User talk:Hazelsletterings

Welcome!

Hello, Hazelsletterings, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as File:Foodporn table of foodpood.jpg, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's content policies and may not be retained. In short, the topic of an article must be notable and have already been the subject of publication by reliable and independent sources.

Please review Your first article for an overview of the article creation process. The Article Wizard is available to help you create an article, where it will be reviewed and considered for publication. For information on how to request a new article that can be created by someone else, see Requested articles. If you are stuck, come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can help you through the processes.

New to Wikipedia? Please consider taking a look at the our introductory tutorial or reviewing the contributing to Wikipedia page to learn the basics about editing. Below are a few other good pages about article creation.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions ask me on my talk page or you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Praxidicae (talk) 16:34, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Foodporn table of foodpood.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Foodporn table of foodpood.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the file appears to be a blatant copyright infringement of https://www.facebook.com/foodporn. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use it — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Praxidicae (talk) 16:34, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Hazelsletterings (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I think I have now shown my willingness to edit other articles on wiki. Happy to also be given a TBAN on editing future food delivery articles. Thanks! Hazelsletterings (talk) 06:40, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural close - multiple open unblocks GeneralNotability (talk) 15:43, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Food porn article

I don't understand why you reverted my changes i made. The site you are referencing to has no connections to food porn. If you wish you write about the brand "foodporn" i suggest you to make an article for that brand and not mention it on the food porn article.

Hogohit (talk) 09:49, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hogohit: Hi. Food porn and Foodporn are inter-related. One is for the concept, which many articles say was introduced by the company foodporn. There is already a page called foodporn, and both pages cross reference each other. Several other users have also edited both pages to make them work together. Thanks

@Hazelsletterings:

I have reviewed the articles and the users you are talking about and none of them suggest that food porn and "foodporn" are related at all. I also believe that the articles you are references aren't noteworthy, e.g. when talking about the origins of the word food porn you are linking to this https://www.forbes.com/sites/ceciliarodriguez/2014/03/10/food-porn-are-you-ready-to-take-a-stand/#1283181c5e28 as a reference, which doesn't confirm anything. Also, there shouldn't be an infobox about the company, when you are talking about the broader concept. The users you are talking about have been blocked from editing on wikipedia. Hogohit (talk) 10:12, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hogohit: We will have to agree to disagree about the origins, because if you look at Foodporn's twitter account (as an example) at www.twitter.com/foodporn, that alone has been around since 2009. I do agree that the infobox shouldn't be there (I didn't do that, but someone else mustn't have seen that food already existed), so I deleted that. Nice chatting.

@Hazelsletterings: There is a section on the article that references Coward, Rosalind (1984). Female Desire: Women's Sexuality Today. Paladin. ISBN 0-586-08447-9. (p. 103), where the term was used. Hogohit (talk) 10:32, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hogohit: Yes I saw that. But this reference talks about the term being used in the 'olden days' as a way of presenting food for others in person, not taking photos of food and uploading it onto social media which is what foodporn the company is known for in the modern day. Again, the company's website www.facebook.com/foodporn has over 3 million followers and all they do is post images and videos of food so I think they can be reliably credited with being the modern-day source of the term foodporn. Anyway, I am just working on some other edits and need to go to work after that, but I will find some more noteworthy references to add to the page to increase the notability aspect when I get back. Thanks for your comments. There are so many nice people on wiki sometimes I forget!

@Hogohit: You reverted it all anyway? I said I would find more references. I thought we were having a fruitful dialogue and that was uncalled for and rather rude.

Hazelsletterings if you hijack a redirect or an article again, I will request an indefinite block. Praxidicae (talk) 11:32, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Praxidicae I think talk about "hijacking" and indefinite blocks is a bit of an overreaction at this stage. --Slashme (talk) 07:48, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

why don’t you take a look at the history and then tell me that. They have hijacked multiple articles to spam this. Praxidicae (talk) 11:22, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Slashme: This is very much an undisclosed, paid editing account. Their edits are in violation of the WMF Terms of Use. I will allow Hazelsletterings to explain their editing in detail and explain who is paying them (a COI disclosure, in line with the Terms of Use). If they fail to do so before making any further edits, or if they fail to response, I will be blocking this account in the next couple of days. Nick (talk) 11:33, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nick, came to say the same thing. I'll post a COI notice to their page now to formalise it. Glen (talk) 11:49, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Hazelsletterings (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Respectfully, I obviously strongly disagree. If you have a look at my user contributions over the many months I have been on wikipedia, you will see I have edited countless pages and articles and spent many months improving my wikepedia knowledge. You will also notice my particular interest in editing food related pages, hence my editing the food porn page. You will see that I have far more extensive edits on other food pages such as uber eats, deliveroo, grub hub, etc, etc. Meanwhile, the user I reported only created their account 3 times ago and according to Special:Contributions/Hogohit, has almost exclusively just edited the food porn pages. They created an account, deleted content from the food porn pages, and haven't been seen again. How can I be found to be suspicious but this page isn't? Anyway, I confirm 100% that I have not been paid by anyone to do anything. I don't even know what a COI disclosure is. I am by no means an expert on wiki but have been trying to improve my skills. I have even been speaking to several helpful wiki users including @Slashme: to improve my wikipedia knowledge and he will vouch for this. Please don't ban me from editing wikipedia pages as I very much enjoy doing it. Hazelsletterings (talk) 13:09, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Maybe you should read some of the countless messages on your talk page. One of them is sure to explain what a COI disclosure is and whether you need to make one. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:15, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Hazelsletterings (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I don't understand why everyone is being so aggressive here. This is my talk page and I have been polite in my communications the entire time. I already said I haven't been paid to write anything. Please look at Special:Contributions/Hazelsletterings and you will see that I have made countless and substantial edits to many food related pages. The aggression being shown towards me in this chat is unnecessary and uncalled for and frankly is out of line. I already said I am by no means a wikipedia expert but am learning. I sincerely hope someone can take a thorough review of my edits and you will see that I am not what I am being accused of. Thanks in advance. @Slashme: can you please look at this for me? Hazelsletterings (talk) 11:36 am, 18 August 2020, last Tuesday (2 days ago) (UTC−4)

Decline reason:

Per my concern below: too many coincidences for this to not be a socking case. When asked to explain it, you shifted the focus onto another user for 80% of your response. only (talk) 20:15, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Do you have any conflict of interest to disclose?CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:22, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CaptainEek: Thanks for your message. I confirm I do not have any conflicts of interest. Please check my edits on Special:Contributions/Hazelsletterings and you will see I have edited lots of different food pages, as this is my interest as a foodie. However it is an interest only, I am not affiliated with any of them and I certainly don't get paid by any of them.

@CaptainEek: I would like Hazelsletterings to explain the speedily deleted image from the Food_porn article that Hazelsletterings uploaded and was the image that raised the COI concerns in the first place. This image had the following description text: "Contains a table of different food in the Foodporn style of aesthetically pleassing" And with the following source text: "We took the photo ourselves. Previously published: Original" Note that "Foodporn" is the site that is the suspected relationship in Hazel's COI disclosure. If you wish to check this out yourself, you can go to https://web.archive.org/web/20200703073727/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Foodporn_table_of_foodpood.jpg Hogohit (talk) 05:51, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CaptainEek: This is a pretty easy explanation. I took a screenshot of the Foodporn video. As such, I took the screenshot myself and that's what I said in the description. I was alerted to the fact that this was an issue by EugeneZelenko on Talk:Foodporn. He subsequently explained that my interpretation of youtube screenshots was incorrect, so I deleted it. Again you can see the discussion at Talk:Foodporn as it's all documented there :)

@Hazelsletterings: You also mentioned to me that you didn't add the infobox, dedicated to the company, on the Food porn page, which you did. On two occasions: Here you add the infobox https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Food_porn&direction=next&oldid=969240244, and here you add the company's logo https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Food_porn&direction=next&oldid=971376260 added their logo. Not to sound rude, but it is painstakingly obvious that the content you were posting was spam, and I think it is time to stop beating the dead horse and wasting other peoples time. Hogohit (talk) 09:38, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CaptainEek: Hogohit I also deleted the infobox when you raised it. I really don't know what your witch hunt is about. Who are you? I find it EXTREMELY strange that your account is only 3 days old and during this time you have almost exclusively edited just the food porn pages according to Special:Contributions/Hogohit. Out of 18 contributions you have made to wikipedia SINCE YOU OPENED YOUR ACCOUNT, 17 of them has been made to food porn. What is your angle here? You are definitely not an impartial observer in this matter. I also find it difficult to believe that a BRAND NEW WIKI USER has already developed such a deep understanding and knowledge of how wikipedia chat works (eg: your above quoting old versions of pages, etc). I have been on wikipedia for a long time and only know a small fraction of what you - a 3 day user - know. Suspicious. Who are you performing Sockpuppetry on behalf of? Anyway, CaptainEek asked me if I had been paid and required a COI disclosure. I already confirmed I have not. I just enjoy editing food pages. Did you look at the countless and extensive edits I have made to other food pages? It proves that I have no COI. Or are you suggesting I am being paid by all food companies to edit their pages? @Slashme: @Glen: It appears this has gotten a bit out of hand and I'm not sure why. I apologise for my role in inflaming the situation but can confirm that I have no COI. Can you please review this block and kindly remove it?

Hazelsletterings the {{ping}} notification only works if you sign your posts with ~~~~ which you should every time you write on a talk page - it will add your username and a timestamp. I can only take your word that you do not have a COI, but I have reviewed your edits and I have to admit I am struggling to believe you do not have some kind of interest in the food delivery industry. How would you feel if you were restricted from editing in that area, could you give examples of what other parts of the project you'd like to contribute to? Glen (talk) 10:00, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Glen: Sorry Glenn I had no idea about the sign off thing. You learn something new every day! I definitely have an interest in the food industry... I LIKE FOOD HAHA. Also I am a terrible cook and have been living off delivered meals during covid so have been also reading up on them as it's an interesting business model. For example, did you know that almost all of the delivery companies are laying off employees now - despite the fact that it is one of the busiest times for them during covid - because they are planning for the eventual economic downturn when covid ends and the economy goes poop? Fascinating stuff if you ask me. But alas I am interested in lots of things (particularly the NBA which is in the middle of finals now), so I am equally happy to move away from food and into sports. Hopefully I did this right this time... :) Hazelsletterings (talk) 10:17, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Almost. You don't need to put the nowiki part, just the 4 tildes ~~~~ themselves (ah (edit conflict) just saw you got it in the end). I'm not sure there's any precedence for a partial block from articles due to a perceived COI, however we do have a principle called WP:ROPE which may apply here. CaptainEek MER-C thoughts? Glen (talk) 10:23, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The problems are that JohnathonJ and Garyablett05 have been also promoting the same company and the timing of all three accounts' edits is rather coincidental. The sock/meat aspect of the block has not been addressed. MER-C 12:27, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MER-C, good point. Hazelsletterings is this your first account or are you associated with the two users MER-C referred to? Bear in mind we can run checks to confirm this so you are best to be transparent. Additionally the point was not that you "agree to not edit any food articles for a while" - I was talking about a complete topic ban from all related articles. Glen (talk) 13:26, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Glen: how about I just agree to not edit any food articles for a while? Then you don't have to worry about instituting any complex wiki-stuff in order to re-activate my account. Happy to offer this to you so I can be allowed back into this wonderful community :) Hazelsletterings (talk) 11:27, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My two cents: I was thinking about this case last night and thought a topic ban would be suitable, and that an indefinite block was a bit draconian. --Slashme (talk) 13:36, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Glen: @Slashme: Thanks Slashme. Happy to self-topic-ban if there is no way of topic banning through wiki. I just want to come back and already have several chrome tabs open of non food pages that need desperate editing ;) Hazelsletterings (talk) 13:58, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hazelsletterings, there is a way to TBAN you but that's beside the point. Can you please answer my previous question, specifically:

1: Is this your first account on Wikipedia and,

2. Are you associated (in any way) with the two users MER-C referred to above (JohnathonJ and Garyablett05)?

Thanks. Glen (talk) 14:02, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Glen: I confirm this is my only account on wikipedia and I have no association with the users you named. Hazel. Hazelsletterings (talk) 14:28, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hazelsletterings, I didn't ask only I asked first. Nuanced but important distinction. Glen (talk) 14:31, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Glen: Apologies. It is my only account. Hazelsletterings (talk) 15:03, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hazelsletterings, first account? Glen (talk) 15:08, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Glen: Apologies I wasn't understanding the distinction. It is my first account. And only account. Hazelsletterings (talk) 15:27, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hazelsletterings, I'll be honest your answers have felt evasive and I feel I've had drag responses out of you. Quite frankly I'm not comfortable unblocking you. However I won't decline your unblock request so it still remains active on your page. An uninvolved admin with fresh eyes will attend to you soon. Good luck. Glen (talk) 15:33, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to take you at your word, but here's where I get hung up. Hazelsletterings and JohnathonJ were created as accounts within days of each other. In the entire account history of JohnathonJ, their only edits to Foodporn were 4 days after Hazel first edits there. Gary... first edits there 5 days after that and never edits again there after a few days later. At Food porn, all editing by Gary and JohnathonJ take place within a month's span July to August 2019. Gary edits first, then Hazel a day later, then the same pattern of 4 days later JohnathonJ editing and 5 days later Gary editing.

Based on that evidence and based on the similarities in editing styles, how can we trust your word that you're not connected in any way to these accounts? only (talk) 15:41, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Glen: I'm not sure what else I can say. I've seen lots of strange things on wiki. A lot of this started when I flagged Hogohit for clearly being involved in Sockpuppetry. I mean this user opens his/her account 4 days ago, then out of 18 contributions in 2 days, makes 17 contributions to the food porn pages according to Special:Contributions/Hogohit. And then he/she gets into this talk and uses some really advanced wiki code, much more advanced than I know. How does a brand new user know such advanced wiki code in such a small amount of time? Suspicious. Anyway, nobody seems to have taken issue with this so obviously they think it is fine. You asked me some direct questions and I answered them honestly. I also said you could prevent me from editing food pages as I'm just keen to get back into the community in any way I can. Hazelsletterings (talk) 17:30, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hazelsletterings, tagging Only or any reviewing admin as I'm stepping away. As mentioned I'm unconvinced but other admins may see differently when reviewing which of course is fine. Your unblock request is still active and will be attended to. All the best. Glen (talk) 18:38, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Hazelsletterings (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I feel the latest unblock denial is unfair. With respect Only, saying "When asked to explain it, you shifted the focus onto another user for 80% of your response" is simply not true. My talk page is full of my explanations where I go to great deal to say I haven't got any COI, where I explain this is my first and only account, and where I agree to no edit further food articles. If I were merely a sockpuppet account, why would I even both contesting this ban? I would have just moved on to another account. On the contrary, I have agreed to everything the admins here have said in an attempt to preserve my account. @Glen: can you please have a look at this for me and remove the ban? Thanks in advance, H Hazelsletterings (talk) 01:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Responding as you tagged me in your unblock request. I've already discussed this with you and thought I was clear. I found your answers to questions asked by myself and other administrators evasive and unconvincing. You were given plenty of opportunities and you side stepped and made accusations about other editors. As mentioned I'm not comfortable unblocking you. Glen (talk) 03:50, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Here's your response when I asked you about the sockpuppetry. You mentioned the sockpuppetry you were accused of in the first sentence, then spent the next several sentences on a tangent about someone else being a puppet. So I think my comment is true. only (talk) 01:08, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Glen: OK thanks Glen. I thought I'd explained in great detail my situation by that point so I apologise. Hazelsletterings (talk) 01:51, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Hazelsletterings (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

@Slashme: Glen is stepping away from this, so can you kindly review this with a view to removing this block on the basis that I don't post in food, and that I am blocked from doing so? Like you said from the start, I believe an indefinite block is a draconian response. Thanks in advance. Hazelsletterings (talk) 04:07, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural close - multiple open unblock requests GeneralNotability (talk) 15:47, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Hi Hazel, I'm not an admin, so I can't unblock you. I feel that an unblock and a topic ban would be appropriate, because I think you could be a productive editor. Also, you say you're not abusing multiple accounts, but there's circumstantial evidence that's leading to you being accused of this, so would you like me to request a checkuser to investigate? --Slashme (talk) 06:59, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Slashme: Thanks for your kind words - sorry I thought you were an admin. I won't waste your time anymore, and I'll wait for an admin to review this chat and hopefully lift the ban on the basis that I am topic banned and whatever else they deem appropriate. Have a good day or night! Hazelsletterings (talk) 07:49, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Amir, would you be willing to look at this case? We have an indefinitely-blocked user who claims that she's innocent of sockpuppetry, is still keen to edit Wikipedia, and is willing to submit to a topic ban. Do you think a second chance is in order? --Slashme (talk) 07:59, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I very rarely get involved in such cases, but since you asked, I'm not inclined to unblock because other admins' suspicions about a conflict of interest appear to be sensible. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 13:33, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think we have a clear consensus then. Thanks for taking the time to check it out! --Slashme (talk) 14:00, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Slashme, as discussed on my talk page I'm bringing the discussion back here so it's intact in one place and any reviewing admin can also see. I've spent the last twenty or so minutes going through Hazelsletterings' edits and unfortunately I'm still not comfortable unblocking. Also any unblock should be discussed with the blocking admin which you have seen I've already done on this page and they weren't comfortable either. My suggestion is for Hazelsletterings to remove the current unblock request which is specifically addressed to you and make a fresh unblock request for an uninvolved admin to review. Hazelsletterings could even refer to the fact that you have offered to mentor her and a TBAN on food delivery articles. I'm not a Checkuser so I cannot confirm whether the previously blocked accounts are related but I agree with MER-C that the editing patterns are too similar to discount. This is my last comment on this issue but I appreciate the fact you've gone to the effort to AGF and mentor. A pair of fresh eyes may see this in a new way, a Checkuser could really assist as well. All the best. Glen (talk) 19:13, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Glen: I would like to try and appeal to you one final time if I may. I can 100% promise you that I am not in any way associated or affiliated with the accounts Jonathon and GaryAblett. I'm not sure if you are a religious man, but I swear to God this is the case. This is my original, first, and only wiki account. If indeed this was merely a sockpuppet account as I have been accused of, then wouldn't it make sense that I wouldn't care to get this account reinstated and instead just use another dummy account? The fact of the matter is that this is my one and only account and that is why I am fighting so hard to try to keep it. I can't explain the similarities that you are claiming exist with my accounts and other accounts, other than to say it must coincidental. To this end, I am reminded of one of the many quotes in Season 3 of Fargo. If you haven't watched it, you really should. Watch the movie Fargo first, then watch Season 1, 2 and 3 after that. Anyway, in one of the episodes in season 3, Sheriff Dammick talks about the fact that coincidences happen all the time, and just because they sound amazing doesn’t mean they’re actually meaningful. He then goes on to talk about The Story of Laura Buxton’s Balloon. As summarised here https://www.thewrap.com/fargo-season-3-laura-buxton-balloon-real/, in the story "a girl in England releases a balloon with a note attached. The note gives her name, Laura Buxton, and asks whoever finds the balloon to return it to her address. Miles away, the balloon finally lands — where it’s found by another young girl of the same age, who also is named Laura Buxton." ... "While the story sounds like an anomaly of crazy coincidences, it’s actually been used as an example of how human perceive patterns and ascribe meaning to random chance." This is actually not a story at all, it actually happened. Coincidences happen all the time. So there you go. Again, I promise this is my first and only account, and I hope you will allow me to continue to use it. We are in stage 4 lockdown here at the moment, so editing wikipedia pages has given me something to do during this time. And I have met many fabulous people here, including you. Hazelsletterings (talk) 14:31, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hazelsletterings, sorry just one more question you mentioned stage 4 lockdown which as far as I'm aware is most typically a term used in Australia and NZ. Are from down under? (only asking as I'm a Kiwi). I've made some suggestions above which I think might help. All the best. Glen (talk) 19:37, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Glen: Yup from downunder! Stage 4 restrictions down here which means we can't go anywhere so I was really enjoying the wiki community :( @Slashme: thanks for your to mentor a TBAN on food delivery articles. Happy to do a Checkuser or whatever to get this cleared up once and for all. Hazelsletterings (talk) 02:56, 22 August 2020 (UTC)→[reply]

Hazelsletterings, while it's always nice to meet someone from our part of the world unfortunately that's also another red flag as the other blocked accounts were Australian as well. Anyway, will leave this in the hands of the reviewing admin. Thanks. Glen (talk) 04:40, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hazelsletterings, you aren't supposed to remove unblock requests while you are blocked. Hogohit (talk) 07:17, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hogohit: Who are you? What is your interest in this? You never explained why you have almost exclusively only edited food porn accounts since you signed up to wiki just 5 days ago according to Special:Contributions/Hogohit. How can such a new user to wikipedia have such a deep and complex knowledge about how wikipedia editing works? I have some questions for you: 1. is this your first account on wikipedia? 2. is this your ONLY account on wikipedia? I think it is about time that someone looked at your account as well. cc @Glen: Hazelsletterings (talk) 07:24, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JohnathonJ is back. MER-C 10:35, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MER-C: I would like to officially request a review of the account Hogohit. I don't know why people keep on ignoring my request. I have been put through the absolute ringer here and yet every time I ask for hogohit to be looked at, there is radio silence. Just look at Special:Contributions/Hogohit. Account created 4 days ago, 99% of the edits have been on food porn pages, and they have a VERY advanced level of wiki knowledge. Nobody that has been on wiki for such a short time can develop this level of wiki knowledge and editing/talk capabilities. Is this a conspiracy or something? They are CLEARLY a sockpuppet for someone. Hazelsletterings (talk) 10:50, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone. My account is still blocked. I have had more time to reflect on this, and I understand from reading forums that admins are on the constant lookout for people who are paid to create articles on wikipedia. So I appreciate that you are naturally skeptical. But at the same time, I see that on wikipedia you are supposed to assume good faith. I feel this hasn't occurred in my case. I have agreed to topic blocked, I have continuously denied any association with the other accounts I have been associated with, and have confirmed 100% that I am not a paid editor and HAVE NOT been paid by anyone to write anything. Yet I am still blocked. Let's face it - I could easily create a new account right now and continue editing and none of you would be the wiser. However I am still here trying to clear my name. I'm not sure what else I can do... my call for hogohit to be investigated as a sockpuppet account / single-purpose account have gone ignored - even though this is clearly what they are (out of 23 wiki contributions, 21 of them have been on food porn posts - see Special:Contributions/Hogohit)... and this is even assuming good faith. I have asked hogohit direct questions above to explain this and received no reply. Isn't this suspicious? Of course it is. I asked MER-C to investigate. Again, no reply. Bottom line is, you need to apply assume good faith to me as well and with respect, I feel you haven't done so. Please tell me what else I need to do or show to have my name cleared on here and I will do it. Thanks @Glen: @Slashme: Hazelsletterings (talk) 01:12, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the difference between us looking into accusations of sockpuppetry against you and your accusations against Hogohit. The accusations against you state that "based on these edits, this account seems clearly connected to these other accounts." The accusations you're making against Hogohit are "based on these edits, this account MUST be connected to SOMEBODY." This is a fishing expedition and not allowed under checkuser policy. We can't just look into someone's technical data because we think that maybe they have another account that we don't know about. Checkuser can only be used when we have solid evidence that Person A is likely the same as Person B; it cannot be used when you say that Person A is likely the same as an unknown person. If you have solid evidence to show what other account Hogohit is likely connected to, please share. But right now your accusations are merely fishing. only (talk) 12:27, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Only: Thanks for your 2 cents. Even though (with respect), I was not asking you. Thanks for also making the checkuser that I requested to prove my innocence completely bias against me and unfair by adding in a whole lot of unsubstantiated comments. What happened to assuming good faith? The checkuser is supposed to be a fair and unbiased way to determine if I had any association with the other accounts, which I DO NOT. It would have proven so. However with all of the stuff you just added to my checkuser request, it is impossible for any reviewer looking into my checkuser to start off from an unbiased view as you have completely muddied the water against me. I am not even allowed to reply to your comments as I am blocked from doing so on that page. What about guilty until proven innocent? That was exactly what the checkuser would have done. But now you have gone and effectively tampered with the jury and the evidence. You know what would happen if this was in a court of law? The judge would be forced to declare a hung jury and I would be released. Wikipedia is broken if this is how you think good faith is supposed to be run Hazelsletterings (talk) 14:23, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that you feel that the facts presented at the SPI case are "completely bias" and "unfair." At an SPI case, users are supposed to present the evidence to checkusers or other admins about what connections they see in order justify an investigation. Simply saying "I think X and Y are the same, please look into it" is not enough. I've done exactly what needs to be done at an SPI: present evidence of connections between accounts through diffs and other patterns. Are the facts wrong? These aren't my opinions. I stated objective facts. I'm not sure what is biased about saying those facts. If you'd like to make a "defense" against the claims, you're welcome to do so here and one of us could copy it to the SPI page for you. only (talk) 14:36, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Only: It is my understanding that an SPI is a process where an independent arbitrator looks at my account and the other supposedly sockpuppet accounts and tracks the IPs, etc, to determine if they are the same user. This is a completely unbiased process as you are looking at IP addresses which are static and don't change. What you have done is effectively told the judge I am guilty without letting them decide for themselves. You only stated objective facts, and not opinions??? I quote your final comment: "To me, this is a clear duck situation and checkuser is unnecessary." This is 100% an opinion, not a fact. You even started out the sentence with "To me". @MER-C: it seems impossible that there is going to be a fair assessment of this now. I'd really like to continue to edit on wiki and did the final thing I could do to clear my name (and SPI), but not that has even been muddied and cannot be impartial. Hazelsletterings (talk) 15:07, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Hazelsletterings. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Glen (talk) 11:49, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August 2020

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or promotion. From your contributions, this seems to be your only purpose.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. MER-C 12:18, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Hazelsletterings (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hello everyone. As you know, I was accused of being a sockpuppet with other users and this is why my account was blocked. At my request, an SPI was performed here Sockpuppet_investigations/Garyablett05, and it was not able to confirm that I was associated with any other accounts. The only similarity - as I understand it - was that me and the other user was located in Australia. There are 25 million people in Australia as an FYI, so this is not too much of a coincidence! In addition, I have maintained this entire time that this is my first and only Wikipedia account. As such, I would kindly ask that a new admin review my case and taking my situation into consideration, kindly re-activate my wiki account. I am even happy to accept a topic block (either self imposed or site-forced if that is possible), and I will promise to continue to improve my wiki skills and editing ability with the help of many of the friends I have made on this platform, including the amazing Slashme. Please let me know and thanks in advance! Hazelsletterings (talk) 09:07, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Given the amount of promotional editing surrounding Food porn and Foodporn - sorry, but I'm not buying your claim that you have no conflict of interest, and so I'm not willing to unblock even with a topic ban. Declined. GeneralNotability (talk) 15:51, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

@Glen: Are you able to look at the above and help out? I'm still trying to get my account unblocked and would love if you could assist. I am happy to accept an editing block for food delivery places, and will be continued to be mentored by the wonderful user Slashme who has been amazing to me during this entire process. As you can see in the SPI, it confirmed I was not related to the other people I was accused of being related to, other than we are both located in Australia. And there are 25 million Australians here so that's not a very big coincidence! Surely everyone can see that if I was merely a sockpuppet, I would have simply opened a new account by now and continued on my merry way. Instead, I have been trying to clear my name and have my account reactivated! Anyway, I just want my account back so I can start contributing to the wiki community again. Thanks so much in advance. xxx H Hazelsletterings (talk) 03:35, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hazelsletterings, my position hasn't changed I'm afraid. I've also already reviewed one of your unblock requests. An uninvolved admin may come and review differently but my review would be the same as the last time. Glen (talk) 12:35, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ok sorry I didn't know you couldn't review the same unblock request twice. Hopefully a new uninvolved admin will come along and review the SPI to see I had not association with the other accounts I was accused of being a sockpuppet with and they will finally unblock my account. Have a good day :) Hazelsletterings (talk) 13:45, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Garyablett05, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Slashme (talk) 07:24, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]