Personally I think we should focus on providing better education for reviewers before we start trying to identify "bad" reviewers and kick them out of the system.
I can think of many cases where reviewers simply didn't know what they were doing was wrong, including some users that have since gone on to become moderators.
For example, the Suggested Edit queue only says:
Approve, reject, or improve edits suggested by users. (less)
- Approve edits you know are correct
- Reject those you know are wrong
- Improve to improve this suggested edit
- Skip if you are not sure and want to go to the next suggested edit
That's it. Nowhere does this say anything about trivial edits being unwelcome, or providing a definition of what counts as a "trivial" edit. There's not even a link for if you want more information about what edits are "correct" and which ones are "wrong".
If you want reviewers to stop approving trivial edits, tell them that. Don't just let them find out by blocking them from the review system.
I actually have a MSO proposal here to create some detailed Meta-FAQ pages about each review type, and link to them from the Review Queues, however its been sitting around for a few months gathering dust.
I see lots of MSO posts complaining about bad reviews or "robo reviewers", or wanting SE to wave some magic wand to ban "bad" reviewers from the system, however if you really want to improve the system, go help write some detailed Meta-FAQ community-wiki posts about the individual Review Queues.
Someone has even started one already
It's been brought to my attention that I didn't address the feature-request suggested, so let me try to be clear about my answer to it:
I don't think we should attempt this until after we improve our way of educating reviewers.
The proposal is to create a bunch of algorithms to flag users for additional scrutiny, many of whom probably don't even know that what they're doing is wrong.
I think with the current system, it would result in far too many false positives, and would be much too human-resource intensive to be worth the effort of implementing it, especially when there are other easier alternatives that could provide a much better improvement to the review system.
To go into more detail:
Obvious robot-ness: If a user is repeating the same action in a queue or not taking much time on it, they probably need more scrutiny.
I'm a fast reader and often have reached a decision before the buttons get enabled. I expect there are others like me, so I think flagging users based on the time will return a lot of false positives.
Also, if users are truly trying to circumvent the system by approving everything for extra rep or badges, they can just wait an extra few seconds between clicking "Approve" or "Reject" button.
Sticky posts: When there are controversial posts with opposing reviews (upvotes/no-action-needed + flags/downvotes ; Accept + Reject ; Close + DNC ; etc), keep them in the queue for a while longer. Check involved parties for suspicious reviewing (especially the ones who upvoted), and put them under scrutiny.
There are many times when the community disagrees on something (such as your 2nd and 3rd examples being too-minor), so this will at best result in queues that are 50% good users and 50% questionable users, or at worst result in 100% good users being placed under scrutiny.
Propagation: If a possible bad reviewer has been identified, go through their reviews and look for reviews where there were both people who agreed with the bad reviewer and those who disagreed. Put the ones who agreed under scrutiny (if their history seems suspicious). This trick is what I used to find the posts I linked to above.
This assumes you know who a "bad" reviewer is. You can't accurately base it on review audits because those are picked by an algorithm that are sometimes incorrect, and you can't base it on the majority-vote because the problem we're attempting to solve is Approved reviews that should have been Rejected, so that means the majority was wrong.
Failed audits: If a user fails an audit, put them under scrutiny.
Audits are based on an algorithm, not a hand-picked list of posts, and they are sometimes incorrect. I've seen multiple MSO posts asking about why they "failed" an audit when they actually took the correct action. In addition, it's fairly trivial to open the question in a new tab and figure out if it's an audit or not.
So ultimately, I disagree with the proposal right now. There would be too many false-positives at this time, and all you're really proposing is to flag users based on some unreliable algorithm, and put them in yet another queue for review.
Perhaps after we've improved the documentation and education for our review system this can be revisited, but right now I think we should be focused on the task of educating our reviewers, not try to identify the uneducated ones and punishing them.