User:Robertinventor/Unblock appeal

From Astrobiology Encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This is a draft for an appeal for my indef block in Wikipedia


Unblock request[edit | hide all | hide | edit source]

Orologio blu.svg
This blocked user is asking that his block be reviewed:

Robertinventor (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

Apologies for taking up so much time before, have learned my lesson and would love to get back to contributing, no hard feelings.

My main reason for asking for the unblock is to fix errors in Wikipedia, patrol proposals for deletion and continue my work in the topic area of microtonal music.

Most of the issues raised were in a situation where I or another author added substantial new content, spent a long time over it, and another editor suddenly deleted it or nominated it for deletion, with no prior discussion or involvement in the editing.

All the verbosity came about when I tried to get material like this restored or defended it from deletion.

My plan if unblocked is to do most of my substantial editing in my own wikis. If I do anything like that here, I will endeavour to find support of co-editors with diverse views first. I also recommend this to friends. This will also help with gray area issues of encyclopedic tone, notability, reliable sources and WP:NPOV.

I shouldn't have problems with verbosity if I do this. I will also continue to work on reducing my word count in talk page conversations.

Details
  • I will use the sandbox to reduce word count - see the note to myself at the head of the talk page.
  • I will monitor how often I post.
  • In a debate with multiple editors, I will make sure others have plenty of time to respond between my responses and not try to reply to all the main points myself if others might do so.
  • I will take wikibreaks frequently for hours or days if there is a continuing debate
  • I will be careful not to do multiple responses to a single post by someone else.

(200 words)


As for the rest, I don't have much to go on with the closing statement: "Closing with a consensus towards an indef block, plus my own admin judgment in that direction"[1]. However I think that I probably can't be unblocked without saying something about the Mars deletion debate, and the charges of WP:PROMO, and commercial use of Wikipedia content.

  • I accept the community decision to delete my article. However I can't support the reason given in the AfD to delete it, that articles in Wikipedia have to say that the surface of Mars is known to be sterile[2]. The view that it could potentially host Mars organisms is NASA's WP:POV. To check this, watch this short (less than two minutes) official NASA video, third on the main overview page for the NASA Office of Planetary Protection[3]. Please respect my oppose vote in the debate as sincere. However, I will not attempt to edit Wikipedia to include NASA's views on this matter if unblocked.
Details
This is further supporting evidence that I was expressing NASA's views to the best of my ability, not my own:

The title of the deleted article came from an astrobiology conference sub session[1]. I added it a year and a half before the sanction debate. I publicized my intention to make this article on the talk page of Life on Mars on February 4, 2017[4]. It was not a WP:POVFORK when I created it. It expanded on the section in Life on Mars, which expressed NASA's POV as the mainstream view for three quarters of a year from February 12, 2017[5] through to November 12, 2017[6]. Life on Mars is the main article on this topic in Wikipedia, so anyone with an interest in the topic would have had it on their watch list.

Cassie Conley, NASA's planetary protection officer, is also the author of the quote about it being potentially a giant dinner plate for Earth organisms[2], not me. The quote was taken out of context in the deletion debate. My article explained that by "potentially", she means, if surface brines are present[7]

The deleted article[8] had numerous cites. It summarized what the cites said to the best of my ability, not my own views.

  • The page about my own software, which I added in 2008, was not WP:PROMO. I added it after a review in Sound on Sound, often used as a reliable source in Wikipedia[9]. When I found the guidelines on WP:COI in 2011, I added a declaration of interest to my talk page[10] and the article talk page. There was no commercial intent there.
Details
I had multiple reasons for considering it notable. As well as that review, it is referenced in a notable book on microtonality with 554 cites in Google scholar[11]. It is also referenced in 17 other cites in Google Scholar[12]. Google scholar is an accepted way to investigate notability[13]. Many years before the sanction debate it was modified substantially by other editors, with no suggestions to delete it. You are not required to delete an article when you discover rules on COI, just declare your connection.
  • The Wikipedia license permits me to sell Wikipedia content on kindle It was only a few sentences from a deleted section[14]. I released the booklet in 2015 under the correct license and attributed Wikipedia with a link back following their guidelines[15]. Some editors in the debate were unaware that Wikipedia's license[16] permits this.

I will collapse the remaining charges as this is already slightly over the recommended word limit. There was no consensus in the debate about what I was indef blocked for, so I have no idea which of these I need to answer, if any.

Additional charges

Please note the dates - though many charges were made they were based on my editing history going back for a decade and not a result of new activity on my part.

  • Publishing part of a user space draft under a non free content license in 2017 Some editors were unaware that Wikipedia's license specifically permits dual licensing[17]. As author, I can release my content under CC by SA for Wikipedia, as an act of generosity on my part, and use the same content under a non free license elsewhere. This is what I did with some sections of my book released in 2017[18]
  • Using Wikipedia to promote my blog and give it credibility[19] It was the other way around. When the content I wrote was deleted in 2013, I started a new blog and told my readers that it was rejected from Wikipedia[20]. That could hardy be further from using Wikipedia to give my blog credibility! I never linked to my blog from Wikipedia articles.
  • Adding material on a topic in fringe medicine in 2015[21] Such articles are permitted, and they not required to follow WP:MEDRS, see for example Chronic Lyme disease. The article[22] followed the guidelines in WP:FRINGE. My last comment on this topic was in September 2016 [23].
  • It is true that I was taken to ANI five times for the Buddhism sanctions[24]. However, three of these were failed attempts to ban me[25][26][27]. I had one limited topic ban, an extended topic ban, then a failed topic ban appeal, and that's it. After what happened after the last appeal, I have no intention to appeal again.
  • I did make one mistake which another editor corrected[28], and I did include a quote in a footnote[29] - However mistakes are permitted under WP:BOLD. The quote in the footnote[30] is permitted as an aid to readers, and is still there in the latest version of the article. The editor who claimed I acted improperly hasn't edited the article to 'fix' this [31].
  • I did take part in an off wiki discussion of the possibility of low cost lunar platinum in the construction industry like copper[32] - however there are no requirements here about what is permitted in off wiki discussions. The potential for high grade platinum ore from the Moon is mainstream in lunar colonization studies[33][34][35]. My idea that it could become as cheap as copper was just a fun speculative thought based on ideas for greatly reducing lunar export costs[36]. It is a half remembered conversation years ago in a forum or comments area and nothing to do with Wikipedia editing.

For more details and my responses to several other charges see supplemental

I will not be contributing to those topic areas any more. Instead I will edit Dorje108's Encyclopedia of Buddhism[37], and my new Encyclopedia of Astrobiology[38], both based on material deleted from Wikipedia. It would take a truly major change in how Wikipedia is edited in either of those areas before I could return to them - and I am not going to make any attempt to instigate such a change myself here.

If you unblock me I will return to my work on fixing errors[39], and occasionally patrolling proposals for deletion[40]. That includes four cases where another editor said to implement my proposed fix, but I couldn't because I'd been blocked [41].

I also wish to return to many things in the "to do" list for my Microtonal Project proposal[42], which has twelve support votes[43].

(675 words not including collapsed sections)

If you reject this appeal for its length, please give some indication of what I am indef blocked for, so that I can do a shorter appeal in the future. Thanks!

Notes:

  • In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
  • Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
  1. Session Topics - ArbSciCon 2017:
    • Theme: Solar System Sites
    • Session: Mars
    • Subsession: Habitability
    • Topic: Modern Mars Habitability
    • Summary:

    Recent discoveries on Mars, including recurring slope lineae, ground ice, and active gully formation, have been interpreted as indications for the transient presence of water. The potential for liquid water on Mars has profound implications for the habitability of the modern Mars environment. This session solicits papers that examine the evidence for habitable environments on Mars, present results about life in analogs to these environments, discuss hypotheses to explain the active processes, evaluate issues for planetary protection, and explore the implications for future explorations of Mars.

  2. Chang, Kenneth (October 5, 2015). "Mars Is Pretty Clean. Her Job at NASA Is to Keep It That Way". New York Times. 

    "The salts known as perchlorates that lower the freezing temperature of water at the R.S.L.s, keeping it liquid, can be consumed by some Earth microbes. “The environment on Mars potentially is basically one giant dinner plate for Earth organisms,” Dr. Conley said."