Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 184

Cher Scarlett, Ashley Gjøvik, Ifeoma Ozoma, & Apple Worker Organizations

 * User of concern: (for all three pages)
 * -- TNT (talk • she/her) 05:07, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * All editors are reminded to abide by our policy on the disclosure of non-public information - I have oversighted the above addition in line with WP:OSPOL#1. Please do not reinstate the content -- TNT (talk • she/her) 05:13, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I was previously asked by a reviewing editor in this discussion thread to provide a concrete accusation of the suspected COI, including who I think the person behind the suspect account is in order for the editor to examine the COI. I provided detailed records of harassment with private personal information contained directly to the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee in order to keep the information private, again as previously advised. I'm confused why this was redacted. All information provided in that bullet that was redacted was public information. Can you please clarify what rule was broken please? HazelBasil (talk) 06:25, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @HazelBasil: Hey, I am genuinely sorry that this is yet another aspect of this already complex thread - my redaction was done solely to protect the personal information of other editors, and is not a reflection on the validity of the claims in question. On Wikipedia, oversight is used to remove certain information from the view of both the public and administrators. It's use is controlled by a fairly strict policy. The content above was reported by multiple editors as potentially breaching our policy on "outing" (the disclosure of non-public information about an editors' identity). In the oversight policy, this is item #1.
 * As I do not believe you did this in bad faith, I removed the content and suppressed it, leaving a generic reminder above. I am aware that you have contacted the Arbitration Committee, which at this point is likely the best thing for everyone - arbitrators will be able to view the content you added above, and will likely review it as part of addressing this thread.
 * I hope you can appreciate my underlying thought process in redacting this information, as regardless of the perhaps heated nature of this thread, it is often better to "err on the side of caution" when it comes to anyone's personal data. -- TNT (talk • she/her) 20:33, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I was previously asked by a reviewing editor in this discussion thread to provide a concrete accusation of the suspected COI, including who I think the person behind the suspect account is in order for the editor to examine the COI. I provided detailed records of harassment with private personal information contained directly to the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee in order to keep the information private, again as previously advised. I'm confused why this was redacted. All information provided in that bullet that was redacted was public information. Can you please clarify what rule was broken please? HazelBasil (talk) 06:25, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @HazelBasil: Hey, I am genuinely sorry that this is yet another aspect of this already complex thread - my redaction was done solely to protect the personal information of other editors, and is not a reflection on the validity of the claims in question. On Wikipedia, oversight is used to remove certain information from the view of both the public and administrators. It's use is controlled by a fairly strict policy. The content above was reported by multiple editors as potentially breaching our policy on "outing" (the disclosure of non-public information about an editors' identity). In the oversight policy, this is item #1.
 * As I do not believe you did this in bad faith, I removed the content and suppressed it, leaving a generic reminder above. I am aware that you have contacted the Arbitration Committee, which at this point is likely the best thing for everyone - arbitrators will be able to view the content you added above, and will likely review it as part of addressing this thread.
 * I hope you can appreciate my underlying thought process in redacting this information, as regardless of the perhaps heated nature of this thread, it is often better to "err on the side of caution" when it comes to anyone's personal data. -- TNT (talk • she/her) 20:33, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Specific concerns: HazelBasil (talk) 04:17, 4 January 2022 (UTC); 2nd Rev to condense & clarify on HazelBasil (talk) 02:29, 8 January 2022 (UTC) 3rd rev to add note about husband HazelBasil (talk) 04:13, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * SquareInARoundHole appears to be someone very close to . I allege in that in editing the article, SquareInARoundHole is violating COI rules that "You should generally refrain from creating articles about yourself.... If you have a personal connection to a topic or person, you are advised to refrain from editing those articles directly." This also includes Scarlett's updates about Scarlett to, , & . P.S. For the sake of transparency, please note I (HazelBasil, am
 * Many updates made by the user to this BLP are very personal (like updating the details about the person's high school, & then update the article for that high school with details about its mascot). SquareInARoundHole has only been in use since Nov 17 2021 and already received one COI warning on Nov 26 2021 from Blablubbs edits to & 's pages, including adding Scarlett's SEC filing to both pages, and creating a "Silenced No More" section on Scarlett's page despite that being legislation only Ozoma worked on. This is very similar to what SquareInARoundHole has been attempting to do on 's page the last few days. SquareInARoundHole also updates Scarlett's page and other BLP pages with insider information based on Tweets or personal knowledge, and a significant amount of which appears to get reverted later.SquareInARoundHole also appears to have personal bias in how facts are synthesized, & what/who is included and what/who is excluded in this & related articles. Many comments by the user also seem emotionally charged beyond what I'd expect for a neutral editor.SquareInARoundHole has gone a spree adding ~20 updates, many significant & most reverted by other editors, to my/'s page in the last few days. Many updates to this and other pages by SquareInARoundHole.
 * Further, I feel that Scarlett has been harassing and defaming me outside Wiki for months, and has recently stated she plans to testify as a defense witness for Apple, against me on my Apple cases. Thus, SquareInARoundHole if Scarlett, is also violating COI rules when editing as editor's "should not write about court cases in which they or those close to them have been involved, nor about parties or law firms associated with the cases." Further, because Scarlett has apparently worked to prevent press from writing about me (as told to me by the press) and then Scarlett publicly bragged about it -- and Scarlett has made false accusations about me to many friends and supporters in text messages & DMs, I think she would also fall into breaking the COI rules against editor's editing pages "who are involved in a significant controversy/dispute with another individual or who is an avowed rival of that individual, should not edit that person's biography or other material about that person, given the potential conflict of interest."
 * Even outside my allegations of harassment against Scarlett, Scarlett is involved in legal cases with me, with us both filing NLRB charges against Apple and SEC whistleblower complaints against Apple. That, in addition to her apparently planning to testify against me, makes this a blatant COI in my opinion. If this user is not Cher Scarlett, I believe it to be someone very close to Scarlett and likely working at Scarlett's direction. I also have concerns about Scarlett/SquareInARoundHole possibly making some edits on my page at the direction of Apple Inc as some of her edits on my page were adding doubt on my legal claims against Apple. Cher recently signed a settlement with Apple with unknown terms, but at the very least she's agreed to withdraw her NLRB charge against Apple and she said she did request the withdrawal, and apparently is now also a defense witness for them. ~HazelBasil talk 01:52, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I highly recommend a neutral party review at least the user's updates to this main article, it's talk page, and any Noticeboard content. I'd also like to request a Checkuser on SquareInARoundHole please. I'm interested if SquareInARoundHole's IP is in the region Cher Scarlett lives. Also, because SquareInARoundHole account was created Nov 17, 2021 & Cher Scarlett's page was created Oct 15, 2021, and because SquareInARoundHole has admitted to making edits without an account but will not respond whether those edits were to the pages in question, and because between Oct 15 and Nov 17 2021, the Cher Scarlett article was edited 15x times by IP addresses and then was only edited by 4x IP addresses from Nov 17, 2021-Jan 7, 2022 (one of which SquareInARoundHole accuses of being a sockpuppet), I'd like to request someone check if the following IP addresses match to SquareInARoundHole and thus should be included in the COI analysis. Several updates made by these IP addresses follow the similar pattern I've seen with SquareInARoundHole around insider information, bias, overly specific updates, etc. IPs: 2601:600:104:a489:e5e6:a81f:6fc7:9093 saying "Added known public information" here, 2601:600:10c:54a6:54a1:23a5:c058:49f0 says "Adds things known for while at Activision Blizzard" here, 2601:602:8702:24d3:99d7:70ea:1c66:24a9 here, 2601:602:8702:2114:147d:175e:a61e:edc5 adding info about freelance career cited to obscure website here and added high school drop out here, 2601:601:1400:baa0:82a:60d6:6127:76b4 here, 2601:602:8702:4702:5418:9074:5206:71a7 here and here, 2601:602:8702:4702:d81f:b1c:c3f1:7763 adding "List of people with bipolar disorder" to "see also" here, reverted by GorillaWarfare as "weird to pick that category out of all the categories available", 2601:602:8702:ed9:7da6:7d70:f0ae:80c4 adding high school SAT score here, 2601:602:8702:35f6:b8cc:687a:7f8d:7e3 here and here, 2601:602:8702:a51:7483:fcab:6374:17ed noting "Add employers to info box to highlight notable career" here, which GorillaWarfare then reverted saying "we don't normally include all past employers in the IBX", 2601:601:1400:baa0:444d:ae0e:272f:452e saying "fixed awkward wording" but did +856 word update about the Mashable harassment article Scarlett is obsessed with here
 * I'd also like request dedicated attention on the Apple memo related to Cher's settlement. To me, this is the single most convincing piece of evidence seen in the written updates/logs. I don't know if there's some way to gather additional info about the user at this time, but I suspect this was Cher Scarlett as SquareInARoundHole updating her own Cher Scarlett page with information only Scarlett and her lawyers knew. On Nov 20 3:58 UST at with comment "adding news of memo" and added "Two days later, on November 19th 2021, Apple posted a company-wide memo affirming employees' rights to discuss pay and other working conditions, both internally and externally." The cited NBC article went live at Nov. 19 7:20 PM PST (Nov 20 3:20am UST). User added this memo 38 minutes after the article went live. In the cited article Scarlett simply says the memo "is a win" for employees. It will be weeks later that Scarlett reveals the memo was allegedly part of her settlement agreement with Apple. A few minutes later user   a the word confidential to a note on Scarlett's settlement noting "clarify the details of the settlement were confidential, according to her lawyer in the source." GorillaWarfare then warns SquareInARoundHole "while this is true, placing it here suggests it is related, which we don't know" & "also not explicitly connected in source". On Dec 11 22:22 UST at  updates the page with a new source, a Verge article stating "Scarlett says that her settlement with Apple required it to post “a company-wide memo clarifying employee rights including discussing pay & working conditions,” “in a prominent and visible location on the People site.” This is the memo that [[User:SquareInARoundHole|SquareInARoundHole] added to Scarlett's article before anyone else knew that the memo was related to Scarlett's exit package.
 * I am going to respond only to this heading, as you have repeated the same content three times. I am not entirely sure what your issues are with my updates to these three articles. My updates to the three pages mentioned are not much different than the updates I've made to other pages. I do extensive research on people I am interested in, which is mainly women in tech, especially those involved various activism, including labor activists such as yourself. It's a little ridiculous to me that you have focused intently on these three articles, as though I've not edited anything that isn't tangential to the three of you.
 * With the high school in question, I found Scarlett's high school listed on her website, and when I googled it and her, I found that she had signed a petition regarding the Mascot change, and again, found it interesting so I added it to the respective article. As for your claim that the information is "very personal," that's a bit absurd. I've added information that was readily available in the news, in interviews, and her website, just like any other article, and in most cases, this comes with some information about their personal lives.
 * I'm a bit unclear what your issues with the SEC tips and legislation are. GorillaWarfare already updated to a better heading than the one I selected, and it is appropriate to mention you both engaging in the same action in the same timeframe against the same company. It is quite common to find cross-references of various people when it is warranted, just as you'll find others named in Scarlett's article, and Ozoma's, because the mentions are due for context. I am also unclear why you are bringing up Blablubbs's notice on my talk page. It does not say what their concern was, and your assumption here that it is related to Ozoma's article feels inappropriate.
 * Everything I added to Ozoma's page was sourced from her websites and news articles. It was improved upon later by other more experienced editors, such as GorillaWarfare.
 * The tweets you mentioned I referenced were embedded in the article I referenced. This is done elsewhere in your article, and across Wikipedia. I have already asked GorillaWarfare for clarification as to why the context around the problematic Medical Release form from the embedded thread of your tweets wasn't a good addition, versus the other tweets used in your article. I haven't contested it though, which again, leaves me a little perplexed as to what your issue is. Wikipedia articles are constantly being improved by editors, that's how the platform works. The fact that my updates have been, at times, altered, or in some cases, removed, is a normal part of the process.
 * The claim that my comments are "emotionally charged" is absurd, and you've not given any examples of them. I looked through all of my editing comments, and the only ones that aren't discussing solely the content or context of the respective edits are discussing a user that created accounts with the sole purpose of diminishing Scarlett's and Ozoma's articles. (Igotthistoo and Thistechworkertoo). If you could clarify which of my comments are "emotionally charged," I'll respond if there's something to respond to.
 * I answered to this already, but I do not know you, Scarlett, or Ozoma (or any of the other subjects of articles I have edited).GorillaWarfare addressed issues with some of the sourcing already, and the single instance of synthesized understanding from the EEOC's website, and I'm not sure why defining what a right to sue is biased to you, but at any rate, this was already addressed by GorillaWarfare and I am not contesting it, so again, I'm unclear what your issue actually is.
 * I have no issue with all of the articles I have contributed to being looked over by other editors and admins. That is the way Wikipedia works, and I happen to think it works well, which is why I decided to contribute as well. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 06:31, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * While I see it is not currently in the article, what you said about Cher Scarlett and her signing a petition somewhere smacks of original research. You should be mindful of that when you do your "extensive research". --SVTCobra 23:30, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I mentioned why I knew about the high school mascot controversy because Gjøvik questioned how I knew about it. I simply discovered it while I was trying to confirm she went to that high school because I didn't know at the time about WP:ABOUTSELF. I never added the information about the mascot to Scarlett's article, I added it to the article about the high school, and did not mention Scarlett in the content about the mascot. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 19:20, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Also adding my comments in this section only rather than copying them ×3. I wonder if these three sections ought to be combined. I've spoken to HazelBasil offline about her belief that SquareInARoundHole a) is Cher Scarlett or b) exhibits a COI with respect to Gjøvik, Scarlett, and other organizers in the tech industry like Ozoma. I don't agree with either a or b, but I also acknowledge that she has a lot more insight into the conflict between herself and Scarlett and could be seeing something I'm not. I also explained that I could not be the one to act in an administrative capacity with respect to these articles (since I created and have substantially written two of them), and told her she could post here if she wanted an uninvolved admin to take a look.
 * I wrote to her: But whoever [SquareInARoundHole] is, their edits are indistinguishable from someone who has an interest in the labor organizing and whistleblowing in tech over the past few years, who is still getting the hang of the specifics of some of Wikipedia's (many and lengthy) policies. You have pointed to a few edits that place undue weight on some statements that were critical or skeptical of you, or credulous of Apple's side of the story, but other edits by this person have added useful information about your complaints about Apple that place quite a lot of weight on your side of the story. This person has also added information about your SEC complaint to Scarlett's article—something that it seems Scarlett would be unlikely to do if she is indeed trying to have you written out of the story as you have suggested.
 * To address a few comments in this section:
 * many significant & most reverted by other editors – I have reverted a few of SquareInARoundHole's edits for various reasons, but it's mostly been due to what strike me as pretty common issues in edits by new editors: not realizing that various publications are deprecated sources, over-reliance on primary sources, etc. I've posted on their talk page with some guidance and they've responded well to the feedback and seem to have adjusted their editing accordingly. I don't think it's accurate to say that "most" of their edits have been reverted—many of them have been constructive, well-sourced, and neutral.
 * Many comments by the user also seem emotionally charged beyond what I'd expect for a neutral editor. – This has also not been my experience, though I haven't reviewed every single edit by the user. HazelBasil, could you provide diffs of these comments?
 * updates Scarlett's page and other BLP pages with insider information based on Tweets or personal knowledge – I have seen SIARH add information that is based on primary sources (tweets, etc.) which is a common error in good-faith new users. I don't believe I've seen them add anything that is "insider information" or hasn't been stated publicly. Diffs would be helpful here as well.
 * Regarding your comments on SIARH's "spree" editing, making many small edits in succession rather than one large one can appear a bit overwhelming, but it is how many editors (myself included) prefer to edit so that changes can be properly reflected in edit summaries. I don't think it is indicative of an issue. Regarding the article's C-class rating, I don't think it's fair to say that this is a negative thing or is solely because of SIARH's edits. Most of my new articles (and those of many editors) are rated at "Start" or, if I've been particularly thorough, "C" class simply because they are so new and still being written. This is a comomon rating (Content assessment) and is not meant to suggest there is a major issue with the page—major issues are typically noted with maintenance templates rather than through the rating system.
 * GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:42, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello! As previously discussed offline with GorillaWarfare, at length, I respectfully disagree with GorillaWarfare's assessment. I also posted this notice with an understanding that there would be unbiased discussion and review from a fresh set of eyes. Can someone please clarify if I need to make a case why an uninvolved editor should review? Or if I need to respond to justification requests by involved editors? I was hoping I could simply post this and have someone with no bias review the edits and not be influenced by the involved editors either. Thank you! HazelBasil talk 22:25, 4 January 2022 (UTC)


 * This noticeboard is not for content disputes. What is the conflict of interest (specifically) that you are alleging? I can certainly see that SquareInARoundHole has a very narrow topic area for their edits, but that in-and-of-itself is not a conflict of interest. Similarly, bias or a non-neutral point of view are not inherently COI, either. So, do you suspect SquareInARoundHole has a real-life connection to the subjects? Do you think SquareInARoundHole is being paid to edit these pages? --SVTCobra 23:19, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi! Thank you. This is why I'm confused. I'm not trying to dispute content, I'm flagging what appears to be a conflict of interest with SquareInARoundHole and these three pages. As I said in my first post, "SquareInARoundHole appears to be someone very close to Cher Scarlett." The three pages I mentioned all include edits by SquareInARoundHole to the three pages about Cher Scarlett. I provided a few examples not knowing if I had to provide a justification on why I flagged the account on this board, but I was confused why the involved editor (GorillaWarfare) and the person I flagged for COI (SquareInARoundHole) are disputing the specific examples and asking me to engage in discussion on them. It's probably also worth noting that on Dec 31 2021, GorillaWarfare wrote to me about my concerns about SquareInARoundHole having a COI, saying, "This a concern that you could potentially raise yourself (see Conflict_of_interest Noticeboard), but I don't think it would likely be successful given the user's editing history." I was concerened GorillaWarfare's statement felt like it was discouraging me from even reporting my concerns, and I am now further concerned that she has posted on this board in defense of the account I have concerns about. To repeat, I'm simply looking for a fresh set of unbiased eyes to review edits made by SquareInARoundHole to those three pages to establish if SquareInARoundHole is one of the people in these profiles or has a close relationship to any/all of them. Thank you. HazelBasil talk 23:40, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * , there's a lot of edits and material to sift through. But in support of your allegation that SquareInARoundHole knows Cher Scarlett, I found with an edit summary which includes clarified she was never on medical leave. This is in direct contradiction to the cited source which states she is now on paid medical leave. Now this may be an insignificant detail to distinguish between medical leave and paid time off, but curious nonetheless. --SVTCobra 00:08, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I read an article, which is referenced, which stated she was never on medical leave. I felt that this was of material importance, though if that is up for debate, I'm not married to my edits. From the source: "Feeling overwhelmed emotionally from the abuse and the stories of the mistreatment her co-workers experienced, she also requested medical leave from the company. 'I was at such a low place, I definitely had a lot of very suicidal thoughts,' she said. While discussing her leave application, Apple asked her to stop talking about the company publicly. Given the timing of the request, Scarlett felt like Apple was making her acceptance of it a condition of granting her leave — and felt like she had little choice but to agree. Her medical leave eventually became four weeks of paid time off." SquareInARoundHole (talk) 19:22, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking time to review! Yeah, I saw a few things like that too. Curious indeed. -HazelBasil talk 01:00, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Since you already identified yourself as Ashley Gjøvik, I assume edits to this page prompted all of this. Were any particular edits of concern and pointed to COI? I don't readily see it, but I also have concerns about SquareInARoundHole and original research. And yes, I did see which mentions Scarlett. --SVTCobra 02:11, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That's correct, several edits to my page prompted me flagging this user. I will list some of the edits I saw on Scarlett's page, then my page, which led me to suspect a COI. Again, not looking to debate content, but I found these edits by SquareInARoundHole suspicious.
 * edits by SquareInARoundHole
 * ▸ Edit on Nov 17 at : added that Scarlett attended high school at Juanita High School with no source cited & the three other sources in the paragraph don't mention the name of the high school. The edit said Scarlett "wanted to be a junior astronaut," while the source said Scarlett was "a junior astronaut who wanted to become a scientist." None of Scarlett's bios or employment history say anything about her being a junior astronaut, so it appears the user fixed a typo in the WP article with insider knowledge. It that edit, user also updated that Scarlett grew up in Kirkland, WA to that Scarlett was born in Walla Walla, WA & grew up in Kirkland - again without any cites & nothing mentioned in those three articles.
 * ▸ Edit on Nov on 20 at added "and during her tenure, she taught a web development course for the University of Washington," and only cited Scarlett's website which says she was an instructor at the university for five months but does not say what type of course she taught, so again the type of course must have been added with insider information.
 * 🚨🔥 ▸ Edit on Nov 20 3:58 UST at  with comment "adding news of memo" and added "Two days later, on November 19th 2021, Apple posted a company-wide memo affirming employees' rights to discuss pay and other working conditions, both internally and externally." The cited NBC article went live at Nov. 19 7:20 PM PST (Nov 20 3:20am UST). User added this memo 38 minutes after the article went live. In the cited article Scarlett simply says the memo "is a win" for employees. It will be weeks later that Scarlett reveals the memo was allegedly part of her settlement agreement with Apple. A few minutes later user   a the word confidential to a note on Scarlett's settlement noting "clarify the details of the settlement were confidential, according to her lawyer in the source."
 * ▸ Edit on Nov 24 21:30 UST at user adds a "Silenced No More Section" to Scarlett's page. It cites three articles but only one of them mentions Scarlett. That NYT article mentioning Scarlett was apparently published around 6:30am (14:30 UST) on Nov 24, again with updates made very shortly after an article was published. In this update
 * ▸ Edit on Nov 25 00:10 UST at she added a note from a Reuters article published Nov 24 ~4pm PST (Jan 5 00:00 UST). Once again user posted updates and cited an article very quickly after the article was published, this time i appears only 10min.
 * ▸ Edit on Nov 28 6:38 UST at  user edits "Scarlett helped to lead a group of around 7,000 employees in organizing to be allowed to continue working remotely" to "Scarlett and over 7,000 other employees organized to be allowed to continue working remotely" where the cited article only says "Scarlett is one of over 7,000 Apple employees who participate regularly in an internal corporate Slack group called “remote work advocacy,” where workers discuss their frustrations with management on the issue, and how other companies are offering more flexible arrangements."
 * ▸ Edit on Nov 28 6:40 UST at Line 40 with comment "removed unnecessary information about Chelsey Glasson" and updated "Keiser cited the outreach from Scarlett and from Chelsey Glasson, who is suing Google for alleged pregnancy discrimination, as inspiration for the bill" to "Keiser cited the outreach from Scarlett and from Chelsey Glasson, another tech activist, as inspiration for the bill." despite the cited article saying " Chelsey Glasson, a former Google employee who sued for pregnancy discrimination, also wrote the lawmaker." Then all hell breaks loose... you can read that back & forth yourself.
 * ▸ Edit on Nov 28 at Line 40 with reverting an update that said: "Scarlett and other employees helped to lead employees in organizing to be allowed to continue" back to a version that said: "Scarlett helped to lead employees in organizing to be allowed to continue." with an update comment saying: "all references clearly note her as the leader or co-leader WP:AIV" This was bizarre because there's no coverage I'm aware of covering the work-from home organizing where leaders were named.
 * ▸ Edit on Nov 28 at all over with another revert commenting "Restored this page to a previous version. This article is about Scarlett, and needs to reflect content and context from WP:RS. igotthistoo may have a WP:COI and committing WP:AVI, as many of their edits introduced unrelated individuals, and created negative or false context on this WP:BLP, based on sources." Which is interesting to me not because of the content necessarily, but because SquareInARoundHole acts like they've never used Wikipedia before and asks questions about how to cite things like it's their first experience editing articles, yet 11 days into this brand new account throws out "WP:RS", "WP:COI," "WP:BLP," and "WP:AVI". While user in some comments acts unsure of basic expectations they also just commented about another user "many of their edits introduced unrelated individuals, and created negative or false context on this WP:BLP"
 * ▸ Edits on Nov 28-Dec6 on Incident Notice Board about Cher Scarlett's page. I don't know what this is all about, but a few comments stood out to me:
 * ✽ User wrote about another users "diminishing the work of Scarlett". Scarlett would later write a few weeks later "During this same time, a few women embarked on a harassment campaign against me, including abusing Wikipedia to diminish me and perhaps most disgustingly refer to my childhood abuse as alleged.” Again, I don't know the details of that back & forth, but I found it very interesting Scarlett admitted to monitoring her Wikipedia page and used the word "diminish" herself.
 * ✽ Again, SquareInARoundHole acts like they are using Wikipedia for the first time (and GorillaWarfare states she believes user is not Scarlett partially because it appears user is just learning how to use Wikipedia, yet user posts about the other user apparently "adding in unsourced context that swings neutrality negative, unrelated individuals that are WP:NN to detract focus from the subject, and removing important context from WP:RS to further alter the neutrality to a negative outcome" and "it looks like you may have an undisclosed WP:COI with the subject, and/or those you have attempted to add to this WP:BLP, affecting the WP:NPOV and leading to WP:EW." Also states, "We are willing to consider any of your good faith edits with a RFC in Scarlett's talk page, provided you have proper reliable sources cited, and a clear, neutral reasoning behind the edits" and "A WP:BLP is not the space to work on an agenda." Again, does not sound like a new user.
 * ✽ Page also has yet another COI warning, "Based on the quantity, depth, and insider knowledge required for (SquareInARoundHole) comments and edits about Cher Scarlett, it seems possible that user could be Scarlett herself or someone close to her. Can the user also please be checked for WP:COI? (SquareInARoundHole)'s talk page already has a Managing a conflict of interest warning. User's account has only existed since 17 Nov and roughly half their edits are to Scarlett's page or about Scarlett on Ozoma's page."
 * 🚨🔥 ▸ Edit on Dec 11 22:22 UST at  is when things get really interesting. Now user updates the page with a new source, a Verge article published ~Dec 11, again very close timing. This article states "Scarlett says that her settlement with Apple required it to post “a company-wide memo clarifying employee rights including discussing pay & working conditions,” “in a prominent and visible location on the People site.” This is the memo that SquareInARoundHole added to Scarlett's article before anyone else knew that the memo was related to Scarlett's exit package. User also added a line saying "Scarlett received less than a half a year's severance" but that information does not appear in the cited articles.
 * ▸ Edit on Dec 31 20:16 UST at  user added my 2nd SEC complaint to Scarlett's page saying "Ashley Gjøvik a former Apple program manager who was vocal about issues at the company, also filed a tip the following day" despite the cited article not actually mentioning if this was my Sept 1 SEC whistleblower complaint about a conflict of interest in the Apple board of directors or my Oct 26 SEC whistleblower complaint about unlawful employee policies. This edit was only 17 hours after my Wikipedia page was  and I had not told anyone other than close friends that it was created (& GorillaWarfare of course). The only people who many have been notified were those with BLP who were tagged in the "see also" which were: Cher Scarlett, Ifeoma Ozoma, & Frances Haughen. User also cited a PDF on my personal website for the filing.
 * 🚨🔥 ▸ Edit on Dec 31 22:48 UST at  with comment "Moved Gjovik up to an expansion of harassment and abuse endured by both parties." User now adds very concerning edit "a former Apple program manager who was vocal about issues at the company, endured similar harassment from colleagues, including that she had been doxxed in the same thread as Scarlett. This information was later updated to a description of criticism of Gjøvik on Blind containing information she believed could compromise her safety. The thread was deleted by Blind's staff, which Gjøvik says was at her request." citing both the live Mashable version and a Wayback archive version of the page. Background: a reporter wrote about a tweet I made where I talked about being doxxed on Blind and then someone reached out to the reporters editors demanding it not say I was doxxed (i have emails & texts on this). The only people who knew about the details of what information was actually shared were my close friends and Cher Scarlett (because she demanded details from me after my tweet). I complained to one person about the back & forth & what I thought was Cher requesting the updates, a reporter named Zoe Schiffer. Other than that, I have no idea who would even know enough about this page updates, let alone be interested in citing a WayBack archive of the "before" version.
 * ▸ Edit on Dec 31 23:46 UST at, as you mentioned, it was unusual she clarified the status of Scarlett's leave despite it contradicting the cited source. User also added "which she changed in 2018 after providing federal investigators information that led to the arrest of the perpetrator of an incident when she was a teenager she said involved being forced into sexual acts on camera." which was not mentioned in any of the cited material.
 * ▸ Edit on Dec 31 at See Also user removed me from the list of people in her "See Also."  -HazelBasil talk 02:59, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 🚨🔥 ▸ Edit on Dec 31 to Scarlett's Talk page saying "Scarlett's speaking to the press openly was a rarity that inspired Rotondo (and others) to start speaking out about Apple on Twitter. While it could be contextual that Scarlett has helped others, like Rotondo, become publicly vocal about issues they experienced at Apple" which has not been printed anywhere and some would disagree with.
 * OK. This is a mouthful. I am off to bed. Maybe someone else will have time to look at it before I come back. --SVTCobra 05:14, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * edits by SquareInARoundHole (note: page was created Dec 21 2021 1:02 UST and moved to mainspace 3:06 UST same day)
 * 🚨🔥 ▸ Edit at Dec 31 21:54 UST on  user adds she "says was told not to discuss her concerns with other employees, a request she alleged was a violation of her rights under the NLRB." but this information is not in the article cited, in fact I don't think any articles have said that directly. User also added " She went on to raise her concerns amongst employees in the Sunnyvale office that they were possibly being exposed to hazardous chemicals, urging them to test the air, and that she was subsequently harassed and humiliated" which also is not in the cited article. User added this about the privacy section "Other employees said the upload process was user-initiated, and that they were instructed "not to upload anything sensitive, confidential, or private," although other staffers reported a company policy that bars employees from wiping their company-owned devices when they leave the company, and violation of the policy leaves them open to legal action." which again was not in the article about that topic. User edited "On August 4, 2021, Apple placed her on paid administrative leave" to then add "while they investigated some of her internal complaints," which again is not cited in any articles. User wrote about the leave that "which she said she requested as a "last resort", and which she later described as "indefinite" and "forced" in a complaint" which was misleading & was reverted. User added a SEC complaint citing my website, which was then reverted. User then added Cher Scarlett's SEC complaint to my article despite zero press covering both of our Nia Impact capital complaints together. User then removed Cher Scarlett from my page's See Also.
 * 🚨🔥 ▸ Edit on Jan 3 at user provided negative editorialization of my EEOC right to sue saying " Both the DFEH and EEOC issued Gjøvik right to sue letters, which indicates that while the agencies were unable to determine if law was violated and would not be proceeding on her behalf," despite no press saying it like that, instead press saw it as a positive as EEOC investigations are not required and it was a step forward.
 * 🚨🔥 ▸ Edit on Jan 3 at  &  &  &   user added information not included in the press and not widely known, referencing an ADA medical release document I shared with Scarlett and Scarlett Tweeted the document but never said was my document.
 * ▸ Edit on Jan 3 at  said "determined that she may have VOC poisoning" which is not printed anywhere and is not really a thing, VOCs are a huge group of chemicals, some of which are fairly safe. User also added this "She continued to press Apple for information on the reasons for the environmental testing and its results, and says that she was subsequently harassed and humiliated." which is not in the cited article. ~HazelBasil talk 05:52, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * ▸ Edit on Jan 1 to my Talk page  user adds bizarre statement " As she [Gjovik/me] is a woman, and one who seems particularly subject to harassment, it would be nice to clarify how much higher education she's accomplished"
 * 🚨🔥 ▸ Edit on Jan 1 to my Talk page  user says "Gjøvik has mentioned the harassment from her colleagues in numerous places, though I discovered it in the Mashable piece (or rather, a copy of the original that was re-published on another outlet). Was going to expand with additional context from the piece on truthout.org.[1] It seems heavily related to the culture described by Scarlett in the Mashable piece, and relevant to properly highlight what she endured at the company for speaking out" which is weird & confusing for numerous reasons, but also confusing why something "heavily related to the culture described by Scarlett" would need to be Gjovik/my page.
 * edits by SquareInARoundHole
 * ▸ Edit on Nov 19 03:21 at  user updates page that "Cher Scarlett has left the company". Scarlett's departure was only made public at 03:35 AM IST/UST, 17 Nov 2021. It was a quick and minor update if this person isn't connected to Scarlett.
 * ▸ Edit on Nov 23 at  user updates Scarlett's "settlement" to "non-board settlement" which seems over specific.
 * ▸ Edit on Dec 24 at  adds an "Apple Together" section even thought it appears to be simply a rename of AppleToo and Scarlett continues to infer she's still leading the group & provides updates on their activities, including the walkout details added to the page.  ~HazelBasil talk 06:09, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

(Response to HazelBasil's list of claims below, collapsed because of its length)
 * ~ SquareInARoundHole (talk) 23:01, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

First of all, I am declaring here that I have a COI with regard to the subject area, as stated on my user page. I do not know any of the involved users in any capacity outside of Wikipedia. I'm a little bit hazy on policy, but I couldn't find anything saying that I shouldn't contribute to tangential COIN discussions such as this one; if it's a problem, tell me, and I'll dip out. With that out of the way, I'm not seeing the same contradiction as you,. The source says Her medical leave eventually became four weeks of paid time off. I took that to mean what SquareInARoundHole wrote in the edit: "She said after her compliance, she was granted four weeks of paid time off instead of medical leave." That's what the source says, paraphrased. Medical leave is a long term absence. If she got 4 weeks in October and she returned in November, where did the long term leave go? Alex Eng ( TALK ) 09:01, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I wasn't able to source what was going on for the last 2 weeks of October, only the 4 weeks PTO mentioned in that piece which would cover late September through October 15th. This is probably out of scope for this discussion, though. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 23:07, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Editors in this page please read WP:PEPPER. This page is immensely hard to follow as is. Santacruz  &#8258;  Please ping me!  22:17, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

This list is excessive, and while I could see the questions about timing of 2 of the edits being so close to the news, the rest of what you've said repeatedly incorrectly claims that I've written things not in the source material when it is clearly there. None of us have the context you do, but I will tell you that I am feeling suspicious about the fact that the majority of your concerns are about Scarlett's article, and not yours, and several seem to be referencing Scarlett's vandal Igotthistoo and its sock, and that you felt the need to reference Scarlett's description of the vandalism incident in a random medium post not referenced anywhere on Wikipedia or the news. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 23:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * -> (Note from Ashley Gjovik/HazelBasil] on 00:25, 6 January 2022 UTC) To everyone reviewing this COI review request: I do not plan on responding to every numerous inline comment just made by SquareInARoundHole unless an uninvolved editor requests me to directly, in which case I'm happy to provide clarification. I will note that personally I find many of SquareInARoundHole's recent comments (and the sheer quantity, detail, and emotion of them) additionally indicative of a COI by the user and I feel provide additional evidence supporting my concern. A few notes below.
 * SquareInARoundHole, Jan 5: Do you have a COI with Glasson as well?
 * Answer: Yes, as I've said, I am Ashley Gjovik. I know, and it is known, that I know Glasson, Rotondo, Ozoma, & Scarlett.
 * SquareInARoundHole, Jan 5: I have edited Wikipedia in the past without an account
 * Answer: SquareInARoundHole, can you confirm if you edited any of these four pages previously without an account? And if so, would you disclose what the edits were?
 * SquareInARoundHole, Jan 5: I am confused by your position on my mentioning the harassment you've faced, because I found mention of it in more sources than I mentioned on your talk page, ie, "After Gjøvik started to gain momentum on Twitter, multiple current and former Apple employees tweeted about how they were suspicious of her claims and felt like she was merely trying to get attention."
 * Answer: That article was referring the harassment I faced by Shantini Vyas and Cher Scarlett. There is no press coverage naming them as I had been trying to keep this unfortunate abuse out of the press for months, in an effort to not distract from the overall movement.
 * SquareInARoundHole, Jan 5: "I found the terminology "indefinite paid administrative leave" misleading based on all of the materials I read, including an email from an Apple HR representative you uploaded to your website which states that it was not indefinite."
 * Answer: I now feel even more conclusively that the SquareInARoundHole user is indeed Cher Scarlett. The crux of Scarlett's harassment against me has been claiming I asked to be put on leave like it was a vacation, the leave was not indefinite, that I leaked IP, and my cases have no merit (all of which I refute, with piles of evidence & the press never implying any of those accusations).
 * SquareInARoundHole,Jan 5: "Again, I'm not familiar with legal jargon, but "settlement" confused me, and others into thinking that Scarlett had been involved with a lawsuit with Apple."
 * Answer: I don't know how an uninvolved person who is not close to Scarlett would know that "others thought Scarlett was involved in a lawsuit", as that was not mentioned in any press I saw.
 * SquareInARoundHole,Jan 5: " I am feeling suspicious about the fact that the majority of your concerns are about Scarlett's article, and not yours, and several seem to be referencing Scarlett's vandal Igotthistoo and its sock, and that you felt the need to reference Scarlett's description of the vandalism incident in a random medium post not referenced anywhere on Wikipedia or the news."
 * Answer: It's my understanding that any user can flag a potential conflict of interest with another user and any page. As mentioned, I do have a COI with Scarlett, as I know her, have interacted with her directly, and she has been harassing me for months. That Medium post names me.
 * SquareInARoundHole,Jan 5: Numerous quotes: "This is ridiculous." "Pointing it out feels like an absurd reach." "Again, this is a ridiculous claim." "This list is excessive." "I am feeling suspicious about the fact that the majority of your concerns are about Scarlett's article, and not yours."
 * Answer: Finally, these additional examples show the charged language I saw in previous comments and edits from SquareInARoundHole which strike me as someone at the very least way too over-invested in these women & these articles.
 * ~HazelBasil talk 00:25, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I came into this discussion assuming good faith, and as I went through your very long list of incorrect assertions that the content wasn't in the source material, or framed claims by way of removal of important context so that it would appear that I had a vendetta that supported your assumption that I know Scarlett, I became very annoyed that this is how I chose to spend my only day off this week. I ensured your academic achievements were properly highlighted, and added important context that helps the reader see your side of the story. I was confused about one word: indefinite. To me, indefinite means something has no limits. You stated, "I asked them to mitigate the hostile work environment while they investigate ... if there was no other option they could give me paid administrative leave." I don't think my confusion is unwarranted, nor do I agree with your assessment that it should be conflated with someone else's alleged harassment of you, nor do I think it somehow makes it seem like Apple did not engage in likely illegal and deplorable tactics to silence you. Like I said, I thought it was more damning against Apple that they only chose to investigate a few of your claims, and seemingly not the ones you found to be important. I don't have the context you do. Last - yes, I do find it suspicious that you went into a noticeboard discussion that has expired, tied it to a Medium post by Scarlett, and managed to allege some of the same things the vandal Igotthistoo and 98.51.101.124 (Sunnyvale, CA) did about my edits being unsourced (or unverified or un-cited), the contention of Scarlett's role as a leader, and bringing up a COI notice you don't have the context for, and more similar points. You do not come across here as someone who was uninvolved in that event. I sincerely do not care about your interpersonal issues with other women, including any that I have contributed to on Wikipedia. I don't want to know about them, or get involved, as it could cloud my judgement in making edits. I won't be making further edits anywhere about you on Wikipedia, and I'm disengaging from this discussion. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 03:23, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * -> (Note from Ashley Gjovik/HazelBasil] on 03:50, 6 January 2022 UTC) Hello uninvolved editors, I deeply apologize for all the comments & edits my COI review request has prompted, as well as the general chaos contained there within. I do not know why SquareInARoundHole has taken it upon themself to become so involved in this discussion about their account as it was my understanding neutral parties would simply be reviewing edits and logs to look for a COI. That being said, regardless of SquareInARoundHole "disengaging" from the COI review request about their account, I would like to please request we continue the COI review for their account on the four pages I mentioned. Thank you. ~HazelBasil talk 03:50, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, it is not unusual for editors to respond to allegations of improper editing against them—in fact, it is often considered to be dodging accountability when one doesn't. Editors are allowed to give their side of the story. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:52, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * And SquareInARoundHole, if I'm understanding you correctly that you believe that HazelBasil is a sock of Igotthistoo and the IP, WP:SPI is the better spot to discuss that if you're hoping for an admin to look into it. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:54, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @All & My Wikipedia account is nine years old and from the beginning, my name has been associated with it via my Talk page. I don't see how it could be a sock puppet account for different account created a month ago. I'm going to say it again, I feel like the counter-accusations, and also GorillaWarfare originally dissuading me from even raising this Conflict of Interest concern in the first place, then defending SquareInARoundHole before anyone uninvolved even reviews, then SquareInARoundHole's manifesto response, and then GorillaWarfare's defense of SquareInARoundHole's repsonse and assistance on helping her claim i'm a sock puppet against all laws of physics -- all of this feels like intimidation to drop my concerns and I'm feeling very uncomfortable all of it. I'm definitely losing faith in the Wikipedia processes through this experience. ~HazelBasil talk 23:14, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I believe that HazelBasil had to have been involved with the previous incident involving Igotthistoo (& their sock: Thistechworkertoo), 98.51.101.124 (Sunnyvale, CA), and 73.202.58.200 (Santa Clara, CA) based on their comments above, yes. That may mean that Igotthistoo is a sock of HazelBasil, one or both of the IP users, or all of them. I do not believe HazelBasil's stated COI with Scarlett and the others mentioned explains what they've written here, and how it mirrors the complaints of that incident, and that one of the first actions in that incident was to add Gjøvik to Scarlett's article in the lede. This edit maps directly to one of HazelBasil's complaints above, as does this edit, and this edit. I'll head to the other board with this concern. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 00:32, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Technically Igotthistoo would be the sockpuppet of HazelBasil if SIARH was correct; I phrased it poorly. But WP:SOCKPUPPETRY is an issue that would apply to all accounts operated by one individual in violation of that policy. Regarding me "dissuading" you from making this COI complaint, I don't agree that I did—in fact I directed you to the proper location to do raise it. I did give you my opinion on the likelihood of it succeeding, but I also wrote "Again, I could be wrong on this, and if you would like to get an outside opinion you're more than welcome to request it." Involved editors, as well as those accused of misconduct, giving their opinion what happened in a conflict is also very normal in Wikipedia discussions. As for my "assistance on helping her claim i'm a sock puppet"—I have simply directed them to the appropriate location to raise that concern, the same as I did for you and your conflict of interest concern. I am trying my best to be fair and helpful to those who are involved, as well as provide context to the reviewing admins. I have made my involvement in editing the article quite explicit. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:44, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

This thread is giving me a headache and I cannot give it the attention it deserves. Unfortunately, there is an unrelated but concurrent discussion above (started more than 2 weeks earlier) which is also taking a lot of time. So, I guess the best I can do now is ask involved parties here for patience. --SVTCobra 23:52, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I wish for a TL;DR where someone can give me a concise allegation like "X is an agent of Apple looking to discredit former employees" or "Y is an agent of a radical group looking to discredit Apple" or "Z is an agent of a nefarious group looking to discredit worker's organizations" or anything direct. Unfortunately, Xmas was two weeks ago, so I guess the heart of the issue will not come gift-wrapped. --SVTCobra 00:59, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I've never done this before. Adding allegation here, and also at the top. I allege that the Wikipedia user SquareInARoundHole is the human Cher Scarlett. I allege in that in editing the article, SquareInARoundHole is violating COI rules that "You should generally refrain from creating articles about yourself.... If you have a personal connection to a topic or person, you are advised to refrain from editing those articles directly." This also includes Scarlett's updates about Scarlett to, , & . Further, I feel that Scarlett has been harassing and defaming me outside Wiki for months, and has recently stated she plans to testify as a defense witness for Apple, against me on my Apple cases. Thus, SquareInARoundHole if Scarlett, is also violating COI rules when editing  as editor's "should not write about court cases in which they or those close to them have been involved, nor about parties or law firms associated with the cases." Further, because Scarlett has apparently worked to prevent press from writing about me (as told to me by the press) and then Scarlett publicly bragged about it -- and Scarlett has made false accusations about me to many  friends and supporters in text messages & DMs, I think she would also fall into breaking the COI rules against editor's editing pages "who are involved in a significant controversy/dispute with another individual or who is an avowed rival of that individual, should not edit that person's biography or other material about that person, given the potential conflict of interest." Even outside my allegations of harassment against Scarlett, Scarlett is involved in legal cases with me, with us both filing NLRB charges against Apple and SEC whistleblower complaints against Apple. That, in addition to her apparently planning to testify against me, makes this a blatant COI in my opinion. If this user is not Cher Scarlett, I believe it to be someone very close to Scarlett and likely working at Scarlett's direction. I also have concerns about Scarlett/SquareInARoundHole possibly making some edits on my page at the direction of Apple Inc as some of her edits on my page were adding doubt on my legal claims against Apple. Cher recently signed a settlement with Apple with unknown terms, but at the very least she's agreed to withdraw her NLRB charge against Apple and she said she did request the withdrawal, and apparently is now also a defense witness for them. ~HazelBasil talk 01:52, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * , Thank you. At least we have a concrete allegation. The revalation that there are off-wiki issues is also helpful. I have medicated my headache with enough alcohol that I should not comment further. --SVTCobra 02:46, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I seriously recommend you try to make your TL;DRs at most ~500 characters. Quoting of the COI guidelines might be redundant in some cases, and I recommend you use tq in the future as the distinction in color makes it easier to sift through your comments. From what I understand, you are implying SquareInARoundHole is responsible for the tweets you have linked. If SIARH has not admitted on-wiki to managing that twitter account, that may be considered outing. On the actual issues you are raising regarding COI, I am sorry but I genuinely cannot understand what you are saying and suggest you rephrase them. Again, follow the format SVTCobra mentioned above and try to spare us the details at first. There is plenty of opportunity for follow up questions or explanations, and a 3000 character "summary" will only make less people want to hear you out. Just give me a 3 sentence summary and I'll hear you out. Santacruz  &#8258;  Please ping me!  02:40, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I was asked to provide examples by SVT, so I did. SquareInARoundHole went in and peppered responses to each bullet making the section "impossible to read," per SVT. I was then asked to summarize by SVT, so I did. P.S. The Tweets I linked to are mine; I am Ashley Gjovik. ~HazelBasil talk 02:54, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I completely agree on SIARH making the thread hard to read, see my comments above on the issue. I see now you are Gjovik. It's a bit too late here for me to go through the tweets now with that understanding, but I'll do so in the morning once I've got a fresher mind. Thanks for responding so quickly,, and I hope I didn't come across as passive agressive or rude in any way. Another small note, I strongly recommend against user pagelinks within a discussion paragraph as it kind of bulks the text a bit. Santacruz  &#8258;  Please ping me!  03:03, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * & - Thank you both for taking the time to attempt to read this novella. I'm happy to respond to any follow up questions you have (I can also email evidence as needed for off-wiki accusations). I look forward to hearing your outcome once you've had time to review. Please note that some comments were made inline by GorillaWarfare who self identfied as an involved editor & who created Cher Scarlett's page, and also AlexEng who self-identified a COI with the topic of the article. Further, SquareinaRoundHole already received one COI warning from Blablubbs in November 2021. Finally, SquareinaRoundHole just flagged my account for review as a Sock Puppet, an action by SquareinaRoundHole I view as an act of retaliation against me for alleging SquareinaRoundHole has a COI & is Scarlett. It's also worth noting GorillaWarfare appears to have helped facilitate the Sock Puppet inquiry, even posting the notice about it on my Talk page herself, which at this point makes me worry GorillaWarfare is beyond involved or biased, but may also have an actual COI with SquareinaRoundHole... but that can be a matter for another day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HazelBasil (talk • contribs) 03:40, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I apologize for the way I responded above making the post more difficult to read. I am still new to Wikipedia. I am working on consolidating it into the preferred formatting. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 04:32, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I also created the Ashley Gjøvik page. I have not facilitated the sockpuppet investigation any more than I have facilitated this COI discussion; I informed you where to raise concerns about COI and I informed SIARH where to raise concerns about socking. I posted the notice on your talk page because I saw that SIARH had created the discussion but had not notified you, and I wanted to ensure you had a fair chance to present your side of the story—as SIARH has here. I don't know what a COI with SIARH would even entail, but all of my interactions with them are publicly visible on-wiki if you (or anyone else) would like to peruse them—those are the only communications I've had with this editor. As for your suggestions that I am biased against you somehow, I have explained my stance on you, Scarlett, and labor activism in our previous conversation, which I will repeat here for the benefit of others if it is useful (but collapsed in case the reviewers of this already long conversation don't care to see it). As always, I welcome third-party review of my own editing, if that's something you would like."I think it's unfortunate that there has been conflict between various individuals who are all otherwise working for the same cause, though I can totally understand someone also trying to ensure they are not maligned, unfairly represented in press, etc. I'm sad to see it when I do see it cross my feed. But one boundary I would like to draw is that you not try to involve me in that conflict. I have written both about you and about Scarlett, and in both articles I think I have been fair and not taken sides on whether one of you is credible and the other isn't. My goal here, as I've mentioned, is to ensure that labor organizing in tech is well-represented in Wikipedia, as are some of the people we have to thank for it. But the absolute last thing I want to do is become a part of the conflicts between various activists in this space. As I've already said, I totally understand that conflict is sometimes necessary to protect one's reputation and for various other noble reasons, and I default to assuming that it is only those reasons that cause people to engage in such things (and to be clear—I assume that of both you and Scarlett—even though it is quite possible that both can't be simultaneously true). But there is not such a noble reason for me to become involved in this particular conflict, nor could I in good faith edit Wikipedia articles about either of you if I was. Nor can I pretend to have anywhere near sufficient information on what has happened between the two of you to take any kind of informed side in the conflict."
 * GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 04:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * A few hours ago you tried to post on this page explaining my point of view & reasoning for posting this COI. You must have realized it was weird to speak on my behalf since you then deleted it. However, I also find it weird, & I'm adding it in to keep this whole dumpster fire in one place...."I don't want to speak for HazelBasil and so I invite her to expand on this or correct me if I'm mistaken. My understanding is that HazelBasil (Ashley Gjøvik) believes that SquareInARoundHole is Cher Scarlett. Gjøvik and Scarlett are both former Apple employees who have stood up against the company in various ways, and have ongoing complaints with the NLRB, SEC, etc. However there has also been some conflict between Gjøvik and Scarlett which I will admit I am only partially aware of. I believe Gjøvik has alleged that Scarlett has told reporters not to speak to Gjøvik and is trying to have her written out of the story of labor organizing/whistleblowing vs. Apple, and spoken negatively about her behind her back to others. And she is alleging that SIARH is continuing this behavior on Wikipedia as SquareInARoundHole. If SIARH was Scarlett they would also have a COI with respect to Apple worker organizations as a former Apple employee with grievances against the company, and as a part of the #AppleToo movement. I am not sure what the COI would be between Scarlett and Ozoma though—perhaps that they have been in communications over proposed legislation? HB can perhaps elaborate there. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 02:04, 7 January 2022 (UTC)" (Note: Entry reverted 3 minutes later HazelBasil (talk) 06:30, 7 January 2022 (UTC))
 * I hit an edit conflict while trying to reply to SVTCobra's request for a concise explanation of the root issue. I removed it to avoid adding length to a discussion that was already overlong, since you answered the same question in more detail at the same time as I, but no problem if you'd rather it stay. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 06:41, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I think it is unfortunate when an editor claims to be "fixing formatting" adds 14000+ characters to a thread. But that's just me, I guess. Also, why is everyone involved contributing again just because I asked for patience? All of you claim to want input from COIN. I know it hasn't been immediate like you may have wanted, but this is a mess now. --SVTCobra 05:45, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Assuming good faith, of course, but somebody or something may have suggested to them that COIN was basically akin to a criminal proceeding by Wikipedia standards, rather than a place to solicit advice from other editors. Some newer users may not understand the processes here. Alex Eng ( TALK ) 05:57, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This is a dumpster fire, I'm sorry. Is it possible to revert SquareinaRoundHole's 14k update? She appears to have edited and reformatted most of my comments and I'm struggling to check to see if she's changed actual content or modified links. Due to all the chaos already ensuing on this page, the page where she flagged me as a sock puppet, and the chaos with her outside Wikipedia, I don't feel comfortable trusting that she did not modify/remove anything material. Thanks. Sorry. HazelBasil (talk) 06:17, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I was removing the "peppered" replies and changing it to one inline response with tq's as suggested by another editor as the preferred way to address a list of bulleted comments. Can you please clarify how exactly you would like me to refute HazelBasil's aspersions and invalid claims that I've added un-cited material to Wikipedia? I am trying to learn and adjust accordingly, while this user has moved on from claiming they suspect I have a COI with the 4 referenced articles to flat-out stating I am someone I am not? SquareInARoundHole (talk) 06:27, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * If you diff the revision where you added your bulleted list with the revision just now after SIARH split the WP:PEPPERed format into a block of replies (diff) and then ctrl-f for "That's correct, several edits to my page" to scroll past all of the edits to other sections that happened in that period, you can confirm yourself that none of your statement was changed. Note that the diff collapses long portions of unchanged text; you will see "Line ###:" where a piece of the diff has been collapsed for that reason. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 06:33, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * COIN is not a criminal proceeding and everyone ought to be aware of what this noticeboard is or is not through the huge disclaimer at the top of the page. But you are right, it is also not a place for general advice. However, I think this was made clear early on in this thread. Early in this case could be within the first 30k characters of the thread. --SVTCobra 06:55, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstood my comment. I mean to say that less experienced editors can sometimes be under the that discussions at COIN are like a type of criminal proceeding in the world of Wikipedia; I am not under that mistaken impression myself. This discussion reads almost like somebody reporting an individual to the police, and then that individual vigorously defending themselves.   Alex Eng ( TALK ) 07:20, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't know. Diatribes like this are rare in my experience on COIN. Like I said a few hours ago, I am not looking at content now. It's too late and I am inebriated. I just don't see how it should grow by 14K characters. But still, who says you have to respond to every post by HazelBasil? I haven't looked at a single diff in 2 days now. So, I don't know if there's merit to the vast amount of "diff-evidence" and I don't know if you even need to respond to any of it. If one day, I get around to looking at this mess again and HazelBasil has something that might suggest COI on you part, I will be sure to ping you and request a retort. But if another editor needs to review instead of me, well, I pity them if both sides are constantly editing/adding to the thread. Well, I am checking out for the night. --SVTCobra 06:55, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * GorillaWarfare's at least partially responsible for inciting the courtroom drama; a quote from her above "Just for the record, it is not unusual for editors to respond to allegations of improper editing against them—in fact, it is often considered to be dodging accountability when one doesn't GorillaWarfare 22:52, 6 January 2022" responding to me saying, "I do not know why SquareInARoundHole has taken it upon themself to become so involved in this discussion about their account as it was my understanding neutral parties would simply be reviewing edits and logs to look for a COI." — Preceding unsigned comment added by HazelBasil (talk • contribs)
 * Please be fair to ; she is an experienced and well-respected editor. She's not being combative. She's patiently explaining procedures here so that you might understand better the culture and processes common on Wikipedia. On a COIN thread like this one, it true, as GW said, that people will usually respond at length to allegations concerning them. It is not unusual to see verbose discussions here. What  unusual  and what makes this discussion exceptionally difficult to read  is point-by-point replies formatted in line, as if one were responding to an email. Here, we usually rely on the threaded discussion format. There is no hard and fast rule about it, but editors are generally expected to make all of their points in one (usually) or more (rarely)  paragraphs, indented one level from the previous reply. When that doesn't happen, it makes the conversation frustrating to follow. On another note, and to clear up any possible misunderstandings, this is not a venue where independent authorities investigate user behavior and come to a binding conclusion. In rare cases, conflicts here can escalate to such measures and lead to behavioral discussions at alternative venues, but that is the exception rather than the rule. The primary purpose of this noticeboard is to solicit feedback on potential and apparent conflicts of interest. You can read more about Wikipedia's definition of these terms at WP:COI. Due to the at times acerbic nature of such discussions, they do sometimes have the outward appearance of quasi-legal proceedings or investigations, but that is not reflective of the reality. The results of each thread are typically twofold: 1) Provide feedback to editors with a possible COI regarding the nature of their conflict, along with associated advice on avoiding problematic editing, and 2) Determine by consensus whether such editors have a conflict of interest that they should disclose. I urge you to pay particular attention to the sections in that link that describe the consensus-building process and how consensus is ultimately determined. This is crucial to understand, because it is very central to how we do things here. Please also feel free to ask any questions here or on my talk page. Should you like more assistance with understanding Wikipedia culture or policies, the Teahouse is open to everyone for that purpose.  Alex Eng ( TALK ) 07:57, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * & note for other uninvolved editors: Closing the loop on Cher Scarlett/SquareinaRoundHole's continued harassment of me, this time via Wiki Sock Puppet accusation... results are back and shockingly I am in fact Ashley Gjovik/HazelBasil and not a puppet or using a puppet, I'm simply trying to report harassment and a user with a COI who clearly has a vendetta against me. Sockpuppet results are here. I wish I was as inebriated as SVT. Cheers. HazelBasil (talk) 07:25, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * P.S. I ran the numbers on this dumpster fire of a thread since I seem to be getting blamed for where we ended up. This thread is currently ~17.3k words & 83.6k characters long (scream). Of that, SquareInARoundHole posted 7k words & 36k characters (43% of the content). GorillaWarfare posted 1.8k words & 8.7k characters (10% of the content). AlexEng posted 684 words & 3.5k characters (4% content). I posted 5.6k words & 28k characters (33% of total content). Of my edits, 4k words & 19k characters were the original ask or updates/clarifications in response to requests from uninvolved editors. So, 23% of the total content, was me responding to requests from reviewers, and 10% of total content were my commentary and responses to involved editors including the many updates made by SquareInARoundHole & GorillaWarfare. The rest of the edits were uninvolved editors trying to review this mess. Ranked: 43% - SquareInARoundHole; 23% - Me responding to uninvolved editors; 11% - all uninvolved editors combined; 10% GorillaWarfare; 9% - Me commenting & responding to folks in this list; 4% AlexEng HazelBasil (talk) 08:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC) HazelBasil 08:37, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I went to bed, but couldn't sleep. So I am at my computer again (and probably against medical advice) I looked at this thread again. I am sorry if I misunderstood you AlexEng, but I did want to distinguish this from a court. While sometimes admins will come by and instantly enact a block in clear-cut cases, I would say (or guess) most people here (myself included) are not administrators. Two cases where I was involved in recently were referred to WP:ANI before any adminstrative action was taken. In the simplist and ideal situations we have an editor acknowledge their COI and we work with them to resolve the issues. (Keven McDonald was the one I am proud of diffusing and solving). Nevertheless, while I have been somewhat active on this board for nearly three years, I feel a bit uneasy being the only one truly uninvolved responding to this. A far-reaching case above has grabbed most of the attention and I feel a little alone which is why I asked for patience. Aside from one or two short comments, I think everything here is from 1) the original poster who has COI with one of the articles, 2) the editor who has been accused of COI, 3) an editor who has already been involved and 4) an editor who wasn't involved but admits COI in general with the subjects. But, as you can see above, even with lots of editors looking at a situation, it can take weeks for a resolution or consensus. So, I hope everyone can be patient. Cheers, --SVTCobra 09:05, 7 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I am going to ask you one single time to stop speaking in absolutes that I am the person you are alleging. You are putting me into a position where I am being forced to announce that my pronouns are not she/her, and you are not giving me the basic respect of assuming good faith, like I gave you. I imagine that Wikipedia has a Code of conduct, and claiming I am harassing you for responding to your allegations and requesting your account be examined for sockpuppetry when you appear to not only have known about the previous incident in WP:ANB while it was active, but were likely involved in it, and casting aspersions on myself and others, would probably be violations.
 * There's no sense of urgency from me. I apologize for my responses giving you that impression. I only wanted to give my side of things since the notice was about me. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 16:18, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Because SquareInARoundHole formally accused me & my account as being a sock puppet last night in retaliation against me for raising this COI concern, and they started a separate conversation on these matters on the Sockpuppet page, I'm copying the significant portions of that discussion here in an effort to keep all discussion about this in one place. I am including the following not only for cohesion but also because these comments and actions by SquareInARoundHole further support my allegation that SquareInARoundHole is Cher Scarlett acting on her own, someone acting at Scarlett's direction, or Cher Scarlett acting at the direction of Apple Inc. HazelBasil (talk) 22:44, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * SquareInARoundHole wrote at 02:19, 7 January 2022 UTC: "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 Ashley 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."
 * Spicy wrote at 05:16, 7 January 2022 UTC: "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."
 * Spicy wrote at 07:31, 7 January 2022 UTC: "In light of the Checkuser results, I don't think there is compelling evidence that the sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry policies have been violated by HazelBasil, so I am closing this case without further action."
 * SquareInARoundHole wrote at 15:39, 7 January 2022 UTC: "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 Inc, 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.
 * Tamzin wrote at 16:16, 7 January 2022 UTC: "With respect,, 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."
 * Thank you for not continuing to misgender me, but the WP:CHERRYPICKING of the sockpuppetry investigation is not necessary, given you already informed everyone of it above. Your behavior and complaints continue to mirror the previous incident, and it is unlikely you were not involved in some way. The investigation was not in retaliation, it's because I believe you are one or more of the sock/ip accounts from that incident, or were working with that person or persons. You do not get to tell a one-sided story and force people to accept it by cherrypicking and casting aspersions and making false accusations as though that is the truth. Igotthistoo enjoyed cherrypicking, too. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 01:28, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Please note, latest harassment & retaliation from SquareInARoundHole is now yet another flagging of my account on a notice board. It was added here and then moved by GorillaWarfare here. HazelBasil (talk) 06:10, 8 January 2022 (UTC)" HazelBasil (talk) 06:40, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Posting from SquareInARoundHole at 05:16, 8 January says, "Yesterday, I flagged HazelBasil (who has claimed she is Ashley Gjøvik) as possibly engaging in sockpuppetry using the accounts Igotthistoo and Thistechworkertoo (archive of checkuser here) because of the similarity of their complaints on WP:COIN (see here) about my edits on Cher Scarlett, aspersions cast about GorillaWarfare, and HazelBasil's investment in the expired incident on this board about contentious edits on Cher Scarlett by Igotthistoo (see here), all involving people HazelBasil has said she has a COI with due to a personal relationship with them, including Kate Rotondo and Chelsey Glasson, who were both shoehorned into Scarlett's article, alongside Gjøvik, by this group of 4 users. I previously thought that the IP users also involved in editing the two articles that the socks edited both in timing and purpose was curious, and because of their locations, were likely an Apple employee with a vendetta against Scarlett, but given that they are located where Gjøvik's office reportedly was located, and where her University is self-reported to be located on HazelBasil's self-page, I strongly believe one or all of these users is HazelBasil. Checkuser did not believe my argument was compelling enough on its own, but because HazelBasil is using a VPN, I believe the results have been skewed. During her COIN request, HazelBasil has continued to state that I am Scarlett, linking to Scarlett's tweets as evidence that I am harassing her, that I am working on behalf of Apple Inc, referring to me as She/Her, and cast aspersions on GorillaWarfare for sharing her perspective on HazelBasil's concerns that I have COI, or that I have edited Gjøvik's article in a way that introduced a unfavorable bias against Gjøvik and/or a favorable bias toward Apple. I disagree that I have done this, as I added information I thought helped highlight the wrongs that Apple has allegedly done to her. (Redacted) SquareInARoundHole (talk) 05:16, 8 January 2022 (UTC) Repeated content redacted - addition to COIN was oversighted -- TNT (talk • she/her) 05:21, 8 January 2022 (UTC)'
 * GorillaWarfare replies at 05:25, 8 January 2022 "I am extremely upset to see that my attempts to document some of the recent tech industry activism on Wikipedia has somehow ended in the subject of one of the articles coming to Wikipedia and attempting to dox someone known to the other. At this stage I will be abandoning my work on the Ashley Gjøvik article to other editors—I don't wish to have anything more to do with this. Please ping me if my input in this discussion or the COIN discussion is needed for some reason, otherwise I will be leaving this to others in the community. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 05:25, 8 January 2022 (UTC)"
 * And I comment at 06:10, 8 January 2022, "As I previously mentioned on the COI page a couple hours ago, I already submitted a report about the harassment by SquareInARoundHole against me to the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee. We have been emailing about it tonight and I've now also notified them of this latest retaliatory reporting/harassment."
 * Note: I am emailing with the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee. Also, I posted above about some redacted content: "I was previously asked by a reviewing editor in this discussion thread to provide a concrete accusation of the suspected COI, including who I think the person behind the suspect account is in order for the editor to examine the COI. I provided detailed records of harassment with private personal information contained directly to the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee in order to keep the information private, again as previously advised. I'm confused why this was redacted. All information provided in that bullet that was redacted was public information. Can you please clarify what rule was broken please? HazelBasil (talk) 06:25, 8 January 2022 (UTC)"


 * I did not see what you posted prior to it being redacted, however, I can tell you there is a difference between on-wiki and so-called public information. The outing policy is quite broad in that sense. If is was redacted, I think the fact that it was brought to ArbCom was probably right. --SVTCobra 00:15, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Neil Patel review
Hi. I am coming here after a controversial review of a crap article, Neil Patel (digital marketer), (which has been deleted multiple times, Articles for deletion/Neil Patel (entrepreneur) and Articles for deletion/Neil Patel (online marketing strategist)) by an inexperienced reviewer User:Tamingimpala. The work is paid so a good look of this user contributions is warranted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.191.211.194 (talk) 19:53, 8 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I've notified of this discussion on their talk page. Do note that the page is currently tagged for CSD G4 as there was a previous AfD which closed as "delete". 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him &#124; talk) 23:26, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I have left this on their TP, basically it is me un-reviewing the article and leaving a tip for the editor who reviewed the article, not necessarily because of the OP but because of this edit made by the reviewing editor, which I found a little disturbing, I haven’t checked to see which occurred first but my thinking is probably marked the article as reviewed before reviewing the sources then having looked at the sources tagged it with unreliable sources and forgot to unmark it as reviewed, or, saw the sources were unreliable and marked it as reviewed all the same (which would be problematic and concerning), in any case I do not see anything happening here, as  noted, OP already tagged the article with a G4 and I’m not particularly sure what they are asking for. Infact OP has been WP:FORUMSHOPPING,  & I don’t know why. Celestina007 (talk) 23:51, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @EpicPupper, I believe I clicked unreview after I noticed the sources were problematic. IDK why, it's strange, wasn't it unreviewed. It could be my wifi connection, it may have been sloppy or something (which has been the case for the last few weeks). In any case, if I had any COI (which I definitely don't), you assume me gullible/naive enough to put a "not reliable source" tag on the page? It's like axing my own feet? [I'm busy in real life hence might not be able to reply on further queries on this discussion today]. Have a wonderful day. -- Tame (talk) 02:16, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @Celestina007, apologies for the confusion. I did not nominate you to this noticeboard, I simply notified you per noticeboard policy. I haven't expressed any negative comments about your review. In any case, I'll be closing this section for now. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him &#124; talk) 03:04, 9 January 2022 (UTC)