User talk:Problemsmith
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: 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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by C.recalde (talk • contribs) 11:33, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
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.Gusfriend (talk) 09:12, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
February 2022
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 21:37, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Sorry for being a disruptive actor!
Problemsmith (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request 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. Problemsmith (talk) 22:21, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Hi Problemsmith, The block is probably still necessary to prevent disruption, specifically incivility and using Wikipedia 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. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:55, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
February 2022
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 14:47, 14 February 2022 (UTC)Problemsmith (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
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 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. Problemsmith (talk) 20:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I've reviewed your vitriol
And I've come to this conclusion:
We will leave this block in place
YES! ... We will leave this block in place!
This request was just a-
'Nother brick in the wall ...
Repeat, chanted by schoolchildren getting paid with free studio time. — Daniel Case (talk) 07:32, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- 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.--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. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:41, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
What I meant by that comment
@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. @Problemsmith Starship SN20 (talk) 20:32, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- I also found this on @Problemsmith user page. User:Problemsmith. How is that not a threat? 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 Starship SN20 (talk) 20:41, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- @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 Starship SN20! Problemsmith (talk) 20:56, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Blocked for sockpuppetry
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 23:08, 16 February 2022 (UTC)Problemsmith (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Sorry 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. Problemsmith (talk) 01:53, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Decline reason:
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, or
- 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 guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 11:26, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- 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. Problemsmith (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. Barry Wom (talk) 13:08, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Problemsmith (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Notes:
- In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
- Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:
{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=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) |3 = ~~~~}}
If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.
{{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 = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}
If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:
{{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) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}
Note for reviewer. After the first SPI case was archived, I identified another likely sockpuppet for Problemsmith: User:Globcal. 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. Problemsmith (talk) 13:28, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- From Problemsmith's user page: "I lost track of the other accounts I originally have used". 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. 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 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 conflict of interest editing, and either using sockpuppets to further that, or 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:31, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- 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. Problemsmith (talk) 10:36, 10 March 2022 (UTC)