People simply disappeared, always during the night. Your name was removed from the registers, every record
of everything you had ever done was wiped out, your one-time existence was denied and then forgotten. 
You were abolished, annihilated: vaporized was the usual word.

Appealing is without purpose. It is my observation that you do not follow the rules of Wikipedia, so pointing out to you anything wrong in your action, wrongful by Wikipedia rules, is meaningless. 

When the majority do not see any problem with requiring some people to sit in the back of the bus, it ain't going to change by pointing out their actions to them. I live with racism every day; but pointing out to someone on Wikipedia how their actions are akin to the majority imposing its will upon the minority, and refusing to explain their actions, that is, to give some facts behind the conclusory rhetoric of those refusing to allow any edit on the topic at hand, or even answer the question with some mention of what part of a long rule they are talking about (as Chowbok asked), then I've been uncivil and the metaphor is offensive.

The rules, in application, are: Your friends can make personal attacks on those you do not know, your friends can be insulting to those you do not know. Those you do not know-and-like are in the wrong. How dare those you do not know raise a question, or worse yet, ask that another's question, long asked but never answered, be answered?

Wikipedia has a number of noble ideals, but in practice, on the issue at hand, you are employed at Minitrue. Please take particular note of Dayewalker’s edit in removal of my response to her question. She does not remove the discussion, she does not remove all parts concerning me, she just cuts it off where she has posed a question to me and, through careful deletion of my words from that point on, I appear to never respond. And if not one other person sees that for what it is, the absence of anyone else saying the king has no clothes does not change his appearance. 75.4.195.159