive. Until something drastic changes, I think this is a dead end. [[User:Tarlneustaedter|Tarl.Neustaedter]] ([[User talk:Tarlneustaedter|talk]]) 23:10, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
#Per SoWhy. '''[[User:Spencer|<span style="color:#082567">Spencer</span>]]'''<sup>[[User talk:Spencer|<span style="color:#FFBF00">T♦</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Spencer|<span style="color:#FFBF00">C</span>]]</sup> 19:08, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
#This is a bright idea that has too many ramifications. The one that may have been overlooked is that with "permanent" implementation, '''many''' articles would then be semi-protected by the admins for a long period. Is this good? Right now, the admins figure, "Hey, this article requested for semi-protect is not getting much more vandalism than any other. Each article has to "take it's share of vandalism. Stop it one place, it squirts out another." This procedure would be great, but '''undoing''' the procedure is a cultural problem. Also, new users want to see '''instant''' change when they first edit. A lot of them edit '''out''' their own vandalism immediately! Just wanted to "prove it" to themselves. Can't do that with a delayed system. And yes, we have to put up with a lot of awful edits in the meantime. It is not a perfect system but it may attract more new editors. [[User:Student7|Student7]] ([[User talk:Student7|talk]]) 18:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
# ENDORSE position 1. {{unsigned|Ms33}}
#Per SoWhy and Ohms law. Also I am opposed to the amount of user rights currently in existence, and adding another will make it worse. I thought "anyone could edit Wikpedia" but apparently I was wrong. Why would anyone think that new Wikipedia users know less about a subject than experienced users? And this feature really won't help new users. Under the current system they have to create an account and wait three days to be able to edit a few semi-protected pages, but under this system they will have to wait several months before they can edit without their changes being scrutinized by a user who really doesn't know anything about the subject and is biased towards new users anyway. The view that this will help IPs and new users is very short sighted.<span style="font-variant:small-caps;border:1px solid;border-color:#850000;background:#000080;">&nbsp;'''[[User:Liam987|<span style="color:#850000;text-shadow:0 2px 8px #ffffff;">Liam987</span>]]'''</span> 07:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
#[[User:CharlieEchoTango|<span style="color:#0645AD;">CharlieEchoTango</span>]]&nbsp;([[User talk:CharlieEchoTango#top|<span style="color:#0645AD;">contact</span>]]) 08:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
#That pages are directly editable by anyone is the basis for this project. To require review before edits are "live" would be to eliminate this. The openness of Wikipedia is an advantage. I think people need to slow down and consider exactly what vandalism is, and what effect PC would have on it. Are we worried that vandalism makes Wikipedia "look bad"? Are we worried that it wastes editors' time? Are we worried that it's resulting it readers obtaining less or inaccurate information? This proposal suggests that IPs and new users actually have a different version of the article displayed to them. How could this be an advantage? Our readers know what Wikipedia is, and they're reading it because of what it is. They know that the page they're viewing has been edited by hundreds of completely anonymous individuals, and that anything could have been added by anyone, and they're reading Wikipedia because of this, not in spite of it. We have no reason to pretend to be something that we're not. --[[User:Yair rand|Yair rand]] ([[User talk:Yair rand|talk]]) 17:35, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
#The very idea of PC is antithetical to the idea of an open encyclopedia that ''anyone'' can edit. It is fundamentally incompatible with the project's principles. It does. It does not serve the readers, only a small group of editors. It also has an incompatibility with the spirit, if not the legality of previous contributions, which were submitted in good faith in a framework that did not include these conditions. It must not return. [[User:Oknazevad|oknazevad]] ([[User talk:Oknazevad|talk]]) 19:57, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
#During the trial, I found pending changes to be clunky, unintuitive, confusing, and frequently misapplied. Although I believe that it is a potentially useful tool as long as it is used ''very'' sparingly, I highly doubt that it would be used properly, and I think the risk of making anons and new users feel marginalized (among other concerns) far outweighs the potential benefits. --[[User:Bongwarrior|Bongwarrior]] ([[User talk:Bongwarrior|talk]]) 14:17, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
#Pending Changes is a proposal uniquely marked by deception; its goals are '''not''' to stop vandalism but to '''censor articles'''.  It started with a trial that the community voted clear consensus to stop three times, but which still limped on regardless of all consensus and deadline.  Even after it was stopped, an administrator kept using it on some favorite biographies of his, at level 2 with no editing by anyone outside the reviewer pool allowed, while making it clear (having previously removed my reviewer right) that people who simply ''disagree'' that BLP policy should be so expansive on a discussion page are subject to revocation.  When actually saying yes or no, the duties of reviewers have never been specified, and it has never been answered whether reviewers are liable for libel if they approve such an edit.  While it is being marketed as a "less than lethal weapon", like tasers were when they were introduced, we should all know that this is anything but the truth - articles that would not have been semi-protected, like "all BLPs", will be hit with level 1 pending changes, and articles that would ''never'' have gotten full-protection will routinely be subjected to level 2 pending changes.  This is admitted every time proponents say that it will "cut down on BLP violations", because if it were replaced only in the manner claimed, it would only allow ''more'' BLP violations by allowing more people to edit.  Stake and decapitate, salt and burn! [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] ([[User talk:Wnt|talk]]) 16:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
#I endorse this position. At the end of the day PC doesn't stop vandalism, it just tries to cover it up by delaying the publication of new edits. It would also create additional problems whilst solving none; giving too much power to reviewers, creating an additional backlog of work (regardless of the scale), and potentially be open to creeping extension to more and more articles by making protection appear as less of a big thing. Not to mention the fact that since WMF is refusing to make improvements unless we commit to use the extension, we are effectively being forced to accept it blind, and with no option to change our minds later. Additionally, by assuming all edits to be unconstructive until proven otherwise by being approved, this is effectively removing the [[WP:AGF|assumption of good faith]]. In the words of Benjamin Franklin, "they who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety". --'''''[[User:WDGraham|<span style="color:#115566;">W.</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:WDGraham|<span style="color:#364966;">D.</span>]]&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/WDGraham|<span style="color:#496636;">Graham</span>]]''''' 18:37, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
# I am wholeheartedly opposed to implementing pending changes on this project. Our burning, big picture, problem is new editors being pushed away by complex procedures, brusque or automated replies to edits from existing editors and steep learning curves for everything else. Our minor problems of vandal fighting and what-not become immaterial if wikipedia ceases to be a living resource. I could support a full revamp of the model for page changes but only if it respects the premise that new editors are not inherently a threat. I won't go on because my position is basically unchanged from past RfCs. [[User:Protonk|Protonk]] ([[User talk:Protonk|talk]]) 20:19, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
# Yet another barrier to editing that we don't even have the manpower to keep up with.©[[User:Geni|Geni]] 16:26, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
# [[User:Kaldari|Kaldari]] ([[User talk:Kaldari|talk]]) 18:57, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
#Others have said it more eloquently, but it just goes against the spirit of this project, it will not be the encyclopedia anybody can edit if this passes. <i><b>[[User:Snowolf|<span style="color:darkmagenta">Snowolf</span>]] <sup><small>[[User talk:Snowolf|<span style="color:darkmagenta">How can I help?</span>]]</small></sup></b></i> 02:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
# It seems to me that PC restricts the ability of autoconfirmed editors to deal promptly with errors, but increases the ability of anonymous editors to introduce errors (unless the reviewer is 'all knowing').  What will be the procedure when the body of W editors need to censure an incompetent reviewer?  Don't introduce this new hurdle.  Wikipedia is already too complex. [[User:Apuldram|Apuldram]] ([[User talk:Apuldram|talk]]) 11:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
# [[User:Mbak Dede|Mbak Dede]] ([[User talk:Mbak Dede|talk]]) 12:31, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
# simply no again. <small style="font:bold 12px Courier New;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap">[[User talk:Mabdul|<span style="color:#000;">mabdul</span>]]</small> 16:43, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
# No to change! <i>Mutationes non sunt multiplicandae sine necessitate</i>[[User:Twr57|Twr57]] ([[User talk:Twr57|talk]]) 15:26, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
# No ideological problems with designing light controls for Wikipedia to improve the quality of content. My objections are pragmatic. It's convoluted and complicated, which outweighs its tiny benefits as an anti-vandalism tool. We're better off finding other ways to fight vandalism. [[User:Shooterwalker|Shooterwalker]] ([[User talk:Shooterwalker|talk]]) 22:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
# The biggest problem with pending changes is that they don't actually work.  Any situation where pending changes would plausibly be turned on would be helped more by semi-protection and with less confusion about the current state of the article.  This renders other concerns (which exist!) moot anyway. [[User:SnowFire|SnowFire]] ([[User talk:SnowFire|talk]]) 23:56, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
# I am new here, and I found the openness of articles I was interested in spectacular. There is some great feeling I associate with improving this encyclopedia, no matter how small. I am secure in the knowledge that I am further expanding the knowledge of the world. Denying that to anyone is attrocious. There comes a point in time where a society, such as our wonderful one, will have to make the distinction between liberty and "safety," which in this instance is a unobtainable freedom from vandalism. This is the fundamental conflict inherit in the internet. There is no way to be open and encourage participation amoung all who may have valuable contributions without dealing with those malicious people that try and ruin it for all of us. So, in order to remain true to our vision and remain open to all, we must stay free. (Not in the money sense ^^) [[User:Jon.weldon|Added by Jon Weldon II: ]] ([[User talk:Jon.weldon|talk]]) 14:57, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
# I didn't get on with the trial, so that has partially shaped my impression of it. However, a bigger issue is that it seems to add another hurdle in the way of attracting new editors - everybody who started editing here remembers the sense of excitement when something you added appeared straight away. If new editors see their edits being regularly refused/sat in a queue for ages, then it rather misses the point of the project and could see experienced editors spending all their time reviewing rather than contributing. '''[[User:Bob Castle|Bob]]''' <small>'''[[User talk:Bob Castle|talk]]'''</small> 19:12, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
# Pending changes is a bad idea for all the reasons stated above. Pages placed under full or semi-protection is by far the better option as it is less complicated and does not put a greater burden on the present users. Pending changes is also a possible door to censorship and the enforecement of one's particular POV. Imagine the chaos that would ensue were pending changes to be applied to [[The Troubles]]-related articles where edit-warring and POV-pushing are already rampant.--[[User:Jeanne boleyn|Jeanne Boleyn]] ([[User talk:Jeanne boleyn|talk]]) 05:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
# I've argued against PC at length during the trial period, so rather than re-iterating my position I'll echo the heading: the negative aspects outweigh the positive. '''[[User:Jebus989|<span style="color:#000000;">Jebus989</span>]][[User talk:Jebus989|<sup>✰</sup>]]''' 12:31, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
#As an editor resident in the EU, unless someone can put forward a good argument to address the question that I have raised on the discussion page [[Wikipedia:Pending_changes/Request_for_Comment_2012/Discussion#A_question_on_liability | here]] I would not be willing to review edits, especially on BLP pages, without personally checking and archiving copies of the sources. I can envisage many other EU residents adopting a similar position. This has the potential to make editorial control of EN Wikipedia more US centric, which I do not believe is a good thing. [[User:FrankFlanagan|FrankFlanagan]] ([[User talk:FrankFlanagan|talk]]) 20:23, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
# The one most necessary thing for the survival of Wikipedia is that we continue to attract new editors. For most new editors, the attraction of seeing one's edits immediately in the live version is one of the key attractions. Therefore other considerations are not even relevant. But in any case, the problems which incoming articles and new edits is much less than those with existing ones: we are already more careful than in the past. I left a site (Citizendium) where although I had status to edit directly, most others needed them approved--I left because experience showed the site was dying because of inability to attract newcomers. Our procedures are already  excessively  troublesome both to newcomers and to anyone who sets out to help them--it's the main complaint of those trying to start working here '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 03:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
# '''Oppose'''If it gives admins the power, some cruel admins(I am not blaming any kind admin, but cruel ones) can block users for nothing or do personal attacks.--[[User:Monareal|Al Sheik!Woiu!I do not fish!]] ([[User talk:Monareal|talk]]) 12:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
#: '''Comment'''I think it should be reformed although the PC looks fit.--[[User:Monareal|Al Sheik!Woiu!I do not fish!]] ([[User talk:Monareal|talk]]) 05:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
# This is not a request for comment, it's a request for votes.  The structure is ridiculously constraining.  If it was a proper request for comment, then we wouldn't be so rigidly confined to discussing the three predetermined options.  Of the three options available, this is the one that comes closest to my view, although I really ought to be editing the sections called "not this rubbish again" and "haven't we already hunted this down and killed it several times before?" and "no doubt I'll see you all again at the next pending changes-related RFC".—[[User:S Marshall|<font face="Verdana" color="Maroon">'''S Marshall'''</font>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 08:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC)<br>(Later) I want to emphasise that this is a serious point.  There are users who are determined to keep asking the same question in slightly different words until they get a positive answer.  This time the gimmick is to force us into particular predetermined slots and to close down (and literally hat) all discussion of alternatives or attempts to step off the railway tracks that take us directly to pending changes.  Veni, vidi, voti.<br>Please will the pre-appointed closers (!) also take into account the positions I expressed in the March 2011 RFC.—[[User:S Marshall|<font face="Verdana" color="Maroon">'''S Marshall'''</font>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 17:29, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
# I would like to vote for the adoption of Pending changes -- or something like it -- but the entire process of its adoption has been so badly handled that there will never be a consensus for adopting it in the foreseeable future. (Frankly, I consider the whole Pending changes debate a text book example of how '''not''' to change policy on Wikipedia.) A majority of Wikipedians -- either a slight or large majority, depending on who one talks to -- supports it; a sizable minority is opposed to it; yet there has been no effort to attempt to talk to the minority to understand & address their concerns, nor even to provide an objective way to test whether Pending changes can/will fix any problems. Let's just drop the whole idea for a long, long time. -- [[User:Llywrch|llywrch]] ([[User talk:Llywrch|talk]]) 16:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
#We would be better served by semi/full protection. It is confusing to tell an editor that they can edit the page, only to have their edit not show up after they make it. Either let them edit the page, or tell them flat-out that they can't and how to make an edit(semi)protected request. There were also serious problems with overuse even during the trial, and I would be very concerned about yet another backlog requiring human intervention. Requiring edit(semi)protected drives away vandals while still allowing good-faith users to put in their edit; under PC, they'll still make the vandal edit and require someone to waste time figuring out it's vandalism and disapproving it. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 03:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
#Pending changes has the potential to alienate users, make it harder to remove wrong information that is already present when pending changes is applied, waste the time of reviewers and create backlogs. [[User:James500|James500]] ([[User talk:James500|talk]]) 17:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
#Given the potential liability of reviewers for approvals of "defamatory" material - which may include true material, depending on the jurisdiction - I am changing my viewpoint to '''oppose''' pending changes, at least if it is to at all be used on BLP and similar pages. I would be willing to change my position back to Option #3 (to, first, requiring considerable policy clarifications, and, second, dealing with the potential for vandals to clog up the reviewer queue after doing vandalism - not removable by non-reviewers - using an autoconfirmed account) if the Pending Changes policy was firmly such that it (at least in its PC1 form; I can see PC2 on article that would otherwise get full protection) would not be used on any BLP or similarly liability-provoking article. As it is, given that these are the exact articles it's being proposed for by at least some, I have to oppose it given the near-certainty of inadvertent misuse due to liability fears. [[User:Allens|Allens]] ([[User_talk:Allens|talk]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/Allens|contribs]]) 18:24, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
#For the benefits gained, we'd be adding disproportionate extra complication, and a frustrating indefinite time lag to the edits of a much broader section of the editorship. Also, the responsibility for accepting edits is currently on the entire community (implicitly, by not reverting them) - transferring that onto a single individual (by explicitly approving an edit) does not seem like a desirable situation to me. [[User:Quackdave|Quackdave]] ([[User talk:Quackdave|talk]]) 20:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
#Goes against the basic principles. [[User:Ian13|<span style="color:#067"><u>Ian</u>¹³</span>]][[User talk:Ian13|<span style="font-variant:small-caps">/t</span>]] 22:20, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
# '''Endorse'''. What Seraphimblade said, ''viz.'' "We would be better served by semi/full protection. It is confusing to tell an editor that they can edit the page, only to have their edit not show up after they make it. Either let them edit the page, or tell them flat-out they can't, and how to make an edit(semi)protected request..." &nbsp;–&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Cambria">[[User:Ohiostandard|<span style="color:teal;">'''OhioStandard'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Ohiostandard|talk]])</span> 23:13, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
# '''Endorse position #1'''{{spaced ndash}} "The negative aspects of pending changes outweigh the positive. Therefore the tool should not be used at all on the English Wikipedia."<br> If enacted, Wikipedia's statement on the main page of "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" would have to be changed to "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, but contributions to articles protected by pending-changes protection may not be posted until they are reviewed and approved by other people." The current [[Wikipedia:Protection policy|Protection policy]] already in place for articles is sufficient. The enactment of pending changes to pages would very likely significantly discourage new editors from contributing to the project. There are also concerns of elitism, in which in some cases only "approved" editors would be allowed to edit articles with their contributions immediately posting, while all other editors, including autoconfirmed editors in some cases, would have to wait for the "approved" editors to provide permission. Then a bunch of new policies and guidelines would have to be created to clarify what types of contributions would be "acceptable" and "unacceptable", in addition to Wikipedia's current policies and guidelines. For example, if an editor adds very basic information to an article, the type that typically doesn't require sourcing to be included, or information without inline citations that is backed by sources already present in an article, would the entry be denied or allowed? If an editor were to add controversial information to an article that is backed by reliable sources, would the information be included or denied by the reviewers? Pending-changes protection would also create a type of [[Social class|class system]], in which the content of some Wikipedia articles would be ruled by an [[oligarchy]], with the rest of Wikipedia's contributors being in the position of a lower class within this type of article governance system. <small><span style="font-family:arial">[[User:Northamerica1000|Northamerica1000]]<sup>[[User_talk:Northamerica1000|(talk)]]</sup></span></small> 08:19, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
# '''Endorse''' Goes against the spirit of the project and with antivandal bots improving all the time, loss exceeds gain. --[[User:Dweller|Dweller]] ([[User talk:Dweller|talk]]) 10:46, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
# '''Endorse''' Any official control of content by a select group is completely antithetical to the spirit of WP. As for vandalism of BLPs, I am certain that for every dedicated vandal, there are more dedicated users willing and able to undo the vandalism quickly. Where we're falling short is in sourcing content, but that's another discussion all together. [[User:Paratrooper450|Paratrooper450]] ([[User talk:Paratrooper450|talk]]) 14:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
# '''Endorse''' - fully agree with someone above: "Pending Changes would, I believe, make Wikipedia more authoritarian and less democratic." [[User:Cramyourspam|Cramyourspam]] ([[User talk:Cramyourspam|talk]]) 18:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
# It was an interesting experiment, but it has significant problems.  1) It's superfluous; it creates an additional fuzzy concept that overlaps massively with semi-protection, a much easier to implement approach.  2) It is going to add a major new workload to a site which already has backlogs everywhere.  3) It adds another tier of "more equal" users who stand above "regular" editors. 4) Finally, it is yet another way to discourage and disenfranchise new participants. <B>—[[User:Torchiest|Torchiest]]</B> <sup>[[User talk:Torchiest|talk]]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-3.5ex;">[[Special:Contributions/Torchiest|edits]]</sub> 22:40, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
# I agree with many of the points made above. PC is anathema to the spirit of Wikipedia, whose immediacy is a large part of its appeal. Semi-protection is somewhat restrictive but easy to understand, and reasons for proposing or opposing proposed edits can be better explained on talk pages than in edit summaries. PC creates extra layers of bureaucracy, hierarchy and obfuscation, with enormous potential  for misunderstanding. Reviewers are left with no clear idea of what's expected of them; IP's and newbies may erroneously assume that only blatantly inappropriate material will be blocked and that their good faith edits will all be accepted; and casual readers may imagine that "reviewed" articles have been subjected, in their entirety, to some sort of rigorous quality control. We also have no evidence that enough reviewer-hours would be available to make its widespread implementation remotely feasible. [[User:Contains Mild Peril|Contains Mild Peril]] ([[User talk:Contains Mild Peril|talk]]) 05:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
# <small>[[user:kennedy|<span style="color:#800000;font-family:lucida handwriting;">Kennedy</span>]] <sup>([[user_talk:kennedy|<span style="color:#800000;">talk</span>]]) </sup></small> 12:22, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
# I will never support this tool unless or until someone provides some actual hard evidence about who are the types of people who are making the most useful edits, and whether this tool would have a detrimental effect on them. If there's already been a trial, this should be possible, yes? I strongly suspect that most useful edits come largely from relatively new users, the exact types of people who really wouldn't understand this tool, or rather, wouldn't really want to learn about it before they lost interest in contributing altogether. I can't find any evidence that backs up the claims being made that this tool 'works' and I suspect the only thing that is meant by that is that it stops vandalism. There's a reason why all the prospective competitors to Wikipedia have failed, and it's not been because they were too easily vandalised, but because they all fundamentally misunderstood what made Wikipedia a success in the first place - openness, simplicity and immediacy. If Wikipedia isn't careful, then it won't be too hard for Google to hijack the market by rebooting 'original' Wikipedia but with ads, using all of the content already here. All they're waiting for, is for Wikipedia to vacate the position of market leader by turning itself into something that doesn't work, or at least can't sustain itself with enough users and edits to keep writing it, as well as keeping what's already in it relevant and accurate. The key facts relevant to this decision is not vandalism or quality, they are that Wikipedia is clearly still not finished, Wikipedia is not immune to competition, and Wikipedia does not pay its contributors for their work. [[User:Krismeadon|Krismeadon]] ([[User talk:Krismeadon|talk]]) 19:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
# How many times must this come up? --[[User talk:Gwern |Gwern]] [[Special:Contributions/Gwern | (contribs)]] 19:37 20 April 2012 (GMT)
# Problem, chaos, solution? Yeah, I know it's cryptic. Think about it! [[User:Gzuufy|Gzuufy]] ([[User talk:Gzuufy|talk]]) 00:56, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
# It seems too complicated and burdensome per [[WP:LIGHTBULB]].  [[User:Colonel Warden|Warden]] ([[User talk:Colonel Warden|talk]]) 11:52, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
# For a new editor like me, its already difficult and complicated enough without this. I also do not support because in my many years, I have learnt that there are many 'tools' that come and go but nothing can ultimately replace basic human direct. painstaking effort. One day a major error will certainly be made by this system or machine and then it will be too late to rue. Many thanks, [[User:AsadUK200|AsadUK200]] ([[User talk:AsadUK200|talk]]) 13:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)AsadUK200
# It risks producing inadvertant content forks, where there may be two wildly different versions, the approved version and the "live version". For articles which are not on many watchlists - which probably counts for most of the articles on wikipedia, changes may takes years to get approved, thus discouraging good faith changes and in many cases locking harmful content in (this will stop non-reviewer editors from removing pre-existing vandalism as well as adding it). In addition, he experience of the trial shows that it doesn't work on large article that are edited frequently.[[User:Nigel Ish|Nigel Ish]] ([[User talk:Nigel Ish|talk]]) 22:07, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
# How many times will Pending Changes (PC) re-spawn after we kill it? It's overcomplicated and the problems it intends to solve can be better address with already established means like the various levels of page protection. Several times I raised questions about potential legal burden PC puts on page patrollers. Never once was I given an answer. We built the best encyclopedia in the world without PC. There's no obvious improvement using PC, so let it die once and for all. [[User:Jason Quinn|Jason Quinn]] ([[User talk:Jason Quinn|talk]]) 13:15, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
# Per SoWhy, BarkingFish, and OhanaUnited. --''[[User:Philosopher|Philosopher]]''&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Philosopher|Let us reason together.]]</sup> 04:16, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
#Was wondering if we could implement this tool for school/shared IPs only. That could be useful. [[User:Hghyux|Hghyux]] ([[User_talk:Hghyux|talk to me]])([[WP:Y|talk to others]]) 15:38, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
# Wkipedia is meant to be the encyclopedia which anyone can edit, and this detracts from that ethos. Wikipedia worked well enough for years without it, and we don't need it now. The German version has been a disaster. The attraction which Wikipedia has to new editors is that their edits are visible immediately, not hours, days or weeks later. Enough is enough. [[User:Richard75|Richard75]] ([[User talk:Richard75|talk]]) 00:12, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
# [[User:Te Karere|Te Karere]] ([[User talk:Te Karere|talk]]) 07:26, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
# For the reasons given above. --[[User:Catslash|catslash]] ([[User talk:Catslash|talk]]) 14:06, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
# Those who are in favour of this tend to be those who might be in a position to wield power over who edits Wikipedia and how. This is antithetical to the premise of Wikipedia. --'''''[[User:Cooper-42|Cooper]]'''''<sup>42</sup> 16:39, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
# Overly complicated, convoluted, hard to understand, and doesn't work well, anyway. We have enough procedures and protections.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 18:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
# Pending Changes was designed in reaction to our failure to prevent vandalism on BLPs. Since it seems widely agreed that it fails to adequately protect BLPs, suffers from major design problems and bugs, and is not a supported piece of software in the long run, it would be extremely unwise to enable the use of it on any scale. <span style="font-family:Palatino, Georgia, serif;">[[User:Steven Walling|Steven Walling]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[User talk:Steven Walling|<span style="color: #8080b0">talk</span>]]</span>  01:49, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
# It ain't broke. Don't "fix" it. [[User:Doprendek|Doprendek]] ([[User talk:Doprendek|talk]]) 05:21, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
# '''Strong Reject'''. This really just seems like a whole layer of bureaucracy that Wikipedia doesn't need, and shouldn't need. The fact that changes can be edited in to articles, but not shown, so that an innumerable slate of other editors can edit the same thing in just seems awful. I cannot see how this would become anything more than a hassle for editors and an inscrutable horror for reviewers. Either you can edit an article or you can't. Since you can always suggest an addition to an article in its talk page, this proposal is even redundant to our existing procedures. Send it to the dark pit from whence it came. [[User:Vanisaac|Van]][[User talk:Vanisaac|Isaac]]<sub><small>[[WP:WikiProject Writing systems|WS]]</small></sub><sup style="margin-left:-2.9ex">[[Special:Contributions/Vanisaac|contribs]]</sup> 05:29, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
# '''Endorse position #1''' we need to put this approach aside and move on. I'm open to similar approaches with different implementation, once the dust has settled, however. [[User:Stuartyeates|Stuartyeates]] ([[User talk:Stuartyeates|talk]]) 10:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
# '''Strong Endorse to position #1'''. The negative aspects of pending changes outweigh the positive. Therefore the tool should not be used at all on the English Wikipedia. This is 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! As for the child issue, position #1 would cause more damage because it's the abusers that are the most forceful and manipulative. They will find a way to push their agenda.[[User:Tylas|~ty]] ([[User talk:Tylas|talk]]) 18:16, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
# Per my experiences both as an en.wiki reviewer and on the German Wikipeida as an IP, where my beneficial changes (including the removal of personal information/email addressed) sat ignored for almost a week. '''[[User:Themfromspace|<span style="color:blue;">Them</span>]][[User talk:Themfromspace|<span style="color:red;">From</span>]][[Special:Contributions/themfromspace|<span style="color:black;">Space</span>]]''' 02:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
# '''Endorse''' Pending Changes will only speed up the decline of editors, encourage smaller, less constructive edits to large projects, and maintain the position of a limited few editors as somehow 'better' than the massed ranks of day-to-day contributors. [[User:Doktorbuk|doktorb]] <sub>[[User talk:Doktorbuk|words]]</sub><sup>[[Special:Contributions/Doktorbuk|deeds]]</sup> 13:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
#While I understand that there are some positives to PC, I think Wikipedia is better without it. Blocking and protection has worked find for a very long time so will continue to be a suitable way of solving this. Wikipedia's openness is a major feature that we all love, removing it would be an insult. Overall, I am highly against this. [[User:Jwikiediting|Jwikiediting]] ([[User talk:Jwikiediting|talk]]) 15:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
#[[User:Arcandam|Arcandam]] ([[User talk:Arcandam|talk]]) 17:00, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
# '''Endorse''' The current protection scheme is more than reasonable.  PC, by comparison, would create an unreasonable situation for both reviewers and editors due to backlogs and neglect.  I am sure that this system will lead to some edits taking a week or more to be approved, which will only serve to drive away editors.  I also don't buy the argument that PC could be relaxed on some articles if there is a community consensus.  How many good faith editors would have to suffer first?  Contributions should be valued equally and judged later. [[User:Lithium6ion|Lithium6ion]] ([[User talk:Lithium6ion|talk]]) 03:58, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
# '''Endorse''' This is destroying one of the strongest and most attractive tenets of Wikipedia; the encyclopaedia anyone can edit. While understandably, abuse has hampered Wikipedia before, I do not believe any amount of vandalism should cause us to close some doors; if anything, vandalism should merely spur us to be more vigilant, rather than hide like a turtle in its shell. [[User:Orpherebus|With all due respect, Orpherebus.]] ([[User talk:Orpherebus|talk]]) 06:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
#I am strongly opposed to PC as I think it changes the character of Wikipedia, and it is illogical expansion of Wikipedia's bureaucracy.  Wikipedia's growth has occurred because of its open and egalitarian edit structure where very few articles cannot be editted by an autoconfirmed user.  Now, there will be far more articles that a regular user will not be able to edit without going through a reviewer.  I see a situation where certain articles will become dominated by a few reviewers, and the articles will become highly biased and impossible to modify.  There will be a drop off of newer users who are dissatisfied with the inability to enact changes to any high-profile article.  Furthermore, the creation of two new protection levels, and a new class of users (i.e., reviewers) is totally unnecessary.  A far simpler proposal would be to ban anonymous IP edits (i.e., require registration), and to strictly enforce rules against [[WP:vandalism|vandalism]], [[WP:EW|edit warring]], [[WP:TE|tendentious editting]], etc. [[User:Dwainwr123|Debbie W.]] 03:42, 4 May 2012 (UTC) 
# '''Absolute Endorse''' Good changes often get slowed down by this - especially on pages with little experts. [[User:Overmage|Overmage]] ([[User talk:Overmage|talk]]) 06:17, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
# '''Strong Endorse ''' Agree with comment above, "Pending Changes would, I believe, make Wikipedia more authoritarian and less democratic." [[User:Darrell Greenwood|Darrell_Greenwood]] ([[User talk:Darrell Greenwood|talk]]) 03:15, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
# '''Endorse'''.  This goes against the very spirit of Wikipedia. Wikipedia would not be the "Encyclopedia that Anyone Can Edit" but the "Encyclopedia that can only be Edited if Someone Else Supports your Edit". [[User:Meshach|meshach]] ([[User talk:Meshach|talk]]) 19:38, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
# '''Endorse'''. I believe this goes against the principle and spirit of Wikipedia. Pending Changes would, in my opinion, go against what made Wikipedia great in the first place. [[User:FrostytheSnownoob|FrostytheSnownoob]] ([[User talk:FrostytheSnownoob|talk]]) 08:22, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
# '''Endorse'''. Keep it simple. The immediate feedback is what makes this work. [[User:Stevei|Stevei]] 17:58, 5 MAY 2012 (UTC)
# '''Endorse'''. Pending changes was an unmitigated failure. People have grown to understand the wiki system, and the risk of vandals. In the end, it's a feature, not a bug. --<small><span style="border:1px solid orange;background:#A6D785">[[User:AKMask|<font size="1" color="#9E0508">&nbsp;۩&nbsp;</font>]]</span></small><span style="color:#B13E0F"><strong>M</strong></span>[[User talk:AKMask|<span style="color:#A9A9A9;">ask</span>]] 10:32, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
# Agree with comment above, "This goes against the very spirit of Wikipedia. Wikipedia would not be the "Encyclopedia that Anyone Can Edit" but the "Encyclopedia that can only be Edited if Someone Else Supports your Edit"."[[User:Energythief|Energythief]] ([[User talk:Energythief|talk]]) 14:14, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
#Not until this reviewer "right" can be taken away from administrators just as easily as it will undoubtedly be taken away from regular editors. [[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus]] [[User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum|Fatuorum]] 20:18, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
# '''Endorse''' &mdash; Although I had originally supported pending changes, the reality was that it turned out to be a pain in the ass. It was overused as a whole and frequently used on pages that required specialist knowledge to correctly review. This created a situation where the number of reviewers capable of approving the changes with confidence was proportionately low to the number of people trying to edit the page. Combined with the logged use of forcing people to either approve or decline a change, it also made it problematic for people wanting to help:  if they approve a change that turned out to be "wrong," then ''their'' name is just as much on it as the person making the change. Similarly, should they decline a change that turned out to be "right," they opened themselves up to accusations of not [[WP:AGF|assuming good faith]] or [[WP:BITE|biting the newbies]]. In either case, it could be something used against you in the future, so instead of making a choice, people would choose not to choose. Because of this, changes would sit in the queue for long periods of time. Oh, and on a related note, [[WP:RFPP]] is regularly backlogged as it is. I'd hope that instead of thinking of new ways to backlog it, that we deal with what's already on our plate, rather than over-committing us and spreading us even thinner. Just a suggestion. --[[User:Slakr|<span style="color:teal;font-weight:bold;">slakr</span>]]<small><sup>\&nbsp;[[User talk:Slakr|talk]]&nbsp;/</sup></small> 20:56, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
#:By the way, we '''already have pending changes''' waiting at '''[[:Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests]]'''. It, too, is backlogged, and I'd like to see supporters of proposal 2 or 3 work on that before endorsing a plan to expand it even further. Just a thought, guys, just a thought. --[[User:Slakr|<span style="color:teal;font-weight:bold;">slakr</span>]]<small><sup>\&nbsp;[[User talk:Slakr|talk]]&nbsp;/</sup></small> 21:10, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
# '''Endorse.''' This may sound like a good idea at first sight, but it doesn't work well where it is in use in other languages (changes may take months to be accepted), and in practice it serves no useful purpose.  In the very small proportion of pages where there is a need for something of the sort, this need is already addressed by semi-protection. [[User:Лудольф|Лудольф]] ([[User talk:Лудольф|talk]]) 08:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
# '''Endorse #1.''' There is really next to no benefit to the pending changes system. It focuses more power in the hands of a few, violating the fundamental spirit of Wikipedia. The inevitable delay in updating pages that benefit from "near-live" updates in respect of current events, sporting results and the like will have an overall negative impact on Wikipedia far in excess of the problem of small sporadic outbreaks of vandalism, for which the existing semi-protection and full protection are more than adequate in almost every circumstance. If there are articles that would benefit from additional editor patrols, a WikiTaskForce could take care of this without any problem without fundamental changes. [[User:Dybeck|Dybeck]] ([[User talk:Dybeck|talk]]) 12:29, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
#'''Endorse'''  Huge problems, and it really doesn't do anything that is needed.  Makes a confusing problematic mess out of editing. Kill it 100%  Sincerely,<span style="color:#0000cc;">''North8000''</span> ([[User talk:North8000#top|talk]]) 03:05, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
#'''Endorse''' per SoWhy; fundamentally backwards. [[User:Arbitrarily0|<span style='color:black'><b><u><i><big>A</big>rbitrarily<big>0</big></i></u></b></span>]]&nbsp;<sup><b>([[User talk:Arbitrarily0|<span style="font-variant: small-caps; color:#FF4500;">talk</span>]])</b></sup> 13:53, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
#'''Endorse''' per Casliber and OSborn. [[User:Lesgles|Lesgles]] <small>([[User_talk:Lesgles|talk]])</small> 18:10, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
#'''Endorse.''' Would discourage the newbies, like myself, who need nurturing into the system not keeping at arm's length.[[User:Cpsoper|Cpsoper]] ([[User talk:Cpsoper|talk]]) 19:19, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
#'''Endorse.''' The litany of reasons given before this make a solid case against. This would discourage new users from editing Wikipedia, and without Wikipedia being open to all the project is doomed become biased and elitist. Moreover, given Wikipedia's edit volume a huge corps of trusted reviewers would be needed to review changes in a timely fashion (lest the articles be never updated at all). When trusted editors make changes while not logged in, as I often do, their edit would be picked up by the system and add to the workload. Wikipedia's abuse filter, bots, and programs that allow editors to quickly revert vandalism do a very good job already and are much simpler tools that do not strike at the core of what Wikipedia is about. It doesn't say "The ''Free'' Encyclopedia" because you don't have to pay for it. [[User:Knight of Truth|Knight of Truth]] ([[User talk:Knight of Truth|talk]]) 22:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
#'''Endorse''': The negative aspects of pending changes outweigh the positive. Therefore the tool should not be used at all on the English Wikipedia.[[User:Chjoaygame|Chjoaygame]] ([[User talk:Chjoaygame|talk]]) 11:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
#'''Endorse Position #1''' because it is against what Wikipedia is: an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Instead, this gives reviewers who specialize in certain articles control over those articles to include or not include content based on what is supposed to be facts and references, but could easily be corrupted and opinionated. Plus, it makes it increasingly difficult to become an autoconfirmed user when many of these experienced reviewers are sure to be discriminating against new, unconfirmed users who do not know how to cite sources on Wikipedia, again threatening the "anyone can edit" statement. The current system of no protection, semiprotection, and full protection works much better - all new users need to do to earn the right to edit semiprotected articles is to edit unprotected articles without vandalizing - this does not require knowing how to cite. Additionally, if these specialized reviewers are unavailable due to their real lives (remember, ALL of us have real lives that often take away the time we spend here) then outdated versions of pages do not get corrected. If this is going to applied more often to BLPs than to non-BLPs, then becoming outdated is a huge problem, and I don't see any way how Pending Changes can be fixed to deal with this problem. [[User:RedSoxFan2434|RedSoxFan2434]] ([[User talk:RedSoxFan2434|talk]]) 23:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
#'''Endorse''' - As a very new user here I've been goaded (very kindly I might add) into learning the ropes in a rather short time frame. I think the bureaucracy needed to run a project of this nature should be limited as a matter of policy. That is to say, any steps taken that might increase the level of bureaucracy (even though they might seem to improve the quality of the project) should be very carefully considered indeed. There is already enough of a bureaucratic mire to wade through as a new editor and, as such, newbies will be instantly discouraged from contributing if they are shut out from the very beginning. Just say no to bureaucracy! - [[User:Themoother|Themoother]] ([[User talk:Themoother|talk]]) 12:05, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
#'''Endorse'''. It is exactly that – a whole lot of bureaucracy for little benefit. The bureaucracy clogged up the system and deterred editors from making edits. I was put off editing many-an article because of the tag, and I'm sure many others less experienced than me were also deterred. Because I was automatically granted 'reviewer' status, any of my edits automatically implied approval of the prior/pending edit, whether I intended to or not. As a [[WP:GNOME|gnome]], I only have a fleeting interest in quite a large number of articles, my gnoming actions would actually create a false sense of security. --<small>[[User:Ohconfucius|<span style="color:Black;font:bold 8pt 'kristen itc';text-shadow:cyan 0.3em 0.3em 0.1em;">Ohconfucius</span>]] [[User talk:Ohconfucius|<sup>¡digame!</sup>]]</small> 15:20, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
#'''Endorse''' Given the feeling that PC is less restrictive than semi-protection (which it is IMHO not), PC will be inevitably used more frequently than semi-protection. I rest my case. If restricted strictly to BLP pages, PC might have ''some'' merit, but as the option is not on the table, it is better to avoid PC altogether. [[User:Ipsign|Ipsign]] ([[User talk:Ipsign|talk]]) 17:42, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
#'''Endorse''' for multiple reasons.  It is unclear how often PC would be used; probably more widely than [semi]protection.  IP edits can block autoconfirmed editors even with PC1, giving potential for a DoS attack.  Seeing their edit seem to disappear will put off newcomers.  There are serious concerns about reviewers' liability.  PC is another complication to deal with.  If there's any doubt, let's err on the side of status quo, because this is a neverendum: PC will be reoffered until it gets a consensus. [[User:Certes|Certes]] ([[User talk:Certes|talk]]) 20:29, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
#'''Endorse''' [[User:Td1wk|Td1wk]] ([[User talk:Td1wk|talk]]) 21:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
#'''Endorse''' Doing this is going to lead to disputes between editors between what is right and what is wrong, not every editor sees another's edits the same way and while this is a good idea I dont think its going to help. - [[User:Knowledgekid87|Knowledgekid87]] ([[User talk:Knowledgekid87|talk]]) 00:17, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
#'''Endorse''' I spend much of my time here dealing with the enormous wave of vandalism that occurs every day on Wikipedia and so I generally support more tools to address this issue. However, Pending Changes does little to stop vandalism, puts drastic bars in the face of legitimate contributors, and imposes an insanely complicated system in front of what is supposed to be a very simple concept: an encyclopedia anyone can edit. A great deal of constructive contributions come from unregistered and new users. (Everyone was unregistered once!) Finally, Option 2 is still simply too vague to constitute a meaningful policy and is simply a restoration of the old status quo of the never-ending trial period. We need stronger tools to more directly address vandalism rather than trying to sweep it under the rug with PC and protection.[[User:Zachlipton|Zachlipton]] ([[User talk:Zachlipton|talk]]) 00:48, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
#'''Endorse''' position 1. It would overly bureaucratizes the system - it would protect from outright vandalism, but would alienate editors because editors ´would have to review all pending edits before their own edit becomes visible. Worse, it would likely alienate careful editors more than others: sometimes it can be tricky to perform a correct and thorough review (for example if the last edit has an inline reference which is not available online), therefore editors who really want to push a further edit into the article may tend review and accept overly generously, whereas more conscientious editors would be discouraged from editing if they feel unable to appropriately review the previous edit. So it could deter especially the careful editors from improving an unreviewed article. And it would not protect at all from purposely introduced bias or other abuse of Wikipedia. --[[User:Chris Howard|Chris Howard]] ([[User talk:Chris Howard|talk]]) 18:49, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
#'''Endorse''' pos. 1 - This will add unnecessary complexity and discourage new editors. [[User:MadGeographer|<span style="color:darkgreen">mge</span><span style="color:blue">'''o'''</span>]] <small>[[User talk:MadGeographer|talk]]</small> 21:00, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
#'''Endorse position 1.'''  1) PC forces all editors with reviewer status to review all pending changes before editing.  This is an impediment to editing.  2) Per 12 Victor Yus and 24 Isarra.{{unsigned|Wikimedes}}
#'''Endorse''' I have opposed Pending changes in the past, and I still do. It's a fundamentally bad idea. [[User:Manxruler|Manxruler]] ([[User talk:Manxruler|talk]]) 21:41, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
#'''Endorse'''. --[[User:Toccata quarta|Toccata quarta]] ([[User talk:Toccata quarta|talk]]) 14:10, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
#'''Endorse''' per GorillaWarfare. Well said. [[User:Nomader|<span style="color:#007FFF">Nomader</span>]] ([[User talk:Nomader|<span style="color:#007FFF">talk</span>]]) 16:15, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
#'''Endorse'''. I thought this was the free encyclopedia that anybody could edit. [[User:Matt Yeager|<b><span style="color:#DF0001;">Matt Yeager</span></b>]] [[Special:Random|<b><font size="3" color="#B46611">♫</font></b>]] [[User_talk:Matt Yeager|<span style="color:#00AA88;">(Talk?)</span>]] 17:05, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
#'''Endorse'''. To quote O'Hare from the 2012 movie The Lorax: "''Let it die! Let it die! Let it shrivel up and - come on, whose with me?''" [[User:TomStar81|TomStar81]] ([[User talk:TomStar81|Talk]]) 01:01, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
[[Category:Non-talk pages that are automatically signed]]
#'''Endorse''' [[User:Davewild|Davewild]] ([[User talk:Davewild|talk]]) 09:20, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
#I oppose this discriminatory policy : ''Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia that '''anyone can edit'''''. [[User:Naked Nomad|Naked Nomad]] ([[User talk:Naked Nomad|talk]]) 11:07, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
#'''Endorse''' Pending changes is an invitation to bite the newcomers tool.  Whatever its advantages, it is not good for the long-term health of Wikipedia.  Wikipedia needs newcomers.  It is already difficult enough with all the many templates people have created for different talks.--[[User:Toddy1|Toddy1]] ([[User talk:Toddy1|talk]]) 19:10, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
#'''Endorse''' If there is a problem with people vandalizing BLPs, they should be addressed by technological solutions that work in the background. I can envision doing a statistical analysis of the types of wording typically used by vandals, the time of day relative to the location of the IP address, and possibly the type of article and creating bots that bring these edits to people's attention. Also, perhaps the Foundation should consider hiring a couple people to do real monitoring. [[User:Speciate|Speciate]] ([[User talk:Speciate|talk]]) 07:35, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
#'''Endorse''', strongly. PC was a fundamentally bad idea to begin with and the trial period demonstrated why rather clearly. Wikipedia badly needs to attract new editors and to retain existing active editors. The PC feature would do significant damage to both. It will put-off and bewilder new editors and create a significant and completely unnecessary new burden on existing editors who have better things to do than sift through changes made by others. The trial period clearly showed that there is no type of pages for which PC would work well. For actively edited pages PC would just add to confusion and chaos and complicate things needlessly. For rarely edited pages PC would result in accumulation of pending edits that are not confirmed for a long time. Existing features such as semii-protection and full protection work better because they do not require significant workload overhead on existing users. If someone is really worried about overall qualifty controls for WP content, they should consider more radical solution that do not impose significant workload burdens on established users, such as, for example, disallowing any editing by IPs. That would be more honest and more effective than the PC charade. [[User:Nsk92|Nsk92]] ([[User talk:Nsk92|talk]]) 13:54, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
# '''Endorse Position #1''': I agree with the stated position: the negative aspects outweigh the positive. I've seen this in action on some pl.wp pages and it seems to be confusing and discourages editing IMHO. I suspect that PC might be related to part of an anti-wiki backlash - there's too much danger to authoritarian organisations of losing too much control over knowledge distribution, and PC might offer a way to bog down Wikipedia and wikis in general by legal challenges over editorial responsibility and by encouraging internal struggles over editorial control that distract from the main issue of article content. I'm not suggesting that individual Wikipedians in favour of PC are trying to support authoritarian organisations - the pressure from authoritarian organisations should be expected as a systematic effect - partly through secret, offline pressure on WMF Board members, partly through indirect pressure on Wikipedians, through mainstream media misrepresenting the nature of wikis and the responsibilities of ''readers'' to judge the quality of the information they read. [[User:Boud|Boud]] ([[User talk:Boud|talk]]) 19:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
# On top of everything else I find the notion odd that FR has improved de.wp. On the contrary, it has introduced one more subtle level of hierarchy to make the climate worse than it was before. --[[User:Pgallert|Pgallert]] ([[User talk:Pgallert|talk]]) 07:57, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
# I would say '''No changes should be blocked''',for not any second, but '''This should only be used for marking''', state what pages haven't been reviewed.[[User:Justincheng12345|Justincheng12345]] ([[User_talk:Justincheng12345|talk]])  ([[:zh:User_talk:Justincheng12345|urgent news here]]) 11:01, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
# Absolutely, unequivically no. It is hard enough to find and keep editors without removing one of the few things (the satisfaction of editing and gratification of immediate publication) that works in that regard. A phrase about cracking walnuts with tanks springs to mind... [[User:Meetthefeebles|Meetthefeebles]] ([[User talk:Meetthefeebles|talk]]) 13:12, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
# '''Endorse''' Keep it as it is.  The negative effect of a structural hierarchy of reviewers destroys the ethos of the project.  It becomes edited by a few instead of edited by all.[[User:Davdevalle|Davdevalle]] ([[User talk:Davdevalle|talk]]) 14:30, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
# '''Endorse''' Pending changes is ideologically wrong for Wikipedia.  It means that the vast majority of editors will be restricted from editting sensitive articles (e.g., BLP).  Wikipedia has become the lead online encyclopedia because of its open structure. Unless we've decided that it's time for Wikipedia to stop growing, and instead enter a maintenance phase, PC must be rejected. [[User:NJ Wine|NJ Wine]] ([[User talk:NJ Wine|talk]]) 00:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
# The pending changes system may look OK in theory, but the trial period convinced me that we are better off without it. --[[User:Zundark|Zundark]] ([[User talk:Zundark|talk]]) 21:18, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
# I am sympathetic to the problem of a dwindling cadre of editors struggling to conserve a growing repository of information, but I think PC will hinder rather than help, for several reasons: 1) Whatever arguments can be made that PC does not violate [[WP:Anyone can edit]], it will be ''seen'' as violating it and thereby will hurt WP's image; 2) I don't see a problem with the current regime of semi-protection for articles under attack, with discipline applied to problem users and sockpuppeteers; 3) While there may currently be a backlog of bad-faith edits that have not been dealt with, PC will not make that go away but instead will create a ''second'' backlog of ''good-faith'' edits that are not visible because reviewers have not gotten around to looking at them.  I see this as potentially disastrous, not least for the prospect of developing new editors.  --[[User:BlueMoonlet|BlueMoonlet]] ([[User talk:BlueMoonlet|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/BlueMoonlet|c]]) 01:24, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
#'''Endorse'''--[[User:Drboisclair|Drboisclair]] ([[User talk:Drboisclair|talk]]) 08:13, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
#'''Endorse'''-- My understanding of the PC issue is that the crux of it is designed to address and control vandalism.  According to a Wikipedia statistic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Edits_by_user_type.png 8.1 percent of all edits are vandalism, comprised of 6.5 percent attributed to unregistered editors and 1.6 percent attributed to those registered - meaning 91.9 percent of edits are outside the purview of vandalism. Adopting PC will serve to control all Wikipedia edits, not just vandalizing edits.  Wikipedia has become a globally trusted, although imperfect, source of information due to the "anyone can edit" policy.  PC will undermine the credibility of Wikipedia as a democratically derived information source and defeat the only equal access information provider on the planet. Wikipedia is akin to a living, breathing organism structured and capable of presenting valid and accurate information within a real-time capacity. Let's keep it that way. --[[User:SgtMayDay|SgtMayDay]] ([[User talk:SgtMayDay|talk]]) 09:39, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
#I can appreciate the appeal of more granular editing privileges and PC has some clear advantages over the current use of edit requests. That said, the current incarnation of PC is a nightmare for a laundry list of reasons detailed above and I don't think it can be salvaged. I believe that the deployment of PC on large portions of the wiki, a possibility that a few editors are excited about, would be nothing short of disastrous. [[User:ButOnMethItIs|ButOnMethItIs]] ([[User talk:ButOnMethItIs|talk]]) 17:00, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
#'''Endorse'''--The PC system is draconian, complicated, frustrating, and will only serve to repel rather than attract new editors.--[[User:Jeanne boleyn|Jeanne Boleyn]] ([[User talk:Jeanne boleyn|talk]]) 13:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
#I think that with the page protection system already in use is enough. Some pages in Wikipedia have a high amount of edits per hour, so reviewing each edit is a hard task. We're only 90,000 active users against millions of unregistered editors plus the registered ones. So, it'll make a mess more that fixing the problems. --[[User:Hahc21|<span style="color:grey;">Hahc'''21'''</span>]] <sup><span style="color:grey">{{small|<nowiki>[</nowiki>[[User talk:Hahc21|<span style="color:RED;">TALK</span>]]<nowiki>]</nowiki><nowiki>[</nowiki>[[Special:Contributions/Hahc21|<span style="color:GREEN;">CONTRIBS</span>]]<nowiki>]</nowiki>}}</span></sup> 14:29, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
#'''Endorse''' I trust those people wanting to introduce this system will spend their time operating it - I predict a log-jam, frustration and other tasks being overlooked. [[User:Arjayay|Arjayay]] ([[User talk:Arjayay|talk]]) 17:49, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
# [[User:MeegsC|MeegsC]] | [[User talk:MeegsC|Talk]] 01:19, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
#'''Endorse'''' We have a similar PC system in the german Wikipedia and it's better without it. Also people who don't edit wikipedia yet but thinking about doing their part will get problems wirh that and it will disattract a lot of potential new editors. -- [[User:Laberkiste|Laber□]]<sup>[[User_Talk:Laberkiste|T]]</sup> 02:59, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
#'''Endorse''' per [[User:SoWhy|SoWhy]], [[User:Wnt|Wnt]], [[User:DGG|DGG]], [[User:WDGraham|W. D. Graham]], and [[User:Sandstein|Sandstein]], as well as per the past discussions. I additionally reaffirm that this tool is inefficient and counterproductive, that its deployment would inevitably dissuade new and anonymous editors from participating, that its handling has repeatedly violated the community's trust, and that we should never stand for any proposal designed to undermine core principles of the project. <span style="background:black;color:white">&nbsp;&nbsp;'''''—&nbsp;'''''[[User:CMBJ|<span style="background:black;color:white">'''''C&nbsp;M&nbsp;B&nbsp;J'''''</span>]]&nbsp;&nbsp;</span> 11:35, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
#At first sight, it seems to be a good initiative to protect good articles from persistent vandalism. But there are thousands of articles that require further edits to get improved? How did Wikipedia grow up so soon? Only because people here can think themselves as the part of an encyclopedia as they can edit and add info from anywhere anytime and they can see their edits instantly displayed. Hence they feel motivated. Do you want Wikipedia to turn out to be [[Citizendium]]? In this age, people do not like hierarchy. If you can check pending changes, why don’t you make a list of new changes without keeping them pending? And then check them. If you find anything unreferenced, remove them. If you find anything that breaks Wikipedia policy, discuss. If you are so much concerned with the vandalism from unregistered users, then make sure that no unregistered user can edit Wikipedia. If you cannot trust them, how can they trust you? How will you make sure that all the administrators and reviewers would be unbiased and knowledgeable and they would not keep a change pending for its truthfulness? [[User:Smmmaniruzzaman|Smmmaniruzzaman]] ([[User talk:Smmmaniruzzaman|talk]]) 13:51, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
#'''Endorse'''  - Per Sandstein & SilkTork.  Semiprotection is adequate.  Pending Changes would add to the complexity of WP.  Many novice IP editors would get discouraged and bail out.  PC would add to the bureaucracy & hierarchy. --[[User:Noleander|Noleander]] ([[User talk:Noleander|talk]]) 14:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
#Per SoWhy and because I do not think the benefits are worth the extra layer of process complexity. [[User:JohnCD|JohnCD]] ([[User talk:JohnCD|talk]]) 21:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC)