Regardless of whether a block was within policy or not, creating another account to circumvent it is against policy. This is especially what the list was made for and if you asked to be unblocked while citing relevant sections of policy, I'm sure you could get a lot more admins to unblock you if you contacted them privately, than when you go straight to accusations of abuse.
It wasn't an account created to circumvent it. From what I understand is that it's an account used by multiple people (a role account) and in this case the person using it was someone else asking questions about the block on their behalf.
David Gerard cited a non-existent ban on role accounts as the basis for the block and since it was demonstrated that there is no such thing, he hasn't bothered responding. Furthermore, snowspinner has now justified it by openly saying that admins can block for whatever they wish, even if it's not in policy.
It seems to be standard policy on this list that if an admins claims are refuted, they just stop responding completely so as to avoid making themselves look worse. When I asked Fred Bauer (sp?) that he present an actual link of evidence of where I refused to cite sources in regards to my arb case (it was used as evidence against me even though it was fabricated out of thin air), he just completely ignored it and only focused on the part about personal attacks. The thing about personal attacks was dropped when he realized that his theory wasn't followed by most wikipedia users, including admins (no consensus).
I came across something interesting recently (a comment from David Gerard): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_dele...
Apparently when it comes to speedy deletions simply specifying a personal attack is too ambiguous, but when it comes to the personal attacks policy, it's something that "any reasonable person" (his idea of what admins are supposed to be) would know. Complete disconfirmation bias.
I think a lot of this could be solved if the admins actually tried to see what the actual consensus on their actions was. A lot of the things done by the more abusive admins would fail basic tests of consensus and they know this very well, which is why they refuse to ever poll on the matter. The best most recent example is snowspinner's "we don't need policy to block people" theory which was used to censor someone on Wikipedia asking about blocks.
I think the solution is to create a Wikipedia: space page to watch admin abuse (like an admin abuse notice board or somesuch) that compiled wonderful examples of what they had done. It could also hold votes regarding self-invented policy by admins that, even if unofficial, could at least demonstrate that they are clearly doing things outside of consensus. I have no doubt that when that was demonstrated they'd start trying to invalidate all the various votes for asinine reasons (especially as per the self-invented "lets remove blank oppose votes" policy).
---------------------------------------------- Nathan J. Yoder http://www.gummibears.nu/ http://www.gummibears.nu/files/njyoder_pgp.key ----------------------------------------------