Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Administrator/Chiacomo

Chiacomo
I trust him. Hopefully he'll accept this! Dan100 (Talk) 8 July 2005 16:00 (UTC)
 * I accept, I suppose.. Thank you for your trust. (You should note however that I've not yet been here a month -- almost but not quite). --Chiacomo (talk) 8 July 2005 19:26 (UTC)


 * Support Chiacomo is just the kind of person we need as an admin here.--Ryan524 8 July 2005 19:36 (UTC)
 * Support. Chiacomo has been here over a month and if he wants it, I'm sure he'd be one of our best admins. -- Ross Koepke Talk 23:17, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose You seem to be a good wikinewsie with good intentions but you are not here even 30 days. Im sorry to oppose you know - you have my support if you are re-apply in one or two months time - but not now. → CGorman (Talk) 19:44, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Chiacomo is a good contributor, who needs a bit more time in the community. This additional time will let others see how the user deals with NPOV disputes, how well the user adheres to site policy, how the user deals with serious conflict &mdash; things that contribute to people's opinions when deciding on adminship. -- IlyaHaykinson 20:53, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. My original vote was based on time. The additional few days of Chiacomo's work have shown him to be a good, responsible editor, willing to participate in cleanup tasks. I now support his administration bid. -- IlyaHaykinson 03:28, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Chiacomo, you truly are a great contributor to Wikinews, and I value your contributions greatly. What you have to decide right now is do you want to be an admin?.  You statement above displays a sense of reluctance, and I think it's important to decide if this is even what you want.  There are many policies and rules, and the administrators' main function is to enforce those policies.  I'm just warning you that it's a very important and somewhat daunting task, and if an administrator is what you want to be, you have my support, just promise to study and understand the Policies and guidelines!  Best regards, NGerda 07:32, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Response: I thank you for your support, NGerda. As we discussed earlier today, I feel that an administrator's main function is to do the will of the community. The policies are fairly straight forward and my hope is (and thus far, my hopes have been justified) that most of the community will abide by the policies of Wikinews. I am confident I can uphold the policies of Wikinews as desired by the community. The role of an administrator is only as daunting and difficult as he or she makes it. I know that administrators are exposed to more conflict than most regular editors, and while I don't seek conflict, I respond well to criticism and am an able mediator. I firmly believe that being an administrator is "no big deal" -- an administrator is and should be nothing more than an editor who has gained the trust of the community and consequently has a few extra "buttons". --Chiacomo (talk) 02:32, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Support I think Chiacomo would be a great admin --Cspurrier 16:39, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: If, as NGerda suggested, there was any reluctance in my acceptance of this nomination, that reluctance was based on my own knowledge that, at the time I was nominated, I had not yet been a contributor for the requisite 30 days (I have now). As some actors say of their nomination for an Academy Award, I'm honored to be considered! I take very seriously the role of administrators, but, as I've said, I also believe it should be "no big deal". Thank you for at least considering me -- I believe in the goals of Wikinews and its mission to provide a free, neutral point of view new source based in community participation and decision making and, regardless of the outcome of this nomination, will continue to do what I can to promote, contribute to, and further the aims of Wikinews. --Chiacomo (talk) 02:32, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Support User is active, supportive, and fulfilling the best ideals of the community. - Amgine/talk 04:57, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment;The vote directly above comes from a site called "Sailwiki"[]..."wiki.saewyc.net/User_talk:Amgine talk". Maybe it's from "our" Amgine; I don't know. Paulrevere2005 12:02, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * This is "our" Amgine, you can tell by looking the history. Sailwiki is his wiki. --Cspurrier 15:48, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * cool. Paulrevere2005 01:07, 17 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Support -- Davodd | Talk 05:38, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Support, based on his comments and view of adminship. --Dejan Čabrilo 07:55, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Support --Mrmiscellanious 23:39, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Chiacomo is a great and active WN editor, his article edits are exactly what this project needs, and he is a very trustworthy being who deserves this spot. He is on IRC constantly for those who need help or for those who are wishing to propose something new.  I strongly support his nomination.  --Mrmiscellanious 02:35, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose manipulative?[]maybe not;hope not;probably just my pov. Paulrevere2005 17:22, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: I simply did think it would make a more interesting (and comprehensive) story if there were pre-invasion figures available to compare with those cited in the report. As stated, I suspect there are no records available -- whether due to a failure in record keeping on the former government's part or due, perhaps, to a loss of or destruction of records since/during the invasion. I'm not certain how this is manipulative... --Chiacomo (talk) 17:36, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * It's probably not(manipulative).Your comments just do a good job of deflecting thought away from the facts of the story. As I say,it's likely just my own pov showing up in that interpretation.sorry. Paulrevere2005 19:22, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Could you clarify whether you oppose or support now?--Eloquence 02:29, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Support Paulrevere2005 12:34, 21 July 2005 (UTC)