Your own personal blog attached to your profile

• Write articles on topics that interest you
• Others can discuss your articles in attached chatrooms, over which you retain full ownership + the ability to promote insightful chat messages to a featured position below your articles.
• The nature of the content is up to the author, but must still abide by the usual content policies (on topic, no rudeness, no plagiarism).
• Readers can vote on articles (up/down) and highly-voted articles will be featured on a separate section of the site.
• High-tech XML-based "feed" allows folks with special software to "follow" individual users' posts and pretend it's 1999 all over again.

Everyone's kinda fixated on moderation privileges here. That's understandable, but... I'm not sure it really makes a lot of sense: community-moderation works by distributing the load of moderation across a sizeable population, and 30K is a pretty high bar - even on Stack Overflow, there just aren't a lot of them to carry any significant weight.

But at 30K, there's a pretty good chance you can write. I mean, that's usually how you get 30K. So, why not offer folks who've gotten that far another outlet for their talents?

Please consider this an example proposal. There are a lot of potential pitfalls with comment moderation, so I don't want people to get too excited about this particular idea. It occurs to me that since we really want to hear your ideas, seeding the question was a mistake.

Comment moderation

At 30k on graduated sites (and 10k on beta sites) grant users the following powers:

1. Access to the comment flag queue
2. Delete comments
3. Purge comments (i.e., one click to remove all comments on a post)
4. Move comments to chat
5. Access to deleted comments on the post page via a menu option
6. Undelete comments
7. Access to comment edit history
8. Edit comments
9. Convert to comment

I'm suggesting these privileges because comments are one of the few things that elected and appointed diamond moderators can do something about that the rest of the community cannot. Other than flagging, there's no way for regular users to fix problems with the comments on a post. Having a powerful privilege to aspire to provides a better incentive than providing somewhat less-powerful privileges. Anecdotally, people most look forward to the 10k privileges which introduces the final piece of community moderation: post deletion.

I estimated enthusiasm following a privilege level by doing a longitudinal study of median time-to-next-action. Looking at the 868 Stack Overflow users with more than 20k whose accounts were created after 2010-10-05 (the date privilege notifications were first issued), we can see how quickly they posted and edited after gaining each new privilege:

_{^* The access to First Post and Late Answer review queues is an outlier because it was introduced around August, 2013. It’s a good guess that most of these users got notified of their new privilege when they had far more than 500 reputation.}

These are exceptional users, so they participate (as a group) far more than others. If we look at users with more than 5 reputation, the median first post after getting participate on meta is 215 hours. Compared to their later behavior, trusted users start slow. Notice that they also slow down again after hitting 10k or so. Critically, the slow down after 10k also occurs for 30k users (N=429), so it’s not just an artifact of the cutoff.

There’s circumstantial evidence that increasing the top privilege level increased participation at higher levels. More to the point, the relatively underpowered 15k and 20k levels appear to be less effective at motivating users than 10k powers. So introducing something really helpful, such as comment moderation, seems in order.

However, I think comment moderation is mostly a waste of time. I'd much rather let the system handle comments. Unfortunately, there are already so many comments that should have been edits (or even answers) instead that we can't blindly hide/delete old comments. Creating this privilege will mean committing to manual comment moderation for the foreseeable future. Comment moderation is tedious and unrewarding so I'd rather have our top users do something more productive with their time.

Therefore, while this is my best idea for a new privilege level, I'd really rather find something else. Please consider answering with your own idea and/or upvoting better answers.

Allow 30k (beta 10k) users to see deleted posts directly from a user's profile, and/or to optionally include it in search results.

Viewing deleted posts from the profile was proposed in the past for 10k or 20k users, but people said that that would be too many people looking at stuff someone deleted. 30k is a smaller amount of people, so it might make more sense to give it to them.

Including it in the search results would be in the same vein, i think. Perhaps a user remembers a certain deleted post and wants to find it using search.
To avoid flooding search results with all the deleted stuff, it would only be included by a deleted:yes flag in the search.

In fact, the link might be redundant if we add search. You could just do user:12345 deleted:yes to get their deleted posts.

mattdm gave a great example use-case in a comment that i'll copy here:

An example I can think of: a post looks suspiciously spammy, but it's kind of on the edge. I look to see if the user has a pattern of such questions, and maybe see one half-decent post with a few upvotes -- it'd be nice to be able to see if they've got previously-deleted low-quality posts or not.

Comment on (recently) (self) deleted posts

I've occasionally had the situation where I'm trying to explain something to a new user about the site - new post review or just habitual refresh of the front page newest, or watching the chat room feed.

My comment is about how the question doesn't fit, or how it can be improved, or something of that sort. And I click 'Add Comment' and a red error box pops up that I can't comment on deleted or locked posts. I refresh the page... two down votes, a close vote, and yep, its got a pink background.

deleted by user54321 15 seconds ago

Well. Thats not useful at all. I am shut down on my attempt to try to help out the user. They don't have any other posts on the site and at this point the most I could do would be bother a mod to leave a comment there.

So, there's my proposal. For posts deleted less than ${some time} ago, let 30k users still make a comment on the post. This might be as little as an hour or as much as a day. Its meant to allow 30k users to provide guidance about the site to posts that have been recently deleted so that the user would have a better chance of having the next post be one that fits within the scope.

Expedited on-hold & reopen actions

At 30k (10k beta), grant the following privileges:

• Instantly put a question on hold for any reason other than duplicate, provided that:

  • The question has not been previously closed and reopened.
  • The question, if in the review queue, does not have pending "leave open" votes.
  • (Maybe - open for discussion): the question is on the front page or, failing the ability to implement that, "new" (definition TBD).

• Instantly reopen a question that was put on hold by a 30k user, provided that:

  • The question has been edited since it was put on hold.

We have the dupe-hammer specifically for duplicates, and tying it to reputation on specific tags makes sense. We need the expertise (and site experience) of specific users, not any old user with a certain rep total, to handle those.

The other close reasons -- off-topic, too broad, opinion-based, and unclear -- do not usually require such expertise. If you have 30k rep on a site you should have a pretty good idea of what's answerable and in-scope and what's not. When the decision is not likely to be controversial, we should empower high-rep users to act quickly, before too many answers start showing up.

Just as we want to put problem questions on hold quickly so they can be fixed, we also want to help them get reopened once the problem has been addressed. So I'm proposing that the insta-hold be reversible; a question that was insta-held and then fixed should be insta-openable. This insta-reopen does not apply to questions that were put on hold (or closed) through other means (community vote or moderator action).

One might argue that the reopen part is unnecessary; the community can take care of that, after all. But on some sites we've seen new users (who don't necessarily understand Stack Exchange) get upset when their (salvagable) questions are put on hold and then it takes a while to get them reopened. Let's trust that our 30k users can tell when a question is no longer too broad (etc); enable them to get the question back on its feet so the asker can get answers, and if there are still problems with the question, the usual community actions are still available.

Expedited capability for migration to your site

At 30k on graduated sites (and 10k on beta sites) grant users the power to suggest migration in a more pro-active way to "their powerhouse".

Example: Say you have >30k rep on site X, but also associate with site Y where you have [not a lot of rep], provide some capability to migrate content from site Y to site X since you're well-equipped with the know-how of what goes/doesn't on site X.

I am a high-rep user on TeX.SE, and often find questions on Stack Overflow (SO) that is (La)TeX-specific. As such, I flag these questions, suggesting migration to TeX.SE since the fit is mostly perfect. It just makes sense to move the post to a more suited site.

However, since I'm a lower-rep user on SO, I can only flag a question and suggest TeX.SE as a better location (I assume it's treated similarly on the back-end to a vote-to-close). This flagged is effective < 5% of the time. I think the reason here is that the post ends up in the Close Review queue, which is a particular problem on SO. From a TeX.SE point-of-view, SO almost seems like the garbage-collector of posts since it has so much coming its way, from all walks of life.

I don't see much benefit in leaving formerly on-topic posts on SO rather than migrating it to a site that is tailored to address those issues. This will naturally be the case as more proposals on Area 51 launch.

In short, if you have interest in a specific field of expertise (read: high-rep on a specific site), you should have a pretty good idea of what is on-topic on that particular site (read: you've hung around long enough to know what's going on) and therefore should know what fits on that site if it lands elsewhere on the network that you might troll on-and-off.

While my suggestion is based on an SO-TeX.SE relationship, it may hold in general. However, I wouldn't know how to address this speculation with some circumstantial evidence from SEDE, say, mainly because there's no easy way to perform cross-network queries/analysis.

_{This proposal might be consideration for something like an "In-migration review queue" rather than granting "high-rep privileges on a low-rep associated site". This proposal might need some baking...}

Realtime and smarter feeds

Many processes in Stack Exchange are cached, or have delays, that enable the higher performance of the site.

I propose that these caches are selectively removed for 30K users, and that feeds become personalized and more "real time". For example:

• Review Queue "icon" on the top bar does not count items you have skipped
• 'live' feeds of 'favourite' tags - tags you subscribe to.
• 'subscribe' to posts - get comment, answer, and edit notifications on 'favourite' questions.
• other... (feel free to edit with suggestions)

Many of these suggestions are items that, I presume, are hard to implement for performance reasons (caching normally is), but people with 30K have earned the "privilege" of a more personalized experience.

Unlimited close votes

At 30k on graduated sites (and 10k on beta sites) grant users the following powers:

1. Unlimited close votes (like moderators currently have).
2. Unlimited reviews in the Close review queue.

The main way to keep the high quality of Stack Exchange is to fight the waves of low quality questions with close votes. Many users join this epic battle on daily basis, but they are limited to a meager 20/40 reviews and/or votes per day. At 30k we can assume they know what they're doing, and lift this limit.

_{Disclaimer: personally, I don't take part in the epic battle described above for reasons beyond the scope of this question. However, having such power would be a great incentive, if not to me, surely for others.}

Increase the weight of moderation action.

• One spam or offensive flag counts for three
• One vote to close counts for three
• One vote to delete counts for two
• One upvote on a tag synonym counts for two (downvotes excluded because this immediately deletes the suggestion)

Remove restrictions on moderation rate-limiting.

• Remove a quantity-based flag limit, and introduce an hourly flag limit of, say, 20.
• Same as above for close votes, but instead set the limit higher on Stack Overflow.

For spam/offensive, these things aren't hard to tell, and this just saves time. For close votes, one 30k user and two <30k users, or two 30k users seems balanced. For deletion - deletion of content that should be deleted can take a while, and this expedites it. Same thing with tag synonyms.

w.r.t. restriction removal: 30k users who may be hitting the close limit on some sites could do better if they just came back to it in an hour and looked at some more questions. A rolling rate-limit seems effective.

Trusted on meta.stackexchange.com

+1000 rep on meta.stackexhange.com

Users who have 30k+ reputation on a particular site surely know enough about the Stack Exchange system to fully participate on meta.stackexchange.com; why not carry over some of their rep, say, 1k over to meta.stackexchange.com?

This would be a reward similar to how after 200 rep on any site, you start at 100 rep on all sites, but it would only be applied to meta.stackexchange.com.

Maybe it'll even get more established users participating in this meta.

Ability to migrate a comment conversation to chat

Comment moderation has been touched on in multiple answers so far, but I'm going to add one more.

I suggest that we give 30k users the ability to move comments to chat and purge the extended conversation in a single click. We all know that extended discussions happen all the time - these could be to clarify the post, help another user understand an answer, debugging, or general off-topic/non-constructive comments.

While the standard notice appears asking users to move to chat when the discussion gets lengthy, it requires that all users must have the required 20 rep to participate. If a new user doesn't have that the rep, then a migration to chat is impossible and it continues to takes place in the comments.

Currently, moderators have the ability to bypass the rep requirement and move comments to chat when we get a system generated "excessive comments flag".

I propose that 30k users have the same ability to migrate the comments to chat when needed. Users would have access to a link to move the comments and purge them from the post in a single action. This would give users the ability to help curb possible off-topic conversations that take away from the post and move it into the proper channel...chat.

Nothing.

What differentiates a 20k and 30k user? Not much.

In comparison to 1-500, 1k-3k, 3k-10k, and 10k-20k, the difference from 20k-30k is pretty minimal. It is, frankly, not unexpected that 20k users will eventually reach 30k, and at that point, they either know how to use the site or they don't.

Adding a new reward tier for its own sake is a bad idea, particularly when we're already aware that it's not as though we'll trust 30k users significantly more.

Therefore, I'd like to suggest taking a couple of your favorite proposals from this list, and lumping them into the 20k privileges.

Grant 30k users (10k on betas) the following privileges on non-meta sites:

• If two users have flagged a comment as "too chatty", "obsolete", or "not constructive", and at least one of them is a 30k user,and no one has disputed the flag, delete that comment immediately. (Exception: if a 30k user flags a comment under their own answer/question, then they are treated as a regular user for that flag: 30k users don't have the power of accelerated deletion on comments on their own post.)

• Add a review queue visible to 30k users that lets them view comments others have flagged as "too chatty", "obsolete", or "not constructive". Obviously, the identity of the user who flagged the comment should not be displayed.

These privileges would only apply on non-meta sites.

This allows 30k users ability to help moderate / clean up some comments.

It does not sound especially prone to abuse. We already advise people that comments are second-class citizens and might be deleted at any time. As Adam Davis wrote, comments should be for ephemeral, easily deleted minor bits of clarification. If a user has something important to say, that should normally appear in a new answer or an edit to an existing question or answer. So, if a comment occasionally gets deleted that shouldn't have been, this seems acceptable: the benefit of cleaning up noisy comments seems to outweigh the risks.

The exception for comments on the flagger's post is to prevent abuse (e.g., to prevent a 30k user from deleting a comment that is critical of their question/answer), as suggested by Brad Larson.

Meta sites are different; disagreement and controversy is expected and useful there. As a safeguard, meta sites would be exempted.

(This proposal may need careful thought and possibly further adjustments... Feedback welcome.)

It might be time to add more cross-site privileges. For example, if I have 30k on one site, I might be given the right to see deleted posts on all sites. Alternatively, I might get a higher flag weight on all sites.

Another option would be to let 30k users edit questions on any site. Answers are different since you need to know a bit about the subject to be able to edit an answer safely. Questions, on the other hand, tend to be easier to grok and most edits will be to improve clarity and/or grammar. So, if I have 30k on one site, I should be able to directly edit questions on any other site. Perhaps with some extra requirements: I must also have a copy-editor or at least Strunk & White badge on the 30k site and, for example, at least 500 rep on the target site.

Having 30k on any site suggests that a user is at least relatively well aware of the SE model. I think that 30k is a good threshold at which certain privileges can be transferred to accounts on other sites.

Fancy hats

I propose that 30K users should have access to a range of fancy hats, similar to those we saw during "hat week"

Increased tag synonym privilege

Users with this privilege can suggest and vote on tag synonyms with lessened requirements; instead of a score of 5, they only need to have either a score of 1 (demonstrating involvement), or for the tag to be below a certain threshold of usage (demonstrating not-going-to-hurt-anything).

I often notice tags that ought to be synonyms of other tags, but I cannot make the suggestion because I do not have the requisite 5 score in the target tag, and very few other people would be around to vote on it at all, because the tag simply does not have that many questions (or does not have enough rate of questions to deliberately work towards the 5 score). This privilege would allow people to perform more cleanup of the long tail.

(That said, I'm not sure I want this to actually be the shiny new 30k privilege, because I think it ought to be available much sooner than that.)

Kick questions off the Hot Network Questions list

(or at least vote to do that.)

Many Hot Network Questions are great, and they are great ways to funnel traffic to the better parts of a site and increase engagement.

Other Hot Network Questions, however, are not great. The mechanism is strongly biased towards junk-food, lowest-common-denominator questions, and it has a terrible feedback loop that makes those issues self-reinforcing. For many 30k+ users, seeing those HNQs triggers an immediate reaction along the lines of

this question does not represent the best of my site,

possibly accompanied by expletives that share an acronym with the French Federation of Speleology.

Allow us to make that explicit in ways that count: allow us to (vote to) remove questions from that list. If, say, five 30k+ users from a smallish site vote that way, then that's a strong indicator that the question's presence of that list is probably grating to a significant fraction of the committed userbase.

More Close Votes

Increased Review Queue Limits

This is similar to, but different than Shadow Wizard's proposal for unlimited close votes

Some of my logic for this request is echoed in this post on Meta.Programmers.

The TL;DR version is that community members who are active in community moderation will frequently run out of close votes on a daily basis. Likewise, they'll be prevented from using the review queues after they hit 20 reviews.

Having more close votes means low quality questions can be closed in a more timely basis which provides important feedback about the question to the person asking the question. Poor questions that linger can attract less than helpful answers, and they give a negative impression of the site to other visitors.

If you search the The Whiteboard's chat history for phrases like "out of close votes" or "need more close votes" you'll see that it is a frequent issue for the review queue regulars.

Shadow's proposal calls for unlimited close votes whereas my proposal only calls for an increase in close votes. Please note that I'd take unlimited close votes over have no increase at all, but I'm not certain that unlimited votes is necessarily the next logical step.

Ability to ping two or more users in a single comment

If the reason it's limited to one ping per comment is to prevent abuse, then surely such trusted users should not be subject to that rule.

It would be a small yet sometimes genuinely useful tool imo. Not that I'd get to use it for a while.

Immediately protect questions having 3 or more answers.

10K users can vote delete questions two days after these are closed. Users with twice as much rep, at 20K, gain privilege to vote immediately if closed question has score -3 or less.

15K users can protect questions a day after these are posted. Similar to elevated delete vote privileges, system could grant users with twice as much rep, at 30K, a privilege to protect immediately if question has 3 or more answers (possibly including deleted ones).

Expedited Reopen for questions on hold as unclear

At 30k on graduated sites (and 10k on beta sites) grant users the ability to immediately reopen questions which:

1. are on hold as unclear (but not yet closed)
2. have been edited by the original question asker

This is a limited form of the suggestion from @MonicaCellio. On Photo-SE, we get a lot of vague questions where more information really is needed to provide good answers, and recently we've been putting them on hold very quickly (which is good, because it prevents the question from accumulating a bunch of guesses at what the possible question might be as answers). But, we're a little slower at reopening these when the clarification is provided, leading to a period of frustration. This would allow high-rep users to end that frustration quickly.

(I wouldn't suggest this as the sole 30k privilege, but maybe one of several.)

Guaranteed evaluation to status-* tag for open feature-requests at respective per site meta in one or two months.

Users having substantial experience of access to (almost) full privileges after 20K are likely to be interested in features worth considering.

Attention to their requests would show that Stack Exchange listens to their community.

Requirement for request to stay open to be eligible is primarily in order to prevent temptation of reposting prior popular requests to "force" their evaluation. (Reopening of incorrectly closed or clarified question should probably reset the "evaluation timer".)

Also, to keep system stable:

• there should be some kind of rate limiting, something like one (or two, or four) eligible requests a year
• eligible questions should have feature-request tag from the very beginning, to avoid complications related to retagging, in a way similar to how it is done for dupehammer.

If a 30k user votes to close a question, and another 30k user has already voted to close the question, then the question immediately gets closed.

If a 30k user votes to reopen a question, and another 30k user has already voted to reopen the question, then the question immediately gets reopened.

This will be the policy for all questions that have a score of 0 or less, except those questions that have already had at least 1 close history and at least 1 reopen history.

Give 150 rep (instead of 100) on site association

While +50 rep on top of the current 100 site association bonus doesn't seem like much, it ultimately gives 30k users:

1. The downvote privilege.
   The choice of 150 allows for 25 downvotes on answers (at -1 rep per answer), which is enough for those that may infrequently visit/lurk another site, who can already vote up, flag and comment.
2. More leeway for bounties.
   With the minimum bounty being 50 reputation, users can place 1 bounty on an associated site without re-entering new-user privilege restriction territory (< 100).

In terms of how much a 30k user would 'know a site' before accessing more dangerous privileges: a base association of 150 is also still 100 rep away from viewing close votes on their own question, and 350 from accessing review queues - which is still a large amount of reputation to earn on a site to access those privileges, especially with no large 'bank' of questions/answers bringing in regular rep (as would be the case on their 30k site).

Edit questions and answers without bumping them to the front page

This one may be more appropriate for Silver Tag Badge holders, but I'm going to throw it on the floor here anyway.

One issue that comes up on some of the SE sites I participate in is that when someone is doing a wave of clean-up edits, all of the questions and answers that they edit count as recent activity and those questions get bumped to the front page, thus drowning out other, more relevant, recent activity.

At 30k it's assumed that you're a well-behaved member of the community. You're not going to go on a destructive rampage. If you're the kind of person who would do that, you would have been caught long before you hit 30k.

This privilege grants you the ability to participate more in site maintenance, by editing questions and answers to recategorize, correct changed terminology, improve formatting, or other cleanup tasks which help improve site content.

This privilege is strictly opt-in - you must explicitly select to not bump an edited question. At 30k you are trusted to make the correct judgement.

In all cases the OP recieves a notification of the edit and may roll back if they feel that the edit materially changes their intent.

This might require too much special casing to be realistic, but I think something like it is worth proposing. It falls somewhere in between moderation and the content maintenance that Uphill Luge was talking about in his deleted answer.

Let 30k users administer wiki-locked questions and curate their pages.

This might include:

• Applying a wiki answer lock to a question closed as "not constructive", "too broad", or (on SO) "recommendation" (possibly and older than D and with at least N score) (This could require voting, like deletion, rather than being unilateral.)
• Converting a historical lock to a wiki answer lock (not a likely feature)
• Editing a question that has a wiki answer lock, not just the answers.
• Commenting despite the lock; deleting and editing others' comments
• Deleting/undeleting answers regardless of score

The simplified version of this would be let 30k users ignore wiki answer locks: they can act on the question and answers as they normally would.

The idea here is to let users who are clearly great at creating good stuff work on some of the most potentially useful, but also controversial and usually messy, stuff on their site, to help bring it up to snuff. Generally someone with this rep level has a certain sense of ownership of a tag or set of tags, and wiki-locked questions can be important assets for a tag.

This isn't something that moderators are able to do -- limitations of time and subject proficiency mean that it's most sensible for them to apply the lock, prune the answers, and then just stand back for other users to do the editing. Allowing high-rep users to handle the whole affair takes moderators out of a loop they maybe don't need to be in, and the abuse potential is low since the power is so narrow.

Problems with this include the fact that I may be looking at this through a Stack Overflow lens. Wiki-answer locks are fairly rare, and I'm not sure this is even relevant for sites outside the Trilogy; they may just not have posts that warrant the lock.

For SO at least, though, this might help alleviate the rarity -- with more people able to meaningfully interact with those locked posts, it makes more sense to apply the locks widely.

Add an improved timeline.

I'm not a moderator on any site, but I know that moderators get a lot of extra information from a post's timeline that are not available. In particular, I would love to have direct links to review queues related to a particular post, rather than having to manually search in the history. I'm sure there are other tools there as well that I'm not aware of.

@Shog9 said that this is basically a dead feature for regular users here, but this is exactly the sort of information that would be a nice reward and could also help with moderation without feeling like a duty. It's nice to be able to see "oh, this low quality answer wasn't deleted because it was edited out of the queue, but it's still low quality". Or "I see a reopen vote here, but this question is awful, and I want to Leave Closed review it".

My proposal is for MSE only, but maybe can be expanded later somehow to other sites.

MSE tends to get lots of programming questions, from people unaware of what this site is about, landing here in mysterious ways and thinking this is Stack Overflow.

I'd say it's at least 20 questions every day. Not much, but enough to make noise.

I would like that users with 30k reputation will have binding close vote under those conditions:

1. Close reason only off-topic ⇒ "This question does not appear to be about the software that powers the Stack Exchange network".
2. Question has 0 or negative score.
3. OP (user who posted the question) does not have any reputation on the site, i.e. 1 reputation or 101 with association bonus. (Yes, this is not rare to see as well.)

If all of those are true, the close vote will be binding, and the question will be insta-closed.

Just for fun, recent example of what I'm talking about:

Limited ability to see question bans on related SE sites.

The Problem:
Programmers frequently sees low quality questions that would have been asked on SO except that the asker has been question banned from SO.

The Proposal:
Allow 30k users the ability to see if a new poster is blocked on a related technology site where the question should have been asked. To simplify things, this privilege could be limited to migration target sites.

An example: user31415 asks a low-quality question on Programmers that is clearly an implementation issue but needs work in order to meet SO's quality guidelines. I should be able to click through to the user's profile to see if they are question banned on SO or not.

Why? If I know the user is question banned on SO, I can leave a comment helping explain how to get out of being question banned. If the user isn't question banned, then I can explain what needs to be done to improve the question so it can be migrated.

The whole point is to be able to tailor constructive feedback to the new user's actual situation.

Derived from terdon's suggestion:

Grant edit privileges to 30k users on all meta sites.

You cannot suggest edits on the normal meta sites. This is supposedly due to low traffic. Even so, the content on meta is rarely technical, so expertise in the subject matter is not necessary for tidying up meta discussions. (Some) Visiting 30k users would be glad to tidy up posts they encounter. It is frustrating to see a grammatical, typographical or formatting flaw in an otherwise-great post, and as you reach to edit it … Nope, not a 2k user here? No thanks, we don't need your corrections.

One might consider this analogous to granting chat privileges based on your home site reputation, instead of your reputation on the one you're visiting.

Meta SE might be an exception, since you can suggest edits here.