Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Cases/2026/Unblock; enforcement UCoC on nl-wiki; systematic failure

This case is closed. If you have comments or a request to have it reopened, post a comment on the talk page.

Parties
Parties	Notifications
Wickey (talk) 16:13, 21 April 2026 (UTC)reply	Filer (no diff required)
Natuur12 (talk)
Drummingman (talk)
Daniuu (talk)
StuivertjeWisselen (talk)
Ciell (talk)
DirkVE (talk)
Effeietsanders (talk)
Kippenvlees1 (talk)
Themanwithnowifi (talk)
Vinvlugt (talk)
Sneeuwvlakte (talk)
Grasmat (talk)
Brimz (talk)

U4C member alert: @U4C: Ajraddatz, Barkeep49, BRPever, Civvì, Dbeef, Ghilt, Ibrahim.ID, Luke081515, Denis Barthel, Ferien, PBradley-WMF. Wickey (talk) 16:13, 21 April 2026 (UTC)reply

Wickey

Description of the problem - (Wickey)

1. The subject of this request

It started with two indefinite topic bans 25 November 2023, 2 February 2024 by moderator Natuur12, which were unexpected, unfair and unjustified.

Dutch ArbCom replaced them on 28 February 2024 with permanent sanctions. On 20 March 2026 it resulted in a total blockade of a month, which was extended to 4 months on 27 March.

I consider both the initial two topic bans by Natuur12 and the sanctions by former ArbCom, especially 'maatregel 3' (measure 3), as absurd, unjustified, disproportional and even as malicious. I consider both the behaviour of Natuur12 and of the former ArbCom to have been violating the UCoC.

I present the behaviour of user Vlaemink as an example of systematic violation of the UCoC in connection with the arbitration imposed on me. Vlaemink played a leading role in the final escalation around the sanctions at issue. Said arbitration from the former ArbCom and the moderator system on the nl-wiki prevents me from defending myself against actions by Vlaemink and other users. I am also not able to challence the arbitration itself.

Finally, I bring up the systematic failure of the Dutch moderators system in upholding the UCoC and the disfunctioning and current absence of an ArbCom, which should oversee the correct implementation of the UCoC.

On my Dutch talk page, I called the behaviour of both Natuur12 and the former ArbCom 'niet-integer' (non-integer) because I regard that of the former as ignoring the rules, disrespecting me as editor and abuse of power, and the sanctions of the latter – especially the wording of measure 3 – and shielding Natuur12 incompatible with upright behaviour. May be, 'non-integer' was not exactly the right term and therefore I want to explain what I meant to say. I experienced the sanctions as really unfair, dishonest, hypocritical. Still strong words. I have no evidence that they were acting in bad faith and were in cahoots, but I can also not rule out that this was the case. It would be your task to investigate this. In any case, I consider both the (now expired) initial blocks, the ArbCom sanctions in place and the current block as the result of the sanctions as unfair and unjustified.

Sorry for the deluge of links, but it covers a long period and a complex case. It is also addressed to the nl-wiki, which has prevented me from submitting this case there.

2. The context

It all began after the Hamas attack on 7 October 2023, but has actually nothing to do with it. That sounds contradictory, but is just paradoxical. I had already been editing on the subject Israel-Palestine for many years (among other subjects) without major problems. But then, '7 October' did happen and all changed on the nl-wiki (not unlike on the en-wiki).

It is well-known that discussions in the context the IP-conflict generally tend to produce heated discussions (I am not justifying that). In discussions about articles on the subject (notably the one about the Gaza War) a number of users, generally pro-Israel, began calling me non-neutral, biased, not suitable to edit on the subject of the IP-conflict. [1], [2], [3], second time, [4], [5], [6], [7], [8] Even on the request page for blocks (RegBlok), those attacks appeared.[9], [10], [11] (in the last link, Saschaporsche framing Israelis as Jews in the context of the conflict, thus framing me as anti-Jewish).

I was supposed to remain friendly and polite, despite all those personal attacks. You could argue, if so many say so, it must be true. But none of them is neutral on the subject of Israel-Palestine, notwithstanding many of them will assert they are. I want to emphasize that I always use reliable sources and I am doing my utmost best to cite them correctly and honestly to support my edits. Don't take my word for it. Everyone can check my contributions. What they all did, was conflating discussion and editing the article, not distinguish them. There is nothing wrong with putting text into an article in favour of only one side (while allowing others to do it correctly for the other side). I did edit on the subject long before 7 October 2023. In fact, very few of my edits on articles are disputed, and only by a few, always the same users (I made 13k+ edits on nl-wiki since 2008).

3. The initial blocks

Moderator Natuur12 was the first to impose a block on me since I started on WP in 2008. In November 2023, a user requested for blocking another user. Out of the blue, Natuur12 imposed an indefinite blockade for an article, without any warning, without a reasonable justification and in violation of the rules. This was imo UCoC 3.2: Abuse of power and position (unequal treatment of persons, ignoring the rules).

In February 2024, Natuur12 imposed another block on me in a block request for another person. Again without any warning and reasonable justification and again in violation of the rules. Again he stated in authoritarian style that there was no room for discussion and he threatend with even more blockades. With this authoritarian and impolite behaviour he also violated UCoC 2.2.

4. The arbitration

In November 2023, I had submitted a request for abolition of the first block at ArbCom. They still had not made any decision, when Natuur12 imposed the second block. The outcome of the arbitration on 28 February 2024 was even more unexpected and also more unfair and unjustified than the blocks by Natuur12. They denied any wrongdoing by Natuur12 and imposed bizarre indefinite sanctions on me. 'Maatregel 2' (measure 2) determines that I should be blocked if I dare to discuss anything with user Oosthoektimes, and 'Maatregel 3' that I should be blocked after making any statement about any user, including saying something positive, e.g. giving a compliment. It implicitly prohibits me to go to the request page for blocks (RegBlok) to defend myself against attacks by other users. Furthermore, it for example implicitly prohibits me to vote on the membership of users as moderator, to criticise other users and even to praise them. Later, Oosthoektimes turned out to be the problematic user with consistently only controversial edits, virtually zero useful edits and unable to discuss properly.

By imposing such a strange sanction on me and only on me (and a few others in the past) ArbCom introduced a disproportionate rule on the nl-wiki, without a clear reason. I feel discriminated by a rule that is not imposed on other users in general and that put me in a weak vulnerable position relative to other users. Neither the moderators, nor ArbCom offered any prospect of an end to these sanctions. The moderators as a collective did apply the clearly flawed sanctions, without asking why they were imposed on me and with what purpose, nor did they consider their effect and proportionality. The former ArbCom ignored my requests to repeal the sanctions, lastly on 6 June 2025 (see section Derde aanvulling, last alinea), until its dissolution on 30 September 2025. My second request was already submitted on 19 June 2024, in which I again (as in the very first request) explained why the blocks by Natuur12 were wrong. ArbCom came with a judgement 4 months later!!! That is to say, in fact they ignored it. Instead of reassessing the case, they simply said that there was no reason to accept the request.

Thus, the former ArbCom created a toxic and unsafe environment for me, with no time limit and de facto without the possibility of appeal. It made me vulnerable for harassment and abuse by other users, what exactly happend, as showed on my Dutch talk page. This may be covered by UCoC 2.1 and 3.1.

5. User Vlaemink

Vlaemink displayed in my opinion a particularly grave abuse of the ArbCom sanctions, but grave violations of the UCoC as well. I take him as an example to illustrate a failing organisation and to show the far-reaching consequences of the sanctions imposed on me.

Vlaemink was hounding and harassing me across the nl-wiki, using multiple talk pages (because I use to edit pro-Palestinian). Here Vlaemink hounded me, with an insulting edit summary, a reference to WP:Verstoor: "Poging tot WP:Verstoor ongedaan gemaakt," to suggest a 'disrupting edit'. He mentioned my user name frequently in a very negative and insulting way and threatened me with RegBlok, amounting to character assassination, and frequently actually turned to RegBlok to get me blocked, abusing the ArbCom sanctions, or painting a black picture of me when others did go there.

On 12 July 2025, Vlaemink did his very first edit on the IP-conflict. Five days later, he began hounding and harassing me, immediately starting with a block request. He publicly threatened with more block requests on article talk pages here, here, here and here, amounting to character assassination. Another attempt was here.

A telling example of character assassination and trolling is here on the talk page of user Labrang. Other examples where Vlaemink was hounding me were here, here, here, here and here. Here, again hounding me, he challenged a source used by me through an edit war, which I left after two attemps to re-insert. Apparently, he had a problem with the link between character assassination and narcissism in the source. Here, Vlaemink is again hounding and harassing me in an article where he had never been before. On the same day he is hounding and slandering me on RegBlok.

Hounding and character assassination is continued on 10 February 2026 in another context. First, a veiled slander, followed by a less veiled one and finally with a vile text in which he connects me with a long list of violations, with a link to an xtool that points implicitly to me. Ellywa maliciously contributes to the character assassination by adding a villainous veiled slander followed by a link to my block log.

In a single contribution on the TP of Genocide in Gaza, Vlaemink mentions my user name 6 times in a derogatory and insulting manner. Three months later, exactly the same. There, he uses my name 7 times explicitly, as part of the character assassination. A typical example of his offensive and derogatory style of discussing is here, where he ridicules user Chewing tinfoil with a seemingly innocent pun on his user name, by veiledly referring to Tin foil hat.

Vlaemink has a strong pro-israel stance, despite claiming to be strictly neutral. Here, here and here (where he also removed reliable sources), he denied the existence of the Palestinian people and here and here and also here (hounding), he denied the Nakba. He also denied the Gaza genocide here and here. After my blockade and the departure of Labrang from Wikipedia, triumphantly saying "De 'rivalen' zijn weg en daarmee hopelijk ook het idee dat men hier 'de waarheid' moet verdedigen." (The 'rivals' are gone, and hopefully with them the idea that one must defend 'the truth' here.)

And by the way, Vlaemink participated in a public pro-Israel character assassination of Harry Pettit.[12] [13] [14] He published a slanderous article on the en-wiki on 10 November 2025 and within hours a Dutch version, to destroy the life of Pettit. The English article survived an AfD, because there was no consensus about deleting.

Apart from that, Vlaemink's contributions on de nl-wiki were virtually zero in 2021 and 2022, almost exclusively on noticeboards and ArbCom in 2023, almost nil in 2024 and almost exclusively done on RegBlok and ArbCom in 2025 and 2026!

Examples of character assassination and trolling at RegBlok

Vlaemink tried to get me blocked 6 times within a year, based on 'Maatregel 3'. [15], [16], [17], [18], here a 5th time, on 19 March 2026 followed the 6th request. Five were succesful.

Here, Vlaemink submits a block request against user MopperMijmer (indeed for an improper remark), but includes an unrelated link to a TP, where he threatened me with a block request the same day. The moderator Mbch331 finishes the request against MopperMijmer with the irrelevant remark "Measures apply to Wickey, and you may address the user regarding them." (it was not a request against me at all). Thus that moderator contributed to the character assassination by Vlaemink. Labrang reacted to warn for the possibly improper threat by Vlaemink, but removed it with the summary "Never mind, that only causes trouble." But then, 5 days later Vlaemink went to the TP of Labrang to slander me extensively in public. I remind that sanction 3 implicitly prohibits me to go to RegBlok to defend myself.

The Dutch moderators failed to identify the problem with Vlaemink (although everybody could have seen it; typically the Bystander effect, blurred by the Israel-Palestine conflict). On the contrary. After my block for 4 months, Vlaemink sadistically continued bullying me on my talk page with both character assassination and trolling, while I could not defend myself. No one responded.

It was only Labrang, who consistently defended me and tried to make the moderators aware of the role Vlaemink played.[19], [20], [21], [22], [23] and lastly on my TP. Of no avail, at least until after my blockade. Labrang also criticised the arbitration itself here and here another one for user De Wikischim. Here, Labrang also criticised Vlaemink's intimidation of Moppermijmer through threatening with RegBlok and his overall behaviour.

I hope, the nl-moderators will take action after reading this section about Vlaemink.
Surprisingly, 3 weeks after I was blocked for a long period, while I was preparing this submission, Vlaemink was blocked for 3 months after harassing another user.

Character assassination and trolling were not only done by Vlaemink:

In a block request by Oosthoektimes – btw about a remark that had been taken out of context – Vlaemink is trolling me, advances his character assassination and manages to divert it to the arbitration and gets me blocked. Ex-moderator Apdency appears as a trol here, calling me "an intimidating problem user". The next day, Apdency adds that I am dispersing "an all-pervading stench". In mentioned request, Vlaemink appeared 5 times in the role of trol to smear me. As moderator, Apdency had already been trolling against me on a talk page of ArbCom in response to a trolling anonymous. Here, Apdency contributed to the character assassination by calling another's remark "Wickey language". Most recently, Apdency again contributed to character assassination on RegBlok by calling me a "dwarsdrijver" die voor langere tijd is geblokkeerd wegens projectverstorend gedrag (a troublemaker who is blocked for a longer period for project disrupting behaviour). All together, the conduct of Apdency may also be considered hounding and harassing. Thus, slandering and trolling without evidence and no one who cares, even on a moderators noticeboard.

User Saschaporsche, as a trol, abused 'Maatregel 3' here, but also here, to get me successfully blocked.

6. Request for abolition of the arbitration and the blockade

Sanction 3 of the arbitration of February 2024 provides an extremely low bar to get me blocked. This means that other rules are applied on me than on other users. I did not find something in the UCoC about such discriminating treatment in article 3.2, but seems to relate to 2.1.

In absence of an ArbCom, there is no possibility to appeal an arbitration (although the former ArbCom also appeared to be incapable to handel such requests). I ask the U4C to investigate the functioning in the past, especially the question if ArbCom was fully independend and free of influcence by former ArbCom members, in this case Natuur12, who had and has considerable power and influence within WP.

The moderators as a collective have failed to maintain a decent behaviour on talk pages in the context the IP-conflict (and on other controversial subjects as well). It led to escalations which unfortunately sometimes also provoked me. Due to the arbitration, I was repeatedly blocked for remarks that would usually not have led to a blockade (apart from some made out of frustration about the unjust sanctions and the abuse by other users). The arbitration is clearly flawed in nature, especially sanction 3, which made me extremely vulnerable for harassment and abuse, what indeed happend as showed on my Dutch talk page. The mechanism led to a disproportional blockade. More details concerning this case are to find on this same talk page. I ask for abolition of the block and the ArbCom-sanctions of 28 February 2024 on the nl-wiki to make a new start in compliance with the rules.

I am of the opinion that the moderators and the former ArbCom have failed to comply with the UCoC and ask for condemnation of both the behaviour of Natuur12 and the former ArbCom. I also suggest the appearance of systemic failure to apply the UCoC, as the collective group of moderators was complicit in the upholding of the sanctions.

7. Systemetic failure of the Dutch moderators system

The Dutch ArbCom did not funtion properly for years, until its final dissolution on 30 September 2025. In the Dutch moderator system, we see an unhealthy accumulation of functions and thus power by some persons. Natuur12 has currently at least 6 combined functions, XXBlackburnXx 5, and moderator Daniuu 8 functions. See also here. When Natuur12 unilaterally imposed the topic bans on me, he was at least moderator, bureaucrat and 'VRT-member mail administrator'.[24]. Since June 2024 he is also checkuser.[25]. Many moderators were former ArbCom members and vice versa, or may be even both at the same time. Natuur12 and Woudloper were in ArbCom at the same time from October 2014 to March 2016 [26], [27] and from September 2016 to September 2018 [28], [29], [30]. It makes a special personal relationship inevitable. Accumulation of functions and power makes the system susceptible to cronyism and conflict of interest.

In my opinion, the nl-wiki demonstrates a systemic failure in upholding the UCoC. While failing to ensure a safe environment to edit WP, the nl-wiki lacks an ArbCom to oversee the moderator system. I have doubts about the functioning of the former, now dissolved, ArbCom.

Currently, some changes appear to be taking place in the moderation system. It remains to be seen whether this will lead to lasting positive changes.

Previous attempts at a solution - (Wickey)

See above under point 4.

Feedback - (Wickey)

a. First, I deny the assertion of Effeietsanders that I have "a long history of revert wars and high-conflict discussions". This can already be deduced from my block log alone, which starts on 25 November 2023. As explained under point 2 above, the escalations have to be seen in the context of the Israel-Palestine conflict. In fact, I have rarely been involved in edit wars, even after '7 October 2023'. If someone wants to accuse me of frequent edit warring, they will have to provide evidence. In the same fashion, I reject the suggestion that I was a major cause of disruption on talk pages. By definition, discussions are held by more than one person. If someone wants to accuse me of frequently disrupting discussions, they will have to provide evidence. You may find an occasional personal attack (I do not justify that), but that is not the same as having "a long history of revert wars and high-conflict discussions". I don't think this is the right place to discuss it in detail.

In particular, writing the article about the Gaza War was and is extremely difficult, because it developed so quickly over such a long time, being so controversial. It is unthinkable that this could have been written without problems (no one to blame). The same is true for the Gaza genocide and the Iran War.

A basic problem on the nl-wiki is the small number of participants in discussions on the subject. That is not necessarily the result of a toxic atmosphere as such, but may be due to the nature of a controversial subject. Few participants easily results in a stalemate, notably if one of them is not willing to make concessions. Generally speaking, I don't think I am the one who frustrates or disrupts discussions.

If the UCoC is enforced more strictly on the nl-wiki, it will certainly be easier for me to also fully comply with it, as discussions then will not escalate so quickly. I am fully aware of the attempts by Effeietsanders to bring about positive changes on the nl-wiki!
--Wickey (talk) 11:08, 24 April 2026 (UTC)reply

b. @Ghilt: You suggest, the nl-wiki should be the primary community to handle this case. Yet, they have convincingly showed not to be able to do that. There is not even a procedure for that. Wickey (talk) 13:39, 30 April 2026 (UTC)reply

This case is about two different things that, however, cannot be viewed separately: first, it is about my personal block and the process around the concerning decisions, including possible abuse of power; secondly, it is about the systematic failure on nl-wiki, the absence of an ArbCom and the possibility to appeal decisions by both moderators/admins and the former ArbCom. --Wickey (talk) 10:27, 1 May 2026 (UTC)reply

Blockade changed to indefinitely

Today, my block was changed to indefinitely because I pinged Oosthoektimes on meta-wiki (which was of course just a courtesy ping). Unbelievable!!! This proves how low nl-wiki has sunk. Of course I also ask U4C to repeal this block and to give moderator XXBlackburnXx a serious warning. Wickey (talk) 15:13, 13 June 2026 (UTC)reply

To give some background on the last block: Basically, XXB implicitly asserts that:

a. By sending a courtesy ping to Oosthoektimes on meta-wiki, I would have violated the contact prohibition in the arbitration that is already central in this case; by sending a ping I would have sought a confrontation with Oosthoektimes in violation of the arbitration. Why would I do so, for what purpose?

b. By referring on meta to two discussions with Oosthoektimes on nl-wiki in the context of the arbitration, I would have disrupted the nl-wiki.

c. By sending 4 pings on meta, I would have disrupted the project on nl-wiki (although I was already fully blocked for editing nl-wiki at that moment). In fact, it was only an invitation to the moderators to join the discussion on meta; how can this be construed as disruption of nl-wiki?

d. ArbCom and the moderators of nl-wiki have jurisdiction on meta to the extent of upholding an arbitration on nl-wiki (quod non), prohibit me to discuss the arbitration on meta (and in fact also the systematic faillure on nl-wiki), framing this as disruption of nl-wiki. Ciell and XXB went so far as to call my edit here a misconduct in the context of the arbitration.

Four false premises to get me blocked indefinitely.
XXB abused the said arbitration in line with the pattern of abuses I already explained in this case. Even if the premises were correct (quod non), it is unclear why XXBlackburnXx wanted to exploit them in order to change an already extremely long block. The only explanation seems that XXB did not want the current block to just expire and looked for an opportunity to make the block indefinitely. Even false premises were allowed for him.

After the last block, moderator Effeietsanders took the case to RegBlok (thanks and respect!). In that case, Woudloper falsely accused me of having written on meta that I called an attribution by him on nl-wiki 'bizar'. Such lying and framing by a prominent moderator is quite concerning, particularly in this context.

With much framing in the discussion on 16 June 2026 and a lot more fallacies in the conclusion, moderator Daniuu (who himself was involved by blocking me several times) decided on RegBlok not to unblock me. The moderators showed a false solidarity with XXBlackburnXx and essentially concurred with the false premises mentioned here. What's more, they blocked access to my talk page on nl-wiki to prevent discussion about the block. In fact, the moderators reconfirmed the systematic faillure on nl-wiki.

I repeat hereby my request to U4C to repeal this block. As the nl-community has spoken and expressed on RegBlok to be unwilling to do this, I expect U4C to take action immediately.
Wickey (talk) 13:05, 17 June 2026 (UTC)reply

On RegBlok, a ridiculous picture is painted of me that I am someone who is constantly making troubles on WP and frequently attemps to violate the arbitration by seeking the margins. The basic line seems to be that I am fundamentally acting in bad faith. Concluding moderator Daniuu falsely suggested that the current block is the result of a repeated violation of the prohibition of interaction. In fact, XXBlackburnXx was the first one to use this argument for the last blockade. Some argued that I showed no self-reflection. A cheap standard argument of moderators, used when they want to maintain some block.

I would say: the moderators in their bubble lack self-reflection. It is evidently absurd and disproportionate to ban a user from Wikipedia for an edit like this one.

They ignore the fact that there is a mechanism in operation that automatically leads to a chain of blocks if the arbitration is applied in ignorance or in bad faith. Rapidly leading to long blocks, regardless the reason for the block.
They deliberately ignore the fact that the arbitration itself is weird.
They also ignore that the arbitration itself is disputed from the beginning.
They ignore the fact that requests to review and abolish the arbitration are never dealt with.
They also ignore that the moderator system on nl-wiki has consistently and systematically failed. That is not a view, but a fact.

Before reproaching me for lack of self-reflection, the moderators in their bubble should adress those points.

So, let us take a look in detail at the arbitration itself.

The work of the late ArbCom was finished off quite sloppy. The alleged goal of the arbitration in general was to regulate the discussions between Oosthoektimes en Wickey (editing in the main space is explicitly excluded).

Measure 1 is not relevant anymore.

Measure 2 is a prohibition of interaction between Oosthoektimes en Wickey. It is safe to say that this is the core of the arbitration. It makes, however, no sense. It was neither based on reasonable considerations (such as constantly attacking over a long period), nor was explained why a specific indefinite measure was needed and why the form of it was useful and effective.

The former ArbCom provided two recent examples of 'disruption' and two other weak links. Before, there was never given any warning. Much more important is, that Oosthoektimes has a ridiculous style of discussing in a repeating pattern and that he is the source of disruption, not me. His block log is proof. He has a bunch of active partial blocks, I have not. Oosthoektimes has also structural problems with other users about dubious edits and in discussions.

Yet, the numerous blocks I got did not arise from violations of measure 2, but from measure 3. Measure 3 is a really weird and Kafkaesque sanction which reads:

"It is Wickey not permitted to comment on another user in any way, neither positively nor negatively."

ArbCom did not provide any explanation for why this bizar sanction was needed, nor why indefinitely, in this wording, and why this would be an effective measure. What is certain, is that this case on meta is the direct result of measure 3.
Wickey (talk) 16:34, 18 June 2026 (UTC)reply

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 (Woudloper)

My nick was mentioned, so let's explain my role. As an admin I argued against blocking Wickey at that specific moment in time. I argued that the relevant edits were not against the spirit of the arbcom ruling. Imho the accusing party (Vlaemink) interpreted the ruling too literally (i.e. wiki-lawyering) and selectively (the ruling itself placed Wickey's behaviour in the context of that of others and it could be argued that the edits under scrutiny were provoked - a situation also covered by the ruling). Since I hadn't studied the entire prior history (which likely spans years) I left the decision to another admin. That admin (effeietsanders) respectfully noted my arguments, but (based on his prior experience) decided to block Wickey. Woodwalker_talk 05:55, 23 April 2026 (UTC)reply

Other Feedback (Effeietsanders)

Dutch Wikipedia community is currently facing significant governance challenges. To provide context, I will outline a specific case and the broader systemic issues involved.

The Case of Wickey: The user Wickey has a long history of revert wars and high-conflict discussions. This behavior has become so disruptive that several volunteers have privately admitted to avoiding certain pages entirely. A previous Arbitration Committee (Arbcom) case attempted to curb this intensity, but the measures proved ineffective.

In February 2026, a request to block Wickey was rejected, though a formal warning was issued regarding "skirting the line." By early March, despite continued friction, another administrator (ContextCreator) opted for a warning rather than a block. On March 20, I responded to a further request, concluding that an active edit war and a non-constructive attitude justified a block [31]. (overview of 2026 complaints)

Arbcom essentially placed Wickey on a "suspended block" with strict guidelines. In many other communities, a user with this track record would likely have been indefinitely blocked long ago. While there are marginal improvements, the fundamental behavior remains unchanged, making it difficult to justify reversing any current restrictions.

Broader Community Issues: Toxicity on Dutch Wikipedia discussion pages is frequently too much. Recently, administrators have intensified efforts to enforce Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) standards; this is thankless work. Disagreements among admins on the best approach have led to interventions being controversial, particularly regarding disruptive users like Wickey.

While a swift appeal process is necessary, Dutch Arbcom has historically struggled to serve this function effectively. The community is currently "soul-searching" to find a viable governance path, including a scheduled gathering in late May.

Systemic Concerns: There remains the question of how to handle the four categories traditionally managed by the Arbcom:

Appeals for long-term blocks.
First-instance arbitration requests.
Revisiting prior decisions.
CheckUser appointments.

Referring complex cases back to a full community vote is counterproductive; Arbcom was established specifically to provide calm evaluation rather than a popular vote. I see two further ways the U4C (Universal Community Charter Coordinating Committee) could assist, if it determined this necessary:

Direct Ruling: U4C could rule on certain categories itself.
Case-by-Case delegation: U4C could appoint uninvolved, experienced volunteers to hear specific cases.

Such a group could review admin interventions or revisit standing decisions. This structure might also serve as a temporary stop-gap for CheckUser supervision. The core issue is not a lack of trust in the concept of an Arbcom, but a lack of volunteers willing to serve under current conditions. Utilizing a specialized body would be more aligned with existing arbitration regulations than returning to public votes. Effeietsanders (talk) 11:13, 23 April 2026 (UTC)reply

Other Feedback (Labrang)

Since I am frequently mentioned in the request, a reaction from my side. Trying to be as short and concise as possible without going into the case details as such - I think they speak for themselves. I have known Wickey as a valuable contributor in his own right on a subject that many Dutch wikipedians have turned their heads away from, for various reasons (persistent conflicts is one of them, if not the most important one). Bearing that in mind, just about every contributor on the topic is bound to find multiple adversaries, like it or not, and even conflict, regardless the contributions of Wickey. I assume that is not a strange (yet undesired) situation wikipedia-wide. Some describe Wickey as a problematic user who is part (or even the root) of the problem. I think that is a misjudgement, especially when the wider context is left unconsidered.

Not saying Wickey is an easy "character" (I think overall that is not a unique "quality" on wikipedia, please..), but editorial compromises can be reached with him - the core of what we do: collaboration. I think I can say that at times I did pop my head into it, I have been able to "handle" both sides (relevant to the case, that is Wickey, Oosthoektimes and Vlaemink), while it has been extremely difficult and close to impossible to come to editorial terms with the latter two, who ultimately can't seem to accept a compromise and just start all over again in a matter of days or weeks to push their ball once more. Just an indication of "difficult" or "problematic" persona regarding the core values of wikipedia, and relevant to the discussion here - in light of the picture Wickey has painted.

Which overall picture I subscribe to, as an independent party to this, a non-moderator and not involved in ArbCom measures (although having a short period of ArbCom experience in 2023). A core value I upheld when I was part of the ArbCom team was to ensure a safe working environment for all, regardless the "reputation" of editors. Just and fairness in the context of the case. Also protection against (or prevention of) bullying and ensuring everyone remains on an equal "wiki-legal" playing field. Arbitration (punitive) measures against an editor should never be intended to put the punished into a (more) vulnerable position as side-effect. A vulnerable position in which their "wiki-legal" position is undermined, made less equal than others, and can be exploited for abuse, harrassment and bullying, putting them in an impossible situation to defend oneself. Containment of their alleged behavior or wrongdoings should never result in them becoming (more) vulnerable to abuse with the intention to seek (more) punitive measures.

Sometimes this cannot be predicted in advance. But if one can see this undesired effect happening, one would typically seek adjustment. A medical metaphor comes to mind. Wickey has been put into a vulnerable and impossible position by an odd arbitrary measure (measure 3) through which his wikipedia opponents have effectively been facilitated with a very low bar to bully him into more sanctions. Especially when one knows which verbal buttons to press. The community, be it moderators, a non-existent ArbCom or the community as a whole, seemed to have turned a blind eye for that pattern that has evolved, perpetuating a so-called unsafe environment for an editor, in which he cannot defend himself properly against allegations and personal attacks. Additionally with a grey zone of what is "on the ball" and a "personal remark" falling under the arbcom measure.

The measure is the ultimate carte blanche for Wickey's opponents to hound him wherever he goes. As shown, an editor who has been addressed in the past for discussion methods, has suddenly out of the blue taken a specific interest in the I-P pages and more specifically Wickey's contributions, seemingly singling him out, actively seeking confrontation, and running to the RegBlok with lighting speed to appeal for violation of measure 3. Seemingly driving the discussion or challenged issues on a page with that aim.

As indicated, Wickey cannot even file a complaint against harrassment and bullying as per the context of referred measure 3 / maatregel 3. Someone else has to do it, as filing a complaint is "saying something negatively" about an editor, which he is forbidden by the measure (I mean, it doesn't take science to see that, doesn't it? It's Kafkaesque). "That's your own fault" won't do. Even convicted criminals in real life have an equal legal position to challenge new situations. This is the core of what we are dealing with here, and it falls on deaf ears within Dutch wikipedia ranks.

Contributing factors in Wickey's case are the lack of an expiration date of the measures and the effective abolishment of the arbcom for the forseeable future, taking away any formal possibility of appeal and readjustment, based on developments. Despite my own frequent suggestions to look into the potential abuse in the context of RegBlok requests by Wickey's opponents trying to get him sanctioned based on measure 3, the moderator team has long seemed to ignore this, aggravating the abuse, the cycle of verbal aggression and escalation. The main perpetrator has now been blocked for a few months, but that is not related Wickey.

It is not my position to judge or review the moderator team, but I wish there would be more thoroughness and insight into such developments and dynamics, that have been presented and suggested in front of their eyes, in plain sight. That they take a "safe" environment in the context of the UCoC at heart, regardless the reputation of the editor concerned. Be open or find ways to (re)adjustment of existing ArbCom measures - in lack of the ArbCom - if they prove to be counterproductive, unjust for the punished, creating an unsafe zone for the punished editor. "Not my task" is not an answer that would or should satisfy in this context.

I have the impression the "reputation" or "standing" of an editor plays a role in the way they are treated, and the way Wickey's case has played out. Even though some may deny this plays a role, I think the point has proven itself recently with another editor who was finally blocked, after he made himself totally impossible for long term and systematic "project disruptive behavior", but long escaped disciplinary measures as he was "respected" by a crucial part of the community.

Concluding, in recent weeks a lot has happened around some editors and it seems there has been some kind of "wake-up call". However, I doubt it has been enough. I share Wickey's assessment the situation in the Dutch wikipedia regarding upholding the UCoC is unhealthy. It is currently not my place or moment to provide answers or suggestions how to change that. --Labrang (talk) 11:41, 27 April 2026 (UTC)reply

Other Feedback (Ciell)

I blocked Wickey twice: on 18 July 2025 for 1 day and on 23 July 2025 for 3 days. Both blocks were requested by Vlaemink, because of comments made by Wickey. I also blocked this requester for one day (why can be read in the same link) on 23 July 2025 because of his own role in derailing the I-P (Israel-Palestine) discussion: ‘As I conclude that you are not without blame either, you have also been given a one-day block. Both of you, in a broader sense and across multiple articles, persist in biased and disruptive behaviour, and that really benefits no one. Take your foot off the throttle every now and then.’ Following a discussion, this block was lifted and converted into a warning on the same day: "The 'annoying' thing about behaviour that undermines collaboration is that you sometimes don’t even realise you’re doing it. I will lift your block, but let this be a warning that you are balancing on the edge a little too often." (= intended as assuming good faith one last time) An ArbCom case filed by Vlaemink against me about this block in his block-log is still pending due to the absence of our Arbitration Committee.
I initially acted on the block-requests because, as the Genocide in Gaza-article’s creator, I was familiar with the articles in question and had been following the discussions there. However, as the discussion continued to escalate, it was brought to my attention that there might be a perceived conflict of interest for me due to my involvement with the article's content, and I subsequently did not respond to any further requests for blocks regarding this matter.

I agree that Wickey's fellow contributors on the topics he edits are making it difficult for him to collaborate, and that Wickey is more likely to be blocked than they are, because of the AC ruling. On the other hand, Wickey continues to make comments, for example in the edit summaries, which he could easily avoid by summarizing his edits purely in terms of content (“response”, “as discussed”, “new source added”, etc.) instead of commenting on the discussions. Wickey’s article edits are sometimes at odds with the five pillars (particularly at reference level), but given the article subjects where references are plentiful yet their reliability is just as often questioned by other sources, this is not unexpected. As I perceive the collaboration, he is willing to compromise regarding article content.

Regarding the implementation of the UCoC on nlwp: for context, the Dutch Wikipedia currently has 31 moderators for 2.2 million articles and around 1,200 active editors each month. With such a limited group of users interested in governance tasks, it is not surprising that a single user holds more than one hat.
Whilst moderators are expected to implement policy, it is up to the community as a whole to develop and approve that policy. The fact that the ArbCom has functioned less effectively over the last 10 years is, in my view, also linked to the community’s failure to adapt existing policy and establish new policies. With only 31 moderators, it is impossible, despite our best efforts, to moderate the project extensively. It is therefore logical that moderators intervene where the need is most obvious (vandalism in articles) and that they are reluctant to intervene in ongoing conflicts between editors, which take up far more time and (emotional) energy. The community, which is responsible for its own moderation policies, is often reluctant to express support for major interventions by moderators but is vocal in objections to decisions taken by a moderator, particularly when matters need to be hidden from general view via rev-del or oversight. This kind of push-back does not help a moderator who is already hesitant to act, when a next situation asks for intervention. The community is subsequently imposing ever-higher demands on moderators, ranging from tracking the admin activity levels down to the types of admin actions, to ridiculing the words one uses in discussions, to spreading doubt over the exact interpretation of our policies. The Dutch community will need to be more vigilant itself to ensure that the small team of moderators does not burn out and leave.

FYI: In May 2026, a governance meeting has been scheduled to work on solutions to the impasse surrounding the ArbCom, as well as to initiate the much needed updates to the Dutch Guidelines for Moderators (admin-guidelines). I am one of the organisers for the event, with support from Wikimedia Netherlands. Ciell (talk) 09:44, 29 April 2026 (UTC)reply

Other Feedback (De Wikischim)

I'll give a short reaction since my name is mentioned hereabove as well.

First, I fully agree that applying the UcOC (which I actually don't support at all, at least in its current form) the way it is currently done on Wikipedia-nl lacks the desired effect and rather works detrimentally to the project. The results are situations like those Wickey describes hereabove (this is certainly not everything yet - I think it's evident Wickey is just one of the numerous users on nl-wp who are frequently involved in disputes like this one).

In particular about the conflict described hereabove: the Israeli-Gaza war is, of course, a really very complicated and sensitive subject. Wickey has been blocked now for being involved, but imo they're certainly not the only user who's to blame for the current escalation. I also believe user:Vlaemink (they [I mean the gender-neutral pronoun here] don't seem active yet here on Meta), already mentioned here by Wickey, has at least an equally large share. On the other hand, I think applying the UcOC shouldn't have been done this way at all to any user. Consequently, all the blocks discussed here have no actual valid ground, if it's considered in that light. De Wikischim (talk) 10:12, 30 April 2026 (UTC)reply

For now, I'd rather see some more explanation especially on [...] the nlwiki community may hear appeals from sanctioned users [...]. As far as I (being one of the more active and steady contributors on Wikipedia-nl) know, this is already the current situation. So, what's exactly the new suggestion here? Or should this actually be interpreted as "the nlwiki community as a whole" (instead of just the arbitration committee, a few more or less accidentally involved sysops, ...)? Still another issue: I have some serious doubts on whether members of the "UCoC team", operating here on the "worldwide" Meta Wiki, really do have enough understanding of, and affinity with the community and all relevant internal processes on wp-nl, a very local project as such. De Wikischim (talk) 14:19, 4 May 2026 (UTC)reply

Two comments (Brya)

As to cronyism: to me the admins involved appear to be rugged individualists, and getting more than one to walk the same line would be a challenge. What is the case, is that of the few dozen admins on nlwiki only a minority involves itself with blocking users. This minority is faced all too often with the same few regulars who frequent the RegBlok page, leading to a degree of frustration on both sides.
The option to review ArbCom decisions by the community seems like a recipe for an exercise in futility to me. It is different for the evaluation moments often included in rulings of the ArbCom. It may be useful to allow the community to evaluate how a ruling has worked out, at such times when the ArbCom is unable to do this itself. - Brya (talk) 10:40, 30 April 2026 (UTC)reply

Discussion between the involved parties and the U4C members

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

Request for clarification on Motion 1

Could I ask the Committee to clarify the following, if the motion is adopted: what is considered an 'appeal'? In this context, I think there are a few categories that could be understood as 'appeal' in some form (please correct me if I missed any):

Request to revisit a case decision due to "changed circumstances" (art 4.3 / 5.11). The arbcom has normally unique jurisdiction to hear this.
Request to revisit a case decision due to "implementation problems" (5.11). The arbcom has normally unique jurisdiction to hear this.
Appeal to a block implemented by an admin (art. 6). The current rules provide currently two paths to such 'appeal': a request to arbcom, or through a specific regulated 'blokpeiling' (RvM) to the communuity.
General appeal to any admin decision: This would potentially be a regular first-instance case before the arbcom - if they would even hear it. For example, this could be someone appealing a decision not to block a user, enforce an (interpretation of) a rule, or deleting a page. Normally this is dealt with by a second admin, although this is poorly codified. Sometimes this is dealt with by a second admin after at least 5 admins have shared their viewpoint (5-mods optie). This is really more of a catch-all category.

The second clarification I would have, is which party gets to set the 'question' and format for such a request to the community. For example, Dutch Wikipedia has a rule that 55% support is generally needed to pass a vote. So framing the question in the positive or negative would have an impact. Effeietsanders (talk) 11:13, 2 May 2026 (UTC)reply

The intent of this motion is the first two bulletpoints. To De Wikischim's comments above, the intent is that places where only the ArbCom could normally hear an appeal (the Community normally could not) to allow an explicit option while there is no nlAC. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:44, 4 May 2026 (UTC)reply

At present, the only alternative would be a general vote by all users. Most voters would vote with the gut, having little notion of the details of the case. That's the clue of my remark just below this subsection. Setting up an alternative procedure will take quite a lot of time. Wickey (talk) 15:37, 4 May 2026 (UTC)reply

Opinion Wickey on motion 1

Art. 5.11 explicitly rules out appeals other than at ArbCom itself. As pointed out in point 4 in my section above, I vainly walked this way.

WP is not a democracy. I don't see how decisions by ArbCom can be judged thoroughly by popular vote. Please reconsider the current motion.
--Wickey (talk) 11:27, 2 May 2026 (UTC)reply

There is a funny contradiction in the 30 April motion. It proposes that the nlwiki community may hear appeals while respecting restrictions on appeals placed by ArbCom. Yet, the ArbCom rules implicitly rule out that the nlwiki community may hear appeals.--Wickey (talk) 10:08, 3 May 2026 (UTC)reply

Proposal regarding the block

Referral of this part of the case back to the nl-wiki community would be a faillure of the U4C itself. My proposal is:

Immediate abolition of the block and the ArbCom sanctions
My promise is that I will fully respect the rules; the nl-moderators will monitor that
U4C will investigate the past behaviour of the moderators and the deceased ArbCom, and the integrity of the system

Wickey (talk) 14:07, 5 May 2026 (UTC)reply

U4C decision

Only U4C members may edit in this section.

U4C member discussion

I will admit to only having read 1, 6, and 7 in-depth at this moment. Because the dutch arbcom was a high-level decision making body at the time, we would need to find systemic failure to change one of its decisions. The lack of any mechanism to appeal an arbcom sanction is a systemic failure, but I do not find the case for systemic failure in 7 at all persuasive^{see note}. So I would suggest the right thing for us to do is pass a motion allowing the Dutch community to hear appeals as a community until a time the Dutch ArbCom resumes functioning. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:21, 22 April 2026 (UTC)reply

Note

Perhaps I don't find it persuasive because I am one of 3 people on the largest project to combine admin, crat, CU, and OS, with one of those also having interface admin and being a steward. I think the concentration of roles is a problem but also reflects a similar problem to why the U4C only has half a committee. So I acknowledge the problems that come with this kind of role concentration and agree it's not ideal, but unfortunately we're in a non-ideal time. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:21, 22 April 2026 (UTC)reply

In my opinion, when there was an nlarbcom, this conflict was clearly not in our scope. In absence of an arbcom, our jurisdiction is not as clear. We technically could handle these cases. But i would definitely prefer that the nlwiki community (as the most powerful local group in respect to decisions) handles review of nlarbcom decisions as long as they do not have an arbcom again. --Ghilt (talk) 11:11, 30 April 2026 (UTC)reply

Accept votes

Decline votes

Motions

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

✅ Passed Motion — Date: 2 May 2026

Until the nlwiki ArbCom resumes operation, the nlwiki community may hear appeals from ArbCom sanctioned users; all appeals must respect any restrictions on appeals placed by ArbCom. When deciding an appeal, nlwiki may refer an appeal to the U4C.

Motion edited with consent to clarify which appeals this is intended to be about. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:24, 4 May 2026 (UTC)reply

Support

Oppose

Abstain

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.

We have seen this request. On behalf of the U4C, --Civvì (talk) 11:03, 22 April 2026 (UTC)reply

The case is closed. On behalf of the U4C, --Civvì (talk) 17:41, 22 June 2026 (UTC)reply