When I see a abusive post that is a bit beyond PG-13 like:

Go punch sand you lint-licker

I will flag it as abusive but I feel like I shouldn't leave such profanities up for other people to see while it waits for the 6 votes to be deleted. Thus I tend to use my edit privileges to change it to say something along the lines of:

[I'm an abusive post - delete me]

I suppose an alternate option is to strike offending words but editing them to say: *&*$$#^# but sometimes the entire post is just something like:

duck feet

For the most part this hasn't been an issue but I recently got a comment from a moderator. As I don't see what they see, I wanted to ask the community: what the most appropriate course of action is for these scenarios?


Just like Should spam posts be edited?, abusive posts shouldn't be edited; that makes it harder to get rid of them.

There's one exception: if only part of the post is abusive, and the rest of the content is worth keeping, edit out the abusive part. But in that case you shouldn't flag it as abusive (though a custom moderator flag is in order when the user is a repeat offender).


Flag it - usually, on a well run site, a mod will handle it.

The problem with edits is it removes the context, especially if there's automated tools (official, and unoffiical) in play. Just flag it, downvote it, and delete vote as appropriate.

Sufficient rude/abusive flags will likely help too.


I would almost definitely say that you should remove any abusive content that is featured in the post and possibly leave any helpful information on the post so long that the abusive content is removed.

You must log in to answer this question.

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