User:Robertinventor/Unblock appeal6

From Astrobiology Encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

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:

Firstly, apologies for taking up so much of everyone’s time in the past. If unblocked I will restrict myself to minor edits and corrections for the first three months. After that I will work with collaborators from the start for any major new content. That should prevent the same problems arising in the future.

The background is that I only did one or two major articles a year, usually without collaborators. About a third were deleted suddenly, by editors who hadn't taken part in content creation. It was similar for the Buddhism topic ban but someone else's content not mine. My talk page comments to defend the content lead to all the sanctions for verbosity.

As per WP:OTHERWIKIS I've put all this deleted material into other wikis or blogs[4][5][6][7][8]. This is where I do any new content on these topics now, with a considerable backlog. Most new articles are under Wikipedia compatibe licenses if anyone wants to reuse them here.

I also write for Wikinews occasionally, where I collaborate with other editors[9][10][11][12]. Wikinews articles are reviewed before publication with criteria[13] similar to Good Articles[14]. By collaborating similarly in Wikipedia, and submitting major content for Good article status once finished, any matters of WP:RS, WP:NPOV, ecyclopedic tone etc would be sorted out during content creation. My most likely topic area for a new article would be microtonal music as for my proposed project[15] with 11 other voters that may include potential collaborators.

However, most articles I edited in Wikipedia involved minor edits. As an example, my Black hole edit[16] is for a Good article[17] with 1,871 watchers[18]. It was immediately reviewed by WolfmanSF[19] who retained the sources and conclusions and made small changes, and in similar form it's also retained in two other articles[20][21]. Two of the other three minor edits I mentioned in the debate are also still there[22][23]. So are nearly all my other minor edits for the year before the indef block, e.g. [24][25][26][27] etc.

The Perigean spring tide edit was reverted[28], but these are rare. WP:BOLD says "if you don't find one of your edits being reverted now and then, perhaps you're not being bold enough".

My minor edits never cause problems to anyone and help reduce errors in Wikipedia[29]. In the year before the block, I fixed over 90 articles[30], with only 2 reverts[31]. I also collaborated with discussion and minor edits on David Meade (author) which got rated as a "Good article"[32]. (Note the cites I removed to myself were added by another editor[33].)

I wish to be unblocked to continue this gnoming activity to benefit Wikipedia. For examples see my backlog of 11 minor edits from the talk pages[34] plus 33 I've noticed since then[35].

I have always been a good faith editor and would like to issue some corrections relating to claims of bad faith editing

Corrections

(expand references section below for the cites)

  • Wikipedia license permits commercial use[36]. There was no problem including a few sentences of a deleted section[[37]] correctly attributed[38].
  • Wikipedia's license also permits dual licensing of your own content[39][1], CC by SA in the material I contributed to the deleted article, and all rights reserved in my book[40].
  • The article I contributed on fringe medicine[41] was in good faith, carefully following the guidelines for such articles in WP:FRINGE, e.g. stating that it is fringe science in the first sentence.
  • The article about my software was WP:COI but not WP:PROMO. I added the article about my software in 2008, before I knew about WP:COI, because I thought it fulfilled Wikipedia's notability requirements. I cited[42][43] "Sound on Sound", which is often used in the topic area to source articles([44][45][46] etc), and a book[47] which has 563 cites in Google Scholar[48]. I added a COI statement to my user page[49] and the article talk page, as soon as I found those guidelines[50].
  • The deleted article[51] described views of others, not myself. Its title was the title of an Astrobiology sub-session[2] and I was doing my best to summarize sources such as NASA who have the search for extant life on Mars as objective B of goal I[3][4].

Previously I was the majority editor of Planetary protection, with 68.8% of it my content (checked with WhoColor). However, there is an overlap with the material the community decided to delete. As a good faith editor, accepting that this is the community decision here, I do not think I'm the one to resolve this.

The relevant section[52] is short and uncited. In my wiki it is expanded and cited[53]. I think it is best if I continue to edit my own version in my wiki. It is of course released under CC by SA if anyone here wishes to use any of the content.

References
  1. "It is legally possible to add more restrictions than the original license in some cases, for example, releasing a derivative work under all rights reserved which incorporates source materials licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution license." Compatibility among different CC licenses
  2. Session Topics (scroll down to find the sesssion below) - 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."

  3. Hamilton, V.E., Rafkin, S., Withers, P., Ruff, S., Yingst, R.A., Whitley, R., Center, J.S., Beaty, D.W., Diniega, S., Hays, L. and Zurek, R., Mars Science Goals, Objectives, Investigations, and Priorities: 2015 Version.

    "Goal I: determine if Mars ever supported life

    • Objective A: ...[past life].
    • Objective B: determine if environments with high potential for current habitability and expression of biosignatures contain evidence of extant life."
  4. See also third video on the overview page of the NASA Office of Planetary Protection[1], NASA's Planetary protection officer[2] explains why the spacecraft we send to Mars are sterilized, 33 seconds into this videio[3],

    “So we have to do all of our search for life activities, we have to look for the Mars organisms, without the background, without the noise of having released Earth organisms into the Mars environment”

    Please note - I give these three Mars astrobiology cites solely to show that I was a good faith editor, presenting views expressed by others and not myself.

Can I kindly ask you to give me time to respond to any similar reasons given for rejecting the appeal before you vote.

Thank you for your time in considering this appeal.

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.