User:Monty845/PC

As a starting point for discussing the policy governing pending changes, we already have Pending changes/Provisional policy. As that policy is set to go into force if consensus is not reached on an alternative policy, it makes sense to frame the discussion of policy as changes from the provisional policy.

Clear Identification of Reason for Protection
It should be made as clear as possible when applying pending changes protection what sort of problematic edits reviewers should be on alert for. While reviewers will of course look for obvious violations of policy, they should not be expected to extensively vet an edit for every possible problem. The default should be to approve an edit after looking for obvious problems and checking the edit against the reason for protection.

Assignment of the Reviewer right
Any admin is allowed to assign the reviewer right. Generally, any experienced editor that has no history of recent issues with policies related to pending change reviewing, who requests the reviewer right, should be granted it. The reviewer right should not be assigned to an editor unless they have either requested it, or it has been discussed with them before hand.

Discussion of the qualifications for being an experienced editor
As a guideline, an editor should be considered experienced if they either have 5,000 edits, OR they have demonstrated competence in dealing with the types of issues likely to arise as a reviewer such as experience at WP:FAC. Monty 845  17:27, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Removal of the Reviewer right
While any admin may remove the reviewer right, care should be taken to avoid knee jerk removals due to one bad approval. Reviewers should not be penalized for approving an edit that has a problem outside the scope of the scope of pending changes protection, and should generally not be penalized for approving an edit that has a problem other then of the type the specific pending changes protection of the article was placed in response to. Reviewers are expected to exercise reasonable care before approving an edit, but are not infallible, and generally any issues with their reviewing should be discussed with them prior to removal of the right. The reviewer right should only be removed when a reviewer has a pattern of bad approvals or when after discussion it is clear that the reviewer does not adequately understand policy.