In the spirit of:    The same should be done for comments by the offending author for that post as well.  If the post was considered spam or offensive, what possible redeeming quality could the comments of that post by that same user have?  If such a comment was useful enough, then the post could have been edited into shape and possibly saved.  But if the community went through with it and got the post deleted, then it's unlikely the comments would be considered constructive or have any use.  Maybe take into account that the user account was deleted too?    (SO 10k, comments have been purged now)  Yeah it's not visible to most of the public... but it's just a minefield for 10k users.
65687
Well, this is annoying. Last night some idiot who'd managed to earn the association bonus for his activity on Stack Overflow decided it'd be a brilliant idea to create accounts all over the network and post dozens of comments on other people's posts asking them to take some survey. Ok, no big deal, suspend him and destroy all these bogus accounts, taking the comments with them.  ...oh. Turns out destroying an account doesn't delete the comments. Given the description reads &quot;all content&quot;, I'm considering this a bug. Steps to reproduce  Find a user that has commented somewhere. Destroy it. Note that the comments still exist.  Suggested resolution Since destroying an account already deletes all posts associated with that account (implicitly taking the comments with them), all that's really necessary here is to remove any comments that might remain on 3rd-party posts. So, do that.
11131
It came up in chat that a spammer's account needed destroyed; their posts had been deleted but their name (which was offensive) still showed up on the front page as updates to posts and their user account hadn't been deleted.   Someone in chat wanted this fixed but there "wasn't anything to flag" so they complained in chat rather than flagging, which would have directly notified moderators. For future reference how should I tell users to handle a situation like this? Just flag a related post with the "Other" flag reason and explain the situation? What if there's no "related" post?
52390
came in Low Quality Posts review which was  as "This is commentary on another post, not an answer" by *. But the comment was added 5 times automatically on behalf of that user.        First four comments' time is 2013-07-15 10:23:18Z while the last one's time is 2013-07-15 10:23:19Z. Those comments are still exist. 10K+ users can see that.  Is this a bug or something else?  * Because the comment is added on behalf of that user.
108822
has now probably made around 15 accounts. He consistently uses the , , ,  and  tags, and does not ever do anything constructive.  was his latest.  Unfortunately I haven't been bookmarking his other questions, but here are some of his previous accounts:          He has also gone by many other names (Iraq War Veteran is the one that comes to mind), but those accounts have been deleted.    Is there nothing we can do about this? Deleting and suspending his accounts just seems to give him more reason to create other accounts. Is there a way to block him entirely?    Edit:  seems to have been deleted by Community ♦
78300
I didn't know the comments were 'disposable' as I thought they were also contributions covered by the CC-by-sa license. What are their status??  See comment by @joran there
43922
Given , I must say I think the idea (making that user's content visible to only them) is a good one.  However, the people in whose hands that power will be placed terrify me.  Jeff is saying that he doesn't like that bans can degenerate into meta-discussions about the fairness of banning, and in that respect I agree with him. But the meta-discussions do accomplish one thing -- they get more than one person to look at the ban and weigh in on what they think.  This isn't that I don't trust moderators (or, indeed, diamond moderators), but I don't trust any one single human being with an irrevocable and complete banhammer, where there's no potential to dispute things. (And if the user doesn't know they're banned, there's no potential for dispute)  Basically, I'd sleep a lot more soundly at night knowing that if one of these "enhanced bans" are put into place, that at least two people have looked at the "problem child", and only after more than one person has signed off on such a ban, does that go into effect. I don't care exactly what that process is, but I don't want to have to worry about pissing off a moderator and getting banned as a result.  We all get pissed off here -- it's part of any community. But "the nuclear option(s)" need(s) to be decided upon by someone with a cool head, not someone who's pissed off.
111983
In a completely hypothetical situation wherein a known employee of Stack Overflow takes public actions that are objectively detrimental to both the company and community, and for which actions shows no remorse and makes no attempt at amends, apology, or  restitution:   Is this the appropriate forum to express the completely hypothetical opinion that the employee in question should resign their position for the benefit of the community?    I realize that this question may come across as trolling or gaslighting given the current... climate of Meta, but I'm not terribly familiar with the rules of Meta and I'm genuinely curious as to whether such a post would be in violation of any standing policies.  Please note that I'm not calling for anyone's resignation here (nor am I advocating such); I'm simply wondering how such a question would be received and whether it would be closed.
44985
Do 10k (and moderator) users have the ability to read deleted comments (are comments deleted forever, or never really deleted like questions and answers)?
42180
I recently filed what I initially thought was a bug, but was mostly user error here on Meta, and tweeted about it. Once it was pointed out to me that it was user error about 2 hours after I posted it, I deleted the question.  I've just been awarded the  for that deleted question, which while nice from a badge point of view feels fraudulent, as most people would see the question as a broken link:
69568
I recently responded to  that appeared to post an extension to their answer in a comment, (what I thought was) kindly letting them know that comments may not last forever.  However, it ended up in this kerfuffle:    After posting the reply comment, I felt that it wasn't the best course of action to have taken, but to take it back also seemed inappropriate.  What should I have done, and does my original comment seem appropriate in the given situation?
11594
I ask partially in relation to , but also for my own use;  My question is, if I leave a comment on a question or answer that is subsequently deleted, does the (non-10k) poster get a notification, if they arrive on the site after the content has already been deleted? And if so, can they then view the content?  I often leave what I hope are helpful comments when I flag content for deletion, especially for borderline spam and for non-answers. Very often, the user won't return to the site before the content is deleted, though.  So, is this practice at all helpful to the OP?
30694
Today I was looking at the question of this . The question was pretty simple, he was looking for the eval function in  not knowing of it's existence. He received a comment and while I was finishing reading the question, I saw him commenting      Thanks, eval() is what I was looking for.   and then he deleted his question. In my opinion, such behavior isn't appropriate. So, should I just ignore this or can I do something about it?
44958
Nice hole in the system... You can pretty much say anything in a revision comment and it cannot be removed or cleaned up by a mod.  See  for an example.  Mods need the ability to at least remove the comment, if not the ability to edit the text of it.
45731
When approving a post that system thinks should not have you are presented with something along the lines of  This post has severe quality issues. It is abusive nonsense, noise, spam, blatantly off-topic or otherwise irredeemable - readers will find it offensive or repulsive rather than helpful. You should delete or recommend deletion when reviewing such posts. Don't worry, we've already handled this post appropriately - but please take a minute to look it over closely, keeping in mind the guidance shown above.  With a &quot;I understand&quot; button, what about if you disagree with that assertion? Is there a way to indicate that? If there isn't perhaps one should be added so that data can be collected to improve the system. For example: While reviewing the low quality posts queue I got the following answer from  to to the question   Try  (I'm a developer). It does exactly what you're looking for, free of charge.  Which I approved and the system responded that I should have recommended deletion. From what it looks like to me the OP is asking a question about adding basic username/password authentication for an Amazon s3 hosted website and the answer is mentioning a free product/service that does what the user wants. It is true that the user answering is affiliated (they posted a disclaimer) with the product but from what I understand that is .
41136
Should I edit out the (thankfully obsfucated) e-mail address from this ?  Is this something we should allow on the site going forward?  I don't care about the "thank you" or "hello", but this might lead to an answer being sent by e-mail, which would mean it wouldn't be peer reviewed (for what that's worth), and the answer would be lost to the community.
7283
Recently, Sara Chipps posted her message . After reading it, I wanted to compare it with . It turns out that she deleted it. Does anyone know why? It looks strange since (as far as remember) it was a sort of official position of SE. Why would such a statement be deleted?
6505
Downvoted, unanswered questions have been subject to automatic deletion for a long time. The same is not true of downvoted answers.  On Super User, we have  posted before the beginning of this year still in existence. Over two thousand of those are scored at -2 or below, having been downvoted by multiple people.  I see no reason to keep these answers around. Based on the votes, they have helped nobody. They're just sitting there, being pointless, borderline-NAA, or otherwise bad. Low quality (but not flag-worthy) posts aren't actively harmful, but don't provide a good image for the site. Additionally, I think people would be a lot more likely to downvote bad things if they knew there was a good chance for the -1 to be refunded in the future if somebody else agreed. (And hey, the poster would get the -2 refunded as well.)  To prevent people from adding single downvotes to cause quick deletion of things they don't like, it would probably be good to require a score of at most -2 before an answer is eligible for auto-deletion. Accepted answers (that aren't self-answers) shouldn't be deleted, since they helped someone. A reasonable time frame for the deletion of -2 answers would be a month after they hit that score; the process would optimally be accelerated by additional downvotes and slowed significantly by any upvotes.  I understand now that some downvoted answers should stick around to show an example of something subtly bad. To prevent those from going away, the presence of numerous comments or somewhat-highly-upvoted comments could be a factor against deletion. I still believe that many downvoted answers are just mediocre/useless and not representative of any common misconception. (See the Super User search linked above.)  Of course, such deletion shouldn't apply to meta sites, where downvotes are overloaded. I think both child metas and Meta Stack Exchange should be excepted from answer auto-deletion.  Otherwise, please make the Community user delete negatively scored answers after a while.