Impeachment
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
This must be the first time in ages when we have had nominations for all three admin categories on the wiki! :o 
Imp (Say Hi?!) 11:40, April 1, 2014 (UTC)
That's why I put "no vote" for Bfox's nomination, as that vote mean to little postpone the nomination. Three nominations at one time are too much for me. FirstStooge (talk) 11:44, April 1, 2014 (UTC)
Been more at once before. Should have seen it after I got promoted, lol. Lordganon (talk) 11:51, April 1, 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps, but were all of those unopposed?
Also, this must be the first time a single user was behind all three.
Every Silver Lining has it's cloud- And HERE I AM! 20:39, April 1, 2014 (UTC)
Except for Oct. NonEuclidean ツ (Talk)
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!
~Guns
Nope. Had something like six of them up there at one point. And yes, all, unopposed and by myself. Lordganon (talk) 11:31, April 2, 2014 (UTC)
Dammit.
I'm going to put you in my ashtray cause you just got smoked! 20:58, April 2, 2014 (UTC)
LG what have you done. Guns is not going to stop now. ;) Imp (Say Hi?!) 20:18, April 5, 2014 (UTC)
Nope. I'm shooting for 8- need to wait for Stooge, Chris, and Andy to reply.
THAT RECORD IS MINE!
I'm going to put you in my ashtray cause you just got smoked! 20:19, April 5, 2014 (UTC)
I've got a bad feeling about this.
SCRAWLAND INVICTUS || REX IMPERATOR 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.
-
I'm going to put you in my ashtray cause you just got smoked! 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.
Lordganon (talk) 06:51, April 6, 2014 (UTC)
I actually agree.
SCRAWLAND INVICTUS || REX IMPERATOR 17:11, April 6, 2014 (UTC)
This is true. Just nominating popular people will give everyone some kind of power, which defeats the purpose of having the power in the first place. Cour *talk* 
17:16, 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)
Yes. Sorry Guns but this string of nominations is going way too far. Fed (talk) 17:57, April 6, 2014 (UTC)
Wait, this was the record you were talking about? I am disappoint, son. 
PitaKang- My Life for Aiur! En Taro Tassadar 18:09, 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...
I'm going to put you in my ashtray cause you just got smoked! 19:44, April 6, 2014 (UTC)
Irrelevant, Guns. You've clearly stated your motive - can't backtrack now. Lordganon (talk) 22:35, April 7, 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.
I'm going to put you in my ashtray cause you just got smoked! 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.
I will stand by my call. Does anyone second? Spartian300 (talk) 17:22, April 8, 2014 (UTC)
This is completely the wrong page for this. Put it on the TSPTF talkpage, not here. Imp (Say Hi?!) 17:27, April 8, 2014 (UTC)
Ye. Also, "21th".
SCRAWLAND INVICTUS || REX IMPERATOR 22:38, April 8, 2014 (UTC)
Not even remotely the right place. Your answer, fyi, is NO. Lordganon (talk) 10:21, April 9, 2014 (UTC)
Tweaking
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)
Changes to "Request for User Rights"
We appreciate the patience and understanding of everyone who has been aware with the TSPTF voting procedures in the last few weeks. The voting procedures of the Wiki, as is the case with quite a lot of rules on the website, have been very outdated and inconsistent, leading to a number of ambiguities and edge cases that had never been formally addressed. As a result, informal traditions and past precedence became the norm for these kind of procedures, passing down a rule of law by oral tradition from one mod to the next, rather than a written set of rules.
The events in the last few weeks of the wiki was the culmination of this informality, leading to multiple misunderstandings and botched efforts. As always, the responsibility for any such arguments falls on us, the moderators of the website, and our fault alone for not being up-to-date and clear, and for that we humbly apologize. Moving forward, we can together hope for 2021 being a revitalization of the community, as is the case for much of the world in these uncertain times.
In summary, the rules for voting in both nominations and impeachments are made much easier to process now, but at the same time more heavily regulated. Rather than requiring a 2/3 “supermajority” for votes to pass, they require a simple majority from the popular and TSPTF votes. At the same time, restrictions on who can nominate, who can be nominated and who can vote are made a bit more narrow. Making impeachments easier to pass should be a way of granting more protection to the userbase, so people can be assured the mods are accountable to each other. At the same time, an appealing process is in place to ensure TSPTF are not impeached unjustly. Impeachments can appeal to the Brass in case of a mod being unjustly accused.
One very important note to add, in addition to the posted changes to the rules above. In order to enforce reforms in the system, then we need to start from a clean slate, therefore,
All precedence from previous elections up to this point are null and void. From now on, only these current rules apply
-The Time Stream Protection Task Force Oh, I didn't mean to push that button! † Oh, well leave a message I guess 21:28, 24 January 2021 (UTC)