I was shown this review:
I think that I should not be asked to review someone's edit if they have more reputation than me - they are more trusted and know what they are doing more than me.
Meta Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for meta-discussion of the Stack Exchange family of Q&A websites. It only takes a minute to sign up.Sign up to join this community
The only time this will ever happen is for Tag Wiki's. On non-beta sites you need 20k rep to edit tag wiki's without approval from somebody else.
You can approve the tag wiki's at 5k.
I think it makes sense for somebody with 5k (which is still quite a bit), or in your case, 6k, to review a tag wiki - they're 'special', which honestly just need a little research (like googling for a section of the wiki to make sure it hasn't just been copied).
At 5k, you should be trusted to do at least that...
The fact that the person you're reviewing has a lot more rep should actually make it much easier to approve it (if you think that rep == trust, which it does), just make sure it's not copied! And, if you're not sure, just skip it :)
If you don't feel comfortable reviewing the edit then skip it.
I do not see anything wrong with this. Reviewing does not only serve the purpose to prevent low-reputation users from doing bad stuff due to lack of experience but also serves as a simple quality control (four eyes see more than two) and gathering the opinion of the community.
In the case of tag-wiki edits, there are at least three aspects:
Tag wikis represent the whole community, not only a single user, and thus the damage of a bad edit is larger than that of a bad edit to a regular post. Approving a tag-wiki edit thus serves to ensure to some extent that the tag wiki still represents the community’s opinion.
A user that has reached 2000 reputation and thus can edit regular posts without approval is not free from making the occasional bad edit either. However, if somebody edits another user’s post, this bumps the post back to the front page and (often) alerts the original author. Thus several people who could detect a flaw in the edit and (in case of the post’s original author) have strong interest to undo a bad edit will notice it. So, if somebody reaches 2000 reputation, the control for regular edits is not entirely dropped but only reduced.
Tag wikis however are mostly read by new users, who cannot detect certain problems and may not be familiar enough with the site to have them fixed. Thus a flaw in a tag wiki may remain unnoticed and uncorrected for a long time. Therefore it is a good thing to have at least a few other users look over it who might detect a bad edit.
Tag wikis in particular also describe the scope of a tag. In many cases, tag-wiki edits affecting the scope should only follow a discussion on Meta. However, only a human can decide whether an edit actually affects the scope in a way that deserves further discussion and this depends on several aspects such as the question already existing in a tag – e.g., a tag-wiki edit reducing the scope of a tag in a way that does not exclude any existing question is arguably not a problem. Thus you are to some extent only asserting that somebody followed appropriate procedures.
Note that while I am talking about bad edits here, this mostly refers to honest mistakes such as writing an unintelligible sentence (people are usually quite bad at detecting flaws in the intellegibility of their own writings). Due to some of the above, one could argue that tag-wiki edits should always require approval, independently of the reputation of the editor.
Finally, note the message you see after having suggested an edit:
This edit will be visible only to you until it is peer reviewed.
For similar reasons, I do not see a problem with encountering posts by users with higher reputation in the low-quality, close and reopen queue, which may happen as well.