Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Sandbox thief

 __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 the consensus is to keep, with thanks to SmokeyJoe for his rewording to make the language more acceptable --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 05:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Sandbox thief
Not of any useful history, quite inflammatory in fact. "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here. All text that you did not write yourself, except brief excerpts, must be available under terms consistent with Wikipedia's Terms of Use before you submit it." :| TelCo NaSp  Ve :|  01:30, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Firstly, nobody is a "thief" for manipulating Wikipedia content; secondarily, article writers have no right of ownership over article content, and this is unmodified by whether it was started in userspace or not. The final, and most important thing, is that applying sanctions to users for such behaviour is an attempt to permit WP:OWN to be circumvented. This proposed policy, from so many angles, is thoughtless and misguided. --NicholasTurnbull &#124; (talk) 01:55, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Important essay on introducing fundamental WP:Copyrights issues to some newcomers.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "Introducing... to some newcomers"? This proposal calls for a first and only warning against it, with an indefinite block immediately after the second offense. I'd say it goes beyond just "introductions"; in fact, I think it well enough passes the threshold of biting. Furthermore, copying within Wikipedia is allowed, per the policy I just pointed out above. :| TelCo  NaSp  Ve :|  04:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Does this make it better? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that that revision is much better. Thanks, SmokeyJoe. :| TelCo  NaSp  Ve :|  00:37, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. As per nom - the caution message is clear enough. As per NicholasTurnbull, WP:OWN further underlines that statement. I think this essay is a solution to a problem that  does not exist. Although we regularly 'shamelessly borrow' stuff from each other's user page formats and user sub-pages, what  goes around goes around, and I for one would feel flattered if anyone would think anything in my user space, even including an article draft, were worthy of 'theft'. --Kudpung (talk) 03:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Asserts WP policy that use of anothers' work should be credited. Collect (talk) 08:18, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Content posted to any sandbox on en.WP still falls under the terms of use, swiping it is ok so long as there is attribution. Without attribution, it's not ok and editors found making copyvios, if they don't stop, are blocked sooner or later. Talking about attribution needs through linking the metaphors of Sandbox (computer security) and Sandpit seems helpful enough to me. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:50, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Neutral This page has absolutely nothing to do with WP:OWN (requiring proper attribution is not the same as saying "Do/don't use my content", nor is it related to saying "article x has to say exactly y". The hatnote at the top of WP:OWN explicitly refutes any relationship.).  On the other hand, WP:BITE, but we do have to take copyrights seriously, including internal copying.  -- N  Y  Kevin  @908, i.e. 20:46, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * keep for now. I'd rather see the same message explicitly written in policy (User pages ?) - not from copyright POV (it's already in policy) but from purely ethical, "don't harm", "don't disrupt" POV. East of Borschov 21:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Copying substantive quantities of material from one Wikipedia page to another without attribution is an express violation of Wikipedia terms of use and license, whether that page is an article or a user page. The fact that a couple commenters above seem to think that it is not is evidence enough of the usefulness of the page, although I don't think it needs to be promoted to a policy or guideline. It is rather redundant to other policy and guideline pages after all.-- Dycedarg  &#x0436;  01:38, 21 November 2010 (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.