DEMOCRATS should never edit on Republican BIOS

One single edit  and to get banned is a real lesson in
Wikipedia's fammous "assume good faith", WP:AGF
"Don't Bite the Newbie" WP:BITE  
as well  including WP:NPOV
"Neutral point of view", and a neoclassic WP:ASF "A simple formulation"

less then forgot this pearls of wisdom

such as, "Undue weight" "Coatrack" or WP:COAT
which is gloriously stated as follows...A coatrack article "is a Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related bias subject. The nominal subject is used as an empty coatrack, which ends up being mostly obscured by the "coats"." 

and  this little gem...from the man himself

"I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons."
[[WP:VERIFY} 

Finally, the one Mr Gamaliel is most 
familiar which considering he's a 
self-described democrat 
which is a bold face contradiction to this 
lovely and dear wiki-policy Conflict of interest or COI
WP:COI Now, Mr. Gamaliel, seems to be more concern,if a sock puppet should dare to step his private domain as the official "no bias" keeper of the Peter Roskam biography, consistent with a
wikipolicy  WP:OWN, even though Mr. Gamaliel is a hard core democrat, than to good of Wikipeida's policies of Encyclopedic content.

You think you right, but, you may be wrong... I may be an infamous sock or I may be Peter him self or
I may be his wife or kids... You should consider the words of your own fearless leader the
Grand Jimbo Wales...as he states clearly, unless you can't read, this...

"I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons.  Jimmy Wales"

I removed a section is is in total violation of many and multiple wikipedia policy, only to be Banned by an administrator, who is pushing his point of view.

You should remember, Peter and his family lives in Wheaton and share the same IPs as the Infamous sockpuppet you accuse this account to be.  You sure love to conform to published wiki-policy as it  been stated in wikipeida policy ...I quote...

Anonymous edits that blank all or part of a biography of a living person should be evaluated carefully. When the subject is of ambiguous notability, such edits should not be regarded as vandalism in the first instance, and RC patrollers should bear in mind that they may be dealing with the subject. The use of inflammatory edit summaries or vandalism-related talk-page templates should be avoided.

The Arbitration Committee has ruled in favor of showing leniency to the subjects of biographies who try to remove what they see as errors or unfair material:

or in Jimmy's words... ""... reverting someone who is trying to remove libel about themselves is a horribly stupid thing to do. Jimmy Wales"

So, Mr. Admin, don't be "STUPID" and have your ego write checks that wikipeida can't cover.

Be smart not dumb.68.78.26.164