"
 

Magnum Crimen
This article and AfD discussion might interest you.   

 Talkback 

Bongomatic 

  - talk 

 Smears 

Hi Turqoise127

A number of your recent edits (the AfD for Boba Phat, Cyclopia's talk page) state or imply the existence of editors ganging up to game Wikipedia's processes, and further imply the inappropriateness of such. 

First, if you want to talk about inappropriate ganging up, you should be aware of a formal body that exists in practice almost solely to vote in blocs against deletion. The Article Rescue Squadron works by tagging articles with a template, so that other editors are alerted to the existence of a speedy, prod, or AfD nomination. The usual result is vote packing at AfD discussions without improvement to articles (the nominal goal of the squadron). This leads to far more ""unfair advantage"" by virtue of ""block votes"" and ""sway[ing of] opinion"" than a few editors who occasionally show up at the same AfD discussions. 

Here's the great thing about AfD discussions. Anyone (except sock puppets and blocked users) can show up and opine. All someone needs to do is go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Current discussions and start browsing. You may think that when a number of editors show up opining ""delete"" for an article, and none on the other side show up to opine ""keep"", it's an indication of unfair voting blocs. But in fact, it generally indicates that:
 editors who have a predilection to stringent interpretation of WP:N agree it's not notable;
 middle-of-the-road editors agree it's not notable; and
 editors who have a predilection to a lenient interpretation of WP:N either believe in their hearts that it's a clear-cut case, or realize that the obvious weight of the consensusnotwithstanding their disagreementmakes it not worthwhile to bother opining. 

The same occurs where ""keep"" is either obvious to all, or so widely supported that editors with limited time don't bother to tilt at windmills. I don't know how other editors do it, but when I browse through AfD discussions, I tend not to bother with snowball cases in either direction unless I have some knowledge of the subject or believe an important principle is being illustrated. 

In any event, your continued smear campaign against ""certain groups"" as ""plainly unfair"" is against policy and has become more than tiresome. Cut it out. 

Bongomatic 

Hi Bongomatic, it is flattering how you stalk me and react to every single contribution I make. However I think you are over-reacting a bit. I mentioned no names in any of my comments; they were general. If expressing my views on certain events that I witness is against policy, please tell me how so, because it reaks of censorship. I do stand by my views, I think you know that. And even though I like and respect you, I am not really looking for friends here. Your article rescue squadron comment and illustration is definitely a valid point, but you must take into account that they (squadron) are reactionary, so they (at least I think, could be wrong) react to deletionist strong-arming of marginal or worthy articles that really could/should be kept. Be that as it may, if you ever feel something I do is against policy, do what you gotta do, caus I will not be changing anytime soon. I am still looking at my options regarding my issues; do nothing and attempt to soften influence with my presence on here, write essays, discuss at water pump, arb com, whatever. I don't know enough about Wiki yet. I will learn though...  

Bongomatic, while what you say is formally true, and I agree that ARS can be kind of questionable -even if I like it and even tag ARS sometimes- it is also true that the same names often come out at AfDs, in both camps -including myself rec