Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 11:49, 22 December 2015

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

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Purpose of the workshop: The case Workshop exists so that parties to the case, other interested members of the community, and members of the Arbitration Committee can post possible components of the final decision for review and comment by others. Components proposed here may be general principles of site policy and procedure, findings of fact about the dispute, remedies to resolve the dispute, and arrangements for remedy enforcement. These are the four types of proposals that can be included in committee final decisions. There are also sections for analysis of /Evidence, and for general discussion of the case. Any user may edit this workshop page; please sign all posts and proposals. Arbitrators will place components they wish to propose be adopted into the final decision on the /Proposed decision page. Only Arbitrators and clerks may edit that page, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at fair, well-informed decisions. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator or clerk, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Behavior during a case may be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Motions and requests by the parties

Temporary suspension of the case

1) This case shall be suspended from December 22nd, 2015 to January 2nd, 2016.

For this motion there are 11 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support

Oppose

Abstain

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

My initial request to shorten the timeframe of the case was premised on the idea that I would have to return to civilization early in order to safely complete my immunoglobulin injections, and would thus have access to the internet for a majority of the time. Having been told by my immunologist that I can in fact safely give myself immunoglobulin injections in the middle of a desert with no significant risk of infection thanks to how hard it is to get a subcutaneous infection when using medical grade equipment (as opposed to, like, black tar heroin) I now have no intention of returning during the middle of that period. Given that this period of time is referred to the holidays for a reason, and that its typically considered appropriate to hold a case when a member is actually present, this suspension seems utterly reasonable. Ten days is hardly a long amount of time to suspend an arbcom case for, given how many of them run months over length.. User:Kevin Gorman | ^{talk page} 21:56, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since this motion more or less needs to be voted on today, pinging active arbs - @Courcelles, DeltaQuad, DGG, Doug Weller, Euryalus, GorillaWarfare, and Guerillero:@LFaraone, NativeForeigner, Salvio giuliano, Seraphimblade, and Thryduulf: User:Kevin Gorman | ^{talk page} 17:08, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tbh NYB, without posting specific details here I am relatively certain that many arbs would've just asked "Why is this a different request than yuo initialy made?" User:Kevin Gorman | ^{talk page} 19:27, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I think this motion makes sense. I counsel Kevin Gorman that there is no need for him to be posting this much personal medical information on a widely accessible website. As a minor procedural note to the arbitrators (which should not be given undue importance), arb voting on motions usually takes place on /Proposed decision, not here on /workshop. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:30, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On arbitrator-initiated motions certainly, but even for party-initiated ones (this is the only one that has been worthy of a vote in my year as an arbitrator)? Thryduulf (talk) 18:40, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would think so... I'll put my vote here, but I think it should be moved. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:39, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've just gone ahead and moved it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:39, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Temporary suspension of the case

1) This case shall be suspended from December 22nd, 2015, to January 2nd, 2016.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This works, though it'll need a formal motion. Courcelles (talk) 21:43, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support, though it will mean the new arbs will need to become familiar with the case , and that may possibly cause some further delays. DGG ( talk ) 17:37, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

My initial request to shorten the timeframe of the case was premised on the idea that I would have to return to civilization early in order to safely complete my immunoglobulin injections, and would thus have access to the internet for a majority of the time. Having been told by my immunologist that I can in fact safely give myself immunoglobulin injections in the middle of a desert with no significant risk of infection thanks to how hard it is to get a subcutaneous infection when using medical grade equipment (as opposed to, like, black tar heroin) I now have no intention of returning during the middle of that period. Given that this period of time is referred to the holidays for a reason, and that its typically considered appropriate to hold a case when a member is actually present, this suspension seems utterly reasonable. Ten days is hardly a long amount of time to suspend an arbcom case for, given how many of them run months over length... User:Kevin Gorman | ^{talk page} Statement in current arbcom case 21:00, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I had a silly moment and missed the fact that parties could propose motions in the section immediately above this one. I'll move it up momentarily. User:Kevin Gorman | ^{talk page} 21:55, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

Arbitrators may ask questions of the parties in this section.

Proposed final decision

Proposals by User:Kevin Gorman

Proposed principles

Discrimination on Wikipedia is unacceptable

1) Discrimination on Wikipedia is unacceptable, and the Wikimedia-wide non-discrimination policy and site-wide harassment policies apply to all users. Violations of these policies should be brought to the attention of the community and appropriately dealt with; people who experience harassment should not be told to keep their heads down and profiles low.

Comment by Arbitrators:

As a passing request, it would be great if people stopped perpetrating the myth that the Committee told people who were the subject of harassment to "keep their heads down." In fact the Committee specifically voted not to tell people that. On the wider issue, you have every right to bring evidence of harassment to ANI, to the WMF or to any other location. In fact it would be good if you did, as it may assist in addressing it and would also encourage others to do so as well.

On the specifics of this case, the issue you raise is alleged harassment rather than discrimination. This case is focused on on-wiki editor conduct. It is not focused on people's uninformed opinions about personal information relating to the editor themselves. Case contributors who wish to comment on another editor's health (good or otherwise) should instead keep these views to themselves. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:43, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Frankly, I don't understand with Viriditas' comments which violated WP:HARASS/WP:NPA and the WMF-board passed non-discrimination policy were not actioned on other than to ban him from the case, especially when he has a history of simmilar violations. I'm disappointed that this committee has chosen to focus on relatively minor procedural violations over the enforcement of board-level policies and the creation of an ENWP free of discrimination of all sorts. I've received comments during this case basically telling me to keep my head down, refrain from bringing people violating these policies to ANI, and to refrain from disclosing personal information that can be used to harass me in the future. That's a shitty answer and one I don't intend to follow. Arbcom should reinforce in this case that discrimination is not acceptable, and I intend to start bringing violations of these policies to WP:ANI and if necessary to RFAR as they occur. We're not going to build an inclusive encyclopedia by telling everyone who does't match our stereotypical demographic to keep their heads down to avoid harassment as we've previously done. The committee has an opportunity to mitigate their ongoing failure re: harassment in this case and shuld take it. User:Kevin Gorman | ^{talk page} Statement in current arbcom case 16:02, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Euryalus: the committee intentionally chose to simply ban Viriditas from participating in this case, rather than giving him even the token 24 hour block a 3rr violation warrants. If you want people to stop suggesting that arbcom tolerates harassment, I would suggest you take action against harassment when the opportunity presents itself. Similarly, in the RFAR, I received at least one comment telling me that in order to avoid harrassment, I should simply avoid going to ANI when it occurs. Failing to take action against such behavior when you are in a position to do so is at the very least the same thing as encouraging an environment where that behavior exists. Kelapstick: despite Luis Villa's comment in August, I have an email exchange with someone from CA in the last three days suggesting that CA may believe otherwise and suggesting I raise it to a WMF board level. I had been waiting until after this case closes to do so. In any case, WMF has made it clear that discrimination on the projects is unacceptable. Ched: if we ever hope for ENWP to not almost solely be written by white guys, sooner or later, we've going to have to stop ignoring bigotry, be it be based on gender or based on disability status. User:Kevin Gorman | ^{talk page} Statement in current arbcom case 04:55, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Kevin Gorman, notwithstanding it being best practice, the Non-discrimination policy only applies to the conduct of Foundation employees and contractors. The wording of it is ambiguous, however it is explained more thoroughly at Wikipedia talk:Non-discrimination policy.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 23:06, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin - I fully admire your efforts to have all people treated fairly and equally; but, I fear that bringing this type of thing into this case may give the perception that you are attempting to deflect attention away from your own actions in order to focus attention on an abstract not related to the issues at hand. "ON"-wiki, we can not ascertain who is a member of any group, and NDP appears to focus on the real world issues that the WMF, and all organizations, must deal with. — Ched : ? 01:01, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Kevin Gorman's policy violations did not significantly harm the encyclopedia

1) While several of Kevin Gorman's recent actions have violated policy and should not be repeated, they were made in good faith, and none of them actually caused any significant harm to the encyclopedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

True enough as a FoF. Does beg the question why this keeps happening, and how constantly violating policy meets the spirit of WP:ADMINACCT. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:46, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

True enough, but we need to distinguish the ones that are errors from the ones that are not. DGG ( talk ) 17:34, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin, you write that your errors were the end result of [you] not just categorically rereading every admin policy (which I probably should have done, since it's not like it would take very long,) after basically returning from what was essentially a year long break with a large memory gap in the middle. So, basically you were away for a year, during which time you had memory problems and did not think it would be a good idea to familiarise yourself with the various admin policies before acting as an admin? You did not check to see if policy had changed in any way while you were away? You did not make sure you remembered policy correctly, even you though you recognise that you have some significant memory lapses? And you think this should count as an extenuating circumstance?

Salvio

^{Let's talk about it!} 10:16, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

If you don't agree with this as a FoF... describe the harm my actions did. User:Kevin Gorman | ^{talk page} Statement in current arbcom case 16:11, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Euryalus, two cases in four years does not beg the question as to why this keeps happening. I would ask that if you're going to accuse me of constantly violating policy, you establish a stronger pattern than has been established. User:Kevin Gorman | ^{talk page} Statement in current arbcom case 04:59, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ched, you represent a very small portion of the community. @Hell in a Bucket:, a user who I don't particularly get along with, have had conflict with in the recent past, and who, in his own words, views me as a "SJW POV pusher" still thinks that this is baseless request with no established pattern of events sufficient to base a desysop on (per his comments in the RFAR.) By my count, this case includes two misuses of the admin toolset - revdel, and the CU unblocks. It also includes one other significant error - making the assumption that a gallery on commons with the same name as prominent Wikipedian contained images of that Wikipedian. All of those mistakes occurred in the period of something like a week. Two administrative mistakes does not a pattern make. Tryptofish: the behavior of several other Wikipedians during this case, when combined with their past behavior, would be more than enough to make a solid arb case by itself. I've said more than once on this page (and pretty much every page involved in this case) that I made significant procedural mistakes, including ones involving the administrative toolset, and that they are ones that I will not repeat. Although I've defended several of my actions (because they were defensible actions,) if you look at the analysis of evidence section below, you'll note that besides your own analysis of evidence, I added the bulleted analysis of evidence myself - and in situations where I made mistakes, I owned up in pretty straight language to those mistakes. If you look through my history as a Wikipedian, you won't find many instances (and none involving the administrative toolset) where I made a mistake, had it pointed out to me, acknowledged it and pledged not to repeat it, and then repeated it. User:Kevin Gorman | ^{talk page} Statement in current arbcom case 19:21, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: - I'm curious, which ones do you think were not errors? There's really three potentially actionable things I did here on an arbcom level, and they were all varying degrees of stupid, but I'm not aware of anything I'm accused of that wasn't a mistake that is actionable on an arbcom level. Actually, I'm somewhat surprised this case was taken by arbcom at all, as lower levels of dispute resolution were not exhausted (or tried.) That's not an attempt to deflect from the fact that I did significantly fuck up, I just can't think offhand of anything that I've been accused of deliberately doing anything dumb. User:Kevin Gorman | ^{talk page} 06:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(1.) I think what you did with respect to wikiPR helpful to the encyclopedia, and justified in the circumstances, I think, in fact, that you should be commended for your actions there, which played apart in our learning how to deal with such groups of paid editors. I think you showed better judgement that those who accuse you of it being an error. (2). I argued against your position about what to do with respect to Neelix. But what you did was fully supported by policy, eas what wa proprosed also by others, was the working consensus at the time among those handling the matter, and therefore I do not call it an error. DGG ( talk ) 07:51, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thank you for the clarification. I thought you were suggesting the other way around, that some of the allegations of failing to follow policy on my part were purposeful, rather than the end result of me not just categorically rereading every admin policy (which I probably should have done, since it's not like it would take very long,) after basically returning from what was essentially a year long break with a large memory gap in the middle (a fever of 107 does not do good things to your memory; I have significant gaps in my memory from the three months before and the three months after sepsis... and some significant memory lapses from before that time.) I probably should've given up my tools at BN for most of this year... but if you take a look at my edit count for the last couple months, you'll notice they're much higher than other months in this year. Starting around two months ago, I literally got clearance from ~8-9 specialists to start being a normal person again, as well as the meds I'm on significantly tweaked so that I can actually function. Unfortunately... that means normal going forward, not recapturing lost memories completely. Shortly after Wikiconf USA I got officially diagnosed with narcolepsy (who the hell knew sepsis could trigger narcolepsy?) and treated with stimulants and sodium oxybate as well as finally getting my immunoglobulin schedule down. A weird example of memory loss caused by this: with the checkuser unblocks, I went through the entire process necessary to vet a classroom unblock (even the technical findings match what I would expect from a class,) and actuallly directly located the class in question at the university in question and tracked them on to the right piece of tracking software for this semester (with my permissions at least, I couldn't get WEF's dashboard properly configured for the unusual timeline,) and then literally forgot that seeing {{checkuserblock}} meant that I couldn't undo the blocks without a checkuser's consent. If I was writing a remedy for this myself it would just read "go reread all admin policies a couple times." User:Kevin Gorman | ^{talk page} 09:57, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Salvio giuliano: - since there are currently a grand total of two alleged admin policy violations (and one significant other policy violation, greatly mitigated by the fact that it caused no harm and clearly fell in to the "non-malicious and unintentional" clause of the policy) on my part in the time frame in question (and the older allegations about Wiki-PR and Xander756 don't hold water,) and neither one caused harm (no one missed out by being unable to read the revdeled content for the brief period of time it was revdeled) and the involved checkuser acknowledged the blocks as both a good faith mistake and most likely the correct action to take in the first place, I don't think my failure to immediately reread every policy has caused harm, and some of the admin actions I've taken in the same period of time have represented a distinct benefit, I think adopting a punitive stance is counter-productive. I'd rate having a slightly bumpy return to Wikipedia after having five organ systems simultaneously fail where my failure to immediately do everything I probably should've upon returning to Wikipedia didn't cause meaningful harm and some of my admin actions were meaningfully beneficial as bluntly not bad. This case would probably have been better solved by the involved checkuser reminding me to review policy (which he did do) or me simply realizing I should review policy, particularly in areas I wasn't that familiar to begin with (which I realized before the case was initiated.) So put bluntly, yes, I do view returning to Wikipedia after five organ systems failed at the same time and I was told I was the patient in the worst condition in the ICU of one of the two best hospitals in the US as extenuating circumstances w/r/t committing a trio of policy violations that didn't result in actual harm. I was told by my critical care specialist that I had about a 70% chance of joining Wikipedia:Deceased_Wikipedians and a minimal chance of leaving the hospital without one or more of my body systems never working again without significant artifical assistance, so I view briefly making an inappropriate revdel and making a call at SPI that the involved CU viewed as a good faith mistake that probably resulted in the same end result as following procedure would've as pretty successful, both for me and for Wikipedia. User:Kevin Gorman | ^{talk page} 11:49, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Kevin - a pattern and evidence has been established. Administrators need to have the trust of the community to function effectively. I have NO doubt that you're a good person who has done many good things for this project; but your posts throughout this case further strengthen the doubt of community trust in your administrative actions. You have a very strong support foundation on wiki - perhaps consider putting down the extra buttons for now, continue your good work, and consider running a RfA in a year or so. — Ched : ? 06:33, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are probably multiple places where I could perhaps say this, but I think that here is as good as any. As I have read what Euryalus has been saying about a pattern, I think that those are persuasive points. At the same time, if one sees what I presented in my analysis of WTT's evidence near the bottom of this Workshop page, I still do believe that there has been not that much in terms of individual incidents. So that's been giving me some cognitive dissonance: how can a series of, individually, not-that-bad incidents add up to a more concerning pattern? It seems, at first, to violate arithmetic. I've been trying to figure that out. I think that the answer is that Kevin's manner of responding to concerns about his administrative conduct tends to be worse than the original conduct itself. That's why so much of WTT's evidence was about WTT's arguments with Kevin. On these case pages, I keep seeing Kevin saying things to the effect of I've already said many times that I recognize my mistakes and that I'm not going to repeat them, although some of those times have been deleted (not a quote), and yet, through all the walls of text, I don't get the impression that he has really acknowledged that here. There's an awful lot of him complaining about his treatment here being BS. He has legitimate reasons to feel offended by things that other users have said about him, have made fun of him about, and I don't blame him for feeling put upon. But I'm starting to think that that's the pattern: he does things that are flawed but not really desysop-worthy, but then the aftermath ends up being memorably contentious, and Kevin contributes to how that aftermath comes across. If I'm right about that, then the question becomes one of how to deal with it, of what remedies would fit. I still tend toward the opinion that a good final decision will leave some space for Kevin having been understandably upset by this case, and will find a way to do what's best for Wikipedia by guiding him towards improvement, as opposed to kicking him out of adminship. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:48, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Gorman made a series of procedurally incorrect unblocks of accounts belonging to a class blocked by checkuser User:Mike V in good faith at the advice of SPI clerk User:Vanjagenije's advice

2) Kevin Gorman made a series of procedurally incorrect unblocks of accounts blocked by checkuser User:Mike V, unblocking a series of accounts blocked at SPI that Kevin believed, after reasonable investigation, belonged to a legitimate class, with one of the accounts claiming to be an instructor at LIUC, a university to the north of Milan that is currently advertising a class as editing the English Wikipedia (in addition to the instructor, several of the accounts had marked themselves as students at LIUC.) Kevin only unblocked the accounts after leaving discussions open overnight at both the SPI and the ins'sructor's talk page, and having the SPI clerk responssible for he case tell him that unblocking the accounts was acceptable. As the blocks were done by a checkuser and marked as such, Kevin should not have unblocked the accounts without the consent of Mike V (or less preferably, a another checkuser.) However, Mike V, the checkuser who performed the blocks, accepted that the unblocks were both a good fath error, and probably the results that would have been reached.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I might be misunderstanding this - who is the Arb clerk you are referring to? -- Euryalus (talk) 00:48, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I see the analogy here - because Arb clerks often speak for Arbcom you assumed SPI clerks speak for checkusers. Mildly, it may have been wiser to have read the policy instead of making this assumption. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:57, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

It's just a straight description of what happened. Arb clerks speak with the authority of arbcom, especially after a year's absence as an admin (and more than that since my last SPI inolvement,) it was a reasonable and good faith assumption that SPI clerks had the authority to authorize SPI unblocks. User:Kevin Gorman | ^{talk page} Statement in current arbcom case 16:26, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it would have been better if I hadn't made that assumption, but it really change the case that I made a mistake in assessing what blocks I had the authority to lift that was accepted as a good faith mistake by the checkuser, and that all available evidence suggests that the blocks I lifted were blocks that should have been lifted, just not blocks I had the authority to lift without his consent. User:Kevin Gorman | ^{talk page} Statement in current arbcom case 05:03, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Kevin Gorman briefly misused revision deletion

3) Kevin Gorman used Revision Deletion, a tool only available to administrators, to briefly delete a conversation that reflected poorly on him and some of its other participants on his talk page. The revision deletion criterion he cited does not apply to user talk pages. After it was pointed out to Kevin that the revision deletin criterion could not be applied to user talk pages, he immediately reversed the RD, and replaced it with a message requesting the conversation not be resurrected again while he was out of town.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This is more or less a description of what went on. The revision deletion I conducted was originally suggested by SB_Johnny; I don't think he needs to be named in any FoF. The conversation I deleted didn't really reflect well on any of its participants (which is something that is not just my opinion, but has been repeated by multiple other people.) I would have not used RD if I hadn't been about to go out of town for several days and if the conversation hadn't already been resurrected once after a normal deletion, I wouldn't have RD'ed it. Obviously, if I had realized that RD5 didn't cover usertalk, I also wouldn't have used it. As soon as I was made aaware that RD5 didn't cover usertalk, I reersed the RD. I should've read RD beforehand since pretty much every RD i've done in the past was either RD1 or RD4. I'll certainly read RD policy directly before conducting any RD's where I'm not positive they are allowable.. as well as review any policies where I'm not positive what is allowable in the future User:Kevin Gorman | ^{talk page} 06:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Kevin Gorman's block and topic-ban of Xander756 was apppropriate and in-line with both BLP and Outing related policies

4) WormThatTurned alleged that Kevin Gorman engaged in inappropriate "opposition research" in blocking and indefinitely topic banning User:Xander756. Kevin Gorman's actions were in line with Wikipedia's duty to protect living people, was an appropriate application of the community's GamerGate-related sanctions, and did not violate Wikipedia's WP:OUTING related policies. ArbCom has previously explicitly endorsed Xander756's topic ban placed by Kevin Gorman in a 12-0 vote.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

There's just no way I can see this block and topic ban as anything but in line with the best practices and ideals of Wikipedia. The community passed Gamergate related sanctions that are harsher than our normal BLP policy because of the massively inappropriate off-site campaign to attack and harass a number of prominent women game devs, journalists, and cultural critics. Xander756's behavior was very close to sufficient for me to topic-ban him to begin with. His current userpage includes the claim that he's a gaming "journalist", the website he wrote for, and the screenname he used to write for that website. Given his behavior on-wiki, his voluntary and still present claim to be a gamming journalist, his voluntary and unredacted self-disclosure of what site he was a "journalist" for, and the repugnant content of some of his accounts, this block was absolutely appropriate. I would suggest given he was a paid journalist writing disgusting things about living people this wasn't inappropriate opposition research: "However, if individuals have identified themselves without redacting or having it oversighted, such information can be used for discussions of conflict of interest (COI) in appropriate forums." Oh. And there's the fact that my topic ban was endorsed by arbcom 12-0. User:Kevin Gorman | ^{talk page} 11:10, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Template

5) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

6) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Example 2

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Example 3

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

WTT's accusation that KG abused Revdel

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Essentially every previous time I've used Revdel, it's been RD1 or RD4. Jehochman deleted a rather unpleasant conversation off my talk page in a creative exercise of WP:DENY. WTT restarted part of the conversation. SB_Johnny stopped by my talk page offering to RD the conversation, and ended up just blanking it. Since I was about to go out of town for three days and didn't want the conversation restarted while I was gone, I RDed it. WTT almost immediately pointed out that RD5 doesn't apply to Usertalk. As soon as he pointed it out (and as soon as I could get to a computer,) I reversed the RevDel. I really don't think that anyone suffered any harm from being unable to view an unpleasant talkpage between myself, WTT, and a couple other people that I inappropriately RD'ed for a brief period of time. User:Kevin Gorman | ^{talk page} Statement in current arbcom case 05:44, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

WTT's accusation that KG inappropriately undid CU blocks

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I was flagged to a series of SPI blocks by @Timtrent:. One of the blocked accounts claimed to be an instructor at LIUC, a university near Milan that is currently advertising a class that is editing ENWP. After a series of conversations at the SPI and at the instructor's talkpage which I left open over night (but failed to ping Mike V, the blocking CU,) I unblocked the class. Vanjagenie, the patrolling SPI admin for the case made a comment here that "The blocks were made after CheckUser findings, but are not really "CheckUser blocks" (CheckUser found them to be "likely connected" which is consistent with this story). So, feel free to unblock." While I should've pinged Mike V if nothing else for the sake of courtesy that I try to extend admins in general before undoing their blocks, it did not seem unbelievable in the least that at some point in the nearly year I had been inactive SPI clerks had been empowered in the same way arb clerks are (arb clerks frequently speak for the arbitration committee, and with their authority - e.g., undoing an arb clerk's action can be grounds for an arb block.) Obviously I'm not going to do the same damn thing again, but believing that an SPI clerk had the authority to authorize the reversal of SPI blocks was hardly unbelievable. User:Kevin Gorman | ^{talk page} Statement in current arbcom case 05:43, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Comment by Timtrent I confirm that I flagged KG to look at these. He and I were discussing Wikipedia Education in a more general manner at the time and I asked him on his talk page to consider what might be done. I saw what was with hindsight a good faith error by V as SPI clerk, and thus a further hindsight good faith error by KG based upon that. I have no knowledge of the relevant procedures because I have never needed that knowledge. I am not an admin. I viewed those actions as those of reasonable people, carried out with simple diligence. I see, now, that these were against procedure. I cite WP:IAR. Delaying the unblock further would not have been useful to building the encyclopaedia. My view is that these errors did not harm Wikipedia in the smallest way. Indeed, they created a better environment for that professor and their students, and thus improved the project. Cases like this make the ordinary editor like me regret that he ever bothered to fill out an SPI and ever bothered to try to sort out the problem that the very reasonable blocking caused. Do what you will with any harm that KG's other actions may or may not have caused Wikipedia. The CU unblocks were a decent error made by a decent editor after decent advice form a decent SPI clerk. This element of the case should be dropped. It is distasteful and very perplexing that it was ever brought. Fiddle Faddle 11:31, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WTT's accusation that KG outed Wiki-PR, and this outing wasn't supported by the community/arbcom/WMF

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I was responsible for one of the first two story placements about Wiki-PR - Simon of the Daily Dot broke the story first. I didn't anticipate the fact that the journalist I was working with would be second - having previously had quite a lot of experience with the Wikimedia scandal cycle, it's exceedingly rare for a story like Simon's to go without uninformed followup stories for as long as it did. It's much for common for stories to explode with the force that the story about Roger Bamkin & Max Klein did - I was living near Max at the time and can 100% confirm that the website Violet talks about in that artice was nothing but a mock-up and that Max never took inappropriate work from yet, yet it had generated dozens of stories within a day. Given how bad the Wiki-PR issue had the potential to make us look, I wanted to get as ahead at getting the real facts about the story out as I could - so I worked with a journalist I trusted to get an accurate story out (although I expected it to be the 15th or 20th story, not the 2nd.) I had no need to out the founders or any of the employees of Wiki-PR to Martin - he's an investigative journalist for a reason, and had a much more thorough list of Wiki-PR employees and firms than I did within a few hours of starting in on it, despite the fact that I'd been involved in the investigation for a decent period of time. Similarly, years later when Wiki-PR had been renamed Status Labs and their founders had demolished a pinata store owned by legal immmigrants with all its inventory inside (including it's safe) despite the fact that the shopkeepers were up to date on rent, I conducted a number of G5's under the still in effect community ban against the founders of Wiki-PR and anyone employed by them based on research sent to me by reporters for the Austin-Statesman. Cooperating with journalists doesn't mean I'm outing people to them - investigative journalists are investigative journalists for a reason. I have named both founders of Wiki-PR on-wiki, but I didn't do so until after they had given statements to press outlets like the WSJ, so I question my ability to meaningfully out them. In terms of community support, I've never claimed arbcom as an institution supported me - just that individual arbitrators had (a claim I stand by.) I think my support by the community was well demonstrated by the fact that my community ban (whose language I proposed as the beginning of negotiations more than anything else) passed without revision with unanimous support. The text of my community ban was included in a C&D sent by WMF's outside counsel to Wiki-PR, which I would argue demonstrates WMF's support (Sue Gardner also spoke out publicly about the issue.) User:Kevin Gorman | ^{talk page} Statement in current arbcom case 05:43, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

WTT's accusation that KG conducted inappropriate opposition research

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

WTT accuses me of conducting inappropriate "opposition research" in support of a two week block and topic ban I made under the GG sanctions. The "opposition research" consisted of looking at old, unredacted versions of a user's talkpage, and realizing that he had linked to vicious screeds targeted at many of the women targeted by GamerGate. I'm deeply disappointed that a former arbitrator both doesn't realize that using unredacted information posted by a user in this fashion is an explcit exception written in to WP:OUTING, and that WTT apparently values the privacy of an editor who publicly disclosed their pseudonym and viciously attacked the targets of GamerGate both on and off-wiki. We have BLP policies for a reason; our article subjects are real people with real feelings and real reputations. User:Kevin Gorman | ^{talk page} Statement in current arbcom case 05:43, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

KG's accusation that WTT's voter guide failed a basic duty of care

Comment by Arbitrators:

Due respect for your strong feelings in this, but it is entirely irrelevant to this case. If you believe the election result was tainted you should raise it with the election commissioners. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:58, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

On the talk page to his voter guide, WTT accused me of having previously used my ill health to dodge an outright ban - an accusation he made when he was voter guide was at it's peak viewcount, and one that almost anyone with ill health or a disability would find offensive. He apparently made this accusation because he confused me with another person and literally did not bother to check if he was correct - it got something like 1800 views. WTT's voter guide made other unverified comments, some of which he repeats in his complaint - such as suggesting that I am not open for recall, a statement he would have realized was incorrect if he had even bothered to read my ACE answers. Between this. WTT's initial complaint that GorillaWarfare engaged in "advocacy" (almost all arbs do of one sort or another - advocacy for a more civil Wikipedia, advocacy for a more equal Wikipedia, advocacy for WMF to take a greater role in child protection issues, etc - apparently, GW's advocacy consisted of believing women should have equal rights and publicly voicing that view,) and WTT's demonstrated unwillingness to read the Q&A's of the people whose opinions he is summarizing, I believe WTT should face at least a two year ban on writing ACE voter guides. User:Kevin Gorman | ^{talk page} Statement in current arbcom case 05:43, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Euryalus, WTT is a named party in this case, and the last time I reviewed the mandate of arbcom it included reviewing the actions of all named parties in a case. I honestly don't really care if his guide tainted the election results (although it very well may have, there wouldn't be any way to fix it now anyway,) but I do believe that in his guide (which he directly cited in his RFAR) he committed significant BLP violations worthy of at the very least comment by the committee. User:Kevin Gorman | ^{talk page} Statement in current arbcom case 15:38, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kelapstick, instead of looking through a bunch more unpleasant shit about myself, I'll @WormThatTurned: for a specific diff, since, confusingly, he started the case but has yet to comment. I don't recall with certainty if the diff you cite is the diff in question - I recall it being rather more firmly worded than that - although having reviewed my emails with WTT I have changed the wording to refer to the talk page of his guide. From WTT: "I did make a comment that you would have been banned had it not been for your health issues. I was wrong, confusing you with a different situation. I made the statement on my voter guide talk page, a low volume page - not on the voter guide itself." User:Kevin Gorman | ^{talk page} Statement in current arbcom case 05:13, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Kevin, could you please provide a link/diff of the voter guide where WTT said that you used your health to dodge a ban? I haven't been able to find it. I did see it on the discussion page, placed here and struck here. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 00:21, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For obvious reasons, the Arbitration Committee should avoid taking any action based on the contents of ArbCom election voter guides (i.e., pages in which editors, among other things, opine on who should or should not be elected or reelected to the Arbitration Committee itself), except perhaps in truly egregious circumstances. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:24, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WTT's accusation that KG is "disingenuous when criticized"

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Unless WTT speaks a different dialect of English than I do, disingenuous implies being deceitful or lying. It would be stupid as hell for me to lie about who blocked what accounts when literally anyone in the world with an internet connection can look it up. Occam's razor: I wasn't being duplicitous, I was just fucking tired. Similarly it makes no sense for me to lie to WTT about when he was an arbitrator. Of course WTT knows when he was an arbitrator, and of course anyone can look that up. I misread the tranche graph; is that really harder to believe than the idea that I'm trying to trick an arb in to believing he wasn't an arb during a period of time when he knows he was an arb? Similarly, I had no idea that recused arbs were not routinely taken off the list that the cases they are recused from are discussed. This runs directly contrary to best practices, and unless it's mentioned in some small corner of the public arb policies, I have no idea why anyone who has never been an arb would know this - let alone why a non-arb who didn't know that the -b and -c lists were barely ever used would be accused of lying about it. User:Kevin Gorman | ^{talk page} Statement in current arbcom case 05:43, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

WTT's accusation that KG engaged in inappropriate "opposition research"

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

WTT accuses me of conducting inappropriate "opposition research" in support of a two week block and topic ban I made under the GG sanctions. The "opposition research" consisted of looking at old, unredacted versions of a user's talkpage, and realizing that he had linked to vicious screeds targeted at many of the women targeted by GamerGate. I'm deeply disappointed that a former arbitrator both doesn't realize that using unredacted information posted by a user in this fashion is an explcit exception written in to WP:OUTING, and that WTT apparently values the privacy of an editor who publicly disclosed their pseudonym and viciously attacked the targets of GamerGate both on and off-wiki. We have BLP policies for a reason; our artcle subjects are real people with real feelings and real reputations. User:Kevin Gorman | ^{talk page} Statement in current arbcom case 05:43, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

WTT's accusation that KG engaged in a recent instance of outing

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I recently linked a gallery on commons that happened to share the same name as a prominent Wikipedian that was not said-Wikipedian. The link was up for 15-20 minutes at most, and I don't think it could've damaged the reputation of the Wikipedian or the other figure involved in that timeframe. Again, I made an obvious error in not explicitly confirming the linked gallery was in fact that of the Wikipedian - but this was the same week I had been dealing with a number of privacy isues related to WikiConf USA on Commons, so although unfortunate I think it falls under the 'non-malicious and unintentinal' standard of WP:OUTING. So yes, non-maliciously violated outing for like 20 minutes, during which the non-Wikipedian certainly didn't notice, and if the Wikipedian noticed I doubt he would be insulted by being compared to a prominent academic. User:Kevin Gorman | ^{talk page} Statement in current arbcom case 05:43, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

WTT's accusation that KG routinely undermines functionaries' judgement (re:JtV)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

WTT accuses me of bypassinng functionaries' judgement routinely. He cites as an example me restoring on two occasions content from JacktheVicar, a user who is still currently flagged as a sock of Colonel Henry. This has several problems: first, G5 is an optional criterion, not a mandatory one. If an arbitrator had G5'ed all of JtV's work and I had restored it *then* I would be interfering with the judgement of a functionary, That's not what happened. The first batch of articles from JtV that I restored were three articles that had been deleted by someone wh was not a functionary that achieved good article status, including an article that had had it's GAR done by Drmies, an article that had had a close review by someone other than the original reviewer, and Christ Church, an article I closely scrutinized for hoaxed sources. In reviewing JtV's worrk I went as far as to request three rare sources that I did not have access to through an interlibrary loan. No one has found hoaxed content in any of JtV's sources. Look at this artice: it has some very minor factual inaccuracies (from memory, Uzal Ogden Jr. was ordained by the Bishop of London after Richard Terrick,) but it's a good article (as Drmies agreed, and listed it.) WP:BANREVERT suggests against G5ing articles that others have made significant contributions to, but in any case, after looking at both Drmies' review of the article and tracking down most of the listed sources in the article myself, I restored it (as well as the other two GA's JtV wrote.) This could still be me bypassing a functionary's judgement if a functionary had deleted the article.... but Sphilbrick deleted the article, not a functionary. I have reason to believe JtV isn't CH in the first place, but even if that article were written by the lovechild of JtV and Wiki-PR I would still restore it. It's a good article and not one that we would have had JtV not written it.

The second set of JtV restorations I made were of his non-GA articles. This included a couple dozen mostly stubbish articles that were not articles anyone was likely to write if I did not restore them. I checked the vast majority of sources in the articles and again, although they were mostly stubbish articles, they were articles that we would not have had I not restored them. In restoring them I went as far as to retrieve a newspaper article from 1976 from a database most Wikipedian's don't have access to to verify that the article was not fudging its sources. It wasn't. More important in this context: none of these articles were G5ed by functionaries, and I have not been told by a single functionary that it is inappropriate to restore articles written by JacktheVicar - whoever he in fact is - if I have verified their facts. I realized that restoring JtV's non-GA articles could be controversial, so I reflexed my decision to WP:AN for review. The section was closed as a perfectly appropriate restoration of adequately source articles. More importantly, again these were not articles that were G5'ed by functionaries. WTT cites my restorations of JtV's artcles (which again involved three interlibrary loans to verify) as evidence that I regularly override the judgement of functionaries. However, JacktheVicar is still blocked and as far as I am aware no functionary has indicated his articles should be G5'ed - just that JtV should stay blocked, as he is. WTT manages to twist the restoration of a couple of dozen articles including three GA's in to a bad thing. He goes as far as to say I didn't have consensus to do so, when in fact the AN thread I started about restoring JtV's content reached consensus that doing so was appropriate. I did not undermine a single functionary's judgement, I went to significant effort to fact check some of these articles, reflexed my own decision to WP:AN for review, had it found appropriate... and WTT somehow thinks that the restoration of 3 GA's and quite a few other articles with WP:AN consensus to do is against the interests of the encyclopedia? User:Kevin Gorman | ^{talk page} Statement in current arbcom case 05:43, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

WTT's accusation that KG G7ing his own DYK nom was somehow bad form

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

When the case against me was opened, I made the decision to avoid editing in mainspace, to minimize the amount of crap that people would pile on to my arbcom case. I don't particularly know was WTT describes G7ing my own DYK nom as not good practice; we do have G7 for a reason. He also doesn't note that the DYK nom I deleted was for a major medical article that we had previously been lacking. If WTT hadn't decided to open a useless case, I'd now be happily improving that article, since TWL has finally granted me access to a majority of immunology journals User:Kevin Gorman | ^{talk page} Statement in current arbcom case 05:43, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

WTT's review of KG's recent blocks (excepting the CU blocks, which are dealt with above)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Reviewing the last five blocks in reverse order: the earliest two blocks were normal blocks of disruptive accounts; one of them had a sockmaster hence the block summary. The next block was of someone who had edited my ACE answer that talked about inquisitorial vs adversarial systems to imply that I was supporting turning arbcom in to the Spanish Inquisition. While I suppose no one would expect the Spanish Inquisition, I'm not sure why WTT considered a 48 hour block on a static IP particularly heavy handed. The next set of blocks was playing whack-a-mole with Kohs. Several people have tried to keep Kohs name out of it, but I don't think Kohs is like Bloody Mary. If we say his name three times he won't magically appear (actually I bet he might, he probably googles himself a lot.) The next two blocks I made were fairly long blocks of people who had been disruptive for long periods of time at the article about Allie X. WTT suggests I blocked them based off one discussion; this is not true, I had been following the issue for a fairly long time. None of these are bad blocks. User:Kevin Gorman | ^{talk page} Statement in current arbcom case 05:43, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

KG alleged ignorance of the Arbitration rules/procedures

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

PLD, several of these procedures (such as the fact that the workshop and evidence phases are open simultaneously) are not documented anywhere (which is bad governance that I hope the next committee addresses,) and several of the rest of them are, plainly put, easy mistakes to make. I've not often appeared before arbcom in any form, whether as a named party or to submit evidence, so I don't know why it's shocking that I'm not aware of the nuances of arb procedure, especialy since many of them aren't even recorded. User:Kevin Gorman | ^{talk page} Statement in current arbcom case 15:44, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

In several occasions during this case, KG asserted he had no prior knowledge of the rules/procedures of Arbitration. An example is the

1359>500

given in the Evidence page. This looks strange since KG was, this current month, candidate to an Arbcom seat. Anyway, this assertion doesn't concur to the defense, since it implies either a lack of candor or an aversion for reading the rules before acting. Giving the impression that rules are ruling all of the people except one, should not be done. Pldx1 (talk) 09:25, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There has been far too much emphasis within this case on procedural details of the case pages of themselves, such as interpretation of word limits, whether links to evidence subpages are permitted, whether the workshop runs concurrent with or after the evidence phase, etc. None of this is of importance in evaluating whether Kevin has done an acceptable job as an administrator or will do a good job in the future, and absent truly extraordinary circumstances, none of it should figure in the decision. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:26, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Boing! said Zebedee

I've said I won't take part in the case itself, and I will not. However, I just want to say that I think the timing of this stinks. Whatever you think of Kevin's mistakes, he's a good guy and his commitment to the Wikipedia project is surely beyond doubt. Nobody is offering any new evidence and the facts appear straightforward, so surely there's no need to drag this out so painfully at this time? It's also clear that Kevin is pretty stressed right now, so is there no way ArbCom can come up with some way to reduce the pressure on him over Christmas and let him enjoy the time in peace? Quickly deal with the whole thing by motion, or maybe even suspend it until after Christmas... or something... anything other than this?

@Euryalus: I'm disappointed and I do think it's a poor decision to time it like this, but obviously the majority ArbCom decision is all that really counts. Thanks for raising it and for the feedback. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:11, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

@Boing! said Zebedee: Have raised the idea of resolving via motion on the mailing list. However there seems a rough consensus to continue the case as currently scheduled. Obviously I accept that majority view - this is just to let you know a version of this proposal was considered but doesn't seem likely at this point. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:55, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Please exercise common sense and listen to Boing (and I would greatly prefer handling by motion over a suspended case.) This is a case involving clear cut facts where my entire admin log for the last year could be reviewed in half an hour. Instead of enjoying the holidays and answering the occasional email from a GLAM or edu partner, I'm wondering whether I'm going to be editing Wikipedia next month or finding a new hobby, and wondering if I'm going to have to just drop several of the EDU projects I was in the planning stages of. User:Kevin Gorman | ^{talk page} Statement in current arbcom case 15:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Analysis by Tryptofish of evidence presented by Worm That Turned

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Spotcheck: Deletions: It's mainly two issues. One is deleting stuff that Neelix did. Is that really so out of conformity with community norms? It seems to me that there was a pretty strong consensus that most of the Neelix stuff needed to be deleted. The other is the undeletion of some Jack the Vicar pages. According to Kevin's explanations [1], [2], this was not a random or sloppy restoration of content, but rather the selective restoration of pages that were GA-audited, and appear to be net positives for content.

Spotcheck: Blocks: Aside from the issue of the unblocking of the checkuser blocks, what exactly is the major problem here? I'm not seeing it.

The checkuser unblock incident: Clearly, this was a problem, but the problem centers on having consulted with an SPI clerk instead of with the CU. There was a cumulative series of errors, but in the end, it seems to have been worked out, without lasting damage, and without establishing a so-called pattern of "bypassing functionary judgment". According to WTT's evidence in support of such a pattern, Kevin was told by a CU not to unblock Jack the Vicar, so Kevin's restoration of some G5 pages was not a user unblock.

The issues about outing: In his opening statement, WTT says "Given Kevin's historical outing of Wiki-PR[4] (which he has stated is Arbcom, community and WMF sanctioned - but wasn't)". The diff cited is from my talk page, and I am very disappointed by its being dredged up in this context. Kevin did not say that it was sanctioned by those entities. He said that he did not receive an ArbCom block for it at that time, and there was a context for his saying that, and it was very good of him to volunteer that information. It would be extremely unfortunate if ArbCom were to use that diff against Kevin as a way of getting back at me, and I urge you not to do that. The Wiki-PR investigation was an early episode in Wikipedia figuring out what to do about paid editing. Since then, the community has codified the right and wrong ways of investigating paid editing, but at that "historical" time, no one saw fit to sanction Kevin, so a retroactive sanction now would be inappropriate. Kevin has explained the Commons link and the other incidents. I urge Kevin now to state without ambiguity that he understands and intends to obey the WP:Harassment policy, and I hope that this would set these issues to rest.

Once one gets past those elements of evidence, it really ends up being a lot of arguments between Kevin and WTT, with Kevin rubbing WTT the wrong way. I like each of them personally, but it sounds like they just don't get along well with each other. I think that there is plenty of reason here to remind Kevin of several things, but I also think that it is true that Kevin has been showing increased maturity in his conduct since his previous admonishment. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:56, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis of User:Ritchie333's evidence by KG

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

It seems excessive to break this in to multiple sections so I'm just doing it in one:

WP:INVOLVED doesn't cover previous interactions in an administrative capacity. Until restoring JtV's content (which happened well after the cu blocks involved,) my only involvement with either JtV or WV had been in administrative capacity. I would argue that having previous knowledge of a dispute puts you in a better position to handle subsequent administrative actions related to the same dispute most of the time, unless you've gotten inappropriately supportive of one of the parties (which I had not.)
I didn't dismiss the idea of unblocking JtV out of hand, as I made clear later in the same conversation. I dismissed the idea of unblocking JtV until he recognized that his disruptive behavior was disruptive, because I didn't imagine it would stop otherwise. I made clear later in the conversation that if JtV made a commmitment to stop conducting disruptive actions, I'd unblock him instantly.
Both the diffs Ritchie gave of me bringing up his unblock were in conversations that other people started about whether Ritchie should be able to unblock without consulting the blocking admin or having an AN discussion. Quoting @EvergreenFir: from one of the diffs he linked, about Ritchie's unblock of JtV, "That is by far the most egregious unblock done by Ritchie. And imho deserves an admonishment at least (and is made extra ridiculous given the CU findings)." Ritchie's unblock was really just egregiously bad. I don't support sanctioning him for it or anything, but calling an unblock that bad bad is not a bad thing.
My comment to Roger wasn't disruptive. I was questioning the reasonableness of blocking for someone for outing then undoing it a couple months, then indeffing someone for outing the first person when they'd given plenty of info on-wiki to identify them, and had given interviews to the press under ther real names including, iirc, one about Wikipedia. That's not a proportional set of blocks, and pointing out that those blocks weren't proportional wasn't 'whitewashing' as Roger had accused me of.
Neelix created a tremendous number of horrid redirects. If he continued, then he needed to be emergency desysopped. I don't think anyone really disputes this. As a point, when it looked like arbcom was not going to desysop him by motion and instead make a whole case out of it, I convinced him off-wiki to voluntariy resign his bit recognizing that he was doing so under a cloud. This prevented a fuck of a lot of drama.
I brought up Neelix in this case to point out the difference in how we treat admins and nonadmins. No one blocked Neelix for creating a much bigger mess than RO had been accused of at that point, yet RO was blocked by an involved admin and not allowed to defend herself in that section. Although she later directly outed someone and received an appropriate block, at the time there was no way that a block by an involved admin should have been allowed to stand so that RO couldn't defend herself in that section. Amusingly, this diff is really just a diff of me responding appropiately to a more severe misuse of the toolset than I have been accused of by another person who has called for me to be desysopped.
AGF isn't a suicide pact. When someone is editing my own answers to ACE questions to make me look bad, it's pretty obvious that they are trolling.
Cassianto and OIDDE were both behaving inappropiately. I'm involved enough in gender issues on Wikipedia that me invoking any of the relevant sanctions to get them to stop could reasonably be construed as a violation of WP:INVOLVED. So this is another example of me behaving appropriately as an admin.
Although the unblock was upheld at the time, every subsequent converssation where it has come up has had widespread agreement that it was a terrible unblock. Dennis, who I was responding to, had not read the background to the block. So, as I said, he can question my competency, but it's not to stop me from blocking people for significant disruptive behavior. User:Kevin Gorman | ^{talk page} 16:42, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie, you greatly overestimate the ability of yourself (and other people) to actually get under my skin. I saw your evidence, and figured that I should probably rebut it while I still have internet access. I wrote my response to you earlier because I'm only going to be on a few times today, and figured I should rebut your evidence before I afk. I laughed a couple times while responding to your evidence, but the only steam involved was the steam involved in making the milk of a cappuccino during the break I took halfway during writimg a response to you. I'm guessinng you haven't followed most admin work I do but a significant chunk of it involves dispute resolution at a much lower level than this, or even ANI, so that editors who would be indeffed after a few ANI sections about them can instead learn how to contribute in a productive way to Wikipedia. User:Kevin Gorman | ^{talk page} 19:22, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trypto: Most of the points above consist of me either trying to lessen drama, ensure that I was not violating policy, or ensure that contributors with different levels of bits received equal treatment. Can you imagine how messy an arbcom case about someone who created 81,000 redirects including hundreds to the effect of 'tumorous titties' would have been? Is opposing a block that clearly violated WP:INVOLVED a bad thing? Is it somehow behavior unbecoming to say that someone who edited my own answer to suggest I wanted to turn arbcom in the Spanish Inquisition is trolling? Or not wanting to unblock someone (who wasn't serving a terribly long block, anyway) until they agreed to stop their disruptive behavior? Or is it simply somehow bad judgement to respond to Ritchie's points defending myself? Ritchie posted a long set of diffs. The majority of them are either me making reasonable, appropriate administrative decisions, me trying to minimize drama while not violating WP:INVOLVED, or me commenting about inappropriately unequal treatment or people straight trolling (is editing an arbcom candidate's answer to suggest he wants to turn arbcom in to the spanish inqusition ever not straight trolling?) Or is me simply responding to Ritchie's evidence evidence of bad judgement? If it were an IP on my talk page, I'd probably practice RBI, but when someone is presenting specific actions of mine before arbcom, it seems like a bad idea to *not* explain those actions. User:Kevin Gorman | ^{talk page} 21:01, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that as a valid point with a few of the diffs, Typto, and will try to avoid doing similar things in the future. But with a lot of them - like my comment to Roger - I don't. Roger was not telling the truth (arbcom: I'm happy to back up this accusation privately, but too much of the evidence is confidential to post publicly) about a situation potentially involving the irl safety of Wikimedians. My tone towards Neelix was excessively aggresive, but the situation was ridiculous, and the eventual resolution of it (since arbcom rejected the idea of handling it by motion) was a result of my actions (I had a conversation with him off-wiki,) and saved us the drama of a full case. My comment towards Giano in the earlier case request was only partially quoted, and was in direct response to him saying, among other things, "The whole matter has been fuelled and stoked our resident group of mad, sad and bad women." Combined with his other comments, I think that does deserve sanction - and I'll point out that although it's not clear either will pass, the AE2 proposed decision has in fact proposed both tbans related to gender and tbans related to Eric. I don't think I was wrong to oppose unblocking JtV when I did, although I'll point out that since his ban as a sockpuppet of CH (which he's given me really significant reason to doubt) I fairly quickly restored the 3 GA's he wrote (besides for the GA reviewers, one had been extensively fact checked by someone else, one had extensively factchecked by me - to the point of taking three interlibrary loans - and the other had been spotchecked) - and later on went on to, after extensively spotchecking them and finding no evidence of hoaxing - restored the rest of his articles for consideration at WP:AN and established consensus to restore them. WTT presents this as me undermining the judgement of functionaries, but G5 is discretionary, the G5's weren't carried out by functionaries, none of the articles were the commercial spam that I'm still G5ing from Wiki-PR whenever I find it, the restoration of the GA's was supported by common sense and policy (WP:BANREVERT - admittedly not directly mentioned in G5's brief description, and the restoration of the others was supported by consensus at WP:AN.

So I do see your point with the tone of some of my comments, but even in these selected comments, I think my effect was far more positive than negative, and wouldn't have been possible without an admin toolset. Just with the three comments I examined in more depth, one of my comments matches with arbcom's proposed sanctions against Giano (pretty directly, actually,) one of my comments though overly aggressive was in a situation where my actions still avoided a ton of drama (I privately suggested a motion to several arbs, and after it was rejected, convinced Neelix to hand in his bit voluntarily,) and in the kind of long and rather convoluted history of the third quote, I ended up being responsible for 3 GA restorations and around 20 other restorations (with the non-GA restorations, I reflexed my decision to restore them to AN for review, where it was supported.) JtV - whoever he is - still obviously deserves credt for writing the articles, but unless I had a sysop bit, I don't think any of them would be restored to Wikipedia.) User:Kevin Gorman | ^{talk page} 22:20, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Kevin, I think this demonstrates my point really well - I think you read my evidence, steam came out of your ears and you immediately composed a rebuttal on the assumption that you urgently needed to defend yourself. I don't really want to see you blocked or desysopped, I just want you to be a better admin who listens and takes their time in giving compassionate and well-formed responses, not generating pages and pages of rhetoric. As somebody else said, you've been given a bunch of rope; don't hang yourself with it. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:05, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Ritchie333's evidence is helpful and that it goes to my comment above, in #Lack of harm. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:24, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin, please let me make the following distinction. There is nothing wrong with the purposes that you describe (trying to lessen drama, and so forth). Those are good things for administrators to do. But, on the other hand, Ritchie333's evidence is about the way that you communicated, the kind of language that you used, the tone of the way that you said it. I'm saying this in the context of my earlier comment in #Lack of harm. I still do not think that any of the things that you have been accused of doing rises to the level of a serious problem. But I think that the "pattern" here is one of what Ritchie333 called "putting your foot in it". --Tryptofish (talk) 21:28, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin, I do agree with you that the substance of what you did was generally OK, and nowhere near to requiring ArbCom action. What I'm saying – and I am happy that you are getting closer to agreeing with me – is that the tone of what you said is what is getting you into hassles here. The tone takes what should have been a net positive, and makes it something where it can subjectively but reasonably be regarded as not positive enough. And it's an easy enough thing to correct, going forward. And if all this ArbCom case does is address that, I think that would be a good result. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:46, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

@Kevin Gorman: It is entirely correct to say each of the individual elements of the evidence against you is minor, and that your actions in these cases had little or no impact on the encyclopaedia. And as a personal view, none of the allegations against you is individually worthy of sanction. But collectively the repeated excuse of not reading the policy, or making another "one-off" bad judgement call, starts to wear thin. This is particularly true of the CU unblock issue, where you appear to a) not have read the policy before acting, b) not credibly notified the blocking admin, and and c) not even have checked if they were CU blocks after the unblocks were queried. Please note in passing that I couldn't care less about the length of your statement or the "bullshit tactic" (to quote your talkpage) of using this Workshop to dodge around evidence limits. This is about a repeated prioritisation of personal judgement over admin and editorial policy.

You say you are becoming less trigger-happy, and that henceforth you will read policy (on say, revdeletion, outing or overturning CU blocks) before acting. Fine, if that's believable then I for one support calling this case closed. But you have said that before. Instead of some of tangents above, I'd prefer to hear why a warning by motion in this case would have more weight than previous warnings which had no apparent effect. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:07, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kevin Gorman: Thanks for taking the time to answer my various comments above. Appreciate this is a busy time of year for most people, but I do think if we're going to have workshops we may as well use them to debate the issues. I won't take up more of your time with questions - suffice to say we agree on some things (for example that none of the points of evidence had lasting negative effect), and somewhat disagree on others (for example how much the various policy breaches matter). Over to everyone else to have a say or consider their views going forward. Will think and comment further on your point about harassment, but otherwise all the best for the holidays. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:14, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Euryalus: I wasn't calling the use of the workshop a bullshit tactic. I was calling me citing a diff of my entire evidentiary statement that exceeded the word limit as a bullshit tactic - which it obviously was, but since it's not documented anywhere that both the evidence and workshop phases of a case are open in the same place, it was a bullshit tactic necessary to ensure I had any chance of responding to the accusations against me since no other mechanism of responding to the accusations was at all apparent.

If you cannot point to a single piece of actual harm caused by my behavior, no meaningful sanction is warranted. My previous admonishment by arbcom was years previously for a completely different offense. I'm not sure how you can suggest that it had no effect, since this is the first time I've been before arbcom in the time since. If any arbcom member believes I'm likely to repeat te same or similar actions involved in this case (barring the actions I believe are defensible,) they have no familiarity with me or any of my behavior.

If this case is settled with a motion than as a mechanism built in to it like "Kevin Gorman is warned for the following things, and if he does them again, he's autodesysopped" as some people hae suggested to me privately might be appropriate, I'm likely to just quit. And to be clear, I don't quit and rejoin the encyclopedia every third week like some contributors do - I don't that's a suggestion I've ever made before. I'm unwilling to work with a Sword of Damocles hanging over my head. User:Kevin Gorman | ^{talk page} Statement in current arbcom case 15:31, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trypto, I've acknowledged multiple times that I can and will do better in the future. If a motion passes that warns or admnonishes me, I'm absolutely fine with it. If a motion passes that includes a clause like "if he accidentally misues revdel again in the future, he'll be automatically desysopped" - well, would you want that sword of damocles hanging over all of your actions? User:Kevin Gorman | ^{talk page} Statement in current arbcom case 18:18, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trypto: I've pretty much owned up to my mistakes already admittedly some of them in places that have been deleted for one reason or another. I used revdel out of policy in a situation that lasted for a very brief amount of time. I accidentally assumed that a gallery on Commons was a gallery of a Wikipedian, and linked to it in an inappropriate situation. I undid a number of CU blocks without first getting the explicit permission of the blocking CU because I mistakenly assumed an SPI clerk had the authority to authorize SPI unblocks, and because I was sloppy and didn't explicitly ping the blocking admin before making the unblocks (which imo, should be required rather than just polite.) I'm more than happy to take whatever sort of warning the committee finds appropriate for those actions, and don't intend to repeat them. Since no one has been able to point to any concrete harm the encyclopedia suffered more than a procedural breach, a desysop is inappropriate and in fact actively harmful to the encyclopedia. Wikipedians, including myself, are volunteers (despite Giano's BLP violating vitriole that is for some reason tolerated, I am, in fact a volunteer.) If any warning I receive includes an automatic trigger (i.e., an automatic desysop if I repeat an action warned against,) or even a semi-automatic trigger (i.e., written in to the warning denial of a full case in favor of a desysop by motion if I violate the warning in the future,) I'm likely going to go find something else to do with my volunteer time. Frankly it astounds me that in a case where various parties have used the fact that I have serious genetic mutations to mock me (Viriditas,) accused me of having previously used my health issues to avoid a ban (before the case began, but for an extended period of time in a significant BLP violation - WTT) or insulted my integrity (i.e. Giano's comments, which he worded quite intentionally) I'm the only party being considered for sanctions. User:Kevin Gorman | ^{talk page} Statement in current arbcom case 04:39, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Euryalus: happy holidays to you too... but I find something really weird about the fact that you're acknowledging none of my actions did lasting harm, and at least potentially acknowledging my point re: harassment, but that the person who started the case isn't commenting here, none of your colleagues are commenting here, and that most discussion around this case is going to be held when I'm unable to participate. You say that you encourage me to take cases of harrassment to ANI, but surely you recognize that I'd pretty much be crucified if I took, say, Giano's long-standing pattern of harassment which includes the use of undeclared sockpuppets to ANI now, or at any point after the case unless a Christmas miracle occurs and arbcom closes this case without sanctions? And recognize that from, ex, Awilleys comment at the RFAR that specifically advised me not to take cases of harassment to ANI that I would've been unlikely to succeed beforehand? You're also welcome to review previous instances of harassment that I have taken to ANI previously, to see that the answer has overwhelmingly been 'deal with it.' Yes, as an admin, I have a few more buttons than a normal editor. You acknowledge that my use of those buttons has not produced harm. I am still a volunteer. So you have a case where a volunteer with a few extra buttons used them in a way that didn't cause harm, and the sole focus of the resultant case is on whether or not that volunteer should be punished in a way that decreases their ability to good for the encylopedia, and not on the harrassment they've undergone even inside this very case? Even if we're casting aside Viriditas' bullshit, take a look at Giano's comment that is still in evidence and then take a look at BMK's analysis of that comment on evidence talk. So bluntly: if the committee put in charge of dealing with 'intractable disputes' (which this hardly is) is so focused on actions that they acknowledge caused no harm that they don't realize that punishing a volunteer whose presence benefits the encyclopedia far more than it harms it while ignoring harrassment of said volunteer that occurs even inside the case is a really weird situation, what incentive would I have at the end of this case to stick around if it results in my desysop and no punishment for anyone involved in harassment issues? (Which is the scenario that everyone involved is privately 90% sure will happen.) Harsh committee action here would literally be damaging he encyclopedia. User:Kevin Gorman | ^{talk page} Statement in current arbcom case 05:32, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

@Kevin Gorman: I'm sympathetic to how unpleasant this whole business is for you, but I think that Euryalus raises very reasonable points. I think that everyone here hopes that we can resolve this case with as little further drama as possible. Of course, what you do is entirely up to you, but I hope that you will consider the following advice from me. You could make most of this go quickly away by simply acknowledging the ways that you could do better, in the future. When, instead, you say things like "I'm likely to just quit", even in the face of a warning that falls far short of an actual desysop, then you are setting yourself up for failure. Set aside your pride, please. Lots of us don't want to lose you. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:45, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin, thank you for your reply. My advice is to make it much more clear, and in a succinct way, exactly how you "will do better in the future", and also spell out more clearly the distinction regarding automatic, because it certainly makes sense for the Workshop to consider warnings in lieu of automatic triggers that could be gamed. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:31, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 155: / Line 155: @@
 :::(1.) I think what you did with respect to wikiPR helpful to the encyclopedia, and justified in the circumstances, I think, in fact, that you should be commended for your actions there, which played apart in our learning how to deal with such groups of paid editors. I think you showed better judgement that those who accuse you of it being an error. (2). I argued against your position about what to do with respect to  Neelix. But what you did was fully supported by policy, eas what wa proprosed also by others,  was the working  consensus at the time among those handling the matter, and therefore I do not call it an error. '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 07:51, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 :::*Ah, thank you for the clarification.  I thought you were suggesting the other way around, that some of the allegations of failing to follow policy on my part were purposeful, rather than the end result of me not just categorically rereading every admin policy (which I probably should have done, since it's not like it would take very long,) after basically returning from what was essentially a year long break with a large memory gap in the middle (a fever of 107 does not do good things to your memory; I have significant gaps in my memory from the three months before and the three months after sepsis... and some significant memory lapses from before that time.)  I probably should've given up my tools at BN for most of this year... but if you take a look at my edit count for the last couple months, you'll notice they're much higher than other months in this year. Starting around two months ago, I literally got clearance from ~8-9 specialists to start being a normal person again, as well as the meds I'm on significantly tweaked so that I can actually function. Unfortunately... that means normal going forward, not recapturing lost memories completely.  Shortly after Wikiconf USA I got officially diagnosed with narcolepsy (who the hell knew sepsis could trigger narcolepsy?) and treated with stimulants and [[sodium oxybate]] as well as finally getting my immunoglobulin schedule down.  A weird example of memory loss caused by this: with the checkuser unblocks, I went through the entire process necessary to vet a classroom unblock (even the technical findings match what I would expect from a class,) and actuallly directly located the class in question at the university in question and tracked them on to the right piece of tracking software for this semester (with my permissions at least, I couldn't get WEF's dashboard properly configured for the unusual timeline,) and then literally forgot that seeing <nowiki>{{checkuserblock}}</nowiki> meant that I couldn't undo the blocks without a checkuser's consent.  If I was writing a remedy for this myself it would just read "go reread all admin policies a couple times." <b>[[User:Kevin Gorman]] | <sup><i>[[User talk:Kevin Gorman|talk page]]</i></sup></b> 09:57, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
+*{{ping|Salvio giuliano}} - since there are currently a grand total of '''two''' alleged admin policy violations (and one significant other policy violation, greatly mitigated by the fact that it caused no harm and clearly fell in to the "non-malicious and unintentional" clause of the policy) on my part in the time frame in question (and the older allegations about Wiki-PR and Xander756 don't hold water,) and neither one caused harm (no one missed out by being unable to read the revdeled content for the brief period of time it was revdeled) and the involved checkuser acknowledged the blocks as both a good faith mistake and most likely the correct action to take in the first place, I don't think my failure to immediately reread every policy has caused harm, and some of the admin actions I've taken in the same period of time have represented a distinct ''benefit'', I think adopting a punitive stance is counter-productive.  I'd rate having a slightly bumpy return  to Wikipedia after having five organ systems simultaneously fail where my failure to immediately do everything I probably should've upon returning to Wikipedia didn't cause meaningful harm and some of my admin actions were meaningfully beneficial as bluntly not bad. This case would probably have been better solved by the involved checkuser reminding me to review policy (which he did do) or me simply realizing I should review policy, particularly in areas I wasn't that familiar to begin with (which I realized before the case was initiated.) So put bluntly, yes, I do view returning to Wikipedia after five organ systems failed at the same time and I was told I was the patient in the worst condition in the ICU of one of the two best hospitals in the US as extenuating circumstances w/r/t committing a trio of policy violations that didn't result in actual harm.  I was told by my critical care specialist that I had about a 70% chance of joining [[Wikipedia:Deceased_Wikipedians]] and a minimal chance of leaving the hospital without one or more of my body systems never working again without significant artifical assistance, so I view briefly making an inappropriate revdel and making a call at SPI that the involved CU viewed as a good faith mistake that probably resulted in the same end result as following procedure would've as pretty successful, both for me and for Wikipedia. <b>[[User:Kevin Gorman]] | <sup><i>[[User talk:Kevin Gorman|talk page]]</i></sup></b> 11:49, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 :'''Comment by others:'''
 :: Kevin - a pattern and evidence has been established.  Administrators need to have the trust of the community to function effectively.  I have '''NO''' doubt that you're a good person who has done many good things for this project; but your posts throughout this case further strengthen the doubt of community trust in your administrative actions.   You have a very strong support foundation on wiki - perhaps consider putting down the extra buttons for now, continue your good work, and consider running a RfA in a year or so. — <small><span class="nowrap" style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>[[User:Ched|Ched]]</b> : [[User_talk:Ched|<font style="color:#FFFFFF;background:#0000fa;">&nbsp;?&nbsp;</font>]]</span></small> 06:33, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

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