Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Monty845/Sanctions against editors are punishment

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was Keep.. (NAC) Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0  15:14, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Monty845/Sanctions against editors are punishment


This is an essay in user space that violates guidelines on not categorizing user sub-pages; even with rectifying such an error essays at least represent ideas that can be classified as minority opinions, this however, in my opinion is more of an extreme fringe idea. For this essay to be posted in discussions as "fact" can be dangerous. This essay represents Wikipedia verbage in a light not consistent with established policy, procedure, or consensus. Especially in a time when we are pushing ever harder for admins and editors to know the that we do not punish. Camelbinky (talk) 15:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It is well established that users can have essays in their own user space that disagree with other essays, policies, etc. Or, God forbid, contain extreme fringe ideas.  Even "dangerous" ones. Please read the essay template at the top of the page. I'd have no problem with this essay being in the mainspace, to be honest, but at least if it was there, there would be some rationale for this MFD. As it is, I cannot fathom what Camelbinky is thinking. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Floquenbeam- please keep your comments about the merits of the essay and not stray into comments about the editor personally. That last part was unnecessarily bitey.97.88.87.68 (talk) 18:55, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Camelbinky, please log in to comment; commenting as an IP on the same page you've already posted to as an account, and talking about yourself in the third person, make it look like you're violating our sockpuppetry policy. By the way, you're also wrong about the category on the essay; please actually look at the category Category:User essays. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:11, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Camelbinky can choose to not be logged in anytime Camelbinky wishes. Camelbinky did not !vote again, Camelbinky simply told you while unlogged to stay on topic per our policies on commenting instead of talking personally about an editor. This is not sockpuppeting and calling Camelbinky a sockpuppet is a serious allegation, if you believe it to be sockpuppetting then bring Camelbinky up "on charges". Camelbinky logged in in order to make the MFD because you cant make an MFD as an IP, otherwise Camelbinky wishes to be an IP whenever possible because of trolls who follow Camelbinky's contributions simply to argue and be on the opposite side of anything Camelbinky does. Regardless of all that, this place is not the place to talk to Camelbinky about being an IP/signing in as this discussion is ONLY for the MFD, if you have any off-topic discussions you wish to have with Camelbinky there are other procedures. Not Camelbinky's talk page though because Camelbinky wishes for you to not be editing on Camelbinky's talk page per established Wikipedia ettiquette of not editing another user's talk page upon request to not do so. And in closing Camelbinky has decided to always refer to Camelbinky in the third person because that is Camelbinky's right. For precedence on this not being sockpuppetry see- Bwilkins changing to Eatsshootsandleaves discussion in the archives of Jimbo's page. What is good for Bwilkins to do is good for Camelbinky to do as well. Equal treatment for all and such. Thank you and Camelbinky expects not to have to continue this discussion. Have a nice day!97.88.87.68 (talk) 19:26, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Snow keep Not only is the concept of an essay in userspace completely within policy, I don't think Camelbinky has understood what the editor is saying. The essay is making a perfectly straightforward comment about the various meanings of the word 'punishment', and how a meaning that is less widely used these days (punishment = merely the application of sanctions) would mean that blocks on Wikipedia could legitimately be described as punishment, without carrying the more common current meaning (punishment = retribution). This isn't against policy even slightly, it's a discussion on semantics. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * When policy says to not categorize user subpages, I see no reason why we have a category for user essays... regardless I see Monty linking this essay in discussions as a way to state that sanctions are punishment, when in his comment he is using it as retribution. Perhaps Monty should simply be more careful in the future when making a comment in a discussion in which he makes it seem that the link he is putting is to something more authoritative than it is, or when his comment is an absolute statement that "sanctions are punishment" and links to this article without more explanation.Camelbinky (talk) 19:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Question- can you please link to some incidents of Monty linking to this essay? I see a grand total of five incoming links for it, including two due to this MfD, and none of the other three are discussions. Reyk  YO!  22:16, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * To the best of my knowledge, I have linked it exactly once, at Village_pump_(policy) with the following phrasing: "Blocking is punishment as used in the English language but not in Wikipedia Jargon." Monty  845  05:14, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. User essays are welcomed, even encouraged, if project related, written in good faith, if not violating some specific clause, even if wrong.  I wanted to immediately retag from essay to user essay expecting a clearer warning that a user essay may be a unique and disputed opinion of a single user, but there apears to be no such template.  Maybe that should be fixed.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:07, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Good idea about user essay. Agree wholeheartedly. Reyk  YO!  00:15, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Floated at New templates:Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_essays#User Essay; Policy dispute essay.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:19, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per "(Camelbinky) doesn't go around trying to shut people up you jack ass." Resolute 00:37, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep- I was leaning towards keep anyway because I think personal opinions are acceptable in user essays. If the author was deliberately linking to the essay in a misleading way, that might sway my opinion. There is precedent to remove stuff if its author(s) repeatedly and deliberately misuse it. However, it doesn't look as though Monty has been doing anything untoward with this essay or that I will get an answer to my question above, judging from the nominator's epic meltdown on ANI. So keep it is. Reyk  YO!  00:48, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per all keep recommendations above. This is an essay describing the user's opinion about a certain Wikipedia policy. The user is entitled to his opinion about whether sanctions against editors should be considered punishment. His opinion actually seems like a plausible mainstream opinion to me (even though it may not be the official or majority opinion), not an "extreme fringe idea" as the nom suggests. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep As you might expect, as the author of the essay I'm in favor of keeping. The user page is clearly tagged as an essay, and I don't think the one use of it is likely to confuse anyone, particularly because the link made it clear that at least within Wikipedia, blocking is not considered a punishment. When I initially wrote they essay, I considered moving it to main space, but decided against it to avoid the potential for unproductive controversy. In my opinion it would survive even in Wikipedia space, it is constructive criticism, does not advocate violating any policies or guidelines, and I think would garner sufficient support as to be a non-fringe essay, even if majority support is unlikely. Clearly in light of that it is unambiguously acceptable as a user space essay. I would also have no problem if anyone would like to make improvements (consistent with the spirit of the essay) in my userspace and/or move it to Wikipedia space after the conclusion of this MfD. Monty  845  05:29, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep and assign the nom to improving Punishment (psychology) until he can explain the difference between retribution (which blocks are not supposed to be) and negative punishment (which blocks always are). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:34, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * An impressed keep – Per the above, there is no reason this should exist, however I will mention I am very impressed at how quick and to the point it is. Mitch 32 (Victim of public education, 17 years and counting) 12:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.