Talk:Shay Cormac

This is the discussion page for Shay Cormac. Here, you may discuss improving the article. To discuss the subject itself, use the Forums.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.	Be polite Assume good faith Do not insult other people

Resemblance to Templar Armor

Am I the only one that noticed his outfit bears a strong resemblance to the Templar Armor? It's not exactly the same. It's a little slimmer, but it's pretty damn close. Does anyone think it's worth mentioning in the Triva or anything? Nickreaper (talk) 20:01, August 14, 2014 (UTC)

I believe that the templar armor was adapted for Shay. Because, during the time between Black Flag and Rouge it stolen, I think, by Assassins who then modify by giving it a hood, due to black flag not having one and then gave it to shay, which he then modify for his own purpose.

But still - I think it's the same armor, despite 50 years of modifications. Since Edward left Inagua for Assassins, then maybe he left all his outfits as well, foк future assassins to use and they gave it to same high-ranking member. Hlelia (talk) 02:14, August 6, 2014 (UTC)

Shay Cormac or Shay Patrick Cormac

As you can see on this page of the game informer, Shay's middle name is not used. Patrick is only used in the first quote of the article in order to formally introduce the character. So I propose a renaming of the article without Patrick, as for the article about Arno, which is titled Arno Dorian and not Arno Victor Dorian. A link for the 26 pages of the GameInformer article : [1] .Maxattac (talk) 22:57, August 6, 2014 (UTC)

Wasn't Duncan Walpole also a templar (I know he was an assassin but he also turned) that could (did) perform a leap of faith?.. Shouln't Shay be the sixth? —unsigned comment by Brahamadude (talk · contr) 07:36, August 17, 2014 (UTC)

Walpole never formally became a Templar. He would have been inducted when he met with Torres and company in Havana. -Molotov.cockroach (talk) 08:51, August 17, 2014 (UTC)

Page lock request

Could we please have this page locked to anonymous users? Continual edits are being made which are then having to be reverted, simply because some people have no grasp on the concept of "no speculation" or any idea how to format what they type. Slate Vesper (talk) 20:20, August 17, 2014 (UTC)

I second this. --Kainzorus Prime ⚜ ^{Walkie-talkie} 21:27, August 17, 2014 (UTC)

Before we lock this page to anonymous users. Can someone please edit in the affiliation tab that he was part of the British army. Cause I don't know if anyone has seen it yet. But his ship, the Morrigan sails with a British flag. ProneCreature47 (talk) 20:32, September 14, 2014 (UTC)

So did the Aquila, apparently, and we all know how that went. --Crimson Knight _Intercom 20:35, September 14, 2014 (UTC)

Yes I read that. But here's the difference. In the naval gameplay demo for Rogue. It was stated that your allied with the British and you help them during the Seven Years War. ProneCreature47 (talk) 20:40, September 14, 2014 (UTC)

I know, I just wanted to look clever. xD
In all seriousness, perhaps we should wait for the game to come out, just to see the extent of his affiliation to the British. --Crimson Knight _Intercom 20:46, September 14, 2014 (UTC)

Allied with the British =/= part of the British army, at least to my knowledge. Surely the Templars are up to more than supporting the British? They could be using the British flag as cover for their activities :s Crook ^{The Constantine District} 20:44, September 14, 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, allied. Not in the Royal Navy. No matter what, it's all speculation.--Bovkaffe (talk) 20:43, September 14, 2014 (UTC)

Irish/American?

Son of Irish immigrants. It explains Shay's shoddy Irish accent, but what are we going to do with his nationality? I am still not on board with this "country where individual is living" category being added as a nationality by the way, but nobody seemed interested in continuing this discussion on Seraffo's page. Seeing as this is a trend you seem to have started, Bovkaffe, I'd like to hear your perspective on this.

Fyi, I vote we keep the Americans category and ditch the Irishmen one for Shay. We can clarify the nationality issue in the article itself. Crook ^{The Constantine District} 18:11, August 21, 2014 (UTC)

He is both, at that time he would of been basically Irish. Americans weren't as we know them today obviously immigrant children born in america were still ethnically and culturally the culture of their parents so he is Irish through and through otherwise the devs would not of given him the accent. 78.18.252.155 20:13, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Master Assassin?

I noticed that, in the categories section, there's a tag (I guess it's called a tag) for Master Assassin. Is this mere speculation, or has it been officially confirmed that Shay had become a Master Assassin sometime before his eventual defection? 85.72.73.110 16:01, August 26, 2014 (UTC)

Adewale's killer?

Of course nothing can be posted yet, but Adewale was murdered in 1758, and the game takes place during the Seven Years' War. Combine that with the fact that we have a screenshot of the two men fighting, and it's highly possible that Shay was the one who killed Adewale. So the game may have a mirrored structure of the others; a Templar being sent on missions to kill high-ranking Assassins, instead of vice versa. What does everyone else think? CaptainOHH (talk) 21:20, October 13, 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Shay killed Adéwalé, I think. --Crimson Knight _Intercom 21:24, October 13, 2014 (UTC)

It is an almost certain occurrence, otherwise it would be pointless to bring Adéwalé into the Colonies in Rogue. Shay will pretty much stomp the Brotherhood there, and leave Achilles alive in the very end. --Kainzorus Prime ⚜ ^{Walkie-talkie} 21:26, October 13, 2014 (UTC)

Or maybe Shay will be sent to take out Achilles for the final showdown, but Achilles will be too good of a fighter and so he'll kill Shay, then maybe Haytham gives up on Achilles because of Shay's death (since it's almost certain Shay will be acting under Haytham's orders). I don't know, I'm just excited. CaptainOHH (talk) 21:44, October 13, 2014 (UTC)

Shay can't die in the game. He has to conceive a child so that his genetic memories finish. And we already know that Haytham spared Achilles because he was a broken man, and killing him wouldn't have really made an impact. Much like Ezio sparing Rodrigo, this didn't end well. --Crimson Knight _Intercom 21:46, October 13, 2014 (UTC)

Unless his offspring is there to see him die, like Haytham and Ratohnhaké:ton did. Jasonnorthrup (talk) 22:13, October 13, 2014 (UTC)

I'm hoping that Haytham fights Adéwalé, mainly because I think that there would be some great dialogue between them. Welshman15 (talk) 11:48, October 16, 2014 (UTC)

The answer to both is yes, though Haytham did not personally fight Adewale but rather traded gunfire and verbal barbs to distract him for Shay. If they bring Shay back, I will kill that wretched traitor for murdering one of my favourites. -- JediMasterSam (talk) 20:34, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

His genetic memories finish through a child? I'm not sure what you mean. If a child is born, his child's genes will store the memories of him that he has after fatherhood? How does that work out? Why is there a need for a child? AC Denton (talk) 02:15, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Maybe the Assassins aren't that good after all

Hey guys, Shay probably changed his mind to move to the Templars, cuz in one of the trailers, he said "You made me slaughter innocents! I will not make that mistake again!" So maybe the assassins made Shay fire those mortars into that innocent city, leading him to believe that the city was populated with templars? TNTdude2003 (talk) 11:15, October 14, 2014 (UTC)TNTdude2003

"Assassins fool one of their own into slaughtering a city of innocents"... How on earth does that match up with the Brotherhood's ideals? There's no way it's going to be as simplistic as that. And if it is, that's piss-poor storytelling on Mr Farrese's part. If they're going to suddenly make the Assassins evil to justify Shay being our protagonist and joining the Templars, I'll be very disappointed with this game. Crook ^{The Constantine District} 11:21, October 14, 2014 (UTC)

We know it won't be like that. In one of the podcasts, they said they won't be the bad guys as such, they'll just be presented from a new angle or something like that.--Bovkaffe (talk) 11:55, October 14, 2014 (UTC)

I'll believe it when I see it. I did not find the podcast all that informative :s Crook ^{The Constantine District} 11:58, October 14, 2014 (UTC)

Not the first time the murderers destroy a city killing civilians. Remember the destruction of Cappadocia by Ezio. Spanish assassin (Talk) 14:49, October 15, 2014 (UTC)

Judgment error and frankly a bit out-of-character for Ezio to do. There's a difference between one Assassin "accidentally" (his intention was not to kill all those people) committing such an act and a Brotherhood conspiring to do so on purpose. Crook ^{The Constantine District} 14:56, October 15, 2014 (UTC)

Those tripwire bombs from Revelations could be pretty reckless too. Jasonnorthrup (talk) 23:06, October 15, 2014 (UTC)

Maybe so, but I don't think the colonial or caribbean assassin's use those. SpiderMatty (talk) 04:26, October 16, 2014 (UTC)

Are we still at the point where "Assassins are good" and "Templars are bad"? Geez. -- Master Sima Yi _Talk 05:32, October 16, 2014 (UTC)

My guess some one in the brotherhood has grown to be do whatever it takes type of man even sacrficing innocents for the cause. If look at achilles face when shay talked about the slaughtering of innocents there was lot of shock like that was not supposed to happen.Yorae paladin1 (talk) 18:15, November 6, 2014 (UTC)

Danial cross is shear cormac

Danial cross is the desmond miles of this game 63.225.202.28 06:14, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

And your proof being? Slate Vesper (talk) 08:43, October 26, 2014 (UTC)

Who's "Danial"? --Kainzorus Prime ⚜ ^{Walkie-talkie} 13:59, October 26, 2014 (UTC)

New Quote

"What kind of world are we making if we cannot show mercy?" Isn't that a more suitable quote? 94.71.186.188 20:11, November 18, 2014 (UTC)

Cabbage Farmer?

Chevalier calls Shay a "cabbage farmer" many times. Was this just an insult or was it one of his past professions, since many people were farmers back then? GoldenBoy99 (talk) 03:50, December 27, 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the Cormacs themselves were "cabbage farmers" - they were sailors, seamen. This makes me think the insults is based on a stereotype, though I can't really speak to that: were Irish people commonly thought of as (cabbage) farmers back then? Crook ^{The Constantine District} 09:05, December 27, 2014 (UTC)

I would have called him a potato farmer. --Crimson Knight _Intercom 23:22, January 18, 2015 (UTC)

why did him shave his beard and make his hair all fancy after he fell of that rock and broke his bones? 96.226.23.6 22:54, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Why not? --Crimson Knight _Intercom 23:22, January 18, 2015 (UTC)

Death?

I found out about Shay's death, but I'm not sure if it's real... it's in this comic called Bonfire of the Creed.

Comic Link: http://fc00.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2014/286/1/5/bonfire_of_the_creed_by_sunsetagain-d82oj4y.jpg 112.119.170.5 10:38, August 26, 2015 (UTC)

Definitely fanmade, Sunsetagain is a big fan of Assassin's Creed: Rogue. Crook ^{The Constantine District} 10:43, August 26, 2015 (UTC)

Who exactly trained Shay I mean I now he was brought into the brotherhood by Liam and instructed by Hope, Liam, and Kesegowaase but did Achilles train him as well or just oversee his training as a test for Liam's skill as a teacher. I believe if Achilles trained him personally Shay would not have turned his back on the order. 92.251.190.40 20:28, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Trivia and update

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0aNOdYDnogk I'm curtain you all already know of this. Anyway the possibility to kill innocents is an Animus Glitch and Shay got another mission by Haytham after getting the Precursor Box. --ACsenior (talk) 14:51, September 23, 2015 (UTC)

Sorry my mistake, Haytham giving him another mission was part of the question. What Rogue's written said is that he's been looking for more Boxes/Manuscripts after the assassination of Charles. --ACsenior (talk) 21:26, February 5, 2016 (UTC)

Misunderstandings

Shay betrayed the assassins after a terrible misunderstanding. He believed the Templars were doing good intentions —unsigned comment by 71.226.72.236 (talk · contr)

First you need to sign your comments. Second so what. --Revan's Exile (talk) 20:53, April 15, 2017 (UTC)

No need to be rude, Revan. Rummy00 (talk) 22:50, July 7, 2017 (UTC)

While Revan's Exile here might've been a bit blunt, what he means to say is that talk pages are reserved for discussions on actual issues with the article itself, i.e. how to improve it. I'm not sure (if you're the same person as the anon), what Shay's betrayal owing to a terrible misunderstanding (and it is) has to do with improving the article. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 02:05, July 8, 2017 (UTC)

Article image

The guy on the image looks not like Shay, is it fan art by any chance? MedievalVibes (talk)

No, this is the official high res render. Lacrossedeamon (talk) 16:29, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Non Canon Tag

Why is this here?Lacrossedeamon (talk) 08:35, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Quite probably a lack of attention when creating the NPOV template. Anyway, it's fixed now. - Soranin (talk) 12:19, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Neutrality

While most of this page is well written the entire "Sense of culpability or lack thereof" section is terribly biased. Joish~stone (talk) 10:40, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

The complication with "Personality and traits" sections is that they are by nature opinionated and draw from some measure of subjective interpretation, so more leeway is given regarding NPOV than other sections. It can just as well be thought of as biased to describe Desmond Miles as a caring individual, Altaïr Ibn-La'Ahad as wise, Edward Kenway as selfish, Connor as naïve, Arno Dorian as a hopeless romantic, or Cesare Borgia as cruel and sadistic. But these descriptions can be supported by referencing specific ways that they acted and describing them as factually as possible or attributing the descriptions to specific characters. This mitigates the problem to an extent.

When writing his personality and traits section, I had in front of me videos and dialogue transcripts of every scene I was citing so that I could ensure that my descriptions of actions and events were factual. For example, "he expressed no pity or regrets for the fate of his longest friendship [when Liam was dying]" sounds harsh, but it is factually true when you look at the transcript of their dialogue.

You described this section in Darman's talk page as a "long, angry rant" and a "tirade", but I also took care to highlight Shay's positive traits exhaustively. I mentioned that he was "not a heartless individual", that "he had a soft spot for Hope", that he "advocated for Haytham to spare Achilles' life", that he "shared in the camaraderie of his new Templar friends", and that he mourned George Monro because he was a mentor figure to him. So just as evidence is provided in this text to support claims that Shay committed unfalsifiability and hindsight bias, evidence is also provided to support claims that Shay was capable of caring about others.

Writing a balanced account of a character's personality involves describing both their positive and negative traits and deeds. Unfortunately, fan opinions of Shay Cormac are very polarized, so it is unlikely that we would find a characterization of him that satisfies everyone. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 22:12, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Still doesn't really address what I said. I wasn't complaining about the entire "Personality and traits" section, I primarily was complaining about the "sense of culpability or lack thereof" part of it. You repeatedly claimed that Shay always pinned the blame on the other assassins or whoever and never acknowledged his own culpability when that's blatantly false as per what I left on Darman's page. You clearly despise Shay's character, and that's totally fine, but it also means you're probably not the best person to be developing this article since you lack the impartiality. If the aforementioned claims are removed I'd be in support of removing the template -- Joish~stone (talk) 07:46, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Hmm, I would say some of it could be toned down a little and is perhaps a little too opinionated. For example, saying he's "vulnerable to manipulation" just seems strongly opinionated because...

1. he might've just came to believe their ideology and two there's no clear evidence the templars manipulated Shay.

2. Him endorsing the French revolution is fan speculation too iirc without any confirmation, and because of that, the claim that he isn't opposed to mass chaos is also a strong claim without clear evidence. Of course, I understand why sections like this might need a bit of subjective interpretation, but I feel there is a limit to that and that these claims perhaps cross that limit because as mentioned, there's not enough evidence to support the position. After all, he did say he was only killing certain people to save the world (now one can debate whether or not he really is, but it's clear that's what he genuinely believes) and in Charles' case, he did it just to retrieve the artefact he devoted part of his life to finding. We don't know that this means he wouldn't be opposed to utter chaos just to benefit templar goals. But yeah, I feel removing these parts would benefit the article and make it smoother. .WKR (talk) 01:56, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

shay shouldn't be responsible for trying to do as his mentor asked. this is to subjective to have on the page. shay voluntarily joined the templars they didn't manipulate him! —unsigned comment by HKreigh (talk · contr) 15:52, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Well... we see he clearly felt some guilt for the earthquake...It's literally one of the main reasons he joined the templars. Why does it say it did not occur to him? That’s just incorrect. We can’t read Shay’s mind. It is also very reasonable for Shay to have thought Achilles should’ve known the dangers of the artifacts after the Haitian earthquake. Sure, the assassin sent on the mission died and couldn’t report what happened, but think about it…one of the most deadly earthquakes happened to occur the exact same day, if the assassins had common sense they would’ve at least considered the precursor sites were a strong possibility and been more cautious approaching the sites. This is not at all hindsight bias, it’s something any reasonable and logical person would suspect. Also what Shay said at the end of Rogue can be interpreted in many different ways, and concluding he endorsed the French revolution is almost certainly incorrect (and a case of confirmation bias) since he was only in France to steal the box from Charles. Yes Rogue relied on the assassins being caveman-level stupid to advance the story, but writing biased and extremely opinionated accounts doesn’t help. So yes I think this at minimum needs to be reworded. NedLow28 (talk) 16:49, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you all for the recent contributions, though I should let y'all know that this matter has been considered as settled since early March, as can be seen here, and will not be considered further. If you still want to help the wiki grow, there's a plethora of other stuff that needs help over on Maintenance. :) - Soranin (talk) 03:29, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Hey Soranin, I've taken a look at the discussion you linked, and it actually seems to suggest the complete opposite of what you're saying; it does not at all appear to be a declaration that the matter is settled. The Fandom representative has said multiple times that feedback about changing things on the article is allowed, which he also encouraged. ("If there are specific parts that you genuinely feel could be discussed or addressed, I'd encourage a more collaborative approach rather than immediately adding the NPOV template or doing a broad dismissal the page as biased" and "So again, if there are specific concerns, I'd encourage focusing on constructive feedback.") which is what I and other users here have been doing. So I ask that you kindly allow the discussion to continue until we've reach a clear consensus. Do remember that Shay is a prominent protagonist, so his article should be presented as best as it can be, and these kind of discussions help with that. .WKR (talk) 04:28, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

A "consensus" has been reached by the wiki at large and minor dissent does not outweigh the voice of the staff and more active established editors, please wait until we all die to broach this topic again. Lacrossedeamon (talk) 06:55, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Please show where said consensus was reached and the reasons for keeping it as is. Comments with actual reasoning for a certain stance holds much more weight than activity or staff positions. .WKR (talk) 12:00, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Came here from the forum post. There doesn't have to be an entire section dedicated to faulting Shay for not owning up to his "mistakes." "Who's to blame" is entirely subjective here, so that already renders the section a load of rubbish IMO. Describing someone's personality obviously needs a bit of subjectivity, but don't be adding it when it's not a necessity—and in this case it clearly isn't. I'm for scrapping this nonsense altogether; Shay's personality description was much better without it. Soranin, the conversation you cited clearly invites constructive discussion, and we readers have every right to share our concerns and voice our opinions. There is a lot more I wish to say, but I choose to end it here. Edwardkenwayfan31 (talk) 05:23, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

I'd reckon the article for Shay is fine as is and should remain as is. This talk page also seems to have been taken over by trolls intent on instigating conflict. Instead of constructive discussion, we’re seeing the same arguments being repeated over and over—arguments that were already addressed months ago. The page is being used to bypass the article lock and rehash settled content, which isn't helping improve anything.

It's also creating a hostile environment, with increasingly adversarial tone and refusal to collaborate or move on. That’s not what these pages are meant for. If these trolls aren't going to be banned, then I think the talk page should be locked to stop further disruption.VilkaIsBack (talk) 09:36, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

"This talk page also seems to have been taken over by trolls intent on instigating conflict. Instead of constructive discussion"

Uh huh, anyone with an opinion averse to your own is a troll. Got it! Shows why a wiki that pertains to such a popular franchise has so few editors.

"Instead of constructive discussion, we're seeing the same arguments being repeated over and over—arguments that were already addressed months ago''

If you'd actually bothered to read the discussion, you'd see we all raised unique problems with the article.

"It's also creating a hostile environment, with increasingly adversarial tone and refusal to collaborate or move on."

Voicing your opinion is how you collaborate bud. We've all given our input constructively and criticized the writings without personal attacks, whilst you showed up spouting ad hominems without giving reasons that actually involve Shay. What you're doing is the complete opposite of collaboration.

"That's not what these pages are meant for."

That's exactly what they're for - to talk about ways to improve the article. I've been visiting this wiki since at least 2014/2015 and I've never seen a protagonist's article being represented as poorly as Shay's currently is. Edwardkenwayfan31 (talk) 17:00, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

@VilkaIsBack my intent was simply to bring attention to this topic and have people share their opinions civilly. I never intended for any conflict. Please do not jump the gun and assume that I and other users supporting the change are just trolls looking for conflict. This kind of behaviour is likely why your old account was banned across all of Fandom. I find it especially unfair that you're even suggesting we should be banned for this. Please Assume Good Faith. .WKR (talk) 23:22, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

You lose the right to good faith assumptions after having been warned previously about jumping into old discussion in what seems to be less about the topic and more about trying disrupt the community here. It's not like we suddenly forgot about the issues from last year. Lacrossedeamon (talk) 23:33, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

I've responded to this on your talk page to avoid derailing the matter at hand, this is about Shay. Where is the consensus you mentioned the other day? .WKR (talk) 00:12, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

As someone who regularly monitors RecentChanges, not only do I agree that this page has been derailed, I can attest that the main page has long been the subject of similar targeting. All of you insist its neutrality is suspect without counter-evidence, while Joish went further in the above-detailed libelous claim against Sol's perceived lack of impartiality that also was without proof.

WKR, whatever your past grievances are, they are not "old social drama" (c.f. Lacrosse's talk page) to Staff but significant hindrances in their ability to trust your further words or deeds. You are not exempt, seeing as you also are forwarding this neutrality issue.

As for you, Ed, your brief record here does you no favors, either. As detailed on your own talk page and the Discussions board, you have:

• acted uncivilly towards the community multiple times, first arguing and making personal attacks on a user and then Sol;
• harped on Sol for something he already explained to you and the aforementioned user;
• refused to improve your conduct and insulted another user's intelligence, for which you were blocked for a month;
• accused mod Cristophorus35 who blocked you of being passive-aggressive immediately after the block ended, for which I myself called you out on;
• resorted to ad hominem right now, insulting Vilka's reading comprehension and attacking his character by charging that "VilkaTheWolf" was banned for misconduct when you cannot prove it was not user choice, all while no one has mischaracterized you in this talk; and
• insulted the community at large saying "given how idiotic AC fans often are; they'd buy any old shit" and then denigrating our collective efforts here, when we are stretched thin for volunteers to actually leave Discussions and help fix/update countless pages.

Time and again, you have abused Staff's leniency and fail to better your conduct with others. Honestly, at this point, I'd say you warrant another ban. But that's their call to make, and both Soranin and Lacrosse have already said their peace. – Darman (talk) 01:05, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm the one who brought up Vilka's old account, not Ed. We can have fandom confirm whether his account was disabled due to global block for misbehaviour or by his own choice. If Vilka was never globally blocked before, I'm willing to take a ban for false accusations. Anyways I intend to contact Fandom about all this given how the situation turned out, so I'll not comment further till they've responded, probably on monday or tuesday. Have a good weekend folks. .WKR (talk) 01:52, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, the majority of things you listed I admittedly did. However I should clarify a few things...

1. I did not insult Vilka's reading comprehension, I suggested he did not decide to actually read our arguments properly which is evident since each user's reply (besides hkreigh's) raised something the other didn't.

2. I accepted my one month ban and said it was deserved and even apologized to the individual I insulted.

3. This one doesn't really pertain to me, but Joish's claim about Sol despising Shay seems to be true. Sol has even said on my own talk page that he is highly critical of him, and he's written multiple essay length replies in the forums criticizing Shay. I will not comment on whether or not I think Sol can write articles impartially. As far as this specific matter goes, I never attacked Sol or anyone else as a person.

Yes, I admittedly do have a terrible history here but I simply came here to comment on the article, not to rehash crap from last year. I've been doing my best to be as civil as possible here. Ironically, Vilka's comment did the most to stoke the flames here since the conversation was calm enough before he barged in with these accusations. If what WKR says about his old account is true (I have no idea if it is), he has absolutely no place accusing anyone of being trolls. I'd imagine you'd have to do something extremely inappropriate to be banned from the entire site. Edwardkenwayfan31 (talk) 03:41, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

(Fandom Staff note: yes Vilka had a global block on a past account. We discussed it with them a long time ago and their current account is fine. And kindly to all: this is supposed to be about Shay, not personal issues.) -- Kirkburn (talk) <staff/> 18:34, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

I am in favor of editing the article to make it better, but I fail to see how any proposed changes actually improve the article in any considerable way. The section on Shay's personality accurately describes him. We can bicker all day about semantics, but it's unnecessary at this point. Shay was remorseful about the deaths of innocents, and couldn't handle the blame for that. It made him vulnerable to the Templar ideology. Maybe his reaction was stupid, or maybe it was a completely human reaction. Who would want to take the blame for thousands of deaths? But that's not our place to say. Our goal is and ought to be a clear description of how Shay reacted to events, and the current page does that.

Rather, it seems to me that this necro is nothing more than a low effort troll attempt from users that I and others (as Vilka pointed out) have seen repeatedly act in what I can only describe as bad faith. I understand that I'm not the most active editor, as I'm a subreddit and discord mod. But in the years I've been moderating, the poor decorum I've seen like this would immediately lead to a ban. As such, I think the most sensible recourse is a vote to permanently ban WKR and EKF31. Nstav13 (talk) 04:10, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Permanently ban .WKR & Edwardkenwayfan31

1. Nstav13 (talk) 04:10, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
2. Darman (talk) 04:15, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
3. VilkaIsBack (talk) 04:33, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Community posts/votes about banning a user are against Fandom guidelines and can get yourself blocked from Fandom. .WKR (talk) 04:24, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

WKR, thank you for bringing this to my attention. Your response has prompted me to look further into this, and I have found no mentions of user votes on bans as being against the TOS as found here: https://www.fandom.com/terms-of-use. There is the community creation TOS as well (https://www.fandom.com/community-creation-policy), but the only references to bans is about ban evasion or harassment, neither of which are applicable here. If you have a precise source, it would be appreciated.

Furthermore, my digging has revealed multiple other communities allowing and discussing such topics, linked below. Now, I understand that this wiki may not have as comprehensive of a user policy itself, or be as large, but I think that only furthers the point that if larger wikis are doing this practice, it is perfectly fine for me to have initiated it here.

https://onepiece.fandom.com/wiki/Forum:Users_to_Be_Banned

https://harrypotter.fandom.com/wiki/Forum:Community_voting_on_user_bans

As a result, I don't agree with your assessment. I think the only leg you have is that this is "Abuse, Harassment, threats, or intimidation". But I am doing none of that. I am not threatening any physical harm (and would never), have said nothing abusive towards you, and am not attempting to make you change via intimidation. We can also pull up California's Penal Code (since Fandom is based in California), to show that I have done nothing wrong. Rather, I just see you as a troll, and the only way to deal with trolls, imo is by banning them. And I think your point in saying it's against TOS when it is not explicitly spelled out only further shows that you are manipulating others and are actively being malicious in your attempt to do so. Best wishes. Nstav13 (talk) 05:04, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Hey Nstav, the first forum link clearly hasn't been used for years (most being from 2012 when Fandom probably allowed anything to fly). The few from 2023 probably just slipped under Fandom's radar. The second seems to only be a proposal, not something that was implemented or approved by Fandom.

Second, a bureaucrat on a wiki I lurked years before joining fandom was demoted by a former fandom staffer with this as one of the reasons. Unless Fandom policies have changed the past few years (and it likely hasn't since the block policy is still there), this still applies. https://jurassicpark.fandom.com/f/p/4400000000000046959 "Posts asking the community whether or not a specific member should be banned are a form of harassment and intimidation. Either a member has violated a wiki’s policy/rules and can be banned for it, or they have not and they cannot be banned, per Fandom’s Wiki Rules and Blocking Policy. If you believe a member is acting inappropriately, please reach out to an admin directly to discuss it. If problems continue, you can escalate the issue to me." It also does state it can result in a global ban aka a ban from all fandom wikis. So kindly stop accusing me of manipulation. Thanks.

I've emailed fandom anyways, if they respond monday/tuesday to double confirm this I do hope you'll rescind these accusations. I don't believe I did anything trollish here. .WKR (talk) 05:37, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

WKR, I admit you have me at a loss. See, I believe - as I have stated - that you are a malicious troll, and what I felt the best recourse was, asking for a democratic voicing by the community to see if they agreed. You claim that this is harassment, abuse, and intimidation. But by then saying you have emailed Fandom directly with the hopes that I will rescind my accusation thus a form of intimidation against me? Even if Fandom agrees that my call is inappropriate, that certainly negates the vote, but how would that actually make me rescind the accusation of you being a malicious actor? The fact that you asked me to lift the accusation of arguing in bad faith instead of only stating that the vote itself was inappropriate and by attempting to use a nebulous and debatable interpretation of the rules by a single member of the staff seems exactly like the type of thing a troll would do. See on the subreddit, after we ban a troll for being a troll, about fifty percent of the time, they mail us directly to call us a number of slurs and say that we're actually the bad guys. I find it intensely interesting that you're exhibiting the same pattern of behavior. If I did something incorrect, I look forward to a stern message from Fandom. Have a good day. Nstav13 (talk) 15:29, 12 July 2025 (UTC)