How do I challenge an audit failure?

Question

I've run through Both SO and Meta searches for an answer, as well as reviewing the , and I cannot find a canonical process to challenge an audit failure. I can find discussions of the single-choice "I Understand" topic that appear unresolved, in that no solution presently exists.

The particular question in point is How can I generate random alphanumeric strings in C#?. Despite the number of up-votes, I feel that this quite clearly falls into a common closure category: "Here's my problem; how do I write the program?" Compare this to How to generate 8 digits UNIQUE & RANDOM number in C#

I also failed review on the first link I posted above, https://stackoverflow.com/review/reopen/11407438. This looks like a case of code review, rather than SO.

I don't want to get rid of audits; I've learned good things from some of my failures, especially at the start. However, in the past few weeks, a majority of my failures have been highly questionable, and I've drawn more than one suspension from those that are outright wrong by current standards.

If we have a challenge mechanism, please point me in the right direction. Otherwise, it's simply not worth the annoyance any more, and I'll drop back to merely comments and answers.

Answer 1

If you're banned from review due to a highly questionable audit failure, you can flag the post responsible and let moderators know about it. There's little we can do to remove most audits from circulation, but we could lift the review ban if it was completely unjustified.

If you're unsure about why something was an audit or why your action was unreasonable, asking on the site-specific Meta might be a good course of action. Often, there are aspects to something that you might have missed (why something was considered spam, etc.) and finding that out could help with future reviews.

For this case, the question became a reopen queue audit due to the fact that it was already open and highly upvoted. Voting to close triggers an audit failure in cases like this.

However, the votes on that post were artificially inflated by the presence of a bounty. Bountied questions have caused audit problems in the past due to their bizarre vote counts (brought on by the attention that being a featured question gets them). The logic had been updated to remove previously bountied questions as audit cases, so I'm not sure why this one was being used as such. There might be a wrinkle I'm missing here, or this might be a bug.