Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DrStrauss/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Janet-O was created 7 days after DrStrauss received a very public CU block for trolling himself with oversightable material and creating a sock account to review his own GAs: and

Below I will lay out what I think are enough similarities for a behavioral block. I'll request CU, but I also think it is worth noting that as an experienced user who has been CU blocked in the past, DrStrauss might be trying to spoof it now. Any technical evidence would seal this, but this case should be evaluated behaviorally regardless of the CU outcome.

Last article created by DrStrauss:, note edit summary and format of the article that are almost identical to the format by Janet below.

Janet-O:, Janet also knew to create this article outside of mainspace first, and did not bother submitting it to AfC as would be normal for a new user. This is something Strauss also did

Other Strauss articles that are similar in formatting in terms of page creation: DrStrauss creation with template, Janet-O creation with template, DrStrauss/Janet-O

Janet-O and DrStrauss also share similarities in dumping lists of references in drafts to be worked on later: ,

Additionally, one of Janet's first edits was to reach out to Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi asking questions about GAs, which was the activity that got DrStrauss CU blocked the first time:. This is activity that would be very unlikely for a brand new user.

PERM requests: note the similar language in both of DrStrauss' rollback requests and Janet's: both focus on getting Huggle access and mention their work in recent changes, and use other similar diction and syntax: Janet-O, Strauss 1, Strauss 2. The language in Janet's joint rollback/pending changes request also matches similar language in DrStrauss's request for pending changes in terms of focus.

Janet also as the first AfD nomination nominated an article from the February 2009 orphan backlog, and continued this trend with other AfDs:

This maintenance area is very specific and was frequented by DrStrauss, where he would often send article that were a part of it to AfD: ,

I think there is enough here for a behavioral block. CU would be useful to confirm, but I think the behavioral evidence here speaks very loudly if there is an attempt to hide IPs, etc. to fool CU. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:28, 15 November 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

 * . The behavioral evidence does seem rather clear here. Could one of you prioritize giving a second look at this? I want to be very certain before blocking. ~ Rob 13 Talk 21:36, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Now self-admitted. GABgab 23:59, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * - Given the admission, please indef Janet-O. Sro23 (talk) 00:10, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Sro23 - With great sadness and disappointment, this has been ✅. :-(  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   00:12, 16 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Closed. Sro23 (talk) 00:18, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * For the record, I've converted this to a CheckUser block in light of the technical evidence and given the fact the original account was CU blocked. ~ Rob 13 Talk 01:17, 16 November 2017 (UTC)