User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-1506468-20190827123101/@comment-28349479-20190828145506

Amorkuz wrote: Nate Bumber (NateBumber) and Niki Haringsma (Nikisketches) argue why their copyrighted concepts loaned to Wylder should expand their presence on the wiki. ... What remains to be seen is whether these authors are interested in the opinions of their readers and how all this author self-promotion squares against the purpose of FANDOM as the site for fans. Just to address the first few paragraphs here: I feel incredibly misrepresented by this. My “involvement” in these stories was restricted to giving an acquaintance an a-okay to build off a concept I came up with. I’ve been an editor since long before I was an author, and I’ve never stopped being a fan; the same is obviously true of User:Revanvolatrelundar. I think it’s unfair to suggest, in the absence of any other evidence, that I’m applying different principles here than I would in any other inclusion debate. I know I’ve said to you many times before that I don’t appreciate any insinuations that my objectivity is compromised, whether by some ridiculous wish to “expand [my] presence on the wiki” or otherwise.

I’d actually like to extend that to everyone here. In this thread I’ve seen assumptions, allegations, and/or insinuations that Amorkuz has some sort of bias or is trying to promote some sort of broader agenda. Even if I may not always live up to the promise, I’m a big fan of, and a big part of that is assuming good faith. We should all keep in mind that we’re all trying to make the wiki better, even if we may disagree on what direction that takes. The less drama-filled and political we can make this process, the better for our sanity, and the better for the wiki!

(I’m splitting my reply to post #12 into three parts, not to be annoying and flood the thread, but so as to separate my individual points and prevent wall-of-text syndrome.)