The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.

DakotaKahn

final (86/0/0) ending 21:55 March 2, 2006 (UTC)

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

Support

1. Support. My pleasure. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC) reply
2. Support, definitely. A model Wikipedian! -- MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 17:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Support, no real reason not to. Naconkantari e| t|| c| m 22:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC) reply
4. 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
5. Strong support. I thought she already was one. -- Tantalum T e lluride 22:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Support - the nomination says it all. ( ESkog)^{( Talk)} 22:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC) reply
7. 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. Moe ε 22:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC) reply
8. Support. I'm sure she'll do a fabulous job. -- Samir ∙ ^T _C 22:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC) reply
9. Suppoort. User has shown familiarity with Wikipedia policies & procedures, and a willingness to take on maintenance tasks. -- D e ath phoenix 22:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC) reply
10. Strong Support -- Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 22:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC) reply
11. Support. A superb contributor. Would make an excellent administrator. — TheKMan ^talk 22:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC) reply
12. Guettarda 22:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC) reply
13. Support. Will make a great admin. E WS23 | (Leave me a message!) 23:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC) reply
14. 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
15. Rob ert 23:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC) reply
16. Support. Excellent choice. Grace Note 23:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC) reply
17. Support. Funny, I ran into her edits while RC patrolling earlier today, and idly thought "she might make a good admin"! -- P e ruvianLlama^{( spit)} 00:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC) reply
18. Support without reservation -- rogerd 00:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC) reply
19. Sure, why not. DS 14:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC) reply
20. Support. Seems unlikely to abuse admin tools. Contribs look good. Jkelly 00:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC) reply
21. Mais oui -- Latinus 00:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC) reply
22. Support FeloniousMonk 00:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC) reply
23. 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. Prsgodd e ss187 00:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC) reply
24. Support! A wonderful, mop-worthy Wikipedian. Sango 123 (e) 00:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC) reply
25. Support Excellent suggestion, excellent candidate SatuSuro 01:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC) reply
26. Support Why the hell not? -- Aaron 01:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC) reply
27. Support I don't know if I can add more to what has been said, so I simply echo the above, and am glad to support Dakota. Bratsch e ^talk 01:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC) reply
28. NSL E _{( T+ C)} at 01:44 UTC ( 2006-02-24)
29. Wide open country support. bd2412 T 01:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC) reply
30. Support she is an asset to our community. gidonb 02:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC) reply
31. Looking good. El_C 03:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC) reply
32. Support certainly.-- MONGO 04:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC) reply
33. Support -- Ter e nc e Ong 06:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC) reply
34. Support, user has a beautiful name. -- Neofelis Nebulosa (моє обговорення) 06:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC) reply
35. Extreme Esperanzian Support! I thought you were one already. Acetic Acid 07:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC) reply
36. Support. Nice all around. psch e mp | talk 08:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC) reply
37. Support — Quarl ^{( talk)} 2006-02-24 08:04Z
38. Support per all above. ← Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC) reply
39. Support -- Ban e z 10:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC) reply
40. Support KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANNNNNNNNNNNN! Proto|| type 10:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC) reply
41. Support although more discussion/talk edits than article edits is a little concerning. Waggers 11:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC) reply
42. Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 12:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC) reply
43. Support You deserve this and keep up the good work! -- S iva1979 ^{Talk to me} 14:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC) reply
44. 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> NoSeptember ^talk 14:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC) reply
45. Support: my pleasure too. -- Bhadani 14:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC) reply
46. 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. Karm a fist 15:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC) reply
47. Support Yes please. KnowledgeOfSelf 15:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC) reply
48. Support - she should make a great admin. Essexmutant 17:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC) reply
49. Support - Can't find a reason not to support! --Zsinj ^Talk 17:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC) reply
50. Support Easy choice. Jcam 20:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC) reply
51. Strong Support. Great user and good friend. - Darwinek 23:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC) reply
52. Support absolutely. Raven4x4x 01:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC) reply
53. North and South Dakota support ε γκυκλοπ αίδεια * 02:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC) reply
54. 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! ENCEPHALON 02:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC) reply
55. Support Great contributor with enough experience to uphold Wikipedia's policies. Jtrost ( ^T | C | _#) 02:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC) reply
56. Support Excellent contributor! —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^{( talk)} 2006-02-25 05:29 Z
57. Support DaGizza ^{Chat ©} 06:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC) reply
58. Strong support, obviously. -- Cel es tianpower ^háblame 11:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC) reply
59. Support. Mushroom ( Talk) 14:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC) reply
60. Support. Great admin material. ➨ ❝ R E DVERS ❞ 16:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC) reply
61. Support and good luck in the Esperanza elections. haz _{( user talk)} ^e 16:37, 25 February 2006
62. Support-- Ugur Basak 17:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC) reply
63. Support. — Viriditas | Talk 20:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC) reply
64. Mind-bending Support, absolutely no problem here; kudos for your great work in only 6 months. Thistheman 21:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC) reply
65. Support -- kingboyk 21:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC) reply
66. -- Sean Black ^(talk) 23:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC) reply
67. Support -- Saluyot 01:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC) reply
68. Support -- Dragon695 07:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC) reply
69. Support — Ruud 20:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC) reply
70. Support, but so much for my idea of saying KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN as Proto beat me to it. VegaDark 20:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC) reply
71. Support, we need more civil admins. Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 23:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC) reply
72. Support, What's not to like? -- Avi 01:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC) reply
73. Support. Excellent candidate, will make a great admin. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC) reply
74. Support, should make an excellent admin. Hall Monitor 19:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC) reply
75. Support because of the cool alliteration in your username. Well, actually because you'd be a good admin. -- F a ng Aili 22:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC) reply
76. Support Of course! ςפקι Д Иτς ☺ ☻ 04:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC) reply
77. Yes. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 06:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC) reply
78. Support. *drew 08:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC) reply
79. Indubitable Support. +sj + 19:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC) reply
80. Support -- Ixfd64 23:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC) reply
81. Support, as there is no valid reason to oppose. Tito xd^{( ?!? - help us)} 06:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC) reply
82. Support, She looks like she would make a good admin. -- NightDragon 15:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC) reply
83. Support-- Jusjih 00:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC) reply
84. Support I see no reason not to. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 17:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC) reply
85. Support yes. -- a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC) reply
86. Suppport, looks good. Silensor 22:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose

Neutral

Comments

• 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. Mathbot 22:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi, is there any place to check one's own Edit Summary Summary? I'm interested in my own. -- Neofelis Nebulosa (моє обговорення) 06:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Yes, with Interiots tool just below.-- Dakota ~ ° 06:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC) reply

I think you mean this form. This is where User:Mathbot gets its info from. The Minist e r of War ^(Peace) 11:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC) reply

• See DakotaKahn's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool.

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:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.

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.