Talk:Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Cases/2025/Situation in Spanish Wikipedia

Other feedback (RageJam)

@RageJam: The eswikivoyage sockpuppetry policy is a convention, but under the voting fraud clause, I permanently blocked the secondary accounts and gave the main account a one-year temporary ban (which will increase if another puppet is detected). Just like I said, I don't avoid any rule violations that happen on eswikivoyage. Best, Galahad (sasageyo!)^(esvoy) 02:34, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Mod requirements

Hello, as the current interim moderator of the Spanish Wikimedia Community Server I am proposing criteria/requirements for newly elected moderators. Once elections conclude I will resign as my language compatibility with the server is subpar. Moderator requirements for this Discord server were made in line with standard mod evaluation practices and they list what an ideal candidate should have. They do not yet represent expectations of the U4C however I found them reasonable enough.

• candidate is a long-standing member of the community that has joined before May 7th 2025.
• candidate has proved to uphold to current UCoC policies and has a good history of helping people, a clean record of policy abiding and rule enforcement.
• candidate has a good understanding of the server and is otherwise trusted even outside WikiSP sphere.

Means of how elections will take place have not yet been drafted, but will be once the Committee is satisfied with moderators' criteria above. I am happy to hear from you. Sincerely yours, A09|(pogovor) 17:18, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I fully oppose. After your behavior here — going as far as to label the uncovering of manipulations and offensive behavior in public chats as "unethical" — I'm positive you do not have the trust or support of the Spanish-speaking Wikimedia community to organize/moderate any election regarding our community. You should comply with the request made by the U4C (and grant them access to all historical messages and the audit log on the eswiki Discord server) and then immediately resign, placing the server on hold until this case is resolved.

Please do this voluntarily. Don’t force us to initiate an RfC. SFBB (talk) 17:54, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I did as U4C requested. I deny your accusations. A09|(pogovor) 18:03, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm not accusing you of anything. I'm merely stating the fact that you're in no position to organize or moderate any election, as you do not have the trust and support of the community—especially considering that your proposal would necessarily involve electing a moderator from among groups of users who have been expelled or suspended from eswiki and eswikiquote.

I'm also making a clear and direct request: that you resign and put the server on hold until this case has been concluded and the Spanish-speaking Wikimedia community (meaning all projects) decides how to move forward.. SFBB (talk) 18:10, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Agreed that this isn’t the right time or place to elect new moderators. What we require first is greater access to, and transparency about, what happened, both from this committee and from es.wiki contributors and admins. If you can provide that information given your role, I think that’s more than enough for now, cheers --Oscar_. (talk) 18:17, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

In line with what SFBB and Óscar said, I come here to make two requests: 1) for the sake of transparency I think you should allow full access to the conversations that have involved eswiki editors and have generated a bad atmosphere in our community; 2) we appreciate your genuine interest in solving this crisis, but I think it is better that you respectfully step aside from the replacement of moderators. Kind regards, LauraFarina (talk) 20:05, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

In my view, requirements (1) and (2) are incompatible. If someone is a long-standing member of the community, they can't have a history of following uCoC policies since they didn't report the situation. They broke (or didn't report people who broke) rules like:

"We expect all Wikimedians to show respect for others. In communicating with people, whether in online or offline Wikimedia environments, we will treat each other with mutual respect."

"Respect the way that contributors name and describe themselves."

Wikidasher (talk) 20:49, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I understand what you're trying to convey, but I disagree. Being silent about something implicates nothing on opinion about something. I am in the server since May 2024 making me a longterm member and do not support failures of UCoC. There are many good contributors in that server that could, if given proper motivation, become good moderators. A09|(pogovor) 21:26, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Maybe it's a language barrier. I have sent 31 messages but joined 2y ago. (Idon't use discord and I didn't see the messages nor did I participate in any way) Would that make me long-standing? I thought you meant "active".

And who would be able to vote? I think this should be decided by the Spanish speaking community (from Wikipedia and other wikis), not by the small subset that happened to use a third party platform. Wikidasher (talk) 21:34, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Wikidasher, any user that was present and participated in those chats clearly failed to observe the UCoC. It is true that many users were not reading the chats, but users that participated in the conversations of the so-called Council, at the very least, would not pass the requirement. Also, in honor of transparency, can the server be open again? I was able to see the messages and get notifications in the server before but now I can't see anything as my account is not connected to my Wiki account. I prefer not to authenticate with my credentials anywhere that is not an official Wikimedia site, due to security. Considering that this requirement was just added less than two weeks ago when some implicated users realized that others were looking at the messages, I think it makes sense to return the access to the previous state, at least until the investigation finishes. Also, I don't agree with having the phrase "even outside WikiSP sphere". This server is being portrayed as a Spanish wiki server, not a server of a particular user group.--Freddy eduardo (talk) 21:35, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

@Wikidasher: Long standing? Yes. Active? Maybe less so. Sadly, it'd be hard for wikiprojects to decide onwiki who'll become a mod: a good mod also needs to understand server dynamics and likely some unwritten social rules that'd be hard to master for someone who wasn't a part of the server. As said, I'll rethink the criteria together with U4C members to have the best outcome for the community.

@Freddy eduardo: Mechanism of voting is yet to be defined. I will reopen the server however I'm afraid of witchhunting and/or doxxing as the server became controversial. Perhaps "even outside WikiSP sphere" is badly worded – what I meant is that a mod should be also trusted otuside eswikiprojects (think of things like affiliates and global permissions).

BR, A09|(pogovor) 21:42, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I honestly doubt we should make an effort to preserve "unwritten social rules" of a community who accused two Wikimedians of sharing the same braincell. Either way, I'll stay tuned and I won't give my opinion until you decide the method of electing new admins. Wikidasher (talk) 21:45, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'm by all means not rebuilding the old system. I was more thinking about ie. social etiquette and knowledge on how to moderate the server with quality. I cannot comment on how the server was moderated before the interim. Anyhow, thanks for your thoughtful opinions. --A09|(pogovor) 21:50, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Doxxing? As far as I know, no one has been doxxed, despite the fact that some users shared personal data. Witch-hunting? Is that what you call exposing homophobic slurs, Nazi imagery, insults, vote sabotage, and so on? Once again: it's not up to you to decide whether the Spanish Wikimedia projects should have such a server or what rules it should follow. If the server is still active 48 hours from now, I’ll have no choice but to start an RfC. SFBB (talk) 21:58, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I still fail to understand the need to resolve this issue right in the middle of everything. It was the same when a couple of users decided to remove the link from the Discord page. Suddenly, having a functional Spanish server seems more important than discovering the truth behind this cross-wiki abuse. I couldn't care less about this or the other platform, what we want, privately, as agreed, is full access to what was shared there, nothing more, Oscar_. (talk) 01:59, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Good morning, my 2 cents: The choice of platform is not so important. You can even use several platforms in parallel, e.g dewiki uses discord and mattermost (an unusual choice but open source and thus allowed for WMDE employees). What is more important: All public UCoC violations in direct wikimedia context can have consequences for editing rights on wikimedia pages, no matter where they happen. And if applicable laws are broken, even more can happen. Nobody here wants safe havens for toxic behaviour. Ghilt (talk) 09:46, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. The perfect scenario for me would be blowing it up and starting over with strong community support for the chosen server/platform. But if you look at the es.wiki village pump right now, I don't think it's the right time to make any decisions, the wounds and distrust are still very much present, cheers Oscar_. (talk) 13:37, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

As a long-standing member of that server (I joined in 2020), I think the proposal is excellent. I also appreciate the transparency; not much could be said about the Spanish Wikipedia Telegram channel or the Iberocoop Telegram channel. I also note that there is more than one member who has not been banned from eswiki and that the Spanish-speaking community comprises all projects (including eswikivoyage). Bromoxido (talk) 19:01, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Bromoxido, you forgot to clarify that, unlike Discord, Telegram is completely transparent since you don't need to be logged in or belong to the group to be able to read the messages. Anyone can read them, and Galahad was an admin there until a few days ago.--Jalu (talk) 22:02, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

@Jaluj: Mhm, and as far as I know, the Telegram group messages (handily) disappear after 24 hours. Discord only requires being authenticated to a Wikimedia account, something that is actually de facto standard for all Wikimedia Discord servers I am in. Furthermore, the Discord server is not set up to vanish the messages so your implication is dishonest. A09|(pogovor) 10:10, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

┌───────────────────────────────────────────┘

A09, neither the Iberocoop or the Spanish Wikipedia telegram channels have activated the feature to delete the messages after 24 hours, so that is incorrect, people can indeed see all the old messages without being part of them.--Freddy eduardo (talk) 14:13, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

I believe that the information provided by Jaluj and Freddy_eduardo is not entirely accurate. While the Spanish Wikipedia group can be viewed publicly without membership, the Iberocoop group was converted into a private group, which restricts actions such as taking screenshots. Additionally, there is a 48-hour log accessible only to administrators, which non-admin users cannot access—unlike Discord, where log access can be shared and bots can store logs. I was only an administrator of the Spanish Wikipedia group and never held administrative rights within the Iberocoop group. Galahad (sasageyo!)^(esvoy) 15:17, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

A09 said that messages were deleted after 24 hours in the telegram chats, this is incorrect for both groups. I said that. If the Iberocoop group is now only available for members, that would be recent and would be a direct response to users involved in all the UCOC violations and insults to other users joining that group.--Freddy eduardo (talk) 16:42, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

[...] people can indeed see all the old messages without being part of them

Therefore, it may not be as transparent as initially indicated. Best, Galahad (sasageyo!)^(esvoy) 17:22, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Before electing mods, can someone provide evidence that this server is good for something? I mean, apart from bringing us lots and lots of problems, apart from being a place where users were clearly insulted frequently, besides being a place for manipulations outside the wiki of the processes inside the wiki... what precisely is the service it provides for the purposes and goals of the Wikimedia projects? What is it useful for? What kind of things or issues can be solved there that are not possible or that we cannot manage within the discussion pages of the projects? How many newcomers, for example, show up there looking for help editing articles and actually get it? How many people get technical help? Do users get reliable licensing information there? Are there stats or at least data and notable examples of these services? I guess that all sounds very boring and the site is just for fun, but then WHY should it be linked and recommended from the Wikimedia project pages? Mar del Sur (talk) 11:29, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

First, I'd like to point out some things such as that you're likely being heavily affected by the eswiki Community portal argumenting and second that the server is, as any other Wikimedia Discord server, unofficial. After reviewing project specific channels they were found to be useful and answers to newbies were truthful. It is not up to the Spanish Wikipedia to coordinate which platforms they would like to have representation on, and Discord sometimes allows faster communication between people as compared to ie. emails, talkpages, wikiforums. There is also a distinction between Wikipedia and Wikimedia community and the first is part of the latter, not the other way around. As such, the server provides infrastructure for all Spanish Wikimedia projects. While I do not have exact numerical statistics at my disposal, my argument about "validty" of the server still stands: let people group, especially if it has a good greater reason like helping to thrive a Wikimedia project. No one is being forced to join the server so if you disagree with the existance, don't join it.--A09|(pogovor) 12:14, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

PS:And of course all the archives must be open and accessible as long as there is an ongoing investigation, that's the basics, isn't it? Mar del Sur (talk) 11:42, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

No. As per coordination with U4C the server is being kept part privately but will be open to the public (date is yet to be defined). A09|(pogovor) 11:58, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

I didn't ask whether it is official or not, but whether it is useful or not. You said that grouping people there contributes to ‘helping to thrive a Wikimedia project’, could you please prove how it helps? Can you show examples of situations where the supposedly faster communication on that site has been helpful in solving Wikimedia project problems better than an on-wiki discussion would have done? I expect strong answers, given the number and severity of problems it brings us, I have a right to expect that the cost-benefit justifies it... And please don't just reply ‘if you don't like it don't join’ Mar del Sur (talk) 14:37, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

That's not the point. Any community can have as many public and private channels as desired. There doesn't even need to be an "official" one. But when in wikimedia context, they all need to follow the UCoC. Ghilt (talk) 15:48, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

It is important to clarify that this has not been a systematic process; the server has been operational since 2022, with the incident occurring in 2025. Additionally, it is not accurate to overstate the incident, as it involved only inappropriate comments and there is no on/off-wiki evidence of the alleged sabotage. Between 2022 and the time the link was removed, a total of 200 help requests were addressed, with 23 coming from the support forum and the remaining ones from the general and project channels: The most recent request for assistance involved options for bulk file uploads. It also addressed the use of references on eswiki and ways to contribute to eswikivoyage. Therefore, it is not comparable to previous incidents such as CoRank, in which they were created primarily with the aim of disrupting eswiki.

The Discord server is just as useful as the Telegram group or the IRC channel, with the former having a higher comfort rate than the other two (in terms of interaction). Note that the term "Discord server" does not imply the traditional term for servers in the computing field; more information may be available in the guide. Galahad (sasageyo!)^(esvoy) 16:17, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

About the data requested

Hello, I would like to know who's supposed to provide the "access to all historical messages and the audit log on the eswiki Discord server" requested by the U4C. Sincerely yours, Farisori (talk) 18:36, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

A09 has granted access to them (he is the only admin now), greetings. Daamu32 (talk) 18:58, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you Daamu32. Best regards, Farisori (talk) 20:23, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello, as a former member and involved party in this process, I would like to access the server messages in order to better analyze my actions and the apologies I owe to those affected.Althair (talk) 22:07, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

We would all like that. We will have to see when the U4C considers it appropriate. Daamu32 (talk) 22:09, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Spam blocklist hit

@Sonoko Konishi What did you try to add to case page? – Phương Linh (T · C · CA · L · B) 13:06, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

it's about a de-admin-vote of user:Cookie 11 years ago. But the comments are from 2024-25. Ghilt (talk) 14:01, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Hide on Rosé: It is an external forum created by Spanish-speaking Wikimedia users, where people speak very negatively about each other—insults, glorification of harmful behavior, and so on. On this blog, several members of the Wikimedia community post anonymously. Among them, some individuals shared my personal information: my full name, my Facebook profile (which contains private photos of me with my underage children), and much worse. I wanted to include this in the case, given that this is where members of the community doxxed my personal data, and considering the context, this external forum—although unofficial—has strong ties to the Wikimedia community and is highly relevant to the situation. Sonoko Konishi (talk) 15:59, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

The commenting section is mostly filled by anonymous users with a new nickname. Not useful for finding who did what. Ghilt (talk) 09:31, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Log entries are now hidden. – Phương Linh (T · C · CA · L · B) 09:35, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! Ghilt (talk) 09:50, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

@Ghilt Have you noticed that Sonoko and Meruleh are the same person? They're listed as different people on their user pages, and no one from the admins here has blocked either of their accounts. RageJam (talk) 19:50, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi RageJam, yes, there is a section called Sonoko Konishi (Meruleh). Ghilt (talk) 21:33, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Telegram

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a closed Meta-Wiki request. Please do not modify it.

¿También se investigará Telegram? Hay chismorreo ahi. 189.179.238.216 16:51, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Troll #infty detected. Farisori (talk) 05:40, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

@Farisori: ¿Troll? ¿Estás queriendo ocultar algo? Supongo que como un administrador y representante de la comunidad en español de Wikipedia, es presumir buena fe, y civismo. Estamos ante el U4C. También espero que se investigue Telegram, que extraño que quieras ocultar algo y tratar de troll a la IP que nos está abriendo los ojos. 45.190.167.120 05:45, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

1) insistes (y hablo en singular pues aunque sean más de uno son una pura célula) en escribir desde una cuenta anónima, ya lo has estado haciendo en es.wikipedia y ahora en Meta. 2) haces una insinuación ambigua, desviando la atención y apelando a la incertidumbre de quien te lea. 3) te refieres a hechos que hasta donde entiendo no tienen nada que ver con este caso, ni siquiera responden a la misma temporalidad. 4) no pretendo ocultar nada, jamás he entrado a ningún grupo de Wikipedia o Metawiki de Telegram, IRC o Discord. Esto es un trolleo de libro. Solicito a los administradores que eliminen este hilo, que no aporta absolutamente nada más a la discusión. Farisori (talk) 05:57, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes we are looking at Telegram. We have less evidence about Telegram than Discord right now.

Sí, estamos investigando Telegram. Por ahora, tenemos menos pruebas sobre Telegram que sobre Discord. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:59, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

---

The above request page is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Comments about this page should be made in Meta:Babel or Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat.

Prejudice by association

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a closed Meta-Wiki request. Please do not modify it.

Hi. I heard a rumour that certain people who were on Discord at the time of the controversy were indirectly accused of being part of the plot just because they were on the server. They did it on the Wiki or on Telegram and IRC. But these people were either unaware or not paying attention to what happened for various reasons.

Whatever the outcome. I would ask that these people on the prosecution side apologise to all the accused who were not involved. Yes, maybe the ‘Galahad and Meruleh Defence’ did inappropriate things but the prosecution offended anyone just for having association to Wikivoyage, Discord, Wikimedia Small Projects among others.

For the record, these biased defendants feel betrayed by both sides but because they are afraid of retaliation, they do not want to be involved in this controversy. 23.133.64.186 23:09, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

It is important to be absolutely clear: there are no victims here. Every user involved was fully aware of Meruleh and Galahad’s behavior. This was not subtle, private, or hidden it was visible, persistent, and, in many cases, actively enabled. The idea that some of the accused feel “betrayed by both sides” is not a valid excuse, nor does it change the fact that they were complicit.

Discord had over 300 users in that server, and yet not a single one intervened meaningfully. Silence at that scale is not ignorance it is willful negligence.

Moreover, there is concrete evidence: captures from external forums clearly show that users such as SHB2000, Meruleh, A09, Galahad, Rubyn, Polux, Trinitrotolueno, Daamu32, 2x2leax, Zafkiel GD, Linehalt, FlyingAce, and others were aware of and discussed the matter. These were not isolated remarks they were part of ongoing conversations across different platforms.

There is also the “winnie-hut” channel on Discord, which we expect the U4C to access and review thoroughly. In that space, someone revealed that SHB2000 and A09 were acting in coordination with Meruleh and Galahad, deliberately manipulating discussions and responses, and later pretending to be unaware of what was happening. That behavior is not only dishonest it is strategically deceptive.

To suggest now that they were “afraid,” “uninformed,” or “surprised” is disingenuous. It is an attempt to escape accountability.

This case does not merit any presumption of good faith. Not anymore. There is no justification for delay, leniency, or appeal. Those most directly involved must receive firm and final sanctions. The integrity of the community and of the process depends on it.

Meruleh and Galahad are fully deserving of a global ban, given the severity and persistence of their behavior. In addition, SHB2000 and A09 should, at the very least, be stripped of their administrative permissions as a gesture of accountability if not for formal sanction due to their clear and ongoing support for both individuals.

It is difficult to see their actions as coincidental:

• Why is it that only SHB2000 and A09repeatedly intervene when complaints are filed against Meruleh or Galahad?
• Why did A09 become the administrator of that Discord server, rather than someone directly connected to the Spanish-speaking Wikimedia community?
• Why were they the same individuals who opposed removing the Discord link from Meta-Wiki, even after concerns were raised?

Are they not also the same users who fueled conflict with Spanish Wikipedia administratorsduring the RfC, despite that process receiving support from over 30 users the majority of whom were admins?

These are not isolated actions. Taken together, they paint a clear pattern of conflict of interest and abuse of administrative authority.

Their continued presence in positions of trust and oversight is, at best, questionable and at worst, damaging. For the health of the community, and the integrity of governance across Wikimedia spaces, they should be held accountable and removed from any privileged roles. 45.190.167.44 03:15, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

You misunderstood me. Meruleh and Galahad should be punished for treason. And so should those who actually participated in it. But falsely accusing people who were involved not, were unaware, or because of issues didn't catch things in time and what happened happened happened.

They affected real editors who behaved civically and avoided getting involved in Wiki controversies for example. I know that some of them have no blocks and their contributions have been constant over the years.

It's like wanting to blame the entire Premier League just because Manchester United insulted Liverpool. It is not logical.

There are innocent people and both sides, the prosecution and the defence accused, should apologise to the people affected. It is not fair that because of something of a few, everyone is affected. The Wikiviajeros, the Wikimedians of Small Projects and those who entered Discord, IRC, Telegram and others should be exonerated if they had nothing to do with it and both sides should apologise.

So what are we going to do, wipe out all of Wikivoyage Spanish just because Meruleh, Focabor and Galahad are there, wipe out Wikimedia Small Projects because Galahad is there, wipe out Wikimedia Small Projects because Galahad is there?

Those 300 users you say minus 15 or 20, are innocent and both sides should apologise to them and indirectly involve them.

I only ask for apologies, nothing more.... 23.133.64.166 04:03, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Well, your English doesn't really help clarify the situation or make your point explicitly clear. It's evident that your native language is Spanish, more specifically from Central to North America. I don’t know. We simply cannot defend users who turned a blind eye to the situation. The users I mentioned must receive a clear sanction. This is not about enforcing a global ban for everyone involved, and we are certainly not dealing with a massacre or any threats made against someone.

If a person in any country breaks the law, that person goes to jail without much deliberation. Here, if someone violates policies, then there must be consequences — a sanction corresponding to their actions. It is unacceptable that with over 300 users since January 2025 when this situation began, no one noticed anything, and no one reported anything. It only came to light because one user took the initiative to start participating. Clearly, the morbid comments and situations were deliberately ignored.

Focabor? What is that? Focabot? Meruleh’s bot? What could a bot do? It only works through commands. If it is still operational, then at most, it could be requested in good faith to transfer it to Toolforge and have it supervised by the administrators of the projects where it is present. Right?

We are not trying to demonize the two users involved in the morbid behavior. We are not going to cast them out for that alone, nor are we going to burn them at the stake or dance on their graves, as certain projects tend to do. But your support for them is quite evident, disguised under the pretense of a sanction only to preserve coexistence.

Both users must be banned. They committed countless violations that go against Wikimedia’s values. Those who supported, endorsed, or took part in it should receive sanctions — not bans, but serious sanctions for their actions. Otherwise, it is an insult to the entire community that someone who enabled sabotage, supported fraud, or validated the use of abusive sockpuppets to deceive others walks away without consequences.

I'm sorry, but no. 45.190.167.44 04:19, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Your discussion practice is below any standard etiquette practice. Talking behind someones back is not nice, especially if these allegations are baseless. Also, please log into your account. A09|(pogovor) 05:45, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

I think this is the first time I agree with A09. It’s very hard to take anything you’re claiming seriously if you both don’t dare to use your real accounts. One of the key issues in this case is hiding behind sockpuppets to sabotage, and hiding behind an IP address is no better.SFBB (talk) 12:13, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

And what is left? What is said is that these people should no longer edit and that their valuable contributions were not worth it. Can they give back the lost time? They are not to blame for what others did in DiscordGate.

But if we are going to start the hunt why don't we do it at once, publish the list of all participants on the server and start blocking and sanctioning. Because it's everyone or no one according to what you said.

And it's not baseless accusations or sabotage, it's done with Ips to avoid retaliation from both sides and your comments match what I've said. Andreas. 23.133.64.187 13:19, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

First of all, log-in to your account – no need to pretend you're an anonymous when you really aren't. Second, you have no proof of your allegations so either you drop the stick or you present some. Otherwise all your allegations are only conclusions and as such can't be taken into consideration. A09|(pogovor) 17:35, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Are we seriously going to deny the existence of this screenshot where Meruleh and Galahad openly refer to SHB2000 as “the GOAT,” “a legend,” and “a genius,” simply for defending them against the Spanish-speaking Wikimedia community? SHB2000 repeatedly intervened to revert any attempts to remove links that exposed them. Coincidentally, A09 also joined those discussions and consistently sided with them.

This screenshot comes from a user who exposed the conversation in the #weenie-hut channel a channel that was restricted and only accessible to a select few. In that space, discussions took place that were even more disturbing than what SFBB and others documented. Are we really going to keep insisting there is “no evidence” when the proof is clear and undeniable?

I sincerely hope that channel’s logs have not been deleted and that the U4C has access to the full message history.

I also find it quite surprising and I mean no offense that a European user with no native Spanish skills and no significant involvement in Spanish-language projects ended up as the administrator of the Discord server representing the Spanish-speaking Wikimedia community. That server includes established and trusted users such as LuchoCR, BeastBest, Ezarate, -jem-, Sasha, Hasley (ex-steward), and others. It is difficult to understand why someone with no relevant background or visibility within the community would hold such a role.

Therefore, it is not accurate to claim that there are no valid accusations or that there is no basis for concern when the situation is this transparent and well-documented.

I am sharing one of the screenshots here, and I confirm that the full collection of conversations will be submitted to the U4C for proper review. I trust this matter will be thoroughly investigated.

https://imgur.com/a/8gT46Hu 45.190.167.14 17:55, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, but your actions are below the expected etiquette again. U4C asked multiple editors to send screenshots in private, yet you share them again publicly. These actions show ignorance, not mine, and you still haven't proved any of your accusations. Hopefully, this is not a case where you want to get a blanket group ban on editors as your actions actually undermine UCOC, and sets a chilling effect as well as a dangerous precedent. A09|(pogovor) 18:45, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: could you remove the links and revision delete the diffs since the IP's messages? (see A09's message above for the reasoning) Thanks, //shb (t • c) 23:30, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Discord had over 300 users in that server, and yet not a single one intervened meaningfully. Silence at that scale is not ignorance it is willful negligence. I find this worrying. In my eyes, it shows a lack of knowledge of how public forums work and a rush to shoot first and ask questions later. There are, as I'm writing this sentence, 477 users in that server (counting people that joined after this all started, like @Civvì). I simply find it ludicrous to even consider that every single one of them was reading everything that happened there and willfully stayed quiet. Being part of a publicly accessible Discord server is not proof of being an active participant in it in the slightest, let alone proof of willfull negligence. The people you listed, including myself, are involved, undoubtedly so, but not a soul more (to my knowledge and if memory serves right). If a situation like this one were found out on, for example, the English Wiktionary Discord server, a server with almost the same amount of users (494) and in which I've sent a grand total of 4 messages more than a year ago asking for help, should I now be under fire and investigation too? Of course not!

It's very frustrating to find myself involved in this (and because of my own naiveness and lack of forethought, no less) but I am involved, demonstrably so. @SFBB did a fine job keeping his accusations constrained to the folks he could see were involved, through messages. I agree that @Meruleh and @Galahad should be banned; I arrived at this conclusion multiple weeks ago. I also agree that other sanctions should be given out, and if that includes myself, so be it. But blanket-blaming 400+ people simply because they exist in the same public server as Meruleh, Galahad, et al.? Again, nothing short of worrying to me. ⎯⎯⎯ Rubýñ 🇨🇷 ^(scold) 18:35, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Rubyn, your statement calling for the expulsion of Meruleh and Galahad is rather strange, especially considering the screenshots that were just submitted to the U4C. You were one of the users who initially reached out to Meruleh and even participated in the conversations. You yourself admit you weren't very active but then, why were you involved in the weenie hut channel?

As soon as Meruleh mentioned there was someone gossiping among them, Galahad removed you from weenie hut, and shortly after, you resigned from Wikimedia Small Projects a project authored by Galahad. From then on, you mysteriously started opposing them, even though you were aware of weeniehuts existence and chose to turn a blind eye to the content shared there. Given all this, your request for their global block seems inconsistent odd, even suspicious.

Regarding A09, don’t worry this is now a matter for the justice system, and everyone involved will have to face the consequences. That includes you, for the loss of your permissions due to abuse and for deliberately ignoring misconduct.

Meruleh also exposed on an external forum that Althair filed a report against her global user page, requesting the removal of a sentence referring to Geografo23 in her user profile. According to Meruleh, she lost access to her account and privately asked you, as an administrator, to remove that sentence since it referenced uninvolved individuals and there was an ongoing administrative complaint concerning it. Your response was unprofessional, stating you "don’t do favors" and even doubting whether she had actually lost access.

Should I continue? The user involved made an administrative request for removal, and you ignored it—showing a lack of good faith and civility, both clear violations of Wikimedia policies.

In any case, perhaps Meruleh will include that screenshot in her U4C submission, possibly through her current account, Sonoko Konishi or Kiwumi. Who knows 45.190.167.122 20:00, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

I suggest you remove your legal threats against me. Drop the stick, this is your last warning. A09|(pogovor) 20:16, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

And who said that legal complaints would be filed? What’s being said is that this situation has already been submitted to the U4C for review. And of course, since we’re IP users and not logged in, we can’t present the issue on the main page, only on the talk page. Are you trying to silence us? That’s up to the U4C to decide whether we should stop or not—it’s not up to you. Anyone with nothing to hide shouldn’t be afraid. We’re only here to bring to light what has been concealed or deliberately kept hidden. And you, as the Discord administrator, should act in good faith, not try to impose fear or silence just because we’re IPs. 45.190.166.148 21:01, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Furthermore, I know who you are based on offwiki evidence. Please do not misrepresent what I have said in declination of your request. I have said that I will not proxy edit for other users which is vastly different from "I don't do favors." Your actions are against every expectation of upholding AGF – and even mine is starting to run low on you. A09|(pogovor) 21:22, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Amazing. 45.190.167.38 22:40, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Well, as the IP rightly pointed out, my request was denied. There was a remarkable lack of assuming good faith—or basic human decency, for that matter. I couldn’t access my Meruleh account, and since I was abroad, I also couldn’t log into Sonoko Konishi, because it has 2FA enabled. The only device with the 2FA key is my personal computer. (Yes, I know. Rookie mistake not syncing it elsewhere.)

So, given that a complaint had been made and deletion was requested, I asked the admin to remove the page. Seemed reasonable. His reply? A polite mix of “I'm quite sure you can do it yourself,” “I also don't proxy edit for others” and “sorry” (which is so helpful, thanks). All served with a side of zero good faith and a sprinkle of "not my problem."

In the end, the affected user asked for their name to be removed, and SHB2000 did it. So yes, the IP is telling the truth on that one. As for the rest… meh, couldn’t care less. :D Sonoko Konishi (talk) 21:12, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

[1]. Farisori (talk) 03:22, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

@Farisori: Why you include the last three revisions in that link? The only thing I did was semi-protect the page. Galahad (sasageyo!)^(esvoy) 03:36, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

I can't believe what I'm seeing. It looks like they've unlocked it. It reminds me of the scene in Monsters, Inc.: "I don't want any paperwork on the matter". I'm concerned about the accusations from anonymous users. The U4C must make a precedent-setting decision on what happened. RageJam (talk) 04:28, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Farisori/RageJam: Yes, I unblocked her following our actions policy: a first-time violation typically results in a maximum one-month block. She has not committed any further offenses, and her contributions are valuable. As of yesterday, sysops are no longer authorized to issue bans, so if you wish to pursue that action, please submit a community request on eswikivoyage. Bromoxido (talk) 05:16, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

And why exactly shouldn’t she be unblocked? Meruleh was an administrator and, at least on the surface, never misused her tools. The only issue raised was that she offered an administrative permission she was never authorized to grant — she’s not and never was a bureaucrat. No project can assign advanced permissions without a community vote. Is thatreally a valid reason not to unblock her?

On projects like Wikivoyage, Wikiquote, Wikiversity, Wikibooks, Wikispecies, etc., there are no formal policies regarding sockpuppet regularization. This means that puppetmasters can essentially create and use sock accounts as they please, as long as they don't disrupt the rules and only use them for editing purposes. Is that also a reason not to unblock her?

The fact that one user caused chaos in one space does not justify global blocks or blocks in other projects — especially when those requesting such blocks aren’t even active users in those other projects. I'm going to shed light on everything SFBB missed, because there’s still more. But that doesn’t mean I’m going to call for the blocking of {Meruleh, Galahad, Zafkiel GD, Pólux, FlyingAce, etc., on Wikivoyage just because I feel like it. That would be absurd.

People seem very confused. Each project has the right to make its own decisions regarding user conduct. A Wikipedian cannot walk into Wikivoyage and demand the blocking of someone just because that person caused issues on Wikipedia, especially if they’ve done nothing wrong on Wikivoyage.

To wrap it up with a fitting quote:

Judging a person by the chapter you walked in on is like throwing out a book because you didn’t like the paragraph.

45.190.166.231 05:25, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

According to the stated reasoning, the users in the Telegram groups for both Spanish Wikipedia and Iberocoop should be subject to sanctions. Notably, SFBB and Jaluj censored my previous statements on eswiki; I am now sharing the content they suppressed:

- Two high-ranking members within the regional affiliates requested the removal of a main page article due to perceived insensitivity, and an administrator proceeded to do so, resulting in a violation of the neutral point of view. Based on the IP's perspective, the 300 users who did not report this issue to the Café should also be sanctioned.

- A user who is the executive director of an affiliate asked for votes on a specific proposal. This involved requesting support against removing eswiki from the Growth Team's list of pilot wikis, among other topics. This occurred within the Iberocoop group.

- An administrator commented that articles are being "sponsored" and mockingly asked "who wants that sponsor?", suggesting that the actions verge on harassment. This also took place within the Iberocoop group.

Additionally, an administrator was facilitating support for an RFC in the Iberocoop group.

The IP has argued that all users in these groups, including administrators, should face sanctions. However, since this involves the portion currently advocating for strict sanctions, it is likely that SFBB and Jaluj will censor this information and dismiss it as false, claiming that it originates from a sockpuppet and labeling it as "last-ditch efforts”.

Galahad and colleagues made remarks that can be considered questionable. These comments might warrant an apology and perhaps a warning, which represents the maximum disciplinary action that could be applied.

However, the concern lies in the reactions of those advocating for sanctions:

- They have accused an entire affiliate of sharing the opinions of its members and have excluded them accordingly.

- Members of the eswikivoyage community have been excluded and stigmatized.

- SFBB appears to have taken steps that have damaged the reputations of the involved users. Despite the fact that one user nearly faced severe health consequences due to pressure, SFBB continues to frame and influence the situation strongly. They could have opted for a private report to the u4c and waited for a resolution, but they chose to publicly report on the Village Pump, seemingly with the intent to cause harm.

- Additionally, there are concerns that WP:NSW was violated through the application of disproportionate sanctions for comments. While certain processes are customary, they may not always be appropriate. This has not been widely reported, but there is an indication from a sysop that users should not be unblocked solely for formal reasons.

Meanwhile, SFBB is calling for sanctions against individuals who have not yet received any. Conversely, SFBB has already received four sanctions.

- He described the situation with eswikiquote as an abuse of powers by Galahad, despite him being a regular user. The local administrator had the authority to reverse the decision, and Galahad will do nothing. The Global Sysops policy clearly states: "You have no more power than a local user."

- He compared community decisions to actions of the Nazis, implying that the eswikivoyage community resembles the Nazi Party. While lacking concrete evidence, he relies on intuition to make assertions without accountability. If proven wrong, he could simply apologize and explain that his actions were in good faith.

- Additionally, he believes that Bromoxido, Castorice, and Galahad are the same individual, despite them being different people. To clarify, examining Wikimedia Commons photos and their metadata can confirm their identities.

- He perceives anyone acting contrary to his views as conspirators or collaborators. He appears to interpret community policies selectively when it suits him but disregarding others (WP:SUELO). He has expressed concerns over actions taken by others, such as Pólux reporting canvassing or Zerojosefer mentioning data disclosures. Although Pólux's block has expired and he now contributes without issue, SFBB suggests he is mocking the community and should be re-blocked. This stance is somewhat inconsistent, especially considering SFBB's earlier claims of persecution himself.

There is concern that Farisori, RageJam, and SFBB may be attempting to undermine individuals currently experiencing their mistreatment. They label these individuals as liars and seek out reasons to justify what appear to be violations of the UCoC and common policies such as the etiquette policy. It raises questions about whether they would respond differently if someone were to experience a serious consequence like suicide. It is uncertain if they would acknowledge such events or respond with concern, given their apparent disregard for accountability. LaQuimeraAlegre (talk) 14:30, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Your comments really make me laugh. You say that I conspired with other users to attack those involved (especially with eswikivoyage users). Although I am not a member of that community, I find it incredible that Meruleh, as an administrator, used puppet accounts that he never declared as his own. For me it breaks all trust, but if they don't consider that valuable there, it doesn't matter. I read the anonymous person saying that puppet accounts were not regularized, so we washed our hands of that. If you want to defend Meruleh, open another complaint at the UCoC. Why don't you do it? If you want to verify my account with SFBB, you can do so, otherwise, I demand that you avoid absurd insinuations. RageJam (talk) 19:25, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

LaQuimeraAlegre is a confessed sockpuppet of a user who does not dare to give face, hiding behind anonymity to attack registered users. Here, it is deliberately distorting the timeline of events to create a false narrative, bringing up completely unrelated (and partially fabricated) issues, and am making speculations about a well-rounded analysis for the purpose of discreditation.SFBB (talk) 17:49, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

RageJam why do you write "they" in plural? That requires different people ;-) SFBB (talk) 11:18, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

And answering to the IP: yes. No all evidence has been openly exposed (some has been provided privately to U4C), but there are more thanenough reasons for why Meruleh and Galahad (and all their puppets) should also be blocked in wikivoyage. SFBB (talk) 11:31, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

@SFBB: You do acknowledge existence of people using gender-neutral pronouns? A09|(pogovor) 12:00, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm very much aware of the nuance I'm making, and why I'm stressing it's not plural. SFBB (talk) 12:04, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

And A09: you've made several mistakes and played a highly questionable role throughout this case. However, I still believe you have not acted in bad faith. Given all the evidence that has now come to light, this might be the right moment to pause, reflect, and reconsider who you've been supporting. SFBB (talk) 12:33, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm not standing down to witch-hunting and intimidation tactics of yours. A09|(pogovor) 12:43, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

well...just wait and see. SFBB (talk) 12:54, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Querida ip. Nadie es inocente. Todos son prejuiciosos pero lo niegan a la cara. Cómo Jem y Baskerville atacando al The Photograper en el IRC. Pobre de él. KingStar364775w (talk) 19:37, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

And yet, the defamation and infamous attacks continue. By allowing this to stand and persist (LaQuimeraAlegre, multiple IPs, KingStarsomething, etc) the U4C is effectively turning this process into a Roman coliseum.
Users who engage openly under their real accounts are being attacked and trashed by (and I stand firmly by this adjective) despicable cowards who hide behind anonymity. There is a reason wgy thesockpuppetry policy strongly disapproves of the use of sockpuppets, and nothing occurring here qualifies as legitimate use. This is a blatant abuse. And yes: hiding behind anonymous IPs is still sockpuppetry.
I'm on the opposite side of A09, SHB2000, but I fully support what they're requesting as well as Farisori earlier on. SFBB (talk) 20:12, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

@Galahad: Any experienced user would know that you can obfuscate the actions of the CUs by merely using a different device on a different network; no rocket science there. But any edit leaves traces, and any sockpuppet does too. If Turing was able to decipher Enigma with very rudimentary computational devices, don’t you think Wikipedia users in 2025 (and I use plural, because it has not only been me) should be able to identify similar patterns beyond any reasonable doubt?SFBB (talk) 20:37, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

From CU point this is not true, you can obtain all IPs a user has used, so even an IP and/or hardware switch is logged. Furthermore, IPs circulate between ISP users so it's only naturally to log all IPs a user used. Technically speaking no obfuscation happened. A09|(pogovor) 20:39, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

@SFBB: As long as there's no solid evidence to confirm this, your accusations are unfounded. But the million-dollar question: if there was proof that we are indeed three different people, would you apologize for harassing them and imposing your point of view? Waiting your answer. Galahad (sasageyo!)^(esvoy) 21:06, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

1.- Different devices in different networks (no overlap). What part of this are you arguing against?

2.- Conclusive evidence is not only RfCU, which I'm convinced you're obfuscating (analogy: a positive DNA proof implies a conviction, but a negative one does not mean acquit); otherwise, you would not have dared doing the edit farming you did with Castorice (to be in time to vote for Bromóxido), while you knew that Castorice's edits were under scrutiny. In short: I won't apologize if a RfCU turns out negative (the evidence goes far way beyond that). SFBB (talk) 21:17, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Would you expect me to travel and use different devices just to evade detection? Is that the extent of your bad faith? But I never mentioned RfCU. My question still remains. Galahad (sasageyo!)^(esvoy) 21:25, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Come on, don't take us for fools. Nowadays everyone has more than one device. And everyone regularly logs at different places (just avoiding overlaps does the deal). SFBB (talk) 21:34, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

You're not answering the original question. If there was proof we're three different people (not from RFCU), would you apologize for harassment and imposing your views? Your other comments are just assumptions—you're assuming I own that account solely because of the Discord name. Galahad (sasageyo!)^(esvoy) 21:44, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

This discussion has past run its course, the U4C will consider what has been discussed as part of its ongoing discussions about this case. – Ajraddatz (talk) 22:12, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

---

The above request page is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Comments about this page should be made in Meta:Babel or Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat.

Moving from disc

I am moving this part from the "Discussion between the involved parties and the U4C members" section. (@User:SFBB, you have already been suggested to take a step back, let me add a friendly suggestion to revise your language. Thanks.) --Civvì (talk) 20:39, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

@U4C: I simply cannot understand how do you keep allowing that IPs and sockpuppet like LaQuimeraAlegre be used to spread shit and lies about registered users without any accountability, in the way it's being allowed to be done here. Now, I (who has never ever used any WMF communication channel besides on-wiki options - besides exposing the Discordgate using an ad-hoc account - and who actually has never ever used apps like IRC or Telegram at all) am supossed to be part of a Telegrammgate. Come on!!! That's the kind of nonsense that surfaces when you allow sockpuppets here. They can say whatever about whomever without having to take anything into account, because they’re just sockpuppets. And that’s also the reason why so many users are channeling their concerns to me via private messages: they’re afraid of the tons of nonsense and unrelated personal attacks I’ve been exposed to in this charade. SFBB (talk) 18:37, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

I never said you were part of Telegram. What I said was you were involved in undo my message and stopping the community from talking about Telegramgate the way they discussed Discordgate. It seems like it’s to your benefit to criticize and go after anyone who doesn’t support you. And again, evidence is evidence, no matter where it comes from. LaQuimeraAlegre (talk) 18:48, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

I deleted a libelous post by a sockpuppet as I've always done it in the past and I'll keep doing in the future in all the WMF-projects I contribute to. I consider it scandalous that such comments by IPs and sockpuppets have been allowed to stand here (and trust me that I had I been allowed to, I would have deleted everything). If someone wants to present a denounce they should use their account (in line iwht hte sockpuppet policy). SFBB (talk) 19:21, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Template:U2 should I just accept that unaccountable sockpuppets and IPs invent and spread non-sense about me? The treatment of libelous defamations by sockpuppets in this case has been scandalous. SFBB (talk) 21:51, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

You need not respond to every "libelous defamation" that the alleged sockpuppets and IPs say. We are perfectly capable of sorting the credible and incredible accusations being slung around, and your responses are completely unhelpful to the overall tone and content of the discussion. That said, I do think that this case needs a bit more strict moderation, so I'll also be a bit more aggressive in blocking/reverting sockpuppets and other bad-faith actors going forward, which should help as well. But you can do your part in this too :-) – Ajraddatz (talk) 21:56, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

I get what you're saying Ajraddatz, but I guess you're mostly seeing it from the U4C perspective. These cases are open, and a lot of users are reading here (and eating popcorn? for instance, this link shared by an unaccountable IP has been watched by 87 people), who do not have access to all the information U4C has. And, in the eyes of all of them, our registered accounts are being trashed by unaccountable IPs and sockpuppets. It's just not fair that the image and credibility of registered accounts being part of this process be compromised by users hiding behind IPs and sockpuppets. I trust that U4C can tell the difference, but not everyone can (they don't even have all the information), and that's why it's important to protect the reals accounts being involved. I thank you for the changing the approach on IPs/sockpuppets, and I apologize for having lost my patience after having being victim of multiple attacks/defamations by an unaccountable sockpuppet.SFBB (talk) 15:15, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

That is fair, and I think the committee has a role in more actively preventing sock abuse (and just unmoderated discussion in general). I appreciate the self reflection on your part and acknowledge the reputational risks - if you can be a bit more measured in your responses, we will moderate more, and hopefully through both actions we can lower the temperature of the discussion a bit. – Ajraddatz (talk) 23:04, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

eswikivoyage special disposition

I just wanted to share a bit about that amendment. It's designed to help everyone involved in this situation adapt and become part of the community more easily. Right now, we're asking for only 125 contributions (instead of 250) to vote, and 250 contributions (instead of 500) to suggest changes. We all deserve a space where we can flourish and feel comfortable, not one where we're accused of strange conspiracies. On eswikivoyage, the average number of voters is around 3 to 5, so expecting more is simply unrealistic. As for TravelStorm, it doesn’t quite meet the requirements yet; it has no edits and was recently created. Calling for a global ban on everyone trying to improve a project seems to say more about the person making that call than about us. @Farisori have you thought about how you might contribute to eswikivoyage in that scenario? Or are you planning to shut it down like some other projects (besides eswikisource and eswiktionary), while claiming it's "liberated"? You talk about dictatorship, but it’s interesting because in eswiki, some sysops (like you) interpret its policies in ways that allow for vengeful and overly strict sanctions. One of eswikivoyage's top editors has stepped back because of the situation you created, and it seems like you’re not really concerned about it. For you, winning seems to be the main thing, no matter what the cost. Bromoxido (talk) 21:54, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

I find it very difficult to understand how you can accuse one side of winning at all costs while making policies apparently designed to welcome disaffected users from eswiki to eswikivoyage. Defence of this policy is quite bizarre. I would also like to note, for transparency purposes, that LaQuimeraAlegre and Bromoxido are Likely the same person - and I would ask that you please restrict yourself to editing from one account as it pertains to this case, and not engaging in logged out editing (same for everyone here). – Ajraddatz (talk) 23:09, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Interesting info. I just want to add I had identified that LaQuimeraAlegra was Galahad (and denounced this to U4C on June 10th) way before I was able to establish (beyond any reasonable doubt) that Bromóxido and Galahad were also the same person (I was able to collect all the evidence by the end of the month). SFBB (talk) 23:45, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Oh come on, Bromoxido! What a lot of lies and nonsense. Farisori (talk) 00:20, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't think it's a lie. Since eswiki's existence, policies have been interpreted at the whim of sysops. Notably, es:WP:NSW, as Polux pointed out in his defense, has been a free pass for sysops, despite the fact that it's the only one that defines the maximum duration and that it shouldn't be used retaliatorily. Although the policy establishes this, many people are requesting its unblocking, but sysops deny its content.

Now, the amendment to the eswikivoyage policy may be controversial, since it allows the requirements to be halved for those in this situation, but I see it as a second chance for volunteers who have been caught up in all this to find other projects to participate in (and I'm not including Meruleh in this — her latest comments in this case have just destroyed the slightest chance she had) while they integrate into the community. If there is a problem with that amendment (and not the policy in its entirety), then it would be ideal to take the consultation within the community and maybe remove. Galahad (sasageyo!)^(esvoy) 01:36, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

@Galahad: Are you, Bromoxido, and/or LaQuimeraAlegre, the same person? Farisori (talk) Farisori (talk) 04:32, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Nope. I just wanted to give my opinion. Just look at the photos on Wikimedia Commons to see that we're different people. I don't know what that has to do with the topic at hand. Is it so difficult to admit that WP:NSW, among others, has been used for abuse? Galahad (sasageyo!)^(esvoy) 04:42, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Your trolling accusations don't affect me at all, Galahad. I've already proven to the U4C that none of them make sense. I just wanted you to explicitly and publicly state that Galahad, Bromóxido and LaQuimeraAlegre are three different identities. I look forward to further resolutions of the case by the members of the U4C. Farisori (talk) 14:30, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Replies to Farisori's comment

Copied from Special:Permalink/28951426#Previous attempts at a solution - Farisori.

I wanna add that Bromoxido (selected as administrator on es.wikivoyage on june 20th) unblock Meruleh (on june 25th). I think all these movements are related with all that Farisori previously indicated. Luisalvaz (talk) 20:57, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

I was blocked on Wikivoyage due to social pressure exerted by the Wikipedia community—pressure aimed at establishing authority beyond their appropriate scope. Fortunately, a second administrator on Wikivoyage reviewed my case and unblocked me after my appeal, in accordance with local policies. The issue does not lie within Wikivoyage itself; rather, it stems from certain behaviors within the Wikipedia community. They tend to focus only on information that aligns with their perspectives and dismiss what does not. There is an attempt to extend influence beyond their intended jurisdiction, as if their standards automatically apply across all Wikimedia projects. The block occurred shortly after a new policy was implemented that clearly outlined permissible actions regarding blocks. The action taken by the administrator Galahad did not comply with this policy. Upon appealing to a different administrator, I was unblocked following proper adherence to local guidelines. However, it appears that when the Wikipedia community disagrees with a decision or policy, they often interpret it selectively or overlook relevant details. This seems less about policy enforcement and more about asserting influence. When direct control is not possible, they may attempt to exert pressure indirectly. To clarify: the issue of governance and influence is centered within Wikipedia, rather than Wikivoyage.Sonoko Konishi (talk) 21:43, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

No, Sonoko. It wasn't because of "social pressure," it was because of your abuse of using puppet users, where you pretended to be other people. The same block Galahad imposed on you (because I warned him) mentions undeclared accounts. Your problem is that you were pretending to be other people. You can have other accounts as long as you stated that they were yours. You never did that, not even on eswiki.

I find Bromoxido unblocking almost funny, because it claims it was disproportionate, when your block was well-justified. You abused Galahad's own trust by using puppet accounts when you were an administrator. That's simply unacceptable. Can you imagine if I went to eswikivoyage and created several accounts pretending to be different people? Galahad would block me, wouldn't he? RageJam (talk) 23:17, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Dear RageJam, I kindly ask that you refrain from further involvement in this matter, as your recent actions appear increasingly inappropriate. To clarify, Antón Francho is alive and well; I am not personally acquainted with him. Additionally, Wikivoyage does not enforce any puppet policies. If you find it challenging to understand the content of two paragraphs, that issue is not ours nor the U4C's. There is no overarching global policy that applies here, so please proceed accordingly. Your recent message came across as threatening and coercive. However, Wikivoyage does have clear guidelines on how to handle such situations. If Wikivoyage has policies that you find unreasonable, those are their internal matters and do not pertain to our community. Thank you for your understanding. Sonoko Konishi (talk) 23:25, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm not deleting anything. In fact, I stand by it. You need to start accepting the reality of your actions. The resolution seems to be going in the opposite direction to what you're seeking. As for Antón, I hope this isn't a joke in bad taste, given the respect I have for him. I ask that you refrain from making false comments claiming I'm threatening you or expressing hate. Anyone can read what I write, period.

And by the way, I don't hate you or anything, I still have fond memories of you, I just find it sad how you ended up. RageJam (talk) 23:31, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

RageJam: Oh, poor thing… Sorry if a whole circus went off in your head, but you were always the most irrelevant ones. Very Florinda Meza vibes dramatic with no script. But yes, RageJam, Antón Francho is still alive and kicking. It's ridiculous that he was blocked and removed from the list without even asking for a shred of evidence. Once again, Wikimedia proving they're incapable of following even the most basic procedure. Anyway… LMAO. Good luck, kid. You ended up being pathetic in the camp you fell into. Sonoko Konishi (talk) 23:34, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

It's a shame the irrelevance you mention so often brings you back here again and again. Your conscience isn't at peace, I suppose that's your fault. As for Antón... if he contacts the eswiki administrators, he'll be unblocked and back to normal. Sarcasm doesn't come naturally to you, nor does the contempt you're trying to convey. You still have a long way to go in getting to know me. Greetings, my dear Aopou. RageJam (talk) 23:43, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't try to make a forumr here (if you want you can contact me on my talk page), but what does Antón Francho have to do with this discussion? This message is specially for Sonoko Konishi, who bring the subject to the table. But I thing RageJam can also explain. Tanks. Luisalvaz (talk) 03:28, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi. I just wanted to clarify that I didn't know about the new voting excpetions until it was pointed out by Farisori and that I don't plan on exercising any voting there (I have only 4 edits). Trinitrotolueno (talk) 21:37, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

You can't, unless you have 125 contributions—since the exception reduces the threshold from 250 to 125 edits, it doesn't grant special status. Meruleh, with over 500 edits, is barred from voting and isn't affected by this exception. The unblocking was due to policy, which states a first-time violation warrants at least one month; there have been no repeats since (on eswikivoyage). Clear policies help prevent authority abuse. Galahad (sasageyo!)^(esvoy) 22:08, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

I'd like to clarify, like Trinitrotolueno, that i wasn't aware of this special provision either. In any case, i wasn't going to participate in any voting process. Since i see it as unnecessary, i've requested its repeal. Thanks. Zafkiel GD | Talk 23:36, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

In April 2025, Meruleh told us that Anton Francho had passed away. She assured us that she had spoken to his family. He hadn't edited for six months when Meruleh posted on the Village Pump that she had spoken to the administrator's family and that they were very saddened by his death. We all offered our condolences on his UP and were very saddened. His account was blocked. All we had was Meruleh's word, since no one knew him personally. Imagine our astonishment when Meruleh wrote here Antón Francho is alive and well; I am not personally acquainted with him. She also wrote Antón Francho is still alive and kicking. It's ridiculous that he was blocked and removed from the list without even asking for a shred of evidence. What makes me sad is thinking that there are people who would play with this subject. This is an example of what this gang is capable of, and I say gang because they behave like this, in groups, harassing, lying, and scamming people, while defending each other, making spurious complaints against good users using all the bad methods they can, including sockpuppets, to defame others. --Jalu (talk) 23:49, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

I must confess I am quite surprised by the claims, accusations, and assertions (all wrong) made by LaQuimeraAlegre and Bromoxido regarding Wikipedia, a project in which they have never contributed; Wikiquote, a project they have never participated in; the Wikipedia Telegram group, where they have never been active; and the Iberocoop Telegram group, in which they have also never taken part. Considering that they are not among the editors who have been blocked from Wikipedia in Spanish — simply because they have never actively edited the project — it is extremely striking how resentful they seem to be toward the Wikipedia in Spanish 's admins and how much they supposedly know about us.--Jalu (talk) 00:57, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Responses to removed comment. – Ajraddatz (talk) 20:05, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
Okay, now say the same thing, but without hiding behind a VPN, so we can take you more seriously. Farisori (talk) 19:39, 9 July 2025 (UTC) I agree. Even though, I agree with what the IP is saying, this should be deleted. We have had enough with users hiding behind VPNs and using different devices (or maybe not even that...just changing operative systems - as in using different partitions - or configurations would cut it) to obfuscate RfCU.SFBB (talk) 19:58, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

U4C dude

@U4C: User:Ajraddatz User:Barkeep49 User:BRPever User:Civvì User:Dbeef User:Ghilt User:Ibrahim.ID User:Jrogers (WMF) User:Luke081515: I wish to formally raise a concern regarding the U4C's operational procedures and respectfully request a direct response from U4C representatives.

Available evidence indicates that users submitted sensitive information both during and after the designated submission period. A considerable volume of this material was provided significantly beyond the deadline, frequently in response to subsequent developments following the initial sanctions.

This raises two critical questions: First, should the community re-examine the U4C's operational framework? Second, is the U4C selectively considering only information that aligns with its predetermined conclusions?

According to our understanding within the Spanish-speaking Wikimedia community, the U4C received highly sensitive evidence pertaining to sanctioned users several weeks ago—evidence of sufficient gravity to potentially alter the current outcomes or motions concerning specific individuals.

Notwithstanding this development, the U4C has neither issued revised decisions nor addressed these new findings. Instead, the case was concluded with motions focused elsewhere, effectively disregarding subsequently submitted critical evidence.

We therefore seek clarification: What rationale underlies the omission of such consequential information?

We maintain that irrespective of submission timelines, evidence of greater substantive weight—such as that provided by our colleague SFBB—warrants proper consideration. The gravity of the content should supersede procedural timelines. 181.239.1.187 14:48, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

If you feel like your submitted evidence was ignored, you are free to follow up via email. It should however be noted that we have a very large amount of evidence collected for this case, followed by several discussion on multiple wikis and here on meta. Once we have a set of motions prepared which likely will be made in consideration of previous evidence, it takes another set of procedure to adapt to newly acquired information which if done repeatedly will extend the case for indefinite time. We have more things to work on, and it doesn't help if the evidence is submitted repeatedly beyond the given period. Also, these cases put a significant strain on participants so it's not in everyone's best interest to keep on extending the case for every new evidence we get. If your evidence is significant enough to need further action, you can start a follow up case which then again need to be accepted. If not, like I said, please follow up via email. BRP ^ever 16:34, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

I would love to understand who the "we" is in the thoughtful statement given here. Speaking only for myself, I can say that I have spent a lot of time examining the evidence provided by SFBB and that this evidence had an impact on the actions we've taken. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:42, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Like Barkeep, I am curious to know the we and would again ask that users not edit logged out as a means of avoiding scrutiny. You know who you are... if you want to privately raise a concern with us, please do so via private email rather than an "anonymous" post here. But as noted by others, we considered all evidence submitted - though there was a very high noise to substance ratio here, so not every piece of evidence factored into a final decision. As BRP notes, if you feel as though an important element was missed, please directly communicate that to us. – Ajraddatz (talk) 20:37, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't know what the IP is talking about, but I consider it extremely disappointing that, in light of all the evidence provided, U4C failed to establish that Castorice, Galahad, Bromóxido, and LaQuimeraAlegre are all controlled by the same person. I fully understand that U4C wants to follow a conservative approach, but limiting the ability to establish that different accounts are controlled by the same individual to only cases with conclusive evidence via a conventional RfCU sets a very negative precedent. It opens the door for abuse through the use of different devices and VPNs or separate internet connections (without overlap) specifically to obfuscate RfCU.

The evidence provided showed (I mention this here because the evidence - available to everyone who wants to check it - was summarized and provided privately to U4C, but I believe that, at the very least, people reading this discussion have the right to form their own opinions on these issues, even if U4C consider the evidence insufficient):

- Uncanny similar editing patterns in eswv through 4 years (even the text in used in the summaries is the same).

- Use of the same editing tools, including timelines.

- Pictures uploaded to Commons (e.g. this or this, among others; please note that by the time Castorice was a new account and its very first set of pictures uploaded to Commons - on April 15th- seems the be quite centered around Galahad).

- Same style and upload patterns in pictres uploaded to Commons.

- Alignment of opinions and arguments between Galahad and Bromóxido every single time, across 4 years.

- LaQuimeraAlegre (a confirmed Bromóxido puppet) echoing Galahad’s accusations after Galahad he was expelled from eswiki — accusations that required detailed insider knowledge of eswiki, as well as long-term participation in the eswiki Telegram community (that Bromóxido was never a member of and could not plausibly be aware of).

- The clearly strategic edit farming by Castorice over just two days, right before providing the final vote needed for Bromóxido to become a permanent (not temporary) sysop

- And the cherry on top: Galahad was replaced by Bromóxido on both Discord (where Bromóxido had no prior activity) and eswikivoyage, continuing exactly the same patterns as Galahad — including harboring Meruleh and welcoming her back, right after Galahad had left her fall when her sockpuppetry became undeniable.

Anyone can double-check these facts (they're open). I’m sorry, but this is far too much to attribute to mere coincidence. Anyone with basic statistical understanding knows that the probability of these events being unrelated is negligible — we're talking about a significance level of many sigmas.

I do believe that the U4C has set a terrible precedent regarding users who deliberately obfuscate RfCU — something that, frankly, is not rocket science for experienced users. I’m convinced that failing to act in this case will inevitably have negative consequences for WMF projects in the future (as now anyone knows, it is possible to things like this withour fearing any consequence as long as RfCU is effectively obfuscated). It's just terrible.

And just to finish: SHB2000 correctly pointed out that Meta is no one’s home wiki — and I fully agree. But let’s be clear: among the users he was defending, Bromóxido’s home wiki is Meta, and the Castorice account was linked to Meta on the very same day it was created. Do you still have doubts? SFBB (talk) 22:41, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

All of this evidence could just as easily represent different people who are friends and acting through shared motivation. And ultimately it doesn't matter - we considered the fact that these users were either the same person or multiple acting in collusion and responded accordingly. Globally on Wikimedia, using multiple accounts or working closely with others is not a policy violation, except where it becomes disruptive. We have responded, with some very strong actions, that meet the level of abuse observed. – Ajraddatz (talk) 23:41, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Just to underscore, we are not a global arbcom. Our remit is solely the UCoC. Socking is not a UCoC violation. In fact some forms of disruptively socking are not UCoC violations - this was why we ultimately deferred to the Turkish CUs despite my belief they got it wrong; but because the issue was not a UCoC violation it was not in our remit. I have attempted (and was not the only one) to call out the socking I did see and respond appropriately. I hope others who are in a position to enforce some elements we are not pick up on what we said in regards to socking. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:19, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Ok. I understand, but anyway I'll tag Urci dream and Igallards7, because as widely respected long-time eswv editors, they should be aware of this information (I can provide additional information if required). Also, please beware that more sockpuppets are roaming among the very few active users of eswv, including a confirmed sockpuppet of LTA Mmoreno25. SFBB (talk) 19:28, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't know what you want me to say, you could try to contribute in eswikivoyage instead of coercing its editors. Urci dream (talk) 13:22, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Urci dream: I merely want you to be aware of this information and what's been happening across multiple es-WMF projects. eswv has currently no sysops/crats and (without really knowing any of you, and based only on your long-term activity/compromise) I strongly believe that the stewards should consider any of you, or Superzerocool for the task. If you want eswv to be attractive for new editors, it must first become a place governed by the community, where abuse of power has no place. Giving the recent events, eswv's image is very much deteriorated among Spanish-speaking WMF editors. And it’s now up to you to restore its appeal and make it a place worth editing again (not for me, as I already contribute to 3 different WMF's projects, but surely for other users). SFBB (talk) 16:16, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

"advanced local or global permissions across Wikimedia projects"

@BRPever: does it include lower level permission such as autopatrolled, rollbacker or IPBE? GZWDer (talk) 04:48, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

¿What will happen with the «global roleback» permission User Galahad still has? El viajero sin nombre (talk) 07:23, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Furthermore, I am unable to locate any record of a public vote or community discussion concerning the granting of Global Rollback permissions to the user Galahad. El viajero sin nombre (talk) 07:50, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

@GZWDer No, to the best of my understanding. Same for GR, but you are free to seek clarification from stewards on if they consider it an advanced right or not. Thanks, BRP ^ever 08:20, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

@BRPever: ¿What will happen with the «global roleback» permisions User Galahad still has, thats advnaced global permision ?

• So I proposed to revise it as following: Galahad is prohibited from requesting or receiving the following rights before 2027-07-20: administrators, interface administrators, bureaucrats, oversight, checkusers, global sysops, stewards and ombuds.--GZWDer (talk) 09:42, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Advanced rights are usually understood as those or their equivalent anyways. Some wikis have different name from those rights, and it's difficult and unnecessary to include all. BRP ^ever 09:48, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

I am afraid there will be future controversies if we does not define "advanced rights" precisely. GZWDer (talk) 09:49, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

I'd say it has partially been defined in Requests_for_comment/Removal_of_advanced_rights. For global rights, I would leave it to Stewards discretion on what they consider advanced. BRP ^ever 09:53, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

As well as in Requests_for_comment/Activity_levels_of_advanced_administrative_rights_holders#Comment. BRP ^ever 09:59, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

In that case, the reference should be explicitly indicated. I was under the impression that global rollback is an (albeit entry-level) advanced permission. Leaderboard (talk) 10:06, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

I would say you can seek clarification from stewards on this, as they are the ones assigning, maintaining and revoking this usergroup. As far as I have been aware advanced is admin equivalent and above. BRP ^ever 10:21, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

New information. Case should be reopened

U4C members have commented, discussion closed. – Ajraddatz (talk) 01:26, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
About an hour ago, an anonymous IP (which could even be Meruleh themselves or another person involved in the case, I don’t know) made available to me a very long series of exchanges between Galahad and Meruleh (allegedly leaked by Meruleh). Apparently, like a scorned lover, she did not accept being sanctioned globally, while Galahad only received minimal sanctions, and has decided to take revenge. I have reviewed the chats in detail, and they have enormous depth and a very high level of likelihood (I even did timestamp checks to make sure everything matches). Given the depth and likelihood of the leaks, the possibility that they are fake is practically zero. The checks I performed also confirm that the participants in the exchange, "Ronova" and "Shawn", are indeed Galahad and Meruleh, respectively. These chats confirm everything I have denounced here: that Bromóxido is a puppet of Galahad and that at all times the actions of Galahad and Meruleh were coordinated, including the false report to U4C to get a "half" eswiki blocked, the sabotage of DerHexer’s steward voting, the false report regarding Anton Francho’s death, use of deceitful puppets in multiple WMF projects (which have not been fully captured yet), among others. I’m posting the screenshots here directly, as they are already circulating and they were not "leaked" by me. See here Given this new information, I want to insist on Galahad and all his puppets being globally blocked. It is clear that the actions by Meruleh that led to her blocking were fully shared and coordinated with Galahad, so nothing less than the exact same sanction that Meruleh received should be applied to Galahad.SFBB (talk) 22:07, 9 August 2025 (UTC) cc: Civvì, Ajraddatz, Barkeep49, Barkeep49, Ghilt, BRPever, Luke081515, Dbeef, 0xDeadbeef, Jaluj, Farisori, Galahad, A09, SHB2000, Urci dream, Igallards7, Superzerocool SFBB (talk) 22:17, 9 August 2025 (UTC) It's also interesting that in those chats Galahad is teaching Meruleh how to obfuscate RfCUs, exactly the same thing I was claiming that he has been doing here with his puppets all the time.SFBB (talk) 22:32, 9 August 2025 (UTC) Are you that bored on a Saturday night? Urci dream (talk) 22:48, 9 August 2025 (UTC) @Urci dream: If this evidence involves extremely serious matters that may have IRL ramifications like faking death, I'm not sure you can call this the result of Saturday night boredom (how trustworthy Meruleh's screenshots are an entirely different question given her already low reputation, though). //shb (t • c) 23:26, 9 August 2025 (UTC) Well...the IP just left me a a second message on my enwiki Talk Page. Now it includes a video on how the captures are being made. See here. The IP claims it is not Meruleh (it's an IP from Cordoba, Argentina; one wonders how does the IP have access to those chats, if it's not Mereuleh herself) and it involves EPIC in the plot. I certainly do not want to make these claims mine, but the main point is that the video greatly enhances the credibility of those screenshots: the depth, the accuracy, the temporal match with everything that was happening on-wiki, and now having everything on video makes it practically impossible for them to be fake.SFBB (talk) 00:25, 10 August 2025 (UTC) @Urci dream: No boredom. I had a fun day and after putting my daughter to sleep and cleaning up, I got the first message from the IP. And obviously, I double-checked before posting it here, because it's a very serious issue. SFBB (talk) 00:25, 10 August 2025 (UTC) Also, after carefully reviewing the video (because that part is not in the captures), it's seems quite questionable that i) EPIC may have been leaking information from the steward channels to Meruleh, and ii) given his close relationship with Meruleh, it was EPIC himself who judged on a series of requests by Meruleh on Meta, and even it was EPIC who put Laura Fiorucci's crat rights on hold after contact with Meruleh. At the very least, those were cases where he should have recused himself because of his personal involvement with one of the parties. As it has been since I uncovered the first pieces in May, this is a case where the more you dig, the more it stinks.SFBB (talk) 01:08, 10 August 2025 (UTC) New message from the IP. Apparently the link to the video was denounced and deleted, but the IP provided a new link. This link, however, is private (and I won’t give my email to that IP because I have zero trust in it; however, after carefully checking, I have zero doubts about the authenticity of the video) SFBB (talk) 01:15, 10 August 2025 (UTC) The IP uploaded the video as an open link once again. This time, however, I have downloaded the video, so if U4C needs it, they can contact me. Good night SFBB (talk) 01:27, 10 August 2025 (UTC) well...the IP (which I strongly believe, it's Meruleh herself behaving as a scorned lover) is decided to tke everything down, and continues leaking the exchanges between Meruleh and Gelahad. This time, they’re making fun of how Galahad blocked Meruleh in eswv, and they’re deciding to unblock her using Bromoxido. Also, Galahad is mocking the people who believed him when he claimed to have suicidal thoughts (he made those claims when he resigned his rights and also during his defense in this case). Everything was a blatant lie and they were playing all of you. Also, the chats show how they make plans to come back in the future, be it by farming edits on other projects first or by takign advantage of the new temporiry accounts accounts (which are unaccountable). See the leaked captures here (again, Im just forwarding captures that have been leaked by the IP and already made avalaible). It's clear that at all times Galahad and Meruleh were just laughing at everyone. The only question I have is wehether this is a case for U4C of T&S as WikiSP (led by Galahad) should have received multiple grants and money from the foundation in the past (<- the grant statement is just hearsay - mentioned to me by the people that have been sharing info with me, but I can't verify it - and I would hope that it would be investigated). SFBB (talk) 16:53, 10 August 2025 (UTC) This information has already been shared with the U4C, and as with past scandalous relevations on this topic, it really doesn't move the needle. We know that Galahad and Merulah acted in coordination. We know that Galahad, Broxo, their various socks and others have acted in coordination. It isn't fully clear who is who and how many individuals we are dealing with here, but it doesn't really matter. The result is the same. The U4C has addressed the largest problems here, namely blatant and ridiculous abuse by Merulah and the innapropriate policy takeover of eswv. Absent new evidence of new problems raised in a new case, we're done here. If Galahad truly is mobilizing a sock battalion, using a series of VPNs to mask all of his accounts, for the purposes of improving eswv, well then I don't see that as a UCoC issue. Final warning: drop the stick. If there is truly some grand conspiracy here, someone else will surely raise it to our attention. – Ajraddatz (talk) 17:16, 10 August 2025 (UTC) Just to add one thing to Adrian's note: I believe Merulah (or someone pretending to be them) has faked content in videos before. There have certainly been lies about things people did even if the chat was not itself faked. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:31, 10 August 2025 (UTC) I'm positive you're mistaken. This is new information. These are private chats between Galahad and Meruleh, and none of the things that are contained in these chats were available back then. If you claim, your already considered this, it is 100% clear you haven't even taken the time to check the new evidence. Here we have evidence of: - Galahad was lying when he said he was having suicidal thoughts (and was laughing about the people that was concerned about it together with Meruleh). - Galahad and Meruleh together conspired about the information regarding Anton Francho's passing. - Galahad and Meruleh together coordinated that Galahad would block Meruleh in eswv and then Bromoxido would unblock her. - Galahad and Meruleh together organized the U4C case by Meruleh in the awareness it was a lie. - Galahad (who during these process constantly said he was not obfuscating RfCU) was explaining Meruleh how to obfuscate RfCUs. - Galahad and Meruleh together were making plans on how she'd come bakc despite of her block in a couple of month. - Galahad and Meruleh together decided on a plan tha the account Meruleh would be taken down, and she would use Kiwumi from that point on. - Galahad and Meruleh together coordinated the sabotage of DerHexers steward voting. Please check the evidence, because the case is extraordinarily strong and the likelihood that all of these can be a fake is nihil /just take a look at the depth of the video and how it matches perfectly the timeline of events). And no: I'm not talking about a grand conspiracy. I'm talking about two users, who have seriously damaged the WMF projects. Adn the abuse by Meruleh is exactly the same as the abuse by Galahad (including lies about the death of a person) because they were acting in full coordination. SFBB (talk) 20:26, 10 August 2025 (UTC) You're right I've looked at no evidence since the closing of the case. I have, however, looked at evidence before the case closed that was, on the surface, equally compelling and damning not just of Meruleh and Galahad but also of others. But when it came time to verify what was claimed, the evidence came up at best inconclusive and often probably false. The U4C isn't a policeman looking to fix every crime, but we have instead, "addressed the largest problems here, namely blatant and ridiculous abuse by Merulah and the innapropriate policy takeover of eswv. Absent new evidence of new problems raised in a new case, we're done here." Barkeep49 (talk) 00:14, 11 August 2025 (UTC) Well, you say: "Absent new evidence of new problems raised in a new case". Now there is clear new evidence that the "blatant and ridiculous abuse by Merulah" was at all time coordinated with Galahad. Are you implying a new case should be opened to address the new evidence? SFBB (talk) 00:34, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Wikiviajes

I want to draw attention to a new fact. Upon the removal of Galahad’s administrator rights on Wikivoyage, the project was left with only one temporary administrator, User:Bromoxido. You noted that there appears to be a pattern of policies being crafted in Wikivoyage to enable a group of friends (and/or their sockpuppets) to maintain control of the project. This practice continues to this day, as seen in the case of User:Zerojosefer.

Despite having less than three months of activity on the project—his first edit to Wikivoyage being on May 18, 2025, after Meruleh’s complaint and following his block on Wikipedia—he has already submitted a candidacy for administrator. This is in clear contradiction with the actual policy created by Meruleh and Galahad, which states that a user must have at least six months of activity in order to submit a proposal for voting and at least three months to be eligible to vote. The administrator candidacy policy requires a minimum of six months of active contributions and at least 500 edits in the project. Nevertheless, on August 8, 2025, Zerojosefer submitted his administrator candidacy despite not yet having reached even the minimum three-month threshold of active participation. Jalu (talk) 12:14, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Good morning or afternoon, greetings first, regarding your question (which is understandable since I've already responded to the IP on the talk page).

To start, I'll try to break it down:

Although my first edit was on May 18th, my account has been registered with Wikivoyage since January 30th of this year (which makes me more than 6 months old).

The policy states:

• 500 ediciones mínimas en artículos o guías del espacio principal. Las ediciones realizadas en páginas de usuario, páginas de discusión o en otros espacios fuera del espacio principal no contarán para este requisito.
  

• 6 meses de antigüedad en el proyecto. Esto asegura que los proponentes tengan un conocimiento suficiente sobre la comunidad y sus procesos antes de poder proponer cambios.

Zerojosefer (talk) 12:45, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Exactly. The policy states that six months of activity in the project ensures that proposers have sufficient knowledge about the community and its processes before being able to propose changes. In your case, your first edit was on May 18, 2025, the same day you were blocked on the Es.Wikipedia. Therefore, after barely 82 days of contributing to the project —not even three months of activity— you are already applying for administrator, which clearly violates the policies. This is yet another proof that Wikivoyage is being used as a personal fiefdom by a small group of users.--Jalu (talk) 03:41, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Jaluj, @Zerojosefer, It is for steward to determine if the request meets local policy and has achieved consensus or not as they process the request. Since there are no bureaucrat in eswv, this request will follow the usual procedure with stewards making decisions. BRP ^ever 05:55, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Request for clarification

I have noticed that in the local case thread in eswiki some references have been made to the decision made by U4C in this case, with opposing interpretations. Precisely some users, including one user involved in the local eswiki conflict, and one librarian who has participated of the resolution deliberation, have made reference to the last motion of this case in favor of not giving harsher sanctions, while other users, including the one who opened the Librarians' Noticeboard thread, and another librarian who has participated of the resolution deliberation, have refuted these statements indicating that the U4C resolution is irrelevant, since the U4C did not analyze the disruption/conspiracy against eswiki that took place in Discord, as that was not part of the accusations that took place in the U4C case. I believe that both interpretations have their valid points, and I will not pronounce myself in favor of any of those interpretations, since I wish to stay neutral in the case. However, I believe that both interpretations are not founded enough, since the motions do not explicitly indicate what they analyzed and what accusations the text of this motion refers to, nor do I believe other words said can inherently tell it.

I do not request the U4C to indicate whether their resolution is relevant or not to the resolution of the local conflict in eswiki, since that, to my understanding, is the competence of the local eswiki librarians. Much less would I be requesting a U4C opinion on the local case, for the same reason I said in the previous sentence. What I'm requesting is just to clarify if what the text of the last motion says refers in any extent to the accusations made regarding how the Discord situation affected eswiki, and if the disruption/conspiracy against eswiki that took place in Discord was analyzed at all by the U4C. I believe it is important to clarify this in order to know how the text of this motion and its applicability to the eswiki situation should be interpreted, for the local eswiki librarians to consider.

cc: Ajraddatz, Dbeef, Ghilt, Ibrahim.ID, Barkeep49, BRPever, Civvì, Luke081515.

--Luigi Nakano (会話) 22:03, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

I apologize in advance if I'm being annoying. I'm sincerely trying to do what's best for the community, regardless of what the final resolution locally is.--Luigi Nakano (会話) 22:05, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

@Luigi Nakano the U4C did consider conduct about eswiki when reaching our decision. The UCoC is a minimum set of expectations and enforcement of the UCoC is supposed to happen at the most local level possible. So the eswiki community may give its own sanctions in this case, following eswiki policies and procedures. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:03, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: Thanks for the clarification. Just to make it a bit more clear, may I ask if the conduct about eswiki that was analyzed was limited to Galahad and Meruleh or if other users' conduct (Pólux, Linehalt, Trinitrotolueno, etc.) was also considered?--Luigi Nakano (会話) 17:23, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Luigi Nakano: if you had taken the minimal time to read the case, you would have quickly realized that no measures were requested here against those users and that they were only tangentially involved. This is not the type of case that falls within the scope of the U4C, which primarily deals with abuse of power, advanced permissions, and issues covered by the UCoC (which does not cover things such as disruption, sockpuppetry, etc.). Since there was no case against those users, the evidence presented here only referred to them tangentially.SFBB (talk) 17:43, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Speaking only for myself: I personally considered all evidence and allegations. As SFBB notes, some parties to the case had minimal evidence/allegations of wrongdoing. The U4C spent the most time looking at the actions of anyone who held/holds advanced permissions (sysop, crat, etc) either on a specific project or globally. ` Barkeep49 (talk) 17:46, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

The reason why I believed that that was not clear is because, within the allegations and requests there were complaints against the original sanction by Farisori, which is the reason why I believed that the conduct that led to it might have been analyzed, but it wasn't clear to me. Plus the evidence presented included the full logs of the Discord server, which U4C requested and was granted access to. Thanks for your clarification. Barkeep49. I believe it's clear now.--Luigi Nakano (会話) 17:57, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

U4C had access to the entire logs (which is a humongous amount of information - only my captures starting February were about 1 GB), but it would be preposterous to expect that they (none of which is a native speaker) would conduct an entire investigation by themselves (everyone has almost 100% to the on-wiki logs, but that does not mean that U4C would have to construct all cases by themselves; obviously the evidence is organized and presented by the parties). Here, there were cases against specific users (all of whom had advanced permits + me; btw, still don't get why a U4C case against me), and the evidence was organized around those cases. SFBB (talk) 18:12, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

On this front, the U4C did index the logs and searched through them in various ways to try and construct relevant evidence. This proved particularly helpful around some of the issues with Meruleh. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:19, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

SFBB, I wasn't expecting that they would have done that. I was just asking. If there were not opposing interpretations I wouldn't be making this question. I was not seeking to benefit either side with this request. I believed that both interpretations had their points and it had to be clarified. And I believe that Barkeep49 has clarified it accordingly. I believe your point was confirmed, which was what I seeked, to have one of the points confirmed, regardless of which point it was.--Luigi Nakano (会話) 18:28, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Just my personal 2c: nothing in our decision prevents the eswiki community from taking its own measures to enforce the UCoC and prevent disruption according to its own policies. We have addressed the largest UCoC-related problems raised to us, we do not claim to have solved everything related to these two cases and the users involved. We have offered guidance to communities in further actions here (namely making evidence-based decisions), but it is ultimately up to eswiki to decide what to do going forward. – Ajraddatz (talk) 22:03, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Substituting {{@U4C Alert}}

Line 45:	Line 45:
| [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Meruleh#c-Ghilt-20250522200700-U4C_case_notification Meta notif.]	| [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Meruleh#c-Ghilt-20250522200700-U4C_case_notification Meta notif.]
|}	|}
U4C member alert: {{@U4C Alert}} [[User:Galahad|Galahad]] ([[User talk:Galahad|''sasageyo!'']])<sup>([[voy:es:User talk:Galahad|''esvoy'']])</sup> 04:42, 20 May 2025 (UTC)	U4C member alert: @[[Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee|U4C]]: [[User:0xDeadbeef]] [[User:Ajraddatz]] [[User:Barkeep49]] [[User:Civvì]] [[User:Ghilt]] [[User:Ibrahim.ID]] [[User:Jrogers (WMF)]] [[User:Luke081515]] [[User:Superpes15]] [[User:Galahad|Galahad]] ([[User talk:Galahad|''sasageyo!'']])<sup>([[voy:es:User talk:Galahad|''esvoy'']])</sup> 04:42, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
----	----

See discussion (template revision). NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 01:40, 1 October 2025 (UTC)