User:Robertinventor/Unblock appeal

From Astrobiology Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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

Unblock request

This blocked user is asking that his block be reviewed:

Robertinventor (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

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 someone else as sole author spent a long time adding content to Wikipedia, following guidelines to best of our ability.
  • Another editor suddenly, in a bold edit, removed the content or nominated it for deletion, without prior discussion or editor involvement.

The problems arose when I tried to get it restored or defended it from deletion.

It is rare that I add new articles. My article creation list has only one other in the two years previously; the rest are redirects [1].

To prevent this in the future I will endeavour to find support of co-editors with diverse views before starting on substantial content. I also recommend this to friends. This will also help with gray area issues of encyclopedic tone, notability, reliable sources and WP:NPOV.

All issues of verbosity were due to talk page responses after these bold deletions. The comments were not off topic. This is not likely to happen again if I take these precautions. I will 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.

(226 words)

If I only answer correct charges, that's my complete appeal. There was no consensus about what I was sanctioned for, and the closing admin just wrote: "Closing with a consensus towards an indef block, plus my own admin judgment in that direction"[2].

However, though I have no intention to return to Mars astrobiology, I probably have to answer that charge to be unblocked and I've answered a couple of others that may be required:

  • Contributing an article in March 2017 that contradicts statements in Life on Mars that the Mars surface is known to be sterile [3], and defending it from deletion.[4] When you assess whether this material was WP:CHEESE, please don't use the section[5] in Wikipedia as your only source. For another perspective watch this short (less than two minutes) official NASA video and listen to what their planetary protection officer says about Mars organisms. It's the third video on the main overview page for the NASA Office of Planetary Protection[6]. I was attempting to prevent removal from Wikipedia of NASA's views, not mine.
Details
NASA's planetary protection officer is also the author of the quote in that diff about Mars being a giant dinner plate for Earth organisms[1], not me. The title of the deleted article came from an astrobiology conference sub session[2]. I added ita year and a half before the sanction debate. I publicized my intention first[7]. It was not a WP:POVFORK when I created it. It expanded on the main article[8], which at the time presented the POV of NASA as the mainstream view. The main article remained like that for three quarters of a year [9], and anyone with an interest in the topic would have had it on their watch list.
  • Adding a page about my own software in 2008 as WP:PROMO. I added this after a review in Sound on Sound, often used as a reliable source in Wikipedia[10]. When I found the guidelines on WP:COI in 2011, I added a declaration of interest to my talk page[11] 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[12]. It is also referenced in 17 other cites in Google Scholar[13]. Google scholar is an accepted way to investigate notability[14]. 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.
  • Selling Wikipedia content on kindle in 2015 It was only a few sentences from a deleted section[15]. Some editors in the debate were unaware that Wikipedia's license permits commercial use[16]. I released the booklet under the correct license and attributed Wikipedia with a link back following their guidelines[17]

If I answer the remaining charges, it will take this well over the recommended 500 word limit, and it is already slightly over, so I will collapse them.

Additional charges

Although there were many charges, please note the dates. Only the Buddhism topic ban appeal and my attempt to defend the Modern Mars Habitability article from deletion were new. They were connected too, the article deletion was a result of my response to a request to share my best work outside of the Buddhism topic area[18].

  • 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[19]. 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[20]
  • Using Wikipedia to promote my blog and give it credibility[21] It was the other way around. When the content I wrote was deleted I started a new blog and told my readers that it was rejected from Wikipedia[22]. 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[23] Such articles are permitted, and they not required to follow WP:MEDRS, see for example Chronic Lyme disease. The article[24] followed the guidelines in WP:FRINGE. My last comment on this topic was in September 2016.
  • That I was taken to ANI five times for the Buddhism sanctions[25]. None of those were topic ban breaches. Three of these were failed attempts to ban me[26][27][28]. I had one limited topic ban, an extended topic ban, then a failed topic ban appeal. After what happened after the last appeal, I have no intention to appeal again.
  • Contributed material to Wikipedia that was mistaken, and included a quote in a footnote[29] - I did make one mistake[30] but this is permitted under WP:BOLD. The quote in the footnote[31] 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 [32].
  • Off wiki discussion of possibility of low cost lunar platinum in the construction industry like copper[33] - the potential for high grade platinum ore from the Moon is mainstream in lunar colonization studies[34][35][36]. 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[37]. 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 have no wish to edit in the Mars astrobiology area again, or to attempt a second Buddhism topic ban appeal, unless there are major changes to permit the deleted content. Instead I edit Dorje108's new Encyclopedia of Buddhism[38], and my new Encyclopedia of Astrobiology[39], both based on material deleted from Wikipedia. As I see it, you have lost two content creators (myself and Dorje108) in those topic areas.

If you unblock me I will return to my work on fixing errors[40], and occasionally patrolling proposals for deletion[41]. That includes four cases where another editor said to implement my proposed fix, but I couldn't because I'd been blocked [42].

I also wish to return to many things in the "to do" list for my Microtonal Project proposal[43], which has twelve support votes[44].

(total 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. ↑ 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."

  2. ↑ 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.

Retrieved from "https://encyclopediaofastrobiology.org/wiki/User:Robertinventor/Unblock_appeal?oldid=9615"
Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.
More information