Jump to content

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HazelBasil

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by HazelBasil (talk | contribs) at 06:05, 7 January 2022 (→‎Comments by other users: even less typos). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

HazelBasil

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

07 January 2022

– An SPI clerk has endorsed a request for CheckUser. A checkuser will shortly review the case.

Suspected sockpuppets

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]

Comments by other users

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.(talk) 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HazelBasil (talk • contribs) 05:49, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[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]

@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]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

  •  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]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/HazelBasil&oldid=1064215103"