Wikipedia:Requests for comment/JR Pietri

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

JR Pietri (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been repeatedly editing Bubble hash to include his claims that the basic technique for purification listed on that page is a patent violation and the method his company sells is better. He has edited under that username and also 71.48.178.153 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

{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.}

This argument has been going on for some time, JR Pietri will edit the Bubble hash page to include his company's patent claim and call all the other companies pirates. This will then be reverted by a variety of other users as spam, vandalism or just unencyclopedic content. There have been several attempts to discuss the matter on the talk page but he refuses to respond or discuss the matter, just keeps on adding his own material/accusations into the article. Has violated and been blocked for 3RR once on that page. Viridae^Talk 01:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(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.)

Sorry about all the diffs. Many of them are repeated additions of the same material.

1. [1] A diff of the original edits he performed to the article. (Inlcluding edits under hsi username and the IP)
2. [2] (anti competitors product)
3. [3] The spam content was removed by 213.121.151.142 (talk · contribs) to be re-added.
4. [4]
5. [5]
6. [6]
7. [7]
8. [8]
9. [9]
10. [10] Refer to the edit summary.
11. [11] Continually reverting advertise his company's method.
12. [12]
13. [13]
14. [14] Removal of an image - the image removal continues from now on. Also continual (as evinced by many of the previous diffs) removal of a competitors website.
15. [15] competitors link removal again.
16. [16]
17. [17] refer to the edit summary.
18. [18] Removing photo again.
19. [19] blanking/picture removal.
20. [20] blanked.
21. [21]
22. [22]
23. [23]
24. [24]
25. [25]Took exception to the ancient chinese pirating the patented method his company used.
26. [26]
27. [27]
28. [28]
29. [29]
30. [30] insulting other users.

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

1. WP:SPAM
2. WP:CIVIL

(provide diffs and links)

1. [31] Viridae started a discussion on the talk page to allow all involved parties to air their grievances. (refer to the Issues section)
2. [32] Involved all involved parties of the discussion.
3. [33] the note left on his IP talk page.
4. [34] Same diff as before. Guinnog, has also tried to resolve the dispute. Has also been involved in the issues section above.

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

1. Guinnog 07:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Viridae^Talk 08:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. I noticed the Bubble hash article whilst doing RCP, and because I felt it was unsourced and badly written, I attempted an improvement, I spent some hours looking around for data and found what I thought were reliable and verifiable sources for the material I added. JR Pietri removed the majority of this work in this edit. I can understand that he sees the words "Ice Water extraction" and believes that that itself has been patented, regardless of what the actual patent says (the patent numbers he quotes are for "method and apparatus for extracting plant resins" not for "ice hash", "ice water extraction", "bubble hash" or indeed anything to do with hashish specifically). I fail to understand why he can edit one page to be inclusive of the terms "ice hash" and "bubble hash" and in the article he is experiencing editorial dispute in state that "ice hash" is somehow different. I left pertinent questions and remarks on the articles talk page and have since edited his talk page with the questions that concern me most. I note his rather uncivil reply here to one aspect of the talk in which he refers to another editor as "idiot", but none of my concerns have been addressed. I have also noted the article Bubblehash for a merger with the Bubble hash article. I have forbidden myself from editing the second except to put the merge and unsourced headers in order to avoid further conflict with this editor. --Alf ^melmac 16:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Addhoc 11:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Joe 21:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. This person has been harrassing various companies who sell products used to make Bubble Hash aka Bubblehash on various forums. This is nothing more than an attempt to scare people into paying royalties to his friend. His arguments make no sense - on the one hand he is saying that using water to extract plant resins has been going on for thousands of years, on the other he is saying that once you add ice it is entirely different. This is ridiculous. Ice is water is ice. manager@bubblebag.com

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:

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.

Pretty clear POV-pushing going on, as well as blatant spamming and uncivil behavior. Since JR Pietri doesn't seem to have edited any other articles on wikipedia, there seems no reason not to block indefinitely.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. SB_Johnny | ^talk 18:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. I'm not certain that the patience of the community (or the subset thereof who deal with this editor) is exhausted, but it's surely strained. Joe 21:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.}While it is clear that JR Pietri isn't here to contribute to Wikipedia's goals of building an encyclopedia, I find little evidence that they were uncivil (sans the one instance in calling people idiot). It is also clear to me that their interpretations are clearly POV and as mentioned on the article's talk page, their intentions are to claim patent infringement and promote their company and product. Ideally, they should be blocked from editing this article but allowed to continue on Wikipedia in the hopes they will then adopt the Wikipedia goals and policies. I would support any revert of items to this article (or any related articles) by JR Pietri, even past 3RR by one user (except JR Pietri of course). While this has been an issue for 2 weeks, if it continues past the one month mark, a longer ban may be needed. But, a one week ban for now should suffice with the warning that to continue to edit on Wikipedia means to adopt and conform to the goals and policies of the project, and continued action could result in more, longer or permanent bans. MECU≈talk 21:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. A 1 week ban seems proportionate if he agrees to stop the product placement activity. Addhoc 13:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. I would like to note that the WP:NPA policy violation was added as an afterthought as it happened while I was collecting evidence for or writing this RfC. Viridae^Talk 13:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.}

Users who endorse this summary:

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.