Author: Sebastian

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. 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: WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, 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. 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 not own this article, regardless of your desire to do so formally. rather than slinging epithets and ad hominem, you could try detailing the 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.

I warned the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence that they didn’t want to go down the road of picking on bloggers by releasing their personal information, but they decided instead to extend a great big middle finger to the community. I’m guessing now they see what I mean, thanks to the efforts of Linoge, who has delivered a victory so sweet, I’m scheduling the root canal now. It gets even better:

I’d like to think that after this we can all be adults here. A bit of new media advice for Ladd Everitt and the other folks at Coalition to Stop Gun Violence: the best way to be left alone is to ignore your tormenters. But you could not help it, could you? You were drawn to lash out like moths to the flame. You might have thought that the harder you squeezed, the more crazy would ooze out, but it’s been pretty apparent that’s a two way street. And let’s face it, CSGV, your people are way more outside the mainstream than ours. That’s why we win, and you’re reduced to picking on bloggers and getting your Twitter account suspended for crossing the line.

UPDATE: More following:

I’m pretty sure the only firepower Linoge needed for that one was “Send” and the only army was himself. In case you are wondering what Dylan is talking about, since CSGV deleted he context, you can see for yourself here. He is rationally explaining that Twitter vets any complaints. Obviously CSGV deleted it, because the last thing we want is rational discourse in the gun control movement, and for their supporters to see they were in the wrong by crossing the line.

Joan, however, is quite correct, however, that we’ll stop at nothing. This is true. We think the Bill of Rights is that important. We see our opponents for the petulant busybodies, intent in destroying it, that they are. We are relentless. Don’t forget it. I am here to tell CSGV, Joan and their supporters that your nightmare is true. We’re going to hammer gun control on the anvil of relentless legislative strategy. We’re going to beat gun control into submission.

On the heels of an important vote in Texas on campus carry, CSGV will instead of have to spend time groveling before the Twitter gods for forgiveness because they have no conception of how to handle this issue professionally. They were goaded by rank amateurs into themselves acting like rank amateurs, and paid the price by crossing the line. I will, perhaps, pour a little more salt on the wound by suggesting that Everitt and CSGV have much they could learn about handling the issue professionally from the Brady Campaign. Even Sugarmann knows better than this.

John Richardson managed to find Ladd Everitt’s comment on ATF Request for Comment on the multi-sale reporting requirement for long guns. [Fixed an error – Seb] Ladd Everitt is Communication Director for Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, but he did not respond in his official capacity.

One interesting note is that he approves of the multiple long gun reporting requirement, and enforcement of “laws already on the books,” even though the laws already on the books prohibit the reporting of multiple long gun sales. What he’s really saying is that he wants ATF to break the law.

The real funny thing, however, as John notes, is that his response is a form letter from Mayor Bloomberg’s anti-gun MAIG coalition. I guess he’s spending too much time arguing with gun bloggers, and revealing personal information about them on Facebook and Twitter, that CSGV has no time to start their own astroturfing campaign. They have to rely on someone else’s.

Our opponents think it’s very important to look at interesting and novel ways to eliminate gun violence in society. They are willing to sacrifice anything to reach their dream where everyone trades in their guns for flowers and unicorns. Apparently even their freedom and privacy. Let’s take a look at this gem from the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence Facebook page:

Apparently this gun free fantasy extends to the point of putting body scanners in public places, so your bank can stare at pictures of  your nude body. Ladd gets an A for trying to steer this particular supporter off the crazy, and back on the path to productive activism, but it was too late.

Our opponents will be the first to vote for a pervasive police state to carry forward their idealist fantasies.