Should spam posts be edited? - Everyone knows: No.
Today someone edited a NSFW spam link (10k on Stack Overflow) into
[NSFW spam link]
Before clicking on the image, please note that there is an explicit NSFW link inside.
Seeing the edit, I thought I was under dilemma: I can't simply rollback the edit, but it doesn't comply with the meta post above. So I went on and edited that into
[NSFW spam link, please flag as spam]
and it was no doubt another user told me not to edit spam links. I explained the issue and was forgiven.
The exact thing I'm confused about is
If I roll the edit back, it's like I'm helping the spam link to survive (because it's already hidden), even though it's extending the life span of the link for only a minute or so. Also I would invalidate a few flags if it had already been some time after the edit, further delaying the automatic flag-nuke.
If I "improve" the edit, well the edit has already violated the consensus, my "improvement" only makes the violation worse.
As per the accepted answer to the linked question:
As nhinkle says, most links do not even need to be removed, unless they are linking to porn, viruses, or disturbing content.
This time the NSFW link is porn, so it somehow makes some sense to hide it. I would have rolled it back directly if it were a regular spam (advertisements to whatever drugs).
Next time, what should I do if I see another user edits a spam link out? Rollback or "improve"?