I recently came across a post that had some possibly offensive text that was serving no purpose and was just "noise", so I went ahead and flagged the post for moderator attention. I'm not sure if the flag was accepted or not, but a couple minutes later I noticed a moderator removed the text from the post.

I went back a couple minutes later and noticed that the user had added the text back in. So I decided to suggest an edit and the post was instead edited by another user with higher rep than I have. Then again the user changed the post back.

Finally, I decided to again suggest another edit (which probably wasn't the best idea now that I think about it), and the edit was accepted by two users but then rejected by the owner of the offensive post with the reason there is no offense here. I am expressing my opinion.

I then checked other answers by the user and noticed some of them had the same text in them (see here[link is now dead..nevermind, the posts were all unlocked.]). So I flagged two of the answers explaining why I had flagged them and stating that there were other answers and the user refused to have the posts edited.

So my question is, was that the right thing to do? (I'm a little nervous now that the user might downvote me, since he knows who was trying to edit his post.) So what should I do about users who put controversial/religious or other offensive text in their posts for no apparent reason? Thanks for helping me clear this up.

Note: I am a Christian (so the text could be viewed as good or bad or neutral to me), so it's not so much about the content of the post, but the irrelevance of it (and the refusal to remove it after a mod did).

  • 16
    Jesus Christ ... – user102937 Feb 18 '14 at 17:18
  • 9
    Is it really offensive ? " thanks to Jesus Christ!" – Habib Feb 18 '14 at 17:18
  • 6
    I don't really consider it offensive, but the last thing you should do is start an editwar. Just flag the post again and stay out of it if the user rollbacks an edit made by a moderator. – Jeroen Vannevel Feb 18 '14 at 17:19
  • Well, I mean, it could be (it bothered me a little). And it's completely unnecessary. But my question is more "what should I do with something like this (like if the text is much worse)" and "Did I handle this situation correctly?" – davidsbro Feb 18 '14 at 17:20
  • I agree that it's unnecessary in this context. not offensive, just looks funny – Caffeinated Feb 18 '14 at 17:21
  • 15
    I would personally have removed it simply because it adds nothing and is noise. I don't see how it could possibly be seen as offensive. – Servy Feb 18 '14 at 17:22
  • @Servy, that is most of the reason I removed it. I'll edit my question to clarify that. – davidsbro Feb 18 '14 at 17:23
  • 20
    There are three users called Jesus Christ I see. Maybe he read an answer by one of them and was just giving attribution. – McNab Feb 18 '14 at 17:25
  • @McNab, he had that in more than one post. – davidsbro Feb 18 '14 at 17:27
  • 4
    @Habib - its noise – Caffeinated Feb 18 '14 at 17:32
  • 1
    i have no idea why they rejected that edit ... anyways i have edited answer – NullPoiиteя Feb 18 '14 at 17:58
  • 4
    If you get offended by "Jesus Christ" you should probably step away from those situations. – Kermit Feb 18 '14 at 18:12
  • 3
    It wasn't so much I was offended, I just saw no need for the text. – davidsbro Feb 18 '14 at 18:12
  • 1
    He appears to accept his own answers to his questions more often than anyone; I understand this is acceptable, but the ratio is surely odd. – Dan Lugg Feb 22 '14 at 4:30
  • 2
    The idea of the Lord God whispering Ajax tips into this fellow's ear is extraordinarily humorous. – Ernest Friedman-Hill Feb 23 '14 at 3:49

Don't get into an edit war. If you feel that a post is inappropriate, edit it, and it is rolled back, the flag the post, and don't edit it again. A moderator will be able to resolve the issue in ways that you simply cannot.

Given that the mod's edit was rolled back you should have simply flagged the post again, not edited it. If they feel that it's warranted, they can lock the post after editing it to prevent future edits.

  • Okay, I wasn't sure if moderators could lock an edit like that. I did flag it after the user rejected my edit. – davidsbro Feb 18 '14 at 17:22
  • 2
    @davidsbro It's also key to stop editing the post. At that point you're just contributing to the problem, not the solution. Back away. – Servy Feb 18 '14 at 17:23
  • 4
    after the second edit I realized I was just digging myself into a hole and so stopped. But you're right, next time I won't get as involved as I did this time. – davidsbro Feb 18 '14 at 17:25
  • 3
  • Yeah, wow. Do you know why it was unlocked? – davidsbro Feb 22 '14 at 0:47
  • @davidsbro I think it was only put on a timed locked that expired after an hour. – Mysticial Feb 22 '14 at 0:49
  • 1
    @Mysticial, So should the mods relock it? He appears to have put the text in more than one answer now... stackoverflow.com/search?q=jesus%20user:1081753 – davidsbro Feb 22 '14 at 0:50
  • 2
    Just flag one of the posts and explain the situation. They'll do what they need to do. – Mysticial Feb 22 '14 at 0:54

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .