Accuses someone of muddying the waters, twice, for raising concerns over meatpuppetry. 4/11/20194/11/2019
muddying the water is far from a personal attack. I was just stating at the time the concern brought by the other user appeared to be irrelevant since it was not clear form the link he provided that people were being canvassed to the RFC. Additional evidence provided after that made it more clear that meatpuppetry may be a issue, but it was not clear at that time.
Calls someone's summary of a source a strawman's argument. 3/25/2019.
I was questioning why Volunteer Marek added a sentence to the lead about Michael Cohen's allegation that Donald Trump had advanced knowledge about the wikileak's email leak sine it was clearly WP:UNDUE. His response [1] was "Cohen did indeed make the allegation, per source". That's clearly a straw man because it is not the issue that I brought up. Neither I nor the other editor that commented before him argued that Cohen did not say that. He obviously did, the issue was whether it belonged in the lead.
And the crusade against Fox News continues... 3/24/2019-
This was in response to BullRangifer's attack on Fox News where he sated "the point being that "the brass" are being deceptive. They have one or two people like Shep Smith as their token journalists they point at, to fool people into thinking that the other 98% of their business is legitimate. Well, that's not the case. They are just including that "person (or very few people) of a group so an organization can publicly claim to be" an objective and real news source, so you can safely believe everything else they say and do. It's amazing how many are fooled by this example of tokenism. Just because 2% is good does not somehow make the other 98% good. It's still a propaganda channel, which is the point of the article." [2]
Again, you are so blinded by your own bias, you have no idea what you are talking about. 3/23/2019.
Again, in response to one of BullRangifer's comments [3] that Roger Ailes "deliberately chose to side with the criminals"
On BullRangifer's talk page: I would be very careful with trying to promote conspiracy theories about why Roger Ailes created Fox News or what his intentions were. That's a BLP violation and consider yourself warned. 3/22/2019, in relation to [4].
BLP applies to the recently deceased as well. BullRagifer's comment that he "deliberately chose to side with the criminals" was highly inappropriate regardless.
This was over a dispute about reliable sources. The article is currently sourced to a number of opinion pieces. The opinion pieces I provided a different view but were from sources the community has deemed to be reliable [5], yet I was told that part of my input was helpful yet I didn't understand the verfiability policy [6]
Your response is the exactly the reaction I expected. 3/18/2019 This preceeded the previous diff. And :I was expressing frustration that the sources I was being told that the sources I used were not "reliable fact sources" [7] despite the fact they came from reliable sources such as the the Hill and Fox News.
If you're going to call me out, at least do so by name. 3/18/2019 Note that the editor was not, as far as I can tell, calling him out in any way.
Not ture, I absolutely was being called out by User:Mandruss "I've now spent about half an hour looking. I tired far short of a complete survey, but I'm prepared to retract the above comments and dump the burden of defending that position on pro-Trump editors. Per the BullRangifer Doctrine, they are more familiar with the RS supporting their views, if their views are supported by RS. It's telling that the editor who filed the SNOW-failed AfD has never commented on this page or edited the article's content. It's time for those folks to put up or shut up." [8] I'm the one who put the article up for AfD. By the way, per the diff provided, the "BullRangifer doctrine" regards Fox News as unreliable, something the community does not agree with.
