I believe having a dedicated forum for suggestions for this could be a good idea, if there is one and I missed it apologies.

I asked Earlopain about this. This was his answer:

Earlopain said:

DubsTheFox said:

Hi I got into the replacements beta. I was attempting to replace a picture, but I didn't notice that it is a different version, until I sent the replacement request. I went to the replacements to reject it, but there is no option. Therefore, I'd like to request an option for that, if that is possible.

Thats probably not going to happen, since there is logic for exactly this situation. Janitors can promote replacements to normal posts, the upload will be under your account then as if you would have done it normally. https://e621.net/posts/3295740

But I think the cdnp example is a good reason to add a feature like this.

And I am a big fan of your replacement page improvements suggestions. +1 for that

dubsthefox said:
I asked Earlopain about this. This was his answer:

Thats probably not going to happen, since there is logic for exactly this situation. Janitors can promote replacements to normal posts, the upload will be under your account then as if you would have done it normally. https://e621.net/posts/3295740

But I think the cdnp example is a good reason to add a feature like this.

And I am a big fan of your replacement page improvements suggestions. +1 for that

I think if they're not going to give the ability to cancel replacements, they should give janitors the ability to transfer the target post for the submission. As I've accidently submitted a post intended for a parent, to its child. So the file the BVAS was meant for was already on site making the janitor have to promote and delete the existing post instead of replacing the existing file.

I don't understand why any part of this site wouldn't support the ability for a user to change their own mind. Are BURs not considered superior to alias requests partly for this reason? Even uploads themselves can be flagged for deletion with "I'm the uploader and this was a mistake".

While we're at it, I'd also like the ability to self-resolve flags. I know I've accidentally flagged a post for being "inferior" without noticing it was actually an uncropped version of the parent, tried to clarify this in the comments, but the post got deleted anyway.

wat8548 said:
Are BURs not considered superior to alias requests partly for this reason? Even uploads themselves can be flagged for deletion with "I'm the uploader and this was a mistake".

BURs are considered superior because they allow doing multiple things at once, and can be edited afterward in case of mistakes. Admins can also modify it themselves prior to accepting it. The ability for a user to reject their own BURs is a double-edged sword, though; sometimes it's useful after realizing the BUR's fundamentally bad, but there have also been cases that apparently good BURs have been rejected by the user for no or bad reasons.

As for the flag, that still goes through moderation. The flag can be rejected even with that reason if the moderator doesn't feel there's a good reason to actually delete it.

wat8548 said:
While we're at it, I'd also like the ability to self-resolve flags. I know I've accidentally flagged a post for being "inferior" without noticing it was actually an uncropped version of the parent, tried to clarify this in the comments, but the post got deleted anyway.

This one is particularly sticky since a post can only be flagged once per day to avoid flagging abuse, so if a user can flag a post and reject their own flag, that would prevent everyone else from being able to flag the post for a whole day (e.g. flag a post for DNP, reject the flag, and no one else can flag it for being DNP for the rest of the day, where someone can just do it again).

Being able to amend extra information to a flag (or replacement (or complaint ticket)) after the fact would help for these situations. That way we can be more sure the moderator has up-to-date information if something else came up after making the initial flag/replacement, instead of hoping they look through the post's comments to see if there's extra information hiding there.

watsit said:
This one is particularly sticky since a post can only be flagged once per day to avoid flagging abuse, so if a user can flag a post and reject their own flag, that would prevent everyone else from being able to flag the post for a whole day (e.g. flag a post for DNP, reject the flag, and no one else can flag it for being DNP for the rest of the day, where someone can just do it again).

What an exceptionally pointless "security" measure when flags are barely processed faster than once per day. Even then, the solution is obvious: just reset the timer is a flag is self-resolved.