Jump to content

Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Cases/2025/Spanish Wikipedia Abuse

Add links
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
This case is declined. If you have comments or a request to have it reopened, post a comment on the talk page.
Parties
Parties Notifications
—MERULEH 23:48, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply] Filer (no diff required)
Laura Fiorucci (talk • contribs • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date (alt) • CA • ST) local notif.
Jaluj (talk • contribs • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date (alt) • CA • ST) local notif.
Marcelo (talk • contribs • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date (alt) • CA • ST) local notif.
Antur (talk • contribs • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date (alt) • CA • ST) local notif.
Ruy (talk • contribs • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date (alt) • CA • ST) local notif.
LuchoCR (talk • contribs • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date (alt) • CA • ST) local notif.
BetoCG (talk • contribs • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date (alt) • CA • ST) local notif.
Términus (talk • contribs • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date (alt) • CA • ST) local notif.
SFBB (talk • contribs • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date (alt) • CA • ST) local notif.
Leoncastro (talk • contribs • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date (alt) • CA • ST) local notif.
RageJam (talk • contribs • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date (alt) • CA • ST) local notif.
Mαrti (talk • contribs • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date (alt) • CA • ST) local notif.
Amitie 10g (talk • contribs • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date (alt) • CA • ST) local notif.
Freddy eduardo (talk • contribs • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date (alt) • CA • ST) local notif.
LauraFarina (talk • contribs • xwiki-contribs • xwiki-date (alt) • CA • ST) local notif.

U4C member alert: @U4C: User:Ajraddatz User:Barkeep49 User:BRPever User:Civvì User:Dbeef User:Ghilt User:Ibrahim.ID User:Jrogers (WMF) User:Luke081515 —MERULEH 23:48, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Meruleh

Description of the problem - (Meruleh)

I am submitting this complaint to U4C regarding a series of incidents starting on Spanish Wikiquote and extending to Spanish Wikipedia and Meta-Wiki, involving systematic harassment, misuse of sysop tools, incivility, UCoC violations, and abuse of power by multiple users and sysops.

Wikiquote

The issue started on Spanish Wikiquote, where I opposed Laura Fiorucci’s adminship request due to low workload and existing global sysop sysop support. Despite my opposition, the request closed successfully with over 75% support, per policy. Three days later, she filed the same request on Meta-Wiki, despite being advised to wait seven days because of an active bureaucrat.

The process on Meta-Wiki caused significant delays and raised concerns:

  • Suspected canvassing and meatpuppetry: The candidate received 14 support votes despite fewer than three active users per month; six voters had minimal or no contributions[1].
  • Coordinated personal attacks: The candidate, current admin, a suspiciously familiar new user, and a veteran editor targeted me — subjecting me to highly sexist, transphobic, and misogynistic remarks — as well as two other unrelated contributors.[2]
  • Policy manipulation: The local sysop unilaterally changed the de facto policy, affecting the candidate's application, then rollback the changes—all without community consultation.
  • These patterns reappeared when a local user proposed an admin policy reform. After I supported it, the candidate and five others voted against it and launched attacks against me[3][4][5][6]. The local admin failed to intervene.
  • I was targeted by a veteran editor who directed highly sexist, transphobic, and misogynistic comments at me

In contrast, a confirmation free from canvassing proceeded smoothly, and the result was enforced swiftly at Meta-Wiki. The candidate did not participate in that process, and no suspicious activity occurred.

Spillover to Spanish Wikipedia

Improper use of the CheckUser tool

  • Following the block, LuchoCR informed BetoCG about an undeclared alternate account. This account had never been used to evade blocks or manipulate votes during the three days that the first sanction was in force, as can be seen in my puppet's contributions). Since LuchoCR obtained this information via the CheckUser tool, I reported them to the Ombuds Commission to evaluate whether their actions conformed to the CheckUser policy and Spanish Wikipedia's sockpuppetry policy. It is important to note that undeclared accounts are discouraged but not prohibited unless misused. The policy also states that there are three prohibited situations (using it for double voting, using it to move the discussion in my favor, or evading blocks) and none of them apply, so he shouldn't have revealed the connection, much less used the checkuser tool again. The alternate account (Sonoko Konishi) was not used at all during my block, despite having IPBE, which proves I intended to comply with the (unjust) sanction.
  • Subsequently, my main account was indefinitely blocked by Ruy for "abuse of multiple undisclosed accounts"—without due process or warning. None of the accounts were used during the block, which made such escalation unjustified.
  • Another account associated with me, Pequeño Monstruo VI, had only one edit. I suspect it was just a question to the sysop if the account listed in SRP is related to her. I may have asked the question in a tone similar to that of the blocked user "Exactamente" but as the checkuser confirms, we are not the same person. Despite this, it was blocked without explanation.
  • Due to the harassment related to my renaming attempts, I placed a notice on my talk page stating I would file a UCoC complaint if it continued. This message was removed by BetoCG, implying support for the ongoing mistreatment.

Public Shaming

After the disclosure, Spanish Wikipedia users began to gravedancing—in BetoCG’s talk page and the Café.

Several users subjected me to relentless attacks and engaged in gravedancing behavior, as demonstrated in the referenced thread.

Inaction by Spanish Wikipedia Administrators

References

  1. ↑ q:es:Wikiquote:Candidaturas_a_administrador#Laura_Fiorucci
  2. ↑ However, now that it's become crystal clear that Meruleh, Horcus, or whatever name and gender this user currently adopts (having changed both as frequently as one changes clothes over the past two years)
  3. ↑ q:es:Special:Diff/485704
  4. ↑ [1]
  5. ↑ [2]
  6. ↑ [3]

Previous attempts at a solution - (Meruleh)

There was no chance for a peaceful resolution; sanctions were imposed immediately, with no room for mediation.

Suggested solutions - (Meruleh)

I respectfully request the intervention of the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) in this matter. I have been the target of sustained harassment, abuse of administrative tools—including unjustified use of CheckUser—abuse of power, and repeated incivility by both users and administrators on the Spanish Wikipedia. The situation has escalated to include the disclosure of personal information, public humiliation, and symbolic violence through hostile language, baseless accusations, and discriminatory rhetoric. These actions have had a serious impact on my reputation and ability to participate in Wikimedia projects.

What should have been resolved only by re-evaluating the articles I approved, turned into a witch hunt, a collective paranoia in which they not only gravedancing me but also distrusting all users, attenuating the collaborative spirit and forcing three users to submit to self-verification (two of them accepted by the checkusers). I don't expect sanctions against them, but rather a warning to the sysops so that this type of thing doesn't happen again in the future.

I am not requesting to be unblocked. Although I honestly wish they would revert to a temporary block instead of a permanent one. I fully acknowledge that I may have made mistakes and take full responsibility for them. My goal is to advocate for improvements in governance and conduct processes within the Spanish Wikipedia and Spanish Wikiquote. Even if I were unblocked, I do not intend to return to the project.

Laura Fiorucci

It's incredible how people who disrupt a community later become victims. I began editing the Wikimedia projects on Spanish Wikipedia (where I'm a sysop) in February 2006, and on Spanish Wikiquote in October 2010 (among other projects). Before my run for Wikiquote administrator, I never felt harassed; that changed with that run. I submitted my candidacy on March 23, 2025, I won the election and I went to Meta to ask for my buttons on April 2, and the harassment began.

  • Suspected canvassing and meatpuppetry: I've been working on projects for 19 years, I don't need to promote myself and I don't need puppets either. I explained to EPIC that I belong to many groups in the movement and that many people know me: Wikimedia Argentina, Wikimedia Spain, Wikimedianists of Bolivia, Latin American Women in Wikimedia, Wikimedia Venezuela, etc. Wikiquote's policies allow any user of the projects to vote. Meruleh, for example, had registered on Wikiquote on March 10, 2025, and after only 20 edits, she downvoted me.
  • Coordinated personal attacks: I'm going to use the same link Meruleh provides as proof that she was the one doing the harassing. As soon as a user made a comment, she came to write her defense. Were we coordinated? No, there are other coordinated attacks. The same thing happened at Wikiquote Café, here and here.

I didn't participate in the vote to remove LlamaAl's permissions because I knew Meruleh would continue to harass me, and I'm too busy for all that fighting.

Regarding Meruleh's general behavior: I've been a sysop for many years, and when there are users who are just joining and already know all the policies... and they ask for permissions and, if they're not given them, they complain of discrimination... the conclusion is that they're not trustworthy users. This person is a hat collector, she's aggressive, she stalked me, she created puppets to break the rules... and what bothers me most is that she puts on this whole show, wasting our time. Another thing that perhaps bothers me more than the show is that there are users who support her and never show their faces. The Spanish Wikipedia community feels scammed, deceived... they trusted her, they voted for her, and now that everything is exposed: we're the bad guys. I remain attentive in case you require more information. Laura Fiorucci (talk) 00:46, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Previous attempts at a solution - Laura Fiorucci

Suggested solutions - Laura Fiorucci

General ban on Meruleh from Wikimedia projects; I also suggest taking into account the evidence presented by the other defendants. Laura Fiorucci (talk) 00:46, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jaluj

There's something we, psychologists, call psychological projection, where a person attributes her own actions to others, causing interpersonal damage. Meruleh is playing the victim to accuse her real victims. Meruleh has engaged in disruptive behavior on several projects. She has done a lot of damage, at least, to four projects: Wikiquote, Wikiversity and Wikipedia in Spanish and Meta. Everything she accuses us of is what she did:

  1. Systematic harassment: In Wikiquote, a calm and supportive environment reigned (in my 10 years as an administrator, I have never had to block an active account, only vandals) but since her arrival, two months ago, she generates a hostile environment. She was never blocked for her personal attacks because we prioritize freedom of expression. She harass Laura Fiorucci on Wikiquote, on Meta and opposed to any possibility of resolving the conflict.Every time I tried to intervene to explain something to the stewards or GS, she came after me to answer again and again in bad faith, lying.
  2. Incivility: She was dedicated to make spurious accusations. When she decided to run for flags - checkuser and for bureaucrat and sysop on January 2025 - she suddenly changed her attitude and began to be nice to everyone to get votes. As soon as she lost the elections, she went back to being her usual self.
  3. UCoC violations:These repeated name changes in 21 months - Aopou, Zorvoth, Milkout, Lana del Reno, Jazpinncito, Nanu~Versace, Meruleh, Serena van der Woodsen - without taking into account Horcus, Pequeño Monstruo VI and Sonoko Konishi, were intended solely to erase her traces. On one hand, she claimed she was born in 1988 (36) and have a degree in Philosophy and Geography, a university professor, on the other hand she was born in 2004 (21 years old) and study computer science. On the one hand she claimed to be a Wikipedian editor since 2022 and on the other he claimed to have been contributing to Wikimedia Foundation projects for over twenty years. She claimed to be Argentinian and she claimed to be Venezuelan. A WHOIS search of the website she used to justify the last name change, showed it was registered from Argentina using a spam email shortly before her complaints. The domain is inactive and doesn’t link to a functioning business. There is evidence that the domain belongs to her.
  4. Abuse of power and policy manipulation: As the administrator of Wikiversity said, Wikiversity includes a page and an election system that she completely ignored. As soon as she was given the permits, she started to modify these policies without any vote or consensus from the community while using that argument to baffle Wikiquote's policies.
  5. Coordinated personal attacks: There was no canvassing in Laura Fiorucci’s vote — a long-term editor like her didn’t need it — and there was no coordination to confront Meruleh. However, recent complaints reveal that Meruleh used a Discord server to organize personal attacks, influence votes, and coordinate harassment campaigns against others.
  6. Sockpuppetry: Meruleh was already suspected of being a sockpuppet when she joined Wikipedia. She had welcomed Sonoko Konishi on Wikiversity as if it were someone else. Horcus is not her partner — the editing patterns are identical. In Meta, she ran for Global Renamer and used him to vote for herself. When exposed in a Meta UV, she lied, claiming such voting wasn't prohibited in her local Wikipedia and that the user is actively participating in the Spanish Wikipedia. Yet Horcus’s first Wikipedia edit was on December 23, the same day the account voted for her on Meta. She even used it to alter her archived Wikipedia talk page. The scandal on Wikipedia was because she used this account and others to vote her own articles as good or featured articles, that is why she requested that account to be vanished and now is a Usuario:Renamed user.

Previous attempts at a solution - Jaluj

Before any attempt at a solution, I respectfully request that User:Superpes15 provide clarifications to our community regarding his complaint against Laura Fiorucci’s election. It is necessary to explain whether his supervision of the election—on a project whose language he does not speak—was coincidental or not. According to our rules, candidates must notify the community via Wikiquote:Cartelera de acontecimientos and the mailing list. This way users find out and come to vote. If there is evidence of canvassing, it must be presented transparently. He must also clarify how he determined that "almost all votes came from users who have not been active for years, did he just happen to be passing by and decide to check the voter’s contribution history? Why he opposed a voting policy that was democratically by approved long-term users? Was his role incidental, or was he prompted by individuals — such as Meruleh — involved in coordinated interference? Because she claimed that he was involved as a member of this committee (no lo digo solo yo: un miembro del U4C ya lo señaló) and that seems serious to us, especially knowing now the conspiracy that this person has coordinated with other users.

Suggested solutions - Jaluj

The conduct of Meruleh reflects a sustained pattern of deception, manipulation, and harassment, which poses a serious threat to the integrity of our collaborative spaces. While many of us have refrained from reporting her beyond Wikipedia with a genuine desire to avoid an escalation of conflicts, this complaint and her repeated falsehoods and coordinated actions leave no room to assume good faith. It is deeply concerning that Wikimedia checkusers were reported for performing their duties, an act that appears intended to obstruct the detection of sockpuppetry. This represents an unacceptable attempt to undermine the enforcement of community norms and trust mechanisms. Given the seriousness of the ongoing violations of the Universal Code of Conduct, I urge the U4C to accept this case and apply appropriate sanctions to Meruleh and others involved. Upholding transparency, accountability, and respect for community processes is essential to preserving the integrity of the Wikimedia Movement.

Marcelo

First of all, I am not able to write short messages (each one of the accused knows that).

There's an old joke about a man driving a car, who hears on the radio about a car driving in the wrong lane, against the traffic; so he comments to himself: "One car? There are thousands!" Usually, when someone is against almost all the rest, the one who is wrong is the first one.

If the U4C needs my statement to explain why so many users (almost everyone much more experienced than the accuser) are against her actions, I really don't think it would make any difference.

This person accuses me of writing about her with sarcasm, although I used irony; well, I ironize when I'm really angry, to avoid using agresive language or insults. And I have really good reasons to be angry: this person, using the nickname Aopou, showed herself as an active and useful eswiki user and proposed herself to be an administrator in this project; so I voted her. Some other users suspected that something was wrong with her, so she was questioned about at least two issues: one of them was that she had changed her nickname frequently in the past, to what she answered that that was because she didn't take the projects seriously but Aopou was her definitive name; well, after the voting, she changed her name to Meruleh, and asked her name to be changed again a few weeks later, but the request was denied in eswiki, in enwiki the request was denied and in Meta. The other issue was that she seemed to be "hat collecting", to what she answered she was not; but after the election, she achieved two more flags in other wikimedia projects; in one of them, her flag was given by a steward, although the project usually votes their administrators. She was not elected administrator in eswiki, thanks to other peoples suspicion. Later, as I knew about her behaviour, I became very angry with myself for having been fooled by someone whose words and not reliable at all... and also whith the one who fooled me. Using (just once) a little irony in that situation is not a violation of any rule or policy.

Furthermore, that dialogue had place after a voting for a new administrator in Spanish wikiquote, which resulted in a clear approval of the candidate, after which Meruleh and other user, who had both voted against that candidate, did anything possible to prevent the elected to receive the flag.

Finally, I don't see any Universal Code of Conduct violation from any other user than the accuser herself, who is breaking them even in this message: for instance, she accuses some members of the community of sexist, transphobic, and misogynistic remarks (without mentioning who); that is completely false, and you can see it clearly in the cite she uses. For other instance, she accuses Ruy of claiming that she is "using sockpuppets to evade my block"; that's also false: it's a standard message that says "It has been confirmed that this user have used sockpuppets abusively or to evade her blocking." --Marcelo (talk) 15:02, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Previous attempts at a solution - Marcelo

There was no attempts at a negotiated solution: at least in eswikipedia we don't negotiate with puppeteers who use their suckpuppets to break the rules or to pretend consensus. --Marcelo (talk) 15:02, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested solutions - Marcelo

I ask the U4C to dismiss this accusations, which maybe will help the spanish Wikipedia to continue whith what we are here to do: not to discuss about a conflictive former user behaviour, but to create, increase and perfect an encyclopedia. Have a nice evening. --Marcelo (talk) 15:02, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Antur

Como administrador en Wikiversidad me limitaré a señalar que la denunciante solicitó y obtuvo su flag de administradora mediante solicitud en Meta. Ni ella ni el steward que aprobó su solicitud de administradora temporal tuvo en cuenta la existencia desde hace 19 años de un procedimiento local para ese trámite que fue pasado por alto. Al poco tiempo la interesada renunció al flag, un indicio más de todo lo que su forma de actuar viene produciendo en el devenir del proyecto. Wikipedia no es un proyecto de burocracia, y la forma de actuar de Meruleh no debería ser permitida en ninguna circunstancia, por controversial y disruptiva. --Antur (talk) 00:19, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Previous attempts at a solution - Antur

Entiendo que no existe posibilidad alguna de solución previa, siendo que esta denuncia constituye un abuso de los procedimientos establecidos en Wikipedia y del proyecto en general.--Antur (talk) 00:11, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested solutions - Antur

Ruy

Esta solicitud es claramente un uso abusivo de las políticas de Wikipedia y, por consiguiente, sabotaje. Creo que las declaraciones previas de los demás colaboradores acusados son suficientes para comprobar mis acciones administrativas en Wikipedia en español; solo quiero remarcar que la expulsión de Meruleh de eswiki fue debido al uso abusivo de títeres, lo cual fue comprobado previamente por dos checkusers del proyecto (LuchoCR y BetoCG), y que dicho mal uso de títeres también pudo ser observado en Steward requests/Global permissions/2025-01#Requests for global rename permissions (Aopou y Horcus, aunque en ese entonces no existían las pruebas que existen ahora para acusar a esta usuaria). En caso de que los miembros del Comité, en este punto, aun posean alguna duda y deseen realizar alguna consulta específica, con gusto la responderé.

Previous attempts at a solution - Ruy

Suggested solutions - Ruy

Expulsión global de Meruleh por abuso de múltiples cuentas y sabotaje, entre otras muchas faltas.

LuchoCR

In response to the notification received on May 12 regarding the case of user Meruleh, I would like to provide the following information, not without first pointing out that, in my case, an inappropriate use of the CheckUser tool is being alleged—an unfounded claim made by the user, which is currently being investigated by the Ombuds Commission. I have already provided the requested explanations to the Commission regarding the facts related to this case, and therefore I consider the activation of the U4C to be inappropriate in this instance, as the internal procedure has not yet been exhausted:

  1. On April 22, 2025, I was privately informed by three different users about a situation that occurred on a Discord server of one of the Wikimedia communities, where the Special:OAuth/authenticate system is used to confirm the authenticity of user accounts belonging to members of the Discord server. Specifically, I was informed that, according to the login logs of the WikiAuthBot2 bot on Discord, one of the users had authenticated with the wiki account Sonoko Konishi, then de-authenticated, and immediately authenticated as the user Meruleh.
  2. Upon reviewing the history of both accounts on the Spanish Wikipedia, I confirmed that both Sonoko Konishi and Meruleh had participated in the local vote for the election of Featured Article Candidate Administrators (ACAD). Specifically, Sonoko was the first to vote, and four minutes later, Meruleh annulled Sonoko’s vote and then cast her own vote for the same candidate.
  3. The CheckUser verification showed that Sonoko and Meruleh were technically linked (same IPs and User Agents). Additionally, the record shows that after voting, Sonoko logged out from the same IP and User Agent from which, seconds later, Meruleh logged in, revoked the vote, and voted again in the same poll. Likewise, the technical information indicated a degree of likelihood that the user Horcus (now ‘Renamed user 8b2751c3e6b48485abb753d266ea0b61’) was also a sockpuppet of Meruleh, although the User Agent was different. User Horcus had on their user page a template indicating that they shared an IP with Meruleh (previously known as User:Aopou), so I assumed good faith that they were two different people. Furthermore, Horcus had committed not to express opinions or cast votes after both accounts participated in the same votes on Meta, and even Horcus voted in favor of Aopou, a situation that was handled locally by annulling those votes.
  4. For work-related reasons, I did not further investigate, but on April 22 I alerted the stewards on the IRC channel #wikimedia-checkuser that Sonoko was an undeclared sockpuppet of user Meruleh, since Sonoko had voted in favor of MusikAnimal on the Steward requests/Global permissions page, and Meruleh had already used her account there to vote for users Oostpulus, Aqurs1, Svartava, and against user YG1.
  5. On May 3, 2025, the administrator and new checkuser of Spanish Wikipedia, BetoCG resolved a report on the administrators' noticeboard regarding a violation of the three-revert rule. The report had been filed by Sonoko against Meruleh (i.e., against herself) and user Ontzak.
  6. Considering that the self-report constituted an act of project sabotage, I informed BetoCG on his talk page that the reporting account was an undeclared sockpuppet of one of the reported users.
  7. Minutes later, user Anibal Maysonet informed and asked BetoCG about the application of the ‘right to vanish’ to the account Horcus. Horcus had requested to exercise the right to vanish using a message identical to the one Meruleh had submitted minutes earlier, despite claiming to be different individuals.
  8. Minutes later, user Mαrti informed BetoCG on his talk page that Horcus could be another undeclared sockpuppet of Meruleh.
  9. According to the logs, following that series of messages on the talk page, BetoCG performed a checkuser verification on Meruleh and her IP addresses. One revealed that Meruleh was behind the account Pequeño Monstruo VI, which had been blocked by administrator Rafstr under the summary “Long-term abuse (LTA)” for having made a vandalizing edit to user Jaluj’s talk page identical in tone, content, and form to one previously made by Pektill Retornado on user Farisori’s talk page on April 26. Pektill Retornado is a sockpuppet of LTA Exactamente. In other words, Meruleh created a vandal account to impersonate (copycat) LTA Exactamente.
  10. BetoCG filed a request on the administrators' noticeboard reporting that he had blocked Sonoko for disruptive behavior and requesting actions against Meruleh.
  11. Minutes later, user Ruy applied an indefinite block to Meruleh.
  12. Having reviewed the vandalizing edit by Pektill Retornado and confirming it was identical to those by LTA Exactamente, I performed a checkuser verification on Pektill Retornado’s account to confirm whether the finding that it was a sockpuppet of Meruleh was accurate or a mistake by my fellow checkuser. Upon reviewing, I confirmed that the account was indeed created from an IP and User Agent used by Meruleh. --LuchoCR (talk) 15:40, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the other alleged facts, the only thing I can add is that the reporting user was a candidate for local administrator and checkuser, receiving the support of many members of the community (myself included). Therefore, the revelation that she had been sabotaging the project and using alternate identities for a long time was, naturally, met with indignation within the project. In my opinion, the damage the complainant has caused to the community’s trust in Spanish Wikipedia is incalculable and will take a long time (perhaps never) to be repaired. --LuchoCR (talk) 15:52, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Additional information: Since they've mentioned it publicly, I can confirm that two of the three users who privately informed me about what happened on the Discord server with Meruleh and Sonoko authenticating and deauthenticating (point #1 of my statement) are Galahad and FlyingAce. LuchoCR (talk) 06:36, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Previous attempts at a solution - LuchoCR

Suggested solutions - LuchoCR

Having clarified all these points, I request that the complaint be dismissed, as there was sufficient basis for the technical verifications carried out on the Meruleh account and her associated undeclared sockpuppets, which were used disruptively for self-reporting, and subsequently to create a new sockpuppet account to vandalize the talk page of a local administrator, impersonating the long-term abuser Exactamente. Furthermore, the claim that I disclosed private personal information is false and the filler has no provided any diffs. to prove that claim. Stating that a user has undeclared sockpuppets is not prohibited by the policies governing CheckUsers. At no point did I reveal IP addresses or similar data belonging to the complainant, and once again, since this matter is under review by the Ombuds Commission, this report is inappropriate. --LuchoCR (talk) 15:45, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BetoCG

Regarding the false accusations against me for alleged breaches of the privacy policy, I declare the following:

1. On May 3, 2025, user Sonoko Konishi filed this complaint on the admin board against users Meruleh and Ontzak, which I resolved.

2. On May 5, checkuser LuchoCR informed me in my discussion that Sonoko Konishi was an undeclared puppet of Meruleh.

3. After analyzing the Spanish Wikipedia policy on puppet users, which states: "If a user regularly uses more than one account... they should clearly state their primary identity," I found that on user Sonoko Konishi page, far from indicating her relationship with Meruleh, she falsely claims, for example, that she began contributing "anonymously in 2024," when the record of the primary identity (Meruleh account) shows that she registered on July 28, 2022, at 10:45 PM, and days later, she began editing the Spanish Wikipedia. Considering her complaint against herself as yet another attempt to continue deceiving the community, I proceeded to block the puppet Sonoko Konishi.

4. Subsequently, I opened this report on the admin board to report the banning of puppet Sonoko Konishi and, in turn, to request a sanction against Meruleh for her flagrantly disruptive behavior. Shortly after, Sysop Ruy resolved the report, banning Meruleh.

5. Upon noticing this sanction, and in accordance with the global "CheckUser policy", which states that checks can be performed to "verify abuse by puppets and limit disruption to projects," I ran a check on Meruleh account, suspecting the existence of additional puppets.

6. Upon running the check, I obtained Meruleh IP addresses and actions. One of those IP addresses showed the user Pequeño Monstruo VI, so I immediately proceeded to review their contributions, realizing that the account had been permanently banned on April 27, 2025, for vandalizing sysop Jaluj's talk page. So, having seen the IP addresses and user agents of both accounts, I had no doubt that Pequeño Monstruo VI was another of Meruleh puppets.

7. Finally, given this information, I went to Meruleh's talk page and recorded this discovery.

Having clarified the facts that motivated the verification of Meruleh account, I request that this investigation be dismissed due to the lack of evidence demonstrating a privacy policy violation, including those from CheckUser and Overight. There was reasonable suspicion that the banned user might have another puppet hidden inside, which, as it turned out, was true.

Thank you very much and my apologies in advance if my Spanish/English translation isn't entirely perfect. BetoCG (talk) 01:33, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Previous attempts at a solution - BetoCG

Suggested solutions - BetoCG

Meruleh lying and bad-faith behavior cannot continue. This honorable committee should not only support blocking her Spanish Wikipedia account, but also request that Meruleh be blocked from all Wikimedia projects. BetoCG (talk) 01:33, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Términus

A few days ago I found out, really by chance, that the user Meruleh, a.k.a. Aopou, a.k.a. Zorvoth, a.k.a. Milkout, a.k.a. Lana del Reno, a.k.a. Jazpinncito, a.k.a. Nanu~Versace, a.k.a. Serena van der Woodsen, a.k.a. Horcus, a.k.a. Pequeño Monstruo VI, a.k.a. Sonoko Konishi, had been expelled from the Spanish Wikipedia for «persistent disruptive behavior, attacks on the project and other collaborators, violations of WP:PBF and abuse of multiple undeclared accounts», as can be seen in her user talk page.

Reviewing the articles that have the Good articles (GA) rating, I realized that Meruleh had approved several as GA, including two of her undeclared puppet Horcus —these articles are: Jorge de Gales y Birthday (canción de Katy Perry)— That is, she herself submitted an article to GB, reviewed it, and approved it diff and diff. According to point 5 of how to rate an article, it says: «You cannot choose an article if you have made significant contributions to it» («No puedes elegir un artículo si has realizado importantes contribuciones en él») a rule that Meruleh evidently did not comply with. The user claims that Horcus is not her puppet, but on December 29th she was discovered through a VU in Meta that he was a puppet created to vote for her in Meta. She had no choice but to acknowledge the puppet and claim he was her partner , apologizing for voting for her, and claiming that voting with puppets isn't prohibited on Spanish Wikipedia. She also claimed that the Horcus account hadn't been created with the purpose of securing votes for herself but she was an active participant in the Spanish Wikipedia and didn't know that she couldn't vote, when the account started editing on Spanish Wikipedia the same day it was voted for on Meta. Looking at the rest of Horcus's contributions, there's no doubt it's her, as you can see diff or diff or diff

The fact that she herself had approved articles as GA seemed extremely unfair to me, as the rest of the users otherwise have to follow a very strict approval procedure. That's why I decided to raise the issue, initially here diff and then in the café diff. There, I requested that the distinction be removed from the articles illegally approved, and my proposal was overwhelmingly accepted. Another user then withdrew the distinction from those articles. Once my request was accepted, I thanked the others for participating in the conversation and asked that the incident be forgotten diff.

My only participations in this conversation in the cafe were these diff, diff and diff. So I do not really know where I have made accusations of «conspiracy, linked to unrelated users as alleged sockpuppets, and even had my gender identity questioned, along with transphobic, misogynistic, and discriminatory remarks» as her said.

I feel truly sad and disappointed with the attitude of Meruleh. I (like many others) voted for her when she first applied for librarianship, but her behavior subsequently changed, and she became involved in numerous altercations with other users in which she behaved aggressively. Since then, her actions have been very disturbing. She was seeking conflict and apparently trying to make it appear that she is the victim of persecution.--Términus (talk) 09:11, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Previous attempts at a solution - Términus

Suggested solutions - Términus

That the complaint be rejected for being manifestly false

SFBB

While I’m usually very formal and base my claims on judicial argumentation and extensive evidence/diffs, my entire reaction to this report does not deserve anything but: lol (and for emphasis, I stand by that claim — do not remove it). We are clearly dealing with a LTA who is merely trying to troll the system. This user has been found guilty — beyond any reasonable doubt — of sockpuppetry abuse, deception, half-truths, personal attacks, hat-collecting, trolling, and more.

Moreover, based on edit patterns, their evolution, and numerous claims made across various projects, I am fully convinced (without concrete evidence to sustain the claim beyond reasonable doubt, admittedly) that this account is not the puppet master itself, but a sockpuppet controlled by a still-unidentified individual who has been active for roughly 19 years (this last figure is based on multiple claims by the account itself). Everything is well-documented in this long thread (nothing else needs to be added).

However, I want to make a tangential but critical point (and the actual reason that motivates me to react at all): It is frankly disgusting that such manipulative behavior is being shielded by labeling criticism as “transphobic” or “misogynistic.” These accusations are toxic and trivialize the very real struggles of LGTBIQ+ individuals and women facing actual discrimination. No one ever questioned this account’s gender or identity — until it became crystal clear that name, gender, nationality, and identity were being changed as casually as one changes clothes (as one would expect form a sockpuppet). I am confident that both the LGTBIQ+ and women’s communities of eswiki will fully back this last statement.

Most likely other users will react to the report in more detail, but my response stands: lol SFBB (talk) 10:48, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Additional information

In the meantime, additional evidence has surfaced showing that a small group of users has "taken" the Discord server of the Spanish Wikimedia projects (no one else was using it) to coordinate actions such as vote manipulation, personal attacks on various editors, and even the orchestration of the current report (this group also includes Zafkiel GD).
Immediately after the emergence of this evidence, the administrator of the Wikimedia ES Discord channel, Galahad, suspended unilaterally access to the channel, apparently to protect his own interests and of the other conspirators.
It is important to note that the aforementioned Discord channel is, or rather was, publicly accessible via an open invitation link. As such, the communications within it do not fall under the (full) protection of privacy laws such as the EU-GDPR (as they're no longer private conversations). Accordingly, the relevant information has been archived and is currently being compiled for further steps.SFBB (talk) 08:32, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leoncastro

Sorry, English is neither my first nor my second language.

Meruleh were involved in a spiral of controversial actions for some time, and it has been revealed that has cheated the Spanish Wikipedia community on multiple times. The Community is exposing in our public community space Café the various deceptions, large and small, to which we have been subjected. Thread started with the last one, when it was revealed that the user was using puppets (or sharing the IP with a partner, as the user says). Sharing IP or using puppets are not illegal, but with restrictions. You cannot be judge and jury to approve good articles, but the user was using the puppet (or partner) to create articles that then approve with the main account. And this is not a valid method.

Another recent case was the last username change request. Every time reached a certain limit of community tension, user changed the username to restart community patience. A few months ago, in the sysop voting, then with the username Aopou, several users said that six usernames in that short period of time were too many, and Aopou promised not to make any more changes. After not being elected, Aopou announced a retirement from the project and later requested the current seventh username Meruleh. And started all over again. After a couple of months, knowing that the eswiki community was not satisfied with the multiple changes, Meruleh requested his eighth username, first on enwiki (denied for not being the local community) and then on eswiki (denied for frivolous and repeated). Meruleh claimed that the name was a commercial enterprise (meruleh.com) and wanted to avoid some kind of conflict of interest. But in reality the website was theirs, and this was another one of the prefabricated lies. One of many others, big or small, that damaged the credibility that Meruleh fabricated in the project.

The other puppets were involved in other disruptive events that happened recently, so the Community has been evaluating the user's behavior and discovering more irregularities.

There are no transphobic, misogynist and discriminatory comments in the community discussion. There is incredibility and distrust. Because users no longer know which part of this user they can believe. I have been included in the parties, although my username is not mentioned and no specific reason is given in the complaint. All information provided by me in the thread is public, including data published by this user account. All my comments are written with respect and good faith, trying to clear the growing doubts of the Community. The Community has so many doubts that I have tried to gather the necessary answers, but my personal conclusion is that it is no possible to believe in Meruleh.

Claims to have been involved in the Foundation's projects for twenty years, but Meruleh account is less than three years old. It may be a little lie, or vanished and reappeared with a new account. Who knows. Is evident that Meruleh is very familiar with local and global policies, and therefore knows how to twist things and to edge the rules. But as soon as it has exceeded the limits of the community, it cannot be allowed to return reborn by the back door.

Meruleh is sheltering behind the defense of U4C, but it is showing obvious signs of a clearly disruptive behavior in all its projects. Their own actions are what have had a serious impact on their reputation and their ability to participate in Wikimedia projects, not the public thoughts of the Community.

Thinking that «should have been resolved only by re-evaluating the articles I [Meruleh] approved» is not recognizing all the damage caused to the Community. Claims to recognize mistakes and take responsibility. But does not assume the consequences or understand the situation in which leaves the community. Because the Community is discussing the details of this case to try to understand what has gone wrong in the processes and how it can be avoided in the future.

Says «There was no chance for a peaceful resolution»: there is always a peaceful solution, but prefers to make a bigger circus. With a generalized complaint based on false arguments, such as its actions in the project.

In a nutshell (and per above): lol.

Previous attempts at a solution - Leoncastro

Suggested solutions - Leoncastro

Please, do not waste our time and help us to prevent disruptive users from teasing the community.

Although it is an indefinite/infinite block, with time and stable performance in other projects, maybe the community will rethink his return, as it has done before with other banned users. -- Leoncastro (talk) 21:24, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RageJam

I will only comment on specific cases in which I participated regarding this complaint: After the user was blocked (and subsequently expelled from the project), a veteran user reported irregularities in the selection of good articles. The user had rated a nomination from a user with the same IP address (claiming to be her husband). It was later discovered that it was most likely a fake account used by her (other users have already explained this issue). the instructions explaining, how to nominate and review a good article nomination, it mentions that if a reviewer was largely involved in the editing of that nomination, cannot evaluate it. Aopou violated this rule, so the users decided to request the removal of the distinctions in the self-assessed articles. I withdrew these awards the following day, this measure was not unilateral or a grievance against her.

I am disappointed and saddened by this situation. She was someone I trusted (other users trusted her as well), but her actions are very disturbing. She is seeking conflict and apparently trying to make it appear that she is the victim of persecution. Under myself, I have not harassed, I have not offended his sexual orientation, and I have not posted discriminatory comments. Being a user who faked several identities, maybe she perceives that she is discriminated against in that aspect, but she sought those doubts towards others.

Suggested solutions - RageJam

I would dismiss this complaint and put some partial or permanent block on Meruleh from the entire Wikimedia project. Trying to find blame and not accepting your mistakes simply has no place on this site. I'm disappointed in the things you've done Meruleh, I hope you come to your senses.

Mαrti

I would like to address the accusation made against me: “linked to unrelated users as alleged sockpuppets.”

When this discussion was opened on our Village pump, it was because several eswiki users began noticing irregularities in the behavior of Aopou, now known as Meruleh. Frankly, I was very surprised, since up until then, she had always seemed like a kind and collaborative person. I trusted her so much that I even voted in favor of her self-nomination for admin on the Spanish Wikipedia, because I believed she would do a good job in that role. However, after not being elected, she announced that she was stepping away from the project to focus on smaller Wikimedia Foundation projects. Soon after, I was surprised to see that she had obtained admin rights on other projects. Still, I was happy for her and even encouraged her to return to eswiki.

The situation changed when we discovered that Aopou/Meruleh had been using sockpuppet accounts for her own benefit. At the time, I had already found it odd that User:Horcus had such a similar editing style to hers. She explained that he was her partner, and I chose to trust that explanation. That was the persona she presented to all of us—the one many of us trusted. As someone actively involved in the Good Article nomination process, I noticed that Meruleh had broken the rules in an unfair way. A user cannot act as both the nominator and the reviewer of the same article, yet that’s exactly what she did. When the checkusers confirmed that Horcus and Meruleh were the same person, it became clear she had manipulated the system. There were also additional sockpuppet accounts she used in further attempts to deceive us. Going back to the beginning, I told BetoCG that Horcus was likely a sockpuppet. Later, in the discussion about Meruleh’s case, I also expressed suspicion about other accounts. At one point, I even doubted whether Zafkiel GD might be connected. My suspicion came from the fact that, in the Good Article section, both Meruleh and Horcus had approved two of his articles, which made me think the same pattern was repeating. When the checkusers confirmed that Zafkiel was not related to her, I publicly apologized to him.

Honestly, I still don’t understand why Meruleh chose to betray the trust so many of us placed in her, and I regret that it reached the point where she made false statements. I sincerely hope she reflects on the harm she has caused. Mαrti (talk) 08:35, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested solutions - Mαrti

Given the seriousness of Meruleh's actions—including the use of sockpuppets for personal benefit, misleading the eswiki community, and making false accusations—it seems appropriate that she face a meaningful sanction. While it would be regrettable, I believe a global ban should be considered if the pattern of behavior is confirmed and deemed harmful across Wikimedia projects.

The damage caused goes beyond technical violations; it represents a deep betrayal of the trust many of us placed in her. As someone who once supported her and encouraged her return to eswiki, I feel deeply disappointed by her actions and the way she chose to mislead the community. Ultimately, this is not about revenge, but about protecting the integrity of our collaborative work and ensuring that such behavior has real consequences. Mαrti (talk) 08:44, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Amitie 10g

Nothing to say in addition to the already mentioned by the many users (including sysops) here rather than mentioning I'm believe there is a really well-orchestarted sock puppetry, trolling not just the Spanish Wikipedia community, but laughing on the Steward's face who conceded sysop rights on two small projects. Also, this cherry-picking user list of "abusers" demonstreates their abuse. This is the worst case of community betrayal I've seen since INeverCry case.

Suggested solutions - Amitie 10g

Global ban for this LTA, Galahad, and any involved user who acted or supported those disruptions (altrhrough there is not enough evidence of a metapuppet yet). This extended to several projects. --Amitie 10g (talk) 07:58, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Freddy eduardo

I reject the accusations of the user and want to emphasize, as others have done in this complaint, that her behavior has reached levels of disruptiveness that had not been seen in the Spanish Wikipedia in years. I also want to indicate that I am one of the users that feels personally deceived by Meruleh's behavior. But first some context:

I am part of the Wikimedia LGBT user group and I help run initiatives to help close the gap around queer content in the Spanish Wikipedia. One of such initiatives revolves around selecting a different country each month to create or improve queer-related articles about them. Meruleh joined this initiative some months[4], so I quickly started trusting her and sincerely believed that she wanted to improve the Spanish Wikipedia. As such, when she ran for sysop a few months ago, I enthusiastically voted for her[5]. I had noticed her constant name changes and thought it was odd but thought nothing more of it. I did not know about the disruptive behavior that had started in other Spanish projects around those months.

When this controversy started and the community learnt that Meruleh had violated the Spanish Wikipedia's rules about suckpuppets (by both pretending to talk to the puppets as if they were other users as well as to vandalize a sysop's user page), I was shocked. As a side note, I find interesting that Meruleh did not say anywhere in her statement that she vandalized the user page of a sysop with one of her suckpuppets, which sounds like an essential piece of information of this affair. In any case, I am an active participant on the process to select new articles with the «good badge» and routinely nominate articles written by me as well. As can be imagined, the fact that a user approved articles written by themselves (as was communicated to the community by the checkusers in the Spanish Wikipedia's Village pump and to the good articles community in this message[6]) became highly controversial. At the same time, I received information about some messages from a publicly accessible Discord server that was linked in the Spanish Wikipedia's Community page (more on that in a second). What I learnt from those messages left me astonished. You can read the whole thread here [7] but this quickly became one of the biggest controversies of the Spanish good article community's history. Meruleh is apparently accusing me of incivility when I described this controversy as Aopugate, when this is a common suffix used to describe big controversies (from the BBC: [8]) and as mentioned, this is perhaps the biggest controversy in the history of the good articles community in Spanish. I was not attacking her personally or mocking her, on the contrary, at this point I couldn't have been farther from laughing as I was very angry about this deception.

The only other diff that the user includes about me is one in which I mention some strange pattern in the voting of a Wikiquote election (this same election has been discussed in this complaint already[9]). Another side note, I find it surprising that Meruleh is claiming that the support votes in that election were strange when the negative votes look much more strange to me (look for instance at the second negative vote, the one after Meruleh, who had never made a single edit on the Spanish Wikiquote and never made another edit again). This election was boycotted by three votes even after receiving 14 affirmative votes. And again, even those 3 votes were strange already. I did never indicate that Meruleh was behind the result, although I firmly maintain my believe that the acting in that vote was strange, more after other users pointed out that the same users and Meruleh had had similar voting patterns in the past[10]. This is the extent of the diffs that Meruleh included about me. Considering that her behavior has been proven to be disruptive and that there was little substance to this part of the complaint, I can't help but to consider that it was made in bad faith.

Now, as user SFBB mentioned, there has been a huge new development in the Spanish Wikipedia since this complaint was filled. As I mentioned a few paragraphs ago, it was discovered that Meruleh and other users (including both of the strange votes I pointed out in the Wikiquote sysop election) were having conversations (in a publicly accessible discord server that was openly linked in the Community page of the Spanish Wikipedia) in which many users were disparaged and insulted and other very serious behaviors, including, according to the revelations made by SFBB, conspiring to have sysops removed, harassment against other sysops, insults against multiple users, laughing about the controversy and mocking users, discussing the creation of this very complaint, etc. You can read the main message about this here:[11]. After I was informed of the nature of these conversations I joined the server (as previously mentioned) and read myself how we (members of Wikimedia LGBT) were being disparaged and mocked by the user in question and others. She referred to us derogatively as the «LGBT troop» and confessed that actions that were of apparent support were in fact just made to gain our votes for her sysop election (verbatim: «para que toda la tropa LGBT me vote»). This is just one line, but we (as a group or specific members of Wikimedia LGBT) in particular were the focus of their conversations in more than one occasion, and always in a negative tone. SFBB, who is the person who has probably looked into these chats the most, characterized the tone of them as homophobic:[12].

Previous attempts at a solution - Freddy eduardo

Not applicable, as I have not had any kind of personal conflict with the user and she never contacted me after the controversy about her behavior started.

Suggested solutions - Freddy eduardo

I recommend dismissing this complaint as it is apparent to me that it is frivolous in nature and that it was not created in good faith. I think Meruleh wanted to waste valuable time both from us and also from the members of the committee. Also, if possible, I recommend that the committee open an ex officio investigation into Meruleh's behavior as well as the behavior of the other users involved in the Discord channel in which so many users were insulted.

LauraFarina

Previous attempts at a solution - LauraFarina

Suggested solutions - LauraFarina

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 (Zafkiel GD)

The original focus of this case is being deflected by blaming Meruleh. Checkusers could have kept her information private and observed whether she used Sonoko Konishi independently during her ban. The cafe thread, which started with questions about the ab, has devolved into baseless accusations-something I've seen before and was affected by. They're portraying Meruleh as a dangerous LTA, even though no other LTAs have received this level of scrutiny. Information has been extracted and published, exaggerating the issue, with no sysop stepping in to declare it resolved and move on. Zafkiel GD | Talk 03:47, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Replies to this feedback have been moved to the talk page. --Civvì (talk) 21:09, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Other feedback (user:Esperelopeor)

Let me spill some serious tea about the mess was goin’ down on Wikiquote, it was straight-up shady, and until now no one wanted to listen to me, because Superpes15 didn't have time to read all my long comment, I hope he has time to read it now, that things got so serious that Meruleh decided to file this complaint.

April 20 Meruleh went here to report that the nomination of Laura Fiorucci had been dismissed on Wikiquote, as supposedly it did not comply with the relevant policy. The nomination was arbitrarily and illegitimately dismissed by Galahad because the policies were respected. Basically, there’s been a ton of drama between Galahad always making the point that he is a GS and Meruleh, with the rest of the community. Dude’s been sticking his nose just to provoke. So Jaluj created es:q:Revalidación de administrador y burócrata/LlamaAl, at the request of Leoncastro, maybe not perfect, but nothing wild. Then Galahad swoops in, moves it without even talking to her, and BOOM — Meruleh inmediately flags it for deletion by a GS (not even a regular delete) without telling Jaluj squat. Had Meruleh used the deletion template in Spanish, as is standard practice, the request would have been handled by a Spanish Wikiquote administrator. Notification is customary(Jaluj said). Meruleh do it on purpose. That started a way bigger convo about how admins on small projects are supposed to work and whether GSs or elected admins actually run things. Galahad and Meruleh made all this mes because they were bullying Jaluj. The interesting thing is that Meruleh did'nt ask for the deletion of other pages that were for direct deletion. They were acting like GSs are supposed to babysit elected admins, repeating that the GS were elected and therefore can act as adm wherever they please, even thou another editor made it clear to them that the page wasn’t vandalism or anything that’s in GS territory.

The GS who actually deleted the page, the U4C member who according to Galahad and Meruleh was supervising and reported irregularities and the steward who denied permissions to Laura Fiorucci (based on some mysterious "emails" he got about canvassing, I don't know what canvassing they were talking about because I, who have been an editor since 2018, didn't even know about the vote), might’ve been straight-up manipulated by Galahad and Meruleh along with? Wouldn’t be surprised if they, two of the three who voted against Laura Fiorucci, - Galahad's argument for voting against was that this work should be done by the Global Sysops, Meruleh, whose first edition in the project was two weeks before the vote and Zafkiel GD, whose only contribution to the project was this vote against - sent those emails themselves to sabotage the election? Like, who even sent those emails? Here it is necessary to make that transparent, especially now that we know that Galahad and Meruleh were conspiring on Discord with Zafkiel GD to overthrow that election. What means this edition?

Now here’s where it gets even more cooked. I peeped their Discord messages (then linked from the eswiki page) and let me tell you, Zafkiel GD, Galahad and Meruleh were plotting to basically push out community-elected sysops so they could take over projects. That’s already what Galahad did on Wikivoyage — he’s literally the only permanent admin there and the only one who gets to pick new admins. This is how Meruleh, after having lost five votes in a row, got her permits. Super "democratic," right?

And here’s the part that really had me fuming. Meruleh (under different nicknames) was tossing around homophobic slurs, making fun of trans people, and Galahad was right there laughing along. And Meruleh had the audacity to report other users for transphobia? Also saw them trash-talking other community members and laughing every time a sysop lost their rights. They were basically celebrating every time the community lost power so the GSs could roll in and run the show, Galahad hoping the admin number reaches zero so the GS have new domains. Galahad’s power-hungry AF. And her thirst for power, running for five different candidacies - Global Renamer at Meta, Checkuser, Sysop at Wikipedia, Admin at Wikiviajes and Wikiversity - in one month? Lanadelrenox (Meruleh) saying that Leoncastro and Leonpolanco share the same single neuron and celebrating "three fewer adm in one month, how nice". On May 1st — the day Meruleh opened Farisori's administrator recall — Castorice (Galahad) literally said he wasn’t gonna vote unless the “doñas” (yep, that’s how he called them contemptuously) voted in favor. And if they did, he’d vote against. Right after Laura Fiorucci voted in favor, he comes back saying, “one of the doñas voted, now it’s my turn to vote against.” Like… really? Then Meruleh jumps in with a snarky “and one of her specimens — the one with the big nose,” talking about another editor. Real classy. Oh, and MasterGalahad also went off saying "Taichi is about as useful as a half-penny coin". Taichi has been sysop for 20 years. Wild stuff. And now Meruleh’s out here saying people are being transphobic for questioning her gender identity — after literally joking that she first presented as a guy, then neutral, then a girl, and laughing about how she showed up in like 40 different gender forms. So now anyone who doubts her “true” gender identity is the bad guy? I don’t even know how these three are still being taken seriously. It’s super toxic, and honestly someone higher up needs to look into this mess before it gets worse.--Esperelopeor (talk) 15:31, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested solutions

Respect Wikiquote's autonomy and immediately grant admin's permissions to Laura Fiorucci, and sanction Meruleh, Galahad, and Zafkiel GD for conspiracy, sabotage and violation of the Universal Code of Conduct.

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)[reply]

Discussion between the involved parties and the U4C members

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

@User:Meruleh please provide diffs to the actions and allegations you describe. Just as an example, claiming that there were "coordinated personal attacks" requires supporting diffs as evidence. Thanks. --Civvì (talk) 07:42, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Civvì: I've just included all the diffs. Since this is a tense situation for me, I may have missed some. If so, please ask me to review it and I'll look for it. Thanks! —MERULEH 18:53, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I regret the need for constant updates, as the situation has remained active and persistent in the communication channels of the project’s community since this case was opened. Therefore, I remain attentive to any relevant developments in order to include them in this case. —MERULEH 17:43, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@User:SFBB and @User:Leoncastro thank you for your statement but the next time I personally would appreciate it if you could avoid the "lol" in your comments, if only out of respect for the time each of us takes to read (and translate) everything that has been written on this page and on all the pages linked to the case. Thanks. --Civvì (talk) 16:16, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Civvì, excuse me if you found it disrespectful to our time, but I honestly find it somewhat laughable this complaint, from a clearly disruptive user who have cheated and colluded against the community. We, the victims, are being accused and we can neither laugh nor cry. I hope that after my extensive exposition above you will not be left with only a simple show of astonishment. -- Leoncastro (talk) 17:21, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Civvì: idem User:Leoncastro. We have just uncovered Discord chats maintained by the complainant together with a small group of users, and the level of offensive content and coordinated efforts to harm the Spanish Wikipedia is truly astonishing. We have no other options but to laugh about this issue, but I certainly did not want to offend any member of the commission. SFBB (talk) 17:59, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Civvì: Meruleh is laughing on our faces, including yours. Even with the "lol", SFBB is still assuming good faith on counter answering this. Will you trust a significant portion of the Spanish Wikipedia community (long-term contributors, Sysops and Checkusers), or a sole user who we highly believe they is an LTA? Amitie 10g (talk) 13:09, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Civvì: Mister Roboto could not have better defined what user Meruleh represents: a complete farce. Greetings, BetoCG (talk) 03:38, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For the current situation, I think is better this case should be dealt by the Trust and Safety Team (WMFOffice) rather than the U4C comitee. --Amitie 10g (talk) 07:59, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Civvì, This screenshot of Discord substantiates my previous statements. In it, Meruleh can be seen acknowledging that she herself is Horcus, not her partner, (she successfully deceived @user:EPIC) taking pride in having vanished the account and having made the evidence disappear. At the same time, Galahad is seen laughing and remarking, "Everything Meruleh says is a lie," while Zafkiel GD and Polux appear to celebrate, laughing and applauding. Do you still require further evidence? I would like to respectfully ask the U4C what it means when a case is declined. Does this imply that there will be no consequences for those who have deliberately sabotaged the projects in this manner?--Jalu (talk) 03:13, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jaluj personally speaking I declined the request of the filer because I do not think that in the facts described in the request there are UCoC violations. That does not mean that I am happy with what I read in some of the comments and feedback provided. I could be wrong (and will discuss this within the committee), but I don't think it's within our remit to broaden the scope of investigation beyond what is described in the request, the charter states that "[U4C] Performs any investigations necessary to resolve said complaints and appeals;". That is why I wrote that "I also wonder if some of the facts mentioned in some of the comments and feedbacks provided could be the basis for other possible requests." --Civvì (talk) 05:42, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49 @Civvì @Ghilt: Before you close this issue, I want to note that I have evidence from the aforementioned Discord chats showing that many of the claims here are essentially fabrications, which is established in conversations between Meruleh and other users (one of them exhibited above by Jaluj). The evidence also shows that two users (Galahad and FlyingAce with advanced user rights at meta level — including one who is a global sysop and a member of the Ombuds Commission — were aware of this and that the group also advised Meruleh on how to move forward with this false complaint.

This is in addition to countless insults, offenses, lies, and violations of the UCoC by Meruleh (who btw still has advanced user rights in eswikivoyage) and the aforementioned GS and OC member. There is also evidence of deliberate deception and planning to manipulate voting results in other Wikimedia projects. However, it will take some time to organize all the material, as I am working from approximately 1,000 screenshots. This became necessary after I made public what was happening in the Discord chat, at which point both administrators (the aforementioned Galahad and FlyingAce) revoked access to the chats, in an clear attempt to obstruct the investigation and exposure of facts (my work would undoubtedly be much faster had both administrators not restricted access to protect themselves).

I would like to know whether these issues can be handled within this complaint, and request whether the advanced rights of the three users could be suspended during this investigation as a precautionary measure to avoid that they can create more harm in the meantime. I think this is particularly important in the case of the user who is a member of the Ombuds Commission and a global sysop. Also, I want to ask whether the commission can request that FlyingAce and Galahad re-establish access to the community chats in the Discord channel for the purposes of the investigation. This would enhance transparency and would certainly save me hours and hours of work. SFBB (talk) 10:29, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: This complaint was orchestrated in that Discord server (after Meruleh had already told everyone there that she was lying and that neither we nor Meta had been able to catch her puppet; see here. They even advised her to include her (fake) mention of transphobic and misogynistic remarks in her case, fully aware that earlier that same week Meruleh had made actual homophobic remarks in the same server (as she had on several occasions before; see here). Similarly, the complaint against the CUs before the Ombuds Commission was also advised there (see here). Consequently, it is impossible to disentangle both issues.
However, on second thought, I believe it may be preferable — for the sake of organization and clarity — that the Discord-case be presented separately. SFBB (talk) 20:41, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, the administrators of the aforementioned Discord server are actively obstructing the investigation by hiding access to all messages from the community — a measure first taken after the scandal blew up — while still allowing access to the conspirators (as it has been revealed by one of them). While the messages have been archived, working with them is extremely difficult, as I am currently dealing with hundreds of images, which makes it absurdly slow to navigate, search through them, and organize the content. For the sake of honesty and transparency, it would greatly help if the Commission requested that the administrators re-establish community access to the old messages in the server. SFBB (talk) 20:52, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

U4C decision

Only U4C members may edit in this section.

U4C member discussion

  • It is hard to parse everything that is going on here, but I appreciate the comments from various parties trying to lay out what has happened. It appears that the Spanish Wikipedia admins have also taken action against some users listed here (see Talk:Discord#Spanish server and various pages linked there on eswiki). I am wondering if there is a broader pattern of abuse of power here that merits further investigation (namely on the part of the filer and associated individuals). – Ajraddatz (talk) 15:04, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The issues with the Discord server feel distinct from the heart of these allegations to me? I agree that if requested the Discord server issues likely seem in scope for the U4C, but I worry about us choosing to rescope this request. But I am open to having my mind changed that it's one big issue. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:57, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I would suggest eswiki users to open a new request for this issue, so that they can choose the parties and describe the issue in a "clean" page. --Civvì (talk) 21:41, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I find SFBB's comments above somewhat compelling for why we shouldn't do that. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:49, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Accept votes

Decline votes

Motions

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

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.

Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Coordinating_Committee/Cases/2025/Spanish_Wikipedia_Abuse&oldid=28840761"