Oclupak

Welcome!

Some cookies to welcome you!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Oclupak! I am A More Perfect Onion and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Oh yeah, I almost forgot, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

A More Perfect Onion (talk) 15:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

BBC Conspiracy Files Documentary

Have you seen the BBC documentary about the July 7th bombings?

It deals directly with the Ripple Effect. Watch it and you'll find out that the man behind the movie thinks he's Jesus Christ and that he lives next to the ark of the covenant buried in a hill in Ireland; and the man behind the fuss over train times is a full-on holocaust denier (no evidence required for that, funnily enough) who, when confronted with clear photographic evidence that the four suspects were in London simply has no answer, and appears to retract his whole case.

These are facts accepted by those who still believe the Ripple Effect, such as Tony Gosling. It's a bit weird that he still believes the Ripple Effect, but he says that claims of being the Messiah do not discredit what someone is saying.

The movie itself is garbage - it's so full of things that are not true it's laughable. At least it would be if it weren't for the death threats to people it mentions. Keep it off wiki as a source. It's toxic.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 00:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I reverted your changes to the 7/7 page. Seriously, the ripple effect is utter tripe.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• Dear VsevolodKrolikov, Thank you for your comments. I saw the 7/7 Ripple Effect video for the first time yesterday and I must say that it is very well done. The author speaks softly yet forcefully which I find very convincing. I will surely look deeper into this. But at the very least, some contoversy does exist about what happened that day and the way the page was written gave the impression that there was no disagreement at all concerning the official story. I hope my edit conveys a more truthful and less biased approach. One must not forget that the people in power in Great Britain that day were the very same ones who lied about so many other things. The possibility that the 7/7 bombings were part of a false flag operation is very real, as is the case with 9/11 in the USA. These incidents need to be investigated thoroughly. Hopefully, one day, we will know the whole truth, or at least a good part of it. Obviously, to claim as an absolute truth that 7/7 was a suicide attack is nothing more than a conspiracy theory, one that lacks a great deal of credibility once an impartial person views the 7/7 Ripple Effect video. Rest assured, I'll keep investigating.

No, the ripple effect is bullshit. Production values on a DVD are nothing to do with the quality of the argument. Do you believe every Hollywood movie is a true story? As a prime example: the "mock exercise" he consistently refers to was six people sitting in a publishing company office talking about what to do in a terrorist attack. The person who was doing that has been the subject of death threats because of the video. If you want to talk about trusting people - why are you trusting the word of someone who thinks he's the Messiah? Why are you trusting holocaust deniers? The government misled people over the war in Iraq - but we know this because even at the time we could know that the story they were spinning was untrue. There is absolutely no one of any note backing up a single thing in the ripple effect. It's the delusions of a man who probably is most interested in stirring up a race war.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• I am very disappointed that you deleted my contribution to the 7/7 page. I will not attempt to retaliate by reinstalling my stuff right away and thus engage in a wiki war, which I would presumably lose anyway, being a novice in these matters. I will instead try to reason with you and see if we can find some common ground that we can both agree upon. I visited your user page where it says that you believe in civility and assuming good faith so I'll take you at your word. First off, I'll answer the very first question you asked: "Have you seen the BBC documentary about the July 7th bombings?" No, I did not. I do have access to BBC World News on cable but I believe that documentary was presented on one of the other BBC channels that I do not have access to —but I would most certainly be interested in watching it! Sometimes, such programs are rebroadcast in North America by PBS or the CBC; maybe it'll pop up eventually. Coming back to the main point of discussion, I am eager to learn more about 7/7 and Muad'Dib's video was an eye-opener for someone like me who is almost totally unaware of those events. The fact that Muad'Dib may or may not have strange claims about being the Messiah is besides the point. I am interested in what he said in the video and he comes across as a very sane, articulate, logical and well educated person. I am interested in hearing all points of view, yours included, but not yours exclusively. I am quite aware that the mainstream media is exercising a tremendous amount of censorship in the newspapers, TV and radio that it controls. A lot of the news that really matter never ever appear in the MSM. I am still baffled today to learn that university-educated people I meet are totally unaware that three buildings came down at the WTC on 9/11. They are therefore totally unaware of the strange and newsworthy facts surrounding the fate of that building which was not hit by an airplane and which collapsed in almost complete secrecy later in the afternoon. Fortunately, the internet allows us to circumvent a lot of that censorship. I find it sad when I witness that sometimes censorship extends to Wikipedia. I was involved in a similar controversy a few weeks ago when, on Martin Luther King Day, I stumbled upon the Lorraine Motel wiki page. It stated unequivocally that James Earl Ray was the assassin of Dr. King. Earlier, I had read on another wiki page that Dr. King's own family didn't think Ray had anything to do with the assassination. So I edited the page to read that James Ear Ray "purportedly" killed King. I didn't deny categorically his involvement, I merely indicated to further readers that it was not an open and shut case. However, someone immediately removed my edit, without explanation. That infuriated me. I expressed my distress on the talk page and a good samaritan resolved the issue by rephrasing the paragraph in a way that ended up satisfying every one —at least as far as I know. I hope to achieve the same result in the case of 7/7. Oclupak (talk) 18:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry if my previous post here appeared shrill (calling the ripple effect "bullshit" is a bit sweary, I admit, although I stand behind the sentiment.) Let me explain why I reverted your edit. The use of the word "alleged" I believe is a case of weasel words, i.e. while strictly speaking true, used to create a misleading impression. For example, one could insert the word "alleged" about Saddam Hussein gassing kurds, or conversely, one could say that it has been alleged that Jews drink the blood of gentile babies. In both cases alleged is used quite properly, but it gives the impression in the first case that people doubt it, and in the second that it might possibly be true. In the case of the 7/7 bombers there is no one of any note or repute making any claim against the conclusion that the four carried out the bombing. (Two of the bombers themselves recorded videos saying they were going to do the attacks). Alleged gives the impression that the conclusion they did it is controversial. However, there is no real controversy, because there is no reliable source challenging the official account.

The thing to remember about wikipedia is reliable sourcing is more important than what anyone thinks is true. None of us can be considered experts officially - we have to cite realiable sources that state facts and opinions. We cannot do original research, in particular in a case like this we cannot put together facts to make our own conclusions. If we didn't have this as a rule the encyclopedia would fall apart under the weight of POV pushing. JFK and 9/11 would take up half of wiki. The ripple effect is self-published by someone with no qualifications or position to suggest he is a reliable witness. This is just as much true for him as it is for (presumably) your next door neighbour or a fourteen year old schoolkid. So the DVD cannot be considered a reliable source. That he believes himself to live near the buried ark of the covenant and is the new Messiah doesn't help matters. That doesn't mean that what he says is necessarily wrong, but until someone or some organisation that is considered reliable takes it up, we can't use the material on wikipedia as a source.

The BBC can be considered a reliable source - one of the most reliable news sources in English. That doesn't mean they are always right, but it does mean that we can assume they report accurately and honestly unless there is specific evidence to the contrary in any one case. You can watch the BBC documentary on youtube - search for "conspiracy files" "ripple effect". I don't know how long it will stay up (the BBC can be aggressive about its copyright), so watch it as soon as you have time. It takes apart the ripple effect very effectively. Note this series is not a simple de-bunking exercise. In other programmes (particularly in the Lockerbie bombing) important parts of some conspiracy theories do seem to hold water, by implication accusing the government and police of cover-ups.

As for your other edits on other pages - I suggest that you try to source anything controversial. For example, in the Martin Luther King case, it's worth footnoting the reasons why you think "alleged" is appropriate, or adding sourced comments to the effect that the King family do not believe that Ray was the killer. Wikipedia is so large now that it is a very common place for slightly disturbed or obsessive people to come and spread their views of reality. Editors get jumpy when things are put in without very good sourcing, and it can often be like this - add controversial material - someone reverts it - you go on the talk page explaining the sourcing - after discussion it goes back up (or not). That's the spirit of 1RR. It can be difficult at times when editors are disbelieving - I remember when Operation Gladio was challenged by people who just simply didn't believe it had happened (with reason - there were lies flying from left and right during the cold war as well as some truths). However, the sourcing won out, and the material stayed.

As a final comment, the sentiments behind some of the people challenging the official version appear suspect. It seems very likely not only to me but also to others that the aim of the Ripple Effect is to stir up Muslim resentment (the number of demonstrable untruths and misrepresentations in the DVD and the extent to which those spreading the Ripple Effect are not interested in its veracity contributes towards this view). Wikipedia should not be a conduit for that kind of activity.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

As luck would have it, I did stumble upon the BBC 7/7 documentary last night after I saw it referenced on the www.911blogger.com website. It is very well done. The image quality, even though it is in YouTube, is superb even in full screen mode; the lighting, the setup are all very professional-looking. The commentary is impeccably delivered by a very articulate female voice. It is, in short, a very slick production. It is as impeccably done as a commercial, which, in my opinion it is. It is, no more and no less than propaganda. It attempts to refute one by one every single argument made by Muad'Dib and a few other videos that have also popped up but it fails to convince, perhaps, precisely, because of all the effort that has been made to make it look professional. It lacks the believability that I found in Maud'Dib's voice and in the lesser technical quality of his video which was done presumably with what meagre means were at hand. Of course, this is a very subjective assessment on my part but it is widely corroborated by the comments I have read on the YouTube pages which can be summed up thus: "This BBC video is the best advertising Ripple Effect could ever get" and most of the comments I read agreed that the 7/7 lie is on a par with the 9/11 lie. Immediately after viewing the BBC documentary, I stumbled upon another interesting item: an article about that young Kuwaiti girl who testified before Congress that she had witnessed Iraqi soldiers removing infants from incubators and leaving them on the cold floor, following the invasion of Kuwait by Saddam Hussein. Remember that? That was also a very slick presentation. It was, arguably, the testimony that tipped American public opinion to support the First Gulf War. It was, of course, a complete sham. The girl, who claimed she could not give her full name to protect the life of relatives still in Kuwait, was in fact the Kuwaiti ambassador’s daughter in Washington and she had remained in the USA all that summer and had not even been in Kuwait at that time. She had been coached to deliver a convincing performance by one of the top public relations firm in Washington —whose offices were located, if I remember correctly, in the Watergate building. But I digress. Coming back to the BBC documentary, I will grant that they did disprove, to my satisfaction, one item mentioned in the Ripple Effect video, that is that the presence of the Kingstar van could have been a mere coincidence of no real significance in view of the fact that the kind of controlled demolition the company accomplishes does not involve explosives. The BBC investigated and came up with that quite simple explanation. That is what investigations are for, to find out what is relevant and what is not. However it appears that the Blair government steadfastly refused to have a full inquiry into the 7/7 bombings and that is troubling. Of course, they did their own report on the event, but nothing approaching an independant inquiry with far-reaching powers of research and subpoena. I might be wrong on this assertion, but that is the impression I get: the UK government refuses to have a real and thorough inquiry. Strangely enough, the same thing happened in the USA. George W. Bush also steadfastly refused to have an inquiry into the 9/11 events. And while the Warren Commission was instituted a few days or weeks after the JFK assassination, and similarly with the Columbia space shuttle disaster, It took something like 444 days before the US government gave in to the Jersey Girls who insisted they wanted to know what caused the death of their husbands. As you know, the farcical result was the appointment, at first, of war criminal Henry Kissinger, who was immediaely dismissed with unbelief by the Jersey girls, the press and anyone with a brain inside his head. The 9/11 Commission that followed was also a sham which neglected to investigate what needed to be investigated. I think the fundamental message of Ripple Effect is that a real impartial and thorough investigation needs to be undertaken. But, judging from Gordon Brown’s recent refusal to hold a similarly transparent investigation into the involvement of the British in the Iraq war, it seems very unlikely that a satisfactory inquiry into 7/7 will be undertaken any time soon.

You stated above that "The BBC can be considered a reliable source - one of the most reliable news sources in English." I used to be of that opinion until I came across Jane Standley’s unbelievable performance on 9/11 when she described the aftermath of the collapse of building seven some 20 minutes before the event actually occurred. I investigated that occurrence rather thoroughly. I saw the video of Phil Hayton who, years later, claimed he was totally unaware of that controversy. He was either lying or he is not a real newsman. And a real newsman he certainly is not. He is a talking head. All those guys and girls you see on the BBC are not newspeople, they are merely news readers. They haven’t got a clue about what they are talking about. Their job is to look pretty, wear elegant clothing and arrange their hair fashionably. The people who write the stuff that they read are the same ones, I am afraid, who plan and organize events like 7/7, 9/11, and the peformance of the Kuwaiti ambassador’s daughter. What I found most revealing in the Jane Standley saga was the commentary that BBC World News director Richard Potter wrote in his blog. Fascinating reading, if you have the time. Part 2 of Richard Potter's blog is even more enlightening. That is when BBC credibility completely collapsed, in my mind. As one commentator summed it up, "To report that a building had collapsed before it had done so would be an odd sort of error, wouldn't it ? A bit like reporting that the Lord Mayor's trousers had fallen down before they did so." The News director's assessment? "There's no story here."

Anyway, the purpose of this discussion is to come up with a way to present the event of 7/7 in an accurate way. I admit that I know very little about that episode and until a few days ago, almost nothing at all. But in view of what I know about what has happened elsewhere, I tend to believe most of what Muad'Dib is saying, until it is disproved. The British Government has been lying so blatantly these past few years that they have no credibility whatsoever and I am offended to read in Wikipedia a version of events that reflects the Government's POV as being the undisputed reality. Granted, to be fair and balanced, there is a section down the page devoted to the crackpot views of tin-hat wearing crazies where their preposterous conspiracy theories are exposed. I find that unsatisfactory.

I see on your user page that you can read French. Please take a look at the French version of the 7/7 story. Although I feel some edits remain to be done, the tone is much more acceptable. Unlike the English page, it does not seem to be such an overwhelming piece of propaganda. The only thing I felt compelled to do on that page was to mention, at the very bottom, John Hill's judicial predicament for having produced an investigative video. I wish the English page could be "neutralized" along the same lines as the French one. Oclupak (talk) 11:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Let me get this straight:

• You like Ripple Effect because "it is very well done. The author speaks softly yet forcefully which I find very convincing.@"
• You don't like the BBC documentary because "it fails to convince, perhaps, precisely, because of all the effort that has been made to make it look professional."

• You don't believe the BBC can be right about anything because on a rather chaotic rolling news day there was a mix-up between parts of the BBC over the CNN report that a building was about to collapse (the fire department had withdrawn because of that, and the building was clearly about to fall) or had collapsed. This is the same BBC that exposed voting fraud in the 2000 US election, and the same BBC that stood up to the government over the David Kelly affair.
• You want to believe anything that John Hill says despite the fact that he not only claims he is the Messiah and that he lives near the buried ark of the covenant, but in his video he also invented a 1000-person emergency drill out of 6 people having a meeting in a publishing office, mendaciously edited Tony Blair's speech to make it look like he was condemning Muslims in general, is simply dead wrong about the controlled demolitions company's business, and tries to make something significant out of a poster on the side of the bombed bus that was also carried by 900 other buses that day. That's just for starters.

I have to say, I don't see much objectivity going on here. Given that you believe John Hill has been arrested for producing the video, I start to think you're playing the innocent. As the most cursory investigation will show, John Hill sent DVDs of his video to jury members in one of the trials. For Heaven's sake - the French wiki article you linked to mentions this quite clearly: Le 30 juin 2009, John Hill, qui avait produit une vidéo contestant la version officielle des événements, a été arrêté en Irlande suite à une demande d'extradition par les autorités judiciaires du Royaume-Uni qui lui reprochent d'avoir expédié des copies de la vidéo 7/7 Ripple Effect au juge et au président du jury d'un procès relié aux attentats. That's not allowed - just as much as if the BBC had tried to send DVDs of the Conspiracy Files to the jury. Attempting to influence juries from the outside like that is called "trying to pervert the course of justice" and is rightly a criminal offence. However, you appear to have determined your position - the government must have conspired to blow up the trains because anything bad is always the fault of the government/CIA/Israel - and look for any evidence that is congruent with that, and ignore all evidence contradicts your story. That's not research. As you ought to be aware, many people opposed to the official 7/7 line won't touch the Ripple Effect with a barge pole - and with good reason.

I'm not sure there's more to talk about. I've laid out why I think you're not being objective.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 00:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I looked for Ripple Effect in Wikipedia. There is as yet no article featuring that video. Shouldn't we, you and I, attempt to fill that gap? If anyone objects, we could point out that there is already a lenghty article about Mein Kampf, and rightly so. With all the talk surrounding Ripple Effect, don't you think it's about time someone wrote an article about it? Are you up to it?

I have come across another interesting video, Ludicrous Diversion 7/7 London Bombing Documentary, which I will watch today. Are there any others?

What happened on 7/7 at Canary wharf? I don't remember the BBC tackling that issue. I'll have to watch the BBC documentary again. And I'll have to watch Ripple Effect again to ascertain exactly what it is that Muad'Dib has said on that matter.

What is the story of Jean Charles de Menezes? What were the real circumstances of his killing? Who was he working for in London? Was he killed because he could have revealed something he knew?

Going back to Building Seven, why did Barry Jennings suddenly die of a heart attack last year? Why was he so relunctant to disclose who he was working for? Why was his testimony to the BBC so different than the one he had previously given to Dylan Avery of Loose Change? Why has Mr. Hess, who was trapped with him in Building Seven, remained silent? How come both of those gentlemen were not required to testify, under oath, as to what they witnessed on 9/11? Now that Mr. Jennings is dead, why doesn't someone require Mr. Hess to testify before he dies also?

Who do you work for, VsevolodKrolikov? The entities that spontaneously come to mind are Mi5, Mi6, CIA, NSA, Mossad. Is it any of those? Are you allowed to tell? If you don't actually work for them, surely you will agree that you share their views and you disseminate their propaganda. That is indisputable, is it not? Oclupak (talk) 13:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Who do you work for, VsevolodKrolikov? The entities that spontaneously come to mind are Mi5, Mi6, CIA, NSA, Mossad.

All of them, and the FSB as well (why else would I speak Russian?). And we're watching you through your keyboard right now. Go on, look closely - you'll see tiny cameras under the keys I, C, K and E. Because you are that important an individual, we actually devote resources and man-hours simply to diverting you with comments on wikipedia so that you can't go out and find the truth. The decision to pursue you was made by Netanyahu in conjunction with Hu Jin Tao as they shared an intimate steam bath with a giant owl. You're getting too close. Back off.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

UPDATE. I take back some of my criticism towards the BBC. As I attempted to view the Ludicrous Diversion video on You Tube, I encountered a major hurdle after having watched part 1. Part 2 seemed to take forever to load and I finally gave up on it. Through a quick Google serach I discovered that there were numerous other sources to watch the video and, among them, was BBC5, which totally pleased me because their video doesn't seem to be split in multiple parts as was the case with YouTube. Also, the quality of the image seems to be slightly better. So before I pursue the viewing of Ludicrous Diversion, I wanted to apologize right now for my harsh criticism of the BBC in view of the fact that they took it upon themselves to broadcast both POV on the story, even one that seems to diametrically oppose the documentary that they themselves produced recently. I only hope that Wikipedia would be as open-minded as the BBC. Oclupak (talk) 15:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

___________

Ooops. I realize I made a terrible mistake. BB5.tv is in no way related to the venerable BBC. It is, on the contrary, one of those "truther" sites that carry a lot of tin-hat material. How they managed to get away with using the BBC name, I can't even begin to imagine.

Among the available videos I found on BBC5.tv, there was this: Orwell rolls in his grave, a very well produced documentary dealing with censorship and control of the media —exactly down your alley, VsevolodKrolikov, since you make it your duty, if not your actual job, to shut off dissenting voices from Wikipedia. I didn't learn much from watching that video because I already knew most of the stuff that was alluded to. But it was comforting to see all those ideas so neatly packaged in such a coherent format. I'm sure you wouldn't learn much either by watching it because you already know all that stuff and you probably also know about an awful lot of stuff that hasn't come out yet if, as I suspect, you are part of the Mi5, Mi6, CIA, NSA, Mossad, FSB thing. You earlier clearly admitted as much, jokingly of course, in a tongue in cheek way, but in this case, I am inclined to take your word at face value.

As this conversation draws to a close, I just feel that it would be a shame not to share its contents with whoever is interested in these matters. Would the discussion page of the 7 July 2005 London bombings article be a good place to transport all this material? Isn't it a bit too long for that? Wouldn't it clutter the page? As you are a more senior editor than I am, I would like to hear your suggestions and anything you would have to say on the subject. And besides, you do own half the copyright of all that's been written here, isn't that so? Oclupak (talk) 12:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

since you make it your duty, if not your actual job, to shut off dissenting voices from Wikipedia.

This is a clear violation of WP:AGF. I have not asked for you to be blocked, I have not deleted any of your comments on the talk page. All I have done is remove comments of yours that are not properly sourced, as per the rules on Wikipedia. Of course, if you take my words about being a member of the FSB seriously, then you clearly also believe that Netanyahu and Hu Jin Tao take intimate steam baths together. Can you not see the odd path you're treading?

As you are a more senior editor than I am

No, I'm not. I'm not even an admin. I would suggest, though, that I have a slightly stronger grip on reality (I don't believe that anyone who disagrees with me must be a member of the security services, for example), but I don't think that makes me senior. My suggestions on the topic are entirely to do with what can be considered a reliable source for an encyclopaedia. John Hill's self-published, provenly inaccurate DVD cannot be considered as such. You made a disparaging comment about people who went to university not knowing that three towers fell on September 11. I actually find it more depressing that someone like you, who I presume went to university, doesn't know what a reliable source is. After all, that's actually part of a university education. Or were all your teachers members of the security services too? VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 00:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Dear VsevolodKrolikov, I thought I would never hear from you again and that made me feel sad because I enjoy corresponding with you. Even though we obviously are in total disagreement on many current political issues, I am confident that deep down we have many things in common and that you and I are both decent people.

Let me make this clear. I do not believe Muad'Dib's theory about what happened on 7/7 but I find it an extremely interesting hypothesis. Given what I know about 9/11, the JFK assassination, the Gulf of Tonkin Incident (which was in the news a few days ago when its perpetrator, Robert McNamara, died), the USS Liberty attack, the false claims of WMD in Iraq, the Iran-Contra affair, Watergate, Operation Northwoods, the Reichstag fire, the Kuwaiti ambassador's daughter, the Tank Man in Tiananmen square and I could go on and on...

With all this in mind I find that something along the lines of the theory exposed in Ripple Effect has a rather high probability of eventually being proven correct. I have never suggested that the wikipedia article on 7/7 should claim that Muad'Dib's theory is the only correct interpretation of the events of that day —not yet, at any rate. There is, as you correctly point out, no documented source for that theory except Muad'Dib's video, along with a few others which basically say the same thing. Now that the question has been raised, I feel there should be an inquiry. A real inquiry, of course, not something similar to what Gordon Brown has instituted barely a week or two ago to investigate Britain's involvement in the Iraq war. As you know, that investigtion had a lot of limitations built-in when it was first proposed and I suppose that the furor was such that Mr. Brown agreed to expand the Commission's mandate a little, but just a little. Still, many of the proceedings will never be made public. I find that unacceptable. When you invade a country for reasons that later on are proven to have been totally phoney, a full and thorough investigation is warranted. I take it for granted that you would agree with me on that, but perhaps I'm wrong.

So I ask you now:

• 1. Do you feel that a full and thorough public (NOT private) investigation should be undertaken to find out all the circumstances relating to Tony Blair's decision to join George W. Bush in his war on Terror in Iraq?

• 2. In Afghanistan?

• 3. While I'm at it, don't you feel that a thorough investigation should explore all possible avenues concerning 7/7?

• 4. ...and concerning 9/11?

• 5. Are you satisfied with the conclusion of the Hutton Inquiry regarding David Kelley's "suicide"?

• 6. Do you think that the allegations of complicity in the crime of torture by Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Gonzales, et al. should be investigated?

I looked up your wiki history yesterday and noticed that on May 8, you intervened on the Condi Rice page to reinstate an item derogatory to Dr. Rice which had been deleted. I was more than a bit surprised by that and I realized then and there that I may have been wrong in assuming that you were part of a CIA/Mossad team of shills/trolls. I want you to know now that I subscribe to the WP:AGF policy and I recognize that you are dealing with these issues in good faith.

So, do you think it is possible that we can come up, you and I, with a rewrite of the 7/7 wiki page that will satisfy both of us? A page where the official version is not presented as the one and only truth ? I would like to achieve the same encyclopedical balance that was achieved on the Lorraine Motel page. There must be a way to dissociate the facts upon which everyone agrees from the various interpretations that have emerged.

I leave you with a quote I picked up last week on DailyKos:

« First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. » — Mahatma Gandhi

— Oclupak (talk) 14:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to get into detailed discussions of all these issues (I have a real life to lead), but I'll explain how I look at these cases to show how I deal with evidence.

• David Kelley's death is clearly suspicious. However this is not based upon the idea that the government is inherently untruthful and dishonest about everything, but because in this case there is clear evidence of the official theory being untrue; several senior medical experts have come forward to challenge the official view, there is, according to at least some (professional, qualified) psychologists' analyses, no evidence that David Kelley was about to commit suicide (nothing in the personal communications etc.) which also goes against the official story. The Lord Chancellor invoked a law in a very unusual fashion in order to silence an inquest - which itself has been commented on in public by qualified lawyers. I have to say that I know most of this because of the BBC documentary in the same series as the Ripple effect doc.
• Yes, I think the Iraq war justifications were untruthful, and that the US and UK governments knew this. Again, this is because we know from several respectable sources (IAEA, UN weapons inspectors, Channel four news in particular, subsequent events, Colin Powell's statements, the resignations from the British government and so on) that there were falsehoods all over the place.
• In Afghanistan I see no evidence of a conspiracy as such; a bad decision (if it was one) is not evidence of a conspiracy. (Truthers have a puerile fantasy about perfect government, a bit like wanting a perfect parent). If you recall, there were very few tears shed for the Taliban around the world at the time. No conspiracy was needed. The outcome has been a mess, of course, but I don't think that was part of anyone's plan.
• 9/11 - I have seen no evidence of any merit that suggests it was any kind of inside job (and the experts are not there, or are in such miniscule numbers compared to the more numerous and more senior experts who refute the idea. instead we have theologians talking about architecture, and amateur trial by camera angle). Here's something. It was only recently I discovered there is film of WTC7 from the other side clearly showing the building was collapsing from fire - something hidden by truthers in a little conspiracy of their own. The faulty (withdrawn) Reuters report that led through various outlets to the BBC "predicting" the fall is also kept quiet by truthers - something that one of the makers of Loose Change has been forced to admit. Truthers still count Barry Jennings as one of them, even though he has spoken out against them - again, something kept quiet. That is, as far as I can see the conspiracy is on the other side. The motive is to save face, or save a career - there are a lot of people at the top of the truth movement who literally can't afford to back out.

As a comment: the sheer scale of the 9/11 conspiracy is simply too big to be feasible. One would have to have at the same time a very dark and a very naive view of human nature to believe that among the thousands of people who would have had to be in on it none would come forward - either for moral, personal, professional (journalists) or political gain. At the same time the motives truthers put for the conspiracy are personal, professional and political). Therefore believing in such a conspiracy needs a high tolerance of cognitive dissonance; something common in cultists and religious fanatics. Such a conspiracy would absolutely without precedent in the whole of human history.

• As for 7/7. Yes, there should be a proper public enquiry, because it was a major terrorist attack and the victims' families deserve it. But it should not waste its time and taxpayers' money on the kind of things that John Hill raises, because they're clearly baseless. Everything he raises in that video is either extreme unfounded speculation or actually false. Look around other 7/7 conspiracy sites: most of them simply won't touch it with a bargepole either. Just because he made a DVD does not mean he deserves equal time with the real world. It's not good to use a tragedy as a vehicle to indulge paranoia. We must stick to what we know.

I hope you see I have no interest in "balancing" the 7/7 page on Wikipedia with John Hill's nonsense, no more than a page on Bill Clinton should have balance with those who literally thought he was the antichrist. If we lose sight of the evidence and start believing in conspiracies as fact because of a psychological need to believe them (your gut feeling/desire to utterly doubt the BBC but to believe John Hill), we are saying goodbye to reality. And in doing that we are saying goodbye to ever having control over our lives. Personally, I wish the energy devoted by Britons to analysing 9/11 insider theories were instead devoted to real, but admittedly less sexy conspiracies such as the Private Finance Initiative, which has done a great deal of damage to our social infrastructure, or the conspiracy to edit out the phrase income inequality (and all the hard evidence we know about the damage it causes) from the language of British politics, or the behaviour of large Western corporations in Africa, or the collusion between the energy industry and government (and parliament) to undermine serious attempts to reduce carbon emissions. So many of these conspiracy theories are expressions of political alienation - particularly 9/11, David Icke's lizards, and the White supremacy movement in the US. None of them actually express the reasons for that alienation. Instead they indulge it and feed it rather than try to solve it. It's soma for the masses, only self-administered. If we don't stick to what we actually know, we're the ones fooling ourselves.

In short, it is better that Wikipedia sticks to what we can definitively show (from all sides) than we waste energy forcing our dreams and nightmares on others. Honesty preserves integrity above all else. I feel a little uncomfortable being so political on wikipedia (it's not really in the spirit of the project), but I simply hope to bring you in from the fringes so that you can contribute more effectively.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I have a lot of things to respond to your previous post, but I just want to mention, in passing, a very interesting video I came across a few days ago. It features Major General Albert Stubblebine III, who was, he says, in charge of all U.S. army intelligence up to 1984, when he retired. It is quite interesting to find out what a gentleman with such credentials thinks about what happened on 9/11. If he was thirty years younger, he might not be so outspoken, knowing full well that his career would henceforth be in jeopardy. The video in question is an excerpt from the documentary "One Nation Under Siege", and I suppose that it is for copyright reasons that it is not directly linked to in Wikipedia, which is quite unfortunate. Oclupak (talk) 11:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

It can certainly be linked to, and I would have thought that his status makes his views notable. Of course, his evidence analysis is only based on viewing photographs, but I don't see why it shouldn't be referred to at all. (Linking to copyright material is fine - it's actually including copyright text and photos in the article without permission that breaks the license we have.) Try find a place to put it in if you think it adds to the coverage of 9/11.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 11:19, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Starting a new page

Here's a heads-up on starting a page (I saw your comments, as I have you on my watch list). A stub is actually not a new page, but a page that is judged too short and needs expanding (so lots of new pages are often stubs).

If you want to start a page, first check that the page does not already exist in some form or another. In addition, check that it wasn't created and then deleted - there may have been good reasons for this, such as WP:non-notability, or material was merged with another article. Non-notability is not fixed forever, of course, and if you can prove notability, you're fine. Recreating pages that were deleted can raise a couple of eyebrows here and there, but if you've got good reason, you'll be fine. If it was merged with another article, take care that you are not creating a content fork, i.e. a separate article on the same issue.

Before putting a new page up on the main site, it's a good idea work on it in your user space - getting the formatting right etc.

To create a page in your user space, e.g. "Barry Jennings", type /Barry_Jennings after the address on the main page of your talk page, i.e. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Oclupak/Barry_Jennings. This will show you a standard page with the option to create the page "Barry_Jennings" within your namespace. I should mention (as some new users don't realise) that while Wikipedia courtesy is that this is your play space, it's still legally part of en.wikipedia.org (and others can access it), so nothing defamatory/offensive etc.

You can learn about formatting from the tutorial pages at WP:TUTOR.

To put the material up (once it's ready) on Wikipedia, type the title of the page as you want to see it (make sure the capitals and punctuation are all correct) in the search box and click on go. If the page doesn't exist, you'll be given the chance to create it. You can copy and paste the material into that window. Good luck! VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the tips. I have been away from the computer, busy working outside, which accounts, partly, for not having responded to your previous post, not that I didn't have anything to respond, quite the contrary. Your help in creating a page is greatly appreciated and Barry Jennings is surely a good candidate to get me going. Oclupak (talk) 11:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

You walk down a path of ruin

Look, I can tell you aren't a new editor to Wikipedia, and thus I'm not going to put on kid gloves for you. There is an absolute mountain of reliable sources that back up what is currently on the 9/11 article page. It would take a monumental effort to change this even slightly, and while I don't doubt you might be able to provide an equally large mountain saying the opposite, I sincerely doubt that it would stand up to being called reliable sources. Yes, we are well aware that some very outspoken people have made claims about what 'actually' happened on 9/11, but for every one of them, hundreds more accept what we currently put forward.

You walk down a path of ruin. In front of you lay the bodies of many editors that have come before you and continued forward. Some of them retired and removed themselves from the project. Others proved themselves to be enough of a nuisance to be forcefully removed. Not a single one of them succeeded. Do not be delusional to believe you will be. Just as much as I assume you want to continue forward with the Wikipedia project, I don't wish to expend more time dealing with a frivolous augment that has been defeated time and time again.

Turn around. Stop soapboxing. Go find something else to champion. This is not worth being blocked over. --Tarage (talk) 10:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Who are those thugs? I wouldn't be surprised if they were part of the white collar branch of the Blackwater Corp

[1] I take a pretty dim view of those kinds of accusations. I don't know who they were meant for but you'll need to stop making comments like that pretty quickly. Thank you. RxS (talk) 15:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

That is, User Oclupak, assume good faith. Do not accuse others of being "gatekeepers" or of upholding a taboo. Do not call them "thugs", either. Especially when they are merely trying to adhere to wikipedia's guidelines. And apropos guidelines, I'd really like to suggest you familiarise yourself with them. And soon, because the way you come across now is very confrontational and unconstructive in wikipedia's terms, and that may lead to a block. Do not let it come to that if avoidable. There have been, as far as I can see, good reasons the way things have been handled thus far; if you have further questions on why and on the policies behind the reasoning, contact an editor or admin. 87.166.69.39 (talk) 17:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

911

Dear Oclupak, I have removed your edit from the talk page for two reasons: wikipedia is not a forum and personal attacks on your fellow editors as "gatekeepers". I see above that this is not the first time you have felt the need to personally attack editors of wikipedia and imagine a conspiracy happening where it is a mere matter of wikipedia policies. Maybe you should consider whether Wikipedia, with it's focus on representation of reliable sources and thus preference for the mainstream account on any topic, is really for you. A lot of the conflict that people like the IP you were siding with or you seem to have with wikipedia stem from the will to change the accepted knowledge. That has to happen outside of wikipedia. If you are unsatisfied with accepted knowledge: Don't change wikipedia, change the world. 92.77.150.79 (talk) 08:34, 11 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.55.100.242 (talk)

- - -

The preceding paragraph is identical to the one reproduced below but some anonymous editor, going by the IP 78.55.100.242, insists that it should appear at the very top of this section with the following explanation: "This belongs first, stop imagining yourself some kind of victim." So, I'll leave it there, if it makes him/her/it happy but for the sake of clarity, it is better to ignore it and to start reading this section starting with the next paragraph. Oclupak (talk) 16:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

- - -

For the record, here is the message I had posted earlier on the September 11 attacks Talk page. That message was unceremoniously deleted by an anonymous editor who may (or may not?) have administrator privileges and who hides behind the anonymity of his IP address, 92.77.150.79:

174.89.53.226, I am in complete agreement with everything you say and I understand your frustration dealing with the gate-keepers who will not tolerate any other POV but their own in this article. They consider it as their own private property. We are allowed to look but are asked to please not touch anything. I can talk from experience because I was here before and I've heard their arguments. At first, I thought that maybe I needed to familiarize myself better with the rules and regulations of WP. I eventually realized that these censors who were accusing me of soapboxing were actually doing nothing else but soapboxing themselves. The entire article is a gigantic propaganda piece for the Official Conspiracy Theory which involves 19 arabs with box cutters who manage to outwit the multi-billion Security apparatus of the mighty USA. Now THAT's a pretty unbelievable conspiracy theory, isn't it! Unfortunately for you and I, they have more experience, and some of them are actually administrators and have therefore some privileges that can get you and I silenced, temporarily or permanently. Like wolves, they work in a pack and attack the lone individual who wishes to bring some sanity to this article which is so blatantly biased. I don't know if you'll pursue your quest for sanity much longer; if you do, you have all my sympathy. I am quite aware that I might be banned for writing all this, but once in a while, it is necessary, I think, to forget all the rules and to say what we feel is right. I am encouraged in that respect by a series of interviews given by one of the passengers of the Mavi Marmara to the BBC. His name is Ken O'Keefe. Although the interview deals mainly with the Gaza Flotilla, in a broader sense, what he says applies to the 9/11 attacks article also because both events are part of the same propaganda war that is being waged by Zionists on Wikipedia as well as in the Mediterranean Sea. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kzTr1F6buA HARDtalk with Kenneth O'Keefe (2010). Oclupak (talk) 02:12, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Dear Oclupak, I have removed your edit from the talk page for two reasons: wikipedia is not a forum and personal attacks on your fellow editors as "gatekeepers". I see above that this is not the first time you have felt the need to personally attack editors of wikipedia and imagine a conspiracy happening where it is a mere matter of wikipedia policies. Maybe you should consider whether Wikipedia, with it's focus on representation of reliable sources and thus preference for the mainstream account on any topic, is really for you. A lot of the conflict that people like the IP you were siding with or you seem to have with wikipedia stem from the will to change the accepted knowledge. That has to happen outside of wikipedia. If you are unsatisfied with accepted knowledge: Don't change wikipedia, change the world. 92.77.150.79 (talk) 08:34, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

A few hours ago, I wrote a few lines which were promptly deleted by an editor who may (or may not?) have administrative privileges and who goes by the IP 92.77.150.79. Maybe I did get carried away a little bit in my indignation about what I was witnessing happening here. So, in a more subdued manner, here is a second try at joining this discussion.

The subject at hand is the disputed neutrality of the article. I totally agree with 174.89.58.24 when he claims that the article is not neutral. Like him, I wish to improve the quality of the article by removing the obvious PV which is displayed through and through. As it stands now, the article is nothing more than a piece of propaganda supporting the Official Conspiracy Theory, the one which claims that 19 arabs conspired to attack the WTC and the Pentagon by hijacking airplanes armed with boxcutters. Until a credible investigation has determned what exactly happened on that day, we cannot limit ourselves to that single conspiracy theory. There are other conspiracy theories out there that are just as valid as the one proposed by the Government of the USA, and even more so according to numerous credible sources. Those conspiracy theories deserve to be presented with as much respect as the one which is disproportionately displayed at present. In as much as the very members of the 9/11 Commission admit themselves that they were doomed to fail from the very beginning of their investigation and that they were lied to by those from whom they were seeking answers, the conclusions of their flawed report cannot be taken seriously. Clearly a new investigation will have to be instituted to determine the truth. What I have just written is not soapboxing. It is, rather, an attempt at establishing the validity of the arguments put forward by 174.89.58.24 and others who support him. As it stands now, the article is propaganda, pure and simple. It clearly needs a more neutral stance. Oclupak (talk) 11:25, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Dear Oclupak, I went through your User page, and quite agree on the thugs part(though I wouldn't be so harsh). Editors there assume a totally authoritarian stance, discouraging new addition, among other 'uncivil behaviour'. How would you suggest dealing with this 'menace'? MikeLynch (talk) 07:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Dear MikeLynch, thanks for your encouragement. As I ponder on how to deal with the uncivil behaviour we are both witnessing, I am reminded of the teachings of one of the most prominent citizens of your country and I ask myself "What would Gandhi do?". He certainly would not have submitted to the authoritarian attitude of the thugs who behave as if they are the rightful owners of the 9/11 pages of Wikipedia. I believe he would have stood his ground without ever reverting to the abusive tactics of his adversaries. That's what I intend to do. As you know, I have already been threatened with a block or even of being forcefully removed. Rightly or wrongly, I've come to the conclusion that those threats are nothing more than intimidation tactics. What is more likely to happen is that I give up and quit Wikipedia in disgust as I have witnessed quite a few editors doing. In the meantime, I'll keep on saying what's on my mind while remaining respectful even with those who shout insults and slanderous remarks at those with whom they disagree.

My next step will probably be to republish on the September 11 attacks Talk page something I had written barely 24 hours ago and which was unceremoniously removed by one of the "owners" of the page along with a whole bunch of other stuff he/she didn't like.

In a new section, which I intend to title "Conspiracy theories should be completely eradicated from the main article", I will repeat most of what I had written in the "Larry Silverstein" section.

That section was abruptly terminated by Jojhutton with the lame excuse that "This is getting out of hand. And is beginning to border on some serious WP:BLP issues." even though the subject had veered away from the Biography of a Living Person issue ever since you yourself "broke away from the topic in question".

But another editor felt it was not enough to merely close the discussion. A few hours after Jojhutton had intervened, an editor who goes by the name of MONGO took it upon himself to remove from view the locked discussion and proceeded to transport it to the Archives, along with a lot of other stuff he/she felt should be removed from public view. Even though they are now much less accessible to the wandering public, those discussions are forever available at Talk:September_11_attacks/Archive_53.

If you wish to continue this conversation, feel free to use my Talk page or, if you prefer, write to me directly at Special:EmailUser/Oclupak. Regards. Oclupak (talk) 13:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

If I may take the liberty, I would point out that the image you uploaded in your user page of some phone call from American Airlines flight 77 or something like that, the date is incorrectly mentioned as sep 11 2010. :) Cheers! MikeLynch (talk) 14:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm usually not prone to dyslexia but I'm afraid that's what happened. Thanks for pointing it out. Oclupak (talk) 14:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I cannot seem to decide on what measures to take regarding this, as any edits made, could of course, be deleted. And besides, this is a sensitive topic, as it reflects on the American policies. Is this uncivil behaviour uncivil enough to be reported to an admin? MikeLynch (talk) 15:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Mike, I have replied at your gmail address. Oclupak (talk) 16:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at AN/I regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Tarage (talk) 20:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The AN/I discussion has vanished. Where has it gone? Going through the history, it is still accessible at [2]. The last entry was:

"I back up everything I say. However it was marked resolved before I could get back to it. But that is neither here nor there. --Tarage (talk) 05:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)"

Was the issue resolved? Was the item crushed into oblivion after a revert further down the line, if that is at all possible? For the time being: mystery. Oclupak (talk) 12:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Looking further into the history of the AN/I discussion page, I discovered that the section labeled Disruptive editing from Oclupak has been moved to the archives at this address: [3]. Why? What does this mean? I guess time will tell. Oclupak (talk) 13:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The discussion regarding your edits has been restored to AN/I here...not sure how long it will remain up.--MONGO 10:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

MONGO, thanks for letting me know where the discussion has moved to. The last time it was moved, no one had bothered to tell me where it had gone and I had to look for it by myself. Not being very familiar with these kinds of proceedings, it was by pure luck, really, that I eventually stumbled upon Archive 638. Now, you tell me that you've moved it back to the original page. That's fine with me, but I hope I will be notified next time the discussion is moved somewhere else. For the sake of consistency, I feel your intervention should have been appended to the "Administrators' noticeboard" section which already deals with this issue instead of you creating a brand new section labeled "Restored". This being MY talk page, I hope you won't take offense if I move your message to the "Administrators' noticeboard" section and delete the "Restored" section you created. Oclupak (talk) 11:45, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The admin noticeboard is used mainly for admins to discuss admin related things between themselves publically...the admin noticeboard/incidents is for the post that was linked above...a place where any editor can seek admin assistance or input.--MONGO 02:30, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Regarding my revert

Oclupak,

I saw your message. What I removed was best described here. Look for the topic Okip poisoning the well. His post appeared to be just that. However, I can be wrong, and if you think I am, feel free to revert me, I won't war on it. Cheers! KoshVorlonNaluboutes,Aeria Gloris

Kosh, you say that Okip poisoned the well? I think the well is already poisoned and that Okips' words constitute an antidote. It sure had that effect on me. The wisdom of his post encouraged me to persevere in my quest for sanity within Wikipedia. Therefore, to answer your question, I do believe you were wrong in removing it and I also believe that it should be restored but I wouldn't feel comfortable reverting you. Oddly enough, I would consider it a form of censorship on my part to revert you and I abhor censorship of any kind (with the possible exception of vandalism). What I would like, though, would be for you to reinstate Okip's message yourself.

P.S. I notice your post didn't carry a time stamp. Was it intentional? For the record, the history of this page shows that it was posted at 16:48, 15 September 2010. Regards. Oclupak (talk) 14:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Luc Courchesne

Thank you for your message.

The Wikipedia article about Luc Courchesne was restored and moved to User:Panoramedia/Luc Courchesne. As you can see, the article doesn't say anything about what makes M. Courchesne important. In fact, your message contains much more information about M. Courchesne than his Wikipedia biography does.

Since the old article says so little, I recommend you write a new article about M. Courchesne, based on what has been written about him in reliable sources. As an alternative, you can ask User:Panoramedia if you can improve the article at User:Panoramedia/Luc Courchesne, and move it to Luc Courchesne once it's become a substantial biography.

Please leave a message for me if you need any help. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Notification

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose, at their own discretion, sanctions on any editor working on pages broadly related to the September 11, 2001 attacks if the editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. The committee's full decision can be read at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories#Final decision. NW (Talk) 13:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

NW, I noticed on the AN/I (which has been moved to Archive 639) that you have marked the incident concerning me as "Resolved". I also read the Notification above which specifies the sanctions I may encounter if I engage "in further inapppropriate behaviour". I wish to state that I did not engage in any inappropriate behaviour and that, rather, it is those who brought up the charges who "regularly, repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process". I expected the Arbitration Committee to investigate the allegations of Tarage, MONGO and others, which would have given me an opportunity to defend myself and to demonstrate that it is them who don't adhere to the principles of Wikipedia by bullying and intimidating editors and by pushing their own POV to the exclusion of any other, which they dismiss as "nonsense". They behave as if they were the sole "owners" of those articles and threaten every editor who dares oppose them with a block, a ban, or expulsion. I am not a lawyer and I didn't come to Wikipedia to litigate. I think I can contribute positively to the encyclopedia but a clique of editors, supported unconditionnally by another clique of administrators, prevent anyone from bringing some sanity to the September_11_attacks article, as well as most if not all other 9/11 related articles. I stumbled upon a comment from editor Okip [4] which explains the situation rather well. In closing, I wish to reiterate that I voice my opposition to your remark that implied that I have engaged in inappropriate behaviour. I may have committed a faux-pas, here and there, but nothing compared to the inadmissibe behaviour which is displayed daily on the Talk:September_11_attacks page by the group of editors/administrators I am alluding to. Oclupak (talk) 12:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

If you truly cannot see that your editing has been inappropriate and has had the effect of, whether you meant it or not, pushing a conspiracy theory, then you really should not be editing those articles. Personally, I do not edit 9/11 articles and I have had no past experiences with Tarage or MONGO. NW (Talk) 14:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

NW, every single editor involved on the Wikipedia pages dealing with 9/11 is "pushing a conspiracy theory". As it is now, only those who believe in the conspiracy theory that consists of "19 muslim extremist terrorists who hate our freedoms and who hijacked planes with boxcutters managing to circumvent the most elaborate security apparatus on Earth and achieving 3/4 of their objectives" are allowed to publish their POV on the 9/11 pages.

As I stated numerous times, my aim is to eradicate ALL conspiracy theories from the main 9/11 article which should restrict itself to the facts.

For instance, the opening paragraph should read:

• The September 11 attacks (often referred to as September 11th or 9/11) were a series of coordinated attacks upon the United States on September 11, 2001. On that morning, four commercial passenger jet airliners were hijacked.

Instead of:

• The September 11 attacks (often referred to as September 11th or 9/11) were a series of coordinated suicide attacks by al-Qaeda upon the United States on September 11, 2001. On that morning, 19 al-Qaeda terrorists hijacked four commercial passenger jet airliners.

If you believe that we should keep the paragraph as it is, then you, NW, are a conspiracy theorist in as much as you believe the Official Conspiracy Theory (OTC) is accurate and constitutes the undisputed truth. That was never proven. The Keane-Hamilton investigation, aka the 9/11 Commission, was not given the collaboration it would have needed to pursue a thorough investigation, by the own admission of a majority of its members.

As you may be aware, even the FBI does not list the 9/11 attacks as one of the crimes Osama bin Laden is being wanted for on its Most Wanted poster.

If you side with Official Conspiracy theorists Tarage, Mongo and others, I will have no choice but to bring this matter to a higher authority than yourself. Who might that be? I don't know yet. Maybe, as an impartial administrator, you can tell me. Oclupak (talk) 15:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Keep digging your hole deeper. Eventually someone will come along and fill it in on top of you. --Tarage (talk) 19:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement

I've asked for appropriate arbitration enforcement at WP:AE as a result of this [5] edit.Acroterion _(talk) 13:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

9/11 topic ban

This is to inform you that, as the result of this Arbitration Enforcement request you are hereby banned from editing all articles which relate to the September 11 attacks, broadly interpreted, as well as their talk pages, and from any discussion of that topic on other pages. The ban is of indefinite duration. EdJohnston (talk) 15:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Oclupak. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Oclupak. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Oclupak. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

January 2023

Please stop. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, as you did at Talk:Pfizer, you may be blocked from editing. Zefr (talk) 02:59, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Would you please explain in what way were my comments inappropriate. I was merely exploring ways to improve Wikipedia by redefining what are considered Reliable Sources. Oclupak (talk) 03:19, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

1) The theme of all your comments in the Project Veritas discussion is that you have a better understanding of WP:RS than others; I say you do not. 2) you are expressing your opinions - and I would say misunderstandings - about the use of a Youtube video for RS; it has been adequately explained to you and disputed by 3 other editors that it is not a RS. 3) you talk about "improving Wikipedia", using Wikipedia as a news source, discussing "the core foundations of Wikipedia", etc. - these are not topics related to improving the article on Pfizer, WP:NOTFORUM. 4) the news organizations you mentioned in this edit are stable major companies and news sources for Wikipedia, as explained here. The Daily Mail is not a RS - it is WP:DEPS, the first tabloid to be listed as deprecated by Wikipedia.

I am not going to debate this with you. Keep your comments on an article talk page addressed to a specific improvement, supported by a RS. I will revert your further opinions, and if warranted, report you to admin for misuse of a talk page. Zefr (talk) 04:05, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use talk pages for inappropriate discussions, as you did at Talk:Pfizer. WP:DEADHORSE. Zefr (talk) 06:31, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 19 November 2024 (UTC)