I guess if one is really careful in reading the wording of the resolution, we see that even if Gowers authored that comment, this would resolve ambiguous, right? It is written that we will collect all statements from Fields medalists. We do not explicitly say that Atiyah's comment should not be counted. But this is of course not something I think is intended, and I still think this should resolve negative (I predicted this at 1 %)
Relevant analysis by Scott Aaronson: https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1720 (My prediction is at 1 %. If it was possible, I would predict an even lower probability)
According to Wikipedia, there have been no vetoed resolutions on Syria for the time period in question.
@gjm: I do not think either Tao or Gowers will write anything about Atiyah's so called proof. I am of course not sure, but having read the paper, you hardly need the expertise of Tao to see that the argument is faulty. If no Fields medalist comments on the proof, do you think it should resolve ambiguous? In some sense, I feel that is not the spirit of the question, but that interpretation is of course up to you and the community.
My vote is still on closing retroactively.
This should probably close retroactively.