Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings

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

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Kevin Gorman		8 December 2015	{{{votes}}}

[edit]

Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Venezuelan politics	25 May 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation	none	(orig. case)	7 June 2024
Clarification request: mentioning the name of off-wiki threads	none	none	4 June 2024
Amendment request: India-Pakistan	none	(orig. case)	7 June 2024
Clarification request: Contentious topics restrictions	none	none	10 June 2024
Amendment request: World War II and the history of Jews in Poland	none	(orig. case)	21 June 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Kevin Gorman

Initiated by Worm^TT(talk) at 10:28, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Worm That Turned (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party
• Kevin Gorman (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• [1]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Per statement below

Statement by Worm That Turned

Kevin Gorman's recent behaviour left me doubtful that he should remain an administrator. As the only option for removal of administrator user-rights is through an Arbcom case, and given his previous "strong admonishment" I felt I should raise it here.

To provide a bit of background, I opposed Kevin at my Arbcom voter guide. (initial updated) This lead to this conversation on the talk page of the voter guide. Further conversations occurred at his questions page and his user talk page [2][3]

My first major concern, however, was that Kevin has abused the revision deletion tool. He deleted the discussions on his user talk page which highlighted past issues with his behaviour, thereby evading scrutiny during the arbcom election period. I pointed this out by email, so he reversed his action. (deletion log)

My second major concern is regarding a series of unblocks he made yesterday.[4] It appears he has unblocked an entire group of checkuser-block accounts, without consulting the blocking checkuser, or indeed any other checkuser. Given that I no longer hold the checkuser user-right, I make no comment as to whether this was the correct outcome, but the fact that he bypassed the "discussion with checkuser" step significantly concerns me.

Given Kevin's historical outing of Wiki-PR[5] (which he has stated is Arbcom, community and WMF sanctioned - but wasn't), his opposition research last November,[6] and his recent linking of a wikipedia user account to a real person's photo gallery on commons.[7], there is a clear pattern of behaviour that is at odds with community norms and I simply do not believe we can trust Kevin with administrator user rights any longer. He is not open for recall, so I request that the committee look at the case.

Statement by Kevin Gorman

• As a more thought out statement: everyone makes mistakes. WTT acknowledges and is well aware of this. In fact, during one of the highest viewcount periods for ACE guides, he falsely (but accidentally) accused me of previously hiding behind my health status to escape an outright ban, as well as a number of other things. That's a brutally offensive statement to anyone who is disabled (and yes, I am,) but I'm more than willing to AGF about it. However, I feel if this case is accepted, his behavior should also be examined. Although I don't have formally posted guidelines for recall, as I outlined in my ACE Q&A, I am open to recall.

• As far as I can tell, this request concerns a number of things. In one of them, Jehochman deleted an entire thread from my page under a creative exercise of WP:DENY. WTT resurrected part of the thread that I don't think reflected very well on any of its partipants (myself and WTT included.) SB_Johnny stumbled by and suggested that he RD the whole thread, though he ended up just deleting it instead. I went ahead and RD'ed the thread until WTT pointed out that RD1 doesn't apply to usertalk, at which point I undid it within twenty minutes - about the fastest I could get to a laptop. I don't think anyone was harmed by being unable to see a thread on my page for twenty minutes, nor were my actions anything but an honest mistake.

• I made an unblock of accounts that had been blocked by Mike V and tagged by SPI clerk and admin Vanja. Vanja made the explicit statement that they were based on checkuser data but not considered ordinary blocks, and that I should feel free to unblock if I thought it was appropriate. There is a class currently active at the university in question that advertises that they will be editing Wikipedia, and after a review of their contributions and editing patterns, I'm almost certain that blocked editors represented the class in question. I left a thread about the potential unblock up overnight (but failed to ping Mike to it as I should've.) I have not been active at SPI since with Wiki-PR with rare exceptions, had no reason to doubt a fellow admin's word, especially an SPI clerk, and went ahead and unblocked them - I assumed that a policy had shifted. This could've benefitted from further process, but the result was right, and that's what should matter in the end. I made an obvious mistake in not explicitly reviewing the relevant policy - inactivity at SPI doesn't excuse my error. I certainly won't make the same mistake again, and will certainly talk to the blocking CU before considering a mass unblock of SPI cu blocks (or any other CU block.) I did leave comments on both the SPI and the instructor's talk page overnight that I suspected with 99% certainty that the blocks represented a class, since the uni involved is currently advertising a class that involves Wikipedia editing. I also reviewed the edits of all unblockees without seeing any of the normal tipoffs of something like a group of paid editors - they looked like students who needed more guidance. Mike: I apologize for not discussing this with you explicitly ahead of time, and it certainly won't happen again.

• I readily admit to, in the distant past, outing Wiki-PR. I believe such action was necessary to preserve the integrity of the encyclopedia, and this outing is preserved intact in a number of places across the encyclopedia and beyond, including a C&D WMF had Cooley send Wiki-PR. My outing also had the support of the community, as demonstrated by the strength of consensus in favor of the community ban I suggested which in its text outed the founder's of Wiki-PR. This text was later also included in a C&D the WMF had Cooley, LLP send Wiki-PR, and led to a major changes in the term of the use and had broad general support. I believe that undisclosed paid editing poses a major threat to the encyclopedia, so I have a hard time doing saying mea culpa regardin this. The "Opposition research" WTT accuses me of engaging in consisted solely of looking at the earlier version of someone's userpage who had made some very questionable edits to figures targeted by GamerGate where they self-disclosed the fact that they attacked the same figures offsite. This allowed me to formulate a stronger block rationale than I otherwise could have, and a stronger block rationale is a better block rationale. Using offsite evidence that has been linked to by the user onsite is a specific exemption to WP:OUTING. I stand by both of these actions, and both are also quite stale.

• 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.

• I think that anyone who has watched my actions change and develop over the last few years would agree that I've become more deliberative, and less trigger happy. As recent examples, I'd point to the AN section about what to do with JtV's work, as well as seeking Wikiproject Med feedback before moving immunoglobulin therapy live. Several of my recent actions violate a number of our policies, but none of them have actually cause harm to the encyclopedia, and I will actively seek to avoid making such mistakes in the future. My most recent serious error (failing to ping a CU before undoing a CU block) was unfortunate, but didn't result in harm to the encyclopedia. As time has progressed, I think it's pretty clear that I've acted with more caution and deliberation than I did when I was first sysopped, a trend I expect to continue.

• I'd point to a couple of the maxims of equity with regards to this arb request. Specifically, since none of my recent actions have caused harm to the encyclopedia and even if a case were taken up, it would probably not result in serious action. Equity does not require an idle gesture - unless voting arbs think there's a serious chance this will result in me being desyopped or banned, there's no reason to do other than what Mike V himself had pretty much already done, trout me. He who comes into equity must come with clean hands - if this is accepted as a case (and I don't think it should be,) because of WTT's recent actions, I believe he needs to be added as a party. And Equity sees that as done what ought to be done - in other words, the Brits' fancy way of saying IAR. Unless voting arbs truly believe that the encyclopedia is likely to suffer further damage by taking action beyond trouting me and saying "read the policies other admins suggest apply more carefully before acting upon them," there's no reason to take a case and spend months bickering over possible potential technical violations (and I'd suggest no motion is necessary, pointing once more to equity does not require an idle gesture, since I've clearly already been trouted.) Obviously, arbcom is not a court - let alone a court of equity - but I'd suggest the maxims still provide good guidance. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:34, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• Dennis: I absolutely take responsibility for my own tool use. I fucked up in several rather dumb ways. I relied on the comments of others to take action in situations where instead I really should have simply refreshed myself on the policies. You are correct in stating that I sent some time at SPI dealing with Wiki-PR, but my other SPI experience is quite limited, and most coordination about Wiki-PR was handled via email to try to help ensure that they did not figure out hw we were tracking them. I should've reread policy regarding SPI CU blocks to ensure Vanja's statement was correct before taking action, but failed to do so. Similarly, I should have reread the RD criteria instead of riffing off of SBJ's suggestion that the thread was RDable, which was another mistake on my part. Since both of them have more expertise with SPI/RD than I do, it didn't seem unreasonable to assume they were correct at the time. I certainly should have pinged the blocking admin even if he wasn't a CU as a matter of best practice. I'll certainly be more careful in reversing blocks in the future, both in terms of ensuring the blocking admin is aware of unblock discussions, and ensuring I don't undo CU blocks without CU consent. There's a huge difference between denying that I did anything wrong, and admitting that I did accidentally and non-maliciously violate several policies, while stating that it won't happen again, and explaining how it happened in the first place.

• This case request in addition to the private feedback I've received will have a much more effect than any motion of warning or admonishment. The errors involved in this request are errors I'm not likely to repeat. Going back to the maxims of equity - equity does not require an idle gesture - and given the case request and other feedback I've received, such a motion would be an idle gesture (since the case request and other feedback I've received weigh on me more heavily than a motion would.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:46, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Timtrent

The mass unblock of people was discussed on the relevant SPI report by Kevin and the blocking admin was pinged, from the Course Instructor's talk page. Substantial time was allowed. He received advice from Vanjagenije as SPI clerk that these were not classic CheckUser blocks, and made the unblocking in good faith.

I am partially involved with this since I made the initial SPI report and drew Kevin's attention to the fact that the editors were blocked. We were having a discussion elsewhere about education courses and the peculiarities seen. It is thus due to my alert that he made his good faith unblock, and that after a considerable delay.

Whatever the merits or otherwise of the remainder of the case against him, this element should be withdrawn, or certainly disregarded, when considering whether it should be accepted.

I make absolutely no comments on any other aspect of this filing. Fiddle Faddle 11:11, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

@Vanjagenije: Please do not take anything I said as an accusation. Your advice may have been in error, but it was made in good faith and was an honest error. Fiddle Faddle 11:10, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Question by Jehochman

How does Checkuser @Mike V: feel about this request? Jehochman ^Talk 20:19, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• Those in the election should recuse. It may take days or a week before the appointments are made. What if one of you is on the bubble? You don't want to create an appearance of knocking off another candidate to secure a seat for yourself. Jehochman ^Talk 09:46, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Mike V

I left a note on Kevin's talk page detailing my concerns about how I wished he would have discussed the issue with me first before unblocking. While Kevin did ping me on the user's talk page (as noted by Timtrent above), the edit and edit summary seems quite clear that he wasn't waiting for any feedback. In addition, the first account was unblocked at 16:21 December 7, 7 minutes after posting the message with his intentions to unblock. 10 hours later, I reviewed the data again and while there were some concerns, I mentioned at the case that I was willing to assume good faith and trust the provided explanation.

I must say I'm a little confused as to why he undid the checkuser block, especially a month ago when he said, "My first few encounters with things like CU-block, OS-block, and ARB-block taught me that reversing such things out of hand is usually a bad idea ;)" I'm not sure, perhaps he honestly didn't notice that it was a CU block? At the least, I think it would be best for Kevin to realize that he should have discussed the block with a CU and that he should be more careful in the future. (Even if he didn't think it was a CU block, I would have appreciated if he discussed it with me before doing so.) As I've mentioned to Kevin before with the JackTheVicar issue, sometimes there is private evidence at play that other users aren't aware of.

Statement by Awilley

Kevin has been on and off my watchlist recently so I was witness to most of the stuff WTT reported, plus some other stuff that bugs me more. My primary involvement with Kevin Gorman has been trying, rather unsuccessfully, to get Kevin and Giano to disengage from each other. While Giano's behavior was undoubtedly sub-optimal (not asking anybody to make him a party here) Kevin's has been almost equally so, though in a more wiki-lawyery way. Specific behaviors I have a problem with are:

• Name calling [8]
• Assuming bad faith (see extended answers to Q1&2 as an example)
• Petty talk page banning [9]
• Grudge pursuing & dramamongering (Semi-recent example was their vigorous participation in the events leading up to AE1 case)
• Blanking uncomfortable discussions [10] (or rev-deleting them as in WTT's example above)
• Hauling adversaries off to AN/I [11]

This is all behavior I expect to see from silly-season POV pushers, not administrators and Arb hopefuls, and I said as much to Kevin here. I realize Kevin is under a lot of pressure right now, so I would like to see him get some slack; however I believe some sort of admonishment would be helpful. Specifically I would like to see an end to pursuing grudges, adversarial behavior, and name-calling. Consistently choosing to escalate conflict may be a good practice for divorce lawyers who get paid by the hour, but not for Wikipedia administrators who should be trying to model the good behavior they wish to see in others. ~Awilley (talk) 21:32, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

• • @Kevin Gorman: True or False: The best way to deal with trolls is to loudly proclaim they are trolls, complain about them frequently, and take them to a noticeboard when occasion permits.

    I accept the deletion was a one-time mistake, and that you reverted yourself quickly is a good thing. It also appears that you have a bot archiving your user talk page, which is far better than the one-click-archiver fad we're going through where users can instantly remove threads they don't like. ~Awilley (talk) 21:56, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Floq

@GorillaWarfare and Thryduulf: I'm fairly sure I don't want to get involved in the actual case, but I have a question: why is being an ArbCom candidate reason to recuse? How does that affect anything? The voting is over, nothing you say or do can affect the outcome of the election. Does this mean that if anyone ever brings an ArbCom case request about a sitting arbitrator, all 14 of you are going to recuse? --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:35, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Vanjagenije

I just want to comment upon the accusation about unblocking checkuser-blocked account. It is true that I told Kevin Gorman that he can unblock those accounts. That was a big mistake on my part, and I am very sorry. I did not look into the block log and I assumed that those blocks were not "checkuser blocks" (which they were). I knew that a checkuser found those accounts to be "likely related" (see here), and not "confirmed" or "technically indistinguishable", and so I assumed that their block was not tagged as "checkuser block". I would never made such an advice have I looked better. I am pretty sure that this mistake is more mine than Gorman's and it shouldn't be taken too strongly against him. I don't have opinion about other accusations. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:33, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Neljack

It seems that in both cases Kevin Gorman received incorrect advice, acted upon it in good faith, and accepted his mistake when it was pointed out to him. That's hardly grounds for an arbcom case or a desysopping. Let's move on and save ourselves a lot of pointless wikidrama. Neljack (talk) 11:39, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I will only add that there can surely be no need for the recusals given that the election results have now been published and Kevin Gorman has not been elected. Neljack (talk) 21:06, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Dennis Brown

I agree that the recusals aren't needed. If you need to recuse for other reasons, fine, but the election is over, thus irrelevant.

I would hope Arb would at a minimum pass an admonishment or warning by motion for the CU unblocks alone. The rest, I haven't fully examined. Having worked at SPI a great deal (and he has as well), we all know that you never, ever undo a CU (or OS) block, regardless of reason, without prior authorization. Clerks can't authorize it, you need onwiki confirmation from a CU, or better yet, let a CU do it. You can't pin this on the clerk, you have to take responsibility for your own tool use. Vanjagenije stepped up and admitted their mistake, but that doesn't absolve Kevin, who was granted the tools at RFA with the understanding they would take responsibility for their use, and follow best practices in using them. If you do nothing else, I think you really have to make a statement on this point, even if you are declining. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:41, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not calling for your head (or even a case) or saying you intentionally did anything, Kevin, I'm just saying that you really should have known better even if you didn't. You didn't clerk at SPI, but you've still been around more sock blocks than most admin and should have instinctively known better. It is a matter of judgement. I don't expect to get involved further. I only recommended the case not be declined without comment. My request for a minimum acknowledgement was very tiny compared to the actual issue. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:59, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by DD2K

I'm interested to see how arbs and other admins treat honest mistakes that have been owned up to, in relation to real disruption that has occurred in other cases(IP3,AE,AE2,Neelix). There is a case here? Ok, let us see. Since I saw the initial squabble between WTT and Kevin, even though I respect both admins, the bizarre behavior by both has concerned me. But an ArbCom case? At most, this deserves a trout. And a big ole trout to anyone that accepts this. Unbelievable. Dave Dial (talk) 17:55, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment to add that both Brad and Bishonen make excellent suggestions. Kevin should listen to both and remove most of his statement. Leave the apologies, remove the strange reasoning. Dave Dial (talk) 18:25, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment by Bishonen

"It would not be ideal in terms of collegiality etc to have an arb who was just desysopped by arbcom.[12] I don't believe I've ever commented on any actions taken by Kevin before, but OMG, have you lost all sense of decorum? Kevin, please save what you've typed for at least an hour, preferably overnight, and re-read before you post. This really is good advice. Also, posting 2800 words isn't a question of "making the clerks cry", it's more a question of not sinking your own boat. You should remove four fifths of it. Bishonen | talk 18:11, 9 December 2015 (UTC).

Statement by Newyorkbrad

On reading the statements thus far, I'm not convinced that the missteps or misjudgments described in the request for arbitration require a case, either individually or cumulatively. That being said, I have only scratched the surface of what I would read through before voting on the request if I were still an arbitrator, so I don't have a definitive view.

The awkwardness of having a candidate in the results-pending election as a party to a case request is obvious. I am conflident that the sitting arbitrators will try to put that fact to the side in their decision-making. (Of course, there is an old Russian saying that any wish a person has will be granted if he or she focuses on the wish for fifteen minutes while not thinking of a white bear. Needless to say, the white bear has a way of intruding into the wisher's mind, and hence our wishes are lost after all.)

However, I must say to Kevin Gorman that the optics of the addendum to your statement that you just posted, in which you expressly urge that the case request against you should be rejected just because you might be about to become an arbitrator, even if the case would otherwise warrant acceptance, are horrible. I suggest that you withdraw that suggestion immediately. Stricken as moot.

Kevin, your dedication and commitment to Wikipedia and Wikimedia make you an asset to the project. However, in recent months you seem to have been involved in a number of high-profile wikipolitical issues or foreseeably controversial uses of administrator tools. For several reasons, I think it would be very much in your best interest for you to step back from involvement in such matters for awhile. And I believe I may not be the only person who feels that way. Please think carefully about this, and if it would be helpful, discuss it offline with someone you trust. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:16, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Giano

Please stop mentioning me in these tiresome cases. You only all moan and shout when I give my opinion, which in this case is that Kevin Gorman is a complete idiot who would never have had any tools in the first place were he not a Foundation hireling. No doubt this should have been said less "suboptimally" (that seems to be the Wikipedia favoured silly word of the moment), but my meaning would be less clear in the preferred, more floral language. If you really think it necessary for me to rephrase and cite diffs showing Gorman's capacity for petty vendettas and stupidity, do please ask - I am more than happy to oblige and join in this jamboree. Otherwise, I'll just bow out now. Giano (talk) 21:43, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Sir Joseph

I don't have much to say, but I do want you to take this case. I read a bit the recent diffs and the past case highlighted and most recently there seems to be a perception that administrators seem to get away with things us mere mortals would not get away with. Not to bring myself into it, I was indef banned for making a comment on my talk page about a user, and when I pointed out I had no idea I can be banned for that, it took almost two weeks to be unblocked. Meanwhile, Neelix, Malik Shabazz and the other guy with the million sexy redirects was doing their things getting unblocked because they're admins. Not that what I did was right, but admins need to follow the rules as well, and quite possible, need to follow the rules even more so. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:39, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Viriditas

Youth, as they say, is wasted on the young. Mr. Gorman's youthful behavior as of late has become erratic, unpredictable, and quite annoying as he posts longer and longer TL;DR screeds that exceed the limits of free time by even the average koala on holiday. Giano's biting humor aside, I think it's safe to say that most editors consider Mr. Gorman an intelligent person. But intelligence by itself isn't enough; it must be tempered by discretion and good judgment. His continuing comments about JackTheVicar, for example, show a lack of both. I get the sense that Mr. Gorman's medical and personal problems might be getting in the way of his good work. It would be helpful to everyone if he would resign the tools and save us from having to go through another arbcom case. But I suppose I am asking for a miracle. Viriditas (talk) 19:18, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

@Kevin Gorman: I'm glad that you are in good health now. However, I was not trying to use your poor health against you. You, more than anyone else, constantly bring it up in discussion after discussion, so I could only surmise that your recent spate of strange behavior was somehow connected. One thing you might try doing is slowing down a bit and writing a bit less in your comments. Whenever I read your posts, I get the sense that you've just imbibed 500 cups of coffee and are typing on a smartphone with one hand while holding on to the wing of an airplane at 30,000 feet with your other hand. It's a strange sensation, I'll give you that. Viriditas (talk) 21:38, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Collect

I see nothing to be gained by opening a single-person case here where there is no claim that he willfully did anything improper. ArbCom has a quite poor record when used as a shooting gallery, at best. "Recusal" is a straw issue after the election results except where any member is "involved" otherwise. Collect (talk) 21:15, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement by {Non-party}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

Clerk notes

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

• @Kevin: Given I spoke to you about this on your talk page would you like me to recuse from this request? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:19, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Recuse Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:54, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Kevin Gorman: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <5/0/0/3>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

• Awaiting statements, but as an observation, the block log shows that Mike V, the checkuser (not the clerk), clearly marked these blocks as checkuserblocks. Courcelles (talk) 19:52, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
• Recuse, as Kevin and I are both currently ArbCom candidates. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
  • @Floquenbeam: ...that's a fair point. I was in the habit of it in the period between when I submitted my candidacy and when the voting closed, and didn't even think about the fact that voting's over. I'll wait to hear input in case there are people who think I still need to recuse because of this, but will otherwise reevaluate. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:57, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
    • @Jehochman: What are your thoughts on my comments here? GorillaWarfare (talk) 13:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Accept. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:09, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
• Recuse, I'm also a candidate. Thryduulf (talk) 00:15, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
  • @Floquenbeam: between the nomination of candidacy and close of voting, it would obviously be unfair for one candidate to be judging another. Between close of voting and declaration of the result, it is less clear cut. I wasn't certain whether I should or not, and held off commenting initially to see if anyone brought it up either way - when GW recused I decided to follow suit assuming she had thought of the issue and decided on balance to recuse. I'll wait for more comments before decided whether to unrecuse or not. GW was a party to the AE1 case this year and most of the rest of us did not recuse, so getting 14 recusals would be very unusual (if it did happen, then I guess we'd have to ask Jimbo to either arbitrate or appoint a temporary group of people to hear that specific case). Thryduulf (talk) 12:32, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Accept. Now the election is over, there is no reason for me to recuse that I am aware of, and do think there is sufficient in the request that we need to look into the detail. Thryduulf (talk) 21:42, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
• Awaiting statements. (For those not aware, I am not a candidate in the current election.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:32, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
• Accept given the charges in the request, I think we have to accept the case. I don't see that we are waiting for election results as relevant. By the time we actually are makinga decision, we'll know in any case. If KG does win a seat, we'd still have to discuss these matters; if he does not, the election is altogether irrelevant. DGG ( talk ) 17:34, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
• Accept and handle by motion. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:38, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
  • What are you proposing to do via motion, Salvio? --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 19:41, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
• Accept to answer the questions "Is there a pattern of careless use of tools? If so, how much does/will it matter in this instance?" The explanation for the usertalk revdel and the CU unblock is the same - acting without reading the policy. The harm done was small, and everyone makes mistakes. The question is whether these are two one-off errors, or reflective of wider approaches to janitorial work. Note in passing that accepting a case does not presuppose any finding - it may well be there is nothing more to see here (especially if we AGF the promise not to do it again and no one can demonstrate that these past mistakes harmed WP). But unilaterally reversing a bunch of CU blocks is not ideal, and I'm also a bit unimpressed by the disingenuous explanations for it. Also agree there's no need for any election candidate to recuse. -- Euryalus (talk) 21:44, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
  • By the way, moot now the results are published but it would entirely consistent with collegiality to have a sitting arb desysopped by Arbcom, because the collegiality that matters is between Arbcom and the community, not Arbcom and itself. -- Euryalus (talk) 21:47, 9 December 2015 (UTC)