[WikiEN-l] Assume bad faith, for banned users.

[u/n - adrianm]

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