User talk:GenSmark
Incorrect links
[edit]Hi! I noticed that in your recent edits you have made several links that go to completely inappropriate pages. For example,
1. Here in the phrase "a doctor who was helping the village
", you linked the words "doctor who" to Doctor Who. Obviously the sentence has nothing to do with the TV show Doctor Who.
2. Here in the phrase "Chrome Dokuro, who was on the verge of death
", you linked the words "the verge" to The Verge. Again, this sentence has nothing to do with the technology website The Verge.
3. Here in the phrase "He is actually obsessed in making Gau in to the ultimate warrior
", you linked the words "ultimate warrior" to Ultimate Warrior. This has nothing to do with the professional wrestler named Ultimate Warrior.
4. Here in the phrase "Camp Westera is starting to become a real pain in the neck
", you linked the words "a real pain" to A Real Pain. This has nothing to do with the movie A Real Pain.
Please make sure that you read and understand the context of a sentence before you link words in it. A link must direct to an article that is relevant to the linked sentence, not just one that happens to have a title that matches some words in the source sentence. Thank you. CodeTalker (talk) 21:50, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks! They were the recommended links via the wiki new editor helper popup. I will read through Wikipedia's suggestions before accepting the change. Thanks for the heads up. GenSmark (talk) 00:43, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
Welcome!
[edit]Hi GenSmark! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Happy editing! — Newslinger talk 11:58, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
Introduction to contentious topics
[edit]
You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
- adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
- comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
- follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
- comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
- refrain from gaming the system.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template. — Newslinger talk 11:59, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
You have recently made edits related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. This is a standard message to inform you that articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. — Newslinger talk 11:59, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
Blocked as a sockpuppet
[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. — Newslinger talk 20:39, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
GenSmark (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
So let me get this straight...there's, like, no actual proof, and I'm gettin blocked just cause I used some double dashes and repeated a Wikipedia rule? Seriously? I did mention I read the page before I responded, right? So, like, I am allowed to look at what other editors did and be like, "yeah, that seems fine," right? I am, I mean, double dashes are, like, everywhere on the page. Slacker13 uses em, Chetsford uses em, Aquillion uses em, Knitsey uses em, Actively Disinterested uses em, and itsachrist does too. Wikipedia's rule is that, like, for similarities to be "proof," they gotta be pretty special or weird. But using double dashes -- is not that special. Like everyone uses them all over the internet. So, it's not enough to just go. "oh they both use double dashes, must be the same person!" You need more than that. And also, like, two people talking about the same rule (like the WP: Faitaccompli thing) are gonna sound similar, no matter what. So, using a double dash with some guideline isn't like, some big smoking gun. It's like saying, "They both spelled 'colour' with a 'u' so they must be the same!" Nah, lots of people spell it that way. And, yeah, I agree with what's on the page and I'm gonna talk about what I think it relevant and the other people who disagree are just kinda parroting each other anyway. And, like, the editor who blocked me seems to be all up in, like, squashing anyone who disagrees on the page. So, i'm respectfully askin to get unblocked because I'm not a sock
- Adding to this: so, like the blocking admin is I think, an involved admin with the page I was editing and in a "content dispute". Like they're only collapsing comments from newer editors that want the controversial stuff removed and not doing anything about, like the other editors that all voted to keep the controversial stuff on the page (I know one guy is at ANi? for lots of personal attacks, and the admin never said anything to them). Possible COI? GenSmark (talk) 22:01, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
Decline reason:
It's not just double dashes, there is other evidence here. In looking at it, I believe that the block is correct. 331dot (talk) 13:22, 8 September 2025 (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.
You are very welcome to leave a comment asking for further clarification, but please don't modify declined unblock requests. Especially because you didn't sign your comment with ~~~~ tags, your comment in the section only for the reviewing admin could have been mistaken as a comment from 331dot. --Yamla (talk) 16:49, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
I would like clarification, actually. Like I thought it was supposed to be evidence beyond a reasonable doubt and assume good faith. GenSmark (talk) 03:07, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
- "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is a standard for criminal cases in the United States, and has absolutely nothing to do with Wikipedia's enforcement of internal rules on its own platform. Anyone who edits on Wikipedia is a guest on the private property of others, and can be asked to leave or only be allowed to stay if specific conditions are met.
- And "assume good faith" means not making an a priori assumption that someone's conduct is intended to damage Wikipedia, and where there is doubt, work under the belief that the other editor is trying to help the project. It does not mean that admins and editors must retain that initial assumption once sufficient evidence of misconduct is present. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 04:14, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
- In my comment, "reasonable doubt" is used as a colloquial Wikipedia phrase indicating the threshold of evidence above which a sockpuppet account is listed under a category such as Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Slacker13 (as stated in the default wording in the category description), in contrast to a category such as Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Slacker13. As CoffeeCrumbs said, that phrase is not used here as a legal term (i.e. Reasonable doubt). Sockpuppet accounts can be blocked even if it is not the case that "the behavioural evidence makes the link beyond reasonable doubt", but in your case, the evidence does meet that threshold.I am not involved in the underlying content dispute on Talk:Zak Smith, as I have no opinion on the underlying content dispute and have never edited that article or its talk page prior to being alerted of the conduct issues there. It is not my fault that the single-purpose accounts on Talk:Zak Smith only supported a particular view in the content dispute; the responsibility for those accounts lies with the individuals who operate them, including you. Your accusation of a "Possible COI?" is unwarranted, as I am not familiar with the role-playing game industry and my editing history in that topic area prior to dealing with the conduct issues on Talk:Zak Smith is somewhere between negligible and nonexistent. — Newslinger talk 16:04, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
- Like no offense Newslinger but if you were just looking for conduct issues like there were so many on both sides so if you only pay attention to like one side that seems like a choice and seems pretty unbalanced and involved. it would look different if you like corrected anyone else on the side of keeping in the allegations for what I saw as like pretty blatant bad conduct. Tyrin to do this and i know i screwed up with initial edits on links to pages but i don't think i was being disruptive in any of edits. I did look up sockpuppetry and found "Only blocked accounts should be tagged as Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets and only upon sufficient evidence that would stand up to scrutiny" and "Given that good faith must be assumed, unless it is obvious beyond a reasonable doubt that sockpuppetry is occurring, or the checkuser data shows a connection, no action shall be taken against the accounts in question for sockpuppetry, though other policy violations that occur shall be handled accordingly".
so like I'd like to know what evidence is beyond a reasonable doubt from an noninvolved admin or checkuser @Yamla: (sorry Newslinger) because like I also found something about Sockophobia and it could be what's happening copying and pasting here
Symptoms Biting the newcomers. Tagging new editors' userpages with sock tags without going through SPI or reporting to an admin. Invoking sock-puppet exemption to edit war your favoured version into the article. Reverting every other SPA's edits, calling them a sock. Not following WP:TALKDONTREVERT if an SPA reverts you, and re-reverting instead. Stalking SPAs that have not made any poor edits. Reverting all contributions of SPAs or even an actual sock without checking if some of the edits were good. Not properly explaining the policy to new users, assuming them to be experienced editors. Outright reverting when seeing the sockmaster's IP range making any edit. Assuming only IP editors who support your view or unambiguously vandalize to be normal IP users. Striking or blanking new users' comments. Striking or blanking talkpage comments added by a sockmaster's IP range even on unrelated topic areas.
GenSmark (talk) 19:38, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
GenSmark (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Resubmitting with additional info request: So let me get this straight...there's, like, no actual proof, and I'm gettin blocked just cause I used some double dashes and repeated a Wikipedia rule? Seriously? I did mention I read the page before I responded, right? So, like, I am allowed to look at what other editors did and be like, "yeah, that seems fine," right? I am, I mean, double dashes are, like, everywhere on the page. Slacker13 uses em, Chetsford uses em, Aquillion uses em, Knitsey uses em, Actively Disinterested uses em, and itsachrist does too. Wikipedia's rule is that, like, for similarities to be "proof," they gotta be pretty special or weird. But using double dashes -- is not that special. Like everyone uses them all over the internet. So, it's not enough to just go. "oh they both use double dashes, must be the same person!" You need more than that. And also, like, two people talking about the same rule (like the WP: Faitaccompli thing) are gonna sound similar, no matter what. So, using a double dash with some guideline isn't like, some big smoking gun. It's like saying, "They both spelled 'colour' with a 'u' so they must be the same!" Nah, lots of people spell it that way. And, yeah, I agree with what's on the page and I'm gonna talk about what I think it relevant and the other people who disagree are just kinda parroting each other anyway. And, like, the editor who blocked me seems to be all up in, like, squashing anyone who disagrees on the page. So, i'm respectfully askin to get unblocked because I'm not a sock
I would like clarification, actually. Like I thought it was supposed to be evidence beyond a reasonable doubt and assume good faith. I did look up sockpuppetry and found <"Only blocked accounts should be tagged as Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets and only upon sufficient evidence that would stand up to scrutiny" and "Given that good faith must be assumed, unless it is obvious beyond a reasonable doubt that sockpuppetry is occurring, or the checkuser data shows a connection, no action shall be taken against the accounts in question for sockpuppetry, though other policy violations that occur shall be handled accordingly".
Like, I was blocked as a sockpuppet by an involved admin, Newslinger, who says they were just looking for conduct issues but like there were so many on both sides and like a lot more on the side that had pretty blatant bad conduct, like calling all Zak Smith fans supporters of sexual abuse and Newslinger never went after anyone on that side. So like if you only pay attention to like one side that seems like a choice and seems pretty unbalanced and involved. It would look different if you like corrected anyone else on the side of keeping in the allegations. Tyrin to do this and i know i screwed up with initial edits on links to pages but i don't think i was being disruptive in any of edits.
so like I'd like to know what evidence is beyond a reasonable doubt and to have this block reviewed @Ivanvector: (sorry Newslinger) because like I also found something about Sockophobia and it could be what's happening copying and pasting here
Symptoms Biting the newcomers. Tagging new editors' userpages with sock tags without going through SPI or reporting to an admin. Invoking sock-puppet exemption to edit war your favoured version into the article. Reverting every other SPA's edits, calling them a sock. Not following WP:TALKDONTREVERT if an SPA reverts you, and re-reverting instead. Stalking SPAs that have not made any poor edits. Reverting all contributions of SPAs or even an actual sock without checking if some of the edits were good. Not properly explaining the policy to new users, assuming them to be experienced editors. Outright reverting when seeing the sockmaster's IP range making any edit. Assuming only IP editors who support your view or unambiguously vandalize to be normal IP users. Striking or blanking new users' comments. Striking or blanking talkpage comments added by a sockmaster's IP range even on unrelated topic areas.GenSmark (talk) 14:12, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
Decline reason:
On balance of evidence, I think the block is correct. Your unblock request is not especially persuasive. Your quote appears to be hallucinated. I am declining your unblock request. PhilKnight (talk) 14:27, 11 September 2025 (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.
@PhilKnight: Like this seems to be backwards and nothing I wrote is a hallucination. On the sockpuppet investigation page it says: (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations#Quick_CheckUser_requests) "checkusers will conduct a technical investigation only if clear, behavioural evidence of sockpuppetry is also submitted; if you ask for technical evidence to be looked at but do not provide behavioural evidence, the investigation may not be allowed to proceed." So like a technical check was made that didn't link me to another account. Which like, means this is all based on opinion and like if it's based on opinion then like it comes down to the quotes I underlined which are from these pages: (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signs_of_sockpuppetry) "Given that good faith must be assumed, unless it is obvious beyond a reasonable doubt that sockpuppetry is occurring, or the checkuser data shows a connection, no action shall be taken against the accounts in question for sockpuppetry, though other policy violations that occur shall be handled accordingly" and the other one is from here: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry) "Only blocked accounts should be tagged as Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets and only upon sufficient evidence that would stand up to scrutiny." and like in the explanations for how to defend yourself here: (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SPI/Guidance#Defending_yourself_against_claims: like it says "Sockpuppet inquiry pages are only about account and IP misuse—nothing else". Can you like tell me where the IP misuse is and the evidence is without a doubt?
Unblock request
[edit]
GenSmark (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
-I went to the teahouse because when I like tried to copy and paste into the editor, Wikipedia added a bunch of stuff like <nowiki>. I saw that it was wrong and like wanted advice. Like I know that the Teahouse is a public forum. If I was trying to hide something I wouldn't go there and ask it out in the open. Like, that argument like makes no sense. I have nothing to hide. -About fait accompli, I saw that Slacker13 used it and I thought it was cool Latin and I'd never seen it before.
-Finally something about same place? Does that mean same city? I live in a urban center and often work at my local Starbucks. Respectfully asking for an unblock GenSmark (talk) 23:41, 18 September 2025 (UTC)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=-Like I'm gonna try this again hopefully explaining the evidence against me. Like I'd first like to say that I read the page. I did write "support 3" because I read Slacker13's arguments, like they were one of the main people arguing on the page and they really spelled everything out with the way that they were thinking and why. I liked that it was easy to follow and I liked the style. It also seemed like Slacker13 needed some help. Like every logical argument they made was answered with something like pretty basic. I thought that supporting others in a discussion is what you're supposed to do when trying to make an encyclopedia better compared to other people who just give like straight opinions or said something like WP:Due. Like, I appreciated the logic (sorry, math nerd. That's also probably why I like patterning like dashes between words and sentences and thoughts to break them into mini equations). -I went to the teahouse because when I like tried to copy and paste into the editor, Wikipedia added a bunch of stuff like <nowiki>. I saw that it was wrong and like wanted advice. Like I know that the Teahouse is a public forum. If I was trying to hide something I wouldn't go there and ask it out in the open. Like, that argument like makes no sense. I have nothing to hide. -About fait accompli, I saw that Slacker13 used it and I thought it was cool Latin and I'd never seen it before. -Finally something about same place? Does that mean same city? I live in a urban center and often work at my local Starbucks. Respectfully asking for an unblock [[User:GenSmark|GenSmark]] ([[User talk:GenSmark#top|talk]]) 23:41, 18 September 2025 (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=-Like I'm gonna try this again hopefully explaining the evidence against me. Like I'd first like to say that I read the page. I did write "support 3" because I read Slacker13's arguments, like they were one of the main people arguing on the page and they really spelled everything out with the way that they were thinking and why. I liked that it was easy to follow and I liked the style. It also seemed like Slacker13 needed some help. Like every logical argument they made was answered with something like pretty basic. I thought that supporting others in a discussion is what you're supposed to do when trying to make an encyclopedia better compared to other people who just give like straight opinions or said something like WP:Due. Like, I appreciated the logic (sorry, math nerd. That's also probably why I like patterning like dashes between words and sentences and thoughts to break them into mini equations). -I went to the teahouse because when I like tried to copy and paste into the editor, Wikipedia added a bunch of stuff like <nowiki>. I saw that it was wrong and like wanted advice. Like I know that the Teahouse is a public forum. If I was trying to hide something I wouldn't go there and ask it out in the open. Like, that argument like makes no sense. I have nothing to hide. -About fait accompli, I saw that Slacker13 used it and I thought it was cool Latin and I'd never seen it before. -Finally something about same place? Does that mean same city? I live in a urban center and often work at my local Starbucks. Respectfully asking for an unblock [[User:GenSmark|GenSmark]] ([[User talk:GenSmark#top|talk]]) 23:41, 18 September 2025 (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=-Like I'm gonna try this again hopefully explaining the evidence against me. Like I'd first like to say that I read the page. I did write "support 3" because I read Slacker13's arguments, like they were one of the main people arguing on the page and they really spelled everything out with the way that they were thinking and why. I liked that it was easy to follow and I liked the style. It also seemed like Slacker13 needed some help. Like every logical argument they made was answered with something like pretty basic. I thought that supporting others in a discussion is what you're supposed to do when trying to make an encyclopedia better compared to other people who just give like straight opinions or said something like WP:Due. Like, I appreciated the logic (sorry, math nerd. That's also probably why I like patterning like dashes between words and sentences and thoughts to break them into mini equations). -I went to the teahouse because when I like tried to copy and paste into the editor, Wikipedia added a bunch of stuff like <nowiki>. I saw that it was wrong and like wanted advice. Like I know that the Teahouse is a public forum. If I was trying to hide something I wouldn't go there and ask it out in the open. Like, that argument like makes no sense. I have nothing to hide. -About fait accompli, I saw that Slacker13 used it and I thought it was cool Latin and I'd never seen it before. -Finally something about same place? Does that mean same city? I live in a urban center and often work at my local Starbucks. Respectfully asking for an unblock [[User:GenSmark|GenSmark]] ([[User talk:GenSmark#top|talk]]) 23:41, 18 September 2025 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}
GenSmark (talk) 23:41, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
- Are you being paid a bonus based on how many times you use the word "like"? JBW (talk) 00:24, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
- One penny per, but I can see what you mean. I guess I was trying to be friendly and not seem like a complete douche. GenSmark (talk) 13:45, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
- I am not saying anyone else is being douchey just that like it was my way of being easygoing. GenSmark (talk) 13:48, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
- One penny per, but I can see what you mean. I guess I was trying to be friendly and not seem like a complete douche. GenSmark (talk) 13:45, 22 September 2025 (UTC)