Blocked I don't know what rules page you read that you think says you can make a sockpuppet account to file an appeal. The policy is that banned users may only appeal by email to the Arbitrators. In some cases, Arbcom will authorize a public appeal, at which point your original account will be unblocked (or perhaps alternate arrangements made in your case). However, I have just spoken with FloNight and Arbcom does not authorize a public appeal at this time. Please continue to email them. Thatcher 17:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes but I have continued to email them. I don't think it is unreasonable to use this page and user space simply to prepare a case. Thatcher, can you perhaps give me a reason why? And please note my original account references my real-life name, as I have already explained. Please, one ounce of reasonableness. Thanks. Peter Damian (talk) 17:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Peter_Damian"

Despite requesting the page be left for my Arbcom case, I have been blocked by Cohen as an 'abusive sockpuppet' - and despite my declaration on the page of exactly who I was.

This refers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sus...ts/Peter_Damian

OK he has deleted the block notice containing my real name. But I am allowed, I believe, to have an account for the purposes of contesting the block.

The note you left on Giano's page doesn't make it easy. I doubt anybody is going to work too hard to help you if you don't make the effort yourself.

OK, It looks like most of your edits are from Renamed user 4. Right?

Correct. That was my only account (apart from about two minutes at renamed user 5). I did by the way leave a link on the new user page to show who I was.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=198641388

Renamed user 4 IS blocked under my original RL name.

Sorry, I'm still confused here:

What account has the block that you want to appeal?

Has that account been moved to a new name with the edit history intact?

Is your RL name 'Peter Damian' ?

Why don't you edit from the "Renamed user 4" account?

-edit-

Where can I find the edit that earned the indef block you described on Giano's page.

The chronology is somewhat complicated and I wanted the 'Damian' user page to set up the links. I will do that shortly.

I am appealing the Renamed user 4 block. I'll PM you with a relevant diff. Unfortunately the diff pages have my real name plastered with red links all over them, and I'm still pondering the wisdom of doing all of this.

OK, I think I understand, thanks for being patient.

Is "Renamed user 4" blocked even though it doesn't show in the log, because the original account it was moved from was blocked? didn't know that was possible.

Technically it is not blocked, however I'm sure that if he started to edit, someone would spot the unusual name, figure it out, and apply a new block. Then the block log would have an indelible link to his old account, which he is trying to avoid. So best not to push that button, I think.

Dear Mods And Staff,

We appear to need a new forum for Wikipedia Review members who are rushing to Fall On Their Swords (WP:FOTS) for the diversion of the Wiki-Pan-Et-Circus Crowds.

I'm not sure whether to call it the "Lemmings" or the "Martyrs" forum, so I'll let you decide which is best.

Jon

Mind you, despite I have directly mailed practically everyone on Arbcom, I still have no reply.

Look I want to prove a point. There are some basic issues here - such as the right to contest a block when it involves a basic issue like this. A few very negative people have said that there is no justice available on WP, that the whole thing will be rigged from the start &c &c.

Well they may be right. But let's prove that once and for all. I will act decently throughout and argue the case logically, and let's see who prevails.

Mind you, despite I have directly mailed practically everyone on Arbcom, I still have no reply.

Look I want to prove a point. There are some basic issues here — such as the right to contest a block when it involves a basic issue like this. A few very negative people have said that there is no justice available on WP, that the whole thing will be rigged from the start &c &c.

Well they may be right. But let's prove that once and for all. I will act decently throughout and argue the case logically, and let's see who prevails. Prove me wrong, Jon.

Mind you, despite I have directly mailed practically everyone on Arbcom, I still have no reply.

it's just that many of us are wik-&-wirry of being constantly splattered with yer blud-&-guts, not to mention all the watermelons, and so

Fine then I won't post here any more.

Please don't mind Jon Awbrey. It's just his sense of humour.

∠

I don't think I've seen you use that one before — clever.

Men loven of propre kinde newfangelnesse,
As briddes doon that men in cages fede.

— Geoffrey Chaucer, "The Squire's Tale"

+ === In private or public ===
+ Typically, cases involving an ArbCom or community [[WP:BAN|ban]] [[WP:APPEAL|appeal]] are heard in private, by email, since the nature of a ban is to remove the banned user from the community. In some cases a user may be unblocked for the purposes of appeal, on the understanding they will strictly edit only the few pages needed for the purpose and not edit for any other reason.
+
+ A small minority of other cases may also be heard in private. this is less common, and typically occurs when there are either ''exceptional'' privacy issues, or when a hearing on the public wiki may be grossly unfair or damaging for a user regardless of any findings.
+
+ Otherwise, '''users may refer evidence to the Committee by email in any case'''. However unless there is good reason, it is preferable that in most cases, evidence is presented on-wiki. If in doubt please email an arbitrator to ask advice.

What is the difference between an indef block and a ban?