User talk:Amorkuz

Cwej anthology timeline clarification
Hey Amorkuz, I know that you'd prefer that we forever forgo any semblance of friendly conversation, but I think I could provide some helpful context about the timeline of the Cwej anthology. Namely, as you can see in the initial tentative announcement, the anthology didn't originally have any connection with Arcbeatle; instead, it was expected that Andy Lane would be releasing it in his own publishing house. If you scroll down, you'll see also that the Arcbeatle connection wasn't announced until December 20th. As someone who was pitching a story to the anthology throughout the initial debate, I wasn't even informed by the Cwej editor about Arcbeatle's potential involvement until after the deletion of the first thread, and I would be somewhat surprised if Revan's experience was any different! Since you expressed your frustration that you could no longer see a way to maintain good faith in Revan, I just figured you'd be interested in this information, as it provides an easily-accessible explanation that doesn't involve any of these serious accusations about Revan deliberately concealing his involvement.

PS: It was my understanding that T:FORUM indicates that kudos don't count as contributions to any conversation, since they are not counted by admins for the counting of opinions. But just in case, I've gone through and carefully expunged my kudos from Thread:260549. – N8  ( ☎ / 👁️ ) 02:08, January 9, 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Nate for fighting my corner. I'd like to post this message as a full disclosure on the subject. I have always tried to remain as transparent as possible when it comes to my status on the wiki, and I think further clarification over accusations made about my behaviour is necessary. The Cwej anthology started out as a publication of Andy Lane's imprint Slow Decay Books. At the time of the Dawns thread opening, as far as my knowledge went, this was still the case, so I took part in the debate without any kind of agenda. However, towards the end of the original debate, I did learn of the Cwej anthology's move to Arcbeatle, and when Fandom asked that anyone involved with Arcbeatle not participate in future threads, I followed their wishes. You'll notice from my edit history that I've made no contributions to the further two Dawns threads, as that would cause the conflict of interest from which you imply. At the time I could not divulge the reason for my silence on those threads, but with the announcement from Arcbeatle about the anthology I'm able to clarify things.

I have to say, I am disappointed this issue was first brought up on a public thread. By assuming good faith I would have expected the first questions about my involvement with Arcbeatle to come from my talk page. In future I'd like that to be where the discussion (if you feel there needs to be any) to continue, as I refuse to partake in the thread because of my interests with Arcbeatle.

Thanks --Revan\Talk 15:33, January 9, 2020 (UTC)

Hi Amorkuz. I've read your latest posts on the thread, and while the subject of the discussion is not and should not be about me, but the stories for inclusion, I feel best to address the matter.

The kudos system is fairly new. As you can see from the debate, there is much discussion among users about its relevence to the thread, and whether it is counted when making a final decision on the topic. It was a bad decision for me to lend kudos to the debate, and given that I'm involved in an Arcbeatle project, I decided it best to remove my kudos before a final decision was made, in case in any way it affected the judgement of the closing admin. I shouldn't have done that either, but I felt that by removing my kudos I was remaining true to my original comment and also leaving the thread in the capable hands of those partaking in the debate.

Now finally, I'd like to stress the nature of your behaviour towards my character. Clearly, in the eyes of an outsider, I have been percieved to be all the things you say. While my interests have been influenced by my recent affiliation with Arcbeatle (by which I mean my dropping off the discussion with no explanation as I had no right to announce the Cwej book as now being published by Arcbeatle), I believed I had done the right thing by not influencing the second and third debates by any posting anything.

I feel victimised and, quite frankly, bullied by your behaviour, and your need to twist my comments and broadcast them for all the community to see. I don't believe it's the behaviour of a responsible admin, and I do feel it's a personal attack on myself, regardless of what intention you may have had.

Finally, I'd like you notify you that I will be ceasing my contributions to the wiki. Your behaviour has made this environment toxic for me, and with recent added pressures to my life, I think it best for my own health to step away.

I only wish that you continue this debate focusing on the actual subject, and not the behaviour of people involved in the original debate (which, if I recall rightly, Fandom asked to be scrubbed and start the debate from scratch in debate 2). The users involved in the debate are so passionate about the inclusion of these stories, and I'd hate to see them alienated.

--Revan\Talk 08:49, January 11, 2020 (UTC)

Requested Clarifications and Q&A
In your reply to my note on your talk page, you asked several questions and identified several points that you found unclear. I cannot and will not speak for Revan, Arcbeatle, or the Cwej anthology editors, so I am unable to fully answer all of your questions. Nonetheless, they were addressed to me, so I will give them my best shot. By doing this, I hope to clarify your points of confusion and move toward de-escalation of this disagreement.

Note to any onlookers: I regret my violation of T:SPOIL in my previous message on this talk page, and I have considered redacting it, but since Amorkuz quoted that message in full in his reply, there's not really a point. As for this post, it does not discuss future releases any more than Amorkuz's comments in that thread.

Following your example, I will quote each point in full.


 * "It is not clear why NateBumber thinks he is sufficiently aware of business arrangements between James Wylder and Revanvolatrelundar to respond on the latter's behalf."

At no point did I claim to be responding on Revan's behalf; if you review my comment, I actually specifically stated that I had no idea if my anecdotal experience matched Revan's. (Although, as it happens, it did.) I also was not attempting to respond to your specific questions to him (unlike what I'm doing now). My actual motivation for sharing the information was spelled out in the original message, and it was quite far from "speaking for Revan":

"Since you expressed your frustration that you could no longer see a way to maintain good faith in Revan, I just figured you'd be interested in this information, as it provides an easily-accessible explanation that doesn't involve any of these serious accusations about Revan deliberately concealing his involvement."

Not to sound like a broken record, but I am baffled by your failure to simply take me at my word.


 * "It is not clear why NateBumber treats the description from T:FORUM of "a statement of being for" as non-participation. T:FORUM does call it unhelpful. In this particular case, NateBumber's kudos were also against the explicit requests of FANDOM. But expressing one's support for validity is very far from not participating in a validity debate."

... I know, right? That section of my comment was explicitly a parenthetical aside to admit a mistake. My reasoning was flawed, because ... my reasoning was flawed. I wasn't arguing with you there.

Or, at least, that's what I believed at the time. Looking at it, Revan was an admin for 6 years before you were first nominated, and he came to the opposite conclusion as you; no third admin has weighed in, so I don't know who to believe. It is worth noticing that while the addition of new posts or even new "related pages" to a thread will be reflected on a user's list of contributions page, "Kudos"es do not. While Revan and I have both removed our "Kudos"es out of respect for your wishes, I reserve judgment regarding that particular issue.


 * "NateBumber misrepresents T:FORUM. [...]"

I believe that I adequately answered this in my response to the previous point.


 * "It is not clear why NateBumber thinks that removing his kudos well after Thread:260549 was closed changes anything. However, I appreciate him being public and clear about what he did and why."

By my reckoning, Thread:260549 is not closed, so it shouldn't be at all unclear how this "changes anything".

That said, despite your appreciation, I do sincerely regret my action, since - despite the fact that it was motivated by respect for you and your wishes - it inspired Revan to do the same, opening himself up to your extremely uncharitable accusations that he was trying to "cover up his participation" to "make it appear that [you] were lying".


 * "NateBumber's link to Gallifrey Base is not "easily accessible" because the link does not work without a login. Accordingly, I did not verify whether the details provided by NateBumber match the link."

I apologize for assuming that you either had access or would be able to make an account. Given your admirable penchant for chasing down every lead, whether it involves an ISBN search engine or an archived version of an obscure Tumblr post, I assumed that this would be no problem for you. My mistake.

That said, I do stand by my characterization of Gallifrey Base as "easily accessible". It is trivially simple to make an account, as testified by the fact that – in the words of User:CzechOut – it is "perhaps the world's largest online Doctor Who forum", which earns it its enviable position as one of only two fan websites covered on this wiki.

In any case, screenshots of the aforementioned posts are available in this Imgur album. (Note that the second screenshotted comment also includes a quote of the full text of the link, without any changes as far as I can see, but it didn't fit in the screenshot.) These will inform my replies to your final four questions. If you doubt the accuracy of the screenshots, I invite you to create a Gallifrey Base account and independently verify it for yourself.


 * "Were Andy Lane planning to publish the book, why would Hunter O'Connell collect money for it without mentioning Andy Lane as the publisher?"

The answer is that he did mention Andy Lane as the publisher, in the screenshots I provided. Looking at the crowdfunding page, I fail to see any description of the book at all besides the campaign title, so it's unsurprising that the publisher was unmentioned.


 * "Was Andy Lane planning to publish a charity book of his own character with zero publicity?"

No, because there never was a "charity book". If you're talking about the Cwej anthology, the fact that Slow Decay never advertized it is unsurprising. In my experience with Obverse Books, anthologies are worked on for months before they are publicized by the publisher, and Big Finish is known to commission, record, and edit (eg) Fourth Doctor Adventures audios for years before announcement.


 * "How and when did this charity book become an allegedly fully commercially licensed regular book?"

It was never a charity book; your only evidence for this is a quickly corrected mistake made by an artist last summer. (Contrast with the GallifreyBase screencaps from months earlier, which are very clear that it's fully licensed.)


 * "Just like with all other future projects of Arcbeatle Press, what is the evidence that commercial license was granted by all copyright holders?"

The evidence is that Arcbeatle Press says it is. That should be enough, unless you're accusing a publisher of lying about their own legality. That has been a historically contentious approach, but by all means, don't let me stop you from pursuing it.

Now I've answered your questions and clarified your points of confusion, I hope you will entertain me as I ask you some questions of my own. Out of respect for your time, I'll limit myself to 6:


 * 1) You opened your response by noting that "Not for the first time, the first to react to a question regarding commercial interests of Arcbeatle Press was NateBumber". This is literally untrue, since Borisashton's response predated mine by nearly an hour; even if it were true, I fail to see why this would be helpful or relevant information or context to provide. As it stands, the only explanation I can imagine is that you're trying to cast shade on my motives, but I refuse to believe that, and T:FAITH mandates that I look for an alternate answer. Could you help me?
 * 2) Your chain of questioning regarding the future anthology seems to suggest that you suspect that the editor secured non-commercial rights from Andy Lane to make a Cwej charity anthology, then changed it to a commercial release without permission. Is this an argument you are indeed making?
 * 3) Regarding the previous question: If the answer is No, why would it be important or relevant even if Down the Middle did start as a charity anthology (which it didn't), when the wiki covers plenty of stories that were originally intended for or published in charity publications before being released as professional, licensed fiction?
 * 4) You mention that Thread:260549 is "closed", with the added implication that it was closed long ago. Do you therefore respect Doug86's 16 November positive verdict on the validity of the stories as a closing admin?
 * 5) Despite the fact that it is normal to reply to Talk Page messages with a Talk Page message, you instead replied to my Talk Page message with a Forum post. You did this in the knowledge that I could not reply in the forum, and in the knowledge that my comment (and your reply) entirely concerns User:Revanvolatrelundar's behavior and the future Cwej anthology, neither of which are related to the topic of the thread, as specified in its title: the stories Rachel Survived, White Canvas, The Gendar Conspiracy, and Life After Death. Why did you reply there?
 * 6) I second Revan's confusion about why your initial, fully-debunked accusation that he had maliciously lied and concealed a conflict of interest was first raised in the thread rather than on his talk page. Even if Revan did conceal a conflict of interest (which he didn't), how would that have any effect on the ability of the four short stories to pass the four little rules?

Best regards! – N8  ( ☎ / 👁️ ) 20:50, January 11, 2020 (UTC)


 * Amorkuz, cheers for the lengthy talk page message. Unfortunately, I presently cannot give you the point-by-point response you deserve; school is still my main creative outlet, and it has only become more demanding as it has progressed. For the same reason, the "new Doctor Who spinoff" I once mentioned is quite unlikely to ever materialize, and I also cannot undertake the (quite substantial) edits you requested. As you recently reminded me, all editors must be considerate of each others' unique schedules and habits, so -- just as I understand your inability or unwillingness to answer any of the six questions I asked you in the above message, to which you were nominally replying -- I appreciate your understanding that this is not me "showing that [I] prefer to side with a publisher rather than with our wiki rules", but merely me showing that I'm busy. That said, there are a few specific claims you made that I can briefly reply to.


 * First, that I ignored policy by creating The Rise and Fall of Señor 105. You're quite right that I'm well aware that Thread:117545 says the Señor 105 series is invalid. But the Señor 105 series ended in 2014, whereas this book is part of the Obverse Sextet series, which features Señor 105 alongside Faction Paradox, Iris Wildthyme, the Manleigh Halt Irregulars, etc. Meaning The Rise and Fall is more along the lines of Elementary, My Dear Sheila than The Gulf. In hindsight, I should have started a thread about it, but it seemed to me a straightforward application of the precedent set by The Worlds of Big Finish. Mea culpa. In any case, I feel as if your points would probably have been better placed on the book's talk page, where other users can also see and comment on them.


 * Second, that The Book of the War is a non-narrative source. I see that User:Scrooge MacDuck has already begun countering this suggestion, and I believe it was he whom you once warned,

"Please refrain from commenting on material you haven't read."

- User:Amorkuz


 * In the same spirit, I invite you to read The Book of the War before calling for its invalidity. You might be surprised with what you find. In any case, I again feel as if your points would probably have been better placed elsewhere, whether the book's talk page or an "exclusion debate" thread, as evidenced by the fact that there are now other users litigating The Book of the War's validity on your talk page!


 * Third, that my contributions to The Book of the Enemy and The Book of the Peace are due to some sort of (cleverly-named) "Credit for Edit" conspiracy. The only evidence for this is my hiring by Obverse Books, from which you conclude

"The only plausible explanation for the preferential treatment is that it was a reward for your FP advocacy here on the wiki."

- User:Amorkuz


 * I contest the notion that this is "the only plausible explanation". There are some other pieces of information which you didn't mention, and they point toward an alternative explanation:
 * As you know, I (used to) maintain a Faction Paradox fan blog on Tumblr.
 * Jacob Black, another new writer in The Book of the Enemy, also maintains a Faction Paradox fan blog on Tumblr.
 * Simon Bucher-Jones, editor of The Book of the Enemy, happens to also maintain a blog on Tumblr.
 * Simon Bucher-Jones invited both Jacob and I to contribute to The Book of the Enemy at the same time, in fall 2017, via Tumblr DM. (In a conversation that was, I imagine, actually quite similar to Russell T Davies inviting J.K. Rowling to contribute to Who. I must admit, your comment about that confuses me. It wasn't an anthology where you could submit a story; how else could a writer join the project, other than being asked?)


 * As you've likely guessed, the alternative explanation I'm pointing to is that Simon Bucher-Jones poached talent from Tumblr, not the wiki. In fact, this explanation has an advantage over yours: not only is it plausible, it also doesn't assume bad faith -- and on top of that, it's true. If only you had asked me to explain before embarking on this speculation, I could have preemptively allayed your concerns about this "scheme"!


 * (And, just to set the record straight, the quote you listed does not at all indicate that I had "no writing credentials" before being asked to write for Obverse: rather, I had already contributed several stories to the Shit Trips fan anthology series -- as noted on my Wiki author page -- and organized a charity anthology -- before, once again, my irl commitments meant I had to step away.)


 * Beyond these specific claims, I must admit that I fail to see the relevance of many of your points.
 * As far as I can recall, I've never cited T:SPOIL or T:FORUM against you; if you disagree with how they were used in Thread:260549, you should probably take it up with those users, not me.
 * I'm sorry to hear that you find Help:Assume good faith so frustrating, but I'm glad we agree that I was not "phishing" by inviting you on a podcast. Previous Who Cares guests have used voice filters and temporary, anonymous Discord accounts to record episodes, so had you asked, I would have been able to sincerely ensure you that no personal information would have been solicited, even if you had accepted.
 * Lastly, I'm also sorry to hear that narrative subversion upsets you so; I felt what I can only imagine is a similar frustration when The Day of the Doctor subverted Russell T Davies' intentions for the Last Great Time War, so I can empathize. If you wish to relitigate Thread:206566 based on this new Rule 4 evidence, I invite you to do so.


 * I could go on at great length defending T:FAITH, The Rise and Fall of Señor 105, The Book of the War, and the irrelevance of series aesthetics to validity; there are also many more points I could dispute, such as the timeline of edits on that artist's Tumblr post. But as I've already mentioned, I'm sorry that I simply don't have the time. (I also don't want to take up the rather silly position of defending wiki policy to an admin!)


 * That said, I noticed that many of your individual points seem to be better suited for other talk pages or their own Panopticon threads, and while your subject line ("It would have been impolite not to respond") contextualizes them as a reply to my previous message to you, there is only -- at best -- one paragraph that even tangentially connects with anything I asked you. Rather, the connecting theme I see between your points is that they're all related to me, tangentially or otherwise, from questioning my honesty about conflicts of interest to critiquing edits I made three years ago. As a reminder, policy states:

"Specific examples of personal attacks include but are not limited to: Never suggest a view is invalid simply because of who its proponent is."
 * Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme.
 * Accusatory comments towards editors or people associated with the production of Doctor Who that can be considered personal attacks if said repeatedly, in bad faith, or with sufficient venom.

- Tardis:No personal attacks


 * In any case, I'll forgo this particular chance to ask you any more questions. Thanks for reading! – N8  ( ☎ / 👁️ ) 19:01, January 21, 2020 (UTC)

Contextual quotes in response to claims being made in Thread:260549
In keeping with my own request for everyone to confine personal matters / representations of individual users to user talk pages, I will post some quotes here which provide context to the quote which you brought out at Thread:260549 to make claims about my past decision-making.

Looking at the surrounding context, first of all from just a few minutes earlier, I put it well enough in the following quotes (without quoting other people without having obtained their permission):

And most tellingly, on August 27th, I re-affirmed my position of "neutrality but I won't get in the way of a consensus" in the following message:

This was my response to the claim being made about three admin, just one week after the decision was made. My silent "agreement", as I had to make clear (above) once again just 7 days this passive assent, was in fact another phrasing of "I still haven't had the time to look into this, but since I am being called upon to state an opinion here, I will get in the way of what would otherwise be a unanimous decision, as I haven't yet had time to get my facts in order".

With full context, in case you missed those messages at the time, I hope this clears things up. 00:31, January 12, 2020 (UTC)


 * How weirdly appropriate that, in response to me professing my loathing for lies, you respond with a lie. The first quote that is supposed to provide context to your vote to delete Wylder's stories
 * "I understand that. What I now realise I did not communicate at the time is that I have had an incredibly busy week, the last few days in particular, so I did not see those messages when you sent them, and I did not have time to get into a full discussion on the matter when it was brought up at earlier times. My lack of response was not agreement, merely.. a lack of response"

- SOTO, August 20, 2019, 20:15


 * has nothing to do with Wylder or Arcbeatle Press. It is about your promise to deal with Nikisketches situation, my repeated requests for you to follow through and your failure. Four minutes later you wrote
 * "In this instance, given that we represent the wiki and you were already offline by the time I saw the message you had left for him, I had to add some points to prevent, as you say, a shitstorm"

- SOTO, August 20 2019, 20:19
 * The message you mentioned can be found here. Because eventually, I got tired of your complete absence and acted in your stead, after which, much like in this situation, you barged in, all holier than thou, and told me off for messing things up and misrepresenting your position. It seems to be becoming a trend, when you wait till a shitstorm happens, partly through your inaction, and then present yourself as a peacemaker/saviour/adjudicator.


 * By the way, votes do not require context. Votes are not complex statements that can be misunderstood. Votes are a choice between "yay", "nay" or "abstain". I have abstained multiple times during our discussions, letting others decide. "Not standing in a way of a consensus" would be abstaining. You joined the consensus. It was your decision and it requires no context. Voting "yes" while crossing fingers behind your back and saying you take no responsibility for your vote is, well, irresponsible. Let me give you an analogy. Suppose a panel of three judges voted unanimously to reject an appeal and a person remains in prison, but one of the judges actually did not have time to look at the evidence. They just went along with the others, not caring whether the person should stay in prison or not. When later new evidence is presented, the same appeals court receives the case, and this judge claims that they are best equipped to handle it because they did not care one way or the other before and now can finally show due dilligence. Is that how you think justice should be done? Amorkuz ☎

RE: additional tangent

 * I would also like to respond to the following quote from the same thread, which again I will do here as this has no bearing and no place in a forum discussion:
 * "I am sure the whole community would highly appreciate to learn about these results. Personally I am ready to argue about your findings [...] Since you yourself now think that you were wrong during the initial decision, it stands to reason that you might be wrong in (some parts) of your researched material. Thus, it would make sense to present it to the community before doing anything rash."


 * So I don't know how to clarify this any more than I have, but I'll try. First, my assent at the time of the initial decision was both passive and conditional. Helpfully, you included the most important part of my sentence when you quoted me: "As long as we're being fully consistent". Together with the complete context, it's clear that I had nothing to be "wrong" about here. I was relying on the assumption that the research conducted by yourself and any others involved was correct and that the conclusions drawn were consistent. I agreed not to get in the way of a unanimous consensus expressly on the condition that this was, in fact, correct.


 * As the person who actually wrote the sentence which you've quoted, I remember exactly what I had in mind when I based my assent around that conditional phrasing. Perhaps I could have worded it better, this I do not deny. But nonetheless I still did make clear, on top of emphasising my neutrality before and afterwards, that my passive assent in that moment would be withdrawn if facts come to light which suggest that deletion would not be consistent with policies and precedent.


 * As for your final claim, equating my act of conducting independent research in the interest of fulfilling my role as a closing admin (as one of the only active admin who has remained neutral throughout) to "doing [something] rash", I have to say that this reading is more than a little surprising. This has been how we close threads, as a matter of course, for at least as long as I've been participating on this wiki, and certainly how it has been done, in accordance with T:FORUM, throughout the 7 years I have been here as an admin.




 * There is nothing out of the ordinary about my collecting data and evidence prior to making a final post. That's kind of the whole thing about being the closing admin in a thread. It's about looking into all the relevant policies, and past discussions, as well as taking time for a close reading of the thread in question, before coming to whichever conclusion fits all the evidence. No matter what conclusion is arrived at, there will be users unhappy with the decision which was made. Once again, this is nothing out of the ordinary. 01:09, January 12, 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll be returning to the thread tomorrow to iron out how the T:SPOIL vios are being dealt with and then to lay out what happens next, as the thread as it now exists devolved into many counts of violations around T:FORUM and T:SPOIL. So I'll be addressing that tomorrow. I'll just say briefly now that I was already doing my due diligence, making sure I've looked at this from all corners, before you came into the thread, and no it is not convenient that I ended up having to close the thing before things got further out of hand. I have not "joined" any such movement as you describe, and in fact have taken great care to make sure I'm addressing this without preferential treatment toward anyone or their positions. This ultimately has to be someone impartial's duty as an admin, hence why I have refrained from participating or taking sides this whole time. To be clear, I have not yet issued a closing statement. It was simply my duty as an admin to put a halt to this. Now, as I said in the current final message, more to come tomorrow on how we can move forward. Thank you for your patience on this matter. 08:10, January 12, 2020 (UTC)
 * I also happen to be the foremost expert on my own thoughts and personal experiences, by the way, so I don't appreciate being told that I'm lying about my own historical intent. I provided additional quotes, above, which actually contextualise what you removed from context, and they clearly show that I am expressing the same thing here as I was at the time. If this was not effectively communicated in my wording in one message at the time, if taken out of context, there isn't much I can do about that, other than, again, clarify, and bring out the context you may have missed the first time around. In any case, I fail to see the relevance; I'm only clarifying because I do not appreciate being misrepresented, even if, as in this case, it's about very minor things. I can speak for myself. 08:25, January 12, 2020 (UTC)

My response to comments about me
Hi there. I'd like to address some of your comments at User talk:SOTO. You claim that I started the most recent thread regarding 10,000 Dawns as soon as the prior one was closed and without any new evidence. This is simply not true. There was over two weeks between the two threads which was the time given by User:CzechOut as the cooling off period when the first thread was deleted. As for new evidence, is it not significant that Arcbeatle increased their DWU output by 25% with the release of a new story? Even if it isn't, surely a statement from the writer and publisher of the stories that they are "set in the Doctor Who Universe" is pertinent when the prior thread deemed that the stories were intended to be set outside the DWU? This was just some of the new evidence outlined in the OP.

I'll briefly mention Eloquence here. In short, I redlinked it because we cover a ton of unofficial reference books and I don't see how this is any different to be honest.

Finally, I'd like to ask you kindly one last time to stop implying untruths about the circumstances of the creation of the spoilerific anthology page. It was very clearly created by User:OncomingStorm12th so if you have any questions about it I advise you visit his talk page. Please stop associating me with it by saying things like "Borisashton's edits alerted me" when it is just another one of the thousands of pages I have edited. Thanks, --Borisashton ☎  10:48, January 12, 2020 (UTC)

Another reply
You criticise me and others for a supposed "hypocrisy", but I fail to see how your behaviour, from an outside point of view, would lead to different conclusions. These controversial debates are difficult waters to navigate as it is; please, don't make assumptions like that about other people's intent, lest others make the same about you and it all descend into a mire of personal attacks and ad hominems.

With the following quote: "defending your guy no matter the facts: * Eloquence of blah is an academic work and, hence, can use whatever trademarks one likes (says Scrooge)."

- source you construe my guess regarding the fact that An Eloquence of Time & Space may have had leeway to use the image of the police box thanks to its being a book about the TV series Doctor Who rather than a piece of fiction, not only as some sort of definitive "that's the way it is and I'll take no arguments" statement from me, but you also accuse me of only making this guess in a desperate effort to "defend [my] guy no matter what".

Yet on the thread, when, concerned about the impact such words might have on the Wiki's reputation, I asked if you were accusing Arcbeatle Press of legal wrongdoing, you replied:

"TI clearly stated that I would like OP (or indeed anyone else) to explain how it fit with the copyright. I did not state that it does not. I do not understand how it does and asked for a clarification. Asking for clarification is not an accusation."

- source

If you have every confidence that Arcbeatle did respect copyright law in this instance, and are only confused as to the how… well, as I told you then, what does your lack of understanding have to do with anything? And how does venturing a guess as to said "how" constitute "defending [Wylder] no matter what"? If you were making no accusations, what would I be defending him from, exactly?

That being said, from the following quote—

"And if I point out to their past deceptive practices, I am being biased and these past deeds anyway have no bearing on the debate."

- source

—it sure does sound as though you are accusing Arcbeatle Press of deceiving its readers. Perhaps this wasn't yet your position when you replied to me earlier about the dangers of accusing real-life businesses of wrongdoings; but when you begin to talk about "past deceptive practices", when you act as though they are facts that you are simply "point[ing] out", I fail to see how that is not an accusation.

That being said, what "deceptive practices", anyway?

"(…) These grueling debates are nothing but a marketing strategy. They would like to use FANDOM's excellent SEO to better sell their books, and use it for free. That is why James Wylder put an enormous amount of efforts into fulfilling the validity conditions, helped and advised by our editors/his collaborators no doubt, but failed to actually start selling these books."

- source

Arcbeatle Press stands accused of… seeking to be recognised by institutions of the online Doctor Who fandom? How is trying one's hardest to create licensed, valid Doctor Who fiction, and then pointing out that one has done so, "deceptive"? It would be deceptive if Arcbeatle Press hadn't actually created the licensed Doctor Who fiction they say they did, certainly, but as I was just saying, it seems unbelievably risky to me to accuse an actual business, and actual individuals, of copyright fraud on the Internet.

By all means, if you believe Arcbeatle is running some kind of scam, inform the non-NateBumber copyright holders of your beliefs, and let's see how that goes.

But if Wylder & Co. did obtain the licenses they say they did, then for God's sake, what is your problem with this situation? Where on Earth does it say in Tardis:Valid sources that making an active and knowing effort to comply with Tardis:Valid sources renders one invalid?

And I can't even follow your bizarre reasoning all the way through: if this is all a ploy to get more attention and sell their books, why would Arcbeatle not starting to sell these books just yet constitute a smoking gun of a mercantile mindset of that kind? If you think SEO is all there is to it, the pages already exist on Tardis and have for ages now. I'm not sure what more "promotion" the removal of the would award it. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎  13:06, January 12, 2020 (UTC)
 * Right! I better see what you mean with "deceptive practices"; thank you for the in-depth answer. I am indeed unconnected to Arcbeatle Press professionally speaking; not am I a friend of James Wylder. What I am, however, is a reader of his — I quite enjoy 10,000 Dawns, the actual novel that the disputed short stories are a crossover with, and its spin-off Lady Aesculapius. But that's the extent of it.


 * All that being said, while you may by all means present this evidence of yours, I still don't see how it's relevant to Tardis:Valid sources. It definitely looks bad from the way you make it sound, though you'll forgive me if I reserve final judgement until I've seen the evidence in question for myself. Certainly, there could be much more innocent explanations for Wylder deleting his Twitter archive than what you imply, for example; let's not forget Steven Moffat deleted his Twitter once, and obviously he wasn't hiding anything in doing so. And I think the burden of proof remains firmly on you to prove Arcbeatle's in the wrong, not the other way around.


 * (As concerns User:SOTO's research, which incidentally, for all you or I know, could very well be just looking for Wiki precedent as is often done by closing admins, rather than further investigating Arcbeatle Press itself… well — if you yourself haven't had the time to present all your research, surely it makes sense that they haven't either. Unless I'm very much mistaken about the timeline of events here, you had already done much of this research before the thread was closed to save all of our sanities; why didn't you present it then? Whatever your answer is, it's likely also part of SOTO's answer.


 * Beyond that, look, I can't speak for SOTO and their thought processes any more than you, or anyone else, can. I would again please urge you, and anyone else involved in this debate, not to read nefarious intent into any participant's actions or words. That way lies madness. I mean, it would be very easy for me to look at the evidence you have presumably gathered in good faith, and say, "well, obviously you are some conspiracy theorist out to discredit Wylder because of some personal vendetta to which I'm not privy". Is that the level of debate to which we want to devolve?)


 * But either way, making themselves appear more successful than they are wouldn't mean Arcbeatle Press's stories are not fully-licensed and valid. I mean, surely a Doctor Who television story wouldn't be made invalid by its coming to light that the BBC had doctored audience figures, or something of that kind? If you have concerns about wrongdoings from Arcbeatle other than licensing issues or some other T:VS-relevant matter… well, surely that ought to be a thread of its own? If that. Interesting as it all may be (and certainly, as a fan of 10k Dawns, it's something I'd want to know more about if it is indeed true), concerns about Arcbeatle's advertising don't seem hugely relevant to Wiki policy at all. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎  19:14, January 12, 2020 (UTC)

Re: Response
Hi there. First off, as always I will apoligise if I misinterpreted what you were saying but from my point of view the only thing I can do if I see that I am being misrepresented is refute that misrepresentation. It is hardly in my interests to allow that perceived misrepresentation to stand, is it?

Secondly, I agree that if every user that was unhappy with the verdict of a debate attempted to open a new one soon afterwards chaos would ensue. However, that was simply not the case in this instance. As SOTO pointed out in their closing statement, a piece of evidence uncovered in the OP that was absent from the second Arcbeatle debate was the "most salient piece of information" regarding rule 4 and the overturning of Shambala's previous verdict. As a sidenote, I'm not sure why you keep bringing up Thread:237184. I can assure you an admin will get round to it eventually, it seems pretty cut-and-dry. Would you say no admin has been "daring" enough to close Thread:194657 simply because it has been open since 2016 or is it simply due to a lack of time or any other thousand reasons?

Thirdly, the post starting "I don't usually like posting more than two times in a row" did contain new info. It revealed that Simon Bucher-Jones had worked with Arcbeatle before, thereby decreasing the chance they had simply lied about getting his permission. You express uncertainty as to whether Nate Bumber speaks for other individuals in regard to licensing as late as 11 January so I was merely attempting to help clarify that.

Finally in reference to your three main points, I never told you that you saw OS12's post, just that by mentioning me you implied I had a connection to the page or anthology in question that simply was and isn't there. Similarly to how mentioning a person is black in a story when it brings nothing to it is unnecessary and could be seen as racist, the fact that it was my edit in particular that led you to that page is an unnecessary detail that implies I was involved in its creation. Your initial post regarding the anthology would have lost none of its weight if you had simply said "Imagine my surprise when I learned that James Wylder...".

I did let the thread develop on its own (in some cases by providing new info as I found it) and I do care about the truth. I can't speak for anyone else but I didn't learn about the anthology's conflict on interests until well after the third debate had started and it was, in fact, discussion of the anthology that partly led to the thread's premature closure through violations of Tardis:Spoiler policy and Tardis:Forum policy.

You state that "instead" of SOTO closing the thread with validity before you learned the truth which you seem to attribute it to me by not listening to Shambala(?) the wiki is losing two admin. It is a shame to see a second admin leave because of these events but User:Revanvolatrelundar unambiguously cited your actions as the main reason for leaving at User talk:Amorkuz. "I feel victimised and, quite frankly, bullied by your behaviour" and "Your behaviour has made this environment toxic for me" among the rest of his statement. Revan leaving cannot be spun in any way to make it seem like it was my fault. From his words, that rests on your shoulders.

Finally, you ask if I think it was "worth it". As I say above, the transparent breakages of T:FORUM cannot and will not be attributed to me just because I was the original poster so I'm unsure what exactly the "it" was in the question "Was it worth it?".

Now that SOTO, in their closing statement, authorised another thread in a few weeks time without the need for new evidence whilst clarifying everything that had presented so far had not constituted breakages of rules 2 or 4 I would like to civilly invite you to participate in that discussion when it occurs so perhaps we can put this whole business behind us on mutual ground or at least on good terms. Thanks, --Borisashton ☎  09:31, January 19, 2020 (UTC)

The Book of the War
Hello again!

I saw your message on User:NateBumber's talk-page. I'll leave him to answer to the many personal aspects of it, but I can't help but voice a number of thoughts about your paragraphs concerning The Book of the War supposedly not being a story. This could not, to begin with, be further away from the truth. It is clear to any reader of The Book fo the War that is very far indeed from something like The Dalek Dictionary. The various "encyclopedic entries" therein are not short descriptive sentences but prose chapters in their own right.

The precedents for such collections of in-universe documents potentially constituting a novel are many (many major novels in worldwide literary history are epistolary novels, need I remind you? from Montesquieu's Lettres Persanes to bloody Dracula). Something as recent and as unquestionably-mainstream-Who as A Brief History of Time Lords was accepted without fanfare on the Wiki, so clearly this is a principle of which the Wiki is aware, not some weird exception awarded only to The Book of the War.

Besides which, what do you make of this quote directly from the back-cover blurb of the actual book, literally stating that among other thing, it is a story? (Emphasis mine.) "Part story, part history and part puzzle-box, this is a chronicle of protocol and paranoia in a War where the historians win as many battles as the solders and the greatest victory of all is to hold on to your own past… […]"

- TBotW back cover

Or of this description by the publisher, Mad Norwegian Press, which up and calls it a novel?

"A stand-alone novel in alphabetical order (…) The Book of the War serves as the No. 1 entry point into the Faction Paradox comics and novel lines."

- From Mad Norwegian Press

Are you saying the publisher of the book is falsely advertising their product? Or what? It beggars belief that the publisher of a flagpole literary work such as this would be confused about what kind of book it is that they're printing on such a basic level, so either you think they're lying for some reason, or you're going to have to come up with something more substantial.

Nothing's stopping you from creating an inclusion debate for The Book of the War (or, rather, an exclusion debate; there are precedents, you might recall), but I don't see how the situation is anywhere near one-sided enough for you to demand it be invalidated right there and then based on your own personal research and judgement. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎  11:41, January 19, 2020 (UTC)

Message from a Faction Paradox fan
I’m probably gonna get blocked by his majesty for this but honestly he’s acting like a tin pot dictator. Probably because being the admin of a Doctor Who wiki is the most power he’s ever going to get, AND HE KNOWS IT, so he desperately clings onto it with both hands in some pitiable attempt to make his life feel worthwhile. You can block for this, Amorkuz (just please don’t doxx me, I know you like doing that), but you know I’m right. 82.132.236.138talk to me 19:04, January 19, 2020 (UTC)


 * The message above is a good match to the quote that Faction Paradox has always intended to destroy Doctor Who from Faction Paradox writers. This is the face of Faction Paradox fans they would not like this wiki to see. I think, it is more honest to keep it here. I would ask other admin not to remove it. Amorkuz ☎  17:24, January 20, 2020 (UTC)


 * Out of curiosity, why do you think 82.132.236.138 is a Faction Paradox fan? – N8  ( ☎ / 👁️ ) 19:16, January 20, 2020 (UTC)


 * And the above message from NateBumber is a perfect example why assuming he is acting in good faith is foolish in the face of the facts. He did not object to the description, from his FP colleague, of him and other FP writers as intending to destroy Doctor Who. He would stay mum on his violations of the wiki policies presented on his talk page. (I even gave him several extra hours in case he remembers to do the right thing.) But in a matter that does not concern him in the slightest, a personal attack of an IP on an admin of the wiki, posted on the talk page of the admin and not mentioning NateBumber in any way, he would be the first defender... of Faction Paradox. As I mentioned on his talk page and as this intervention of his aptly demonstrates, violations of the wiki policies, by himself or others, are not generally his concern. He is here to represent and promote Faction Paradox. Here's hoping he will soon get a third FP story published.


 * PS And I hope he would spare us all the belated assurances that, of course, he is condemning any personal attacks, be it against him or any other editor. When true but negative things are stated about his person, he loudly objects. When other FP associated people (like James Wylder) are adversely affected, he's the first responder in all his blazing glory. When, however, an admin inconvenient for the FP cause is attacked, then I guess a personal attack becomes par for the course. Amorkuz ☎  08:04, January 21, 2020 (UTC)


 * Amorkuz, I asked you six specific questions in User talk:Amorkuz. It took you seven days to reply. You made several edits in that time, including replies to talk page messages posted later than mine. I did not harass you with reminders or draw conclusions about your silence, but instead patiently waited for your reply. This is a standard which you yourself have held me to before. Now I see that you, an admin, are free to hold yourself to a different standard. You couldn't even give me three days in return before concluding that I "did not object" and am choosing to "stay mum".

In fact, I never intended to "stay mum". Despite my busy schedule, and despite the fact that you totally ignored the six questions I asked, I endeavored to respectfully address your main points, even if briefly. How, you ask, did Nate Bumber become involved in such "a matter that does not concern him in the slightest"? It was actually in the process of outlining my reply to you that I looked at your talk page and noticed a few things: "Welcome to my page. No, seriously. You are welcome here. Please do not hesitate to ask for assistance (on the talk page). If I'm busy, I'll just get back to you later. Your request is not a bother. I'm here to help and I'm happy to help."
 * 1) User:Scrooge MacDuck's above message, which I mentioned in mine.
 * 2) The anonymous personal attack, which I was happy to see that User:Shambala108 acted upon by swiftly reverting the vandalism and banning the user. Despite your remarks about "belated assurances", I care very much about T:NPA with regards to me, you, and all other users. Hence why I take such time and care with my replies, and hence why my user page offers a retraction of any accidental personal attack! But it was you who went out of your way to undermine the normal procedure, a move which you acknowledged as non-standard.
 * 3) And lastly, your allegations about "the face of Faction Paradox fans". Of course I replied to this. As a Faction Paradox fan who does not "intend to destroy Doctor Who", why wouldn't I? Especially since -- speaking of user pages! -- yours tells me,

- User:Amorkuz

I suppose I've discovered the limit of that invitation.

A thought experiment
If I posted a link to a news article about a cannibal and said, "This is the face of Doctor Who fans that they would not like this wiki to see," I would expect some replies: "Why do you think this cannibal is a Doctor Who fan?" "Even if they are, why are you generalizing to all of us?" "Isn't this a violation of T:NPA?"

I suppose I might reply to them in the third person: "I notice that these users are acknowledging my post, but none have explicitly denied that they eat babies. They have confirmed my theory and, by flocking to a post that doesn't concern them, exposed themselves as only being here to represent and promote Doctor Who!"

The main problem with this hypothetical is that I would never ever suggest in any way that Doctor Who fans are cannibals. First, because it would be obviously slanderous. And second, because -- believe it or not -- I'm a Doctor Who fan myself!

Destroying Doctor Who
You keep excerpting from an interview with Jacob Black to suggest that Faction Paradox authors want to "destroy Doctor Who". I didn't understand your purpose from your message on my talk page, but now I think it's becoming a little clearer. For the record, here's the full context of those quotes: "The Faction Paradox universe is all about breaking the familiar and the loved, the things we’re nostalgic over. We can argue and debate all day about how connected/disconnected FP should be/shouldn’t be from Doctor Who, but FP was always about breaking Doctor Who. Taking the comfy aspects and tropes and characters and just destroying them. Running them through meat grinders, tortuous paths through shadowed valleys.

Faction Paradox killed the Doctor. Faction Paradox turned dusty Gallifrey into a War-churning Homeworld of eldritch horrors. Faction Paradox redefined TARDIS into terrifying timeships of infinite complexity and hidden masterplans.

It breaks, rebuilds, and redefines the things we love. The familiar becomes unfamiliar and terrifying, and I really wanted to dive into that.

I’m adamant that Doctor Who and Faction Paradox have had some of the greatest writers ever, and would be unfair and wrong to forget the influence the that Kate Orman, Jon Blum, Lance Parkin, Lawrence Miles, Lloyd Rose, Philip Purser-Hallard, and Daniel O'Mahony have had on my writing and this story in particular.

(But I also wanted to write a story where the FP mythos wasn’t afraid to laugh at itself a bit.)"

- Jacob Black

You'll note that, for convenience's sake, I added some links so you can see which books Black is referencing when he lists the ways that Faction Paradox has historically broken Doctor Who. Could it be that all his figurative imagery about "breaking, rebuilding, and redefining" Doctor Who wasn't about the franchise but rather the two series' shared universe, in reference to the common storytelling technique of deconstruction?

Please stop
This is now the second time in a row that I have asked you something in good faith and you have answered me by ignoring my questions and instead impugning my motives. I'll take a page from your book and ask: Is there a reason you haven't answered the above question, instead choosing to attack me for even asking? You claim that my one-sentence comment belies my attitudes toward T:NPA by not disavowing vandalism, but really I was just trying to make the question as clear and as simple for you as possible. I see that still wasn't enough to get you to answer it.

When you broke FANDOM Terms of Use in Thread:255536, staff was lenient because it was part of a good-faith search for conflicts of interest. I think you have left that territory. Your recent posts instead comprise a witch hunt based on conspiracy theory and conjecture. Rather than treating your fellow editors as good-faith contributors, you have concocted speculatory narratives so you can hurl baseless accusations: the debunked allegation of User:Revanvolatrelundar's maliciously concealed involvement with Arcbeatle Press; the debunked allegation of my involvement in a "Credit for Edit" scheme with Obverse Books; the suggestion that 82.132.236.138 is a Faction Paradox fan and somehow represents all Faction Paradox fans, which still lacks any evidence. At the same time, you have repeatedly ignored and mocked my honest requests for evidence and offers of counterarguments. This has amounted to a sustained, targeted, and unjustified personal attack on my character (and, I believe, the characters of other users as well).

I'm not asking you to stop caring about conflicts of interest, if that's all you think you're doing. I'm asking you to stop treating it like a witch hunt and start making conversations, not accusations. You started treating Revan and I as hostile witnesses when you thought you'd found evidence that he lied about his conflicts of interest, but he explained why you were mistaken, so now you can stop. Unless your goal is to just drive us from the wiki, in which case you're already more than halfway there.

I see now that I was mistaken to leave you that friendly note on the 9th. When you originally informed me that you wished to "cease any appearance of friendship", I was perhaps naïve not to realize it meant the beginning of an unfriendship. I've wasted enough of my time on this; pending a significant change in tone, this will be my last personal reply to you. Thanks for reading – N8  ( ☎ / 👁️ ) 19:29, January 21, 2020 (UTC)

Goodbye
Goodbye 86.164.12.255talk to me 01:21, January 26, 2020 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Amorkuz, I agree with your proposal on how to maintain impartiality on this wiki. I actually don't think Tangerineduel or OncomingStorm12th himself disagree, though let me make it clear I am not speaking for them; from their comments I inferred they agree with the measure in general, but thought that a specific admin nomination was not the time or place to bring it up, and that it may need to be clarified. I hope you won't leave the wiki, and know you were a helpful admin to me. When I was new to the wiki (and I kind of still am compared to other users), you helped clear up how it works, especially in Thread:213311 and the pages that followed its decision. If you do decide to leave, I wish you good luck. Chubby Potato ☎  20:45, January 26, 2020 (UTC)

Resignation of admin rights
I wanted to give some time for everything to cool and settle on the user rights discussion, and to give you the option to rescind your request to have your adminship removed. As others have stated above I meant no slight against you personally my concerns in the admin nomination were for a fair nomination process. If you don't reply countering your request to remove your admin rights within the end of this week I will take that as affirmation that you still wish to have your admin rights removed. --Tangerineduel / talk 14:52, January 31, 2020 (UTC)


 * As requested I have removed your admin rights. --Tangerineduel / talk 14:59, February 3, 2020 (UTC)