Q:

7 duplicate-code answers with non-disclosed, self-promotional links contained; flag denied

I made this flag on this post

7 copies; self-promotional: https://stackoverflow.com/a/13182703/237838
https://stackoverflow.com/a/13182681/237838
https://stackoverflow.com/a/13182647/237838
https://stackoverflow.com/a/13182618/237838
https://stackoverflow.com/a/13182580/237838
https://stackoverflow.com/a/13182550/237838

I also left a comment to the user explaining what I thought was wrong with the series of posts. (I'm going to link this from there, as well)
An additional bit of related information: I had also (accidentally) flagged this same post as Spam. (this information turns out to be important; see the comments/answer below)
But a mod denied the flag. (the "no evidence" reason)
My issue was that the exact same code was posted 7 times in short order with a link to the same blog post (with no disclosure of authorship), with minimal explanatory text. I figured that was enough to trigger a delete.
Apparently, I was wrong! I would like to know how I went wrong there. One thing that pops into my mind is that in trying to keep the flag text short, I did not specify that it was the code that was copied; the very brief explanation was not. I did not think the explanations were enough to 'tailor' each answer to the questions; it just seemed to amount to, "here's an example for you".
The code example covers too much for each of the questions, basically, in trying to be so broad that it covers them all. (and of course, the lack of disclosure of blog authorship in most of them)

I'm also asking because I've been seeing this happen a bit lately, and been loathe to flag them because the results of flagging them has seemed to me to not always be consistent (understandably so; there are grey areas here, and humans are involved!)
The basic pattern being someone seeking to promote their blog post by posting numerous answers that amount to a link to their post and a bunch of copy-pasted content. In general, these posts are not tailored for the questions they are posted on at all, and they tend to gloss over or outright ignore the requirement to disclose authorship.
Some guidance for the future would be useful, then!

A:

Be prepared that information you intend to communicate via comments in custom ("Other") flag may be lost in case if flagged post somehow gets another, non-custom flag. If non-custom flag is handled (doesn't really matter declined or accepted), your "other" flag will be dealt with automatically, without moderator attention.
Per explanation given by moderator, this is exactly what happened in this case.

According to the record, I declined that flag, but I never even saw it. I think what happened was that a spam flag came in on that same answer and I didn't immediately see what was spammy about it, so I declined that. You must have filed your more detailed flag at the same time, and it got declined along with the spam flag...

Root cause for issues like that is a design glitch addressed in this feature request:

Don't automatically dismiss custom flags (containing a comment from a user).

While mentioned feature is not implemented, if you want to make sure that issues you report are dealt with, your only option as a flagger is to track how your custom messages are handled and, if you notice that these were lost, re-flag or report at meta.

