Note that if you have 10k+ reputation, you can see most deleted answers.

I can only hope that 2000+ rep users on this site follow the guidance of SE staff, for the sake of low-rep users.

@MadHatter: How does "too little, too late" cause harm? Just because you want to reject edits that you don't like doesn't mean that they cause harm.

This will be my last comment, feel free to have the last word. I'm sorry that this got off to a bad start but I do feel that I understand Iain and others' position better now, so thank you for answering my questions :)

@Michael Hampton: ah, maybe I should let this conversation drop, but I can't help it. You omitted "editing posts", was that deliberate? How can we allow low-rep users to challenge bad reviews, considering that 2000+ rep users are completely blind to bad rejections, they simply don't see them? All I'm trying to do is to make high-rep users aware that there is bad reviewing going on (rejecting a bad edit for the wrong reason is bad reviewing too). I admit that my linked example isn't great.

@MichaelHampton: What you said is true. I am familiar with the software, and I am not currently a high-quality contributor to Server Fault. What are you suggesting I should do or stop doing based on these facts?

I know how the review system works, I've been a reviewer on other SE sites. What fallacy are you referring to? Did you really just tell me to "quit now whilst you're behind", though? I'm getting the impression that reviewers can't be questioned because they've earned the rep to review, and low-rep users might as well quit now? Fortunately for me, I have enough experience on other SE sites to know that it's worth staying around despite this experience. If you think I'm a troll, please have a look at all my SE profiles and tell me if that's fair.

If the other 4 canned reject reasons don't cover the situation, then the custom box should be used, though, that's what it's there for.

Fair enough. |||

Also, Iain didn't answer my question post in his answer post, with this explanation meta.serverfault.com/questions/6569/…

I would suggest something like peer-review of maybe 1% of the reviews, the system to detect bots is not enough in my opinion.

I'm not suggesting deleting the review system at all! Currently there are no consequences for bad reviews, and only low-rep users bear the brunt of bad reviewing, and they are more likely to just not come back than to complain. (The question referred to by Iain and I is the clarifying question I asked in the first comment of this post.)

I asked "should edits that improve answers (but that aren't required) be rejected?", where did you answer that question?