User:Appeal Draft-i-ban-WAS

__NOINDEX__ (Hidden from search engines)

TWO STAGE PROCESS - STAGE TWO

For STAGE ONE see User:Appeal Draft Unblock

After sending User:Appeal Draft Unblock and a successful unblock ask ArbCom:


 * "1. Now that I am unblocked, I want to appeal the i-ban. Is it legitimate to appeal the sanctions that I was given at AE by going to ArbCom?


 * 2. If I appeal to ArbCom in this way, does WP:BANEX apply during the appeal? In particular, can I talk about the AE appeal proceedings and about the editor I have an i-ban against in the ArbCom appeal?"

If they answer 'Yes', and 'Yes', then you are good to go to send this appeal.

If they answer 'No' you now know that the one stage appeal would not have succeeded either. You have found that out without risking a site ban.

Red text sections referring to the other editor would breach the i-ban if this is not accepted as a valid way to appeal. They are the reason for asking the admins for permission first before doing this. The red text I think risks a site ban if you don't ask permission first

See

This draft is based on the i-ban appeal section of User:Appeal Draft. I think that has a better chance of success. Alternatively, it can be based on User:Appeal Draft V2 or a combination of the two.

=Appeal text=

(747 words, limit 1000 words))

This is a Request for arbitration on my closed AE appeal case. I ask for the one-way i-ban to be removed. This is on the basis of procedural irregularities in the AE action. If lifting the i-ban is not acceptable I ask for it to be extended to a two-way i-ban on the same basis.

It is my understanding that in appropriate circumstances, ArbCom can override AE decisions. I am asking you to lift both sanctions on the basis of procedural irregularities.

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.

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 thought this acceptable at the time, due to an example involving the other editor during their prior t-ban 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. Nobody has said I can't do this, for instance, in December 2016, ArbCom wrote:

"The Committee notes that Darkfrog24 disputes some elements of the original AE filings"

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.

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

If I must not discuss these matters in future topic ban appeals, please just say so, plainly, as a requirement. There is no need to impose a one-way i-ban to ensure this.

If lifting the i-ban is not acceptable, this is a request to turn it into a two-way i-ban. Here are my 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. 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.

Although I wish to have the i-ban lifted altogether, I can work with a two-way i-ban if it is the only option. It would simplify the next t-ban appeal as I would not be permitted to talk about the accusations any more, if that is the requirement. It would also be useful after that when I return to editing in MoS. I would still be able to take part in RfC's and discussions that the other editor takes part in, we just would not be permitted to talk to each other or about each other, or revert each others edits. I would be fine with that.

For these reasons 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.

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.