There's a good example of what pawelmurias is referring to on the Wikipedia vote page linked in the article [1]. Here are some quotes, from two editors on oppos

There's a good example of what pawelmurias is referring to on the Wikipedia vote page linked in the article [1]. Here are some quotes, from two editors on opposite sides of the Breitbart argument: "I find it incredibly hard to believe that [Editor 2] is still pushing this issue aftermore than a year and a half, and after his having narrowly escaped an indef CIR block [...]" -Editor 1 "Please review WP:ASPERSIONS, and leave me alone. Or, try again to get me banned. These types of comments add nothing to the discussion and aren't, in my opinion, proper conduct for an editor." -Editor 2 "I'm a regular RSN contributor, and you are not. [...] As for casting WP:ASPERSIONS, you should probably hold your tongue before insinuating that I am stalking you: if I recall correctly, you spent about a month following me around and delivering backhanded insults at every opportunity before being told by several admins to knock it off." -Editor 1 I usually think better of editing Wikipedia for fear of being drawn into something like this. Even the most seemingly innocuous, well-cited edits can end up getting you into trouble with someone. I think Wikipedia is a wonderful achievement, but it often isn't pretty behind the scenes. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_248#RfC:_Breitbart https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Not...