This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ipigott (talk | contribs) at 12:20, 14 March 2017 (strong call for stay). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 12:20, 14 March 2017 by Ipigott (talk | contribs) (strong call for stay)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Request deletion of my account. Completely. Delete all pages. I had planned on retiring my Dr. Blofeld account anyway.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:21, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
WJBscribe You say "be kind to BLPs". Firstly, have you even looked into the context behind what was said? User:Collect fought for weeks to get the article deleted. When the IP turned up, I assumed it was also him. He immediately began throwing his weight around, threatening to sue. As he began aggressively, I responded aggressively. How would I immediately be sure it was McCann given that Collect fought for weeks to get the article deleted? Even then, highly suspicious context that the BLP requests deletion. If it had been another article and the IP can politely requested deletion that I would have kindly asked them to contact wiki and request deletion. It didn't happen that way, sorry. When I started to believe it was actually McCann I was very reasonable with him and tried to help but he rejected it. Are you kidding? He attacks me in this way in a Daily Mail article and you still expect me to not say anything or treat him well? If the Daily Mail didn't have editors, it wouldn't exist. What he wrote goes hand in hand with the current Daily Mail war against wikipedia. He's very much part of that now. Obviously he took this story to DM 6 months ago and wouldn't publish it as they wouldn't have considered it notable enough. Only now do they publish it as part of a revenge scheme. I've suggested removing my "diva" comment, I don't know what else I can do. I think it's probably time to retire my Dr. Blofeld account, the persona no longer really suits what I am or do. Congratulations wikipedia community and the Daily Mail. Victory for the DM.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Well Future Perfect at Sunrise, want to do the honours and delete my account? That's what you want right? One less tag teamer on here.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:20, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- No idea what has been going on - looks messy - but you know that your account cannot be deleted, Dr B. You can do the user request for subpages etc, scramble the password and clean start but ... I hope you don't go away completely. - Sitush (talk) 10:28, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- Slight idea of what's going on - is messy - but you know that this should all be work-out-able. Can't this just be "Alright, I said a few things I shouldn't have. I was upset and felt antagonized." followed by "Alright, let's just keep things cool in the future and carry on." ?? Can't things just be that way? Please? Please?
Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:43, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- Seconded. I understand what's going on here, but it is a bit unfair that Dr. Blofeld is blocked for—let's face it—something that was done and dusted months ago. He gets publicly chastised on a provocative Daily Mail article and then this. Had it happened to me I would have reacted in the same way. Is there any way to replace this ill-suited block with a topic ban? Surely that would be much less drastic as I'm sure Dr. Blofeld wouldn't want to be a part of McCaan's fracas again. JAGUAR 11:01, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- Thirded. I know I don't really have any Wiki-status, but Dr.Blofeld has always been a good and helpful Wikipedian to me, even when we have disagreed. He can be quite crisp, but that's the British way. I also concur that this all seems a little unfair, and just wanted to add my support.... Mabalu (talk) 12:10, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
As far I am concerned, your block has little to do with the Daily Mail article. It was imposed as a result of your serious breaches of Misplaced Pages's WP:BLP policy. " As he began aggressively, I responded aggressively" is completely the wrong tack to take with people who have concerns about their articles. Of course they're going to be upset. You're expected to de-escalate, not exacerbate the problem. And when the BLP subject eventually aired their grievance in a public forum, you resorted to insulting them rather than considering how your conduct was sub-optimal in the first place. At the moment, far from thinking the block was unfair or too long, my main concern is with the idea that - once your block has expired - you may continue to interact with BLP subjects in the same manner going forwards. Can you at least assure us that, if faced with the same situation again, you would handle it differently? At the moment, all I see is an entrenched view that your behaviour was somehow justified. WJBscribe (talk) 11:14, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- Thinking I have a habit of abusing BLPs is way off track. This has never happened before and I've been here 11 years, and I was only less than courteous to the IP given the long fight by Collect to get the article deleted. Even after the "snotty" comment I even stated that I still thought he was Collect. You've got to look into the context of it. Perhaps it isn't good responding aggressively, but I told him straight that the community voted twice to keep the article, contact OTRS. he refused. If I was rude at any other time it was because he was very rude in his comments about wikipedia and its editors and issuing legal threats for which he should have been blocked for. I asked the advice of the OTRS team and they said to just leave it as it was and let it blow over. It would have remained that way but for the DM revenge. I strongly suggest you read the DM article and understand why I may have defended myself on his talk page yesterday. I did modify what I said earlier in the day. I think given what he said and false accusations of leading a "circus", initially reacting is quite understandable, though I accept that without considering what he wrote in the DM article, it not be acceptable. For a while I forgot about that, in consideration of how deplorable the DM article was and the anti DM reaction of the readers at the bottom and responding felt natural. Delete his article if you must I don't care, he's not worth the hassle. The article was voted to be kept twice by the community, I told McCann this, but he didn't take the advice given him and continued to be threatening.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:25, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not impressed by the way you have repeatedly pointed to your previous interactions with Collect in a way as if they somehow excused your behaviour towards McCann later. You've been calling Collect's actions "trolling". They weren't. Collect didn't do anything worse than disagreeing with you over the merits of a deletion case. The fact that you still present that as a justification or even just an excuse for the way you went off the handle towards the IP is not a good sign. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:41, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- Collect fought bitterly to get the McCann article deleted and with the Cary Grant article fought bitterly to remove all mention of homosexuality. So me it looked like trolling. Collect may have had his reasons, but the context is still there. I assumed the IP was Collect and was deeply suspicious of the context of the deletion request. You've also overlooked that McCann was rude and threatening in manner, even if you felt it was caused by myself, and conveniently ignored my constructive posts to him, one in which I even compliment his books as excellent source material for wikipedia and trying to help him. Future, I may not agree with you that every wikipedia article should have an infobox, but I'm sick to death of infobox wars and even suggested a change in ruling to stop them happening. You're wrong about me being part of a "tag team" too. Arb ruled that infoboxes are not mandatory. I believe that article writers, particular core entries, should be respected.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:47, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- Just as an aside, as it really doesn't belong here, but I really don't know why you keep suggesting I have an axe to grind with you over infoboxes. Another sign you are a bit quick to look for bad faith motivation in others? If you review a few infobox-related threads where we may have interacted earlier, or even just look at my userpage, you'll see that I am in fact just as staunchly on the anti-box side as you are. That, however, hasn't stopped me from observing the pattern where you and SchroCat (and Cassianto, if I remember correctly) have come to each other's aid multiple times when it came to covering up each other's poor behaviour towards perceived or real oppoonents, no matter over what kind of dispute. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:17, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- Collect fought bitterly to get the McCann article deleted and with the Cary Grant article fought bitterly to remove all mention of homosexuality. So me it looked like trolling. Collect may have had his reasons, but the context is still there. I assumed the IP was Collect and was deeply suspicious of the context of the deletion request. You've also overlooked that McCann was rude and threatening in manner, even if you felt it was caused by myself, and conveniently ignored my constructive posts to him, one in which I even compliment his books as excellent source material for wikipedia and trying to help him. Future, I may not agree with you that every wikipedia article should have an infobox, but I'm sick to death of infobox wars and even suggested a change in ruling to stop them happening. You're wrong about me being part of a "tag team" too. Arb ruled that infoboxes are not mandatory. I believe that article writers, particular core entries, should be respected.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:47, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not impressed by the way you have repeatedly pointed to your previous interactions with Collect in a way as if they somehow excused your behaviour towards McCann later. You've been calling Collect's actions "trolling". They weren't. Collect didn't do anything worse than disagreeing with you over the merits of a deletion case. The fact that you still present that as a justification or even just an excuse for the way you went off the handle towards the IP is not a good sign. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:41, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- Thinking I have a habit of abusing BLPs is way off track. This has never happened before and I've been here 11 years, and I was only less than courteous to the IP given the long fight by Collect to get the article deleted. Even after the "snotty" comment I even stated that I still thought he was Collect. You've got to look into the context of it. Perhaps it isn't good responding aggressively, but I told him straight that the community voted twice to keep the article, contact OTRS. he refused. If I was rude at any other time it was because he was very rude in his comments about wikipedia and its editors and issuing legal threats for which he should have been blocked for. I asked the advice of the OTRS team and they said to just leave it as it was and let it blow over. It would have remained that way but for the DM revenge. I strongly suggest you read the DM article and understand why I may have defended myself on his talk page yesterday. I did modify what I said earlier in the day. I think given what he said and false accusations of leading a "circus", initially reacting is quite understandable, though I accept that without considering what he wrote in the DM article, it not be acceptable. For a while I forgot about that, in consideration of how deplorable the DM article was and the anti DM reaction of the readers at the bottom and responding felt natural. Delete his article if you must I don't care, he's not worth the hassle. The article was voted to be kept twice by the community, I told McCann this, but he didn't take the advice given him and continued to be threatening.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:25, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- Doc, you have my sympathy, sincerely. I'd best not say any more than that … Well, apart from: Do not quit this place. Please. Best, JG66 (talk) 12:08, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- It's clear to me how all this developed as a result of a series of unfortunate coincidences. It's all resurfaced now because of the recent banning of the Daily Mail as a reliable source. If Dr. Blofeld leaves Misplaced Pages after years and years of excellent contributions, it will be a clear victory for the Daily Mail which is obviously trying to seek revenge. Let's all calm down for a couple of weeks and work towards an equitable solution. I sincerely hope Dr. Blofeld will decide to continue his inspiring work here. Without him, the EN Misplaced Pages would hardly be the same.--Ipigott (talk) 12:19, 14 March 2017 (UTC)