"
 With respect, you're misrepresenting my position in a few places. First, I never claimed a personal attack took place, so WP:NPA#WHATIS is not relevant to my position as you imply. Second, I have not been overly quick to charge you; I made my claim a full four days into the discussion. My singular claim was a WP:AGF issue regarding the content disput. I was with you and you were on rock solid ground all the way up until ""when a certain extremely partisan right-wing candidate for office starting flapping away"". In my view, this did not add anything to the discussion and you were attempting to link that statement with the underlying motives of another editor. WP:CIVIL is of help here, specifically: ""do not assume any more intentional wrongdoing than the evidence clearly supports, and given equally plausible interpretations of the evidence, choose the most positive one."" I didn't think this rule was not followed here and that's why I brought it up. However, I will take you at your word here and assume you did not mean to use this statement in the way I suggested you did. It's still odd that the sentence made its way into this debate though; what you were you hoping to accomplish by bringing it up? The grounds for leaving the sentence in the lead had already been well established by you and others and I don't understand why you had to inject politics in the discussion.  With respect to what Cyrrk has said about you, I do not stand by his position.  (msg),  "