User talk:AgentGreyPark

Hello, Primefac, care to explain why you deleted Draft:Sabrina Ho? You cited "G5: Created by a banned or blocked user Editorofthepage1 in violation of ban or block" Upon a review of the public logs, it does not appear that Editorofthepage1 created Draft:Sabrina Ho. Additionally, I viewed Editorofthepage1 and they were blocked on 16 November 2017 at 13:10. Sabrina Ho was moved to Draft:Sabrina Ho by DGG on 15 November 2017, upon DGG's deletion of Sabrina Ho so that other editors may have an opportunity to enhance the article's language and remove puffery. Even if Editorofthepage1 was involved with this process, which they were not, based on the aforementioned timeline, Editorofthepage1 couldn't have created Draft:Sabrina Ho in violation of their ban or block as you cited. It also appears this article draft requires Dispute resolution due to a large volume of contradictory activity. AgentGreyPark (talk) 02:31, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The one thing I'll say is that I made a mistake in naming Editorofthepage1 as the sockmaster; I had two different cases open at the same time and I read through the wrong tab. The sock ring I am alluding to is mentioned here. Primefac (talk) 03:23, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * According to the deletion log on Draft:Sabrina Ho, Primefac, the article was removed by you for the following reason: "G5: Created by a banned or blocked user (Editorofthepage1) in violation of ban or block". If you are now admitting that Editorofthepage1 is unrelated to Draft:Sabrina Ho, then why don't you revert your error, and your block against my account? AgentGreyPark (talk) 08:18, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Please stop claiming that there was a "retalitory block". - The Bushranger One ping only 04:26, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure The Bushranger. I have updated all language on this page to remove the word "retaliatory". AgentGreyPark (talk) 11:35, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Removal of the unblock request

 * Crap. Sorry to this editor, as well as User:Primefac for removing the unblock request. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 03:33, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, it was a mistake on my part, as I thought you were another blocked editor. Sorry. Boomer Vial; Holla! We gonna ball! 03:44, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Boomer Vial No problem, however, of note you are not supposed to remove an unblock request on another user's page under any circumstance. AgentGreyPark (talk) 03:49, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:IAR would be the case here, as I quoted WP:DENY when I removed it. Doesn't matter though, as I was incorrect in removing it in this case. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 04:01, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Boomer Vial Ok noted. Can you please confirm that you are not in coordination with Primefac on any activity against my account? AgentGreyPark (talk) 04:03, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Definitely not the case. I was going through all of the unblock requests for ones that are a waste of time, and were therefore removable. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 04:07, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Question for administrator
I am the subject of WikiBullying by a few Wikipedia users who have blocked my account, with no evidence whatsoever, continue to deny my unblock requests (again with no evidence), and are attempting to silence my ability from posting on Wikipedia.

--AgentGreyPark (talk) 01:44, 18 November 2017 (UTC)


 * A CU has determined through their searches that you are definitely connected to the other accounts. Continuing to say "it wasn't me" won't cut it, and as implied above simply stamping your feet will just result in revocation of your talk page access. Primefac (talk) 02:37, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * And I might add that on reviewing your edits (just for the sake of thoroughness) your relationship to the other socks is overwhelmingly evident. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:59, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I am not related to the other accounts listed on Sockpuppet investigations/Editor895. Please run a check to confirm since I have been incorrectly blocked. AgentGreyPark (talk) 03:49, 18 November 2017 (UTC)


 * A CU was already run and confirmed you as being the same as those other accounts. That was the entire point of the SPI page you linked to in your claim "I'm not them". - The Bushranger One ping only 04:20, 18 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Ahem. DoRD: "cu comments". - The Bushranger One ping only 08:55, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The Bushranger, User:DoRD did not add me to the list of suspected socks. Primefac did. AgentGreyPark (talk) 10:00, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes and then DoRD checked all of them. That is how SPI works. It's time you paid heed to the First Law of Holes. - The Bushranger One ping only 11:48, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The Bushranger Yeah except Primefac added me to the list of suspected sock puppets AFTER User:DoRD checked all of them. AgentGreyPark (talk) 12:34, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I have disabled your talk page access, as you seem to have a severe case of WP:IDHT. You can use WP:UTRS to appeal. GABgab 15:06, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Primefac added me to the list of suspected sock puppets AFTER User:DoRD checked all of them. Yep, that's the way it often works, and I'm sorry that you're having trouble understanding me when I wrote, All of the suspected socks are Confirmed to one another, but except as noted in the SPI, all of the accounts have been checked and matched to one another. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:58, 18 November 2017 (UTC)