This is a bit of a follow up to the 'answer' here.
From the time editing was first introduced, it's a system that both has been refined, and occasionally has scaled poorly. In general, the mechanics of the network ought to reward good behaviour on its own merits, either tangibly or intangibly.
Our gold badge dupe close system is an example of reputation being separated from a privilege.
The suggested edit system is meant to be 'training wheels' for editing. You make a major edit, someone reviews it and ensures it's up to scratch and approves it. It's a great system since it lets people learn the ropes while avoiding the risk of major vandalism or over-enthusiasm.
On the other hand, it's possible to get what needs editing, and how to do it before you hit 2000 reputation, or to hit 2k reputation and not really have had much editing experience. The exact numbers are up for tweaking of course but here's what I'm roughly suggesting.
Assuming the user has a clean record - and hasn't been suspended from suggesting edits:
Allow a user to do major edits at 250 successful edits even if the 2k editing ability is not unlocked. We'd still keep a 6 char minimum here to prevent minor/trivial edits. Allowing those as under 6 char edits is something to be considered
Allow a user full edit rights at 500 successful edits.
I'd tier this based on site size as we already do with 'small' graduated site reputation levels, though I'd say SO might need its own threshold and tweaking.
If a little complication is alright, I'd say a 75% success rate in edits would be a nice thing to have. Alternatively, a high rate of failed edits, or a string of failed ones should also raise an auto-flag for review.
I'd appreciate feedback, and people pointing out any obviously unshielded thermal exhaust ports.