Fred Bauder wrote:

I have no obligation to support administrators who don't have a commitment to protecting other editors. Or fail in any other way to accept the responsibilities associated with being an administrator.

Fred

A good deal of Wikipedia editors have RFA criteria that border on the nonsensical. You're in good company.

My point is that failure to block a "vandal" or "troll" or revert or delete an edit by such a "vandal" or "troll" isn't really a big deal. An admin isn't under any responsibility whatsoever to do, well, anything. That's the beauty of the wiki system. If one editor doesn't make a change, another one can do it. If one admin doesn't perform the block, someone else will be along shortly.

"Responsibilities associated with being an administrator"? Don't make me laugh. A Wikipedia administrator can realistically be expected simply to use the tools to improve the encyclopedia in the best way they possibly can, and not to /misuse/ these tools. Failure to use administrator tools when one can is not a misuse of administrator tools, and is certainly not a breach of one's "responsibilities".