Currently, community reviews of posts flagged with "not an answer" or "very low quality" flags can only dispute those flags, not decline them. Disputed flags don't count against the flagger, they are as if a flag was never cast. Declined flags eventually cause warnings and timed flagging bans.
"not an answer" and "very low quality" flags now enter the community review queue on sites like Stack Overflow, and flags there even are hidden from moderators for a short duration. This has allowed for some people to flag indiscriminately, because bad flags don't count against them and good flags get added to their helpful flag count.
This is causing the community's time to be wasted, and endangering good answers that were poorly flagged and now run a risk of being deleted due to a bad review. Moderators would have been able to decline these flags, educating the flagger first about what they shouldn't be flagging, then banning them from flagging if they continued.
I propose that reviews which unanimously reject a flag (all "Looks OK" on a review for something flagged as not an answer, etc.) should decline that flag, not dispute it. Mixed reviews (some for deletion, some against) that don't lead to a deletion of a post should simply dispute flags as usual. This would allow for the community to slow or stop bad flaggers in the way that moderators could before.
Also, we've had a problem with people editing posts that have been flagged as "very low quality" or "not an answer", which automatically approves these flags and removes the flagged item from review. A number of non-answers and spam have made it through review this way. I'm thinking that edits should not clear flags automatically, but I could hear arguments about the specifics on that.
This is a feature request extracted from a portion of this larger feature request.