When looking at the edit review process, the reviewer stats say "has" against each person's username, but "had" against the editor's username. This should be changed to "has" as well because it's the best grammar for that sentence.
The error (in meaning) is even more pronounced in the pending edit view:
I have 2 approved edits right now. It doesn't mean that I had 2 approved edits at some unspecified time in the past, because if that was the case it implies that I no longer have 2 approved edits.
The grammar is not incorrect per se, but it has the wrong meaning. It is obvious that the context of the message is the present, so the present tense needs to be used, not the simple past tense.
The sentences are elided forms of:
CJ Dennis had 2 edit suggestions [which had been] approved, and 0 edit suggestions [which had been] rejected
But they should be elided forms of:
CJ Dennis has 2 edit suggestions [which have been] approved, and 0 edit suggestions [which have been] rejected
So, although the sentences as presented are in the simple past (had), they have elided parts which are in the past perfect tense (had been).
For those who think the current grammar is better, consider the following English SE posts:
Very briefly, and very generally, the present perfect construction is used to describe a past event that has current relevance. The past perfect construction is used to describe one past event that occurred before another. – Barrie England
"has spent" is present perfect, "had spent" is past perfect. "has" describes a past event that has current relevance.
The has/have been form is known as the present perfect and relates what has happened in the past to what is happening now. The had been form is known as the past perfect and pushes the events further back. It relates what happened at some time in the past to the situation at some other time in the past. – Barrie England
I can perhaps add that the sentence "I had been at work for eight hours" is very unlikely to be said unless a past time focus has already been established in the discourse. So if it follows something like "Something strange happened to me yesterday" it would be normal, as would "I had been at work for eight hours when ... ". But the sentence "I had been at work for eight hours." is unlikely to start a conversation. – Colin Fine
"I had been at work for eight hours" is very unlikely to be said unless a past time focus has already been established in the discourse.
Since the context of the edit summary is the present, the verb should be "has". If the context is changed to some time in the past, the verb should be "had". If the current context of the edit summary is not the present but instead the past, this is totally unclear to me and should be changed to make it clear.
CJ Dennis had 7 edit suggestions approved, and 0 edit suggestions rejected
When? Before what other event? Why not now (with "has")?
After a user's first edit is accepted, it says "CJ Dennis had 1 edit suggestion approved, and 0 edit suggestions rejected"
The number agrees with the present (present perfect), but the grammar is in the past (past perfect).
The grammar is unequivocally wrong and needs to change!
Better yet, as has been previously suggested, turn the whole thing into a table and bypass the grammar issue.