User talk:Criticize

Hi Criticize! 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:

Learn more about editing

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:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Pbritti (talk) 23:18, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jonas_Kersken&diff=prev&oldid=1296449430 176.108.139.1 (talk) 02:32, 20 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

My bad. Criticize (talk) 02:37, 20 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Sorry Citicize, I didn't see the box to put the explanation. 2600:1000:A022:570F:B0F7:6F7E:3314:3830 (talk) 17:26, 23 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hi Criticize, thanks for the revert at Tom Fernandez – if possible, remember to check if there might have been other vandalism in the revision reverted to. Best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:28, 27 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

I would argue this needs to be included as it's totally relevant to what she represents in 2025 with her deflective comments 92.25.249.186 (talk) 16:10, 28 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello. I just wanted to let you know that I reverted your reversion on Reservation in India. This is because I think VikingV1's edit is constructive. While I feel that the specific wording can be improved, I think saying that the student 'committed suicide' is clearer and more encyclopedic than a 'tragic incident'. If you disagree, I think the best thing to do is discuss the section on the article's talk page. Best regards, QwertyForest (talk) 17:42, 28 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

Why do they erase that he is going to be severe Sanape? Do you take it off because you don't like it? 2806:250:414:C55B:E9B7:3D2E:B89E:A61D (talk) 02:51, 1 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hey Criticize,

I noticed you helped revert an edit to the page on Bloordale Beach by someone who deleted a bunch of significant info from that page. Thanks. There's someone falsely trying to take credit for creating the "Beach", and presumably they are the person making those deletions. Your help reverting it is appreciated. If you'd like more information, you could contact the person who created the beach at the email address on the "statement from the person who created the beach" document that's linked on the Bloordale Beach page. They'd be happy to tell you the story and answer any questions... The deletion of this information (which amounts to reporting the existence of and summarizing the contents of a statement from the creator of the beach, and adding photographs of the beach) is vandalism with an agenda, which is frustrating. Perhaps you can help prevent further deletions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.65.22.120 (talk) 01:48, 2 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Ion Television should not be included as it converted to a FAST channel in 2021 , which effectively eliminates the need for an OTA feed for the network anyways since its launch in 1998 as PAX TV. In fact, why not let Ion Television shut down it's broadcast television feed as it converts to an internet-only channel, just like its sister network Ion Plus? 72.134.38.53 (talk) 03:08, 2 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I noticed you reverted the edits of some information I removed on Pernia Qureshi, I removed it because the supporting articles were going outdated and irrelevant and I also updated some relevant and new information so I hope I can make that update again as I edited it. 122.161.48.60 (talk) 10:58, 2 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hey!

Just wanted to say thanks for monitoring the mentalism page. I've had talks with the person trying to shove their work on the page. He claims he's trying to include the information to ensure the public knows that Mentalism isn't "real" per se. This of course is already visible on the page and rather easy to see. Thanks for the help, Xobr Xobr21037 (talk) 13:47, 3 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello, @Criticize: Now that you have rollback rights, you can use the main AntiVandal script. I’ve noticed that most of your edits are tagged as manual reverts, so I’m just wondering if you're not really using the AntiVandal tool. Especially since it requires rollback rights. I also noticed that when you revert edits, you sometimes leave a random edit summary like "???" or something similar. This isn’t enough; tools like AntiVandal and Huggle can help by providing the automatic edit summaries you need. Thanks for your time. Happy editing! - Arcrev1 (talk) 06:28, 18 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Arcrev1, I would like to personally thank you for helping revert un-constructive edits on the Encyclopedia.

I am aware of the concerns you have and I am glad to answer them.

1) I agree that the "Floating Question Marks" are not an influential conclusion when un-doing edits that score 99.9% Vandalism. I am obliging to change this and would like to thank you for indicating this critical incident.

2) I am already aware of the existing plug-ins that efficiently help undo un-constructive edits.

The features are great. However, I tested and had problems with them.

As a result, I created my own method to undo edits.

That's why you are see-ing the server tag as manual.

Have a good day and thank you for taking the time to visit my talk page. Criticize (talk) 23:41, 18 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Criticize: Thank you as well for your contribution and for helping prevent the spread of vandalism. I only see a few users active in this kind of work. When I get the chance, I’ll also give you a barnstar. By the way, it seems the AntiVandal script doesn’t have a custom fixed edit summary for good faith edits like content removal and unsourced edits. I’ve only just started using the script. If someone complains, I might stop using it and go back to Huggle. - Arcrev1 (talk) 04:39, 19 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Why did you delete my addition? It is a fact that ODOT workers live onsite at this location. If you can give me some advice on how to add or if you could add in source I can give you to show cite this information that’d be great Brusty97 (talk) 04:41, 23 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

cacaa 190.173.152.224 (talk) 05:23, 23 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

conjutible autonmobiles for free 190.173.152.224 (talk) 05:23, 23 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Criticize Stop Removing my truthful work. The whole world must know his shame!! Let Me Have A Turn (talk) 04:18, 24 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Let Me Have A Turn... i'm confused. You're registered for 2 years and your very 1st mission is to attack an article? .. Criticize (talk) 04:26, 24 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Criticize Can you Please STOP!!!! Let Me Have A Turn (talk) 04:34, 24 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Did you check this guideline I consigned on the Annul? Here ?

You can not designate negative language on people like this. Unequivocally, Not on Wikipedia. Thanks. Criticize (talk) 04:37, 24 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Criticize Your english is vry funny and allll I read is glop! I hv the right to say what I hv to. I am the Witness here! Not you FOOLISH!!!! IMMA REPORT YOU DO IT AGAIN. Let Me Have A Turn (talk) 04:40, 24 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

06:57, 27 July 2025 Criticize talk contribs m 27,902 bytes −1,141 Reverted Edit(s) by 2605:8D80:6C1:ACB:C06C:22FC:132D:1940 (Talk) (AV) undo Tag: Manual revert 2605:8D80:6C1:ACB:C06C:22FC:132D:1940 (talk) 07:09, 27 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

What of it? Criticize was reverting your blatant vandalism [1] Meters (talk) 07:16, 27 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

https://blogs.windows.com/windows-insider/2025/07/28/announcing-windows-11-insider-preview-build-26200-5722-dev-channel/ 45.153.25.14 (talk) 08:54, 31 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hi! The wikipedia page of my friend is not the right information. Things a where he was born, what kind of music he brings out. Everytime I try to change it, you keep putting the old and wrong information back. Can you tell me what I need to do, so I can change the information? HeeswijkDinther (talk) 10:31, 31 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Is there a particular reason you are removing portions of block messages? 331dot (talk) 11:04, 1 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

I thought It would be helpful to reduce the backlog on the "Categories on Usernames suspected for promotional purposes" as well as other issues. At this point there are too many of them. And I thought it would be helpful to Administrators patrolling these pages for easier identification. The promo and username templates (COI) clearly clarify that the tag redirecting to those pages should be removed once the user has been blocked by an Administrator or have properly disclosed their payment details. Currently I am clearly targeting only users that have been blocked. Since you are an Administrator, am I allowed to continue doing this ? Criticize (talk) 11:18, 1 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Mostly I was just interested in the reason; as long as it's good faith I'm not interfering. I don't know if you should or not, but I'm not interested in pursuing it. If you're interested, you might want to discuss possible solutions on the category talk page, or at the Village Pump. 331dot (talk) 11:44, 1 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

About the last change you made (Turkish Land Forces) https://www.trthaber.com/haber/gundem/kara-kuvvetleri-komutanligi-forsu-degisti-837857.html Turkish Patriot1974 (talk) 11:26, 8 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Cool! :) Cupaccino Assassino (talk) 12:56, 8 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Dear Criticize I am sorry I will try not to do that again Cupaccino Assassino (talk) 12:53, 8 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

How dare you accuse me of editing his page without letting people know what I did? That man is like a father to me. Apologise. SimonAlenyan (talk) 09:20, 10 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Is Cappuccino Assassino annoying? He was my friend and he quit Pandachini bananini (talk) 11:23, 10 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Pandachini bananini (talk) 11:26, 10 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Criticise. Why are you disrupting my notes. I am a business manager both within New Zealand and offshore. Leave my changes alone... you are interfering with a political campaign. Who has given you the authority to change what you do not know. I have proof of what I am placing online. I have taken copies of this and will be forwarding to appropriate sources and this will make great ammunition at the local meet the candidates where I will be able to stand up and show this targeted attack. I thankyou for supporting me in this. 114.23.114.71 (talk) 10:19, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

You have broken WP:3RR to add an unsourced claim. The existing source simply says "local businessman". Meters (talk) 10:30, 14 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

A tag has been placed on User talk:AatiBuu requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Undisclosed paid editing by employee of the company - creator's former username prior to renaming included the company's name. The creator has not declared either a COI or paid editing status and therefore the article should be deleted.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. 10mmsocket (talk) 11:18, 18 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello, and thanks for your help on Wikipedia. Is there a particular reason that you appear to be using custom-made warnings when reverting vandalism? Lynch44 11:13, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Lynch44. Some editors don't even know what the word "constructive" even means, and more of that. And I think I already chased away about 4 editors in the past because they took the default templates as an offense when I used them. I felt guilty for that, therefore my creation. Are you against my mod? What do you think should be improved?. Thanks.‎ Criticize (talk) 12:00, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

I have no data on whether or not anyone takes offense to the regular warnings (and for that it's worth, the u1 vandal warning is quite nice in my opinion). My main issue is that the templates you are using have quite a few grammatical errors (e.g. here) which can make them hard to understand, as well as the fact that these warnings don't get picked up by ClueBot NG (e.g. here), which essentially gives vandals an extra warning. If you are still dead-set on using your own warnings, then just fix the grammar and the formatting issues and I will be fine with it. Lynch44 12:13, 25 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Whyd you undo my edit

this one

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dibaba_family&oldid=1308097291

Im not mad I'm just confused reallly LilbrogotdemBEANZZwtf?! 2 (talk) 14:59, 27 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thou Art An Liar. Edit was SINGLE not multiple. 103.247.21.53 (talk) 11:27, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

Just a note that WP:A7 only applies to articles and not to userpages; you tagged User:Vickystuntdirector for A7. I did delete the page under WP:U5 though, however!

Thanks, CoconutOctopus talk 11:46, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

This isn't a WP:NPOV violation; descriptors are used in most natural disaster articles (ie Greensburg tornado, July 2025 Central Texas floods, Hurricane Katrina, etcetera). Thanks! ^EF⁵ 13:49, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

pls check Google bro pls type ananda kone and you know the real history pls bro some people change our legacy HARISHKARURKONAR (talk) 15:24, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Young children should not be using automated reversion tools like Huggle. Thank you. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:E138:6CFA:2D5B:CEAF (talk) 16:51, 28 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

What about old guys using TWINKLE? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:54, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hi Criticize, you deleted my specification of the cause of death at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Cameron_(interactive_artist) as I didn't add a source. However, the cause of death is mentioned in the source that was already referenced, there is no need for another source. Please revert the deletion. Thanks! ElectricSurfer (talk) 09:53, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hi Criticize, you deleted my specification of the cause of death at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Cameron_(interactive_artist) as I didn't add a source. However, the cause of death is mentioned in the source that was already referenced, there is no need for another source. Please revert the deletion. Thanks! ElectricSurfer (talk) 09:56, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for double posting. ElectricSurfer (talk) 09:57, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yes, you're correct. Thanks.‎ Criticize (talk) 10:04, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hi, let me edit the Wiki. I want to add more information on the topic 2409:4085:8E0D:7692:0:0:48C8:270B (talk) 10:40, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

However. "Users nominating a page for speedy deletion should specify which criterion/criteria the page meets, and should notify the page creator and any major contributors." Best practice would be to also give them a {{{FIRSTARTICLE}}} welcome. This reduces WP:BITE and helps new users follow the rules by teaching them the rules. Thanks. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:53, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		You beat me every time,""Then I was like whatttttt", you so fast on reverting, you deserved this barnstar. Cheers ThilioR O B O T🤖 talk 14:51, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

I am very thankful for your work on Wikipedia. Have an awesome weekend.‎‎‎ Criticize (talk) 15:20, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

I read your "read here first" and I didn't do anything on that list. What was wrong with the edit? 2405:6E00:62D:E4F8:451F:DC4A:AAB5:34D1 (talk) 11:39, 31 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Kindly register an account. As there is clear evidence someone else made this edit to the page using your IP address, thanks.‎ Criticize (talk) 11:51, 31 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

i had forgotten to log in before editing, my apologies. but im assuming you know which edit it was and id like to ask why it was reverted? Tonymarkvart (talk) 12:39, 31 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Link? Criticize (talk) 12:58, 31 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dan_Gable&oldid=1308781916 Tonymarkvart (talk) 13:19, 31 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

You said I didn't source my edit to the page about Branks, Poland - I included a link to the documentary in the edit itself but you left a note on my talk page saying no source was provided: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bra%C5%84sk&oldid=1308782484 Mukbangasmr (talk) 12:43, 31 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

YouTube videos are not exactly reliable sources. Do you have any other sources on this? If so, you are more than welcome to add your edit back. Thanks. Criticize (talk) 12:58, 31 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'm very confused. This is a link to the PBS documentary about Bransk Poland on the PBS Youtube Channel - the full documentary was linked. Did you investigate this before removing the link? Mukbangasmr (talk) 13:57, 31 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yes. The reference you added here appears to be alright for the encyclopedia. I also had a look on the video and it seems to prove itself as a good source as well. However, please proceed with caution when citing YouTube videos as references in the future, as most of them may be flagged as a copyright violation for their use on Wikipedia. You may want to look here, thanks.‎ Criticize (talk) 14:55, 31 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

You also removed my edit on the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_C._Steinlauf article by saying it wasn't sourced - the documentary on Branks has Steinlauf in it that I source in the Bransk article. Mukbangasmr (talk) 12:45, 31 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Bransk* Mukbangasmr (talk) 12:45, 31 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello there @Criticize:, you reverted by edit and wrote on my Talk page that in this edit to Yes (Coldplay song), I removed content without adequately explaining why.

I disagree: I removed a duplicate citation and recited the same source, just avoiding duplicating it in the reference list. The edit summary was "fix cite." In the future I can definitely be more specific, but this feels like an unfair reversion. I was expanding a redirect and did use edit summaries.

Please let me know what you think! Veggiegalaxy (talk) 13:53, 31 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Veggiegalaxy. Please forgive me. I had an unexpected problem when I was looking through your edit. It appeared your edits loaded incorrectly at my end. I just recently reloaded the diffs - especially ‎here and here. And this is very different from what I had seen before I reverted you. No hard feelings. Take the word from me. You did great work on that page! Have a good day.‎ Criticize (talk) 14:20, 31 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

No problem at all, appreciate your understanding! Thank you :) Veggiegalaxy (talk) 14:33, 31 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hi, thank you for your contributions. I note your recent revert at the article. The Toronto Indy is moving to Markham and will be known as "Ontario Honda Dealers Indy at Markham".

Question: The new event in Markham is clearly a continuation of the Toronto Indy. In this case, do we split off a new article, or is the existing article moved to a new title? 162 etc. (talk) 16:18, 3 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

In regards to this IP that made this edit, and according to the sources you have given. Yes. This situation requires a move update to the title and the page's contents, only when it occurs in reality, thanks.‎‎ Criticize (talk) 16:40, 3 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello. Can you give a reason of 13:54, 28 August 2025 when you performed this reversion? You did not state a reason why you believe my edits were nonconstructive.

Are you aware of WP:USURPURL and have recently read the instructions for using {{Cite web}}?

Setting |url-status=usurped is usually done when the domain registration has lapse and the domain is not being used by its original owners. According to the instructions on {{Cite web}}, "With |url-status=unfit or usurped, the original is not linked at all".

The value usurped is a valid value for the field url-status. Bots makes this change that I had perform (and you reverted) all the time. -- 96.82.59.129 (talk) 11:36, 4 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

Woah! My bad. Never came across this "Url" rule before, nor have yet seen a bot execute this. As a matter of fact, Wikipedia has a wide number of policies, and I think I covered up 87% of them so far. I will drop the reverting for a moment and utterly knowledge up, thanks.‎‎ Criticize (talk) 20:30, 4 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

I am glad that you are willing to learn something new from this incident. I also knew nothing about WP:USURPURL until I saw GreenC bot in action with this edit and had to look for the reason for the "new" behavior, which I'm guessing only started the past year or two. The problem with popular websites that are maintain by a single person is that the person eventually dies and the domain gets taken by a cyber-squatter who hijacks the domain and makes money by displaying web ads, some of which contains porn. The webarchive of the previous site still contains useful information but the current domain had become an eyesore that should be avoided at all costs. BTW, {{Cite web}}, and its siblings {{Cite news}}, {{Cite book}}, {{Cite magazine}}, {{Cite journal}}, etc. gets new features all the time, even new siblings, such as {{Cite thesis}}, {{Cite tweet}}, {{Cite podcast}}, and a few more that I just noticed and need to try out. -- 96.82.59.129 (talk) 23:57, 4 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

You reverted a edit of mine saying:

I noticed that you made a change to an article, Nick Fuentes, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Criticize (talk) 10:02, 10 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

My edit :

In 2023, Fuentes spoke of "an occult element at the high levels of society and specifically among the Jews...they are evildoers they are people that worship false gods they are people that practice magic or rituals...when we take power they need to be given the death penalty". ^{[1] [2]}In an August 9th, 2025 interview Fuentes refers to "Ye" (now Kanye West's) legal name". Fuentes says: "I wanted him to lose (Trump) so that we could elect Ye in 2024 or in 2028...the country is ready to reject Trump as like, not radical enough and a true Hitler-level leader can arise in him..his crash out might fuel the rise of that next person"^[3]

^I have 3 sources here what part of this do you think is not sourced?

here are the sources, in my original edit as 126,127, 129 (above as 1,2,3) and in the edit proper marked up reference format>

126. "SCARY: Nick Fuentes calls for death penalty to Jews, enemies of Donald Trump". The Hill. December 14, 2023. Retrieved September 3, 2025.

127. Kampeas, Tom (May 3, 2024). "Elon Musk says he will reinstate X account of antisemite Nick Fuentes". Times of Israel. Retrieved May 7, 2024.

128. "Sam Hyde Show: America First". youtube.com. Sam Hyde. August 9, 2025. Retrieved September 3, 2025.

The objection to using the YouTube video as a source conflates the reliability of the channel with the reliability of the statement made by the subject. Per WP:RS and WP:V, the key criterion is whether the source verifiably contains the statement attributed to the subject of the article—not whether the host or channel is independently notable or authoritative. In this case, the video is a primary source (see WP:PRIMARY) documenting the subject making a statement in their own words. The fact that it was published on a YouTube channel is incidental; the channel's editorial stance or reputation is irrelevant when the content being cited is a direct quote from the subject themselves. We're not attributing any claims to the host, nor are we relying on the channel's interpretation—only on the subject's own words, which are clearly recorded and timestamped. WP:RS does not categorically exclude YouTube as a source. When the video is an original recording of the subject speaking, and the identity of the speaker is clear and undisputed, it meets the threshold for verifiability under WP:V. If necessary, the citation can include a timestamp and a brief description to clarify that the quote is from the subject, not the host. Unless there's a specific reason to doubt the authenticity of the video or the identity of the speaker, dismissing the source solely because it's hosted on YouTube is a form of WP:ORIGINALSYN and not supported by policy.

Central16 (talk) 21:21, 10 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry, I'm new to editing, but I'll remember to cite a source next time. Thanks! Recentcontributor111223 (talk) 17:55, 11 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

Adding the description of Humphrey Gilbert as being a mass murderer to the introductory paragraph is an accurate and objective statement that improves the accuracy of page by referring to one of the main reasons he is notable. This is very clearly documented in the rest of the article. 50.232.225.14 (talk) 21:25, 11 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

I agree with that removal. Please discuss it on the article's talk page. Meters (talk) 22:02, 11 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

This edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Insurgency:_Modern_Infantry_Combat&oldid=1311737251

I describe a run time error. There is no doc or page to cite.

May I ask who you are? Are you an employee of Wikipedia? 75.155.107.249 (talk) 17:13, 16 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

This is known as original research, which as WP:NOR describes, is “facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists”, and is prohibited. Celjski Grad (talk) 15:45, 17 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

I noticed that you reverted an edit of mine as it was lacking a source. The source was forthcoming, and I added it, so no worries.

However, the article (Artificial neuron) is missing sources for a lot of information, is there a reason why this article is particularly sensitive to new edits? Bowyer Bob (talk) 13:28, 17 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

I’m not Criticize, but the omission of sources in an article is not an excuse to introduce more. Celjski Grad (talk) 15:40, 17 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

I was reverting vandalism edit, however, you were also doing so at the same time, leading me to accidentally revert your change instead of the vandalism one.

I have undone the edit - apologies. Pr0m37h3u$ 14:04, 19 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

		The Userpage Shield
		Thanks for reverting vandalism on my talk! Local Variable (talk) 11:29, 20 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, it's a pleasure. I hope the offense to your talk page will not happen again, I am still watching out right now, at least for the next 5 hours. Unfortunately, the administrators seem to unavailable at this moment, sadly. Have an awesome weekend.‎ Criticize (talk) 12:35, 20 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hi Criticize, other than your and my reverts, can anything further be done about the anonymous IP edits to Casey Neistat? Thanks, Kiwipete (talk) 23:00, 25 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

Unfortunately, best thing to do, is to wait and see what happens after the applied block expires. If the same disruption resumes once more, I will ensure a filed report, requesting a 2 week anon block. Don't worry, I will be very observant for this, thanks.‎ Criticize (talk) 08:34, 26 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

Curious as to what this is. Canterbury Tail talk 12:21, 26 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

That's okay, mistakes happen. I've accidentally blocked someone before, so a stray warning is small potatoes :) Canterbury Tail talk 13:49, 26 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

There's no need to warn them, just report them to WP:AIV. They know what they're doing. Thanks Lynch44 11:32, 27 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

Cmrc23 has given you a bear! Bears promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Bears must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a bear, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of bears by adding {{subst:Bear}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

You work fast! Thanks for your hard work. Cmrc23 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 14:45, 2 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello. Is there a particular reason you are warning users who you haven't reverted? I have Twinkle and am capable of warning them myself and it is somewhat a waste of my time when the script tells me you've already done it. I believe you've done this twice now. Lynch44 21:52, 4 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Unfortunately, I am afraid, I completely have no words here. I think the server records us at the same split second reverting these edits, and I am very certain that I did revert them on my own upon immediate sight, therefore the warning follow up. Like I said, I really have no words here. As a matter of fact, I believe working in recent changes is all about teamwork. Have a good day. Criticize (talk) 22:40, 4 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

I noticed this too with this edit, which was made 3 seconds after I already warned the user. Huggle does not warn users it didn't revert if you use the "Revert and warn" option (accessible with the keyboard shortcut Q), so I'm curious which buttons you're pressing. Are you pressing R and then W to revert and then warn? That's the only time I can imagine Huggle warning someone it didn't revert. —⁠k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 15:04, 4 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Ars Technica mentions a modified version of Lucida Grande was used in mavericks Worldhisotrylover20 (talk) 01:49, 6 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

The "M" in question you may have misplaced here, did not make the article look constructive. Nevertheless, I'm glad you realized the mistake and solved it here, regards. ‎ Criticize (talk) 02:00, 6 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Was just about to do that. Have been adding content and then citation right after. Xkeylimepie (talk) 06:00, 6 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello, thanks. Now, my advice to you is to edit a page until it's fully complete to your desire before publishing. Besides the commonly used "publish" execution, you could also use "show preview" to picture how your work will exactly look like before using "publish". It's not just me, but any viewer can accessibly view what you edited even if you intend to complete that, at a later time. ‎ Criticize (talk) 06:14, 6 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Xkeylimepie, I tried to give you some advice. Now look what has happened to you.‎ ‎ Criticize (talk) 06:29, 6 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yes! I saw. Adding the citations as I go. Thank you for the advice. Xkeylimepie (talk) 06:32, 6 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

I've seen it described as a lost film on several sites. Do you have a specific reason to doubt them? https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0019264/trivia/?ref_=tt_dyk_trv https://letterboxd.com/film/the-perfect-crime-1928/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by I. R. Finch (talk • contribs) 03:57, 7 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Having provided a couple of cites, do you have any objection if I change it back? I. R. Finch (talk) 03:58, 8 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		You are the Huggle GOAT!!! 41.210.147.208 (talk) 07:37, 22 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yo Criticize! I see you haven't been deleting the vandalism for almost a week now. I also see the above convos and you look so down. So I jst wanna give you your first barnstar! I have seen the work you do and am impressed with ur use of the huggle. It must have made people so damn jealous instead of appreciating you with this. Baah, Forget those pathetic delusional loosers, most admins are‎ stupid and‎ suck‎ on wiki. Criticize you are the only huggle GOAT!!!!! I edit some of the Afcon pages btw. Hope you see this message! many cheers :) 41.210.147.208 (talk) 07:37, 22 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Your hypothesis may be significantly correct when you mention the word jealous, however, please don't insult them.‎‎ Criticize (talk) 09:24, 23 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Jealous? how?? Xpad (talk) 09:35, 25 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

I had this incident over a fortnight ago.‎‎ Criticize (talk) 11:33, 25 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

OH MY GOD Xpad (talk) 14:15, 25 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

(talk page stalker) User:Thilio was the first person to award User:Criticize a barnstar. I don't blame you though, it was hard to notice anyway. So I just fixed it. Xpad (talk) 10:01, 25 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		And take this Criticize!! 41.210.147.208 (talk) 07:40, 22 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

For the insane online length you've been showing in recents changes. It would hurt to see you go :(

Where are you? I pray to God you are only taking a damn break. 41.210.147.208 (talk) 07:40, 22 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Negative. I never take breaks. After receiving these, I've decided to stay low. Re-build versions of huggle, watch activity in other namespaces, and invest time elsewhere. I'm afraid I fear the ability to continue for now, after cautious observation of the words, because your editing makes no sense at all. And if I perform another different blatant mistake similar to this, I could risk being blacklisted. Or if someone comes here stating that I'm using rollback incorrectly, like this, it just won't look good at all.‎‎ Criticize (talk) 09:30, 23 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Criticize, why stay low? Well, I understand how bad the sentence in her comment feels like. Mistakes happen all the time, but I don't think you can get blocked if a mistake was done unknowingly or in good faith. Xpad (talk) 10:38, 25 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		You get 2 of these!! 41.210.147.208 (talk) 07:42, 22 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

sorry for the spam hehe. Seriously! im very proud of all you have done and hope you come back 41.210.147.208 (talk) 07:42, 22 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Hope you return. Xpad (talk) 16:59, 26 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hi Criticize have you returned? Xpad (talk) 10:37, 30 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello? Xpad (talk) 23:58, 30 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Xpad. Hello there, I kindly request for your patience. The time-out that I am currently going through is not only prior to the remarks that may have attracted your attention, but to be indisputably positive if huggle is working correctly, and repair the program accordingly. There are plenty of other revert editors who do a very good job erasing (vandalism) bad-faith edits the best way they can. Please, be patient. Have an amazing up-coming weekend, thanks.‎‎ Criticize (talk) 03:24, 31 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Oh ok. Xpad (talk) 10:23, 31 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Wait just one question. Are you some kind of programmer or something? Xpad (talk) 10:35, 31 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Went through your talk page a bit after that sockpuppet made edits. Hope all is well and you're feeling better soon. Will be excited to see your name popup in the rc tab when you come back =) – LuniZunie ツ_(talk) 02:56, 2 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Affirmative. Don't worry, I had to undergo a serious maintenance phase. All good for now and looking forward to friendly duties against problematic edits. Have an awesome week.‎‎ Criticize (talk) 02:00, 4 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Criticize Very glad to hear you're all good =D

And you, too, have an amazing week. – LuniZunie ツ_(talk) 02:01, 4 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hey, I request to block user (indranil2003) for adding unsourced content. Thanks alot Predator.1947 (talk) 20:56, 3 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

(talk page watcher) Hi @Predator.1947, your first step should always be to communicate with the other editor before requesting a block.

I've left them a welcome message with info about sourcing on their talk page for you. Nil🥝 21:15, 3 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thank you Nil NZ. Have a wonderful week.‎‎‎‎ Criticize (talk) 02:01, 4 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I added to the description of this article basic information from the introductory paragraph briefly describing the significance of the individual. The page's subject does not have an article because he is an American Sunni Muslim but because he was convicted of supporting terrorism for which he received a life sentence. If anything the current description is perhaps the biased part of the description as it briefly was following my edit as it may give the impression the that his religious identity is an inherent aspect of his conviction. Furthermore, if describing him as having been convicted of supporting terrorism is a biased description this page should be removed in its entirety as that is what makes this individual significant enough to warrant his own page. Laughing Hyena (talk) 03:09, 4 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I put SIENNA CASAS on weekend today 115.131.144.32 (talk) 07:29, 4 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I just wanted to message you and welcome you back! I noticed that you had stepped away from contributing for awhile, and was happy to see that you were back to editing today!

I was notified that your (hopefully temporary) absence was likely due to receiving some harsh messages on your user talk from experienced editors that were a bit over-the-top. Please don't allow yourself to be disheartened or discouraged by them; you did nothing wrong or in bad faith! If you wish to discuss anything with me, please know that my user talk page and my email is always open to you, and I'll be more than happy to help you with anything that you need. :-)

~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:37, 5 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Oshwah. Please accept my deepest gratitude for this uplifting message. I am immensely thankful for your existence and all that you do on Wikipedia. Have a marvelous week.‎‎ Criticize (talk) 10:27, 5 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

You bet, and I hope you have a great week as well. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:28, 5 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

+1 to Oshwah. Very glad to see that you're back!

– LuniZunie ツ_(talk) 03:46, 5 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Absolutely Tremendous work you're doing in recent changes, LuniZunie. Wishing you all the best.‎‎ Criticize (talk) 10:28, 5 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Yay! Xpad (talk) 17:28, 5 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

---

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

---

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:01, 5 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'd like to make it clear that indefinite isn't infinite, but you should probably explain the use of multiple accounts in the way you were using them and commit to not doing that in the future if you wish to be unblocked. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:04, 5 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Criticize (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

Hello, may I kindly ask what is going on here. This is the only account I have registered on Wikipedia so far in my existence on the Earth, mainly after using the encyclopedia to access article information as an IP address for educational purposes for several years, and never published any edits to a single namespace, before this account's creation. May I ask what pattern the system is falsely giving you information that I am abusing accounts? What led to all this? I believe I find this block honestly shocking, as I have clearly not done anything to damage nor harm any of the rules. I am unequivocally aware of how Wikipedia's check user tool works and the entire strict policy on WP:SOCK, as I have both revised and alerted new editors of this before. I have done my very best to be a loyal editor to everyone on the platform and and respect them for who they are. However, I still do not understand how I have not won the community's trust with the progression of my account's contribution data. I created this account on September 28, 2023, and abandoned it due to incomplete educational courses I had to take, having made only 28 edits as a newbie, reverting vandalism, according to the stored data seen on Xtools . My login credentials have also been kept very safe. I revived this account on June 20th 2025, to continue my duty faithfully, until this moment that has unfortunately, found me in an empty dark hole. I am also aware that trust must be earned and I have done all I can to prove it. Frankly, I truly find this block emotionally heart-breaking.‎‎ Criticize (talk) 21:15, 5 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Decline reason:

Your explanation makes absolutely no sense. You're not going to get anywhere denying what is extremely obvious. —Ingenuity (talk) 21:34, 5 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

---

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.

Also to note. Finding that the check user system has linked my connection with a person named, Xpad, is utterly and significantly false. You can clearly see that the editor's tag indicates that they are using a mobile device, and my tag indicates that I am using an OS machine. Please understand, I do not use mobile web browsers for any website activity as of February 2024, and I have never installed or used Wikipedia's mobile application. However, I created this account using a mobile device in 2023 and produced 28 edits with it, as clarified above. I do not know who Xpad is or what intentions they have on Wikipedia. I have seen them perform edits on this page before and recently, however, I never had any interest nor the time to have a glimpse at their contributions until right now. I have just noticed their contributions posted mostly on my talk page which are rather very seriously skeptical. I am also absolutely stunned to see them have the confidence to approach other editors (1, 2) regarding feedback I had received on this page on October 16, 2025, which brought my contribution abilities to an immediate pause. I'm afraid my removal of vandalism that appears to be by best duty on Wikipedia, in the recent changes zone, has attracted a lot of attention from many individuals that I have now become apprehensive of my safety on Wikipedia, in the future. I have mostly exercised the ability to ignore, due to levels of abuse I have been through when working in recent changes. Once again, I truly find this block emotionally heart-breaking.‎‎ Criticize (talk) 21:16, 5 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

You can clearly see that the editor's tag indicates that they are using a mobile device, and my tag indicates that I am using an OS machine. How do you know that? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:23, 5 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

ScottishFinnishRadish, What are you talking about, sir. This evidence is clear to everyone in the public, and I'm shocked that you do not know about this as an admin. I had to ensure I dig accurate evidence before filing for an unblock. Take a look at Xpad's contributions and observe their system server tag, it clearly indicates Mobile edit, Mobile web edit, Advanced mobile edit and I never have these attached on my contribution data after June 2025.‎‎ Criticize (talk) 21:34, 5 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I would also like to see what Xpad has to say about this. If they are even aware that they have been blocked. They stated that they only read article information and refrain from making normal contributions according to the discussion here. I just wonder why the communities trusted check user tool would frame my account into such a mess.‎‎ Criticize (talk) 21:17, 5 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I believe the check user tool has mistaken my account for someone else. Wikipedia is a one of the popular website's known to the world and unfortunately my IP provider does not provide a fixed protocol. The service has a system that automatically updates IP address almost every hour. And I have come across assigned IPs that have already been blocked before I logged into this account in the past. The most recent I can remember was just in September 2025, when I used a blocked IP address to log in, and all seemed fine, so I never mentioned this incident to anyone here. Criticize (talk) 21:27, 5 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I reviewed the technical evidence in order to evaluate your unblock request and there is no viable scenario I can conceive of wherein you are completely unrelated to the Xpad account. For you to make that claim, I think, despite your declarations, that you don't understand all of the data that is available to checkusers. As ingenuity has declined your appeal in the interim, I'm noting my findings here for the record. Criticize, I don't think you'll find any traction with your claims of having no knowledge of the Xpad account, but if you're honest there's a pathway to a future appeal. But you need to be honest now.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:44, 5 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Ponyo, I don't know who Xpad is, honest, I really don't. I suppose the editor appears to be in the same country as I am in and are using the same IP provider as I am, which is really a scary thought, and proves my basic knowledge of how the check user tool works as far as I can thoroughly think. I'm telling you the truth. I really am. Lying to you would be really pathetic, and gets an individual nowhere and I am old enough to understand that.‎‎ Criticize (talk) 21:50, 5 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

And also to note, If I had any intention to create another account on Wikipedia. It would definitely not be in format as Xpad. It would clearly be after my main name. E.g Criticize alt, Criticize2 And if that ever happened. I would definitely disclose these on my user page.‎‎ Criticize (talk) 21:56, 5 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

(Non-administrator comment) @Criticize, I'm a fan of your work with recent changes. You're an asset to the project, and I really want to see you unblocked. I have to tell you that I've seen other people in your situation, and the only way it ever gets better is to be honest about why it happened. There is no world in which the administrators will believe that you are unrelated to the other user. If you can show remorse and genuinely try to learn from this experience, that would make me and others in the RCP community very happy, because we want to see you grow and continue helping on Wikipedia -- and your only path to being unblocked is by being truthful about what happened. The admins are capable of forgiveness for sockpuppetry, but only if you own up to your mistakes. tony 22:00, 5 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

(Non-administrator comment) +1 @Criticize I have admired you as an RCP and you were one of the first in the RCP community I interacted with. I still believe that you have a path to being unblocked, but you have to admit to your mistakes and remain honest. At this point, you aren't going to convince anyone, so please be honest in what you say. – LuniZunie ツ_(talk) 22:17, 5 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I am really being honest. I honestly truly am. As stated, I honestly believe my ISP provider's IP rotation, and coming across blocked addresses when logging into this account, got me into this unexpected dilemma. I was never active at all on Wikipedia in November 2023 when Xpad created their account. I was literally taking college courses at that time and never thought of Wikipedia during that moment.‎‎ Criticize (talk) 22:33, 5 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

but only if you own up to your mistakes. I am utterly aware of this and have done the best I can to act as an honest editor on the platform. Admitting to the situation that Xpad is me, would be straight up lying. Take a look at the editing pattern we have and compare this. They recently sent a barnstar with a rationale, Yay!, which would appear to me as childish and indicates they are also some sort of fan or something. The truth is that Xpad is not me at all. Honest.‎‎ Criticize (talk) 22:13, 5 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Their latest edit here was absolutely unacceptable. I would never dream of insulting other editors, whether I appear to be right or wrong.‎‎ Criticize (talk) 22:20, 5 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

An update. I see that Xpad is online as I have been monitoring them. That is not me and once again, I do not know who they are 😔.‎‎ Criticize (talk) 22:59, 5 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Confirmed to Xpad. --Yamla (talk) 23:05, 5 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Damn it..... it really disappoints me say this, but I unfortunately must support the findings made by Yamla, ScottishFinnishRadish, and any other CheckUsers who have looked into this matter, and I also Confirmed that Xpad and Criticize are without-a-doubt being operated by the same person. In some circumstances where I investigate two or more accounts and where each deny being the same person as the other, the data might show that the two accounts are on the same wide IP range, are within the same country or even the same very wide area within that same country, and to where the investigation calls for a more stringent and detailed analysis of the logs, but this isn't the case here.

The logs I retrieved and reviewed in-depth clearly show instances where Criticize and Xpad would edit their own user talk pages, or even edit Criticize's user talk page between the two, and within only a few minutes of each other, and where I can see that the edits were being performed, back-and-forth between the two of them, on the same page and using the same exact IP address. The timelines and the logs fit like a glove; you can see where this user will use their Criticize account to make an edit, then immediately switch over and use their Xpad account to make the next edit, and so on...

Criticize, I sincerely ask you, in fact beg you - to just be honest and tell us what the deal is with this behavior and why you decided to violate Wikipedia's sock puppetry policies like this. Your support, contributions, edits, and especially your committment to patrolling Wikipedia and cleaning up bad-faith edits and disruption were extremely appreciated and absolutely welcome around here. If you decide to come clean and be honest, I promise that we'll do our best to try and work something out so you can chalk this as a lesson learned and continue as a member of the community. I really don't want to see you go, if that's what you ultimately choose to do, but this is a huge breach of Wikipedia's policies that will unfortunately cost you a significant amount of the trust that you've earned with us. The ball is ultimately in your court as to whether or not you'd like to cooperate and start earning that trust back again... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:02, 6 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Criticize (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

Just wanted to kindly check again. The user Xpad is online and is giving the most absurd unblock requests and disrespecting the community. Please, that is not me at all. Criticize (talk) 23:11, 5 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Decline reason:

If you absolutely, truly, have only ever used this account, if you want to explain how you connect to the Internet (eg, are you at home? at school? at a netcafe? etc) via UTRS, you may be able to get somewhere. Explaining that you don't act anything like Xpad won't get you very far, because the technical evidence is very strong. asilvering (talk) 00:21, 6 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

---

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.

Wow. TPA removed for them.‎‎ Criticize (talk) 23:11, 5 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

The connection is definitely not a coincidence. Realistically, there's no chance you'll be unblocked while you continue to blanket deny any connection between the two accounts. --Yamla (talk) 23:12, 5 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

This feels like trolling at this point. Three CUs have all confirmed the sockpuppetry here. I've revoked TPA. Any future appeals will have to be through WP:UTRS. —Ingenuity (talk) 23:14, 5 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Mentioning here that they are currently evading their block as User:Criticize Final. Should be blocked ASAP. Lynch44 23:55, 5 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Blocked by another admin.  Possilikely (a mix between possible and likely). --Yamla (talk) 00:34, 6 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I assumed it was going to be one of our joe-jobing regulars and note as such, but after I ran a check I came back with the same interpretion as Yamla.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:17, 6 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

And now another new account has appeared, and their first edit was an attempt to archive this entire page. Angelo Banega (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Meters (talk) 06:03, 25 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Could someone explain any motive for this user committing sock puppetry?

Also, to Criticize:

I think the best course of action if you are a sock puppet is to admit it, and if you aren’t, to think of some test that would prove that you aren’t. Wikipedian12512 (talk) 00:38, 20 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Wikipedian12512 To say things on socks they wouldn't want to on their main account/create an illusion of support like [2]. Sophisticatedevening^(talk) 00:44, 20 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

And looking at the account contributions for Xpad, they haven’t done anything on the main space, just comments. And the user seems to be very literate in wiki markup. Wikipedian12512 (talk) 00:59, 20 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Note that it is entirely possible this user has now been so abusive, including in May 2026, that they may now be considered banned by the community under WP:3X. If so, no admin is free to unilaterally lift the ban. I have not verified whether or not WP:3X applies in this case. --Yamla (talk) 19:09, 3 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Of course I am no checkuser, but I've followed their blocked accounts a decent amount. It seems like all their socks have been used to archive their talk page here and that's about it. Though I could be wrong... – LuniZunie_(talk) 19:13, 3 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

They may be evading their block with Suoam. See Special:Diff/1352530231. I have opened a new SPI case at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Criticize. --Prothe1st (leave me a message)-- 19:12, 4 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

CU confirmed. Meters (talk) 19:19, 4 May 2026 (UTC)Reply