Thread:KLR101/@comment-3056456-20160222015416/@comment-3056456-20160222025024

184.145.18.50 wrote: w:c:Thunderbirds:Special:Log/rights shows Sigmund was made a bureaucrat on 16 December 2014 by SniperKing1, who was in turn made a bureaucrat by TEngine earlier that day. TEngine received these rights 10 February 2013 by User:Merrystar, who is a member of Wikia Staff.

w:c:Thunderbirds:Special:ListAdmins will show you who has edited lately.

If you are not able to make progress discussing your case with Sigmund, three other contact options apparent:
 * 1) User:Merrystar as above, set the chain of command in motion
 * 2) User:Mira Laime who I can see has been involved in stripping some users of their bureaucrat rights earlier this January, including TEngine, based on a community vote, on 15 January 2016
 * 3) User:Semanticdrifter who removed SniperKing's rights 11 November 2015 based on some kind of consensus.

If users are abusing their rights in dealing with you, perhaps knowing that these parties are oversighting the dispute might make them act more fairly.

I would suggest if you want to argue your case to do as much grunt work as possible (link diffs of page edits, talk, etc) to save them time.

For example, Elexorien refers to an edit you made and links the revision history. I can do you one better, here is the last edit you made to the page:

http://thunderbirds.wikia.com/wiki/?diff=47920

That does not look like something which warrants a month's ban, much less a year or decade. =/ Anyone who punishes THAT harshly for merely building a page with trivia they don't agree with is probably going a little power-mad and needs to be checked.

Considering the great amount of intervention this project has had, I don't think this is necessarily a matter of 'suck up to the admins' since this community has a history of a lot of people getting rights who are later found not to deserve them.

One thing that stands out: if Wikia Staff are interjecting to strip rights on the basis of votes/consensus: people who are blocked are not able to participate in a voting process, but if they were good editors this should count. Thank you, you kind and wonderful anonymous person! I'll be sure to look into that immediately.