User talk:AgentGreyPark

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

AgentGreyPark (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

My account was blocked by Primefac for "abusing multiple accounts". Primefac did not present any evidence. I requested my account be unblocked as I did not abuse multiple accounts. Dlohcierekim denied my request, again, without presenting any evidence of my alleged activity. Dlohcierekim cited in their explanation that my unblock request was denied due to my "verbiage", which bares no relation to the incorrect reason I was blocked in the first place (which Dlohcierekim did not address at all). Please unblock me and use Wikipedia fairly. AgentGreyPark (talk) 11:32, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Just stop - you're not fooling anyone here. Confirmed sock. —DoRD (talk) 17:06, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

AgentGreyPark (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am not abusing multiple accounts. I left a note on Primefac's talk page pointing out their inappropriate deletion of Draft:Sabrina Ho. Primefac removed my note from their talk page and blocked my account after I pointed out their error. On my talk page (below) please find the note I had left for Primefac. This unblock request was also mysteriously deleted by Boomer Vial and then restored by The Bushranger (which you can see on my talk page's history). AgentGreyPark (talk) 03:39, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Not seeing any reason to unblock. All I see is verbiage and silly accusations that make me feel the block is justified. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 11:12, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

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 Wikipedia:Dispute resolution due to a large volume of contradictory activity. AgentGreyPark (talk) 02:31, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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? @Jimbo Wales: AgentGreyPark (talk) 08:18, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop claiming that there was a "retalitory block". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:26, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure The Bushranger. I have updated all language on this page to remove the word "retaliatory". AgentGreyPark (talk) 11:35, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of the unblock request

Crap. Sorry to this editor, as well as User:Primefac for removing the unblock request. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 03:33, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 04:01, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Confirmed 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 Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 04:07, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question for administrator

{{Admin help}} I am the subject of Wikipedia: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)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

AgentGreyPark (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

DoRD, if you have confirmed that I am a sock, please post evidence on my talk page. I am not a sock. I am not abusing multiple accounts. My unblock request continues to be denied with false allegations against my account and no proof. This has gotten out of hand so I've also submitted a request via Wikipedia:Unblock Ticket Request System AgentGreyPark (talk) 01:19, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Please read Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Editor895. COnfirmed via Wikipedia:CheckUser. Please stop posting disruptive unblock requests. You will not need talk page access to file at UTRS BTW, unblock requests should go at the bottom.

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

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 Dlohcierekim implied above simply stamping your feet will just result in revocation of your talk page access. Primefac (talk) 02:37, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

– A user has requested CheckUser. An SPI clerk will shortly look at the case and endorse or decline the request. I am not related to the other accounts listed on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Editor895. Please run a check to confirm since I have been incorrectly blocked. AgentGreyPark (talk) 03:49, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

AgentGreyPark (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am not a sock. I am not abusing multiple accounts. My unblock request continues to be denied with false allegations against my account and no proof or evidence. Dlohcierekim denied two of my requests - one of which was turned down as they didn't like my "verbiage". Please allow an independent administrator to review that has not yet posted on my user talk page. AgentGreyPark (talk) 10:57 pm, Yesterday (UTC−5)

Decline reason:

"No proof or evidence"? C'mon, I can read what's above. GAB^gab 06:08, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

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)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

AgentGreyPark (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am not a sock. I am not abusing multiple accounts. My unblock request continues to be denied with false allegations against my account and no proof or evidence. Primefac, who blocked my account after I posted a comment on their talk page pointing out their error, is the same user who allegedly ran a check that links me as a sock on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Editor895. That's completely made up! I have no relation to those accounts! An independent, unbiased user should run the check. AgentGreyPark (talk) 07:05, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

User:DoRD confirmed you as related. Drop the stick, back away from the horse carcass, and take the WP:STANDARDOFFER. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:51, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

AgentGreyPark (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The Bushranger that is incorrect. User:DoRD did not confirm I am related to the other accounts. Primefac confirmed we are related. I am not a sock. I am not abusing multiple accounts. My unblock request continues to be denied with false allegations against my account and no proof or evidence. Primefac, who blocked my account after I posted a comment on their talk page pointing out their error, is the same user who allegedly ran a check that links me as a sock on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Editor895. That's completely made up! I have no relation to those accounts! An independent, unbiased user should run the check. @Jimbo Wales: AgentGreyPark (talk) 08:14, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This one's easy. Unambiguous abuse of multiple accounts. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 20:26, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Ahem. DoRD: "cu comments". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:55, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Bushranger, User:DoRD did not add me to the list of suspected socks. Primefac did. AgentGreyPark (talk) 10:00, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. GAB^gab 15:06, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]