Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Carlossuarez46

Main case page (talk) — Evidence (talk) — Workshop (talk) — Proposed decision (talk)

Case clerk: GeneralNotability (talk)

Case suspended on 23:49, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Case closed on 02:54, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Watchlist all case (and talk) pages: Front

Case information

Involved parties

• Hog Farm (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party
• Carlossuarez46 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Alexis Jazz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Prior dispute resolution

• User_talk:Carlossuarez46/Archive_12#Please_don't_create_any_more_articles
• User_talk:Carlossuarez46#Places_in_Iran
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Large_batch_deletion_probably_needed

Preliminary statements

Statement by Hog Farm

About 10 years ago, Carlossuarez46 mass-created tens of thousands of poorly-sourced stubs. It has since been discovered that most of these are non-notable or errors. Carlossuarez46 has violated WP:ADMINACCT in the community's response to clean up the articles. They have further made personal attacks in response. , , . As only ARBCOM can desysop, the case is ripe for arbitration.

I have very strong doubts about motion 2 (admonishment). Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Suggested block for Carlossuarez46 seems to indicate that there is not a whole lot of trust for the community for Carlossuarez46 to have the toolset. Hog Farm _Talk 00:19, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Alexis Jazz

In Special:Diff/1014905307 Carlos effectively accused me of trying to conspire against him in secret. I simply forgot to leave him a talk page notice (as is mandatory for noticeboard discussions), but I demonstrably did ping him - no secrecy there and a hard fail concerning WP:AGF but in my eyes also a personal attack. Carlos couldn't be held accountable in 2009 and users who dared question the notability of his stubs were accused of vandalism and threatened with blocks: Special:Diff/296689690 Special:Diff/297841262 Special:Diff/296864651. Now, in 2021, he claims we must prove places "were NEVER inhabited" (I was going to do this, right after proving there is no god) as opposed to him having to prove they ever were inhabited. Clearly nothing has changed. Well he didn't accuse the entire community of racism in 2009, at least not that I know of, so that's new for 2021. Being unaccountable and displaying such poor conduct are both good reasons not to have a mop. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 05:08, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Just noting I think Serial Number 54129/SN54229 (why the different number?) is right about Lenin in a Lamborghini if the motion to let Carlos off with a slap on the wrist would be accepted. I can also confirm SN54229 has never edited any of the 5500+ Iranian "village" stubs. I think a year for the Motion to Suspend is quite long, a month should more than cover it. Or just desysop per the first motion. If Carlos decides to unretire 6 months from now and demand a full hearing, how's that gonna go? Just seems like leaving open the possibility for future drama. And what Barkeep49 said, Proceeding with a case when emotions aren't running high seems helpful to that goal may hold some truth, but it doesn't seem fair. Non-admin users don't get this privilege when facing possible sanctions, so why would admins? I'm sure everyone (including me!) would very much prefer waiting until everyone involved has calmed down, left the project, died (when you are talking about a year that is unfortunately something to consider!) or forgotten about any perceived bad behavior. Worst case: it would encourage people to retire when they get scrutinized. I sadly have experience with this. I filed a report with the m:Ombuds commission nearly one year ago (30 April 2020), I'm still waiting for an answer and there's quite a bit at stake. Allowing cases to drag on endlessly not only harms the case, it can also harm the faith in the system, not to mention mental health. (unfortunately I speak from experience) — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 20:05, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: "he's getting desysopped in the interim something we wouldn't do if he were around right now." Wait are you saying that if Carlos hadn't retired, you wouldn't desysop him? I believe if he hadn't retired, which frankly only makes his case worse as he fails to answer to criticism, he'd get desysopped by motion and we could leave this misery behind us. And let's not forget: this discussion revolves around a desysop, an extra, not a block. Carlos is even free to reapply for adminship at any time. The community gave him its trust over a decade ago and Carlos has demonstrated for over a decade that he doesn't deserve that trust. Would you honestly suggest not desysopping is a serious consideration at this point? Edit: On second thought, if you meant that if Carlos were present you certainly wouldn't resolve the case by motion and would go through a full hearing I could understand where you're coming from, but it's unclear if you meant that. Edit 2: Per your response that's what you meant, I struck some text. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 04:34, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Preliminary statements by uninvolved editors. The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Statement by Usedtobecool

Creating articles is not an admin action. So, I don't think ADMINACCT applies in any serious way, ADMINCOND however, ... Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:02, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

@力, that page is poorly organised. Only the first paragraph is ACCT; the second paragraph is about what happens to admins that fail the expectations laid out under the parent section, not just that last subsection. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:04, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Statement by 力

The open WP:AN thread provides most of the context necessary. Having created "bad" articles in 2014 or earlier would not justify any action. It is the lack of response to questions about their creation (both the California geo-stubs deleted in late 2020, and the Iran ones recently), the general lack of awareness of why there are problems with the articles, and the recent resorting to personal attacks rather than responding to scrutiny of their on-wiki behavior, that require an ARBCOM case for a de-sysop.

Two procedural points:

• WP:ADMINACCT says "An administrator can be stripped of their administrative privileges entirely in order to remove access to [bundled] tools." - based on the bad article creations in the past and the responses to concerns about those creations, the bundled "autopatrolled" permission would be removed from their account were they not an admin.
• Despite Carlossuarez46's statement of retirement, they are still capable of responding and/or participating in the case. If they choose not to, I will encourage the committee to consider resolving this by motion.

Finally, seeing a long noticeboard discussion after a weekend away from the site can be daunting, and we all may on occasion say things we regret. But if there is a way forward that does not involve a de-sysop, I am sure it will require some action and awareness by Carlossuarez46. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 05:33, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I think the Motion to Suspend is the right way forward, and would participate if needed in a delayed case. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:43, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Beeblebrox

I've recused because Carlos "bit" me when I was a fairly new user. See User talk:Beeblebrox/Archive 6#Do not remove content and label your edit "typo". Carlos created one of these sub-stubs with a template in it that, at the time he created the article, did not exist. I assumed it was simply an error and removed the broken link. For that I was told I am a vandal and if I did it again I'd be blocked, and that nobody else had the "gumption" to dare and do such a thing to Carlos. Apparently I was supposed to know how he does things because he was so important and I should've realized he was going to make the template later, and he doubled down on accusations of vandalism.

Now, this was 12 years ago and I don't recall running afoul of him again since then and do not harbor a grudge about it, but to see that he is still behaving in a similar manner all this time later is disappointing, and I believe in particular that looking into poor behavior of what some have called "legacy admins" is an important function of the committee. The recent accusations of racism are both troubling and puzzling, and certainly not something we want to see from an admin. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:21, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I am generally very supportive of the idea that the committee can resolve some desysop cases by motion and think this is a good fit for that solution. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:44, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

In light of some of the comments below I'd like to be clear that I posted this only because I believe it shows that attitude is a long-term problem here, and there is a clear failure to understand what is expected of an admin and adjust accordingly. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:05, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Ymblanter

I do not have anything new to add, just registering here in case someone wants to make me a party of this case on the basis that the second racism accusation (before the rage quit) was directed at me. I support the notion that the behavior which has been demonstrated is hardly compatible with ADMINACCT, though if they can reflect on this, apologize, and strike out the accusations it would be sufficient for me. (The articles probably would have been deleted anyway, but we do not desysop people for writing a bunch of articles of questionable notability ten years ago).--Ymblanter (talk) 06:41, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Deepfriedokra

• I don't think we should desysop someone for article creations they made ten years ago. Standards for article creation are more stringent now, and back then the idea was to build the encyclopedia, even if we created imperfect articles, with the understanding that other members of a collaborative project would expand/improve them. We were quite intense and optimistic back then. Now we are more interested in quality and are mindful of the need to cull some of what we created. And we don't desysop people because they did not then meet current standards. However, the current behavioral issues are concerning, especially if they are chronic. As we saw recently, behavioral issues are important no matter how long the admin's tenor. And I would have been more than happy to accept the proposed editing restriction. The racism charge needs to be apologized for as an "excited utterance," but that ship has probably already sailed. Probably shouldn't desysop over this contretemps alone, but it's not the first time, is it? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:41, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
• It's unfortunate his outbursts were not addressed much sooner. Bite and bullying were not acceptable behaviors for anyone, but particularly admins, twelve years ago. Wow, what a wonderful teaching opportunity was missed with that. If this is a chronic and continual behavior, Carlos is WP:NOTCOMPATIBLE. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:59, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
• I think the article creation problem was remediable via the vitriolically rejected TBAN. Admins, like everyone else, should do what they do best and recognize their limitations. Someone tells you you did it wrong, you should stop doing it and either learn to do it better or just focus on what you do well. And that's why we are here now. @Carlossuarez46:, if you're reading this, it might not be too late to apologize and put this behind you with a modicum of dignity and grace still intact. Time limited by reality offer. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:21, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, by motion would be preferred. Thanks, BMK for sending the email. I still hope this can be resolved by an apology and acceptance of the TBAN on article creation. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:48, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
• Jeez, EEng. Don't mince words. Tell us what you really think. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:25, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
• Two cents Another user has just been through a similar ordeal at ANI of having their creations shredded and deleted and being told they should/could know/do better. They too were angry, hurt, and depressed. They took time off to reflect and bounced back. They did not hurl unfounded accusations of racism and rage quit. I am usually not one to seek removal of the bit, but Carlos’s response by contrast is most unbecoming. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:23, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Statement by 4nn1l2

Carlos is a real hard-worker and I can understand how angry you may get when you think others are 'destroying' what you have built over years. But contrary to his claims, Carlos is not a victim in this scenario. He has indeed spread a lot of misinformation about Iranian ābādīs all over the internet passing them off as villages (WP:OR). He has seriously violated a content policy. Carlos should stick to what he knows and administrative divisions of Iran or Persian language are not among them. Wikipedia admins should set an example for other users. How can the English Wikipedia have an admin who has seriously violated one of its most basic content policies? Content issues are more important than behavioural issues. And I categorically reject the idea that Wikipedia admins can do whatever they want with content as long as they behave 'nicely'. But Carlos is not even nice! So there are serious issues with regard to both content and behaviour. Victim playing was disgusting, as the topic at hand had nothing to do with Latinos; It was about a country in the Middle East, and there was no sign of disrespect towards any group of people anywhere in the world. 4nn1l2 (talk) 08:51, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Statement by FOARP

I 100% agree that no-one should be sanctioned just for things they did 10 years ago. For this reason I did not bring Carlos to ANI back when I first found out about his unreliably-sourced mass-created articles.

However what Carlos has done extends quite a way beyond that. Their mass-created location articles, many of which are inaccurate, have been mirrored onto other website like Google Maps. We are risky a case of someone going to, say, somewhere like Gypsite, California thinking it is a populated place because that is what the article that Carlos wrote based on inaccurate/mischaracterised sources said it was, when in reality it is simply a stretch of lonely desert road. Carlos repeated failure to show any level of accountability for these article-creations, article creations he was only able to get away with for so long because he had Autopatrolled by dint of being an admin, are a clear failure of WP:ADMINACCT. Their failure to meaningfully respond to any of the people pointing this out (and there were many, for years, as a review of his talk page shows, e.g., 1 2 3 4) are a clear failure to communicate, again an infraction of WP:ADMINACCT. These articles were created so quickly (typically 1-2 minutes per article) that they appear to have been created algorithmically without first establishing a consensus per WP:MASSCREATION. Their uncivil behaviour when the problem finally got to AN is a failure of WP:ADMINCOND. Their retirement does not fix the issue as they can un-retire at any point.

For this reason I Support Desysoping Carlossuarez46. FOARP (talk) 09:30, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

SoWhy - Thanks for your questions. I'm using Gypsite, California as an example as it contains potentially dangerous misinformation and the article still exists, the many hundreds of other California stubs that have been deleted (e.g., the ones on this attempted mass AFD) are no longer there for me to access. From the AFD the article was saved using historical information of a mine at the site that stopped operating more than 100 years ago, but as-written by Carlos the place was (and remains) portrayed as an inhabited location. Carlos's activity continued well into 2014 (e.g., Mowtowr-e Gami, Khash, which appears to be about a mechanic's), so rules that were in place in 2014 are relevant. I think it unlikely that creation of articles that literally state that the supposed "village" wasn't inhabited ("At the 2006 census, its existence was noted, but its population was not reported") and perhaps never had been inhabited, would have survived patrolling. FOARP (talk) 10:23, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

General comment - in light of a recent sad case involving another editor who was also a prominent stub-creator, I think we need to be more careful as a community not to encourage compulsive stub-creation which then rebounds onto the creator in the form of hundreds/thousands of AFD/PROD notices and complaints which can have a detrimental effect on the vulnerable. Wikipedia is not a mental health service, but we can at least avoid incentivizing unhealthy editing behaviour by e.g., de-emphasising edit-count/article creation stats, and recognise burn-out symptoms and compulsive-behaviour symptoms when they arise. I also take personal responsibility for my sometimes-emotive language used about these articles (e.g., "garbage articles") and will try to think more about the editor behind the articles. FOARP (talk) 09:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Regarding suspension - I see no great problem with this. At the same time there is little difference between suspending the case now with sysop rights suspended until finally desysopping a year from now, and desysoping now - it is impossible to see that the verdict would be any different a year from now. Simplicity and clarity of decision favour desysopping now. I think an admonishment, for what any other user would receive blocking at least, would be a mistep. FOARP (talk) 13:07, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Cabayi

On the narrow grounds of retiring rather than continuing to respond to, & hold himself accountable to, the WP:AN thread, I see a de-facto resignation of the mop under a cloud. It follows that if Carlossuarez46 should return to the discussions there's no need for ARBCOM to proceed. Cabayi (talk) 13:36, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

SoWhy, I'm not calling it a "voluntary resignation" but disengaging from the WP:AN thread (which is the effect of the retirement) is a course of action which is contrary to an admin's responsibilty to hold themselves accountable to the community. As such it's not compatible with continuing to hold the mop. I agree that the retirement notice was likely posted in anger, and I hope he returns to render this opinion moot, but until then the process towards desysop by ARBCOM seems inevitable. Cabayi (talk) 15:36, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Mangoe

I am probably a party since I was one of the original geo-cleanup people. As to the original US place creations, I agree it is late in the day for that, though I would note that it turns out that Durham's book of place names turns out to have been consistently misrepresented. But now we have more, and there are other cases of mass creation by others, and the cleanup is an Augean task which the subject of this case has mostly ignored: after a certain point we simply stopped posting notices as there seemed to be no point to it. His obdurate, Olympian dismissal of the issue does not reflect well on him. Mangoe (talk) 14:16, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I would like to add that the precedent of the SchuminWeb case leans in the direction of retirement in the face of a case leading to eventual loss of privileges. Mangoe (talk) 14:30, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Cxbrx

I'm likely a party because I was part of the geo-cleanup and I contacted Carlossuarez46 on his talk page. Desysopping is in order because of poor behavior and lack of response in cleaning up the mess. Being a sysop should not necessarily be a lifetime appointment. Carlossuarez46 should quickly apologize for the racism comment or face other consequences. Retiring does not absolve a user, especially one with special privileges, from being held responsible for their actions. I am somewhat concerned that there are many users with complaints against Carlossuarez46. I'm not very happy about piling on. I'd like to see a resolution that acknowledges the many complaints and ideally helps prevent similar misbehavior Carlossuarez46 and other editors. Clearly, this is a case for arbitration. Cxbrx (talk) 14:48, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Ched

Considering the case that just closed, I would think you pretty much need to deal with this. Consistency folks, consistency. — Ched (talk) 16:17, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

• minor point regarding the wording of motion #3: "Carlossuarez46 shall remain desysopped." While it may be easy to assume that you are desysoping him, that is not made clear in that individual motion's wording. — Ched (talk) 16:26, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Cupcake547

He has made about 70,000 articles about villages in Iran and the Iranian census only says there is about 40,000 villages there, not counting all of the articles about villages in Armenia, Azerbaijan and Turkey. I think we should desysop him, because he has not acted properly as an admin. I also agree with Cxbrx. Thanks, Cupcake547^{(Let's talk!)} 17:17, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

• I forgot to add that he "retired" in response to this discussion going on. Cupcake547 (talk) 17:44, 31 March 2021 (UTC).

Statement by SandyGeorgia

I agree with Bradv's approach; that is, unless Carlossuarez46 wants a full airing, or unless something else surfaces, this should be resolvable by Committee motion. It looks clear enough, and the Committee has plenty to keep it busy already. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:43, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

In case I wasn’t clear, that would presumably be a committee motion to desysop. (And my family are latinos.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:57, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Kieran207

I had participated in a few AfD's for his stub's and have participated in his ongoing AN thread. I don't consider myself to be an involved party but I would just like to say something. I will admit that many of these articles were created many years ago, but Carlo's response to this issue has been nothing short of embarrassing. When confronted with the issue, Carlo issued many tone-deaf responses to concerned editors. Carlo has dismissed, insulted, and acted with poor heart in his response to this issue. He crossed the line recently when he said this in response at his AN thread:

Wondering whether a non-Latino would face this... Wikiracism at its worst.

— Carlossuarez46

That's wrong, just wrong, don't do what you did and then make unsubstantiated claims of racism against concerned editors. To summarize, Carlossuarez46, an admin of 14 years, should be desysoped as soon as possible. Thank you---Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 22:18, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Forgot to add, apparently he has now "Retired" in response to this.--Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 22:20, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Statement by JackAttack1597

I participated in the AN thread, and I would like to make a short statement. First of all, the conduct that led to the thread; the mass non-notable creations, is bad and worth sanctioning, but not really worthy of a Desysop just for that. I think that the reason that editors didn't mass delete his stubs at first is because they weren't aware of them, since they had never been through the article creation process and they were fairly obscure. However, his response to the conduct was so egregious that I think a Desysop is warranted. Also, I hope the arbitrators can resolve this by motion without the need for a full case, since it seems that really only one thing is on the table, at least at the moment, and the facts are relatively clear already. Jackattack1597 (talk) 23:04, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: The main issue with suspending a case for up to a year, at least in my opinion, is that you could end up having a vastly different body hear a case than that which voted to accept it in a suspended fashion, since there are ARBCOM elections before March 2022, and that does not seem ideal for me. I hope you draft an alternate motion for a 3 month or 6 month suspension.Jackattack1597 (talk) 10:31, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Beyond My Ken

Not knowing if anyone else had already done so, I have sent Carlossuarez46 an e-mail letting them know of the existence of this case request. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:23, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Shahramrashidi

I think that i am a party of this case, because of raised and asked to be deleted Iran no reference Abadies articles in ENWP. But i didn't receive any reasonable response from Carloss in any stage. Also he accused all clearly, instead of taking responsibility for his articles, he eventually accused everyone and retired to escape punishment. 1- Retirement does not remove the responsibility and if he to want to return after the end of this discussion, what is the duty? 2- He did not take any action to check the text of his articles when creating the articles. 3- He is not fluent in Persian at all and has not taken any action towards professional translation, and if he had translated professionally, he would even realize from the content and name of the articles that these are not about the villages. 4- He has used the old versions of the census on creation date, while there were also newer versions in which many of these Abadies have been eliminated at all. 5- This has not only caused misinformation in the English wiki, but has also caused this misinformation to be translated and multiplied as a verified article in most languages.Shahram 11:16, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Joe Roe

Although I floated the idea of an arbitration request at ANI, I'm not sure if it is really needed now. But to clarify, if there is one, it wouldn't/shouldn't be on the basis of things Carlos did ten years ago. That's obviously water under the bridge. But there are two problems now. One is Carlos' lacklustre response to multiple polite requests for his help in cleaning up his mess of geo-stubs, which began with implausible excuses, moved on to stonewalling, and ended with him storming off in a huff. That is below the level of conduct we expect from administrators. The other is the awkward technicality that autopatrolled is bundled with the administrator tools. This means that if Carlos decides to create another few thousand problematic articles on uninhabited places—and we have no reason to think he won't, given his reaction so far—it's unlikely that anybody will notice right away, and we'll have to do this again. It doesn't make much sense that autopatrolled is bundled with the admin bits, but as long as it is, we need to be able to count on admins to create articles that don't require a second pair of eyes, and especially that don't violate core content policies. – Joe (talk) 15:07, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

• @SoWhy: I can only speak to how new pages are reviewed now – that is, that autopatrolled makes them all but invisible. The only other way page creations reliably come to others' attention is when they're added to a category on someone's watchlist... but is that likely with Category:Villages in Nowheresville? Maybe because of this people will check Carlos' contributions specifically from time to time, but I wouldn't bet on it. – Joe (talk) 15:29, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Serial Number 54129

I don't think I've ever interacted with the party (I'm sure I'll be corrected if so), but this case is walking in some pretty big shoes. So yes: Motion #2 (1.1.26.1.2) does seem like a sure-fire method of sparking revolution faster than Lenin in a Lamborghini. ——Serial 15:51, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Dlthewave

I would largely echo Joe Roe's comment above. The problem here is Carlos' behavior after problems have been pointed out. These mass-created stubs are a huge burden to clean up; as Carlos himself stated here, deletion of an article that was created from a single line in a census table requires the nominator to perform a thorough search for sources and determine whether or not the location has ever in fact been a settlement, a task that should have been done by the article creator in the first place. The California GNIS task force is already a year into cleaning up articles that were created this way, many by Carlos himself, and that's just one US state. This editor has refused to acknowledge the problem or participate in any of these cleanup efforts when asked, even after hundreds of his stubs have been deleted. This attitude is incredibly unhelpful and disrespectful of editors' time. Concerns have been raised at ANI as far back as 2014 when Carlos was urged to cease mass creation until he has gained consensus. –dlthewave ☎ 16:04, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Reywas92

I've already raised my voice at AN, Carlos's talk page, and AFDs so here I'll just repeat what Dlthewave said. His rude and uncooperative responses actually date back to 2009 when concerns about the accuracy and notability of California places were first raised and he just brushed them off and continued to make junk articles. I regret the many hours of my life I've wasted cleaning up his mess through searching locations in Google Maps, topographic maps, newspapers.com, etc. – none of which he ever did when creating these. I finally got ahold of the book source he used for many of these, Durham's California's Geographic Names, and was astonished by the extent to which he deliberately misrepresented lines within entries for other "places" or "localities" and presented them as notable settlements or communities when not described as such in the source. Then he has the gall to accuse us of not doing BEFORE searches as hundreds of them are deleted, and in my opinion he should be banned and more of his articles scrutinized and deleted. Reywas92^Talk 17:43, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Nsk92

I'd like to make a general comment regarding the autopatrolled issue since it has been mentioned several times above. I believe it is important for the committee to make a general point that an administrator creating a new article, that is automatically marked as autopatrolled, does not mususe the autopatrolled feature and does not violate ADMINACCT, even if that article is substandard. Admins are allowed to create new articles. In fact, we want them to continue to do so after they become admins. Currently the autopatrolled right is bundled in with the admin userright, and, as far as I know, there is no way for an individual admin to unbundle it. Carlossuarez46 did not take any special steps, beyond creating the problematic articles in question, in trying to hide them further from the scruitiny of the community. He did not misuse the autopatrolled feature. When an admin creates a substandard article or articles, as was the case here, that admin violates some relevant content policies (e.g. WP:V and WP:RS), which could already quite a serious matter, depending on the scale of the problem. But it does not constitute a misuse of the autopatrolled feature. If the only issue in a specific case concerns those content policies, it could be addressed by an editing restriction, such as a topic ban. If there are additional issues involved, such as civility, responsiveness, etc, then a desysop may also be required. In cases of particularly serious violations of core content policies (e.g. BLP, copryright) a desysop may also be warranted, although it would be preferable to have such situations explicitly spelled out in WP:ADMINACCT (some of them already are). But IMO we should leave the autopatrolled feature out of this. Admins don't have a choice in terms of having the articles they create automatically marked as autopatrolled. So long as that remains the case, we should not hold the use of this feature against them. Nsk92 (talk) 18:53, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Dennis Brown

I would have been happy if he simply would have volunteered to help, but instead he dug in. I wouldn't support desysopping for creating a mess back 10 years ago, even if he was refusing to admit or help. But then he finally comes to the ANI discussion, late in the game, and tells everyone they are racist for the thread discussing his mistakes. I'm dumbfounded. No one mentioned race except him. This does raise questions about his ability to use the tools wisely, his ability to be civil (see previous comments above), his accountability after refusing to engage or fix the problem, and his response of "retiring", which we all know seldom works out as advertised. I don't have a solution, and I am not convinced it has to be a full case, but something must be said and done, and since the community has tried with little success, we would ask you to. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:50, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

To add: While his actions don't fall directly under WP:ADMINACCT as they weren't admin actions, I would hope that we still hold admin to the same or HIGHER accountability standard for discussing their edits than we do non-admin. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:00, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Barkeep49's idea is a good one that I think the community would agree with. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Levivich

If a party to a suspended case comes back and decides they want a case, then... the rest of the community is expected to stop what they're doing and start posting evidence? With all due respect it's not just a matter of when is convenient for the arbs and for the admin. To let the admin decide when the case is held is not fair to the community and it's not a privilege accorded to other parties. When I was named a party to a case recently, I wasn't given the option of rescheduling it to a more convenient time. (And of course neither was Rexx I presume.) I think arbcom should just desysop by motion and get it over with. Levivich ^harass/_hound 04:28, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Statement by LaundryPizza03

I am the first user, other than initiator Hog Farm, to participate in the AN discussion. My first reaction was to propose that Carlossuarez46 (C46) be banned from creating articles about places, and I have recently re-asserted my position. So far, the discussion is leaning in favor of imposing a ban on article creation, but ArbCom will need to resolve this issue if the community does not.

Most of C46's articles are about places he identified as populated places, and were likely created by an automated or semi-automated process. Unfortunately, OR was involved inrunning these mass creations, and many of these articles were found to be misidentified or unverifiable, which is inexcusable for an admin. Given creations like villages in Azerbaijan that are suspected [to have] undergone a name change or to no longer exist, it is likely that many would have been quickly PRODded, if not outright G3'd, had the user not had autopatrol rights packaged with adminship. C46 has seemingly requested that affected articles be deleted per G7, and then baselessly accused the AN participants of conspiracy and racism. Common WP:NPA violation.

I am aware that there have been a few prior episodes of problematic mass-creation, such as one regarding around 20,000 minor planets created by ClueBot II (talk · contribs), but nothing quite on the scale of this issue, so the AN and/or this case should act as a precedent on problematic mass-created articles. Wikipedia has no infrastructure for handling mass-created articles, which led me to consider proposing a new CSD about mass-created articles.

Statement by User:EEng

The guy thinks his crappy stubs are being targeted because he's Latino, and debate is needed on whether he's got the temperament for adminship? Really??? It's UNBELIEVABLE the amount of editor time that has to be invested to desysop even the most obvious cases.

Statement by WaltCip

Anyone would assume that any admin who retires from editing Wikipedia inherently gives up the mop, and in this case, under a WP:CLOUD. This is required not only to suppress roguish actions later but also decrease Wikipedia's attack surface for hackers trying to get into admin accounts. That Carlossuarez has not been already desysopped is a bit puzzling to me. The burden should be on him to request the mop back, not on the Wikipedia community to bring forward evidence as to why he still needs it removed. --WaltCip-(talk) 13:37, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Statement by GRuban

Creating lots of articles has nothing to do with administrator rights. Creating lots of articles ten years ago, all the more so. If he had said - "whoops, my fault, won't do it again", or even defended the articles, this would be fine. Clearly he had the best of intentions, the fact that it turned out badly, well, that sometimes happens with the best of intentions. We're all human. However, instead he accused the people who didn't like tens of thousands of tiny stub articles of racism? When not a single person had said a thing about race or ethnicity? I just can't see someone who believes that any accusation against him is automatically due to racism being a person I'd trust to be able to block other editors. What will happen when someone wants to appeal one of his admin actions, would that also be only due to racism? If he returns, participates in the case, apologizes for the accusation, says never again, we can let it go with an admonishment, after all, he didn't misuse the tools as such, he lost his temper, we're all human. But we need that to have him keep the mop, we can't let this go without a case. --GRuban (talk) 00:26, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Eti15TrSf

I think creating these sub-stubs isn't really much of an issue to me if they were created in good faith, as they were done much long ago, and they can all be discussed at WP:AFD. However the personal attacks Carlos made and playing the race card is not acceptable per WP:ADMINACCT and that needs to be addressed. ETI 15TrSF (Chat Box) 01:10, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

I should also say that if the case gets accepted and started, then I personally think that it should only focus on Carlos's conduct, and the sub-stubs he created should be handled by WP:AFD. ETI 15TrSF (Chat Box) 01:24, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Tazerdadog

If the suspended case motion passes, and Carlossuarez comes back in 6 weeks, and requests a case, would he be resysopped for the duration, or remain desysopped until the closure of the case? I can read the motion either way as an uninvolved party, and that worries me both in the current case, and due to the fact that the motion may be used as a precedent. No opinion on what the correct choice is in this case. Tazerdadog (talk) 08:43, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Liz

My only involvement has been as an admin, checking PROD'd articles and deleting dozens, if not hundreds of them, over the past few months. While I understand that ARBCOM deals with abusive behavior, I remember seeing an editor's user page stating that there were at least 7,000 of these articles still existing that had to be dealt with and it's unlikely that any small group of editors will have the wherewithal to investigate each before PROD'ing them. This approach could take years to resolve. I think this mess might require a Neelix-like solution, a special, temporary CSD criteria. I understand that the solution to the content problem is being discussed at AN, I just want the committee to appreciate the extent of work that is still needed to clean up these articles on uninhabited places. Even if Carlos returned and requested deletion on each substandard article as the page creator, this would still be an enormous project to tackle.

I'm puzzled to see editors state that this mass creation isn't an issue now and a few remarks at AN are more concerning when there is still quite a lot of work ahead evaluating thousands, maybe tens of thousands, of junk articles. I think this underestimates the huge investment of time that has already been spent by a half dozen editors to handle this mess which has just addressed a small subset of bad articles that were created. I think they deserve our thanks as the committee seeks a resolution to this problem.

Statement by EnPassant

The subject of this request wrote some bad stubs years ago. That is not the problem. The problem is his bizarre temper tantrum and storming off the project with when it was brought up. His behavior is NOT what I would expect at all from an administrator and we do not need admins who are so quick to anger and lash out in childish fashion. ♟♙ (talk) 20:25, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Statement by SportingFlyer

I've been involved in geo-stub cleanup. I would kindly ask that the committee take up this case to look at this administrator's recent behaviour in relation to their actions when confronted with the need to clean up their mass created articles. SportingFlyer T·C 20:40, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Banedon

You might want to clarify if Carlossuarez46 re-sysop'ed if they return to editing within three months, at least for the duration of the arbitration case. If the answer is "no they are not re-sysop'ed", then delete the misleading word "temporarily" from the first paragraph. Banedon (talk) 23:21, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Preliminary decision

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (0/0/1)

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

• Awaiting further statements, including any from Carlossuarez46, although he's posted a "Retired" banner as of now. Leaning toward acceptance, as the already serious concerns are compounded by the unfounded accusations in and . Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:22, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
• Recuse. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:03, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
• Awaiting statements. Regards SoWhy 09:47, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

  @FOARP: My memory might not be the best but as far as I can tell, the "autopatrolled" userright was only created in June 2009 based on this discussion at VPP. The article you mention was created in May 2009, so it cannot have been created by misusing the userright (regardless of whether we should sanction misuse that happened 12 years ago). Your example is also puzzling because Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gypsite, California closed as keep just two months ago, suggesting that the creations were in fact acceptable. Regards SoWhy 09:47, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

  @FOARP: Understood although from what I recall, standards on populated places were less stringent in 2009 and even 2014. However, if the allegation is that he misused the tools to create these articles without people noticing, I would expect some evidence that these kinds of articles were indeed only not deleted because they never appeared in the patrol queue. Also, a random look through his talk page archives (e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) indicates that a lot of experienced users were aware of his mass creations years ago but there is no large number of deletion request notifications.

  Regardless of these points, I think Ymblanter has a point that an apology and retraction from Carlossuarez46 after he had time to reflect on his behavior at AN would probably help to calm the discussion, possibly even avoiding further actions by this body. Regards SoWhy 11:19, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

  @Cabayi: Administrators are allowed to retire. I see no policy-based reason to assume that posting a retirement notice, most likely in anger, should be considered a request for voluntary desysopping, since we have in the past not desysopped people just for retiring (as far as I am aware). Unless he explicitly asks for the mop to be removed, we have to explicitly decide on whether to desysop or not. Regards SoWhy 14:29, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

  @Joe Roe: As far as I can tell, people did notice him creating the articles, they just didn't act, but instead even thanked him for it. But I see no reason to assume that he will be able to do so again without people noticing considering the amount of people who will now certainly be on the lookout for any edits he makes. Regards SoWhy 15:11, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

  I proposed some motions below. Wordsmithing welcome. Regards SoWhy 15:30, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

  @Levivich: The Committee has in the past been willing to give parties more time if so requested (within reason of course). RexxS would have been given more time as well but he stopped editing after participating in the case request and without indicating that he would not return. But he had at every stage the possibility to participate in a whole case. To turn it around: Why would it be fair to desysop Carlos by motion after two days of discussion when we gave RexxS multiple weeks to participate? Regards SoWhy 07:44, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• Unless Carlossuarez46 expresses a desire for a full case (which I think he's entitled to), we should be able to resolve this by motion. – bradv🍁 14:28, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
• I could support a motion similar to what we did here. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:03, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

  I was dashing that reply off fairly quickly but I want to note that I've supported moving some of the tools of the sysop toolkit out and making them optional, the way we do edit filters, with autopatrol being the most obvious such permission. However, doing so would obviously require discussion outside of ArbCom. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:09, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

  Ched it's the last clause of the first sentence. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:55, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

  Levivich suggests that suspending the case is unfair to the community who doesn’t get to control the timing. First, the community almost never controls the timing. Normally it's the filer and the committee who controls the timing. We saw that with Rexx. In this case we're suggesting that it be the admin under scrutiny and the committee who controls the timing. And it's not like by retiring Carlos is getting some great shake - he's getting desysopped in the interim something we wouldn't do if he were around right now. Jackattack1597 worries about the impact of a different committee handling it. He's right it could have some impact but every election has some impact and we allow new Arbs to join cases filed before they're elected and old Arbs to stay on which has a bigger unknown impact in my view. My bigger concern is that this committee can't technically under ARBPOL force a different committee to hear a case. However, I am assauged from this concern because this is literally a motion that has been used in the past. Further the last time we saw a suspended case continued, Jytdog, it worked all around. The fact that this isn't some novel way of handling this case suggests that like Wikipedia as a whole what might not work in theory works in practice. Barkeep49 (talk) 12:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

  Alexis Jazz first the community currently desires the committee to handle desysoppings (something I've supported changing at the recent RfC). Part of that is because we have a process so yes I am suggesting that Carlos is entitled to the process if he desires. Second, the issue here is a combination of misuse of autopatrol and ADMINCOND/ADMINACCT. I don't think we'd have gotten to the latter without the former. So outside the admin toolkit, the answer, I expect, would have been to remove autopatrol. However, we can't do that without removing all the other associated permissions (something I'd love to see changed). And so yes I think there should be a different standard to remove a bunch of unrelated permissions than a single one - if a regular editor created poor articles we would remove autopatrol, we might remove New Page Reviewer, but I cannot imagine us removing pending changes reviewer just because of the autopatrol issues. I am, broadly speaking, supportive of efforts to level the disconnect between admins and editors but that doesn't, I feel, mean ignoring the way that there are differences in structure between the two groups. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:06, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• I agree that resolution by motion is probably the way to go here. --BDD (talk) 14:33, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Temporary injunction (Carlossuarez46)

For these motions there are 11 active arbitrators, not counting 1 recused. Six support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0–1	6
2–3	5
4–5	4

Motion to accept and resolve (1)

The "Carlossuarez46" request for arbitration is accepted and resolved by motion as follows:

For attacking other users personally as well as conduct unbecoming of an administrator, Carlossuarez46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is desysopped. He may regain the administrative tools at any time via a successful request for adminship.

Support

1. We'd be looking at significant sanctions from a non-admin editor who created a host of questionable material like this and did not enter negotiations afterwards Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:08, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
2. Third choice (nominally, as this motion will not pass), because Carlossuarez46 no longer retains the trust of the community for the bit. Carlossuarez46 has been given notice and an opportunity to respond. We proceed in other arbitration cases where the party chooses not to participate; this motion is likely where I would have ended up if Carlossuarez46 did participate in this case request and we fully proceeded with its consideration. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:15, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
3. Second choice to a 3-month suspended case. – bradv🍁 00:04, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Although this would certainly be a possible outcome of a case, I'd prefer to give Carlossuarez46 a reasonable opportunity to respond, as per motion #3 or some variation on it Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:19, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
2. As a matter of principle, I think every editor should have the option of a full case. A suspended case can lead to the same outcome without depriving Carlos of this option. Regards SoWhy 18:10, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
3. We should give Carlos the chance to return and act in his own defense. I think resolving matters by motion is sometimes appropriate, but not in this case. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:12, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
4. I do not see anything so egregious that a desysop needs to happen immediately. Primefac (talk) 16:15, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
5. The conduct in question isn't great but not so terrible that it requires an immediate desysop. Maxim_(talk) 12:18, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Abstain

Comments

• As a practical matter, Carlossuarez46 has already lost the trust of the community for misconduct. Therefore, I think I fully support this motion as well; I will wait on it before entering a formal vote. I don't really know what benefit a full case will bring. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 16:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Motion to accept and resolve (2)

The "Carlossuarez46" request for arbitration is accepted and resolved by motion as follows:

For attacking other users personally, Carlossuarez46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is admonished. He is reminded that administrators should lead by example and should behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others and that administrators are responsible to answer questions about their editing and creations like any other editor.

Support

Oppose

1. Insufficient, as desysopping needs, at a minimum, to be very seriously considered. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:21, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
2. as I support a desysop Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:09, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
3. Good to have this on the table, but no. --BDD (talk) 16:23, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
4. While I do think that the creation of those articles has not been shown to be the result of an abuse of admin tools, the subsequent reaction to it makes it hard to just admonish and warn the user in the absence of mitigating evidence. Regards SoWhy 18:10, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
5. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:15, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
6. This seems irresponsible without at least some indication from Carlossuarez46 that he accepts responsibility for this series of events. – bradv🍁 00:03, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
7. At a minimum, some response from Carlossuarez46 would be needed to go this specific route. Maxim_(talk) 12:18, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Abstain

1. I would be tempted to pass this by motion, but only if Carlos were to return and offer an explanation of some sort. Seeing as he is unlikely to return in the near future, this option is thus not possible. But I am not against it on principle. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:14, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
2. Per CaptainEek; throwing toys out of the pram is a great way to lose sympathy for a cause. Primefac (talk) 16:15, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• I included this option to resolve this without a desysop (still pondering whether it's really needed, so I wanted to have the option). Regards SoWhy 15:30, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Motion to Suspend

The "Carlossuarez46" request for arbitration is accepted. Given that Carlossuarez46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has retired from the English Wikipedia, this case will be opened but suspended for a period of one year, during which time Carlossuarez46 will be temporarily desysopped.

If Carlossuarez46 should return to active editing on the English Wikipedia during this time and request that this case be resumed, the Arbitration Committee shall unsuspend the case by motion and it will proceed through the normal arbitration process. Such a request may be made by email to arbcom-enwikimedia.org or at the clerks' noticeboard.

If such a request is not made within one year of this motion, this case shall be automatically closed, and Carlossuarez46 shall remain desysopped. Carlossuarez46 may regain the administrative tools at any time only via a successful request for adminship.

Support

1. First and only choice. We know may retirements are not permanent and I see no reason to suggest Carlos isn't entitled to a case were they to want one - this isn't wheel warring or the like where procedural desysopping is called for and expected. However, we shouldn't be in limbo either. This strikes that balance. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:59, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

   @L235: speaking for myself, yes I'll be willing to hear a case in March 2022. This issue stretches back a decade and memories haven't completely faded as shown by the evidence present in this request. Additionally, ArbCom, unlike AN/ANI or other behavior forums, is designed to be a thoughtful and considered process. Proceeding with a case when emotions aren't running high seems helpful to that goal and what some of our systems are designed to promote anyway. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:32, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

2. First choice. As a practical matter, this may be tantamount to a desysopping; in the last six years I've seen a few motions like this and never has an admin come back to request a case. I would prefer a shorter period; while I understand the one-year timeframe comes from the inactivity policy, we have the ability to prescribe a shorter period for this case. Are we really prepared to hold this as a full case if Carlossuarez46 returns in, say, early March 2022 and asks for a case? Memories will have faded, and parties may no longer be around to participate. I would prefer a three month period. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 16:17, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

   Now second choice to the motion below. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:17, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

3. Support, although I too would be open to a shorter period than one year. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:21, 1 April 2021 (UTC) Second choice. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:01, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
4. Second choice. This probably drags things out further than is necessary. --BDD (talk) 16:26, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
5. It may be a distinction without a difference, but I think this is a better option than straight desysop. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:18, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
6. First choice. Allows for sufficient time to request a case if so wished. Regards SoWhy 18:10, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. too long Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:49, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
2. I don't see why this would need to stay suspended for a full year. – bradv🍁 00:01, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
3. A year is too much. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:11, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
4. I'm not really against a one-year deadline but I prefer the 3-month version. Maxim_(talk) 12:18, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Abstain

1. I am rather concerned about the Wikiracism comment, as I do not immediately see in the evidence here or at AN what might have predicated such a statement to be made. I believe a full case will likely shed light and hopefully bring clarity on the situations being mentioned, however based on the little information I have gathered about Carlossuarez46 it seems that they are not one to go by half-measures; they will either return shortly and ask for a case, or dig their heels in and refuse to do so (regardless of whether they return to editing). In other words, I believe if there is not a case request within three months there will not be a case request, making this motion somewhat moot. Primefac (talk) 16:28, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• Based on "Alex Shih" as suggested by Barkeep49. Regards SoWhy 15:30, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
• "A duration not to exceed one year" would seem to leave the door open to earlier closure (also by motion?). This may help address the concern that a year is too long. --BDD (talk) 14:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
  • @BDD: Historically this wording has meant that the case will be suspended for one year and will be reopened earlier if the user in question requests, but will otherwise remain suspended until closed one year later. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 16:14, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• I made two minor copyedits, same as below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:14, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Motion: Suspended case (3 months)

The "Carlossuarez46" request for arbitration is accepted. Given that Carlossuarez46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has retired from the English Wikipedia, this case will be opened but suspended for a period of three months, during which time Carlossuarez46 will be temporarily desysopped.

If Carlossuarez46 should return to active editing on the English Wikipedia during this time and request that this case be resumed, the Arbitration Committee shall unsuspend the case by motion and it will proceed through the normal arbitration process. Such a request may be made by email to arbcom-enwikimedia.org or at the clerks' noticeboard.

If such a request is not made within three months of this motion, this case shall be automatically closed, and Carlossuarez46 shall remain desysopped. Carlossuarez46 may regain the administrative tools at any time only via a successful request for adminship.

Enacted – GeneralNotability (talk) 02:04, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. First choice. I'd like to see approximately three months become the norm for this kind of suspended case. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:17, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:12, 2 April 2021 (UTC) First choice. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:02, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
3. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:49, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
4. Second choice. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:06, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
5. As I stated above, I believe that Carlossuarez46 is entitled to request a full hearing on this matter. But given the amount of community energy already expended on the matter, as expressed both here and at the relevant ANI thread, we also need to be prepared to move on. The relevant guiding principle here comes from Wikipedia:Administrators § Accountability: Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrative actions, especially during community discussions on noticeboards or during Arbitration Committee proceedings. – bradv🍁 15:26, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
6. First choice. I appreciate Kevin taking the initiative on this, and like that a three-month window increases the chances that an unsuspended case will end up before the same Arbcom. --BDD (talk) 16:25, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
7. Second choice. I believe three months is too short and I believe the argument wrt a different ArbCom hearing the case is not convincing. Next month, half the current arbs could be inactive and not handle the case. Regards SoWhy 18:10, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
8. I think this the best option. It gives Carlos time to come back and act in their own defense, but also does not waste the community's time. I think we should not just desysop by fiat in this matter. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:10, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
9. I am rather concerned about the Wikiracism comment, as I do not immediately see in the evidence here or at AN what might have predicated such a statement to be made. I believe a full case will likely shed light and hopefully bring clarity on the situations being mentioned, however based on the little information I have gathered about Carlossuarez46 it seems that they are not one to go by half-measures; they will either return shortly and ask for a case, or dig their heels in and refuse to do so (regardless of whether they return to editing). In other words, I believe if there is not a case request within three months there will not be a case request, making this the most reasonable motion to deal with the situation. Primefac (talk) 16:28, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
10. Maxim_(talk) 12:18, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

Comments

I made two minor copyedits for clarity, adding the words "it will" in the second paragraph and "only" in the third. If anyone has any objections or questions please let me know. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Carlossuarez46: Implementation notes

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of which motions are passing. These notes were last updated by Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 09:55, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Motion name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Passing	Support needed	Notes
Motion to accept and resolve (1)	3	5	0		3
Motion to accept and resolve (2)	0	7	2		Cannot pass
Motion to Suspend	6	4	1		0	Second choice for two arbs. Currently cannot pass due to a competing motion passing.
Motion: Suspended case (3 months)	10	0	0		·	Second choice for two arbs.

Notes

Final decision

Enforcement of restrictions

0) Unless otherwise specified by the Arbitration Committee, should any user violate a restriction imposed directly by the Committee, that user may be blocked as an arbitration enforcement action. Such blocks must be logged in the arbitration enforcement log.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 26 April 2026, this provision did not require a vote.

Appeals and modifications

0) Appeals and modifications

This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee.

All active arbitration enforcement actions may be appealed. Only active restrictions may be appealed, and all labelled enforcement actions (including ones alleged to be against policy) must be successfully appealed under the applicable arbitration enforcement appeals procedure before they can be modified.

Unless otherwise specified by the Arbitration Committee, the following procedure governs arbitration enforcement appeals. An editor may:

1. ask the administrator who first issued the enforcement action (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); or
3. submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email.

Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.

A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.

While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the Committee, once the Committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction, who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever other period the Committee may specify.

Changing or revoking an enforcement action

An administrator may only modify or revoke an enforcement action if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:

• The administrator who originally imposed the restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change, or is no longer an administrator; or
• The restriction was issued more than a year ago.

A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the enforcement action:

• a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
• a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN, or
• a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.

Any administrator who revokes or changes an enforcement action out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.

Standard of review

On community review

Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify an arbitration enforcement action on appeal if:

1. the action was inconsistent with applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
2. the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
3. the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.

On Arbitration Committee review

Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn an arbitration enforcement action only if:

1. the action was inconsistent with applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
2. the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
3. compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.

References

In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals provision adopted 26 April 2026, this provision did not require a vote.

Enforcement log

Any block, restriction, ban, or sanction performed under the authorisation of a remedy for this case must be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log, not here.