Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Noah Peters/Evidence

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form:.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.


 * What happened.
 * What happened.


 * What happened.
 * What happened.


 * What happened.
 * What happened.


 * What happened.
 * What happened.


 * What happened.
 * What happened.


 * What happened.
 * What happened.


 * 
 * "he likes dick in his butt".


 * 
 * "This is yet another disgusting attempt to misrepresent an important historical figure in hopes of advancing the homosexual agenda. Similar attempts were made to hijack the personal lives and reputations of everyone from Jesus Christ to Shakespeare to Alexander Hamilton to James Buchannan, Lincoln's predecessor in the White House, to Adolf Hitler and even Yasser Arafat. That this book attempts to besmirch Lincoln's repuation and character by falsely portraying him as gay is not surprising considering the book's author was both a homosexual himself and a research assistant to the discredited Alfred Kinsey. He's just trying to project his own sexual perversions onto one of the nation's greatest presidents".


 * 
 * Page blankings.


 * 
 * "I'm glad to see that you're gone. You always enjoyed being aggressive on wikipedia, engaging in long feuds, provoking other members, and making false accusations when it suited your purposes. You also enjoyed punishing those who crossed your path. You used wikipedia not to contribute to articles, which you rarely did, but as an outlet for your anger. Wikipedia is better for your absence!".


 * 
 * "Thank you for being acting politely in this discussion. However, with all due respect, I think your reply is totally spurious. The actions of the people reverting my page, of course, do not reflect any "majority," but rather a determined minority of administrators (originally fvw, now apollomelos, you, and one other) who have decided to revert my ip address page. But none of these actors represent a majority, just as neither of the sides in a fistfight in a crowded bar represent a "majority," even if one side has more than the other. So all of your pious moralizing about "majority rule" is totally bogus. A majority is not whatever you say it is. Sure, I am alone in trying to keep my own page blank, but that is because I am the only person associated with that IP address, and naturally no one else cares. The administrators, for some reason, believe it to be their page, so they feel justified in reverting it. I am like a helpless minority at the hands of a small mob, to extend your democracy metaphor. And I think that if you began changing the user pages of other users, began violating everyone else's rights, pretty quickly there would be a majority forming against you. That page represents me; when I make an edit, that edit is attributed to the owner of that page. I quite clearly represent the majority who want their user pages left alone. What you are doing is simply competing against me in a revert war; your actions represent no principle. Your action is "arbitrary" in the sense that you undertook it at your own will without consulting anyone else, simply because you wished to keep certain comments on the page. If you are to be believed, the wikipedia community acts entirely arbitrarily; it is like a barbarous society where the strongest survive and the weak must accept the will of the strong. I think that is morally repugnant. You have quite clearly admitted that you do not care to follow arbitration procedures and believe that you should be able to unilaterally change another's user page when you wish. No, a consensus has not developed, and yes, the strongest will win this revert war. It is the law of the street, the law of force, the law of survival of the fittest. There will be a "winner" and a "loser," because all we are doing is engaging in a power struggle."


 * 
 * Trying to manipulate people: "I vote strong KEEP. It is a useful heuristic for identifying articles written from a self-consciously gay perspective in order to advance gay causes, in other words, those written from a gay POV."


 * Bottom line: I can cite at least 50 cases of vandalism towards homosexuality all night long on this user.  I have wasted countless hours and even left Wikipedia out of frustration because of him.  I seek the power to ban him from editing homosexuality articles, realizing that is not possible I seek a mandate to blanket revert any of his edits to homosexuality articles without 3RR restrictions.  He can no longer be assumed to have good-faith on these articles, decipher his comments above to see that.  I and a long list of other Wikis have been fighting him since January and lately he has become even further manipulative, citing sources such as books yet when I read them his information does not exist, he is lying.  This is a list of anonymous AOL IP addresses that continually vandalize Wikipedia from a small area of Virginia, United States. All of them are a mixture of good contributions and vandalism, specifically targeting homosexuality articles. These IP addresses use to have one screen name, but he was banned in January 2005. He was a radical conservative columnist for the Cavalier Daily, a newspaper for the University of Virginia who had taken to Wikipedia with the intention of political activism on the homosexuality articles rather than the pursuit for knowledge.  Unfortunately because of his residence at a University and the nature of the AOL addresses it is impossible to impose a hard ban on him as ordered in January. See this article for that list: The Virginia Vandal  Not to mentions he has created many sock puppets and impersonated me twice. Apollomelos 04:42, 15 May 2005 (UTC)