Wikipedia talk:Flagged protection approval

Why should non-neutral or original research edits be approved? And is this even necessary? How about, "edits should only be approved if they improve the article". It should be as simple as that, for semi-flagged protection. Any edit that an established editor thinks should be left as-is without reverting or modifying should be approved. Edits that have value but are flawed don't need to be approved (although they can be), because instead editors can simply adjust them (creating a new auto-approved version). Bad edits can (and should) be reverted. With full flagged protection, it should be, "edits should only be approved if they reflect consensus or are uncontroversial improvements" (i.e., edits that it would be acceptable for an administrator to make on a fully protected article).

If a page such as this is necessary (I don't think it is), it should be about what to approve, not what to "disapprove". Disapproval is not an action; it's the default state before an edit is approved or reverted or a subsequent edit is made.--ragesoss (talk) 23:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no "disapprove" action. Reviewers can approve, revert, or do nothing. I would suggest writing like this:

Before flagging, reviewers are expected to check if edits: Such edits should be reverted.
 * 1) Conflict with the Biographies of Living People policy
 * 2) Contain vandalism or patent nonsense
 * 3) Contain copyright violations
 * 4) Contain legal threats, personal attacks or libel

Reviewers are not required to check for Original Research, neutrality, and verifiability and should not be held responsible for approving such edits. Reviewers, like all editors, are welcome to revert any edits they disagree with, but should provide an edit summary and be willing to discuss it on the talk page. --Apoc2400 (talk) 16:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I drafted a more general guideline at Reviewing guideline, including patrolling. Cenarium (talk) 10:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)