You kinda have to put it together, but the other author comes across to me as disingenuous and dismissive. Look at the edit log and the talk page together.
Wikipedian, 4/19: Deletes one new section of the article that he disagrees with. Entire comment is: " (-1,214) . . (→Typhoid Mary: not a super-spreader. she was an asymptomatic carrier; super-spreaders are symptomatic)"
Student: 4/19: "There was dispute about whether or not asymptomatic carriers could be considered super-spreaders." Defends her position with un-Wikipedia-esque speech, reverts deletion.
Wikepedian: 4/20 Deletes every single thing the student contributed. (This is where things go off the rails.)
Wikipedian: "Also, I'm not aware of any "dispute as to whether or not asymptomatic carriers should be considered super-spreaders", so perhaps you could also provide a source for that."
The source of the dispute is that he reverted her edit; of course it exists.
The student then comes back with a source to defend that Typhoid Mary is considered a super carrier by serious sources, and gets no response.
Further, if you look at what the editor excised, it was a sincere edit, well-sourced, and deserved at least a modicum of respect for trying to help his pet project.
> Deletes every single thing the student contributed
Yes, this is what I don't understand. I think other commenters here haven't actually realised this is what happened, as well, and aren't seeing the problem.
One thing I find annoying about Wikipedia is that there is basically no owner or point of contact for the content. So, if I have an idea for a change, I can add a comment to the Talk page for the article, but it'll often languish there for months (years) on some pages. I've never gotten a sense of 'community' there, and although I've made 500+ edits and contributed new articles and been a member of a 'WikiProject' I still wouldn't class myself as a 'Wikipedian' nor would I know how to assign that role to someone else.
I've been a Wikipedia editor for ages, and I have noticed this. You can't wait around for other people to reply.
Generally if I'm about to do something potentially controversial, I write a comment on it in the talk thread, and then I go ahead and do it. If others have a problem with it they'll fix it. You kind of have to have a "ask for forgiveness" attitude towards non-active pages.
If you check the talk page of the student, you will see it's filled with 5+ "warnings" from the Wikipedian. I could see how that could be considered bullying.
Wikipedian, 4/19: Deletes one new section of the article that he disagrees with. Entire comment is: " (-1,214) . . (→Typhoid Mary: not a super-spreader. she was an asymptomatic carrier; super-spreaders are symptomatic)"
Student: 4/19: "There was dispute about whether or not asymptomatic carriers could be considered super-spreaders." Defends her position with un-Wikipedia-esque speech, reverts deletion.
Wikepedian: 4/20 Deletes every single thing the student contributed. (This is where things go off the rails.)
Wikipedian: "Also, I'm not aware of any "dispute as to whether or not asymptomatic carriers should be considered super-spreaders", so perhaps you could also provide a source for that."
The source of the dispute is that he reverted her edit; of course it exists.
The student then comes back with a source to defend that Typhoid Mary is considered a super carrier by serious sources, and gets no response.
Further, if you look at what the editor excised, it was a sincere edit, well-sourced, and deserved at least a modicum of respect for trying to help his pet project.