Jump to content

User talk:OTEx

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by OTEx (talk | contribs) at 20:57, 29 August 2013 (Notification of Discretionary Sanctions on September 11 conspiracy theories: @Acroterion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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 attacks

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]
I meant, what account or IP, what conversation was involved? If you want accountability on a wiki, you have to be willing to account for yourself. Acroterion (talk) 18:33, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll illustrate…, I've dropped on that talkpage when I learned about WTC 7.., was asking about its relevance and rationale behind exclusion. On another occasion, I've raised concerns about the civility and usage of derogatory terms on wiki… If you remember the times when certain editors used to use terminology instead of arguments… It's stuff like that… something you'd sooner expect from… helpful observer? Say, before we continue.., Mongo is proving some of the points in real-time. See if you're willing to revert his effort to end this discussion… on accountability. OTEx (talk) 18:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One more time, since you insist on accountability, so will I. What username or IP did you previously use? Acroterion (talk) 19:10, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm insisting on nothing, I'm observing the facts. Let me show you how it works. I'm now observing that you're politely asking for breach of privacy, instead of indiscriminately pulling CheckUser to exert political or social control, apply pressure on an editor, and/or threaten another editor into compliance in a content dispute. It's an improvement.., of a sort, especially in the light of recorded history. Who is Tom Harrison? Let me ask you again, didn't you just witnessed MONGO obfuscating stuff? Yet and again…

Accusations, accountability, disruptive behavior, sanctions..? Do mind your own language... ;) OTEx (talk) 20:57, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]