Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/1985 Rajneeshee assassination plot/1

1985 Rajneeshee assassination plot edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: Administrative close. Nominator blocked for disruption. Geometry guy 20:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this article 1985_Rajneeshee_assassination_plot has recently had sections rewritten due to more than one users claims of irregularities ,unsourced claims ... Recently an edit war has been claimed between myself User_talk:Off2riorob and User_talk:Cirt and User_talk:Redheylin , changes have been made and multiple reverts have occurred.The article has been written by one user , cirt, and due to this individual point of view the NPOV is an issue and is disputed. so 4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias. is an ongoing issue and the article is unstable and therefore also contravenes ..5.Stable: it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. I myself have suffered 3 editing bans due to my attempting to edit this article and have been referred 3 times by the articles editor , cirt,. I would say it deviates also from 3(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). I would say it goes into overly detailed and unnecessary detail and attempts to encompass other details that already have articles .. for example the .. bio terror crimes ..(Off2riorob (talk) 15:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Suggest speedy close

Off2riorob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) literally just came off a 72 hour block - his third block for disruption on this topic (see latest ANI thread). The article is currently undergoing an RFC on its talk page, also due to complaints raised by Off2riorob (talk · contribs). ~~I note that Off2riorob (talk · contribs) is already engaging in canvassing [1].~~ I think a GAR at this time is inappropriate, and this page should be speedy closed as keep. Cirt (talk) 15:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not canvassing to post a comment regarding this matter on a users talk page when I have specifically mentioned him here. User_talk:Redheylin . (Off2riorob (talk) 16:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Endorse speedy close as further evidence of disruptive behavior from editor who requested reassessment. John Carter (talk) 16:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Please see also ongoing thread re: disruption from Off2riorob (talk · contribs), at ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Further_disruption_from_User:Off2riorob_after_72_hour_block_expired. Cirt (talk) 16:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my opening (in good faith) comment for which I have had no reply at all. (Off2riorob (talk) 16:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Update: Admin EyeSerene has blocked the Off2riorob (talk · contribs) account for 1 week [2]. Cirt (talk) 17:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly endorse speedy close and strongly endorse block of Off2riorob. However, the specific charge of canvassing is off base. The notification of Redheylin was entirely appropriate; the problem here is simply one of a passionate editor who is invoking administrative actions that go far beyond his understanding. But he wasn't canvassing. -Pete (talk) 17:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redacted the part about canvassing. Cirt (talk) 17:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]