User blog:Whatweare/What exactly is admin obstruction

Hello. So when it comes to the debate around admin rights and who exactly does what, the staff state they can intervene if they believe the admin tries to stop someone from replacing them, by deleting a discussion, or refusing a chance to have other users become admins. I would also argue that they can try to obstruct this debate if they ban the users who try or could replace them. I tried to adopt the Iron Lyons Wiki since neither admin had been present for well over a year. When one of the staff actually said that I had a valid chance, one of the admins returned and banned me arguing that there was false information. In reality, all I had done was create two new categories, laying out what was spam, and creating the groundwork for cleaning up the wiki. The ban is being used to prevent someone from becoming admin because this admin could not accept that someone other than himself could be an admin. At the blog that was started, one of the users argued that the admin should lose his adminship for this. https://the-iron-lyons.wikia.com/wiki/User_blog:CJRichards/New_admin https://the-iron-lyons.wikia.com/wiki/Message_Wall:Werebereus

I believe however that any attempt by an admin to prevent other users from deciding who will be their admins is grounds for staff intervention (barring actual proof that the user should not be trusted with admin power, as this admin should not have had this power in the first place) and I think that the staff should intervene if the admins ban the candidates who try to adopt wikis or who are recommended by their fellow users, especially if they create a pathetic excuse that the candidates was actually breaking any rules. Please state in the comments below if you believe the staff should intervene if admins ban candidates to replace them.