magnum crimen this article and afd discussion might interest you talkback bongomatic talk smears hi turqoise 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