Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CharlottePonzio/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Both the editors are in questions for their promotional edits to the page Fabio Ponzio. User:CharlottePonzio seems related to the subject with the fact that their last name is similar. Additionally, both of them haven't edited anything else.  QueerEcofeminist "cite! even if you fight"!!! [they/them/their] 01:46, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * See this link too []  QueerEcofeminist "cite! even if you fight"!!! [they/them/their] 01:47, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

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


 * The request for a SPI puzzles me. Neither ID has been blocked, so there's no question of block evasion. As far as I've noticed, neither has said anything on any talk page or got into any edit war, so there's no question of deceptive sockpuppetry. Where's the beef? -- Hoary (talk) 06:19, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , we don't need those things all the time, what we need is whether accounts possibly related and used in some sort of disruption, here it's clear case of coi and removal of coi/advertisement tag...which is disruption...the case is very much admissible.  QueerEcofeminist "cite! even if you fight"!!! [they/them/their] 07:00, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - both SPAs for the same page, possibly using multiple accounts to hide the COI, so behavioral overlap. For what it's worth, neither uses edit summaries, though it's not solid proof. Endorsing CU because the behavioral evidence is suggestive but I don't think it's conclusive at this point. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:40, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * They are almost certainly ❌. Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:35, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Closing per the above. The SandDoctor  Talk 04:40, 24 August 2020 (UTC)