TLDR: There's a "subscriber licence" as well, under section 3 of the TOS. That covers what you're talking about. So, in this specific case, the CC licence may not actually matter.
I'd point you at the terms of service. IANAL, so my interpretations might be a little loose, and if you really want to persue this, you shouldn't take my answer as legal advice.
You agree that all Subscriber Content that You contribute to the Network is perpetually and irrevocably licensed to Stack Exchange under the Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike license.
Notice the terms "perpetually" (which means forever) and "irrevocably" (which means no takesbacksies).
It also says
You grant Stack Exchange the perpetual and irrevocable right and license to use, copy, cache, publish, display, distribute, modify, create derivative works and store such Subscriber Content and, except as otherwise set forth herein, to allow others to do so in any medium now known or hereinafter developed (“Content License”) in order to provide the Services, even if such Subscriber Content has been contributed and subsequently removed by You
Which very neatly covers SE's right to publish your content, and edits. This also seems independent of the CC licence, which I would add kinda renders the whole "are they violating creative commons" a bit void since your content is licenced to SE under the content licence. I'd guess we're under a dual licence to handle things like your question, but once again, IANAL.
Also
Stack Exchange reserves the right to remove any Subscriber Content from the Network, re-post to the Network any Subscriber Content removed by any Subscriber or former Subscriber, suspend or terminate Subscriber’s right to use the Services at any time, or pursue any other remedy or relief available to Stack Exchange and/or the Network under equity or law, for any reason (including, but not limited to, upon receipt of claims or allegations from third parties or authorities relating to such Subscriber Content or if Stack Exchange is concerned that Subscriber may have breached the immediately preceding sentence), or for no reason at all.
Which covers the right to delete and undelete content presumably.
I'd note, its only around this point that the CC even comes into play, and it seems like the TOS you've agreed to already handles most of your concerns.
See also
In the event that You post or otherwise use Subscriber Content outside of the Network or Services, with the exception of content entirely created by You, You agree that You will follow the attribution rules of the Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike license as follows
Essentially what this says is is you use someone elses content you should play by the same rules.
On the CC licence itself under which you have granted Stack Exchange a licence
License Grant. Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, Licensor hereby grants You a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual (for the duration of the applicable copyright) license to exercise the rights in the Work as stated below:
Notice the terms - perpetual.
IANAL, but if you read the licence carefully, the sections talk about adaptations and collections
"Adaptation" means a work based upon the Work, or upon the Work and other pre-existing works, such as a translation, adaptation, derivative work, arrangement of music or other alterations of a literary or artistic work, or phonogram or performance and includes cinematographic adaptations or any other form in which the Work may be recast, transformed, or adapted including in any form recognizably derived from the original, except that a work that constitutes a Collection will not be considered an Adaptation for the purpose of this License. For the avoidance of doubt, where the Work is a musical work, performance or phonogram, the synchronization of the Work in timed-relation with a moving image ("synching") will be considered an Adaptation for the purpose of this License.
Arguably, your answer isn't an adaption. It is an original work, that may be an adaptation of other things. Since I'm not a lawyer, I have no idea if an edit is an adaptation but I wouldn't consider it to be a work based on another work.
An answer based on another answer would be.
"Collection" means a collection of literary or artistic works, such as encyclopedias and anthologies, or performances, phonograms or broadcasts, or other works or subject matter other than works listed in Section 1(f) below, which, by reason of the selection and arrangement of their contents, constitute intellectual creations, in which the Work is included in its entirety in unmodified form along with one or more other contributions, each constituting separate and independent works in themselves, which together are assembled into a collective whole. A work that constitutes a Collection will not be considered an Adaptation (as defined below) for the purposes of this License.
Might be a page of posts? In any case, if you read this far... thank you.
Practically speaking, terms of service and licences are probably drafted by lawyers so... finding loopholes will require a somewhat crooked mind and decent legal knowledge. There's probably no violation of your user agreement or licences with SE here.
