Thread:Callofduty4/@comment-16976565-20131004161502/@comment-366087-20131005151141

We are basically agreeing, especially about what should be the outcome: no "bad" admins.

But fact is there are "poor", "bad", "immature", and "abusive" admins through however they got the position; founding a wiki or granted rights by someone. They exist, and while in power they act in less than satisfactory ways. At least as long as until they are reported and maybe acted upon.

Also a fact is Staff tends to let them be. Their initial responses generally being "local admins have the right to run their wikis their way". This is because they tend to take the stance of "'poor admins' will cause contributors to leave, and the wiki will run itself into disuse".

And this is true of Admins who are "poor" and "bad" and "immature". They are not "good" or "great", yet they also do not really break any ToU… So truth is, being these types of admins is in and of itself no reason for Staff to interfere.

However an abusive Admin is another matter. They're the ones who tend to violate ToU, and thus require Staff to take action.

But it has to start with the community discussing their situation, then reporting with links to the Staff, who will then decide if the situation warrants their deeper review and intervention.

That's when the "abusive" ones are handled.