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.
