Marcus Bachmann, Shankboned! Options

[carbuncle]

As predicted by Somey, it was only a matter of time until someone created an article on Marcus Bachmann, husband of Michele Bachmann, future President of the United States of America. So whodunit? Noted gay Republican citizen journalist and amateur photographer David Shankbone.

At this point the article doesn't contain any speculation on Marcus Bachmann's own sexuality, but I imagine that it is coming soon, as the issue has broken into mainstream consciousness. And, frankly, I think we've seen how this plays out with an endless stream of anti-gay religious leaders - how long before someone steps into the waiting spotlight to claim their 15 minutes of fame in exchange for details of 15 minutes spent with Bachmann?

One might think that after the very unsubtle work of Cirt on the "santorum" article and a masked stranger on the now deleted Lewinsky (neologism) (the snooze alarm for those who missed the wake-up call), WP would be better placed to deal with the Wikibomb™, but no.

[It's the blimp, Frank]

The obvious point which is being coatracked here is that federal funds are allegedly being used to try to un-homosexualize people, which is certainly grounds in some people's minds for creating an attack article. This should be added to the "cults" arbcom case, and that case should be re-named "attack articles."

[carbuncle]

I'm waiting for someone to add the Dan Savage material to the article.

• 12 July 2011 - Dan Savage podcast in which he mocks Bachmann's lisp
• 14 July 2011 - Dan Savage blog post "Marcus Bachmann's Big Gay Problem" in which he calls Bachmann "a lying closet case who's made convincing other gay people to join him in the closet his life's work"
• 14 July 2011 - Slate article "Dan Savage: Bully" critical of Savage's mockery of efeminate traits
• 15 July 2011 - "Read My Lisp", another Slate piece talking about Savage's comments and gaydar

I must say, I am enjoying the coincidences around WP's Marcus Bachmann article. First, it is created by David Shankbone, who has been discussed here quite a bit. Then we get a Dan Savage injection to help cement the connection to Cirt's "santorum" wikibomb. And now Johann Hari (William Saletan namechecks Hari in his Slate piece for describing Saletan as a gay writer). Who's next?

[EricBarbour]

Who's next?

You, probably, if you keep chasing after Benjiboi's socks/non-socks/whatever......

Frankly, Benji-whatever was probably justified in cutting Larry Norman down in size.
Thanks to crazy Christian Smjwalsh, it's now the second-longest, second-most-excessively-referenced bio on Wikipedia.
262k bytes, 635 bloody references.

Hmm, perhaps this will lead to evangelical-vs-gay editwars? Is Benji the new Grawp?

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[carbuncle]

Who's next?

You, probably, if you keep chasing after Benjiboi's socks/non-socks/whatever......

Frankly, Benji-whatever was probably justified in cutting Larry Norman down in size.
Thanks to crazy Christian Smjwalsh, it's now the second-longest, second-most-excessively-referenced bio on Wikipedia.
262k bytes, 635 bloody references.

Hmm, perhaps this will lead to evangelical-vs-gay editwars? Is Benji the new Grawp?

Ha! I'm hardly chasing Benjiboi's socks - they seek me out. I don't bother doing anything about them most of the time. It usually doesn't take very long before he gets caught. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

There has been a lukewarm evangelical-vs-gay editwar going on for some time now. User:Lionelt was very actively slashing gay-related material at one point, but I haven't been keeping up.

[Tarc]

Nominated for deletion.

I despise wiki-activism of any ideological bent, whether it is the Zionists, the anti-abortionists, or the gay agenda drivers doesn't matter. All of them need to be kicked to the curb.

[EricBarbour]

Keep - I disagree with Tarc's analysis. COI: I wrote this stub. The article is heavily sourced to Marcus Bachmann-specific mainstream media stories, for which there are many, meeting WP:V. The lack of a Marcus article causes WP:WEIGHT issues on wp:Michele Bachmann, particularly in regards to his Christian counseling clinic, and his family's farm. Michele's long article has enough Michele-related controversy that lumping in Marcus-related issues is not optimal. Michele Bachmann's strong campaign has made him the focus of attention as a possible First Gentleman--only increasing--which is why in the spirit of Wikipedia:Wikipedia is comprehensive we have a strong interest to explain to our readers this subject neutrally, without speculation. On the article's first day of creation it had 2,000 views, showing this need exists; I imagine today's hits will be much higher. --David Shankbone 00:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Isn't that nice. Shanker's learning to Wikilawyer his way thru the "community".

As predicted, the toads come out, and vote "keep" because "notable" like little robots.
Not a goddamn word about the article's defamatory nature.

Once again, I will point to Phil McGraw (T-H-L-K-D) as the paragon of a Wikipedia article being used to intentionally shit on someone.

[gomi]

I despise wiki-activism of any ideological bent, whether it is the Zionists, the anti-abortionists, or the gay agenda drivers doesn't matter.

Why not simply despise Wikipedia, and urge it to be "kicked to the curb"? It is the enabling function for wiki-activism. I would proffer that virtually all editing on Wikipedia consistutes wiki-activism of some form or another. Some are simply more benign than others.

[EricBarbour]

I despise wiki-activism of any ideological bent, whether it is the Zionists, the anti-abortionists, or the gay agenda drivers doesn't matter.

Why not simply despise Wikipedia, and urge it to be "kicked to the curb"? It is the enabling function for wiki-activism. I would proffer that virtually all editing on Wikipedia consistutes wiki-activism of some form or another. Some are simply more benign than others.

He's right, Tarc. Everytime you log in and start cleaning up some mess or other (usually messes you had nothing to do with, right?) you enable.

And you help keep the place cooking, so Cirt and Shankbone, and people even worse than them, will have a "playground-thing" to play in. Even opposing them will not help. They need to be dragged off their heroin, forcibly. I keep saying that Wikipedia is a drug, okay? As you've seen, over and over again, people use it like an opiate.

So stop enabling.

[lilburne]

Who's next?

You, probably, if you keep chasing after Benjiboi's socks/non-socks/whatever......

Frankly, Benji-whatever was probably justified in cutting Larry Norman down in size.
Thanks to crazy Christian Smjwalsh, it's now the second-longest, second-most-excessively-referenced bio on Wikipedia.
262k bytes, 635 bloody references.

Hmm, perhaps this will lead to evangelical-vs-gay editwars? Is Benji the new Grawp?

Bleedin hell. I remember him. When I was a youngster, I used to go to the local manse for a biscuit, coffee, and an argue after they had finished their Sunday whotsit. Used to go the Sunday thing but got banned for dropping the hymn books on their heads of those below the balcony. Still they didn't mind the arguing, and one of them was keen on me playing for the Chrysler chess team.

Anyway I recall Larry Norman doing a gig at the Methodist Central Hall 1970-71 and went along to see what it was all about. Highly amusing with them all swaying along doing peace signs man. But the best bit was when they waved a finger in the air and chanted "one way Lord, one way". I stopped going shortly after that, still played chess for the Chrysler for the next 4 or 5 years though.

[Sololol]

After 30+ years of marriage to Michelle Bachmann I could understand if he was no longer interested in women.

This post has been edited by Sololol:

[EricBarbour]

Wikipedia could be "taken down" by one of the big boys (Google, microsoft etc...) within a few weeks if they decided to devote the resources to so doing. They are of course highly unlikely to do so, unless they were going to make some serious moolah from it.

Yea, that's what everyone thought about google+, the "facebook killer". How's that working out?

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)


hurr hurr.......

Ever seen the list of top Google+ users?......

#1 Mark Zuckerberg → - 225,849
#2 Larry Page → - 124,103
#3 Sergey Brin → - 87,348
#4 Vic Gundotra → - 57,189
#5 Mashable News → 146 55,614
#6 Robert Scoble → 4,012 54,937
#7 Leo Laporte → 427 54,628
#8 Kevin Rose → 99 50,143
#9 Felicia Day → - 45,511
#10 Ray William Johnson 4,983 45,373

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

[It's the blimp, Frank]

Would you mind explaining what Google+ is?

[Michaeldsuarez]

Would you mind explaining what Google+ is?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google%2B

Google's new social networking website ("invite-only" at the moment). I prefer their Google Wave idea.

Edit: You may have noticed some changes to the look and feel of Google.com; Google+ is the reason.

This post has been edited by Michaeldsuarez:

[It's the blimp, Frank]

Oh. It looks like Betty White's famous mockery of Facebook would apply just as well to this.

[carbuncle]

Delete: if it weren't for his wife running for president noone would care about this guy. Roscelese has no right to malign this BLP by calling him "shady." He provides a valuable service by helping homosexuals overcome unwanted same-sex urges.– Lionel (talk) 21:07, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

"Not that there's anything wrong with being homosexual," he added quickly, "just as long as they don't actually, you know, have ,um, urges."

[Tarc]

Delete: if it weren't for his wife running for president noone would care about this guy. Roscelese has no right to malign this BLP by calling him "shady." He provides a valuable service by helping homosexuals overcome unwanted same-sex urges.– Lionel (talk) 21:07, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

"Not that there's anything wrong with being homosexual," he added quickly, "just as long as they don't actually, you know, have ,um, urges."

I can't believe I'm about to throw some support at someone with such a distasteful opinion, but y'know, being opposed to homosexuality isn't a crime. If bible-thumpers want to run these dumb clinics, then they're within their right to.

[Milton Roe]

I despise wiki-activism of any ideological bent, whether it is the Zionists, the anti-abortionists, or the gay agenda drivers doesn't matter.

Why not simply despise Wikipedia, and urge it to be "kicked to the curb"? It is the enabling function for wiki-activism. I would proffer that virtually all editing on Wikipedia consistutes wiki-activism of some form or another. Some are simply more benign than others.

He's right, Tarc. Everytime you log in and start cleaning up some mess or other (usually messes you had nothing to do with, right?) you enable.

And you help keep the place cooking, so Cirt and Shankbone, and people even worse than them, will have a "playground-thing" to play in. Even opposing them will not help. They need to be dragged off their heroin, forcibly. I keep saying that Wikipedia is a drug, okay? As you've seen, over and over again, people use it like an opiate.

So stop enabling.

Except WP is the "opiate" of very many different groups, all at the same time. It's the opiate of social activists too lazy to make placards and march and sing. It's the opiate of social retards who enjoy revenge cyberbullying. It's the opiate of obscessive-compulsive knowledge curators. It's the opiate of Asimovian Saganish explainers who have no natural outlet in today's world of squashed authorship profits. It's the opiate of teachers who couldn't stand the pain of navigating into the viscous social politics and unionism of the formal K12 system (which makes WP itself look like kindergarten).

Different pains, different brains. Tell me what a given editor spends his/her time doing on WP, and I'll tell you what itch they scratch by doing that.

[It's the blimp, Frank]

Asimovian Saganish explainers

Whew! You don't usually see that kind of invective around here.

[Kelly Martin]

Different pains, different brains. Tell me what a given editor spends his/her time doing on WP, and I'll tell you what itch they scratch by doing that.

Indeed. That is why Wikipedia is so successful: it scratches any number of different itches. And so many of the people whose itches are being scratches are those who are otherwise marginalized in society, so they are really defensive of their backscratcher and will find tooth and nail to keep it. They literally do not have anywhere else to go.

One of the other things this does for Wikipedia is that it allows them, for any criticism of their motivations, to trot out someone who clearly doesn't fit the ascribed motivation. That's because there is no universal motivation for participating in Wikipedia; there's way too many different motivations and there isn't even a large plurality of editors all sharing the same one.

[Tarc]

Different pains, different brains. Tell me what a given editor spends his/her time doing on WP, and I'll tell you what itch they scratch by doing that.

I spend my time preventing the latest "did you hear about Person X?" headline on the front page of Google News from becoming an article. Same with every new porn starlet or ax-murder in the Occupied Territories that comes along. Most recently, I have bene trying to thwart dirty liberals from creating hatchet job BLPs on people they don't like.

What's my itch, Professor?

[carbuncle]

And now this:

Michele Bachmann's husband being trashed at Wikipedia
Posted on 07/19/2011 9:57:11 AM PDT by mquinn

Hi, I don't think I have ever posted my own topic so hopefully this comes out ok and is in the right place. I am confused on the difference between a topic and a keyword, sorry.

There is something disturbing at the wikipedia right now. A user some here might have heard of, a David Shankbone (I know. ick), a noted homosexual activist and pornographic pornographer, has created a wikiarticle on Michele Bachmann's husband Marcus found here...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Bachmann

the problem is that the article has not been created because the wikipedia people think he is worthy of recognition - what they call "notability" for their rules - but instead it is like another arm of the democratic party or moveon or something. The article is an attack on Mr. Bachmann's reputable clinic that seeks to turn young men away form homosexuality, something that a gay man like Mr. Shankbone doesn't like.

Can we do anything? Does outside pressure on wikipedia work? Would Michele's campaign people take an interest in fighting this slur at all? I am not sure what to do other than to call attention to this ugliness.

Judging from the comments, no one has told them that Shankbone is not a liberal...

[It's the blimp, Frank]

Maybe someone has already mentioned this, but there is an Articles For Deletion debate about this article. I always look forward to Will Beback's comments on these matters, and he makes the argument that maybe we should wait and see it the subject becomes more notable before discussing deletion. Of course, by creating a Wikipedia article about him which shoots to the top of the Google hit parade, you know you are making him more "notable."

[Zoloft]

Maybe someone has already mentioned this, but there is an Articles For Deletion debate about this article. I always look forward to Will Beback's comments on these matters, and he makes the argument that maybe we should wait and see it the subject becomes more notable before discussing deletion. Of course, by creating a Wikipedia article about him which shoots to the top of the Google hit parade, you know you are making him more "notable."

And the article is such a handy place to hang one's hat and coat!

Even as a stinkin' liberal I couldn't keep my mouf shut. The article is basically a Google-fueled attack page.

[nableezy]

From the AFD

Silence, Shankbone.

Thanks Tarc, that was wonderful.

From the article:

However, his Lake Elmo Christian counseling clinic has attracted attention. Alex Luchenitser, staff attorney for Americans United for Separation of Church and State, called its receiving of state and Medicaid funds unconstitutional, saying "It's wrong for the government to buy clinical services that include submission to God or proselytization."[7][8] In July 2011, undercover hidden-camera investigators with Truth Wins Out presented themselves as committed Christians who were struggling with homosexuality. Both reported that the clinic's staff practiced reparative therapy, a practice repudiated by the American Psychological Association, which attempts to turn homosexuals into heterosexuals.[9][10][11] Bachmann responded that reparative therapy is only used "at the client's discretion."[12]

All these things may be true, but they arent exactly relevant to a biography of Bachmann. If people want to cover this "clinic" they should do that, but not in a supposed biography. This is one of the problems with Wikipedia, if this crap was removed it would be reinserted with an edit summary of "its sourced".

[Milton Roe]

Different pains, different brains. Tell me what a given editor spends his/her time doing on WP, and I'll tell you what itch they scratch by doing that.

I spend my time preventing the latest "did you hear about Person X?" headline on the front page of Google News from becoming an article. Same with every new porn starlet or ax-murder in the Occupied Territories that comes along. Most recently, I have bene trying to thwart dirty liberals from creating hatchet job BLPs on people they don't like.

What's my itch, Professor?

You're a Catcher In the Rye type like Alison. I predict much frustration on WP for you!

[thekohser]

I think the better approach is to dive straight into the cesspool and clean as much as can be cleaned. It will never be spotless, you just have to work at making it not quite so pungent.

You're doing a great job on the Marcus Bachmann AfD. Looks like that's headed straight for "delete", just as your cesspool work advised.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif)

[Tarc]

And now this:

Ugh, the freerepublic? How on earth do you stomach that? I logged in there once years ago seeing if there was any tolerance for something not fully bible thumpy Christian + wargazming across the free world and was pretty instantly "zotted", their word for the ban-stick.

This post has been edited by Tarc:

[carbuncle]

And now this:

Ugh, the freerepublic? How on earth do you stomach that? I logged in there once years ago seeing if there was any tolerance for something not fully bible thumpy Christian + wargazming across the free world and was pretty instantly "zotted", their word for the ban-stick.

LOL. Thankfully I don't have to stomach it. I set up a Google alert with "shankbone" some time ago when I considering promoting the band of the same name just to annoy the other Shankbone. I never bothered doing that, but I didn't bother to turn off the Google alert.

[Somey]

I have to admit, I really liked this comment by Mr. Tarc in the deletion discussion:

This is an encyclopedia, not a vacuum cleaner.

The thing is, I just bought a new vacuum cleaner myself recently. It was one of those new-fangled bagless "cyclonic" vacuum cleaners, with a transparent plastic canister instead of a bag. They look really nice in the store, and when you get them out of the box and set up, they still look nice. But then you start sucking up several hundred square feet of old pet hair, dead ants, bits of snack food, and god-knows-what-else, they don't look so nice anymore. The nice thing about old-fashioned vacuum-cleaner bags is, they hide all that stuff. But they're not as environmentally friendly, and having to replace the bags is inconvenient, so people are turning away from them.

I guess what I'm basically trying to say is that to me, Marcus Bachmann looks a lot like a vacuum cleaner bag, and his article looks like something you'd find inside a vacuum cleaner bag. Does Wikipedia really want the contents of their vacuum cleaner bag exposed to the world? Do they even want people to know they're still using the old-fashioned bags, and not the new, environmentally-friendly cyclonic canister doo-hickeys?

I think not! And yet there they are, arguing that their vacuum cleaner bag should be spilled back out onto the floor for all to see. I mean, what's the point in having a vacuum cleaner in the first place, if you're just going to dump the bag back out onto the floor?

[lilburne]

I think not! And yet there they are, arguing that their vacuum cleaner bag should be spilled back out onto the floor for all to see. I mean, what's the point in having a vacuum cleaner in the first place, if you're just going to dump the bag back out onto the floor?

Funny you should say that.

[Milton Roe]

I have to admit, I really liked this comment by Mr. Tarc in the deletion discussion:

This is an encyclopedia, not a vacuum cleaner.

The thing is, I just bought a new vacuum cleaner myself recently. It was one of those new-fangled bagless "cyclonic" vacuum cleaners, with a transparent plastic canister instead of a bag. They look really nice in the store, and when you get them out of the box and set up, they still look nice. But then you start sucking up several hundred square feet of old pet hair, dead ants, bits of snack food, and god-knows-what-else, they don't look so nice anymore. The nice thing about old-fashioned vacuum-cleaner bags is, they hide all that stuff. But they're not as environmentally friendly, and having to replace the bags is inconvenient, so people are turning away from them.

I guess what I'm basically trying to say is that to me, Marcus Bachmann looks a lot like a vacuum cleaner bag, and his article looks like something you'd find inside a vacuum cleaner bag. Does Wikipedia really want the contents of their vacuum cleaner bag exposed to the world? Do they even want people to know they're still using the old-fashioned bags, and not the new, environmentally-friendly cyclonic canister doo-hickeys?

I think not! And yet there they are, arguing that their vacuum cleaner bag should be spilled back out onto the floor for all to see. I mean, what's the point in having a vacuum cleaner in the first place, if you're just going to dump the bag back out onto the floor?

That is a good metaphor for Wikipedia BLP.

Similarly I ask you to consider the Roomba robotic vacuum cleaner from iRobot, also bagless. It's fairly intelligent. It has a microprocessor that makes it nearly as smart as a paramecium, which it reminds me of, when watching it. It hits things, backs up, tries again, then tries something completely different if THAT doesn't work. Unlike a paramecium, however, it only runs at one speed, cannot bend and flex to get out of tight spots, gets stuck easily, and has no panic mode-- but then again, all it has is a dinky 300,000-transistor microprocessor.*

Most of the time it works great. One of the few things that kills it is to run over a plate of canned cat food. The sticky food gets up into the wheels and gears and into places where you can't clean and aren't meant to clean. It's like toothpaste. And then your robotic vacuum cleaner no longer is so magic. It is either dead or runs in circles as though it has had a massive stroke.

Alas, I have discovered the OTHER Roomba-killer: cat shit. Or dog shit. Also sticky and causes much the same problem. If the Roomba scares your animal, you'd better be there when it happens. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yak.gif)

Basically, this is the problem with Wikipedia. It's not as intelligent as a Roomba, and shit affects it the same way. It's a shame there is no responsible person to hit the off button when the excrement hits the rotating cylindrical sweeper module. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yecch.gif)

Milton

* An ARM7TDMI, in fact. I leave to the thoughtful student how a paramecium can have such complex behavior with no brain at all. Not even ONE neuron. Well, maybe one, if you count the entire cell. Which of course you must. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/happy.gif)

[It's the blimp, Frank]

It's a shame there is no responsible person to hit the off button when the excrement hits the rotating cylindrical sweeper module. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yecch.gif)

Funny, I was just thinking that about the economy the other day, that the excrement is about to hit the rotating sweeper module.

[The Joy]

I have to admit, I really liked this comment by Mr. Tarc in the deletion discussion:

This is an encyclopedia, not a vacuum cleaner.

The thing is, I just bought a new vacuum cleaner myself recently. It was one of those new-fangled bagless "cyclonic" vacuum cleaners, with a transparent plastic canister instead of a bag. They look really nice in the store, and when you get them out of the box and set up, they still look nice. But then you start sucking up several hundred square feet of old pet hair, dead ants, bits of snack food, and god-knows-what-else, they don't look so nice anymore. The nice thing about old-fashioned vacuum-cleaner bags is, they hide all that stuff. But they're not as environmentally friendly, and having to replace the bags is inconvenient, so people are turning away from them.

I guess what I'm basically trying to say is that to me, Marcus Bachmann looks a lot like a vacuum cleaner bag, and his article looks like something you'd find inside a vacuum cleaner bag. Does Wikipedia really want the contents of their vacuum cleaner bag exposed to the world? Do they even want people to know they're still using the old-fashioned bags, and not the new, environmentally-friendly cyclonic canister doo-hickeys?

I think not! And yet there they are, arguing that their vacuum cleaner bag should be spilled back out onto the floor for all to see. I mean, what's the point in having a vacuum cleaner in the first place, if you're just going to dump the bag back out onto the floor?

(IMG:http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r34/Hauser_Levrac/semttulo.jpg)

Suck! Suck! Suck!

[Milton Roe]

It's a shame there is no responsible person to hit the off button when the excrement hits the rotating cylindrical sweeper module. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yecch.gif)

Funny, I was just thinking that about the economy the other day, that the excrement is about to hit the rotating sweeper module.

Yes. Congress is also about as intelligent as a Roomba vacuum cleaner. These things are really a fine metaphors as semi-automatic mechanisms that not only cannot avoid shit because they cannot detect shit, and are thus bound to end up amplifying and spreading shit when they encounter shit.

Ah, simple robots, mobs, and politicians. So much power, so little wisdom.

[EricBarbour]

That's nothing, if you want excrement spreading functions, there's nothing like the "media thing".

Thus.

[carbuncle]

Hmmm. A group of people dressed as "barbarians" wikibombed glitter-bombed Marcus Bachmann's office.

• Miami Herald
• New York Magazine
• Minnesota Independent
• The Atlantic
• Slate
• The Advocate

Will Shankbone and Silver Seren add these links to the article now, or wait until the AfD is over? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

This post has been edited by carbuncle:

[Silver seren]

Talk page discussion first, I would think.

I'm really rather apathetic about the whole AfD. If it ends in a delete, the article will be remade soon enough because i'm quite certain that Marcus will remain a newsworthy item for some time to come. Especially if Michele gets the nomination (god forbid).

[Jagärdu]

I'm really rather apathetic about the whole AfD.

Oh no Silver! Someone less apathetic must have hijacked your account. Quick call the Arbcom! Call Jimmy! This must be fixed.

This post has been edited by Jagärdu:

[carbuncle]

Talk page discussion first, I would think.

I'm really rather apathetic about the whole AfD. If it ends in a delete, the article will be remade soon enough because i'm quite certain that Marcus will remain a newsworthy item for some time to come. Especially if Michele gets the nomination (god forbid).

Well, I would say this is closer to Campaign for "santorum" neologism than Lewinsky (neologism). Which is to say that there are plausible reasons for the article existing, and so it will remain as a battleground for people with an axe to grind. ArbCom sat on their hands and watched the santorum debacle, hoping that Slim Virgin's rewrite would take. And it has, for the most part, but it could very easily go the other way at any time.

Shankbone is a far better player than Cirt. He created the Bachmann article and will argue enough to make sure it doesn't get deleted, but he will let some other sucker add in all the salacious details that people will complain about. When the nastier stuff that is yet to come gets added, I'm sure someone (Tarc?) will start a second AfD, but then you and Shankbone will just say "but we just had a AfD a week ago" and it will be that much harder to get rid of it.

From where I stand, it looks to me like you, Silver Seren, are using a WP BLP to slam someone you dislike. Would you agree with that assessment?