Welcome to the wiki! This page lists some of the guidelines you have to follow while taking part in the Assassin's Creed Wiki community.
I. Civility and etiquette[]
- (a) Basic decency
- 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.
- (b) No discrimination
- Messages which evince prejudice against a certain race, gender, sex, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, ethnicity, nationality, age, and/or physical or mental disability, and discriminatory behaviour towards these protected categories, are strictly prohibited. Dismissing or denying an individual's lived experiences and their personal anecdote about a social or political issue will not be tolerated. Users who employ hate speech and/or racial slurs, as well as users whose actions speak to condoning genocide, are subject to an immediate ban.
- (c) No bullying or harassment
- Bullying and harassment will not be tolerated. Do not resort to personal attacks. Messaging a user excessively to complain over an issue or a declined request, especially if it involves pursuing them across multiple platforms to circumvent a block or ban, may be interpreted as harassment. Non-consensual sexually obscene comments to another user on or off-site constitute sexual harassment and warrant an immediate ban.
- (d) Conduct in debates and conflict resolution
- In matters of dispute, users are expected to do their best to advance the conversation and properly engage with the other parties' 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 depending on the subject matter.
- 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.
- The above bullet points are situated within reasonable parameters. Users who have committed multiple infractions, constantly demonstrated dishonesty and insincerity, or received multiple warnings for the same or similar offences in the past may be appropriately suspected of less than good faith behaviour.
- Users are encouraged to do their best to maintain composure, even when they believe they are in the right and have a valid reason to be angry. Frustration in and of itself is not an offence, but resorting to profanities and name-calling in the midst of a dispute may be interpreted as a breach of conduct.
- "Being blunt" is not an excuse for a lack of civility, etiquette, and consideration towards others. Likewise, being corrected for poor edits or reprimanded for disruptive behaviour should not be construed as a lack of civility.
- When one has an earnest issue with another user, a good rule-of-thumb for etiquette is to state in terms of ego's own observation, thoughts, or beliefs (e.g. "I believe that you…, "I think that you…", "I feel that you…", "My impression was…") as opposed to making a direct accusation about alter (e.g. "You are…"). The truth-value of one's statement then depend on whether or not one had observed, thought, or believed in that way, as opposed to whether or not the observation, thought, or belief itself is correct. In other words, they can argue whether your thoughts and opinions are right, as well as whether you were justified in forming that opinion, but they cannot argue the very fact that you have that thought or that you have felt a certain way—and vice versa. This also helps to practice separating one's own opinions about another person from facts about that person. Not merely a means of softening tone, this is a logical tool that functions to more clearly distinguish a statement about an issue with another user from a personal attack against them.
- (e) Spam and vandalism are prohibited.
- (f) Encouraging illegal behaviour and/or inciting violence are grounds for an immediate ban.
- (g) These community guidelines apply to the Assassin's Creed Wiki Discord server.
- As an extension of the Assassin's Creed Wiki community, interactions and conduct between users on that platform are, for the purposes of moderation, equivalent to interactions and conduct on the Assassin's Creed Wiki website itself.
- Our Discord server rules are the same as our Assassin's Creed Wiki rules, and a user who receives a warning or ban on our Discord server for violation of the rules will also be banned on the Assassin's Creed Wiki and vice versa. For example, harassment of another user on the Discord platform constitutes harassment of that user all the same. Likewise for the safety of wiki users, posting NSFW images on the Discord server, such as graphic photos of gore or sexual exploitation, will also be treated as the equivalent of having uploaded such images on the wiki. That they are separate platforms is not a suitable defence against sanctions on the wiki.
- (h) Not being aware does not make you exempt.
- It is every user's own responsibility to make sure they are following the rules. Not knowing about them does not mean they may be excused from violating the rules.
II. Editing rules and etiquette[]
Editing standards: codified rules and conventions[]
All contributors (also known as editors) are expected to familiarize themselves with the Assassin's Creed Wiki's Manual of Style, which serves as the codified rules on the formatting style and writing direction of the website. In addition to the manual of style, contributors should take care to note that the wiki also has uncodified conventions on formatting practices that have developed organically over time from consensus-building. Conventions do not have the same authoritative weight as the manual of style, but they should be respected. Together, these make up the standards of editing on the Assassin's Creed Wiki.
Because familiarity with the standards is a learning process, contributors will not be immediately penalized for deviating from them or making errors. While it is the responsibility of contributors to read and consult the manual of style, it is also the responsibility of members of the Bureau (i.e. the administrators and moderators) to correct and remind them of editing standards and to help them improve their writing. This is especially the case in regards to conventions, which being unwritten norms take time for new contributors to learn and be accustomed to.
Edits which contravene the manual of style and conventions are not normally subject to penalties, but repeated violations when the contributor is expected to have become well-informed of the standards are disruptive to the wiki and may eventually warrant a warning. As stipulated in the moderation policy, it is the responsibility of a member of the Bureau to apprise a contributor of their mistakes, and it is at their discretion to issue a warning when they determine that a contributor is wilfully ignoring or violating wiki standards.
For editing errors alone, a Bureau member must abide by the moderation track and issue warning or bans at progressive stages and not skip stages. Where a contributor is situated along the moderation track is predicated on a Bureau member taking the action to move them. Thus, no matter how many times a contributor has violated editing standards, a third offence—which merits an official first-level warning—has not yet been officially counted against them if a Bureau member has not yet informed them on their talk page about the error two times. Even if a contributor is persisting in their violations of editing standards after having been informed twice, a Bureau member may choose to be lenient at their own discretion and not issue a warning for the third stage on the moderation track. If bureau members later decide that a warning should have been issued earlier, they may not retroactively decide that a stage has been missed and count multiple stages at once or skip ahead.
- Note: The process outlined here pertains only to violations of editing standards as penalties for other offences, such as spam, vandalism, edit warring, and ban evasion, begin at higher stages of the moderation track.