First you need to spend months doing minor edits around wikipeida and participating in various social functions (like talk boards) in order to develop a reputation. Otherwise nothing you do will be taken seriously. Then you need to familiarize yourself with the all the nuances of the wikipedia internal policy guidelines both as written and as practiced, because you can be sure Mr. "This is my area, no one touches it without my permission" is an expert on all that.

Then and only then, will you have a shot at getting a change in that the tin pot dictator doesn't want. And you will need to be constantly vigilant that it doesn't disappear two weeks later.

I've never found it worth it to go through this idiotic process.

That's always what puts me off as well. It's turned into a bureaucratic mess – which is funny, considering that wikis were originally invented to be quick ways of collaborating with minimal effort and a low barrier to entry.

A very nice thing about Wikipedia is its obsessive tendency towards logging all this stuff. What's your Wikipedia username? We could look at some of the exchanges you had with more "reputable" contributors and get a sense of how valid this complaint is.

Theoretically he could exhaust the 3 revert rule with the delete-happy user (he creates it, guy deletes it 1, he puts it back 2, guy deletes it again 3), make a note on the talk page, and head to the edit war noticeboard where an admin can see it.

If you don't understand any of this, you see why WP is a bureaucratic pain in the arse.

It's 3 reverts in 24h, for what it's worth. You have to have a very trigger-happy editor.