For at least the third time, I was invited to approve or reject a proposed edit that turned out to be only a test. Why must real editors repeatedly take time-wasting tests which appear to be randomly generated to catch out automatic approvers of proposed edits? If a user has a fair amount of reputation, and no record of her editing being disputed, why may she not be given the benefit of the doubt as to her editing ability, until evidence arises to indicate otherwise? If tests must be given, they would be more illuminating if they proposed superficially plausible, but actually wrong, edits of poorly presented, but basically sensible, questions. The present tests take the form of nonsensical edits to incomprehensible questions. Having taken (and passed) these stupid tests twice, I would have regarded the third one as an insult had I not recognized it as the work of a robot.