User talk:OTEx

Inappropriate use of talk pages

Article take pages are intended for article improvement, not soapboxing about perceived conspiracies regarding other editors here. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:01, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Call it what you will, it's clear case of Wikipedia:Gaming the system. Please exercise some good faith and refrain from reverts. OTEx (talk) 18:58, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of Discretionary Sanctions on September 11 conspiracy theories

Please don't make accusations that editors are gaming the system, owning the article or conspiring together as you did here.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] Please focus on content, not the contributors. The 9/11 topic space is under ArbCom Discretionary Sanctions.[9] Further accusations may result in sanctions. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:48, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sanctions for whom? Call it what you will, it's a fact recorded in history. OTEx (talk) 13:01, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sanctions for any editor whose conduct is disruptive, which in this particular case, means you. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:00, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's clear from your comment to MONGO that you're familiar with the article's history, it appears that the only participant whose history at the article isn't transparent is you. Please comment using your primary account. Acroterion (talk) 14:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's no primary account. I've engaged this group couple of times in twice as many years. What's your opinion, if you'd be so kind? On history and minders behind it... OTEx (talk) 17:48, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By what means did you "engage this group?" Acroterion (talk) 17:58, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With words, of course. : ) I doubt it's relevant. Many people did the same… in effort to improve the article and offer legitimacy to consensus. As you say, it's all quite transparent. OTEx (talk) 18:22, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]