I noticed that this question was deleted; I'm not sure why that happened. To be clear, it's not about the rep lost.

The question itself isn't very exciting, it just wonders why certain emails seem to get stuck in spam filters and based on the given code that's not surprising.

What did surprise me was this seemingly out-of-place comment from ChrisF:

Please don't vandalise the post like that.

Two minutes later the question was deleted by casperOne.

I went through the revisions, but I didn't see any edits or rollbacks by anyone else since it was asked in Oct '12.

So what happened here?

  • Do mods have the capability to vaporize revisions? Mar 15, 2013 at 0:16
  • 5
    The first thing that comes to mind is he was reviewing a suggested edit review audit and didn't notice.
    – animuson StaffMod
    Mar 15, 2013 at 0:18
  • @GeorgeWBush: "normal" mods don't. Community team and developers can. Mar 15, 2013 at 0:20
  • Yeah, I think one of the community team members removed older revisions there to eliminate some personal information, but I can't be sure. Mar 15, 2013 at 1:05
  • @Jack Now that we know (more or less) what happened, the vandalism was probably the OP removing the content of their question, obviously not knowing that it would still be available in the rev history.
    – yannis
    Mar 15, 2013 at 1:40
  • @Yannis That would explain the comment; the deletion was odd, but perhaps also initiated by a flag ... though, OP could have deleted it themselves =/
    – Jack
    Mar 15, 2013 at 1:46
  • @Jack OP couldn't have deleted it themselves, as there was an upvoted answer. The deletion is standard procedure, moderators can't remove the sensitive data from the post, so we are instructed to delete, edit and ping a SE employee to nuke the revision. The question should have been undeleted after the revision was nuked, but... oh, well, it's undeleted now ;)
    – yannis
    Mar 15, 2013 at 2:04
  • @Yannis Yep, all done! Thanks for the insight though =D
    – Jack
    Mar 15, 2013 at 2:06
  • 1
    @Yannis The answer wasn't upvoted at the time. Technically, the OP could've unaccepted and deleted. but I'm just as glad they didn't. :)
    – Adam Lear StaffMod
    Mar 15, 2013 at 5:21

1 Answer 1


The asker flagged the question asking for it to be deleted because it contained the asker's email addresses.

From ChrisF's comment, I assume the asker drastically edited the post in an attempt to remove the contents and the private info.

Now that the emails have been edited out and the revisions containing them fully destroyed, I'm undeleting the question.

  • There's obviously a deleted revision there, rev 2 is empty (the edit wouldn't have gone through at all if it wasn't actually changing anything). Perhaps a "revision destroyed" message in the rev history would be helpful...
    – yannis
    Mar 15, 2013 at 1:30
  • @Yannis: I don't think they deleted a revision, but just modified the original version of the post so that it ended up being the exact same as the second. Thus there are no changes to display.
    – animuson StaffMod
    Mar 15, 2013 at 1:32
  • @animuson Destroying revisions that contain private data isn't uncommon; people post their private credentials all the time <sigh>. An empty rev is what's left when a rev is destroyed.
    – yannis
    Mar 15, 2013 at 1:33
  • @animuson No, Yannis is right. That's how destroyed revisions show up when it's all said and done.
    – Adam Lear StaffMod
    Mar 15, 2013 at 1:33
  • Thanks for reinstating the question :)
    – Jack
    Mar 15, 2013 at 1:35
  • @Yannis I'm not sure how these are implemented and whether a revision notice like that would be possible, but in 99.9% of cases, it's not really necessary to know when or how a revision was destroyed. So, not a high priority. :)
    – Adam Lear StaffMod
    Mar 15, 2013 at 1:35
  • @AnnaLear Yeah, and perhaps a rev destruction notice would be a very bad idea even if possible, as it would be a permanent & public "I was foolish enough to post private information on the internet" sign.
    – yannis
    Mar 15, 2013 at 1:37

You must log in to answer this question.

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