I created a section dealing with the impeachment of TSPTF members. I have been meaning to do this ever since the attempt to remove Arstar as Constable happened and I finally gotten around to it. Anyway, please comment and share any ideas you may have. Mitro 22:23, February 22, 2011 (UTC)
First time in ages
Perhaps, but were all of those unopposed?
Also, this must be the first time a single user was behind all three.
20:39, April 1, 2014 (UTC)
Oct never nommed anyone for all three simultaneously, and never won all three without a single opposing.
I think I just set a wiki record!
20:58, April 2, 2014 (UTC)
Nope. I'm shooting for 8- need to wait for Stooge, Chris, and Andy to reply.
THAT RECORD IS MINE!
20:19, April 5, 2014 (UTC)
I've got a bad feeling about this.
20:24, April 5, 2014 (UTC)
- Hey! Hey! I was going for 9, but I decided Cookie, though he's been on the wiki for longer than Imp, has too few edits.
- It could be worse, lol.
- 20:32, April 5, 2014 (UTC)
Talk about wrong, Guns. Wanting some sort of "record" is not a reason to nominate people. Horrible motive.
And, on that note, don't nominate anyone else for a while. Rather obvious as to why you're doing it.
I actually agree.
17:11, April 6, 2014 (UTC)
Guns, Guns, Guns. I thought you might have grown up a bit more in the 7 months since my last visit of this place. Nominate people for a job because they are good at it, not because you want a little bit of satisfaction of getting a meaningless record. It saddens me to see you do this. VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 17:29, April 6, 2014 (UTC)
... I was going to nom exactly the same people over the next month or so anyway. Instead of that, I nommed them in 2 weeks. Uhh...
19:44, April 6, 2014 (UTC)
I would never backtrack. My point is that it makes no difference. I'll nom the same people, just instead over a period of months rather than days.
23:59, April 7, 2014 (UTC)
I call for a change of the rules, specifically, that the rules concerning future may be changed. However, there are certain conditions that should be used:
- If the POD is in the 19th, 20th, or 21th century, then it may not progress into the future.
- The POD needs to be quiet far back, something like 200 B.C.
- The future may only be ahead one to three years of the current year.
Ye. Also, "21th".
22:38, April 8, 2014 (UTC)
There can only one administrator for every 1000 articles - should have a 'be' in it, and which side of 'only' changes the meaning slightly.
And should the 'number of edits' and 'number of months' have a time limit - some people could have been last on AHW 10 years ago (some of the articles have been languishing on Oldest Pages for that long). Jackiespeel (talk) 16:43, July 28, 2015 (UTC)