User:Robertinventor/Unblock appeal
This is a draft for an appeal for my indef block in Wikipedia
Unblock request
{{unblock|reason= My main reason for asking for the unblock is to fix errors in Wikipedia that I notice at a rate of two or three a week[1]. Most of my past work has been of this nature, plus my occasional work patrolling proposals for deletion.
Most of the issues were due to the situation where
- I or someone else as sole author spend a long time adding content to Wikipedia, following the guidelines to the best of our ability.
- Then another editor suddenly, in a bold edit, removes the content or nominates it for deletion, without priof discussion or editor involvement.
The problems arise when I try to get this content restored or defend it from deletion.
It is rare that I add new articles. Only one other in the two years before the sanction debate. In my article creation list the rest are redirects [2].
To prevent this in the future I will endeavour to find the support of co-editors with a diverse range of views before starting on any substantial content. I also recommend this to any friends who want to edit Wikipedia. This will also help with gray area issues of encyclopedic tone, notability, reliable sources and WP:NPOV.
All of the issues of verbosity were due to my talk page responses to situations where another editor boldly reverted or removed my content or another's content in the situation as described. It is not an issue of off topic comments. This is not likely to happen again, because I won't be adding such material without getting broad support first.
I will continue to work on reducing my word count in other talk page conversations.
If I only answer the charges against me that are correct, that is my complete appeal.
However sadly there were many points made that were mistaken. There was no consensus in the debate about what I was indef blocked for, with different editors offering different reasons. The closing admin didn't leave any clues, just writing sanction debate: "Closing with a consensus towards an indef block, plus my own admin judgment in that direction."
I will answer the top five charges briefly first
- Adding my own views to Wikipedia, contradicting statements in Life on Mars that Mars is known to be sterile. Before deciding whether these were my views or those of NASA, please watch this one and a half minute video. It is the third video on this page of the NASA planetary protection office. NASA outline the reasons their missions are sterilized to protect future searches for present day Mars organisms from Earth microbes, and outline how they will protect Earth from Mars organisms.
- Adding a page about my own software as WP:PROMO. I added this after a review in Sound on Sound which is often used as a reliable source in Wikipedia. This, I thought, conferred notability. As soon as I found guidelines on COI I added a declaration of interest to my talk page and the article talk page.
- Selling Wikipedia content on kindle It was only a few sentences from a deleted section. Editors in the debate were unaware that the Wikipedia license permits commercial use. I attributed Wikipedia with a link back following their guidelines
- Adding non free content to Wikipeda Editors were unaware that Wikipedia's license permits dual licensing. As the author, I can release non free content under CC by SA for Wikipedia and this is an act of generosity on my part.
- Using Wikipedia to promote my blog It was the other way around. I started my blog to host material deleted from Wikipedia. I explain this to readers of my blog. I never linked to my blog from Wikipedia.
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.
I hope that answering those five charges in a brief response like that is sufficient to get the block lifted. If this is not enough, please read the additional material here on my astrobiology wiki, where I answer the other main charges against me in detail. They are all mistaken.
