The context is the following post:
and the revision history can be viewed here.
As one can see from the revision history, the post owner himself/herself vandalized the post, removing the entire content, and replacing it with a stream of "aaaaaa...".
Then, this edit was suggested by another user, which merely reverted to an earlier version of the question. I was one of the two people who reviewed this, and instinctively, went for the approve button (as did the other reviewer), since the edit was setting right, what was messed up.
However, thinking about it afterwards, this edit was clearly in conflict with the OP's intentions, which were, ummm... deliberately destructive.
This raises two questions -
1) Does being the post owner entitle you to self-destruct your posts?
2) In the event of suggested edits like these, as a reviewer, am I supposed to:
Approve it, because it cures self-vandalism?
Reject it, because it conflicts with the OP's intentions?