Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Proofreader77/SandboxA

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The result of the discussion was Withdrawn by nominator. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn: I think Proofreader77 has received sufficient feedback from uninvolved parties on storing evidence for presumed future dispute resolution. Although no substantive change has occured to the page in question so far, I'm wihtdrawing my nomination, because I don't think much more can be said about this matter, and wish make a gesture a good will. Pcap ping 20:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn nomination: This appears to contain mostly diffs preserved to further conflicts with other editors, in direct violation of WP:UP#NOT point 10: Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws. The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided the dispute resolution process is started in a timely manner. Users should not maintain in public view negative information on others without very good reason. Link at time of nomination: [1]. Pcap ping 14:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC) Pcap[reply]

• Delete: Although I agree with the nominator, I also want to point out that the nominator has a WP:COI as a subject of this compilation of arguments. I also want to add that I think it may be an indication of bad faith to name the page "Sandbox" instead of a more accurate "List of arguments/disagreements" or something similar. "Sandbox" seems like an intention to hide the true nature of the page; I hope I am wrong and I apologize for not WP:AGF here, but I find it hard to in this particular case. I apologize to User:Proofreader77 as after doing some searching it appears this page was originally a sandbox and has sort of transformed into what it now is.--v/r - TP 14:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  (ec with strike) COI acknowledged, but I'm mentioned in only (the most recent?) 3 of the 200 or so sections in that page! Examples of sections where I'm not mentioned by which I think are the most obvious violations of the rule above: User:Proofreader77/SandboxA#Note big picture, User:Proofreader77/SandboxA#L incivility, User:Proofreader77/SandboxA#Banjeboi - mistaken, User:Proofreader77/SandboxA#For shame! etc. Pcap ping 14:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I getcha and I am not saying you are wrong to nominate. I'd recommend full disclosure of circumstances in the future, but I dont see any wrong doing or else I would've said something. I am just making sure everyone is aware. No offense intended.--v/r - TP 15:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Suggest to PR that he substantially prune the long page to be sure. Does not appear to be set up to attack anyone in particular at all, hence not an attack page. Definitely WP-related, so that is not a deletion reason. WP practice is that "sandbox" is a generic title, hence not a reason to delete. I found nothing in it which is horrid other than length. Recommend a polite note that PR reduce the size, preferably by moving most of the boilerplate out. As for being worried that anyone will read this and get a poor opinion of anyone, somehow I doubt that is likely at all <g>. 750K! Tell him to cut it down a lot. Collect (talk) 16:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I'm mentioned quite prominently on this page, in a series of the most recent sections that could be seen as a violation of WP:UP. Most of the remainder of the page doesn't seem to be used in that way though (though I can't be entirely sure, as the its length precludes anything but a cursory skim). I'd just remind Proofreader of the userpage policy quoted in the nominator's statement, and ask that he remove anything that would violate that policy. As for the size of the page, I don't think that should be a concern at all, as it's not an article. Equazcion ^(talk) 16:14, 15 Dec 2009 (UTC)

  Aside: Thank you for responding to the un-delivered questions in (nominated page) SandboxA. (I haven't conversed there before, so I'll add my response here — odd, but somehow appropriate under the circumstances.) Yes, as you know, some may leap to pronounce your username with a QUAH sound, but I will make sure to pronounce it appropriately in my head in future (and in verse, of course :-) as you intend (perhaps with an asterisk leading to a note advising all to stay away from the horrid "QUAH.") Proofreader77 (talk) 18:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment by User:Proofreader77 Dear fellow editors, I see a dear recent ANI inquisitor has nominated my "notes" page where I maintain diffs (always useful at ANI, I believe you may acknowledge — so much better than vague aspersions), trial versions of things I might say on some talk page — but wisely look at it awhile before posting it, sometimes several versions.

If the size is problematic (I assure you it is pain for me when broadband goes out and I have to load it with dailup), well I'll see about breaking it down into smaller files. But it does make it easier to search this way. I'll ponder posible solutions.

As per that WP:COI of nominator, let's say that the diff of this nomination will be saved to that Sandbox ... for later use. :-) Happy holidays to all. Proofreader77 (talk) 17:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's the concern I have. Are you keeping a list that you can use later to attack people personally who disagree with you or do you have other reasons for keeping the list? I don't intend to attack you with this comment, I just hope you can clear up my perception of your list.--72.181.103.95 (talk) 23:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC) Apologies, I was not logged in.--v/r - TP 23:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the page is research for article cites, and preliminary versions of talk page comments — sometimes several versions. I have also saved copies of two ANIs there to which I was subject. And yes some diffs which may be necessary in the context of WP:DR. It is my understanding that WP:DR is not considered "attacking people" but resolving differences, and yes, in some cases saving the record of misconduct should that kind of DR be necessary.

The above question, as phrased, appears to be echoing the aspersion of the topic initiator who did not initially indicate the WP:COI of having had a recent encounter with me at ANI and afterward nominated my records apparently because I've saved diffs and passages from ANI which may require further scrutiny. The description of that as "so that you can attack people personally," is most certainly an improper aspersion (i.e., yes, as phrased, it implies an attack). You have graciously indicated you do not intend that, so I accept your good faith. Proofreader77 (talk) 23:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for accepting my good faith, I really am not intending to be insulting or attacking, I just have questions and I understand if you choose not to answer them. I realize I am treding a fine line. The concern I have is that the diffs you have saved will be used to discredit someone's opinion in an unrelated discussion. If that's not what they are intended for, I'll change my !vote, it is my only concern. WP:DR should be about the content of the article unless there is a clear pattern of disruptive editting. Do you use it like a notepad to jot down memories? --v/r - TP 02:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The statement that I have not answered the question, is one with which I disagree : I have (twice) detailed what is there.

The statement: "the concern I have is that the diffs you have saved will be used to discredit someone's opinion in an unrelated discussion," is one you may or may not wish to strike. To my eyes it is quite improper, and a case of the form: I am troubled you might do something bad somewhere sometime in the future with the diffs.

The question: "Do you use it like a notepad to jot down memories?" might be perceived as a search for an example WP:NOT such as a blog or diary. And therefore the question itself is an aspersion, since I have already explained what is there.

I strongly suggest that continuing questions of this form and implication be avoided.
Proofreader77 (talk) 02:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was not accusing you of not answering my questions, I was saying I understand if you choose not to answer my new questions. I do not feel you've described what is there and I've asked for clarification. As my concerns have not been alleviated and I am already borderline inappropriate with my attempts to understand the purpose of the user page, I'll leave my !vote as it stands and move on. Happy editting.--v/r - TP 02:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment what might more appropriately be regarded as harmful is the original quarrel. But as a matter of judgment, why keep such things where one's opponents can find them? this sort of thing comes up from time to time, and my usual advice--and my advice here--is to keep such things off-wiki. Personally, I find a spreadsheet handy for storing diffs and links and rough drafts, but there are several hundred other ways. I've heard some people even run a private installation of Mediawiki for the purpose, which I suppose might make sense if they also want to practice their database skills. DGG (talk) 04:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's also a WP:ANI archive which keeps the full version of the discussion, not someone's edited version thereof... Pcap ping 06:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.