What follows is from A History of Vector Analysis by Michael John Crowe (1967; 1985 Dover corrected reprint).
(from middle of p. 167) In Heaviside's later papers of 1883 and 1884 use was made of vectors, but no new principles were $\text{introduced.}^{35}$
(from middle of p. 180) ${}^{35}$This should perhaps be qualified by the statement that [the symbol] $\nabla^2$ made its first appearance in an 1884 paper. See (5,I; 338). No comment was given by Heaviside about its meaning. He seems to use it as $+\left(\frac{d^2}{dx^2} + \frac{d^2}{dy^2} + \frac{d^2}{dz^2}\right)$ rather than, as Maxwell and Tait had done, as the negative of the above.
I have no idea what specific reference (paper/book title) Crowe's cryptic code refers to. There is no bibliography (by chapter or for the entire book). After several minutes of looking through the book (preface, beginning of chapter notes, various things at end of the book, etc.), I gave up trying to figure out what it means. I suspect the reference is to Volume I of Heaviside's collected works, and this is probably mentioned somewhere in pages before this, but I don't have time now to keep looking. (rant) I think there's an important lesson to be learned here for anyone wishing to write something like Crowe's book: Don't use your own private bibliographic code unless you clearly indicate how to decipher it, in a location that a casual user can reasonably be expected to find without much difficulty.
I think the reason some people used a negative sign is because of the influence of quaternions, where squares of i, j, k are negative.
Possibly useful to look over is Vector Analysis by Gibbs/Wilson (1901), which I believe is the primary text that popularized and spread vector ideas beyond the relatively few researchers that had up to that time been using them.
Finally, see p. 2 of Peter Guthrie Tait, [untitled address to the Mathematics and Physics section], pp. 1-8 in the 2nd paging of Report of the Forty-First Meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science (Edinburgh, 2−9 August 1871), John Murray (London), 1872, cv + 207 + 281 + iv + 83 pages. (If anyone is curious as to how I happen to know about Tait's comments, see these 2 comments.)