Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ramos1990/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets
I had an email conversation with the CU team (2024011710009412), and was invited to file this report as an SPI request. Originally, it was not my intention to open an SPI request because I believed it was not necessary, and my primary concerns pertain to Wikipedia contents and not users.


 * – Ramos1990, Desmay, and 1990'sguy

I suspect that the user Ramos1990 stealth canvassed her collaborators Desmay and 1990'sguy, and possibly others, with the aim of sabotaging/compromising the results of this RSN RfC (see here). The pattern of their !votes is indicative: 1) they have been among Ramos' close collaborators for long time; 2) they usually do not frequent the WP:RSN, where the RfC is taking place; 3) they have shown up to vote only in that RfC.

I do not think that they are sockpuppets, but rather a meatpuppetry group. Nevertheless, they might have other accounts or share them, and therefore a complete CU may be appropriate in this case. However, I primarily ask the CUs to verify whether there have been email exchanges between them after January 10th (which is the day the RfC was started), and especially if Ramos1990 sent emails to the others.

There is plenty of evidence that they operate as a group. In the following Editor Interaction Analyser comparisons you find interactions of mutual support between Ramos and the other users in dozens of articles and talk pages, with edits within minutes of each other:


 * Articles in which all three interacted, Ramos1990+Desmay+1990'sguy — articles in which at least two of them interacted — some timelines are particularly indicative: 1, 2, 3, 4.


 * – Jobas and his sockpuppets

There might also be connections and overlaps between the users mentioned in the section afore and the Jobas sockpuppet network: Sockpuppet investigations/Jobas/Archive. The suspicion of this is strengthened by the fact that in this report, Ramos1990 used generic words to identify the user Jobas, in order to give the impression that she does not know him, which is false.

Evidence:


 * Jobas+Ramos1990+Desmay — indicative ones: 1, 2.
 * Jobas+Ramos1990+1990'sguy — indicative ones: 1, 2, 3 — especially, the third contains edits on Jobas' talk page (especially see here and here).
 * Here you may see that Jobas, Ramos1990 and Desmay all took part in an edit war against the user.


 * – Foorgood and Jack90s15

Other related sockpuppet networks might be the Foorgood and Jack90s15 ones: Sockpuppet investigations/Foorgood/Archive; Sockpuppet investigations/Jack90s15/Archive. I actually suspect that Foorgood and Jack90s15 were sockpuppets of the same person.

Evidence:


 * Compare this and this. The writing style is very similar, and both often omitted the space before their signature, as Ramos1990 herself sometimes does (see here).


 * – Other considerations

There are also various WP:AN discussions about these users, especially 1990'sguy and Ramos1990. I do not add such discussions to this report. Let me link, instead, this warning that the user left on Ramos1990's talk page in 2019. I find ThePromenader's analysis of Ramos1990's behaviour particularly meaningful because it describes in a few words the exact same experience that I had in interacting with her: talk-bloating and polluting with insistent repetitions and ad hominem personal attacks, ignoring and isolating the interlocutor, as well as WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:HOUNDING behaviour and retaliation. ThePromenader himself noticed a group activity around Ramos1990:. And one of Ramos1990's replies,, is rather disturbing.

--Æo (talk) 03:52, 1 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Addendum: This AN discussions is worth mentioning, indeed, because it helps to clarify the situation. In it, the user identified 1990'sguy as an editor at Conservapedia. I have checked further, and have found that Desmay is also an editor at Conservapedia, as well as the author of an anti-atheism website (which is no longer online). There is obviously nothing wrong with contributing to both Wikipedia and Conservapedia, and being anti-atheist, but this corroborates the suspicion of organised meatpuppetry on the part of these users. Furthermore, it is clearer to me now (it was not at the time) why Ramos1990 got furious and accused me of canvassing when I asked JzG (who is also an administrator and with whom I had never interacted before then) to supervise my closure of this RSN RfC in 2023.--Æo (talk) 14:27, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Comments by other users

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

These allegations have already been investigated recently (2 weeks ago) by admins such as the canvassing of RSN RFC and it was Æo that was warned for canvassing with numerous editors from Æo's 2022 RFC over the same sources into his own 2024 RFC, also created by Æo,. Furthermore, the same canvassing allegations were already looked at by a CU a few days ago who stated "Vice versa, another user has had a look at Ramos, so Aeo, your complaint also seems to be without merit." . I will point out that in the 2022 RFC, Æo made multiple accusations of canvassing there too. It seems that when editors give a comment in an RFC that is different than his, he suspects canvassing automatically instead of that editors think differently than him.&#32;Ramos1990 (talk) 07:19, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Considering that Æo is the one who made the canvassing accusations in the 2022 RFC and the current 2024 RFC (always on those who had different opinions than him), it seems this SPI is a retaliation attempt in bad faith because he was the one who was canvassing and was subsequently warned for it by an admin about 2 weeks ago .&#32;Ramos1990 (talk) 21:03, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - Æo, I'm not sure what you want SPI to do here. You've reported three editors blocked a long time ago, all of whom were investigated for sockpuppetry and for whom no connection to Ramos1990 was found. Then there's the three active editors, who you explicitly say aren't socks but are colluding off-wiki. That's certainly possible, but for SPI to do something about that you'd need far more clear-cut evidence. This isn't ARBCOM; CUs and admins can't be expected to read through reams of talk page archives where these editors may have agreed with each other. I can't help but think you're at the wrong forum. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:11, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Closing based on Vanamonde93's comments. Bbb23 (talk) 00:47, 21 February 2024 (UTC)