The problem with what David Gerard says here is that he is missing one important factor: I wasn't ever actually banned from Citizendium. Did everyone check the links that David Gerard provided? Did David Gerard himself actually read them? You see, the reality is that I quit Citizendium in disgust at their providing false information off of Wikipedia, especially after over a month of negotiating to make sure that that wasn't going to happen. Citizendium then determined that by quitting I was asking to be banned, and so it happens. Was I "banned from Citizendium"? No. I quit from Citizendium. If you actually read the links that David Gerard provided, you would find the evidence there.
Also, let's not forget my actual case, where I was banned after less than a week of using Wikipedia, as a newbie. A case with an article with a rather lengthy history of being written falsely, where they can't even manage to get the dates right (insisting that its a 1 day event when it actually lasted for 3 days - quite a discrepancy). As for my version, that I wrote for Citizendium, but then asked them to delete after they added in factual inaccuracies that were copied from Wikipedia, here is the version that I wrote (courtesy of Wikinfo):
http://www.internet-encyclopedia.org/index.php/Port_Arthur_massacre
So we've already got the fact that David Gerard misled a few people about whether I was banned from Citizendium AND about why I was banned from Wikipedia (for being a newbie, and for trying to correct inaccuracies as opposed to some idea that it was for legal threats with an unexplained extension from 1 year, which is already served, to indefinite). But not only that, he's failed to mention the Wikipedia Review link.
Did you all click that link before? The whole Private Musings thing? You'd know all about that. Its been discussed to death here. And you'd know the power struggle on Wikipedia Review that relates to that.
You see, I own Wikipedia Review, hence I can't really be banned from there. They just changed the passwords on me and made it difficult for me to get it back. Why? Because I made Wikipedia Review look bad. Because I exposed some actions by a member of Wikipedia Review to lie to people of Wikipedia. Because I thought that was wrong.
Now, you all get that, don't you? All understand? Or are you still content to quote tiny things out of context and to repeat inaccurate information as fact?
Good way to write an encyclopaedia guys.
Adrian