Larry Sanger, one of Wikipedia’s cofounders, was banned from editing the site indefinitely after other editors determined he was canvassing, or in other words, calling on his followers off platform in order to influence Wikipedia’s content.
Sanger has spent more than a decade criticizing Wikipedia for what he claims is an ideological, left-wing bias on a variety of topics, and on X has framed this recent ban as further proof of everything that’s wrong with Wikipedia. The New York Post took that bait and last night published an article with the headline “Left-leaning Wikipedia blocked founder from editing site—after he campaigned to make it more balanced.”
Wikipedia editors obviously reject that framing and say that Sanger was banned for wielding his followers to sway discussion and decision making on Wikipedia. The discussion that led to the decision to ban Sanger concluded with what an editor called a “clear consensus” to ban Sanger.
So, going through your claims: two cases in which the system worked as intended, one case in which the outcome is uncertain because the facts are uncertain, and one secondhand case about a minor celebrity in which the facts may or may not be certain (if there was actually a legal case here, it would be pretty easy to prove and get it taken down). Not only are these not major, it seems like everything is working correctly!
Edit: also, you clearly misunderstood what I said about the former president. I was saying it was a long time ago.