http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:COATRACK

Wow this is a crazy page.

It has a section "Typical coatracks" and a long list of examples and none of them make sense. Not one of those examples could ever get away with it.

The page then says it came from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Weregerbil/Coatrack which is actually a little clearer on this silly name. However, they wrote it as "User:Weregerbil/Coatrack, the original version of this essay that was copied-and-pasted here one day because someone thought it really rocked."

"because someone thought it really rocked." Yup, professional.

Well WR, I issue a challenge to you. Find a way in how any of these articles are a WP:COATRACK

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Weiss
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chip_Berlet

Or find a some other cabal-owned article that meets WP:COATRACK

One of the best COATRACK examples is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremiah_Duggan, authored by SlimVirgin when she first joined the project. The poor dead kid is not especially notable or even important to the article, which serves simply as an excuse to spam all of Berlet's accusations against LaRouche.

The idea itself is interesting and probably deserves some kind of essay or other treatment. But my God what happened with this "essay?" It is like someone who couldn't write a lick looked at an essay and tried to make this look the same. It has a essay template, contents box, certain length, section headings, nifty WP acronyms, and a cat tag on the end. Yeah it really rocks alright.

He's notable enough. He's been mentioned many times in my local newspaper and even national ones.

And supported, interestingly, by Runcorn.

Who is Runcorn?

?!?!?!?!?!?

He's the (ex-)admin of whom I'm alleged to be a sockpuppet (although I was editing for months before him).

I think the Jeremiah Duggan article is pretty good proof that I'm not Runcorn, anyway.

I do find it interesting that they say nothing else in the article other than suggesting that his death was a massive conspiracy brought about by LaRouche and his supporters. But Wikipedia, don't you hate conspiracy theories? The official story in this case is that it was a suicide, and secondarily that it was an accident. You refuse to publish reputable conspiracy theories which are believed by the majority of people there, yet you publish something like this. Where is the consistency? If we didn't know better, we'd think that there was some agenda at work here.

He may well be notable, but publishing that particular spin on things is wrong, especially without an opposing point of view. Listing it as part of the LaRouche movement is also wrong. He is a kid who died just months after first becoming interested in LaRouche. That doesn't make it a major part of the movement, I am afraid. If the article is to exist, it should be about him, and only him. And reprinting parts from LaRouche, which don't necessarily have anything to do with him, is also wrong. Link to the LaRouche movement article by all means, but don't just reprint it.

Looking through this, and a lot of the other things that SlimVirgin writes, it seems that she is one of the biggest conspiracy theorists of them all. Where is Morton Devonshire to whip her nonsense out of Wikipedia?



Good point there. I hadn't realised that these articles exist. I think that any article that is obstensibly a coat rack should be deleted or at a bare minimum completely rewritten so that it is about the subject, not something different.

Can we find any others beyond the one that HSK found to smear LaRouche?

Hey what is with this picture

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:JeremiahDuggan2.jpg

For over a year it had no source but wasn't deleted because people fear SlimVirgin too much.

Then GMaxwell got the courage to tag as unsource and so SlimVirgin found a source. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=42243557

Source: http://www.justiceforjeremiah.com

The website never says it or the site's content is public domain so it would be fair use.

SlimVirgin then had it changed to Fair use

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=111432777

SlimVirgin then changed the source back to public domain for unknown reasons. Maybe she is claiming she received an email from the copyright holder, which would be the kid's mother. Does anyone know? There's no evidence of anything, just SlimVirgin stating it. Is SlimVirgin's word evidence enough that the image is "public domain" without any actual proof?

This image looks fair use to me.





I thought Runcorn was one of Poetlister's friends. Most of her friends who are both online and IRL friends are female though, so Runcorn was the only "guy" I know of who was both an IRL friend and an online friend. I don't know anything about this "guy" runcorn other than he got banned and wikipedia banned all of Poetlister's friends with him.

The thing is that the Jeremiah Duggan conspiracy theory is about as big as the Backpacker murders conspiracy theory. There are indeed "Free Ivan Milat" web pages and societies out there protesting his innocence. There is a similar page to the Justiceforjeremiah one out there. And I could describe probably 3 popular theories as to what really happened:

1) He did it, but with assistance from his brothers and/or others
2) He did it, as part of an organised crime gang
3) He was framed for it because police couldn't figure out who really did it and didn't want to look like they had egg on their face

The most popular theory is the organised crime gang theory, and indeed if that had happened in America, it'd pretty much be an open and shut case that it definitely was organised crime. How they happened and so forth is stereotypical of a mafia hit. How the bodies were disposed of, everything points to organised crime. Except that officially Australia doesn't have any organised crime. And furthermore, because this case got so much publicity, and wasn't initially thought of in those terms, and because most of the more powerful crime gangs are too powerful for police to be able to handle, they were left with the prospect that in order to keep the public's faith in the police force they had to arrest someone. The big question is why they chose Ivan Milat.

There are of course a small portion of people who are knowledgeable about the case and still believe that Ivan Milat was solely responsible, but not many.

Now, where is that in Wikipedia's article? It's not there anywhere. There is no mention of it. Its not mentioned as a highly debated topic. Its not mentioned with any links to the various web sites saying names of people who there is evidence did the murders, nor linking to the various evidence. Nothing.

Wikipedia insists that they aren't supposed to do that because they have to tow the party line, and to state the official story. He was convicted in a federal court, and his own lawyer thinks that he did it. Ergo, that's it, Wikipedia can't comment on it.

So why then are Wikipedia presenting another conspiracy theory that is at best the same level of plausibility? What makes this more acceptable or more believable or more notable? It is hardly a bigger story, it is hardly a version of events that is believed by as many people. Why is there a double standard there?

What I am seeing is that, far from a neutral point of view, Wikipedia is choosing to not only not mention a conspiracy theory as being truth, but in one case to pretend that there are none that exist at all, while in another case presenting a conspiracy theory as fact. That is bias to the extreme.

Wikipedia isn't "devoid of conspiracy theories". They just choose which to present and which to pretend don't exist.

Coincidentally or otherwise, one William Ortiz just placed a {{coatrack}} template on the Jeremiah Duggan article. It was reverted. The hapless Mr. Ortiz will probably soon be branded as a sockpuppet of myself, or someone under the pernicious influence of the WR.

Based on his user talk page I'd say that he was someone from Encyclopedia Dramatica:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:William_Ortiz

/B/ and "The cancer that is killing /B/" are euphemisms that are commonly used on Encyclopedia Dramatica, and refers to an image board hosted by 4chan. I would post the link but it is described as "the underbelly of the internet" and is actually a lot worse than Encyclopedia Dramatica (or rotten.com, or anywhere else I've ever seen). If you are really interested, you can do a google search and find it.

Suffice to say that I think that he will end up blocked very soon. Keep a look out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...r:William_Ortiz

He seems to be trying to add ED nonsense to Wikipedia, from what I can gather. How he knew about the coatrack is probably because some ED people look at WR sometimes.

It seems that they have decided that its not a coatrack because they say so, but they are conceding that it is about his death, not about the person, so they are thinking of changing it to "Death of Jeremiah Duggan". lol.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jeremiah_Duggan#Coatrack

So that will get rid of the problems? Uh, no.

Perhaps we should have an article on JFK solely discuss whether or not he was killed by someone on the grassy knoll in relation to his possible association with the mafia because of his drug and womanising problems. I mean that is the most common conspiracy theory surrounding it, that he was killed by the CIA because he was a loose cannon. Indeed I think that Wikipedia does have an article on it, its just that it is more appropriately titled as a conspiracy theory.

Sorry mate but what you've got on Jeremiah Duggan is a conspiracy theory. It is alleging a conspiracy.

Of course, it all depends on your definition of a conspiracy theory. If you mean "something made by some nutjob which less than 1% of people believe" then I dare say that the stuff about Ivan Milat isn't a conspiracy theory either. But people on Wikipedia describe it as such.

Whose official story? That's the German position, but not that of the British Government.

Oh yes, according to HK the British Government's position is due to a creepy right-wing politician (Elizabeth Symons) who was sacked by Tony Blair for being too left-wing.

He's clearly a sock of Taxwoman

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=162537144

The people who were banned with me in December 2005 (RachelBrown, Taxwoman, Londoneye, Newport) were all people I knew. I have never met any of the others in the new mass-ban. Indeed, the only other WP editor I have ever met in the flesh is my grandmother. (And if you need proof that the new block was not based on "technical evidence", she wasn't blocked although I have used her PC.) It's safe to say that now, as they'll never find her now.

I have a NO LAROUCHE rule. Those people are completely fanatical, even worse than the Truthers. Not possible to police their activities -- they're too devoted.

I think that you may have misunderstood me. I was talking about getting rid of some of the ludicruous conspiracy theories that are going around about La Rouche, such as this idea that they secretly beat a boy to death because he might have said something bad about LaRouche, and then convinced the German government to say it was a suicide, after he deliberately ran in front of a car. That kind of a conspiracy theory has no place in a web site like that. Or, if it does have a place, it should be listed as "Conspiracy theory linking the unfortunate death of a British student to Lyndon LaRouche" rather than simply saying his name. That is the very definition of a coatrack.

If they will allow such a conspiracy theory to be presented as fact, I'd appreciate them to at least list the most commonly believed theories as to what really happened with regards to the Port Arthur massacre and the Backpacker murders, at a bare minimum. At least say what most people who have investigated the cases say had really happened, rather than banning people for daring to comment on it and listing them either as baseless conspiracy theories that nobody believes (which is nonsense, as there's millions of people who know about them) or in not even mentioning it at all and oversighting them.

It is a double standard quite frankly. On one hand you have a conspiracy theory presented as fact AND being listed by the wrong name as a blatant COATRACK violation. Whilst on the other hand you have well known and highly respected investigations not even being listed at all.

Is it because of a nationalistic bias? Or is it because they are taking sides as to who they choose to support?

I for one have never agreed with LaRouche, and I was quite upset at reading his theory as to what happened in the Port Arthur massacre (which I found to be quite ignorant and lacking in proper research), but that doesn't mean that he deserves to have conspiracy theories written about him, and presented as fact.

No, I understood you completely. I just don't care whether you think it's a double standard or not, as you're no longer a Wikipedia editor.

You appear to be stuck. Give yourself a break: forget about what's happened in the past, and move on and create a new life for yourself. Forget about Port Arthur, forget about Wikipedia battles, forget about anything bad that has happened to you in the past -- none of that matters -- all that matters is what's in front of you. Move away, change your name, go to school, reinvent yourself -- you don't need to be stuck. There is a better life out there for you.

So you have no human rights after you've been blocked?

I disagree with Blissy on this one, as I've said, but he still has a right to an opinion.