Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Orangebandage/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

I'd be amazed if Orangebandage is the primary sockmaster here but these two accounts are clearly related and Orangebandage is the older of the two by 12 seconds. Both are concerned to add similar unreferenced claims about the retirement of Crayola crayon colours. (Jeebus! What a pathetic thing to perpetuate hoaxes about!) This could be Caidin-Johnson again but I don't see any of his other standard targets being hit so I'm guessing not. DanielRigal (talk) 14:57, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Note: has now taken up the same edit. 86.145.209.181 (talk) 15:54, 31 March 2017 (UTC)


 * and now . Note that the supplied reference does not support the repeated edit, so there is clearly a sock farm at work. 86.145.209.181 (talk) 16:31, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

To be fair to all the accused parties, someone has now provided a reliable reference for the disputed claim in the article. It would now seem apparent that this was not the hoax that it was believed to be but several unrelated editors making the same good faith edit (even though none provided a reference).

I therefore submit that this SPI case can be closed with no action. 86.145.209.181 (talk) 12:05, 1 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I was pretty much 100% certain that the two accounts made 12 seconds apart would have the same IP or physical location so my theory was dead in the water when they came back as unrelated. I'd still be surprised if they were all entirely unconnected but I'm happy to see this closed if there is no actual sockpuppetry going on and if (in quite a rare case for changes to the Crayola articles!) the change was not actually a hoax. I'm pretty sure that there will be many further hoaxes in the future but if this was just a group of kids working together to get a valid edit through without understanding how things work around here then that's not their fault and just their bad luck that they fell into a similar looking pattern of editing to previous hoaxers and disruptive editors. I'd like to thank everybody for their time in looking into this. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:31, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Orangebandage and Sting72 are ❌ to each other and apparently ❌ to Caidin-Johnson. That said, this is one case in which technical findings should not stand in the way of behavioral blocks as socks of each other or of Caidin-Johnson. I'm not sure what means by "standard targets", but he's more knowledgeable about Caidin-Johnson than I am.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:25, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Jar-Lar is in the same boat as the first two accounts, i.e., ❌ to everyone.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:03, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  00:13, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Nothing else to do here. Closing.