NOTE: This is not commentary on the Scroton situation, that's been resolved for the moment. This is trying to clarify policy on such matters.
I'm conflicted on this. It's something that's either one way or the other - either the author has total control over what they've posted, or they don't. On the one hand, stated wiki policy has been that if an author wants their work deleted (this sounds tangential, but there's a point I promise) then it will be with no questions asked. On the other hand, precedent exists for the author not having absolute control.
Gears' post in particular:
Agreed, orginal author or not, if you re-write something and make it start dropping, it should be reverted. We're here not for anyone's ego (ideally), but to create a positive body of work. Normally, i'm happy to let folks make their own mistakes, but i think a revert in this was a good idea.
That's about as straightforward a statement as one could ask for.
Now, why these two things conflict and why it's bad. Someone could turn up, claiming to be an article's original author. Let's say they are, and their article has been edited in their absence because the original version sucked. The rewrite is now successful. Said author doesn't like that someone fucked with their work, and wants it reverted, or wants to edit it to bring it more in line with their original vision. They want their original version to stand or fall on its own merits, and if it's downvoted to oblivion, so be it. So it's downvoted, and because the author said they wanted it to stand or fail on its merits, no rewrite can happen, as it has implicitly been stated if it falls they want it gone. We could and should confirm that's what they want, but if it is, what then?
Conversely, what if we refuse to allow their edits because they'll destroy an otherwise successful article, and then they invoke authorial right to deletion of their work?
Both scenarios end with us down a successful article.
