– A user has requested CheckUser. An SPI clerk will shortly look at the case and endorse or decline the request.
Any editor adding material to Hamis Kiggundu or subtracting material critical of him is, in my view, highly likely to be a sock. I have not suggested CU because of the large number of IP addresses, even though I have named an editor as suspected as well. Please use your discretion with that. 41.210.145.68 has created a spirited defence against the actions of Davey2010 at WP:COIN. The range seems similar enough to include in this list. Note, please, that Kiggundu attracts socks and UPE and/or socks of UPE?declared paid editors 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 12:21, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Comment:The actions of
User:Timtrent in recruiting another user,
User:Davey2010, to pursue these interests suggest a potential conflict of interest and might be perceived as being done in bad faith. They appear to resist any updates to the article, potentially aiming to frustrate contributors. This behavior contradicts the principles outlined in Wikipedia's
Ownership of content policy (WP:OWN). This policy clearly states that no one owns the content here and that all contributions are collaborative efforts.Additionally, labeling every editor of this article as engaging in undisclosed paid editing (UPE) is contrary to the
Wikipedia:Assume good faith (WP:AGF) guideline. Not every notable figure's edits should be deemed promotional when they adhere to Wikipedia's
Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV) and
Verifiability (WP:V) policies.It is also concerning that all recent editors have been submitted for sockpuppet investigations, which seems to target contributors unfairly. According to the
Blocking policy (WP:BLOCK), blocks are meant to prevent disruptive editing and not to punish users. Repeatedly calling for investigations can discourage new contributors and create a hostile editing environment.Wikipedia operates on the principle that "what is written is more important than who writes it," emphasizing the importance of content quality over authorship. It is crucial that all actions taken are in good faith, ensuring a fair and collaborative editing environment.Thank you for your understanding and cooperation in maintaining the integrity and collaborative spirit of Wikipedia.
216.104.193.135 (
talk)
13:49, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Comment:The actions of
User:Timtrent in recruiting another user,
User:Davey2010, to pursue hidden buased interests suggest a potential conflict of interest and might be perceived as being done in bad faith. They appear to resist any updates to the article, potentially aiming to frustrate contributors. This behavior contradicts the principles outlined in Wikipedia's
Ownership of content policy (WP:OWN). This policy clearly states that no one owns the content here and that all contributions are collaborative efforts.Additionally, labeling every editor of this article as engaging in undisclosed paid editing (UPE) is contrary to the
Wikipedia:Assume good faith (WP:AGF) guideline. Not every notable figure's edits should be deemed promotional when they adhere to Wikipedia's
Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV) and
Verifiability (WP:V) policies.It is also concerning that all recent editors have been submitted for sockpuppet investigations, which seems to target contributors unfairly. According to the
Blocking policy (WP:BLOCK), blocks are meant to prevent disruptive editing and not to punish users. Repeatedly calling for investigations can discourage new contributors and create a hostile editing environment.Wikipedia operates on the principle that "what is written is more important than who writes it," emphasizing the importance of content quality over authorship. It is crucial that all actions taken are in good faith, ensuring a fair and collaborative editing environment.Thank you for your understanding and cooperation in maintaining the integrity and collaborative spirit of Wikipedia.
41.210.141.54 (
talk)
13:58, 9 June 2024 (UTC)