There's a lot of misquoting going on there. In particular, Mr. Farmbrough refers to the assertion (which he deems false) by his opponents that edits made by him and his bot(s) "frequently do more harm than good." In fact, Mr. Hersfold actually said that Mr. Farmbrough and his bots
"make large numbers of edits ...which not infrequently (do) more damage than harm." (Italics mine.)
Clearly, in an ideal scenario, Mr. Farmbrough's edits would do a great deal of
harm, instead of the "damage" they do now. The implication here is that on Wikipedia, damage is not harmful, and harm is not damaging - which of course is something we've always known about Wikipedia, for many years. (Or at least I have, even if some hard-cases refuse to believe me.)
Anyway, it's just nice,
finally, to see someone admit to that formally, particularly in an ArbCom case that's going to be accepted (barring several of them actually reading this WR thread, which we know isn't going to happen).