HazelBasil (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• Igotthistoo (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Thistechworkertoo (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 98.51.101.124 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 73.202.58.200 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

• Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

HazelBasil added an entry to WP:COIN about their suspicion of my having a COI with 4 articles I've edited. Their complaints are mainly claims that the content I added was not in the source material when it was, and these complaints are mirrored in a previous incident from WP:ANB because of sock1's vandalism to Cher Scarlett, and additionally by ip2, who came to the incident to refute my questions about ip1 possibly being sock1 and sock2. Sock2 was confirmed to be a sock of sock1 by checkuser.

She stated that her concern that I had a COI with Scarlett because of my edits to her article and talk page, but the evidence she presented was overwhelmingly about Scarlett's article, and her personal issues with the content, which speaks directly to sock1's contribution history. HazelBasil did clarify that she is Ashley Gjøvik, and that she has a COI with the other subjects she mentioned (Kate Rotondo and Chelsey Glasson), all of which happen to be people that sock1 added to Scarlett's article in a way that was meant to diminish Scarlett, and all of which are a part of HazelBasil's entry on COIN. She also brought up an alleged conflict between her and Scarlett, which helped paint a clear motive for sock1's and sock2's prior vandalism. My suspicions about HazelBasil's involvement was caused by her apparent investment in the incident, despite that it has long since expired when she supposedly became aware of me as an editor a week ago when I edited her article, and the similarity between many of her "concerns" and sock1's and ip1's contributions.

Sock1 also cast an aspersion on GorillaWarfare and I, claiming we had an "arrangement" to "gatekeep" their vandalism from Scarlett's article, and HazelBasil has cast similar aspersions in the COIN entry.

These diffs in particular seem to indicate that HazelBasil is ip1, ip2, sock1, and/or sock2: Added Gjøvik and Rotondo to lede, Added Rotondo to gender pay disparity concerns, 'Silenced No More' and Ifeoma Ozoma removal maps to the 7th addition here, Anonymity in advocacy around working remotely Role in advocacy around working remotely maps to the 9th addition here, and Addition of Chelsey Glasson maps to the 10th addition here. ip2 is of interest because of mention of unrelated COI notice on talk page and 11th entry here. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 02:19, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TheresNoTime: & @Spicy: A note about the geolocation - if HazelBasil is Ashley Gjøvik as she says she is, she lives in the Santa Clara, California/Sunnyvale, California area, as she attends law school at Santa Clara University and worked out of the Sunnyvale office at Apple, according to her bio. This is part of the reason the IP address users, along with the other comments and particular investment in the previous incident with sock1 and sock2, made a compelling case that she either is all 4 users, or coordinating with them. If HazelBasil geo is showing she is far from the geographic area of the university or the office she worked at, it is due to the VPN. If I understand correctly, a VPN can make it look like you are somewhere you are not. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 15:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

Hello, I'm HazelBasil aka Ashley Gjovik. There is an ongoing discussion on the COI noticeboard about SquareinaRoundHole & some of the pages mentioned above. I flagged the SquareinaRoundHole user account alleging it is actually Cher Scarlett or someone acting at her direction. I believe this Sock Puppet accusation here is simply retaliation for me raising the concerns about SquareinaRoundHole on the COI page. In fact, through the discussion on the COI page, I already raised concerns about intimidation & fear of retaliation several times even before this Sock Puppet notice was posted. HazelBasil (talk) 06:07, 7 January 2022 (UTC)(HazelBasil) 03:03, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disclosure first: I have a potential COI with respect to the subject matter of the relevant articles, but I have no relationship with or special knowledge of any of the referenced users or individuals outside of Wikipedia, nor have I ever communicated with any of them outside of the above-mentioned COIN thread, to the best of my knowledge.
@Spicy: the subject matter is obscure from the perspective of the Wikipedia community, but this is a reasonably "hot topic" in the tech industry, particularly due to the recent worker action on December 24th, 2021. It is not uncommon for infrequent editors to come out of the woodwork when subjects they have interest in hit the news. I have no comment on the SPI outside of my rebuttal of the peculiarity of editing in this topic area. AlexEng^(TALK) 05:30, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Spicy: One additional note for context, I had a Wikipedia article created about me (BLP) on Dec 31 2021, see: Ashley Gjøvik (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). All of this started when SquareinAroundHole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) began making problematic edits to my article within the same day it was published and through the last week, many edits which pointed to a strong COI. Upon further investigation, I found COI concerns with SquareinARoundHole on three other pages, and on previous noticeboard posts, all creating a strong suspicion that SquareinARoundHole is Cher Scarlett acting on her own accord, someone acting under direction of Cher Scarlett, and/or Cher Scarlett acting under the direction of Apple Inc. Once you do whatever check you do and confirm I am not IGotThisToo or ThisTechWorkertoo, please note this escalation from SquareinARoundHole as further retaliation against me for raising concerns about problematic edits on my own article by SquareinARoundHole. Further, please note, I've been harassed by Scarlett outside Wikipedia for months, and it is noteworthy that this SquareinARoundHole account, assumably Scarlett herself, is trying to get an Apple Whistleblower's 10yr-old, formal, keybased-confirmed Wikipedia account banned from Wikipedia. This is so absurd, you literally can't make this stuff up. HazelBasil (talk) 06:03, 7 January 2022 (UTC)HazelBasil 05:49, 7 January 2022[reply]

@HazelBasil: usernames are case sensitive on Wikipedia. Please be sure you've tagged the correct users in your above post. Please also remember to sign your post using four tildes: ~~~~. I used to forget to do that a lot in my earlier years. AlexEng^(TALK) 05:52, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@AlexEng: Whoops! Thank you. I'm have no idea what I'm doing with the formatting, but I think I fixed it now. HazelBasil (talk) 06:03, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Spicy: Hi, repeating comment above that never got a response: I had a Wikipedia article created about me (BLP) on Dec 31 2021, see: Ashley Gjøvik (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). All of this started when SquareinAroundHole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) began making problematic edits to my article within the same day it was published and through the last week, many edits which pointed to a strong COI. Upon further investigation, I found COI concerns with SquareinARoundHole on three other pages, and on previous noticeboard posts, all creating a strong suspicion that SquareinARoundHole is Cher Scarlett acting on her own accord, someone acting under direction of Cher Scarlett, and/or Cher Scarlett acting under the direction of Apple Inc. Once you do whatever check you do and confirm I am not IGotThisToo or ThisTechWorkertoo, please note this escalation from SquareinARoundHole as further retaliation against me for raising concerns about problematic edits on my own article by SquareinARoundHole. How can I report this as harassment? HazelBasil (talk) 06:03, 7 January 2022 (UTC)HazelBasil 05:49, 7 January 2022" HazelBasil (talk) 07:41, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

•  Clerk endorsed - I found the filing a little hard to follow, so I'll recap. Igotthistoo was partially blocked from editing Cher Scarlett as a result of this ANI thread where it was alleged they were editing tendentiously to disparage the subject. Thistechworkertoo started editing along similar lines at Ifeoma Ozoma and was blocked as a sock of Igotthistoo based on checkuser evidence. These accounts' edits were focused on the premise that the articles exaggerated the roles that these women played in tech industry worker's rights movements.
  Shortly after these accounts went inactive, HazelBasil, a very infrequent editor who had not previously edited since July 2021 and had never edited these articles or interacted with SquareInARoundHole, reported the user to COIN on the premise that their edits were unduly promoting Cher Scarlett and Ifeoma Ozoma [1]. In this thread HazelBasil wrote defenses of reverted edits by the blocked accounts such as [2] "This was bizarre because there's no coverage I'm aware of covering the work-from home organizing where leaders were named." [3]
  I will say that looking at SquareInARoundHole's editing history, it's not unreasonable that two different people would suspect them to have a COI. However, I find the timing of these three accounts' edits and the strong focus on these rather obscure subjects suspicious. Checkuser evidence should help to clarify the issue. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 05:16, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
•  In progress - give me a bit on this one -- TNT (talk • she/her) 06:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
•  Checkuser note: Noting that HazelBasil is using a VPN. Check ongoing -- TNT (talk • she/her) 06:43, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
•  Checkuser note: This is a complex case, so I'm logging as we go. Igotthistoo is  Confirmed to Thistechworkertoo. Check ongoing -- TNT (talk • she/her) 06:45, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• HazelBasil and Igotthistoo are technically  Unlikely to be the same user, for the following reasons:
  • Both accounts are in the same country, but geolocate nowhere near each other.
  • Both accounts use the same type of device.
  • HazelBasil appears to often, but not always, use a VPN connection to edit. Igotthistoo does not appear to have ever used a VPN.
• The use of a VPN could be skewing the results. Recommend reviewing entirely on behavioural evidence. As always,  No comment with respect to IP address(es) -- TNT (talk • she/her) 06:56, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks, TheresNoTime. I looked closely at these accounts' edits while reviewing this case, and I did notice some differences in writing style between HazelBasil and the blocked accounts - not enough to rule out a connection on its own, but in conjunction with the Checkuser results, I think it points towards these being different people. HazelBasil has also disclosed her identity on her userpage and this is consistent with her interest in these subjects. I cannot rule out the possibility of off-wiki coordination between these users, but the evidence is not strong enough to rule it in either. AlexEng makes a valid point about the popularity of the subject matter.
  Since the IPs only edited for a short period several days ago, I don't think any administrative action is necessary with respect to them at this time. I would however advise everyone involved in this dispute to ensure they are logged in to their account while editing to avoid the appearance of impropriety.
  In light of the Checkuser results, I don't think there is compelling evidence that the sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry policies have been violated, so I am closing this case without further action. This should not be taken as a verdict on the underlying COI/BLP disputes. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 07:31, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • HazelBasil: The purpose of SPI is to determine whether or not sockpuppetry is occurring; it's not set up to deal with other user conduct issues. These sorts of issues can be raised at WP:COIN or WP:ANI. If off-wiki evidence is involved it should be submitted privately to the Arbitration Committee. Spicy (talk) 07:57, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• With respect, @SquareInARoundHole:, the SPI team understands how geolocation and VPNs work. Spicy has given you your answer, and has told you what to do for next steps if you desire. I am archiving this now. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 16:16, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]