I've looked into this a bit. The page history is difficult to interpret, because it now shows non-contiguous edits as contiguous (a side effect of the attending administrator trying to delete versions that contained copyright violations and keep ones that didn't), but the upshot is that the content of the article that was being reverted was an extremely close paraphrasing of a 2009 book called
The Library: An Illustrated History by Stuart Murray (it's available in Google Books in the US, but I can't figure out how to link directly to it). The article did cite this work as a source, but represented the Wikipedia text as the article author's own (it did not enclose any of the copied text in quotations, and even if it had, we're not permitted to wholesale-copy others' work). That's a pretty clear violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy (<
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:COPYVIO>), and it looks like people did try to explain that on the user's talk page but it just wasn't coming through clearly, for whatever reason. I do not think the onwiki portion of this situation had anything to do with the gender of the contributors.
All of that, however, is quite apart from Kathleen's point about how women can be more easily driven away by criticism and aggression. Almost all of us made mistakes as new editors (and continue to make mistakes as old editors!), and how those mistakes are responded to - and how we, in turn, interpret those responses - can very easily sway whether we stay or go.