User:Robertinventor/unblock appeal

This is a draft for an appeal for my indef block in Wikipedia I could do a short appeal if I said all the charges against me were true. But I wish to appeal on the basis that most of them are mistaken.

There were many reasons given in the sanction debate. The closing admin’s decision did not say which of them was the reason for the sanction. They just say "Closing with a consensus towards an indef block, plus my own admin judgment in that direction."

So, I can't focus on only one of the reasons. The only way to get unblocked would seem to be to respond as succinctly as I can to each of the main ones.

Most of these reasons are to do with edits I did at least a year before the sanction debate, and with the Tune Smithy article they go back to a decade before the debate. The immediate reason for taking me to ANI was my attempt to defend the Modern Mars Habitability article from deletion, so I'll start there.

Modern Mars Habitability article
This is what the original poster refer to as POV/OR/SYNTH/CHEESE in the sanction debate - that I tried to defend an article from deletion that contradicted statements in Life on Mars that the surface of Mars is known to be sterile. It became an ANI matter when they claimed that these were my own views which I was trying to get included in Wikipedia. Note the article itself was added to Wikipedia in March 2017 if I remember right, and had hardly been edited at all for a year. It was nominated for deletion as a result of a discussion in my Buddhism topic ban appeal.

To get unblocked I need to demonstrate that this view that the Mars surface is not known to be sterile is not my own view. I was summarising the views of others that I consider to be of the highest authority in the topic area. Many papers and books cover this topic but in this appeal I'll use video as that shows with utmost clarity that these are indeed the views of these experts.

So, here is Cassie Conley, at the time NASA’s planetary protection officer, talking about future NASA searches for present day life on Mars. She is explaining why the spacecraft we send to Mars are sterilized to protect Mars from Earth microbes. Do you agree that she is talking about future searches for Mars organisms?


 * “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”
 * 33 seconds into this video.

She has many articles to her name on the astrobiology of Mars, in Nature and the top astrobiology journals - Google scholar search.

Here is Nilton Renno, talking about a discovery his team made. Do you agree that he is talking about the possibility for habitats in the shallow subsurface and on the surface of Mars?


 * “Based on the results of our experiment we expect soft ice that can liquify perhaps a few days per year, perhaps a few hours per day, almost anywhere on Mars. … So a small amount of water is enough for you to create conditions necessary for Mars to be habitable today, and we believe that this is possible in the shallow subsurface and even the surface of the Mars polar region for a few hours per day during the spring.”
 * 2.18 minutes into this video

He is a Michigan professor and expert on Mars surface conditions, Co-investigator for the Phoenix, Curiosity, and ExoMars space missions, and with many accomplishments and awards,

Here is a google scholar search for his articles on the astrobiology of Mars.

The deleted article had 265 cites to experts such as these. It presented their views, not my views.

Another editor gave as a reason for deleting the article that I put this in the intro:


 * “The environment on Mars potentially is basically one giant dinner plate for Earth organisms,”

This also is not by me. It is a quote from Cassie Conley, talking about how the perchlorates on Mars, hazardous for humans, can be metabolized by some types of life. The deleted article cited it to her, see the cite here in deletionpedia (article as it was when it was deleted).

I can support a shorter article or section on the topic. That is a matter of notability, which is often a gray area in Wikipedia. However, many other editors said in the deletion debate that it had to be deleted because it contradicted the statement in Life on Mars that the surface of Mars is known to be sterile.

This made it a debate about whether to remove the topic of a possibly non sterile Mars surface from Wikipedia. This is what I can’t support. I hope after watching those two videos, you will not require me to apologize for trying to prevent this topic from being deleted from Wikipedia in its entirety.

I can however agree not to edit in this topic area of the astrobiology of present day Mars if unblocked. Indeed, I have no wish to return to it, unless there is some major change in editing policy to make it permissible to present the views of these experts who say that there is a possibility of extant life on Mars. When my article was removed, I made my own “Encyclopedia of Astrobiology” to host the deleted material. My latest version of the deleted article is here. All my editing in this topic area will be in my own wiki.

I hope you can agree that this is not a reason to keep me indef blocked

Planetary protection
My edits on planetary protection were also given as a reason for sanctioning me. However other editors were fine with me adding this material so long as it wasn't in the Mars colonization articles. Until I was indef blocked I was the main editor of the main space Planetary Protection article. Added 56,440 bytes and deleted                                                             11,761 in an article that is now 69,886 bytes.

I now edit a copy of it in my astrobiology wiki instead.

The edits of the main space Planetary Protection article since I was indef blocked are relatively minor showing that despite mentioning it as an additional reason to sanction me, actually other editors were satisfied with my work there. Nearly everything I wrote has been retained diff.

If I get unblocked, I will post to the talk page to check to see if other editors are happy for me to continue editing it. If so, then I'd continue with the updates of it that I used to do from time to time as a result of new research and other developments in the topic area.

While if it is clear editors here don't want me to update this article I will work on the version in my Encyclopedia of Astrobiology instead.

I hope you can agree that this is not a reason to keep me indef blocked

Accidental use of unattributed material in a kindle booklet
Some of the other editors were unaware that the Wikipedia license CC by SA permits commercial use of Wikipedia content. This is clearly stated in the license page linked to at the bottom of every page in Wikipedia. It is even linked to from the sanction debate itself!

You are free:


 * to Share—to copy, distribute and transmit the work, and
 * to Remix—to adapt the work

for any purpose, even commercially.

Text of Wikipedia CC by SA license

So the only issue here is of attribution, not of commercial use. The booklet that they mention in the sanction debate started life as a rejected userspace draft on Wikipedia. The booklet is released under CC by SA, and attributes the user space draft, but at the time of the sanction debate, the user space draft didn't attribute of the old section of Water on Mars (the booklet incorporates a few sentences from it, see this diff). This is the matter that was thought to be sanctionable in the debate. It was just a mistake. My blog post did attribute Water on Mars but I forgot to attribute it in the user space draft.

It does now, as I fixed that before I was indef blocked. See Attribution.

The booklet is  here. And the only reason I did this at all was because at the time I did it, the user draft had not been accepted for publication in Wikipedia, so I decided to publish it on my blog and in kindle instead.

(This overrides what I wrote in the sanction debate, I've checked carefully what happened since I was indef blocked).

I hope you can agree that this is not a reason to keep me indef blocked

Releasing the same material under CC by SA for Wikipedia and under "All Rights Reserved" for my book
I also need to explain the matter of licensing of the content for the deleted article. It was released under CC by SA for Wikipedia, so how was I permitted to release it in my Touch Mars? book on kindle under "All Rights Reserved"? I must answer this, as this was given as another reason for sanctioning me.

I did this under the practice known as “dual licensing”.


 * "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

The userspace draft was solely written by me apart from those few sentences originating in Water on Mars. I released it under CC by SA for Wikipedia.

However, since CC licenses are non exclusive, I can also release my own text for my 2000 page book Touch Mars? under All Rights Reserved, so long as I make sure it doesn't include the material originating from Water on Mars. The same text is released under CC by SA in the user space draft, and under "All rights reserved" in my book.

I did it like this because by the "Share alike" provision of CC by SA then if I release any of Touch Mars? under CC by SA I have to release the entire book under that license. I do not wish to do this. And because of dual licensing and because the CC by SA licenses are non exclusive, I don't have to.

I hope this is clear now. It is understandable that editors would find it confusing who have never been in my situation and never had to work through these issues.

I hope you can agree that this is not a reason to keep me indef blocked

I have never used Wikipedia for promotion
This is another reason given for sanctioning me, but without any evidence submitted to support it.

I have never linked to my blog or kindle booklets from mainspace Wikipedia articles or used Wikipedia to promote my blog or kindle booklets in any way.

I have sometimes mentioned them in talk page discussions as here. Only because I needed to, and with no intent to promote.

I think I should also mention that I added musical videos made with my Bounce Metronome program to some of the rhythm articles in Wikipedia such as the Polyrhythm article where the video I made for Wikipedia features at top right. I do not mention my program either in the article or in the text describing the video in Wikmedia commons.

I hope you can agree that this is not a reason to keep me indef blocked

Tune Smithy
In the case of the article about my software Tune Smithy, I added it as my second edit of Wikipedia in 2008, before I discovered the guidelines on WP:COI. The reason they gave for using this as a reason to indef block me was that they said that it was non notable software that I added as WP:PROMO.

To show that it wasn't WP:PROMO, I need to explain why I consider it notable, I need to show that I responded in an appropriate way once the COI was discovered, and I need to show that no evidence was presented of any commercial motive.

Why I consider it notable
I added it because of a review in Sound on Sound. This is frequently used as a reliable source in this topic area in Wikipedia. The deleted page's reference list has two cites to Sound on Sound. It also references a book by the American music theorist William Sethares which mentions my software as a modern implementation of dynamic tuning. This is a notable book with 554 cites in Google scholar.

I could have added many more academic cites. I mentioned in the deletion debate that there are 17 cites of "Tune Smithy" and 3 cites of "Bounce Metronome" in Google Scholar. The editor who referred to this as a WP:GOOGLETEST probably did not realize that the links were to Google scholar searches, an acceptable way to investigate notability under Specific uses of search engines in Wikipedia.

Other editors in the topic area edited the article over the last decade. Tune Smithy is also still mentioned in Wikipedia in the article Generative music, and I did not contribute this edit.

I had no reason to suppose that anyone else in wikipedia thought it was non notable in the ten years since I added it to Wikipedia. The first suggestion that it was non notable was in the sanction debate itself.

Whatever your views on its notability I hope you can accept this as sufficient evidence that I thought it fulfilled the Wikipedia criteria for music software.

Why the deletion debate is not evidence that it is non notable
All the votes in the deletion debate were by participants in my sanction debate and most just cite the sanction debate itself as the reason to delete it. They did not publicize the deletion debate on WikiProject Music Theory, WikiProject Electronic Music, or WikiProject Software, or any other relevant page or project (if they had they would have disclosed this on the deletion debate page itself, as that's a requirement if you publicise a debate).

As far as I know, none of the people who voted to delete it had any experience of editing of Wikipedia in the topic area of music software, music theory, electronic music, or any other related topic.

I responded in an appropriate way when I discovered the guidelines on COI
I disclosed my connection to the software on the talk page for the Tune Smithy article, and on my own user page in the section “Declaration of interest”. I did everything required of someone who discovers the guidelines on COI after contributing an article like this.

No evidence was submitted to the sanction debate in support of the claim of WP:PROMO
Although everyone in the deletion debate voted to delete it as a case of WP:PROMO, no evidence was presented to the deletion debate or to the sanction debate of any commercial motive. I assure you there never was any. I only added it because I thought it was notable.

I hope you can agree that this was not a case of WP:PROMO and is not a reason to keep me indef blocked.

Clathrate gun hypothesis
I have copied the article over to another wiki and fixed it with the newer material from the USGS (US Geological Survey), the Royal Society and the CAGE working group on methane hydrates.

My fixed article is here.

I submitted a list of points to be fixed on its talk page in Wikipedia before the sanction.


 * Some of the main points for attention

The last comment in the discussion on its talk page just said


 * “Follow Wiki rules and do as you will.”

If unblocked I will add a brief update note to the talk page mentioning the fixed article and ask if they still want me to do this work. If the answer is yes, I will do it, proceeding slowly one edit at a time to give plenty of time for anyone to comment. If the answer is no, I won't do anything and will continue to work on the article in my own wiki instead.

I hope you can agree that this is not a reason to keep me indef blocked

Buddhism topic area
I am still subject to a Buddhsism topic ban and if I understand right, WP:BANEX only applies to a Buddhism topic ban appeal, nt here. So I have to step carefully. But I do need to say enough so that you can see that it is not a reason to keep me indef blocked.

First, in case of any confusion, please be aware that any diffs presented to the sanction debate in which I am talking about Buddhism are from the topic ban appeal, during which I was covered by WP:BANEX.

I think I can say this much to help you understand that there is no reason to keep me indef blocked. It is about removing content from Wikipedia over an entire sub-topic, as for the Mars article. The main difference is that the deleted content was written by other editors, not myself.

The only situation in which I might attempt to appeal that ban is if there is a major change of policy in the Buddhism topic area. That might be an independent decision by other editors to restore the material, or a decision to add similar material sourced in the same way.

As with the Mars extant life sub-topic, we have dealt with this situation by putting the deleted material into a new encyclopedia, attributed to Wikipedia where necessary. Our encyclopedia is continuing to grow exponentially, doubling the numbers of views every seven months, recently peaking at 500 visitors on one day in February. See stats. This is not far off the rate of growth of Wikipedia itself in its early years (Wikipedia’s numbers doubled roughly every 160 days or about every five months). Any editing in this topic area that I do is now in that encyclopedia.

I hope you can agree that this is not a reason to keep me indef blocked.

My merged away Morgellons article
I contributed this article in 2015, after discussion on the talk page of the main article when one of the editors there said “You’re welcome to create an article and see what happens”. Which I did. After other editors made the decision that my article should be removed and merged it away, I did not try to restore it. Instead I used my deleted material as a basis for a blog post and kindle booklet.

I later discussed this topic some more on the Wikipedia talk page in a civilized fashion, until another editor told me that I was not welcome there and I left the discussion. My last comment in the talk page of the article is in September 2016 and it has nothing to do with the dispute that lead to my indef block. I have no wish to return to this discussion.

It is similar to the situation with the astrobiology and Buddhism topics, I'd only return to the Morgellons debate if the decision is made by other editors to include the material that I and many other editors think should be mentioned in this article. This is not likely to happen any time soon.

I hope you can agree that this is not a reason to keep me indef blocked.

That I contributed material that other Wikipedia editors later corrected
I agree that my edit of the Pergean spring tide article was mistaken. If I'd noticed the revert and the reason given I'd have commented on the talk page agreeing with the editor who fixed it and thanking them for their edit.

On the black holes evaporation timescale, then the material I contributed in the diff mentioned in the sanction debate is still in the Hawking Radiation article. Simlar material in this diff is also still included in the Black Holes article. The editor who claimed I made a mistake has not tried to correct those articles to fix this alleged mistake.

Nearly all Wikipedia editors have made mistakes. Indeed in WP:BOLD it says


 * "Think about it this way: if you don't find one of your edits being reverted now and then, perhaps you're not being bold enough"

I hope you can agree that this is not a reason to keep me indef blocked.

Off wiki discussion of platinum as a lunar export
This was an off wiki discussion, and it wasn't a discussion about Wikipedia or Wikipedia editing. So I do not understand why it was brought up as a reason to sanction me. The idea of platinum exports from the Moon is due to Dennis Wingo, author of Moon Rush where he suggests it will be useful for catalytic converters originally. We were speculating about what would happen if it became really low in price as a result of lunar exports. Could it be used in place of copper for wiring in homes for instance? I don't actually think that is very likely, was just a fun idea. Surely we are permitted to discuss unlikely ideas off wiki?

I hope you can agree that this is not a reason to keep me indef blocked.

So what will I do if I'm unblocked?
I will fix errors. I notice many of these when browsing Wikipedia, usually two or three a week. Many are minor and things an editor would fix right away, like broken urls, misquoted numbers, and use of a fake news site as a source.

Others are more significant and it also includes some of the ones I posted about to the talk pages in the year before I was indef blocked, but never followed up.

In four cases of fixes I suggested on talk pages in the year up to the indef block, the other editor said to go ahead and do the fix, but I only noticed after the block, and so couldn't do it, so I would do these fixes first:


 * Other editor said to go ahead and do it (but only noticed after block)

It also has a list of major errors and minor errors discovered since the indef block.


 * Would post to talk page first
 * Minor, or expect no discussion, would just fix on the spot

My plan to prevent the same thing happening again in some other topic area, if I am unblocked
I will be careful to avoid the situation that I got into when I added that article on Modern Mars Habitability.This is how I plan to prevent this.

First, I will check that I have broad support of several other editors before I add any new article to Wikipedia. If possible I will do it as a combined project with several other co-editors.

I won't make a new article on the suggestion of just one editor as I did for the Morgellons article, or only on my own initiative as I did for the Modern Mars Habitability article.

If despite my best efforts the situation arises that other editors want to delete my work, I will copy the material into another wiki, or blog post, and if the deleted material includes substantial content contributed by other edtiors, attribute Wikipedia under CC by SA.

It is much more productive to edit in another wiki, or my own wiki, where my edits are welcome, than to try to get opposing editors in Wikipedia to approve the content. If it is indeed notable then readers will be looking for it. If an entire topic is deleted from Wikipedia, then it no longer turns up in relevant Google searches, so they will find it elsewhere, such as in my wikis.

These long debates take up my time as much as anyone else's. I had to take an entire week off work to deal with that Buddhism topic ban appeal overlapping with the AfD and the sanction debate (which I was able to do because I was self employed).

Verbosity
This is the only complaint made that is valid, but surely is not sufficient reason for an indef block. As before I will do best effort to be less verbose. Also if about to make a comment that is likely to require editing after I post it, I will use the sandbox to compose it first. As you will see there is a note to myself at the head of my user page, and also at the head of this talk page, as a reminder to do this.

I will also pay attention to how often I post to a debate, to make sure I don't post more often than other editors, or do multiple responses to a single post by someone else.

Please lift the block so that I can continue with my work of fixing errors in Wikipedia, minor and major.