First of all, read the full reply here, as it contains everything I wanted to say about this whole subject: [link]
Now, for this comment...
There I was, trying to explain how you don't own up to your own rules, the very ones you've been trying to impose, while you've been making a glorious asspull in the very first paragraph, selling something that's clearly just untrue.
Yes, we are never shown a husk working against the Reapers - the comic presents the first ever occurence of such an event after all... An ANOMALY. You see, we're also not privy to the way huskified minds operate - is it software, is it nanohardware, are their "interpretation centres" artificial, do they use biological, but modified brains? Do they have a Reaper equivalent of a blue screen, perhaps?
Are all husks equal or does an individual's prior biological traits (i.e. smart, bulky, small person, a huge guy) have any impact on how they look like, how they work, on their general usage? You see, this little gem: "the issue is that it contradicts what is present in the game" comes out of nowhere, it is a blatant lie. A possibility of a Husk being DAMAGED - as seen in Episode 21 - is not contradictory to what is present in the game. It's just not shown... Possible it couldn't happen? Yup. Possible it could happen? Yup. Anything else is you declaring yourself the Master of the Lore and knowing better than the whole world, which is usually the first sign of being blatantly delusional.
Sorry to be using harsh words here, I'm not usually this dickish, but the whole feel of your comment - everything you've said about fanon, "blatant misconceptions" of wikia editors that don't agree with you and your overall confidence in presenting your own interpretations as something true makes me believe that you should take a step back, read everything you've written once again and try to see how you present yourself to me and other people reading these comments... The Master of Lore thing. What I'm trying to say is "this and that is open for interpretation, so my interpretation is..." - whereas you're pulling out the "impossible" guns saying that "it's not open for interpretation" and then declaring your actual *interpretation* as the one and only truth.
Your definition of fanon and canon is obviously based on the fanon being treated as something worse, something lesser, just because it is not being scripted by someone hired to do so. You see, here's a little tip - the quality of a work should be judged solely by its... quality. Not by the category it belongs to, even if it's filled with slashfics and storylines replaying the game's events in different locations (a problem of the writers not using all the tools they could). Listen, I've been hired to write some horrible, horrible stories and scripts, stuff I would never look upon and say "yeah, I'm proud of this"... and I've done some sweet stuff completely for free (one even set in a world created by a friend), including this series I'm really happy with.
And, yeah, while we're at it - I've read some awesome fan writing set in the Mass Effect universe, some of it pretty much a ton better than a few sections I've found in Mass Effect 3.
As far as Marauder Shields being a "better" ending to Mass Effect 3 - well, it's an alternative ending. If you think it sucks, it's your right, Good Sir, you are fully entitled to your opinion. As far as I'm concerned you can just step out of the shell and say that what I've done with the character of Marauder Shields puts you off so hard you want to punch me in my face - and I still wouldn't mind (well, you saying that, not punching). It's the claims that try to show me my "obvious lore inconsistencies" - where I've put a lot of work and quite a lot of consultation to make this work - and treat other people (like the ME wikia authors) with a certain level of superiority that make me arm up.