Requests for comment/Repeated involved blocks and outing on ckb.wikipedia (Sakura emad, Kushared)

The following request for comments is closed. Closing in favor of Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Cases/2026/Systemic UCoC Violations on ckb.wikipedia: Admin Abuse and Outing * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 02:43, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

---

Summary

I am reporting User:Sakura emad, an administrator on ckb.wikipedia, for using the block tool against me while she was an involved party in the underlying dispute, and for doing so in a way that was procedurally improper and unevenly applied. She blocked my account twice, the second time indefinitely on a topic basis, in a dispute in which she was an active participant and self-described enforcer of "community consensus." The stated grounds for the action had already been resolved on the merits. Uninvolved local administrators are aware and have not corrected it, which is why I bring it here.

Since filing, the pattern has continued: a second administrator has imposed a further block under similar circumstances, and I have separately become aware of an off-wiki dimension and an outing incident, both detailed below.

I am asking for a review of the administrators' use of tools, a review of the blocks themselves, and steward guidance on the correct path if any part belongs in another forum.

The administrator

Sakura emad, administrator, ckb.wikipedia. She placed both initial blocks on my account and has stated she was acting as the representative of community consensus in the same dispute.

Why this is a tool-misuse matter, not a content matter

I am not asking Meta to decide the content question (whether a particular sourced image belongs in the article ھاوزایەندخوازی). That is local and editorial. I am asking it to look at how administrators used the block button inside a dispute they were personally part of.

The core problem — WP:INVOLVED

Sakura emad was a participant in the dispute and a decision-driver in it. She did not act as an uninvolved administrator enforcing a neutral rule; she acted as a party to the disagreement who also happened to hold the tools, and she used them against the editor on the other side of it. She describes her own role as representing and enforcing the consensus at issue.

What she did

1. Blocked mid-discussion, before I could respond. I attempted to resolve the matter on her talk page. The exchange was ended by a block rather than by discussion. I was not given the chance to explain why the stated basis was incorrect before the tool was used.
2. Blocked again, indefinitely on a topic basis, on the same flawed grounds.
3. The stated grounds were already nullified. The action rests on "no source / violates consensus." Two facts undercut both halves. The consensus she invokes was scoped to a template (ckb:Template:کۆمەڵەی پەلکەزێڕینە), and that template-level outcome is respected and unchanged. The sourcing objection, which was the original reason the image was challenged, was resolved when a source was added. Restoring sourced content to the body of an article is not a violation of a template-scoped consensus.

Outing by Sakura

In a concerning attempt to win a content dispute, Sakura emad attempted to link my real-life identity to my account. This is a serious violation of en:WP:harassment and a breach of privacy, particularly in a context that can pose real-world danger. When I confronted her about this, she immediately placed the initial seven-day block on my account. In the same window, she deleted the Commons image she had herself uploaded in the attempt to link my identity to my account.

User:Hivja has stated that off-wiki activity has been occurring around this matter. I am not able to independently verify this claim, but flag it for stewards who may have channels to investigate further. Separately, in my initial ANI report against Sakura, rather than continuing the discussion on the public forum, she declined to engage further on-wiki.

Escalation — a second block

Following my unblock by Sakura, a second administrator, User:Kushared, removed the same sourced content without explanation. I attempted to open a talk-page discussion about the revert; the notification was not engaged with, and I was instead immediately given a six-month block. Notably, another administrator has since described the length of this block as "unacceptable."

Censoring Wikipedian voices

Hivja has since opened an RfC on whether to keep or remove the file from the article. Comments presenting reasons to keep the file have been removed from that discussion by User:Tessla. I believe this pattern — opening the RfC only after removing dissenting voices — raises concerns under en:WP:canvassing and reflects an obstruction of ordinary community discussion. In an effort to stack more opposing votes, User:Zemen, who initially started this disruptive campaign, is blocked on Commons for it, was warned what he does in enwiki constitutes as harassment, and was also blocked multiple times locally for harassing other users, has also engaged in en:wp:canvassing by calling on 3 users to vote in his favor. After having pointed out that this is canvassing, the involved contributors turn a blind eye. The local community is mistaking Wikipedia for a democracy, thinking stacking votes is how you reach a consensus rather than actually making comments with substance on why they think the file should be censored. Even then, Wikipedia is not censored.

Local resolution is not available

I have raised this on-wiki, including at the administrator-intervention venue. Uninvolved local administrators are aware and have not acted. Since the administrator responsible is herself the blocking party, and other local admins have declined to step in, local dispute resolution is not a realistic route. When I have attempted to resolve this locally, Sakura has repeatedly directed me to file at Meta if I believe she is wrong.

What I am requesting

1. Review of the administrators' use of tools against an editor in a dispute in which they were involved parties.
2. Review of the blocks on my account, with attention to whether their stated basis survives the fact that the sourcing objection was resolved and the underlying consensus was template-scoped.
3. Review of the outing incident and its connection to the subsequent block.
4. Steward guidance on the correct forum if any part of this belongs elsewhere.

I can provide any further diffs on request.--▸ épine _talk♬ 21:30, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Discussion

• see here, disqualified canvassing votes. Further vote stacks from 2 other editors summoned by Zemen expected.Hevi (talk) 00:38, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

  @Hevi and unsurprisingly, User:Tessla disagrees that policy even exists and has reverted that edit. This is also the same user that actively tries to persuade others to support their censorship attempts. This is insane. A line must be drawn. ▸ épine _talk♬ 01:35, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

  @Épine This seems to be a subject for the U4C, since there are allegations of possible power abuse. I suggest first try to solve it locally. Review this case as a reference. You should be able to file an appeal for the block locally, and it should be reviewed by a different, uninvolved admin. If you are unable to get a fair, independent local appeal opportunity, then you might consider filing a case to the U4C. Note: I am not affiliated with the U4C, just trying to help as a peer here. Best, TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 03:49, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

  Also please don't link the EnWiki policies. Those are valid for the English Wikipedia, only, not other language editions (unless there is a local consensus or norm about using EnWiki policies). You can use either the local policies of CkbWiki, or the Universal Code of Conduct, which takes precedence over conflicting local policies.TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 04:10, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

  @TheJoyfulTentmaker Thank you for your comments, most policies in ckb wiki are exact replicas of en wiki, and we continually reference these policies in ckb wiki since our own policies are not fully translated. Multiple local sysops have intervened and called the blocks unjustified, none of which have acted to remove or reduce the blocks themselves. Do you recommend to proceed with U4C in such case? ▸ épine _talk♬ 00:34, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

  By the way, I took enormous efforts to solve this locally, but there are a group of coordinated users (who coordinate off wiki via discord and telegram and Facebook per diffs above) who actively engage in content censorship and suppressing opposing views. There is a rogue dictatorial clique actively pursuing censorship in ckb wiki right now, constantly engaging in edit warring and POV-pushing. ▸ épine _talk♬ 00:36, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

  @Épine Based on this description it seems like a U4C case is justified, especially if there is no functional and fair appeals mechanism, and if the blocking admin was in an ongoing dispute with you. But I guess the U4C will need to hear the other party's side of the story before deciding whether to accept the case or not. If there is any chance to solve it locally, try that. If not, then I suggest filing the U4C case. Again, I'm just a community member and have no affiliation with the U4C. Good luck... TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 02:07, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

  @TheJoyfulTentmaker thanks! based on the patterns I've seen, User:Sakura emad as an involved admin keeps attempting influencing outcomes in talk pages in their latest censorship efforts, I am waiting for User:Calak and User:Pirehelokan as the only uninvolved admin in my last effort as requested per your advice on my talk page in ckb wiki, after that, I will escalate to U4C and other authorities. ▸ épine _talk♬ 03:22, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

  @Épine: Just an FYI for the future: stewards rarely intervene in cases like this unless it's an absolute emergency (like an admin vandalising the project or going rogue with blocks). U4C should always be your port of call, not a global RfC. I haven't read the full case here, but on a cursory look you do have a fairly solid reasoning for taking it to U4C (esp if there are allegations of outing involved). Best, //shb (t • c) 13:06, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

  @Zemen ^^ above also goes for you (re "reviewing stewards to look closely at the filing editor's clear behavioral history regarding outing."). This is something for U4C to handle, not something to be decided in a global RfC. //shb (t • c) 13:07, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Statement from user:Zemen

The filing editor has brought a highly distorted narrative while completely omitting their own severe policy violations. Specifically, this user engaged in doxing (outing) by attempting to link my real-life identity and private social media activity to my Wikipedia account. This is a direct violation of the Universal Code of Conduct regarding privacy and harassment.

On June 12, I provided 3 external links (they were social media links) on the ckb.wikipedia for the article "کوردانی ئیسرائیل" talk page. These links were shared purely to prove the existence and notability of a file used in the article; Although I myself subsequently stated that these 3 links could not be used as official encyclopedic references on the article. But a day later, Epine weaponized the discussion to boldly dox me. Below are the explicit diff links and statements where Epine openly outed my personal social media footprint on-wiki:

1. First: "Those posts that you made a few hours ago and two people liked them". (Here, Epine explicitly and directly asserts that the external links provided as sources were personally published by me).
2. Second: "Zemen made a series of posts on social media a few hours ago". (Here, he explicitly claims absolute certainty regarding my private identity by stating as an undisputed fact that these external links belong to my personal social media footprint).

A user who actively compromises the privacy and real-world safety of other editors cannot credibly claim to be acting in the interest of the community. I ask the reviewing stewards to look closely at the filing editor's clear behavioral history regarding outing. Zemen (talk) 11:49, 3 July 2026 (UTC)