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?

[Silver seren]

I don't believe I would. The controversial information about him, such as the Views section, should really be re-written and minimized. There's certain things that should be changed to make the article better, but i'm not sure where to start and other people aren't really being specific when they spout off "POV and BLP issues".

I have no real opinion about Marcus, beyond that I find him amusing.

[carbuncle]

And now....Glitter bombing! Jokestress, having learned the tricks of the wikibomb, makes sure to create a disambiguation page at Glitterbomb, as well as redirects at:

• Glitter bomb,
• Glitterbombing,
• Glitter bombed, and
• Glitterbombed.

Currently number two Google result for "Glitter bombing".

[Silver seren]

I don't think the Glitterbomb cocktail or either of the two Glitterbomb songs are really all that important.

So why exactly shouldn't it be one of the top links in a search for the term? At this point, practically 100% of the people Googling it will be searching for that exact article and information.

[Tarc]

I don't think the Glitterbomb cocktail or either of the two Glitterbomb songs are really all that important.

So why exactly shouldn't it be one of the top links in a search for the term? At this point, practically 100% of the people Googling it will be searching for that exact article and information.

All all of this just fits in to the cycle of activism that you and the Shankster and a few others are engaging in. At least he was honest enough to state what his agenda was the other day. Are you still clinging to the "just an article that has sources" facade?

Will be interesting to see how this closes, it seems like the same witless coalition of conservative-haters and ARS enablers (one could draw an interesting parallel between this and the unholy alliance of states' rights conservatives and religious conservatives that fueled the GOP revolution of the 90s) may carry the day, but a good half-dozen or so of the keeps are of the intellectually devoid ilikeit/itsnotable variety

Then there is the inevitable DRV to look forward to.

[carbuncle]

So why exactly shouldn't it be one of the top links in a search for the term? At this point, practically 100% of the people Googling it will be searching for that exact article and information.

Are people really so stupid that when they want to see an article on Wikipedia, they type their search into Google rather than just going straight to Wikipedia? Really, if someone is taking the trouble to type a phrase into Google, they are likely looking for more than just the basic stuff that should be in an encyclopedia. Personally, I find the number of sites that have scraped WP to be an impediment to finding what I'm looking for (but that isn't really WP's fault).

Interestingly, "glitter bombing" (with quotes) is still number two Google results (behind a Huffington Post piece), and number one without quotes.

This post has been edited by carbuncle:

[Detective]

So why exactly shouldn't it be one of the top links in a search for the term? At this point, practically 100% of the people Googling it will be searching for that exact article and information.

As has often been pointed out, Wikipedia is not a newspaper. It's just not the function of Wikipedia to have articles like this. Yes, no doubt it does wonders for the pageview totals. But is that really more important to you than the (alleged) mission of Wikipedia - to build an encyclopaedia?

[gomi]

[Modnote: I split out a comment (to Wikipedia Review Review) that was objected to by another member. Conversation on it can take place in WRR while we sort it out. It is an internal discussion, and doesn't belong here. -- gomi]

[Wikicrusher2]

The fact that Marcus Bachmann runs a clinic offering what is not only pseudo-scientific hogwash, but what amounts to brainwashing and psychological torture ("reparative therapy"), is one of the most widely-known facts about him. Additionally, he lied about having it, proving that he knew what negative connotations this brainwashing has. Now, I have no opinion about whether there should be a WP article about him; if the info is included on his wife's article, an issue of how relevant it really is will be raised. But if he is to have an article, why censor the most notable facts about him out of it? Maybe if Bachmann doesn't like media reports of his dishonesty being mentioned, he should be more transparent next time, or just not offer the "service" of brainwashing people into self-loathing.

And someone who has such an obsessive hatred for gays is usually bound to be a repressed closet case. Welcome to reality, Marcus. Gay people exist, and you're probably one of them. So, maybe you should be compassionate and quit trying to fuck up people's minds for your authoritarian, coercive proselytization campaign. If you can't take the heat...

This post has been edited by Wikicrusher2:

[The Joy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=441296932

Deleted by Aaron Brenneman (T-C-L-K-R-D)

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif)

[Detective]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=441296932

Deleted by Aaron Brenneman (T-C-L-K-R-D)

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wtf.gif)

Speaking broadly again, the delete arguments focused much more specifically on the sources provided, and in doing so demonstrated that significant coverage on the article's subject independent of her husband did not appear to exist.

The emphasis, believe it or not, is Aaron Brenneman's, not mine. If he imagines that the article's subject is female, I suspect that he has not studied the debate very closely. So how can he close it?

[Detective]

It was a mistake, fixed this morning.

Oh of course, just a tiny error, closing a controversial AfD when you don't know whether the article is about a man or a woman. Still, it's a good example of how Wikipedia is always improving, and quickly.

[carbuncle]

Given that the only two reasonable choices for this were keep or merge, I wonder why Aaron Brenneman didn't just start the DRV himself?

[Rhindle]

Based on a first impression it looks like this Mr. Brenneman knows how to filter the noise and make a thought-out decision.

[carbuncle]

Given that the only two reasonable choices for this were keep or merge, I wonder why Aaron Brenneman didn't just start the DRV himself?

Shall I call you a WHAAAAmbulance, or do you have one on standby?

Oh. You apparently think that I wanted the article to be kept, so you are mocking my comment on the closure. I believe the correct response is to insult you and then point out how you are mistaken?

Then why isn't 'delete' a reasonable choice?

This is another wikibomb. This is someone who has a lot of media coverage at the moment, and there is a solid case to be made that they therefore meet all of WP's notability guidelines. I'm surprised that it wasn't kept. Although I don't think that would have been the right decision, it would not have ruled out a later merge. If it gets merged with Michele Bachmann, it means you will have an appropriately limited amount of coverage and you won't have a BLP that exists only as a means to malign someone.

This deletion will just lead to a DRV. That DRV may result in the article being kept, and makes the chance of merging less likely if that happens.

[Abd]

Then why isn't 'delete' a reasonable choice?

This is another wikibomb. This is someone who has a lot of media coverage at the moment, and there is a solid case to be made that they therefore meet all of WP's notability guidelines. I'm surprised that it wasn't kept. Although I don't think that would have been the right decision, it would not have ruled out a later merge. If it gets merged with Michele Bachmann, it means you will have an appropriately limited amount of coverage and you won't have a BLP that exists only as a means to malign someone.

This deletion will just lead to a DRV. That DRV may result in the article being kept, and makes the chance of merging less likely if that happens.

In my view, Merge is pretty much always a better choice than deletion if there is any notability for a related article, as there is here. Merge leaves the article text available in history, for future research. It's transparent and reversible by ordinary editors (but if there is tendentious unmerge, it can be protected).

More generally, I've argued for Pure Wiki Deletion, which would involve blanking rather than deletion. Merges (i.e, blanking and redirection) do implement PWD without any software changes, appropriate if there is any reliable source on the subject at all, even just one reference, so that, at some point, at least, there can be mention in the target article. It's also theoretically possible to redirect to an article Talk page, though I think some would scream about that.... Redirects help readers, and are less likely to lead to waste of time re-creating pages.

[The Joy]

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

A Quest For Knowledge (T-C-L-K-R-D) seems intent on making the article again in his user space and then taking it to DRV. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

[carbuncle]

Oh good:

User Tarc and WP:BATTLEGROUND

Normally, this would just be something for WP:WQA, if not for the fact that Tarc has explicitly stated that he has a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality in terms of this subject. The AfD for Marcus Bachmann closed as Delete not too long ago. A few users, including myself, were discussing on the talk page improvements that could be made to a userspace draft on the subject by focusing on sources that are separate from his wife. Then Tarc went and created a section here at the bottom. Statements he made include, "I will do my damn best to ensure that this sham of an article never again sees the light of day. You want a war? Game on." After A Quest for Knowledge pointed out the BATTLEGROUND policy, Tarc's response included, "The battleground was formed the moment the article was created, it is a gun-fight, and I'm making damn sure to bring something bigger than a knife. I didn't create it." You can read his full comments by going to the link I gave above. Tarc then hatted the discussion, saying, "Y'know, you're right, this serves no purpose. Actions will speak louder than words in the end. Mea culpa", but I don't believe this non-apology apology is rather sincere and it is likely he still plans on going on with his Battleground actions.

If I may quote something from offsite, from Wikipedia Review specifically, Tarc made a comment to me a few minutes ago here, after he made the comments above, where he said,

"I just put ta note on the AfD talk page, but here I can be a little more..colorful.

I will pull out as many stops as I need to to prevent you and your miserable cocksucking little cohorts from getting Bachmann back into article-space.

If this is the war you want to hang your little ARS beret on, then I guess we'll see which side has more clout. Maybe you will come out in the end, maybe not.

Either way, it will be costly.

You can interpret that however you like."

I think this shows quite clearly that he is intending to continue working in a Battleground manner. I'm not sure what the best course of action is here, perhaps a topic ban from the Marcus Bachmann and Michelle Bachmann articles? SilverserenC 03:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I have taken screenshots of Tarc's statements on WR, so that the originals are available if he attempts to edit and change his comments. SilverserenC 03:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

[gomi]

Modnote: [Various player-versus-player invective, hate speech, and general tomfoolery moved into the Tar Pit. Read it there, if you must. If there are more off-topic posts, they will also be moved and the topic closed.]

[Tarc]

1. AN/I closed up with no result.

2. DRV filed and rolling.

(IMG:http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y169/tarc0917/George_Peppard7.jpg)

[Tarc]

3. DRV endorsed.
4. Marcus Bachmann no longer has a wikipedia-hosted hit piece, though it is now a redirect to the wife's page, which will bear watching so the section does not repeat the same problems.
5. Silver Seren enjoys his sour grapes.

All's well that ends well.

[victim of censorship]

3. DRV endorsed.
4. Marcus Bachmann no longer has a wikipedia-hosted hit piece, though it is now a redirect to the wife's page, which will bear watching so the section does not repeat the same problems.
5. Silver Seren enjoys his sour grapes.

All's well that ends well.

Tarc, I see you suckling more wiki juice from your god, jimmy bow Wales...

[Tarc]

3. DRV endorsed.
4. Marcus Bachmann no longer has a wikipedia-hosted hit piece, though it is now a redirect to the wife's page, which will bear watching so the section does not repeat the same problems.
5. Silver Seren enjoys his sour grapes.

All's well that ends well.

Tarc, I see you suckling more wiki juice from your god, jimmy bow Wales...

Oh, JoJo, I thought that just this one time you might be proud of me. I defended a conservative christian against a horde of card-carrying pinkos.

C'mon homey, gimme some dap.

[Somey]

Oh, JoJo, I thought that just this one time you might be proud of me. I defended a conservative christian against a horde of card-carrying pinkos.

Seriously - I thought that showed an admirable lack of political bias on your part. Principled, even... I guess Mr. Victim just saw the word "Tarc" and assumed it was some sort of leftist conspiracy.

Hopefully other conservatives will see what's happened here and be a little more appreciative! (When they're not too busy picking out just the right pastel floral patterns for the drapes in their "Christian reparative therapy" clinics, at least.)

[KD Tries Again]

Time to propose the Michelle Obama article for deletion per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOT...ty_is_inherited: "Family members of celebrities [sic] also must meet Wikipedia's notability criteria on their own merits – the fact that they have famous relatives is not, in and of itself, sufficient to justify an independent article.

[Jagärdu]

Time to propose the Michelle Obama article for deletion per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOT...ty_is_inherited: "Family members of celebrities [sic] also must meet Wikipedia's notability criteria on their own merits – the fact that they have famous relatives is not, in and of itself, sufficient to justify an independent article.

Michelle Obama (like all first ladies) clearly meets "notability on [her] own merits". There is a big difference between someone married to a notable person who leads a private life, and someone who leads a public life. First ladies, as part of their role, lead public lives.

[KD Tries Again]

I applaud your nuanced sense of humor.

[SB_Johnny]

I applaud your nuanced sense of humor.

I applaud your nuanced sense of humor. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

[Jagärdu]

I applaud your nuanced sense of humor.

I applaud your nuanced sense of humor. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

I'm pretty sure KD was applauding themselves anyway.

[KD Tries Again]

And deservedly so.

Surely I don't have to make the laborious explanation that I was sarcastically suggesting that many of the lame arguments for deleting the Bachmann article could be deployed against the Michelle Obama article. They would not succeed of course.

[carbuncle]

Well, it looks like Shankbone will get to take another shot at this one. Marcus Bachmann seems to have pushed a CNN reporter into a golf cart. As a bonus, the reporter happens to be gay.

[It's the blimp, Frank]

That's worth an entire encyclopedia article right there.

[Rhindle]

[[Marcus Bachman golf cart incident]]

[EricBarbour]

Ho hum, how dull.

(IMG:http://i973.photobucket.com/albums/ae218/atlasfugged/bachmann-newsweek.jpg)

[mydog]

I don't really get this deletion. Was his article really just an attack piece (I haven't had the privilege of seeing it). Because I think anyone else with this amount of press coverage (and a lot of people without it, cough, hand-egg players, cough, David Dixon, etc.) would be a shoo-in for an article.

[Somey]

I don't really get this deletion. Was his article really just an attack piece (I haven't had the privilege of seeing it). Because I think anyone else with this amount of press coverage (and a lot of people without it, cough, hand-egg players, cough, David Dixon, etc.) would be a shoo-in for an article.

I'd say it was about 50 percent attack piece, 50 percent "OMG let's get as many press mentions of this guy in here as possible so they don't delete the other 50 percent of this article."

I suppose if Michelle Bachmann wins anything during this campaign, even if it's just the Iowa caucuses, and Marcus Bachmann gets more press attention as a result, then they could probably justify it - it would still be an attack piece, but like you say, there are less "notable" people in Wikipedia. Until then, I'd say WP is better off not giving in to "tabloidism."

[carbuncle]

I don't really get this deletion. Was his article really just an attack piece (I haven't had the privilege of seeing it). Because I think anyone else with this amount of press coverage (and a lot of people without it, cough, hand-egg players, cough, David Dixon, etc.) would be a shoo-in for an article.

Shankbone has a copy here just in case Marcus Bachmann does something newsworthy and the article can be restored. The crux of the issue is that Bachmann's clinic has been alleged to practice "reparative therapy" (i.e., making gay people straight). Obviously that would never last in the Michele Bachmann article, so Marcus needs his own article if it is going to be mentioned in Wikipedia.

[EricBarbour]

I suppose if Michelle Bachmann wins anything during this campaign, even if it's just the Iowa caucuses, and Marcus Bachmann gets more press attention as a result, then they could probably justify it - it would still be an attack piece, but like you say, there are less "notable" people in Wikipedia. Until then, I'd say WP is better off not giving in to "tabloidism."

Blech. If the Bachmanns really gave a damn about Wikipedia, they'd get their lawyer to harass the WMF and get it all pulled. But they don't care.

So I can only figure that Wikipedia is past its use-by date, and is no longer regarded with any seriousness by political office-seekers.
Its aspersions to "mainstream acceptance" are finished. It's just another website run by trolls. Hah.

[Collect]

I suppose if Michelle Bachmann wins anything during this campaign, even if it's just the Iowa caucuses, and Marcus Bachmann gets more press attention as a result, then they could probably justify it - it would still be an attack piece, but like you say, there are less "notable" people in Wikipedia. Until then, I'd say WP is better off not giving in to "tabloidism."

Blech. If the Bachmanns really gave a damn about Wikipedia, they'd get their lawyer to harass the WMF and get it all pulled. But they don't care.

So I can only figure that Wikipedia is past its use-by date, and is no longer regarded with any seriousness by political office-seekers.
Its aspersions to "mainstream acceptance" are finished. It's just another website run by trolls. Hah.

"Public persons" generally find the system inthe US works rather poorly - contesting a published claim results in it being more widely disseminated as a rule. And if people with a particular POV find it to their own advantage to disseminate the problematic prose, then this becomes an even worse problem. I have already found one editor who feels "the more good edits the better" by an editor on a given BLP - in essence saying it is not possible to make excessive edits on a BLP presenting the view of one editor. (One example would be an editor who makes 186 edits on a BLP out of a total of 669 by everyone total, or 670 edits on a BLP out of 5,800 edits total, or on a talk page more than 1000 edits out of (say) 5000 total edits by everyone total. I made the suggestion that such numbers indicate a preoccupation with a topic) See [[User:Collect/counting edits]] for the colloquy.

[Tarc]

I don't really get this deletion. Was his article really just an attack piece (I haven't had the privilege of seeing it). Because I think anyone else with this amount of press coverage (and a lot of people without it, cough, hand-egg players, cough, David Dixon, etc.) would be a shoo-in for an article.

Shankbone has a copy here just in case Marcus Bachmann does something newsworthy and the article can be restored. The crux of the issue is that Bachmann's clinic has been alleged to practice "reparative therapy" (i.e., making gay people straight). Obviously that would never last in the Michele Bachmann article, so Marcus needs his own article if it is going to be mentioned in Wikipedia.

I was tempted to file an MfD the moment he swiped a copy of the article for his userspace, but there was enough eDrama going on as it was. I posted a msg on his page on Aug 3 and he said he wanted to work on it, so whatever. I'll mark it for deletion by Sept 3 if its still there then.

This post has been edited by Tarc:

[carbuncle]

I was tempted to file an MfD the moment he swiped a copy of the article for his userspace, but there was enough eDrama going on as it was. I posted a msg on his page on Aug 3 and he said he wanted to work on it, so whatever. I'll mark it for deletion by Sept 3 if its still there then. ~~~~

I suspect that if it isn't in article space by then, it will end up there as a result of your deletion request. The more attention Michele Bachmann gets, the more attention Marcus Bachmann will get and the more attention Marcus Bachmann gets, the more chance of a gaffe that will be newsworthy. This one won't make much noise outside of left-leaning blogs and LGBT publications, but if Michele Bachmann continues to do well in straw polls, look for more Marcus Bachmann stories in the mainstream news planted by her opponents. Politics as usual.

You ought to be looking at influencing the content of the article rather than the existence of the article, but you are fighting a losing battle either way, in my very humble opinion.