Bulbapedia:Archived nominations for administratorship/Ht14

Support (7)

• AGREE: Top contributor, good history, nice posture.--^☆Tavisource 03:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
• Support. He's very nice and he has a lot of great contributions. ^Chocolate 13:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
• Agree. Why was he not nominated before? He's one of the few I consider true contributors. Θρtιmαtum♏_Talk|Links 13:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
• Agree. He's a damn good edit, thats for sure. ~~Takoto| サソデイ 13:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
• Agree All of the above ;)--Kkllnn blastoise 22:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
• Agree. -- Jïörüjï Ðērākō.>.cнаt^ 09:23, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
• Agree MathijsP 15:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Oppose (5)

• Disagree--DCM_{((Shut the **** upSpy on My Edits))} 16:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - The only reason I have to say no is because the name is too short. Ever considered a name change? Bulbapedian - Talk 00:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
  • That's the worst reason ever. There is no rule that says my name has to be long. Besides, you're new here... ^ht14 00:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
  • What I mean is that while you may be opposing me, I would understand ONLY if you have a better reason for opposition other than my name. I know at least 2 users who have the same amount of letters, if not less... ^ht14 01:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. He needs to learn to deal with the opposition. If someone doesn't like him for no reason, he needs to accept that, because almost every admin has to deal with that, and not complain. ^Maverick_Nate 02:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Don't get me wrong though. I'm not saying I can't deal with it. I was willing to take DCM's opposition in peace. The thing is, Bulbapedian apparently believed that the only rational reason against me was the amount of letters in my username. ^ht14 02:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
    • And, I guess I kind of voted just to get the number to ten, so that you had a fair chance to become one (since you need ten total votes)...but I don't truly think you are ready. ^Maverick_Nate 02:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
      • Whatever the reason, I'll understand and keep that in mind. Thanks! ^ht14 02:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. I haven't really seen anything but a lot of decent edits. I mean, that would typically be enough, but we need a considerably higher standard for administrators. We have too many as it is, and I'd prefer if we don't have any more for the time being. Maybe in the future... but not until the power of granting adminship goes back to being reserved solely for the E.B. and inactive admins have their powers rescinded. --ニョロトノ666 23:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose no where near long enough for my opinion. I haven't seen him or her make tons of edits, and although im sure he makes fairly frequent edits, this does not and should not qualify him as admin. --Guardian of Earth |SGMS 2010

Other comments

I would just like to say, WHAT ARE YOU SMOKING BULBAPEDIAN! Name too short is not a valid reason. Hell, my username is only three, and people dont shun me. Pie has three letters, and i know there are other admins with very little--DCM_{((Shut the **** upSpy on My Edits))}