A [name omitted for privacy reasons] wrote:
No matter what I edit, no matter what subject, no matter what sort of edit, and no matter how controversial -- Wik almost invariably comes and reverts it.
Adam is right about this, and I apologize to him for my own delay in writing this letter to the list.
I was skeptical and then he and I did an experiment with the [[Johannes Brahms]] article, history page here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Johannes_Brahms&action=histor...
Essentially, as you can see there, Wik and Lir were in a revert-war over the version of the article first timestamped 4:20, 13 Nov 2003. Lir's version here suffered from a significant grammatical error in the first paragraph, which is presumably the reason for the revert.
I advised Lir to the effect that I thought that if he changed the page again, but made the change better, that Wik would not revert it. I even asked Lir to email me his proposed changes, so that I could help to ensure that the version he wanted to install was unobjectionable. He did so, and I made one minor recommendation, and then he installed his version on the site.
Additionally, when he did so, he made a comment explaining the change. On top of that, he left a note on Wik's talk page: "I have corrected my fragmented sentence: [[Johannes Brahms]] [[User:Lir|Lirath Q. Pynnor]]"
I conclude that in this case, Wik acted unfairly to Lir. I am inclined to believe Lir's accusation that Wik continues to simply revert him, in part because on his talk page, Wik insists to me that Lir is a troll, and says that we'll have to "agree to disagree" on that.
--Jimbo