Wikipedia talk:Edit warring/Archives/2021/January

Should removal of messages from one's own talk page be an exception to 3RR?
I couldn't find a recent discussion. I've run across a new editor giving an experienced one vandalism warnings and restoring them when reverted, then going to AIV to report them. I can't think of a good reason why an editor shouldn't be able to remove abuse - or anything that's not specifically meant to be kept - from their talk page. Doug Weller talk 19:30, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:OWNTALK says "Although archiving is preferred, users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages. ... There are certain types of notices that users may not remove from their own talk pages, such as declined unblock requests and speedy deletion tags..". That is how it has always been done in my experience. On the other hand, WP:OWNTALK is a guideline while WP:Edit warring is a policy, and policy generally trumps guideline, so there seems to be an inconsistency. I think that one's own talk page should be explicitly excluded from this policy. Zerotalk 01:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It already is an exception: an editor is free to revert forever when removing stuff from their own talk page (other than "declined unblock requests..." mentioned above). That is from policy WP:3RRNO: "Reverting edits to pages in your own user space, so long as you are respecting the user page guidelines." That is how it works and how it should work, despite problematic users abusing that process to make understanding posts on their talk difficult. Johnuniq (talk) 04:34, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Reinstating documented consensus, add to WP:3RRNO.
As a result of the block at Administrators%27_noticeboard, and noting the last discussion in the archives seems to have been Wikipedia_talk:Edit_warring/Archives/2018/April in support of such being an uncontroversial exemption, should something like the following be added to WP:3RRNO? (adapted from Template:American politics AE). Covers the case of editors being blocked for, for example, reverting RfC consensus against IP editors straying from that consensus. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:45, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Reverts made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus. In order to be valid, such a consensus must be documented on the talk page, and the edit summary should link to this discussion.
 * Support per nom. ― Tartan357  Talk 06:48, 17 January 2021 (UTC)