Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Request to de-sysop Jondel		30 April 2017	12/0/0

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	20 Apr 2024	04 May 2024

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Conflict of interest management	13 Apr 2024
Mzajac	7 May 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing	none	(orig. case)	30 April 2024
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 4	none	(orig. case)	13 May 2024
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation	none	(orig. case)	13 May 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Request to de-sysop Jondel

Initiated by Toddst1 (talk) at 23:58, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Toddst1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Jondel (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• [1]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_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 Jondel (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) for the following reasons:

1. His last several blocks have shown significantly poor judgement
2. 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 on AN. In both discussions, I have asked Jondel to voluntarily request removal of admin privileges, but he has refused.

Last 3 blocks

• 112.202.14.185 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) 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 [2] [3]. No warnings were given before the block and no WP:EXPLAINBLOCK action afterwards. This was followed by Jondel fully-protecting the page that the IP had reverted vandalism on for no apparent reason.
• 124.168.174.252 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was blocked for 72 hours for a single edit. No warnings were given before the block and no WP:EXPLAINBLOCK action afterwards.
• 38.132.34.58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) 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: [4]

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 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[5]
• Not understanding WP:LISTPEOPLE [6], [7]
• Misusing rollback to edit war [8]
• 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.--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.--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. --Jondel (talk) 03:53, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

  Another add to 'things which aren't problems': This blocked guy didn't receive any warning.--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.--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.--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'(?). --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.--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'(?).--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.--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. --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.--Jondel (talk) 20:50, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken. I express my appreciation for your belief in me.--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. --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.--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 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 [9]. He was sysopped back in 2005 [10] 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. 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. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 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. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 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. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:48, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
• @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. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:21, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Juliancolton

I'll endorse Toddst1's assessment of the situation (with the disclosure that I was alerted to this proceeding because I had previously participated in the aforementioned AN thread). When challenged to adhere to basic verifiability requirements, Jondel 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 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 own statement that '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. 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. 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. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 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. 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 - 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. Stated "I am being forced to freeze this article. I will strive to keep this neutral and objective." Changed the protection duration to 1 year a day later, and 11 days later 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 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 80.6.227.210 for 3 hours for self-reverted vandalism one day prior. No warnings given.
• January 2013 - Blocked 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 217.32.219.178 for 2 weeks with no warnings following two vandalism edits.
• February 2014 - Blocked 66.216.235.178 for 60 hours for edit warring. Unblocked 2 days later by Only.
• July 2015 - Restored Annabelle Rama, which had been A7'd in 2009, with the rationale "let me fix". Left the article like this.
• Latest three blocks and page protection are well described in Toddst1's section above. Sam Walton (talk) 10:49, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@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. Sam Walton (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, 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. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:05, 1 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. 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. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:24, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

If 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 [11] and warned the IP who removed it. [12] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:34, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Statement by Floq

@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. --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. Deryck 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 "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 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 "behaviour [...] inconsistent with the level of trust required for [their] associated advanced permissions", and it's clear that "no satisfactory explanation [is] forthcoming". Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 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. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 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. 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. Capeo (talk) 21:13, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

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. 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.

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Request to de-sysop Jondel: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <12/0/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

• Awaiting statements. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:44, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Leaning toward acceptance, but thinking through a couple of things. @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—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. 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? Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:13, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Accept, but I'd still appreciate if Jondel would answer my question. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:17, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
  • @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. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:34, 3 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. @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. Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:29, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
  • @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. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:34, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
    • Accept, with recommendation to consider Floquenbeam's post. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:41, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
• accept - we're being asked to review use of admin tools. I don't see a way of not examining this. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:37, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
• Accept I agree. There have been enough evidence-based statements by other editors to compell a case. Doug Weller talk 14:56, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
• Accept but FWIW: @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. -- 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. -- 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. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:40, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

• Accept. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 00:02, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
• Accept. 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. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:15, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
• Accept--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. Drmies (talk) 04:30, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
• Accept, but in the hope that there will be a voluntary resignation. DGG ( talk ) 04:42, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
• Accept. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 08:30, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
• Accept Mkdw ^talk 01:56, 3 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. Mkdw ^talk 23:26, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

• Accept --kelapstick^(bainuu) 02:21, 3 May 2017 (UTC)