User talk:Saints Row Dubber: Difference between revisions

Tae the administrators handlin this block,

I’m Saints Row Dubber. I wis recently blocked as bein a sockpuppet o’ DragonofBatley. I deny that accusation outright and ask that this block be lifted immediately — or, if ye remain convinced, that ye present the concrete technical evidence linkin the two accounts (IP addresses, proxied connections, or other server logs) so it can be properly addressed.

Here are the plain facts — they do nae match:

• Account age & activity — my account is brand new and has a handful o’ edits made since creation (23 edits; account created 13 September 2025). DragonofBatley is a long-standing account wi’ many thousands o’ edits (20,741 edits; account created 22 March 2020). These are not comparable patterns o’ use. Wikipedia+1

• Edit volume & focus — DragonofBatley’s contributions are voluminous and span many years and pages (lots o’ user-talk posts, long threads and repeated activity). My edits are few, recent, and mainly in newcomer/teahouse and a couple o’ minor article edits — no sustained, large-scale editing patten that would match the other account. Pick any contiguous month o’ their history and it shows hundreds o’ edits; mine show only a few, newly created topics. Wikipedia+1

• Writing & userpage evidence — my userpage and my first posts use Scots phrasing and a personal voice (which I’ve used consistently on my talk page). The visible style on my talk page is distinct and intentional. If the concern is “stylistic resemblance,” then note that my page openly displays that Scots tone and explains my edit approach; that is not concealment or malicious behaviour. Wikipedia+1

If the accusation rests on anything other than verifiable technical evidence (for example, perceived similarity o’ phrasing, or a supposition that because two accounts touched a similar topic they must be the same person), then that is not sufficient to sustain an indefinite block. Similar turns o’ phrase or topic overlap — especially in narrow subject areas — are common and do nae prove sockpuppetry.

What I ask for:

1. Lift this block now, on the balance o’ the demonstrable differences above.
2. If you insist on retainin the block, please publish the precise technical basis for the claim (IP linkage or other server logs). I will cooperate fully. If there is a genuine technical link, I will explain the circumstances; if there is nae link, please restore my account and correct the record.
3. If ye prefer a formal sockpuppet investigation, open one and list the evidence. I will respond there and provide anything necessary to clear this up.

Finally — I will nae attempt evasive behaviour. I value contributin fairly. This block harms my ability tae help and appears to be based on supposition rather than tech evidence. If there’s somethin’ else ye need from me right now (proof of identity by e-mail, attestations, or logs I can provide), tell me and I’ll supply it.

Regards,

Saints Row Dubber Saints Row Dubber (talk) 11:15, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Checkusers cannot reveal the specific private technical evidence that they see, they sign nondisclosure and privacy agreements. In a way, the focus on technical evidence that you and others at your sock/meat farm have kinda supports the block itself. No, we won’t help you better avoid detection. You say ” If there is a genuine technical link, I will explain the circumstances”; you may do this now, you don’t need to know what the specific evidence is.

Your use of what you say is Scottish wording(my first impression was you were trying to sound like a pirate, not Scottish) seems to be an attempt to conceal language similarities. 331dot (talk) 11:36, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]