User talk:Olivia Winfield

August 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=620472666 your edit] to Kingdom of Iberia may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:20, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * became the first king of Iberia (c. 302-c. 237 BC) {citation needed}. According to the later Georgian chronicles, after driving back an invasion, he
 * Vakhtang I]] dubbed Gorgasali (447-502) was marked by the relative revival of the kingdom {citation needed}. Formally a vassal of the Persians, he secured the northern borders by


 * "Those users have not edited since 2008 and 2010." - Becaue they were blocked. As long as they are blocked, returning under a new account is block evasion and a violation of policy. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:25, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I have appealed to the Arbitration committee as the articles they edited and I have edited are completely different.


 * I've voided the above templates, as the format is broken, and you're making an appeal to the Arbitration Committee. PhilKnight (talk) 13:33, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

IP sock
is an obvious sock of this editor. Dougweller (talk) 07:13, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

If you say so.Olivia Winfield (talk) 07:33, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation
( Rovine  message  ) 23:03, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I received the following recently in my email.

I'll take a good look at tomorrow/Sunday. Good thing I still have all their technical evidence. Elockid Message me 02:18, 11 June 2016 (UTC) Great. Thanks a lot. I don't think this matter will take much time. Btw, was User:Olivia Winfield CU blocked or blocked based on behavioral evidence? Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 13:07, 11 June 2016 (UTC) That's based on behavioral evidence (non-CU block). The account you reported is a Confirmed sock. Elockid Message me 22:24, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

And:

Request reason:

Earlier I had a serious talk with @Drmies: after discussing the aspects of my case at length, I decided it was time to come clean and hope for a WP:CLEANSTART. The truth is that the facts laid out in my previous SPIs, although at times misleading and exaggerated, are largely true. I have been active on Wikipedia for quite a few years under different names, and have created countless pages and thousands of edits and media, many of which I was thanked for. But because I made a mistake of IP/Account puppetry years ago when I was still an immature High School student, I got caught up in an endless loop of blocks and comebacks. When I was first blocked I was not told anything about a fresh start, so I kept coming back in disguise, which eventually turned into a pattern. I guess I was also motivated by spite: as you may note, many of the previous SPIs were revenge investigations opened by users who themselves turned out to be indefinitely blocked puppets with a grudge. I know well that this does not excuse my behavior, but I just wanted to provide some context for my urge to keep coming back just to prove some other puppet reincarnations wrong. A very immature mistake, either way.

As I have grown and learned a thing or two on this site, I decided to move away from serial evasion and hope to turn into a more legitimate editor. In fact, excluding this account, I have not produced socks in years, which is in stark contrast to how many I hatched before. Some of the recent blocked users are not affiliated with me at all and are rather victims of circumstances. For instance, it was recently brought to my attention that some poor soul Olivia Winfield was indefinitely blocked on "behavioral grounds" as my sock but she really, really had nothing to do with me - I have no idea who she is. But I guess at this point any bold or argumentative user on Georgia-related articles is assumed to be me. I now realize that this ends up hurting everyone who is gracious enough to edit or expand these neglected topics, which is not something I'd want to continue.

After years of puppeteering and resulting collateral damage, it is a tough call to give me a clean start but if I am given one, I will make the best of it. Decline reason:

I appreciate the honesty, but given your arguments just above, I don't think you fully understand what behaviour is expected of editors in good standing. You may want to check out the standard offer. Huon (talk) 21:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

While I don't expect to be unblocked, and quite frankly I don't care, an apology is in order from Elockid, Dougweller and Daniel Case for their incompetence as apparently you have caught your sock puppet and as I stated and proved then- it was not me. If they had even attempted to do their jobs properly this would not have happened. But, since this is Wikipedia I doubt they will have the moral fortitude to admit their wrongdoing. In fact, I am quite sure they will be so angry they will accuse me of being yet another sock puppet.

Olivia Winfield Torlonia (talk) 08:12, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I will not accuse you of anything. I will simply state that it is self-evident that you are pissy, petulant and pubescent; thus temperamentally unsuited to being a member of the Wikipedia community. We can understand that you were upset at being wrongfully blocked as a sockpuppet. We could forgive you expressing some of that upset in, perhaps, a very general way. But we cannot forgive you for indulging in personal attacks over this. Your anticipation of an angry response demonstrates beyond all doubt that you are keenly aware of these shortcomings (and I suspect this has happened too many times to count in your life elsewhere online, and probably offline as well). There is no "wrongdoing" for me to admit. The unblock request above which I declined over two years ago did not state a good reason, nor in fact any reason, why you should have been unblocked. It just asked a question; which I answered for you. Perhaps you meant to imply you had been blocked without review of the evidence; if so, you should have asked that explicitly (Of course, again I suspect you knew what the answer was and knew that a direct complaint that you had been blocked without review would be a clear falsehood and cost you significant credibility and good faith, and with them any chance of unblock). And you didn't learn from that; you did it again more recently when you just said "two years", and got a response which made the same point. Now, I suppose I could have been impersonal and bureaucratic and just used this as a response, which I would have been within my rights to do. But noooooo, I decided I would be a nice guy, show some respect, and explain to you in a non-templated way why your request was declined. And look at the thanks I get ... If you ever really want to be unblocked, I suggest you reconsider your it's-all-about-me attitude before very long (or, tbh, before very short). Because if you keep up like this, you will not just no longer have any shot at being unblocked. You would stand—and I recommend this to any reviewing admin if you do continue down this thornbushed path—to lose access to this talk page as well. Daniel Case (talk) 19:45, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

The response I expected from a fraud too incompetent to do their 'job'. Olivia Winfield Torlonia (talk) 03:58, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * And exactly the response I expected from a child pretending to be an adult. You didn't disappoint. Daniel Case (talk) 04:58, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Coming from you? Laughable. At least this wasn't as long-winded as your pathetic self-serving attempts to absolve yourself. You really are a small little creature. You are beneath me. Olivia Winfield (talk) 05:29, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Alright, I assumed good faith but I never should have fed this troll[[. And now no one will again. It's clear you're [[WP:NOTHERE|not here to edit the encyclopedia. So I'm revoking your talk page access so you can go find somewhere else to waste someone else's time. Daniel Case (talk) 04:12, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

 Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive. ([ block log] • [ active blocks] • [ global blocks] • [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/autoblock/?user=&project=en.wikipedia.org autoblocks] • contribs • deleted contribs • [ abuse filter log] • [ • change block settings • [ unblock] • [ checkuser] ([ log]))

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee. Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice. Daniel Case (talk) 04:12, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Neutral party opinion
I've had a look at the contributions by Olivia Winfield and I see no correlation with the edits or the editing aims of any of the sock puppets of Satt2 / Polscience. I have had interactions with a number of his later appearances. The alleged "behavioral grounds" explanation given as a justification for Olivia Winfield's block seem to be without any basis in fact, nor was there even a single diff produced to back up this "behavioral grounds" claim. This case is more to do with arrogant administrators being unable to admit to making a mistake, and then misusing the natural anger expressed by the victim as an excuse to further punish that victim in order to avoid facing up to their own failings. It is, unfortunately, a common approach amongst administrators. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:09, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I also need to comment on the outrageous language used here by Daniel Case. Olivia Winfield clearly does not know how to properly present an unblock appeal: that merely asking for an unblock is not sufficient, and that copypasting the confession of the sock master she had been accused of being a puppet of is also not sufficient - that some additional explanation is required. However, rather than explaining that to this editor, Daniel Case launches straight into a bizarre hissy fit of monumental proportions, calling the editor "pissy, petulant and pubescent" who is "temperamentally unsuited to being a member of the Wikipedia community". What is especially outrageous is that Daniel Case openly admits that the original block for sock puppetry was wrong. For Olivia Winfield to call that initial misidentification and the rejected appeals against that misidentification a case of administrator incompetence seems a fair comment to have made, and any petulance and pubescence on display is actually from Daniel Case for refusing to admit to his part in that incompetence and his refusal to rectify the situation. I might also add that, arguably, his refusal to rectify the past mistakes (by allowing the appeal) means he is taking ownership of all that earlier incompetence, rather like an editor who restores deleted content added by a sock puppet takes ownership of that content and is required to justify it anew if it is contested. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:40, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The issue was brought up here . Unfortunately administrators refused to rectify things (since that would mean admitting to having made mistakes). So they decide to unblock the sockmaster, but allow an account incorrectly accused of being one of their socks to remain blocked. And Satt2 has now been re-blocked . Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:19, 2 March 2017 (UTC)