User:Leo Bonilla/sandbox

Peyton Manning's off the field troubles
There was an incident with a trainer while Manning was at college that was settled but came back to the public light due to the mention of Peyton Manning in other negative history that I'm going to explain later. My idea is to add this lines to the UT Volunteers section in Manning's BLP:

"On 2016, the incident was back at the public light after the New York Daily News published an article recounting Naughright’s original complaint and 74 pages of Polk County Circuit Court documents related to that case. Afterwards, a lawsuit against the University of Tennessee was filed alleging Title IX violations by the school with papers citing the incident with Naughright. Subsequently, the University filed a motion to strike any reference of Manning from the lawsuit."

Then, there's a mention of Manning in an Al Jazeera English documentary explaining the possibility of Manning using PED substances, and as he spoke with ESPN about that, I had the idea of adding a couple of lines surrounding that interview about the documentary and Manning's mention on his 2015 BLP section:

"On December 27, 2015, a day before Broncos' game versus the Cincinati Bengals, Al Jazeera America released documentary called "The Dark Side: Secrets of the Sports Dopers" which investigated professional athletes' potential use of Performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs) naming Peyton Manning and other prominent athletes as having received drugs from Charles Sly, a pharmacist who had worked at the Guyer Anti-Aging Clinic in Indianapolis during the fall of 2011. Manning told ESPN's Lisa Salters about the reports on an interview, calling them "completely fabricated" and "garbage", and he also expressed his anger about his wife, Ashley, mentioned in the documentary. As several reactions about the topic were stated, Manning took response and hired former George W. Bush press secretary Ari Fleischer to manage the issue."

These are short lines, are conclusive and express important facts without compromise the WP:NPOV of the article, as the mentioned facts not only involved Manning, but also other institutions and third persons. I'm trying to do my best. Leo Bonilla (talk) 22:00, 27 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: Ehhh, why is this discussion taking place on a user page sandbox rather than the talk page where it belongs? Was this meant as a draft and an RfC tag was prematurely attached? If intentional, I advise the host to read WP:RfC more thoroughly and then move the discussion to the relevant talk page.  S n o w  let's rap 06:21, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * An WP:ACE member told me I could use this option, in the sandbox. I'd rather not have this discussion on the talk page as it happened in the past, was full of nonsense and ended with vandalism, WP:POINT, and users blocked. I want a more varied brainstorm. If something concerns you, we can talk with the administrators. Let me tell you I'm aware of using one of my subpages for this. Leo Bonilla (talk) 18:43, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure who you are meaning to reference via WP:ACE, but I suspect you've misunderstood something they said. If you want to host a discussion about changes to the Peyton Manning article, that discussion absolutely has to take place at Talk:Peyton Manning, not in a discussion hosted on your sandbox.  In some cases, you may take particular issues to a noticeboard (WP:RSN, for example) or to other central community spaces, but you can't have content discussions, meant to result to specific changes to the material of an article, on a user page, least of all a sandbox--no matter how problematic you view the previous discussion to have been.  We have numerous reasons for this guideline, ranging from transparency to efficiency to the necessity of avoiding canvassing, collusion and other efforts to game the system, to name just a few.


 * If the last discussion grew entrenched you can (and should) use the RfC tag you've posted here to draw new perspectives. But you can't just hide the discussion from view here.  If editors got so unruly in this previous discussion you reference that some of them got blocked, then they should avoid this discussion or else to comport themselves better in this discussion.  But we won't be tweaking long-standing community consensus to allow a discussion in userspace in order to accommodate your desire to avoid them, insulate them from the content discussion, or or otherwise affect the consensus-building process by taking the matter out of its proper discussion space.  Mind you, I presume this effort is made in good faith, not at as an effort to game the system, but I'm afraid you're misinformed here about some fundamental practices on this project; user space is not for content discussions of this nature and I'm afraid you're definitely going to have to move this, or at least remove the RfC tag.  You can use the sandbox to collect your thoughts and polish your arguments before you host the RfC, of course, but any actual discussion between editors as to what should be done with the content of a particular article needs to take place on that article's talk page.  S n o w  let's rap 20:15, 28 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Ok. This is the conversation I had with the ACE member: User talk:Casliber User talk:Casliber. I think there's a misunderstood with link it and use the sandbox as you said. So: Can I use directly a WP:BLPN without pass by the Talk Page and use the WP:RFC there to win time??? And believe me, I don't want to game the system, the less I want is people attacking me on my own User Page for a discussion about editing. Leo Bonilla (talk) 03:17, 29 March 2016 (UTC)


 * You can do either, really--though, without knowing the context of the previous discussion, it is hard for me to advise on which might be better. If you've already had an RfC on the issue you wish to address and it resulted in a "no consensus" result, BLPN is probably not a bad idea, especially if you feel there's been a misreading of how policy should be applied to the issue, and it looks unlikely that you can hammer out a middle-ground solution on the talk page.   If its an entirely new issue, then an RfC on the talk page is probably the best place to start.  There's a third possibility though, which is that it is an issue that was already resolved with consensus.  If that's the case, even if you think that consensus finding was wrong, it's probably best to let the issue go altogether, at least for the meantime.  Best of luck, whichever of the three approaches you settle on.  Feel free to ping me to the discussions in question (or to your talk page) if you have further issues with where to go with this or how to format things.  S n o w  let's rap 03:49, 29 March 2016 (UTC)