A decade after the first Workshop on Online Abuse and Harms, abuse detection is evaluated on a sprawling collection of public datasets that are usually treated as independent and interchangeable. We audit five widely used English benchmarks (Davidson, DynaHate, HateXplain, TweetEval-Hate, and the Stormfront corpus; 109,698 posts) and, by measuring contamination, lexical shortcuts, label conflict, and transfer on one common scale, argue a single thesis: for these benchmarks the evidence points to a conceptual measurement bottleneck (what counts as abuse) more than to data hygiene (contamination or leakage), a reading we hold with the caution that the strict-cutoff conflict sample is small. Three findings carry this claim. (i) The data-hygiene worries are small here: cross-dataset duplication is negligible (only 17 near-duplicate pairs at Jaccard = 0.8 across 108,946 unique texts, 5 of them exact), and train/test near-duplicate leakage, though common (up to 9.8% of test items), barely changes macro-F1 for the pipeline we study, both for TF-IDF logistic regression and for a fine-tuned distilBERT on the two official-split corpora. (ii) The signal these benchmarks reward is concentrated in a few tokens: a TF-IDF model restricted to 50 tokens retains roughly 89 to 95% of full-model macro-F1 on every dataset, and, against the natural objection that this is a bag-of-words artifact, a fine-tuned distilBERT trained on only those 50 tokens per post still retains 81 to 92% across all five datasets (lowest on the adversarially debiased DynaHate). (iii) Where the same surface text recurs across corpora, its binary labels frequently flip, isolating definition from sampling: at a loose Jaccard = 0.5 near-duplicate cutoff the clean per-item conflict rate is 48.6% (103 of 212 shared texts, though many of these loose matches share a profanity skeleton rather than identical text); at the strict same-text Jaccard = 0.8 cutoff the clean shared set is small (n=18, 10 in conflict) and the disagreement is a Davidson-driven offensive-versus-hate split. Transfer is correspondingly poor (a 0.20 macro-F1 gap) but, given negligible contamination, reflects definitional and distributional divergence rather than leakage; we cannot separate those two, so the conceptual claim rests on the item-level comparison rather than on the transfer gap. Holding the near-duplicate graph fixed and sending both corpora’s offensive class to not-abuse moves the strict-cutoff conflict rate from 55.6% to 22.2%, so much of that disagreement is the offensive-versus-hate boundary rather than disagreement about hate itself. We release abuse-audit, a one-command tool that emits the same per-dataset report card for any new corpus, and recommend reporting a shortcut score and a cross-dataset transfer cell as standard practice.