Every once in a while when I go to review, I am prompted with edits that seem to be made just for the sake of editing, such that they fix simple typos but do nothing for the clarity or content.
Recently I was tasked with passing judgement an edit made by a new user that corrected a typo, changed effect to affect, and added periods to an i.e. example. Obviously there is nothing wrong with the content of the edit (though I still can't figure out if the affect/effect change was correct). By approving an edit, I feel I am taking something from the questions OP by adding the editors name when they essentially did nothing for the question. By rejecting, I feel like I'm sending the wrong message to the user who made the edit.
Personally, I wouldn't bother making such a trivial edit as it does nothing for the question, and I have gotten called out in the past for approving edits that were, to quote one particular OP, 'retarded'. I ended up skipping this edit due to immense personal conflict, and I was hoping to get some input on the matter from the community.