Apparently they were temporarily banned from updating their own Wikipedia entry because they insisted on flushing their past down the memory hole. Ladd Everitt proceeded to act like the unprofessional professional communications director we’ve come to know and love by abusing the Wikipedia admins.Â See the conversation here:
As for the claim that I should review the Conflict of Interest guidelines, I find that suggestion absolutely laughable coming from a member of the Wiki Firearms Project. Even a cursory look at the activity of your members on Wikipedia will reveal that you have consistently used these pages to discredit groups that wish to strengthen gun control laws and used their individual pages to disseminate your own heavily-biased and one-sided views on gun control policies and issues that, in many cases, have their own individual pages at Wikipedia.
From the admins:
your tone is highly aggressive and inflammatory. before pointing fingers further, i recommend that you review the following wikipedia core policies:Â WP:AGF,Â WP:CIVIL,Â WP:NPA. you’ve violated all of these core policies above. attacking other editors, rather than their edits, is not acceptable. frothing at the mouth about the evil wiki firearms project (of which this editor is not a member, nor is this editor a member of the NRA or the second amendment foundation or or the brady campaign or csgv or any other gun rights or gun control organization, thank you very much) is not going to persuade people that you are interested in a neutral article yourself. i have reverted all of your edits because you have a conflict of interest. i would recommend that you cease editing here, as you are violating wikipedia policy with each and every edit you make.Â Anastrophe (talk) 15:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I guess Ladd kept acting like himself, because it lead to this:
I will not cease making edits, and any neutral and unbiased observer will see in a matter of seconds that Wiki Firearms Projects members have used this page repeatedly to slander the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence and offer heavily biased and one-sided views on issues that we advocate on (in many cases which are outright lies that are totally unsupportable).
There’s a good rule of thumb to follow, which is never to pick on admins. You will lose that argument. Admins always win.
again, bold talk, not backed up by facts. outright lies rarely survive on wikipedia, because all material must be properly sourced. are you saying that sources have been falsified? that would be quite a claim in itself. not that you care, but i’ve removed biased material from this article that was improperly sourced on several occasions – biased material that presented ‘unfavorable’ commentary or opinions about CSGV. i would again strongly recommend that you familiarize yourself with wikipedia’s core values and policies. you do notÂ own this article, regardless of your desire to do so formally. rather than slinging epithets and ad hominem, you could try detailing theÂ specific issues with the material that you feel are lies, misrepresentative, whatever, and work with your fellow editors to craft an NPOV article. NPOV does not mean that the article will present your organization favorably or unfavorably – thus, your desire to scrub the article of perceived unfavorable facts (the past name of the group, the past policies of the group) will not stand.
Finally the conflict ended with CSGV getting many of their issues address, but only after a pissing contest which was entirely started by Ladd Everitt. There’s an old saying that you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. It’s a lesson to take to heart. Wikipedia won’t let their articles turn into propaganda pages for either side. It only looks biased to Ladd because truth is something not on their side, and they want to run from their past. NRA’s, for instance, is not lacking criticism.
17 thoughts on “Not the First Time CSGV Has Been Banned”
Bwahahahaha! Oh my sides ache from laughing! Wikipedia stomping on Ladd!
I would lay money that he’s getting belligerent w/ the Twitter admins as well. His comments on FB are like a little kid’s. “But he said X first”.
Wikipedia wonâ€™t let their articles turn into propaganda pages for either side.
They try not to but it’s pretty easy to Wikilawyer opponents into defeat if you have more time and Wikipedia experience (which of course also takes time). I’d say this is another example of how the CSGV is starving for resources.
“Thereâ€™s a good rule of thumb to follow, which is never to pick on admins. You will lose that argument. Admins always win.”
With one exception is if said admin is overstepping their bounds, and you can appeal to a higher admin who isn’t so biased. Just sayin’ I’ve been there done that.
That being said this shows just how unhinged and irrational our opponents are.
And they wonder why we don’t accept their “common sense” gun control laws.
The admins say that Ladd’s tone is highly aggressive and inflammatory. His tone and choice of words remind me of an effeminate homosexual throwing a hissy fit.
Pushing gun control is a workable ruse for people whose real motivation is to abuse others, because they can claim (fraudulently) that it’s for a good cause. The public needs to wake up and see these people not as the do-gooders they pretend to be, but as the abusers they really are.
Using the government as a blunt instrument with which to ram gun bans down people’s throats, against their will, is a form of rape. There’s no “do-gooder” about it; it’s evil.
I dunno what he’s complaining about. I just looked at their wiki page and it seems very well-documented and cited. It’s neither pro nor con, just informative.
If I didn’t know anything about them prior any “negative impression” of them I would get from it would strictly be based on the bare facts presented about them.
If I agreed with their mission I’d have a positive response.
What more do they want?
Oh, while I’m not one to give NRA the credit for it, I did edit their page to note that 4 states now have permitless carry.
Matthew Carberry: Well, while it’s a fairly recent edit and sometime after he got slapped down, surely:
without attribution is something to get upset about …. even if he said it. Without a citation it and the next sentence really ought to be deleted.
I missed that. From reading the full transcript of his interplay with the editors it will get taken down if not cited though.
Ladd also initially denied that CSGV was a member of IANSA and then did a most beautiful song and dance to try and defend their former exec, Rebecca Peter’s words about what guns we should be ‘allowed’.
“Wikipedia wonâ€™t let their articles turn into propaganda pages for either side.”
This must be a different Wikipedia than the one I’ve been reading for years. The one I know leans so far left I can’t read it sitting straight.
Perhaps it’s more reasonable about 2A issues than just about any other lefty cause.
Wow. It sucks to be CSGV.
I read the CSGV Wiki article on them. It’s no wonder they’re trying to edit it. It makes them look bad. Of course, the only reason it makes them look bad is because the article publishes unbiased truth. Looks like the truth hurts, after all (if you’re on the wrong side of it).
So they’ve obviously been arguing with the twitter admins, because the response mentioned making sure they understood the rules before reactivating their account.
That it’s still down means they just can’t get it through their bigoted heads that they did something wrong…
What response is there?
Linoge’s site. Twitter “trust and safety” said:
“if this user writes in, we’ll be sure to explain our policy regarding this issue before they are allowed to return to the site”
Obviously it wasn’t originally intended to be a permanent ban, but turned into one once they started doing their usual rational discourse.
Comments are closed.