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

This case is currently under investigation. The U4C is reviewing the submitted evidence and exploring possible solutions. Evidence can be submitted before 2025-07-01.

U4C member alert: @U4C: User:Ajraddatz User:Barkeep49 User:BRPever User:Civvì User:Dbeef User:Ghilt User:Ibrahim.ID User:Jrogers (WMF) User:Luke081515 Galahad (sasageyo!)^(esvoy) 04:42, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

---

Galahad

Description of the problem - (Galahad)

Since 2022, I have served as an administrator on the "Comunidad Wikimedia" Discord server. In early 2025, several inappropriate comments were made regarding situations occurring on eswiki. Due to the casual atmosphere, we did not initially recognize the potential implications of these comments; I have since realized that internal perspectives can differ significantly from external perceptions.

Three related threads, later referred to as "Discordgate," led to a formal complaint filed by Jaluj in the TAB. This resulted in disciplinary actions against several users, including myself. Key points to note include:

• The case was open for only six hours, which limited opportunities for us to defend ourselves or provide additional context.
  • Although we could respond during the public discussion, our attempts to clarify or defend ourselves were often met with accusations of dishonesty or being wrong, making it difficult to effectively address the allegations.
• At that time, only seven of 53 sysops participated. I have previously had disagreements with five sysops, primarily concerning the eswikiquote issue and the circumstances of regional affiliates.
• Farisori informed that the complaint was under review and, within an hour, a resolution had been reached. Note that I voted against his confirmation which had recently ended by the time the resolution was taken.

All of the above violates point 3.2 of the UCoC

Although unsubstantiated, I was accused of taking control of eswikivoyage in a manner reminiscent of historical authoritarian actions. I would like to note that the two votes in question were conducted in accordance with established policies:

• Effective immediately and moving forward, only the designated permanent sysop has the authority to appoint temporary administrators. Temporary appointments will be limited to a duration of one month up to a maximum of one year, and will be designated for specific tasks related to the project. A seven-day comment period will be upheld for any appointment. The standard process for selecting permanent administrators will be temporarily suspended during this time. - This decision was made by the community in 2021; all users had enough edits and experience.
  • Because the requirements for proposing/voting have been increased, this amendment is unnecessary. The eswikivoyage community has created a new policy for administrators (known as machinists) that includes procedures for becoming a temporary as well as a permanent sysop on eswikivoyage.
• This revision to the voting policy elevated the voting requirements, which had previously been more lenient. Additionally, it mandated that every vote be accompanied by a justification

The current voting policy states that all votes must last a minimum of five days and have at least three votes in favor. Both met the requirements, and eswikivoyage only has an average of five editors per day. In fact, looking at this page, more than one has 250 edits, so it's not just the five of us who can vote.

However, the accusations continued:

• Your actions have effectively taken control of Wikivoyage in a manner reminiscent of the Reichstag Fire Decree
• And don't make me laugh with a confirmation from the eswikivoyage community. After the 2021 Reichstagsbrandverordnung and the voting rules change that Felino Volador linked, this is like the 1934 referendum (and I take full responsibility for what I'm saying because it's a good analogy for the falsity of that vote and not because I'm implying a fascist ideology or anything like that)
• I said that you manipulated the rules in such a way that you turned it into a dictatorship and that any vote that is held now is a mere farce (just as the Nazis, without falsifying anything and using constitutional instruments, destroyed democracy in Weimar; and this is not a personal attack since I will prove it).

(In the threads made in the community, it is quite highlighted that if you do not say anything, you are an accomplice to justify actions. Following the same logic, does the fact that no one has spoken out about this imply that the entire community, regional affiliates, and sysops endorses these types of comments?)

In addition to that, I was accused of having sabotaged eswikiquote and eswikiversity. None of the above accusations were proven.

Now, I would like to provide context for the already public screenshots as well as the diffs (each person will provide context in their respective space):

• FlyingAce and I, far from defending Meruleh and her actions, point out that the situations of one project (eswiki) do not extend to the others (eswikivoyage) due to the (limited) autonomy of the projects. This does not mean that we turn a blind eye to Meruleh's flag abuses, and I will be the first to request her confirmation and request the removal of flag on Meta-Wiki if it is approved. Allowing the issues of one project to predominate over decision-making in another is something that cannot happen.
• I was never in favor of using sockpuppets for improper purposes; in fact, and something that screenshot omits (because it happened off-screen), is that I myself requested, via IRC, that Meruleh's account be verified due to a situation on Discord. By the time that screenshot was taken, Horcus had already been vanished (and consequently global locked).

• Confirmed by local checkuser that I (along with FlyingAce) reported the Discord situation related to Meruleh

• No defenses were ever made in favor of Meruleh; I was just explaining my points in which I indicated that self-checks are inadmissible if there is no abusive behavior. This is allowing fishing without it being seen as such. Just because I mentioned it doesn't mean I recommended it. The case did reach the U4C, yes. Details about my involvement in that case could be discussed privately between the committees.
• In my first comment, where I say Trust and Safety, it refers to the use of the acronym "TS" (referring to Taylor Swift), that was omitted but some of those who were in this situation will confirm. In the second comment I indicate "Meruleh has severe schizophrenia", indicating that there are three people writing at the same time with the same name) (At no time do I make fun of those who suffer from this disease).
• Completely out of context; at no point did I refer to global sysops, but rather to various individuals in Telegram groups (where privacy is so strict that log is only available for 48 hours) who abused their power or engaged in proselytizing to gain certain votes that favors them. I will gladly present that evidence, along with its Wikipedia links, if the U4C requests it..
  • In that same screenshot, Meruleh is told that she was warned in advance to continue editing eswiki despite everything that happened.
  • The worrying thing about this is that Jaluj offers the following misinformation: they said they had the protection of the overlords (read GS) and that they explained to you that there were projects more important to destroy. This is not the first time this has happened, as she had previously said: At the same time, Galahad is seen laughing and remarking, Everything Meruleh says is a lie. I pointed out the comment, yes. But this doesn't mean I deliberately withheld information (or that I laughed). Meruleh herself revealed in a public space (like Discord) that Horcus was her puppet, and I had already done what I needed to do by asking for verification.
  • The projects Meruleh refers to are the result of an ongoing collaboration between SHB2000 and myself, who are administrators of enwikivoyage and eswikivoyage, respectively. In parallel, Meruleh is supporting enwikivoyage by implementing a few things.

• Confirmed by SHB2000

• Later, and taking advantage of the fact that we are blocked (to a greater or lesser extent), another complaint is made: In this, SFBB changes the narrative so that eswikiquote is now mentioned instead of eswikivoyage (gravedancing). In parallel, created a thread in the village pump to indicate the following things:
  • In this screenshot, I indicate that if they wanted to give Taichi a confirmation, they can no longer do so, since he resigned. And that someone should eventually sanction him (of course, not the same person who warned him, and certainly not for a minor reason).
  • In this screenshot, I indicate that eswiki reaches 0 sysops, so it enters the GS "domain" - eswiki has 53 sysops, so realistically speaking, it would be impossible in the short term for it to become part of the wikis to which GS have access. In the unlikely event that this happens, the process isn't automatic, and the community decides whether to join or not.
  • In this screenshot, I indicate that GS are notified if a wiki enters our range of action. This is no secret, as it can be seen on WikiSets7 and also on the Stewards' board. SFBB's comment suggests that I would notify the "council" that eswiki has entered the list. Another example of how he perverts the narrative to his advantage.
  • Regarding this diff, SFBB notes that all five of the "Council" endorsed the request. At no point did he presume good faith and assumed we had previously read the request for endorsements and that no one was conditioned to it. In fact, once the request for endorsements was concluded, those who initially endorsed later voted in favor (or against).
  • Here I state that "one by one, the enemies of the Empire fall" and then I state that "three have already fallen and Nostradamus is working slowly" - neither of these comments can be taken seriously, not even in a mocking tone
  • In this comment, I point out that Taichi is worth as much as a half-penny coin; I didn't do this to mock him, but because he was asked to take action on something he couldn't intervene in because he wasn't a sysop. In any case, I apologized, and he didn't take it as an offense, but rather as having a "touch of humor". In the same section, I point out that Nostradamus may be wrong about whether Farisori will be confirmed again or not.

• Confirmed by Taichi

• • In this comment I indicate that "I will not vote unless one of the doñas vote". While I voted against Farisori, it wasn't to challenge anyone. The motivation behind my vote was that a sysop, given the presence of 52 other sysops, shouldn't be taking action. Since the incident with DerHexer and Aqurs1 I decided to public justify my vote quite a bit, independent of the comments I make internally.

I acknowledge that my comments shouldn't have been posted in a public space and I apologize for having done themand I apologize for having done them; and as a server administrator, I should have been more strict about enforcing the rules. My relationship with the community was severely damaged, and it also took a toll on my health too. However, this is a strong commitment to ensure that this does not happen again. There may be other screenshots and I will try to explain them.

Summary

I will summarize the accusations made against me in this section.

eswiki

I was unfamiliar with how the TAB process functioned, as I had not been reported before. I anticipated having more time to present a proper defense given the number of accusations. During the six-hour case, I was largely sidelined, and each time I attempted to defend myself to the VP, I was told I was being untruthful—a pattern that appears to continue within the u4c case. I do not consider myself exceptional, but I believe that fair treatment should be given in such situations, with an emphasis on contributions and comments—focused on edits rather than solely on editors. While I referred to Taichi as "as useful as a halfpenny," he later confirmed that he was not offended after I apologized.

Excluding a project from Special:WikiSets/7 requires fewer than 10 sysops or fewer than 3 active sysops within two months, along with local consensus. Therefore, eswiki cannot lose 53 sysops, and even if that were to happen, local consensus would still be necessary to include it in GS sets. It is unlikely that this situation would occur, and I do not see it as a probable outcome, regardless of informal discussions on Discord. The eswiki community is capable of assessing issues related to sabotage or other problems in a reasonable manner and should not be unduly influenced by concerns or suspicions. I trust their judgment in such evaluations. They have the authority to elect their own sysops and decide whether to remove them or to accept support from Global Sysops at any time, similar to ukwiki, where they do not meet the criteria for exclusion from the non-GS list and have authorized Global Sysops to assist with vandalism or emergency situations.

eswikivoyage

I acknowledge my actions on eswikivoyage and recognize that I have generally received support from the community, including when I initiated my own confirmation process. My intention has not been to exert control or to evade responsibility. Although I was permitted to nominate temporary sysops, the reasons for removal remain applicable; if the eswikivoyage community believed I misused my authority, they could request my removal. All decisions were made with the community’s best interests in mind and were driven by observed needs rather than any authoritarian intent.

The voting policy aims to enable the community to make independent decisions based on their understanding and role. All votes—whether in support or opposition—are expected to be reasonably justified by the proposal to ensure clarity. Any eswiki (or global) community member is welcome to share comments on eswikivoyage processes within community spaces if interested in contributing to improvements, and we are available to clarify our motivations. However, unfounded accusations placed on this small community are unwarranted and have negatively impacted some members' well-being.

As a small community, eswikivoyage welcomes new members, which allowed us to accept Meruleh's sockpuppet. Since it was not used to bypass blocks or manipulate results, I assumed good faith. The recently amended voting policy emphasizes this approach. Therefore, I was unable to block or remove Meruleh as sysop following the eswiki incident, given her valuable contributions. Doing so would have violated community rules, undermined trust, and constituted an abuse of power, which I choose to avoid. While she (or her puppet) may have proposed policy changes, approval was contingent upon community approval. Anyone may suggest, but the eswikivoyage community makes the final decision, and these changes were generally well received. The comment was made by Meruleh, not by me, so I removed it due to its potentially inflammatory nature given the current context.

Finally, no eswikivoyage governance process was carried out through external means; all actions were decided publicly. The bot's purpose is to inform external media (related to eswikivoyage) about relevant project updates in order to keep the community informed. If the bot continues to operate despite the controller being blocked for a year, it indicates that the community has chosen to allow its presence. The bot's code is stored on a server accessible not only to the previous operator but also to several members of the eswikivoyage community.

eswikiquote

My actions on eswikiquote were carried out solely in my capacity as a non-admin community member, not as a Global Sysop, in accordance with policy stating that GSs do not hold more authority than regular users. I canceled an RFA because the policy requires that nominations come from trusted (i.e., local sysops) veteran editors. If the community or sysops disagreed, they had the ability to reverse my action, and I would have respected that. My undo of the annulment was not a recognition of authority abuse (which did not occur; in the RFA discussion, I repeatedly stated that I acted as a non-admin community user and not as a GS), but rather because the justification for the annulment was withdrawn by the person who originally made it.

eswikinews

Although not explicitly stated, the decision to remove eswikinews from the non-GS list was made by two community members (a sysop and myself). The discussion lasted fourteen days and was extended by an additional comment from another sysop. When I submitted the request at 03:48 UTC, only these two votes were considered valid [1]. Had I waited for Meruleh's vote, the request would have shown three in favor instead of two.

Discord

We communicated via Discord; however, this did not constitute coordination for onwiki sabotage as suggested. Some blocked users (FlyingAce, Trinitrotolueno, Pólux, and Daamu32) have not participated in any activities documented as onwiki evidence here. Those who did participate provided their own opinions. U4C can review the logs and comments for verification.

There is no indication from the conversation that we advised Meruleh to use alternative accounts or escalate eswiki issues to U4C or OC. During the authentication incident, I asked Jake Park to verify the account, which he confirmed. U4C will note that Meruleh's accounts were revealed after being blocked. Her lack of sanctions on eswikivoyage or wikidatawiki is because she did not use those projects for sabotage, aside from Meta-Wiki and her GRN request—these are addressed by stewards who indicated only the puppet's vote needed to be canceled. This information was publicly accessible and could be reported by anyone.

All involved parties, including myself, recognize that our comments were inappropriate. The server administrator responded promptly by acknowledging the mistake and implementing stricter rules. Since the issue affected the entire eswiki community, the appropriate course of action for eswiki sysops would have been to issue a final warning and request the resignation of the server admin.

Previous attempts at a solution - (Galahad)

I originally promised to find a solution to this, as this is something that must never happen again. The petitions required me to publicly apologize to "everyone," but in the heat of the moment, this was unacceptable, as I was required to apologize even to those I hadn't offended. As part of my goodwill, I resigned from several spaces including server administration.

Suggested solutions - (Galahad)

Previous suggested solutions
For my part, I would like both the people involved and myself to be unblocked - this excludes Meruleh, who has other issues - and be placed on last warning/1-year probation. Although we made inappropriate comments, this was our first violation and should be taken into account considering our contributions to the Wikimedia movement. It could even be changed to a partial block where we do not participate in community spaces, only in ns-0 and others that are deemed appropriate. 1-year probation on sysop for Jaluj and Farisori, it was right to wait longer so we could all defend ourselves and other sysops could participate. An unprecedented case like that should have been handled differently and they manipulated the information of the screenshots by translating it as they wished. SFBB is blocked on the Spanish Wikipedia and possibly Meta; none of his accusations, except for the inappropriate comments, had any basis on-wiki (as I demonstrated, there was no abuse of power on my part or on the part of those involved, just as I demonstrated that everything that was done on eswikivoyage is not false, much less is it proven that there was sabotage to Farisori) An uninvolved third-party (preferably an es-0 speaker) to host fair mod elections on the Spanish Wikimedia server.

• Considering our contributions to eswiki and our limited involvement in community processes, it may be appropriate to consider unblocking all users (except Meruleh, who was blocked for other reasons) and issuing a final warning.

• Alternatively, the current policy governing our blocks specifies a maximum duration of one month. After that time, the sysops should lift the sanctions.

• In both cases, after issuing a final warning if similar behavior occurs again, it may be necessary to revert to the original sanctions. The goal is to provide an opportunity for correction.

• Another option is to unblock users and, once eswiki has established processes to ensure fair assessments, submit the case for review. This review could be conducted six months later to evaluate ongoing behavior. This process should be monitored by the u4c and guided by its observations and any relevant behaviors following the unblock.

• I am removing the suggested sanctions for Farisori, Jaluj, and SFBB. It is preferable to avoid resolving issues solely through additional sanctions, and instead find a balanced approach that encourages cooperation without escalating conflicts.

• An impartial third-party (preferably an es-0 speaker) to oversee the selection of moderators on the Spanish Wikimedia server.

Zafkiel GD

First, i extend my greetings to the u4c committee. I had intended to entirely distance myself from Wikimedia; however, given the situation following my block on eswiki, which i believe was appropriate, i feel it is necessary to provide a statement. Please note that my written english is not perfect, and i apologize for any errors. I will do my best to communicate clearly.

On personal attacks and the LGBT issue

I have already apologized to the relevant individuals in my unblocking request. I am aware of the inappropriate comments i have made. Concerning the comments related to LGBT topics, i have nothing further to add, and i trust the committee can assess the situation based on the chat records.

Additionally, my comment, "I'm concerned about Wikiquote; the community there is really toxic, i'd say on the level of LOL," was prompted by discussions in this thread. I made a comparison to the players of League of Legends, who are known for being hostile, which was reflected in that thread.

About the alleged interwiki sabotage

This is an important part. Concerning the alleged Discordgate, SFBB has consistently shared statements that contain inconsistencies already noted by other involved parties. I will focus only on the matters that concern me. SFBB accuses me of interwiki sabotage after i voted against Laura Fiorucci in her sysop candidacy on eswikiquote. It is true that i had no prior contributions there before the vote. I became aware of the vote because she posted a message inviting people to "review" the candidacy on Telegram. My decision to vote against it was based on the information available to me, and i explained my reasons for voting as i did. There was no mention of me or my vote under specific conditions, and the committee can verify this through their records of the messages.

On the alleged sabotage on eswiki

Regarding the claim of sabotage, SFBB presents an unusual assertion: that members of the "council" conspired to remove several sysops and installed the GS as the new leadership. This scenario is highly improbable, as the community size makes such a coordinated effort unlikely. For example, during Farisori's revalidation, only Galahad and Meruleh voted against, while the remaining members supported it. The committee can review the relevant messages from that time to assess whether any sabotage took place. My position was simply that i was not convinced of their activity level, which led me to abstain. Had i wished to sabotage the process, i would have voted "oppose". Zerojosefer's request for assistance in withdrawing his vote was individual and did not influence others to vote either way. SFBB's comment suggesting that my statement indicates sabotage is unfounded. I ask the committee to examine the screenshot to confirm that Meruleh did not pressure me to change my vote, as my decision was already made, shown clearly in the communication.

Furthermore, the so-called "council" was initially an inside joke referencing Galahad and FlyingAce, the server administrators. The committee can verify this in the January messages. The idea spread among active members due to a period of collective concern, which included three checkuser request without grounds, involving myself. The change of my nickname to Meruleh was not intended as an act of solidarity; rather, it was a form of mockery toward her use of sockpuppets.

Regarding the blocks

SFBB provided this case in a direct manner. While sanctions may have been appropriate, they should have been limited to final warnings, given our involvement in the project. Specifically, my block is said to have involved advising Meruleh to use puppet accounts, which i have already clarified in my unblocking request was not the case. It was simply a matter of "shitposting".

Previous attempts at a solutions - Zafkiel GD

Given that the other individuals involved in this case were characterized as dishonest, i chose not to participate in the public discussions and instead waited for the TAB's formal complaint, expecting a fair review since i believed our violations did not merit severe sanctions.

Suggested solutions - Zafkiel GD

I only ask that everything already stated be reviewed again. There was no sabotage or collusion. Any additional information the committee may require, please do not hesitate to let me know. Thanks. Zafkiel GD | Talk 19:50, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Clarification:

I'd like to clarify to both the committee and SFBB that Althair's alleged ban from the Discord server has absolutely nothing to do with me. The alleged report that led to the ban doesn't exist. What really happened is that I commented to Meruleh about some of Althair's quotes that offended Galahad because of his appearance, and she was the one who reported it. It has nothing to do with Nazi imagery. Althair can confirm my clarification. Thanks. Zafkiel GD | Talk 23:42, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

I confirm that Zaffkielas nothing to do with Nazi images. Althair (talk) 21:21, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

SFBB

Civii asked us not to reply with 'lol' out of respect for the Commission, but it's really hard to find another way to react to this preemptive complaint.

First, I accused Galahad of abusing his global sysop powers on Wikiquote to block the election of Laura Fiorucci as an administrator. She received 14 out of 17 votes and was therefore rightfully elected [2]. The only votes against her came from Galahad, Meruleh, and Zafkiel —all of whom were involved in the Discord chats. Notably, Zafkiel had never edited Wikiquote before or after that vote. Galahad then annulled the election, claiming that Laura should have been proposed by him—which is simply not true. [1 and [2] (note aside: the level of insults and personal attacks against Laura found in that Discord chat is astonishing; see below).

To make things clear. The said policy states: "Los candidatos deben ser presentados por editores veteranos que cuenten con la confianza de la comunidad" (eng: Candidates must be presented by veteran editors who have the trust of the community). At no point does it exclude the possibility that the candidate may present themselves. The use of the verb "presentar" is customary in Spanish — commonly used in legislation related to passive suffrage — and it never implies any prohibition against self-nomination. This is unlike, for example, the verb "avalar", which does carry such an exclusion.

The policy then continues: "Si cumples con los requisitos anteriores puedes solicitarle a un administrador que presente tu candidatura" (eng: If you meet the above requirements, you may request that an administrator present your candidacy). As stated, this is an option, not an obligation.

Galahad completely twisted the interpretation of the policy, arguing that because self-nomination is not explicitly mentioned, it must be disallowed. That logic is completely flawed. Furthermore, he transformed the word "may" into "must", and based on that, he proceeded—despite an obvious conflict of interest, given he was one of the three opposing votes—to annul the entire election. (here his explanation)

Second, regarding eswikivoyage: I insist 100% that the methods Galahad has used to undermine community control in eswikivoyage and turn that wiki into a unipersonal regime closely resemble the tactics used by the Nazi regime in 1933 to dismantle democracy in the Weimar Republic. If the Nazi analogy is uncomfortable (understandably, given the well-known consequences after democracy was destroyed), I have another one: Jar Jar Binks proposing plenipotentiary powers to Palpatine to fight the clone wars. In the end, both serve the same purpose — transforming a community- or society-based system into a centralized, unaccountable regime (the evidence of the votes have been provided in the other denunciation).

Third, I'm not taking anything out of context. From the very beginning, I've been, both in eswiki and here in Meta, I've been quite vocal that Galahad and FlyingAce reinstate the community’s access to the chats in that server. They are actively obstructing the investigation by preventing the community from accessing that material, all while claiming that things are being taken out of context (which I'm not: again, I dare them to reinstate the community’s access). This claim can only be understood as another attempt to obstruct investigation by denouncing the only person who made captures of the entire chat and can show what's been happening there. Besides, I am not the only one who had the "privilege" of reading the content of those chats. I am, however, the only one who took the time to make captures and archive everything that was happening there. That means I’m the only one currently in a position to expose what was going on. That said, other users also read the chats and would certainly be able to testify—and agree—that I am not taking anything out of context (e.g. @Mister Roboto, @Freddy eduardo, @Ceaseless Watcher; and before there are attempts to disqualify their testimony ad hominem — just because they're all part of the same WP:LGBT — I want to make it clear that I am not part of that community, and that our investigations were conducted independently).

I cannot stress enough the level of astonishing content found in that channel—ranging from homophobic remarks and Nazi flags to a slew of insults directed at members of the community. And this is without even getting into the attempts to sabotage Wikipedia, the deliberate lies, or the protection of a sockpuppeteer (if you take a look at the timeline, it becomes beyond any doubt that Galahad was fully aware of all the lies before he continued supporting Meruleh —both on-wiki and off-wiki).

If you have any doubt about the denunciations I made, you can find them here. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. There is much more in that infamous channel. Given the enormous amount of captures I’ve shared, it’s become quite clear that everything is actually in context (and we're not talking about isolated "jokes", as he wants to frame them). But if Galahad insists on claiming things are taken out of context, I dare him to directly reinstate community access to that server so people can see the full context for themselves.

Even this complaint — just like Meruleh’s — is full of lies and things taken completely out of context:

-He claims that by the time the complaint was filed, Horcus had already been vanished. But he was well aware of that and still continued defending Meruleh afterwards (and he even assisted Meruleh in orchestrating the other complaint).

-Then he brings up Trust & Safety (Taylor Swift), taking everything entirely out of context. As clearly explained in my report, that specific part of the capture was shown only to provide background — the actual point was to show the claimants using the phrase "Todos somos Meruleh" (eng: We all are Meruleh).

-Finally, regarding the most recent complaint, he tries to disprove everything one by one, claiming its all jokes, as if each point exists in a vacuum. But if you step back and look at the broader picture — the full context of the Discord chats — it’s beyond any doubt that they were actively working to sabotage the number of sysops in eswiki. There are so many conversations, so much evidence — it's ridiculous, it’s astonishing. I honestly can’t believe he comes here and pretends otherwise. It defies all logic.

Remark by SFBB (talk) 00:44, 22 May 2025 (UTC): I'm not sure if I can comment here, but I think it's important that I make a precision about the captures that Freddy Eduardo just shared. In the captures I shared, Galahad goes by the name of Castorice (12.05), but then he changed his name to Skirk (13.05), but both of them are Galahad.

Clarification

I’ll make my final (and longer) statement in a few days, after I’ve had time to organize all the information available to me. In the meantime, I need to clarify a few things:

1.- I am not a victim of the Discord chats. Neither was sabotage planned against me or against something I planned, nor was I directly offended.

(@Daamu32: There’s no need for you to apologize to me. I only showed very mildly inappropriate comments — which I personally didn’t take offense to — because you asked me. I preferred to highlight relatively mild negative remarks toward me, rather than actual offensive behavior targeting others who could be more deeply affected. That’s my personal code of conduct. You should apologize to the people who were actual victims, though. That said, your comment is appreciated by the community.)

I was simply the whistleblower — the one who, after the alarm was raised, took the time (with absolute incredulity; I could hardly believe what I was reading) to thoroughly read through the chats and create the backups. I put myself in this position because I’m the only one who could fully expose what was happening there. Some read the chats, others made small backups, but I’m the only one with the complete history. I never intended to end up in this position, but I found myself here. I believe I have a moral responsibility to the community to bring all of this to light — even though it’s costing me a lot of effort and difficult times.

2.- In my main native language, we have a saying: Lügen haben kurze Beine (eng: Lies have short legs”). The recent statement by Zerojosefer is a perfect example of this. Farisori already exposed the falsehood of his claim that action was taken against him after I exposed the sabotage of his sysop recall vote. It's incredibly easy to prove this as a lie.

As for me, he’s not only lying — he’s accusing me of an act that constitutes a punishable offense under EU law. That goes far beyond a simple lie in the context of a U4C-proceding: it is a wrongful legal accusation. I have never, and will never, share private sensitive information in violation of the EU-GDPR (which Im very familiar with). He falsely claims that I shared his private email address, which under the GDPR would be considered a serious violation — but this claim is entirely fabricated. In reality, I first accessed the chat (under the user sfbb.wiki - [3] see here) on May 12th at 17:12 CEST, a timestamp that U4C can easily verify in the logs (channel:General). Yet the attempts to access his account — which he refers to in his own screenshots — occurred earlier that day. At 18:17 CEST (12:17 in his time zone according to his screenshot), he wrote in the chat (channel:Wikipedia) that five failed login attempts had happened four hours earlier. The timeline clearly shows that I couldn’t have been responsible (and as he - opposite to the community still has access to the old chats -, according to his own confession, he is clearly aware of this) — I hadn’t even seen the chat yet. The logs back this up 100%. It is, without question, a false and wrongful accusation (I made my backups after this had already happened — and the best evidence of that is that I even backed up the very complaint he made about it <- the only difference between this one and his is the time becuase of different time zones...well, and the resolution because he still has access and I'm working with captures at 30%).

Moreover, he himself doxxed his email address by sharing it with his Discord “friends” the day before. If it was leaked, he should be asking them, not accusing me.

to uphold the principles behind the EU-GDPR, both in the sense of not sharing private information, and of not sharing something without a legitimate purpose or beyond a proportionate extent. Many users have asked to disclose the entire chat, and I have always denied this because of that reason (encouraging the admin to reinstate community access instead). I’m acting with utmost probity, and it’s really frustrating to be wrongfully accused of a legal offense like that — and that such wrongful claims can find a forum in this proceeding. If this were a U.S. court of law, my lawyer would have long called "Objection!" (which would have been clearly sustained). SFBB (talk) 17:29, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Final statement by SFBB (23.06.2025)

As I mentioned earlier, I'm going to make a final statement on this case.

As mentioned in my earlier post, I never intended to become a central actor in this issue. It just happened that, after Mister Roboto informed the community about some issues going on in that server, I entered it — and I was absolutely astonished and shocked by what I found (to reply to Daamu32: I did not go there for silver and find gold; I really wish I had not found anything). As a consequence, I felt compelled to archive it and to make it known to the community.

When making everything known to the community, I advised everyone to enter the Discord chats because I did not want people to have to rely on me to access the information - I wanted everyone to see it with their own eyes. However, immediately after revealing what was there, Galahad blocked me, and the next day, together with FlyingAce, they hid everything from the chat that had been visible to the community. In the meantime, Freddy eduardo and Ceaseless Watcher conducted similar checks to mine, and they can fully testify to what I’m saying.

Since I had made captures of all those chats, I found myself in the position of having a social responsibility to the community to organize and share this information. Throughout, I consistently stated that I did not want to play a central role in this matter, and I wished that any further developments would be channeled through sysops and that the chats would be made available to them in full.

Since opening the Pandora's box on May 12, I’ve been the subject of continuous attacks by the people involved in those chats (including two cases brought before the U4C requesting my global ban, and a false accusation of a serious breach of the GDPR that could have caused me serious problems at work). As a first statement, I need to clearly state that, in my entire time on Wikipedia, I have never crossed paths with any of the people involved in those chats. Accordingly, my opinion of them was absolutely neutral. In that sense, when Pólux indicates that he perceives a "high level of hostility" from my side, that only relates to what I found in those chats (well, except for Galahad and Meruleh, towards whom my "hostility" started about one week earlier, specifically because of the behavior exposed in the thread that led to the Discord leaks).

As it seems clear that the users involved in the Discord chats have no valid defense whatsoever, it is evident that they have centered their defense on "playing the man" by making "ad hominem" arguments" about me, in an attempt to discredit the allegations. So, they argue that the case should be dismissed because I would (in the words of Zerojosefer) have "displayed irregular behavior and committed UCoC violations when frustrated." The level of attacks I have received since opening the "Pandora's box' (including checking my current edits, my old edits, my edits on eswiki, etc., to find any possible way to undermine or discredit me) has been brutal.

Some days ago, Ajraddatz asked my to "drop the stick", after I started a CU request about Galahad/Castorice]. I need to state that it’s not been my intention to "hold the stick"; it’s simply the position I’ve found myself in and one that the Discord group placed me in. Given how brutal the attacks on me have been (other users are afraid), and the fact that I’m the only one in a position to piece everything together, users have been reaching out to me with any information they come across, hoping I can assemble the puzzle and channel it appropriately. That’s why I was contacted by three different users who informed me about the aforementioned case, and I felt compelled to bring it forward. By the way, using information provided privately by another user, it has been now established beyond any reasonable doubt that Castorice is indeed a sockpuppet by Galahad, in what appears to be a deliberate attempt to increase control over eswikivoyage by making himself the 8th user with voting rights. This evidence will be submitted directly to the U4C.

That being said, I want to address the accusations that have been made against me in an attempt to discredit me - accusations that are nothing more than a desperate attempt to play the man and distort the facts in any way possible.

a) Zerojosefer accused me of a serious breach of the GDPR by claiming that I shared his email address and doxed him. I want to make it absolutely clear that this accusation is completely false — as has already been proven. Needless to say, I cannot travel back in time.

b) Zerojosefer as well as Pólux accused me UCoC violations for having claimed: With all due respect: do you (plural) realize the absolute brutality of what you've done? Given the rules of eswiki, RECABs are always a tense, intense process that causes fractures and stress within the community. Taking the context into account, it was a desperate appeal to the community to remain calm and to avoid initiating processes that could cause further division, especially while we’re still dealing with the Discord case. However, after Lin linao pointed out - immediately after my comment - that the use of the word brutality might go against my original intention of fostering unity, I acknowledged that mistake (made out of frustration), took it back, and replaced it with calamity. That said, I stand 100% by the position that even in its original form my message was under no circumstance even close to be a violation of UCoC, etiquette, or any relevant policy. It was a harsh criticism of a specific and concrete action, but still fully within the bounds of what is acceptable in our community.

c) Zerojosefer accused me of threats against those who do not comply with its demands, because of this comment. This is not a threat: as A09 has refused to take down the server and allow the Spanish-speaking community to decide its future - instead insisting on Galahad’s proposal of electing a new moderator from among the same group that was already present when this scandal began - I will certainly initiate an RfC (I haven't found the time to do so yet). While this issue is somewhat related to the current case, it does not fall within the competence of the U4C, which makes an RfC a justified course of action. The goal is for our community (including all Spanish-WMF projects) to take control of any WMF-affiliated Spanish community server and define its rules, rather than accepting whatever Galahad and A09 decide without meaningful community participation. A survey on the issue is currently underway on eswiki (created fully independently and without any knowledge on my side by Jakepark), and the RfC will follow shortly.

d) Zerojosefer accused me of misconduct in enwiki because of this thread he found in my Talk page. This is certainly not misconduct, as my actions aligns with the outcomes of not just one, but two RfCs — I would never take such action behind the community’s back. In fact, a third similar RfC validated a comparable case just a few weeks ago.

e) Zerojosefer me of unfounded harassment of Meta-Sysops: I certainly don't understand what he aims at here, but this is certainly false. If he claims that I insist that the role of A09 and SHB2000 in this case be investigated, I've been pretty straightforward about it, but I have never done anything outside the scope of this case.

f) Zerojosefer (as well as Pólux and Galahad) accused me of taking the Discord chats of out context. I stand by me point - aligned with the claims by Mister Roboto, Freddy eduardo, Ceaseless Watcher, and Althair that I did not. The best proof that I have acted in good faith is that I have consistently, at every moment, requested that the chats be made public again - so that everyone can verify them with their own eyes. The obscurantism has not come from me; it has come from FlyingAce and Galahad, who hid the records, and also for Zerojosefer himself, who, according to his own claim, has been granted full access to the old chats.

g) Pólux has accused me of having "made 50 edits to the mainspace of the Spanish Wikipedia since August 2023, but almost 200 edits to the Wikipedia: namespace in the last month." So what? What exactly is he trying to imply? He is conveniently ignoring the fact that I have been very active on Wikipedia over the past years - having made over 1,000 mainspace edits on enwiki and more than 400 on dewiki (actual content edits, not just patrolling/maintenance) during the last year. It’s true that I have reduced my activity on eswiki during this time, choosing instead to focus on other projects (and you don't need to make any research on that; I actively inform about that in my eswiki Talk page). And yes, I’ve had a spike in edits in the eswiki WP-space recently...but that’s precisely because of what has come to light. Once I discovered this situation, I felt a moral obligation to bring it to the community’s attention. Is that somehow a problem? Should I have hidden what I found, because I've had a reduced activity in eswiki during the last years? I'm sure not. It's nearly impossible to imagine an allegation more ad hominem than the previous one. I also stand 100% by my statement about the clear parallel between the methods used by the Nazis to seize dictatorial power in 1933 and what Galahad has done in eswikivoyage. Comparing this with Godwin’s Law (which typically refers to the atrocities the Nazis committed 8 years later) is an obvious attempt to wrongfully discredit me and the points I'm making.

h) Pólux has accused me of trying to give myself some kind of importance by calling myself the "main investigator." That’s not true - this was actually an ironic reference to a comment made by Galahad, who was the one that dubbed me the "investigator." at several ocassions (e.g. here). And since I have a good sense of irony, I simply played along with it.

i) Pólux has accused me of using Latin and German in an attempt to portray me as grandiloquent. So what? I use Latin expressions because of my professional background, and now I’m supposedly not allowed to express frustration in my native language? As far as I can tell, I’ve only done it twice in an entire month of discussion. Many users whose native language isn’t Spanish occasionally use their own language on eswiki—it’s actually quite common, even in user signatures. Mine doesn’t even include anything in another language.

j) Pólux has also accused me of having "been blocked four times for edit warring and not following Wikipedia etiquette". While this accusation may be convenient for the "Council's" strategy of discrediting me, it is not factually accurate. I was indeed blocked once for edit warring in what now feels like prehistoric times (an incident long left behind by both myself and Linuxmanía, in which we both overreacted). Then, I was blocked twice more, both times related to the very same prolonged conflict that involved my being wikihounded for over a year, and I admittedly reacted at times in an uncivil manner as the situation drove me to a breaking point (JakePark, who addressed the case, can certainly provide further details, if required). As for the third situation that Pólux refers to, it wasn’t even a standard block (in the sense of an eswiki block), but a restriction from a single page. And even that was wrongly assessed. I was simply doing retro-patrolling on the edits of a CPP that sabotaged eswiki for over four years and was expelled shortly afterward. The CPP preemptively denounced my retro-patrolling, leading to a solomonic judgement. While I acknowledge my missteps in the earlier two incidents, I'm 100% certain that I acted appropriately in the latter,and I firmly believe that, in hindsight, the sysop who issued that page restriction would admit it was a mistake. That being said, this clearly shows that Pólux is doing nothing more than trying to create a narrative portraying me as a problematic user to discredit whatever I may have discovered in those chats. Even if I were a very problematic user with multiple expulsions, comebacks, and so on (which I am not), and I had found this evidence, it would still be appropriate to bring it forward, because the evidence speaks for itself. It’s not about the person; it’s about the case.

It is indeed true that after the initial case was judged by Farisori, I filed another case requesting additional sanctions against, among others, Pollux, Zerojosefer, and some of the other individuals named here. The reason is that the judgments made by Farisori only covered the first case I disclosed to the community — the one I presented to the U4C under the title "On the Meruleh Case on Discord", which is actually the least problematic part.

The other five facets of the case I presented - which include sabotage of eswiki ADMINRECALLS, interwiki sabotage (ranging from eswikivoyage to Meta, as well as eswikiquote and eswikiversity), sockpuppetry and deliberate protection of sockpuppetry, as well as Nazi imagery, and homophobic slurs have not yet been addressed. That’s why I submitted my denunciation requesting, among other things, that Pólux be expelled from eswiki, as I consider his presence to be harmful (that's the actual translation of "nocivo", not noxious or dangerous) to the community under the current circumstances. In this respect, my statement here aligns with his own.

Anyways, I've already made my case about Galahad, Meruleh and FlyingAce and all documentation has been provided to U4C in private. However, I could not let stand all the wrongful accusations the "Council" made against me in what appears to be a clearly coordinated effort to discredit me personally. This clearly shows that their case is so weak they had to resort to ad hominem strategies. I must also add that what Zerojosefer and Pólux have done to me here goes far beyond the matter at hand and comes in the neighborhood Wikihounding (they were even digging through my edits on a different language project—portraying them completely wrongly—just to find something to discredit me). I hope the U4C will take that into consideration.

In closing, I want to emphasize that I still consider it unacceptable that the statement by LaQuimeraAlegre has been allowed to stand, especially given that the account has openly acknowledged to being a sockpuppet - and a rather suspicious one at that, since it cheerfully requests my global ban simply for having removed a single comment made by a clear sockpuppet from the eswiki Village Pump (which aligns with our policy). That makes no sense whatsoever. I don’t understand how this aligns with the WMF policy that prohibits using sockpuppets to interfere with regular community proceedings. SFBB (talk) 23:42, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

PS: I apologize for there very long text, but a lot has been said about me that is completely false and fully unrelated to the case, and I cannot let those claims stand uncontested. My main "failure" in this case was simply being the user who happened to uncover the terrible things happening on that server - and choosing to expose them to the community. SFBB (talk) 23:42, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Update (09.07.2025)

I’m aware that the deadline to provide evidence has passed. However, since that deadline expired, the Discord gang (i.e. "the Council") has continued to engage in behavior that many would consider highly questionable.
When stepping down as Discord Admin, Galahad provisionally appointed A09 as interim administrator. Galahad also suggested that a new admin be chosen from among same group of users already (before the case was exposed) active in that space; essentially among those involved in the case and already blocked in eswiki. A09 embraced this idea and proposed it on the Talk page of this very case before U4C. That proposal was clearly rejected by a wide majority of users (see Talk page), indicating a strong consensus against it (the only one backing the idea was the account Bromóxido).
Despite that rejection, A09 went ahead and held an internal election within the Discord group, limited to users already involved in the earlier incidents. As a result of that process, the new admin chosen was: surprise, surprise the account Bromoxido. Exactly, the same pattern seen previously in eswikivoyage: Galahad stepped down and Bromoxido assumed control. It’s noteworthy that the account Bromóxido had not participated in the Discord group for months - if at all - (none of the screenshots I have captured show any contributions by that account). Yet the account Bromóxido appears to have stepped in as a backup admin once Galahad departed with the full support of A09.
Meanwhile, the core Discord channel continues to show support for the actions of Meruleh, who remains/remained a member and was/is still being praised within that group for actions widely seen as problematic. While I understand the request not to post the screenshots here, I believe the U4C is already familiar with the captures in question (which, for the record, were not produced by me).
The evidence against the users keeps mounting by the hour.

Previous attempts at a solution - SFBB

First, I assumed that the issues in Wikiquote were merely a mistake, and I requested an explanation from Galahad (see here). I remained hopeful that the problem would be solved (here). After Galahad insisted on his "particular" interpretation of the eswikiquote regulation (and being clearly in a conflict on interest), I announced that if the situation was not resolved soon, I would come to Meta to request the removal of his global sysop rights. (see here).

However, I desisted from taking those steps once I looked into the Discord chats and it became absolutely evident that these actions were part of a conscious attempt at interwiki sabotage.

Suggested solutions - SFBB

-This claim is dismissed.

- Galahad reinstates community access to the Discord chat so that everyone can review the content themselves.

- As a precautionary measure, Galahad is immediately suspended from his roles as global sysop, member of the Ombuds Commission, and administrator of Wikivoyage for the duration of the investigation.

- We proceed with other cases on global bans on Galahad, FlyingAce, and Meruleh.

(added at 11:46, 20 May 2025 (UTC)) - The suspicious actions of shb as a GS in this case and related matters (see here and here) are brought under closer scrutiny. While no misconduct is implied at this stage, his involvement in the aforementioned chats and the nature of his interactions with Galahad suggest a close relationship that may constitute a potential conflict of interest.

SFBB (talk) 11:27, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Update (23.06.2025)

In my previous "Suggested solutions", I merely mentioned that I wanted this case dismissed so we could move on to another one. However, since this is now being treated as the main case, I would like to formally request that:
- Galahad (and all his sockpuppets) be globally banned. No further explanations required.
- Meruled (and all her sockpuppets) be globally banned. No further explanations required.
- FlyingAce be removed from all her advanced permits, including Meta and Wikidata. She receive a temporary suspension from all WMF projects she is involved in. She be not allowed to moderate anything WMF community ever again: While she did not directly participate in any sabotage, she actively facilitated its orchestration. She failed to report confessed sockpuppetry and the sabotage carried out by other users in that chat. Most importantly, when a user Althiar protested against the use of Nazi imagery and Nazi jokes, that user was expelled from the server by Galahad, and Flying Ace essentially turned a blind eye to these actions.
- No further actions be taken at meta level against the other users, as sanctions will be handled in eswiki (no significant interwiki or advanced permits activity would justify such actions).
- Actions be taken restore eswikivoyage's governance back to the community. It is unacceptable that Galahad effectively holds dictatorial powers. It is also unacceptable that only seven users have voting rights (two of whom are Galahad and Meruleh, and there is an eighth one on the way, which is also a sockpuppet controlled by Galahad). Furthermore, it makes no sense that voting requirements in a small project like eswikivoyage be more restrictive than those in much larger projects such as eswiki, dewiki, or enwiki. SFBB (talk) 23:42, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Update (27.06.2025)

In addition to the previous request, after new evidence has surfaced, I request that:
- shb be stripped of all his advanced rights. While different actions of his were suspicious at first (as listed above), it has now been confirmed that he was acting in coordination with Galahad and Meruleh. I assume that U4C is already aware of the evidence (it was provided by an IP in the Talk page); however, if needed, I can provide it via email.SFBB (talk) 21:26, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Update (09.07.2025)

In addition to the previous request, after new evidence has surfaced, I request that:
- A09 be stripped of all his advanced rights. While different actions of his were suspicious at first (as listed above), it has now been confirmed that he has kept acting in coordination with Galahad and Meruleh. SFBB (talk) 18:10, 9 July 2025 (UTC) - Zerojosefer be globally banned. Initially, I believed that addressing this user's conduct on eswiki would be sufficient. However, it has become evident that the individual has since (in coordination with Meruleh/Galahad) become active on eswikivoyage and is also quite active on Meta. As a result, this behavior is now impacting at least three WMF projects, which warrants consideration for global-level intervention.SFBB (talk) 18:10, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Response to Luigi Nakano's request

Luigi Nakano’s reports demonstrate that he has completely misunderstood the situation. He’s confusing apples and oranges and misrepresenting the processes at play, and making fully inappropriate requests There are two entirely separate involved going on here:'

- A process before U4C, which concerns sanctions against a limited number of users;

- A local process on eswiki, in which sanctions against a broader group of users are being considered under local policies.

These two processes are related but fundamentally different. On eswiki, interim measures were imposed against some users (most of hte users involved in the discordgate) due to the conflict and friction caused by the ongoing process (and to avoid confrontation on eswiki). However, the main case remains open and undecided, likely awaiting the outcome of the U4C process. In the meantime, since the eswiki process has taken longer than expected (most likely due to this process), the interim measures have expired for some users (including Pólux).
This is clearly an unintended consequence and a loophole. Interim measures should never expire before the main case is resolved. Unfortunately, Pólux is exploiting this loophole to resume editing as if nothing had happened — even going so far as to engage in public discussions with Jaluj in the Village Pump. This behavior is plainly against the spirit of the interim measures (to keep them away from eswiki while more evidence was being gathered). By taking advantage of the gap, he is essentially mocking the entire process, and I stand by my assessment that he's laughing in our faces.
The request by Luigi Nakano is absolutely non-sensical as the situation does not relate to the U4C process, but to the eswiki process (he's fully mixing up both cases). Moreover, grating such a request, would hamper the resolution of the eswiki-process going on. Clearly, any disposition in that regard should be taken in the context of the eswiki process (and I would fully back that, as the interim measures should have remained in place avoiding the way in which Pólux has replied to Jaluj, which motivated my reaction). SFBB (talk) 10:05, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Farisori

Previous attempts at a solution - Farisori

Hello, good day.

Galahad knows perfectly well that there is no minimum timeframe for closing a request in the TAB, and that these requests are closed by a single administrator without the need for further intervention. This complaint simply follows this comment from another user on the es.wikipedia Café, which is intended to discuss the current blocking processes in general—and in which everyone actually agrees with the sanctions imposed.

Likewise, Galahad had plenty of time to defend himself extensively for weeks in the Café, including regarding the TAB accusation itself.

Indeed, I posted this to communicate that I was already reviewing all the background information—reading the extensive threads in the Café, as well as the more substantial evidence related to the Discord screenshots. As I clearly stated in my resolution, this decision was made in good faith, prior to learning about the plot by Galahad and Meruleh against my administrator revalidation, which was only revealed the following day.

Thus, the Galahad's assertion, "All of the above violates point 3.2 of the UCoC," is completely false, and the most serious thing is that he knows it perfectly well. At es.wikipedia, all users are guided by exactly the same policies and processes. He's not a user with special rights nor more important than the rest, and the process proceeded in the usual manner in which all TAB accusations are resolved, with absolutely no irregularities involved. In fact, everyone agreed with Galahad's permanent ban; absolutely no one has objected to this measure.

I want to clarify that I don't know Galahad at all. As far as I can remember, I'd never exchanged a single word with him (this can be verified by checking our respective talk pages). During the process of seeking endorsements for my revalidation as administrator, you can see how numerous Discord members (which I was unaware of at the time) coordinated to open the voting. At the time, I assumed they were friends or simply agreed with Taichi's arguments, but it ultimately turned out to be a conspiracy coordinated by Galahad and Meruleh within Discord. For Galahad (known as Castorice on Discord), "Taichi is as useful as a halfpenny,"—this alone is a violation of our no personal attacks policy and I don't see the humorous side, as Galahad states above, if he is not present and cannot read him—and their goal is simply to eliminate as many administrators as possible [4], so that "we GS have a new domain"[5][6]. I assert that Galahad and Meruleh leader this toxic group on Discord, as they intimidate others. For example, here is Galahad criticizing a vote in favor of my revalidation for "defying the wishes of the Council."

As you can see, all the accusations Galahad raises here are reactive to accusations from es.wikipedia users themselves regarding his abuses and sabotage practices, which he spearheads from Meta and Discord (as far as we know). This accusation is yet another trolling act, and an abuse of all of our time and patience.

PS: I'd like to add something about Galahad's justifications above regarding the various screenshots. Many of these screenshots are part of a larger context, and posting the isolated image clearly hinders some details of the full story. The reasons why there are only excerpts were listed by BFBB here. Now, in several of his justifications, Galahad simply gives a neutral description of what his words mean, as if to say there was no malicious intent behind them. This is absurd, if we consider it in the context of a dynamic discussion within Discord. No one is just giving "facts" for the sake of it; everything is within a dialectical continuum, which in this case is evidently controversial and intimidating.

PS2: Sorry, but I need to say that this comment of Zerojosefer has some false asseverations. He says "I initially supported Farisori's RECAB, but after his decision to ban Taichi for 31 hours, I withdrew my support based on principles—not conspiracy". However, my RECAB was created by Taichi at May 1 (well, created by Meruleh, I must say), AFTER Taichi was banned by me, at April 19. In fact, the RECAB was created after the last required Zerojosefer's support here. Therefore, it's false that Zerojosefer changes his vote after I ban Taichi for 31 hours (and in some sense, he changed it twice). Besides all the above, there are several additional proves about the Discord's coordination around my RECAB.

Note: Zerojosefer changed his explanation after this aclaration, showing that his statements are inconsistent and distorting what I say. His 1-year ban on es.wikipedia wasn't because of the Discord coordinations about my RECAB (that acussations were announced after the banned), but because of obvious violations of our sabotage policy, as you can clearly read here.

Note 2: Zerojosefer here is lying again. How can I have a conflict of interest if I've never dealt with him on Wikipedia or anywhere else, and no evidence has yet emerged about my RECAB coordination? The user is not respecting WP:PBF in any of his accusations. The user was rightfully banned (some consider the ban to be minor) and isn't even capable of acknowledging his mistakes, unlike other users who have been banned. Farisori (talk) 20:42, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello. Regarding this comment from user Linehalt, I would like to clarify that the reason for his ban was not exclusively for violating es:WP:NSW, as my resolution says. In fact, the accusation was made on the "Violaciones de etiqueta" board, so es:WP:E violations are also considered. That said, the duration of the bans is completely valid under our policies, as es:WP:NSW in this case serves as an aggravating factor. The fact is that Linehald was complicit in the vandalism of Meruleh's puppet accounts, knowing that what she/he was doing was vandalism and violated Wikipedia's policies. Furthermore, both Zerojosefer and Linehalt, in their initial unblocking request, show absolutely no contrition for their actions. Note in any case that Linehalt's actions were much less serious than Zerojosefer's, hence the difference in time between their blocks. Finally, I don't think this is the appropriate place to request unblocking of specific Wikimedia projects. On es.wikipedia, there are procedures to request unlocking. Linehald has already requested its unblocking, which is pending. That seems to me to be a very different route from what Meta's accusation is addressing. Best regards. Farisori (talk) 01:00, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

About this, I simply refer to my previous comment. The other administrator's decision confirms that the block was appropriate. Farisori (talk) 15:36, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

More bad practices from Galahad and company

Just over a week ago, Galahad edited this aberration (I can't think of a more appropriate adjective) on es.Wikivoyage, in which it adds conditions to a policy that regulates the project's voting system, granting special attributes to the users listed in this same U4C case. The reason: administrative decisions they consider unfair, made in another project (es.wikipedia).

The edit summary includes a link stating that this is a community decision, however, here you can see that only three people voted in favor: Galahad himself, Bromoxido (with whom Galahad seems to have an unusual symbiosis), and Zerojosefer. User TravelStorm expresses his rejection with the measure, but they don't even consider his vote.

This is one of the most obvious examples of how these users are mocking everything Meta, with a trollish, dictatorial, and completely unacceptable attitude. Farisori (talk) 18:26, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello. To update, Galahad has undone his edit. Obviously, it was an irregular action, but the fact that he reverted it based on what was expressed on this page (outside es.WikiViajes) shows that he knew it was irregular and still did it. Otherwise, if this were a regular vote on any Meta project, the result couldn't be reversed. Best regards, Farisori (talk) 18:22, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Suggested solutions - Farisori

I request that you dismiss all of Galahad's accusations and requests. I find it surreal that he's asking Meta to intervene in administrative decisions that followed all es.wikipedia protocols; decisions that the Community agrees with, by the way. This speaks to the lack of value, affection, and respect that this user has for the project.

At the same time, I ask for a little more patience, as there are reasons to believe that there are still more serious aspects and evidence of the sabotage behavior that had been taking place from Discord, harming not only es.wikipedia but also all of Meta.

Hello. Well, time has passed, we're all tired of this, and the arguments have been presented (even though the defense, which paradoxically initiated this accusation as the plaintiff, continues to add new and extensive comments). Given everything that's happened since then and how these coordinated activities have been developed, I join the request for a global ban of both Meruleh (or Sonoko Konishi, or whoever the main account is, I don't know what to call them anymore) and Galahad.

I also maintain the request that we be allowed to deliberate autonomously on es.wikipedia, as we've been doing, always respecting our policies and those of the overall project, which are of course always subject to improvement by the community. Best regards, Farisori (talk) 19:38, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Given this, I also suggest a global ban for Zerojosefer and Bromoxido. I've never seen anything like this in my 17 years on the project. Best regards, Farisori (talk) 18:27, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Jaluj

Galahad claims that “The case was open for only six hours, which limited opportunities for us to defend ourselves or provide additional context” but prior to that, multiple threads were opened discussing these issues across and he wrote, for example, esto y esto y esto y esto y esto y esto y esto y esto? These discussions spanned days, not hours, giving Galahad ample time to respond.

Galahad claims that “only seven of 53 sysops participated”. What did he want? To have all 53 sysops participate in his ban? One was enough.

Galahad claims “I was accused of taking control of eswikivoyage in a manner reminiscent of historical authoritarian. In fact, looking at this page, more than one has 250 edits, so it's not just the five of us who can vote”.

Until April 18, the requirements to vote on Wikiviajes were to have made at least 25 contributions to the project and that the user account be at least 4 days old from the first valid contribution. Galahad supported and enforced a new voting policy which restricts voting, a measure clearly designed to exclude community participation and consolidate control. If you look at the same link you will see yes, more than one has 250 edits but that only 7 users of that page (Hispano76, Galahad, Urci Dream, Bromoxido, Joancastro21, Igallards7, TheDarkFear) met the voting criteria, since the new voting policy (proposed by Meruleh on April 18, 2025) restricts voting to users with at least 125 edits in the last 3 months. They purposely left out all these long-term editors, because they all edit Wikipedia and many are sysops there.

Galahad allowed a suspicious account, Kiwumi (created May 18, 2025), to author foundational proposals that completely rewrote the project’s policies and style manual. [7] [8]

Galahad knowingly allowed a new account to redefine governance: As Meruleh wrote: my work on the project will continue: I'll be in charge of the guides and making updates for Serena and FocaBot, which I'll implement periodically, with the help of Kiwumi or Galahad. I'll also continue working on fine-tuning categorization, templates, and other aspects I mentioned in my application.

Galahad has recently started to delete or edit parts of his own public comments to remove evidence of these actions. For instance, this revision shows him erasing a paragraph that explicitly referred to criticisms of es.Wikipedia and es.Wikiquote users: This set of measures also responds to worrying situations that have been observed in other projects, where users have conducted external proselytizing campaigns, summoned external users to influence local decisions, and violated their own internal policies, leaving their communities in crisis situations. We do not want anything like this to happen on Wikivoyages, now or in the future. Therefore, our policy has been designed to respond to the particularities of the project, with the possibility that other communities may also adopt it if they consider it appropriate. Just like Meruleh, all of which he accuses others of is what he himself did. The both use psychological manipulation and gaslighting of critics. Neither of them considered how their actions might affect the mental health of their victims.

Galahad was aware of, and participated in, the use of Discord to handle governance issues. An example of the current use of Discord can be seen among the changes proposed by Meruleh and Galahad on Wikiviajes: the use of Discord (supposedly an unofficial channel according to Galahad) for the use of a bot responsible for generating a ticket automatically when a bug report is opened that notifies administrators via external only on Discord on a web interface with restricted access to users on Discord from where only administrators (i.e. Galahad? and FlyingAce?, maybe Meruleh?) were able to consult: Currently, the bot automatically generates a ticket when a bug report is opened. It then notifies administrators and reviewers via external means such as IRC, Discord, and Telegram (currently only active on Discord).

On May 19, Galahad deleted his comment on Wikiquote canceling Laura Fiorucci's nomination, recognizing that he had no right to abuse his power and cancel it As a normal user of eswikiquote, it is not my place to enforce policies and disallow nominations, and I overstepped my bounds in doing so. My apologies.

Galahad claims that SFBB is blocked on the Spanish Wikipedia. That is false.

Flying Ace acted as an uncritical supporter of Galahad, approving all of his actions without exercising oversight or accountability, even after being explicitly alerted by users who were directly affected by these abuses. Rather than intervening to stop the misconduct, she endorsed it through her silence and her explicit support, helping to legitimize arbitrary and exclusionary actions that harmed several members of the community. Despite receiving warnings from users about breaches of etiquette,Flying Ace chose not to intervene or investigate. Her failure to acknowledge or address these concerns is a clear dereliction of duty. Rather than protecting Althair, who reported misconduct, Flying Ace allowed his expulsion from Discord. In doing so, she enabled an abusive environment to flourish, silencing criticism and further marginalizing the affected individuals. In fact, Althair's mental health was affected. For failing to take responsibility for harmful conduct, failing to uphold good governance, equity, fairness and transparency, and for refusing to act on reports of abuse and harassment, she deserves to be sanctioned.

In this failed RFC signed by 12 users (9 sysops and bureaucrats) there is a summary of everything Galahad did, however, he was the one who came to denounce us. I guess now he should report to OC the Meta checkusers for having discovered Meruleh's new sockpuppets.

In addition, they always have the option of requesting their unlocking on es.wikipedia using the unlocking template and then present their own version of the case. A neutral sysosp who has not been involved should respond objectively.

Previous attempts at a solution - Jaluj

We tried to resolve this within es.Wikiquote and es.Wikipedia but both, Meruleh and Galahad decided to bring this to Meta and the Ombudsman comission.

Suggested solutions - Jaluj

I request a global ban for Meruleh and Galahad (they have violated almost all points of the UCC), and that Flying Ace have all of her permissions revoked. She doesn't have the moral standing to be an admin on Wikidata or Discord. Meruleh's UP should be deleted because what she wrote is an affront to Wikipedia.

Daamu32

Description of the problem - (Daamu32)

Hello everyone,

I understand that since I've been pinged as a party involved, I'm expected to write here.

I must admit I didn’t expect the whole “Discordgate” situation to drag on this long. Honestly, regardless of what each side wants, I hope this can finally bring things to a close.

In describing the issue, I’ll focus on my personal perspective—mainly and sincerely because I no longer fully understand the scope of the case and don’t have the time to draft a lengthy statement. I'm Daamu32, and I use the same username on the esWikimedia Discord server. According to the server records, I joined on May 12, 2024. At that time (for context, though it may be trivial), the server was pretty much a desert—just a few interactions per week, or sometimes daily if we were lucky. Occasionally, I’d have longer conversations with Galahand and 2x2leax.

Everything changed when Meruleh joined in January this year. The server became much more active, likely due to a snowball effect—more people chatting encouraged others to join in, and so on. By the time this whole case erupted, most of us involved were active in the server (except for those who weren't members of the Discord, like SFBB, Farisori, and Jaluj), as well as others like Althair, 2x2leax... But ultimately, who was active or not isn’t the point here.

According to the logs, 14 days ago Meruleh was blocked from esWiki. Soon after, it came to light that she had been using multiple sockpuppet accounts. The trigger seems to have been a rejected username change request, which escalated into something bigger (I don’t know the full story), ultimately leading to her block. As a result, a thread was opened at the Café discussing how she had deceived the community (and for the record, if she did deceive anyone, she also did so on Discord—I have no knowledge of her true identity). A few days later, SFBB (or possibly another user first) decided to look through the Discord server for any relevant information about her.

In a way—and though this has been to my detriment given how things unfolded—they were "looking for silver and found gold" (please don’t misinterpret this phrase; I mean no harm by it—I’ll explain why I clarify this shortly). They found several supposed messages attacking other esWiki users and took many screenshots. I’ve read that it was 2.8GB worth, then 1GB... Anyway, it was a lot. These screenshots were posted in the Café. I believe other involved users have already explained many of them, so I’ll focus on the ones concerning me and a few others.

Regarding myself, some captures were shared supposedly showing that I was involved in “coordinated actions” (which I assume refers to manipulating votes). I discussed this with another esWiki user not involved in the case, and they found that claim odd. I state with full sincerity and confidence that I have not participated in any sort of coordination or conspiracy to sabotage any vote. That should be easy to prove: I haven’t voted in any elections, mainly because I’m not even eligible to vote due to insufficient edits.

I’ll return to this shortly. In the Café, several screenshots about me were shared, which—according to the admin who closed the report—demonstrated that I had engaged in personal attacks against those investigating the case. I responded to all of them, though admittedly with little success. According to admin Marcelo and SSFB, my replies were considered “mockery” and “a joke.”

Here is the first screenshot: [9].

I fully acknowledge that I wrote “están hasta los cojones (joy emoji)” — which can be loosely translated as “they're sick to death of it”. I wouldn’t call it a literal translation, but it captures the general meaning. Why did I say that? In the same screenshot, there’s a link to the CU request for Zafkiel_GD. But wait — why was there a CheckUser request for Zafkiel_GD, to determine whether they were a sockpuppet?

It’s simple: prior to the “Discordgate” incident, there was a brief wave of collective paranoia, and three accounts were subjected to CU requests based on flimsy suspicions. Here's the link: [10]. The third request, for Zafkiel, was responded to with:

I strongly urge the community not to set their checkusers fishing with reports like these, much less for events in other projects.

When I saw that reply, I got the impression that the person handling the case was “sick to death of it (joy emoji)” — and that’s exactly how I expressed it. I never meant to mock or ridicule anyone, and I believe my explanation supports that.

Second screenshot: [11]

I admit this one might be more debatable. But again — even if no one from esWiki believes me — it was not my intention to mock SFBB. In this image, I ask: "Doesn't SFBB have a principle in Latin against dismissing a complaint when one of the parties is sanctioned for another reason?" To this, Draconae (Althair on Wikipedia, who received a one-week block) replies: "Yes, Damnatio Memoriae and Delenda Carthago est." Why did I say that? Because of this: [12]

Meruleh had filed a complaint — whatever her reasons were, I won’t weigh in on that. What struck me was that the complaint had been sitting unaddressed since March 23, and then it was suddenly closed just after she was blocked. I din't like it, and I believe I had every right to express that opinion.

Why did I mention SFBB? Because I had seen him use Latin phrases in the Café repeatedly and because he was leading the investigation. That’s it — those were my two reasons. Had user 123example been in charge and used quotes from English politicians to argue, I would have made a joke along those lines instead. This comment was interpreted as a personal attack on SFBB. I also want to note that in my Café response, I myself used several Latin phrases. At the time, I didn’t see it as mockery — after all, he's not the only one familiar with Latin, and neither am I. That said, now that I’ve had time to reflect — and with a one-year block ahead — I understand why Marcelo and SFBB may have taken it that way.

The final screenshot submitted in the Café that concerns me, the one entirely focused on me: [13].

The middle image includes yet another Latin phrase, and me saying I’m like SFBB for using them. Honestly, I didn’t write that with any malice. Some in the Café interpreted it as mockery, but what I meant — and explained — was simply that we both use Latin phrases. Still, once again, even if it wasn’t my intent, if it was taken as an attack, I must take responsibility for that and express regret.

The last quote, at the bottom of that image, I sincerely do not want it to be interpreted as an attack — because I honestly don’t see how it could be. Yes, it’s a strong phrase. The context was a conversation about potential upcoming blocks — I don’t remember if it was about Meruleh or other Discord users — and Althair wrote, regarding the person leading the investigation: "SFBB has a long history of blocks for being annoying and advanced trolling". To that, I responded: “es un ‘¿Habló de putas la tacones?’”, which roughly translates to “the pot calling the kettle black.” Okay, it’s a harsh expression because it uses the word “puta” (bad word), but it’s a very common idiom in Spanish. I didn’t invent it. I’ve heard it many times, and it’s used informally to describe someone who accuses others of something they themselves are guilty of (in this case: calling for a block over trolling while allegedly having a history of trolling-related blocks). Here’s a reference: [14]

I deeply, sincerely regret any offense this may have caused. I explained this phrase both on SFBB’s talk page and in the Café. I repeat: I never intended for it to be an insult. But again, if it was taken that way — I will apologize at the end of this statement.

The sentence above, however, I do acknowledge could be interpreted as an attack: I said “someone give SFBB a dictionary.” I said this because, honestly, I sometimes struggle to understand the way SFBB writes. I’m sorry. A few lines earlier, I had already asked — more seriously — whether SFBB writes that way because of a Latin American accent or for some other reason (I have screenshots from when this image was shown to me, though I’ve lost access to the channels in recent days).

You can see the original screenshot here: [15]. In it, you’ll notice that my question was genuine — I had simply never seen anyone write like that before, and I did find it hard to follow sometimes. At no point did I call it “bad writing” or use any offensive terms. Shortly after, the phrase for which I’ve been accused of a personal attack — “someone give him a dictionary” — was posted. The full context of that conversation is shown here: [16]. I believe Galahand has even commented at some point about the importance of not cropping screenshots selectively.

Ironically, Meruleh even tells me at one point that I don’t always write very well either. Writing this now, maybe I was being a bit of a “the pot calling the kettle black” myself. Regarding those last words, I do regret them. Just like I feel that my explanations in the Café probably won’t change much and that it’ll be said I’m apologizing too late. That may be true. Maybe that’s what happens when you think things over calmly. Who knows. I’ll elaborate more on that later.

Now, about the complaint: it remained open for six hours and was closed when it was already quite late at night in my timezone (so I was completely unaware of it the whole time). I want to talk specifically about the fourth screenshot that was attached in the complaint against me. The admin who handled the case said they only used what was presented in the Café and that we all could have defended ourselves there. I can’t deny that because I’m not certain, so I’ll assume good faith and say it’s true. That said, I must have missed this particular screenshot, because I know for sure that I didn’t respond to it. That’s why I believe it wouldn’t have hurt to keep the complaint open just a little longer.

Here’s the screenshot in question: [17]. According to the resolution, this image proves I was part of coordinated action. It's worth noting that I’ve already shared this screenshot myself — but in a completely different context. In that exchange, Meruleh told me I also wrote strangely sometimes, and I replied with a sad face. Then Meruleh said, “apologize to the council of Merulehs,” which, somehow, has been interpreted as me being part of a coordinated effort.

I ask that this evidence be dismissed for two reasons:

• I have not conspired, coordinated, or been part of any sabotage or vote manipulation (I can’t vote, anyway).
• This screenshot has been completely taken out of context.

(I appreciate that, if any esWiki admin is reading this, they take into account that I’ve been blocked for a year, partially due to alleged organized conspiracy — something I have not taken part in. This may not reduce my sentence, but I ask that it at least be considered. Please.)

That same screenshot, once placed in its broader context, has been used as evidence of coordination. Mainly because it shows multiple users with the name “Meruleh.” I addressed this in the Café, and I believe I was being objective when explaining it (since I never changed my own username). Several users changed their names for reasons I’ve already mentioned. Multiple user verification requests were submitted, and many turned out to be mistaken.

Because one of the users on the server, Zackiel, was the subject of one of these investigations, an inside joke began (yes, a joke — I’m sorry, but that’s what it was) that “everyone is Meruleh” and that anyone could be targeted by another SVU. I don’t believe that several users naming themselves Meruleh demonstrates coordination with malicious intent. (Just my personal opinion: doing something like that in a public chat would be incredibly foolish, wouldn’t it? It’s like walking down the busiest street in the city wearing a ski mask and carrying a gun to rob a bank that’s still 5 km away. You’re just asking for attention.)

Anyway, I think I’ve written quite a bit. Hopefully, it’s helped clarify a few things. At least I hope so.

Previous attempts at a solution - (Daamu32)

I know there’s more to the situation involving esWikiquote and other platforms. The truth is, I can't comment on that. I’m unfamiliar with the whole affair, so I’ll refrain from expressing any opinion, whether in favor or against. As for what I was involved in... I suppose the attempt at a solution was trying to address it in the Café. Then the case was reported, and sanctions were imposed. I don’t think there was much more than that.

Suggested solutions - (Daamu32)

• Jaluj: No actions. As far as I’m concerned, she simply exercised her right to report the case. That’s perfectly valid.
• Farisori: No actions. As far as I’m concerned, he simply exercised his right to apply sanctions as a sysop. Even though I disagree with the sanctions — I find most of them excessive — and I believe the TAB process was extremely brief, I don’t think he did anything wrong (this is just the opinion of the user with the fewest edits and, therefore, the least experience in Wikipedia of all those involved — perhaps I was just unlucky enough to be the least experienced person in a case like this).
• SFBB: No actions. What can I say? In a way — and not just to sound polite — I even admire the fact that he stayed up until 4 a.m. reviewing Discord screenshots. I would’ve gotten some sleep. I believe that several of the screenshots were partially taken out of context, yes. I also feel that each and every one of my explanations has been dismissed with comments like “you’re a liar” and similar replies. Nevertheless, I do not expect this committee to take any actions against him.

Now, regarding my fellow server members (I’ll try to avoid being hated by those who think I mocked them constantly and by those on the server who’ve shared many laughs with me):

• I request a reconsideration of each of the sanctions issued. I believe all of them are excessive — even Althair’s one-week block. I ask for a substantial reduction of the penalties and for mixed sanctions to be considered.
• Let me use myself as an example: to be honest, I admit I’ve made mistakes. However, these actions weren’t done with malice or intent to harm. That’s why I consider a one-year block to be excessive, disproportionate, and so on.

I don’t dare make specific proposals for everyone, because I haven’t had time to review all the screenshots. But in my case, I suggest: a 1-month block on esWiki + 3 months (including that month) of prohibition from participating in the esWikimedia Discord (in case there ends up being a change in its administration).

• Lastly: It is strongly encouraged that esWiki establishes a sanctions policy within one year of the ratification of this ruling (if there is one). This proposal has been under discussion for several years, and unless someone formally initiates it, it is unlikely to move forward. A one-year timeframe seems to me like a reasonable and realistic goal for producing a solid initial framework.

That’s all for my comments regarding the case [for now (?)]. Apologies to those who have to read all of this. I mentioned at the beginning that I’d try to be brief, but I’ve been writing this for far too many hours. Best regards.

Postscript: Thinking it over calmly, I feel that—although it wasn’t my intention—several of my words may have been interpreted as an attack. This goes especially for you, SFBB. I know you probably won’t believe me and that you think a one-year ban is just what I need to learn my lesson. But sincerely, I’m sorry, SFBB. Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa, et non fuit animus laedendi. --Daamu32 (talk) 22:31, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

 Comment [18] I rectified it as soon as it was brought to my attention that I was wrong. --Daamu32 (talk) 22:31, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Update

Given the recent events involving Meruleh, I can only express absolute disappointment in her actions and deep frustration with myself for always giving her the benefit of the doubt. She turned out to be a major troll who took advantage of whoever she could to carry out her plan—possibly even Galahand. I no longer know what to believe. Honestly, I feel completely disheartened and saddened. Three years spent scheming just to cause harm... I’ll refrain from further comment.

In any case, I hereby formally request a global ban for the aforementioned user. I truly believe that all parties involved were deceived by this user in one way or another.

Althair

Description of the problem - (Althair)

Hello, I've been asked to give my opinion, and I'm giving it. First of all, I apologize for the opinions I gave about other users. Many of them were silly, but some may have hurt. Channel rules apply to channels, not necessarily those of the organization. This channel clearly WASN'T OFFICIAL; it followed its own rules, as I was told many, many times. The eswiki rules shouldn't have been followed there, nor could they have been. This is because it's not part of the encyclopedia, but it was evidently used for anything, from posting Nazi-themed content to arranging marriage contracts. I won't give my opinion on the latter. The former was clearly accepted as many times as necessary. You shouldn't have complained, since the admins were supposed to choose everything and act accordingly. This happened with one of the administrators. The other acted as if I didn't exist, never answering me. They could have humiliated me to incalculable limits, which I won't deny happened, but it didn't matter. The worst part is that I mentioned many of these things to other eswiki and meta users, and their response was that it was a problem that only affected that channel, so I figured they had a free pass, and I should stop complaining and not even think about reporting it to eswiki, lest it cause a huge mess that would last for months and end with "It's Not Our Business." This was in March of this year. It probably had a lot to do with the fact that the channel where this was happening was General. In May, I was traveling with almost no time, I had a lot of family problems, and my mental state wasn't the best, honestly, and I was already reading everything that was written. There were a lot of long posts that were nonsense to me, or idiocy, or things that didn't make sense to me, or whatever. Sometimes I'd write something, but I barely read what was written beforehand.

Previous attempts at a solution - (Althair)

When I found out about all this, it was around the 17th, when I realized I'd been pinged in the cafe, and I started wondering what was going on. I began reacting by asking questions, apologizing to those affected privately, and trying to address all the questions they asked me. Unfortunately, I was blocked a few hours later, unable to fully defend myself, explain myself, or recount what had happened in the group.

Suggested solutions - (Althair)

The users who were on that server apologize privately and publicly to those affected. The users who were blocked simply for being in that group and saying things are being unblocked, as we weren't guilty of sabotage, the reason we were blocked and denied the unblocking. The accusations they levied against us, along with the loss of part of our reputation and trust, were more than enough punishment; some of us had been users for almost a decade and had 100,000 edits on projects. Regarding the cases of sabotage that occurred, it would be best for each community to decide what to do about it. Some of us who were blocked had a lot of evidence of sabotage, but because we were blocked, we couldn't share it.

update - (Althair)

I'm sorry, I just remembered what happened in February on the server, it was the first sabotage that Galahad planned with Meruleh, his request for Global Sysop, @DerHexer: voted against him. Well Gal went to his Steward revalidation of and voted against him. [I remember that Gal and Meruleh laughed a lot while the others joined in their laughter and I tried to tell commenting on the messages they exchanged and calling the matter Galahad Matter while I tried to tell them that maybe it was a little wrong.

Zerojosefer

Description of the problem - (Zerojosefer)

As an affected party, I must categorically reject this situation. A few points:

1. While I acknowledge, as others have, that we made inappropriate comments, these have been exaggerated by SFBB, other sysops, and the threads they created. The claim that I am a "subordinate" is unfounded; I have always acted independently based on my convictions, such as my regular contributions to es.wiki.

2. The server’s decision to hide the channels was necessary, SFBB publicly disclosed conversations out of necessity. They could have handled it privately via UCoC reports instead of public shame. The archives weren’t due to hiding something but because of misuse of the information, with the administration seeking to prevent such incidents in the future. All with access, we could have requested transparency through proper channels.

3. The process was irregular. On eswiki, reports are typically resolved quickly, but due to conflicts of interest among sysops—including Jaluj, Farisori, and others—the process was compromised. Farisori’s actions—calling for swift resolution—were improper, especially since he had conflicts himself. I participated in the public process previous to the complaint but questioned its fairness, especially given the constant accusations that we were liars.

4. My suggestion of regular sysop confirmation (analogous to steward reviews) was misrepresented as sabotage, leading to a one-year ban. I endorsed Farisori's confirmation as I believe every community should regularly evaluate their sysops and initially voted for him to be confirmed but later, after learning of the Taichi's 31-hour block he wasn't supposed to do due to conflicts of interest, I changed my mind and unvoted (but apparently my change of heart is "fake" according to Farisori)

4.1. The only time I mentioned withdrawing my vote on the Discord server, I never explained the reasons because I didn't consider them relevant to share with others. All I did was ask other users how to withdraw my vote, as I was having a technical issue with the (#) symbol, which wouldn't disappear. User Zafkiel helped me resolve it, as can be seen in the screenshots. The following is clear: I was the one who initiated the inquiry about how to withdraw my vote (no one suggested doing so). The only help I received was in troubleshooting the technical issue with the (#). I never intended to encourage others to withdraw their votes. It seems my only "punishment" in this case was having asked for help resolving a simple question about the process (image redacted. see this).

5. Regarding my comments with "XD" and jokes like "the Council," these were internal humor reflecting community distrust, not coordinated sabotage. I have never participated in organized attacks or sabotaging efforts. Voting to confirm (or not) a sysop does not imply sabotage either.

I did not agree with Meruleh's actions; the sanctions against her were justified due to their impact on eswiki. However, the eswiki community's desire to exclude her from all projects she participated in, based solely on her eswiki behavior, is unwarranted—her recent contributions to eswikivoyage have been positive. We should judge by the edits, not the editors. SFBB viewed Galahad's decision to retain Meruleh on eswikivoyage as complicity, not merit. None of those calling for sanctions are active in eswikivoyage, raising the question of which community they intend to "return power" to if they aren't part of it and if the true community confirmed Galahad as a sysop. I support Meruleh's removal from eswikivoyage only because there were (or could have been) direct consequences. Galahad's repeated warnings about punishing misconduct on eswikivoyage were criticized and ridiculed by some eswiki members.

Suggested solutions

Given the lack of substantial evidence indicating that our comments contributed to a sabotage campaign, contrary to suggestions on eswiki, it would be appropriate to lift the blocks and issue final warnings instead. Additionally, it is advisable to review and improve existing procedures, ensuring that blocks are used as a measure of last resort rather than as the initial response (just as they would say here, "no mates a una mosca a cañonazos").

It is also concerning that a fear campaign has been initiated by eswiki's sysops. Additionally, it is important to recognize the value of human resources, particularly volunteers, and to be aware that psychological pressure tactics can have adverse effects, potentially greater than the issues they aim to address. 1, 2, 3, 4

Considering that SFBB has displayed irregular behavior and committed UCoC violations when frustrated, as demonstrated in these cases (with all due respect, you have realized the absolute brutality of what you have done), including threats against those who do not comply with its demands (If the server is still active 48 hours from now, I’ll have no choice but to start an RfC), as well as previous misconduct on enwiki and Meta-Wiki—such as unfounded harassment of Meta-Sysops and the exaggerated portrayal of Discordgate comments aimed at securing sanctions—the appropriate course of action would be site ban from both Meta-Wiki and eswiki.

Update

I'm glad SFBB finally responded after fifteen days of silence, which led me to believe he had published that information. It's inexcusable that, despite the U4C's private request for evidence, he chose to share the conversations publicly without my consent, legal necessity, or proper channels. If he intended to address an irregular situation, he should have reported it to the Discord Safety and Trust Team or privately to the U4C. Instead, he took harmful action, exposing and victimizing many people, as he later admitted.

NSW policy requires that I have performed the action (monthly confirmations) for it to be considered sabotage. Since I did not, I was blocked for a comment outside Wikimedia Foundation spaces advocating for monthly confirmations. While monthly confirmations are extreme, blocking just to comment on it is disproportionate. This illustrates that eswiki sysops abuse the policy to impose sanctions at will. Additionally, Farisori had a conflict of interest—considering I struck my vote in his confirmation, his retaliatory block cannot be overlooked.

Farisori mentioned me, so I clarify:

• This is not about accusing or punishing Galahad and Meruleh but about allowing those sanctioned—following Jaluj's complaint, which stemmed from SFBB's improper Discord disclosures—to defend themselves. We lacked this opportunity due to a six-hour response window.

• Farisori wrongly assumes we knew of Meruleh’s alleged misconduct; we did not. If she disclosed it, she had already been locally sanctioned. Farisori's claim of acting in good faith is misleading; if true, a warning would suffice instead of misuse of his position amid eswiki policy ambiguities.

• The etiquette policy lacks penalty guidelines; NSW policy states penalties should be lifted after the set time. Excessive sanctions—over a month—are violations of that policy. Our sanctions were unjustified, imposed merely for expressing opinions.

Finally, the Latin: Excusatio non petita, accusatio manifesta.

Farisori justifies his imposed sanctions by referencing policies that do not cover comments outside of Wikipedia. I requested my unblocking in accordance with that policy, but a week has now passed without resolution. During this time, Farisori continues to violate NSW policy.

Responding to SFBB, the user mentions that:

Meanwhile, the core Discord channel continues to show support for the actions of Meruleh, who remains/remained a member and was/is still being praised within that group for actions widely seen as problematic.

To clarify, Meruleh he left from Discord. I'm surprised SFBB keeps claiming that we continue to praise and encourage Meruleh on that server, when the opposite is true. I fully trust that U4C members can see and witness our conversations in the general channel. I will not post screenshots, respecting what the U4C has stated.

The screenshot posted in the thread is incomplete, when the reality is that the conversation is much broader than just those 558 × 904. As I mentioned and reiterate, the U4C can review the channel and the logs at this very moment to witness and confirm whether or not there is support for certain actions.

Sonoko Konishi (Meruleh)

First of all, I’m making this statement through my alternate account, Sonoko Konishi. My main account, Meruleh, had two-factor authentication enabled, and I accidentally deleted the app, losing access to it. I didn’t back up the recovery codes either, though I’ve already submitted a recovery form to T&S.

Now, here I am. Honestly, I had no intention of writing this. However, given the persistent falsehoods—some directly about me, others affecting users I care about, even resulting in unfair blocks—I feel compelled to respond. I would call this entire situation a witch hunt.

I took the time to write this because I do not have the luxury to spend weeks fabricating screenshots, twisting texts, or manipulating narratives. What I present here is as transparent and honest as possible.

On Wikiquote

I want to begin with the situation on Wikiquote. Neither I nor anyone else manipulated that admin nomination. I happened to vote by pure coincidence. I began editing that project about two weeks earlier, after I left Wikipedia. User Jaluj unexpectedly contacted me on my talk page and spammed invites to join Wikiquote—both there and in the Telegram group of Wikimedia Small Projects, where she welcomed me and repeatedly pushed me to get involved.

I voted against the admin nomination because that project doesn't need more than one admin. It’s a small, tight-knit community—essentially a family. Everyone respected each other (until recently, and now that respect has broken down, likely beyond repair). Vandalism is rare—like once every thousand days (yes, that’s hyperbole, but you get the point). There’s barely any admin activity or need for intervention.

Initially, I considered changing my vote because I trusted the nominee. But after seeing more than 10 votes from external users—many with little or no valid contributions (less than 100 edits)—I stood firm. I even commented about the obvious canvassing that had taken place. As for other users like Galahad or Zafkiel GD who voted against, that was their decision, not mine.

On User:Althair

Regarding a supposed screenshot in which I offer admin rights to Althair—yes, I did say that, as a joke. It was playful teasing. In fact, I can provide email evidence of Althair harassing me with verbal abuse and sexual undertones.

Let’s be clear:

1. I was only a temporary admin.
2. I was not a bureaucrat.
3. Even bureaucrats can only assign permissions for one year or indefinitely.
4. No one can assign admin rights without a proper vote and community support.

So, even if I said that, it was meaningless—I didn’t have the power to grant such rights, and Althair knows that. Ironically, he also offered to make me an admin on Test-Wiki, which is just as impossible since he’s not a bureaucrat there either.

---

It is also suspicious that the user Althair portrays himself as a victim before the community, claiming he only wanted to defend it. Yet, in private messages, he encouraged me to create a channel for insulting people, stating that he already does so on IRC, where he either runs or participates in a private channel specifically to insult Wikimedia users. It's unusual and concerning that someone who publicly calls for respect and restraint privately promotes and engages in harassment spaces.

On Wikiversity

Regarding Wikiversity: The MMR allows users to request admin rights in the community space, which I did for a three-month term. Had I wanted a longer term, I’d have gone through a formal candidacy.

I left the request open for seven days, awaiting feedback. Some claimed I didn’t contact any admins beforehand, but that’s false. I emailed Antur days before the request, explaining my intentions. He replied aggressively, accusing me of being a "hat-collector." I replied, explaining I simply wanted to replicate the success I had on Wikivoyage (v2.5). I received no further response.

Eventually, with help from Discord, I posted my request on Meta because I wasn’t familiar with the proper process. I didn’t know that adminship could be granted without votes or that requests could be made directly to stewards. After nearly two weeks, the request was granted—ample time for objections. I didn’t manipulate any policies. In fact, Wikiversity lacks formal policies. I merely clarified how admin requests and removals can occur. I didn’t alter procedures, percentages, or anything requiring consensus.

---

I would also like to highlight some inaccuracies found in the Spanish Wikipedia. First of all, the user Althair never brought me into Wikiversity—he neither invited me, nor suggested I become an administrator, nor played any role in my decision to join. I joined on my own initiative, as part of the modernization effort known as "Wikivoyage 2.5," which aimed to extend improvements to smaller Wikimedia projects. Most of these changes involved administrative and interface updates.

Therefore, we began with Wikivoyage, then moved on to Wikiversity, followed by Portuguese Wikivoyage, and so on. When I reached out to the only "active" administrator, Antur, I explained the same reasoning. For this reason, I completely refute the false claim that Althair was responsible for bringing me to Wikiversity. The goal of the Wikivoyage proposal has always been to adapt and modernize smaller projects, making them independent from Wikipedia’s inherited structure—with their own templates, interface, and so forth.

On Wikinews

I didn’t manipulate any vote. Galahad proposed a change regarding global admin access. He brought it to the community, not just to admins. I voted in favor because I had edited that project before, even writing an article a year earlier. My support wasn’t random. When Galahad notified the stewards, he mentioned only two votes, omitting mine—proving we weren’t coordinating.

On Wikipedia

See: Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Cases/2025/Spanish Wikipedia Abuse - Meta

This is mostly covered in my formal complaint, but I must emphasize the systematic abuse by administrators. Before I was banned, a user falsely accused me of using AI to write articles. I reported the accusation to the administrators’ noticeboard for lack of civility, bad faith, etc. That complaint remained unanswered for over 60 days. After my ban, Ruy, the admin who blocked me, closed the complaint saying he wouldn’t act on it because I was banned—and even stated he believed I used AI. This demonstrates a systematic abuse of power, as complaints that clearly violate the code of conduct are dismissed solely because the complainant has been expelled. As a result, the accused remains unpunished and is even portrayed as a victim.

On Wikivoyage

I won’t go into much detail, but I led the successful modernization of the project. My alternate account Kiwumi was created to start fresh, editing peacefully on Wikivoyage and avoiding Wikipedia (which I respect due to my ban). I’ve created three alternate accounts since the ban, all using VPNs and different IPs—but none of them edited Wikipedia.

Despite that, all were blocked without justification, even though they had no activity. Why block dormant accounts? Every change we made on Wikivoyage was supported by veteran contributors—some with 10–20 years of experience—who didn’t even know me but supported our efforts to modernize and build a distinct identity, separate from Wikipedia. Despite having sockpuppets, I’ve never used them to vote or manipulate anything. That’s not who I am.

---

In response to Jaluj comments regarding FocaBot, I would like to provide some clarification. FocaBot is a bot I personally developed and is currently hosted on private servers that I pay for entirely out of my own pocket. That means all costs and maintenance are my responsibility, and I do not charge or request payment for its use. While the bot may eventually be moved to Wikimedia Foundation servers once development is complete, for now, it runs independently. FocaBot has a dedicated web interface connected to the server’s IP address, allowing users to register with an email, username, and password—these can be randomly generated and do not require any Wikimedia account. Account activation is done manually for security reasons, which is why users must contact me directly to confirm their registration. Access to the interface is restricted to local administrators, global administrators (where applicable), interface admins, and template editors. The interface is only used to enable or disable basic bot features (like vandalism reversion), view or archive tickets, and manage featured articles on the main page. General users do not require access, as the bot is designed to be self-managed by authorized roles to reduce my own workload.

In practice, when a user opens a request on an admin board or reports an issue, FocaBot assigns a ticket number, logs it in the interface, and sends a public notification through connected platforms—currently Discord. Support for Telegram and IRC is being developed, but as I’m an independent developer, progress is paced by my available time. The bot always sends messages to public channels—never to private or sensitive spaces—simply to notify others of ticket activity. It also announces when a ticket has been resolved and archived. In short, FocaBot is a notification bot. It does not have administrative powers or advanced features that require broader community access. The goal is to expand its presence to more Wikimedia projects in the future, but for now, it is being tested on Wikivoyage, where it is functioning successfully. Additionally, the bot is open-source and available on GitHub, where anyone can review its code, learn what it does, and even view a demo of its interface. I hope this clarifies any concerns regarding the bot’s purpose and operation.

On Discord & U4C Concerns

Yes, I fully stand by every message I sent in Discord that the U4C may have access to. My opinions reflect my honest beliefs about certain users, and I won’t apologize for them. Let’s clarify a few things:

• LGBT: I’ve never posted transphobic messages. Ironically, I was the one mocked during the Wikipedia discussion—people questioned my gender, my name, my Commons photo, and even doxxed me by sharing my personal Facebook, Instagram, X, and email on external forums. I have proof and will send it to the U4C if requested.
• The phrase "LGBT pet friendly" was not a joke—it was the name of a real campaign I planned with an LGBT foundation I support. Inspired by the English Wikipedia article “Pets and the LGBTQ community”, I wanted to show Wikivoyage as a welcoming space for both LGBT individuals and pet lovers.
• We never coordinated votes or manipulations on Discord. There's no evidence of me asking anyone to vote one way or another. Users voted based on their own views.
• Lin linao: Yes, my vote against was out of personal resentment—for deleting articles I considered notable. That’s valid under Wikimedia rules.
• Farisori: I don’t understand his issue. I didn’t initiate his reconfirmation—that was Taichi. I supported it because of what I saw as systematic abuse and harassment against Taichi.

Final Notes

As for the infamous Nazi profile picture on Discord: it violated no Discord rules nor server policies. Only Althair complained—despite admitting his own profile image had Nazi connotations too. He reported me but ignored his own behavior. Hypocrisy.

I would like to offer a rebuttal regarding a comment made on the Spanish Wikipedia. I assume SFBB’s remark was meant to be ironic when they praised the fact that Althair was expelled from the Discord server, blaming Zafkiel GD for it. The reality is quite the opposite. Althair had a private conversation with Zafkiel GD during which, among other things, he sent images of Galahad’s face with the clear intention of mocking him. He even made xenophobic remarks by pointing out that Galahad is from Venezuela, attempting to ridicule his background. Zafkiel informed me about this—not with the intention of reporting it, but simply to make me aware. However, since Althair was publicly portraying himself as a victim and a respectable user while privately engaging in bullying, discrimination, and xenophobia, I chose to inform Galahad so he could take appropriate action. As a result, Althair was temporarily expelled for violating the friendly space. Ultimately, he was allowed to return after Galahad forgave him.

Despite all this, I’ve remained inactive by choice. Yet, harassment continues daily. People mock me on Wikipedia. Admins do nothing. They accuse me of fraud with zero proof, and instead of removing defamatory claims, Jaluj spreads them further. I’ve been subjected to unjust checkusers, linking me to accounts with no connection.

I’ve already said more than enough. My primary concerns and defenses are laid out in my formal complaint, where I clearly demonstrate there has been abuse. What happens to me from here doesn’t matter. I’m already retired by choice—not because of the ban. I even privately requested a global lock to deactivate all my accounts, but was told it wasn’t possible since voluntary global bans are rare. I also can’t delete my account due to the nature of the block.

That’s all. I won’t appear again. If the U4C needs the evidence I mentioned, I’ll provide it by email. Sonoko Konishi (talk) 02:10, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Update (04/07/25)

Even though I mentioned I wouldn’t make another appearance here, since I have no real interest in the case and any decision made about me affects me in the slightest. I want to take a moment to clarify something important.

Within the Discord server, no one had explicit knowledge that my recently revealed sockpuppets were publicly known. In other words, contrary to what's being claimed, no user actually knew for certain that those accounts were mine. While I had occasionally joked about having socks, the community always assumed it was just humor or nothing serious.

Only two users had clear knowledge of some of my socks, and that was solely due to an administrative notice from the English Wikipedia. I see no need to expose more about that situation.

So I don’t quite understand why Wikipedia’s Spanish-language admins are claiming that users were aware of my sock accounts. In the screenshots that SFBB conveniently shared, there's no proof that anyone supported or knowingly interacted with any of them. Sure, a few may have had suspicions based on typical behavioral patterns, but suspicions are not the same as actual knowledge.

Now, if the argument is that the blocks were also due to “supporting” or “covering up” my alleged sockpuppets, then I have to ask: will the same standard be applied to administrator Jake Park (now LuchoCR)? He was aware of my account Sonoko Konishi through a CheckUser request and had access to that information days-or even weeks-before it became public. Yet he chose not to disclose it, instead keeping it hidden at the request of another user. So, if Zerojosefer and Linehalt were blocked for supposedly covering up my sock accounts, will Jake Park also be sanctioned for administrative misconduct and concealing a sock? He had this information in his possession since April 22 of this year, following a request from a member of the Ombuds Commission, who had been alerted to a suspicious situation. A CheckUser was requested to clarify things, and the result confirmed my link with the account Horcus/Sonoko Konishi, a connection that had already been acknowledged between late 2024 and early 2025. Therefore, if an administrator and CheckUser deliberately withheld this information, shouldn’t he be sanctioned just like Zerojosefer and Linehalt? Or is the policy—supposedly not even voted on—not being applied equally? Is it only enforced when convenient? If any Spanish Wikipedia administrator or community member needs access to the gathered evidence, I will gladly provide it.

If policies are to be applied strictly, then fairness should apply across the board. As I’ve stated, the users in question didn’t know those accounts were mine, and in many cases, I barely had any direct connection with them, certainly not enough to disclose my socks, which, by the way, were never used abusively.

Policy says one should disclose socks, not that one must. I leave this here simply as a reflection, to see whether fairness will actually be upheld. Sonoko Konishi (talk) 06:02, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Update (Final)

U4C: As I mentioned in my last update, I was indifferent to the outcome of my case. However, I feel the need to refute a claim that makes no sense whatsoever. At no point have I engaged in canvassing, neither publicly nor privately. The limited “evidence” that was presented neither matches my account nor proves any connection to me as the user involved.

I also don’t understand why I’ve been associated with the SE2025 case, as I was never involved or connected to it in any way.

Regarding my vote on DerHexer, it was initially in support. However, after a particular review, I changed my vote to oppose. Following this, steward DerHexer began a campaign of harassment, demanding explanations for my vote change. A similar situation occurred with Galahad, who was also privately harassed by him over the same matter.

In my case, his tone was borderline aggressive. After I responded and refuted his behavior, I withdrew my vote. He later apologized for the situation and asked me to delete the discussion — which I archived immediately (this can be verified in the logs).

Therefore, I ask that if an investigation is to be conducted, it be done properly and objectively. I should not be dragged into matters with which I have no involvement, nor should certain users be portrayed as absolute victims when, in some cases, they are not.

Pólux

Hello! I've finally got some time off to sit and write about this situation. I'll try to stick to the point, but I know I tend to be a bit verbose and thorough, so apologies in advance to the U4C :) My participation in the Spanish-speaking Discord began in December 2024. For the following months I was active in general within the Wikimedia projects as a whole. But during the last months (beginning mid-March), my activity has decreased due to real life obligations (limited to checking my watchlists, basically). So the block derived from this situation served as a way to disengage even more from the projects. Now that I had some time to reflect, I'll provide my point of view of the events.

I noticed the threads that were started on our Village Pump (Café) about the Discord server when I was pinged by SFBB. I'll be honest about my viewpoint regarding the Café: I made the decision some years ago that I wouldn't participate on any threads there unless it was in a helpful way, assisting new users or answering questions. It's a place on the wiki, in my opinion, that can turn toxic quickly in recent times. What I found from SFBB, in a way to confirm my prejudice against that wikispace, was a very abrasive, gotcha tone on their messages, which included out-of-context screenshots from the server that tried to paint the worst possible picture for the rest of the users. The messages sometimes included German or Latin with legalese in between, making it a very grandiloquent exposé of some sorts. There were also some analogies the user made between the actions performed by members of the server with the ones carried out by the Nazi party during the 1930s (making a practical example of Godwin's law in the process). Seeing this as a very hostile environment I didn't feel comfortable with, I decided not to make any comments about my participation on the Discord server, awaiting for an eventual report on the admins' noticeboard, if anything.

The report to the noticeboard came from an actual admin, Jaluj: here. I expected this to be extensive and refer to specific faults for every person named, but it was not. It was a very broad, general accusation, about various things that I personally had not participated in (such as usage of sockpuppets and "open tolerance to vandalism", whatever that is). The complaint was posted at 15:34 my local time, and since it was the weekend, I was occupied with family business. Because of this, I finally had a chance to read this at around 21:00 and at 21:31 my time, I was already blocked by sysop Farisori: here. So the time I had to make any sort of argument in defense or explanation was 31 minutes, not that it would have mattered much, apparently. At the time of the block, a couple of admins had posted their opinions about the situation (it can be seen on the previous diff). One was in favor of blocking all users and then analyze the situation closer (Marcelo), one was in favor of blocking but first discussing among themselves to reach a decision (Ezarate), one was in favor of discussing among themselves (Laura Fiorucci), three of them asked the situation to be analyzed case by case or requested more evidence (LuchoCR [now Jake Park], BetoCG and Gauri). Having been a sysop before, it's been customary when it comes to blocking long-standing users not to make haste and to reach a decision agreed upon by the majority. However, this was not the case here for whatever reason, and the report was closed in just shy of 6 hours, without any public discussion of the supposed evidence between admins whatsoever.

Regarding the activity on the server, as Daamu32 mentioned in their statement, it became much more active in January with the arrival of Meruleh and some other users which resulted in more frequent conversations on the main channel. From what I understand, the server was fairly new, and this was one of the first significant increases in activity that it experienced. I don't remember myself writing anything hurtful or derisive towards anyone, other than speaking my mind about some issues on the eswiki community with an outlook that could be perceived as critical or pessimistic. I did make the mistake to engage in some conversation where others made some inappropriate remarks, and on re-reading it, I know I probably shouldn't have. So I apologize to anyone who may have been affected by my participation there.

Both Farisori, who referred to a "coordinated Discord group" on this case page, and SFBB, who posted another report on the noticeboard that is yet to be resolved describing the server's members as some sort of conspiratorial group, have made these accusations about the users there working in conjunction toward some shady "sabotage" goal led by Galahad and Meruleh. I completely disagree with their take, at least with regard to myself. I did not participate in any voting, decision-making processes or discussions on any project based on what other users said or did. Everything I did was by my own volition and judgement. The accusation can easily be disproved by taking a look at votes that took place during that time period. For instance, in the es:Wikipedia:Votaciones/2025/Formato predeterminado de las llamadas de cita vote, I supported the proposal whereas Aopou/Meruleh was against it. More relevant to the situation, because it was part of the allegations made in the threads, is Farisori’s confirmation as sysop. Unlike Galahad and Meruleh, I did not sign my support for the process to start here. When the vote started and after reading the motivations behind it, I voted in favor of the confirmation while they opposed it. These are not the actions taken by a user who is supposedly part of a conspiracy when they're not even voting in the same direction as the presumed co-conspirators.

Farisori did mention something specific about my block on his resolution on the noticeboard. He claims that one message I posted there (visible through screenshots linked originally by SFBB) was "celebratory". And this is the exact same verbiage that Jaluj had about that same message, a day before the accusation was added to the noticeboard. The fact that the admin posting the accusation and the admin that expeditiously resolved it in a matter of hours both shared their way to describe my intentions is curious at best, suspicious at worst. I find it to be a distorted description of my intentions as well: I was making a comment in jest within the context of an informal online chat. I did not mention Meruleh or any other user, nor did I celebrate any of their actions on that joke (it could even be interpreted that I was actually teasing/poking fun at the user). Farisori says it was in support of an "undeclared sockpuppet," but that account Horcus that Meruleh used had a declared relationship since the moment their votes on Meta were struck back in December 2024, and at the time I was making my comment, the account was already vanished and globally locked. Meruleh's actions with that account, with what we know now, were deceitful and dishonest, but I fail to see how my joke is any kind of endorsement worthy of a block.

The other reason for my block was that I was "mocking" another user. My comment was a verbatim quote from the Village Pump about something the sysop Laura Fiorucci said. It was the following (translated by me into English): "Meta[-Wiki] is a jungle and permissions are given to people who then decide about our things. It’s an open field of varied, unexplored and sometimes poisonous fauna." Honestly, the fact that a sysop can casually drop that type of comment about another project, likening its users to animals, is just... shocking, to say the least. The number of admins on the Spanish Wikipedia is dwindling more and more (in a week and half there's one more sysop being removed), and I'm pretty sure Meta-Wiki, the so-called "jungle", now has more admins than eswiki. Once again, I fail to see how my comment is mocking anyone. I don't really have any strong opinions about Laura, either for or against her, and I didn't mention her personally. My criticism was with her comment, as I'm doing right now as well.

I would have liked to have more than 31 minutes to explain my side of the situation. As mentioned before, SFBB has made another report which has been given some more days before being resolved. This has allowed the users who are not blocked to present their arguments, but the hasty blocks have completely hindered the rest from doing so. Honestly, it's a bit tiring how long this issue has dragged on, and it's worse now to be on hold, waiting for another administrative action and being completely unable to defend oneself. SFBB wants me to be blocked indefinitely on the eswiki project and wants that decision to be made now because my block expires in two weeks and I'm "dangerous" or "noxious" (nocivo, their word in Spanish) to the project. In reality I'm just waiting and checking my watchlist here and there. There are articles on my watchlist that now contain misinformation and unhelpful edits that I can't roll back, so I'm forced to just watch and hope I remember to recheck them once I'm back. Apparently, the way to help the project grow is to expel users with decades of experience in managing vandalism and unhelpful edits by bad actors.

SFBB cannot use any diffs against me because I did nothing on the projects to harm them. They point to the only edit I made after being blocked, where I pointed out that Jaluj was canvassing by linking the RfC she created to the Village Pump and openly requesting support. I mentioned that this was another case of canvassing, because there were suspicions that the same thing happened with the eswikiquote candidacy that has been mentioned regarding this case. I'm not part of that wiki's community, so I did not participate in that vote and I don't really have a say in the matter (I see questionable things from both those supporting and opposing the candidacy). The permissions were indeed finally granted temporarily due to suspected canvassing. Once again, I fail to see how my comment warrants an expulsion (?) from the project. This pattern of repetition regarding the canvassing issue is also why I couldn't be helped to see with a lot of concern that Jaluj had her accusation resolved unconventionally quickly with little input from other sysops.

I also take issue with the motive chosen to block the users: "sabotage." It's based on a policy from the Spanish Wikipedia called No sabotees Wikipedia para respaldar tus argumentos and is a direct translation of the English equivalent "Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point." The spirit of that policy is that if one finds things about the project they dislike (more specifically, policies), they should not try to change them by force by applying said policies in a way that annoys or disrupts other people, but rather through dialogue and consensus. In the Spanish Wikipedia, the verb "disrupt," which is tricky to translate, got the word sabotear ("to sabotage") [originally it was called No rompas la Wikipedia para probar tu punto, "Don’t break Wikipedia to prove your point"] and for years now, it has been used very liberally by many sysops. Nowhere in the policy does it talk about actions going on within external forums, yet many have applied the policy based solely on their understanding of the concept of "sabotage." Many people have been blocked indefinitely under this policy, even though it literally states this: "Any notorious attempt to sabotage Wikipedia constitutes grounds for blocking by an administrator — for up to one month in the case of repeated attacks that seriously affect Wikipedia." ("Todo intento notorio de sabotear la Wikipedia constituye causa de bloqueo por un bibliotecario —hasta por un mes en el caso de ataques repetidos que afecten gravemente—."). This shows that the policy is rarely followed as written (probably it's not even read by most). All the blocks that have been applied for more than a month right now should be lifted or adjusted with a proper justification, or the policy should be amended accordingly.

From my perspective, the administrative body of the Spanish Wikipedia has failed to de-escalate and defuse the current situation. They have allowed incendiary posts and incivility run rampant, creating a level of almost general paranoia around it. I could provide examples of several users making disparaging comments about the blocked users in public posts that assume a lot of bad faith about them (violations to the Presume buena fe and No hagas ataques personales#Una noción errónea: «golpéalos mientras estén en el suelo» policies). But simply quoting a user has been deemed as "mocking" behavior by a sysop and I don’t want to face any more repercussions from there. Currently, there's a confirmation process for another admin going on: here. On the discussion page, many of the users who were in favor of blocking the Discord server members, most of them sysops, reacted strongly about this "not being the right time" to have this confirmation carried out. They didn't like that the accusations against this sysop were initiated by an anonymous user, who, as far as I know, looks completely unrelated to any Discord member. They made strong arguments challenging users who frankly believed in the need to confirm that sysop's flags. And this is what I consider the worst danger of all: when you don't defuse the situation, let that incivility and paranoia run wild, and even buy into it as an admin, you get into a slippery slope situation, starting to doubt every other user on the project. There is no collaborative spirit left if you go down that path.

All in all and to wrap this up, I believe that some of the blocks here have done more damage to the project than anything else. As mentioned earlier, the number of administrators is decreasing and is currently at an all-time low (around 50 admins, the same number as in 2005), so the need for dedicated editors on the project is paramount. Getting rid of these users, some of them for a period of a year, only harms the project. There are other options that could have been explored, like banning the users from the Wikipedia: namespace, for instance. The lack of a body that could handle complex situations and conflicts between users is really telling with cases like this one. Even more telling is the lack of a clear blocking policy on the project.

Previous attempts at a solution - Pólux

As described above, I did not participate on the Village Pump discussion of the situation based on the high level of hostility I perceived, mainly by SFBB who has claimed was the "main investigator". When I was formally accused by a sysop, Jaluj, I was expeditiously blocked by another, Farisori, with little chance to make any sort of argument to reach for a solution.

Suggested solutions - Pólux

Unlike others who want harsher punishments and more blocks, I'd want to lessen the impact of the existing blocks. I don't really mind waiting for my block to expire. It's not the end of the world for me. However, I do think some users received very harsh blocks, which only harm the Spanish Wikipedia in the long run. I suggest reducing or lifting blocks that span for months and reach the year. As mentioned, the use of the "sabotage" motive based on a policy that literally states people can't be blocked for a more than one month should require adjustments, ideally to the policy and its contents.

I can't comment in detail on situations that occurred on other wikis, since I don't really participate in any other community, aside from maybe Meta-Wiki during my cross-wiki antivandalism work. Regarding Galahad and Meruleh, who were indefinitely blocked and had a more controversial participation with other projects involved, I think that should be taken into consideration when looking for a solution. The actions by Meruleh, specifically, I think represent a loss of trust from everyone involved in this situation.

Going forward, the Spanish Wikipedia would need to revise the way it resolves conflicts in complex situations. The ArbCom we had (Comité de Resolución de Conflictos) was dissolved in 2009, and some users at the time said that the idea was good but needed better execution. During this case, the "main investigator" was a user who was blocked four times for edit warring and not following Wikipedia etiquette; who has made 50 edits to the mainspace of the Spanish Wikipedia since August 2023, but almost 200 edits to the Wikipedia: namespace in the last month; and who accused other users to have caused an "absolute brutality" while being "frustrated." It could be helpful for the Spanish Wikipedia to have a committee which could investigate these sort of things and comprised of people who don't have a significant history of being blocked, who actively contribute to enhancing the wiki's contents, and who remain calm and don't get frustrated easily. This could help keep the discussion at a tolerable temperature without raising it unnecessarily to flaming hot levels.

And lastly, with this case it seems necessary to turn the eswiki's blocking proposal into a blocking policy that clearly states the ways blocks are applied. It needs to define whether blocks are punitive or preventive and establish how cases like this one are handled when there is a report involving multiple veteran users. It should give those users an appropriate amount of time to present their arguments and evidence and clarify whether one admin can block unilaterally or if they have to wait for more input. Otherwise, nothing will stop the ever-decreasing number of admins from potentially falling into abusing their power. --Pólux (talk) 05:17, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Linehalt

Hello, as a participant involved in this situation, I would like to share my perspective. I joined the Discord server on March 26th of this year to engage with other Wikipedians in a less formal setting.

I would like to clarify the points that concern me:

Regarding the blocks: I believe our blocks were unjustified and excessive. According to es:WP:NSW (the guideline cited for our sanctions),

Any notorious attempt to sabotage Wikipedia constitutes grounds for a block by a sysop”for up to one month in cases of repeated attacks that seriously affected.

, so the durations assigned two blocks for three months, three for a year, and one infinite appear to exceed what is permitted by the policy.

The reasons given for our blocks appear to be based on comments that lack relevance within the wiki context. For example, Zerojosefer and Trinitrolueno were blocked for supporting periodic revalidation, which many Wikipedians [19] agree with.

Concerning the comments: I acknowledge that some comments made against other Wikipedians were inappropriate. I apologize for any comments I personally made that may have been disrespectful; I have not, however, engaged in disrespectful behavior towards others, though I do not oppose acknowledging those who did. Regarding Meruleh: The statement "we are all Meruleh" was initially a joke among us after noticing the unnecessary requests for Ckeckusers related to the Meruleh case. At no point did I endorse or support Meruleh's use of puppets, contrary to what Farisori claimed in relation to my ban.

It is also important to clarify that both Farisori and SFBB accused me of being a "subordinate," which is incorrect. I have always acted independently and have not violated any policies on the server. They have also accused us of conspiring to remove all sysops, which I find to be an unfounded and serious allegation. Such accusations are currently influencing the environment on eswiki. During our blocks, some users have exploited the situation to undermine es:WP:SUELO and to unjustly accuse us of celebrating the ongoing events, without evidence (see es:Wikipedia discusión:Revalidación de bibliotecarios/UA31). I believe the treatment we are receiving is unfair, and such accusations should not be tolerated.

Additionally, I consider the efforts to marginalize Galahad, including attempts to remove him from eswikivoyage without community consultation, to be unjust. Spanish Wikivoyage remains quite active compared to other smaller Spanish-language projects, and actions taken by external users could harm the project.

Suggested solutions - Linehalt

Unblock all users (except Meruleh). As per the policy mentioned earlier, the maximum penalty for such actions is one month, and that time has already elapsed. Even if some comments were inappropriate, the blocks were excessive.

Meruleh was blocked for a different issue, so her block should remain in effect for now.

No action is needed for SFBB. However, I kindly ask that the ongoing persecution and accusations against us cease. Please refrain from making allegations based on screenshots that may be taken out of context or misinterpreted. --Linehalt (talk) 00:05, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Update

For u4c's consideration, despite the evidence period having ended, it is observed that eswiki sysops do not appear to intend to adhere to their existing rules. The NSW policy specifies a maximum period of one month, yet there seems to be reluctance to comply with this. My explanations have not resulted in any changes, suggesting that the process may have limitations. Additionally, since the eswiki sysop has indicated plans to modify the policy, there is concern that these changes could be applied retroactively in a manner that may be more restrictive. Linehalt (talk) 02:35, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Other feedback

For people who are not parties, the following rules apply:

• Comments/replies may not be longer the 500 words and may not include more than 25 diffs/links. The U4C may, if asked, grant additional words or diffs/links.
• Comments/replies are permitted only in your own section
• Contributions that do not help clarify the matter can be removed
• All accusations and claims must be supported with diffs/links

Other feedback (Superzerocool)

Hi everyone, just to clarify my position on this topic, when Galahad states:

At that time, only seven of 53 sysops participated....

In my case, I've been sysop on Spanish Wikipedia for almost 20 years, and we've seen this kind of behaviour before in 2011 (if I can remember some similar case with corank-thing?). Now, in 2025, I prefer to stay out of the discussion because I'm currently RFC Latam member and I meet him in person, so I prefer to recuse myself from taking any action or being a part of any discussion. I know this comment doesn't help to clarify anything, but I prefer to explicitly recuse myself from this discussion in Meta and Spanish Wikipedia, because I have some conflict of interest in this case. Kindly Superzerocool (talk) 13:55, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Other feedback (Taichi)

Since I've been mentioned in some screenshots, I want to clarify that user Galahad (talk · contribs) later left me an email apologizing for the expression used here.

In my possition, I have no problem with the mention, since, given the tone of the informal conversation, I assumed it was a colloquialism very similar to "a grain of sand," which, no matter how small its contribution, leads to a larger goal. I don't consider my mentions in this case to be serious, since in 20 years of work on Wikimedia projects, I've suffered doxing, even death threats in e-mails and another social media, but this case is a mere trifle. Taichi - (あ！) 15:32, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Other feedback (Rzt 7)

Greetings, my perspective on this matter is neutral, as I contribute to Spanish Wikipedia without vested interests. This case has sparked multiple discussions in the miscellaneous section of the "Café". Generally, the community was discontent with Meruleh's public boasting about using sockpuppets, something she publicly noted and that was known to both the Discord community and its administrators. This behavior undermines respect for the work many of us contribute selflessly to Wikipedia. SFBB (talk · contribs) merely disseminated what these users freely shared on an open platform. Farisori (talk · contribs), on the other hand, ensured the project's integrity. Lastly, Jaluj (talk · contribs), who blocked me almost a year ago for an unrelated matter, is characterized by her dedication to the project, her commitment to the community's best interests, and her measured impartiality in her decisions. Rzt 7 (talk) 21:45, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Other feedback (Ceaseless Watcher)

I'm commenting here because I was explicitly mentioned by one of the involved users, SFBB. Let me be clear: he was not the only person who read the relevant messages—I did as well. In fact, there were months of conversations to go through, and I personally spent days reviewing them. Before I could finish, however, content began to be deleted.

Despite that, I read a substantial amount and can state with confidence that things have not been taken out of context. Galahad repeatedly claims they have, yet has refused to provide the supposed "missing context." On top of that, the relevant Discord chats are no longer visible to most users. They were hidden and are now only accessible to those with elevated permissions, and only with what’s deemed an "acceptable justification." This was mentioned by FreddyVeloz here, after Daamu32 wrongly insisted that the chats remained public.

It also needs to be said: SFBB was kicked from the server specifically because he shared public Discord messages, messages from a server listed on both eswiki and Meta. That fact alone raises serious concerns. While I would prefer to assume good faith on Daamu32’s part, his claim that the chats were still accessible doesn’t hold up. The decision to hide the chats was announced in the anuncios (announcements) channel and explicitly pinged with @everyone. All server members were able to see it. Ignoring that notice—or pretending it didn’t exist—calls credibility into question. Ceaseless Watcher (Talk; they/them) 22:03, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Other feedback (DarwIn)

"Galahad: And they back off when you show them the crucifix (UCoC)" — On April 29, 2024, during a Wikimedia online meeting about the WikiVoyage projects, I made a comment pointing out the rather obvious fact that, since WikiVoyage does not require sources, its content can often reflect the personal opinions and points of view of individual editors, which makes the project appear considerably less reliable. Immediately and unexpectedly, I was publicly accused by Galahad of violating the Friendly Space Policy and the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC), effectively shutting down any potential discussion on the issue. This episode exemplifies a concerning pattern: the weaponization of the UCoC by someone who had long advocated for expanding its enforcement mechanisms. His later remarks on Discord — boasting about using the UCoC as a “crucifix” to silence opposition — only reinforced this impression.

I believe this kind of behaviour is deeply damaging to the Wikimedia movement. It creates a chilling effect, discouraging contributors from participating or engaging in good-faith criticism for fear of arbitrary or bad-faith accusations. I am relieved that this pattern of conduct has now been exposed, and I hope that this visibility will prevent further misuse of the UCoC in the future. In this context, I strongly recommend that Galahad not be entrusted with any roles of responsibility, and that any such positions currently held should be reconsidered. It is evident that Galahad is willing to misuse institutional tools and policies as instruments of personal retaliation, thereby undermining both the spirit of collaboration and the trust necessary for an healthy community governance.-- - Darwin ^Ahoy! 09:42, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

@Galahad: Invoking UCoC 2.1 in response to a factual, policy-based observation is entirely misplaced. Pointing out that WikiVoyage lacks sourcing and may reflect editors' personal views — with the consequent issues of reliability — is not disrespect; it’s a core concern rooted in Wikimedia’s founding principles, especially the pillar of neutrality and the resulting principle of verifiability. Silencing such criticism by appealing to the UCoC under the guise of “mutual respect” distorts UCoC's purpose and chills legitimate discussion. It was abusive and had no place in that conversation.

While a minor episode with no direct consequences, it clearly illustrates the very weaponization of the UCoC that you yourself were bragging about on Discord. I’m inclined to agree with Oscar’s suggestion regarding the global ban — unquestionably for Meruleh, and possibly for you as well. The damage described on this page alone is far too extensive. It’s unfair that other volunteers should have to spend their time dealing with the fallout of actions driven by individuals who seem primarily focused on themselves.--- Darwin ^Ahoy! 22:17, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Other feedback (Pppery)

See also Requests for comment/Coordinated Abuse and Misconduct by Across Multiple Wikimedia Projects in Spanish. * Pppery * _{it has begun} 18:13, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Other feedback (Oscar_.)

I'm here because this issue has spread across the wiki and into Telegram channels, including the one I manage for the Iberocoop initiative. I’ve been reading the Café (Village pump) thread, which I think this committee will need to break down to give the situation a fair review. In short, we’re dealing with system abuse: users who, after being accused and blocked on es.wiki, escalate the matter on Meta-Wiki, stir the pot, and play the victim.

Some screenshots reminded me of a similar case back in 2011, where about half a dozen users were blocked. Two main factors seem to drive this kind of behavior: the desire to collect rights across wikis and the pursuit of “badges” like good or featured articles, as a way to gain recognition and perceived influence.

In this case, the two leaders, Meruleh and Galahad, have built a comfortable following, telling others how to vote and what to do, and pressuring anyone who didn’t fall in line. It sounds a bit silly, but they’ve managed to disrupt the wiki with what basically amounts to a battle royale scheme, and now they feel emboldened to double down. Their main motivation seems to be accumulating power, more symbolic than real, which also explains their aggressive response when called out. At this point, they’re just charging ahead to avoid accountability.

I've seen many users change over the years, but this situation calls for full accountability. Instead of owning up and trying to fix things, they’ve chosen to spread the conflict across projects. At this time, I recommend a global ban for both users. --Oscar_. (talk) 21:53, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Other feedback (SHB)

Since it's come up a few times, it is true that Galahad and I (along with a significant portion of the enwikivoyage community) have collaborated to organise various different "expeditions", incentivising new and improved articles. Given Meruleh was an eswikivoyage sysop, she would have likely joined us in doing the same sort of cross-project collaborations into incentivising new content creation. //shb (t • c) 22:05, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

I still maintain that I have not used my advanced perms with this long-winded drama in any way (except for removing Meruleh's perms on Meta and declining Meruleh's block request – because, shocking: Meta doesn't do user bans) and that I'm allowed to have my opinions as a normal user. Clearly 45.190.0.0/16 knew they were being out of line because why else would they have used an IP deliberately. I also did ask for the revision deletion of that screenshot on the talk page, but I have nothing to hide behind that so I'll paste what I said below (emphasis mine):

I mean, personally, I don't have much of a wheelhouse with this long saga, but where it does cross the line is when people start fabricating reality, violating Meta-Wiki civility policies or making edits like the one in question from speculation...the edit in question [my initial revert on Discord] very much screams fearmongering/speculation and all that. Happy to action on anything on Meta for things like these [edits that fall into the criteria above].

Meta might not be anyone's "home wiki", but it does have a community and it does have set practices. So if enforcing Meta-Wiki practices is what is considered to be "coordination", either this tells that: a) SFBB has no respect for customs on wikis they are not a regular of; b) SFBB sees anything that doesn't fit their ideals by someone with advanced perms as "abuse" (cf the claims of "GS abuse" when I opposed Jaluj's TA request or when Polux called out canvassing on an invalid RfC). This also once again reaffirms what I said on Talk:Discord that it is the es community (including Meruleh when she decided to sock on Meta) that keeps dragging me into it by blatantly disregarding Meta's practices, not the other way around. Additionally, like Polux, I too will be ignoring what SFBB claims until U4C makes a formal decision. //shb (t • c) 02:46, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Other feedback (Freddy eduardo)

First of all, I want to apologize if some of the information here is repeated from my comment in the other U4C complaint, but I think that some people might only see this one, so I think it is necessary. I think it is clear that the information included in this complaint is not the full picture and it only includes the information that has already been proven in the Spanish Wikipedia. If you check the village pump over there, you will see that users involved in this controversy started denying basically all the accusations and have then accepted some as more proofs appear. First, they were denying that messages had been deleted, but then it became clear that a lot of messages were deleted, particularly in February, so it became impossible for them to continue denying it. This capture, for instance [20](content warning: it includes a homophobic slur) includes an instant of someone replying to a deleted message but it is also clear that many more messages were deleted, as the conversation has a lot of "gaps". Then, when we indicated that all the messages from the server had been hidden, this was called a lie by one of them[21], but then it was proved that it was true as well[22] (so much for the transparency that Galahad was claiming here[23]).

Many aspects have not been brought forward, for instance, why some of the implicated users all changed their names to Meruleh in Discord (including Galahad)[24] even after her disruptive use of suckpuppets was dicovered and she herself admitted it in that discord chat. Some of the implicated users have said that this was not a show of support but some sort of campaign of "We are all Meruleh" because people became very suspicious in the Spanish Wikipedia after it was discovered that were some common patterns with Meruleh and other users. But guess what? Some of these users were later revealed to be part of the "Council of Meruleh" in Discord and were found to participate in the conversations about votes to remove sysops, so the suspicions that something odd was happening were 100% correct. Some user in the Spanish Village pump also suggested that Meruleh could be related to LTA Geografo23 (an extremely disruptive user who has, so far, 273 discovered suckpupppets created to evade his block[25]). This was also called a sign of "paranoia". But guess what? Once the discord chats were revealed, it was found that Meruleh openly talked positively about Geografo23 and said he was the kind of user needed in Wikipedia[26] and that he was her mentor[27]. So the suspicions that something was odd and that there could be a link were, again, 100% correct.

There has also not being any kind of explanation for the nazi imagery that users in the discord chat had used as part of their profile pictures or comments regarding "extermination camps". This is the kind of conversations that were being had in this chat, that, again, was publicly accessible and was disseminated by Galahad himself in multiple pages of Wikimedia projects. Of course, even if the chats were to be shared, many messages have been deleted and profile pictures being changed do not appear there, but thankfully we now have some of the captures shared by Althair that showed that admins knew about this and did nothing.

Another thing that Galahad decided to ignore in this complaint is any sort of explanation (or apology) for how some queer editors (or the Wikimedia LGBT user group as a whole) were picked up on multiple occasions by this-so called Council (which received this name by Galahad himself at least since February[28]). I've already talked a bit about this, but now I will be sharing a few more details. As mentioned before, Meruleh started participating in some of the events that we members of Wikimedia LGBT+ organize in Spanish to improve content related to queer topics. Due to her edits, she quickly earned the trust of the group, as we believed that she was making the edits in good faith and trying to help. We even gave Meruleh one of our monthly editing prizes for her participation in one of our events[29]. I vote for her enthusiastically in her sysop election and I even recommended on more than one occasion to other members that we involve her more in our events and safe spaces (thankfully that did not happen, by pure chance). And then you can imagine our reaction to find out how this user was openly talking about us derogatorily, calling us the "LGBT troop", admitting that actions that seemed genuine were in fact just a ruse to win our votes for her sysop election (verbatim: «para que toda la tropa LGBT me vote»)[30], mocking us and calling Wikipedia an "LGBT pet friendly environment"[31], while other members of the so-called Council were laughing along or participating in this as well, again, all in a publicly accessible server. Everything a violation of point 3.1 (section Insults) of the UCoC.

A couple weeks before this whole controversy began, I was even invited to an event organized by Wikimedia Small Projects (the group that Galahad founded and that until today had Meruleh as a member as well) about editing LGBT topics in Wikipedia[32]. Galahad himself was in this Zoom call and introduced me amicably and then listened to me talk for half an hour about the work we do in Wikimedia LGBT and the struggles that queer editors can sometimes face on Wikipedia. Imagine then how fooled I felt when I saw that he was part of this chat in which we were mocked and that he himself was participating in it. Look for instance at this capture[33] (which I saw personally, so yes, I read the whole context) in which he falsely claims that members of the UG cannot be criticized if we make a mistake because otherwise we say people are... and then Galahad waits until Zafkiel GD says "LGBTphobic". I still do not understand why I was invited to this event if this is really how he saw us. Besides the point that this is a false common argument by ultraconservative people that we LGBT people supposedly cannot be criticized (open Twitter and get some perspective), it shows at the very least a complete trivialization of the struggles that many queer editors face in Wikipedia. Do they know that biographies of LGBT people are much more likely to be marked as "non-relevant" and for deletion in Wikipedia? We have examples recently even of articles with more than 30 references and that today have the good article badge being marked as "non-relevant" by users with thousands of edits[34]. This is just a tiny bit of the things that we encounter every day in Wikipedia, of some users constantly negating the value of queer content, which is why it feels so disrespectful seeing these chats in which they talk about supposedly privileges and that "if you want to become sysop, the only thing you need to do is join Wikimedia LGBT"[35] and seeing the others applaud that. Well I sincerely hope they gain some perspective and realize it is the opposite in so many ways. And one more time, repeating this kind of stereotypes is a violation of point 3.1 (section Insults) of the UCOC.

I've seen some people here in Meta characterize this controversy as "rants", which saddens me as it shows a lack of understanding of the level of damage that this has caused on our editor community. We have users asking that we should stop doing collaborations for events with other affiliates as they do not feel safe for the time being working with others. So less collaboration, the thing that is one of the most important principles of the Wikimedia Movement, is what this situation is pushing us towards. This is the level of damage that has been done to our community. A day after Meruleh was expelled of a telegram chat due to her permaban in the Spanish Wikipedia, one member of the so called Council joined the same chat, as if no one noticed. How can editors feel safe in such circumstances? As some may or may not know, in Wikimedia LGBT we have members that come from countries in which being LGBT is considered a crime, so having safe spaces is extremely important and the failure to maintain them can mean actual real world harm/jail for people. It is clear to us that at the moment we have failed on that regard and have thus decided to stop accepting new members in our safe space chats for the time being until we can come with new guidelines that would prevent us from being fooled in the future. So no new members for the time being as users are scared that the safe spaces could/are being violated. This is the level of damage that has been done to our community. Worse of all, this is happening just a couple weeks before our Wiki Loves Pride campaig, in which we usually get the biggest influx of new collaborators.

Even now the situation is still evolving, as can be seen here[36], Meruleh has created new suck puppets and she has basically confessed in her "farewell letter" that her intentions were always to disrupt the project[37]. Based on all of this, I kindly ask the U4C to permaban Meruleh in all Wikimedia projects and to remove advanced permissions to the other users involved in the Discord channel, as violations of the UCOC in those chats are clear and some of them betrayed the trust of the Spanish Wikipedia community. We want this drama to be over so we can focus on regaining trust. And I do agree that the ban of the involved users happened too fast and that admins should have waited a bit more, but I also think that this has been an exceptional occurring that caught everyone off-guard. Best--Freddy eduardo (talk) 23:12, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Other feedback (RageJam)

Galahad (talk · contribs) i'm going to ask you something. You mentioned you'll be the first to request Meruleh's account verification. Did you know Meruleh has a puppet account on eswikivoyage?

According to this verification request on Meta, Meruleh and Kiwumi are the same person. Kiwumi's account mentions someone else. I don't see Meruleh certifying that it's your fake account. That would be a rule violation in your case. If you don't block that account, then you're part of the 'discord'; you're complicit in their illicit acts. Even Meruleh mentions Kiwumi as a third person who supports Wikivoyage modifications.—RageJam (talk) 01:02, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Other feedback (strakhov)

Let me get this straight: what... the... I did not want to participate in Meta in this long-term trolling charade but here we go. Today 22 May 2025 Galahad blocked Meruleh and their sockpuppet Kiwumi. While involved in several UCoC threads, he apparently had time (Wikiviajes 2.5) to lead a proposal aimed to "restructuring Wikiviajes" (including blocking policy and flags issues) developed by Galahad, Kiwumi and Meruleh. That was launched on May 20. This all happened way after several sockpuppets of Meruleh were discovered, and after Galahad being questioned for his policy changes in Wikivoyage with regard to administrators. Kiwumi account's first edit in Wikivoyage dates back 16 May 2025. Galahad has been involved more than a decade in Wikimedia Projects and holds several advanced permissions. And he has no suspicion of a 4-day-old account submitted by Meruleh amid all this breakdown with a "red" user talkpage. This is way beyond suspension of disbelief. Global ban Meruleh and Galahad and close this as soon as possible. strakhov (talk) 05:27, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Other feedback (Svartava)

Just noting that per Special:Permalink/28816092, LaQuimeraAlegre is technically unrelated to Meruleh according to checkuser information. – Svārtava (tɕ) 09:37, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Other feedback (Ruy)

No puedo mantenerme al margen después de la intervención de Sonoko Konichi/Meruleh, cuyo solo uso de la cuenta Sonoko Konichi en este caso me da la razón al expulsarla de eswiki por uso abusivo de títeres, y que nuevamente demuestra la falta de respeto y la burla reiterada de esta usuaria con los colaboradores de los distintos proyectos Wikimedia, incluyendo a los miembros de este Comité, y quiero responder respecto a los sucesos relacionados con eswiki. Desde mucho antes de su expulsión y particularmente después de su fallida candidatura a administrador, Meruleh ya había atacado reiteradamente a los administradores de eswiki acusándonos de "abuso sistemático" sin motivos aparentes y sin dar pruebas concretas, lo que incluso le acarreó un bloqueo de 1 semana por comportamiento disruptivo y faltas a la presunción de buena fe antes de ser descubierta como titiritera. Luego, mi resolución fue que desestimaba el caso, no que lo rechazaba; sin embargo, considero altamente probable que Meruleh sí utilizó inteligencia artificial para redactar artículos, tanto por el análisis realizado por otro usuario involucrado en el tema de la IA como por el comportamiento disruptivo/vandálico de esta usuaria, aunque como lo señalé en mi resolución no se puede asegurar totalmente esta situación basándose solo en el análisis de la redacción del artículo, y siendo la prueba adicional o circunstancial en este asunto el comportamiento de la usuaria. Ruy (talk) 17:03, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Update: como posiblemente muchos usuarios se habrán dado cuenta, en mis intervenciones sobre este problema en eswiki solo me he referido a Meruleh y no a los demás usuarios acusados. Señalo esto por dos razones:

1. Reafirmar lo que yo considero como prioridad de primera necesidad para los distintos proyectos Wikimedia, expulsar globalmente a Meruleh y a sus títeres de manera inmediata ya que fue su comportamiento el que inició toda esta disrupción a través de varios proyectos, incluido Meta-Wiki;
2. Mantenerme al margen del asunto de Discord, ya que es un asunto que realmente no me interesa y que prefiero evitar mientras me sea posible hacerlo. Ruy (talk) 16:45, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

LaQuimeraAlegre

I recently conducted an investigation into certain irregularities related to the use of Telegram and their potential impact on Spanish Wikipedia. When I brought these issues to the community's attention for review, following the example set by SFBB regarding Discordgate, my contributions were removed by the same user, who stated that I was "clearly a user who doesn't dare to come forward". This user later filed an SPI request, which eswiki's checkusers concluded had no technical connection. Instead of including it in a separate case, I thought it better to include it in this one.

My account was subsequently blocked indefinitely by Jaluj, who claimed that it was created for vandalism. Additionally, the content of my message was revdel by the same sysop, citing reasons such as defamation or serious libel.

What is noteworthy is that SFBB indicated I was raising legitimate concerns, suggesting that Jaluj’s rationale for action may not have been entirely accurate. This raises questions: Why did the issue, which appeared legitimate, become censored? Why was a block imposed? Why was my comment deleted and subsequently revdel’ed? (considering that there was substantial evidence connected to on-wiki actions).

Furthermore, this seems to be part of a broader pattern of conduct by Jaluj. Other examples include:

• Reverting legitimate edits: Jaluj has indicated that she reverts all edits from banned users, regardless of their legitimacy. Similar behavior has been observed on eswikiquote, where Jaluj rollbacked the contributions of a Global Sysop multiple times. According to eswiki and eswikiquote policies, rollback should be limited to vandalism only.
• Indefinite protection of community pages: Since 2023, Jaluj has protected several eswikiquote community pages without clear reasons or community consensus. Although these pages were later unprotected, the necessity for permanent protection remains unclear.

Previous attempts at a solution - (LaQuimeraAlegre)

I reviewed the Telegram groups dedicated to Spanish Wikipedia and Iberocoop and shared my findings with the community for further investigation prior to escalation. Unfortunately, due to censorship by SFBB and Jaluj, it has become necessary to escalate this unprecedented situation.

Suggested solutions - (LaQuimeraAlegre)

The situation on eswiki is escalating to a concerning level, leaving little opportunity for legitimate concerns to be addressed. Therefore, I respectfully request the u4c to consider the following actions:

• Permit me to send the evidence that was previously censored by Jaluj and SFBB without valid justification.
• Block SFBB on eswiki and MetaWiki. There was no justification for him to censor my complaint with a message with zero etiquette. He leverages the lack of established measures by U4C regarding gravedancing, which he continuously employs on eswiki to engage in inappropriate activities.
• Revoke Jaluj's permissions on eswiki and eswikiquote due to repeated abuse of authority, or place her in probation (timing to be determined by the u4c). There was no justification for her to block me indefinitely or revdel me.

Update

Each report must be evaluated independently of the sender; censoring it prevents others from being able to assess the issue. Recently, an IP reported an irregularity, and now the community is initiating a RECAB. My use of sockpuppets is solely to protect myself from potential repercussions, as others have experienced before. For example, SFBB requested the increase of Polux's ban simply because he reported Jaluj’s brigading on a RFC, which was an inappropriate action. I am willing to disclose my identity to the u4c if necessary. But SFBB doesn't have the necessity for censoring nor for asking for sanctions (especially when you censor evidence that affects multiple eswiki sysops).

Farisori: The evidence and the actions in question pertain to events from 2021, 2022, and 2025 (not all of which I have shared), but these are the incidents that had the most significant impact on-wiki. Additionally, Jaluj’s recent actions on my account also warrant investigation, as they occurred less than a few hours ago. The fact that SFBB censored this incident, and your justification of his censorship, is concerning.

In fact, it's quite worrying that eswiki sysops try to cover up a sysop who misuses their tools just to prevent the number of sysops on eswiki from falling. That can be solved by having established rules and lowering the bar regarding the extremely high requirements for being a sysop, not by impeding a community process by generating fear.

After assessing the irregularities surrounding my censored comment, I suspect there may have been intentional coordination between Jaluj and SFBB. Specifically, at 4:59 PM UTC, SFBB deleted my message; at 5:05 PM, Jaluj blocked me; and at 5:06 PM, she concealed the message. The timing of these actions appears to be highly coordinated. If SFBB seeks information regarding my main account, I would note that its handling of Discord conversations—despite requests from u4c—raises concerns about its impartiality. Two checkusers have independently verified my identity, and neither maintains any technical connection to the individuals they frequently accuse. As I previously stated, I will only disclose my main account if u4c requires it; however, I can confirm that it remains active across all projects and has not been blocked.

Following SFBB's request, presumably to eliminate any suggestion of collusion, the eswiki sysops classified my actions as merely "a report about possible irregularities in Telegram." If this was indeed a report, why was I subsequently blocked under the justification of "account created to vandalize"? Furthermore, if the evidence was substantive and supported by on-wiki situations, why was it concealed under the label "Serious defamation or libel"? Since the case pertains to the "Situation in Spanish Wikipedia," it is pertinent to also include the incidents occurring within the Telegram group to provide a comprehensive overview.

It is understandable that the consensus among eswiki sysops was to withhold this information from the community; nine of them have direct ties to "Telegramgate," which likely influenced the decision to suppress the details. This suggests a potential bias or sabotage. I am filing this complaint to highlight the apparent double standards: those involved in Discordgate faced severe sanctions without regard for the outing, while those associated with Telegramgate, including SFBB, appear to be actively seeking to conceal and silence relevant information—evidenced by SFBB's selective investigation that favored his own interests, such as not reviewing the votes supporting the RFA on eswikiquote.

In the coming days, I will share the Telegramgate information with the u4c, as it has been securely backed up. These types of situations have been ongoing for several years; one such incident occurred quite recently, coinciding with this RFC. Although it is unrelated to the main case, it highlights concerns regarding the impartiality of eswiki sysops when it comes to issuing sanctions.

Other feedback (UA31)

I'm mentioned only in indirect form in es:Wikipedia discusión:Revalidación de bibliotecarios/UA31, but I want to contextualize the situation here.

My deadmin process was iniciated with supossitions, without much evidence, only coindicental evidence, this "evidence" descontextualized, simply some errors listed and encompassing a very large period of time. The mayority of against votes were for causes no related to the opening causes. Certain users commented against me and this influyed other users. Many active community users didn't wote in any manner.

I never had any voluntary blocks or admin warnings or resolutions agains me. No attempts for other solutions were made, directly the process was initiated.

Im eswiki are much less admins than necessary. I, in my last actions, for example, retired the bot flag to accounts with the autorizations expired for over 2 years. I was a bot controller years ago and when the autorization expired, the flag was removed inmediately, this was in December 2016, almost 9 yeard ago. when I was elected in June 2015, were 78 admins active, now only 51, with a bigger wiki in all aspects. This is the symptom of great problems in the proyect, especially against admins. In the last couple of years very few candidatures were succeful and many deadmins were for inactivity, reducing the avaliability of users with admin privileges.

This is a scructural problem and requires profound changes in eswiki.

I hope that my messaje be useful in this case. Goodby to all participants and U4C members. UA31 (talk) 23:52, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Other feedback (Marcelo)

• Sinceramente, a esta altura estoy cansado de perder el tiempo en este asunto, así que no me tomaré el trabajo de escribir en inglés: puedo hacerlo, dentro de ciertos límites, pero me llevaría un tiempo que no pienso gastar para responder una argumentación falaz como la del usuario Zerojosefer. Quien quiera traducirlo, que lo traduzca.

Uno, no tengo un conflicto de intereses con Ud., usuario Zerojosefer, ni con el usuario Linehalt. Tengo un ligero conflicto de intereses (lo conocí personalmente e intercambié con él dos palabras) con Pólux, sobre quien varias veces me negué a decidir ni a opinar. Tengo un conflicto de intereses con los dos saboteadores principales, Galahad y Meruleh, expulsados de Wikipedia por su comportamiento vergonzoso y tramposo, ya que tuve con ellos una discusión. Pero no tengo ningún conflicto de intereses ni con Ud. ni con el usuario Linehalt, por lo que estoy absolutamente autorizado a responder sus solicitudes de desbloqueo. Y Ud., señor, no elegirá el bibliotecario que debe atender su caso ni el de nadie más.

Dos, si va a informarle algo a comité, hágalo completo, no citando solamente la parte que parece respaldar su argumento; mi mensaje completo en la solicitude de desbloque de Linehalt fue:

«No has sido bloqueado por sabotaje sino por «por celebrarl (sic) el accionar del grupo y apoyar explícitamente prácticas que violan nuestras políticas, como el uso de títeres no declarados». Por lo demás, es evidente que la norma que citas está obsoleta, y correspondía a una época más naïf, donde no existían miles de usuarios expulsados deseando vengarse, ni coordinación externa de acciones disruptivas acompañadas de insultos. Efectivamente, ya se está hablando de revisar esa política, pero para hacerla mucho más severa, incluyendo la posibilidad de expulsiones. En todo caso, tu bloqueo no fue por sabotaje en el sentido en que tú lo mencionas.»

Como se puede ver, no desestimé una política oficial -que, dicho sea de paso, nunca fue votada como tal- sino que rechacé ese desbloqueo porque no fue solamente esa la razón por la que fue bloqueado y porque no veo ninguna razón para disminuir su bloqueo, ni él argumentó nada más que esa razón en su solicitud. De paso le informé que esa norma claramente será modificada a corto o mediano plazo, porque nos deja indefensos ante ataques como aquellos en los que Ud. participó, usuario Zerojosefer. Que tenga buenas noches. --Marcelo (talk) 04:53, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Translation

• Sincerely, at this point I am tired of wasting time in this matter, so I will not take the trouble of writing in English: I can do it, within some limits, but it would take me some time that I do not intend to waste to respond to a fallacious argument like user Zerojosefer's. Whoever wants to translate it, may do it.

One, I do not have a conflict of interest with you, user Zerojosefer, nor with user Linehalt. I have a slight conflict of interest (I met him personally and interchanged two words with him), with Pólux, about whom I refused to make a decision or give an opinion multiple times. I have a conflict of interest with the two main disruptors, Galahad and Meruleh, expelled from Wikipedia for their shameful and deceitful behavior, as I had a discussion with them. But I do not have any conflict of interest with you nor with user Linehalt, for which I am absolutely authorized to respond to your unblock requests. And you, sir, will not choose the librarian who must attend to your case nor anyone else's.

Two, if you will inform something to the committee, do it fully, not only citing the part that seems to back up your argument; my full message in Linehalt's unblock request was:

«You have not been blocked for disruption, but for celebrating the group's actions and explicitly supporting practices that violate our policies, like the use of undeclared alternative accounts». For the rest, it is clear that the norm that you cite is obsolete and corresponded to a more naïf time, where there were no thousands of expelled users wishing to take revenge, nor external coordination of disruptive actions accompanied by insults. Indeed, there is already talk of revising this policy, but to make it much more stringent, including the possibility of expulsions. In any case, your block was not for disruption in the sense that you mention.»

As you can see, I did not dismiss an official policy -that, by the way, was never voted as such- but I rejected that unblock because that was not the only reason why he was blocked and because I do not see any reason to reduce his block, nor did he argue anything else than that reason in his request. I also informed him that that norm will clearly be modified in the short or medium term, since it leaves us defenseless against attacks like those in which you participated, user Zerojosefer. Have a good night.

Translated by--Luigi Nakano (会話) 18:47, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Other feedback (Bromoxido)

As a new sysop of eswikivoyage, I just wanted to clarify a few things that have been mentioned. It’s not accurate to say that only eight people can vote—actually, 27 members have the ability to vote. You can see this information on this page.

And I'd like to point out that no eswikivoyage sysop is beyond reach—there are three ways to remove someone, and stewards can step in and remove sysop bit if there's an urgent situation. If there hasn't been a case like that on eswikivoyage, then there's really no need to request any removal. Bromoxido (talk) 06:49, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Other feedback (Luigi Nakano)

I regret having to write this message, as I had hoped to remain uninvolved in this situation. However, I’m deeply concerned about the current atmosphere in eswiki and feel compelled to request a temporary injunction for the well-being of all involved.

My concern lies with certain comments made by users outside the formal case process, particularly regarding the Discord issue. These remarks, instead of helping resolve the matter, only deepen tensions within the community and risk escalating the conflict.

I want to be clear that I am not necessarily accusing these users of misconduct or suggesting they be sanctioned. Rather, I believe their actions — even if unintentionally — have contributed to a worsening of the situation and should be avoided during this case and in similar future cases.

In the case of Jaluj, she posted a comment in a Village Pump thread that was unrelated to the Discord situation, venting frustrations in a context meant to discuss a different issue. Due to Meruleh being the causer of both the discussed issue and the Discord situation, it was linked to it. Regardless of whether she is right about the users she refers to, these comments only foster more resentment and do not contribute to resolving either conflict. In response, Pólux felt compelled to defend himself against Jaluj's comment, leading to a chain of reactions that escalate the conflict.

In the case of SFBB, he made a comment in the same thread reproaching Pólux. Also, in a previous thread, SFBB had brought the fact that his report in the librarians' noticeboard had been unattended for almost a month, which is valid, but in the same comment, he accuses Pólux of "laughing in front of the faces of the people that were insulted and sabotaged in those chats". Again, regardless of whether he's right or wrong about Pólux, such exchanges are unproductive and further inflame the situation. In particular, SFBB’s remarks claiming Pólux was “laughing in the faces” of those affected and him misusing the fact that his temporary block expired just because he returned to his normal editing after the expiry of his temporary block seem clearly uncivil and unfounded, especially considering that Pólux's edits are not being disruptive and he is just minding his own business, with there being no policy or injunction that suggests that he should not be editing normally while unblocked during the case procedure or the librarians' noticeboard report resolution.

Given this, I believe it’s best that involved users refrain from commenting on this conflict outside the U4C case pages or relevant conflict-resolution threads (such as the librarians’ noticeboard). Therefore, I recommend that the U4C issue a temporary injunction ordering involved parties and other participants to the case to limit discussion of this conflict to the corresponding formal venues. Additionally, I recommend that the U4C establish a general guideline for future cases, ordering participants to avoid making public commentary on ongoing cases outside of the U4C case pages or other relevant conflict-resolution threads.

Kind regards.--Luigi Nakano (会話) 00:35, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Clarification

I know that with this addition, my section will be more than 500 words and I therefore hope that it can be allowed, or if it cannot, then a U4C member can just remove it and tell me what the correct process would be to request more words.

The eswiki process and the U4C process, while separate, are very closely related and I consider that maintaining calmness within the situation that is being treated in the eswiki process is part of the interests of this process with the U4C, which is why I requested the injunction in this process, which is most formal, active and superior in competences.

I requested that involved users refrain from commenting on anything related to the conflicts of the case (including what is being treated in the eswiki process) outside the formal venues. This implies that there would be no problem by presenting comments, arguments and evidence in the corresponding thread where the formal process in eswiki is being treated, which is the thread in the librarians' noticeboard (TAB, acronym in Spanish). The Village Pump threads like the one regarding Antón Francho are not part of the formal process (maybe the Village Pump threads that are clearly about the Meruleh/Discord situation could be considered part of it, but that's up to the U4C or the librarians) and I don't see how ordering involved users to refrain from commenting on the conflicts of the case outside the formal venues would be harmful to the resolution of the eswiki process, since nothing would prevent them from making the appropriate comments in the corresponding threads where the eswiki process is being carried out.

Now, SFBB disagrees with what I wrote, and that's fine. He expressed his disagreement in the U4C case page, which is perfect. However, this (and the rest of comments he added subsequently) I believe was unnecessary and unproductive, and I also believe that by doing that, the main person he harms is himself. Regarding what he says about my comment claiming I'm defending Pólux, the thing is I believe that his comments in that thread are not the only thing that should be avoided, but what led to them should also be avoided. The problem is that I don't think we can tell Pólux that he should stay silent when there's a comment in which he believes is being involved (especially when it's not really an argument or evidence presenting, but a venting). However, he should probably have approached Jaluj in her talk page to request the clarification instead of doing so in the VP thread to avoid deviating from the thread's topic.

I won't say anything else about Pólux's actions regarding his comments or his editing. I said what I felt compelled to say. Regarding his actions with the "council", I won't say anything, but if he needs to be sanctioned for it, so shall it be, but that's up to the U4C and our librarians. I pray for the best resolution in both processes.--Luigi Nakano (会話) 16:52, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

P.S.: I need, however, to further clarify that I'm not totally defending or ignoring Pólux's actions in general. I have to agree with SFBB that in some of his comments here, he has incurred in WP:SUELO and addressed some of SFBB's comments with fallacious arguments and lacking context. Gotta make this clear for SFBB. I may not condemn his normal editing or his need to respond to Jaluj, but on the rest of things, there are things that I cannot defend and lots of things I do not intend to talk about since I'm really lacking a lot of knowledge about it, as with the rest of the "council".--Luigi Nakano (会話) 18:30, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Discussion between the involved parties and the U4C members

Only the involved parties and U4C members may edit in this section.

• @User:Galahad can you please check the parties list? User:Linehart is not existing on eswiki and I don't think this user is involved. Please fix the name so that we can complete local notification, thanks. --Civvì (talk) 08:44, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Solved. Galahad (sasageyo!)^(esvoy) 10:01, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

• @User:Galahad since you resigned from server administration who is/are the current administrator(s) of the Comunidad Wikimedia Discord server? --Civvì (talk) 08:48, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Control of the server was de facto held by FlyingAce; however, she also resigned, and authority was handed over to A09 as interregnum admin (who will step down once new admins are elected). Galahad (sasageyo!)^(esvoy) 10:01, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

• @User:Barkeep49:If you decide to move forward with this particular case, may I request that it be unified with the other case? The reason is that both cases are deeply intertwined and while Galahad and FlyingAce are involved parties in this case, Meruleh is not. However, Meruleh still holds advanced permissions on Wikivoyage (even if only temporarily and solely at Galahad’s discretion, who can grant such permits to whomever he decides, even to suckpuppeteers).SFBB (talk) 17:07, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

  I'm very uninterested in examining the pieces around renaming and the like that are a core piece of the other case. I feel like the parts that overlap are already present here, but yes I agree that things relevant to the core questions of this case that were presented there should be looked at. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:17, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

@Barkeep49 I agree, but then Meruleh should also be added to this case. She's a key piece in the whole discord issue.SFBB (talk) 19:06, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

• I don't think Meruleh should be included. If that case is to be dealt with, it should be handled elsewhere. On the other hand, I find it disturbing that [SFBB is] trying to change my words: In [SFBB's] answer, [they] said that the candidate (eswikiquote's candidacy) should be proposed by me, which is false (by the way, [SFBB] deliberately omitted the fact that three support users had exactly the same number of edits as Zafkiel, but [they] decided to ignore it). [SFBB] say I used my GS attributions on eswikiquote, and that's also false. Now [they're] saying that I even grant permissions to sockpuppets? TThat there shouldn't be diffs to prove it, or is it allowed to say any accusation on air without suffering consequences? Galahad (sasageyo!)^(esvoy) 19:34, 20 May 2025 (UTC) words in [ ] were edited by me so comments address the U4C rather than other parties. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:44, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

  @Farisori: The same user confirmed what I'm saying. --Galahad (sasageyo!)^(esvoy) 19:40, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

  @Galahad: False. Taichi said he wasn't affected by the insult. That doesn't mean the insult didn't exist. The insult also reveals a motivation toward my RECAB very different from that of Taichi, reflecting the sabotage attitude. I also believe Meruleh should be included in the case. The coordination of this case has been led by both Galahad and Meruleh. Farisori (talk) 19:53, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

I certainly do not wish to engage in a discussion here, because of en:NOTFORUM. However, due to the direct allusions made, I allow myself to clarify the following before the Commission:

a) As I'm (or we're) seeking a global ban on Galahad, Meruleh, and FlyingAce, not including Meruleh in this complaint would certainly result in another case (her role in the Discord chat and across multiple wikis certainly merits it). For reasons of procedural economy and out of respect for the Commission’s time, I believe that case should also be addressed here.

b) I clearly wrote "grant such permits...to suckpuppeteers" not "suckpuppets" (even though I'm also convinced of the latter; more evidence surfaced today from the discord chats). Even though Meruleh confessed she's a suckpuppeteers in the Discord chat (Horcus), even though it was uncoveres by the CUs (Sonoko Konishi and Pequeño Monstruo), Galahad - having absolute power in eswikivoyage - keeps harboring her as a temporary sysop [38].

c) I'm not "deliberately omitting" anything. I'm not an eswikiquote user (I actually became familiar with the case via meta, in the section where permits are requested when I run into Laura's name; it was about the time when 3 eswiki sysops lost/gave up their permit), but I checked the situation, and it was obvious to anyone even slightly familiar with the rules and regulations that the way Galahad annulled the voting was irregular. This is even more concerning because he was clearly in a conflict of interest. And of course, he acted in his capacity as a GS, because the only local sysop is completely absent, and consequently, the authority to annul votings rests entirely on the shoulders of the GS. I only discovered the irregularity in Zafkiel's vote after uncovering the Discord chats it was mentioned by Freddy Eduardo in the village pump [39]. I have not reviewed the other voters in that vote.Sorry for that, I got a little bit confused about the way I learned about Zafkiel's mysterious vote. But what holds is that I've not checked the other voters in that vote.

d) While I have already organized most of the information related to the support Meruleh received by the Discord group after it was uncovered that she was a sockpuppeteer, as well as about the sabotage orchestrated in the Discord chat regarding the admin recall vote of Farisori (this was uncovered after Farisori's administratve decision), I have not yet organized the information related to the inter-wiki sabotage (and older stuff; as I'm barred from accessing the old chats in the discord server I have to work with hundreds of images and that is really slow). However, at this point, it is convenient to upload the following chat, as I believe it may help refreshing Galahad’s memory.

Here he's seen conspiring about an eswikiquote vote with Zafkiel. I'll translate

Zafkiel: I’m worried about Wikiquote. The community it has is really toxic, like the level of those from LOL.
Galahad: Precision in terms: There is no community. Two or three, the others are soldiers of the reina polenta.
Zafkiel: True.
Galahad: They just come, vote, cause chaos, and then leave. And they back off when you show them the crucifix (UCoC).

Needless to say that reina polenta is the derogatory name he calls her Laura Fiorucci.

I hope that direct allusions and half-truths stop here, and that the sides limit ourselves to providing new evidence. SFBB (talk) 21:34, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Excuse me, I have a question about the list of users: Why the User:Althair was omitted from this discussion if he also appeared here? He apparently had much less responsibility and involvement in the Discord server, but his opinion also deserves to be heard, having witnessed the conversations. Best regards, Farisori (talk) 09:55, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Note also that the reason I blocked Galahad was to be aligned and coordinated with Meruleh. Meruleh was blocked before for the use of meatpuppets, but she is part of the same case, as SFBB says above. Sincerely yours, Farisori (talk) 10:09, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Just a reminder that the title of the section is "Discussion between the involved parties and the U4C members". The discussion here ends now, feel free to continue on the talk page, thanks. --Civvì (talk) 13:02, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

• Galahad, to me a self-denunciation looks better only if it is complete and sincere. I hope there won't be much added by others because you did not preselect? --Ghilt (talk) 11:14, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

  @Ghilt: I agree that the story should be told fully, without half-truths; that screenshot alludes exactly to this situation (another thing SFBB omitted to mention, along with the votes in favor on eswikiquote that he conveniently has not reviewed, nor will review, otherwise SFBB would have already come to the conclusion about what is stopping the stewards from giving the flags and not the misperception of my regular user (not GS, since, I insist again, the Global Sysops policy establishes that we have no more power than any other user in the community) annulation based in policies (which I removed not long ago)). The local administrator did nothing to stop the situation, and I indicated that, as a normal user, I would report u4c. From then on, the conversation paused, as the vast majority of messages were not related to the proposal but directed at me or Meruleh. This is the same situation Zafkiel_GD alludes to (who can confirm this). Regarding what Darwin said, I considered it to violate point 2.1 of the UCoC; not at all to silence him, but that he made his comments more constructive ("if Wikivoyage isn't trustworthy, what should we do to make it so"). But I apologize for how it was interpreted; I would never try to use the UCoC to threaten. In fact, after the conversation, no one except me directed questions to enwikivoyage, where the topic was discussed at length (and many agreed that for Wikivoyage issues, users with experience with the project should be included in future conversations). Even the organizers of that conversation expressed interest in including them in the future. Galahad (sasageyo!)^(esvoy) 14:04, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

  I confirm what Galahad said regarding eswikiquote (just look at the dates), and i want to add something else: @SFBB, you mentioned that i crossed out my vote for plotting against Farisori, and although i explained the reasons, you don't believe me. Well, maybe this will convince you. Here (please add a "c" before ".kr", the filter is preventing me from put the full link) my conversation with Meruleh that day, when i say: "everything written by Taichi" is what is in here and here. Zafkiel GD | Talk 19:35, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Adding to what SFBB said, in which he indicated that I had complete power over eswikivoyage (which is also false), I would just like to mention that the eswiki issue shouldn't be extended to eswikivoyage if there wasn't any abuse in the latter. We originally had plans to implement a process to improve Wikivoyage in six months, but due to the current situation, it was brought forward to a vote today. I was actually thinking of supporting Meruleh on her confirmation, but after a screenshot that was indirectly shown to me, you can see where I stand now.

Regarding the comments of "reina polenta" and "doñas", it is part of the general comments in which I apologize deeply and regretfully, and that it will not happen again. --Galahad (sasageyo!)^(esvoy) 14:53, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

@Galahad a refusal of a proposal does not justify mockery in a public space called "Comunidad Wikimedia" of which you were administrator and "it will not happen again" would be maybe acceptable by a new unexperienced user but I do not consider it acceptable in this situation. There is no mention of the changes you proposed back in 2021 on eswikivoyage to be a temporary measure, I am wondering what was the issue that was intended to be addressed by that proposal. I do not find previous discussions nor do I find a flood of "disruptive" or frivolous nominations to be stopped with urgent and temporary measures. I do not understand the need to suspend the process to nominate/elect permanent sysops indefinitely. In my experience this really seems to be unprecedented. And I am also wondering what "We originally had plans" does mean? Who is "we" and where can we find a link of the discussion about these plans? --Civvì (talk) 15:24, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

@Civvì: Indeed, mocking is wrong, but I think I'd like to emphasize that it wasn't because of the rejection of the proposal, but because of the comments of some voters: [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45] (and there are only a few). Now, regarding eswikivoyage, it was first an approved change, not due to disruptive or frivolous requests, but because temporary rather than permanent sysops were needed lately (the Global Sysops support me with maintenance tasks, which supports my point). Each policy has been subjected to community review, and it is the community that has reviewed whether it is in their best interest or not. This proposal is the one currently being discussed including, as promised, my revalidation and Meruleh's (by the way, she just resigned and retired, while her confirmation was still ongoing, after the situation Ghilit mentions below).

I'd like to add that, following Althair's message, I've requested access to the archived chats to share everything without reservation. Is it better to share them here or privately with u4c?

While I remain indefinitely blocked on eswiki, it's being mentioned again that I abused my authority as a GS. I've repeatedly explained that I didn't cancel Laura Fiorucci's candidacy as a GS but as a regular eswikiquote user, and the administrator, or failing that, the eswikiquote community, could have easily removed my cancellation. The real problem is the suspicious votes on that candidacy and that SFBB is once again diverting the topic. I subsequently removed the cancellation then there is no point in continuing to pursue the subject, especially for the reasons already stated above. It might be worthwhile for the U4C to review that situation as well, specifically if it's unprecedented for an administrator to change or create policies without community consensus. Galahad (sasageyo!)^(esvoy) 16:33, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

@Galahad for sure my Spanish knowledge is not enough but I do not read insults or mockery in those comments, I only read people expressing opinions you probably did not agree with. As for the election in es.wikiquote I really do not understand the issue, the candidate was not a user who came out of nowhere or had questionable behavior so what is the point to clinging to loopholes to prevent the election of a trusted editor who is ready to help in a sister project? --Civvì (talk) 17:35, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

@Civvì: Can you please request Galahad to stop making direct allusions to me and stop perverting my diffs (both being absolutely unnecessary to answer your question) or at least grant me the possibility to reply. SFBB (talk) 17:43, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

@Civvì: I would like to better understand the situation. According to U4C, the eswikivoyage case appears to be considered incorrect, despite the fact that the same community votes—sometimes easily overruling policies or proposed changes. However, on eswikiquote, isn't it problematic for policies to be altered without consensus, especially when votes are cast by users who have been inactive for years or have not contributed edits to the project? This is the core issue delaying the proposal—it's not about my involvement, but rather about the legitimacy of the voting process. The concern is not whether the behavior is appropriate, but whether there is a need to inflate the numbers in favor; as mentioned in SRP, even zero votes can be enough for granting flags.

In fact, if all suspicious votes—both supporting and opposing—were invalidated, the outcome would be 8 to 2, which still exceeds 75%. Under such circumstances, the stewards would have no grounds to delay addressing the eswikiquote issue further. I mention SFBB here because it is the only way I can defend myself against the accusations on eswiki. This situation also exemplifies the issue of gravedancing, and it appears that only votes against the candidate have been thoroughly examined, while suspicious votes in favor have not been scrutinized. Galahad (sasageyo!)^(esvoy) 18:06, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

@Galahad please, let's not play rethorical figures :-) so far the U4C has not said anything so there is no "according to U4C". Let's make a step back to your previous comment, can you please point me to what parts of those comments made you feel you had to react that way on Discord? --Civvì (talk) 18:59, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

I want to be clear. This case has been declined by some members (but yet not enough to close it) because its core issue involves renaming and other related processes. In my acceptance of this case I note that I see it as cross-project. So I would absolutely expect evidence from at least eswiki and eswikivoyage to be a part of it and it would not surprise me if other espanol projects, including eswikiquote, also end up being part of this case. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:43, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Civvì: I'll allow myself to answer your questions and defend myself against the evidence in a few days because of this. Is that okay with you? Best, --Galahad (sasageyo!)^(esvoy) 02:30, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

@Galahad please take all the time you need. If you would like to take a break (and I would support this) feel free to do it, feel also free to reach out privately to the committee if you think this can help. --Civvì (talk) 11:13, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Meruleh popped up in another context today: Checkuser. Giving her socks user rights. Ghilt (talk) 16:05, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

• Can any of the U4C members add Althair as one of the parties? Thanks.--Daamu32 (talk) 16:04, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

  Done, Ghilt (talk) 16:38, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

  Dear Ghilt, Civvì, or other U4C member: I'm concerned that, after this and SFBB's request to include Muraleh here as well, she has decided to leave Metawiki, leaving a message on her user page that, in my opinion, sounds like someone's mockery goes away without any regrets. Even more, it threatens a return with another puppet/false account. I give a translation (thanks Rubýñ):

Hi, I'm Meruleh.

Well, this is a farewell letter for my global userpage. Given what has occurred, I've decided to give up all my advanced permissions.

First of all, I want to leave clear that this wasn't because of you all [plural you]. In fact, I already had planned doing it as part of a modernization plan... six months from now. But such a circus was made that you [plural] ended up expediting the process for me. So, well, thanks for that. Really, I'm very thankful.

From today, May 21, 2025, at 13:00 (UTC-3), my account will stop being in operation. I won't have access anymore, nor do I have the intention of logging in again. I tried to ask for a global ban, but it wasn't possible. Anyway.

This was a great adventure. I had fun, I laughed and I'll keep laughing until the end of days. Thank you [plural] for being part of my adventure. You've given me back more than 35 years of life.

The community needs to be careful with who it trusts and who it decides to support. It's dangerous to give blind support to people that, being health professionals, end up attacking others. Just... be careful. Trust, but with judgement.

I specially thank Geógrafo23, my mentor during these short years, who helped me convert my plans into a total success. Thank you, love.

Y also thank Wikiviajes [Spanish Wikivoyage], a great project that opened the doors for me and let me grow.

And well, as we'd say in my country: too much text.

This is my farewell, little kids. We'll see each other at a next one. I reemerge as an earthworm... I even multiply!

Bella ciao!

Given his history, I think it's reasonable to be suspicious of his promise not to return, but to do so under a new identity. That's why I request that she be included in the list as well, so that she isn't exempt from potential sanctions. Best regards. Farisori (talk) 21:35, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

•  Comment TBH, I share your concern. Moreover, in my opinion she doesn't really promise that she won't come back, but she promises that she won't come back as Melureh but as another user (or so I understand from the ending). Daamu32 (talk) 21:47, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

• SFBB now that we have access to the server can you please email us (u4cwikimediaorg) specifics around the allegations you made in your initial statement? I am unclear about what eswiki and the global community consider OUTING for Discord with authenticated accounts and so I would like to avoid public posting of information. But also you make serious claims and it's important for the U4C to consider the evidence behind those claims. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:10, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Barkeep49 Sorry for my late reply, but I also have a job and a family, and I’ve already been dedicating way too much time to this issue over the past few weeks. I promise to provide a more detailed response later this week.

However, just to clarify the issue: since names in Discord servers can be changed at will and are not necessarily linked to the actual Discord account, sharing screenshots of a Discord chat does not "out" the actual the account behind it. I have been very careful with this matter, and in all the images I’ve shared, I’ve paid close attention to fully respect and uphold the principles of the EU-GDPR. Also, even though we are dealing with public chats, I have only shared information that serves a legitimate purpose and have done so in a proportionate manner, always with the aim of protecting the privacy of the individuals involved.SFBB (talk) 18:10, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

If there's a screenshot of Foo talking and you tell me the wiki identity of Foo that's OUTING even if that editor now edits under a different name. Given a discord server where people have to authenticate I think things get more complicated; for a number of reasons I don't just want to apply enwikis decision on Discord here. I appreciate the follow up and look forward to seeing the evidence. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:46, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Not exactly, because within the Wikimedia server, different authenticated accounts can freely change the name that is displayed. So while the accounts themselves are authenticated, the visible display name is not — it can be modified at any time. In fact, during this situation, there was a point when six different accounts in the Server going by the name Meruleh.

In any case, I have shared — and will continue to share — screenshots of users and indicate which Wikipedia accounts are behind the statements when necessary, as this is essential for taking appropriate action. This practice is entirely valid under all applicable regulations because (i) the chat in question is publicly accessible, and (ii) the purpose is legitimate: to expose acts of sabotage and violations of Wikipedia policies (and in eswiki we've had similar cases in blogs in the past, and the method used to expose them was the same; hence usus fori; the eswiki community certainly stands behind these methods). Given the seriousness and extent of the misconduct that occurred in an openly accessible channel, its exposure to the eswiki community — as well as to other Spanish-language Wikimedia projects — is fully justified. SFBB (talk) 19:08, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Please note that UCoC does not prohibit these methods, and not all of these cases fall within the scope of U4C. Therefore, the eswiki community retains the right to make its own decisions regarding matters and cases that lie outside the jurisdiction of the U4C.SFBB (talk) 19:12, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

If you want to share these screenshots on eswiki for whatever parallel enforcement that community does and that is OK with the eswiki community I agree that is likely something the U4C would not get involved with. However, for this case before the U4C you have made strong claims and under our rules there is an expectation you back up those claims with evidence. I am asking you to provide that evidence privately so we don't have to make a ruling about the OUTING involved here because that seems like a poor use of time given the serious matters before us. As you are implicitly stating different communities can reach different decisions about this and so trying to come up with the right answer globally - especially one that may be influential for local communities making their own decisions about this - is going to be hard. I'd like to focus on the heart of this matter rather than spend time on this OUTING detour. So I asked for you (and others) to err on the side of privacy by emailing us the evidence while leaving up the public statement. But if that really isn't acceptable to you I think you could push us to make a ruling. In that case I genuinely don't know what we'd decide - we haven't discussed it and I'm not even sure where I'd land - and I don't know if we would let the unsupported assertions stand while we deliberate that ruling. What I do think it would do is delay us from our final decision about the case itself and I think that would be unfortunate. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:39, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

No. Certainly I do not want you to lose time in discussion about that. I fully agree with you. I’ve been organizing the evidence in eswiki specifically for the purposes of eswiki. What I was thinking is to refer you directly to that case page. I would provide a translation, and from there you’ll be able to access all the images. There are so many screenshots and pieces of evidence that I don’t think it’s feasible to share them all via email. SFBB (talk) 21:06, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Barkeep49, Ghilt, Civvì, or other U4C members. I request that after my objection (see above) point 2 of Zerojosefer's statement be be struck from the record (not deleted as it's proof of his lies, but struck), as it's a false baseless accusation made that suggests a violation of EU law (which goes way beyond this proceeding) and it cannot be allowed to stand unchallenged in this proceeding. SFBB (talk) 17:36, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

@SFBB Zerojosefer has accused you of a specific act and provided a screenshot to support that accusation. Truthfully I don't see how that screenshot shows what @Zerojosefer claims, but that does not mean it must be struck as a lie or a legal violation. In fact, your claiming it's an EU law violation, something Zero does not claim, raises the temperature. Further right now you have made allegations unsupported by any attempt at evidence and I see that as a bigger problem than Zero's statement. Ultimately I will be revision deleting it because of my ask not to post more screenshots from Discord for privacy reasons, but it is past the time for you to either email us evidence of your claims or strike them. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:17, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Barkeep49 First of all, if you take a look at my "Clarification" or take a look at the logs, you'll see that the supposed leak happened before I joined the server, so unless I could travel in time, the claim is 100% false.

2.- I'm not "raising the temperature." Due to job-related responsibilities, I have to deal with the EU-GDPR and enforce it within my faculty. What Zerojosefer describes would be a serious breach of that regulation (it's a punishable offense) and could have serious consequences for me if it were proven true — which it is not. I'm very much concerned about that false claim and the consequences it may have for me outside wikipedia (the allegation of such a serious breach, would certainly result in a temporary suspension from my GDPR enforcement duties).

3.- I have a job and I have a family. The discord admins have done everything in their command to obstruct investigation by preventing community access (while keeping access for the "council"). I have to work from ca 1 GB in images (and about 1k different files) that do not allow me to search efficiently. It takes hours/days for me to organize the material.

4.- What we have here does not compare to any case you've seen before (it's a lot). Your suggestion to send the evidence by email is completely unrealistic, because it’s simply unfeasible (well, unless you expect me to prepare a document dozens of pages long; we're talking about more than 100 selected captures plus text accompanying them) — and I’m not going to do it that way (wikipedia is not my job; it’s something I do voluntarily).

For the past two weeks, I’ve been organizing the evidence on eswiki (I’ve spent countless hours on this), fully complying with eswiki’s internal policies and usus fori, legal regulations, and the UCoC. I haven’t finished yet, but a large part is already available (and if you take the time, you can already review it now).

At your request, I haven’t included the link to eswiki here, and I’m not going to — because doing so would just be a way to circumvent your request, and I don’t think that would be ethical (note that preparing the material in eswiki started way before you requested not to share the captures here). Once everything is ready, I’ll send the link via email (so that it's not openly accessible here), along with automated but proofed translations.SFBB (talk) 18:50, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Or alternatively it you do not want a link to eswiki, you could provide a closed wiki environment. But again, sending everything by email isn't feasible without lots of extra work on my side (and this leaving the size issue aside). SFBB (talk) 19:04, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Ad 4: you can use wetransfer or any other dropbox for uploading/sending many screenshots. What we need to process your claim is evidence. Then you can simply point us to the few images that support your allegations. Ghilt (talk) 19:04, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

• Barkeep49, Please clarify whether participating in someone's confirmation constitutes a conflict of interest. Farisori repeatedly dismisses my comments as lies and claims a conspiracy based solely on messages; the AGF is a two-way process. Additionally, I seek clarification from the Committee on how to interpret that the same person I did not support in his confirmation—though I didn't vote against—executed my block after the process was finalized. Farisori's dismissive response, labeling my comments as lies, initially deterred my public participation when the same thing happened with SFBB and Galahad/Daamu32. I am uncomfortable with this pattern repeating.Zerojosefer (talk) 21:25, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
• Cognisant that this message may get lost in the discussion here, can all parties please refrain from making statements on the motives of others? I'm referring in particular to accusing other users of lying - you don't know their intention, and using such language only enflames the discussion. Instead of saying "User X is lying", say something like "I don't believe that what User X said is entirely correct, because [evidence]." There are so many references to lying in the discussion already that I don't intend to clean it up, but on a go-forward basis I may simply revert comments that do not meet this standard with an encouragement to reformat them. – Ajraddatz (talk) 23:33, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

• @User:Zerojosefer unless you have evidence (link to specific screenshot) of the disclosure of your email address I ask you to remove that allegation from this page asap, thank you. --Civvì (talk) 07:06, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

  @Civvì Done, I can't find the screenshot so I can't substantiate it. In any case, I note that this incendiary pattern occurs in this thread. At no time did I accuse him of any crime, I was only pointing out a situation. (in addition to continuing to do gravedancing and continue publishing conversations, which at this point I don't understand the difference between publishing them on Meta-Wiki or on Wikipedia in Spanish) Zerojosefer (talk) 09:58, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

@User:Barkeep49 if you read Requests for comment/Coordinated Abuse and Misconduct by Across Multiple Wikimedia Projects in Spanish, you will find several screenshots translated into English. I discovered that there is some that disappeared (strangely also the pages created by Meruleh disappeared from web.archive, making some links provided no longer useful) and that is why I am showing it to you here with the translation.

(image redacted. see this)

--Jalu (talk) 16:22, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Jaluj noting that the U4C retains access to your evidence. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:28, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Barkeep49, Ghilt, Civvì, or other U4C members: LaQuimeraAlegre is a user whose first edit ever was to present a very detailed denouncement (that did not affect me at all) about sabotage via Telegram (a communication channel I’ve never used) in the Village Pump on eswiki. I deleted it with the following argument: “evidentemente un usuario que no se atreve a dar la cara” (eng: obviously a user that does not dare to show their face). I don’t even oppose such things being investigated, but they cannot be denounced by a sockpuppet. And now we have the same "user" here requesting my global ban...the members of the commission will know how this sounds. SFBB (talk) 02:57, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I feel it's also necessary to add that: 1) the events that this "new" user LaQuimeraAlegre alleges about Telegram occurred in 2021, 2) the fact that she appears writing here is irrefutable proof that she has to do with this coordinated Discord group, and 3) Correct me if I'm wrong, but the accusations made there have absolutely nothing to do with this ongoing case. Farisori (talk) 03:14, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. We will discuss it. Ghilt (talk) 06:41, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

@Ghilt, you should know that, at that time, the administrator of the Telegram group was Galahad, he was an administrator until May 15, 2025. This account, LaQuimeraAlegre, that appears reporting and is placed at the top of everything, does it have any other contributions to any project? Everything he/she says is false and has already been proven on eswiki. Moreover, unlike Discord, Telegram is completely transparent, and you don't need to be a member of the group to read everything that's discussed. The account was blocked because it was created exclusively to make spurious accusations, disruptive actions, and vandalism, as it had written completely false defamations and libels. --Jalu (talk) 13:59, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello Barkeep49, Ghilt, Civvì, Ajraddatz, Luke. Excuse me, but I've a question. Is it correct that this new account, LaQuimeraAlegre, created his own discussion in the case, and not in the Other Feedbacks section like the others? Best regards, Farisori (talk) 15:12, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

I would like to clarify that, to the best of my knowledge, the U4C has access to view deleted contributions. Therefore, it would be appropriate for them to assess the validity of the accusations independently. For the record, I served as a admin of the Spanish Wikipedia group alongside -jem-, Jaluj, and Ezarate. However, regarding the incident on June 11, 2021, I was neither an administrator nor a member of the group at that time. Galahad (sasageyo!)^(esvoy) 15:26, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Farisori, everyone may do so, if they think they are directly involved. Ghilt (talk) 15:37, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't intend to create a forum here, but I needed to respond. The validity of my words is based on the evidence I have, not on the number of edits or time I've had as volunteer. If I don't take the first step and lay out the whole picture, no one will. LaQuimeraAlegre (talk) 16:10, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

In case the U4C has not been informed, SFBB has requested an update on the sentences on eswiki. Daamu32 (talk) 10:30, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Indeed. Two weeks ago, precautionary measures were taken due to the damage the matter was causing on eswiki, based on one of the six lines of inquiry in the case (which, as I mentioned, was the least serious, but the easiest to organize and present). It was made clear that the measures would be re-evaluated once the full information was available.

Given the complexity and extent of the investigation (and how difficult it is to work with several hundreds of image files stored separately — with issues of file size and resolution that even prevent me from merging them), it has taken me two additional weeks to complete the work. I have followed the proper procedures on eswiki to pursue sanctions within our project. Upon concluding the investigation, I have now requested definitive sanctions in view of the six main lines of inquiry in the case.

This process (U4C) does not necessarily involve all participants from the eswiki process, since in some cases the situation can be handled merely with local sanctions — which some of the involved parties have accepted. That said, due to the presence of UCoC violations, all involved individuals have the right to join this process if they deem it appropriate.

I will now begin preparing the English version for submission to U4C, but this may still take some days, as we are talking about more than 5k words (in Spanish), 90 screenshots, and many links to diffs across Wikimedia projects.SFBB (talk) 12:06, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

@Barkeep49, @Ghilt, @Civvì, @Ajraddatz, @Luke: Two requests based on due process and fair trial:

1.- LaQuimeraAlegre has admitted to being a puppet. By basic principles of due process, I have the right to know who is accusing me and requesting a ban against me. Otherwise, I request that their testimony be withdrawn.

2.- LaQuimeraAlegre has accused me of censoring them without valid justification and having requested a SPI on them. By basic principles of due process, I have the right to know the evidence against me in order to defend myself. Unfortunately, after my reversion, this has been hidden. I requested on the RAA of eswiki that the diffs motivating my actions (both currently hidden) be made available to me so I can prepare my defense (namely, I mean the diff by LaQuimeraAlegre and the diff in Galahad’s PU where similar accusations were made — I cannot provide the diff's identifiers as they are hidden and not visible to me). However, this was denied by Geom on the grounds that the diff does not mention me. This justification is clearly absurd, since I am being accused of deleting it and requesting a SPI (which has nothing to do with the message itself), and it misses the core issue that I have the right to know what I am being accused of. Therefore, I request that U4C demand that Geom or another eswiki sysop provide me with that evidence, either directly or through U4C, so that I can prepare my defense. SFBB (talk) 18:41, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

SFBB, this is a discussion related to the enforcement of a code of conduct on a website. This is not a trial. Most people here edit under a pseudonym, so it is highly rare that anyone would have the right to know who (as in the confirmed identity of a natural person) is accusing them. I am also not particularly concerned to get into related eswiki drama over this. My colleagues may disagree, but I would highly recommend that you take a step back here and let others discuss. Rest assured we will balance the evidence submitted by parties appropriately. – Ajraddatz (talk) 19:03, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Ajraddatz Obviously, I am not requesting to know the real-life identity of any user — of course not. However, if a user has admitted to being a sockpuppet of another account, it is entirely reasonable to request that the actual account behind the sockpuppet come forward. Allowing someone to make accusations or initiate actions such as ban requests while hiding behind a sockpuppet undermines the principles of transparency and accountability. This is not an accepted practice on any major Wikimedia project.

And second: I understand that you may not wish to get involved in eswiki "drama." However, this is a formal proceeding before U4C, and accusations are being made against me. Therefore, I have the right to know the nature of those accusations and to defend myself accordingly. I've been requested to provide a statement by email, and that's what I'm trying to do. SFBB (talk) 19:17, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

@User:SFBB and all other parties. U4C members are monitoring all case pages so we are kindly asking to please not ping us for every addition to a case pages, thank you. --Civvì (talk) 19:06, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

@User:Galahad and all other parties. Revision of your statements is possible by striking them through and rewriting them, but please do not change the content of the sections. Thanks. --Civvì (talk) 14:31, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

I collapsed my previous suggested solutions, is that ok? :-) Galahad (sasageyo!)^(esvoy) 15:07, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, Ghilt (talk) 16:17, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

@SFBB: have you provided the U4C with a link to the evidence you have to support the claims you've made? If so I have missed it. If not, I have really tried to verify you claims around Discord chats being used to scuttle the election of Laura Fiorucci and I can't find evidence of that (including something that looks like people deleting messages about it). The limited evidence I can find suggests that Galahad's decision received mixed reviews from the server members. It is possible that what I have is incomplete but your delay in providing evidence is harming our ability to evaluate these claims because of log expiration. I don't really care where the evidence is hosted, just that you provide us links to that evidence privately. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:11, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

you asked me not to link it here...so check your email. SFBB (talk) 18:42, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Apologies. We did indeed have it. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:53, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

• Geo23 requested on the IRC help channel that his name be removed from Meruleh's user page, as he never helped or advised Meruleh. Althair (talk) 21:25, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

@User:Althair They can request that to meta admins here Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat. --Civvì (talk) 21:42, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I indicated it here since it was related, I just ordered it on the indicated page. Althair (talk) 21:55, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

• I would like to inform the u4c that SFBB stated he had "never personally attacked an editor." However, during the presentation of the investigation results, he characterized FlyingAce as a coward and called me a liar. Despite a u4c member requesting that such epithets not be used and not sharing additional discord chats, it has been demonstrated that SFBB tends to select words to justify his actions, possibly taking advantage of the lack of eswiki policies regulating this behavior.
  

When there is no conclusive evidence, he said:

1. About Galahad: "For sabotage, insults, conspiracy, manipulation, etc. He should never be able to return"
2. About FlyingAce: "for being a coward in her role as moderator".
3. About me: "For directly lying and communicating falsehoods at the finish line. For falsely accusing me of a criminal offense".
4. Regarding Polux: "Expulsion for participating in the 'council,' for conspiring and advising on sabotage actions, and for attempting to undermine Jaluj's RfC." (Note: Polux only reported on the bridging work Jaluj was involved in, leveraging her position within the community. It appears that SFBB allows individuals who support him to act as informants). Zerojosefer (talk) 02:22, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

I respond here to direct allusions by Zerojosefer (and remind him that this area is for interaction with U4C; not to spread falsehoods):
1.- Obviously, I accused you all of violations of wiki policy. It’s an ANI report, following the established rules by eswiki, in which I am requesting that tgey all get expelled after making my case. What did Zerojosefer expect? "I request that he get expelled, because he is a great contributor?"
2.- Again, Zerojosefer is being untruthful. I never accused FlyingAce of being a "coward" I wrote: "en resumen: por ser una pusilánime en su rol de moderadora." (eng: "for being pusillanimous/faint-hearted in her role as moderator"). Note that there is a clear difference between coward (spa: cobarde) and pusillanimous/faint-hearted. Also, there is a clear difference between accusing someone of being a coward and criticizing their behavior as pusillanimous/faint-hearted in a specific situation.
3.- I did not call Zerojosefer a liar but claimed he was lying (again, there is a difference there). Maybe I could have said falsehoods, but when someone spreads tons of falsehoods with a ventilator (as I’ve shown in my statement from 23.06 and here once again), it’s very hard to keep assuming good faith.
4.- I do not know what he means by the "finish line". I never claimed anything like that.SFBB (talk) 21:44, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello! I wasn't planning on commenting here any more but seeing as SFBB has accused me of "wikihounding" without providing any evidence of it, I feel the need to. I've never talked to them and I don't have any interest in interacting with them outside of this situation. They also state that I was "digging through [their] edits on a different language project" when I never did that. All references I made about the user are based on their edits on eswiki. Could the U4C please ask SFBB to provide links with evidence to said "wikihounding"? Otherwise, I would like that comment to be struck. Thank you, --Pólux (talk) 04:55, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

For the U4C's consideration: I was pinged once again by SFBB on the Spanish Wikipedia today. Although SFBB claims to be the victim of "Wikihounding," the user continues to single me out on eswiki, claiming that my coming back to editing after the block means that I'm "laughing in everyone's faces." This is the eighth time that SFBB has pinged me during this situation (#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6 and #7, with #3-7 being done while I was blocked). The constant pinging and critiquing of my voluntary work on the project is pretty discouraging as an editor, so hopefully a solution can be found soon going forward. In the meantime, I'll proceed to ignore the user. Best, --Pólux (talk) 23:16, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Just to clarify this point: For transparency purpuses, I always (unless requested otherwise) tag any user I mention (similarly, I considered it distasteful to be mentioned without being tagged). I mentioned Pólux several times (as well as other users involved in this case), but tis has again always been in the context of this case and the denounces associated with it. I know very well what full-scale wikihounding is (I suffered it for about a year), and I did not claim this was it - but it comes clos (I said it was "in the neighborhood"). It involves a series of actions that have nothing to do with this case: inspecting my edits in other projects, bringing up unrelated edits to criticize me ad hominem, analyzing past blocks (which are completely unrelated, and even misrepresented), mentioning my use of Latin expressions or my native language, or pointing out how many edits I made in a given time period. None of that has anything to do with this case. And while it may not constitute full-scale wikihounding, it certainly includes the "following" element that defines it.

That being said, if Pólux prefers not to be tagged, so be it. But I will certainly continue mentioning him in the context of this case, as it remains unresolved (the expulsion of 7 users has been requested at eswiki-level). I'm quite convinced that the sysops are waiting for the resolution of this broader case before taking local and more focused actions on eswiki. SFBB (talk) 00:20, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm responding to Farisori to clarify something important. I only found out that Sonoko Konishi and Horcus were Meruleh's puppets after they were expelled. So I never hid any puppet from anyone.--Linehalt (talk) 02:31, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

• Sysop Marcelo's decision to ignore the current WP:NSW policy—despite it being in effect—is an arbitrary violation. He dismissed the policy as "outdated" and "naive," despite no formal repeal or revision through Wikipedia's consensus. Farisori blocking user Linehalt for three months and citing WP:NSW as justification, then dismissing it, undermines policy enforcement and sets a dangerous precedent. Proper procedure requires initiating a formal revision, not unilateral disregard.
  Marcelo’s conflict of interest—being involved in the eswikiquote issue and seeking sanctions during the six-hour complaint—compromises his neutrality. Farisori’s pattern of dismissing comments in this case does nothing to resolve the situation. Active policies, whether current or outdated, must be followed; they are not open letters for abuse. The policy even warns against applying rules vindictively, which amounts to sabotage. I hope the u4c don't ignore this, otherwise they will be allowing an abuse of powers.Zerojosefer (talk) 19:08, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

• Greetings. I'd like to express my concern about the way user Sonoko Konishi/Meruleh is speaking about RageJam; it's inappropriate to use such epithets in this regard.

It would be helpful and welcome to moderate the conversation and discuss it civilly, at least for the remainder of the matter between the parties involved. Zerojosefer (talk) 00:51, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

• I'd like to inform the U4C about this new situation on eswiki: After the revelation that Anton Francho's death was fake (which is in extremely poor taste, and no one should play with something so serious), a thread was created to resolve the situation locally. In that thread, accusations from Jaluj have been made, such as:

burlándose de nosotros, insultándonos y acosándonos mediante títeres e IPs en distintos proyectos y en blogs externos

eng version: mocking us, insulting us, and harassing us through puppets and IPs on various projects and external blogs

la siguen en Discord

eng version: They follow her on Discord

Note, Jaluj takes a screenshot of the Discord server in which the last message from the now global banned user before voluntarily leaving

festejan cada una de sus crueldades

eng version: They celebrate each of their cruelties

Note, the screenshot shows the same thing as the previous one, except for the fact that "QuimeraAlegre" appears saying that Etermax is Meruleh in spam form, to which I ping A09 to expel her.

Varios, como Zerojosefer, que ha acusado a Farisori ante el U4C de haberlo bloqueado violando las políticas de Wikipedia

eng version: Several, like Zerojosefer, who has accused Farisori before the U4C of having blocked him in violation of Wikipedia's policies

Note: WP:NSW states bans should last no more than one month and no rules should be enforced vindictively. Imposing a ban longer than a month or refusing to unblock afterward violates this policy, regardless of intent.

Galahad que se victimisa diciendo que por nuestra culpa está deprimido

eng version: Galahad who plays the victim saying that it's our fault he's depressed

The denial of my mental health status, like the Anton Francho fake death, is in poor taste. The OUTING and GRAVEDANCING continue on eswiki, but these serious accusations lack strong evidence; the screenshots' interpretation is flawed. U4C should consider this, as dismissing mental health and fueling anxiety is unacceptable from anyone (especially from a sysop like Jaluj). Thanks to Farisori for preventing derailment, but U4C should also review the thread in question for their discussion. Best, --Galahad (sasageyo!)^(esvoy) 17:24, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Perdón por escribir en español. Pero vengo a aclarle algo a SFBB. Meruleh ya no sé encuentra en el servidor y recien tuvimos una conversación en el server repudiando todo lo que hizo (la U4C se encuentra en el servidor y puede confirmar que lo digo es verdad). Sinceramente todos nos sentimos engañados por esta usuaria, pero bueno, fue un total error asociarnos con ella. En mi caso, me alegro que haya recibido un baneo global luego de jugar con la muerte de otra persona. Linehalt (talk) 18:34, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Come on Linehalt don't take us for fools...according to the captures that have just been shared in eswiki, on July 6th Meruleh was still on that server and on July 5th LaQuimeraAlegra/Bromóxido was still celebrating her actions. Did you just dicover it was a mistake associate yourself with her, once U4C dedided on the global ban? SFBB (talk) 18:54, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

You went from calling us "liars" to telling us not to "treat you like fools"—it's the same thing. Where in the screenshot does QuimeraAlegre praise Meruleh's actions? Her only comment was "MERULEH ETERMAX" on July 9th. Meanwhile, you and Jaluj claim we celebrate Meruleh. Where does the screenshot show we explicitly states that? Don’t misuse the u4c, assuming no one can read or translate the screenshots—it's all accessible, and they know what we've discussed. We regret sympathizing with her and being too lenient in our comments, especially after her recent claim that Anton Francho's death was a lie—an overstep of two unforgivable boundaries: denying a death and questioning mental health. As U4C has repeatedly urged, please drop the stick. Enough is enough. Galahad (sasageyo!)^(esvoy) 20:29, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Addenda, you said about Polux:

volviste a editar como si nada hubiese pasado a espaldas de todo el mundo

translation: You went back to editing as if nothing had happened behind everyone's back.

Isn't that the point? Focusing on editing content rather than muddy debates best demonstrates change, as over 70% of our contributions are in the content space.

Galahad (sasageyo!)^(esvoy) 20:35, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Please do not take my text out of context. I was criticizing the misuse of the expiration of an interim measure while the main case is still under consideration. That being said, I will not respond to any of your claims about Discord/Meruleh. I will let the evidence speak for itself.SFBB (talk) 20:43, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

@SFBB If you are going to decide what the case should include, what the interim measures are, and what others cannot do once those measures expire, then perhaps the eswiki community and the U4C should step back and let you make all the decisions. Please stop dragging this out; you've already made your point quite clear. The U4C can decide which requests they will consider and which they will not. There's no need to label someone’s comment as nonsensical.-- BRP ^ever 10:53, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

@BRPever: I guess you missunderstood my comment or I did not explain it clearly. Of course, you can use whatever you deem pertinent. That's obviously you're right. What I consider non-sensical is the request that interactions between parties be only limited to U4C, while there is other different case going on on eswiki (and it was eswiki's case's interim measure that expired and allowed Pólux to return and to antagonize Jaluj). There are two cases going on here, and resolutions in one process should not stand in the way of progress in the other (particularly when this process only tangentially involves Pólux’s case and does not request any sanctions against him).SFBB (talk) 11:09, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Maybe sanctions haven’t been requested because they’re deemed unnecessary. I find a lot of elements of this case immensely overblown, and adding to it here doesn’t really help. I’m personally requesting that you not add any more comments that will add little or nothing to this case. One more discussion related to this case is just one more thing U4C will need to consider, which will drag this on even more. (If you look at the page stats you have made most edits to this page and have most bytes added here.) BRP ^ever 11:28, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

@BRPever: Of course, it's been me who has made the most comments and added the most bytes. That's only natural. It's me, who uncovered the Discord case, it's me who made all the captures, it's me who has been (and still am) receiving (privately) a lot of denounces/information from users who do not want to get dragged into this, it's me who's been constantly attacked ad hominen (mostly false claims and from fully unrelated issues) to damage my reputation so that the evidence I'm bringing forward is discarded. I did not seek this, but it's clear that I ended uo in the eye of the storm.

A second: There are two cases going on in parallel, and you can’t expect me to hold back on one just to speed up progress in the other. Just as I’ve been providing new evidence in this case - nowadays mostly because other users share information with me, and I’m able to piece it together using what I already know —, I also have a responsibility to provide evidence in the other case as well. SFBB (talk) 12:11, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

And of course. Sanctions are not requested here against all users involved in the discordgate, because they're deemed innecesary (that's also my view, and I'm only requesting sanctions for selected users here). However, the eswiki case is a completely different story (it only affects that community), and obviously the sanctions being reuqested there differ from the ones being requested here (also the rules there differ from the rules here, even though UCoC applies to both). Different scopes, different rules, different cases. It's only logical that both cases must progress in parallel. SFBB (talk) 12:18, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello @BRPever: just clarify that the other accusation in question is this, of May 19, and that it is not unnecessary or exaggerated, at least on es.wikipedia. If it were, it would have been dismissed long ago. Obviously (I speak from my perception as Admin) the U4C decision is being expected to decide how to address it. I have no intention of doing so because I was the one who approached the previous one, which led to this eternal accusation in Meta, paradoxically initiated by Galahad. That said, I agree with you that the arguments are already practically exhausted and have been exposed more than in detail.

@SFBB: if you had contributed more context to your comments, in the es.wiki Café and here, it would have helped avoid misunderstandings. Not everyone is so aware of both processes.

For my part, I have only continued to intervene to deny misrepresentations or faults to the truth by the accusers, to reveal about bad practices that continue and aggravate the facts, or clarify aspects that seem relevant to me, such as this. As long as there is no definitive decision, it is evident that unfortunate events will continue to be developed (which shows that the global blockages requested are not exaggerated).

Best regards, Farisori (talk) 13:15, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

@Farisori I have been aware of it, but SFBB's participation in this case has been so massive that it overshadows anything else. I had go through the whole case in the last few days and I can't help but complain that once you (SFBB) have made your point, you should let others do that too. Eswiki can handle things at their end ofc, but we do not really need a spokesperson who seem to represent a mass of unknown users here. Also it's really annoying that he felt it necessary to underline it to point it to me.--BRP ^ever 14:42, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

I understand. Thank you very much for the clarification. Best regards! Farisori (talk) 16:43, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

@BRPever: I'm not a spokesperson representing anyone. But you seem to be forgetting that this is an enormously complicated case, and the large majority of users do not have access to the information (as you – U4C – or I have) because access was suspended. So, when they find something out, they don’t know how to piece it together, so they've been bringing it up to me (and it's also not a “mass of unknown users”; I just counted and we're talking about 7 users who provided me with information in private).

I get that you count the messages and see... oh... again a comment by SFBB, but what should I do? Tell them, Yeah... that's interesting and with the info I have I can make sense of this, but let's just forget it, because BRPever prefers that other users bring the evidence forward (even though they can't piece the pieces together)? Or if another user comes to me with info and says: 'Look what I found, but I don’t want to get involved in that charade and be scrutinized in front of hundreds of eyes'? Again, should I just say: Let’s forget about this, because I’ve brought too much evidence forward?

And above all (if you count my contributions, the large majority have been to defend myself from ad hominem attacks which are mostly false and unrelated to this case, for the mere purpuse of discrediting the evidence I'm bringing forward): what should I do? Let them stand uncostested in front of hundreds of eyes that are reading here and eating popcorn. Sorry but I'm not doing that. If you do not want this, it would have been U4C's job to moderate and filter out (false) accusations that have nothing to do with the case. Registered accounts have a reputation, and I guess we can all agree, that such things are not OK.

And of course, I know I'm not helping my case by antagonizing you, but really, I'm very much frustrated with the lack of moderation/intervention by U4C in this case, while my account has been used like a punching ball with completely unrelated issues. SFBB (talk) 17:16, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

U4C decision

Only U4C members may edit in this section.

U4C member discussion

• As we continue to address various aspects of this case, I am wondering what role we should have with the discord and telegram groups and their governance. I think my view at the moment is that we should not be concerned with who is in charge of the particular discord - there is no restriction on who can create or join a discord server related to Wikimedia, so if the eswiki community wants to start a new server under new management, they can. Absent active UCoC violations, I think our focus should be on the outstanding issues related to eswikivoyage, which increasingly looks like the personal fief of a few users (broadly contrary to section 3.2 of the UCoC - abuse of power). – Ajraddatz (talk) 20:17, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Accept votes

1. This case combines nearly all of the reasons that the U4C exists: it involves people with advance permissions, it involves multiple projects (eswiki, esvoyage, and because of GS meta at a minimum), it involves accusations of harassment, and much of the evidence exists off wiki. I I'm still trying to understand the situation, but I understand enough to know that this is a case we need to accept. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:20, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
2. I would like to have a closer look at this conflict. This is the second request around it that we have received. --Ghilt (talk) 19:45, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
3. The sentence in the first line is already enough to accept the case. --Civvì (talk) 13:20, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
4. – Ajraddatz (talk) 19:03, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
5. This conflict needs a closer look, we need to investigate in the situation and get a full picture of the situation. I also support the motion regarding the investigation of the audit-log of the discord server, but at time the vote was done, I was busy with work. Luke081515 22:18, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
6. --Ibrahim.ID (talk) 17:57, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Motions

U4C members may propose motions to resolve the case or as a temporary measure during the case.

✅ Passed Motion— Date: 2025-05-22

---

This motion will go into effect if/when it gets 5 supports
The U4C requests access to all historical messages and the audit log on the eswiki Discord server.

•  Support --Civvì (talk) 08:17, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
•  Support Barkeep49 (talk) 20:21, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
•  Support Ajraddatz (talk) 20:58, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
•  Support --Ghilt (talk) 21:28, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support 0xDeadbeef (talk) 02:39, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support --Ibrahim.ID (talk) 17:56, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

✅ Passed Motion— Date: 2025-07-08

---

This motion will go into effect if/when it gets 5 supports
On 12 May, a request was submitted to the U4C by User:Meruleh. The request was declined because the U4C did not find any violation of the UCoC in the evidence provided. On 20 May, the current request was submitted. Using evidence described in the two requests and other evidence collected and received by the U4C, the committee has decided to divide the case into several parts and address them one at a time. With regard to user Meruleh/Sonoko Konishi, there is evidence demonstrating the following activities:

• Misleading use of multiple accounts on eswikipedia, eswikiversity, eswikivoyage, enwikipedia, meta-wiki
• Abuse of user rights on eswikivoyage
• Disruptive behavior in several wikis using multiple accounts
• Canvassing on Discord and interference in community procedures on Meta (SE2025)

U4C Actions

• User:Meruleh/Sonoko Konishi is globally locked. This applies to all accounts. The lock may only be appealed to the U4C.

•  Support --Civvì (talk) 18:12, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
•  Support this highly disruptive abuse in several places needs to end. Also, I was unhappy with several misrepresentations by Meruleh. --Ghilt (talk) 18:21, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
•  Support I hadn't even realized that Merulah (etc.) was the person behind the account involved in the revenge opposing incident. Ridiculous behaviour all around and not compatible with further participation in these projects. – Ajraddatz (talk) 19:16, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
•  Support dbeef (talk) 05:03, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
•  Support--BRP ^ever 05:05, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

📥 Voting Open— Date: 2025-07-11

---

This motion will go into effect if/when it gets 5 supports
On 12 May, User:Galahad submitted the current request. Using the evidence from the two requests concerning eswiki and other evidence collected and received by the U4C, the committee came to the conclusion that with regard to user Galahad, there is evidence demonstrating following activities:

• Interference in a community procedure on eswikiquote. Galahad's inappropriate closure of the discussion prevented the assignment of userrights after an election with an indisputable result.
• Improper behaviour off-wiki, including repeated insults and inappropriate remarks against eswikipedia users in the Discord server Comunidad Wikimedia.
• Enabled the use and abuse of multiple accounts by Meruleh on eswikivoyage.
• Misuse of advanced permissions and roles.

U4C Actions

• Removal of advanced permissions on eswikivoyage, which may only be reapplied for after two years from the date of removal.
• The user is prohibited from requesting or receiving any advanced local or global permissions across Wikimedia projects for a period of two years.
• The user is prohibited from participating in any committee or moderation role for the same two-year period.

These actions may be appealed to U4C.

•  Support --Civvì (talk) 13:57, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
•  Support Too much power abuse. Also, the recent eswv isolation attempts (changing local guidelines to keep certain people out) have not gone unnoticed. This is going the wrong way. Eswv needs to be open to additional users. --Ghilt (talk) 14:20, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
•  Support I find myself sad to be supporting this motion. Despite our finding of facts above I want to be clear that I think Galahad has done a lot of good and it is never pleasant for me to have to support sanctions against such a long time editor who has given so much of themselves to various projects. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:03, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Updates

This section is used only by U4C members and official designees (including WMF staff who support the U4C) to provide updates about the request.

• This request has been seen by the U4C. --Civvì (talk) 08:23, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
• The U4C has been granted the access requested by our 22 May motion by eswiki Discord admins. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:14, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
• The case was accepted by the U4C and is now in the investigation phase. On behalf of the U4C, Luke081515 22:20, 31 May 2025 (UTC)