Here is my documentation of how the phrase "operating illegally" has entered into 12 Wikipedia articles that relate to unaccredited institutions.

 American University of London - no mention of "operating illegally" until Orlady made it so.
 Suffield University - no mention of "operating illegally" until edited by 155.212.44.58, what appears to be a good-faith editor, inactive since 2007.
 List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning - no mention of "operating illegally" until Orlady made it so.
 Kingston College (British Columbia) - no mention of "operating illegally" until Orlady made it so.
 Vancouver University Worldwide - no mention of "operating illegally" until Orlady made it so.
 American Conservatory of Music - no mention of "operating illegally" until edited by 38.104.166.30, what appears to be an account with a single purpose, operating for only 5 weeks, and touching only 2 articles, both about music schools.  One edit removed important information that was reliably sourced.
 Bircham International University - no mention of "operating illegally" until Orlady made it so.
 Weston Reserve University - no mention of "operating illegally" until Orlady made it so.
 Fidelis Oyakhilome - I was mistaken.  This article is not about unaccredited institutions, per se.
 Canterbury University (Seychelles) - no mention of "operating illegally" until Orlady made it so, remarking that the edit was reverting "excuse-making".
 Washington International University - no mention of "operates illegally" until Orlady made it so.
 Education in India - no mention of "operating illegally" until edited by Lalit Jagannath, an editor interested in India, not pushing a POV about unaccredited institutions.

As far as I could see, not one of these insertions were reliably sourced to a mainstream, journalistic publication.  They were marked against state websites that, as I've demonstrated, are proved to make claims about legality without any basis in actual judicial review.

So, we can clearly see that 73% of the mentions of "operating illegally" in Wikipedia (as it relates to educational accreditation) is the sole responsibility of one administrator, .  However, , whom Orlady protects and tags off with on a regular basis, is concerned that I have an agenda that I'm pushing, and not Orlady who is responsible for 73% of a thematic agenda that now permeates multiple Wikipedia articles.  This is truly Orwellian.