Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich Farmbrough

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

Case clerks: Guerillero (Talk) & NuclearWarfare (Talk) Drafting arbitrator: Kirill Lokshin (Talk)

Case Opened on 18:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Case Closed on 19:39, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Case amended by motion on 14:55, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Watchlist all case pages: 1, 2, 3, 4

Please do not edit this page directly unless you are either 1) an Arbitrator, 2) an Arbitration Clerk, or 3) adding yourself to this case. Statements on this page are original comments provided when the Committee was initially requested to Arbitrate this page (at Requests for arbitration), and serve as opening statements; as such, they should not be altered. Any evidence you wish to provide to the Arbitrators should go on the /Evidence subpage.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.

Once the case is closed, editors may add to the #Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions as needed, but this page should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification, and report violations of remedies at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement.

Involved parties

• Hersfold (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party
• Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Elen of the Roads (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Fram (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• [1]
• [2]
• [3]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Rich Farmbrough/January 2009-September 2010
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Rich Farmbrough/October 2010
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=392963350#Rich_Farmbrough.27s_persistent_disregard_for_community_norms_and_.28semi-.29automated_editing_guidelines
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=409496918#Automated_creation_of_incorrect_categories
• User talk:Rich Farmbrough/Archive/2012Mar#Editing restrictions and Pixie Bot
• WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive233#Mindless creation of "suspected sockpuppet" categories from years old, with resulting problems

Statement by Hersfold

Up-front disclaimer: My involvement in this situation so far has been that of an administrator. I am continuing in that role here; this is just as any other request for arbitration, and not an effort to start a motion in my role as an arbitrator.

Rich Farmbrough is, by several measures, one of the most prolific editors on Wikipedia. Registered since 2004, and an administrator since 2005, he has made close to a million edits on the project, more than any other human editor. However, many of these edits were made using the semi-automated tool AutoWikiBrowser, and have been the subject of significant controversy in the past and present.

As the links above demonstrate, Rich has, at least since early 2009, been using his bot (User:SmackBot, later User:Helpful Pixie Bot) and main account to make large numbers of edits that are not supported by community consensus and which not infrequently more damage than harm. After a number of similar incidents along these lines (the [[internal-linked]] ANI archives above), discussions were held (the [external linked] archives above) that resulted in a pair of editing restrictions placed against Rich, prohibiting him from making cosmetic changes or mass-creating pages from any account without explicit approval from the community or the Bot Approvals Group.

Rich was blocked on a number of occasions for violations of these restrictions, most recently a few days ago for a period of one month, when he mass-created a large number of “Suspected sockpuppets of…” categories, linking dozens of users to IP addresses in a manner that can be parsed by internet search engines. Just prior to the one month block, I had to threaten to block Rich – and did block his bot – to force an end to yet another series of violations.

Throughout this entire process, Rich has proven to be extremely dismissive of the community’s concerns, insisting in turns that his changes are for the good of the project and indeed are only doing good, that those opposing his actions are making similar changes yet remain unsanctioned, that those raising concerns about his actions are sticking too closely to the letter of the law for the sake of bureaucracy and drama. These often-invalid arguments are concerning themselves, but also a significant problem is the extreme difficulty involved in communicating legitimate concerns to Rich. WP:ADMIN states that administrators are expected to “lead by example[,…] behave in a respectful, civil manner[, and …] follow Wikipedia policies.” The Bot policy requires that operators respond “cordially, promptly, and appropriately” to any concerns about their bots. Rich has adhered to neither of these policies.

It seems clear to me that Rich Farmbrough no longer holds the trust of the community. On two separate occasions, the community has placed restrictions on his ability to edit, and on numerous occasions, he has continued to defy the community on these grounds. He has repeatedly violated policy, refuses to acknowledge his wrong-doing, and acts with disdain towards any who oppose his actions. These are not qualities that should describe any Wikipedia administrator, and I ask that the Committee strongly consider removing Rich from that role. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Reply to Rich's comment on procedure

The motions regarding evidence length are still being discussed, and I doubt that we'll be set to enact them for at least another week. Since this case will have been opened by that time, I don't expect that those motions will impact this case. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 21:32, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Rich Farmbrough

Unfortunately a combination of massive mis-representation, selection bias and misunderstanding have lead to a series of such accusations as Hersfold makes above.

First of all I would like to dispel the myth about non-responsiveness. Picking a few sections from March's talk page archive: well actually just look at the whole page. It's not perfect by any means, but I think the vast majority of entries speak for themselves.

Another salient example is the fact that I renamed SmackBot to Helpful Pixie Bot at the request of certain users who thought the name "SmackBot" might be seen as a remonstrance. I personally didn't think this was a problem, and was rather attached to the old name, but I was prepared to make the change.

One more general example is the redirection of asteroid stubs to asteroid lists, a current BRFA. I am not wholly convinced that this is a good idea, but I am prepared to undertake it as part of community consensus.

To the particular. Before the "blow up" in September 2009 SmackBot had run on AWB. Because the then version of AWB wasn't able to deliver the community request for no cosmetic-only edits (resulting in about 2-3 per 1000) I rewrote the entire thing in Perl. This was, to say the least, non-trivial and not the action of someone who disregards community consensus.

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.

Hersfold says "large numbers of edits that are not supported by community consensus and which not infrequently [do] more damage than harm" - this is simply wrong, both in premise and consequent, and no evidence is adduced to back this up, introducing these four false claims

1. That the bot makes large numbers of edits that are not supported by community consensus
2. That I make large numbers of edits that are not supported by community consensus
3. That the bot edits "frequently do more harm than good"
4. That my edits "frequently do more harm than good"

This lays the groundwork for particular claims, and is an unfair way to construct an argument, since it's assuming that which it's trying to prove.

Hersfold refers to a number of archives of information, which if read in detail will show, in addition to the unacceptable side of AN/I, detailed explanations of the cases in point. The vast majority of the threads are started by Fram, most of the rest by CBM or Xeno. In particular the so called "editing restrictions", which come from this discussion - where there is precisely one !vote in favour of the ER. This has been declared to be good process by a number of luminaries, but (and maybe this is what Hersfold means when he characterizes me as spawn of the devil) it does not look that way to me, and I do not believe this is observer bias. I would never consider one !vote as enough for even an XfD, and would relist for further discussion.

Maybe this was my mistake, not to "fight fight fight" at the time, but I was relieved that sordid unpleasantness and unpleasant sordidness were over. Which of course they were not, for those I might loosely describe as the awkward squad, would be back for another bite at the cherry, and another and another...

Next Hersfold brings up the latest imbroglio. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your perspective), he repeats the fallacious argument put forward at AN that somehow the creation of a "suspected sockpuppet" category is a personal attack. There might be some mileage in this asservation if I, for example, created Category:Suspected sockpuppets of Hersfold. As far as I know there is no suggestion, and more importantly has never been any suggestion, that Hersfold has socked. Thus I would be creating an, albeit empty, category hinting that maybe there had been, or maybe that I expected such a suggestion in the immediate future. If, however, there are already user pages tagged as suspected sockpuppets, then

1. The category page is already linked to
2. The suspected sock and the suspected sock master's name (or IP addresses) are already linked
3. The category page (while it is a redlink) will actually exist by normal internet standards.

The "creation" in WP terms changes none of this, contrary to what Hersfold and others claim. Suspected sock and sock categories are NOINDEX the same as relinked categories, as part of WP:DENY.

Misunderstanding this is fine, but to raise an Arbcom case on the basis of it is a sign that the step is not being considered as serious as it actually is.

Hersfold then mentions his threats against me, and his bot blocking while I was coding, which, to my mind, was extremely uncivil. The whole exchange showed his inability to look beyond the obvious, and he completely mischaracterizes the exchange, where I simply stated fact (although I was, perhaps, a little sharp after his block, which caused me a number of completely un-needed problems). In this exchange he says "I'm going to ignore most of what you've said" - this is not a way to have a civilized discussion, and rather is the type of thing he seems to be accusing me of. But as I said this sort of stuff is par for the course on Wikipedia, and doesn't usually bother me, although not what one would expect from an established user, however his massive attack on me, after I had put myself out considerably to accommodate him, was going a little far.

The rest of Hersfold's diatribe is little more than extending the fallacious arguments he has picked up from others, into character assassination. It is hard to respond properly to them since they haven little to no basis, and are couched in such vague or meaningless terms as to defy analysis. For example what is one to make of "these often-invalid arguments"? All he is saying here is that I am sometimes right and sometimes wrong. Something not really worth saying, but he is saying it in such a way as to ascribe villany. He says "difficulties communicating legitimate concerns" - missing the point entirely, that I am responsive to legitimate concerns legitimately brought. I am just of the opinion that it is useful to view the whole picture rather than a small part before making a decision. I am sorry that Hersfold took my attempt to inform him of some of the background and history of these issues as some kind of invitation to WikiWar, however I can assure all that such was not my intention.

The biggest shame of the matter is that there are some serious issues raised that actually concern the project that need resolving. Had the matter been brought to my talk page first, rather than to a noticeboard (which is extreme incivility in my opinion) we could have made solid progress on these issues by now.

So that the air may be cleared, and despite the fact that this will consume resource better spent elsewhere, I urge Arbcom to accept this case.

Response to Arbcom votes, and note to clerks

I think we have sufficient votes now, though it is already established that my Arbcom-vote-assessing-fu is somewhat out of kilter.

I note that AGK is currently listed as "inactive" at the Arbcom page, perhaps that should be updated.

I elected to be inactive after I voted to open this case. I'll be inactive in the voting of its proposed decision. On opening, we wait 48 hours from the fourth net vote to open; the clerks are already organising to open the case. AGK [•] 16:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

OK. what's the value to waiting 48 hours? I was hoping we could do evidence in 24 hours and workshop in the next 24. Rich Farmbrough, 16:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC).

It's the procedure: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide_to_arbitration#How_requests_are_processed. I think it allows time for thoughts to be gathered, difs to be examined, and a range of Committee members to look at the request. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, it's actually 48 hours after filing. Which means it can be opened now. Rich Farmbrough, 01:13, 4 April 2012 (UTC).

Note on procedure

I don't think, with all due respect, Hersfold should be promoting changes in procedure while a party in a case. Rich Farmbrough, 16:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC).

The changes to procedure, to my understanding, will not effect this case since we follow the procedure that was current at the time of filing. From my reading of the changes, they do not seem to be coming entirely from Hersfold alone but the collective ideas of all of the arbs on the mailing list. He is just the person who transferred the ideas from off wiki to on wiki --Guerillero | My Talk 22:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

As a sitting arbitrator, I can confirm that the proposed changes Hersfold has raised have been under discussion for weeks. It was observed that there was no reason for our discussion of the issue not to be public and Hersfold's posting on-wiki was the result. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Fram

I have been keeping an eye on Rich Farmbrough's edits for quite a while now, due to the recurring problems with them. The editing restrictions and the rewrite of his bot have helped to curb the amount of problems and errors, but still things go seriously wrong now and then, and most so when he ignores the editing restrictions, like in the incident that lead to the current block and ArbCom case.

While he is often correctly responsive when confronted with minor errors, he falls back on an extremely defensive position when more major or recurring problems are pointed out. His above statement is a case in point, discussing how the editing restrictions were not properly decided, how the filing admin is uncivil (nah, make that "extremely uncivil"), and how the creation of a redlinked category is not a problem because it already existed at a userpage.

Recent examples of his responsiveness and civility are e.g. here, where he deleted an article incorrectly, and replied to my comment with "Please don't be an ass." Another admin eventually restored the article. On the other hand, his wish for me to "FOAD"[4](FOAD at Wiktionary) was self-corrected a minute later[5]...

As noted in the AN discussion that lead to this ArbCom case, he also again edited a fully protected template, linking it to a category he originally created but which was a few days before deleted at CfD, and doing it incorrectly to boot. As is way too often the case, he then didn't check his work, making it necessary for other people to check his edits and point out the obvious problems with them. Despite the time he obviously spends on editing Wikipedia and his intentions to improve it, this need for constant supervising makes him in the end a waste of time. Desysopping would remove part of the problem, strictly enforcing the editing restrictions also helps. Sending a clear message that these restrictions are not one person's whim but a community decision would be good as well. Fram (talk) 07:35, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Elen of the Roads

I first became involved in the matter of Rich and his automated edits in Nov/Dec 2011 when, having seen it go round at AN/ANI yet again, I started this discussion. OK the shock wording was a bad idea, but there and here here and here there was quite a bit of discussion.

Rich does not think the sanctions against him have any validity - this is a technical area, where it is rarely possible to get much of the community interested, and the previous community decisions were taken by a small cohort. I have regularly described a lot of the edits that caused protest as "cushion straightening" and cannot understand the overwhelming desire to make them. At the same time, a lot of the protest against them struck me as trivial. I thought that with the intervention of User:Kumioko, and discussions about testing and documentation, the matter had been somewhat resolved, as Rich would be less prone to make large runs of gaffes.

I blocked him at the weekend because of the creation of huge numbers of categories intended to contain sockpuppets of sockmasters. This seemed to be such a massive failure of community involvement, testing and documentation - not to mention the breach of sanctions and the consequences on editors - that I felt obliged to finally administer that block I had been threatening before. Rich's response to me is indicative of the problems others are reporting. He cannot point to where the community identified a need for every sockmaster since the inception of the project to have a category, or where he documented what he was going to do, or where he ran a test before he created hundreds of the things. Instead, he blames the community for leaving old sockpuppet templates lying around. Which does rather suggest that attitude of "I want to do X, the community ought to facilitate it" which others have complained about.

I don't think his admin decisions (blocks and such like) are particularly bad. The problem I believe is that all admins are automatically given acces to AutoWikiBrowser, so you can't take it off him without desysopping him. Personally, I can't see why the two have to be linked - admins don't need to use automated tools, if anything, it causes more problems if they do. However, others have pointed out that he uses his admin tools to edit through protection to facilitate automated edits, and that must be a problem if it is the case.

Arbcom should decide whether there is "a case to answer" as to whether his automated editing is sufficiently bad to warrant sanctioning or desysopping.

Statement by Headbomb

Clerks feel free to move this if this is somehow inappropriate, but I feel some WP:IAR is warranted here.

As a member of the WP:BAG who has dealt with RF over this recently, I must say that myself and other BAG members are concerned with several aspects of RF's bots, as well as his very often bot-like behaviour. I and others (Hersfold, slakr) have warned RF that the previous sanction he received were valid, and that he was not exempt of WP:BOTPOL and WP:CIVIL because he personally didn't feel it applied / was warranted (e.g. [6]). However, I must also advise ARBCOM that Helpful Pixie Bot, or RF, when editing within the limits of their BRFAs, do great and very-appreciated work. The problems seem to only arise when the BRFAs are interpreted to authorize things BAG did not meant to authorize, or when unapproved tasks are run.

IMO as a BAG member, the current editing restriction (i.e. all tasks approved by BAG, no cosmetic changes other than those a default AWB run would do, as well as those approved by BAG), if followed, would be sufficient in solving the problem. However, evidently, those are not followed, and there is a problem.

I'm writing this here in the 'statement' section, rather than 'evidence' or 'workshop' or whatever, because I feel it's where it fits best, and because I feel someone from the BAG should make a statement in cases involving bots and bot operators. I also want to note that I am only speaking of the bot-related aspects of this case.Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:40, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

• I will be opening this at about 4 April 2012 17:00 (UTC) iff there isn't a change in how the arbs vote on this matter --Guerillero | My Talk 22:54, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Preliminary decisions

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (7/0/0/2)

• Recuse, obviously. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• I await Rich Farmbrough's statement, but my inclination is to accept in order to review whether 1) his ability to make automated or bot-assisted runs should be circumscribed with different sanctions and 2) his conduct makes him unfit to retain administrator status. AGK [•] 00:42, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• Evidently there is some problem, but a case request is not the place to determine whose version of events is correct. (I suspect the reality lies somewhere between Rich and Hersfold's presentation, with neither the community nor Rich being free of blame.) Accept with the scope set down in my first point. AGK [•] 11:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• Awaiting statements, however, Rich, you were unblocked only to participate in this procedure. Neither you or your bots should be making any unrelated edits until this matter is resolved, or the one month term has run. (If this were decliend, you would be reblocked, as the block has been lifted ONLY for the purpose of your participation here.) Courcelles 01:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• Accept Courcelles 20:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• Accept Jclemens (talk) 08:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• Accept. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• Recuse - equally obviously --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:02, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• Accept for a number of reasons, not least that Rich Farmbrough would prefer that we did. PhilKnight (talk) 18:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• There does appear to be some concerns surrounding Rich Farmbrough's edits and attitude, and I note in one of the linked discussions at least one call for a desysop. I also note the comment above by Elen that there hasn't been a broad community involvement in his edits because of the technical aspect of the concerns. Yes, I think a case is appropriate, especially as Rich Farmbrough also agrees. Accept. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• Accept Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Final decision

All numbering based on /Proposed decision, where vote counts and comments are also available.'

Principles

Collegiality

1) Wikipedia is a serious educational and scholarly project founded on the principles of collaboration and consensus. All participants are expected to conduct themselves according to the standards of collegiality and professionalism appropriate to such a setting.

The standards of collegiality expected of all contributors to Wikimedia projects are set forth in the Wikimedia Foundation Resolution on Openness, which urges editors to "promote openness and collaboration", "treat new editors with patience, kindness, and respect", "work with colleagues to reduce contention and promote a friendlier, more collaborative culture", and "work with colleagues to [...] discourage disruptive and hostile behavior".

The Wikipedia community has outlined similar standards in the "fourth pillar" of community policy, which asks that editors "interact with each other in a respectful and civil manner", "be polite to [...] fellow Wikipedians, even when you disagree", and "be open and welcoming".

Passed 9 to 1, 19:17, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Administrators

2) Administrators are trusted members of the community, and are expected to perform their duties to the best of their abilities; to behave in a respectful and civil manner in their interactions with others; to follow Wikipedia policies; to lead by example; and to learn from experience and from justified criticisms of their actions.

Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, sustained poor judgment, multiple violations of policy—whether in the use of administrator tools or otherwise—or particularly egregious behaviour may result in the removal of administrator status.

Passed 10 to 0, 19:17, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Automation tools

3.1) An automation tool is a technology designed to facilitate making multiple similar edits that would be unduly time-consuming or tedious for a human editor to perform manually. Common automation tools include bots (independently running processes that modify Wikipedia content in a fully or partially automated fashion), scripts (software components utilized to automate or semi-automate certain types of editing), and various other technologies.

The use of automation tools on Wikipedia is subject to numerous restrictions, and certain tools require approval from the Bot Approvals Group before an editor may use them.

Passed 8 to 0, 19:17, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Users of automation tools

4) Like administrators and other editors in positions of trust, users of automation tools have a heightened responsibility to the community, and are expected to comply with applicable policies and restrictions; to respond reasonably to questions or concerns about their use of such tools; and to respect the community's wishes regarding the use of automation.

An editor who misuses automation tools—whether deliberately or in good faith—or fails to respond appropriately to concerns from the community about their use may lose the privilege of using such tools or may have such privilege restricted.

Passed 10 to 0, 19:17, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Identifying the use of automation tools

5) It is often impossible to definitively determine whether a particular edit was made using an automation tool, as such tools typically run on computers under the control of individual users rather than on the servers that host Wikipedia, and even automation tools that normally report their use may be modified to run silently.

In examining edits where the use of automation tools is suspected, the community and the Arbitration Committee may make reasonable inferences regarding the probable use of such tools on the basis of several factors, including the speed, number, timing, and consistency of the edits and the performing editor's past use of and familiarity with such tools. (See also: WP:MEATBOT.)

Passed 10 to 0, 19:17, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Administrators involved in disputes

6) Administrator tools are not to be used in connection with disputes in which the administrator is involved. In circumstances where an administrator is involved, the administrator should not take administrative action but should instead report the issue to a relevant noticeboard, perhaps with a suggestion for appropriate action, to be dealt with by another administrator. In limited circumstances, such as blatant vandalism or bad-faith harassment, an involved administrator may act, but such exceptions are likely to be rare.

Passed 7 to 0, 19:17, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Misuse of administrative tools

10) Administrative tools are provided to trusted users, and should be used with thought. Per WP:TOOLMISUSE, using the tools to reverse the actions of other administrators, such as unblocking a bot which is believed to be violating bot policy, should not done without good cause, careful thought and usually some kind of consultation.

Passed 7 to 0, 19:17, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Findings of fact

Rich Farmbrough

1) Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has been an active Wikipedia editor since 2004, and an administrator since 2005. He has extensive experience with and expertise in the use of automation tools, including both fully automated bots (such as SmackBot and Helpful Pixie Bot) and semi-automated tools (such as AutoWikiBrowser).

Passed 10 to 0, 19:17, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Restrictions on Rich Farmbrough's use of automation

2) Rich Farmbrough is currently subject to two community-imposed restrictions on his use of automation. The first restriction, imposed in October 2010 as a result of a community discussion on the administrators' noticeboard, prohibits Rich Farmbrough from making cosmetic changes to wikicode beyond those enabled by AutoWikiBrowser's default settings or explicitly approved by community consensus or the Bot Approvals Group. The second restriction, imposed in January 2011 as a result of a community discussion on the incidents noticeboard, prohibits Rich Farmbrough from mass creation of pages in any namespace without approval from the community.

Passed 10 to 0, 19:17, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Rich Farmbrough's violations of restrictions on automation

3) Rich Farmbrough has repeatedly violated the restrictions imposed by the community on his use of automation. Examples include cosmetic changes to non-rendered whitespace ([7], [8], [9], [10], [11]), cosmetic changes to template invocations ([12], [13]), removal of comments ([14], [15]), and unapproved mass creation of categories ([16]).

Passed 9 to 0, 19:17, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Rich Farmbrough's violations of automation policy

4) Rich Farmbrough has repeatedly violated the letter and the spirit of the bot policy. Examples include running high-speed tasks without sufficient approval ([17]), running high-volume tasks without sufficient approval ([18]), running bot tasks from a non-bot account ([19]), and running unapproved bot tasks ([20]).

Passed 10 to 0, 19:17, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Rich Farmbrough's undisclosed use of automation

5) Rich Farmbrough's editing history shows numerous examples of high-volume, high-speed sequences of identical edits ([21], [22]). These edits were not performed from a bot account or with a bot flag; nor did the associated edit summaries indicate the use of any known automation tool; nor was any other explicit or implicit indication made that automation was used to perform them.

However, given the speed, number, and consistency of these edits, and Rich Farmbrough's history of using automation for tasks of a similar nature, it is reasonable to conclude that these edits were in fact performed via some form of automation tool.

Passed 10 to 0, 19:17, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Rich Farmbrough's conduct

6) Rich Farmbrough has repeatedly engaged in conduct inconsistent with Wikipedia's standards of collegiality and professionalism. Examples include gratuitous incivility ([23], [24], [25]), gratuitous assumptions of bad faith ([26], [27], [28]), and gratuitous accusations of misconduct ([29]).

Passed 9 to 0, 19:17, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Rich Farmbrough's responsiveness

7) Rich Farmbrough has repeatedly responded to concerns regarding his use of automation tools in a manner inconsistent with the community expectations for users of automation tools. Examples include [30], [31], and [32].

Passed 9 to 0, 19:17, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Unblocking of SmackBot

8) Rich Farmbrough has, on many occasions, used his administrative access to unblock his own bots after another admin had placed a block on the bot account (see block logs of SmackBot, Helpful Pixie Bot).

Rich Farmbrough has on many occasions, after another administrator has placed a block on his bot account, used his administrative tools to unblock his own bot without first remedying the underlying issue to the blocking admin's satisfaction or otherwise achieving consensus for such unblock (see block logs of SmackBot, Helpful Pixie Bot).

Passed 9 to 0, 19:17, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Amended 6 to 0, 14:55, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Elen of the Roads block of Rich Farmbrough's bot

9) After being listed as a party to this case, Elen of the Roads (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) blocked Helpful Pixie Bot (talk · contribs), which is owned by Rich Farmbrough. [33] Although this block was reversed by Elen of the Roads, it was nonetheless unwise and potentially inflammatory and should have been left to another administrator.

Passed 9 to 0, 19:17, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

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.

Rich Farmbrough's administrator status revoked

1.2) Rich Farmbrough's administrator status is revoked.

At any time after the closing of this case, Rich Farmbrough may request that his administrator status be restored by filing a request for adminship.

Passed 9 to 0, 19:17, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Rich Farmbrough prohibited from using automation

2) Rich Farmbrough is indefinitely prohibited from using any automation whatsoever on Wikipedia. For the purposes of this remedy, any edits that reasonably appear to be automated shall be assumed to be so.

Passed 9 to 0, 19:17, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Elen of the Roads reminded

5) Elen of the Roads is reminded that an administrator who is a party to an arbitration case should not block another editor (or their bot) who is a party to the same case.

Passed 9 to 0, 19:17, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Amendments by motion

Modified by motion

FoF 8 (Unblocking of SmackBot) changed to:

Rich Farmbrough has on many occasions, after another administrator has placed a block on his bot account, used his administrative tools to unblock his own bot without first remedying the underlying issue to the blocking admin's satisfaction or otherwise achieving consensus for such unblock (see block logs of SmackBot, Helpful Pixie Bot).

Passed 6 to 0, at on 14:55, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Enforcement

Enforcement by block

1) Should any user subject to a restriction or topic ban in this case violate that restriction or ban, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year. Appeals of blocks may be made to the imposing administrator, and thereafter to Arbitration Enforcement, or to the Arbitration Committee.

Passed 8 to 0, 19:17, 15 May 2012 (UTC)