I spotted the same thing and left a message in the Ask a Moderator chat. #1 & #2 were closed, but if you read the questions, they are just snippets of computer-related drivel. They aren't just irrelevant, they're nonsense posts. #3 is more obvious. This user is just trolling the site. I think they escalated #3 to be more obvious because they weren't getting the expected negative reaction.

Just a thought. WTG might be a narrow focus (doesn't make it bad, just a limited audience), but the broader issue of bootable Windows of any kind on a portable device (including installation media, like the linked question), could encompass WTG and serve a wider audience. Purpose-written canonical questions can be a lot of work, so the more use-cases it includes, the more useful it will be. If you identify in the question that it is intended as a canonical thread, people are far less likely to think that the question is too broad. But yeah, go for it, and you're a qualified person to write it.

The system handles the fact that a small percentage of audits will be bad examples by forgiving the occasional "wrong" response. The "stop, look, and listen" warning is frustrating to receive, but the purpose of the audit is to ensure you're paying attention (and not blatantly cheating). If you fail a number of audits in a short time, it's statistically likely that you're doing something wrong, so that's when the system gives you a time-out.

Ramhound's answer is a good explanation for the example in your question. But recognize that the audits are more about statistics than correct responses to each audit post. The audit system is completely automated, and picks posts based on characteristics like votes. It assumes that the community handled the selected posts properly. Most of the time, it selects appropriate posts as audit examples, but it sometimes does get it wrong, or the process of disguising the example makes it misleading. (cont'd)

@Makyen, thanks. Yeah, I didn't get that nuanced; it's actually a little more complicated than the points I described. For that matter, it's probably been tweaked even a little more in the almost 6 yrs since Shog9 wrote that. :-)

If you use SOX (and why would anyone use SE without it, it adds too many useful features to count), there is an option to show a question's closure status in the Edit Review queue for exactly that reason. That saves a lot of accidental approvals if an edit looks like an improvement and you forget to open the question in another tab for context.

@harrymc, why not do the easy steps to improve it, and then request undeletion from a better position? A number of people have looked at the answer and independently concluded that it doesn't meet minimum standards as-is. You're arguing that it's no worse than some other answers that weren't deleted. That's like being stopped for speeding and complaining that the other speeders didn't get a ticket. You're obviously capable of writing good answers, and you could have fixed this one with less work than has gone into this meta thread to justify that it meets absolute minimum requirements. :-)

Your edit automatically puts it into a review queue for reopening. I left a comment on the question. To be answerable, you will need to provide a lot of settings detail.