Jump to content

Requests for comment/Coordinated Abuse and Misconduct by Across Multiple Wikimedia Projects in Spanish

Add links
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

The following request for comments is closed. Closing RfC as invalid. Please refer to the currently open U4C case instead. EPIC (talk) 06:05, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am publishing this Request for Comments, representing the Spanish-speaking community to express our deep concern regarding the coordinated and sustained misconduct of two users: User:Galahad and User:Meruleh, with a pattern of behavior that constitutes a serious violation of Wikimedia’s principles, including the commitment to community integrity, collaborative governance, the Universal Code of Conduct and respectful participation.

We submit this complaint to formally denounce a pattern of abuse of power and coordinated retaliation involving Galahad and Meruleh, et.al, with concerning actions that have escalated across multiple Wikimedia projects.

The evidence suggests that Galahad and Meruleh operated as leaders of a group alliance to manipulate and sabotage community processes across multiple projects, Wikiquote in Spanish, Wikiviajes, Wikiversity, Wikinoticias, Meta, and Wikipedia in Spanish. This partnership sought to consolidate power, silence dissent, and weaken local governance structures. They did not hesitate to disrupting local elections and governance processes, promoting sockpuppetry to sway community votes, conspiring, making false accusations undermining trusted community members through harassment and defamation, misusing advanced permissions as instruments of intimidation, using out-of-band platforms, particularly Discord, to coordinate personal attacks, manipulation, trying to buy users by offering them flags, blackmailing, lying, influence votes, coordinate harassment campaigns against other users, obstructing investigations by concealing and deleting evidence and banning users from Discord in organized maneuvers that violate all the principles of the Wikimedia movement. This entire campaign organized by these two people had the objective of achieve the resignation or removal of administrators to weaken local power structures so that the GS can take power in those projects, since Galahad was appointed GS.

Case 1 Wikiquote in Spanish

Galahad y Meruleh have done deliberate and coordinated effort to obstruct the legitimate and community-backed election of a new administrator in Wikiquote in Spanish, which was left with only one administrator due to the inactivity of the other three. User:Laura Fiorucci, a long-term user with 19 years of experience, a sysop and bureaucrat at Wikipedia in Spanish, president of Wikimedia España and a member of several user groups, was successfully elected in accordance with our policies, as an administrator by a vote of 14 in favor and 3 against. The three opposing votes came from Meruleh - whose first appearance in Wikiquote in Spanish was on March 10, 2025, just after losing several elections herself and having only 20 contributions -, Galahad, and user:Zafkiel GD, whose only contribution to the project was casting that vote. Galahad voted against on the grounds that the GS can take charge of the project and sysops are not needed.

When Laura Fiorucci submitted her request for admin permissions on Meta on April 2, a campaign of harassment and obstruction made by Galahad and Meruleh working together, began. A GS who doesn't even speak our language appeared out of nowhere in Meta and made a complaint against Laura Fiorucci’s election reporting possible canvassing but no evidence was presented. According to our rules, candidates must notify the community via Wikiquote:Cartelera de acontecimientos and the mailing list. We also use the Telegram channel to give news. This way users find out and come to vote. If there was evidence of canvassing, it must be presented transparently. Was his role incidental, or was he prompted by individuals — such as Meruleh or Galahad — involved in coordinated interference?

The steward denied Laura Fiorucci’s request for admin rights, citing unspecified "emails about canvassing." No information about the source, content, or validity of these emails has been made public. Given the context, it is reasonable to question whether Galahad and Meruleh may have sent these messages to deliberately sabotage the candidacy.

At the same time, Galahad unilaterally annulled the election on the local project, as if a GS could annul our vote, claiming procedural flaws despite the process having been conducted transparently and in accordance with local norms, saying that he would inform the stewards. Immediately after, Meruleh appeared in Meta, informing the stewards, another example of their work in tandem. Galahad said he disagreed with our policies to choose administrators and proposed a change to them, which was quickly rejected by the community.

The annulment was not supported by the community and it generated a lot of discomfort as can be seen in these discussions.

Rather than respecting the democratic outcome, Galahad invoked his influence within global governance bodies—such as the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee and the Ombuds Commission, to intimidate and assert control, threatening to report us to these committees, Meruleh did the same. It later emerged that this obstruction was coordinated via Discord, involving Galahad, Meruleh, Zafkiel GD, and others, but at that time we didn't know it. Meruleh began actively lobbying on Meta to prevent Laura Fiorucci from receiving her permissions, intensifying the harassment and undermining due process. A local administrator created a revalidation page for user:LlamaAl at another editor’s request. Galahad moved the page without notifying and immediately afterward, Meruleh flagged it for deletion by a Global Sysop, not using the standard Spanish deletion template, bypassing the local deletion process and without notifying to the creator of the page, which is customary practice and something that the template advises should be done. As User:Leoncastro explained her:Deleting a page created by an administrator through a channel that involves the intervention of global sysops, who are there to act when there are no active local administrators... well, it's going to be controversial at the very least. The GS can also be contacted in an emergency, but deleting a redirect doesn't seem like an emergency; it's not a vandal breaking the project, nor is it a malfunction that prevents you from viewing or editing pages.

Galahad and Meruleh repeatedly asserted that GS could override local governance, even in cases that did not fall within the standard GS scope (e.g., vandalism or spam).

Let it reach zero. That way, we GSs will have a new domain.April 24, 2025, Castorice (alias Galahad) dixit, regarding the number of sysops on Wikiquote: .

These actions undermined the legitimacy and autonomy of elected local administrators and were carried out in a coordinated and intentional manner. Galahad, as a Global Sysop and a member of the Ombuds Commission, repeatedly used these positions as tools of intimidation.

Case 2 Wikipedia in Spanish

Multiple serious incidents involving user:Meruleh, an account two years old, came to light on Wikipedia in Spanish. She launched failed candidacies for checkuser, sysop and bureaucrat. The community rejected her nominations due to concerns over her lack of experience, a perceived lack of seriousness toward the project, her frequent username changes in a very short time and the accusation of being a hat collector. When questioned, she explained her frequent renames by stating she had not taken the projects seriously in the past. No, there will be no further changes. This is my permanent username. It's worth mentioning that the previous changes were due to the fact that I initially didn't take the project seriously enough.... This latest change (Aopou) represents my final and definitive decision. Nevertheless, she continued attempting to change her name shortly after the vote concluded, ignoring prior denials.

As soon as she lost the elections, she went back to being her usual self, contentious, plaintiff, problematic, harassing users, bullying, filing false complaints. She showed a disruptive behavior and abuse of tools. These repeated name changes, Jazpinncito, Nanu~Versace, Zorvoth, Milkout, Lana del Reno, Aopou, Meruleh, Serena van der Woodsen, were intended solely to erase her traces, because she was deceiving the editors and then she appeared as if she were a new person, with each name change a new personality appeared. She was a boy and then she was a girl.

On one hand, she claimed she was born in 1988 (36) and have a degree in Philosophy and Geography, a university professor, on the other hand she was born in 2004 (21 years old) and study computer science. On the one hand she claimed to be a Wikipedian editor since 2022 and on the other he claimed to have been contributing to Wikimedia Foundation projects for over twenty years. She claimed to be Argentinian and she claimed to be Venezuelan. A WHOIS search of the website she used to justify the last name change, showed it was registered from Argentina using a spam email shortly before her complaints. The domain is inactive and doesn’t link to a functioning business. Once we discovered it and exposed it, the website of a supposed international company (Meruleh.com or http://meruleh.com/) disappeared. There is evidence that the domain belongs to her.

(Rule 4) Everything Meruleh says is a lie..Castorice (alias Galahad) dixit. .

Multiple checkuser investigations confirmed the use of several sockpuppets accounts used for harassment, acts of sabotage, creation of false reports against other users, voted using alternate accounts, and manipulated discussions. She even used her sockpuppets to support her own content, including voting for her own articles to be designated as "Good" and "Featured" articles. This self-promotion was done while serving as a reviewer, undermining the integrity of the content assessment processes.

As a result of these investigations Good and Featured article designations that she had influenced were revoked. The misconduct caused significant distress among that wikiproject members, who reported harassment, baseless accusations, and manipulation. The scandal damaged trust and led to a large-scale reassessment of affected content and policies. Galahad always acted supportive of her and it felt like they were working together. Meruleh was already suspected of being a sockpuppet when she joined Wikipedia and we have reason to suspect that she is an LTA user who has been on Wikipedia for 20 years, something she herself acknowledged. The discussions can be read here and here and here Here you can read the complaint with all the diffs that were presented and the evidence for the blocks. You can read DIFF . Both Galahad and Meruleh were indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. They threatened to file complaints against U4C several times, User:Zafkiel GD even threatened to go to the Ombudsman Commission if the checkusers ever did a user verification on him.

Case 3 Wikiversity

Meruleh only started showing interest in Wikiversity on March 9, 2025. On March 24, she requested administrative permits in Meta. Without seniority and without contributions they gave her the permits.

As the administrator of Wikiversity said, Wikiversity includes a page and an election system that she completely ignored. As soon as she was given the permits, she started to modify these policies without any vote or consensus from the community.

She had welcomed Sonoko Konishi, her Venezolan sockpuppet as if it were someone else. Counting her edits since she was granted admn, the user has only 210 contributions in total, and she still dares to accuse Wikiquote users of having few contributions.

When she was reprimanded at the Village Pump of the project for her actions she decided to give up her permits, going to Meta, lying again saying that she did it because she has no time since she was carrying out similar efforts in other Wikimedia projects. There Galahad also appears defending her, because they always act in tandem.

Case 4 Wikinoticias

There was also a maneuver on Wikinoticias, a project outside the control of the GS. Galahad proposed to the administrators that they allow the GS to intervene. Meruleh—who had never contributed before—immediately appeared to support him.

On March 24th (the same date she was coincidentally appointed as an administrator on Wikiversity without anyone voting for her), Meruleh appears voting on Wikinoticias in Spanish: While I recognize that the call was primarily directed at administrators, I am voting in favor of part of the community, so that the project can also be managed by global administrators. This is another example of how they always worked in tandem with the intention of increasing the authority of the GS and decreasing that of the local administrators.

One of the sysops commented that if the GS are added, those of us who already have administrator permission will have fewer administrative actions (there is an average of 6 per week), so it will be a vicious circle: the GS take on administrative actions > the current sysops do fewer administrative activities > permissions are removed because there are no administrative actions in X months. That's exactly what Galahad and Meruleh were looking for!She is always on the lookout to request the withdrawal of permissions from any sysop. Every time this happens they celebrate it on Discord.

Case 5 Meta

Her candidacy for global renamer, checkuser, administrator on Wikipedia in Spanish, on Wikiversidad and Wikiviajes were within a short period of time. In December 2024, user Meruleh ran for Global Renamer but was rejected, in part because she was not an administrator on any Wikimedia project. It was later discovered that she used a sockpuppet account (Horcus) to vote in her own favor. A CheckUser investigation confirmed the connection, after which Meruleh lied, claiming such voting wasn't prohibited in her local Wikipedia and that the user is actively participating in the Spanish Wikipedia. Yet Horcus’s first Wikipedia edit was on December 23, the same day the account voted for her on Meta. She even used it to alter her archived Wikipedia talk page. Despite having positioned herself as a candidate for high-trust roles (administrator, global renamer, and checkuser), she later claimed ignorance of basic Wikimedia policies prohibiting accounts sharing an IP address from voting in the same election or supporting each other’s candidacies. This raises significant concerns about her understanding and respect for core community rules. In addition to the Horcus account, Meruleh used another sockpuppet, User:Sonoko Konishi, to vote in support of other candidates on Meta, including on the Steward requests/Global permissions page and she used that sockpuppet in almost every project. A third sockpuppet was used to harass editors. She used Sonoko Konishi to report Meruleh and another user, hidding the fact that she was one of the parties involved in the dispute.

Another point of concern is Meruleh's repeated and disruptive username change requests. After having her requests denied on both Wikipedia in Spanish and Wikipedia in English, she anyway submitted a new request on Meta, where the steward said: when several renamers decline your request and you submit it again and again in different places, it is considered disruptive..

Off-wiki coordination among Meruleh, Galahad and user:Zafkiel GD via Discord has raised alarms about potential manipulation of decision-making on Meta, particularly in relation to the denial of administrator permissions to a candidate on Wikiquote in Spanish. It remains unclear whether private communications influenced official rulings. This situation calls for greater transparency, especially regarding the origin and content of the emails cited in denying the admin request.

They make fun of the fact that in Meta they didn't realize that Horcus was herself.

She means that Horcus is now User:Renamed user 8b2751c3e6b48485abb753d266ea0b61, vanished.

Case 6 Wikiviajes

On Wikiviajes, user Meruleh was granted temporary administrator permissions on February 19, 2025. This appointment was made solely by Galahad, the only permanent administrator and bureaucrat on the project. The decision followed shortly after Meruleh had failed a request for adminship on Wikipedia in Spanish, chekuser on Wikipedia in Spanish and Golbal Renamer on Meta.

In 2021, Galahad proposed and implemented a policy change that indefinitely suspended community elections for administrators and it also nullified the voting process for selecting Article of the Month. Only administrators could do so. The new framework allowed the sole bureaucrat—himself—to appoint temporary administrators for terms ranging from one to twelve months, without requiring community approval. This change was approved by only three votes.

As a result, Galahad holds unchecked and indefinite control over administrator appointments. Temporary administrators can only remain in their roles if they meet his expectations, creating a dynamic that discourages dissent and prevents independent oversight. There is no mechanism to elect or replace the permanent administrator, effectively centralizing governance around a single user.

After appointing Meruleh, both she and Galahad began modifying key governance policies, including a voting policy on a page that claims to have been approved in 2013, to make it more difficult for new users to comment and vote. These edits further entrenched the system of centralized control and removed safeguards of democratic governance. This represents a clear conflict of interest, as well as policy manipulation to maintain personal authority over the project. The current system undermines the principles of transparency, accountability, and community consensus, which are fundamental to the Wikimedia movement.

Among the irregularities that exist on Wikiviajes is influence peddling, whereby administrators offer positions in exchange for votes in other projects:

His nickname in Discord is Master Galahad (alias Castorice, alias Deus, alias Skirk). he is

The Wikiviajes sysop demands due obedience, and no one may defy him.

Case 7 Discordgate

A major vehicle for this coordinated misconduct was the Spanish-speaking Wikimedia Discord server, where Galahad, FlyingAce and Meruleh led a small, insular group (“El Concejo”) acting with impunity in the shadows.

As administrators of the Discord server, an external system that is not subject to the WMF Privacy Policy, Galahad and user:FlyingAce not only failed to enforce community norms, allowing and participating in harassment, mockery, and targeted attacks, but they used Discord as a backchannel to sabotage voting and candidacies, good article nominations, and community initiatives, but celebrated the loss of administrators, creation of a cult-like subgroup, changing usernames to “Todos somos Meruleh” - after she was indefinitely banned -in support of that disruptive user, mockery and defamation of respected long-term users, homophobic and transphobic comments - members of the Wikimedia LGBT+ user group are witnesses since they were able to see the conversations - and explicitly stating that fewer sysops would mean greater overall control of GS. Galahad went so far as to say that the ideal would be zero sysops so that the GS could increase their domains, because on March 4, 2025 he was elected Global Sysop. Insults and slurs were commonplace on Discord, violating the Friendly Space Policy.

Many users actually logged in and saw the messages and reported it on Wikipedia's Village Pump. They were direct witnesses, and we also have tons of screenshot evidence.

That group calls itself “El Concejo” (the council) and punish with ban anyone who challenges them:

He has defied the wishes of the Council.Castorice (alias Galahad) dixit

To that we must add the obstruction of investigations, when this came to light and how those who reported it were punished. This obstruction included kicking users attempting to access past messages and modifying channel settings to hide evidence. When the misconduct came to light, both Galahad and FlyingAce engaged in active concealment, both administrators blocked access to historical Discord logs, the rule says: maintain secrecy, a clear indication of omertà, banned users attempting to retrieve messages, mass-renamed Discord accounts, deleted evidence to avoid identification and refused to cooperate with community-led inquiries. These actions represent a systematic misuse of a Wikimedia-endorsed platform, repurposing it for internal disruption and manipulation.

Galahad and Meruleh boasted of having the support of the "overlords," as they called the GS. They specifically named SHB.

Here we see El Concejo where all the users are Meruleh:

It's interesting to see the Discord page in Meta and the talk page, what happened when the sysops of Spanish Wikipedia decided to temporarily suspend access to Spanish-speaking members to prevent the plot from continuing. SHBB appeared called by Galahad to revert Wikipedia sysops and, te same day, on Discord:

SHBB talking about the topic with Skirk (alias Galahad) and Meruleh.

You can read this talk page to see the involvement of the "overlord" who condescendingly tell us to keep es drama out of meta.

Their problem is that too many witnesses managed to get in and see the maneuvers, even taking screenshots before they could delete anything. I invite you to read the witnesses' comments here and DIFF,here at Wikipedia in Spanish.

Final words

Retaliation against checkusers and sysops who uncovered coordinated abuse, as well as against users who gained access to Discord and witnessed their misconduct, was swift and deliberate. Once their maneuvers were exposed, Galahad and Meruleh carried out their threats.

After two checkusers identified multiple sockpuppet accounts operated by Meruleh, she filed a baseless complaint against theam to the Ombuds Commission. Galahad personally emailed them, pressuring them to respond to these accusations representing the Ombuds Commission. The complaint filed, considering that Galahad is a member of the Ombudsman Commission with a clear conflict of interest, is another clear abuse of authority. The checkuser's discharge was very clear about how she used her sockpuppets to harass and violate the rules.

Meruleh filed a retaliatory U4C complaint against 15 editors — including several administrators and bureaucrats of Wikiversidad, Wikiquote and Wikipedia — Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Cases/2025/Spanish Wikipedia Abuse, while Galahad filed a separate case targeting the sysops of Wikipedia en español who enforced the community's consensus: Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Cases/2025/Situation in Spanish Wikipedia.

The long-term consequences of this alliance have been devastating for all the projects in which they participated. It has created a climate of fear and distrust, undermined local governance, discouraged volunteer participation and eroded confidence in community-driven processes. Many users are hurt, disappointed, sad and distressed by what happened. 9 out of 10 users mentioned in a formal misconduct report in Wikipedia in Spanish were blocked. Several volunteers have resigned from Wikimedia Small Projects in Spanish just because both are there. At the request of several people, both have been expelled from the group of Wikipedia in Spanish in Telegram, group of Wikiquote in Spanish in Telegram, group of Muj(lh)eres latinoamericanas en Wikimedia in Telegram, group of Iberocoop in Telegram, etc.

We call for a thorough and independent review of their involvement in the obstruction of democratic processes and potential harassment of contributors. The deliberate obstruction of evidence during ongoing investigations (Discordgate) constitutes a grave violation of transparency and accountability standards and may represent behavior incompatible with holding any position of trust in the Wikimedia movement.

Maintaining individuals who weaponize their roles to intimidate others, retaliate against oversight, deceive sysops, global sysops, stewards and users to achieve their goals and sabotage elections poses a direct threat to the integrity, safety, and decentralization that form the foundation of the Wikimedia movement. The movement must take action to ensure that positions of trust are not misused for personal vendettas or to consolidate illegitimate power. --Jalu (talk) 21:07, 20 May 2025 (UTC) representing the communities in Spanish.[reply]

Endorsements and support

Sign # {{support}}--~~~~ (Please no more than 15 words).

  1. --Esteban (talk) 21:50, 20 May 2025 (UTC) idem above as Farisori [reply]
  2. Farisori (talk) 22:24, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Laura Fiorucci (talk) 22:32, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Amitie 10g (talk) 22:34, 20 May 2025 (UTC) This kind of community betrayal should not be allowed by the WMF.[reply]
  5. Rafstr (talk) 00:32, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --Antur (talk) 00:35, 21 May 2025 (UTC) I don't recall such a serious threat to the spirit of the project in years. [reply]
  7. --Felino Volador (talk) 00:47, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  8. --ProtoplasmaKid (talk) 01:10, 21 May 2025 (UTC) This type of large-scale manipulation should not take place.[reply]
  9. --Oscar_. (talk) 01:17, 21 May 2025 (UTC) per gaming the system. Certain individuals, once caught, tried to cover their tracks by running straight into Meta-Wiki. And now the fallout is hitting every part of our communities, online and offline.[reply]
  10. --Jet Pilot 01:22, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Rzt 7 (talk) 01:57, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  12. --Marcelo (talk) 02:04, 21 May 2025 (UTC) Neither 15 nor 15,000 words are enough to show the damage this people made to wikimedia projects.[reply]

Comments

You can leave your comment in Spanish or English.

  • IMHO this is totally unneeded as U4C is already having two cases on this exact topic. This case should be closed and redirected to U4C because that's why the committee even exists. I call everyone to cede making redundant requests.--A09|(pogovor) 21:21, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @A09: The problem is that the two cases opened under the U4C were created by the two users accused here of global sabotage of Wikimedia projects. They have positioned themselves as victims, and they are the ones who can first raise their requests and terms. I think an accusation from the es.wikipedia community that would position us as victims was necessary. Please explicitly decide whether this can proceed or whether it will be closed, to avoid wasted efforts. Best regards. Farisori (talk) 21:36, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
U4C did not deny requests regarding eswiki, so I think it's best if we wait till their decision(s) are made. Regardless of whether Meruleh and Galahad positioned themselves as victims or not it is tasteless to bombard RFC process as well when appropriate venue exists and has an ongoing process. Not to come as rude but in this case you should stop at U4C and handle eswiki drama there. This is not the first time you were told that. I'll let another admin decide on keeping this RFC till case at U4C is resolved or closing this RFC. Best regards, A09|(pogovor) 21:46, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@A09: Hi, respectfully, it is not a question of whether it is in good taste or bad taste how the processes look to you. We are in the midst of uncovering a plot involving the manipulation of the good faith of many volunteer contributors through deception in one of Wikipedia's largest editions. --ProtoplasmaKid (talk) 01:28, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also should be noted that Jaluj has created a thread on the eswiki Café (Village Pump equivalent) openly calling for users there to come leave their support here, stating that it's important "that most people comment here" ("Es importante que la mayor cantidad de gente opine") and explaining the method to leave a support ("Los que apoyen esta moción pueden dejar su # {{support}}--~~~~ con no mas de 15 palabras."). This is canvassing, once again, pretty similar to the case on eswikiquote, the adminship candidacy that had an unusual influx of votes in favor. --Pólux (talk) 22:00, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@'A09, It was suggested to me that I open an RFC, and that's what I'm doing. I understand you have your opinion; I have mine. Let's let the community have their say.--Jalu (talk) 22:02, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The image says: "Les pido a todos que lo lean y el que esté de acuerdo que firme su support. También hay una sección para comentarios en la que pueden dejar los comentarios que quieran y pueden ser en inglés o en español" -> "I ask everyone to read it, and anyone who agrees to sign their support. There's also a comments section where you can leave any comments you'd like, and they can be in English or Spanish."
That's not sabotage, as it's a matter that strongly affects es.wikipedia, and many of us never edit on Meta (a regrettable way to get started here, by the way). It's not sabotage, unlike the intimidating coordination carried out on Discord. The difference is light years away. PS: By the way, the evidence is so overwhelming, I didn't even know much of it. Farisori (talk) 22:03, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Meruleh Sólo escribo para hacer hincapié en que la captura de pantalla a la que haces alusión dice claramente "el que esté de acuerdo que firme su support". Por supuesto que yo estoy de acuerdo en lo personal, y en su momento firmaré. En cuanto a Wikimedia México, capítulo al que estoy afiliado, no lo sé, porque eso se tiene que votar. Lo cierto es que la evidencia es abrumadora, estás saboteando el proyecto para fines ajenos a los objetivos que perseguimos como comunidad. English version: I'm just writing to emphasize that the screenshot you're referring to clearly says "whoever agrees, sign their support." Of course I personally agree, and I'll sign in due time. As for Wikimedia Mexico, the chapter I'm affiliated with, I don't know, because that has to be voted on. The truth is that the evidence is overwhelming: you're sabotaging the project for purposes unrelated to the goals we pursue as a community. Luisalvaz (talk) 00:35, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Meruleh There is no such canvassing. Jaluj has every right to do as much publicity as possible in this case in order to make as much of the community aware as possible. I see a repetitive pattern in this situation, in your supposed defense you wield straw man fallacies to deflect what is really important, that you are part of a manipulation that sought to deceive us. What if Discord is official, what if the evidence is false, and so on. We are a voluntary community, let us work in peace and quiet, please. --ProtoplasmaKid (talk) 01:16, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Oppose per Farisori. This (U4C request) community process is flawed since some "victims" are involved. So, I believe a higher instance like the Trust and Safety Team through this RFC is more suitable to end this. Amitie 10g (talk) 22:37, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Amitie 10g You can contact the T&S team by emailing ca@wikimedia.org. 〈興華街〉📅❓ 03:27, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Comment Requests for comment/Policy

If the RFC concerns the conduct of several users on the same wiki, or the conduct of an entire community of a Wikimedia wiki, the initiator of the RFC must post a neutrally-worded notice linking to the RFC on a prominent page on that wiki, such as the village pump
--Jalu (talk) 22:06, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Requests for comment/Policy says I should notify everyone involved, and that's all I did. On Telegram, on Wikipedia, on Wikiquote, and wherever else appropriate, so people would know. That's how you found out. That is not campaigning, that is informing as the policy says.--Jalu (talk) 22:09, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly. The section states: "If the RFC concerns the conduct of several users on the same wiki, or the conduct of an entire community of a Wikimedia wiki, the initiator of the RFC must post a neutrally-worded notice linking to the RFC on a prominent page on that wiki, such as the village pump". The message in question was anything but neutral. It would be considered neutral if it merely stated, "This RFC has been created for your attention" without additional details or an indirect request for support. Additionally, based on the screenshot, it appears the message was sent to the Iberocoop group. What is its relevance to Wikimedia projects?
In response to Farisori, I don't think that interpretation is appropriate. But since this consultation has been opened, perhaps it's necessary to raise two additional issues. Of course, our actions were inappropriate, but they didn't manipulate processes, nor was there any abuse of power. Galahad (sasageyo!)(esvoy) 00:24, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could you tell us in what way you think your actions were inappropriate, Galahad? I'm interested in your answer. Farisori (talk) 00:45, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, if you answer me what happened in this diff. What could have happened in that case where a sysop replaced a good article on the main page? Galahad (sasageyo!)(esvoy) 00:50, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree wholly with A09. Which is exactly why I filed Requests for comment/Limit scope of RfC process - this process on Meta is turning into a venue for people to post rants that will in my experience always stall forever rather than leading to any action. * Pppery * it has begun 02:27, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Requests_for_comment/Coordinated_Abuse_and_Misconduct_by_Across_Multiple_Wikimedia_Projects_in_Spanish&oldid=28761715"