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]

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]

I'm sorry, but this has to stop. The contributions from OTEx are frankly gibberish and make no sense: questions from other editors have not been answered and I still don't know what this editor is trying to say - unless it's the old conspiracy theories yet again. Many editors have worked very hard to make this article up to Wikipedia standards of proper references and sources and that is the way the article has to stay. As far as I'm concerned there is no "group" of editors trying to control the article - only to comply with Wikipedia conventions. David J Johnson (talk) 22:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My cypher changed itself by the sheer power of its will and I was unable to guess the new one… so I've created another account.

Again, let's not pretend that we're dealing with something intangible or illegible. The fact that the group of editors used their privileges to ban viewpoints but their own, that it gamed the system to construe false consensus.., is recorded in history. Ishishgibberish (talk) 00:15, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked the above account, the least you can do is to stick to two accounts, counting you obviously undeclared primary account. Since we've established that you're an experienced used who's trying to avoid scrutiny and who is using the OTEx account to settle old scores, I see no reason to take you seriously. Acroterion (talk) 01:02, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Acroterion (talk) 01:23, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To enforce an arbitration decision,

you have been blocked indefinitely from editing. After you were explicitly warned about the sanctions above, you continued to engage in disruption on the article's talk page, and here on your user talk page. You can be unblocked immediately if you agree to a complete topic ban on anything related to September 11 anywhere on Wikipedia (article and talk pages, Wikipedia pages, etc.). If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and then appeal your block using the instructions there. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:38, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

Reminder to administrators: In March 2010, ArbCom adopted a procedure prohibiting administrators "from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page." Administrators who reverse an arbitration enforcement block, such as this one, without clear authorisation will be summarily desysopped.

Stuff @ANI… Them… Who are them? Conspiracy theories drive you mad a lot? Do you often ban topics on Wikipedia to build consensus? Is that the purpose of Committee's decision? OTEx (talk) 14:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Committee's decision was made to allow constructive development of a set of articles which had been plagued by a group of people who were not here to promote a neutral encyclopedia, but were rather here to promote their own personal view of The Truth. Now, if you want to actually build the encyclopedia, you may do so. But if you don't please just find another website to share/support your theories. And if you attempt to continue to use this talk page to make claims of a conspiracy against you (or people like you) or other similar problematic edits, I will have to remove your ability to edit this page. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:37, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]