Nomination: I hereby nominate Angr (talk • contribs) as a local English Wiktionary Administrator. He has been a contributor here for years, with high volumes of contributions to entries, to templates, and to discussions. Our coverage of, and infrastructure for, several languages would be much the poorer without him, and in discussions his comments are always relevant, level-headed, and to-the-point. —RuakhTALK15:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Vote starts: as soon as the nomination is accepted
Vote ends: 24:00, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Acceptance:
Languages: en, de, fr, ga
Timezone: UTC+01 (UTC+02 during the EU's Summer Time)
SupportEquinox◑ 19:22, 3 October 2011 (UTC) I didn't spot any vandal-fighting in the past month of his/her contributions, but there are good edits going back to 2005! Equinox◑19:22, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think vandal-fighting is a very important criterion in evaluating a prospective admin, especially since it's harder for a non-admin to engage in it (what with not being able to see which edits need patrolling). Rather, what matters is that the user be trustworthy, and represent the project well. Such a user, given the admin tools, will make good use of them, even if (s)he never once visits http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Special:RecentChanges?hidepatrolled=1 nor http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Special:NewPages?hidepatrolled=1. (Of course, it would be nice if admins visited those pages more often, but they're not the main reason to adminify someone.) —RuakhTALK20:22, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's true I don't go vandal-hunting either here or at the projects where I'm already an admin (Wikipedia, Wiksource, Commons), but I do revert vandalism when I spot it. —Angr21:05, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]