Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mongies

☆ Save On Wikipedia ↗

Mongies

Mongies (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki · SI)

Populated account categories: suspected

For archived investigations, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mongies/Archive.

18 June 2026

– This SPI case is closed and will be archived shortly by an SPI clerk or checkuser.

Suspected sockpuppets

Account recreated Uomo che cade, which was deleted for being created by a Mongies sock. This account primarily edits in topics related to Italian music, the target area of Mongies. Additionally, the account was created on June 1, 2026, less than a week after the previous sock accounts were blocked. EaglesFan37 (talk) 06:08, 18 June 2026 (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

  • CheckUser requested and endorsed by clerk – I'm fairly convinced on the behavior, but not certain. Hoping CU against historicals can help. Toadspike [Talk] 15:48, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
  •  Unlikely. Geolocation is close but a mismatch; different ranges and UAs. Toadspike, I would probably not block given what my goggles tell me, but it's up to you. Giraffer (talk) 13:42, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Giraffer. Closing without action – I don't think behavior is unambiguous enough here. If new evidence emerges as time goes on, please file a new case and we can revisit this. Toadspike [Talk] 18:12, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Re-opening this — SilverLocust raised a question with me about my checkuser analysis of this case and pointed out something I'd missed. This account edits from a different device to prior socks, but the old device has been used (not by this account) to edit about an area I thought was unrelated to the case, but SL has shown me is possibly not. If we're using templates, I'd say this is  Possible. I would not take action either way based on the technical evidence alone.
    My apologies for being insufficiently thorough here, and a courtesy ping to Toadspike, who may wish to revisit this. Giraffer (talk) 10:23, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
  • I might have gone with " Possilikely (a mix between possible and likely)", but the sock has helpfully engaged in some further duckishness. Blocked and tagged. Closing. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 04:48, 25 June 2026 (UTC)