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

Populated account categories: confirmed · suspected

08 April 2024

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

Suspected sockpuppets

• User999055 ( talk ⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser( log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • SPI Tools

Kolossoni just got blocked a week ago. Their edits were reverted. A new account now emerges and their first edit is to restore one of Kolossoni's edits back in again. [1]

And from what I can glean from this edit they restored. It seems to be an aggressive Korean nationalist pov where they show a lot of disdain towards Chinese sources for dictating Korean history. And seeing they regard this opinionated edit as being worthy of restoring. [2] This at least shows they have the same political stance as Kolossoni.

Kolossoni also revealed to others he was Australian. I am guessing they didn't want to edit anonymously because it will reveal openly their IP address and geolocation, which probably is Australian. I suspect they probably created other new accounts to aim to restore their many edits that has been reverted. So given the strong case, I think it's justified to request check user to look into it. 49.179.64.8 ( talk) 03:01, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Comments by other users

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

Obvious sock is obvious. However, the filer needs a check of their own, as that IP range has been engaging in some unusual editing of its own. See here where I opened a discussion at Girth Summit's talkpage. It's starting to look like there is potential crossfire between different sock accounts. Grandpallama ( talk) 03:29, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Not only is it irrelevant. There was never any real evidence to justify suspecting me in this matter, and I should not even be mentioned. And this is the problem for me. Like when you accuse someone of being a pedo, it doesn't matter if there is no evidence. At the absence of evidence, people are going to wonder on it. Suspicion will rise regardless. I know that check user will not show any connection with me to Kolossoni. But I come to realise it doesn't even matter when you are innocent, the more you talk about yourself not being Kolossoni. The more certain people are going to wonder if it's true and that is too insane. I am not Kolossoni and there never was any real evidence to suggest he is me. And should not have to put up with unfair allegations. So show real proof he is me before accusing me again. 49.179.64.8 ( talk) 03:41, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Also if you believed he was me. Why didn't you straight away file a report? It's because you knew you had no real evidence and just fishing. And since you brought this up and it's going to be addressed here anyways. I want to say this in my defence;

I want to express my extreme frustration with the perils of anonymous IP editing which reveals your geolocation to everyone. I know there's many of my Aussie countrymen out there on Wikipedia and that anonymous editing may make it difficult for others to confidently distinguish me from other known Australian editors.

But people should be aware of the accusations made against me. And their evidence is just crazy bad.

Their friend first accused me of being Kolossoni and their biggest reason for that was because I gave him the impression that I am some Korean nationalist. [3] and despite I barely mentioned Korea in an article, they used my edit here [4], as being their ultimate proof of me being a Korean nationalist. And I have really tried in vain to explain to them that edit doesn't justify making me a Korean nationalist.

They also had even tried to connect me to an anonymous IP user [5] who lives in Victoria, a different state to me but same country, and same big national phone network, but had last edited 2 years ago and on articles I never even edited before. Yet according to them and their "magical thinking" mentality, they written a post saying I am them [6] and despite how unhinged and baseless that logic is, this is what I have to deal with here. It's also how I became first aware of Kolossoni after people started falsely accusing me of being them with the above reasoning.

Initially, I had brushed off the accusations confidently, knowing they were too ludicrous. However, after reading the exaggerated fabrications about me and seeing the full support given from their friend, I am starting to feel uncomfortable despite my innocence. Which is insane as I know I am not them. I ultimately realized I don't need to always explain myself and make myself feel unfairly insecure. Unless you have compelling evidence that I am Kolossoni, and can show it here for everyone to see. Stop accusing me of being him as I am not him. And if you believe I am him, then file a report against me and say I am Kolossoni, and show your evidence and let others review its merit. 49.179.64.8 ( talk) 04:44, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• This is odd. .49.179.64.8 Files this and then goes on to write as though they are Kolossoni. -- Deepfriedokra ( talk) 11:59, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  Deepfriedokra, whether or not it is definitively the same person, the quacking is loud, with a lot of similar language. The IP changes regularly--you can see that from the bludgeoning on my talkpage. Is a small rangeblock feasible?

  I also think it might be time to revoke TPA for Kolossoni. Their edits there are increasingly disruptive (with the incessant pinging, like the IP) and aren't constructive (or particularly honest, since Girth Summit today blocked User:Knowledge Pudding, another sock created after Kolossoni was blocked). Grandpallama ( talk) 13:55, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  I left them a note. -- Deepfriedokra ( talk) 13:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  49.180.0.0/15 is a huge range. -- Deepfriedokra ( talk) 14:00, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  Yeah, that's what I figured. In looking at the range, I see some other edits by this user, but the vast majority of them clearly are not. Thank you for taking a look. Grandpallama ( talk) 14:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  Partial block of 49.180.0.0/16. I'll watch your talk. -- Deepfriedokra ( talk) 14:09, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  I'll leave it for others to analyze and draw their own conclusions for the edits to Grandpallama's talk. -- Deepfriedokra ( talk) 14:10, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  for the edits to Grandpallama's talk For anyone who takes a look, in addition to what's still there are these edits I removed after the IP ignored my request to stop with the bludgeoning. The IP edited my talkpage ten times with these rants, not unlike what's on display in the archive for the initial Kolossoni investigation. Grandpallama ( talk) 14:18, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Ponyo, is that a straight duck/behavior block, or is there also CU/technical data that supports the block? Grandpallama ( talk) 00:41, 20 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Thanks, Ponyo. I had assumed that, but I don't think I'd seen it explicitly stated. Grandpallama ( talk) 19:59, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

• I've blocked User999055 as a  Likely Kolossoni sock. If anyone wants to investigate other accounts or IPs, please open a new report. Closing.-- Ponyo ^{bons mots} 21:13, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• @ Grandpallama:, the icons used by checkusers (such as  Possible,  Likely and  Confirmed) specifically denote checkuser findings.-- Ponyo ^{bons mots} 19:21, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply