User talk:Cecropia/Archive 23

Of possible interest
A piece of data that may be of use, a very recent successful RfA closed with a 67% support. While the final decision is, of course, a judgment call from the 'crat who adopts it and RfA isn't supposed to be a raw numbers game, the closing bureaucrat may be able to offer guidance in how he navigated the rough waters of a contentious discussion in determining consensus. - C HAIRBOY (☎) 16:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input. I will look at that. -- Cecropia 16:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Also maybe take a look at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/LessHeard_vanU. It dealt with the same issue, although overall I would say it went much more civilly.  I don't mean to point to precedents, as we shouldn't hold to them in RfA decisions, just how a slightly similar issue was handled in the recent past.  daveh4h 19:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC) (EDIT: Just noticed Alde Baer brought this up, I'm sorry for bothering you.) daveh4h 19:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC))

Categories
Hello; would you mind if I add to your userpage:
 * Category:Wikipedia bureaucrats
 * Category:Wikipedia administrators

Because I wouldn't have known you were an admin and b'crat if I had not seen your RfB a few weeks back. Thanks again ^_^. The Sunshine Man 21:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Compliment
Hey, just wanted to let you know I think you're doing a great job as a bureaucrat, from the way you're going about the resolution of Gracenotes' RfA. Not that I have a lot of experience with bureaucratic processes, but still. I hope you derive some enjoyment from the job, too. Phaunt 01:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's a nice compliment. I enjoy engaging the community. Most of the job is humdrum, but the "easy RfAs" don't talk long. Rarely there is a very time consuming and difficult RfA, but I figure I can't only do the easy and straightfoward ones. -- Cecropia 17:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Your quote on the RfA discussion of GN
Because i'm being quoted in your section directly, I think i need to clarify. My comment was towards the proces of how to close this RfA (whom to ignore and whom not) and how people were telling the bureaucrats how they should do their job, not so much as the opinion the bureaucrats were supposed to have on wether Gracenotes should be admin or not based on the discussion. These people could have voiced their opinion and advice without directly telling the crats what their job should be. I meant to communicate that we should trust that crats will read the RfA and the comments meticulously if an RfA developed the way it had and that voicing your opinion on what the bureaucrats job is would be enough. It's a small semantical diff that wasn't entire clear perhaps in my original comment, but i do care about clarifying it. Beyond that, i think you are spot on with your assessment btw. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Or shorter perhaps. I found it rude that people were telling crats what to do, instead of asking them to consider things --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification, DJ. Could you point me to the exact location of the quote you have mentioned? -- Cecropia 16:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah yes certainly *reading about "The Bureaucrat's Job." Some feel that "we trust the bureaucrats to do the right thing, that's why we picked them out." * --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 16:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * In retrospect: when i changed it to "--> bureaucrat tips on talk page. Bureaucrats are more then capable enough..." I guess I should have made it more clear to future readers that 'tips' was meant to be sarcastic. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 17:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, I didn't have any comment of yours particularly in mind. I was just distilling an often-stated sentiment. -- Cecropia 17:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Gracenotes' bureaucrat chat
I don't have any problems with waffling to buy time, but one sentence I think I really must question you on. (Yes, I know I'm not a bureaucrat and my opinion is therefore worthless and undesired, but listen anyway).


 * Because (barring sock- or meat-puppetry) each expression of opinion in an RfA represents the opinion, raw, half-baked or done to perfection, of a Wikipedian in a system which we believe gives everyone an equal voice.

The way in which RfA works means that opposers' voices are four times louder than supporters', while those voting neutral are barely audible – Gurch 19:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Those are the rules by which Gracenotes' RfA was held. If you don't agree, campaign to change the rules; the bureaucrats can't but uphold them.
 * Minor nitpicky semantical point: The opposers' voicers are three times as loud as the supporters', and only two times louder. Phaunt 19:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It's true that opposers' voices can have more impact than supporters', and I agree that this can sometimes be unfair, but the way we do things is a compromise in a system where the community as a whole is expected to feel that a person is ready to be an admin. If this were a literal vote, with 50% + 1 decided that someone should be an admin, where would be the trust in someone who almost 1/2 the community opposed? -- Cecropia 19:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

RfC
I know that you have a lot on your plate right now, but I just wanted to let you know that I opened an RfC on myself in response to the concerns raised during my RfA over my actions in the Gary Weiss dispute. The RfC is located here and I welcome any comments or questions you may have. CLA 12:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I am a little engaged right now, but I will take a look at that. Thanks for letting me know. -- Cecropia 14:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Concerns about false representation of reasons for opposing Gracenotes
Hi, Cecropia. I am concerned that oppose votes in the Gracenotes RfA may be dismissed as being due to the candidate's failure to give 100% support to the idea of removing 100% percent of links to attack sites regardless of context. I'm particularly concerned at the comments from Nichalp, where he says that most of the opposers opposed because they thought Gracenotes supports linking to these sites, and in fact he doesn't, so promotion would be appropriate. I think that is a misrepresentation (though very likely an innocent one) of the views of those who have concerns about trusting the buttons to someone who shows the attitude that the candidate shows towards a site which engages in feverish attempts to find out the real life identity of Wikipedians (posting what they believe are their photos, trying to contact what they believe are their ex-boyfriends, or egging on those who do). As I pointed out at the Bureaucrat chat talk page, it's a bit like seeing lots of people opposing a candidate because of concerns over civility, and then dismissing those votes by claiming that the opposers opposed because they wanted to see an exaggerated, excessive, obsequious politeness.

I will accept whatever the decision is, but at the very least, I would hope that the bureaucrats would try not to be influenced by misrepresentations of the concerns of the opposers. Could I request that you read my post, linked to above? I admit it's long, and I apologize for that. But it does make what I believe are very important points &mdash; especially the one that I recently supported someone for adminship after he said that he thought it would be okay to link to attack sites in the "Daniel Brandt" and "Criticism of Wikipedia" articles; and that SlimVirgin thanked him for his reply and didn't vote. Thanks. Musical Linguist 15:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * [...]someone who shows the attitude that the candidate shows towards a site which engages in feverish attempts to find out the real life identity of Wikipedians [...]. Could you please relate this directly to Gracenotes in his opinions or responses with examples, please? Thanks, Cecropia 16:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Please revise your edit
Hello, please consider revising your edit in International Criminal Court. I believe that you are correct in that my POV projects into the title of the section. If the section remains titled US Objections, it will not work because this is not a primary objection of the Bush Administration, but a secondary one articulated by the Clinton Administration. Would you consider another title that is not US specific? There are reliable sources to suggest quiet concerns by other nations in this regard, although it was most clearly articulated by David Shaffer, Clinton's Representative to the ICC Convention. I will otherwise need change your title myself, you might do a better job. Raggz 06:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I would ask that you revise your title yourself, but be cautious that it be in Wikipedia format (First letter of entire title of the section capitalized only, unless there is a proper name involved) and that the title reflect a neutral description of the paragraph content. -- Cecropia 07:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Reedy Boy's Admin Status
Hey Cecropia, Thanks for closing my RfA.

=)

Reedy Boy 08:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

My RfA
Thank you for the nice words. Of course, I didn't vote on your RfA, but I'm glad you're happy~ :) -- Cecropia 16:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar
Hi Cecropia, I can see Gracenotes RfA is most likely heading for a re-run. As I trust yours and the other cras judgement - I fully accept that result. However, I would personally like to commend you on your efforts with it - you've obviously worked hard at attempting to find a suitable consensus in an extremely hard environment to find one in. I hope this helps....

Gracenotes re-run feedback
I wanted to take a moment to correspond with you regarding a concern I have with how the Gracenotes discussion is progressing. Bureaucrats have been chosen to make the final call on some tough decisions that require judgment. The standards for b'cratship have been set very, very high because this judgment is such an ethereal quality that is measured in so many different ways by so many different editors. To reach the 90% consensus that's generally required to promote a b'crat is to have impressed upon so many different types of folks that your judgment is impeccable.

With this assertion of confidence comes responsibility, the responsibility to use the community trust to follow through and make the tough calls.

Re-running a contentious RfA is seductive. It sounds like the ideal solution, because a "problem" can be "fixed" and we ca "do it right this time". But it is a false reassurance. Re-creating the initial conditions of such a request is simply impossible, and in the end, disproportionate weight is given to the people from the first RfA who had the strongest opinions, because they are the ones that will make a point of showing up. Community consensus isn't reflected, because the community at large has moved on.

Whether the decision is made to promote or not, the responsibility of making the call rests with a single bureaucrat. You folks have been chosen for this job, and you owe it to the candidate and the community to follow through. - C HAIRBOY (☎) 16:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Chairboy, I respect your perspective and appreciate your sharing it with me. You have been a Wikipedia contributor nearly as long as I have been a bureaucrat, so we have both been around the block a few times.
 * I don't agree with your characterization of the job of bureaucrat. It has evolved over time but a bureaucrat is charged with determining the community consensus, not simply closing an RfA. I have outlined the reasons that I believe this case requires extraordinary action; I'm sorry you disagree.
 * I also disagree with your characterization of the reasoning for and consequences of a re-run. This may or may not work, but I believe it important to try. It is in no way a "seductive" "fix." If this succeeds it can help stabilize the running of RfA, a process some consider damaged if not "broken." If it does not succeed the bureaucrats have other options, as I outlined.
 * Re-running this RfA is not unprecedented over the course of the bureaucrat system; nominations have also been extended, sometimes adding clarity, sometimes not. In one case I can think of extension enabled the RfA participants to re-evaluate a negative presentation of the candidate and the RfA was able to pass without extraordinary bureaucrat intervention.
 * Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Cheers, Cecropia 17:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your thoughtful response. I sincerely hope that the interests of the project are properly served by this course of action, though I have reservations.  I suspect that the RfA will have less participation and that a small group may hijack the proceedings, but I would be happy to be proven wrong. - C HAIRBOY  (☎) 17:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * A quick note regarding the characterization of the job, I'm afraid you may have misunderstood one aspect of what I said. The job of a bureaucrat is determining community consensus, and in borderline situations like this, that is the "hard decision" I spoke of.  I never meant to suggest otherwise, and apologize for being unclear above. - C HAIRBOY  (☎) 17:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Understood and sorry if the misunderstanding was my fault. This will not destroy RfA at its worst and could help. It is still one candidacy. We will see how this goes; consider also that even if this doesn't do exactly what we hope, it may point us to a better method of approaching consensus in certain cases. -- Cecropia 20:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to give my feedback on this too, although I don't think feedback was solicited. If this is inappropriate for you talk page please remove it...

I posted against the idea of a rerun on WT:RFA. When you first described your rerun proposal at WP:BN, I was skeptical, but the way you have phrased it now (or the way I read it now), it sounds like a good idea. I also highly appreciate you walking everyone through your thought process at arriving at this decision. It's a very interesting way to approach this, and I do hope that it will result in a productive outcome, in this case and perhaps others (whatever the outcome may be). Coming from a newer user these comments may not mean that much, (and this will sound like ass kissing!) but I was highly impressed with the way you came at this. daveh4h 22:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Hmwith
Hi - just a nudge to check that you're aware that I've left this for you to close. I'd closed Ozgod and Mr.Z-man's RfAs before you were kind enough to remove them from the main WP:RfA page, but while I was checking through Hmwith's RfA I noticed that in your removal comment you'd already reached a decision on it. Warofdreams talk 03:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know what you have and haven't done. Saves me a lot of hunting around. :) I assume you're posting the notices and all on Z-man and Ozgod, so I'll do the postings on Hmwith. Cheers, Cecropia 04:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Re:Your RfA
I just saw the result a few minutes ago. Although I am disappointed, I'll just see this a positive step to keep working my best here at Wikipedia, eventually becoming a better editor, gaining the community's trust. Thanks for the uplifting comments, as well. Happy Wikying,  hmwith  talk   04:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Haha, no, I know that this is simply your job. There was no consensus reached. That's policy, and I know that it's nothing personal. Cheers!  hmwith  talk   04:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

NYC Meetup
Hello, Cecropia. Will you please join us for the upcoming NYC Meetup? RSVP here: Wikipedia talk:Meetup/NYC -- Y not? 15:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me
Please reconsider this decision:. The request is supported by an ArbCom member and I understand that Jimbo Wales is aware of it - he has not however closed it as "fataly flawed". I'm not sure you have the authority to close an RfA on this basis, let it run its course. WjBscribe 18:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I've got to say I think it was a poor descision to remove the request, if he's trusted to become an admin, he'll get the tools, if not, he won't, but a one person judgement that the request is fatally flawed doesn't seem the right way to go about it.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  18:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Neither the community nor the bureaucrats are empowered to circumvent policy through RfA. See WT:RfA. -- Cecropia 18:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Work needed
See Talk:Q_%28New_York_City_Subway_service%29-- if you've kept your promise herein, keep at it! You have my permission to root for the Sox too!  // Fra nkB 18:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

bureaucrat chat
??? - please reassure me that this whole drawn-out affair has not been done in part to torpedo the idea of "bureaucrat chat". -- nae'blis 03:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't expect this to be a test case of bureaucrat chat; rather I thought that this RfA could find a community-based resolution and almost all the available bureaucrats either supported it or at least were willing to try it. It only went to bureaucrat chat when the candidate did not want to take the suggested route. It has dragged on for so long essentially because the candidate did not provide feedback even when asked politely multiple times. -- Cecropia 03:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That's not a commentary on bureaucrat chat, though, and trying to derive a metaopinion based on a practice is perilous. Gracenotes has elaborated in numerous places why they feel the suggested options were suboptimal, which has nothing to do with how the 'crat chat did not work out in this instance. That's all I was asking, not questioning the eventual/apparent decision to not promote. -- nae'blis 03:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Are we talking past each other? You asked if this was drawn out, presumably by me, to torpedo bureaucrat chat. The short answer is "no." Bureaucrat chat has problems, as I believe I have made clear. Bureaucrat chat sort of worked in this case, in the sense that there is agreement among 'crats on what will be the likely final resolution on the RfA. However, the drawn-out ending helps illustrate the problems that can arise. I didn't expect that and did not set out looking for it. -- Cecropia 03:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I suspect we are, to an extent. Your initial response didn't seem to give a clear "no", and while I didn't expect you to have ulterior motives (AGF and all), your comment about "can I count you as being opposed to.." looked funny. I'm probably still getting used to your writing style, since you basically retired about the time I came to Wikipedia, IIRC. -- nae'blis 14:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. I did put a smiley (-)) after the line. It was meant as a slightly frustrated, slightly sarcastic observation after a very drawn-out RfA. -- Cecropia 15:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks! I know its part of your regular b'crat activity, but thanks in any case. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 07:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Gracentes RfA
Well, the battle is over and hopefully this sorry saga can now be put to bed. Upon reflection, maybe consensus couldn't determine whether Gracenotes should have got the bit this - an RfA with that much heated debate cannot easily show a consensus to promote. I think you did an excellent job throughout - often taking a lot of flack for trying to get things moving forward. There does seem to be a major concern coming out of this RfA though: The 'crats are supposed to be trusted members of the community, there's also a relatively small number of them, which means when descisions have to made, it is important that they all show up to attempt to solve these matters - this didn't happen in this case. I'm not sure the exact number of bureaucrats that we have, but it's certainly more than bothered to comment in the bureaucrat chat. On a grander scale, the bureaucrats that we have either do no bureaucratic work, or pop up every now and again to comment or close an RfA. This leads me to a wider issue, do some of the bureaucrats still have the communities trust? Would they still pass RfB? It's sad to say but I very much doubt it. When many of them became bureaucrats, the project was very much in it's infancy, users come and go all the time, this seems to be whats happened here - a lot of the bureaucrats have lost interest with the project and disappeared, or lost interest in doing their bureaucratic work. When we're discussing new procedures for RfA, it's a real effort to get a bureaucrat to come and comment on the idea's - they have to be dragged to WT:RFA to get something from them. Now I know the bureaucrats are supposed to be there to oversee RfA - but I see very little action from them in building up the process. I do have thoughts on the matter, maybe something similar to RfA on meta - where if they don't use the tools, they lose them - in my mind, it's imperative that the 'crats are currently extremely active members of the community, it saddens me when I see RfB's fail because "we don't need more 'crats," that's simply not true after taking a long hard look at this case. Anyway, rant over - it's certainly not aimed at you as you obviously have the communites trust, I just think that we might need to see some fresh faces on the ranks to restore credabillity.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  11:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I will respond to you Ryan. I'm a little behind. -- Cecropia 07:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

RfA close
Hey, did you use the wrong close-box on Requests for adminship/Dfrg.msc, given your messages?  Daniel  06:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, it seems that fixed it up whilst I was writing. Sorry for bothering you :)  Daniel  06:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, what excellent service! :) Thank you both. -- Cecropia 07:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

FYI
There is no such thing as an official "policy maintainer", so everybody's word on that matter carries as much weight as everyone else's.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  10:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I need to talk to someone about an IP user who keeps erasing my factual information in two articles and puts false information in its place. I do not want to continue this battle. I have left a message on his/her talk page, but he/she has not said anything back to me. What can I do? Please help--Thank you!

24.131.113.33 02:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Two-part rename
Great, I've done the usurpation, and posted about it to Wikipedia talk:Bureaucrats. Warofdreams talk 12:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Email.
I think I've sent you an email, but I didn't get a copy of it (I get copies by default), so I'm inquiring: did you get an email from me? Will (talk) 21:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't receive it. -- Cecropia 21:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll get onto writing it again, then. Will (talk) 23:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It's been sent, I've made sure. Good luck! Will (talk) 23:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Just so you know, I replied to your email six days ago. Just a little poke :) Will (talk) 21:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!
What are these extra buttons? :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

User Rename - Nordic crusader
Hi Cecropia, I am hoping you could do me a favor. I recently became a member here, with the username 'Nordic crusader'. Could you please, if possible, change it to 'Nordic Crusader'? i.e. capitilise the 'C' in crusader? Thankyou! --Nordic crusader 11:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Nc, I haven't done any renames yet. Though this certainly seems uncontroversial, protocol appears to require the request by made at WP:CHU. I'm sure if you make your request there it will be handled in short order. Cheers, Cecropia 14:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Cheers, I've done that now. --Nordic crusader 10:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue XIII - June 2007
The June 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot -- 14:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Award
I just want to say that I'm really glad I supported your RfB. I agree with the way you handled the Gracenotes situation, and I think you've been consistently fair and responsible in your recent RfA promotions, even in difficult situations. As such, you deserve this:

Thanks
Right, I'm off to protect the Main Page FA! (no, i am only joking) Thank you very much, and I really mean that. DrKiernan 13:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you
As CharlotteWebb's nominator, I want to thank you personally for both reading through her RfA (a long and tiring process that must have been), and for closing it. Since CharlotteWebb has left the project, I feel me giving you this thank you is appropriate. Acalamari 00:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, but at least you got to close Ericorbit's RfA successfully. I'm glad at least one of my two nominations was a success. :) Acalamari 00:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Renames
Thank you very much for doing those. WjBscribe 04:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I see that I missed that 2 of the requests were from user with block histories - sorry about that. I usual do flag those up but I've been away for a lot of the time Secretlondon has been so had to catch up to the list as a whole. Looking into those case further I have the following thoughts:
 * Stellatomailing → Righttovanish1. In this case the block history presumably isn't too important if this user is departing. I don't think we'd allow them to edit as "Righttovanish1" as that would be rather confusing - its really only a valid account for an inactive user. Perhaps a rename on condition that should they return to editing, they be renamed back to "Stellatomailing"?
 * Mindys12345 → Adam.J.W.C.. This one I really should have spotted - the request was made before. You might be interested in the archive entry as it was declined by both Secretlondon and Nichalp. The objectionable material seems to be gone (albeit under protest) but the block log issue is still there.
 * Recently, Secretlondon has been resolving to some extent the block log problem by adding a token 1 second block to the new user account, refering people back to the old block log - see here for an example. You can always require that as a condition of a rename where an account has a block history but you are still minded to rename. There's a brief discussion on the subject here.
 * Hope that is helpful. WjBscribe 14:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Thank you very much for renaming me to Qst! I still need to change my signature. The Sunshine Man 15:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

My username
Hello Cecropia. I heard that you are one of these bureaucrats. Please change my useraccount to User:Pubaquoc without a redirect. Thanks. -P.P. 08:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Just to let you know that Raul654 has done this renaming... WjBscribe 16:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you from VirtualSteve
Thank you for taking the time to consider the responses at my RfA and processing that successful conclusion. Best wishes. -- VS talk 01:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Usurpation
Hi noticed you were around. Just wanted to flag up the user:Kiran usurpation. I presume the server was acting up, but you successfully renamed User:Kiran to User:Kiran (usurped). But the second stage didn't happen - which means at the moment there is no User:Kiran and anyone could create that account. You could have a look and see if the second step will work? WjBscribe 17:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- Thanks again, WJB, you're really on top of things! BTW, yes, I was having increasing trouble and then the process just died withoutmy knowing whether the second part finished or not. -- Cecropia 18:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You're definitely not the first to encounter the prob - though it isn't very common fortunately. I assume it just happens when there's a heavy load on the servers. WjBscribe 18:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Administror
PLEASE SEND YOUR REQUEST TO BOTH USERS Austin7895 AND Kosmo7895.

How do you become an admin. Please reply ASAP.


 * I suggest you start by looking at Guide to requests for adminship -- Cecropia 19:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)