User talk:Jasca Ducato - Revision history

Soranin at 14:58, 19 May 2026

2026-05-19T14:58:06Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:58, 19 May 2026
Line 75:		Line 75:

	==AWBs==		==AWBs==
	Howdy, apologies for going off-topic as it were but I was wondering if you could offer some advice. The [[w:c:indianajones:Main Page\|Indiana Jones Wiki]] could do with a bot to sort out minor but numerous edits (recently realised that a particular page with many links to it might be under a fanon title, for example); however, its community is small. How easy is it for a layman like myself to set up and use an AutoWikiBrowser or am I likely to just end up bulldozing through the site and making things worse? Thanks. [[User:Vetinari\|<b><span style="color: black">Vetinari</span></b>]]<sup>[[User talk:Vetinari\|(Appointment)]]</sup> 23:47, February 17, 2019 (UTC)		Howdy, apologies for going off-topic as it were but I was wondering if you could offer some advice. The [w:c:indianajones:Main Page\|Indiana Jones Wiki]] could do with a bot to sort out minor but numerous edits (recently realised that a particular page with many links to it might be under a fanon title, for example); however, its community is small. How easy is it for a layman like myself to set up and use an AutoWikiBrowser or am I likely to just end up bulldozing through the site and making things worse? Thanks. [[User:Vetinari\|<b><span style="color: black">Vetinari</span></b>]]<sup>[[User talk:Vetinari\|(Appointment)]]</sup> 23:47, February 17, 2019 (UTC)
	:Hi Vetinari - thank you for your message. It's wasn't too difficult setting up a bot on this wiki; probably the most important step is to ensure that you have buy-in from your wiki's SysOps, so that they can ask Fandom Staff to mark a given account as a bot (a prerequisite on many wikis). ONce that's done, you can download AWB and link the account and wiki to it so that you can start making edits. I found AWB's UI pretty intuitive, but it'd be worth doing some minor test edits to a category of articles to ensure you've got the hang of it before executing larger-scale changes across the wiki. --'''''[[User:Jasca Ducato\|Jasca Ducato]]''''' <small>([[User talk:Jasca Ducato\|talk]] \| [[Special:Contributions/Jasca Ducato\|contributions]])</small> 08:59, February 18, 2019 (UTC)		:Hi Vetinari - thank you for your message. It's wasn't too difficult setting up a bot on this wiki; probably the most important step is to ensure that you have buy-in from your wiki's SysOps, so that they can ask Fandom Staff to mark a given account as a bot (a prerequisite on many wikis). ONce that's done, you can download AWB and link the account and wiki to it so that you can start making edits. I found AWB's UI pretty intuitive, but it'd be worth doing some minor test edits to a category of articles to ensure you've got the hang of it before executing larger-scale changes across the wiki. --'''''[[User:Jasca Ducato\|Jasca Ducato]]''''' <small>([[User talk:Jasca Ducato\|talk]] \| [[Special:Contributions/Jasca Ducato\|contributions]])</small> 08:59, February 18, 2019 (UTC)
	::Thanks again. [[User:Vetinari\|<b><span style="color: black">Vetinari</span></b>]]<sup>[[User talk:Vetinari\|(Appointment)]]</sup> 22:36, February 21, 2019 (UTC)		::Thanks again. [[User:Vetinari\|<b><span style="color: black">Vetinari</span></b>]]<sup>[[User talk:Vetinari\|(Appointment)]]</sup> 22:36, February 21, 2019 (UTC)

Soranin: Text replacement - "siniath" to "siniath"

2026-05-10T17:54:09Z

Text replacement - "siniath" to "siniath"

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:54, 10 May 2026
Line 7:		Line 7:

	==Mt. Olympos in ACOd==		==Mt. Olympos in ACOd==
	On [[Naxos Island]], [[Giant Heroes Burial Ground]]:''"Poseidon's two sons, the Aloadai, were buried on the island. The strong, bold giants threatened the gods by piling up mountains to reach Olympos."'' If it was just in the name of the [[Olympos Project]], or [[Stairway to Olympos]], I wouldn't have added it. Different matter is how to mark that as citation.[[User:Sadelyrate\|Sadelyrate]] ([[~~w:c:assassinscreed:~~User talk:Sadelyrate\|siniath]]) 18:01, January 18, 2019 (UTC)		On [[Naxos Island]], [[Giant Heroes Burial Ground]]:''"Poseidon's two sons, the Aloadai, were buried on the island. The strong, bold giants threatened the gods by piling up mountains to reach Olympos."'' If it was just in the name of the [[Olympos Project]], or [[Stairway to Olympos]], I wouldn't have added it. Different matter is how to mark that as citation.[[User:Sadelyrate\|Sadelyrate]] ([[User talk:Sadelyrate\|siniath]]) 18:01, January 18, 2019 (UTC)

	==Deleted article==		==Deleted article==
Line 116:		Line 116:

	==Reverts==		==Reverts==
	Unless there's been a change in the policy I've missed, the stand of this wiki has been to value in-game canon over RL. Given that, I'm not sure why reverting a change opposing an in-game statement might in any way be considered wrong. [[User:Sadelyrate\|Sadelyrate]] ([[~~w:c:assassinscreed:~~User talk:Sadelyrate\|siniath]]) 10:05, May 31, 2019 (UTC)		Unless there's been a change in the policy I've missed, the stand of this wiki has been to value in-game canon over RL. Given that, I'm not sure why reverting a change opposing an in-game statement might in any way be considered wrong. [[User:Sadelyrate\|Sadelyrate]] ([[User talk:Sadelyrate\|siniath]]) 10:05, May 31, 2019 (UTC)
	:It's considered wrong because you opened up a discussion on the matter and then actioned the change without waiting for a response, let alone a consensus. The moment a discussion on the matter is started, articles should sit at the existing location until the matter is concluded.		:It's considered wrong because you opened up a discussion on the matter and then actioned the change without waiting for a response, let alone a consensus. The moment a discussion on the matter is started, articles should sit at the existing location until the matter is concluded.

	:You also neglected to explain the reasons for your revert in the revert log itself. Such is only acceptable when handling vandalism or moving a large number of articles en masse (in which case a bot should probably be used). --'''''[[User:Jasca Ducato\|Jasca Ducato]]''''' <small>([[User talk:Jasca Ducato\|talk]] \| [[Special:Contributions/Jasca Ducato\|contributions]])</small> 10:13, May 31, 2019 (UTC)		:You also neglected to explain the reasons for your revert in the revert log itself. Such is only acceptable when handling vandalism or moving a large number of articles en masse (in which case a bot should probably be used). --'''''[[User:Jasca Ducato\|Jasca Ducato]]''''' <small>([[User talk:Jasca Ducato\|talk]] \| [[Special:Contributions/Jasca Ducato\|contributions]])</small> 10:13, May 31, 2019 (UTC)
	::Noted. My contribution to the talk page was not an invitation for discussion, but a better place to put in the fact of the in-game name's existence: the reason for reversion. Something which would've ill-fitted on an edit summary, and also more easily lost in it. [[User:Sadelyrate\|Sadelyrate]] ([[~~w:c:assassinscreed:~~User talk:Sadelyrate\|siniath]]) 10:23, May 31, 2019 (UTC)		::Noted. My contribution to the talk page was not an invitation for discussion, but a better place to put in the fact of the in-game name's existence: the reason for reversion. Something which would've ill-fitted on an edit summary, and also more easily lost in it. [[User:Sadelyrate\|Sadelyrate]] ([[User talk:Sadelyrate\|siniath]]) 10:23, May 31, 2019 (UTC)
	:::It's called a "''talk'' page" for a reason. Any post made there is an invitation for discussion. --'''''[[User:Jasca Ducato\|Jasca Ducato]]''''' <small>([[User talk:Jasca Ducato\|talk]] \| [[Special:Contributions/Jasca Ducato\|contributions]])</small> 10:34, May 31, 2019 (UTC)		:::It's called a "''talk'' page" for a reason. Any post made there is an invitation for discussion. --'''''[[User:Jasca Ducato\|Jasca Ducato]]''''' <small>([[User talk:Jasca Ducato\|talk]] \| [[Special:Contributions/Jasca Ducato\|contributions]])</small> 10:34, May 31, 2019 (UTC)
	::::Nonetheless, given your earlier apparent disregard of my edit summary (Alpheios River), it seemed like a better idea to take it there, in addition to providing larger space. [[User:Sadelyrate\|Sadelyrate]] ([[~~w:c:assassinscreed:~~User talk:Sadelyrate\|siniath]]) 10:58, May 31, 2019 (UTC)		::::Nonetheless, given your earlier apparent disregard of my edit summary (Alpheios River), it seemed like a better idea to take it there, in addition to providing larger space. [[User:Sadelyrate\|Sadelyrate]] ([[User talk:Sadelyrate\|siniath]]) 10:58, May 31, 2019 (UTC)

	So I felt a bit awkward about explaining this hence why I did not do so right away, but actually, according to our naming convention, canonical names always take precedence over real-life names. So in this case, Sadel is actually correct. This is itself codified in the [[Assassin's Creed Wiki:Manual of Style#Naming_convention\|manual of style]], and we had reviewed it before together alongside a few other contributors to the wiki to reinforce that this was our consensus. As established around the release of ''Odyssey'' by convention regarding Ubisoft's addition of an extra ⟨s⟩ in possessives already ending in ⟨s⟩, is to deviate from the source's rendition of the name only in cases of correcting grammar or bringing it in line with our formatting styles. I was rather confused why you may be recalling it differently, Jasca, and I think it may perhaps be owing to this recent exception we've somewhat established.		So I felt a bit awkward about explaining this hence why I did not do so right away, but actually, according to our naming convention, canonical names always take precedence over real-life names. So in this case, Sadel is actually correct. This is itself codified in the [[Assassin's Creed Wiki:Manual of Style#Naming_convention\|manual of style]], and we had reviewed it before together alongside a few other contributors to the wiki to reinforce that this was our consensus. As established around the release of ''Odyssey'' by convention regarding Ubisoft's addition of an extra ⟨s⟩ in possessives already ending in ⟨s⟩, is to deviate from the source's rendition of the name only in cases of correcting grammar or bringing it in line with our formatting styles. I was rather confused why you may be recalling it differently, Jasca, and I think it may perhaps be owing to this recent exception we've somewhat established.

imported>Sol Pacificus: /* Final resolution */ new section

2020-08-26T05:25:39Z

Final resolution: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:25, 26 August 2020
Line 206:		Line 206:

	Format isn't format if it is never kept stable, and I had wanted to tell you that you are a good writer and that I think you could have been of so much more help to the wiki if at some point you had just sat down and started writing and improving the articles we needed writing and improving. At a certain point, all these shifting changes to format don't make a difference if we don't have more people actually writing the articles. This had always really always meant to be a point of pure constructive criticism, but the one and only time I tried to inform you of this, you, as usual, took offence and lashed out. Since I am not sure should we speak again, I thought I might finally disclose this perspective of mine. [[User:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#990000;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:17px">'''Sol Pacificus'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#D4AF37;font-family:Californian FB;font-size:11px">(Cyfiero)</span>]]</sup> 16:52, August 22, 2019 (UTC)		Format isn't format if it is never kept stable, and I had wanted to tell you that you are a good writer and that I think you could have been of so much more help to the wiki if at some point you had just sat down and started writing and improving the articles we needed writing and improving. At a certain point, all these shifting changes to format don't make a difference if we don't have more people actually writing the articles. This had always really always meant to be a point of pure constructive criticism, but the one and only time I tried to inform you of this, you, as usual, took offence and lashed out. Since I am not sure should we speak again, I thought I might finally disclose this perspective of mine. [[User:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#990000;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:17px">'''Sol Pacificus'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#D4AF37;font-family:Californian FB;font-size:11px">(Cyfiero)</span>]]</sup> 16:52, August 22, 2019 (UTC)

			== Final resolution ==

			{{Blocked}}
			After extensive deliberations lasting almost a year, the ''Assassin's Creed'' Wiki team has voted for your permanent ban, effective immediately. We consider this to be a final resolution to the incident from last year, itself the culmination of countless offences over your many years as an editor here.

			We don't owe you an explanation, but for the sake of transparency, there were some reservations among us whether it would be unfair to extend the previous three-month ban into a permanent ban for the same incident, or whether that three-month ban was really just a desperately needed stoppage to your disruptive activities until we reached a final verdict. One of our moderators even noted that they thought you should have been permanently banned on that last incident but that a three-month ban was effectively the penalty that had already been handed down, and it would be retroactive to extend it.

			However, other moderators were firm that you had received far too many chances in the past, far in excess to most other users who have been banned or received warnings for less disruption. They agreed that this was unjust, and I have emphasized that moderators should be held to higher standards, not lower. I, for one, also had to point out that not once have you shown the slightest contrition nor apologized on any account, nor recognized how much leniency and extra chances you were always given, and that on the contrary, such leniency only enabled your incessant violations (and even open rejection) of community guidelines on civil conduct.

			As a result, we did hold a vote on the matter, in which 3 members of the team voted to permanently ban you should you commit any other offence again (effectively one more chance), and 4 members of the team voted for an immediate permanent ban with no conditions because they felt even another chance would be too generous. There were no abstentions aside from two normally inactive staff, and no arguments in your defence.

			We have had a much healthier, growing, and more positive community since your previous ban, and while this sounds harsh, we simply cannot welcome you back. Even your promotion as a moderator had been conditional on you having corrected your attitude problems that had led to your first ban, and yet after at least a year or two where you seemed to have reformed, leading to our hopeful promotion of you, those behavioural issues resurfaced and continued to escalate. Since once more, you have never displayed any modicum of self-reflection or aspirations to reform, we cannot take any further risks. You are hereby permanently banned from the ''Assassin's Creed'' Wiki. [[User:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#990000;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:17px">'''Sol Pacificus'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#D4AF37;font-family:Californian FB;font-size:11px">(Cyfiero)</span>]]</sup> 05:25, August 26, 2020 (UTC)

imported>Sol Pacificus: /* Warning */

2019-08-22T17:38:58Z

Warning

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:38, 22 August 2019
Line 183:		Line 183:

	:I'm out. --'''''[[User:Jasca Ducato\|Jasca Ducato]]''''' <small>([[User talk:Jasca Ducato\|talk]] \| [[Special:Contributions/Jasca Ducato\|contributions]])</small> 09:14, August 22, 2019 (UTC)		:I'm out. --'''''[[User:Jasca Ducato\|Jasca Ducato]]''''' <small>([[User talk:Jasca Ducato\|talk]] \| [[Special:Contributions/Jasca Ducato\|contributions]])</small> 09:14, August 22, 2019 (UTC)

	{{Blocked}}		{{Blocked}}
	::Jasca, your response here continues to reinforce the problem that you consistently and indignantly refuse to acknowledge points that have been kindly laid out to you. I explained to you about why the poll was so problematic very clearly, both to you directly and once again in the [https://assassinscreed.fandom.com/wiki/Thread:233110 announcement]. You can refer to it since I should not have to repeat my explanation, among of which include that the conflicting behaviour of multiple users in regards to implementing results is evidence of confusion to the matter (which you continue to deny), the fact that your multiple adjustments of your own interpretation of the poll indicates lack of clarity even on your part, and finally that your final adjustment to your interpretation does not even resolve the ''fl.'' issue anyways.		::Jasca, your response here continues to reinforce the problem that you consistently and indignantly refuse to acknowledge points that have been kindly laid out to you. I explained to you about why the poll was so problematic very clearly, both to you directly and once again in the [https://assassinscreed.fandom.com/wiki/Thread:233110 announcement]. You can refer to it since I should not have to repeat my explanation, among of which include that the conflicting behaviour of multiple users in regards to implementing results is evidence of confusion to the matter (which you continue to deny), the fact that your multiple adjustments of your own interpretation of the poll indicates lack of clarity even on your part, and finally that your final adjustment to your interpretation does not even resolve the ''fl.'' issue anyways.

	::~~As it is,~~ I only consulted with other administrators, who agreed with my decision to void the poll, because there was no other recourse given your inability to address and reply to my innocuous explanations as to why it was problematic. There was nothing unilateral about the voiding of that poll.		::I only consulted with other administrators, who agreed with my decision to void the poll, because there was no other recourse given your inability to address and reply to my innocuous explanations as to why it was problematic. There was nothing unilateral about the voiding of that poll. The fact that you have never addressed these points made to you and my own explanation to you that even I supported your proposal when the poll was conducted so it does not stand to reason to accuse me of mere dissatisfaction with the results demonstrates your persistent inability to acknowledge legitimate arguments that run counter to your desires.

	::The fact that you have never addressed these points made to you and my own explanation to you that even ''I'' supported your proposal when the poll was conducted so it does not stand to reason to accuse me of mere dissatisfaction with the results demonstrates your persistent inability to acknowledge legitimate arguments that run counter to your desires.

	::In regards to ''Assassin's Creed'' Wiki not being Wikipedia, the point here is that guidelines on civility is universal for any healthy environment and community. While you might argue that formatting policies of Wikipedia do not apply to ''Assassin's Creed'' Wiki, you should not be using this same argument to excuse guidelines for civil discourse. That you received a warning and are now receiving a ban is not because you didn't abide by Wikipedia's guidelines so much as that you cannot respect civil discourse, period.		::In regards to ''Assassin's Creed'' Wiki not being Wikipedia, the point here is that guidelines on civility is universal for any healthy environment and community. While you might argue that formatting policies of Wikipedia do not apply to ''Assassin's Creed'' Wiki, you should not be using this same argument to excuse guidelines for civil discourse. That you received a warning and are now receiving a ban is not because you didn't abide by Wikipedia's guidelines so much as that you cannot respect civil discourse, period.
Line 194:		Line 193:
	::When you disagreed with my compromise to you, the proper response is to offer a counter-compromise, not what you did instead, the errors of which I need not repeat.		::When you disagreed with my compromise to you, the proper response is to offer a counter-compromise, not what you did instead, the errors of which I need not repeat.

	::~~No, I did not see this as a personal attack on me in any way, though I'm sure you would not be convinced no matter what.~~ Even if I had felt personally attacked, and I did not, this would not change the fact that it is wrong to unilaterally force new changes onto a policy page which have not received the consent of others. ~~As it is, my~~ philosophy is that I am very strict with respect to proper procedures of enacting changes and respect to the consent of fellow users; that these are not codified, as you have argued once before, should not be used to excuse failing to abide by these principles.		::Even if I had felt personally attacked, and I did not, this would not change the fact that it is wrong to unilaterally force new changes onto a policy page which have not received the consent of others. My philosophy is that I am very strict with respect to proper procedures of enacting changes and respect to the consent of fellow users; that these are not codified, as you have argued once before, should not be used to excuse failing to abide by these principles.

	::~~I do not see this wiki as my "personal demesne";~~ I welcome the input of every user and constructive debate. The problem with you specifically is that every time I give a counter-perspective, you take offence to it and in the worst cases, as illustrated even now, ignore all the reasoned points I have made, jump to your presumptions of ulterior motives, and then move to attacks on your opponent's character. As an administrator myself, it ''is'' actually my duty to "teach", i.e. remind, you to act properly and enforce our principles and guidelines.		::I welcome the input of every user and constructive debate. The problem with you specifically is that every time I give a counter-perspective, you take offence to it and in the worst cases, as illustrated even now, ignore all the reasoned points I have made, jump to your presumptions of ulterior motives, and then move to attacks on your opponent's character. As an administrator myself, it is actually my duty to "teach", i.e. remind, you to act properly and enforce our principles and guidelines.

	::As it is now, it is always the same with you no matter how much time has passed. You have far too much ego for self-reflection, so I will leave you with this quote the first time you were blocked because after all this time, it still applies perfectly.		::As it is now, it is always the same with you no matter how much time has passed. You have far too much ego for self-reflection, so I will leave you with this quote the first time you were blocked because after all this time, it still applies perfectly.
	{{Quote\|For your stubborn refusal to act as a peer instead of a superior, your childish refusal to abide by certain rules and make votes over decisions that affect the entire wiki, your continuous rudeness and unfriendliness to both regular editors and staff members, I am issuing a three-month-block from the wiki. We have had an avalanche of complaints about you, and have given you new chances often enough.\|Nesty}} [[User:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#990000;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:17px">'''Sol Pacificus'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#D4AF37;font-family:Californian FB;font-size:11px">(Cyfiero)</span>]]</sup> 16:52, August 22, 2019 (UTC)
			{{Quote\|For your stubborn refusal to act as a peer instead of a superior, your childish refusal to abide by certain rules and make votes over decisions that affect the entire wiki, your continuous rudeness and unfriendliness to both regular editors and staff members, I am issuing a three-month-block from the wiki. We have had an avalanche of complaints about you, and have given you new chances often enough.\|Nesty}}
			[[User:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#990000;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:17px">'''Sol Pacificus'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#D4AF37;font-family:Californian FB;font-size:11px">(Cyfiero)</span>]]</sup> 16:52, August 22, 2019 (UTC)

	==Post-script==		==Post-script==

imported>Sol Pacificus: /* Warning */

2019-08-22T16:52:51Z

Warning

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:52, 22 August 2019
Line 144:		Line 144:
	:Lead quotes on articles should succinctly describe the ''character'' of an individual and can be from either the article subject individual or another individual. Most of the Cultists have their "unveiling" quotes on their articles because we have very little dialogue from or about them otherwise available, but Kleon is an exception in that we have a fair amount of quotable dialogue that better describes him. The other names you've provided–Pausanias and Aspasia–should also have different quotes at the top of their articles. --'''''[[User:Jasca Ducato\|Jasca Ducato]]''''' <small>([[User talk:Jasca Ducato\|talk]] \| [[Special:Contributions/Jasca Ducato\|contributions]])</small> 08:08, July 5, 2019 (UTC)		:Lead quotes on articles should succinctly describe the ''character'' of an individual and can be from either the article subject individual or another individual. Most of the Cultists have their "unveiling" quotes on their articles because we have very little dialogue from or about them otherwise available, but Kleon is an exception in that we have a fair amount of quotable dialogue that better describes him. The other names you've provided–Pausanias and Aspasia–should also have different quotes at the top of their articles. --'''''[[User:Jasca Ducato\|Jasca Ducato]]''''' <small>([[User talk:Jasca Ducato\|talk]] \| [[Special:Contributions/Jasca Ducato\|contributions]])</small> 08:08, July 5, 2019 (UTC)
	::To be honest, I didn't see any issue with that quote. An argument might be made that there are better quotes to use, but the quote itself was not inappropriate because it does speak to Kleon's character: he boasts of his bloodthirsty drive for power. [[User:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#990000;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:17px">'''Sol Pacificus'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#D4AF37;font-family:Californian FB;font-size:11px">(Cyfiero)</span>]]</sup> 10:21, July 7, 2019 (UTC)		::To be honest, I didn't see any issue with that quote. An argument might be made that there are better quotes to use, but the quote itself was not inappropriate because it does speak to Kleon's character: he boasts of his bloodthirsty drive for power. [[User:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#990000;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:17px">'''Sol Pacificus'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#D4AF37;font-family:Californian FB;font-size:11px">(Cyfiero)</span>]]</sup> 10:21, July 7, 2019 (UTC)


	== Warning ==		== Warning ==
	{{Warn3}}		{{Warn3}}Although I have already explained your error to you on Discord, I realized that there should be an official message to you here on the wiki.
	Although I have already explained your error to you on Discord, I realized that there should be an official message to you here on the wiki.

	First, I will start by reiterating why your conduct in this scenario was in error. You drafted changes to a policy page and presented it to the rest of the staff for review. I praised it and your hard work and disagreed with precisely one point. I admit that I am ashamed that I lacked the discipline to stop myself from being dragged into yet another debate with you on the matter, but at the end of the day, I offered a compromise to you that would still address your issue, even if not the way you wanted. By offering you that compromise, I was demonstrating respect for your concerns. This is how decision-making is done here at ''Assassin's Creed'' Wiki. When there is a clear impasse, both parties need to be willing to concede to a moderate ground and work out a compromise. If you are not going to be receptive to disagreement, then what was the purpose of asking for your draft to be reviewed in the first place?		First, I will start by reiterating why your conduct in this scenario was in error. You drafted changes to a policy page and presented it to the rest of the staff for review. I praised it and your hard work and disagreed with precisely one point. I admit that I am ashamed that I lacked the discipline to stop myself from being dragged into yet another debate with you on the matter, but at the end of the day, I offered a compromise to you that would still address your issue, even if not the way you wanted. By offering you that compromise, I was demonstrating respect for your concerns. This is how decision-making is done here at ''Assassin's Creed'' Wiki. When there is a clear impasse, both parties need to be willing to concede to a moderate ground and work out a compromise. If you are not going to be receptive to disagreement, then what was the purpose of asking for your draft to be reviewed in the first place?
Line 172:		Line 172:
	In hindsight, perhaps I should have kept this brief, but it is my way to give thorough explanations in the hopes that you may better understand what it is that one has done wrong and that it is not misplaced. Being a moderator does not exempt you from standards of civility and respect. If anything, it means that you are held to higher standards of behaviour. I don't think you have been recognizing or appreciating how much leniency we have been affording you in light of your innumerable infractions. Even now, I am observing leniency in not accompanying this warning with at least a 1 week ban. However, should any of the above listed behaviour or the like manifest yet again, I will be giving you at least a three-month ban. [[User:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#990000;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:17px">'''Sol Pacificus'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#D4AF37;font-family:Californian FB;font-size:11px">(Cyfiero)</span>]]</sup> 05:59, August 18, 2019 (UTC)		In hindsight, perhaps I should have kept this brief, but it is my way to give thorough explanations in the hopes that you may better understand what it is that one has done wrong and that it is not misplaced. Being a moderator does not exempt you from standards of civility and respect. If anything, it means that you are held to higher standards of behaviour. I don't think you have been recognizing or appreciating how much leniency we have been affording you in light of your innumerable infractions. Even now, I am observing leniency in not accompanying this warning with at least a 1 week ban. However, should any of the above listed behaviour or the like manifest yet again, I will be giving you at least a three-month ban. [[User:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#990000;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:17px">'''Sol Pacificus'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#D4AF37;font-family:Californian FB;font-size:11px">(Cyfiero)</span>]]</sup> 05:59, August 18, 2019 (UTC)

	:You've got some nerve accusing me of "incessantly trying to obstruct motions to redo that poll (RE Use of ''floruit'') and thereby perpetuating the problems it only deepened" when you were the user who refused to accept the outcome of the initial poll and unilaterally decided the whole result was void because the outcome didn't match your personal desire. Even then, I attempted to reach a personal compromise with you on Discord when we discussed the apparent problem and agreed to include the term "fl." in our infoboxes. You agreed to this compromise only to later go behind mine and everybody else's back to an administrator and ask to have the whole result voided with the promise of conducting a second vote – something you have not yet done, I might add. It's pretty hard to assume any good faith in your actions after that.		:You've got some nerve accusing me of "incessantly trying to obstruct motions to redo that poll (RE Use of ''floruit'') and thereby perpetuating the problems it only deepened" when you were the user who refused to accept the outcome of the initial poll and unilaterally decided the whole result was void because the outcome didn't match your personal desire. Even then, I attempted to reach a personal compromise with you on Discord when we discussed the apparent problem and agreed to include the term "fl." in our infoboxes. You agreed to this compromise only to later go behind mine and everybody else's back to an administrator and ask to have the whole result voided with the promise of conducting a second vote – something you have not yet done, I might add. It's pretty hard to assume any good faith in your actions after that.

	:(At this stage, I would also like to point out that you still have not created a second poll on the issue, and instead are simply reverting any changes that attempt to enforce the agreed consensus of the first.)		:(At this stage, I would also like to point out that you still have not created a second poll on the issue, and instead are simply reverting any changes that attempt to enforce the agreed consensus of the first.)

	:Speaking of assuming good faith, something you fundamentally appear to misunderstand is the relationship between the AC Wiki and Wikipedia, or lack thereof. To make it clear to you: the AC Wiki is ''not'' a part of Wikipedia and so Wikipedia policies do not apply on this website. Zealously citing their policies and admonishing me for not following it in a few select instances is thus a pointless endeavour. You cannot issue a warning or ban for failing to following the policy of a completely unrelated website and any attempt to do so would be invalid.		:Speaking of assuming good faith, something you fundamentally appear to misunderstand is the relationship between the AC Wiki and Wikipedia, or lack thereof. To make it clear to you: the AC Wiki is ''not'' a part of Wikipedia and so Wikipedia policies do not apply on this website. Zealously citing their policies and admonishing me for not following it in a few select instances is thus a pointless endeavour. You cannot issue a warning or ban for failing to following the policy of a completely unrelated website and any attempt to do so would be invalid.

	:Finally, with regards to the Sourcing policy update: I made quite clear that the changes were made to reflect our existing and accepted practices and whilst I did ask for members of the moderation team (which includes you) to review said changes, your only complaint was the flavour text point. Your "compromise" to our one disagreement on this particular matter was anything but–all it did was effectively remove the point entirely–and the very fact that you have issued this apparent warning as a result is evidence that you cannot accept dissenting opinion. When a user disagrees with you, personally, it's seen as an attack on your character or that the disagreeing user is being obstructive, or disingenuous, or abusive or whatever other term you might see fit to label them with.		:Finally, with regards to the Sourcing policy update: I made quite clear that the changes were made to reflect our existing and accepted practices and whilst I did ask for members of the moderation team (which includes you) to review said changes, your only complaint was the flavour text point. Your "compromise" to our one disagreement on this particular matter was anything but–all it did was effectively remove the point entirely–and the very fact that you have issued this apparent warning as a result is evidence that you cannot accept dissenting opinion. When a user disagrees with you, personally, it's seen as an attack on your character or that the disagreeing user is being obstructive, or disingenuous, or abusive or whatever other term you might see fit to label them with.
Line 183:		Line 183:

	:I'm out. --'''''[[User:Jasca Ducato\|Jasca Ducato]]''''' <small>([[User talk:Jasca Ducato\|talk]] \| [[Special:Contributions/Jasca Ducato\|contributions]])</small> 09:14, August 22, 2019 (UTC)		:I'm out. --'''''[[User:Jasca Ducato\|Jasca Ducato]]''''' <small>([[User talk:Jasca Ducato\|talk]] \| [[Special:Contributions/Jasca Ducato\|contributions]])</small> 09:14, August 22, 2019 (UTC)
			{{Blocked}}
			::Jasca, your response here continues to reinforce the problem that you consistently and indignantly refuse to acknowledge points that have been kindly laid out to you. I explained to you about why the poll was so problematic very clearly, both to you directly and once again in the [https://assassinscreed.fandom.com/wiki/Thread:233110 announcement]. You can refer to it since I should not have to repeat my explanation, among of which include that the conflicting behaviour of multiple users in regards to implementing results is evidence of confusion to the matter (which you continue to deny), the fact that your multiple adjustments of your own interpretation of the poll indicates lack of clarity even on your part, and finally that your final adjustment to your interpretation does not even resolve the ''fl.'' issue anyways.

			::As it is, I only consulted with other administrators, who agreed with my decision to void the poll, because there was no other recourse given your inability to address and reply to my innocuous explanations as to why it was problematic. There was nothing unilateral about the voiding of that poll.

			::The fact that you have never addressed these points made to you and my own explanation to you that even ''I'' supported your proposal when the poll was conducted so it does not stand to reason to accuse me of mere dissatisfaction with the results demonstrates your persistent inability to acknowledge legitimate arguments that run counter to your desires.

			::In regards to ''Assassin's Creed'' Wiki not being Wikipedia, the point here is that guidelines on civility is universal for any healthy environment and community. While you might argue that formatting policies of Wikipedia do not apply to ''Assassin's Creed'' Wiki, you should not be using this same argument to excuse guidelines for civil discourse. That you received a warning and are now receiving a ban is not because you didn't abide by Wikipedia's guidelines so much as that you cannot respect civil discourse, period.

			::When you disagreed with my compromise to you, the proper response is to offer a counter-compromise, not what you did instead, the errors of which I need not repeat.

			::No, I did not see this as a personal attack on me in any way, though I'm sure you would not be convinced no matter what. Even if I had felt personally attacked, and I did not, this would not change the fact that it is wrong to unilaterally force new changes onto a policy page which have not received the consent of others. As it is, my philosophy is that I am very strict with respect to proper procedures of enacting changes and respect to the consent of fellow users; that these are not codified, as you have argued once before, should not be used to excuse failing to abide by these principles.

			::I do not see this wiki as my "personal demesne"; I welcome the input of every user and constructive debate. The problem with you specifically is that every time I give a counter-perspective, you take offence to it and in the worst cases, as illustrated even now, ignore all the reasoned points I have made, jump to your presumptions of ulterior motives, and then move to attacks on your opponent's character. As an administrator myself, it ''is'' actually my duty to "teach", i.e. remind, you to act properly and enforce our principles and guidelines.

			::As it is now, it is always the same with you no matter how much time has passed. You have far too much ego for self-reflection, so I will leave you with this quote the first time you were blocked because after all this time, it still applies perfectly.
			{{Quote\|For your stubborn refusal to act as a peer instead of a superior, your childish refusal to abide by certain rules and make votes over decisions that affect the entire wiki, your continuous rudeness and unfriendliness to both regular editors and staff members, I am issuing a three-month-block from the wiki. We have had an avalanche of complaints about you, and have given you new chances often enough.\|Nesty}} [[User:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#990000;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:17px">'''Sol Pacificus'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#D4AF37;font-family:Californian FB;font-size:11px">(Cyfiero)</span>]]</sup> 16:52, August 22, 2019 (UTC)

			==Post-script==
			I had always wanted to explain to you that, while I appreciate your zeal in trying to improve the wiki, I actually am of the opinion that many of your proposed formatting changes simply did not offer clear benefits nor were being proposed in response to pressing issues. On the contrary, I actually came to think that you were suggesting so many formatting and policy changes which at times even seemed to convolute or create new complications, that at a certain point, it was becoming disruptive in and of itself. Hence, my disasgreements with you weren't always just "academic norms over practicality", but in many cases, I personally did not think your proposed changes were practical either. (For example, I eventually came around to believing that keeping "unknown" for date ranges is fine, but I still think that your active field in infoboxes is too ambiguous in meaning to be practical).

			Format isn't format if it is never kept stable, and I had wanted to tell you that you are a good writer and that I think you could have been of so much more help to the wiki if at some point you had just sat down and started writing and improving the articles we needed writing and improving. At a certain point, all these shifting changes to format don't make a difference if we don't have more people actually writing the articles. This had always really always meant to be a point of pure constructive criticism, but the one and only time I tried to inform you of this, you, as usual, took offence and lashed out. Since I am not sure should we speak again, I thought I might finally disclose this perspective of mine. [[User:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#990000;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:17px">'''Sol Pacificus'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#D4AF37;font-family:Californian FB;font-size:11px">(Cyfiero)</span>]]</sup> 16:52, August 22, 2019 (UTC)

imported>Jasca Ducato: /* Warning */ Don't make me laugh.

2019-08-22T09:14:12Z

Warning: Don't make me laugh.

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:14, 22 August 2019
Line 171:		Line 171:

	In hindsight, perhaps I should have kept this brief, but it is my way to give thorough explanations in the hopes that you may better understand what it is that one has done wrong and that it is not misplaced. Being a moderator does not exempt you from standards of civility and respect. If anything, it means that you are held to higher standards of behaviour. I don't think you have been recognizing or appreciating how much leniency we have been affording you in light of your innumerable infractions. Even now, I am observing leniency in not accompanying this warning with at least a 1 week ban. However, should any of the above listed behaviour or the like manifest yet again, I will be giving you at least a three-month ban. [[User:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#990000;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:17px">'''Sol Pacificus'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#D4AF37;font-family:Californian FB;font-size:11px">(Cyfiero)</span>]]</sup> 05:59, August 18, 2019 (UTC)		In hindsight, perhaps I should have kept this brief, but it is my way to give thorough explanations in the hopes that you may better understand what it is that one has done wrong and that it is not misplaced. Being a moderator does not exempt you from standards of civility and respect. If anything, it means that you are held to higher standards of behaviour. I don't think you have been recognizing or appreciating how much leniency we have been affording you in light of your innumerable infractions. Even now, I am observing leniency in not accompanying this warning with at least a 1 week ban. However, should any of the above listed behaviour or the like manifest yet again, I will be giving you at least a three-month ban. [[User:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#990000;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:17px">'''Sol Pacificus'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#D4AF37;font-family:Californian FB;font-size:11px">(Cyfiero)</span>]]</sup> 05:59, August 18, 2019 (UTC)

			:You've got some nerve accusing me of "incessantly trying to obstruct motions to redo that poll (RE Use of ''floruit'') and thereby perpetuating the problems it only deepened" when you were the user who refused to accept the outcome of the initial poll and unilaterally decided the whole result was void because the outcome didn't match your personal desire. Even then, I attempted to reach a personal compromise with you on Discord when we discussed the apparent problem and agreed to include the term "fl." in our infoboxes. You agreed to this compromise only to later go behind mine and everybody else's back to an administrator and ask to have the whole result voided with the promise of conducting a second vote – something you have not yet done, I might add. It's pretty hard to assume any good faith in your actions after that.

			:(At this stage, I would also like to point out that you still have not created a second poll on the issue, and instead are simply reverting any changes that attempt to enforce the agreed consensus of the first.)

			:Speaking of assuming good faith, something you fundamentally appear to misunderstand is the relationship between the AC Wiki and Wikipedia, or lack thereof. To make it clear to you: the AC Wiki is ''not'' a part of Wikipedia and so Wikipedia policies do not apply on this website. Zealously citing their policies and admonishing me for not following it in a few select instances is thus a pointless endeavour. You cannot issue a warning or ban for failing to following the policy of a completely unrelated website and any attempt to do so would be invalid.

			:Finally, with regards to the Sourcing policy update: I made quite clear that the changes were made to reflect our existing and accepted practices and whilst I did ask for members of the moderation team (which includes you) to review said changes, your only complaint was the flavour text point. Your "compromise" to our one disagreement on this particular matter was anything but–all it did was effectively remove the point entirely–and the very fact that you have issued this apparent warning as a result is evidence that you cannot accept dissenting opinion. When a user disagrees with you, personally, it's seen as an attack on your character or that the disagreeing user is being obstructive, or disingenuous, or abusive or whatever other term you might see fit to label them with.

			:Simply put, you seem to view the Wiki as your own personal demesne and I'm sick of it. You keep trying to "correct" me and, in some instances even "teach" me how to act ''properly''… even if I needed to be taught anything, you are the last person I would go to for that. Your constants attempts to enforce your own will, which is admittedly guided to accepted academic norms, over practicality (e.g. the proper use of ''floruit'' which only serves to confuse layman readers) is tiring to say the least, as is your feigned innocence in all matters of disagreement.

			:I'm out. --'''''[[User:Jasca Ducato\|Jasca Ducato]]''''' <small>([[User talk:Jasca Ducato\|talk]] \| [[Special:Contributions/Jasca Ducato\|contributions]])</small> 09:14, August 22, 2019 (UTC)

imported>Sol Pacificus: /* Warning */ Changing warning level. Seems that the first 2 is not supposed to indicate a ban is forthcoming the next time & sound too light.

2019-08-18T23:22:13Z

Warning: Changing warning level. Seems that the first 2 is not supposed to indicate a ban is forthcoming the next time & sound too light.

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:22, 19 August 2019
Line 146:		Line 146:

	== Warning ==		== Warning ==
	{{~~Warn1~~}}		{{Warn3}}
	Although I have already explained your error to you on Discord, I realized that there should be an official message to you here on the wiki.		Although I have already explained your error to you on Discord, I realized that there should be an official message to you here on the wiki.

imported>Sol Pacificus: /* Warning */

2019-08-18T06:00:18Z

Warning

imported>Sol Pacificus: /* Warning */ new section

2019-08-18T05:59:03Z

Warning: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:59, 18 August 2019
Line 144:		Line 144:
	:Lead quotes on articles should succinctly describe the ''character'' of an individual and can be from either the article subject individual or another individual. Most of the Cultists have their "unveiling" quotes on their articles because we have very little dialogue from or about them otherwise available, but Kleon is an exception in that we have a fair amount of quotable dialogue that better describes him. The other names you've provided–Pausanias and Aspasia–should also have different quotes at the top of their articles. --'''''[[User:Jasca Ducato\|Jasca Ducato]]''''' <small>([[User talk:Jasca Ducato\|talk]] \| [[Special:Contributions/Jasca Ducato\|contributions]])</small> 08:08, July 5, 2019 (UTC)		:Lead quotes on articles should succinctly describe the ''character'' of an individual and can be from either the article subject individual or another individual. Most of the Cultists have their "unveiling" quotes on their articles because we have very little dialogue from or about them otherwise available, but Kleon is an exception in that we have a fair amount of quotable dialogue that better describes him. The other names you've provided–Pausanias and Aspasia–should also have different quotes at the top of their articles. --'''''[[User:Jasca Ducato\|Jasca Ducato]]''''' <small>([[User talk:Jasca Ducato\|talk]] \| [[Special:Contributions/Jasca Ducato\|contributions]])</small> 08:08, July 5, 2019 (UTC)
	::To be honest, I didn't see any issue with that quote. An argument might be made that there are better quotes to use, but the quote itself was not inappropriate because it does speak to Kleon's character: he boasts of his bloodthirsty drive for power. [[User:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#990000;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:17px">'''Sol Pacificus'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#D4AF37;font-family:Californian FB;font-size:11px">(Cyfiero)</span>]]</sup> 10:21, July 7, 2019 (UTC)		::To be honest, I didn't see any issue with that quote. An argument might be made that there are better quotes to use, but the quote itself was not inappropriate because it does speak to Kleon's character: he boasts of his bloodthirsty drive for power. [[User:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#990000;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:17px">'''Sol Pacificus'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#D4AF37;font-family:Californian FB;font-size:11px">(Cyfiero)</span>]]</sup> 10:21, July 7, 2019 (UTC)

			== Warning ==

			{{Warn1}}
			Although I have already explained your error to you on Discord, I realized that I should leave a more official message to you here on the wiki.

			First, I will start by reiterating why your conduct in this scenario was in error. You drafted changes to a policy page and presented it to the rest of the staff for review. I praised it and your hard work and disagreed with precisely one point. I admit that I am ashamed that I lacked the discipline to stop myself from being dragged into yet another debate with you on the matter, but at the end of the day, I offered a compromise to you that would still address your issue, even if not the way you wanted. By offering you that compromise, I was demonstrating respect for your concerns. This is how decision-making is done here at ''Assassin's Creed'' Wiki. When there is a clear impasse, both parties need to be willing to concede to a moderate ground and work out a compromise. If you are not going to be receptive to disagreement, then what was the purpose of asking for your draft to be reviewed in the first place?

			Instead of accepting this compromise, presenting a new proposal, or furthering the discussion, you then attempted to unilaterally force your sweeping formatting changes that had received no expressed support from anyone else onto the policy page, an action that most definitely violates our guidelines. When I decided to review the policy page myself, updating it as necessary, I undid your preemptive changes as is my responsibility to enforce the proper procedures of cooperative decision-making. I also, however, refrained from implementing any new changes to the policy, only codifying current conventions, and refused to even include my own suggestion to respect the fact that you disagreed with it.

			Your response was to try to force your change back then charge my reversion as an "unauthorized change" before asking that I take it to the talk page. It would be sugarcoating not to characterize this as anything but hypocritical—and I do not say this lightly—because you were the one to force an unauthorized change in the first place, and I was only rectifying that. Moreover, telling the other party to then take it to the talk page instead, as though in the interest of negotiation, only after you have rejected discussion and forced your way twice, and only when your forced change is the current version on the page, comes across as disingenuous.

			This is not the first time that you have tried to unilaterally force policy changes in the face of opposition, whether by just a single individual or by multiple people. This is also by far not your first transgression and your many instances of inappropriate conduct since you became a moderator, when we had put faith in you that you had reformed your old ways, has not gone unnoticed.

			From flaming other users on Reddit as a representative of our wiki...<br>
			Then refusing to acknowledge that it was wrong under the justification that the people you flamed 'deserved' it...<br>
			to telling off a confused new editor for not being present for a formatting change enacted on Discord...<br>
			to constantly refusing to practice {{wiki\|Help:Assume Good Faith\|assuming good faith}} under the justification that "we are not Wikipedia [so we don't have to abide by their standards of civility]"...<br>
			to immediately accusing me yet again of selfish, ulterior motives for pointing out real problems with a poll conducted right after I had asked you to assume good faith...<br>
			to incessantly trying to obstruct motions to redo that poll and thereby perpetuating the problems it only deepened...<br>
			to engaging in edit warring numerous times then asking for the other party to receive a warning for it while refusing to acknowledge your own complicity in the exact same behaviour...<br>
			to constantly telling other users to take edit disputes to a talk page ''only after'' you have ensured that your edit is the current version on a page through multiple rounds of reversions...<br>
			to making no effort to correct mistakes that have been lightly asked of you to correct multiple times...<br>
			among of which includes abusing the "minor edit" checkbox, such that even reversions and massive changes to a policy page are labelled as such...<br>
			to publicly retorting that you don't "have to be told to respect anyone" after I asked that you respect procedures and guidelines...<br>
			And the list goes on and on...

			In hindsight, perhaps I should have kept this brief, but it is my way to give thorough explanations in the hopes that you may better understand what it is that one has done wrong and that it is not misplaced. Being a moderator does not exempt you from standards of civility and respect. If anything, it means that you are held to higher standards of behaviour. I don't think you have been recognizing or appreciating how much leniency we have been affording you in light of your innumerable infractions. Even now, I am observing leniency in not accompanying this warning with at least a 1 week ban. However, should any of the above listed behaviour or the like manifest yet again, I will be giving you at least a three-month ban. [[User:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#990000;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:17px">'''Sol Pacificus'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#D4AF37;font-family:Californian FB;font-size:11px">(Cyfiero)</span>]]</sup> 05:59, August 18, 2019 (UTC)

imported>Sol Pacificus: /* Kleon's quote */

2019-07-07T10:21:30Z

Kleon's quote

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:21, 7 July 2019
Line 143:		Line 143:
	It's my understanding that all of the Cultists have their "unveiling" quote on top of their pages. For Cultists who didn't have it, it was added later on, and even Pausanias and Aspasia have had theirs added. So why remove Kleon's? [[User:RShepard227\|RShepard227]] ([[User_talk:RShepard227\|talk]]) 02:40, July 5, 2019 (UTC)		It's my understanding that all of the Cultists have their "unveiling" quote on top of their pages. For Cultists who didn't have it, it was added later on, and even Pausanias and Aspasia have had theirs added. So why remove Kleon's? [[User:RShepard227\|RShepard227]] ([[User_talk:RShepard227\|talk]]) 02:40, July 5, 2019 (UTC)
	:Lead quotes on articles should succinctly describe the ''character'' of an individual and can be from either the article subject individual or another individual. Most of the Cultists have their "unveiling" quotes on their articles because we have very little dialogue from or about them otherwise available, but Kleon is an exception in that we have a fair amount of quotable dialogue that better describes him. The other names you've provided–Pausanias and Aspasia–should also have different quotes at the top of their articles. --'''''[[User:Jasca Ducato\|Jasca Ducato]]''''' <small>([[User talk:Jasca Ducato\|talk]] \| [[Special:Contributions/Jasca Ducato\|contributions]])</small> 08:08, July 5, 2019 (UTC)		:Lead quotes on articles should succinctly describe the ''character'' of an individual and can be from either the article subject individual or another individual. Most of the Cultists have their "unveiling" quotes on their articles because we have very little dialogue from or about them otherwise available, but Kleon is an exception in that we have a fair amount of quotable dialogue that better describes him. The other names you've provided–Pausanias and Aspasia–should also have different quotes at the top of their articles. --'''''[[User:Jasca Ducato\|Jasca Ducato]]''''' <small>([[User talk:Jasca Ducato\|talk]] \| [[Special:Contributions/Jasca Ducato\|contributions]])</small> 08:08, July 5, 2019 (UTC)
			::To be honest, I didn't see any issue with that quote. An argument might be made that there are better quotes to use, but the quote itself was not inappropriate because it does speak to Kleon's character: he boasts of his bloodthirsty drive for power. [[User:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#990000;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:17px">'''Sol Pacificus'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#D4AF37;font-family:Californian FB;font-size:11px">(Cyfiero)</span>]]</sup> 10:21, July 7, 2019 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:21, 7 July 2019
Line 143:		Line 143:
	It's my understanding that all of the Cultists have their "unveiling" quote on top of their pages. For Cultists who didn't have it, it was added later on, and even Pausanias and Aspasia have had theirs added. So why remove Kleon's? [[User:RShepard227\|RShepard227]] ([[User_talk:RShepard227\|talk]]) 02:40, July 5, 2019 (UTC)		It's my understanding that all of the Cultists have their "unveiling" quote on top of their pages. For Cultists who didn't have it, it was added later on, and even Pausanias and Aspasia have had theirs added. So why remove Kleon's? [[User:RShepard227\|RShepard227]] ([[User_talk:RShepard227\|talk]]) 02:40, July 5, 2019 (UTC)
	:Lead quotes on articles should succinctly describe the ''character'' of an individual and can be from either the article subject individual or another individual. Most of the Cultists have their "unveiling" quotes on their articles because we have very little dialogue from or about them otherwise available, but Kleon is an exception in that we have a fair amount of quotable dialogue that better describes him. The other names you've provided–Pausanias and Aspasia–should also have different quotes at the top of their articles. --'''''[[User:Jasca Ducato\|Jasca Ducato]]''''' <small>([[User talk:Jasca Ducato\|talk]] \| [[Special:Contributions/Jasca Ducato\|contributions]])</small> 08:08, July 5, 2019 (UTC)		:Lead quotes on articles should succinctly describe the ''character'' of an individual and can be from either the article subject individual or another individual. Most of the Cultists have their "unveiling" quotes on their articles because we have very little dialogue from or about them otherwise available, but Kleon is an exception in that we have a fair amount of quotable dialogue that better describes him. The other names you've provided–Pausanias and Aspasia–should also have different quotes at the top of their articles. --'''''[[User:Jasca Ducato\|Jasca Ducato]]''''' <small>([[User talk:Jasca Ducato\|talk]] \| [[Special:Contributions/Jasca Ducato\|contributions]])</small> 08:08, July 5, 2019 (UTC)
			::To be honest, I didn't see any issue with that quote. An argument might be made that there are better quotes to use, but the quote itself was not inappropriate because it does speak to Kleon's character: he boasts of his bloodthirsty drive for power. [[User:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#990000;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:17px">'''Sol Pacificus'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#D4AF37;font-family:Californian FB;font-size:11px">(Cyfiero)</span>]]</sup> 10:21, July 7, 2019 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:00, 18 August 2019
Line 146:		Line 146:

	== Warning ==		== Warning ==

	{{Warn1}}		{{Warn1}}
	Although I have already explained your error to you on Discord, I realized that I should ~~leave a more~~ official message to you here on the wiki.		Although I have already explained your error to you on Discord, I realized that there should be an official message to you here on the wiki.

	First, I will start by reiterating why your conduct in this scenario was in error. You drafted changes to a policy page and presented it to the rest of the staff for review. I praised it and your hard work and disagreed with precisely one point. I admit that I am ashamed that I lacked the discipline to stop myself from being dragged into yet another debate with you on the matter, but at the end of the day, I offered a compromise to you that would still address your issue, even if not the way you wanted. By offering you that compromise, I was demonstrating respect for your concerns. This is how decision-making is done here at ''Assassin's Creed'' Wiki. When there is a clear impasse, both parties need to be willing to concede to a moderate ground and work out a compromise. If you are not going to be receptive to disagreement, then what was the purpose of asking for your draft to be reviewed in the first place?		First, I will start by reiterating why your conduct in this scenario was in error. You drafted changes to a policy page and presented it to the rest of the staff for review. I praised it and your hard work and disagreed with precisely one point. I admit that I am ashamed that I lacked the discipline to stop myself from being dragged into yet another debate with you on the matter, but at the end of the day, I offered a compromise to you that would still address your issue, even if not the way you wanted. By offering you that compromise, I was demonstrating respect for your concerns. This is how decision-making is done here at ''Assassin's Creed'' Wiki. When there is a clear impasse, both parties need to be willing to concede to a moderate ground and work out a compromise. If you are not going to be receptive to disagreement, then what was the purpose of asking for your draft to be reviewed in the first place?
Line 158:		Line 157:
	This is not the first time that you have tried to unilaterally force policy changes in the face of opposition, whether by just a single individual or by multiple people. This is also by far not your first transgression and your many instances of inappropriate conduct since you became a moderator, when we had put faith in you that you had reformed your old ways, has not gone unnoticed.		This is not the first time that you have tried to unilaterally force policy changes in the face of opposition, whether by just a single individual or by multiple people. This is also by far not your first transgression and your many instances of inappropriate conduct since you became a moderator, when we had put faith in you that you had reformed your old ways, has not gone unnoticed.

	From flaming other users on Reddit as a representative of our wiki...<br>		From flaming other users on Reddit as a representative of our wiki...<br />
	Then refusing to acknowledge that it was wrong under the justification that the people you flamed 'deserved' it...<br>		Then refusing to acknowledge that it was wrong under the justification that the people you flamed 'deserved' it...<br />
	to telling off a confused new editor for not being present for a formatting change enacted on Discord...<br>		to telling off a confused new editor for not being present for a formatting change enacted on Discord...<br />
	to constantly refusing to practice {{wiki\|Help:Assume Good Faith\|assuming good faith}} under the justification that "we are not Wikipedia [so we don't have to abide by their standards of civility]"...<br>		to constantly refusing to practice {{wiki\|Help:Assume Good Faith\|assuming good faith}} under the justification that "we are not Wikipedia [so we don't have to abide by their standards of civility]"...<br />
	to immediately accusing me yet again of selfish, ulterior motives for pointing out real problems with a poll conducted right after I had asked you to assume good faith...<br>		to immediately accusing me yet again of selfish, ulterior motives for pointing out real problems with a poll conducted right after I had asked you to assume good faith...<br />
	to incessantly trying to obstruct motions to redo that poll and thereby perpetuating the problems it only deepened...<br>		to incessantly trying to obstruct motions to redo that poll and thereby perpetuating the problems it only deepened...<br />
	to engaging in edit warring numerous times then asking for the other party to receive a warning for it while refusing to acknowledge your own complicity in the exact same behaviour...<br>		to engaging in edit warring numerous times then asking for the other party to receive a warning for it while refusing to acknowledge your own complicity in the exact same behaviour...<br />
	to constantly telling other users to take edit disputes to a talk page ''only after'' you have ensured that your edit is the current version on a page through multiple rounds of reversions...<br>		to constantly telling other users to take edit disputes to a talk page ''only after'' you have ensured that your edit is the current version on a page through multiple rounds of reversions...<br />
	to making no effort to correct mistakes that have been lightly asked of you to correct multiple times...<br>		to making no effort to correct mistakes that have been lightly asked of you to correct multiple times...<br />
	among of which includes abusing the "minor edit" checkbox, such that even reversions and massive changes to a policy page are labelled as such...<br>		among of which includes abusing the "minor edit" checkbox, such that even reversions and massive changes to a policy page are labelled as such...<br />
	to publicly retorting that you don't "have to be told to respect anyone" after I asked that you respect procedures and guidelines...<br>		to publicly retorting that you don't "have to be told to respect anyone" after I asked that you respect procedures and guidelines...<br />
	And the list goes on and on...		And the list goes on and on...

	In hindsight, perhaps I should have kept this brief, but it is my way to give thorough explanations in the hopes that you may better understand what it is that one has done wrong and that it is not misplaced. Being a moderator does not exempt you from standards of civility and respect. If anything, it means that you are held to higher standards of behaviour. I don't think you have been recognizing or appreciating how much leniency we have been affording you in light of your innumerable infractions. Even now, I am observing leniency in not accompanying this warning with at least a 1 week ban. However, should any of the above listed behaviour or the like manifest yet again, I will be giving you at least a three-month ban. [[User:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#990000;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:17px">'''Sol Pacificus'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#D4AF37;font-family:Californian FB;font-size:11px">(Cyfiero)</span>]]</sup> 05:59, August 18, 2019 (UTC)		In hindsight, perhaps I should have kept this brief, but it is my way to give thorough explanations in the hopes that you may better understand what it is that one has done wrong and that it is not misplaced. Being a moderator does not exempt you from standards of civility and respect. If anything, it means that you are held to higher standards of behaviour. I don't think you have been recognizing or appreciating how much leniency we have been affording you in light of your innumerable infractions. Even now, I am observing leniency in not accompanying this warning with at least a 1 week ban. However, should any of the above listed behaviour or the like manifest yet again, I will be giving you at least a three-month ban. [[User:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#990000;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:17px">'''Sol Pacificus'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Sol Pacificus\|<span style="color:#D4AF37;font-family:Californian FB;font-size:11px">(Cyfiero)</span>]]</sup> 05:59, August 18, 2019 (UTC)