Thread:Callofduty4/@comment-16976565-20131004161502/@comment-366087-20131005070617

You're mixing elements of the metaphor.

I stand by my 'Country' and 'Leadership' analogy. It fits. And Wikia Staff remains like the United Nations. Only coming in when there is a public outcry, and reviewing if they should take any sort of action, and what type of action it should be.

The wikis are indeed like countries. The *Admins* fall into several archetypes: Benign/Loved, Dictators/Severe, and Childish/Immature are the top three I've encountered.

Each type of *Admin* governs their community according to their individual personalities, preferences, life-experiences, and how they fit the tropes. Which is only exacerbated if they are the only b'crats and or admins active.

Which is not to say a dictatorial-Admin *should* be that way. Especially if they are less than benign.

As you point out, Admins *do* have to abide by the ToU and "Rules of Conduct" as set by Wikia("United Nations" in the analogy). To conduct themselves counter to the Rules/ToU leaves them open to potential censure by Staff. Whether they actually should be or not is determined by Staff if/when they investigate.

The trick is, though, getting Staff to look into something. Their initial comments are generally, "local admins have the right to deal with local matters as they see fit."

What most are unaware of is that check is balanced against, "a community has the right to determine when their admins are acting against their better good."

Now there *is* a process for any wiki-local community to take action against a perceived "bad/poor" admin. That is the process I outlined above; local-community discussion, then send to Staff via Special:Contact. That will get Staff to review if their involvement is needed, and if any Admin is found wanting, it is through that process they will be handled.