On many sites there is quite a problem with robo approval of edits. This goes so far as to that people who are truly reviewing edits do not do this anymore because the edits will be approved by blindly approve hitting people anyways.
I am wondering if this site is going into that direction too.
I only have one datapoint which raises this question to me, but I nevertheless would like to raise awareness and discussion if this is or is not a problem. The datapoint is an edit that was approved.
The edit changed the title
Do lights on aircraft flash in a specific pattern?
What type of aircraft has white flashing lights & occasionally flashes red & blue?
it was done (afaict) by an anonymous user. The user clearly wanted to ask another/similar question which is evident by looking at the edit comment:
I've been seeing a lot of strange lights in the sky.
Out of three voting users, only one rejected the edit with the (canned?) message, the other approved it (and ever approved all of their review items).
This edit deviates from the original intent of the post. Even edits that must make drastic changes should strive to preserve the goals of the post's owner.
This indeed is the case here. I think from the title alone you can tell that my original intent was not to ask for a type of aircraft, nor was it to ask for red & blue lights. The latter being clear by no red and blue lights being ever mentioned in the question itself.
Since I have no access to the review queue or statistics, my question is:
was this just one outlier? Or is this an early sign of robo edit approbal problems?