GuildWiki has been locked down: anonymous editing and account creation are disabled. Current registered users are unaffected. Leave any comments on the Community Portal.

Join The Fan Lab, a private Fandom research community for users in the US and UK where you will be asked to share your opinions on all things gaming and entertainment! Click here to see if you qualify

Search results

Jump to: navigation, search
Results 1 – 16 of 16
Advanced search

Search in namespaces:

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  

  • it, or it hasn't been enforced as much, but it exhorts sysops to administrate users. The whole first paragraph's sole purpose is to explain what that
    13 KB (2,095 words) - 18:12, 27 December 2010
  • policies that are directed towards the administrators. Policies such as “Administrate users not content” (AUNC) are meant to deter admins from using their status
    11 KB (1,796 words) - 00:00, 28 December 2010
  • our administration?" Admins don't get an extra say in content. We administrate users, not content. As such, why should we (as non-pro players!) decide
    10 KB (1,706 words) - 20:09, 21 January 2009
  • there should be more than two user-levels here? Those required to administrate users Those who are super-contributors I'm not sure that there should be
    123 KB (20,412 words) - 22:59, 27 December 2010
  • vio? Thats weak. -- Sk8 (T/C) 16:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC) "Sysops administrate users, not content." I don't believe you have the right to remove information
    33 KB (3,688 words) - 22:19, 27 November 2008
  • articles intended to serve a(n admittedly bad) purpose, and sysops administrate users, not content. We could accuse her of spam or trolling or something
    33 KB (4,682 words) - 22:51, 27 November 2008
  • January 2009 (UTC) I was doing Slavers' Exile at the time. And I don't administrate users, sysops do. :D 208.44.247.101 15:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC) That wasn't
    12 KB (1,829 words) - 08:40, 5 February 2009
  • you are seeing them as powers.) compromise?! let me say it again, Administrate users, not content. Foo 16:19, 16 August 2006 (CDT) Is this such a big deal
    25 KB (4,151 words) - 21:23, 9 May 2008
  • you're right, they can be pretty convoluted at times. And we try to administrate users, not content whenever possible. However, we are all ultimately aiming
    7 KB (1,208 words) - 20:36, 16 October 2007
  • final say on builds as per BrianG's suggestion, as admins should administrate users, not content. - zaishen (not logged in) 16:00, 15 September 2006 (CDT)
    168 KB (28,193 words) - 00:10, 8 June 2010
  • consequence, I would not endorse you because we need another admin to "administrate users", as I believe you would not fit that role well. I have no doubt that
    37 KB (6,025 words) - 18:15, 27 December 2010
  • singular. But I cannot figure out what the hell is wrong with AGF and Administrate Users, Not Content that is making them show up in Category:Policy, because
    27 KB (3,313 words) - 17:43, 28 May 2008
  • those are essentially the point of the wiki." Right... but wrong. "Administrate users, not content" is the old adage, it's probably still on the admin page
    90 KB (15,304 words) - 18:47, 27 December 2010
  • in fact, with you Fyren. It's my understanding that administrators administrate users, not content. Regarding my content, when an admin comes through and
    206 KB (31,046 words) - 01:15, 8 June 2010
  • absence of consensus, like the builds wipe. Whereas administrators administrate users, and generally take action on content based on consensus. I see the
    88 KB (13,134 words) - 00:51, 8 June 2010
  • Sysops aren't meant to be any more productive than normal users. They administrate users, not content. Besides that, I'm the only dictator around here, and
    117 KB (19,222 words) - 19:06, 27 December 2010