Wikipedia talk:Remove personal attacks

message: This page is currently marked as a Guideline, although the poll on this Talk page only shows support that is lukewarm and barely a majority. I suggest that it should be reclassfied as either as a Proposal or as an Historical page, since the category that I would normally want to put it into, Semi-policy, has been effectively removed from the Wikipedia policy pages. BlankVerse ∅ 07:10, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Guideline?

message: Look at the survey on the Talk page. It has, at most, a bare majority of votes for making it policy. It does not come close to fitting the definition of consensus either in the Wikipedia article or the  Wikipedia namespace article. I've seen a very few editors who regularly use the page as if it was policy and will refactor Talk page discussions, but I've seen it mostly used as part of a suggestion—that is, remove your personal attack or I will do it for you, as per WP:RPA. I've also seen editors who have become very irate when something that they have written was removed based upon RPA, and I've seen editors who absolutely do not like having any attacks removed from their Talk pages. I don't think NPA "fits" as either a Guideline, or Proposal, or Failed Policy, but it did "fit" in the now deleted Semi-Policy category. BlankVerse ∅ 12:09, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Zocky. --Theo  (Talk) 23:14, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Sounds good. Yes, existing policy (against vandalism; and also, WP:CIV) covers misuse of RPA. Radiant_* 07:27, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
I, personally, cannot see a good reason for removing personal attacks from discussion. It may make the discussion more comfortable to read, but the only actual achievement of doing so, would be that the people making the assaults so removed would be portrayed in a better light than they might deserve. Leaving personal attacks as they are would give other contributors a few pointers that Editor A is an arse, and there is little point in trying to talk to this person, while Editor B refrains from personal attacks, makes arguments in a factual, intelligable way, and has more than petty insults to throw as a response to critique. Just my 2c --TVPR 07:29, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

text: There are several good reasons.  I don't leave filth in my front yard just to prove that the person who threw it there is filthy.  I don't need to keep re-reading the abuse to know that Editor A is abusive.  All that does is raise my blood pressure and make it harder for me to contribute in a factual, intelligible way.  Rossami (talk) 13:17, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Seems to me the only thing around here that could reasonably be considered your front yard is your user page. And no one is preventing you from keeping that free of "filth". - dcljr (talk) 08:16, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Our "front yard" is the Wikipedia and all its very public discussion pages.  The analogy has nothing to do with user pages.  Rossami (talk) 05:06, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think the "filth" analogy is appropriate.  See, we are evolved apes (unless, of course, your world-view is Creationism).  As such, animal instincts still dominate a large amount of our behavior.  For example, when we feel someone is challenging us, our animal instincts make us want to fight to defend ourselves.  This instinct is completely different from the curiosity and intellectual instincts which make for a good encyclopedia.  The reason I support this policy is that it keeps the kind of behavior which puts editors in a mode where they are concentrating on winning a flame war to a minimum and maximizes the amount of time editors in a mode where they are making positive contributions to the Wikipedia.  For example, there are a lot of obscure crypto algoritms which don't have Wiki pages at all (such as some of the more obscure canidates for the AES and NESSIE process) which I have the pdf files for which I should contribute articles for. Samboy 05:38, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

text: One very good reason to remove personal attacks is that they are counter-productive.  The purpose of talk pages is to reach consensus.  Personal attacks distract from the goal of writing an encyclopedia and devolve into a contest of who can demean the other the most, who can shout the loudest, who can use the dirtiest words.  Removing personal attacks forces the offending users to either discuss things in a rational manner or else get tired of being corrected and leave (good riddance).  Another good reason to remove personal attacks is that it is simply the enforcement of two already-existing policies -- WP:Civility and WP:No personal attacks.  It is not a new or even a separate issue.  It is nothing more than enforcement of policy.  A third good reason to remove personal attacks... Usenet.  SWAdair | Talk  06:41, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Response to RFC

message: Some people interpret any kind of advice to change behavior as a personal attack, e.g. "why not google before nominating for deletion?" or "why not fix it yourself instead of adding a cleanup tag?". Discussions of behavior should not be regarded as personal attacks and should not be removed. Kappa 00:13, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Tangentially related - it is common for some users to regard any type of criticism as a personal attack. This article should make clear how to make positive criticism in acceptable fashion when required. Pcb21| Pete 22:07, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The only time I have seen what I would consider an overextension of personal attacks removal on the Wikipedia is one user who deletes sockpuppet allegations because he considers them personal attacks.  Samboy 01:03, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree with the comments by Mysidia.  The existing guideline, as stated, is far too expansive in terms of permitting the individual who views a comment as an attack to remove it.  Robert McClenon 14:07, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Personal attack" is interpreted too widely 

message: * See here for a recent example of the effective defusing of a flamewar through the judicious removal of personal attacks.  By the way, it was done and done well by someone who, as far as I know, doesn't even know that this page exists.  Rossami (talk) 19:34, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples where this policy works 

message: I think that any policy allowing personal attacks to be removed from talk pages by anyone other than the person making them is a serious mistake.  Since it is a matter of judgment what is a personal attack, any guideline that provides some degree of permission to remove unwanted material from talk pages will be abused more than it is used wisely.  There are several open RfCs concerning user conduct where the user in question removed statements disagreeing with him as personal attacks.  I think that this establishes that combative users will see any disagreement as a personal attack.  Any policy permitting the removal of personal attacks will be used by combative users (those who engage in personal attacks) as a license to engage in censorship.  
Permitting personal attacks to be removed from talk pages will make the tedious task of preparing RfCs, RfMs, and RfAs more difficult by requiring the person doing the tedious dirty job to provide diffs rather than simply links.
I not only think that there should not be a policy to permit the removal of personal attacks.  There should be a policy to prohibit the removal of personal attacks from talk pages.  Wikipedia is not Usenet, but it should at least learn a few lessons from Usenet.  The removal of personal attacks is analogous to cancelling personal attacks.  Rogue cancelling is one of the few types of action that is universally agreed to be an abuse and that actually will result in being TOSd off.
Do not remove personal attacks.  Allowing them to be removed will be misinterpreted to permit censorship.
Robert McClenon 14:54, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Official Wikipedia Policy alread states that we may remove personal attacks:"If you are personally attacked, you may remove the attacks or may follow the dispute resolution process or both."WP:NPA#Remedies Official Wikipedia policyIt is not censorship, the user making the personal attack can state his case without making personal attacks. --AI 09:21, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that something is "Official Wikipedia Policy" (whatever that means) doesn't prohibit discussion on whether the policy is right. Personally, I agree with the original poster. The RPA policy is too open to abuse by savvy Wikipedians. I would like the status changed from a policy to a guideline - something like "removing talk page commentary, particularly abusive commentary, is encouraged if it ultimately lead to a better article." Pcb21| Pete 09:53, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nowhere did I suggest prohibiting discussion on whether the policy is right, I agree that anyone should be free to discuss policy. And I agree with you that "Removing talk page commentary, particularly abusive commentary, is encouraged if it untimately leads to a better article" is not a bad proposed policy amendment. If you're suggesting changing WP:RPA to a guideline, it already is only a guideline. On the other hand, WP:NPA is an official policy, good luck on changing it to a mere guideline. I still disagree with Robert McClenon in that removal of personal attacks would pose any significant problem regarding "censorship." I had no comment regarding the rest of his message Robert McClenon's message. And Pete, I boxed my statement for a reason. Please don't alter the formatting of any of MY messages at all unless they contain personal attacks in which case you may refactor my message. --AI 19:15, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So you get to choose which Wikipedia guidelines apply to you? Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages. Pcb21| Pete 08:05, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't read all the guidelines.  But I have read some policies relevant to complaints about my contributions. --AI 03:12, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

text: RPA is a disputed guideline and should only be used in very limited circumstances (e.g. inflammatory comments, especially by trolls). AI, on the other hand, has stated that his interpretation of policies being described as "idiosyncratic" constitutes a personal attack and should be subject to removal. This clearly goes against the spirit of the policy, and I would characterize such a removal, were it to take place, as an abuse of policy. --MarkSweep 17:41, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Idiosyncratic implies someone is "eccentric." Therefore it is a personal attack. Personal attacks are not allowable in Wikipedia. Currently official Wikipedia policy allows removal of personal attacks. Wikipedia user's should not be disciplined at all for following policy. If someone doesn't agree with a policy, then they can seek consensus to change it. --AI 19:24, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Idiosyncratic" does not necessary imply "eccentric", and "eccentric" is not necessarily a personal attack.  Wiktionary defines "idiosyncratic" as "peculiar to a particular individual; eccentric".  In other words, take your choice of definitions.  Wiktionary further defines "eccentric" as meaning "deviating from the norm".  I certainly do not think that characterizes someone's interpretation as "idiosyncratic" is a personal attack.  It is probably only a statement of disagreement, and it implies that the person making that statement thinks that the "idiosyncratic" view is a minority view.  That might only mean that the person in the minority is ahead of his time or has discovered something interesting.  I certainly do not see why a characterization that one's interpretation is "idiosyncratic" should be removed as a personal attack.  In fact, removing that comment could make dialogue difficult.  Robert McClenon 21:07, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Personal comments are not welcome in Article Talk pages according to current official Wikipedia policy and according to proposed policies. --AI 05:09, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is very true that personal attacks are not welcome on article talk pages.  The problem is that, if every Wikipedian decides that they can be the sole judge of what is a personal attack on them, then those who are hyper-sensitive can interfere with dialogue because they will remove disagreement, thinking it is a personal attack.  Removal of actual personal attacks is not censorship, but removal of disagreement that is perceived to be a personal attack has the effect of censorship.  Robert McClenon 11:37, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

text: If Mark would have simply pointed out the exact wording of any policy I was acting contrary to, I would have listened to him. Some users mainly offers their opinions and interpretation as the "law" and then expect everyone to obey their point of view. It is unfortunate that some people don't have a productive way to convey and enforce policy and still make new volunteers feel welcome. It is unfortunate that this incompetence is shared by many admins and some arbitrators. And the idea that TINC is misguided. It is well known that there are small cliques in the internet and their involvement in Wikipedia is pretty obvious to me. Which is why I quit contributing. --AI 03:16, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I do not fully agree with Robert McClenon, see my comment above.  And again, removing personal attacks is already supported by official Wikipedia policy under WP:NPA#Remedies. What is unfortulate is this guideline which outlines how to remove personal attacks (WP:RPA) because it is too lengthy for simple and quick understanding.  A user who has come under assult of personal attacks is often too upset to spend extra time to read the entire guideline and fully understand it for correct application. If we want to avoid abuse of refactoring, this policy needs to be simplified.  Removal of any talk messages is prohibited by other policies, WP:NPA and WP:RPA only allow for removal of personal attacks/comment.  If it is being abused, it probably is because those abusing it didn't fully read it, as in my case where I started removing entire statements by others who made only one or two personal attacks in their statement.  Seeking to change WP:NPA into a guideline is not going to be acceptable to professionals and will only contribute to Wikipedia's problems. --AI 19:41, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree that the statement on WP:NPA "and although this isn't policy..." is misleading because it can confuse the reader into thinking that WP:NPA is not policy.  What the statement actually refers to is that this guideline (WP:RPA) is not "policy".  WP:NPA should be correct to avoid the confusions, I have mentioned this in Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks. --AI 20:11, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

text: It is written in plain english on WP:NPA that we may remove personal attacks. If it isn't policy then why isn't anyone changing the policy so it isn't confusing to new comers. --AI 05:03, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

text: However we DO need to not have any personal attacks. They serve NO contributive purpose 
whatsoever, and they only serve to create hostility towards both sides, which can impede good, 
reasonable debate (in fact that can outright drag good debates into flame fests). People disputing a point need to argue about the POINT and the ARGUMENTS, LOGIC, EVIDENCE, and REASONING each side presents, not about THEMSELVES. The former type of argument is beneficial, the latter is not. Removing personal attacks helps to enforce the policy of having none at all. That being said, a more strict and rigorous definition is needed to help prevent censorship, though, and any attempts to abuse NPA/RPA to censor should be reverted on-the-spot and be totally exempt from 3RR. But removing personal attacks, I believe, is key to help maintaining the much-needed civility here on Wikipedia. Saying "get rid of it because it can be abused" can be used as an excuse to get rid of anything. There are very, very good reasons like those I gave above for removing personal attacks, for one it helps uphold the official policy of no personal attacks, however abuse of the system should NOT be tolerated. ANYTHING can be abused, so according to "get rid of it because abuse is possible" we have to throw out ALL policy, guidelines, essays, unwritten rules, EVERYTHING!!!! Make it more foolproof and abuseproof but KEEP it. 70.101.144.160 20:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do Not Remove Personal Attacks 

message: I have no problem whatsoever with anyone refactoring any of my messages where I have made personal attacks/comments (RETROACTIVE). :) --AI 20:11, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anyone can remove my personal attacks/comments 

message: RPA needs to be trimmed down so others don't make mistakes in applying WP:RPA (as I did make a few mistakes). Their mistakes may result in other mean users to forget to assume good faith and abuse new users by baiting them and biting them. --AI 20:11, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:RPA too lengthy 

message: Here is a perfect example of a wikipedian using this rule to remove and censor debate to the great frustration of others, this is continuing and is most likely to end in an RFC against him. 
*Andy deletes factual comment on an RFC claiming it to be fallacious
*Andy reads something he doesn't like, claims it as abusive and then removes it from a discussion
*various other reverts of my own talk page
In my opinion, if a personal attack is made, the offending word/wording should be removed or blanked but the rest of the comment should remain. This way, the discussion is complete, for instance, if Andy were to remove part of this post claiming it to be abusive then people here may not get the whole picture of what I am pointing out, it is disruptive to a discussion and more time is wasted by conflicting users who continually revert the same coments, I have personally had one user here who is no longer with wikipedia use quite derogatory language towards me, I was not offended as I treated it with the contempt it deserved, I think that certain words were crossed out which is good, it allows other users to make up their own mind on a particular users civility. 
I would like to see minor abuse, that is the kind of remarks that people feel a little uncomfortable with simpled crossed out, then if someone uses profein or insulting language then that should be crossed out and if it is used again by the same user then it can be removed or the user be blocked for 24 hours. Nick Boulevard 18:06, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Current Dispute which is likely to lead to an RFC

message: I think removing personal attacks is a good policy; particularily on my own talk page.  If someone wants to flame me or troll on my own talk page, I have a right to throw the troll out.  If you're upset that someone erased something you wrote, this is a signal to re-write what you are saying in a manner that respects the other person's feelings.  I really wish Wikipedia:Civility actually meant something here.  Samboy 10:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand the logic behind RPA, and in particular I think that a user has a right but not a responsibility to do that on one's own user talk page.  I disagree with removing personal attacks from article talk pages, because there are some editors who will remove opinions disagreeing with them on reasonable questions of what is proper content or what is POV and NPOV.  Removing such opinions has the effect of making discussions on article talk pages impossible.  There have been several editors who have, unfortunately, behaved in this fashion.  Robert McClenon 20:17, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  I think this is a good policy 

message: Hi, can you guys please point me to the governing body that can assist FrankWSweet? His complaint is at the bottom. I actually do not know what he is referring to. I am a little aggrivated by his "complaint" and I wish to see really where this goes. As I indicated to him in the chat room, my response was not directed to him (certainly not specifically so). But let's assume it was, and so I would like to know what racial group I attributed him to, or which one I omitted him from. I also would like to know, what kind of violation this actually falls under (slander, libel?). I think it's extremely uncalled for; this complaint. But I want to see what kind of rules I may have broken (because I certainly will be using the same process against others in the future). Whoops, forgot to sign again. --Zaphnathpaaneah 10:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Umm. A quick point of order, gentlemen, if you please. Is it acceptable to ask if "Zaphnathpaaneah" is the same person who earlier signed himself "Zaph"? -- FrankWSweet 18:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes I am he. Wikipedia seems to have fixed their "server problem" and I am able to sign in normally, instead of having to remote in before. And actually, I'm taking a hiatus from further editing of this article. It's me against too many points of view to keep up with, and no one is really supportive at this point. I can't believe you guys cited DeeCeeVoice. Besides, I want to see how the article changes without any black person moderating it for a while. I am doing my own experiment. --Zaphnathpaaneah 21:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I find it deeply offensive that someone should publicly attribute a "racial" membership to me, knowing nothing about me. There is undoubtedly a way of lodging a formal complaint to whatever governing body is responsible for Wikipedia. I shall find it. -- FrankWSweet 03:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

text: This is not the correct forum for dispute resolution. See Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. — Matt Crypto 12:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  WHere is the Wikipedia governing body? 

message: I've personally encountered an individual that uses information to personally attack individuals. Becaues his information is valid, these attacks are generally ignored, but the individual in question has been removing comments that attempt to placate him. These comments are not warnings, as we have not judged this individual as controversial enough to deserve one, but his act in doing so is alarming. Is this a violation of Wikipedia policy? -Drake Christopher Dragon 22:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removing Placation of Personal Attacks

message: This "guideline" is so often misapplied that I think it should be moved to Wikipedia:Refactor personal attacks. "Remove" gives people the idea that they can wipe out or otherwise sanitize any negative comments about them, regardless of their status as actual personal attacks or valid, reasoned criticism. android79 15:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Works for me.  Rossami (talk) 20:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: *Not to be contrary, but I would contend that "refactor" is as easy to misconstrue as any other word-- in the context of Wikipedia, it simply means "rephrase." It seems to me a sort of exclusionary view to expect that all Wikipedians will implicitely understand a "technical term" which originated among computer programmers. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written and edited in easy-to-understand language. My feeling is that we should not be making out writers to be equivalent to programmers, nor turning computer jargon into Wikipedia jargon, just because we may think its meaning is "deliberately narrow."--LeflymanTalk 03:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested name change 

message: There's no consensus in favour, there's no consensus against. That's the happy compromise surrounding this policy proposal. Changes such as this give the wrong impression to editors not familiar with its status. -- Tim Starling 06:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Use of the Disputedpolicy template here strikes me as a bit of overkill when the first two sentences of the guideline already make clear that the guideline does not enjoy consensus. I think it needs to come off again. FeloniousMonk 22:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed; the additional dispute warning is unnecessary. The page itself notes the controversy and suggests the limited appropriate usage. The discussion here is not whether the guideline should exist, but how it should be interpreted/applied and what (if anything) should the title be changed to. Nearly all guideline/policy discussions have some level of disagreement. —LeflymanTalk 17:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Concur.  Midgley 15:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: No consensus

message: # Thank you. John Reid 22:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can fix disruption, just don't get out the magnifying glass and semiotics book and try to parse whether something is a "personal attack". By overdefining what constitutes disruption we both weaken our overall efforts to minimize it and strengthen the hand of trolls. —Bunchofgrapes  (talk) 03:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do not remove personal attacks directed to me 

message: I started a discussion on this on the refactoring talk page, not knowing about this page. Anyways, the consensus seemed to be that it was alright (more or less) so long as a link was provided in the page history to the original comment.
See Wikipedia Talk:Refactoring talk pages/Archive 1#Refactoring rude comments.
— Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 21:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refactoring rude comments 

message: Items I have removed from my userspace:
----
# From my User Page: 
# From my User Talk:
I feel it is important not to hide the personal attacks, but to simply move them out of the way. That is why I created a box to keep all of the removed offensive material. It simply shows to diffs of the original edit, and the image is styling too! HighInBC 20:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is how I remove personal attacks 

message: As this is not policy, and as this is actually called guideline, rendering it meaningless, and as there is no consensus to keep this, I suggest we throw it out. The correct name for it would be vandalism, whether the action is claimed to be an action against vandalism, or not. It is nonsensical, the removal (of personal attacks) highly subjective, and it is far too easy for it to be used in a corrupt manner. Shannonduck talk 20:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a discussion of something that some people find useful. We do not delete such policy discussions, even completely rejected ones such as WP:TOBY. We flag them as non-consensus or as rejected by consensus, depending on which is the case. --FOo 00:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: move to get rid of this

message: The gist of RPA is to render meaningful discussion easier by dropping attacks from the wiki so that the readers can focus on the non-attack content.  Accordingly sticking something like (Personal attack removed) in is actually the worst thing to do because it does exactly the opposite.  I've removed the recommendation to use the  template and suggest that use of it be severely deprecated. --Tony Sidaway 00:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: When the pretence of removing a personal attack is used to highlight it

message: I do not think that giving a blank che{que,ck} to remove personal attacks is a good idea. Doing so, you legitimise personal attacks because "hey, he can remove it anyway". Personal attacks should stay, and be evidence against those who perpetrated them. Perhaps I'd agree to a user being able to remove them from his/her own talk page, but I'd have to think about that more. When very heated debates are going on (as they often, unfortunately, do) it is very difficult to see who is being obstinate if all 5 parties involved are "removing personal attacks". Just my 2¢. --Storkk 02:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Opposing opinion

message: I am currently wondering what to do about this edit. I warned the user, albeit not with the templates, however, they insist on having their original wording on a banned users talk page even though they agree it is a personal attack. Any ideas? Ansell 02:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Be persistent. HighInBC 02:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: User talk page reversion 

message: I would suggest that, rather than actually removing the attacks from the page, people "white them out" with a font color="#ffffff" tag. This way they are preserved in case someone (admin, ArbCom) wants to look into the incident (they often get lost when a page gets archived and are much harder to find in diffs). - Che Nuevara 05:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is also likely to be perceived as an escalated attack by the person whose comments are thus marked-up. As such, I don't think it can be safely recommended. --FOo 06:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "whiting out" 

message: It says, right at the top, that there is no consensus for this, and it is plain that none is likely to emerge.  Note that the text of  reads: A rejected proposal is any for which consensus to support is not present and seems unlikely to form, regardless of whether there is active discussion or not.  That describes this page to a dot.  While turning it into an essay might have seemed like good idea at one point, there are way too many people citing this as if it were policy (not even as a guideline, as if it were policy), often in situations that are making arguments much, much worse (This is the most recent, though similar disputes inflamed by users who mistook this for policy pop up fairly regularly.)  This is not simply an essay, and it is misleading to label it as such; it is a policy proposal (still worded like a policy proposal, despite the essay tag, which doubtless contributes to many editors' confusion) that was discussed and length and decisively failed to garner consensus despite extended discussion.  Note that the text on  does not say or require that there be an overwhelming majority against the proposal; it merely states that there is not consensus for it, nor is there likely to be any in the foreseeable future.  That is certainly the case here...  plainly, as long as the first paragraph of the proposal says what it says now, the template above it ought to be , and that should be the first thing new editors see on this page when they arrive. --Aquillion 08:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page should be marked as {{tl|rejected}}.