Yes it was:
Propose a privilege to sit in the 500 reputation mark
It was done (primarily for Stack Overflow) where low rep users are automatically approving bad edits in an effort reduce the number of bad edits getting into the system.
It's unfortunate that it will catch some good reviewers who have less than 500 reputation.
If it becomes a problem we ...
It seems to be because this has been implemented:
Can we raise the bar for reputation for late answers to enter the review queue?
Essentially, the definition of "new user" for that queue has been raised to 50 reputation points from 10.
Possibly because there's a hat you can earn for being involved in the closing of questions:
Expect the queue to settle down once people have won the hat or when Winterbash is over for this year.
This is not a bug; it's part of an update to the review queues. You now get one Steward badge for every 1,000 reviews in a single queue. For more details, see Steward badge can now be awarded multiple times -- backfill details on Meta Stack Exchange.
I've rejected the edit.
As it takes two people to approve (or reject) an edit then the danger of an accidental misclick is somewhat reduced.
The only things you can really do to prevent the edit going through are post in here or in chat to get others to review and reject the edit.
The fallback position is to monitor the question and if the edit does get ...
Did this help?
I'd like to see some numbers on the actual number of questions that were closed by the community alone, but I know it's significantly higher than it was for 5 close votes (I can likely count on one hand the number of 5 vote closures we've had in the last few months.
Did it hurt?
No. It kept things a bit neater, eliminating things like ...
Definitely not okay in my book to post a person's potentially private LinkedIn profile with first and last name, even if it was in the edit message.
Aside from that, the answers were old and there was nothing "spammy" about them that needed disclosure, per se (there are other answers that could potentially have required disclosure as well, and many of our ...
The issue is now fixed thanks to the reviewers. I believe we should increase the default edit queue size as currently it is only 40 as it's not respectful toward the edit authors to discard their edits.
The "allow community and/or moderators" to "accept" answers when the OP has disappeared has been suggested and declined many times. (Here's one. Here's another.) The SE team isn't going to implement that.
The best thing we can do is to upvote those really good answers.
As for a review queue, that may have some merit. However, I'd think we could accomplish ...
Oh, I just found this: Propose a privilege to sit in the 500 reputation mark
Make access to the First Posts and Late Answer Review queues a 500 rep privilege.
Hopefully this will prevent the blind from leading the blind.
As a possible side benefit it may slow down the badge hunters till they get a better idea of what the review queues are really for and ...
Yes, it's working correctly. Or, at least, as designed.
I'd need to go dig it up, but there have been many questions about the review count notification and people clicking it and not finding anything to review. (Check on Meta Stack Exchange.) From what I recall, SE simply wants the people who have access to know there are things there that need to be ...
Edit should be used mostly to fix "small" problems like markdown, spelling, grammar, terminology, among other "small" issues but not to fix major content problems like a missing description of what the formula does, etc.
Deletion should be used on "answers" that do not answer the question, queries that should be posted as a ...
I've edited those posts per this policy in the Help Center:
How to not be a spammer
The community here tends to vote down overt self-promotion and flag it as spam. Post good, relevant answers, and if some (but not all) happen to be about your product or website, that’s okay. However, you must disclose your affiliation in your answers.
The easiest ...