Talk:Discord

Wikidata Discord

Unaware of this list, for WikidataCon 2019 I started a Discord for remote participating. Later we repurposed it for other potential wikidata-related uses and User:Sj wished to use it for WikiConference North America 2019. Other uses, such as wikidata tutorials (that´s User:Ainali and wikipedia:sv:Användare:Salgo60), online meetups and conference remote participation may still happen. wikidata:User:Lea_Lacroix_(WMDE) approved my initiative, though I´ve promised not to burden her with any management of this.

So, thoughts, can we add this Discord to the list for Wikidata topics or should we move to one of the existing ones? Also, welcome to check it out! Best regards, CarlJohanSveningsson (talk) 15:27, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Either works for me! –SJ talk  16:29, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Resolved, we boarded up that WikidataCon Discord and redirect to the wikidata channel in the main Discord (invite link should be updated, if ever anyone can be bothered). Thanks for everyone's friendly input! CarlJohanSveningsson (talk) 12:06, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

WikiAuthBot slash commands not working

@IVORK WikiAuthBot is not responding to slash commands. Additionally, when I tried to add the bot for testing, I got this error. I know you are not super active, but I think this is something that should be fixed, or you should transfer control of the bot to someone able to maintain it, as this bot is used on dozens of servers. Aasim 16:07, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Protect this page?

This page should be semi-protected in my opinion. Every edit this year (to my recollection) has been IP vandalism... - OpalYosutebito (talk) 00:24, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Traduction de nauseux en italien

j'ai vu qu'on a donné comme traduction "nauseoso". Et bien, personne n'utilise ce mot et d'ailleurs dans Treccani il est qualifié comme "poco comune, letterario". AerreDG (talk) 22:29, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Spanish server

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

El servidor en español se encuentra temporalmente suspendido debido a una serie de sucesos acaecidos y que están siendo objeto de debate en la Comunidad. Véase aquí.

The Spanish server is temporarily suspended due to a series of events that have occurred and are being discussed within the Community. See here.

MiguelAlanCS (talk) 14:24, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

It isn't, though – somebody randomly rocking in and claiming it's suspended doesn't suddenly make it suspended. Unless you provide a concrete source that the server has been officially suspended (not some random user claiming it to be as such; an actual discussion), it will be reverted. //shb (t • c) 12:10, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Also, most Discord servers listed here (including the es server) are unofficial and have no affiliation to anything, so it's not even possible to officially "suspend" a server. Geom and Farisori, care to explain your actions? //shb (t • c) 08:16, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

I second SHB. A09|(pogovor) 09:00, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

I can explain their actions. Active users of this server were involved in misconduct ranging from harboring a puppeteer to manipulating various elections on es.wiki. Several of them were just blocked yesterday, and I believe the issue will spread to other projects, including Meta. Given this, I don't think it's safe to assume this server is welcoming or adheres to our friendlier spaces policies. Thanks, Oscar_. (talk) 16:51, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

I third SHB2000 and A09, we should refrain from making claims about a server being "suspended" without a clear consensus or reliable source. And while serious allegations should certainly be investigated, they should be handled through the appropriate local or global processes, not preemptively declared on Meta. – Phương Linh (T · C · CA · L · B) 17:02, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

But your very explanation suggests that this is purely based on speculation – the idea that it may spread to other projects and the idea that this server may not be welcoming. It's not concrete as I mentioned earlier and thus has no basis for removal. //shb (t • c) 22:40, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

@A09 and Hide on Rosé: "seconding" with no additional comment and "thirding" by reiterating what has already been said on this relatively minor discussion was not needed and appears as though you are simply trying to gang up on the users in question. I'm sure SHB2000 can make their own point themselves. --Ferien (talk) 17:50, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Since these links are allowed despite concerns about their compliance with friendly space policies, I’d like to ask: can anyone here confirm that this server uphold those policies? If not, I don’t see why their removal is an issue. Perhaps it’s time to escalate this somewhere else, thanks Oscar_. (talk) 22:03, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Well except that the es Discord server isn't just for eswiki (it's for all es projects) – meaning eswiki cannot unilaterally say it's suspended, nor do eswiki policies apply to an external Discord server. The reason why the rest of us not from eswiki in this discussion see its removal as an issue is because you are trying to enforce a single wiki's policies on a platform where such doesn't apply. //shb (t • c) 22:46, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

We’re discussing specific policies like the Universal Code of Conduct and the Friendly Space Policies, not es.wiki policies. If a server can't follow basic social standards, it should at least be questioned. Your stance is, at the very least, concerning. If these servers are not expected to follow these policies, what’s the point of having a page that invites people (often newcomers) to join? Are we suddenly fine with exposing people to potentially harmful and toxic content just because it's hosted on another platform? Oscar_. (talk) 23:49, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

And that's the jurisdiction of the U4C, not eswiki sysops. If U4C decides that the server is not appropriate, they will take it down; that's not for you or any other eswiki sysop involved in this dispute to resolve. //shb (t • c) 23:58, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't quite understand, what exactly do you think needs to be addressed by the U4C? And since we're talking about jurisdictions, I could ask you the same question: what is *your* jurisdiction to revert this and calling it a drama? I'm just a volunteer here and have not been involved in any decisions on es.wiki, but I'm baffled to see that when questions about integrity are raised in a specific server, they are not only ignored but also shut down, Oscar_. (talk) 00:08, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

This page, quite simply, is a place to list out all public Discord servers. That's it. There isn't any nuance, it's simply meant to just be a list. My point is if there are any concerns with the es server, removing it here is the wrong venue to take up on such things – and I see no issues with Meta-Wiki regulars/sysops ensuring that a page sticks to containing what it's supposed to say (which, to reiterate, is a list of all public Discord servers). You're the one claiming that there are UCoC issues in the server – and if you think there are, you're the one supposed to take it to U4C (and if there aren't, there was no basis for removing it in the first place...but I don't read Spanish to know). Those concerns aren't being shut down because we can, they're being shut down because it seems you (plus the other eswiki users in this discussion) are taking this to the wrong venue. And yes, it can absolutely be considered drama when there are several long discussion threads on eswiki about the existence of this server (which I was pinged in for some reason). //shb (t • c) 00:21, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

┌───────────────────────┘
An odd observation no-one seems to have commented on yet: why is this the invite link for this server even given directly on metawiki in the first place? Pretty much every other language goes to a project page, which then explains about the nature of the server, rules, invite links etc on that page. Much like the English Wikimedia server, I think eswiki would righly be the place for central discussion with regards to its future. As much as Discord is unfortunately an awkward off-wiki venue that doesn't come under any particular wiki (which is perhaps why people feel it's appropriate to make uncivil comments on there, as they know they won't be caught), I feel having the link here is just a solution looking for a problem, and is Spanish-specific only. Meta admins wouldn't go onto enwiki and change a Discord link if local users did it, so the only reason why meta sysops are making judgements on this is because the link has unusually been put here, but eswiki users should make their own Discord project page and perhaps form a consensus on building a new Discord server where mockery and encouragement of sockpuppetry does not run rife as has been reported. --Ferien (talk) 08:36, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

This is a good point, actually – why is the link directly here? (It's not the only one, but probably one of few). Not that it justifies removal (it needs to be mentioned somewhere), but my best guess is that the es server as it stands tries to cater for all es projects and not just eswiki, with Meta being the closest thing that brings the es projects together? That's just my rough guess, but I would like to know the full explanation. //shb (t • c) 09:43, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the excellent question @Ferien and @shb. Why is this the invite link for this server even given directly on metawiki in the first place? Because it was added by User:Galahad on February, 2021 and again on October 18, 2022, user Galahad added the Discord link to Meta without the consent of the Spanish-speaking community and now he changed it again. The channel appears to have been used to coordinate activities led by Galahad that can be described as fraudulent and harmful to both the Spanish Wikipedia and Spanish Wikiquote projects. When these actions came to light, and evidence was made public through screenshots of leaked conversations, Galahad was indefinetely banned from Wikipedia in Spanish. @MiguelAlanCS, @Oscar_., @User:Farisori and @User:Geom are right. The clear consensus in Wikipedia and Wikiquote in Spanish is to temporarily suspend the link to prevent further disruptive behavior. What is particularly concerning is that these conversations include mentions of a user referred to as SHB, allegedly a Global Sysop, who—according to Meruleh's messages—would offer protection to user:Galahad and user:Meruleh (both indefinitely banned from Wikipedia in Spanish) in carrying out such misconduct. While SHB is correct in stating that this situation deserves a formal investigation or complaint, his current actions raise legitimate concerns. Far from disproving their claims of protection, SHB's behavior appears to confirm them, at least indirectly. I believe that this situation warrants serious attention from the broader Wikimedia community to ensure transparency, accountability, and the safeguarding of trust within the movement.--Jalu (talk) 12:27, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

These accusations are entirely baseless as such, but this is not an appropriate venue to comment on what or what is not happening at a given Discord server and should be moved elsewhere. A09|(pogovor) 12:35, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Except I didn't – I said I will enforce Meta practices as appropriate in this case. If Galahad or Meruleh extend their misconduct to Meta-Wiki, I will take action against them, but all I see right now is the eswiki community unilaterally trying to assert their authority in areas they have no control over. Please don't take words out of context next time. //shb (t • c) 12:42, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

You should tell them that when they said they had the protection of the overlords (read GS) and that they explained to you that there were projects more important to destroy. Using sockpuppets to vote in Meta doesn't seem enough to you?--Jalu (talk) 12:59, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Steward request pages are outside the scope of Meta sysops and EPIC dealt with that appropriately by nullifying all of Horcus' votes (which I assume was the result of an internal steward discussion). Not to mention the GRN request also failed. //shb (t • c) 13:06, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

@Galahad: why did you see it appropriate to move the Discord server page to Wikivoyage? Once again, the Spanish projects appear to be an exclusion, in now having the page on Wikivoyage, where you are conveniently a sysop, as opposed to Wikipedia, where you are indefinitely blocked. I find it highly problematic that you have a leadership role and are continuing to define where the Discord is, when you have been blocked for your off-wiki behaviour.

@SHB2000 and A09: I have to say, you do seem to have built up many sysops of the eswiki community against you here, surrounding an issue in their community to the extent it is now you two who are brigading them alone once again. Just because it's on a meta page does not mean it is not within the scope of their community, especially if it's defining where the Discord server for that community is. With all due respect, you are not an active part of the Spanish-speaking community, yet you seem to be attempting to shut down "accusations" that have already been proven true by Galahad's block on eswiki, the screenshots given by Jalu and, now, discussions from SFBB below. I am especially alarmed by SHB saying the eswiki community unilaterally trying to assert their authority in areas they have no control over when the very revision that should now be kept (according to them) is the one that Galahad added for it as a user who is no longer even in good standing in the Spanish-speaking community! That is a statement begging for controversy. SHB and A09, it is not your job to pick sides in local disputes, as metawiki sysops, global sysops or acting as a "neutral user" in any other trusted role, which others have raised concerns to you about on multiple occasions now. It is natural that when nine users are blocked on eswiki for off-wiki issues, including the owner of a Discord server, controversy will ensue, and it's more about addressing it than it is ignoring it. If you want the Spanish community to build a consensus, that's completely fine, but don't then take the side of a user in bad standing after ironically attempting to accuse a community of trying to "assert their authority" over a line in a meta page. --Ferien (talk) 13:58, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

The accusations made by Jalu are certainly not "baseless", and everything is substantially backed by evidence, which clearly shows how that server was being used for sabotage and manipulation across multiple projects ([1],[2],[3]). Consequently, this is certainly a case for Meta (this leaving aside that Galahad is a GS and member of the Ombuds Commission. I agree, however, that this is not the proper channel to channel these concerns, but I do believe that, as a precautionary measure, it is appropriate to remove the channel from the webpage, at least during the time the case is ongoing.

Two ES-projects (eswiki and eswikiquote) have already taken measures in this regard. Eswikivoyage certainly won't; by means of two different votes, Galahad gained complete control over that project: one in which it was established that no more sysops besides Galahad would be named, and that he could name temporary sysops at his discretion (passed with 3 votes besides Galahad;here); and a second one which established that, basically de facto, only four users can vote in that project, including Galahad (passed with 4 votes besides Galahad; here).

Finally, I would certainly request that shb step back, as he is also compromised in this case. While I'm not claiming that he's directly involved, Meruleh and Galahad have mentioned him as "their protector", and several interactions in that channel show that he clearly has a close relationship with both of them (see [1]). He is certainly the last person that should be enforcing administrative measures here. SFBB (talk) 13:29, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

@SFBB: I mean I've stated what needs to be said on this discussion, but I'm more than happy to step back and let other Meta sysops take care of this issue as per your request (and to be honest, I didn't really want to be dragged into this extremely long saga, so might as well for the better). I do ask that this page is left alone as-is (as at Special:PermaLink/28752351), however. //shb (t • c) 13:36, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

and I do request that precautionary measures be taken during the time the case is ongoing.SFBB (talk) 13:39, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Earlier, I said "I third SHB2000 and A09", but now, after reflecting on and summarizing the points from the above comments, I’ll try to provide the most neutral comment I can, in my capacity as a Meta sysop.
1. I am not defending Galahad nor making any statement about the blocks placed on the 9 members of your community, as those decisions were made by individuals trusted by the community.
2. @Oscar .: UCoC applies to both on-wiki and off-wiki environments. Therefore, if you believe there has been a violation of the UCoC involving one or more users, community, or Wikimedia projects, you may report them to U4C.
3. I support SHB2000’s point that "the es server as it stands tries to cater for all es projects and not just eswiki, with Meta being the closest thing that brings the es projects together", because the server is named "Comunidad Wikimedia", not "Comunidad Wikipedia."
4. It seems like the situation is getting more heated, but everyone still appears to be arguing back and forth without reaching any common ground. That’s why I support Jaluj’s view that "this situation warrants serious attention from the broader Wikimedia community to ensure transparency, accountability, and the safeguarding of trust within the movement".
Okay, let's assume the link was indeed added to the page in an unusual manner – but what’s done is done, and now the controversy is growing. I propose that we organize a consensus discussion, with participation from the Spanish-speaking community, either here on this page or through an RFC, to reach a shared position. Sound good? Or if consensus is already gained, just link it here. – Phương Linh (T · C · CA · L · B) 14:39, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

I suggest we remove the link and add it back once/if everything is resolved. Wikivoyage is free to add it in local wikivoyage page but since multiple user has expressed disagreement about inclusion of that server here, it makes sense to remove it until further clarification; or consensus for inclusion is achieved. BRP ^ever 14:48, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

This case will certainly be channeled through the appropriate channels. We are merely requesting that, while that process is ongoing, access to that server no longer be announced, as a precautionary measure, as we're making the case that it is being used for interwiki sabotage (of course, it will be up to U4C and T&S to judge on the issue).SFBB (talk) 14:50, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions @Phương Linh, I'm going to prepare a RFC.--Jalu (talk) 14:51, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

• Having been asked to review this as a neutral admin, I agree there is enough controversy over the link to remove it for now. Once the broader Spanish community has had the chance to discuss, it can be added back with appropriate context - such as specifying it is being administered by the Spanish Wikivoyage or such. – Ajraddatz (talk) 15:08, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello. Sorry for the delay in responding. I would have written earlier, but I don't frequent Meta, and you didn't ping me when I was mentioned by SHB2000 together with Geom.

I'm requesting that the Spanish Discord server be temporarily suspended, given that the main people in charge—Castorice (Galahad) and Meruleh—have been permanently banned from es.wikipedia for serious violations of WP:NSW, WP:NAP, WP:E, and WP:UT. They have used the server to attempt to sabotage votes and to form a group calling itself the "Council," which has the absurd but serious intention of eliminating all the project's es.wikipedia administrators and taking over the project [2]. Please note that I'm not making new unfounded accusations, but rather commenting on the reasons why both accounts were blocked, to provide context.

Moreover, all of this has taken place within a toxic environment and under hostile leadership in the aforementioned Discord server, at times even involving intimidation [3]. The above of course generates implications not only for es.wikipedia, but for all of Meta.

There is countless evidence to support the above; these are just a few examples. There are es.wikipedia users currently investigating various edges of the case, and it appears that what has been revealed so far is just the tip of the iceberg. That's why we're requesting the server be temporarily suspended.

I'm particularly struck by the resistance from certain users in this discussion to such a logical request. I therefore appreciate the emergence of BRPever and Ajraddatz, who have poured cold water on this whole discussion, as I believe should have been done from the outset. I reiterate: we have serious reasons to suspect that this might not be solely a problem with es.wikipedia, so this temporary request seems a reasonable measure.

Best regards, Farisori (talk) 17:09, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Frankly, I fail to see how Wikimedia community would temporarily suspend a Discord (so, an entirely different platform!) server regardless of whether this is merited or not. I think the proper solution is to restructure the server if appropriate and not just put a blank ban on whole community (the server). A09|(pogovor) 19:50, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

If it was known that a Discord server was extensively used for personal attacks and mockery of users, then the community wouldn't want to associate themselves with that. Operating a Discord server and essentially endorsing it by listing it on the meta page are mutually exclusive things, and just because a server exists doesn't mean it automatically has the right to be pointed to. We wouldn't point to servers operated by blocked users that have been misused on any other Wikimedia project so why was it being done differently here? The fact you are now managing this server instead does not address the core issue at hand, particularly as you still appear to be closely tied to the blocked user. Does this reply inspire confidence that you will restructure the server as the Spanish-speaking community expects, when this community is the same one you have been trying to undercut at every opportunity across this page? --Ferien (talk) 14:26, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Noting that Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Cases/2025/Situation in Spanish Wikipedia is now created. Please leave comments there. – Phương Linh (T · C · CA · L · B) 11:31, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Oh my god. Two U4C cases related to the whole situations are open?? That will get me into a headache. ToadetteEdit (talk) 14:13, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

TL:DR - one is to do with sockpuppetry and the block of Meruleh, one is to do with a Discord server and the block of numerous users who were a part of it. --Ferien (talk) 14:33, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Well, @ToadetteEdit, I hate to say it, but we’re already in the middle of a mess. Up until just a month ago, most of the Spanish community had no idea what was going on, then boom, the screenshots started appearing, and now we’re seeing the consequences firsthand.

And truth is, the cat is out of the bag and damage is done. That’s why I believe folks like @SHB2000 can continue engaging with these individuals without batting an eye, just because regardless of how any investigations or decisions turn out, the harm has already played out, both online and offline.

Honestly, I never wanted to spend my time here on Meta-Wiki with this. But given how things have unfolded, we’ve more or less been pushed into this situation. Oscar_. (talk) 01:48, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

It's not that I choose to not "bat an eye regardless of how any investigations or decisions turn out", it's because the two investigations are still ongoing. And I trust the judgment of U4C far better than a bunch of users who are currently being accused of a stream of U4C violations until it's fully resolved (likely until Meruleh's case being dismissed, which is what's likely to happen), far more than local sysops (both Meta and eswiki). //shb (t • c) 01:58, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Regardless, your spiel comes off like you're trying to shut down local community discussions and brush off real investigations as garbage. Like it or not, you're in the thick of it. Just a friendly word from someone who's spent plenty of time in rougher corners in the past, be more mindful about where you choose to hang out online, Oscar_. (talk) 02:08, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

You opposed an eswiki sysop on a metawiki TA request over faulty accusations from a sockpuppeteer that are going to end up being rejected by the U4C. The hypocrisy on your side is very clear to see. --Ferien2 (talk) 11:37, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

If you had actually read my oppose vote, I said I'd be happy to support in 2 or so months time when the drama had settled. I suggest some closer re-reading before jumping to accusations of hypocrisy next time. //shb (t • c) 00:15, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

@shb: After checking more information from those chat, I am now fully convinced that you acted here in a clear conflict of interest. The chat clearly shows that you were n active participant in the server whose deletion you denied by labeling it as ES Drama. Furthermore, the messages indicate that you have a close relationship with Galahad, who even summoned you to add your upcoming birthday to the chat information. Even in the first image, which is in Spanish, participants openly discuss your involvement and refer to you as “eres un galahadista de primera hora” (eng: you are a first-line Galahadist). [4]
Standing up for their friends and for a Discord server in which you are a participant is not the neutrality one would expect from a GS. And the same applies to A09, who is also named in the chats and who has been named the new administrator of the server after Galahad stepped down. SFBB (talk) 00:21, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

SFBB, throwing around loose accusations isn't going to help your case, but I'll respond anyway. I'm puzzled by how you think making a few dozen messages count as an "active participant". Using that logic, stewards shouldn't be able to use their perms on any wiki they have a couple of dozen edits on (which is very common in the realm of cross-wiki patrolling). Three of the screenshots you sent are discussing GR/GS matters, which would have been no different if I were discussing it on the en or cross-wiki patrolling server, which I routinely have with various users. One of them was a spillover from the en server and another from the cross-wiki patrolling server. I'll admit the comment from Polux strikes me a bit odd and not a statement I'd want to be associated with, but I'm not an es speaker to judge.

Additionally, in no way has my GS been used, as you've claimed twice now – Meta isn't even a GS wiki, for that matter. I've made it clear from the start: I couldn't care less about es drama, despite claims from Meruleh about some supposed protection. What I do care about is keeping Meta-Wiki order. The initial removal of the URL was, in fact, unilateral; I still stand by that. The eswiki community is also not representative of the entire es community. I also have not once defended Meruleh, the core of all these issues, and my only involvement with that is to request a CU check (in addition to removing her perms on Meta) because once again, I care more about Meta-Wiki's integrity than anything else. The only reason why my involvement has even gotten this far is because the eswiki community – particularly you, SFBB – keeps dragging me in. Not the other way around. If you cannot engage in any discussion without throwing accusations around, I'm not going to respond to you further on this page. //shb (t • c) 01:22, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough, @SHB2000. You can now claim you were dragged here against your will, even with the reverts 'you' did here. And it sounds very noble that you only care about Meta-Wiki integrity, like a knight in shining armor. But let me tell you this: it doesn’t look good on your GS résumé (or any résumé, for that matter) that you spent time in a space that, based on the shared screenshots, enabled cross-wiki disruption, fostered a toxic environment, and even normalized Nazi imagery. But if you're still comfortable giving that integrity speech, that’s ok, I guess... Oscar_. (talk) 04:56, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

No, @SHB2000 I'm not making loose accusations. As long as A09 (as the new server administrator) keeps upholding the block on access to older chats in the Discord server, as imposed on June 13th by Galahad and FlyingAce, I am the only one in a position to make transparent what was going on in those chats. It goes beyond common sense to see that, in the sake of integrity, you both should have recused yourselves from intervening here, given your connection to Galahad and the side discord server.

You claim you did not strictly use your GS on this issue while telling eswiki sysops to keep the "ES drama" out of meta (a drama you were involved in btw)...fair enough...are you also going to claim that you didn’t use GS powers in this issue — taking a position that diverges from the rest of GS on a completely unrelated matter, which, incidentally, involves one of the people accusing Galahad of misconduct on that same server? You're free to claim whatever you like, but let’s be clear: it doesn’t look good. SFBB (talk) 09:47, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

@SFBB: I don't see anything related to GS powers here, as both Meta and es.wikipedia are not GSwiki. – Phương Linh (T · C · CA · L · B) 09:54, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

@Hide on Rosé: you're right. I meant a steward power situation and not a GS power situation. sorry...still doesn't look good SFBB (talk) 10:02, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

@SFBB No, SHB, and all other participants in that RfTA, are not stews. – Phương Linh (T · C · CA · L · B) 10:13, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Unless you have logged the chats before the server closure (which itself is likely unethical at least) I am quite sure you have no access to now private channels. A09|(pogovor) 12:16, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.