If you are up to mentally dispraise something, you should consider this (Avannaraha Sutta: Dispraise).
If you are up to verbally dispraise something (and 'flagging' is probably generally assumed as such), you should consider "this (sutta about Dispraise)" too.
If a moderator is up to bodily destroy something, thinking "that has been dispraised, that is not good for our credits", he too should consider "this (about Dispraise)".
Having dispraised mentally and seen that this was wrong, you should be ashamed about your way and put an effort to abstain from it. Having dispraised verbally (flagged), and seen that this was wrong, you should confess it to a admirable friend and look for ways to undo your "pitfall" by addressing the mod.
If the moderator was following your hint blindly, that your action has been fulfilled as well and you should confess it and try to remove an eventual "pitfall" or to reconstruct the bridge over a "pitfall" for others.
As for the moderator himself (or herself), it's actually the same: whether he/she did it for this or that purpose, "this (sutta about Dispraise)" still fits.
Regard the answer you quoted, this is actually a perfect answer, since "Self" is actually a deed (often called I-making by the Buddha), a deed by thought that make it to a "Subject or Object" (concept of reality) - as it is with the other samples as well - what someone could have found (or has been able to find) out for him or her self with this perfect bridge out of a thicket of wrong views. But if somebody simply stays on the level of certain conventions, does not loosen ones grasps before, then such an explaining (like I did here for your sample) might be accepted broadly but stay for another time just an conventional view and has less change to encourage one self what this circle of sequence in making things to something lasting, a noun, is all about and so does one fail to understand and being released.
But "Having directly known the extent of designation and the extent of the objects of designation, the extent of expression and the extent of the objects of expression, the extent of description and the extent of the objects of description, the extent of discernment and the extent of the objects of discernment, the extent to which the cycle revolves: Having directly known that, the reader is released. [To say that,] 'The reader released, having directly known that, does not see, does not know is his opinion,' that would be mistaken. (Delineations of a Self)
As it is in the midst of Dhamma and not just a "we"-arguing, Atma suggests to move it into the "beta" area.
(Note: this answer has not been given with the agreement to be means of trade or the purpose of/for trade and/or keep people trapped and bound. How you handle it lies in your sphere, but does not excuse the deed here either.) Credits in regard of grammer and spelling goes to Upasaka Chris and the moderator team. Sadhu!