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=histo…
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