Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Bureaucrat/Chiacomo

User:Chiacomo- Bureaucrat
I would like to nominate this user for bureaucrat. This person (IMHO) is probaly one of our most valuable admins, and I think he would make a good bureaucrat. He is very responsible and keeps tracks of everything that everyone else like me always seems to forget. His first edit was  almost a year ago, and since then has managed to stay out of the wheel wars, and silly politics. He's been a fair, great, admin, and I believe he'd make a great bureaucrat. Bawolff ☺☻ 03:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your kind words and your nomination. There aren't many responsibilities, but if selected I'll do my best. --Chiacomo (talk) 05:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * By the way, the main reason for me nominating Chiacomo is not that we need more, but in Ral315's words &mdash; "I think extraordinary users who are trustworthy, and who are willing to help out, deserve to be made bureaucrats.". Bawolff ☺☻[[image:smile.png]] 21:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Support, of course. Responsible, dedicated, and thoughtful. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I don't think there is a pressing need for more, but if anyone new is to be made bureaucrat, Chiacomo is a fine choice. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I support and trust this user completely, but I was unaware that Wikinews's bureaucrat needs were going unfulfilled? Unless there is a need, I do not support additional bureaucrats. If there is a need, I would immediatly support Chiacomo for such a position. -  Amgine | talk en.WN 06:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment per amgine, if there is a need, I would strongly support Chiacomo Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 06:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Without a doubt the most reasonable person on this wiki. --Deprifry|+T+ 07:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * *Strongly Oppose - Chiacomo and CSpurrier now have Checkuser power. Both of them supported MrM's admin status and thereby showed they are not in tune with the mood or views of the community at large. This additional power is giving even more power to what seems to be a "posse" of 3. Redman 12:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Sock puppet of blocked user. -  Amgine | talk en.WN 06:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

*Abstain for now Im not sure that I like to give Chiacomo more official  authority withhout being sure on his view in handeling unwanted power concentrations above community. Hes defending of ArbComs selection of CheckUser authorised users is not a good sign so I wait some time international 13:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Support* I guess Chiacomo is a good user and trustable. Though I have some concerns but they are not focused on Chiacomos person. international 11:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Support; I trust Chiacomo. For me it's not a question of need.  I think extraordinary users who are trustworthy, and who are willing to help out, deserve to be made bureaucrats.  Ral315 (talk) 17:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Support The point of having bureaucrats is to make up people to administrator, there is very little leeway for selective use of the powers that come with the office. We don't particularly need new bureaucrats, but this is a case where I think it would make zero difference to the day-to-day running of the wiki, despite some user's comments --Brian McNeil / talk 17:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * CommentI do not subscribe to Neut.'s conspiracy theories at all (note my user page). However, I do think the edit history which I have reviewed shows that CSpurrier,Chiacomo and Amgine share a similar pov which can be shown with edit references if need be AND which is often NOT the pov of the community at large; E.g.; they were about the only active contributors who did not vote at all on MrM's deadmin. When Amgine was accused of racism, it was Chiacomo and CSpurrier who advised us of the "Princess Bride" source...point being, the facts show they tend to lean the same way on important matters and support each other when necessary. If Chiacomo and CSpurrier had voted similar to the other ArbCom members on Amgine's case, there would have been a completely different remedy situation, my review shows. Bottom Line; Amgine is Wikinews' boldest policy maker. All 3 are admins, 2 are now Checkusers, and this vote could make 2 of them our most active bureaucrats. Does the community want this much power concentrated in the hands of these 3 individuals? Is it necessary? Does it makes sense? What's best for Wikinews? Redman 17:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Sock puppet of blocked user. -  Amgine | talk en.WN 06:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose on the grounds that we don't need anymore bureaucrats. — THIS IS M ESSED [[Image:R with umlaut.png]] OCKER (TALK) 19:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps existing Bureaucrats should indicate whether they think they need help? I suspect they do not. --Chiacomo (talk) 21:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, if they needed help, they would have asked for it. And perhaps, your question in that regard, could (and should) have been asked before accepting the nomination. Redman 22:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Sock puppet of blocked user. -  Amgine | talk en.WN 06:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral I do not think we need more bureaucrats, but I trust Chiacomo and do not see any harm in making him a bureaucrat --Cspurrier 23:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose then, for the circumstances cited by Cspurrier, otherwise a quick 'support'. -Edbrown05 08:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Support: I see no harm in making Chiacomo a bureaucrat. He would be one of the users on this site that I trust the most - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 05:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Support: Jacques Divol 08:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Frankie Roberto 08:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The vote is 8:2. thats 80%, and I think thats a majority. Since its past seven days, if no one objects, I'll ask the stewards to complete the task. Bawolff ☺☻[[image:smile.png]] 20:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)