Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Carlo Galanti/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Carlo Galanti is a SPA that removes sourced content (mostly financials from film articles) and replaces it with unsourced content. He has been blocked twice for this behavior now, and twice now an anonymous IP (79.56.231.248) has undertaken the same type of edits. Just to give an indication of the types of edits here are a few (although not a complete record): Carlo was blocked at the start of September and the edits resumed a few days later under the IP (after the block had elapsed, so not block evasion). The IP was blocked on September 14, at which point Carlo began editing again (while the block on the IP was still in force). Carlo was blocked for the second time on September 15 and the IP has resumed editing today. Since Carlo is still blocked this makes the anonymous editing a case of block evasion. It is pretty obvious the editor is hopping between account and anonymous editing to bypass the blocks. Betty Logan (talk) 17:27, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * and
 * and
 * and

Update The IP has been blocked for two weeks so I recommend extending Carlo's block to match the IP block. Betty Logan (talk) 18:43, 17 September 2017 (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 agree this appears to be block evasion. Please re-block the master for two weeks. Sro23 (talk) 23:42, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅. GABgab 00:16, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

is an editor who is blocked for disruptive behavior, specifically an editor that either removes or alters sourced content (usually financials) on film articles. His block was extended when he was caught editing logged out under. Today, the disruptive behavioral pattern has resumed: Given the similarity between the IP numbers (they all geolocate to Telecom Italia), and that the new account is targeting the same articles with the same type of edits I think this is a very blatant case of block evasion. It may be worth considering a range block at this stage too if there is agreement that the evidence supports the allegation. Betty Logan (talk) 14:57, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yesterday, undertook this edit. Compare it to.
 * Today, undertook this edit. Compare it to
 * Brand new account undertook this edit. Compare it to.
 * undertook this edit which is identical in nature to.
 * undertook this edit which is identical to.

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

 * - Katietalk 15:34, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅, no sleepers. . followed me for training purposes. Blocked, tagged, closed. Katietalk 15:58, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Carlo Galanti is an editor with a history of sockpuppetry who persistently alters or removes sourced film financials, and he regularly targets the Pirates of the Caribbean articles. A newly registered editor, Luca Firth, has suddenly appeared and is making the same type of disruptive edits to the same articles. Here are a couple of examples: There is obviously a strong behavioral relationship so I am requesting a formal check on the editor. Betty Logan (talk) 14:53, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Compare by Luca Firth with  by Carlo Galanti at Pirates of the Caribbean (film series)
 * Compare by Luca Firth with  by Carlo Galanti at Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides

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

 * - Per the above. Please check to confirm socking. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:05, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ and tagged accordingly. Closing.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 19:50, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Newly registered account so there isn't that much to go on, but the account seems to be a SPA targeting the same articles with the same types of edits, so it seems to be the same MO. Please compare the following: In addition, Jackson has left talk page comments at articles that have since been semi-protected due to his persistent sock puppetry. Due to the fact that there are limited edits so far the behavioral evidence is circumstantial which is why I have also requested a CU, to be on the safe side. Betty Logan (talk) 06:10, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * by Carlo Galanti and by Jackson 96
 * by Carlo Galanti and by Jackson 96

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

 * ✅ and blocked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:20, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Apologies if I am not doing this correctly. This user is now making edits with the name Travatar91. He is making disruptive edits to the Pirates of the Caribbean Dead Men Tell no Tales page, as he has done with other accounts on the link above. His recent history, as Travatar91 is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pirates_of_the_Caribbean:_Dead_Men_Tell_No_Tales&action=history

If you look at his activity on the talk page for the film, you will note the very similar writing style and poor english/grammar. Foodles42 (talk) 21:01, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Comment I have added a checkuser request to this report because the behavior at the article has definitely set my spider sense tingling. Carlo Galanti is an editor who has form for deleting sourced financial data from film articles without explanation. While I cannot find an exact replica of this edit, it mirrors activity on the other Pirate articles. Compare the following: Given that Travatar91 is a brand new account with so few edits to its name we can't be certain by just going off behavioral evidence alone so I think we should make sure with a CU first. Betty Logan (talk) 21:55, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This by Travatar91 and this by Carlo Galanti. If you look through Carlo's edit history you will see many deletions of this nature at this family of articles.

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
I think it was pretty obvious behaviorally, but I ran the check anyway. ✅, blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:52, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Virtually identical edits & similar behavior to past socks (such as User:Alessandro Traviani), especially reverting without any discussion re: budget figures on Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales. Not sure CU is needed, the behavioral evidence seems fairly Ducky to me. Shearonink (talk) 22:56, 12 December 2017 (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

 * . NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:53, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Exact same behavior as previous socks on Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales. Removing statements and sources that support a different budget than their preferred version. See this diff and Dead Men's editing history. Shearonink (talk) 15:36, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Comment – It is definitely Carlo. When he edits logged out it is always from a Telecom Italia IP address. Betty Logan (talk) 16:25, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I've blocked the IP for 31 hours. Mz7 (talk) 20:00, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Editor with a well known MO of manipulating financials on film articles such that they contradict the source. The "Pirates of the Caribbean" and "Transformers articles are a regular target along with other big Hollywood movies. Some examples: The IP has also targeted Coco and The Good Dinsosaur in recent days. The IP address originates from Telecom Italia which matches up to all the other IP numbers listed in the Carlo Galanti SPI archive. Betty Logan (talk) 07:10, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Compare at Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales by  (a blocked Carlo sock) and  by 79.44.99.214.
 * Compare at Transformers: The Last Knight by  and  by 79.44.99.214.

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

 * The IP is already blocked. Closing. Bbb23 (talk) 14:27, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Edited Talk:Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales repeatedly insisting the budget is 230 million not 320 million (similar behavior by master and confirmed socks): here, here, here. Shearonink (talk) 17:22, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

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


 * Comment It seems Carlo Galanti can't even be bothered to conceal his identity any more. Let's bag him and tag him! Betty Logan (talk) 20:08, 31 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment I found an obvious sock: Carlo Galanti 2.Crboyer (talk) 06:57, 1 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment I did ask on WP Talk:SPI about this issue of User:CarloGalanti2 not being officially added to the sock master's SPIs but haven't received any replies yet. Is there any way for a Clerk or admin to add this sock account to the list of suspected/confirmed accounts so it will go into the Archives without having to go through filing an SPI report? Shearonink (talk) 21:27, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * . GABgab 22:56, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Obsession with previous socks' areas of interest, specifically the Disney Pirates movies. Posted another "Budget!Budget!Budget!" screed on Talk:Pirates of the Caribbean (film series) & on Talk:Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales. Is now also posting on at least one talkpage of an editor (Hullo ) who has corrected the socks' & master's obsessive errant edits. Shearonink (talk) 15:51, 3 January 2018 (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
✅, blocked, tagged, closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:16, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Evidence
 * same obsessive interest in same titles at master (such as Talk:Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales),
 * same obsessive interest in Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales's budget (see all the blocked editors at Talk:Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales: Revision history)
 * same refusal as master to interact meaningfully with other editors,
 * same deletion of sourced content that the master & other socks have disagreed with (Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales suspected sock edit & confirmed sock edit) etc., etc. WP:DUCK would seem to apply. Shearonink (talk) 20:13, 17 January 2018 (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

 * It quacks, and the CU data lines up. Blocked, tagged, closing. Courcelles (talk) 22:22, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Dsiruptive activity removing/changing sourced film financials. Familiar targets such as the Pirates of the Cariabbean articles. I don't think there is much point requesting a checkuser since this is SPA activity with exactly the same MO, targets and pattern of behavior. I can provide diffs if necessary, but the case history provides a clear overview and can be checked against any of the "heavy red" edits in the contribution history of these new accounts. Betty Logan (talk) 17:04, 25 February 2018 (UTC) Betty Logan (talk) 17:04, 25 February 2018 (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

 * - per evidence provided. Please block the IP for at least a week.  Sro23 (talk) 02:02, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Sro23 - ✅.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   19:44, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

The usual Piratical stuff, plus concerns made by. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊  13:24, 15 March 2018 (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
— Berean Hunter   (talk)  15:11, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ They appear to have two phones that are almost the same or they are switching modes on the same phone which gives a browser version mismatch to a lower version. Nonetheless, I found that mismatched UA editing as an anon in the other range as the confirmed socks in the archive. Same IP at the same time as the confirmed socks.
 * Sock now tagged. Sro23 (talk) 14:58, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Already blocked on Italian Wikipedia--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 12:01, 14 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I have added an IP to this report. Another Telecom Italia address with the same MO as Carlo Galanti, i.e. SPA targeting financials in film articles. Betty Logan (talk) 12:35, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Might be worth taking a look at too. Betty Logan (talk) 15:59, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I have just added 95.250.176.203 to the list. It's another Telecom Italia IP address vandalising film financials. Betty Logan (talk) 18:11, 16 April 2018 (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

 * Socks indeffed and tagged. IPs are . Closing.  Vanjagenije   (talk)  15:17, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

See edits on Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales, the IP (Telecom Italia address) was already blocked on Italian Wikipedia--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 22:36, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * I hear quacking. Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊  01:07, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The IP is definitely Carlo Galanti; he always operates from a Telecom Italia address. It's harder to tell with Peter Sparrow because there are so few edits but they do fit Carlo's MO. Betty Logan (talk) 13:31, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * I don't have the time to review this right now, and am not giving an opinion either way, but please don't request admin attention unless you are a clerk. SPI always is at a backlog, and there are a relatively small number of non-CU admins who patrol the behavioral cases. Admin attention is meant for non-admin clerks to flag us on ones where they have completed a behavioral investigation. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:15, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

✅:

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  22:39, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

The user was already blocked on Italian Wikipedia--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 20:21, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The second IP was already blocked on it.wiki--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 08:39, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I added another IP, I think it is Carlo, what we do now? We can close this SPI case or not? Because is from January 18th that it is open--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 19:39, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * The IP is almost certainly Carlo Galanti who always socks from a Telecom Italia IP address. As for Timmy I cannot be sure. It matches Carlo's MO of deleting sourced film financials but there is only one substantial edit to go on. Carlo pretty much always strikes at one of the Pirates of the Caribbean articles when he is active and this editor has not done that. I think it is him but reasonable doubt does exist. Betty Logan (talk) 14:18, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The most recent IP (a Telecom Italia address) is definitely Carlo. This case really needs to be closed now. The jury is still out on Timmy but his account has gone dormant anyway so it's probably not really an issue anymore. Betty Logan (talk) 18:00, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Would this be about the last day of CU being non-stale, or is it already gone? Second question: if the first answer is that CU isn't stale, do you think that a check is warranted? -- The SandDoctor  Talk 14:06, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * First question is easy. The user will be non-stale for 90 days from January 18, 2019, in other words not even close to being stale. The second question requires thought, which I'm not up to at the moment.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:10, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I meant the latest sock in the archive (otherwise wouldn't a 'confirmed' finding be impossible?). -- The SandDoctor Talk 14:26, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry, the last socks in the archive are already stale.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:29, 25 January 2019 (UTC)