User talk:Problemsmith: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 13:27, 9 April 2022

This User Account has been blocked indefinitely for being suspected of sockpuppetry using information that is more than 10 years old, with no recent evidence that could be concluded as abusive of Wikipedia policy and no way to overcome the indefinite block, the User no longer maintains an interest in editing English Wikipedia.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+This User Account has been blocked indefinitely for being suspected of sockpuppetry using information that is more than 10 years old, with no recent evidence that could be concluded as abusive of Wikipedia policy and no way to overcome the indefinite block, the User no longer maintains an interest in editing English Wikipedia.
-='''Problemsmith Talk'''=
-For information '''about me, elaborated by me''' or to contact me directly please see my userpage by selecting the tab above. If you wish to  If you need to message me instead of post something on my Talk page or get my direct attention please click here to message me: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Problemsmith&action=edit&section=new '''Leave Problemsmith a message'''].
-== Wikiproject United Nations: We need you! ==
-Dear Problemsmith, I noticed your name was under the participants' list of WikiProject United Nations. I wanted to invite you to contribute to the advancement of this project. Here's how you can do so: 1. Select the latest CC BY SA publications for which no articles have been created yet available here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_United_Nations/Open_Access_text/Education_publications 2. Follow the instructions available here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Adding_open_license_text_to_Wikipedia 3. Add the text to Wikipedia (either by creating new articles or adding content to existing ones). Since these are available under CC BY SA, you can copy/paste content and/or edit if need be. 4. Attribute the text using the 'Free-content attribution' template in the 'Sources' section. 5. Add your contribution in the table here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_United_Nations/Open_Access_text/Education_publications Don't hesitate to reach out if you have any questions! Looking forward to working with you on enriching Wikipedia, one article at a time:)! C.recalde &nbsp;  <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:C.recalde|C.recalde]] ([[User talk:C.recalde#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/C.recalde|contribs]]) 11:33, 7 March 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
-== COI ==
-Dear Problemsmith, I just noticed that your user page says that you are involved with Globcal and wanted to draw your attention to the [[Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest]] policy as you have been editing the Globcal page.[[User:Gusfriend|Gusfriend]] ([[User talk:Gusfriend|talk]]) 09:12, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
-== February 2022 ==
-<div class="user-block" style="padding: 5px; margin-bottom: 0.5em; border: 1px solid #a9a9a9; background-color: #ffefd5; min-height: 40px">[[File:Stop x nuvola with clock.svg|40px|left|alt=Stop icon with clock]]<div style="margin-left:45px">You have been '''[[WP:Blocking policy|blocked]]''' from editing for a period of '''48 hours''' for persistently making [[Wikipedia:Disruptive editing|disruptive edits]].  Once the block has expired, you are welcome to [[WP:Five pillars|make useful contributions]]. </div><div style="margin-left:45px">If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the [[WP:Guide to appealing blocks|guide to appealing blocks]], then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx|" code. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;''}}. &nbsp;[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 21:37, 4 February 2022 (UTC)</div></div><!-- Template:uw-disruptblock -->
-== Sorry for being a disruptive actor! ==
-{{unblock reviewed|reason=The block '''was not necessary to prevent further disruption''' primarily because I said what needed to be stated. I was defending an idea in the Creative Commons that I know much more about than the person's talk page I engaged. His failure to recognize my edits that were made in Good Faith, then he ripped apart the article including good faith edits made by other editors, then came with lame excuses to justify his takeaways. Edits that are legitimately wrong to remove because the basis for the formation of the page is legal not based on the consensus of a wannabe caretaker that wants to limit its content. Let the article soar and become all it can be, even if it is against his personal viewpoint too bad, if it can be justified in law. Does Belgian chocolate exist? Yes it does, it says so the United States Federal Court. There are many things to add to that page once they can be justified, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia!
-Indeed I apologize for disrupting Barry's talk page or coming down so hard in my criticism of him; the entire situation needed to be reviewed much earlier by an admin, IDK. The block is '''no longer necessary because I understand I was blocked for disruptive editing and creating a battleground, I will not do it again, and I will make productive contributions instead'''. I do realize some Wikipedia people are very secretive as to who they are as well, so I will respect that too and reserve my options before creating discussion or debate over someone else's authority. I hope this does not prejudice the admins to start a Wikiproject on the subject of Cacao and Chocolate? Really I am sorry, you can remove all of the disruptive edits I made in the past few hours if you like or can, I sincerely apologize - It will not happen again. [[User:Problemsmith|Problemsmith]] ([[User talk:Problemsmith#top|talk]]) 22:21, 4 February 2022 (UTC)|decline=Hi {{u|Problemsmith}}, The block is probably still necessary to prevent disruption, specifically [[WP:Civility|incivility]] and using Wikipedia [[WP:BATTLE|as a battleground]]. Neither was the messaging that led to the block necessary nor was it legitimate. In an unblock request regarding a civility-based block, "wannabe caretaker" is a disqualification. There is something wrong with the block, though: Its duration is unlikely to encompass all the read-only time needed in this situation. [[User:ToBeFree|~ ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree|talk]]) 22:55, 4 February 2022 (UTC)}}
-== February 2022 ==
-<div class="user-block" style="padding: 5px; margin-bottom: 0.5em; border: 1px solid #a9a9a9; background-color: #ffefd5; min-height: 40px">[[File:Stop x nuvola with clock.svg|40px|left|alt=Stop icon with clock]]<div style="margin-left:45px">You have been '''[[WP:Blocking policy|blocked]]''' from editing for a period of '''1 week''' for making [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks|personal attacks towards other editors]].  Once the block has expired, you are welcome to [[WP:Five pillars|make useful contributions]]. </div><div style="margin-left:45px">If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the [[WP:Guide to appealing blocks|guide to appealing blocks]], then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx|" code. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;''}}. &nbsp;[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 14:47, 14 February 2022 (UTC)</div></div>
-<!-- Template:uw-aoablock -->
-{{unblock reviewed |1=I have been blocked without a valid reason. All of my statements were made in GOOD FAITH based on what 'good faith' is according to Wikipedia. It is not a personal attack to make statements in Good Faith about facts IRL (in real life) not even Wikipedia or legitimate Administrators will permit bad-faith or personal problems (between editors) to enter the atmosphere. It is illogical, while Wikipelli at one time understood that who has written about me as a person, outside of Wikipedia before the article existed! Attacked it after it emerged, it is simply not fair, but by reverting my comments "which stated facts in good-faith" when I was working on an article in good faith, because I revealed "personal grudges" of these "two editors" have with me as a transparent editor do not have a suitable place on Wikipedia and must be investigated because this is a "real case of bullying." As I stated "I was removing content and adding references" addressing the content, reason and rationale. This deletion petition by Barry Wom never should have been made by him because if you have objectively looked into this you will know everyone is in the wrong. I request to be UNBLOCKED so I can make COI EDITS for 48 more hours so that I can correct the article, with quotes and satisfactory references, I promise to engage fairly and conservatively in all discussions and stay on the topic as suggested by [[User:Starship_SN20|Starship_SN20]] unlike the other users there accusing me of sockpuppeting, Starship said at the beginning it "is not a sockpuppet case." If there are any sock puppets it was Peter James or my sister-in-law, both are dead, the organization had 132 ambassadors when it began now it has 53. I have no idea who '''1Tr1BeLi7g8''' is? The user's draft space was revealed this morning and I saw an article about the organization that owns 70% of Globcal, it is not ok to write that article, it is irrelevant to Globcal itself and I see it smears us about trademark issues. It is wrong for Barry Wom to lead a discussion or a person that was blocked by our organization in 2009 like Wikipelli to be permitted to engage in this discussion, but everyone else should, if Barry Wom did not nominate it, both should be disqualified from commenting based solely on real life relationships with the subject or demonstrating their bad-faith, I have not been coy, smart or rude, except toward '''those who have demonstrated they have a motive to cause harm to me''', me simply demonstrating their motive is not a personal attack. Please UNBLOCK and allow me to mind my own business, delay possible deletion of the article for 48 hours and allow me to repair it as a COI editor, Please. Humbly and in good faith. [[User:Problemsmith|Problemsmith]] ([[User talk:Problemsmith#top|talk]]) 20:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC) |decline = ''[[Another Brick in the Wall|I've reviewed your obfuscation<br>I've reviewed your vitriol<br>And I've come to this conclusion:<br>We will leave this block in place<br>YES! ... We will leave this block in place!<br>This request was just a-<br>'Nother brick in]] [[WP:TEXTWALL|the wall]]'' ...<p>Repeat, chanted by schoolchildren getting paid with free studio time. — [[User:Daniel Case|Daniel Case]] ([[User talk:Daniel Case|talk]]) 07:32, 15 February 2022 (UTC)}}
-*This note is mainly for reviewing administrators. Ps's unblock request is in the same style as most of his comments. His principal interest in Wikipedia is to promote himself - and at great length. See his userpage, which, in my view, should have been deleted a long time ago. The block of one week is amply justified; frankly, it probably should have been indefinite.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 21:17, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
-*:This just appeared on my watchlist. I have declined the previous block's unblock request with a finding that the only issue with the block was its short duration, and find myself confirmed. [[User:ToBeFree|~ ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree|talk]]) 22:41, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
-== What I meant by that comment ==
-@[[User:Problemsmith|Problemsmith]], by my comment, you mentioned, I said that this is not a sockpuppetry case. Which I still hold by. You, however, were blocked for attacks on other editors, which I can not deny being the case. No one said you were a sockpuppet, and you are not. The attacks had nothing to do with the Globcal International deletion request other than that was where it took place. regardless of what the creator made, and if or if not it should be deleted, that does not excuse your behavior. I strongly oppose you being unblock before it expires. @[[User:Problemsmith|Problemsmith]] [[User:Starship SN20|Starship SN20]] ([[User talk:Starship SN20|talk]]) 20:32, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
-:I also found this on @[[User:Problemsmith|Problemsmith]] user page. [[User:Problemsmith#Be Considerate to Reciprocate|User:Problemsmith]]. How is that not a threat? [[User:Starship SN20|Starship SN20]] ([[User talk:Starship SN20|talk]]) 20:40, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
-::In light of new information, I not so sure of your inoccinoe of sockpuppetry. Certainly should be investegated [[User:Starship SN20|Starship SN20]] ([[User talk:Starship SN20|talk]]) 20:41, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
-::@[[User:Starship SN20|Starship SN20]] if you really feel this way I can agree with the block, from you! My threat is not a threat but a warning and a civil statement based on what I saw on a Wikipedia Administrators elaborated page, where my statement is basically a rephrase there on my page.
-::However '''I cannot agree with the circumstances that brought us here''', they are unjust, unfair and not defensible in this platform. My last block should have been the end of '''this entire matter''', and Barry Wom and Wikipelli should not be allowed to engage with me when there are millions of other things on Wikipedia. Digging into my personal background just because I am not anonymous, should not be allowed to occur. Him using my personal name in the deletion request, unbalanced the playing field and made his attack personal, Wikipelli knows me since 2008. All this because Swiss and Belgian people do not make their own types of chocolate? Go figure - Thank you [[User:Starship SN20|Starship SN20]]! [[User:Problemsmith|Problemsmith]] ([[User talk:Problemsmith#top|talk]]) 20:56, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
-== Blocked for sockpuppetry ==
-<div class="user-block" style="padding: 5px; margin-bottom: 0.5em; border: 1px solid #a9a9a9; background-color: #ffefd5; min-height: 40px">[[File:Stop x nuvola.svg|40px|left|alt=Stop icon]]<div style="margin-left:45px">You have been '''[[WP:Blocking policy|blocked]]''' '''[[Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Indefinite_blocks|indefinitely]]''' from editing for [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry|abusing multiple accounts]]&#32;per the evidence presented at [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Problemsmith]]. Note that multiple accounts are [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry#Legitimate uses|allowed]], but '''not for ''[[Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry#Inappropriate uses of alternative accounts|illegitimate]]'' reasons''', and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans  may be [[Wikipedia:Banning policy#Edits by and on behalf of banned editors|reverted]] or [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G5|deleted]].   </div><div style="margin-left:45px">If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the [[WP:Guide to appealing blocks|guide to appealing blocks]], then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx|" code. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;''}}. &nbsp;[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 23:08, 16 February 2022 (UTC)</div></div><!-- Template:uw-sockblock -->
-{{unblock reviewed |1=Sorry [[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]], I do not have multiple accounts and I have never evaded any blocks, firewalls or temporary bans, nor have I made any illegitimate edits except for COI Edits. These suspicions are completely fabricated based on wild allegations. I have my IP I use my phone for Internet access since 2016, I am in Venezuela and there are no other active accounts that I am complicit with, or that have been connected to this IP ever. There is one account that I suspect was a visitor here used when he volunteered here called Shamansfriend, but that was many years ago and was not sockpuppetry but a tourist here volunteering trying to impersonate me on Wikipedia, still not me and not done with my knowledge. [[User:Problemsmith|Problemsmith]] ([[User talk:Problemsmith#top|talk]]) 01:53, 17 February 2022 (UTC) |decline = <!-- stale block -->Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
-*the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, <u>or</u>
-*the block is no longer necessary because you
-*#understand what you have been blocked for,
-*#will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
-*#will make useful contributions instead.
-Please read the [[Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks|guide to appealing blocks]] for more information.<!-- Template:decline stale--> [[User:Yamla|Yamla]] ([[User talk:Yamla|talk]]) 11:26, 4 March 2022 (UTC)}}
-::I also notice that you blocked another user, that I personally DO NOT KNOW anything at all about, is not connected to me and was not authorized by anyone at Globcal International or Ecology Crossroads to write any article of any type, much less one that raise questions of trademark impropriety as seen on their Userpage article which I saw the other day. All actions being taken against me are being made in bad faith and are based in error since another user chose to dispute my good-faith edits, which also raised the allegation of sockpuppetry, you are simply conferring with his allegations and not thoroughly investigating anything at all, which is a statement of fact. I do not obfuscate my IP and have not logged out of my account since this matter began, everything I am telling you can be confirmed by a Wikipedia administrator, but no one there cares enough about good faith, civil discourse or fair-play. [[User:Problemsmith|Problemsmith]] ([[User talk:Problemsmith#top|talk]]) 02:16, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
-Note for reviewer: It's not directly relevant to this case, but if user Shamansfriend was indeed a "tourist" attempting to impersonate Problemsmith they did a very good job of it, as I detailed on the first SPI case. [[User:Barry Wom|Barry Wom]] ([[User talk:Barry Wom|talk]]) 13:08, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
-{{unblock reviewed |1=Thanks [[User:Yamla|Yamla]] for informing me I can request a new block review, now that the Sockpuppet issue has been settled. This block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, I understood I was blocked indefinitely for being suspected of sockpuppetry several weeks ago. During the investigation I requested a Check User, but the following day the [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Problemsmith]] was closed and archived the following week. I understand sockpuppetry is a serious breach of Wikipedia policy, I also understand that sometimes people are blocked based on being suspect of these activities to protect Wikipedia. I am looking forward to making useful contributions on Wikipedia once again. [[User:Problemsmith|Problemsmith]] ([[User talk:Problemsmith#top|talk]]) 17:19, 5 March 2022 (UTC) |decline = <!-- stale block -->Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
-*the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, <u>or</u>
-*the block is no longer necessary because you
-*#understand what you have been blocked for,
-*#will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
-*#will make useful contributions instead.
-Please read the [[Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks|guide to appealing blocks]] for more information.<!-- Template:decline stale--> [[User:Yamla|Yamla]] ([[User talk:Yamla|talk]]) 11:15, 3 April 2022 (UTC)}}
-Note for reviewer. After the first SPI case was archived, I identified another likely sockpuppet for Problemsmith: [[User:Globcal]]. [[User:Barry Wom|Barry Wom]] ([[User talk:Barry Wom|talk]]) 14:59, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
-:Administrators have already stated in the first and second SPI cases, it is not constructive, evidentiary or relevant to raise questions about events and incidents like sockpuppetry that occurred over a decade ago, [[User:Globcal]] was blocked more than 12 years ago, again not me. [[User:Problemsmith|Problemsmith]] ([[User talk:Problemsmith#top|talk]]) 13:28, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
-::From Problemsmith's user page: "''I lost track of the other accounts I originally have used''". [[User:Barry Wom|Barry Wom]] ([[User talk:Barry Wom|talk]]) 23:43, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
-In reply to your email, I have no advice except to follow the standard process for requesting removal of a block, which you already seem to have done. [[User:Certes|Certes]] ([[User talk:Certes|talk]]) 15:02, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
-I received your email, but as it contained no private information, am replying here. What you need to do is ''actually read'' the [[WP:GAB|guide to appealing blocks]], and then consider the type of disruptive behavior which has led to the block. Specifically, you have been engaged in clear [[WP:COI|conflict of interest]] editing, and either using sockpuppets to further that, or [[WP:MEAT|bringing in others in such a way as to be indistinguishable from socking]]. One clarification might be useful: Do you have any interest in editing ''outside'' the area in which you have a COI? If so, would you agree to a condition of refraining entirely from editing within that area? Quite honestly, if all you want to do is more of the same, I don't think you'll find anyone interested in unblocking you. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 01:31, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
-:[[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]], thank you for replying to my email. To answer your questions; yes there are many topics that I am interested in editing, ''when I was cited for disruptive editing it was not a COI edit'', it was a "good faith" edit about chocolate; there are many improvements that I can and have contributed to Wikipedia. During the first block '''I got carried away defending my edits which I admitted''', I also believe that should have ended it. However, based on that 48 hour block an article where I was a COI editor was deleted based on the subject of my disruptive editing seeking reprisals, so in the course of the deletion discussion I accepted that and it is time to move on. Then someone tried to help (who I do not know) by creating an article about a different relative organization I work with and that person was accused of being my sockpuppet. When the case was closed the SPI Clerk suggested meat puppetry, but this is not the case either - in my perception meatpuppets are all paid editors, they write what their client gives them, they eat the meat. I was approached by three via email while the COI Article was being deleted by paid editors (hawks or vultures?). Really there is no sockpuppetry occurring, nor was it, unless it occurred over a decade ago when other COI editors started the [[Globcal]] article that was deleted. Every allegation of misconduct was alleged against me by 'one single editor', who I apologized to, then I posted a COI disclosure, then he investigated me outside of Wikipedia, then used his anonymity to promulgate the matter to hundreds, and continues to suggest, remind or share notation that is irrelevant in an effort to keep me blocked. I am just hoping and praying that this person will leave me alone, stop accusing me of wrongdoing when no wrongdoing is occurring, stop creating doubt about me, and stop eroding the Wikipedia honor code. As I have said, I want to make constructive edits and use Wikipedia everyday. Please remove the indefinite block. [[User:Problemsmith|Problemsmith]] ([[User talk:Problemsmith#top|talk]]) 10:36, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
-::"''it was not a COI edit, it was a "good faith" edit about chocolate''"
-::This is debatable. Two of the changes you made to the [[Types of chocolate]] article were to introduce links to the [[Bean-to-bar]] article ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Types_of_chocolate&diff=prev&oldid=1068916285],[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Types_of_chocolate&diff=next&oldid=1069699233]). The Bean-to-bar article was created by you on 27 January 2022. Eight days later, you amended the Bean-to-bar article to add a blatant advertising link to your own [https://blog.globcal.net/2019/10/indigenous-chocolate-factory.html website] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bean-to-bar&diff=next&oldid=1069247775]. All done without declaring a COI.
-::"''he investigated me outside of Wikipedia''"
-::This is quite simply untrue. On the other hand, during the Globcal article deletion discussion you openly threatened me with this: "''someone may be investigating you, who you are and what you are trying to do with this, just revert the whole thing and it will go away I assure you''" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Globcal_International&diff=prev&oldid=1070652931]. [[User:Barry Wom|Barry Wom]] ([[User talk:Barry Wom|talk]]) 12:18, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
-:::I don't own a chocolate company, I do not sell chocolate, advertising has to do with selling things; not Creative Commons concepts. Indigenous peoples have rights too, and if you look at the '''real history of chocolate''' you will discover that chocolate belongs to '''them''' in common law, this is not even debatable just a hard irrefutable fact that the chocolate industry refuses to acknowledge. So I guess there is no civil discourse here, or any discourse at all; but you made my point in the previous paragraph, I am constantly haunted by Barry Wom who wants to exacerbate, make allegations against me and keep me blocked indefinitely for something I apologized for, was penalized for, learned from, agreed not to do again and refuses to let me live down, or remediate. It makes me wonder where all the motivation comes from, outside of pure despise and hate for me. To such a point that he has searched and examined all my edits dating back 10 years searching for ways to keep me blocked, any administrator can review his history too. These edits, comments, notes are not productive edits, they are by very nature disruptive made with intentions of bad-faith towards me, they are persecutorial, they are aimed to form a character assassination. Everyone in the world deserves a fair chance in the world and not to be harrassed, shadowed and followed by someone who clearly has it in for them. [[User:Problemsmith|Problemsmith]] ([[User talk:Problemsmith#top|talk]]) 13:16, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
-::::"''advertising has to do with selling things''"
-::::From the website page to which you provided a link: "''Join Us as an Investor. Preferred shares are $10 each via Credit Card or by PayPal''" [[User:Barry Wom|Barry Wom]] ([[User talk:Barry Wom|talk]]) 16:41, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
-:::::There is no sense in explaining that the Indigenous people are not me, I can only aide them as a translator with grace in their best-interest, so someday they will have all the rights they deserve as human beings. You are referring as well to an inactive campaign from 2019 that was blocked by GoFundMe based on a xenophobic government policy. That which you removed from the [[Bean-to-bar]] article does not have any inkling of advertising, it was just stating facts about Indigenous people being involved. It was repugnant to you simply because I wrote it, nothing else. [[User:Problemsmith|Problemsmith]] ([[User talk:Problemsmith#top|talk]]) 17:07, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
-{{unblock|1=Reason [[User:Yamla|Yamla]] informed me I can request a new block review yesterday. On March 05, I said "now that the Sockpuppet issue has been settled. This block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, I understood I was blocked indefinitely for being suspected of sockpuppetry several weeks ago. During the investigation I requested a Check User, but the following day the [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Problemsmith]] was closed and archived the following week. I understand sockpuppetry is a serious breach of Wikipedia policy, I also understand that sometimes people are blocked based on being suspect of these activities to protect Wikipedia. I am looking forward to making useful contributions on Wikipedia once again." [[User:Problemsmith|Problemsmith]] 17:19, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
-I read WP:GAP and WP:SOCKBLOCK and I can only say it does not apply because <u>I have not engaged in sockpuppetry</u> '''unless this block is based on events that involved my account "more than 10 years ago"'''. I am looking forward to making useful contributions on Wikipedia once again. [[User:Problemsmith|Problemsmith]] ([[User talk:Problemsmith#top|talk]]) 17:59, 3 April 2022 (UTC)}}
-:The last decline specified "You are welcome to request a new block review if you '''substantially reword your request'''" (emphasis mine) this is not that, its the exact same request just with an additional couple of sentences. [[User:Lavalizard101|Lavalizard101]] ([[User talk:Lavalizard101|talk]]) 18:59, 3 April 2022 (UTC)