• I think I now have some explaining to do — and an apology to make, both to Rich and to the Wikipedia community. I nominated Rich as someone I like and respect, as a friend and fellow-editor. Having been away for most of the last 7-8 years, I was not aware of the complex issues surrounding this case, and had no idea how controversial this nomination would prove to be. I think I was remiss in not investigating that matter for myself and taking the trouble to hear all sides of the argument before nominating Rich. I am sorry that have opened up divisions in the community with this nomination. I promise to be more careful in the future before nominating anybody else. And Rich — I apologise to you, too — for exposing you in this way to the airing of past mistakes that I'm sure you wish with all your heart would be forgotten about. Having said that, I believe very strongly in loyalty. Even though my decision to nominate Rich now appears to have been too hasty, I will not abandon him how. I'll stand by my friend and colleague while the process takes its course. I will fully support whatever decision the community ends up making, and, once again, I will be more diligent in researching future nominations. David Cannon (talk) 14:38, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

<I have moved the discussion below from the "General comments" on the front page, where it doesn't really belong. David's comment above thereby appears below too, but I didn't like to remove either appearance. Bishonen | talk 16:49, 2 July 2015 (UTC).>[reply]

The nomination statement is factually inaccurate and misleading. I was part of the Committee that voted to desysop Rich Farmbrough. Rich was brought to the Committee because the community had been concerned for some years with his editing pattern and behaviour. The community had imposed restrictions on Rich; but those restrictions were not working. The Committee looked into the case and decided to desysop Rich for his history of misconduct, poor judgement, and generally not working in a trustworthy and collegiate manner. The finding regarding unblocking of his own bots was problematic from the start (I commented at the time that not all the instances of unblocking of the bots were inappropriate), and after two appeals by Rich to reword the finding, the Committee decided to vacate that finding as it was not an essential finding anyway - he had not been desysopped for unblocking his own bots, but for his general history of misconduct and disruption. A year after that finding was vacated, the Committee had to formally warn Rich via motion that continued violations of the bot restriction would be enforced by a site ban. Essentially, there is evidence that Rich Farmbrough was a problematic user for years before the ArbCom case, and continued to push the boundaries of acceptable behaviour after the case. I assume the nominator was unaware of the history of Rich Farmbrough and the full details of the case, otherwise they would not have proceeded with a nomination and a misleading statement that could potentially harm their reputation in future RfA nominations. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 07:47, 28 June 2015 (UTC).[reply]

User:SilkTork - I am willing to let you, for the moment, make claims about collegiality, incivility, judgement etc, as these things can be somewhat subjective, but you will please strike the suggestion about trustworthiness. I note also that the "remedy" said that I am free to seek re-appointment by RFA. It is somewhat disquieting that, not content with the opprobrium you have heaped upon me in your role as an arbitrator, you choose to interfere with the process here. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 09:01, 28 June 2015 (UTC).[reply]

You are welcome to seek re-appointment by RFA, and I'm not stopping that, nor am I ivoting in this RfA. I am commenting on the nomination statement, which you have accepted, even though you of all people, know it is factually incorrect and misleading. Your acceptance of that statement, and your challenge of it here, will allow others to assess how trustworthy you are. For my part, I can confirm that your deceitful behaviour was a key factor in the decision to desysop you. This finding: [1], drew attention to deceptive behaviour on your part. I don't expect you to accept that, as a significant part of the issue surrounding you is your consistent failure to understand the issues surrounding you. I never found you to be a malicious or unpleasant person, and I didn't want you to be site banned, but it did disturb me then, and it continues to disturb me now, that you will not accept that the community has serious concerns about your editing methods and your attempts to deceive the community regarding using automated tools. To be clear - if someone is being deceptive, they cannot be trusted. If someone doesn't accept their actions are disruptive and of concern to others, and so continues those actions despite informal and formal request to stop, they cannot be trusted. That you don't accept that your actions were not trustworthy doesn't in itself encourage trust. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:30, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You attribute deceit, that's fine. What is not fine is to bring your attribution to Wikipedia. At no point did anyone discuss that finding with me, and as it stands there is absolutely nothing in that finding that constitutes malfeasance on my part.

And as to holding me in some way culpable for accepting the nomination, David Cannon's interpretation is his own, and he is entitled to it (and to change his mind if he wishes). It is though, broadly shared by a number of editors. I did not encourage him in his opinion, I made it clear (when he asked) that you could have many reasons for not restoring my bit, including one that approximates to what you have said.

Neither David nor I have done anything wrong here. Your Catch 22 "Unless you accept that you are untrustworthy we can't trust you" is an unbecoming argument from anyone.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:56, 28 June 2015 (UTC).[reply]

What is Catch 22 about admitting you did something wrong? A statement along the lines of "The community were concerned because I was introducing errors into articles. Because I was using automated tools, it was difficult for other users to check my edits and tidy them up, so the community asked that I stop using such tools. I am strongly attached to using automation, and found it difficult to comply with that request, so continued to use it surreptitiously. I was caught again and banned for one year. I admit I made mistakes, and I understand what I did was wrong, and I promise I won't do it again." would go a long way, and because you are not a malicious person, and your intentions are good, a good number of those ivoting against you may well change their mind. If you had come to this RfA with that approach I may well have ivoted in support. As it stands I am not ivoting against you, and I wish you no ill, but I feel uncomfortable when I see incorrect statements go by unchallenged, and so feel a need to speak up. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Y Answered on user's talk page. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:47, 30 June 2015 (UTC).[reply]

For completeness of the record, and since this is now off the RfA page I repaste my response here.

Perhaps you have not read Catch 22?

And the reason I could not make such a statement as you suggest is that it is fundamentally wrong, and even the bits that are correct would constitute false light.

Where I made mistakes there was no need for other users to "tidy them up". In the workshop I specifically asked:

I even created forms for the named parties to enter their replies. You would imagine, given your depiction above, that there would have been people queueing round the block to present errors. "[T]he community asked that I stop using such tools" no it certainly did not. The arbitration committee insisted - even though, for example, almost everyone in the workshop thought that my bot edits were "generally ... correct.", "substantively correct" (me), "the vast majority of them are problem-free" "tasks are done very cleanly" the worst comment being "I don't think the error rate is spectacular", from Elen of the Roads, who I suspect had absolutely no idea what the error rate was.

I said in my opening statement "If anyone still has doubt that I am responsive, especially to errors, please let me know and I will, I am sure, be able to show copious examples to the contrary." No-one took up on this.

If you signed off on the findings of the case with the impression that "errors" were anything to do with it, then you were following the wrong case. Indeed the word "error" does not appear in any of the principles, findings, remedies or motions of the case.

As for you claims of "surreptitious" usage, I have repeatedly made it clear, including in this very RFA, that (while I follow the obvious intent of the restrictions, not to use custom programs or AWB to edit Wikipedia) that I will use those lesser forms of automation, such as search-and-replace and cut-and-paste, for example I paste in ISBNs, special characters, quotations, move content around articles, fix spellings and so forth. There is simply no choice. Indeed it is common for arbitration pages to say "cut and paste this section header for the next user".

If you want to discuss possible ways forward, I have previously made it clear that my talk page and email are available. Responses from the committee on the principle of discussion have been very mixed, and where I have provided information by email, I have never heard a word back, except, with great prodding, an acknowledgement of receipt.

Please also note that I have never been banned.

The only part of your sample statement that I can say (and I already have) is "I admit that I made mistakes" - I have never had a problem admitting mistakes, wikis are designed to be accommodating to them. I have also fixed those mistakes wherever I can, and a metric tonne of other people's mistakes. As for "promising not to do it again" we are either in nursery territory now, or completely off track. I certainly would love to be able to promise not to ever make another mistake, but that is completely unrealistic. Again, though, I have already remarked, both here and elsewhere, I do believe in, and strive for constant improvement.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:41, 30 June 2015 (UTC).[reply]

• The idea that the nomination statement is deceptive is lost on me. It is not deceptive to create the shortcut WP:ARBRF and then have it used within the statement to link to the case. The statement says that RF was desysoped by the Arbcom for allegedly using his admin tools incorrectly. When I read WP:ARBRF, I noticed that finding 8 -- about RF allegedly using admin tools to unblock a bot that was blocked by another admin -- was passed at the same time and date (19:17, 15 May 2012) as the remedy to revoke RF's administrator status. It is excusable to say that an abuse of admin tools was "alleged", because the finding 8 was vacated. Whether RF's administrator status should have been restored or whether this was overlooked is opinion. The way I see it, the admin tools must not have been revoked to prevent automation because RF still has a privileged tool set that is capable of facilitating the mass production of changes. RF had stopped short of using automation in a way that would provoke that kind of protective response from the ArbCom, even if only scarcely. The admin tools do appear to have been revoked over a vacated allegation that RF misused them. Italick (talk) 18:32, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I think I now have some explaining to do — and an apology to make, both to Rich and to the Wikipedia community. I nominated Rich as someone I like and respect, as a friend and fellow-editor. Having been away for most of the last 7-8 years, I was not aware of the complex issues surrounding this case, and had no idea how controversial this nomination would prove to be. I think I was remiss in not investigating that matter for myself and taking the trouble to hear all sides of the argument before nominating Rich. I am sorry that have opened up divisions in the community with this nomination. I promise to be more careful in the future before nominating anybody else. And Rich — I apologise to you, too — for exposing you in this way to the airing of past mistakes that I'm sure you wish with all your heart would be forgotten about. Having said that, I believe very strongly in loyalty. Even though my decision to nominate Rich now appears to have been too hasty, I will not abandon him how. I'll stand by my friend and colleague while the process takes its course. I will fully support whatever decision the community ends up making, and, once again, I will be more diligent in researching future nominations. David Cannon (talk) 14:38, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  You certainly don't need to apologise to me. I am reasonably happy with the responses so far, there are only a couple that have stooped to personal attacks. Many of the oppose and neutral !votes are supportive in their own way, for which I thank them. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:56, 28 June 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  

• SilkTork, please don't poison the well. It sounds like you make a virtue of not !voting in the actual Discussion below ("I am not !voting against you, and I wish you no ill", etc.) which is a little strange as you have instead put your objections much more prominently here. You also seem to imply that being part of the committee that desysopped Rich gives you special authority to intervene in this process. I think, by contrast, that your role in desysopping him should have made you more cautious on this page. What you wrote could be called a "General comment", no doubt, but it's not customary to use this section in such a way. (Most commonly it only contains a couple of lines of information — links and edit summary usage for the candidate.) It would have been proper to oppose below, and explain your reasons there, like other people. Bishonen | talk 11:52, 30 June 2015 (UTC).[reply]
• Unfortunately the well was aready poisoned by this cooment by SilkTork before Bishonen's initiative to move the thread here to the talk page. Such 'non-vote' commenting will almostcertainly be the subject of a future stand-alone discussion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:40, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• It didn't poison it for me, but I'm familiar enough with Rich to form my own opinion, and I knew this day was coming. I was hoping all the sanctions would have been lifted, making it easier to support. That is a philosophical barrier to me, having an admin under restrictions. As for SilkTork, I do think the comments crossed an ethical line. I won't labor it, but he should understand that if it had been an IP or new-ish user, the comments would have been struck and they would have been verbally spanked, showing the unfairness of the process and how an ex Arb gets away with what others can't. That is troubling, as this crushes the theory that we are a meritocracy. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:37, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise to everyone concerned for the wording of my statement, particularly Rich Farmbrough and David Cannon. Normally in situations like this I would privately approach the nominator to discuss concerns about the wording. Somehow, and I'm not sure why, this RfA irked me in a profound manner and I acted out of character and in an inappropriate manner. I intended to make a neutral statement, but I can see that it got out of hand, and came out very black and very negative. I don't quite understand why I behaved this way, but I shall endeavour to ensure it doesn't happen again. I will stay away from RfAs for a little while. As this incident is still fresh, my involvement in any capacity in an RFA in the next month or so, will likely create a stir. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:45, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can understand the statement wasn't really the problem, but it was the prominent location of it in the in the "general comments" section that was. If instead it had been put in the "oppose" or "neutral" sections I feel it would have provoked far less controversy. I think the general feeling is that comments in the general comment section should be as neutral and non-controversial as possible. The moving of the comment helped but should probably have been done sooner. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 14:04, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That may possibly be the case, though the tone of my statement was unnecessarily hostile and personal wherever it would have appeared. I've never done anything like that before, and I don't intend to do so again. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 20:01, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. Well the RfA did seem to provoke strong reactions from a number of !voters, both ways really, mostly depending upon interpretation of the ArbCom case and the repercussions I feel. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 20:43, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given that this is now on the talk page, I think it is worth putting it on record that I have willingly, even joyously, acknowledged my mistakes. Only by acknowledging them can we improve. However we also need to change. The impression from certain people, especially arbitrators, is a rather patronising change as "character reformation". Nonsense! It is simply a matter of learning from experience. And suggesting people should "promise not to do it again" is playground stuff - again concomitant with the "I'm smart; you're dumb. I'm big; you're small. I'm right, you're wrong. And there's nothing you can do about it." of Matilda (and, remember Harry Wormwood was wrong in three quarters of what he said).

Just in case that seems like a nice position, but not backed up, here is Mistakes made by me from the evidence at the arb case.

There is no doubt that I have made errors, both technical and in the handling of other editors.

Only a fool would want to perpetuate such errors. I don't believe anyone has suggested I am a fool.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 03:23, 3 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]