Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Izaaqnewton

Suspected sockpuppets
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 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 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:21, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Changed my mind regarding CU. I think a sleeper check is in order; requested. I recognise that you will not comment on IP addresses 🇺🇦  Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:16, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The COIN thread is interesting. A huge further defence has just been posted by 41.210.141.54. I am thus adding this to the list. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:23, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Adding 216.104.193.135 for obvious reasons. Style is identical. The barking of the dogs shows that we are riding on horseback 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:23, 9 June 2024 (UTC) Double report. Mu apologies. rm 216.104.193.135 🇺🇦  Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:28, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * IP 41.210.145.169 just cropped up with the same literary style at the COIN discussion. Obvious IP hopping, so, FWIW, added. The IPs are annoying here, but show a pattern. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:08, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * IP 197.239.15.75 now pops up adding an image to the article. About to add 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:13, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Hamis Kiggundu is now ECP protected 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 05:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The UPE/Socks extend to the Ham Group of Companies and 41.210.155.56 has just popped up to create a draft there. I am about to add it to the list for completeness 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Comments by other users

 * Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.


 * I had found this article via Simple:Hamis Kiggundu where an IP had copypaste dumped promotional content here, Since my reversion on the Hamis Kiggundu article, Users Micheal Kaluba, 197.239.9.2 and Macholi have all come out of the woodwork defending the article or revision that I had removed. For some reason I'm convinced this is one big paid sockfarm but that's I guess irrelevent here, Thanks, – Davey 2010 Talk 12:34, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi @Davey2010, Greetings. I have been editing Wikipedia for a while and this have been doing are not paid works what so ever. But it clearly shows that you have a bias on the subject. How can you revert clearly cited non promotional edits of 3 years on an article without clear explanation. I started editing that page when I received a notification about you reverted changes you made. Micheal Kaluba (talk) 14:31, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

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 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)

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 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)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I ran some checks on the named accounts here - per policy, we cannot link accounts to IPs via the CU tool, so . The results are unclear, as the ranges involved are extremely busy. I can't say more than on the named accounts, and I think this should proceed on behavior. It is fairly clear that there is some off-wiki coordination involved. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:17, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm leaving the status at "CU" because I didn't check exhaustively; it's possible someone else can do better. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:17, 22 June 2024 (UTC)