Nope, I didn't read the guide to appealing, didn't have time. The user in question IS engaged in harassment, I've been doing this long enough to know and I can prove it. He/she immediately placed a threatening notice of blocking me permanently on my user page, reverted the article while I was in the midst of editing it (my second pass, couldn't even preview changes), then changed his/her mind as to my real wiki-sin, since the onus for proving the Doris Day available as PD on archive.org was on him/her not me and the usual span for pre-Bern had expired long ago, ... decided my REAL sin was Original Research (oh noes), and continued to revert based on that. Does OR add clutter? Sure it can, but if the user in question was REALLY concerned about that, about the quality of the article and about extraneous details, WHY DIDN'T HE/SHE EVEN NOTICE two paragraphs already there, comprising about 1/3 of the entire article, dealt with Norman Schwarzkopf, an unrelated book and an unrelated ice cream store name? I'll tell you why: the user wasn't engaged in good-faith/goodwill editing and the normal back-and-forth that leads to better articles. He/she was involved in blocking input to the article. Why? Was it personal against me, or was it to preserve the existing content of the article, including the false claims and extraneous material not even concerned with ther subject at hand? I can only speculate, but I'd guess it's some sort of power trip and wiki-bullying. I don't really have time for this. I have made a fair number of very good edits over the years and have usually refrained from saying anything that isn't directly related to content and improving articles. I could pretend this user didn't do what he/she did, but I'm wasting my own time here and I don't really have a stake in any such pretense. I don't have any stake in improving this article either, no dog in the race, I just see how it can be improved and made more informative. As a long-term wikipedia user and editor, I don't see any problem in jumping in and fixing something. I almost expect some sort of pushback now, but not over completely minor edits which are very good and on-target in very minor stub-like articles. The problem isn't me here, it's that if people such as the user in question can get away with this sort of behavior, and they are getting away with it, wikipedia becomes a much poorer place, a playground filled with bullies rather than a library where we can all learn and share. Also, I don't recal ever having called him/her a bot, I think you put those words in my mouth, perhaps inadvertently. His/her behavior is malicious, but probably not malware, just the normal human collection of problems. I think this user should be warned against trying to be a gatekeeper, he/she isn't quite qualified for that at this point anyway, and it's having a very chilling effect across wikipedia. I won't egnage in a battle of the wikipedia rule acronyms, I will continue to write in English, and to read articles on wikipedia in English, and to think of ways to improve them in English. I am fully aware of how the terms "vandlism" are used and misused here, and most of the rest of the wikijargon. Nothing new under the sun here. If you read the edits I made carefully, and note the times of the reverts and the history of actions by that other user, you will see I'm not off the mark here at all. I know what's going on. I don't know why, but I don't have to, and I expect the motivations aren't interesting. Respond if you have anything to say.