User talk:Edwardkenwayfan31

Welcome to the Order, Edwardkenwayfan31!

Welcome to the Assassin's Creed Wiki! We hope you enjoy your stay, and we look forward to working with you!

Have you something to say?

You can always ask our beloved administrators! Our local staff members can always lend a hand! You can also visit the wiki's community portal! We also have the Discord if you're ever in the mood for a chat! There is also our forums, where all users can help you out. You can also check out the blogs, where you and other contributors can voice out your opinion.

We seek unity, stability and order.

Not sure where to start? You can always help out by sharing what you know on some of our stubs. Got some useful pictures? Share them with us on these articles. Got a useful concept for an article? Why not help out in some articles in need of a revamp? Always remember to sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~) to avoid any confusion between users. You can also refer to the wiki's help pages if you're ever in doubt. Please remember to read our wiki policies to avoid gaining any unnecessary attention.

We wish you safety and peace on your future endeavors. Happy Editing!

Violating community guidelines

Edwardkenwayfan31, your conduct in AdmiralZod1's forum thread yesterday was unacceptable and violates our community guidelines, as listed in Section 1 Cvility and etiquette. After reflection, I have come to the decision that it cannot go unaddressed and should be left on record.

I refer to the following cases:

• In response to my comment, "Actually the Lisbon earthquake was caused by Shay", you wrote "under Achilles' orders. Seriously please stop strawmanning and leaving out details that go against your argument."

You immediately jumped straight to an accusation about strawmanning over what was a simple factual sentence and not even a fully elaborated argument. I had never interacted with you before and that was the first and only comment I made about this subject, yet you portrayed it like a disingenuous argument in an exhaustive debate ("please stop leaving out details that go against your argunent"). You also bolded for emphasis needlessly. Therefore, this was an inflammatory response and an over-reaction on your part which served no other purpose than to incite conflict.

• Despite this, in response to my moderation, you followed up with this comment:

"You are the one who sparked this conversation by retorting Jack's comment with the technicality of Shay having done it which again, is no different than saying 'he didn't do it, the hitman did'.
What's bad faith is deleting comments you didn't agree with. You literally proved Flames' point by deleting his well thought out essay, as well as his comment below yours where he criticized you for deleting comments you didn't agree with."

• First, It always takes at least two for there to be an argument and laying the blame on "who started it" is immature. But as illustrated above, your initial comment was far more provocative than mine was and did more to instigate conflict.

• Second, you accused me of deleting comments just because I disagree with them. This is an argumentum ad hominem, also known as a personal attack. It is also a false accusation.

• I restored the two comments I deleted, one of FlamesOfChaos13 and one of mine for transparency. For the record, I had deleted them because I evaluated that the exchange between us (both our comments) could be interpreted as turning to ad hominem, that they were counterproductive to the debate and could derail the community discussion with a hostile argument.

• Flames had dismissed my clarification and my attempt to disengage and also accused me of bias. In turn, I also countered that I was calling out his bias. As I explained to Flames, I deleted up to my comment where I pointed out that we already had multiple debates about this topic in the past that I do not think we should rehash, so my intention was to nip this in the bud before it escalated. The extra exchange between us was the result of Flames failing to respect my moderation of the thread.

• You also wrote,

"Accusing Flames of bad faith and pinning the blame on him for starting this, is simple put, ridiculous."

• This is a misrepresentation of my comments to Flames, and you need to display greater precision in reading comprehension and response than mere antagonism. I did not "blame him for starting" an argument; I clarified to him in stronger terms—as I had already done so with you—my initial comment that you two were agitated by.

• Presumption of bad faith, as I had already explained to Flames on his talk page, is defined by failing to give other users' the benefit of the doubt about their intentions (unless they're a repeat offender), so I was in my rights to point this out when Flames rejected what was my third attempt at clarifying my meaning, as well as my desire for the debate not to be rehashed.

• You repeatedly displayed an inability to be receptive. I explained three times, twice to you and once to Flames, that the statement you were agitated by was merely a factual one and not the argument you were construing. Even at the end, after Flames and I were able to reach an understanding, you were still trying to perpetuate the argument with the same points, refusing to accept that the conversation had advanced and ended.
• You wrote, "It is not bad faith to criticize that position", which was once again a misrepresentation of my words. I did not refer to criticizing my position as bad faith; I referred to mischaracterizing my position and rejecting my clarification as bad faith.

Our community guidelines are in fact very clear that this behaviour on your part is unacceptable.

1(a). Be nice and treat people with respect and courtesy. Keep discussions civil and be open-minded about differing opinions. Do not comment just to provoke.

1(d). In matters of dispute, you are expected to do your best to advance the conversation and properly engage with the other party's arguments.

This involves acknowledgement of the other party's arguments and the presumption of good faith even where one disagrees with those arguments.

It involves a willingness to believe the other party's attempt to clarify their intended meaning when they have expressed belief that they have been misunderstood.

It entails not dismissing, rejecting, and/or mischaracterizing the experiences expressed by the other party, no matter how strongly one disagrees with the position and opinions they have formed on the basis of those experiences. Doing otherwise may constitute posing a strawman argument or worse, a violation of 1(b) regarding non-discrimination.

Arguments and counter-arguments should be targeted at the content of arguments and not the character of the individual, nor should they be repeatedly levelled at the other party’s suspected dishonesty.

While I was initially going to be lenient and let this pass, I realized that even at the end, you did not display an understanding or respect for our guidelines. You did stop after I firmly asked, and. I appreciate that, but I also need you to be aware of these guidelines for future reference. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 15:20, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello Sol Pacificus,

To start off, I had only meant to emphasize the "under Achilles' order" part of my first message, I have no idea why the whole thing came out in bold text.

My comment was not written to provoke, as I've said, your comment clearly implied Shay was to blame for it, be it intentional or not. You could have instead said "Actually, the Lisbon earthquake was caused by Shay, albeit under Achilles' orders".

You saying "I wrote a single sentence, the simple fact that Shay did cause the Lisbon earthquake, specifically anticipating that some users such as yourself will react by assuming this means that I do not hold Achilles complicit in any way." Does suggest to me that you wrote that message to instigate an argument over the topic.

As for "misrepresenting" your position, I made clear my acknowledgment of your admission that Achilles and the assassins were partly to blame. But again, your messages still suggest that Shay was mainly to blame, and that, combined with you hammering the technicality of Shay having caused the earthquake, is what I was criticizing.

I was not trying to continue the argument after you and Flames reached an understanding, hence why I wrote a brief reply instead of a long one, which was intended as a small clarification rather than trying to prolong the argument.

Simply put, some of your comments here comes across as very patronizing, my reading comprehension skills are perfectly fine, thank you.

I'm done with this debate. —unsigned comment by Edwardkenwayfan31 (talk · contr)

I spelled out my intent most clearly on FlamesOfChaos13's talk page:

It was not my intent or meaning that Achilles did not also cause the earthquake; my intent and meaning was to call attention to how Shay being also a causal agent tends to be glossed over (and admittedly therefore I was also trying to call attention to a common bias).

So my intent was not to imply that Shay was the one to blame for the incident or mostly to blame. My intent was to illustrate how one would not even be able to say he triggered the earthquake—even though this is a fact—without it being misinterpreted as a blame game about Shay vs. Achilles. You're not understanding my point at all, or the "meta"-meaning of it.

One other thing is that it is no secret that I am highly critical of Shay, but this has a lot more to do with all his actions and behaviour after the earthquake, not for the earthquake itself. I don't actually hold Shay to be more guilty than Achilles for the disaster. I have very complex views about Shay and the Assassins throughout the entirety of Rogue's story, and your assumption that I simply blame Shay more for the earthquake itself is wrong. For a variety of reasons, I didn't take the time to write more essay tracts about my position this time around, but you kept coming at me based on your own misunderstanding about my position when I hadn't even explained it fully. (Because of this I honestly felt strawmanned, and worse than that, you opened by alleging I was strawmanning.) Even at this very moment, you are still steadfastly maintaining your misunderstanding. Your acknowledgement that I do also hold Achilles accountable came only after the debate had ceased and was still accompanied by your same overall misunderstanding, something like a non-apology apology.

I am not still here to debate you or argue with you. I am explaining to you how and where you are wrong. I didn't have to expend so much time and energy to try to help you understand; I could have just issued you a first warning as most moderators would. If you find that patronizing, then that is your issue. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 05:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

No, what I found patronizing and insulting was you insulting my reading skills and suggesting I was only here to be antagonistic. Now you are misrepresenting what I said. Any ordinary person would take offence to this. You would too. —unsigned comment by Edwardkenwayfan13 (talk · contr)

Comprehension and literacy are not the same thing, and I am not insulting your literacy if that is how you're interpreting it. But it is a fact that you miscomprehend. And that could be the result of reading too hastily or reacting too impulsively based on what you read and not because you can't actually read. Me saying you need to read more precisely (or carefully) is not me putting down your literacy. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 14:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I also never "suggested [you] are only here to be antagonistic". I said you were showing antagonism. These are two different things—the former describes intent, the latter behaviour—and this is also an example of miscomprehension. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 14:34, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Did you take down the entire post? That goes against your whole claim of transparency. Say what you mean and mean what you say. Edwardkenwayfan31 (talk) 23:07, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Excuse me, are you going to address why you took down the entire thread? Edwardkenwayfan31 (talk) 10:27, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

One-month ban

	"There is still time to clear your conscience."
	Safety and peace. Once again, we are here to inform you of your recent activity on the wiki. Whatever you may have done to receive these warnings, we can assure that all is not lost yet. Please remember that you are working within a community, and cooperation is an integral part of the wiki's maintenance. This is your second warning. Arrivederci.

Due to toxic behavior from your part, I'm giving you a one-month ban. It's imperative to ensure a respectful and constructive space for all members here. Even if you disagree with someone's opinion, you must go for the healthy way to deal with it, there are better ways to settle your differences.
Don't push it.
Cristophorus35 (talk) 03:39, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

This one was on me; I did indeed overreact, but don't leave passive-aggressive remarks on my talk page ("don't push it".) Thank you. Edwardkenwayfan31 (talk) 16:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

If I may butt in here, this is your first edit after you just returned from a 1-month ban? You're in no position to accuse anyone of leaving "passive-aggressive remarks", especially the Staff member who imposed the block. As an admin, Cristophorus is well within his right to warn you not to cross certain lines. Do you really want to risk a third-tier warning or even a perma-ban? – Darman (talk) 02:55, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I viewed it as passive-aggressive because of the context in which he added it (he seperated it from the rest of the message, which in my view subtly implies a passive-aggressive threat). My 1-month block was justified since I was acting out of line but two wrongs don't make a right, to put it lightly. Edwardkenwayfan31 (talk) 13:34, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

My message was meant to emphasize the importance of following community guidelines, not to be passive-aggressive. It's about upholding these standards, as it's the Staff's duty. Frequent offenses will be warned about. Cristophorus35 (talk) 22:34, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Furthermore, there's nothing passive-aggressive about the formatting, either. Putting this short sentence as its own text line separate from the main message body renders it as a closing statement; it's no different from writing "Regards", "I look forward to your reply", etc. before signing one's name on another new line in a letter, which is effectively what Cristophorus did. – Darman (talk) 23:50, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

OK. Edwardkenwayfan31 (talk) 16:40, 1 November 2024 (UTC)