Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Keithbob/Sandbox

 __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 delete. Salvio Let's talk about it! 22:06, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Keithbob/Sandbox


This is page is just a list of fault-finding diffs. According to the ArbCom: According to WP:UP, user pages should not host: It has been maintained by the user for over six weeks. So far as I know, the user and I are not engaged in any current disputes requiring resolution, there is no dispute resolution in progress, and there's no indication that any is imminent. I have repeatedly asked Keithbob to move the material off-wiki since October 4, 2011, but he has not done so. The page serves no encyclopedic purpose and should be deleted.  Will Beback   talk    21:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * ...[L]ists of fault-finding diffs...and other matters of a generally uncollegial kind, should be written only if needed, kept only for a limited period, and only for imminent use in dispute resolution or other reasonable and short term dispute handling.
 * 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 it will be used in a timely manner.
 * Delete. Without comment on the contents, it is not good for the atmosphere of the community of editors for lists of grievances to be posted puiblically in obscure places.  This sort of thing may be compiled offline, or it should be used promptly in some dispute resolution process.  Behavioural grievances should first be noted on the talk page of the subject user.  If that leads to no joy, and you are not alone, start a WP:RfC/U.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Considering DR, esp arbcom cases, can take 6 months or more, this is well within 'timely'. And if it's all factual, what's it matter if it's in a DR page or user subpage? Will, who is both the subject and filer and obviously biased on this issue, must be afraid of the truth.95.211.27.70 (talk) 23:07, 18 October 2011 (UTC

Response from the Sandbox owner: This sandbox is my defense to what has been a long term and recently accelerated attempts by User:Will Beback to use WP:COI as a stick to attack and intimidate me beginning in November 2009 (despite my objections (here and here). Recent examples of Will Beback confronting me on WP:COI issue include: Furthermore the sandbox is linked to this recent talk page thread which discusses this same COI issue in detail, so it has relevance and archival value. In addition the information in the sand box will be used in the near future for an RfC/U involving Will Beback, which was reconfirmed by by Cla68 on Sept 12th and his activity on the RfC/U draft on Sept 19th. This makes it a valid use of userspace and in compliance with Wikipedia policies, in my opinion. However, I am open to feedback from the community.-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 23:42, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * His Aug 31 email implying outing, if I continued to add information about your abuse of WP:COI, to Cla68’s draft workpage for your upcoming RfC/U.
 * His Sept 1 post on my user page, again, asking for personal information and accusing me of conflict of interest.
 * His Sept 10 post on my user page accusing me of “following editors with whom you are in a dispute”.
 * His Sept 12 email saying he was submitting evidence to ArbCom about my conflict of interest on Wikipedia.


 * None of that explains why the page needs to be maintained the page on-Wiki. Keithbob is not engaging in any dispute resolution - this page appears to have the opposite intent.    Will Beback    talk    00:09, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keithbob, you and Cla68 have already compiled plenty of material. Are you going to file an RFC/U or not?  Either do, and let others have their say, or walk away.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. This seems to be a laundry list which is serving no useful purpose on wikipedia. (Other issues mentioned above could possibly be discussed by Keithbob in private with arbitrators.) Mathsci (talk) 13:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I understand that current Wikipedia culture is to to discourage editors from keeping report cards on other editors. The thing is, however, in this case Keithbob's reason for doing so is entirely understandable.  Will Beback has been attempting to intimdiate and bully Keithbob by continually trying to beat him with the "COI" label.  Since Will Beback is, presumably, a fake name, then there is no harm being done to a real person here, because the actions being recorded by Keithbob are being done by someone hiding behind an anonymous account.  I think the person behind the Will Beback account name should promise Keithbob that he will stop trying to bully him with spurious COI allegations, and then Keithbob would have reason to stop keeping the page in his sandbox. Cla68 (talk) 17:21, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The guideline is not limited to people who edit under their real names. A website you edit frequently posts what some believe to be my real name, so that argument seems disingenuous. Contrary to what you may believe, I am a real person. The issues with Keithbob's COI are not resolved by that page. It is uncollegial and does not serve an encyclopedic purpose. Six weeks is well past a timely or imminent use.     Will Beback    talk    21:29, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If in 2007 Keithbob had been anxious about preserving his privacy, he would have been more careful in the way he edited off-wiki. It is now quite easy to work out who he is in real life and there does seem to be a conflict of interest. In my view it is not a serious matter. The only concern perhaps is his animosity towards Will Beback. Elsewhere on the web privacy seems not to have been a concern for Keithbob. There is no reason why he could not edit wikipedia under his RL name; he would have to be very slightly more careful, e.g. in his edits to BLPs like Russell Brand. Mathsci (talk) 22:09, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:UP. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Like Kbob I would support whatever is the community standard on deletion of sandbox pages either for upcoming or post DR cases. What Is necessary and isn't clear to me at this point is that there is consistency.(olive (talk) 20:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC))
 * As I mentioned in my initial post above "I am open to feedback from the community". Since the general consensus is for deletion, I have today blanked the page and would support an uninvolved Admin to move ahead with deletion. Thanks to all, for your participation. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk  • 20:36, 20 October 2011 (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.