Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jonathan Yip/Archive

07 August 2011

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

has pursued a campaign to assert that U.S. Route 101 in California still continues to the border with Mexico. (It hasn't since the 1960s.) He has also edited several articles on airports, many of those edits were reverted because they added incorrect information into the articles. The account was indefinitely blocked by because of this issue of constantly reinserting false information. has recently edited the US 101 article, and this account has also inserted incorrect information into several airport articles. This edit was made by Alec Skywalker to Jonathan Yip's user page as well.  Imzadi 1979  →   01:00, 7 August 2011 (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 don't think we need a CU here. I've blocked and tagged the sock on behavioral grounds. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 01:59, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

09 February 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

I ran across this editor while they were making numerous small edits to various Disney theme park articles, such as two dozen in a row at Walt Disney Parks and Resorts, as indicated in this string. Editor never leaves an edit summary explaining their contents, and while some are good-faith, most are extraneous and some are unsourced. Editor's most recent edit here at Disneyland is downright false.

Soon after this account appeared in November 2011, it was tagged as a possible sock by User:HkCaGu here. Almost immediately, the editor begins composing a Wikipedia-like article on a fictional airport here. HkCaGu reverts, but user recreates here. Pattern repeats itself three more times. This is almost identical to edits seen at User:Alec Skywalker, a previously-banned sock of User:Jonathan Yip, as indicated here. This proclivity for fictional airports, combined with name similarity, gets me hearing quacking. --  McDoob AU  93  04:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Update: Editor returned to editing, making similar false edits to Disneyland here. While editing, it appears they logged out yet continued editing, as evidenced by the IP added above. IP was previously blocked for 3 months by User:Rschen7754 as a probable sock of Jonathan Yip; that block has expired within the last week. -- McDoob AU  93  05:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

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

I'd recommend blocking per WP:DUCK; no need for CheckUser unless you're looking for an underlying IP or something like that. --Rschen7754 04:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Just to pile onto the WP:DUCK determination, and  may be derived from Alec Guinness and Ian McDiarmid, both actors from the Star Wars films. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 15:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
I know checkuser has not been officially requested, but just a note that the accounts in the archive are from August and thus. TN X Man 14:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Diarmuid Skywalker has been blocked. Seems an obvious case. &mdash;Dark 05:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

12 February 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Account started on New Year's Eve 2011, but with only three edits within 24 hours, all nonsense on their talk page about fictional airports, as seen on other socks' talk pages. Account resumed editing today, apparently after discovering most recent sock, User:Diarmuid Skywalker has been indef'ed for sockpuppetry. Editing targets remain the same as with recent socks, Disney theme park articles. Edits so far appearing to be good faith, as shown here, but this editor is still evading their block. Last name of Skywalker, fictional airports, Disney articles ... quack, quack.  McDoob AU  93  23:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I stand corrected ... here he goes again with a total falsehood edit on Disneyland. I've issued a final warning for vandalism. -- McDoob AU  93  00:02, 13 February 2012 (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 as a WP:DUCK. Favonian (talk) 00:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

10 March 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

In a nutshell, an editor/editors have been trying to insert nonsensical information into the infobox for U.S. Route 66 and U.S. Route 66 in California, specifically info with anachronisms. Under the username this editor restored reverted ip edits within seconds of U.S. Route 66 in California being protected.
 * Revision history for U.S. Route 66 in California, specifically since March 3rd, 2012, showing the same edit being inserted by multiple usernames and IP's
 * Revision history for U.S. Route 66, also since March 3rd, 2012, showing the same pattern.
 * One of these IP's has been connected with blocked sockpuppeter  in a case that also involved road articles.
 * Both the blocked Jonathan Yip and the article talk page for the user accused   show a fascination for fictional airports and/or fictional features and services at real airports. Both have also made questionable edits to Disneyland related articles that were quickly reverted by others.
 * In both cases suspected sockpuppets involved usernames containing the word "skywalker".

Myself and others have on multiple occasions attempted to get whomever is doing this to discuss this on the appropriate talk pages. We have pointed out the most obvious error in the edits: the claim that US Route 66 bisected Interstate 15 in Rancho Cucamonga, California. For the record, as is documented in the relevant articles, US 66 was decommissioned through California in 1964 with signs removed by 1974. Rancho Cucamunga was not formed until 1979. Dave (talk) 22:16, 10 March 2012 (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 main account under WP:DUCK, but further assistance would be appreciated in relation to the IPs. --Rschen7754 22:58, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

✅ the same are The latter two are blocked socks of Jonathan Yip. Regarding the IPs that aren't blocked yet, can you provide diffs that show that they are related to the person at hand?<br Amalthea 22:40, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for doing that. With your request for evidence on the IP's:
 * Edit made by accused sockmaster:
 * Identical (or very similar) edits made by ip's:
 * 12.22.29.9:
 * 75.208.158.229:
 * 207.62.246.80:
 * Edit made by accused sockmaster:
 * Identical (or very similar) edits made by ip's:
 * 166.205.138.18:
 * 63.92.242.185:
 * 207.62.246.90:
 * 12.22.29.9:
 * Please advise if you require anything more, and again, thank you. Dave (talk) 03:11, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Moved to /Jonathan Yip per usual practice. T. Canens (talk) 03:42, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

25 March 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

New user is making the same edits a now blocked anon account was making just yesterday JOJ  Hutton  22:32, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.'' —  Jeff G. ツ (talk)   03:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * More suspected indefblock evaders, on Walt Disney Parks and Resorts persistently adding infoboxes for individual theme parks, adorned with infobox flags in violation of WP:INFOBOXFLAG:

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
Han Vader blocked indef. Made a couple of protections. Could a clerk please move this to Jonathan Yip please? Thanks. Elockid  ( Talk ) 23:11, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Based on the IPs listed and the ones in the archive, the 166.205.136.0/22 was the only range that I found that we could block. However, there was quite a bit of collateral, so I protected the articles as a result. Rangeblocks doesn't look like a feasible option. Instead, for future reference, I recommend requesting for protection on the heavily targeted articles. Elockid  ( Talk ) 03:18, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

02 April 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Similar pattern of editing to articles related to The Walt Disney Company, including   and many more &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 19:37, 2 April 2012 (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

 * Can we flush everything out please? (Sleepers/Confirmation for the record sake). -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  13:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅, but I saw no sleepers. A rangeblock is also not possible. TN X Man  15:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Blocked and tagged. Someone should check and revert their edits where appropriate. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 20:09, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

15 April 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

continues to create new sock accounts to evade his block. was started up and began editing Disneyland-related articles earlier today, and has been blocked indefinitely as a sock of Jonathan Yip. This new account, like the last, is named after a character in Cars 2, which most likely will become his sockpuppet username pool after exhausting names sounding like they were from Star Wars.  McDoob AU  93  03:32, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

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

I don't even know who Jonathan Yip is. I come to editing to help Wikipedia. Not to hurt. Jonathan Yip is incorrect that U.S. Route 101 hopes to Mexico. - Shu Toddroki — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shu Toddroki (talk • contribs)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
I've got an intersection with a set of blocked vandals, and accounts that edited once or twice then stopped. Someone want to comment on whether they think any of these are Jonathan Yip --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:46, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Jonathan Yip

Added above by User:Elen of the Roads
 * One edit on 22 Feb
 * Could be false positive - the number thing worries me
 * Blocked for vandalism
 * ✅ Jonathan Yip
 * One edit on 5 April
 * Blocked for vandalism
 * Blocked for vandalism
 * The ones blocked for vandalism fit the pattern and I'd call per Duck on those. JohnSmith57 doesn't fit the pattern of Jonathan Yip and I agree with your suspicion that this may be a false positive. Dave (talk) 17:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Disneyland Hotel (California), Disney's Grand Californian Hotel & Spa, and Walt Disney Parks and Resorts have now been full-protected for the duration of their original protection lengths. --MuZemike 19:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Marking for close. TN X Man  15:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

07 January 2013

 * Suspected sockpuppets


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

Edits the same genres of articles, lots of careless edits (vandalism?)  Also username similar to past ones. Rschen7754 21:37, 7 January 2013 (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

 * - Unfortunately, everything in the archive has gone . ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Darn. My hunch is that it's him (who edits both Disney and road articles??) But I'd like another admin's opinion to be sure. --Rschen7754 21:58, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I still remember his location, ISP(s), etc. and I would say ❌. I think there's a more recent check I did. I'll try and dig it up. Elockid  ( Talk ) 04:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Alright then, closing with no action taken. (Of course, if he is deliberately inserting false content, that alone is reason for a block. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:53, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets



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

[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HkCaGu&diff=prev&oldid=739964403 quack] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yamaguchi%E5%85%88%E7%94%9F&diff=prev&oldid=739966394 quack] - CU mainly to check for proxies/sleepers. Jasper Deng (talk) 07:12, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Here are just a few more sample recently created sock accounts:, , ,. I know that everyone has already been blocked, but if a blockable IP range could be found I think that would be nice because there's been a lot of abuse coming from this person especially lately. Sro23 (talk) 16:26, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments
- everything in the archive is stale, but please check the other named and blocked accounts here against each other, and see if some sleepers can be put to rest permanently. Some of these accounts have already been linked to the master based on behaviour. CU would not be useful for designing a rangeblock as that would require revealing the users' IP addresses. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:03, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:55, 20 September 2016 (UTC)