Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:31, 11 September 2017

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Pennsylvania Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject PennsylvaniaPennsylvania Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States: FBI High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject FBI (assessed as High-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Law Enforcement High‑importance This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Use of the Word "Eavesdropping" in the Article

The word "eavesdropping" was used in the press, but it never described what was apparently going on. In many instances, at least according to reports, computer algorithms were utilized to discern patterns of communication stemming from, or going to, nations which were known terrorist havens. Had this issue been framed in more accurate conceptual terms, citizens dubious about "eavesdropping" may well have heartily approved it. Or not. Either way, the public deserved a clearer explanation of what was happening. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.149.170 (talk) 15:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Quote re paper trail

The quote was from 4/19/2002, only seven months after the attack. Have they found any paper evidence since then, e.g., such as would have been revealed during the Moussoui trial? If so, the quote should be removed as misleading. And - in this day and age does data on computers count as part of the "paper" trail - thus rendering the term "paper trail" misleading? One run ron 03:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear Mr. R. S. Mueller,

I didn't know how to reach you but someone has Emaile dme saying that they are you. They said it was ok for me to take am ATM Card from a man name Rev. Monsignor Francis Please Email me at jonieglenn26@yahoo.com include this statement so I will know that it is really you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.229.196.61 (talk) 16:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Family Picture?

I think a good contribution to this article would be a nice family picture and the names of FBI Director Mueller's two daughters. If anyone has access to this information, please post. Thnx!

Arkhamite 01:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I edited out the phrase "top cop" as too informal. See

In addition to the inappropriate term, the president and not the FBI director is the nation's highest law enforment official, as GWB clearly implied in his speech after the 9/11 attacks. Take heed, ye mortals!

Arkhamite 10:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

થ== Family Picture? ==

Why would you want to post a picture of his family. As much as he violates people's civil liberties, doesn't mean you need to. Leave the family photos off the internet. Stick to what's in the news, which I'm surprised no one added:

Gonzales, Mueller Admit FBI Broke Law San Francisco Chronicle, CA - Mar 9, 2007 The nation's top two law enforcement officials acknowledged Friday the FBI broke the law to secretly pry out personal information about Americans...

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/09/national/w180541S71.DTL&type=politics

10:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)A family photo could well be a bad idea. this man is a valuable man to the U.S. Terrorists could very easily get to him through his family. I am not sure if there is any easy access to a family photo or family information, but i honestly think it could be an easy way for terrorists or other organizations to get info that maybe they should not have. ofcourse this is only my oppinion.

thanks for reading.

Scammers using his name

Would it be worth mentioning that 419 scammers adopt his name and his position for recovery scams? Just to raise a bit of awareness. - 79.74.75.211 (talk) 17:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

A family photo could well be a bad idea. this man is a valuable man to the U.S. Terrorists could very easily get to him through his family. I am not sure if there is any easy access to a family photo or family information, but i honestly think it could be an easy way for terrorists or other organizations to get info that maybe they should not have. ofcourse this is only my oppinion.

thanks for reading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.22.22 (talk) 11:53, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I stood next to him on the Esplanade in Boston watching the fireworks on July 4th, around 1030 or so. That picture of him is a bit out of date, he looks like he's aged ten years and has a thinner, more angular face compared to the current picture. 173.48.243.240 (talk) 00:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

To who it may concern

My There seems to be a lot of fraud and miss use of my name with officials for illegal criminal activity even with government officials as well as bankers in (Nigeria)it all started, when I gave my new email address to a gaming officials here in AZ on june 06 of this year they contacted me you see I like to play the seepstakes, here in the United States of America and now I get mails from attornies government, bankers everykind of criminal activty for example money laudary of terrorist activity as well I'm sure. I know you must be a very busy man. I don't even bother to answer then. Also now there contacting me from other countries now. Sorry had to delete my name.

Sincerely,

A family photo could well be a bad idea. this man is a valuable man to the U.S. Terrorists could very easily get to him through his family. I am not sure if there is any easy access to a family photo or family information, but i honestly think it could be an easy way for terrorists or other organizations to get info that maybe they should not have. ofcourse this is only my oppinion.

thanks for reading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.22.22 (talk) 11:51, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

How do we know when it is the government and not a scam...?

who are these people that use our governments personnels name and make it seem that the FBI is telling people via the email that there are banks or other countries that need to send us money because it is due to us and that the respectable Robert Mueller is the one authorizing all this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.242.113 (talk) 16:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm very glad, and no doubt is the vast majority of the Misplaced Pages community, that you took the trouble to ask this (these) particular pertinent question (s). Please be assured that all the points will be answered (to the best of everyone's ability) in the fullness of time. Vandagard (talk) 20:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

If it is too good to be true, then it probably isn't true.

Age

Re: his age - he's 68 now. isn't there a way to automatically update someone's age using an applet in these things? Bluthund (talk) 20:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The template {{Birth date and age}}, which is used in the information box already, automagically calculates age. He was born in August 1944, so he will be 2010 - 1944 = 66 later this year. — MrDolomite • Talk 20:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Nickname

Is there a place in the article for his nickname - Bobby three sticks? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.66.127 (talk) 22:35, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

FBI director for nearly a decade

Mueller has been FBI Director for nearly a decade and there are FOUR sentences about him during this period. Does the FBI monitor his wiki page?  ;-) 69.245.157.223 (talk) 03:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC)Scotti

Politics?

Mueller is clearly a highly political individual, yet there is no mention in this article of his political orientation. That omission needs to be rectified. Dagme (talk) 13:45, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Various 2013 issues/hearing

Here's a couple articles about the June hearings where Mueller gave opinions on subjects like IRS related investigations, PRISM leak, surveillance in general, etc.

• Fox News
• CNN
• Court House News service
• Politico
• Lansing Journal
• Popular Science
• Youtube video on IRS-related investigation which can be a second ref for a written one on this part of the hearing

Well that's a start. It would be great if someone else updated, but I'll see what I can do. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 04:35, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Robert Mueller. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130103060505/http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/history/directors/directors_then_and_now/ to https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/history/directors/directors_then_and_now

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:41, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

May 17, 2017 When breaking news becomes an encyclopedia

About half an hour ago, national and global media announced that Robert Mueller would be appointed as a Special Prosecutor to investigate Russia and the Trump campaign.

Within minutes, from 22:04 to 22:38 according to the page history, the Misplaced Pages page has been edited 52 times. Hello?

Misplaced Pages bunnies, slow down a bit. You are not news reporters, nor reporters of breaking news written by reporters. Give the story enough time to become an encyclopedic event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.59.71.63 (talk) 22:51, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Note that not all the edits are about the news. Several are in other areas of the article, tidying things up or removing information that can't be verified with reliable sources. I noticed several reasonable edits, such as unverifiable ancestry claims, apparently by editors familiar with Misplaced Pages's guidelines for biographies of living persons (WP:BLP). 173.239.240.118 (talk) 23:42, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Special Counsel in infobox

I agree. I think the immediate Scramble for Africa-esque rush to edit articles based on breaking news, some of which can be found to be untenable after further inquiry, is a tad nutty. Right now, I'm concerned with the affixation of "Special Counsel" to among Mueller's offices held given that it is not a formal title; I say this with reference to the page on Archibald Cox, former Solicitor General under JFK who was appointed (and subsequently fired) as Special Counsel on the Watergate story, which does NOT list this as a position he assumed in the officeholder box. What's the protocol for this? Frevangelion (talk) 00:11, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I feel like the position should be removed. Cox does not have it on his page, and neither does Patrick Fitzgerald. JocularJellyfish (talk) 00:37, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. Just because Cox and Fitzgerald don't have it doesn't mean Mueller can't. Although it is not a formal title, he does have the same powers as a federal prosecutor and cannot be fired by the President. —Fundude99 00:50, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I think it's a touch too soon. In any case, it says so right in the lead. It may be a good idea to let the consensus develop a bit. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:57, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I think it's more useful than not and should be restored. I think Cox's should include it too (among other changes needed at that page--making it a bit OTHERSTUFF for me.) Innisfree987 (talk) 01:15, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

If it's restored, I suggest then some of the early career positions should be removed from the infobox, such as "United States Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division" and the one below it. The infobox is already quite long. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:20, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes K.e.coffman, I tend to agree it's too long; my one hesitation about cutting those other posts is that I think it is useful to readers to see at a glance in which Administrations he's served. I'd actually liked your previous approach of removing predecessors (and successors?), as that information is also given in a chart at the bottom of the entry (and IMO bears less directly on his bio). What do you and others think, ok to take predecessor/successor out for concision? Innisfree987 (talk) 05:00, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect. The President has the full authority to dismiss Mueller. Read former DOJ attorney Neal Katyal's Twitter thread for specific details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frevangelion (talk • contribs) 04:10, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Technically, the President cannot "directly" dismiss Mueller. Trump can order Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein to fire Mueller, and fire Rosenstein if he refuses. Which would obliviously be bad for Trump if he does.—Fundude99 05:18, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

@JayCoop: Please observe what your edit here has done to Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Politics, government, and law, and consider either moving the {{rfc}} template to a better position or adding a neutral and brief statement of the issue. When doing so, please remember that Legobot (talk · contribs) copies from the {{rfc}} template (exclusive) to the next timestamp (inclusive). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:19, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

RfC

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Should "Special Counsel" be included in the infobox?

|office       = ] for the ]
|president    = ]
|deputy       = 
|term_start   = May 17, 2017
|term_end     = 
|predecessor  = ''Position established''
|successor    =  

Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 16:10, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

• No - The position isn't continuous. GoodDay (talk) 23:17, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
• Yes - It's a notable position relevant to readers. Innisfree987 (talk) 23:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
• Yes - Per Innisfree987. —Fundude99 04:08, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
• Not like that - GoodDay is right, as this isn't an office so infobox officeholder seems wrong, and it looks misused in the above. Innisfree 'relevant to readers' seems not a relevant or provable claim for a BLP. What matters to BLP is it is important to his life, and though Ken Starr and Robert Fiske don't use this, I think it may be suitable to accept that it's a wrong infobox and shove it in anyway. Just fix the "president" to the "appointed" tag instead, and I think drop the predecessor. Markbassett (talk) 04:59, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
• Yes - Per Fundude99. Sagecandor (talk) 20:08, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
• No - per GoodDay and Markbassett ie that this isn't an 'office' and this isn't the standard or best way to record this role. Though the job may well feature prominently in the lead. Pincrete (talk) 17:17, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
• Yes - Is that the correct title? Whatever it is, this is an official government position for whatever duration. So it would be factually incomplete, if not inaccurate, not to include it. At least, that's what my gut tells me. On the other hand, the past record is unclear, as it is referenced in the infobox for Leon Jaworski, but not for either Archibald Cox or Ken Starr. Both frankly, surprised me. So for me, it's a yes, but with a slight addition. Perhaps we add it here, then fix it on those other pages as well. Especially, as I know some editors will be sticklers for consistency. X4n6 (talk) 22:15, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - No one has said anything for 2 weeks, I move that we include it into the infobox.—Fundude99 04:20, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
• Yes - This is a special title within US Government and operates out of their own office: United States Department of Justice Office of Special Counsel. They have autonomy and their position defined in DoJ 28 CFR Part 600. English06 (talk) 18:03, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
• No - Just seeing this discussion now, but I agree with the naysayers in that this isn't some official position limited to one person for a certain period of time because there's the possibility that there could be more than one special counsel working simultaneously on different cases within the Justice Department. In addition, other people that were formerly special counsels on particular investigations in the past don't have this in their infobox. Since there's an equal amount of yeas and nays, it should be removed until more users believe it should be included. WikiEditor668 (talk) 08:22, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - "this isn't some official position limited to one person for a certain period of time" Umm... yes, that's exactly what it is. In the history of the office, no two people have ever held the position simultaneously. So unless/until that happens, we're not in the business of speculating on hypotheticals. But I believe your comment betrays a fundamental misunderstanding about the role and authority of this position. If there was a need to investigate different cases, the same counsel could simply expand his scope. Case in point: that's exactly what has happened with Mueller. Also, you may want to count again: even with you, it's still 5-4 in favor. X4n6 (talk) 06:47, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

"Position established" vs. "Position Established"

@JocularJellyfish: It has been precedent that the second word is lowercase. It is with George Washington as "Inaugural holder" or "Position abolished" — you changed that on April 30 to fit your preference. In William J. Donovan, it is "Position established" under Coordinator of Information. In Keith Ellison, it is "Position established" under Deputy Chair of the Democratic National Committee. In Elizabeth Warren, it is "Position established" under Special Advisor for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 02:01, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Good to know. I won't make those changes again. JocularJellyfish (talk) 02:07, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm feeling that the optional field "Predecessor" should not have any entry. It's not being taken over from anyone or created as a permanent office or adding anything of value here -- it just makes the infobox longer. It would be better to simply list the position, appointment, and date. Markbassett (talk) 05:07, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Markbasset and others. Activist (talk) 06:59, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

• Neither. I have used the term "Dormant." Please discuss here before making changes. "Position established" erroneously suggests there have never been prior special counsels. Clearly incorrect. But "Dormant" is accurate. Suggests, even better than "Vacant," that the position is not continuous and is only appointed as needed. Open to discussing a better term, but not a phrase - and obviously not an inaccurate one. X4n6 (talk) 07:10, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Robert Mueller. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/7/5/150910.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140715003956/http://www.fbi.gov/news/news_blog/james-b.-comey-sworn-in-as-fbi-director to https://www.fbi.gov/news/news_blog/james-b.-comey-sworn-in-as-fbi-director

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:49, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

2017 special counsel team

I have broken out 2017 special counsel team; as the team expands, it becomes more than should be contained in this article alone. Cheers! bd2412 T 01:48, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Is the "Preceded by" and "succeeded by" backwards?

n.t.Clarkmag (talk) 21:39, 10 June 2017 (UTC) Clarkmag (talk) 21:39, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Deputies in Infobox

@X4n6:, you stated that the Deputy FBI Directors have no place in Mueller's infobox. I disagree with you considering that every recent cabinet member has their deputies in the box along with every other FBI Director. Going with your logic, there is no reason for Vice Presidents to be listed in POTUS infoboxes. Keeping the deputies is simply common sense. For these reasons, I ask that you revert your edit. JocularJellyfish (talk) 00:49, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

@JocularJellyfish:I was happy to review your claim. I did discover that including deputies was far more common than I was aware. But it's not always done as consistently as you suggested. Nor do I buy your comparison regarding VPOTUSes, because they are elected and much higher profile. Who really cares about most agency deputies? I don't; and I still don't believe they belong in the infoboxes. Robert Mueller's deputies aren't listed. Nor are those of Thomas J. Pickard, Floyd I. Clarke or John E. Otto. With William S. Sessions only one is listed. As for current cabinet officers: Rex Tillerson, James Mattis, Jeff Sessions, Ryan Zinke, Tom Price, Ben Carson, Elaine Chao, Rick Perry, John F. Kelly all are, while Steven Mnuchin, Sonny Perdue, Wilbur Ross, Alexander Acosta, Betsy DeVos, David Shulkin all are not. But again, their inclusion is indeed more widespread than I knew. So your objection is well-founded and I withdraw mine. Please restore them. Happy editing! X4n6 (talk) 05:50, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

fascinating

Almost all of the lead section is puffery that was written AFTER Mueller was appointed as the special prosecutor. This gives me great faith in the unbiasedness of Misplaced Pages. Jwray (talk) 06:12, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

• Jwray, having nothing to do with it's content and everything to do within its tone, is there any reason why your comment should not be removed as a vio of WP:SOAPBOX? X4n6 (talk) 07:35, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Deleting talk page comments is rare and confined to extreme cases like doxxing, spam, and illegal content. Jumping to censor mere criticism could be considered evidence of my point. Jwray (talk) 13:51, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Jwray Leaping to claim censorship, while failing to address the specifics of my concerns, seems to make my point. You have no inalienable right to contribute to this project. When you, or anyone, choses to do so, you voluntarily subject yourself to the same guidelines and policies that everyone is expected to follow. And you accept that your comments may be reviewed by anyone, consistent with those guidelines and policies. Should you wish to respond to my concerns about your comments in the specific context of WP:SOAPBOX, or if you believe another policy pertains, you may reference it. Either would be useful. Otherwise, your comment does not appear constructive and appears to just be POV and soapboxing. That latter makes it subject to removal. Further, the fact that you are being invited to respond, rather than just having the comments removed, seems pretty clear proof that your particular claim of bias has no basis. X4n6 (talk) 06:10, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
      • lol, so you think accusations of POV violations are themselves POV violations worthy of deletion? The most problematic paragraph is the penultimate one: "He earned a reputation as a no-nonsense, straight-laced attorney and investigator, as well as the nickname "Bobby Three Sticks"—a nod to his name's suffix. Lauded for his non-partisan and non-political approach, he has been credited with transforming the FBI from an agency primarily focused on law enforcement into one of the world's top organizations handling counterespionage and counterterrorism." Much of this is just puffery coppied from puff pieces that were written after the appointment to try to puff up public opinion of Mueller. Meanwhile the lead section completely omits any mention of any scandals, such as pushing the Saddam WMD iraq war propaganda: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTDO-kuOGTQ and then spying on the associated press, and presumably cooperating with other surveilance state abuses disclosed by Snowden et al. It's fascinating how democrats flipped overnight from deservedly distrusting big brother NSA/CIA/FBI to worshipping them and defending their honor. Jwray (talk) 13:11, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

• 1) The sections you're complaining about are sourced to: Reuters, BBC News, Time Magazine and NPR. To all but the most fringe elements, those are reliable sources. 2) Per WP:YOUTUBE, those videos are highly problematic and generally not used, for many reasons - not the least of which, is copyright. 3) You are still incapable of mustering a defense for why your comments were little more than WP:SOAPBOX violations. 4) But the fact that you would have the temerity to whine about "democrats" just reveals once more that your only real agenda here is as a POV pusher. Your supposed protestations about "neutrality" are a transparent fraud. The evidence proves your only interest is to use this platform to advance your own political views and to insert them where you can in articles throughout this project. Witness this screed, this comment and so many more. But this one says it all. You're nothing but an unapologetic pov warrior and, in my view, you exemplify everything that's wrong with this project. But the fact that you would base your original criticism on the "unbiasedness of Misplaced Pages," for me, makes you something far worse than a pov pusher. More depressing, it exposes your incredibly cynical and astoundingly hypocritical behavior. It also begs the legitimate question of whether your contributions to this project are, or ever could be, constructive. X4n6 (talk) 04:31, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

• Having RS is no defense to accusations of pov pushing by selectively putting stuff in the lead section. RS exist for Mueller's flaws too, which are conspicuously absent from the article. Counter-accusation of hypocrisy is also not a defense. You're dealing in personal attacks and strawmen in lieu of refuting any point that I actually made. The best way to counter bias is to embrace ideological diversity and discussion rather than going on witch hunts. I never claimed to be neutral. There is no such thing as a neutral editor. Every person who ever lived had his own biases. Different editors with different biases provide checks and balances. Jwray (talk) 13:49, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

• I am not easily distracted by specious defenses or weaksauce sophistry. While you shouldn't misuse terms like strawman which you clearly don't understand (ironically, your claim was a textbook strawman) - just as you also don't understand that it's not a personal attack to speak the truth: if you're a problem, you're a problem. So you can neither deflect, defer or defend your behavior here. See WP:ADVOCACY and WP:NOTADVOCATE. Also see WP:COI and WP:DISCLOSE. If you have a conflict of interest, you need to disclose it. If you are incapable of responsibly editing per WP:NEUTRAL, you're ill-suited for this project. Users are routinely blocked or topic banned for refusing to adhere to WP policies and guidelines. You can also be monitored to insure that your edits are constructive. You've done nothing to disprove the view that one of those options is likely necessary for you. X4n6 (talk) 09:31, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• C-Class Pennsylvania articles
• Mid-importance Pennsylvania articles
• C-Class United States articles
• High-importance United States articles
• C-Class United States articles of High-importance
• C-Class FBI articles
• High-importance FBI articles
• WikiProject FBI articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• C-Class Law enforcement articles
• High-importance Law enforcement articles
• WikiProject Law Enforcement articles