Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Chelo61



''Users should not edit other people's summaries or views, except to endorse them. All signed comments other than your own view or an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page.''

Statement of the dispute
User:Chelo61 has disruptively edited Wikipedia over a broad range of articles, mostly article recreation after being deleted by consensus.

Desired outcome
User:Chelo61 to acknowledge other editors and to stop re-creating pages when they have been deleted. User:Chelo61 to stop editing disruptively, broadly.

Description
(Please forgive me if some of what I write seems a little vague, I work two jobs and I have very little window of opportunity to write this, hopefully other editors involved may chip in.)

Chelo61 has been editing wikipedia since 2008. Since then he has been blocked at least 4 times for ignoring other editor's pleas and attempts to point him in the right direction in regards to his editing. Chelo61 has made it clear that he in fact, DOES read his talk page, but does nothing to show for what we explain he is doing wrong. Mostly besides past editing problems, he has been recreating articles he authored originally, but have been deleted by consensus due to source problems.

Evidence of disputed behavior

 * Melissa Jiménez article.
 * Azucar Article

Applicable policies and guidelines
{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}
 * WP:TE
 * WP:DE
 * WP:CON

Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute

 * [] First contact with Chelo.
 * [] Follow up. No Response.
 * [] Wikiquette alert. Result was inconclusive.
 * [] User:Xymmax Attempting to help.
 * [] Block, and my last attempt to help.
 * [] Editor Assistance request.

Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute
There are too numerous edits of Chelo61's disruptive editing to list after the attempts to help.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}


 * Phearson (talk) 18:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC) (Also, I was Cutno during the period of dispute resolution.)
 * Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  01:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC) I'm not certain whether the problem is a shortage of CLUE or a case of IDIDNTHEARTHAT, but there is a pattern of article recreation against consensus. I suspect a mentor could help if the user wants to edit within policy, and I'm willing to serve, but it'd be best if there were others too as I'm not able to be terribly active at present.

Other users who endorse this summary

 * -- Cirt (talk) 17:45, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 *  Pyrrhus  16 ''' 17:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Crystal Clear x3 18:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Response
''This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.'' ''

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view
''This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.''

Outside view by Movementarian
Now I’m just a dumb city kid with a public school education, but it seems to me that this RfC might be a bit premature. I’ve examined Chelo61’s talk page and looked at some of his recent edits. There is no doubt that he has some disruptive tendencies, such as removing AfD banners and recreating deleted articles without adding content that corrects the reason for deletion; however this has been dealt with by blocking him for increasingly longer periods of time.

Dealing strictly with the complaints listed in the RfC:
 * 1) Chelo61 has not recreated the Melissa Jiménez article since he was blocked for it on April 27, 2010.
 * 2) Chelo61 has not recreated the Azúcar article since March 17, 2010.

In short, he has been reprimanded for the behaviour and has not reoffended. With this in mind, it seems that perhaps his last block was successful in getting the message across with regards to these two complaints. Further instances can easily be taken care of by an admin and the speedy deletion or AfD processes. Movementarian (Talk) 15:57, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) As the author. Movementarian (Talk) 15:57, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) I agree with Movementarian that this is essentially premature. Claritas § 17:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Concur. GregJackP (talk) 04:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Outside view by
{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Reminder to use the talk page for discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.