User talk:RexxS: Difference between revisions

Hi Doug! All the warmest wishes for this seasonal occasion, whichever you celebrate - or don't, while I swelter at 27℃ (80.6℉), and peace and prosperity for 2020. And talkin' about being amenable, I would be extremely amenable to a beer in a quite little pub I know in Bangkok in August when it will be even hotter! So check how many air miles you've got 'cause it's a long way.
Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)

Not much of an advertisement for partial blocks

So, my first partial block was a success technically but hasn't turned out much of an advertisement for partial blocks, has it? I'm starting to have hostility for the guy personally, and you have convinced me there's no point in letting them edit any part of Wikipedia. I've blocked them indefinitely, and can see a revocation of talkpage access in their future. Bishonen | talk 17:33, 17 February 2020 (UTC).[reply]

@Kind-hearted Shonen: it was generous of you to give Sriramadas.mahalingam a chance to edit elsewhere, and I believe that partial blocks will find one valuable use in sorting the SPA from the genuine newbie who fouls up. Of course, they were devised to allow established contributors who just can't be neutral on a particular topic to continue to contribute usefully elsewhere, but they also allow WP:ROPE without leaving an affected topic vulnerable.

In the present case, it was possible that Sriramadas.mahalingam could have taken the time to learn about reliable sources, and then make useful contributions on another topic, so you did the right thing. It's not your fault that they still felt they had to right the great wrong done to their favourite organisation.

Is there something cultural about editors on these topics? They seem to have a sense of entitlement that Wikipedia must reflect their viewpoints, and get angry with anybody that they see standing in the way of that happening. I just spotted this disgraceful outburst by one of the employees of Raheja Developers at User talk:Vishal210891 #February 2020 UPE.

Oh yes, it's curious how often we get that, isn't it?

— As a company employee you're getting paid for editing on behalf of the company. Signed, Protector of Wikipedia.

— No, you're getting paid for maligning my company! Signed, Company PR rep.

Sense of entitlement is right. Bishonen | talk 21:12, 19 February 2020 (UTC).[reply]

When all else fails, revert to bluster and wild accusations. It works often enough for politicians... · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 06:50, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Issue on common.js

There is something weird going on with my common.js page - the top menu reads as follows:

User:Atsme/common.js | Cannot install | Manage user scripts | Cannot install | Manage user scripts

^Atsme _Talk 📧 18:54, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind - I fixed it by doing nothing. 🤓 ^Atsme _Talk 📧 19:04, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Always glad to be of assistance.

--RexxS (talk) 19:25, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maths text books with £sd

That made me laugh but though it best to reply here.

Ah but that was a different kind of culture war: the relative priorities for national expenditure of (a) education (b) MST subjects (c) the West Midlands and maybe even (d) selective/rejective secondaries. Am I right in guessing that back then (decimalisation time) there was a lobby that asserted that a duodecimal system was better for teaching kids fractions and how will they cope with 12 inches in a foot I suppose next they will want to do away with feet and inches, more orders from the Fourth Reich in Brussels! --Red King (talk) 17:01, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

re: English Heritage listed building row/Wikidata

Thanks for starting {{English Heritage listed building row/Wikidata}}. I've mocked up my impression of what I think the finished article should look like including the relevant WD properties and qualifiers at user:Nthep/sandbox8 but I lack the technical understanding of all the # commands to make the slightest attempt at getting it into the template you started. If you could have a look at some time I'd be grateful. Nthep (talk) 16:06, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, Nthep, for not getting back to the template so far. I usually try to find an extended block of time to do complex coding as it requires me to concentrate. Annoyingly, I've had a dozen distractions competing for my attention over the last week or so, but I hope I'll find a quiet patch this coming week. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 21:45, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. I must find myself a primer on coding so I can try this type of work myself. Nthep (talk) 21:57, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How about a big collaborative FA?

Encouraged by the collaboration at Sic Bar, I have been thinking how great it would be if a few of us got together and knocked out a new FA as big collaboration. Might you be interested? Giano (talk) 21:24, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Giano: I would indeed, Excellency. I have JSTOR access plus a few others, so I'll start trawling for sources there as a starting point. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 21:41, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great, go for it and just edit. We had better start putting “inuse” when necessary I’ve expanded it quite a bit, but am running out of my own knowledge. There’s art, poetry, sciences and FKWE. Giano (talk)

Oldstone James AE appeal

Thanks for closing it. I hope you're good with me tacking on a Creationism topic ban, as well. Best, El_C 22:09, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, and thank you, El C. Creationism is in the Category:Pseudoscience, so there should be no quibbles. As we don't have a decision code nor a sanction log specifically for Creationism, it's easier to apply and keep track of sanctions through the broad topic area, but it can only be helpful to point out the specifics as you did. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 22:24, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what I had in mind as well, RexxS — Creationism being covered by ARBPS. I made sure to note it on OldstoneJames' talk page and on AE/AEL. Glad we're in agreement and thanks again. Best, El_C 22:29, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So that was anticlimactic, eh? El_C 01:59, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: Yes, what a pity after all that effort to salvage something for them. Oh well, at least we tried. --RexxS (talk) 02:02, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, at least we gave it a good go — T for Teffort! El_C 02:04, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I've just been made aware of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Oldstone James. Not good. El_C 03:31, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Hello R. You forgot to sign this message. I thought I'd let you know so you can beat sinebot to the punch. I'm getting mesmerized by your rotating cube so I have to go take a nap :-) Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 01:44, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, MarnetteD. David re-edited his post and edit conflicted me. I'm trying out the new beta edit-conflict feature, and still trying to get the hang of it. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 01:55, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. Enjoy your week. MarnetteD|Talk 01:57, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hartnell

Allegations of anti-Semitism and racism came from co stars that worked with Hartnell like Nicholas Courtney and Anneke Wills - they're not smears. Nobody's saying he was a bad person, or definitely a racist, or anything like that - I have a great deal admiration for Hartnell, but it still just isn't right for the Wikipedia article to delete information this way.

Besides, we have allowed controversy and accusations of racism surrounding other beloved celebrities on here, as well as their defenders, such as Wayne, Disney, and Churchill. If the Hartnell allegations are considered not noteworthy enough, we should still take into consideration the first hand sources surrounding them and debate on whether they are notable enough. 79.69.227.38 (talk) 09:55, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) IP, please stop edit warring to put your contested version onto the article, or you will be sanctioned. Note that without high-quality reliable sources, these claims are potentially defamatory and a violation of our living persons policy. Please be mindful. El_C 09:58, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken it to the talk page to see if we can reach a consensus on this matter. Talk:William_Hartnell#Alleged_racism 79.69.227.38 (talk) 11:28, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

please help translate this message into your local language via meta

The 2019 Cure Award

In 2019 you were one of the top ~300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a thematic organization whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.

Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 18:35, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Raul Catinas

Hello,

I asked revision for this to RHaworth, and it was he the last admin who deleted it. I re-created the page of this top kickboxer, he is clearly passing Kickboxing because he was 2-time K-1 Final 16 finalist. K-1 organisation reunited the best 16 heavyweights in the world. At the older times, I suppose Catinas was not passing Kickboxing rules (when the article was deleted). The things changed. The article must be reinstated and please also change the name of the page into Raul Cătinaș - with Romanian diacritics! K-1 World Grand Prix 2012 Final#K-1 World Grand Prix 2012 Tournament bracket, take a look please because he is the only finalist without a page alongside an American! Also he participated in this, being the youngstest ever participant at the finals after prodigy Badr Hari: K-1 World Grand Prix 2010 in Seoul Final 16. The only participant on the last article without a page! —.karellian-24 (talk) 16:36, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@.karellian-24: As RHaworth indicated that the article could be refunded on request, I'll honour that. I've therefore placed a copy of the last version of the deleted article into draft space at Draft:Raul Cătinaș on the understanding that you will work on it in the immediate future in order to show notability by the addition of substantial coverage in reliable, secondary, independent sources. If you fail to do that, it will be deleted again. Please use the AfC process to have it reviewed when you are ready. --RexxS (talk) 17:05, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, I am working on it these hours and I will announce you when my work is finished. —.karellian-24 (talk) 17:11, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done, bro. —.karellian-24 (talk) 18:55, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can review whenever you can and want, Rex! —.karellian-24 (talk) 22:14, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CM Punk

Thank you-- I asked the Coords for that weeks ago! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:34, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: Sorry, I only just spotted it. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 15:36, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It took some in-depth reading to be able to spot that. Well, that article was looking like its star could be saved, but a new editor has it moving backwards, so I'm going to quit working on it and see how things evolve. Thanks again, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:37, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikisource and italic in Infobox Bible translation

Hello. I noticed you were trying to fix the problems of italics in ---. Thanksagain for that. However, Template:Infobox Bible translation has a problem of the same type: the title in the "wikisource" parameter is always in italic. You can see examples of it here: Gustav II Adolf Bible, Charles XII Bible, Jakub Wujek Bible. Could you also try to fix the Bible translation infobox? Veverve (talk) 20:10, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 23, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

All content, links, and diffs from the original ARC and the latest ARC are being read into the evidence for this case.

The secondary mailing list is in use for this case: [email protected]

For the Arbitration Committee, CThomas³ (talk) 05:55, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Look out, a train! (splat)

Things that float? Such as fish? (Dead fish..?) Anyway, fine fix, thank you! Cool collection of userboxes, haven't I? darwin^fish 22:13, 10 March 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Infobox scientist

Hello RexxS,

I'm Gia from the Hebrew wikipedia. Sorry to bother you about this this but maybe you can assist me. In Hebrew wikipedia we have discussion regarding the question: the way we should use P106 (occupation) from wikidata in Template:Infobox scientist. Import it automtically or not etc. The template already importing P101 (field of work). I have noticed that you have also Template:Infobox scientist/Wikidata. So how it's works? When you use regular scientist and when you use Infobox scientist/Wikidata? Can you give me a link to a discussion about it.

Again, sorry for bothering you. --geagea^Talk 23:54, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Gia, it's no bother, but I'm not sure how much help I can be. The template was mainly developed by D Wells and I just provided some technical help to solve problems. Looking at the Template:Infobox scientist, it seems that it shouldn't import occupation (P106), as a scientist's occupation should surely be "scientist". To ensure that, you can add 'occupation' to the suppressfields list: | suppressfields = {{#if:{{{suppressfields|}}}|{{{suppressfields|}}}, employer, occupation|employer, occupation}}

Because of the difficulty in gaining acceptance of Wikidata-aware infoboxes (i.e. ones that import data from Wikidata) on the English Wikipedia, the convention I usually use is that a Wikidata-aware template is created at a subpage of the main template using the /Wikidata suffix. That allows editors to choose to use the template on articles where they can get consensus for it. I don't know of any discussion that distinguishes between using the plain infobox or the Wikidata-aware infobox. I can tell you that {{Infobox scientist}} is used in 34,130 articles, and {{Infobox scientist/Wikidata}} is used in 74 articles. That should give you some idea of the degree of acceptance here. --RexxS (talk) 00:57, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. It is much helpful. --geagea^Talk 01:06, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JSTOR

Hey Doug, long time no see. I just spotted the JSTOR thread on Giano's talk page and wondered if you had access to this? I used to but I'm having trouble getting into my JSTOR account! Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:02, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good to hear from you, Harry. YGM. --RexxS (talk) 16:52, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! You have a reply; looks like I missed a digit! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:25, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

use of the singular they as an epicene pronoun

Hello, RexxS. Thanks for your input on my arbitration enforcement appeal. I have to disagree with your continued usage of the pronoun "they" to refer to me, even after I told you that it was not the correct pronoun. This is the exact sort of grammatical error that I typically like to fix on the pages which I read. If you had read further down on the singular they article which you referred to, you would have known that it was an error to continue using that pronoun to refer to me. You may consider this as just another "quibble," but my contributions in this area are helping Wikipedia to be the best possible version of itself. People have been having a hard time with grammar ever since there was language, which has been for a lot longer than 600 years. It's not anyone's fault, because we're all only human, but this is no excuse for wilfully degrading the English language. Doing so reflects poorly on the serious Wikipedia editor.Sotuman (talk) 05:21, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sotuman: You have not set your gender at Preferences. Consider: {{heshe|Sotuman}} → he but {{heshe|RexxS}} → he. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:07, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sotuman: If you want editors to refer to you as he/him, set your preferences as Redrose64 as suggested. I don't know you and I'm simply too old to remember the gender of every drive-by editor that crosses my path. I know perfectly well how to use the English language and don't need any lectures from you based on what you think you read in a Wikipedia article. "Quibbles" make up the vast majority of your contributions and do nothing to build our encyclopedia. Your attitude toward other editors is appalling, and that in itself is enough to make your presence here a net negative. If I never cross paths with you again, I'll be quite content, so kindly remove yourself from this page and try your hardest not to turn up here again. --RexxS (talk) 14:03, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sotuman, can we get back to writing an encyclopaedia rather than fussing over whether the unintentional use of a particular gender pronoun was right or wrong? Walk away, fix your preferences, and then review a GAN. I assure you, you'll find the latter far more satisfying. Cassianto^Talk 15:56, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Perhaps you should actually try it" "Not everybody is as inept as you" "before patience wears thin with your tendentious commentary"

Do you really think that rudeness is an effective way of getting your opinion across? Zero^talk 03:06, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've just checked your contributions, Zero0000, and I don't see a warning to EEng? It's curious how selective you are being, especially when EEng chooses to bring into the argument RexXS's RfA, which has fuck all to do with "talk page guidelines". But then you support EEng, don't you, and so you have a vested interest in taking his side of the argument. EEng, let me remind you, was the one who took Moors murders from a featured article, and reduced it to a stinking pile of horse poo within a month by his "improvements". Not relevant at all to this discussion, but since there's been a precedence set, why not mention it? Cassianto^Talk 07:57, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RexxS I think you should at least strike your insult to Valeree. More consideration towards those who are technically disinclined would also help your case rather than dismissiveness. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:12, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Galobtter, should EEng strike his comment too, since it was only designed to belittle and provoke? Cassianto^Talk 08:33, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cassianto, I give a lot less leeway to sysops. --valereee (talk) 09:20, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which of course you would, being on EEng's side of the argument (it's a funny pattern that is forming here). Are you saying there's one rule for some and another for others? I think if you look at the relevant policy, it makes no mention of differentiating between "them and us". We are all volunteers here. Cassianto^Talk 09:28, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cassianto, it really has nothing to do with the argument. I don't even have a strong opinion about it. I enjoy discussing these things, but if the consensus ends up against me, that's fine. I stumbled into the discussion because I saw a funny aside, which made me start reading the discussion, and I got interested in what was going on because so often the tech discussions don't get input from non-techie editors. And yes, I think people who have extra tools should be more careful with their language and tone. --valereee (talk) 10:07, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I care very little for what was being discussed, but it bothers me when someone comes to an editor's talk page with all guns blazing to point a biased finger towards incivility, without that someone taking into account the other party's conduct. I think if you're warning one, you should be warning the other. Cassianto^Talk 10:22, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cassianto, 'all guns blazing'? That editor quoted RexxS's words and asked a mildly-worded rhetorical question in what looked to me like an attempt to get an admin who was behaving in ways admins shouldn't to hear how he sounded to others and remember what our common goal is here. How in the world does that qualify as all guns blazing? --valereee (talk) 13:37, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why come at all if that editor wasn't willing to warn both sides? Actions speak louder than words. Cassianto^Talk 13:59, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cassianto, because RexxS is a sysop, I assume. I can see you're having a hard time understanding why I consider that an important factor, but I do. --valereee (talk) 14:21, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I rather fear, Valereee, that you may be confusing me with someone else; I'm not having a hard time understanding your view - you're welcome to it. What I am finding difficult to understand is how two admins (you and Zero0000) are quick to challenge someone (who you disagree with in a debate) on incivility, whilst at the same time, appearing to ignore the other party's incivility, someone who you do agree with in the debate. Cassianto^Talk 14:50, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cassianto, the other person is not an admin, but I actually did ask the other person to strike the unkind comment. But the important thing to me is the other person is not an admin. I don't try to hold non-admins to the same standards, which you just said you understand then in the very next sentence said you don't understand it. I'm not sure what you don't understand? I'm willing to keep discussing, but maybe we should continue at your talk or mine, this is probably more discussion than RexxS would appreciate on his talk. --valereee (talk) 15:21, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not much to discuss. When warning someone, regardless of what tools someone has, make sure you give out the same advice to the other person, if that other person is conducting in the same behaviour, and regardless of what side of the debate you are on. It is only your view that admins have some sort of different rule to abide by; we are all supposed to be governed by the civility pillar, not just some. I think what's happened here as you and Zero0000 have been WP:INVOLVED. That's pretty much all there is to it. If you need any more clarification, feel free to come to my talk. Cassianto^Talk 15:43, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cassianto: WP:ADMINCOND is the place to look. I can't claim to have always kept to this standard myself during my 15+ years as a sysop, but it is indeed true that sysops are held to a higher standard. Zero^talk 10:17, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zero0000, is it fair to belittle someone's RfA during a dispute over time stamps? Would you expect to be met with a curt response or one that is warm and friendly? Cassianto^Talk 10:26, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That was an unreasonable overreaction on EEng's part that occurred after my perfectly reasonable posting here. Zero^talk 10:44, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then I trust you'll be mentioning this "unreasonable overreaction" to EEng? Only you seem to have been silent on the matter. Cassianto^Talk 11:09, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This conversation reached its useful end after my initial message here. Your contribution wasn't useful. If Rexx replies, I may or may not respond, but I will not reply further to you. Bye now and please stop pinging me. Zero^talk 11:23, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it has because you find it too difficult to answer me. So, to quote someone else here, "people who have extra tools should be more careful with their language and tone",accept of course if you're you and you actually endorse incivility by choosing to ignore it. Admins like you give the rest a bad name, sadly. Cassianto^Talk 12:15, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please be a better person

Behavior like this is not conducive to collaborative effort. Please pull back on the attitude toward other editors. I am shocked that a sysop would behave this way toward well-intentioned fellow editors. --valereee (talk) 09:19, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good god, is there a need for a separate thread? Bludgeoning this very minor disagreement is not helpful to anyone. Cassianto^Talk 09:31, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cassianto, you're right, but I posted this before I realized there'd been one above. --valereee (talk) 10:03, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 235: / Line 235: @@
 ::::::::::I rather fear, {{u|Valereee}}, that you may be confusing me with someone else; I'm not having a hard time understanding your view - you're welcome to it.  What I ''am'' finding difficult to understand is how two admins (you and Zero0000) are quick to challenge someone (who you disagree with in a debate) on incivility, whilst at the same time, appearing to ignore the other party's incivility, someone who you do agree with in the debate. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">[[User:Cassianto|<span style="font-family: Papyrus;">Cassianto</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Cassianto#top|<span style="font-family: Papyrus;">Talk</span>]]</sup></span>''' 14:50, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 :::::::::::{{u|Cassianto}}, the other person is not an admin, but I actually did ask the other person to strike the unkind comment. But the important thing to me is ''the other person is not an admin.'' I don't try to hold non-admins to the same standards, which you just said you understand then in the very next sentence said you don't understand it. I'm not sure what you don't understand? I'm willing to keep discussing, but maybe we should continue at your talk or mine, this is probably more discussion than RexxS would appreciate on his talk. [[User:Valereee|--valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 15:21, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
-::::::::::::Not much to discuss.  When warning someone, regardless of what tools someone has, make sure you give out the same advice to the other person, if that other person is conducting in the same behaviour, and regardless of what side of the debate you are on. It is only your view that admins have some sort of different rule to abide by, especially since we have the civility pillar which says we are all supposed to be governed by.  I think what's happened here as you and Zero0000 have been [[WP:INVOLVED]]. That's pretty much all there is to it. If you need any more clarification, feel free to come to my talk. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">[[User:Cassianto|<span style="font-family: Papyrus;">Cassianto</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Cassianto#top|<span style="font-family: Papyrus;">Talk</span>]]</sup></span>''' 15:43, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
+::::::::::::Not much to discuss.  When warning someone, regardless of what tools someone has, make sure you give out the same advice to the other person, if that other person is conducting in the same behaviour, and regardless of what side of the debate you are on. It is only your view that admins have some sort of different rule to abide by; we are all supposed to be governed by the civility pillar, not just some. I think what's happened here as you and Zero0000 have been [[WP:INVOLVED]]. That's pretty much all there is to it. If you need any more clarification, feel free to come to my talk. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">[[User:Cassianto|<span style="font-family: Papyrus;">Cassianto</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Cassianto#top|<span style="font-family: Papyrus;">Talk</span>]]</sup></span>''' 15:43, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 :::::{{Re|Cassianto}} [[WP:ADMINCOND]] is the place to look. I can't claim to have always kept to this standard myself during my 15+ years as a sysop, but it is indeed true that sysops are held to a higher standard. [[User:Zero0000|Zero]]<sup><small>[[User_talk:Zero0000|talk]]</small></sup> 10:17, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 ::::::{{u|Zero0000}}, is it fair to belittle someone's RfA during a dispute over time stamps? Would you expect to be met with a curt response or one that is warm and friendly? '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px Black;">[[User:Cassianto|<span style="font-family: Papyrus;">Cassianto</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Cassianto#top|<span style="font-family: Papyrus;">Talk</span>]]</sup></span>''' 10:26, 17 March 2020 (UTC)