Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ugochukwu75/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

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.
 * Film Fanatical10069 was the original creator of the Wheels article, Кость Лінивець made an edit to it, and both voted "Keep" in that article's deletion discussion, despite neither of them voting in any other deletion discussions. Both of those accounts have been dormant for awhile. Fred Zepelin (talk) 05:12, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Ugochukwu75 is ✅ to Binaza. There's no useful data for either of the other accounts. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:12, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That does indeed look a lot like someone socking to keep paid spam in mainspace. Accordingly, I have both active accounts. The other two are too inactive to be actionable at this point. Closing.  --Blablubbs (talk) 16:24, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline (Ugochukwu75) • Interaction Timeline (Binaza) • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

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)


 * More evidence - In this talk page comment, Film Fanatical10069 says "I didn't receive an email because I did not create that page" in reference to the Donavon Warren article. However, if one looks at this page here, you can see where Onel5969 says "I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Donavon Warren, for deletion". Also, less than an hour after Film Fanatical10069 started editing for the first time in 4 years, they deleted that one piece of information tying them to the Warren article from their talk page, with this edit. It seems likely this was an attempt to cover some tracks. Fred Zepelin (talk) 05:04, 11 November 2021 (UTC)


 * More evidence showing similar behavior:
 * Film Fanatic: "Thank you for your long and detailed explanation. It seems well thought out and I appreciate your time."
 * Ugochukwu75: "Thank you so much for taking your time to give a detailed explanation." Fred Zepelin (talk) 20:35, 11 November 2021 (UTC)


 * More evidence showing similar behavior: Sockmaster likes saying "please let me know"
 * Ugochukwu75 Nov. 11: "I hope that helps. If it doesn't, please let me know."
 * Film Fanatic Nov. 11: "Please also let me know how I can help"
 * Film Fanatic Nov. 11: "Please let me know if there is anything... Thank you again everyone for their help."
 * Anyone need more than this? I can keep going. Fred Zepelin (talk) 23:10, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Another piece of behavioral evidence: In this edit, the recently-awakened Film Fanatical10069 account deleted a notice that was on their talk page about the Donavon Warren article being up for deletion. I can only guess that this is to cover up that they also worked on the Donavon Warren article (the writer/producer/director of Wheels, and that article was also heavily edited by Ugochukwu75). This is because their cover story is that they "recently received" an email about Wheels being nominated for deletion today. However, if that's true, they would've presumably also received a notice about Donavon Warren being deleted last week - since they received that notice about the same article back in 2017. Of course, the Ugochukwu75 wasn't blocked yet, last week, so they didn't have a need to wake up the Film Fanatical10069 account after 4 years of lying dormant. Fred Zepelin (talk) 04:31, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * More evidence - In this talk page comment, Film Fanatical10069 says "I didn't receive an email because I did not create that page" in reference to the Donavon Warren article. However, if one looks at this page here, you can see where Onel5969 says "I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Donavon Warren, for deletion". Also, less than an hour after Film Fanatical10069 started editing for the first time in 4 years, they deleted that one piece of information tying them to the Warren article from their talk page, with this edit. It seems likely this was an attempt to cover some tracks. Fred Zepelin (talk) 05:04, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello All,
 * User:Fred Zepelin marked Wheels (2014 film) for speedy deletion, even though it was marked keep Articles for deletion/Wheels (2017 film). I received an email today on an account I have not used in a years. Honestly I was having medical issues and got frustrated. I feel better now and was excited to give it a try. I am interested in creating articles, but for some reason I ran into tons of issues before. I honestly didn't know about the visual editor. And wanted to upload bigger movies, but those pages are made way in advance. But still I am interested.
 * Fred deleted all of my references IndieWire, American Film Institute, Movie Insider and Turner Classic Movies. He made comments on my page about my sister. He has been warned about casting Aspersions before. He made comments about Sock Puppets etc.. I don't have a comment on the Donavon Warren page, I tried to create that as it was linked to the Wheels page, he is one of the directors, it was taken down years ago.
 * Any advice regarding this matter would be appreciated about proper avenues etc.
 * Please also let me know how I can help with your checks and thank you for your time. Film Fanatical10069 (talk) 06:25, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * These are lies. You didn't "try to create" the Donavon Warren article; you did create the article. Yesterday you lied and said you didn't create the article. But you also tried to delete the evidence that showed you did create it. Now you say you have "no comment". Also, I asked you on your talk page "How does your sister Binaza feel about this?" You claimed the sockppuppet Binaza account was being run by your sister, remember? Fred Zepelin (talk) 13:24, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @Fred Zepelin Please keep this professional. Calling me a LIAR and name calling goes against policy I believe?
 * Can anyone please help with this? I really am trying to not get tangled in this mess. Film Fanatical10069 (talk) 16:25, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, I apologize for saying you lied. Please help me out here. If someone says "I didn't create that article" and then I find evidence that they lied, because they did create that article, what should I call that? Fred Zepelin (talk) 16:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Fred Zepelin, the evidence you provided at ANI was that Film Fanatical10069 created the 2017 version of Donavon Warren. But that article has been deleted six times since then. Film Fanatical10069 said that he/she did not receive an email in 2021 informing him/her that the article was going to be deleted, and that he/she believed the reason was that he/she had not created the version of the article that was being deleted. Do you know who created the 2021 version(s) of Donavon Warren? -- Toddy1 (talk) 16:54, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't, but the fact is Film Fanatical10069 created the article originally. He said he didn't, and also then tried to delete the evidence from his talk page that he had. The latest sock to work on that article was Ugochukwu75, who admitted to paid editing after he was caught. After he appealed and was denied, suddenly this 4-year dormant account comes out of nowhere within an hour. It's a coincidence? Come on. Fred Zepelin (talk) 17:20, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @Toddy1 Thank you. You articulated it better then I did. Film Fanatical10069 (talk) 17:10, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I am going to just let them do their investigation. I am going to keep all comments centrally located at Administrators' noticeboard. I think it's easier then refuting all Casting aspersions claims you have made everywhere. Film Fanatical10069 (talk) 17:06, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

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)
 * Of course the sleeper account is going to alter their behavior (spelling errors, grammar errors, etc.) when their original is caught sockpuppeting. Same reason they got a new IP address. I'm looking at the actual behavior of what articles they're editing, why they're doing it, and when they're doing it. All that evidence points to it absolutely being one person. They didn't even alter it that much - both the Binaza account and the Film Fanatic account are asking for mentors, even though, as User:Celestina007 pointed out, Fanatic has shown proficiency in editing, both in 2017 and now. Fred Zepelin (talk) 19:36, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * More evidence showing similar behavior:
 * Film Fanatic: "Thank you for your long and detailed explanation. It seems well thought out and I appreciate your time."
 * Ugochukwu75: "Thank you so much for taking your time to give a detailed explanation." Fred Zepelin (talk) 20:35, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Pinging &  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 must say. I really do admire your passion @Fred Zepelin. I am open to any investigations because I have done nothing wrong. And sock puppeting to add 4 references to a page that is already marked keep, would not make any sense. I just can't follow the logic. Please let me know if there is anything on my end I can do to wrap this up. I am looking forward to moving on being able to edit again with a clear head. Thank you again everyone for their help. Film_Fanatical10069t@lk 21:13, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You can admit that you're running all of those accounts and getting paid for it. That would let everyone move on. Fred Zepelin (talk) 21:40, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * ❌ from a technical standpoint. I'm up past my bedtime, so I'll leave this for somebody else to explore the behavioral aspects. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:46, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I will leave it to a clerk to tag, but I blocked Film Fanatical10069 based on behavioral evidence. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 00:14, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Tagging as suspected, closing. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:18, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets


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, --SVTCobra 00:41, 21 January 2022 (UTC)--SVTCobra 00:29, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I fixed the broken case format –, please use the wizard at the top of Sockpuppet investigations or Twinkle (navigate to a user page, user talk page, or to user contributions, then hit ARV and select sockpuppet/sockpuppeteer from the dropdown) to file case requests. Thanks. --Blablubbs (talk) 00:42, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * - The timing of this account's creation and the fact that they are restoring identical promotional material previously added by socks is suspicious. These accounts also have similar and unusual timecards:  However, I suppose there's a chance that it could be a different UPE, so I would like CU evidence to confirm. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 16:23, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Technically, this is only : uses the same user agent (but it's a very common, vanilla-flavour one), and they consistently hop around the same IP range (but it's a wide, busy one) as  and . Since they are restoring identical content though, I'm going to block and tag as suspected.  Girth Summit  (blether)  17:54, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
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 ( "Created a new page about a disco-era singer" & "Created page about a Canadian swimmer") 86.98.213.34 (talk) 16:09, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - -- RoySmith (talk) 22:39, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Ikemefuna_Umeadi is ✅ to Notadogbutafish, and there's also some CU log data which supports them being Ugochukwu75. I'll tag as suspected. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:46, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
New account. Added exactly the same text that sockmaster added to Joseph Carraro. Fred Zepelin (talk) 19:52, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Sock is already blocked; I don't see any other accounts. Tagging as suspected, closing.  Girth Summit  (blether)  10:46, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets

 * ( original case name)

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: Articles for deletion/Chipolo  Onel 5969  TT me 17:27, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * ✅ to one another. There's probably an older master, but I'm not sure who it is - from the ranges they're using, it could be someone like, or . (Actually, for all I know, they're all the same person). Blocking and tagging.   Girth Summit  (blether)  15:20, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually, looking more closely at the editing, and comparing the CU data again, I'm pretty confident this is . Retagging as suspected to that master, merged the cases. Girth Summit  (blether)  15:30, 28 March 2023 (UTC)