User:Appeal Draft-i-ban-simple

__NOINDEX__ (Hidden from search engines)

TWO STAGE PROCESS

For STAGE ONE see [[User:Appeal Draft Unblock]

STAGE TWO

After sending User:Appeal Draft Unblock and a successful unblock, first ask this question:


 * "I wish to ask the one-way i-ban to be extended to a two-way i-ban. Is this permitted? Am I permitted to mention behaviour of the other editor as part of my request? How do I do this, as a formal appeal?"

Appeal text
(769 words, limit 1000 words))

This is a Request for the one-way i-ban to be extended to a two-way i-ban on the same basis.

The i-ban was clearly not imposed for anything I did between the appeals as I never interacted with SMcCandlish in the six months leading up to the appeal.

If this i-ban is imposed only for the purposes of future appeals, it would be sufficient just to order me not to talk about the evidence in the next appeal. But if you must do an i-ban - then I wish to request you to extend it to a two-way i-ban.

This will greatly simplify the entire process of the next topic ban appeal as neither I nor the other editor will be able to refer to each other. It also gives a clear way forward to editing in MoS after a successful topic ban appeal. I could return to my work in MoS under a two-way i-ban with the other editor. We could even take part in the same RfC and the same discussions so long as we don't talk to each other or about each other, revert each other's edits or thank each other for our edits.

This would completely eliminate any possibility of us feuding from now all the way through to my eventual return to MoS.

I have several other additional reasons for requesting a two-way i-ban:


 * The interactions have all been in the other direction outside of topic ban appeals.
 * In January 2016 I asked him to leave me alone. Since then, the only interactions outside of topic ban appeals have been to delete his posts from my talk page (four times) and in response to those posts, once again to ask him again to leave me alone.
 * When he commented on the same ARCA case as me in January. I did not mention his contribution although he mentioned mine.
 * Just two weeks after the one-way i-ban was imposed, SMcCandlish has pinged me in a discussion in the topic area of MoS when I was i-banned from him, topic banned, and indef blocked . In this pinged remark he said things about me that I could be expected to object to. NewYorkBrad warned him about talking about an editor who can't defend themselves, after which he removed the ping and case details. My only response was to contact an admin asking them to take action.

In summary, SMcCandlish's past behaviour and his ping since the AE appeal give reason to make the i-ban two way. Also, a two-way i-ban would greatly simplify a future t-ban appeal. It also gives a clear path forwards to return to my former work in MoS.

If this is not enough reason for a two-way i-ban, I would also like to raise some matters of procedural irregularities in the topic ban appeal. It is my understanding that in appropriate circumstances, ArbCom can override AE decisions. The original i-ban was imposed during a topic ban appeal submitted at the proper time. I was covered by WP:BANEX. I checked before the appeal started and the guidelines had not changed, so I was permitted to talk about the banned topic when relevant to my appeal. Admins could override BANEX. However when I asked about requirements when I was unblocked, last time this was discussed, no addition restrictions were imposed.

I was strongly recommended to focus my appeal on my positive contributions. I was not told that it was a sanctionable offence to ask the admins once more to check my evidence that I told the truth. I was not told that I can't reply to the other editor during the topic ban appeal.

Goldenring, was under the impression that I had been ordered to never contest the topic ban. The background here is that I disputed the evidence in February 2016 between t-ban appeals. (I was following an example by the other editor when he disputed the evidence for his t-ban immediately after the sanction in September 2015). Thryduulf said that what I did was a t-ban violation. In the sanction that followed I was ordered not to disruptively relitigate, presumably referring to what I just did. I have kept to this requirement. I have however presented my evidence in every MoS topic ban appeal to date. In December 2016, ArbCom acknowledged that I dispute some elements of the original AE filings.

Both sanctions were imposed only because of the appeal itself, as all my editing in the six months leading up to the appeal was well outside of MoS, including talk page activity. As for the i-ban, I didn't talk to the other editor at any time during the six months I was unblocked.

In addition NeilN referred to the notice at the head of the page which suggests the sanctions were imposed for the appeal itself

As you can hopefully now see, my behaviour in the topic ban appeal was covered by WP:BANEX.

On that basis also I ask you to make the ban two-way as I did not do anything in the appeal that required a one-way i-ban. You just needed to tell me if it was an official requirement that I must not talk about the evidence or SMcCandlish and I would then not have presented this evidence to the appeal.

Please ask if you need more information.

(appeal ends here)

Advantages of this approach
This two stage process avoids ALL RISK OF A SITE-BAN because there is nothing in the unblock appeal that breaches the i-ban and because you ask them if it is okay first before sending in this appeal.

If the one stage process would succeed, surely this two stage process will also succeed.

It also has FAR MORE CHANCE OF SUCCESS than a one stage combined i-ban and unblock.

Reasons:


 * 1) You ask the admins first. They like to be asked to give their permission first.
 * 2) Because you asked permission then they shouldn't site ban you because it is then covered by TBANEX for the i-ban.
 * 3) It is not a shock to them. They are more likely to be favourable if they have time to think it over first and get used to the idea before it happens.
 * 4) It is simpler for them to understand, no chance of confusion about what you are doing, because you do one thing at a time
 * 5) Because you have two appeals instead of one, you have a total of 2,000 words max, 1,000 for each appeal, instead of 1,000 words, which if split 50/50 is only 500 words each.
 * 6) (Opinion, I believe this to be true): during the appeal the admins will respect you more as an unblocked editor which gives more chance of success - this is a psychological thing.
 * 7) As an unblocked editor you have more flexibility in how you conduct the appeal.

If it fails, then the combined all in one approach would definitely have failed too.

If it fails, you can ask to be re-blocked if it is unbearable to be unblocked with a one-way i-ban. It is up to you but whatever you do next, it is better than being site banned which was the risk with a one stage process. And if you do end up still blocked at the end, it is a voluntary block which you can ask to be lifted at any time, if you have some other idea about how to appeal the i-ban, or if you decide that it is bearable after all to edit Wikipedia under those conditions, or if for any other reason you wish to be unblocked. Maybe even just that you want to be unblocked for a few days to do some particular important thing and then get reblocked.

So this way even if you end up in the same situation as the one-stage process, you gain control of the block process and the block at least is voluntary, and you avoid any risk of a site ban. I just see win win win for the two stage process over the one stage process.