My Wiki name is Bejrisch. I live in You Bet, California and chair the Nevada County Historical Landmarks Commission. For about the last 10 years, I have been flushing out the stubs on Wikipedia for Nevada County historic mining communities that are now ghost towns. So far I have posted about 25 histories. Recently, a new editor started taking them down. This is the message he sent me and the reply I sent him.

"Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia pages, such as those you made to Iceland, California, even if you intend to fix them later. Your edits have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use your sandbox. So, I reverted you here also. First of all, you removed ALL the sourced information that was there, information that was valid and properly formatted and verified. Second, besides the formatting problems (with how articles should look, how references are done, etc.) you are adding too much chatter, and the writing needs to be much more on point and more economical. Drmies (talk) 19:41, 25 November 2022 (UTC)"

"I don't fully understand your comments. I have been posting histories about Nevada County for many years and this is the first complaint I have received. I don't know what it means to make test edits. I certainly did not intend to do that. I have never worked in a sandbox. I usually remove some of the abbreviated information in the existing histories since the invitation is to flush the stubs out. And information that is there is not always historically correct. I'm not sure what to say about the formatting problems since I am using Wikipedia format and as I said, this is the first complaint I've received after about 20 or 30 posts. I don't know what you mean about chatter and everything that I write has a footnote to its source. I would like to keep going, but if you're not satisfied,let me know and I'll stop posting to Wikipedia Bejrisch (talk) 19:44, 27 November 2022 (UTC)" I have also tried getting assistance from a volunteer but to no avail. I would like the histories I posted to be restored and to be permitted to post several more that I have written.

Statement by Risker

On the surface, this might appear to be a content dispute. It isn't, though. It is a long-term administrator imposing their personal views on the relevance and quality of edits made by another editor, without any attempt to communicate with the original author or to bring the eyes of the community to the articles in question by use of the talk page. There are no proposals (or attempts) to modify the edits made by Bejrisch. There are no reasons given for the wholesale removal of large blocks of text, except that Drmies considers them "chatty". I'm not sure this meets the needs for a case — it does not appear that any other form of dispute resolution has been attempted other than a user talk conversation, although why "little editors" should know all about the multitude of noticeboards still escapes me after 15+ years here — but I'm certain that this does not meet the editing, communication, or dispute resolution expectations we have of long-term administrators. As someone with a longstanding reputation of being a minimalist and deletionist (mostly unfounded, but whatever), I can say that I would have kept almost 100% of the content that Drmies has removed from the sample of articles I looked at. Yes, there were places where editing would have improved the quality. But that's not what Drmies did; he just removed the edits wholesale. Risker (talk) 01:38, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, what I'm saying is editing and discussion is better than wholesale reversion. And to be perfectly honest, there's a similar level of detail in a large number of articles about small places from all over the world, so I'm not sure why this has become your focus. Is there a reason why you didn't take your concerns to the talk pages of the articles? Risker (talk) 02:25, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Drmies, who is a party?

Reminiscent of many a western town as depicted in movies and television, for a few years Little York was terrorized by a group of hooligans known as the Decker family and led by Dick Fisher....The road is unpaved and a 4wheel drive vehicle is recommended.

This is the kind of content I removed. I am surprised, of course, to find myself in an arbitration request after this one edit. This version can be said to have 7 decent sources; this, maybe one. I'm not sure what longtime administrator Risker is trying to achieve here. Drmies (talk) 01:53, 7 February 2023 (UTC) Drmies (talk) 01:42, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Risker, if editors had to take every single "concern" to the talk page we wouldn't ever get to work. That is very basic. Click on Recent changes and you see what our practice is--it is not to discuss every single edit or revert. Is our practice to take editors to arbitration? How do they find arbitration and not my talk page, or the article talk page? Or notify me? Drmies (talk) 02:33, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Barkeep, you cannot seriously expect me to follow up, over months, on the talk page comments of editors I reverted. No, I don't think of the editor as a problem to be solved (thanks for the AGF), but as someone who could write valuable content but hasn't yet done so. Drmies (talk) 03:25, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Deepfriedokra

Should all of this not have first been discussed directly with Drmies on their talk? At WP:DRN? WP:3O? At ANI? Is this not premature?-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:54, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: YES! Welcomes are not really about swarmy feel-goodedness. They are about acculturation and education! -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:44, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by EchidnaLives

It's worth noting that the information was initially added to the article in December 2021, and the information was removed by Drmies in November 2022, so this case request is about something that happened a few months ago. echidnaLives - talk - edits 03:31, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AKAF

I would direct the arbitrators to this diff from November 25: [1]. A fully-sourced article was stubified without any discussion. It's very difficult to see this as anything but the most egregarious vandalism. This is a very unusual edit on wikipedia from any editor. From an admin it is very nearly unprecedented. I think that Bejrisch is fully justified in this unusual request in response. AKAF (talk) 07:57, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Floq

I'd suggest, now that one or two Arbs have commented, that this be closed quickly as premature. I suspect any constructive discussion on the actual article content is going to be stalled until this is closed and the discussion is moved to the right place. I'd suggest Talk:Little York, California rather than WP:AN or WP:ANI. I agree with Risker that we do a shitty job explaining how WP:DR works to new editors, so no knock on the OP for bringing this here. And Drmies, this might be the first time I've disagreed with you about something enough to actually think you were "wrong", but this could have been handled better. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:15, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cullen328

I find this quite surprising and disappointing. Yes, the articles in question needed work but certainly not radical stubifying. By coincidence, my wife and I moved to Nevada County, California in late 2021, so we now live very close to these former gold mining settlements. After reading three of these articles in their state before Drmies turned them into uninformative stubs, I learned some fascinating history about my new community. I have reached out to Bejrisch on their talk page, and intend to restore these articles and then do some trimming and copyediting. It is clear to me that Bejrisch is highly knowledgeable and is an asset to this encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 19:17, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Robert McClenon (Bejrisch vs. Drmies)

Three editors have made mistakes here. I can mostly understand two of them. First, User:Bejrisch should not have filed this request here. Arbitration is a last resort, and they did not try to discuss their grievances with User:Drmies in some other forum first. I sort of understand why they came here. They presumably knew that Drmies is an administrator, and that only ArbCom can desysop an administrator. They may sort of reasonably have thought that only ArbCom can address other conflicts with administrators. They should have made more of an effort to discuss, but maybe they thought that discussion with administrators is likely to be useless. Second, User:AKAF characterizes one of the edits by User:Drmies as vandalism. If you have been editing Wikipedia long enough to know what vandalism is, you have been editing Wikipedia long enough to know what is not vandalism. Even an inexplicable error of judgment by an editor who should have known better is not vandalism, and the idle claim of vandalism is a personal attack. This wasn't an idle claim of vandalism, but a mistaken claim of vandalism about mistaken action.

Third, I do not understand the actions of User:Drmies, and I see that I am not the only editor who doesn't understand. If User:Bejrisch had taken their concerns to WP:ANI, this dispute would probably have been closed with a caution to Drmies at least to be more collaborative and courteous in removing questioned content. This request should be closed with a caution to Drmies. It should not simply be closed as premature, although it was premature. It should be closed with minnows to Bejrisch and AKAF and a large salmonid to Drmies. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:17, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mangoe

It's obvious that the one party needs some direction both on article writing and on procedures. That said, Drmies's deletions were unjustified and rude. I've worked on a lot of these articles (admittedly, mostly to get them deleted) and it doesn't seem to me that the content is anything remotely as irredeemable as the deletions would imply. It also seems to me that, given responses above, this stands a good chance of being bounced right back here from AN/I. That said, this shouldn't be a case, but a strong admonishment concerning bitey deletions is in order. Mangoe (talk) 02:12, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Levivich

"Decline ~~~~" is not a helpful response in a case request. I'm not an arb, but here's what I'd write:

Not serious enough for a case, but not unproblematic. Drmies's five reversions of Bejrisch's edits seem to contradict WP:PRESERVE, esp. if it wasn't BLPvio, copyvio, CSD, etc.

A second issue is Drmies's communications with Bejrisch, in which Drmies treated this as a conduct dispute rather than a content dispute. Had Drmies followed WP:BRD and began discussions on the article talk pages rather than Bejrisch's UTP, we likely wouldn't be here.

Drmies's first post on Bejrisch's talk page fell below our expectations for experienced editors. The use of {{uw-test2}} was inappropriate. These were clearly not test edits, there was no reason to start at level 2, and no reason to use a template at all. you removed ALL the sourced information was confusing because that was also what Drmies did when he reverted Bejrisch. chatter and economical are unclear terms that are not used in our policies and guidelines; pointing to something like WP:SUMMARY would have been more helpful. Additionally, Drmies offered no specifics as to which parts of which articles were problematic in which way, no specific suggestions for how to improve the text, and no guidance as to where Bejrisch could go to learn more.

Bejrisch responded two days later, predictably beginning with I don't fully understand your comments. Drmies did not answer, although he should have. Bejrisch tried again several times. Drmies's second message was also unhelpful. I said "test edits" because I wanted to be kind was alarming to read; we do not show kindness by improperly using a uw-test2 template.

I want to extend an apology to Bejrisch for the way they were treated here. Bejrisch should not have received a warning template of any kind, much less a level 2 warning for test edits. Bejrisch's follow-up questions should have been answered promptly and with specificity, without dismissiveness or the insulting claim that being templated was "kind". I do not fault Bejrisch for coming to Arbcom (despite it being a last resort) rather than going to WP:ANI or following other WP:DR options because new editors are often confused by our confusing dispute resolution process. It would have been helpful for Drmies to point Bejrisch to WP:DR, although it'd have been even better if Drmies had followed WP:DR himself.

I trust a logged warning or admonishment is not necessary here, and that Drmies will read what arbs have written and take it to heart. Although this doesn't involve the use of admin tools, Drmies should remind himself of WP:ADMINCOND (lead by example ... behave in a respectful, civil manner ... follow Wikipedia policies ... strive to model appropriate standards of courtesy and civility etc.). The dismissive impatience that Drmies showed throughout his interactions with Bejrisch were uncalled for, and if repeated, may result in sanctions. With all that said, decline. Levivich (talk) 16:54, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JPxG

I don't think anything useful would be accomplished by opening an actual case for this, but I think it ought to be on the record somewhere that we appreciate the contributions of users who are going out and finding sources and adding useful information, and that it really shouldn't count against them as a mark of shame that they were admonished curtly for doing so. I remember back in the day I got a couple of rather harsh messages after making (arguably stupid) edits and it made me a lot more apprehensive about editing. Obviously not enough to quit entirely, but I think we have sort of a survivor bias here; the only people who stay around long enough to be commenting on these things are, almost by definition, the kind of people who are fine with occasionally having their contributions set on fire with curt messages (whether intended to be hostile or not). I do not mean for this to be construed as a "to hell with Drmies" message, because I think we all do this kind of thing from time to time, and all we can really do is try to make amends and move on. jp×g 22:10, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Bejrisch case request: Clerk notes

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

Fixed several formatting issues with the case request that were breaking this page. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 01:12, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bejrisch case request: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/8/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

@Bejrisch: filing an arbitration request is a last resort sort of option. I don't think you've been treated very well in this situation but there are steps to try to resolve this before filing an arbitration request (and there are certain rules about filing a request which weren't followed here; these rules are part of the reason it's a last resort sort of option). I would suggest you give our page on dispute resolution a read. Attempting a discussion on an article talk page or perhaps asking for a third opinion feels like a good step at this point but after reading the dispute resolution page a different option might seem more appealing to you.
Drmies I see someone attempting to add verifiable information using local historical references on encyclopedic topics. That doesn't mean the content follows all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. However, I disagree with the premise advanced by your statements here, your edit summaries reverting Berjrisch, and your talk page warning that Berjrisch is a problem to be solved. Indeed I see an editor attempting to engage with you - in slow motion given the pace of their editing - on their talk page and who attempted to use {{help me}} before coming here. They need help and teaching. If you'd have asked me to name some editors capable of giving that to someone like that I'd have put you on that list. It's fine that you didn't want to do that - we're all volunteers - but it's that miss that I think Risker is attempting to point out and which I find myself agreeing with her about. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:54, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Re-ping of Bejrisch since the one above had a mistake. Bejrisch please read the first paragraph above. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:57, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are absolutely correct Drmies, I do not expect you to follow up over months on their user page with no pings or other indications to draw your attention. But if you'd treated this like a content rather than conduct problem, the discussion would have been on article talk pages. And given the article topics in question, a slow motion discussion would have been quite reasonable. Also reasonable if you had wanted ot go the editor route rather than the talk page route would have been a {{welcome belated}} which might have given them the skills to begin to productively discuss this with you. At the core the content being added was NPOV, verifiable, (seemingly) without original research or BLP issues. In other words it met our core content policies. So whatever issues there were with the content - and you, Risker, and I all agree there were issues - required a discriminate approach of some kind. If you didn't feel up to doing that fair enough. We have no deadline and some other editor could have done that lifting. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:36, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a sentiment that this doesn't qualify for procedural removal so let me formally decline this request per my comments above. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:12, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who has performed mass-reverts because there are simply too many issues for me to fix in one go and thus it is easier for the original editor to just do it better next time, I can commiserate with Drmies. That being said, I am not sure the uw-test warning was necessary, even with the explanatory note (and if anything, the note by itself might have sufficed). The above being said, I believe this is premature to come to arbitration at this point in time, as the other venues of discussion and dispute resolution have not been used. Primefac (talk) 10:18, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Decline as premature at this time. Izno (talk) 18:46, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Decline The right move here is for someone to sit down and explain to Bejrisch what's wrong about their edits, and be helpful to them. They're obviously here in good faith, and they remind me a lot of myself when I first started editing: wanting to help but not quite sure what a reliable source really was, and that everything needed sourcing. Drmies actions aren't unique, I think even I have been guilty of brushing off good faith contributors too easily. It's something we all need to remember: assume good faith. I know the endless stream of vandalism can blunt our senses, but we should all keep a lookout for newbie good faith contributors who could use encouragement and friendly advice. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:51, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Decline as premature. I echo the advice given by Barkeep and Eek. — Wug·a·po·des 21:33, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Decline. SilkTork (talk) 10:34, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou User:Levivich, and all others who have posted here. I did start a comment, but then felt that enough had already been said about this incident and I didn't wish to make a mountain out of a molehill. What has happened is that a user who has been here since 2015, Bejrisch, has taken an interest in occasionally developing articles about their local area. A more experienced user, Drmies - who also happens to be an admin, though did not use their admin tools or act in the capacity of an admin - felt that the articles they were developing contained too much non-encyclopedic material, and removed some of that material in three of the articles. Drmies posted a uw-test2 template on Bejrisch's talkpage, and then followed up a few weeks later with a more detailed, though still terse, explanation. Bejrisch posted a helpme notice on their talkpage, and two users responded, one of whom suggested that the information that Bejrisch was adding could be more firmly sourced. Bejrisch then brought the incident here. Given that no admin actions were taken, and that this is a single incident, the broad consensus is that this is not an ArbCom issue. The closest we could come to considering a case would be WP:ADMINCOND - though that applies when "sustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia" occurs, rather than one small incident. So this is not an ArbCom issue. A number of commentators here have indicated that removal of the material was not warranted. That's not a judgement that Arbs are asked to make, so I would have to take off my Arb cap to say I agree, and I feel it would be inappropriate to use my Arb position to do that. A number of commentators here have also indicated that Drmies could have been more helpful in their initial approach and later response to Bejrisch. As that is an WP:ADMINCOND matter, so does come under Arb purview, I could comment on that. However, seeing that some respected individuals and peers have already pointed out to Drmies that their behaviour was not a shining example of helpful and civil conduct, I didn't feel that Dries needed more scorn poured on their head. Also, scratch the surface and a number of us have at some point been exasperated by something we've seen on Wikipedia and not handled the matter perfectly. If Drmies were a paid employee of Wikipedia instead of a volunteer, they would have been privately spoken to by their line manager along the lines of "We've had a complaint. That's not like you Drmies - everything OK? No worries, just remember to always consider the impact of what you say and do, and to avoid using templates when a hand written note might be more appropriate." Instead, as a volunteer, they are subjected to a public hearing. At that point I felt that Drmies had been slapped with enough trouts and minnows their face was probably stinging, and I saw that Floquenbeam and Cullen328 were reaching out to and helping Bejrisch, so I felt that things were resolving themselves appropriately, and what should happened now is to close this Request. Not Drmies' best moment for sure, but neither is it anywhere near an ArbCom case. Given all that had been said and done, I felt - and still do - that a simple decline would suffice. SilkTork (talk) 18:34, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 14:34, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Decline Beeblebrox (talk) 19:06, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]