DakotaKahn (
talk·contribs) – Dakota has been with us since August 2005, and has amassed 2,500 edits, with a good balance of edits to articles (875), user and article talk (957), project (567),
[1] and she's great at using edit summaries. She's been helping to deal with vandalism, has made herself familiar with AfD, has voted for people in RfAs, just missed getting a seat on the Esperanza advisory committee in their December elections, and has in general become part of the community. On top of all that, she's an incredibly kind person, always civil, and a joy to have around. I feel she'll be even more of an asset as an admin, and it's my privilege to nominate her.
SlimVirgin(talk)15:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:Dakota
Strong support. We need more admins like Dakota. I agree with everything that SlimVirgin said, especially that she's civil and kind (in my view, the two most important qualities in administrators).
AnnH♫22:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support I don't want to be a hypocrite to another user so actually this should be a Weak support. Sorry Dakota. Reason for a weak oppose being of low article (main namespace) edit count. I recently voted oppose to a user because he had few edits in the main namespace (but he actually has more than Dakota). The reason I support is because she's a great Wikipedian and a loyal friend at that and would make a fine admin over all. I don't see her abusing admin tools either so I defiantly support.
Moeε22:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. Although I have never directly interacted with her, I have noticed her positive attitude and kindness towards other users. Her contribs look very well, both in quality and quantity. I can't ask for anything else in an admin. Phædriel♥tell me -
23:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support - Although Dakota's edit count may be low, from reviewing them, she is exceedingly decent to vandals and kind to everyone else. Agree with nominator, and good luck Dakota.
Prsgoddess18700:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. The very convincing arguments of the Oppose voters and the lack of community support of the Support voters does give me pause, but I'll support anyway </end alternate reality>
NoSeptembertalk14:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support: If anyone opposes, I will probably say "wha?" as a reflex to their reasoning. There is zero reason from what I seen that Dakota shouldn't be an admin.
Karmafist15:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Support all published authors ;-D. Seriously though, I've just spent a bit of time perusing Dakota's contribs in the various namespaces, and I can only say I agree with SlimVirgin in every particular. :-) Good luck!
ENCEPHALON02:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Edit summary usage: 100% for major edits and 92% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 87 minor edits in the article namespace.
Mathbot22:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
A. I anticipate being able to help with Afd after concensus is met and speedy deletions backlogs also with the copyrighted image backlogs though I will not do that until I have experience and consult with others as I know images can not be undeleted. I have dealt with vandalism many times and it would very helpful to have the rollback feature as my popups don't always work and being able to block when it is necessary. I would also like to be able help with page protection as needed.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. It is the article
Jean Spangler, not one our most popular' that has pleased me most to write because it was a challenge and secondly my articles on Owls. I would like to work on completion of the entire Owl category as time passes. I was able to work on the Featured Article Candidate
Katie Holmes which I enjoyed.
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
A. I have been in no really serious conflicts over editing. I have editors question me about edits but have always been able to come to a compromise. I remember one in particular where I put a notice to verify by providing sources and the author questioned about why he had to provide sources. I was able to provide him with the reasons why by directing him to the Wikipedia link citing the requirement and we came to agree I believe.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either
this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.