I became aware of Ugochukwu75 when another editor, User:Kuru, asked him if he was being paid to edit articles, noting that other editors had noticed the same behavior ( here). I went to his talk page to discuss Wheels (2014 film), because I noticed he was editing it heavily and the sources were paid promotional-type websites. Since then, Binaza edited that same article here. Binaza has edited about 7 articles in that account's brief existence, but when I looked through the histories, the articles Joseph Carraro, Camila Osorio, Daizen Maeda, and Wheels (2014 film) all had edits from Binaza AND Ugochukwu75. They also both voted "Keep" at this deletion discussion and both worked on this draft. Given the possibility of paid promotional editing, this seems like a huge coincidence.
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Same behavior as the already-exposed sock Ugochukwu75. Made most of their edits, prior to today, dedicated to the Wheels (2014 film) article, using same promotional "sources", and just re-awakened after a 4-year absence to come add to that same article, right after Ugochukwu75 was blocked. Fred Zepelin ( talk) 03:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
There seems to be a difference in behaviour shown in the filter logs for Ugochukwu75/ Binaza and Film Fanatical10069. This may indicate that Film Fanatical10069 is a different person.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:03, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Pinging @ Blablubbs: & @ Yamla: on the off chance they could offer some insight, as they've already dealt with the previous sock. Fred Zepelin ( talk) 20:47, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
I noticed this user because Joseph Carraro is in my watchlist ever since it came up on WP:COIN in November. In this edit they made a substantial contribution to the article. As I began to review the edit (I even began some minor cleanup) it all started to look familiar. Instead of "added new info" as the edit summary suggested, it was restoring a bunch of old stuff, previous added by Ugochukwu75 and the confirmed sock Binaza, and since cleaned up by a number of editors.
I then noticed Notadogbutafish began editing 10 November 2021, one day after Ugochukwu75 was blocked. Next, I used the Editor Interaction Tool on the three users and found Notadogbutafish had edited no fewer than four of the same (rather obscure, if I might add) articles. The tool result is here. I am not requesting checkuser, but let me know if I should have. A clerk may want to add it. I hope I didn't malform this request as it is my first. Cheers, -- SVT Cobra 00:41, 21 January 2022 (UTC)-- SVT Cobra 00:29, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Another old account of this editor being used for promotional purpose only. Started editing right after the block in Jan. Very similar writing style, interest in football articles. Compare ( [8] "Created a new page about a disco-era singer" & [9] "Created page about a Canadian swimmer") 86.98.213.34 ( talk) 16:09, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
New account. Added exactly the same text that sockmaster added to Joseph Carraro. Fred Zepelin ( talk) 19:52, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
I admit there's not much here, but I always get a bit itchy about 2 relatively new accounts showing up at the same AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chipolo Onel5969 TT me 17:27, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
I became aware of Ugochukwu75 when another editor, User:Kuru, asked him if he was being paid to edit articles, noting that other editors had noticed the same behavior ( here). I went to his talk page to discuss Wheels (2014 film), because I noticed he was editing it heavily and the sources were paid promotional-type websites. Since then, Binaza edited that same article here. Binaza has edited about 7 articles in that account's brief existence, but when I looked through the histories, the articles Joseph Carraro, Camila Osorio, Daizen Maeda, and Wheels (2014 film) all had edits from Binaza AND Ugochukwu75. They also both voted "Keep" at this deletion discussion and both worked on this draft. Given the possibility of paid promotional editing, this seems like a huge coincidence.
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Same behavior as the already-exposed sock Ugochukwu75. Made most of their edits, prior to today, dedicated to the Wheels (2014 film) article, using same promotional "sources", and just re-awakened after a 4-year absence to come add to that same article, right after Ugochukwu75 was blocked. Fred Zepelin ( talk) 03:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
There seems to be a difference in behaviour shown in the filter logs for Ugochukwu75/ Binaza and Film Fanatical10069. This may indicate that Film Fanatical10069 is a different person.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:03, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Pinging @ Blablubbs: & @ Yamla: on the off chance they could offer some insight, as they've already dealt with the previous sock. Fred Zepelin ( talk) 20:47, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
I noticed this user because Joseph Carraro is in my watchlist ever since it came up on WP:COIN in November. In this edit they made a substantial contribution to the article. As I began to review the edit (I even began some minor cleanup) it all started to look familiar. Instead of "added new info" as the edit summary suggested, it was restoring a bunch of old stuff, previous added by Ugochukwu75 and the confirmed sock Binaza, and since cleaned up by a number of editors.
I then noticed Notadogbutafish began editing 10 November 2021, one day after Ugochukwu75 was blocked. Next, I used the Editor Interaction Tool on the three users and found Notadogbutafish had edited no fewer than four of the same (rather obscure, if I might add) articles. The tool result is here. I am not requesting checkuser, but let me know if I should have. A clerk may want to add it. I hope I didn't malform this request as it is my first. Cheers, -- SVT Cobra 00:41, 21 January 2022 (UTC)-- SVT Cobra 00:29, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Another old account of this editor being used for promotional purpose only. Started editing right after the block in Jan. Very similar writing style, interest in football articles. Compare ( [8] "Created a new page about a disco-era singer" & [9] "Created page about a Canadian swimmer") 86.98.213.34 ( talk) 16:09, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
New account. Added exactly the same text that sockmaster added to Joseph Carraro. Fred Zepelin ( talk) 19:52, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
I admit there's not much here, but I always get a bit itchy about 2 relatively new accounts showing up at the same AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chipolo Onel5969 TT me 17:27, 26 March 2023 (UTC)