Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/lustiger seth/addendum I

This is a translation of the german supporters of my old RfA at de-wiki.
 * 2: [I support] despite the fact that I don't like funny/cheerful people. :P ("lustiger" means funny and cheerful)
 * 12: I haven't seen him a lot, but the impression that I got was positive. Moreover I trust the nominator and I see good reasons to give the candidate the mop. The fact that he was not able to remember his password suggests security in the handling of sensitive data.
 * 13: He is friendly. Somewhere above my vote there was a better reason. :-)
 * 19: Gut instinct
 * 23: I have confidence in the nominator.
 * 24: The nominator is not one of my favourites. [So, despite that this user supports the candidate]
 * 25: Anyone who does more good than bad should be an admin, and that is the case here! (the namespace he will be active at at is irrelevant)
 * 26: Yes
 * 29: I got to know him as a pleasant converser.
 * 33: Gladly
 * 35: I know seth in real life (and before he was on WP), he is absolutely the right for the job. I definitely support. :)
 * 36: No doubt
 * 38: If he wants to do annoying technical jobs, we should let him do that.
 * 40: The fear that he could be a Don Quijote was fortunately not confirmed.
 * 42: I know him from the blacklist area only, haven't seen him in ANS. Nevertheless, I have confidence in the candidate, as if spammer/vandals rearm technically, we need technically adept admins for blacklist/CU/IP-vandalism.
 * 44: I am still able to remember our first encounter - I was very new to WP and both of us didn't know how to revoke requests for deletion. In retrospect, I still find it funny. He has my full confidence.
 * 47: There's one sentence on his talk page about deletions at WP that convinces me totally [that he is fit to be an administrator].
 * 50: I know that posting the same comment two times in quick succession is not creative, but since I have said it at Hozro's RfA, I have to say it here, too: What? He isn't an admin yet?
 * 51: The nominator only recommends people fit for the job.
 * 59: I have had good experiences with him.
 * 63: Hard-working, friendly and dry you know, what I mean :) --> support
 * 68: In anticipation of more confidence (support votes)
 * 77: Oppose! Too silly; but seriously: support, he is one of the good guys. :)
 * 78: If the opposition mention irrelevant things like not-using upper-case letters, I am unable to find anything to make me oppose. I really wonder about the strange criteria some users apply for RfAs.

I'll ask some users to have a look at this translation. (Feel free to correct it!) -- seth 15:36, 19. Dez. 2008 (CET)