Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case: Difference between revisions

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
updating count
→Request to de-sysop Jondel: Rmv request; declined by the committee
Line 6: Line 6:
<noinclude>{{ArbComOpenTasks|acotstyle=float:right}}</noinclude>{{NOINDEX}}
<noinclude>{{ArbComOpenTasks|acotstyle=float:right}}</noinclude>{{NOINDEX}}
{{Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header<noinclude>|width=45%</noinclude>}}
{{Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header<noinclude>|width=45%</noinclude>}}

== Request to de-sysop Jondel ==
'''Initiated by ''' [[User:Toddst1|Toddst1]] <small>([[User talk: Toddst1|talk]])</small> '''at''' 23:58, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

=== Involved parties ===
<!-- Please change "userlinks" to "admin" if the party is an administrator -->
*{{userlinks|Toddst1}}, ''filing party''
*{{admin|Jondel}}

;Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
<!-- All parties must be notified that the request has been filed, immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. -->
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jondel&diff=778073454&oldid=778013518]

;Confirmation that other steps in [[Wikipedia:dispute resolution|dispute resolution]] have been tried
* [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive288#Emil_Bachrach ]]
* [[User_talk:Jondel#List_of_Asian_Jews]]
* Private email with Jondel

=== Statement by Toddst1 ===
I am putting forward a motion to de-sysop {{admin|Jondel}} for the following reasons:
# His last several blocks have shown significantly poor judgement
# His recent edits show a diminished grasp of the basics of editing Wikipedia.
While [[WP:CIR]] for editing, I believe we have a situation where judgement and/or editing skills have diminished drastically (for whatever reasons) to the point where this individual has no business with administrative privileges.

I have discussed these issues directly with Jondel via email and they were discussed recently [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive288#Emil_Bachrach |on AN]]. In both discussions, I have asked Jondel to voluntarily request removal of admin privileges, but he has refused.

;Last 3 blocks:
*{{user5|112.202.14.185}} was blocked without warning for 3 hours, 5 hours after the editor made a lifetime total of 2 edits. Both of these edits appear to have been ''reverting'' vandalism [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Noli_Me_T%C3%A1ngere_(novel)&diff=762705210&oldid=762702253] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Noli_Me_T%C3%A1ngere_(novel)&diff=next&oldid=762705210]. No warnings were given before the block and no [[WP:EXPLAINBLOCK]] action afterwards. This was followed by Jondel [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Noli_Me_T%C3%A1ngere_(novel)&diff=next&oldid=762919261 fully-protecting the page] that the IP had reverted vandalism on for no apparent reason.
*{{user5|124.168.174.252}} was blocked for 72 hours for a single edit. No warnings were given before the block and no [[WP:EXPLAINBLOCK]] action afterwards.
*{{user5|38.132.34.58}} was blocked for for 1 week, a day after they made 2 edits. No warnings were given before the block and no [[WP:EXPLAINBLOCK]] action afterwards.
Looking further back at this editor's block log, there is a pattern of blocking IP addresses with one or two edits without warning. Just look at all the red links to the talk pages of IP's he has blocked: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/block/Jondel]
;Basic editing:
I recently interacted with Jondel, coming across a remarkably poor series of edits by him on [[List of Asian Jews]]. I think the [[User_talk:Jondel#List_of_Asian_Jews|discussion on his talk page]] illustrates what I believe is a lack of basic understanding of the policies of Wikipedia. Specific issues:
* Significant [[WP:BLP]] issues without anything to support his claims[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Asian_Jews&type=revision&diff=776358555&oldid=775494969]
* Not understanding [[WP:LISTPEOPLE]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Asian_Jews&type=revision&diff=776358555&oldid=775494969], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Asian_Jews&diff=prev&oldid=777938920]
* Misusing rollback to edit war [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Asian_Jews&diff=776569343&oldid=776377102]
* Not notifying me that I was being discussed on AN

In all of these interactions where folks have pointed out Jondel's being out of step with our editing policies, his answer has commendably been along the lines of "I'll have to study up on that." I believe it would be best if such studying about basic editing was done without the administrative privileges.

=== Statement by Jondel ===
Kindly allow me to learn. Back then trolls had more freedom. Please understand that I have 6,419 on my watchlist and am concerned that they don't get vandalized. There are also articles which get vandalized often and for those I place a short-term protect once it gets vandalized.

The article [[Noli Me Tangere]] in concern with 112.202.14.185 was getting vandalized frequently at that time. There was an impression that the article would be vandalized and it was soon after the vandalization.
There was no edit war intend with the rollback since a source was supplied. The Freider brothers were a major contribuitor to a major Jewish Temple and mentioned in the [[History_of_the_Jews_in_the_Philippines]] and frequently mentioned regarding Jews in the Philippines. A source was provided as the same source of [[Emil Bachrach]].--[[User:Jondel|Jondel]] ([[User talk:Jondel|talk]]) 01:30, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

*:(@Opabaminia Regalis)I apologize about my brazen blocks. I will definitely and faithfully warn the vandaliser and if the vandaliser has been warned, further inform before blocking. Right now I am studying other current and recent administrators are handling vandalism correctly, how they inform or warn.--[[User:Jondel|Jondel]] ([[User talk:Jondel|talk]]) 03:38, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
*:About things which aren't problems after all which are " Not understanding" and "WP:LISTPEOPLE [6], [7]" and " Misusing rollback to edit war [8]" ; because a source was provided which should have been sufficient. The Freiders were also mentioned in the [[History of the Jews in the Philippines]]. Perhaps I could provide different sources(?) About the rollbacks I didn't assume it would be offensive since a source was provided. Toddst also could have checked the sources the first time, at the article where the names were linked to. --[[User:Jondel|Jondel]] ([[User talk:Jondel|talk]]) 03:53, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
*:Another add to 'things which aren't problems': This blocked [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2600:8801:118B:DD00:B1D5:8360:F9B2:189F guy] didn't receive any warning.--[[User:Jondel|Jondel]] ([[User talk:Jondel|talk]]) 06:20, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
@Julian, kindly understand that misuse is not bad-faith. Thanks for bringing this to my attention though, at the very least I will not fail to inform the vandaliser of his /her offence before being punitive. The dog needs to learn new tricks. I am indeed receptive to change.--[[User:Jondel|Jondel]] ([[User talk:Jondel|talk]]) 05:05, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@Softlavender, there is no requirement to place an admin id on the userpage.Thanks for bringing this to my attention though and allow me to place one properly. I haven't been editing because I do editing in other language(latin, interrlingua,etc) wikis as well. I will be providing well-sourced articles soon though.--[[User:Jondel|Jondel]] ([[User talk:Jondel|talk]]) 04:30, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@Todd says'Not notifying me that I was being discussed on AN'. My intention was to ask for help, not discuss you. Allow me to say Todd, you seem easily offended. Besides you Todd aren't an administrator. The admins discussion page is for Administrators only. Todd (you) shouldn't be able to see the admin page. Why should you be informed then? Is it because I have 'a diminished grasp of the basics of editing Wikipedia'(?). --[[User:Jondel|Jondel]] ([[User talk:Jondel|talk]]) 04:59, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@Todd, before the article, Emil was already mentioned as an industrialist Jew, which should have made him notable for adding in the List of Asan Jews. The source was provided at the History of Jews in the Philippines.--[[User:Jondel|Jondel]] ([[User talk:Jondel|talk]]) 04:59, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@Rob I don't think a messy user page would be grounds for desysop. Thanks for bringing this to my attention though and allow me to cleanup. I hope this is not part of your 'cloud'? Rob responding to "Allow me to learn basic policies while wielding the block button" that was done way before my statement "Allow me to learn". You are making me look like I'm capitalizing or taking advantage of some kind of 'cloud'(?).--[[User:Jondel|Jondel]] ([[User talk:Jondel|talk]]) 04:59, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@Newyokbrad. If I am allowed to retained my status as an admin, I will do my best safeguard The English wiki against vandalizers. McDutchie over at the interlingua wiki, recently attacked by vandalisers thinks I am an excellent administrator([https://ia.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Discussion_Usator:Jondel&action=edit&section=32 "You work as an administrator is highly appreciated.", pls use google la>en translate to read).

I certainly will not do range blocks like NinjaRobotPirate @Floq, without at least providing a warning at one of the ip address where the vandalism. There is no need for warning at each individual IP address but at least 1 or 2 address, a warning is waranted.

Allow me to point out that Sam Walton's example , e.g. of Category:Noli Me Tangere (novel) Characters is out of context as, in the process of editing ,you need to delete and create. Of course an instance of deletion would appear as a vandalism. At the Annabellle Rama article, same with many articles, I do my best to preserve elements of the article that Author-editor would have wanted to express.--[[User:Jondel|Jondel]] ([[User talk:Jondel|talk]]) 20:10, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@SamWalton. "I wasn't saying that these were all bad,". I believe you. However the effect is the same and made a significant impact. After your posting, there were about 3 or 4 Arbitror accepts. Please take that I am also only 1 admin against so many admins and arbitrators who can enlist each other's help. Not that my shortcomings are forgiveable. --[[User:Jondel|Jondel]] ([[User talk:Jondel|talk]]) 20:50, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the Admin's page. I apologize to Todd and the Wikipedia community in assuming that it was for Admin's only. Please bear in mind that when I posted there, it was an appeal for help to allow me o my intention was finish my article without incident, it wasn't to discuss Todd's behavior. Please assume good faith.--[[User:Jondel|Jondel]] ([[User talk:Jondel|talk]]) 20:50, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken. I express my appreciation for your belief in me.--[[User:Jondel|Jondel]] ([[User talk:Jondel|talk]]) 20:56, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad and all.I apologize for the mistakke of blocking an ip which was trying to protect. A brash mistake in the panic of protecting under ongoing vandalism. Sam Walton says 'I agree completely that deleting something you just created is not really a problem. A deletion summary would have been nice as now only administrators know the reason,' However

Soon after he posted , there were about 3 or 4 Arbitror accepts, it seems there was little consideration that deleting , eg. of a a category etc is part ot the editing process. --[[User:Jondel|Jondel]] ([[User talk:Jondel|talk]]) 22:41, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I tender my resignation as a an administrator. Kindly desysop me. I am about to leave for work and can not attend to this. I am concerned that the 6,431 articles on my watch will not be less maintained nor vandalized after the desysop. Thank you very much for hearing me out and being as accommodating as can be.--[[User:Jondel|Jondel]] ([[User talk:Jondel|talk]]) 23:40, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

===Statement by uninvolved Softlavender===
Offhand, this looks like a "wow, how did that go on for so long" thing. Jondel's [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jondel&oldid=643979393 userpage] is a mess of ranting-style elements and nowhere mentions that he is an admin. He has not edited substantially in over a decade [https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=Jondel&project=en.wikipedia.org]. He was sysopped back in 2005 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Jondel] when adminship was supposedly "no big deal". This seems to be a brick in the case to be made for having admins re-qualify (or something similar) every decade or less. [[User:Softlavender|Softlavender]] ([[User talk:Softlavender|talk]]) 00:17, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

=== Statement by BU Rob13 ===
I urge the Committee to either accept this or resolve it by motion. If this Committee will ever be applying [[WP:ADMINCOND]], this is it. If this ''isn't'' an example of ADMINCOND, I can't imagine what the community had in mind when writing that bit of policy. ~ [[User:BU Rob13|<b>Rob</b><small><sub>13</sub></small>]]<sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">[[User talk:BU Rob13|Talk]]</sup> 00:46, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
*"Allow me to learn" is a statement I fully get behind generally. "Allow me to learn basic policies while wielding the block button" is a tad different. ~ [[User:BU Rob13|<b>Rob</b><small><sub>13</sub></small>]]<sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">[[User talk:BU Rob13|Talk]]</sup> 01:42, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
*As an aside, I ''am'' supportive of allowing Jondel to step down without being considered "under a cloud" to allow time to learn, with the understanding that if he returns to sysop at a later time and ''hasn't'' learned, the Committee will desysop for cause. We should always incentivize stepping aside when your experience has become out-of-date and you're no longer up to snuff as an admin. ~ [[User:BU Rob13|<b>Rob</b><small><sub>13</sub></small>]]<sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">[[User talk:BU Rob13|Talk]]</sup> 01:48, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
*{{re|Capeo}} It's my understanding that a case can be resolved by motion after being accepted at any time. I agree there isn't much "good" to a full case here, but accepting does not necessarily mean the Committee isn't considering a motion. ~ [[User:BU Rob13|<b>Rob</b><small><sub>13</sub></small>]]<sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">[[User talk:BU Rob13|Talk]]</sup> 21:21, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

===Statement by Juliancolton===
I'll endorse Toddst1's assessment of the situation (with the disclosure that I was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Juliancolton&diff=778074119&oldid=777768820 alerted] to this proceeding because I had previously participated in the aforementioned AN thread). When challenged to adhere to basic verifiability requirements, Jondel [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=776572544 remarked], "I guess wiki has changed a lot since the start." Many admins occasionally overlook incremental changes to policy and have to spend a little time getting back up to speed, but to be apparently oblivious to ''any'' changes to our verification and sourcing expectations between "the start" of wiki and 2017 is almost abominable. This isn't just academic; the repeated and blatant misuse—I'd go so far as to say borderline abuse—of the blocking feature, out-of-process page protections, use of rollback in a content dispute, etc. all strongly suggest Jondel is so far out of touch with current policies and standards that they can't possibly be said to hold the community's trust. Jondel's receptiveness to (at least some) advice from their peers should be commended, but this particular +sysop flag is a clear net negative. – '''[[User:Juliancolton|<span style="font-family:Script MT Bold;color:#36648B">Juliancolton</span>]]'''&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;[[User_talk:Juliancolton|<sup><span style="font-family:Verdana;color:gray;text-shadow:gray .2em .18em .12em">''Talk''</span></sup>]] 01:14, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

=== Statement by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi===

Like others, I followed the ANI in almost increasing wonderment at the clear blue water between some of our most basic (even, perhaps, obvious) policies and the actual policies. I was certainly sympathetic to the suggesting l suggestion of retraining. However; Jondel's [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=778108331&oldid=778105819&title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case own statement] that '{{green|The admins discussion page is for Administrators only. Todd (you) shouldn't be able to see the admin page. Why should you be informed then?}}' persuaded me otherwise. <s>Since there is- and has been for as long as I've known it- a big banner at the top of that very page explaining that the board is for'administrators and experienced editors', that indicates something more than a lack of training, but an unwillingness to do basic reading. As such, I now fail to see how they could be trusted to retrain if they are unable to demonstrate basic skills.</s> Apologies to all, especially Jondel, it has now been pointed out to me that of course the case wasn't at ANI, and that there is no such notice at the top of AN. Apologies for confusing the issue. However, I will emphasise however, notwithstanding that, for them to think that no-one else should be even allowed to ''see'' the board, let alone, participate, is still outlandish enough to doubt their competence to wield the tools with precision. &mdash; [[User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi|<span style="color:maroon; text-shadow:#666362 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">'''O Fortuna'''</span>]][[User talk:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi|<span style="color:navy"><sup>''''' semper crescis, aut decrescis'''''</sup></span>]] 08:05, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

=== Statement by pldx1 ===

As of today, exactly zero ordinary user has ever been desysoped for making a range of bad blocs. Thus, according to the Super-Mario principle, Jondel should only be trouted. On the other hand, one can also consider that, for putting the Super-Mario principle in disrepute, Jondel should be desysoped. In order to decide which "should" is the dominant one, the case has to be accepted.
[[User:Pldx1|Pldx1]] ([[User talk:Pldx1|talk]]) 09:35, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

=== Statement by Samwalton9 ===
Per Opabinia's request for examples of Jondel's admin actions, I looked at his last 20 log actions and summarised the (10) admin actions taken. These are all the actions, regardless of whether I think they were good or not.
*December 2012 - [[Special:Diff/526852876|Fully protected]] [[Francis Xavier]] for 3 months after some minor back and forth on unsuitable content. No warnings given to users involved, and semi-protection would have had the same result. [[Talk:Francis_Xavier#Freeze|Stated]] "I am being forced to freeze this article. I will strive to keep this neutral and objective." [[Special:Diff/526979347|Changed the protection duration to 1 year]] a day later, and 11 days later [[Special:Diff/528750741|dropped the protection down to semi]] after a user requested a change at the talk page, but kept the duration at one year.
*December 2012 - Deleted [[Father Damaso]] with no reason provided, moving [[Father Dámaso]] there ([[Father Damaso]] was a redirect but had other edits, so this was a [[WP:G6|G6]]. Move was self-reverted a few hours later).
*December 2012 - Deleted [[British Seamans Boys Home]] with the rationale "Expired PROD, concern was: Appears to fail WP:GNG, unsourced.", but page had only been created 1 day ago and tagged with PROD 7 hours before deletion, making it ineligible for deletion yet.
*December 2012 - Deleted [[:Category:Noli Me Tangere (novel) Characters]] with no rationale. Jondel had created the category an hour earlier.
*December 2012 - Blocked [[Special:Contributions/80.6.227.210|80.6.227.210]] for 3 hours for [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Firewall_(computing)&diff=prev&oldid=527701372 self-reverted vandalism] one day prior. No warnings given.
*January 2013 - Blocked [[Special:Contributions/81.145.165.2|81.145.165.2]] for 31 hours for two vandalism edits made 1 and 2 days ago, with no warnings given.
*October 2013 - Semi-protected [[José Rizal]] for one day with the rationale "vandalisms" following a few days of vandalism.
*November 2013 - Blocked [[Special:Contributions/217.32.219.178|217.32.219.178]] for 2 weeks with no warnings following two vandalism edits.
*February 2014 - Blocked [[Special:Contributions/66.216.235.178|66.216.235.178]] for 60 hours for edit warring. Unblocked 2 days later by [[User:Only|Only]].
*July 2015 - Restored [[Annabelle Rama]], which had been [[WP:A7|A7]]'d in 2009, with the rationale "let me fix". Left the article like [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Annabelle_Rama&oldid=671917238 this].
*Latest three blocks and page protection are well described in [[#Statement_by_Toddst1|Toddst1's]] section above. [[User:Samwalton9|'''S'''am '''W'''alton]] ([[User talk:Samwalton9|talk]]) 10:49, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

{{ping|Jondel}} Per my note at the top, I wasn't saying that these were all bad, merely summarising your latest admin actions for other users to refer to. I agree completely that deleting something you just created is not really a problem. A deletion summary would have been nice as now only administrators know the reason, but it's not a big deal. [[User:Samwalton9|'''S'''am '''W'''alton]] ([[User talk:Samwalton9|talk]]) 20:14, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

=== Statement by uninvolved DoRD ===
@Jondel: Toddst1 is a former administrator who was desysopped for inactivity a couple of years ago. Prior to his inactivity, he was a prolific, experienced admin. And, {{tq|The admins discussion page is for Administrators only. Todd (you) shouldn't be able to see the admin page.}} WP:AN is not, and as far as I'm aware, has never been, restricted to administrators only. It is also not hidden from non-admins, because it isn't possible (save deletion) to prevent non-admins from viewing any pages on this project. ​—[[User:DoRD|DoRD]] ([[User talk:DoRD|talk]])​ 13:05, 1 May 2017‎ (UTC)
:{{small|In response to an off-wiki message:}} I did remember that there was some "cloudiness" at the end of Toddst1's adminship. Perhaps I should have mentioned it, but I didn't recall the details, and I didn't think that it was germane to the points I was making. My apologies for any confusion. ​—[[User:DoRD|DoRD]] ([[User talk:DoRD|talk]])​ 11:24, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

=== Statement by uninvolved NeilN ===
Pretty clear case of [[WP:ADMINACCT]]: "Administrators who seriously, or repeatedly, act in a problematic manner '''or have lost the trust or confidence of the community may be sanctioned or have their access removed'''" (emphasis mine). Does Arbcom need a thread at ANI with editors piling on criticizing Jondel? As far as I'm concerned, Jondel needs to edit and participate in discussions as an editor for a while to show they have a clue as an ''editor'', let alone an admin. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FCase&type=revision&diff=778108777&oldid=778105819 This] comment about Todd made today is completely at odds with their statement of "Noted I will be reviewing the workings" made a few days ago. --[[User:NeilN|<b style="color:navy">Neil<span style="color:red">N</span></b>]] <sup>[[User talk:NeilN|<i style="color:blue">talk to me</i>]]</sup> 13:24, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

If {{u|Jondel}} is desysopped they should only regain the tools via RFA. Despite their promise to learn about "the workings", they just restored a blatant BLP violation [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Religion_in_the_Philippines&diff=778334969&oldid=777640341] and warned the IP who removed it. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:124.83.102.179&oldid=778335194] --[[User:NeilN|<b style="color:navy">Neil<span style="color:red">N</span></b>]] <sup>[[User talk:NeilN|<i style="color:blue">talk to me</i>]]</sup> 14:34, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

=== Statement by Floq ===
{{ping|Jondel}} Regarding your example of [[User:NinjaRobotPirate]]'s block with no warning: please look again. That was a range block; IP addresses in that range have been vandalizing that article (and related articles) for a while. There's no need for a warning for each individual IP address. It is a fundamentally different situation that the blocks you've made.

There's no shame in admitting that you haven't kept up to speed on WP's policies and expectations of admins over the course of 13+ years. It's a very different site. Rather than go through the soul-crushing process of an ArbCom case, I'd suggest you just relinquish the admin tools, keep contributing as an editor (which is frankly more enjoyable anyway), and if you're ever active enough that you think you're up to speed and want to be an admin again, there's always [[WP:RFA]]. --[[User:Floquenbeam|Floquenbeam]] ([[User talk:Floquenbeam|talk]]) 15:34, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

=== Statement by uninvolved Deryck ===
I urge ArbCom to accept this case because it will set an important precedent to the question of "how much grace should we give an old admin losing touch with current common practices due to low activity and differences in policies between Wikimedia sites". Unlike other desysop cases there is no indication of bad temperament or malice, just an admin who is more active on another wiki who occasionally gets things wrong because enwiki is more mature a project than some others. As admin numbers on enwiki dwindle, this is an appropriate time to examine this question. [[User:Deryck Chan|Deryck]][[User talk:Deryck Chan| C.]] 17:51, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

=== Statement by Ivanvector ===
Eek. I regrettably must support desysop, and I encourage the Committee to desysop by motion per [[WP:LEVEL2]]. When I saw their comment that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&diff=778108331&oldid=778105819 "The admins discussion page is for Administrators only. Todd shouldn't be able to see the admin page."] I was flabbergasted. The "admins discussion page" (the [[WP:AN|Administrators' noticeboard]], I assume) has been the locale for ''all users'' to raise issues of importance to administrators for as long as I've been editing here (somewhere beyond seven years). It looks to me like Jondel has maintained the bit by making the absolute bare minimum of administrative actions to not be desysopped for inactivity, for several years in a row now, and it's clear they haven't kept up with any of the goings-on of the community with which they are now painfully out of touch. They've long since passed the threshold of "{{green|behaviour [...] inconsistent with the level of trust required for [their] associated advanced permissions}}", and it's clear that "{{green|no satisfactory explanation [is] forthcoming}}". [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (<sup>[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]</sub>) 18:28, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Furthermore, I believe that Jondel's desire to get up to speed on community practices is genuine, and admirable. The community's normal test of an editor's understanding of administrative responsibilities (and suitability for the role) is [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship]], which I suggest ought to be the test for Jondel. If he cannot pass that test then he does not have the trust of the community. [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (<sup>[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]</sub>) 18:33, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

=== Statement by Beyond My Ken ===
Jondel writes "The admins discussion page is for Administrators only." This is completely incorrect. The header to the page has a lot of information about what AN should and should not be used for, but nowhere does it say that non-admins are forbidden to take part in discussions there. In point of fact, anyone who is familair with AN (and ANI) knows that there is significant commentary from non-admins, and has been since I first discovered them in c.2007 or so. Further, Jondel, by not notifying Toddst1, ignored the large red box at the top of AN which says, very specifically "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page."

My feeling is that anyone who came to an RfA with the kind of misunderstandings and lack of information about policies and community standards that Jondel has displayed would '''''never''''' succeed at becoming an admin. This, in itself, would seem to be sufficient grounds for their being desysopped. While, I assume, genuine, "Let me study on that" is not, after being repeated multiple times, an encouraging response: when it happens too many times, it simply means that you really don't know your job well enough to do it properly. That appears to be the case here. [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 21:03, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

=== Statement by Capeo ===
Is a case really necessary here when the outcome is forgone? Frankly, it seems cruel. Whatever stress a desysop by motion may cause Jondel it will pale in comparison to getting dragged through an ArbCom case. Given the evidence above and some of Jondel's own responses a level 2 seems more than reasonable. [[User:Capeo|Capeo]] ([[User talk:Capeo|talk]]) 21:13, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

{{u|BU Rob13}}, I believe you're correct but, if accepted, I doubt that would happen until well into the evidence phase by which point Jondel's competence with be ruthlessly dissected to a degree that I see as unnecessary. To be clear, when I say ruthlessly I'm not implying malice on the part of anyone providing evidence, it's simply the nature of the process. A process that is necessary when a situation is contentious and not immediately clear. I'm just not seeing that here. We have an admin who thought AN was admin only, that only admins should be seeing it, and doesn't have a good grasp of what vandalism is or how an admin should handle it. We have an admin that hasn't been active here enough to keep up changes in policy or community norms. I don't see anyone who has chimed in here finding that contentious. So the committee can let Jondel know that now by figuratively yanking the band aid off in one shot and be done with it. The other option is letting Jondel get bludgeoned with this fact for weeks to arrive at the same place. [[User:Capeo|Capeo]] ([[User talk:Capeo|talk]]) 22:58, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

=== Statement by {Non-party} ===
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.
<!-- * Please copy this section for the next person. * -->

=== Clerk notes ===
:''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''
*

=== Bureaucrat notes ===
:''This area is used for notes by the bureaucrats.''
*{{U|Jondel}} has been desysopped per [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ABureaucrats%27_noticeboard&type=revision&diff=778573327&oldid=778573280 this request] by {{u|Ks0stm}}. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="darkgreen">日本穣</font>]] · <small>[[Special:Contributions/Nihonjoe|<font color="blue">投稿</font>]] · [[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]] · [[WP:JA|<font color="maroon">Join WP Japan</font>]]!</small> 00:02, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
**Which for the record merely links to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FCase&action=historysubmit&type=revision&diff=778572891&oldid=778571323 Jondel's own request]. [[User:Ks0stm|<font color="009900">'''Ks0stm'''</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:Ks0stm|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Ks0stm|C]]•[[User:Ks0stm/Guestbook|G]]•[[User:Ks0stm/Email|E]])</sup> 00:06, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
***Yes, which is clearly noted in the diff I provided. {{smiley}} ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="darkgreen">日本穣</font>]] · <small>[[Special:Contributions/Nihonjoe|<font color="blue">投稿</font>]] · [[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]] · [[WP:JA|<font color="maroon">Join WP Japan</font>]]!</small> 00:07, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
*Nihonjoe's [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=Nihonjoe&page=User%3AJondel&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=&subtype= log comment] appears to be more then sufficient for evaluating [[Wikipedia:Under a cloud|cloudiness]] should a non-RfA based request be presented by Jondel in the future. — [[User:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#FF9933; font-weight:bold; font-family:monotype;">xaosflux</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#009933;">Talk</span>]]</sup> 02:49, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
**I worded it that way on purpose. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<font color="darkgreen">日本穣</font>]] · <small>[[Special:Contributions/Nihonjoe|<font color="blue">投稿</font>]] · [[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]] · [[WP:JA|<font color="maroon">Join WP Japan</font>]]!</small> 04:09, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
*Our own section? Is it catered?? Although I would prefer not to 'kick someone while they're down': from the bureaucrats' perspective, eligibility for restoration of adminship is decided at the time of a future potential request, and since the eligibility period to make such a request is potentially unlimited, the committee may wish to make a formal statement about their view of Jondel's eligibility for restoration of privileges now, for greater certainty. –[[User:xeno|<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b>]][[user talk:xeno|<sup style="color:#000">talk</sup>]] 12:37, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
:*{{replyto|Xeno}} we're awaiting a few more arbitrators to comment on the thread, but yes this seems like a good idea. Present consensus is along the lines of "thank Jondel for past service, note that resignation was under cloud, note request for tool restoration should be via RfA." -- [[User:Euryalus|Euryalus]] ([[User talk:Euryalus|talk]]) 13:01, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

The principle was adopted in several past cases that if an administrator resigns while an arbitration case or request is pending against him or her, the resignation will generally be deemed to be under circumstances of controversy ("a cloud") unless the Committee states otherwise. See for example [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Philwelch#Return of access levels]], [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology#Return of access levels]],
[[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2#Return of access levels]]. Regards, [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 14:42, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
:Good point. In this case, a formal statement may not be required. I've put a note in at [[WP:RESYSOP]]: [[Special:Diff/778670034]]. –[[User:xeno|<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b>]][[user talk:xeno|<sup style="color:#000">talk</sup>]] 15:36, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

=== Request to de-sysop Jondel: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <2/10/0> ===
{{anchor|1=Request to de-sysop Jondel: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter}}<small>Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)</small>
*Awaiting statements. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 00:44, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
**Leaning toward acceptance, but thinking through a couple of things. {{ping|Jondel}} as far as I can see, you've taken just one logged administrator action in the past year (and as noted in the request, that action was an error&mdash;presumably inadvertently, you blocked an IP that was ''reverting'' vandalism rather than creating it). And while it is understandable that someone would not being able to keep up with all of English Wikipedia's enormous and growing set of policies and guidelines (cf. [http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2014/06/wikipedia_s_bureaucracy_problem_and_how_to_fix_it.single.html this article] by a current member of the WMF Board of Trustees), your assertion that non-admins should not even be able to ''read'' the AN page is a fairly startling disconnect from how En-WP has ''ever'' operated. You're a long-time, dedicated Wikipedian and I value your continued participation, but you see the concerns that have been raised here, and they are not frivolous ones. How important is it to you to remain an administrator, and why? [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 18:13, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
**<s>'''Accept'''</s>, but I'd still appreciate if [[User:Jondel|Jondel]] would answer my question. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 16:17, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
**{{ping|Jondel}} The Arbitration Committee has decided to review this matter. To do so, we would ordinarily open a "case" and allow a period of time for the parties to submit evidence and proposals. However, several people above have suggested that this matter is relatively straightforward and that we could decide it based on the information we already have, without putting everyone through the trouble and stress of a formal arbitration case. Jondel, is there any significant additional information or evidence that you would provide to us if we go through the case process, or would it be reasonable for us to make our decision based on the information that we already have? To all, please note that if we do open a case, it will probably be on an expedited basis since the issues are relatively discrete. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 16:34, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
**Change to '''Decline''' in light of Jondel's resignation. There is nothing else we need to do. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 02:24, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
* Some relevant context is that the first of the blocks Toddst1 refers to took place in January 2017 and is Jondel's most recent admin action, and the second and third on the list took place in April 2016. {{ping|Jondel}} Could you be more specific about how you plan to update your knowledge, and what if anything you've done before now to keep current? To everyone else, what would be useful in further statements is examples of problematic actions and specific descriptions of the ways in which those actions are inconsistent with common practice. (Or, alternatively, examples and discussion of why those things aren't problems after all.) This is specifically ''not'' a venue for general commentary about or advocacy for particular wikipolitical positions about adminship. [[User:Opabinia regalis|Opabinia regalis]] ([[User talk:Opabinia regalis|talk]]) 03:29, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
**{{ping|Jondel}} "Under a cloud" is an old way to describe a long-standing principle: if someone resigns their adminship under circumstances sufficiently controversial that an involuntary desysop was a plausible outcome, then they would not be eligible to have their adminship returned on request and would need to stand for a new RfA if they wanted to be an admin again. [[User:Opabinia regalis|Opabinia regalis]] ([[User talk:Opabinia regalis|talk]]) 07:34, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
***<del>'''Accept''', with recommendation to consider Floquenbeam's post. [[User:Opabinia regalis|Opabinia regalis]] ([[User talk:Opabinia regalis|talk]]) 06:41, 2 May 2017 (UTC)<del> Switch to '''decline''', moot now. [[User:Opabinia regalis|Opabinia regalis]] ([[User talk:Opabinia regalis|talk]]) 08:25, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
*<s>'''accept''' - we're being asked to review use of admin tools. I don't see a way of not examining this. [[User:Casliber|Cas Liber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 13:37, 1 May 2017 (UTC)</s> switched to '''decline''' as has handed in tools. [[User:Casliber|Cas Liber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 06:20, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
*<s>'''Accept'''</s> I agree. There have been enough evidence-based statements by other editors to compell a case. [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 14:56, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
** Change to '''decline''' with the understanding that a new RfA will be required if he wishes to regain the tools. [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 09:50, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
*'''<s>Accept</s>''' but FWIW: {{replyto|Jondel}} welcome back, always good to see experienced editors return. I do echo NYB in asking how important it is to immediately retain the admin tools, as there's a lot of catching up to do. It doesn't look like you've used them much over several years; in the spirit of "no big deal" you might consider handing them in for a while, doing some general editing, and when you're back up to speed, seeking the tools again via RfA. Just a suggestion, and welcome any contrary points of view. -- [[User:Euryalus|Euryalus]] ([[User talk:Euryalus|talk]]) 23:06, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
:*Add: In the spirit of minimum bureaucracy, agree with suggestions that we invite additional evidence (especially from Jondel); and absent anything further we resolve it by motion. If there's nothing to this other than what's raised in this case request, we don't need a full six-week process. -- [[User:Euryalus|Euryalus]] ([[User talk:Euryalus|talk]]) 06:38, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
::*Further add: Given replies, suggest shortened evidence phase (1 week?) and then let's see whether motion/rest of case is required. -- [[User:Euryalus|Euryalus]] ([[User talk:Euryalus|talk]]) 22:40, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
:::*'''Decline''' per NYB. -- [[User:Euryalus|Euryalus]] ([[User talk:Euryalus|talk]]) 07:25, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
*'''Accept'''. [[User:Kirill Lokshin|Kirill Lokshin]] ([[User talk:Kirill Lokshin|talk]]) 00:02, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
*<s>'''Accept'''</s>. That said, I would prefer to not take a case and rather see Jondel resign the tools, refamiliarize themselves with the English Wikipedia's policies, and then file an RfA. [[User:GorillaWarfare|GorillaWarfare]] <small>[[User talk:GorillaWarfare|(talk)]]</small> 02:15, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
**'''Decline''' as no longer necessary. [[User:GorillaWarfare|GorillaWarfare]] <small>[[User talk:GorillaWarfare|(talk)]]</small> 03:36, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
*<s>'''Accept'''</s>--but I would support a level-2 desysop. Best: Floq's suggestion, that the tools are laid down voluntarily, to be regained only after an RfA where they can prove their increased knowledge. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 04:30, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
**'''Decline''' now, of course. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 15:20, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
*'<s>''Accept'''</s>, but in the hope that there will be a voluntary resignation. '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 04:42, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
::as there has been a voluntary resignation, there is no need ofa case. '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 09:42, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
*'''Accept'''. [[User:Ks0stm|<font color="009900">'''Ks0stm'''</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:Ks0stm|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Ks0stm|C]]•[[User:Ks0stm/Guestbook|G]]•[[User:Ks0stm/Email|E]])</sup> 08:30, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
*<s>'''Accept''' '''[[User:Mkdw|<span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw</span>]]''' [[User talk:Mkdw|<sup>''<span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk</span>''</sup>]] 01:56, 3 May 2017 (UTC)</s> The editor has relinquished their tools "under a cloud". '''[[User:Mkdw|<span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw</span>]]''' [[User talk:Mkdw|<sup>''<span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk</span>''</sup>]] 13:47, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
::Deleting a category under a situation similar to [[WP:G7]] and simply not providing a deletion summary is not a major issue. I would estimate from the others that it was given "little consideration" because that one point is of little concern. Other more serious issues are the focus. '''[[User:Mkdw|<span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw</span>]]''' [[User talk:Mkdw|<sup>''<span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk</span>''</sup>]] 23:26, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
*<s>'''Accept'''</s> --[[User:kelapstick|kelapstick]]<sup>([[User talk:Kelapstick#top|bainuu]]) </sup> 02:21, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
::'''Decline''' as moot since user has resigned tools. --[[User:kelapstick|kelapstick]]<sup>([[User talk:Kelapstick#top|bainuu]]) </sup> 07:23, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:00, 4 May 2017

Shortcut


Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Palestine-Israel articles 5 (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 21 Dec 2024 11 Jan 2025
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Motion name Date posted
Arbitrator workflow motions 1 December 2024
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=778701393"