Sonic News Network:Requests for User Rights/Bullet Francisco (Bureaucrat)

{{Closed|{{Member|Bullet Francisco}} was promoted to bureaucrat on 26 July 2013.|archive=

Bullet Francisco (Bureaucrat) Bullet Francisco (talk): Contributions Edit Count

I am not requesting bureaucrat tools just for the sake of being a bureaucrat. I am mainly requesting access to the tools because I would like to actually close nominations on this page. I am typically the person reminding the bureaucrats to close the nominations, so it'd be useful to be able to close them myself. Promoting me will do no harm, and if I am already reminding our current bureaucrats to close the nominations (not saying they are doing a poor job), I might as well have the rights.

Aside from being able to put the bureaucrat tools to good use, I suppose I should mention my track record here on the wiki. I am a veteran wiki user and administrator. I certainly know my way around the tools and have put the tools to good use as an administrator. I am active in community discussion and the such, and I see myself as a 'leader' of sorts. Like I said, I am mainly requesting the rights because I would actually put the tools to use, but it doesn't hurt to mention this.

On that note, I would prefer if people refrained from opposing for reasons such as 'we already have enough active bureaucrats'. Like I said, I am not requesting the rights for the sake of having them, I am requesting them because I would actually put good use to the rights.

Thanks for considering, and please disregard my sloppy grammar. I'm tired, and I should have written this at a better time. Anyways, thanks again. --{{User:Bullet Francisco/Signature}} 11:42, July 12, 2013 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Eh. One more Bureaucrat wouldn't hurt. 11:46, July 12, 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Woo hoo: Bullet truly deserves this promotion. 11:52, July 12, 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Go for it! Mystic Orb: Who do you think I am?   What do you want?   What do I do?  11:52, July 12, 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) After reading Bullet's few paragraphs as well as his discussion with Silver, I have become convinced that we need another Bureaucrat and Bullet fits the bill perfectly -- Murphyshane -  熱! Don't click here   12:19, July 12, 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) I can't think of any good reason to oppose! Per everyone else!
 * 6) Like Bullet said, he usually does remind us 'crats to close nominations. There's nothing wrong with punctuality. 13:59, July 12, 2013 (UTC)
 * 7) I support.   ☯KIDD  -  The Ultimate Ninja☯  14:20, July 12, 2013 (UTC)
 * 8) I support.
 * 9) Support.  15:04, July 12, 2013 (UTC)
 * 10) Per Sacor. 16:09, July 12, 2013 (UTC)
 * 11) Considering this paragraph. Yes. 17:15, July 12, 2013 (UTC)
 * 12) No doubt in my mind, Bullet should really be bureaucrat. Pacmansonic138 (talk) 04:06, July 13, 2013 (UTC)
 * 13) SonicRunPeace.gif'Mariosonic15  I always race to win! Tailsbye.gif 04:17, July 13, 2013 (UTC)
 * 14) I supportUltrasonic9000 (talk) 14:33, July 20, 2013 (UTC)I
 * 15) I think Bullet would make a great Bureaucrat! When life gives you lemons,   Be thankful it doesn't give you rocks!
 * 16) I can see Bullet being good choice as Bureaucrat. - MarioSonic (talk) 19:20, July 20, 2013 (UTC)
 * 17) Support.  I'm Batman! :3  nobody eats my cookies!  16:36, July 22, 2013 (UTC)
 * 18) Bullet would make an excellent Bureaucrat! I support. Sandra the Porcupine "Either you do or you don't."  21:36, July 23, 2013 (UTC)
 * 19) I think that Bullet is one of the few I'd truly trust with these kinds of rights. He should be responsible enough to handle them without any trouble. He has my vote. Lloyd the Cat  "I don't die. I just go on adventures."  22:51, July 24, 2013 (UTC)

VOTING IS NOW CLOSED

Oppose

 * 1) Even though you told us not to mention it, we really don't need any bureaucrats. I'm skeptical as to how you fit this role. In my opinion, you can be quite arrogant and confrontational at times. Thus, I question your activity in this wiki. And finally, regardles of what you said, I still think you're looking for the title. You want to close site discussion because you have the time to, sure, that's fine. But we never had an issue on delayed site discussions, and if we did, I would prefer telling our current bureaucrats to pay more attention.--SlugDrones • (Contact) 13:25, July 12, 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Drones has it. 10:22, July 20, 2013 (UTC)

VOTING IS NOW CLOSED

Discussion

 * SilverPlays97 - First, I already discussed this in my nomination. I am the person who reminds the bureaucrats to close these nomination. There is no need to prevent me from having the extra tools because we 'have plenty'. Myself 123 and DarkFuture are preoccupied with schoolwork, Genesjs has an unreliable Internet connection, and Supermorff (not to offend him) has been a bit on-and-off recently. If I'm already checking this page actively and reminding the bureaucrats to close the nominations, why not promote me? Second, I have already admitted to being a bit abrasive at times. However, this is very infrequent and I apologize if I ever act semi-confrontational, as I try my best not to. I am an emotional person, and I do my best to Be nice. All users, including you, can be confrontational at times (I have seen it from you myself). Lastly, my "activity" is completely irrelevant. When I left SNN 'forever' I meant that I was leaving until my real life cleared up and until my interest in the website picked up, which it has. When I said I was going on a hiatus, I was warning everyone that my activity on SNN may drop suddenly. Your reasons seem to stem from something else, but I would at least like you to respond to this. -- 12:12, July 12, 2013 (UTC)
 * All those reasons why Myself, Dark, Jen, and Morff can't "Do their job" are irrelevant with your nomination. I am sure we can close nominations on time with our bureaucrat team. Why the rush? Is any reason nominations need to close the very second it reaches it expiration? Even if it is delayed a day, another user can notify that VOTING HAS CLOSED in the subsections. I assume good faith in our current bureaucrat can do what they do without any additional help. 12:24, July 12, 2013 (UTC)
 * I did not say they 'do not do their job'. I am saying that it would be useful to give me the rights so I can close the nominations myself instead of needlessly reminding them to close the nomination. At this point, it seems you are just scrapping up reasons to oppose me. Being a bureaucrat isn't as big of a deal as you are making it. -- 12:26, July 12, 2013 (UTC)
 * I still fail to see why you should be a bureaucrat. Is that ok with you? 12:28, July 12, 2013 (UTC)
 * I fail to see why you think I shouldn't become a bureaucrat, because it's not really that big of a deal. But ok, I can accept that. -- 12:31, July 12, 2013 (UTC)


 * Please discard what i said; after some thought i am going neutral. 14:22, July 13, 2013 (UTC)
 * DiscoDuck - I never told you "I keep an eye on your log-in sessions and talk page messages, as you can tell." ... Don't lie. I keep an eye on all your mainspace edits, yes. I don't use Special:RecentChanges because I use Special:Log and Special:WikiActivity, and I filter out log-ins and the such, so I couldn't even keep an eye on your sessions if I wanted to. Like I said with Silver... -- 12:35, July 12, 2013 (UTC)
 * As much I respect you. This Don't lie thing you said, Seriously Bullet? I'm not that much of a coward to come up with stories, you told me that you kept track on when I'd log-in when I was in hiatus because you were suspicious. And, you told me that you could give me examples of my rude behavior to others which means you do keep track on my messages. I only want to be honest, because I got none against you. You are not the judge of everything in this wiki like you seem to act like, you can accept some like oppositions at-least 2. -- Quack Like you mean itundefined  12:40, July 12, 2013 (UTC)
 * I never told you I kept track of your log-in sessions, or that I was "suspicious", but I do often go through Special:ListUsers to see who's registered an account, and saw you logged in anyways. You kept logging in on chat, so I said that you claiming to be on hiatus was suspicious, not because I was suspicious of you yourself. That wasn't the best word choice anyways, so I apologize, but you are being a bit nit-picky. You seem to be opposing for personal reasons rather than neutral reasons, and it's a bit evident in your attitude... but I'm not going to argue here. If you really think I'm that bad of an admin or user, I can simply give up my admin rights just to please you. Instead of complaining here about how bad of a user I am, you could have approached me saying that you have a problem with me instead of complaining on here. You seem to have taken me giving you minor warnings on chat far too seriously. -- 12:46, July 12, 2013 (UTC)
 * As for "accepting oppostions", I just found both of your logic to be a bit bizzare and person rather than neutral, my apologies. I'm naturally a curious person. I don't appreciate your attitude on this nomination, though. You seem to be attacking me a bit, which I don't necessarily appreciate. -- 12:48, July 12, 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh come on, Bullet. Where are you taking this? Your'e putting me hating on you in the way. Like I ever said that. Infact I've said that you can do good as a crat but your attitude is an issue. I never said you were 'such a bad user', you are pitying yourself, why in the world would I want you to give up your admin ship for my pleasing? Your'e being really silly, no offense. Why do you see me as a blind and brash user who just 'is so glued' to whatever he thinks, why would I be so blind to hate you? The only reason I complain here is to express maybe there is one tiny thing that could make you not a 'really good' crat that we need. Maybe you found my 'nit-picks' wrong, okay, I do understand, maybe I'm wrong too, but you just can't indirectly give a big 'No' to my opposition. I'm gonna be honest, what you have said really hurt my feelings. I wont oppose know, I'll stay neutral. -- Quack Like you mean itundefined  13:14, July 12, 2013 (UTC)
 * It's just the behavior you showed above, the ranting and the pitying and claiming why blind hatred to you, Is the reason I opposed, that's all. No hatred. -- Quack Like you mean itundefined  13:17, July 12, 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah Isee. I get what you're saying, and I appreciate your feedback. -- 13:21, July 12, 2013 (UTC)
 * Can't vote. 16:35, July 12, 2013 (UTC)
 * Now I can. 10:22, July 20, 2013 (UTC)

Conclusion
Yes - With overwhelming support and only two opposes, consensus is clearly in favor of your promotion to Bureaucrat. Congratulations! This discussion will be removed shortly. 00:05, July 26, 2013 (UTC)

}}