Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SquareInARoundHole/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets
I came across this issue after seeing this notification because I have the talk page of SquareInARoundHole added to my watchlist, having warned him earlier.

Sebastien1118 was created just 3 days ago and is sharing the same tactics as SquareInARoundHole.

Both are the largest contributors to Ashley Gjøvik, after GorillaWarfare, the former arbitrator.

Their edits can be best said to have adopted the approach of having the deepest but unbalanced analysis into one side of the dispute or have none. Something I also saw in the edits of SquareInARoundHole elsewhere.

Both make the same argument in order to object the sources they don't like. Such as claiming that sources "are not about the subject".

SquareInaRoundHole reported HazelBasil to be socking, and Sebastien1118 reported HazelBasil to be socking on ANI.

Their format of ANI reports is also very unique and the same.

Sebastien1118's first edit was to nominate the article on Ashley Gjovik for deletion. SquareInARoundHole is alleged to have COI with Ashley Gjovik as per Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 184 which remains 'unresolved'. TolWol56 (talk) 23:24, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Upon discovery of sock-puppetry, I would recommend indef block on all accounts because this is apparently a long-running issue and the suspected master's own history of unresolved COI, and disruptive editing needs to be addressed. I see that an IP related to HazelBasil has been blocked by . They are welcome to take a look here. TolWol56 (talk) 23:33, 13 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your response.
 * While the history of SquareInARoundHole (likely a sock himself) with Ashley Gjøvik has been already explained, he is also alleged of COI on Cher Scarlett where he made his 3rd edit and didn't take long to make a large edit to Ifeoma Ozoma, where he is also alleged of having COI.
 * It seems Bobrossghost was also used for months for socking at Ashley Gjøvik. We can say that Gjøvik was herself not wrong by accusing SquareInARoundHole of harassment. This whole chapter looks like a clear case of WP:NOTHERE. TolWol56 (talk) 00:15, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * based on shared priorities, some of the behavioral similarities presented above, and a distinctive edit summary I noticed. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 23:47, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * to one another and to . All three have slightly different UAs, so could be meat. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:01, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Tony. This is a case where I don't think it really matters whether it's sock or meat, since either way SIARH is evading an ArbCom IBAN (which explicitly covers edits to the Gjøvik article). Furthermore, at least in the case of Sebastien, I'm pretty confident that this is true socking, owing to the distinctive edit summary I mentioned ("MOS:STYLE"). There's a subtler tell shared with Bobrossghost that makes me favor the same conclusion there. Both sox .I've gone back and forth on SquareInARoundHole. We don't normally indef for first-offense socking. SIARH is not a single-purpose account, so I am hesitant to unilaterally brand them NOTHERE. At the same time, serious sanctions are in order. SquareInARoundHole is blocked 1 month as an arbitration enforcement action for the IBAN violation, and an additional month for sockpuppetry. If there's a desire for broader sanctions than that, that can be discussed at WP:AN/I. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 01:00, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Noting also a factual finding that the various 2600:387::/32 IPs in Special:PageHistory/Ashley Gjøvik are likely SIARH. No point in blocking, though, as that range has since been blocked due to an unrelated LTA. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 02:54, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Noting also my exchange with SVTCobra about suspicious SPAs and . (TL;DR: No action, but reasonable to revert them.)  --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 18:57, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
Disrupting the same paragraph as SquareInARoundHole.

This IP's service provider, ASN, etc. matches with the earlier IPs abused by SquareInARoundHole. The IP socking was also concluded in the previous SPI.

I am sure this IP cannot be blocked due to inactivity of 5 days now but let's agree that SquareInARoundHole has failed to maintain 6 months forced break. TolWol (talk) 11:38, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * Seems more likely than not, but I don't think there's anything to be done at this moment. (I.e., even if it weren't stale, I'm not sure it would be at the confidence level for a block.) --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 11:47, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, just looked at the /24. Dammit, SIARH. I thought we'd come to an understanding. /24 blocked 1 month. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 11:58, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppets
__NOINDEX__

In sum, just on behavioral evidence, I am fairly confident that this is either sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry, probably the former; and in either case, when in doubt, we treat as socking.

I referred this to ArbCom for right of first refusal; they deferred it to SPI, but a check was run, with results between and  and a recommendation to ask for a second opinion, which I am doing now. If the reviewing CU sees this similarly, that would put me at the necessary confidence threshold to block indefinitely as a suspected sock, on CU + interests + location + edit-summary tells + article-writing tells.

Please note: No previously-oversighted or otherwise private information influences this analysis. -- Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 03:26, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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


 * I had mentioned suspicious activity at Cher Scarlett on June. Anyway, WP:SOCK has been violated.


 * Same kind of addition with same edit summary on High school dropouts in the United States.
 * Major addition at Sara Nelson (union leader) but marks the edit as minor.
 * Has significantly edited Walla Walla, Washington as CodeHitchhiker but when it came to mentioning "Cher Scarlett" then SquareInARoundHole was used.
 * Also see edits on California Department of Fair Employment and Housing v. Activision Blizzard. It shows that CodeHitchhiker is doing incomplete work of SquareInARoundHole because SquareInARoundHole is blocked.
 * Tags a paragraph on Marcus Whitman Hotel with citation needed tag and adds citation with another account.


 * Same edit summaries:- "additional details", "initial article", "add redirect".


 * The fact is clear here that they are the same person. Even if they were not the same person, then it's still a violation of sockpuppetry because: 1) SquareInARoundHole has been used to evade WP:COI concerns of CodeHitchhiker, 2) CodeHitchhiker is now being used for evading SquareInARoundHole's ban. TolWol (talk) 12:45, 21 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I would like to echo 's final thoughts on the matter. It's a shame that this has happened, but I do think there is a chance that CodeHitchhiker can make a productive return. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 17:06, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * from initial non-SPI check, per above. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 03:26, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * . --Blablubbs (talk) 13:06, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd call this from a technical perspective.  --Blablubbs (talk) 13:17, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Based on my previous comments, two sets of CU findings, and TolWol's comment (point 3 of which had been raised to me by the first CU, and point 6 of which intersects with my and another clerk's findings regarding edit summaries), I am blocking CodeHitchhiker indefinitely as a suspected sockpuppet. Due to the BLP implications here, I will blank and categorize her userpage in lieu of tagging. @CodeHitchhiker: This is a shame. I still think you have the potential to be a constructive editor here. But any path to that would need to start with a considerable period of time without editing. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 13:26, 21 November 2022 (UTC)