It's always (well, for a long time) annoyed me that, as a 10K user, I can very easily edit a post and have it apply immediately. Whereas if a lower-rep user has already suggested an edit, whether I agree or disagree with their edit, I can't approve or reject it without at least one other person approving. Which seems relatively silly when you think about it, and can significantly slow down the process of improving a post.
I understand the reason for this behavior: people plow through the edit queue and maybe have less investment in truthfully reviewing the edit and ensuring that it makes sense, especially without having any direct experience with the question in context (and perhaps rushing to get some badge makes this process even more careless). But I think this type of mindless edit is far less likely to happen if I am reviewing the edit because I was actually on the question and clicked the
edit (0) link, rather than because I was simply plowing through the queue.
I am not sure of the technical difficulty to implement what I'm asking for, and I suspect you'll down-vote me into oblivion and/or close this as a duplicate of Why do we need multiple approvers for suggested edits?. But since this triple-stamp process can occasionally really slow down clarifying or improving a post, I still feel justified in asking:
Can we waive the requirement to have another set of eyes approve an approval (or approve a rejection) when and only when (a) the approver is a 10K user and (b) the approver files his/her vote to approve or reject the edit from within the question vs. from within the edit queue?