Suppose that there are disagreements about editing an answer. People with direct editing privilege, the post owner and the moderators, have different opinions about editing this post. So someone could edit, and the post owner remove it, someone edit again etc.
Of course discussing and providing reasoning for their edits is the good way, but with or without that, disagreements could remain and a "conflict" may continue.
Are there any rules for these cases? Has the post owner or the editors or the moderators more power on the content? Also is there anything relative to this into the CC* licence for the content here?
Initially I had a first part into this question, what is better to do as a reviewer when the same edit is approved and later rejected by post owner, but I don’t think now there is much into it, as a reviewer has the edit privilege, to edit directly or not to edit.
Also, I wouldn’t like to refer a specific case, I noticed as reviewer, where someone could insist on a change without finally providing reasoning, but more controversial cases. In general, I think the post owner has some more power for own posts.