User talk:Jasca Ducato

Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3

Aya in ACII

Aya does appear as a statue in the Monteriggioni sanctum. She is called Amunet. Nostalgia of Iran (talk) 17:14, January 3, 2019 (UTC)

A statue of an individual does not constitute an appearance by the character. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 08:53, January 4, 2019 (UTC)

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.Sadelyrate (siniath) 18:01, January 18, 2019 (UTC)

Deleted article

Jasca Ducato did you mark Polykaste the Jilted for deletion again because Master Sima Yi deleted it again and it took me a while to figure out how to do the references right this time.  Frontierchris (talk) 20:53, January 20, 2019 (UTC)

I imagine Sima deleted it a second time because it was recreated without you explaining why to him beforehand. If you fixed the referencing then I would suggest asking him to reinstate the article for you; if you recreate it yourself then you are liable to receive a warning or temporary edit ban. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 09:52, January 21, 2019 (UTC)

When is Kassandra list of targets going to be added to the Assassination Target article?  Frontierchris (talk) 00:44, January 22, 2019 (UTC)

Timeline

Could you unlock the page so someone could add 2018 events? VendettaRev (talk) 00:12, January 13, 2019 (UTC)\

There's something I need to know concerning the references.  How do you add that arrow thing next to a reference?  I don't want to have to copy it.  Frontierchris (talk) 15:29, January 24, 2019 (UTC)

Please refer to the Sourcing policy for information on how to properly source information within an article. That way, if an arrow is required then it'll be added automatically. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 15:41, January 24, 2019 (UTC)

Hey! Timeline. Page. Unlock. VendettaRev (talk) 00:05, January 25, 2019 (UTC)

Hey! Tone. Change it. Now. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 09:40, January 25, 2019 (UTC)

I know that Klymene the Beautiful Justice is one of those mercenaries who randomly appear but she is one of the few who don't go by any other name.  I looked up the Beautiful Justice and no other name appeared, just Klymene.  This is why I made an article for her.  Will you please allow me to make a new one?  Frontierchris (talk) 18:57, January 27, 2019 (UTC)

Are you there Jasca?  Did you get my last message?Frontierchris (talk) 18:56, January 27, 2019 (UTC)

Would it be alright if I added a section of notable conflicts to the article on the Adrestia?  If I can, I need to know the names of the ships on which the sails the Labyrinth's Bow, the Summer Wine, and the Triskelion can be found, and the name of the ship captained by the cultist Sokos.  Do you know what their names are?  Frontierchris (talk) 16:12, February 1, 2019 (UTC)

There's no reason for you not to add such a section, but it should only contain information sourced from story missions. No, I'm afraid I don't. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 16:14, February 1, 2019 (UTC)

I just found another mercenary named Cheimonas of the Sacred Watch.  He may be a randomized mercenary but like Nora and Klymene he doesn't share his title with any others or go by any other name or come in any other form.  I know this because I saw three YouTube videos and all had him under the same name.  I'm telling you this so we don't have to go through any debates about deletion again.  Frontierchris (talk) 00:13, February 8, 2019 (UTC)

Kenway family

Hello, i see that you revamp the kenway family. I don't want to criticize, i write to much informations, but I think that we must keep information on the Sage because it the reason why Edward searched the Grand Temple and that his son and great son fight.Francesco75 (talk) 07:40, February 6, 2019 (UTC)

Whilst I understand why you included the information, it is more relevant to their own respective articles. Also, Edward never searched for the Grand Temple (in-game), he searched for the Observatory, which neither his son nor grandson ever sought. As such, neither Haythem or Connor have any connection to that location, or the Sages. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 09:10, February 6, 2019 (UTC)

Edward search for the Grand Temple, it was why he wrote his journal and Birch killed him to recover it. It's when he killed Roberts that he first learnt of the Grand Temple.Francesco75 (talk) 09:56, February 6, 2019 (UTC)

Please stop trying to delete Klymene's article.  As I said before "the Beautiful Justice" may a randomized mercenary but she doesn't go by any other name.  She also doesn't come in any other form.  Frontierchris (talk) 17:07, February 7, 2019 (UTC)

If the character is randomised then it doesn't get an article, end of. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 08:59, February 8, 2019 (UTC)

Sorry to randomly jump in, but I think what FC is getting at is that some of the mercenaries are like the False Leonidas and occur in everyone‘s game, and he is just trying to add those mercenaries. Lacrossedeamon (talk) 09:09, February 8, 2019 (UTC)

If that's the case then the character is not randomly generated. FC's arguement has been that the character is randomly generated but just because he hasn't seen the moniker elsewhere in his game, it deserves an article. It wouldn't. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 09:22, February 8, 2019 (UTC)

His arguement is actually that 'the Beautiful Justice' is always named Klymene across all games and saves like how 'the Stone-Fist' is always Talos. He’s just bad at getting his point across. Lacrossedeamon (talk) 12:41, February 8, 2019 (UTC)

Yeah I guess I am bad at that, anyway it's the same with "of the Sacred Watch" as well.  However it isn't the same with Alkippe the Patricidal.  I saw a few YouTube videos of "the Patricidal" and all of them have her under different names like Nyx, Sophia, Rina, and Eos.  Frontierchris (talk) 16:06, February 8, 2019 (UTC)

I just found two more mercenaries under the titles "the Exiled" and "the Tactician."  "The Exiled" is always named Astrapios across all games and "the Tactician" is always named Daniil.  Frontierchris (talk) 16:47, February 8, 2019 (UTC)

You guys may not believe this but I actually just found three more cases.  The mercenary under the title "the Long Haired" is named Lavrentios across all games, and so are Kalaria the Soul Taker and Nir the Whirling Blades.  I'll be giving them articles tomorrow.  Frontierchris (talk) 04:37, February 9, 2019 (UTC)

I found another, Shani the Gifted.  Frontierchris (talk) 01:58, February 10, 2019 (UTC)

Deletion tags

Astra actually isn’t a regular mercenary she's part of the Boeotian champions like Nessia and Drakon and has a missable quest related to her. Some of the other pages you tagged are the weekly bounties that reward orichalcum and I believe are standardized for all. Some of the others I think are also standardized the same way the False Leonidas was but can’t really be sourced as he can’t really be sourced. But others I do believe are randomized. Basically this feature is a nightmare for us.Lacrossedeamon (talk) 10:17, February 14, 2019 (UTC)

Hi Lacrosse. Thanks for the additional information - unfortunately, because the articles are sourced only to the game itself (and not a specific memory), it makes their veracity dubious, in my eyes. This will need to be fixed before I consider removing the tags from any of the articles. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 10:25, February 14, 2019 (UTC)

How would you approach sourcing them? The weekly bounties actually have memories tied to them but the title is always Bounty on a Mercenary. How do you source the weekly elite ships that get added since those are in a similar situation? Luckily Astra does have a unique memory Sibling Revenge. But the others like Flase Leonidas or Sergas the Lynx Man will be more difficult to verify. Lacrossedeamon (talk) 10:44, February 14, 2019 (UTC)

Personally, if we have to have these names mentioned somewhere, I would prefer having Bounty on a Mercenary master article which lists all of their names. I don't see why they need unique articles, since there is nothing unique about them compared to one another. The same goes for the elite ships. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 10:52, February 14, 2019 (UTC)

We could add Bounty on a Mercenary as a source for those like False Leonidas and Sergas the Lynx Man and week can add Bounty on a Mercenary (Weekly) for those like Abia the Shaded and Asphur the Unforgiving.  What do you think? Frontierchris (talk) 16:23, February 14, 2019 (UTC)

I almost forgot to tell you guys, I didn't only give these mercenaries articles because of their names always being the same, I also did it because their avatars are always the same.  I'm telling you this because there are other mercenaries whose names are the same in every game like Yulio the Balanced, Hirpes the Burning Fury, Rasmos the Talented, Nikolaos the Fearless Cook, Xander the Poison King, etc. but their avatars are always different, which is why I didn't give them articles. Frontierchris (talk) 19:02, February 14, 2019 (UTC)

Jasca, did you see my last two posts? Frontierchris (talk) 16:19, February 15, 2019 (UTC)

I have seen every single post you've placed on my talk page. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 16:59, February 15, 2019 (UTC)

What is your opinion on my source suggestion?--Frontierchris (talk) 17:51, February 15, 2019 (UTC)

Adrestia crew

Jasca, Pandaros is not a randomized citizen, he can be recruited through a quest in Messara called "Bare it All."  Frontierchris (talk) 15:28, February 14, 2019 (UTC)

There is no "Pandaros" article. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 15:47, February 14, 2019 (UTC)

That's because nobody bothered to make one.  I was hoping somebody would if I added his name.  Frontierchris (talk) 15:51, February 14, 2019 (UTC)

Jasca, he is referring to your edits on the Adrestia page. FC, when starting a new topic on a talk page please create a topic header using == ==. Otherwise your comments come off as non sequitors. Lacrossedeamon (talk) 15:56, February 14, 2019 (UTC)

I known which edit he was was referring too. If the content isn't sourced when it's added, then it's liable to be removed. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 15:58, February 14, 2019 (UTC)

My bad things get confusing when people don't use proper topic headings. Lacrossedeamon (talk) 16:03, February 14, 2019 (UTC)

As for the character Hero, I added another source for the quest in which she can be found.  Frontierchris (talk) 16:09, February 14, 2019 (UTC)

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. Vetinari^{(Appointment)} 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. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 08:59, February 18, 2019 (UTC)

Thanks again. Vetinari^{(Appointment)} 22:36, February 21, 2019 (UTC)

Sourcing

Jasca, I added Bounty on a Mercenary as a source for False Leonidas, Sergas the Lynx Man, and the others.  As I said before, I gave these mercenaries articles because both their names and avatars are the same in every game.  Is that enough to have the deletion tags lifted or should I do more?Frontierchris (talk) 15:25, February 19, 2019 (UTC)

May I please have an answer to my previous question? Frontierchris (talk) 17:36, February 20, 2019 (UTC)

Yes. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 08:53, February 22, 2019 (UTC)

Mercenaries

Just so you know I've added Aigle the Great Cat to the list of Allies and Puppets to the Cult of Kosmos because the player can find clues on her that reveal Iodates the Stoic as a member of the Cult and one of those clues is a letter of instructions, inviting for her to join his troop. Frontierchris (talk) 19:09, March 9, 2019 (UTC)

Images

What's all this about policy violating images? Frontierchris (talk) 19:29, March 11, 2019 (UTC)

According to our policy, and under Fair Use laws, images must serve a functional use on an article; the images you uploaded do not meet this prerequisite because they do not contribute to the quality or functionality of the article. They're simply extra, lower quality, images of the weapons being placed on articles that already have sufficient images to depict the subject of the article. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 09:15, March 12, 2019 (UTC)

Mercenary Articles

The next mercenary articles I'm going to add are not of weekly mercenaries.  Their just mercenaries whose names and biographies are the same in every game.  But know that their avatars always change randomly so no images will be added. Frontierchris (talk) 19:18, March 15, 2019 (UTC)

There is absolutely no way on earth you can guarantee certain mercenary names and biographies always go together - you yourself just said their character models change. Any mercenary article created that doesn't correspond to either a Weekly target, or from a specific mission, will be marked for deletion. I shall be leaving a duplicate message to this effect on your talk page. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 20:12, March 17, 2019 (UTC)

It’s alright Jasca, XOdeyssusx already talked me out of it. --Frontierchris (talk) 20:16, March 17, 2019 (UTC)

No full-synch?

Hi Jasca
I think something's wrong with the Memory Navbox. I'm typing in the required fields, but "fullsync" no longer displays, and we all know how critical that is. I asked XOdeyssusx, but he deferred to you, as you have the navbox's latest edit. Is it a bug? If not, why's it removed? -- Darman (talk) 14:53, April 4, 2019 (UTC)

Hi. For reasons unknown, the fullsync field was dropped from the template when we upgraded to portable infoboxes and it appears that nobody actually noticed. I've re-added the field now, though. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 15:30, April 4, 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! I wasn't sure if it was smthg wrong on my end. -- Darman (talk) 15:35, April 4, 2019 (UTC)

Torch of Hypnos

Are you sure changing "Created by" to "Named after" is a good change? I'm 100% sure that in-game it is confirmed (whether it was the tooltip or the conversation with Adonis) that they were made by Hypnos. We cannot verify they were made, or even exist outside the simulation, but the ones in the simulation were at least made by Hypnos in the simulation. So it's a bit more than just 'named after'. Mabye "In the simulation these torches were created by the god of sleep, [[Hypnos]], and constituted a pillar with an [[Apples of Eden]]" etc etc. would be better? I personally thought the fact that they're actually build by is worthy of note. Kennyannydenny (talk) 13:48, April 25, 2019 (UTC)

Ps, about the Isu technology part. They are at least Isu technology inside the simulation. Yes we cannot verify if they exist outside of that, but that doesn't mean they're not Isu tech inside the simulation. Not sure if separating those two would be useful, instead of making everything a tad bit too difficult to follow on the Wiki. Or maybe we should have a category where things from the simulation get put in. Not sure how to handle that. Kennyannydenny (talk) 13:48, April 25, 2019 (UTC)

Minor edits

Hey Jasca, I really appreciate you taking the time to update the Isu article. You did a really good job. I was wondering though why you marked it as a minor edit because with 3,253 characters taken out and some sections entirely rewritten, it would definitely constitute a major edit. In fact, I've been noticing for some time that pretty much all your edits are always marked as minor edits, so I was curious if this is just a force-of-habit if anything. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 19:02, May 24, 2019 (UTC)

Hi Cyf. I've got Minor Edits marked as default, so it's more likely that case that I've simply forgetten to uncheck the box. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 07:57, May 28, 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying! Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 14:06, May 28, 2019 (UTC)

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. 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.

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). --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 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. 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. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 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. 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 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.

Whether or not that exception applies also depends on whether the river's name in the Ubisoft source is a grammatical (or tautological) error or not. For instance, I believe "Nile River" would be incorrect since apparently, nile means 'river' although Ubisoft doesn't make this mistake anyways, but if they did, I would argue that we would correct it to "Nile" per the real-life name. To my knowledge, "Alpheios River" is not grammatically incorrect, and so if this is the canonical name given in the source, this is the name we would use. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 08:02, June 2, 2019 (UTC)

Sourceless

In regards to finding the sourcing at Australia insufficient, could you please clarify what part of it is insufficient? To be honest, simply stating that you "believe the sourcing to be insufficient" isn't exactly helpful since it doesn't at all explain how you find it so. The page, like any other, has appearances listed, with a citation to the exact issue. I was maybe a bit hasty to undo your edit because I hadn't considered that perhaps you interpret the {{Sourceless}} template as applicable to even minor cases of insufficient sourcing whereas, to my knowledge, it has conventionally only ever been used when an article lacks a source or the sources proving its existence is in serious doubt. I'm aware that its text is a bit ambiguous. Perhaps we should create a different template for cases where an article is sourced but inadequately so and modify the text of {{Sourceless}} to clearly only apply when an article has no source? Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 17:34, July 3, 2019 (UTC)

In this instance, my issue is that simply citing the game is insufficient. Odyssey is a big game with lots of different potential sources (e.g. the historical story, the modern day story, Layla's emails, specific missions, background etc.) and our references need to reflect that rather than citing the most basic information. I, for one, have absolutely no idea where in Odyssey it is allegedly said that Álvaro Gramática was in Australia in 2018 – in fact, I do not even recall Álvaro Gramática being mentioned at all. The reference should provide me the exact location of this information, and if it does not then it is insufficient.

That all being said, I agree that an additional template for articles that need their references improved (as opposed to articles that need references added) would probably be a good idea. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 09:02, July 4, 2019 (UTC)

Jasca, that is the kind of explanation that should have been in your edit summaries. Even in your third revert, you only insisted once more that it is insufficient without qualification. That is not acceptable, especially when my message to you addresses my perspective on the line "or is in need of having its sources updated". As it is, the template has never been used when only a single citation is in disputed.

Furthermore, I would like to remind you that only edits involving formatting, grammar or spelling, or very minor factual corrections should be marked as minor. I refrained from elaborating on the matter last time since you explained that you have edits marked as minor by default, so I thought it may be an oversight that you would be correcting from then on. As it is, I have frequently seen even edits which are major revisions or reverts marked as minor, which is not an appropriate use of the function. My advice is that if you can't remember to manually un-check "minor edit" for edits which are not minor, to change your setting so that that is no longer default in the future.

I do, however, appreciate that you agree with an additional template as an extra sourcing template had been on my mind for quite a while now, but I had wondered if you guys might find it superfluous before. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 09:24, July 4, 2019 (UTC)

My first edit summary quite clearly says "Simply sourcing to the game isn't adequate." --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 10:15, July 4, 2019 (UTC)

Which the edit summary to my revert indicated was not a clear enough explanation as to the issue, even requesting for extra clarity, esp. because the template has conventionally only been used when the very existence of the subject is in doubt, not for a single citation error. A follow-up in good faith should therefore have elaborated further. Of course, this is just for future reference. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 11:25, July 4, 2019 (UTC)

Kleon's quote

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? 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. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 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. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 10:21, July 7, 2019 (UTC)

Warning

	"I learned what becomes of those who lift themselves above others..."
	Patience is a virtue that many of us do not spare lightly, and indeed, we have fairly rationed it, but it seems that we cannot come to an agreement. As a community, what the administration requires from its editors is not obedience, but cooperation. If you cannot offer that, then our ultimatum is such: cease and desist. This is your final warning. Our patience is at our limit. Arrivederci.

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?

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...
Then refusing to acknowledge that it was wrong under the justification that the people you flamed 'deserved' it...
to telling off a confused new editor for not being present for a formatting change enacted on Discord...
to constantly refusing to practice assuming good faith under the justification that "we are not Wikipedia [so we don't have to abide by their standards of civility]"...
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...
to incessantly trying to obstruct motions to redo that poll and thereby perpetuating the problems it only deepened...
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...
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...
to making no effort to correct mistakes that have been lightly asked of you to correct multiple times...
among of which includes abusing the "minor edit" checkbox, such that even reversions and massive changes to a policy page are labelled as such...
to publicly retorting that you don't "have to be told to respect anyone" after I asked that you respect procedures and guidelines...
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. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 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. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 09:14, August 22, 2019 (UTC)

	"Che nessuno ricordi il tuo nome. Requiescat in pace."
	You have been banned from the Assassin's Creed Wiki. We have offered you assistance, patience and trust. We tried to be tolerant of your actions, and yet you still refuse to cooperate. We came to an impasse, and this is how it ends. Let this serve as a reminder that we never forget what we say, and that we are always watching. May your silence prove to be for the wiki's betterment.

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 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.

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.

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 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.

"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

Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 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. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 16:52, August 22, 2019 (UTC)

Final resolution

	"Che nessuno ricordi il tuo nome. Requiescat in pace."
	You have been banned from the Assassin's Creed Wiki. We have offered you assistance, patience and trust. We tried to be tolerant of your actions, and yet you still refuse to cooperate. We came to an impasse, and this is how it ends. Let this serve as a reminder that we never forget what we say, and that we are always watching. May your silence prove to be for the wiki's betterment.

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. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 05:25, August 26, 2020 (UTC)