A truly horrific thing happened on 2014-02-26:
In case you can't see that, that's blatant spam. With a suggested edit to fix its link. That edit was unanimously approved.
A suggested edit to fix the link in a blatant spam post was unanimously approved.
Let that sink in for a second.
Now, we all knew Stack Overflow had problems with robo-approvers, but this... this... I'm not the only speechless one here.
However, we can learn from this horrific approval. We can use what was discovered in the Meta post about it to create a systemic solution to this scourge! It seems to me that attempts to polish blatant spam will be blindly approved by robo-reviewers - so let's take advantage of that!
Add a second type of suggested edit review audit, taking a spam post (real spam-nuked example, or auto-generated mess with links) and polishing it. Reviewers are expected to reject it - why polish turds? (I'm open to suggestions on how to handle improving.) On pass or fail, suggest that the reviewer check out the post in question (not a real one, obviously) and flag it. Something like this:
This was a test. You passed.
These suggested edits - making minor improvements to spam posts - should be rejected so that editors learn not to try to polish turds. (wording up for debate)
In future, when you see an edit like this, open the post in a new tab and flag as spam (but only if it actually is spam)1.
Stop Look and Listen
This was a test. You failed.
These suggested edits - making minor improvements to spam posts - should be rejected so that editors learn not to try to polish turds.
In future, when you see an edit like this, reject it. Then open the post in a new tab and flag as spam (but only if it actually is spam).
Robo-reviewers get caught, spam gets flagged, everybody wins.
1 This note is there to try and avoid people mistakenly flagging audit subjects (if they end up being real posts) as spam when they're not. Better ideas welcome.
@sth suggests in an answer that it's not worth the time to implement audits showcasing such a rare occurrence. I politely disagree. The indication here seems to be that not only are the reviewers not evaluating the edit, they're not even looking at the post; that's a problem, and this seems a reasonable way to catch them. With some of the suggested edits getting approved these days, something is needed - and this particular something has the benefit of educating users about spam and turd-polishing at the same time.