Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dresken/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



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

Both of these accounts have recently appeared to exhibit strikingly similar behaviour, by adhering to policy while violating its underlying spirit. (see the talk pages of the related articles and ), as well as the following links. ). Now for a little background, so please bare with me.

Dresken was registered as an account in 2013, but made few edits before 2015, while AlexTheWhovian has held an account since 2014. Alex is a prolific editor, with in excess of 50,000 edits, while Dresken has made less than 1000. They have a number of articles in common, mostly concerning Doctor Who related subjects (though there are one or two quite obscure television series from the past thrown in as well; one example being, which both have edited, albeit several months apart). Dresken edits almost exclusively on Doctor Who topics, but AlexTheWhovian's scope is much wider. While in itself the fact they share articles is not a reason for suspicion (as we all have articles in common) and most edits are constructive, they have frequently communicated with each other, and there are times when accounts seem to come and go within a very short period of time – seconds or minutes.

AlexTheWhovian was involved in a lengthy debate over whether the article about the Doctor Who character Bill Potts should be a primary topic, which commenced on 18 April. During that discussion the issue of the Bill Potts disambiguation page was raised after I added two links to it, which Alex subsequently removed. I restored the links then began a separate discussion at Talk:Bill Potts on 24 April. Having been reverted for a second time by Alex, I noted that he had recently (2016) been blocked for edit warring. Shortly after the 24 April discussion began, the restored links were again reverted, this time by Dresken, who gave an almost identical reason that appeared to be the same misinterpretation of Wikipedia policy that had previously been expressed by Alex. 

I am sorry to say subsequent discussions became a little heated, and that I accused both parties of colluding. On reflection I believe that was an error on my part. However, Dresken's subsequent activity on the page has led me to further suspect the two accounts are linked in some way, either as the same person or at least as off-wiki friends. In any case it seems more than a coincidence that two editors would engage in the same kind of lawyering. This is Paul (talk) 23:42, 27 April 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
❌. Closing with no action.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:33, 30 April 2017 (UTC)