So, this question should maybe be locked, given the edit war or whatever we want to call that (I assume there must be edit history I can't see because otherwise the OP's obscene posts seem totally out of the blue with literally nothing having happened to trigger them), but I don't think the moderator 'Content Dispute' notice is appropriate because it's not so much a genuine content dispute as spam. The moderator notice, for reference, says:
This post has been locked while disputes about its content are being resolved. For more info visit meta.
with a link on "visit meta" to the meta home page (this link may be configurable, that's the target in this specific case).
So, it seems to me like the only reason to lock this post is that we have someone committing gross violations of the 'Be Nice' policy. But we have a different, better, tool for that use case: temporary suspensions/bans. Indeed, it appears the user in question has already been subjected to a temporary ban while I was writing this question, but the post is still locked. It seems like locking the post, given a ban has already been issued, is redundant and unnecessary. What's the purpose of the continued lock in this case? (I don't mean to imply that there can't be one-- maybe it is important that a user not get an answer to that question while banned because that half-circumvents the punishment of the ban or something, or some other thing I haven't thought of. In any case, the question is not rhetorical-- I genuinely want to know what the mod thought process on this here thingy is/was)