Wikipedia talk:Content removal
Regarding the "Impact of the discussion" section and 3RR
This would require a change in Wikipedia:3RR#Exceptions because under the current policy, "Legitimate content changes, adding or removing tags, edits against consensus, and similar actions are not exempt." -- OlEnglish (Talk) 21:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
If this proposal ever becomes policy, 3RR would then be changed accordingly. Until then, it should remain the same.
Purpose of this proposal
The purpose of this proposal is to protect good-faith additions made to Wikipedia. Any and all information that is relevent to the article, sourced, and that does not fit any criteria under what Wikipedia is not should remain unless there is a concensus for it not to be present.
I would not expect that these removal discussions as I have proposed would be extremely common. Most often, information that is removed from articles fits into one of these seven categories for which no discussion would be needed. The remainder would only apply to the most controversial topics. Sebwite (talk) 04:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
It is not clear what is meant by "How consensus will prevail: If there are two editors who have a dispute over the presence of content, either can be guilty of a three-revert rule violation if they engage in an edit war. If a second editor steps in on one side, and two editors outnumber one, the reverts count collectively in the three-revert rule." It is unclear what is meant by "counts collectively." So if A says "The sky is azure" and B says "The sky is blue" then C joins in and says "The sky is azure," and the azure side (A and C) makes 4 reverts, are A and C guilty of breaking 3rr, so both get blocked (the reverts count collectively against both A and C) or is there safety in numbers, and they win the revert war? (Granted, they should all be more adult and work toward consensus. Edison (talk) 00:19, 7 October 2014 (UTC)