User:L235/Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks/ArbCom appeals

Checkuser blocks

Most block appeals considered by the Arbitration Committee are "checkuser blocks". These blocks are typically issued when technical evidence suggests that your account has been used in violation of the sockpuppetry policy; that is, you've used multiple accounts to deceive or disrupt. In the event that you are facing a checkuser block, you should consider the following when appealing to ArbCom:

• ArbCom is a slow process. It may be a month or two (or more) before your block appeal is decided, and due to the Committee's nature, you will likely not be told the reasons behind the decision.
• Like any appeal (see WP:GAB), your appeal should seek to convince us of one of two things – remember that it's not sufficient to simply state one of these things; you need to convince us:
  1. Your block was incorrect on the merits – that is, you are 100% innocent of any socking violations to begin with; OR
  2. Your block is no longer necessary because: (a) you understand what you are blocked for, (b) you will not do it again, and (c) you will make productive contributions instead.
• In general, we won't grant an appeal in the second category until at least six months have elapsed.
• You don't need to appeal to ArbCom if your main account isn't checkuser-blocked but your sock accounts are. You should appeal on the talk page of your main account, but make sure to list the other accounts, even if those blocks were incorrect.
• If your appeal has any chance of success, we will forward it to the blocking administrator for comment prior to making a decision.
• Oftentimes, when granting an appeal, we won't lift the block outright. Instead, we will "downgrade" the checkuser block to a block that can be reviewed and lifted by any administrator, meaning that you will have to follow the normal unblock process on your talk page (WP:AAB) in order to be fully unblocked.

What to send

• Username (bonus points for linking the userpage, block, or SPI)
• Any prior user accounts you have used in the previous two years, as well as a description of any logged-out editing ("IP editing" or "anonymous editing") you've engaged in. We will ask you for this if you forget to tell us.
• A statement that convinces us of one of the two things above.

Common pitfalls

• Arguing unrelated issues (e.g. content issues)
• Failing to respond accurately to arb questions
• Failing to disclose prior accounts – we do check
• Socking while the appeal is pending
• Submitting a new appeal before eligible to do so (the minimum time to submit a new appeal is communicated when an appeal is declined)
• Blaming the blocking adminstrator, or the user who reported your account for attention - focus on your conduct
• Using a generic subject on your email. Using your username, the month & year, and what you want, will avoid your email being threaded with many long-closed "Unblock appeal"s.

Emailing ArbCom about other things?

Admin abuse cases

• ArbCom generally only decides admin misconduct cases privately under extraordinary circumstances (<1 case per year). Please make it clear why you think a case qualifies as "unsuitable for public discussion for privacy, legal, or similar reasons" under the arbitration policy prior to submitting.

Community ban appeals

• An increasing number of users have been appealing their community bans to ArbCom. This is only appropriate when there are "serious questions about the validity of the ban discussion or its closure", and it is highly unusual for such an appeal to be successful (<1 per year).