While I understand this is a bad question I am not sure it deserved to be deleted with a spam/offensive flag.


I wanted to just flag it for moderator review but that wasn't possible.

  • 4
    It's just a troll question. Not worth asking about. -1 Entire content: Why does america have 10,000 abrams and send 30 to ukraine? It looks like communism will win. Communism has 4000 t90 MBT. They will use them eventually. Additionally, user is suspended for ban evasion, so if that is true, that makes their Q all the more spammy. Mar 29 at 21:26
  • 5
    The user is a known troll. All content they post will be deleted, to remove incentives to "get away with it" "just long enough" and have their material remain in view regardless of any individual account being removed.
    – Nij
    Mar 29 at 21:53
  • 1
    See also this answer by community manager Cesar M.
    – JJJ Mod
    Mar 30 at 1:33
  • @JJJ It just seems that the question and account should be handled by other means then a spam/offensive flag which just seem like ways to get around the normal close vote process.
    – Joe W
    Mar 30 at 2:19
  • 4
    @JoeW It's a straightforward way to handle an account that circumvents the terms of service.
    – JJJ Mod
    Mar 30 at 3:27
  • 4
    @JoeW What other process would you recommend to get rid of content posted by people who are not allowed to participate on the Stack Exchange network anymore?
    – Philipp Mod
    Mar 30 at 15:30
  • @Philipp Unless my understanding of those flags is completely wrong don't they still allow the person to post? Doesn't it take moderator/employee action to ensure that the account is properly handled and they are no longer able to post on this site or others? My understanding is it is a quick way to deal with a single post but not the entire account.
    – Joe W
    Mar 30 at 17:26
  • The person behind the account is banned from the network. They do not have any allowance for posting anything anywhere on Stack Exchange. Deleting the post as spam or rude/abusive feeds information into the system if it isn't already marked out, and helps remove the post even further than just closure or deletion.
    – Nij
    Mar 31 at 6:17
  • @Nij Isn't there still moderator/employee action required even if a post is deleted for spam/offensive to make sure that the person can't post anywhere?
    – Joe W
    Mar 31 at 14:00
  • Just to clarify since there seems to be confusion: are you saying that it shouldn't have been deleted by non-mods because you wanted to give moderators a chance to see it and ban the user? Because my first read of your question (and others' based on the downvotes) is that you thought it was a bad question but not one that deserved to be deleted.
    – Giter
    Mar 31 at 17:52
  • @Giter No, I am saying that it shouldn't have been dealt with using the spam/offensive flags and should have gone through the normal close vote/delete processes with custom flags to bring the repeated posts to the mods attention.
    – Joe W
    Mar 31 at 18:27
  • Yeah, it's a network suspension and am account merge. The post itself still had to be dealt with, regardless of that, so why would we not immediately destroy the abusive disallowed content.
    – Nij
    Mar 31 at 20:28
  • @Nij While it was a bad question that has been repeatedly asked I still don't see the reason to resort to the spam/offensive flag to get rid of it.
    – Joe W
    Mar 31 at 22:13
  • @Nij Another question along the same lines has just popped up from a new account on Skeptics. It seems that the spam/offensive flag doesn't do much to slow them down.
    – Joe W
    Mar 31 at 22:22
  • It does enough to make it worthwhile. Fact of matter, the post's existence is abusive, and we don't bother making a special flag for "known network troll" because they don't deserve more than being nuked and merged.
    – Nij
    Mar 31 at 22:44

2 Answers 2


According to the guidelines for flags found on the main meta site, the 'rude or abusive' flag is the appropriate way to handle this type of post. That flag is not just for content that is rude or abusive to a specific user or group, but also the SE community in general.

From the accepted answer of What are the “spam” and “rude or abusive” (offensive) flags, and how do they work?

What makes something rude or abusive and when should I flag it?

A post should be marked as rude or abusive (formerly known as offensive) if it contains hate speech, obscenities, abuse against people, or abuse of the community or system, i.e., a clear violation of the Code of Conduct.

  • Abuse of the system or community is everything that is created with the intention to harm them.

The account that created that deleted question is yet another sock puppet of a user whose main account was given a hundred year suspension across all SE sites (or at least I'm pretty sure this is all the same user, based on their consistent usernames, question topics, and writing style).

This user has a repeatedly violated the inauthentic usage policy of the Code of Conduct for years, every post they make is clearly intended to be disruptive, and have never given any indication they will ever change their behavior or even get more creative with their trolling. Putting all of this together and it's clear that the 'rude or abusive' flag is a great way to handle posts by this user and anyone else who does this sort of ban evasion.


It looks like they had asked that before with their other account[s]. Could have been closed as a duplicate, but 'meh'. That older account has been suspended for like 99 years.

The suspension period ends on Dec 15, 2123 at 15:07.

  • I am not sure why they were suspended and I am not sure that it matters, but that was a good question.
    – wrod
    Mar 30 at 9:54
  • @wrod: you can ask it yourself, if by 'that' you mean their newer one. It wasn't exactly the same as their older one. OTOH since their newer one was entirely about Abrams sent... Mar 30 at 16:04
  • ... there's also politics.stackexchange.com/questions/86228/… that contends as a more recent duplicate, more broadly. Mar 30 at 16:29
  • 1
    I was talking about the main-site question to which you linked in this meta answer. There is no need to repost it. The question is currently open, highly-upvoted, and accepting new answers. I just wanted to mention that since there maybe an impression that all of that user's content has been removed.
    – wrod
    Apr 4 at 23:41

You must log in to answer this question.

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