User:Robertinventor/unblock appeal

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

Unblock request
{{unblock|reason= 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. However, the closing admin’s decision did not mention any of them: "Closing with a consensus towards an indef block, plus my own admin judgment in that direction."

My main motivation for requesting an unblock is that I'd like to be able to fix minor errors in Wikipedia. Most of my work in the past has been of that nature. However, to do that it seems I probably have to answer all the most significant points in the sanction debate. I have split this into sections with skip links so that you can easily skip any that you do not think need a response from me.

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! I will start with the one that was the original reason given for the ANI action, the Modern Mars Habitability article.

Modern Mars Habitability article
skip to Planetary protection or skip to

CHARGE: That I presented my own views in Wikipedia, when the main Life on Mars article says that Mars is known to be sterile.

RESPONSE: The deleted article was supported by sources like NASA, who believe life on Mars has not been proven or disproven yet. I recommend you watch this short video, less than two minutes, released by NASA's Planetary Protection office before you make a decision about whether I was presenting my own view or views of acknowledged experts.

I was taken to the sanction debate from the Modern Mars Habitability deletion debate. The debate focused on the title of the article "Modern Mars habitability", which was actually the title of a two day astrobiology sub session in 2017. They said that this 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 the view expressed in the title was my own view and wasn't in the sources I cited. This is where that claim is made [diff]. All those statements about me being a liability to the project are on this same point, that I try to get Wikipedia to include material that says that Mars is not known to be sterile, contradicting the editor's own text in Life on Mars under Cumulative effects.

This is what is refered to as POV/OR/SYNTH/CHEESE in the post introducing the sanction debate [diff].

I need to show that the article did not express my own views, but was a good faith article summarizing the views of experts in this topic area to the best of my ability.

Nobody yet knows for sure if there is life there or even if there are habitats there. However, I hope I can demonstate to you that there is considerable interest amongst experts, including NASA, in the possibility of habitats there that may also be inhabited by present day Mars organisms.

I think if I share videos rather than the books and papers of the article itself, it will help you see that it was a good faith article and was not about my own views.

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, 33 seconds into this video.


 * “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”

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

Also she wasn't expressing a personal view in that video. She was speaking as a representative of NASA. They have the search for extant life on Mars as Objective B of NASA's first Mars Science Goal

Goal I: determine if Mars ever supported life
 * Objective A: determine if environments having high potential for prior habitability and preservation of biosignatures contain evidence of past life.
 * Objective B: determine if environments with high potential for current habitability and expression of biosignatures contain evidence of extant life.

Here is Nilton Renno, talking about a discovery his team made. Please listen to what he has to say 2.18 minutes into this video


 * “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.”

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.

In that same [diff], the other editor gave this sentence in the intro as a reason for deleting the article:


 * yet, he even moved up to the introduction: "The environment on Mars potentially is basically one giant dinner plate for Earth organisms"

What wasn't made clear is that this sentence I moved up to the intro wasn't my words. It was a quote from NASA's planetary protection officer Cassie Conley. Attributed too, in the article itself, see the cite here in deletionpedia (article as it was when it was deleted).

This topic is also frequently in the news


 * News coverage of potential present day habitats of life on Mars

Not a POVFORK of Life on Mars
skip to

CHARGE: I created the article as a WP:POVFORK of Life on Mars (deletion debate)

RESPONSE: It was not a fork when I created it. I contributed the section summarizing modern research on modern Mars habitability to Life on Mars on 12th February 2017 [diff]. I said on the talk page that I was going to create the article [diff] on the 4th February. The other editor was no longer around, leaving me as the only remaining active editor on Astrobiology of Mars as far as I could tell, apart from Wikignomes and ip addresses. I left it a month or so. There were no comments, and I then added the article. My article just expanded the new section in Life on Mars.

I added the Modern Mars Habitability article in 2017 at a time when the editor who opposes any addition of material on this topic was taking a wikibreak. At that time, the Life on Mars article also said that Mars is not known to be sterile (because I edited it that way). In my view this remains an accurate summary of what the most reliable sources in the topic area say Life on Mars#Present (as of August 2017, six months after I added the article).

I added that summary on the 12th February 2017 [diff] and it remained there for ten months, until 12th November 2017 when the other editor deleted it and replaced it with statements saying that the surface of Mars is known to be sterile [diff].

Life on Mars is by far the most high profile article in this topic area. Any editor with an interest in Life on Mars, or even astrobiology, would be certain to have it on their watch list. This shows that no other active Wikipedia editors with an interest in astrobiology objected to the content I added in February 2017.

So this is in its essence just a dispute between two editors, one who edits Wikipedia to say that Mars is known to be sterile, and another who edits it to say that Mars is not known to be sterile.

The title of my article was clumsily expressed, as I realized from the deletion debate. I took it from the title of the 2017 "Astrobiology Science Conference Session on Modern Mars Habitability". This was a sub session with topic "Modern Mars Habitability" But what works as a conference title doesn't always work as a Wikipedia article title. This is why I attempted to move it during the AfD. I did not know this wasn't permitted, and when told this I requested that it be reverted [diff]. A better title is the one I give it in my new Astrobiology wiki:

There is very little activity in the astrobiology topic area now. Apart from wikignomes, I spot mainly edits by that other editor. Also generally, apart from ip addresses, she and I are the only ones that take part in talk page discussions. With rare exceptions.
 * Possible present day habitats for life on Mars

Can support shorter article but not removal altogether
skip to

SUMMARY: I recognize that notability is often a gray area and could support a much shorter article on the topic. However I cannot support the position of those who said in the AfD that Wikipedia shouldn't cover this topic at all.

I can support a shorter article or section on the topic of this article. That is a matter of notability, which is often a gray area in Wikipedia.

However I wasn't told that Wikipedia should have less material on this topic. I was told it had to be deleted based on the title alone, because it contradicted the statement of sterility in Life on Mars. I.e. that Wikipedia shouldn't cover this topic at all. That's why I tried so hard to stop it from being deleted. Because the AfD was about erasing pretty much the entire topic from Wikipedia.

I hope that with this background, you won't say I have to apologize for trying to save my article in the AfD to get the indef block lifted. I can't do that.

I agree not to edit in this topic area if unblocked
skip to Planetary protection

SUMMARY - if unblocked I will do no editing in this area unless the editing policy changes first. Instead I will work on my Encyclopedia of Astrobiology which I created to host the material deleted from Wikipedia.

I can however agree not to edit in this topic area of the astrobiology of present day Mars. Indeed, I have no wish to return to it, unless there is some major change to make it permissible to present the views of these experts.

This means of course that Wikipedia will gradually move down the page in search results for phrases such as present day searches for extant life on Mars, because Google's algorithm will figure out it has almost nothing on the topic. When my article was removed, I made my own “Encyclopedia of Astrobiology” to host the deleted material. Gradually visitors are finding it, doubling time of a few months. 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
skip to Wikipedia content in a kindle booklet

CHARGE: I disrupt this topic significantly

RESPONSE: Other editors are satisfied with the edits I made to the mainspace Planetary Protection article and have made only small changes to this article since my indef block [diff]. Most of its current content was written by me.

This was given as an example of "Some topics he disrupts significantly" [diff].

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.

Despite mentioning it as a reason to sanction me, actually other editors were satisfied with my work there. Nearly everything I wrote has been retained after my indef block [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

Wikipedia content in a kindle booklet
skip to Releasing text under CC by SA for Wikipedia and "All Rights Reserved" for my book

CHARGE: I was accused of using a deleted section of Water on Mars in Wikipedia for commercial gain and copyvio

RESPONSE: The Wikipedia license permits use of its content commercially. I released the booklet under the correct license of CC by SA booklet and I give a link to the user space draft which in turn attributes with a link to Water on Mars, so it was not copyvio. All of the booklet except a few sentences was in fact written by me.

This was given as a reason to site-ban me unless I could prove I wasn't involved in copyvio and promotion [diff].

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 bottom of the very ANI page where the discussion was taking place! "Text is available under the Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply."

Click through and you read: "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. Most of this booklet is my own work, but it incorporates a few sentences from a deleted section of Water on Mars called Possibility of Mars having enough water to support life, see this diff, which was edited by multiple editors including myself.

The booklet is here and is released under CC by SA, and attributes the user space draft. When I created the user space draft I listed the sources on the talk page [diff]. I added a clearer attribution of the deleted section of Water on Mars before I was indef blocked. See Attribution. The wikipedia guidelines on reusing content don't require the derivative works to list all the sources directly. It is sufficient to link to a page on wikipedia which takes them to the history where the authors can be found. See Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content#Re-use of text under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike

"To re-distribute a text page in any form, provide credit to the authors either by including a) a hyperlink (where possible) or URL to the page or pages you are re-using, b)..."

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. I often publish my longer blog posts on Kindle. It is not a commercial enterprise, I only earn dollars a month from all my blog posts combined as well as several kindle books, after all, most of the content is also available to read online for free, and I disclose this in the introduction to the booklet. I do this as a service to my readers and also to reach a broader audience of people searching for the topic in Amazon.

(This overrides what I wrote in the sanction debate. In the time then I've checked carefully what happened).

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

Releasing text under CC by SA for Wikipedia and "All Rights Reserved" for my book
skip to I have never used Wikipedia for promotion

CHARGE: I was accused of adding non free content to Wikipedia

RESPONSE: The editors were not aware of the practice of dual licensing by which you can submit the same content under "All rights reserved" in a book and under CC by SA for Wikipedia

This is about material in the now deleted article that is also published in my Touch Mars? book

Editors were astonished to discover that this is permitted. Having conceded that what I did was legal, the editor still commented [diff]..

""Technical legality doesn't really change anything when one gets right down to the spirit of collaboration to build an encylopedia""

So, I'd like to make all this clearer, what was going on and why it is completely within the spirit of collaboration to do this.

First, it is my own content he is talking about in this case, not material contributed by anyone else. It is an act of generosity on my part to release this material for Wikipedia, or anyone else who wants to use it, for any purpose, including commercially, under CC by SA.

This doesn't in any way forbid me from releasing the same content in my own book under another license.

Also another editor talked about [diff].

"apparently copying his own copyrighted materials into Wikipedia ... Those aren't judgment calls. They are clearly outside of Wikipedia policies and guidelines"

It seems that many editors are not aware that it is permitted to use material that's licensed as "All rights reserved" here, so long as it is re-released by its author under CC by SA for Wikipedia.

In more detail (if needed).

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 sections that include only my own text in my 2000 page book Touch Mars? under All Rights Reserved, so long as I make sure it doesn't include any 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
skip to Tune Smithy

CHARGE: I was accused of writing for Wikipedia with the motivation to promote my blog and booklets and to add credibility to my views

RESPONSE: I started my blog when the material I wished to add to Wikipedia was deleted by other editors, and disclose this in one of my first blog posts. That is the polar opposite of using Wikipedia to add credibility. I never link to my blog or booklets from Wikipedia articles.

To answer this [diff] in a general way:

"However, I hadn't seen until now that he is apparently using Wikipedia for promotion"

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.

In case anyone brings it up, I also 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 in the article. In some cases (not that one) I do add a brief one sentence mention of the program used to make it in the file description in Wikimedia commons, as is often done for animations. I also disclose my connection with these animations in the Declaration of Interest on my user page. None of this is WP:PROMO.

One editor wrote [diff]:

"I strongly suspect Robert's only interest in this subject is to mimic his blog content in Wikipedia to give himself some credibility"

That is not my motive at all. Indeed, it's the other way around. I started my blog because the material was deleted from Wikipedia. My deleted Mars sample return article was one of my first blog posts in July 2013. In that article I explain that it was deleted from Wikipedia. Disclosing that an article was deleted from Wikipedia could hardly be further from using Wikipedia to establish credibility!

If the material had not been deleted from Wikipedia I would have probably never started my blog. I am actually grateful to Wikipedia for this as the blog opened up many doors for me, and that would never have happened if it weren't for the original AfD for that Mars Sample Return article. But not through using Wikipedia for promotion. The opposite. Because Wikipedia didn't want the material.

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

Tune Smithy
skip to Buddhism topic ban

CHARGE: I was accused of using Wikipedia for financial gain because I wrote an article about an invention of mine, Tune Smithy.

RESPONSE: Actually, I never profited and wasn't trying to. It was my second edit, in 2008. When I discovered the guidelines on Conflict of Interest in 2011, I disclosed all associations on the talk page and on my user page [diff].

This is about the statement [diff]

"Robert has been using Wikipedia for profit. His first article (2008) is to promote his non-notable software Tune Smithy."

I did not add this article out of a profit motive. I added it as my second edit of Wikipedia in 2008, before I discovered the guidelines on WP:COI.

To show that it wasn't WP:PROMO, I need to explain why I consider it to be notable. I also need to show that I responded in an appropriate way once I found the guidelines on WP:COI.

Why I consider it notable - Deletion debate not evidence it is non notable - Responded appropriately when I discovered guidelines on COI - No evidence submitted to sanction debate of WP:PROMO

Why I consider it notable
Skip to Deletion debate not evidence it is non 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, to Tune Smithy, and to Bounce Metronome, which is a separate program but based on the Polyrhythm task in Tune Smithy. 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.

Deletion debate not evidence it is non notable
Skip to Responded appropriately when I discovered guidelines on COI

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, 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).

None of the people who voted to delete it disclosed any relevant expertise, or said they had any experience of editing of Wikipedia in the topic areas of music software, music theory, electronic music, or any other related topic.

Responded appropriately when I discovered guidelines on COI
Skip to No evidence submitted to sanction debate of WP:PROMO

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 submitted to sanction debate of WP:PROMO
skip to Buddhism topic ban

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.

Buddhism topic ban
skip to Merged away Morgellons article

CONTEXT: I was taken to ANI five times and ended up topic banned in the Buddhism topic area twice, and the appeal was rejected.

RESPONSE: Although I was taken back to ANI five times, I was only sanctioned twice, a limited topic ban and then a broader topic ban. I have never broken the terms of a topic ban. If you look at my edit history you may see some edits of Buddhism articles. These were simple slips, while copying text over to our new encyclopedia, and I forgot which one I was on, immediately corrected.

After the second topic ban I and a friend (whose content was deleted from Wikipedia) set up a separate Encyclopedia of Buddhism to host the deleted content. After this rejected appeal, which was a request to get unblocked to edit in a topic area far removed from the original dispute, I have no intention of trying again.

I am still subject to a Buddhism topic ban and if I understand right, WP:BANEX only applies to a Buddhism topic ban appeal, not here. So I have to step carefully. On the other hand, 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 are from the topic ban appeal, during which I was covered by WP:BANEX.

The dispute is about content deleted from Wikipedia, as for the Mars article. The main difference is that the deleted content was written by other editors. I didn't write any of it, just posted to the talk pages asking for it to be restored.

Although I was taken to ANI five times, only two of them lead to sanctions, and the others were dismissed. All were based solely on my talk page activity trying to get the material restored. I did not do any main space editing through all the actions unless you count one POV tag that was swiftly removed by another editor. Here I quote the start of the closing admin's statement for each action, or the last statement by an admin in the case of the first 2017 one:


 * 2015 "I'm going to close this without an outcome."


 * 2015 again "Unfortunately, there is not enough consensus of any kind for the drastic measures that are proposed."


 * 2016 "You are banned for six months from the topic of the Four Noble Truths on all pages of Wikipedia including talk" [diff]


 * 2017 "To repeat: The only thing Robertinventor has done on this article or its talk page in the past three months is post a concise 3,731-byte post. That is not actionable and not topic-bannable. Please stop this nonsense and proceed with normal editing" [diff].


 * 2017 again "Per consensus, Robertinventor is indefinitely topic-banned from articles or edits associated with Buddhism, broadly construed and subject to the standard exceptions."

As for Mars again, we have dealt with this situation by putting the deleted material into a new encyclopedia, as permitted by the CC by SA license. Our encyclopedia is continuing to grow exponentially, doubling the numbers of views every seven months, currently running at 300 - 400 visitors a day. 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.

After the way the last topic ban appeal went, I have no wish to try another appeal. It would take some really major change in the way the Wikipedia Buddhism project is managed to consider such a thing again.

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

Merged away Morgellons article
skip to Contributed material that other Wikipedia editors corrected

CHARGE: I was accused of disruptive behaviour for adding an article on the topic of the possible association of Morgellons with the spirochetes that cause chronic Lyme disease and of problems of FRINGE and MEDRS

RESPONSE: The article states that it is fringe science as its first sentence, clearly explains that the research has limited support, and followed all the guidelines for WP:FRINGE. Fringe articles on medicine are not required to follow MEDRS, see for example Chronic Lyme disease. I made the article as a result of a suggestion by another editor to try it out and see what happens diff.

My last comment on the main Morgellons talk page was in September 2016, I was never sanctioned or taken to WP:ANI over it, and it has nothing to do with the dispute that lead to my indef block.

This is another reason given for sanctioning me [diff]. However this is from over two years before the debate, and I have no wish to return to it.

The history is that 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”"

When other editors merged it away, I did not try to restore it. Instead I used the deleted material as a basis for a blog post and kindle booklet.

The article itself had as its first sentence

""This is a controversial Fringe science hypothesis"."

Wikipedia does cover such topics, with different sourcing requirements, and guidelines, see WP:FRINGE:

"Because Wikipedia aims to summarize significant opinions with representation in proportion to their prominence, a Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is."

It was more a dispute of notability than about whether such content is permitted at all.

I later discussed this topic some more on the Wikipedia talk page. Another editor then 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 in Wikipedia

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

Contributed material that other Wikipedia editors corrected
skip to Off wiki discussion of platinum as a lunar export

CHARGE: I was accused of adding material to Wikipedia that was mistaken

RESPONSE: I did make one mistake, but Wikipedia editors are encouraged to be WP:BOLD and advised "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". The other alleged mistake was not acted on by the editor who made the accusation - my text remains in the article just as it was before the debate.

This was also given as a reason to sanction me. I gave four edits as examples to show that I contribute good material to Wikipedia. I was told that two of them were mistakes in this [diff]

I agree that my edit of the Perigean 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. Similar material in this diff is also still included in the Black Holes article. The editor who claimed I made a mistake has not edited this article since the sanction debate to try to fix the alleged mistake [edits by user].

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 me making a mistake in one edit in Wikipedia is not a reason to keep me indef blocked.

Off wiki discussion of platinum as a lunar export
skip to All one extended incident, resulting from the topic ban appeal

CHARGE: I was accused of an off wiki conversation about possible future use of platinum in the construction industry that disqualifies me as an editor of Wikipedia [diff]

RESPONSE: This was not based on any guideline about off wiki conversations. The conversation was meant as light hearted fun speculation if prices of lunar exports went way down to the point where it is as low cost as copper, which is used in construction (e.g. copper pipes, roofs etc). I would not add these speculations to Wikipedia, indeed, I haven't even included them in my own self published book on lunar colonization. However I do think that the the topic of possible platinum ores on the moon of exceptional purity is notable. After all, Dennis Wingo wrote an entire book focused on this, Moonrush and it is covered in other reliable sources, including Crawford's lunar resources review article. After the indef block, I was surprised to discover that Wikipedia's Colonization of the Moon article doesn't have any occurrences of the word platinum. If unblocked I would post to its talk page to suggest a section on this.

This was given in the sanction debate [diff] as a reason to sanction me, that I have in the past speculated in an informal discussion about whether platinum from the Moon might one day be used in the construction industry.

However this was nothing to do with any activity on Wikipedia or Wikipedia editing. It was an informal off wiki discussion some years back.

The idea of platinum exports from the Moon is due to Dennis Wingo, author of Moonrush, and is also covered by other authors including Crawford here and Bill White here.

There are possible future developments that could hugely reduce the costs of future exports from the Moon Colonization of the Moon#Launch costs. In this off wiki discussion, I speculated about some possible uses if lunar platinum became as low cost as copper, say (which is widely used in the construction industry, and sometimes used as cladding and roofing materials). It was just an informal fun discussion.

I haven't even included those speculations in my own book on the topic, where all I say in the Metals section of my Case for Moon First is:

"You need to fulfill a need or eventually nobody will buy it, and whatever you use it for it has to be worth the expense of returning to Earth. If it's just to replace copper, for instance, in wires, it wouldn't be worth returning unless you could reduce the transport cost back to Earth right down."

I would never include such speculations in Wikipedia. However after the sanction debate I was surprised to discover that Wikipedia's Colonization of the Moon article doesn't cover the topic of lunar exports of platinum. I could contribute a short section on this topic based on reliable sources and have added this as something I can suggest on the talk pages in Wikipedia if I am unblocked.

I hope you can agree that an off wiki conversation that was nothing to do with Wikipedia is not a reason to keep me indef blocked.

All one extended incident, resulting from the topic ban appeal
skip to So what will I do if I'm unblocked?

CHARGE: With so much happening at once I had to be indef blocked to prevent disruption to other topic areas [diff]

RESPONSE: It is really one long extended incident where editors from the Buddhism topic ban appeal proceeded to nominate an article on an unrelated topic mid appeal (astrobiology of Mars). The nominator had no disclosed knowledge of the topic area or editing history in that topic. In the AfD on that topic, only one of the voters disclosed previous editing history of the topic.

Another editor with no expertise on Life on Mars took me to ANI and in the middle of that appeal as a result of the unfounded accusation of WP:PROMO the Tune Smithy article was nominated for deletion and deleted, again by editors with no disclosed knowledge of the topic area or relevant editing history.

The Tune Smithy article was contributed a decade before the sanction debate, and the Mars article a year and a half previously.

It was an editor taking part in my Buddhism topic ban appeal who nominated the Mars article for deletion mid appeal. I was taken back to ANI in the middle of the deletion debate, when I tried to defend it from deletion. Then finally, the Tune Smithy article was nominated for deletion as a result of discussion in the ANI debate, with that AfD started towards the end of the ANI debate. The Tune Smithy AfD was concluded after I had been indef blocked.

The Tune Smithy article had been there for a decade with no-one suggesting it be deleted. The Mars article had been there from March 2017 through to August 2018, again with no suggestion that it be deleted.

In both cases the nominators for the AfD did not disclose any previous editing or expertise in the relevant topic areas. As for the deletion debate itself, in the case of Modern Mars Habitability, only one of the voters disclosed relevant expertise and in the case of the Tune Smithy AfD, none of them did.

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?
skip to My plan to prevent the same thing happening again

SUMMARY: I will fix minor errors which I notice several times a week. I will respond to errors other editors asked me to fix before I was indef blocked. I will update some articles that are out of date and propose some new material on article talk pages. I will return to the microtonal music project proposal and implement some of the Examples of things we could do.

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, or misquoted numbers, where a number shown in Wikipedia is different from the number in the source used. This is actually the main reason I want to be unblocked.

Here are some I noticed since I was unblocked


 * Minor, or expect no discussion, would just fix on the spot

For more substantial changes, I was in the habit of mentioning proposed fixes on the talk pages before making them. In four cases over the previous year, 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 somewhat more major errors discovered since the indef block, also articles that are several years out of date, and requests to expand an article that I could fulfill. I would post to the talk page first for these.


 * Would post to talk page first

I also have some major things I'd like to do in the Microtonal music topic area. For some example see the


 * Examples of things we could do

in my proposed project


 * Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Microtonal Music, Tuning, Temperaments and Scales.

However I would be super careful to make sure I do not add anything that has a chance of being deleted.

My plan to prevent the same thing happening again
skip to How I will deal with verbosity

SUMMARY: I will make sure I have support of multiple editors before adding a new article to Wikipedia. I will try to involve other Wikipedians as co-editors of the proposed article to make sure it has wide support. If despite best effort the material is deleted, I will do as I did before and start up a new wiki instead.

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.


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

If despite my best efforts the situation arises again that other editors decide 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.

If an entire topic is deleted from Wikipedia, and it is indeed notable, then it no longer turns up in relevant Google searches. When this happens, then of course 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). I have no wish to get into that situation again!

How I will deal with verbosity
This is the only complaint I found in the sanction debate that I can agree is valid, but surely it is not sufficient reason for an indef block.

A point of clarity. None of these are complaints about me being off topic as far as I can tell. Just that I use more words than many of the other editors here. I am not good at one line repartee in Wikipedia.

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.}}