Support for the same reason as here. But if you are WF, and this vote passes, could you maybe try to be a better admin this time around? :-P —RuakhTALK22:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you clarify your comment? Are you opposing just because this is a self-nomination? If yes, I believe the policies page permits self-nomination. "Anyone with a fair track record of contributions can apply for administrator status." Wiktionary:Policies_and_guidelines --AZard14:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Teh Rote is a great contributor who has learned a lot about Wiktionary practice, written and unwritten. Can't comment on what constitutes a "solid" contributor, but he's certainly more active than myself. Neither do I doubt his intentions. Certainly any and all contributors who have a positive impact are welcomed as part of the community. However, that isn't sufficient justification for adminship, and I don't yet see any reason why he should be trusted to this role. I'm not saying that any qualities are lacking, just that the evidence is insufficient when it should be overwhelming. The nomination is premature. DAVilla10:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain\Mike23:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC) Normally I would simply pass a vote like this without bothering to edit, but... even I have seen that things have happened around this user, but I have no idea about how it came to happen, so I cannot make any fair judgment in either direction. Hence the explicit "abstain".[reply]
Support Conrad.Irwin 23:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC) Would use the tools correctly. I have slight reservations about attitude, but hey - we're here to build a dictionary.
Oppose Παρατηρητής 15:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC) (self-nominated)
Abstain \Mike 23:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC) Normally I would simply pass a vote like this without bothering to edit, but... even I have seen that things have happened around this user, but I have no idea about how it came to happen, so I cannot make any fair judgment in either direction. Hence the explicit "abstain".