User talk:Hipocrite/03/2009

Rollback

I have granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe I can trust you to use rollback correctly by using it for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 18:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Ironholds RfA

Two quick points. (1) 'Crats on the English Wikipedia can't desysop. (2) It seems unfair to punish one candidate for the actions of another; whether Elonka's process was followed accurately or formed with adequate foresight has no impact on the same for Ironholds. Most admins open to recall should and do use appropriate terms, primarily those created by Lar, and found I think at User:Lar/Accountability. Avruch ^T 21:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Most admins open to recall state that they use appropriate terms. Since they can't be held to their promise, it's worth about as much as the paper it's printed on. People feel their concerns about candidates are allayed by recall. They are wrong. Hipocrite (talk) 01:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Oops!

[1] Apologies - you're right I should have segregated them. Pedro :  Chat  23:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Overreaction?

Please assume good faith. I've replied on HWV258's page. Tony (talk) 15:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I always assume good faith. You should assume the assumption of good faith. There is no other way to take his statement except as a belittling of my language skills. It is not civil to belittle contributors because of their language skills. If HWV258 continues to belittle contributors because of their language skills, further action will need to be taken. Hipocrite (talk) 15:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)