Let me be crystal clear here  If pending changes are removed by any admin from any article that admin is responsible for replacing them with either semi or full protection level  or full protection only level  each with the same duration as the duration of the pending changes protection whether or not the originally protecting administrator takes any action with respect to the RfCs closure  This is due to the fact that any number of BLP subjects have threatened to sue Wikipedia for allowing defamation in their articles and pending changes has been part of our good faith response  This cannot easily be determined onwiki as most of the complaints and responses are in OTRS rather than any onwiki venue  While Ive made my honest best effort to include references to OTRS tickets when appropriate in protection summaries theres no guarantee that the absence of any such OTRS ticket number indicates that the pending changes can be dropped  Note also that nonBLP articles may have been placed under pending changes protection for BLP reasons so an article on eg a corporation placed under pending changes protection may not be assumed to be not a BLPrelevant article  Furthermore regardless of the merit of such lawsuits the fact is that Wikipedias BLP goals are to do no harmits an ethical stance with worldwide acceptance The removal of Pending Changes as a tool does not change our obligation to BLP subjects in any way it merely removes a tool that allows trusted nonautoconfirmed and nonadministrator users to make changes to such articles  If anyone was under the impression that the end of pending changes would automagically open any protected articles for freeforall editing they have likely not thought through the real world implications of BLP I trust that this statement clarifies things sufficiently that unilateral unprotection of pending changesprotected articles doesnt become an issue