Is the infinite banning of a person or persons from Wikipedia tantamount to destruction of free speech? It's a difficult argument for people to make as many would say 'well, you have the right to say anything you want and you don't have to use Wikipedia'.
And what they say may be true... But context is often the key to putting forward a message, and Google creates a prominent platform for Wikipedia, and with most of its competitors essentially copying Google -- perhaps due to its success; I'm not a 'Master Mason' so I wouldn't know all the insider practices of businesses -- doesn't Wikipedia end up being the defacto source for 'Truth Creation,' that is, the go-to source for those who wish to access a truth becomes a go to source for those with an interest in governing by creating those things which people believe to be true, assuming most people live their own lives according to what they believe...
So it is that when the defacto government is those people who create the truth as it is perceived, a ban from one of the main sources of truth creation amounts to a ban on political action, and thus a ban on some forms of democracy and the right to report events as they occur.
Or do people disagree? Either because there are other, more prominent methods of creating truth, or because they have some other issue with the lines of reasoning presented thus far?