Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rgulerdem

Rgulerdem
[ Vote here]  (0/6/1) ending 10:33 10 January 2006 (UTC)

– A recent editor, fluent in 4 languages, moderator of a yahoogroup for academicians for more than 6 years, academician Resid Gulerdem 10:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Self-nomination

Support

Oppose
 * 1) User has 11 edits, including the creation of this AfA. -- Longhair 10:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) I suggest removing this nomination, simply because there have been too few edits, and the user has not been in any conflicts yet. Giving him admin power after such a short period, even if his resumé on other sites is spectacular, seems unwise. Kusonaga 11:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose, plainly inappropriate for an editor with no familiarity with Wikipedia. Perhaps this should be delisted now to stop the pile-on. David | Talk 11:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Sorry but oppose, at 11 edits its obviously insufficient. This user has inadequate experience with Wikipedia. I would recommend you to get more involved and try again in the future when you have around 2500 edits. You also do not have a user page. --Terence Ong Talk 11:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Sorry, but you need to have more experience than 11 edits and 2 days. Please read WP:GRFA for some ideas of what people are looking for in an adminship candidate. Sjakkalle (Check!)  11:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose for all the reasons above. 11 edits, especially. JHMM13 (T | C) [[Image:Flag of the United States.svg|25px| ]] [[Image:Flag of Germany.svg|25px|  ]] 12:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Please withdraw your RFA. Oppose for reasons above, plus your answer to Q1 - these can be done without admin powers. NSL  E  ( T + C + CVU ) 12:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose unknown editor with far too limited Wiki experience. Sarah Ewart 22:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose does not accept polls been carried out and completed and tries to push his own will against majority of the community, just verify the polemic Muhammad Cartoons Controversity RapaNui 02:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Neutral I'm referring to the edits, minus the nomination. --Eddie 13:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) You're off to a good start, but please come try again a little later. Keep up the good work, though. -- Eddie 07:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Please don't give false encouragement, Eddie; an immediate failed RFA is hardly "a good start"... NSL  E  ( T + C + CVU ) 12:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * S/he's only made nine edits to one article and most of those edits appear to putting in and then taking out the same information.Sarah Ewart 22:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Questions for the candidate

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. Articles that need to be wikified
 * B Articles to be expanded
 * C Wikipedia:List of lists/uncategorized


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A. I am a recent editor but I did similar job for a long time in another environment: It is an online group (TISAG - yahoogroups) for academicians. I recently be aware of Wikipadia. I believe I can contribute in here as well. Moreover, I can ask TISAG memebers (more than 600 academicians) to contribute to Wikipedia in their area of specialization too. So, although I do not feel like I have a huge contribution to Wikipedia so far, I am sure I can contribute significantly...


 * 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. Knowledge is clear and verifiable. The people seeking for the truth can get to the same point easily. I believe I can handle conflicts, not a problem...