# How did this Answer make it into a Review Audit?

Although I'm a frequent enough reviewer to have failed my share of Review Audits, I'm not seeing how this Answer made it into the test for LQ Posts.

The accompanying "Stop, Look, Listen" text claims:

This post has severe quality issues. It is abusive nonsense, noise, spam, blatantly off-topic or otherwise irredeemable – readers will find it offensive or repulsive rather than helpful.

The Question it responds to asks for a square root of $-i$, and this might be considered somewhat of a Late Answer, with some mild (in my opinion) deficiencies (only one square root is found, the notation uses degrees rather than radians), but it seems not close to how the audit text above characterizes it.

Added: Viewing the Edit History shows that a link to a YouTube video was removed from the post. Without checking the Edit History one might never suspect that the post had been flagged as spam, and indeed it appears the OP himself edited the Answer after the offending link was removed and before the post was deleted.

Your edit nails it. The post had a spam flag on it that was handled as helpful, and thus the audit system thought that the post was spam (deleted post with a valid spam flag = BAD!).

Although the spam flag on the original version was not without merit, I have cleared the spam flag from the post (it caused three audit failures altogether). That had the side effect of undeleting the answer.

• Why was the YT link spam? – user64742 Aug 13 '17 at 23:33
• Since when is it "spam" for an answerer to credit the source (video) where they learmed the method described? I think it was quite wrong for Jyrki to remove the link (and recommendation). It is no different from another user enthusiastically recommending a paper (which happens frequently). – Gone Aug 14 '17 at 2:14
• @BillDubuque Thanks for bringing this to my notice. I'm afraid I don't remember the case. The post ending up as audit material is something my feeble mind could not foresee.Live and learn. Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think YT videos are peer reviewed. So handling YT-links the same way as links to published papers does not seem justified. Not denying the fact that a more prudent policy is to use case-by-case judgement :-) – Jyrki Lahtonen Aug 14 '17 at 5:56
• Anyway, the post was never blatantly commercial. In such cases I try to follow the procedure of editing the post and declining the flag. Why that didn't happen here is not clear to me, but undoubtedly I screwed up somehow. Me being an internet dummy it is, for example, not always clear to me when I am working with the "current" view of a post, or possibly a cached copy that clicking the back-button of my browser displays for me. I have sometimes "handled a flag twice" because of this. – Jyrki Lahtonen Aug 14 '17 at 6:28
• @Jyrki I said nothing about peer reviewed links (whatever you mean by that). In any case, if one is going to censor a citation as spam, then I think that one should actually verify that it meets the SE definition of spam, and have confidence that the community will agree with that decision. That is most certainly not true for the case at hand, so I hope that you will do the right thing and revert your censorship in this case. Censorship should be used extremely sparingly. – Gone Aug 14 '17 at 13:49
• @Typhon The link wasn't spam, but it was presented in a spammy way, so it was a case of "I don't agree, but I can see why you flagged -> helpful" rather than "What were you smoking? -> declined", I guess. – Daniel Fischer Aug 14 '17 at 14:29
• @JyrkiLahtonen "In such cases I try to follow the procedure of editing the post and declining the flag." If the post needed to be edited according to the flag, then the flag was helpful. Please don't put bad marks on peoples flag logs if the flag actually helped you. That can actually cause people to be banned from flagging. :-) – user64742 Aug 14 '17 at 15:41
• @DanielFischer true, but I still fail to see how removing it was helpful. The link wasn't to their own channel, nor was the purpose of the post to link that video. They claim they blatantly copied the math from that location, so how is it not required (per the rules of plagiarism on the site and whatnot) to at least mention "Hey, I copied the answer from, here, fyi. Please be sure to check it out.". After all, spam would indicate that the link served no purpose and yet it did. It was a citation. IMO, not including the citation would be grounds for punishment. – user64742 Aug 14 '17 at 15:43
• @Typhon Fair enough. The problem is that marking a spam flag as helpful has serious consequences to the flagged user. The system also keeps a tally of "rude or abusive" flags against users, so I should not mark those as helpful lightly either. Other types of flags without dire consequences to the "owner" of the flagged post I will mark "helpful" cheerfully even if the problem was just a harmless misunderstanding. – Jyrki Lahtonen Aug 14 '17 at 15:44
• @JyrkiLahtonen well then the site needs to come up with another way of marking flags that doesn't count against either user. For instance, "not the actual problem, but still helpful" or something. That way people still have it as a helpful flag on their logs but it doesn't count against a user. Not trying to complain, but I just don't want people to flag these posts and then feel like they are getting in trouble for flagging them cause they don't know about your edits. That might confuse people on what is actually allowed and not allowed. – user64742 Aug 14 '17 at 15:48
• @Typhon Agreed. I reverted the inappropriate censorship. – Gone Aug 14 '17 at 17:10