Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pé de Chinelo


 * The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.  

A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the page.

In order to remain listed at Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 01:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).



Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute
''This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.''

Desired outcome
''This is a summary written by users who have initiated the request for comment. It should spell out exactly what the changes they'd like to see in the user, or what questions of behavior should be the focus.''

That Pé de Chinelo be sternly advised not to remove references from articles, push a certain POV, or engage in persistent edit warring and/or misrepresentation of facts, upon threat of a block or possible topic ban if continued.

Description
''{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries, other than to endorse them.}''

Pé de Chinelo has gone around numerous video game articles changing their genres and edit warring on them if changed back, which includes changing infoboxes and adding/removing categories. User also seems to be POV-pushing, arguing that, despite the verifiable sources that exist, that Tekken 3 is the highest-selling fighting-style video game of all time (which is supposed to be Super Smash Bros. Brawl, claiming that the latter is not a fighting-style video game. User has done the same regarding the highest-selling Role playing game of all time, replacing Pokémon Red and Blue with Final Fantasy VII on the grounds that Pokémon is not a role playing game.

Pé de Chinelo has also recently engaged in similar edit warring over other articles, including the (ethnic) races of Shakira, and the genres if the movies Pulp Fiction, The Godfather Part III, Léon, etc.

Evidence of disputed behavior
(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)


 * 1) Uncivil communication with other editors:
 * 2) Evidence of threatening to report a user to the "moderators":
 * 3) Evidence of accusing users of sockpuppetry:
 * 4) Labelling users as racists for discussing the semantics of races:, , ,
 * 5) Changing genres of articles with genres established per verifiable sources and consensus:
 * 6) List of best-selling video games:, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
 * 7) Shakira:, , , , , , , , ,
 * 8) The Dark Knight (film):, , , , , , , , ,
 * 9) Body of Lies:, ,
 * 10) Heat (film): ,
 * 11) Leon (film):
 * 12) Super Smash Bros. Brawl:, , , , , , ,
 * 13) Super Smash Bros. Melee:
 * 14) Super Smash Bros.:
 * 15) Super Smash Bros. (series):
 * 16) Brawl:
 * 17) Melee (disambiguation):
 * 18) Punisher: War Zone change to superhero film:
 * 19) Prison Break:
 * 20) Jurassic Park (film): ,
 * 21) Batman Begins:
 * 22) Casablanca (film):
 * 23) POV-pushing:, , ,
 * 24) Edit-warring:, , , ,
 * 25) Page-move vandalism:, , ,
 * 26) Vandalism on United States:

Applicable policies and guidelines
{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}
 * WP:EDITWAR
 * WP:CIVIL
 * WP:NPOV
 * WP:VAND

Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute
(provide diffs and links)
 * 1) Talk page resolution:
 * 2) A Level 2 warning for vandalism on Body of Lies (film) by User:NawlinWiki:
 * 3) Attempt by User:ReyBrujo to advise user on not changing material without discussion:
 * 4) Similar attempts as above by User:Chocobogamer:, ,
 * 5) Similar attempt as above by User:GamerPro64:
 * 6) Attempt at resolution at ANI (as reported by Chocobogamer):
 * 7) Attempt at resolution at AN (as reported by Chocobogamer): ,
 * 8) An indefinite block placed until respondent can explain actions at this RfC. ,

Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute
(provide diffs and links to demonstrate that the disputed behavior continued after trying to resolve the dispute)


 * Continuance (or intent thereof) to alter the genres after talk page discussion regarding List of best-selling video games:, , , , , ,
 * Moving to edit (to the point of edit-warring) the race of Shakira after failing to achieve desired result at Talk:White Latin American (note: user attempted to start a discussion at Talk:Shakira but reverted his own post to start discussion, in which then the edit warring ensued):, , , , , , , ,
 * Continuing editing the race of Shakira, even after this RfC had been opened:
 * Continuing to argue (1 week after the opening of the RfC and refusing to comment so far) the genre of Smash Bros, using a discussion on GameFAQs (non-reliable) as his source.
 * Removing unneccesarily, the more-than-accepted gaming terms "survival horror" and "stealth" and replacing them with the more ambiguous terms "horror" and "thriller" respectively, almost 3 weeks after the start of the RfC
 * Claiming that because it doesn't use 'up' as its jump button, SSBB is not a fighter (even though DOA doesn't either)
 * Undeniable proof of POV-pushing for Tekken 3 as the best-selling video game
 * Racism and POV-pushing
 * Continuing edit-warring after the RfC on The Dark Knight (film) despite the term crime drama defining a completely different film format
 * Engaging in vandalism 2 weeks after the RfC's initiation: []

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


 * MuZemike ( talk ) 03:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 *   chocobogamer      LOOK AT WHAT I DID   10:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * GamerPro64 (talk) 17:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

 * Zomic13 (talk) 18:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * --Enric Naval (talk) 01:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * --Silver Edge (talk) 09:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * --Rhonin the wizard (talk) 12:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * --Someoneanother 21:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * --OhNo itsJamie Talk 22:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Tim (Xevious) (talk) 19:03, 16 January 2009 (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.''

{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.}

Outside view by
Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view by
Users who endorse this summary:

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.

Summary
As the user has been indefinitely blocked for exhausting the community's patience and has not replied on his talk page to an invitation to contribute here, there is nothing further to comment about. Stifle (talk) 10:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.