In the year since I last held the position of administrator on the Sonic News Network I have experienced an unprecedented amount of growth as a person and user of the Sonic News Network. It is widely known among the community here that I had a great deal of behavioral issues during my tenures as a Sonic News Network administrator. It is with great confidence that I say that I feel these issues have evaporated and that I am exceptionally determined to ensure that these problems will not arise in the future whether I am promoted or not.
It is worth calling attention to the fact that I am quite on top of administrative work on the Sonic News Network. Despite the fact that I am not an administrator, I am usually the first to respond to events that require administrative attention and quickly alert the other administrators. I'm sure that many of the wiki's active administrators can attest to this fact. For example, I frequently keep the administrators updated on what changes need to be made to the CSS. I prevented what could have been a problematic situation by alerting the bureaucrats of an unnoticed error. There are times where I would have greatly benefited from the "rollback" tool and a quick glance at my contributions shows the great amount of monitoring I do on the recent changes. I also am one of the wiki's premiere maintainers of the front page. I am quick to pick up on when the featured user interview, poll, and featured articles should be updated. As I mentioned earlier, I quickly respond to events that require administrative attention. My years of administrating this wiki have made me well suited for the position.
I had a bit of an interview with BF personally to know his side of things before I decided wherever to comment or not, I wanted to know more his history with SNN staff and why he wants back in. He does have confidence in his ideals which may come off a bit prideful to some, but I believe he would be on the right track to be a good admin. He pursuits the quality of articles here for the sake of quality of community.--Mystic Monkeyis a MonoBook wikian. 17:38, January 8, 2016 (UTC)
I suppose you deserve another chance. Hopefully you don't waste it. JokerJay779 (talk) 18:35, January 8, 2016 (UTC)
I get the idea because the admin team is more dead than my Bachelor's party and you're in away, a viable candidate, experience alone, but it's just one too many times. Basically, you 'feel' better as a person, but you need to show it more and that can only be done through time, regarding the fits you've thrown and spite you've shown to this wiki. Your recent 250 edits span from now to the beginning of this year so that's to show you haven't done enough to me to be seen as "improved" and "grown", so you need to show this determination before getting your admin tools, not when you get it. --Dr. Livsi (talk) 09:51, December 27, 2015 (UTC)
Gonna try to be unbiased as possible. You show effort and stuff for the wiki and you definitely know the tools due to past experiences. But agreeing with Dr. Livsi, are you saying you improved or did you actually? Not only did you insult the wiki several times and then left, with one of the more resents literally being a year ago and got yourself banned for abuse of power. Maybe you have improved your behavior and it's far too earlier for you to get admin again, do think you would make a great chat moderator but I digress. Also with knowing how dead the wiki currently is, I don't think we need another admin (or moderator for that matter, but again, I digress). There is a total shift in attitude, but behavior more less just seems to be compacted and still rude to me. However the number of edits Livsi shouldn't affect this as it doesn't show growth or improvement. 03:44, December 28, 2015 (UTC)
To avoid redundancy I'm just gonna say Splash is on point with the prior bans and attitude against wiki members and abuse of power, but that's all in the past. However, you've never shown any signs of improving in those fields and you outright admitted to using your admin powers to "troll" with users. I would be ok with you gaining the tools again, but it's always the same pattern. Always. This has happened twice (thrice?) now and I see no reason to chance a 3rd (4th?) occurence. So no, staunchly opposed, despite the fact that you could use the editing side of the tools to good use, I don't completely trust you with the moderating side. Oh, and sorry I didn't make this claim sooner, I wasn't aware there was a nomination until it ended (apparently a day or two early). I would've spoken sooner had I known this was a thing. My apologies if my late vote offset anything. That's all. PKMNthehedgehog2.5 (talk) 23:09, January 7, 2016 (UTC)
Is this the third time? Maybe the fourth? I often forget as they blend together for me, and not because of the sheer number of times I have seen an administrator nomination for Bullet Francisco. It's as if every time I have seen Bullet gain administrator rights, clear problems between him and the community arose. Each administrator run of his ends in the same or similar way due to these complications (I believe each time ended with his demoting himself, two of them involved an actual demotion set up, though my memory is a bit fuzzy so I can't recall too well). The reason they blend together for me is because it's as if there's some sort of pattern or repeated cycle whenever one of these pop up, where the beginning, middle, and end almost match up, almost surreal. I admit, you're one of the better candidates for administrator rights, but like PKMNthehedgehog mentioned, the administrator tools would mainly help for the editing side of things, which I know you'd put to outstanding use. But among the biggest parts of being an administrator, to me, is being involved with the community, which is where the behavioral problems you mentioned have always kicked in. During your previous terms as an admin, I've noticed certain complications between you and other users that grew quite tense and dramatic, and I remember a couple instances where you've threatened other users (I used to have screenshots, but it's been so long since then I have since deleted them while cleaning out my computer files). You often proved complicated to work with as well and would be fierce in arguments, leading many people to feel like you were forcing your views and opinions upon them. (I would bring up examples if I could, but my memory doesn't remember events specifically, so if I tried to describe I would probably get several details wrong) The point I'm trying to make is that the behavioral problems you mentioned were present practically each time you were an administrator, and it led to so much unneeded drama within the community that those times ended up having almost the same results in the end. I realize you believe you have grown since then and want to put the past behind you and believe you would be a better administrator now than ever. The fact is, the past is all I really have to go by when making this decision, especially when you've both gained and lost admin a few times prior to now in almost the same fashion. I can't just go by your word that this time will be different than the others. MetalMickey272
Per Livsi, PKMN and Metal --Realalala (talk) 07:19, January 8, 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Metal. You're a good editor but you've been a complicated and difficult user to work with.--SlugDrones • (Contact) 07:25, January 8, 2016 (UTC)
Per all. You may be a good editor, but all of your previous mistakes prevent me from supporting you. (Ohmygod123 (talk) 23:18, January 8, 2016 (UTC))
I can't really say anything that's already been said from the users above me, who I completely agree with. ~~~~
VOTING IS NOW CLOSED
Dr. Livsi, serious question, have you ever actually supported a nomination? I'm not trying to be rude if that is the impression you are getting. It just seems to me that whenever these nominations come up, you nitpick at every little possible thing. No candidate is going to be ideal or perfect. Having a variety of minds on the administrative team is quite helpful and I would hope that you are able to look past the many flaws of a candidate to see their individual merits. Being an administrator is not a big deal. There is no "being worthy" of being an administrator. Administrators are just users with a few extra tools as it is emphasized all across this wiki. It's quite easy to demote a user who is no longer capable of using the tools responsibly. And I have shown that capacity on numerous occasions. I appreciate the fact that you consider me a viable candidate. I feel that you are judging my previous behavioral issues a bit too harshly because you do not know me personally. I asked users such as Time Biter and Sacorguy79 and they both responded positively to me nominating myself and they were two of the biggest advocates for my demotion in the past. They have both seen the change. I would appreciate it if you could cite these said "fits" and "spite" I have shown towards the wiki. I also feel as if I have handled my previous removal of administrative rights quite responsibly as each time I personally removed them as a way of owning up to my behavior. In regards to your point about not having enough time to display my improvement, I respectfully disagree. It's been nearly a year since I last held administrative rights which is a tenth of the wiki's overall history. I initially became an administrator in less than six months and many users have become an administrator in less than a year. This goes back to my inquiry about who you see fit to be an administrator. Quite honestly, I'm at a loss. I know that I am not the perfect candidate and I can see perfectly valid reasons why people would oppose me. I am fine with you opposing my promotion to administrator, but I want to know what would cause you to cast a vote in someone's favor as I have really yet to see that from you. I would also like to point out that 250 edits over that span is more than GraveEclipse567, Supermorff, FreeSmudger and on par with MetalMickey272 and Shadowunleashed13, and per the "Advice" section of this page, bringing up the number of edits made isn't kosher. I apologize that my comment here is a bit all over the place, as I have been up a bit too late. --Bullet Francisco(talk)Contributions Editcount
In the end, whether I'm opposing all the time or not, it's how I write the opposition, not if I am opposing in general. I don't have much control over my feeling to oppose or support if I feel it's right. I'm well aware of the degree in being an admin, how 'not a of a big deal it is' and how much of a big deal it can be. I know you can be 'responsible again' because you claim it but I just can't ignore past actions with that, which, to me, isn't very harsh. To cite recently I can just recall arguments you had on the chat and how people saw your actions.
I could have ignored it if I saw a striking difference in your participation which you seem capable of doing, but 10 months or a year it may be since you've given up your rights, there is still a lack of participation to show your improvement on this wiki in that long time span, which to me isn't enough to showcase what you claim (and you possibly can do so in more time), because the way I read your nom is "What I can do now because..." not "What I have done recently". Biter and Sacor are entitled to their own opinions, I am in mine and the fact it's different is irrelevant.
To me, bringing up the edits here is relevant because that's one way to actually show your improvement on this wiki, regardless of that 'Advice section'. As for the admins you've named, they were far more active when they got their rights, and also to add, some I don't think really need their rights.
It's never about being the perfect candidate and the topic on what type of nomination I would support always depends on the type of user and nomination they put up and varies that way. I just happen to be in the position where opposition makes sense, so I can't really tell you what I would support unless it's put infront of me. If I'm able to take out flaws that outweigh the benefits, I would oppose.
To add, I would've supported Ultra's nom or remained neutral but didn't remove my opposition for whatever lazy reason. --Dr. Livsi (talk) 12:05, December 27, 2015 (UTC)
And in what way do the flaws outweigh the benefits in this case? What would I do with the administrative rights that behavioral problems in the distant past still play a part today? I bring up Time/Sacor to support my case because they are far more active on chat and are longstanding users who have proven to have good judgement. You keep bringing up the fact that I am making claims of having improved with nothing to show for it, well, I am providing you with the opinions of more informed and more experienced users. Going back to my previous point: What have I done in the distant past that is just so terrible that it warrants me not given administrative tools which I have proven capable of handling? The only things you have ever seen of me are arguments on the chat in the distant past. Current administrators get in arguments on the chat. It's part of being human. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, however, I just want to express that I feel that your opinion is based off of an image you have constructed of me that isn't entirely true/complete. Look no further than the fact that two longstanding administrators have supported me in my case. --Bullet Francisco(talk)Contributions Editcount 12:56, December 27, 2015 (UTC)
I don't want to repeat myself, I basically just have one problem that outweighs this nomination for me and that I just want you to be more active on here before being an admin so I can see your traits, otherwise I can't really hold an opinion other than things you've done before or what's on your nom. It's not really because you've been in arguments before, it's about how you're reshaping now, your emphasizing on the previous too much. I also, don't believe in good judgement all that much. My opinion shouldnt have an effect on Sacor's and vice versa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Livsi (talk • contribs)
Neutral: I'm still thinking. I would have supported but I remembered instances of miscommunication when I tried to cooperate with you. You tend to be emotional and you shut people out. It was a bit problematic. It has been a long time though.--SlugDrones • (Contact) 17:53, December 27, 2015 (UTC)
I don't know Kyle that much to know if he is a good admin or not. Or if he deserves adminship again. After all he has been off this wiki for a few years. I am just gonna be the neutral guy in this along with Drones. JokerJay779 (talk) 21:54, December 27, 2015 (UTC)
Um, it's too early to have a conclusion. Reopening the voting and removing the resolution until the two week mark (that being the 10th). - BlueSpeeder (talk) 21:55, January 7, 2016 (UTC)
Neutral: honestly, i'm not sure. i've been a bit distant from the snn community recently with being chat mod elsewhere, so i don't see as much of snn as i used to back in 2014/early 2015, when i wasn't on what is now my main wiki, where i work on a ton of stuff, and it's sorta torn me from the guys here in a way, if you get what i'm on about. my heart wants to support but some things that happened in the past are screaming "no!" at me. so, i'm neutral on this. RTA fan - My favourite colour is seven
Congratulations Bullet Francisco, you are now admin. This nomination will be removed shortly. GraveEclipse567 23:58, January 8, 2016 (UTC)