User:Robertinventor/unblock appeal

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, and the closing admin’s  decision did not say which of them was the reason for the sanction. So, the only way to get unblocked would seem to be to respond as succinctly as I can to each one. If any of these were not considered in the indef block decision please ignore that section.

Modern Mars Habitability article
This is why I was taken to ANI originally. Many of those who voted to delete my article did it on the basis of the title alone, saying that it contradicted statements in “Life on Mars” that Mars is known to be sterile. I was taken to WP:ANI on the basis that I had added the article in order to get my own views included in Wikipedia.

To get unblocked I have to answer that claim. So, here is Cassie Conley, at the time NASA’s planetary protection officer],







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

Here is Nilton Renno, a renowned expert on current Mars surface conditions and the possibilities for liquid water there, with many accomplishments and awards ,

'': ‘’“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.”’’''



The deleted article had   265 cites  and  expressed the views of experts such as these, not  my own views.

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, the other editors made it clear that in their view any material that contradicted the statement in Life on Mars that Mars is known to be sterile had no place in Wikipedia.

This is what I can’t support. I hope you will not require me to apologize for trying to prevent this topic from being deleted from Wikipedia in its entirety.

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.

I can however agree not to edit in this topic area if unblocked. Indeed, I have no wish to return to editing in this topic in Wikipedia, unless there is some major change in editing policy to make it permissible to present the views of experts who think that there is a possibility of extant life on Mars.

===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 material in question is a blog post that I made into a kindle booklet for convenience of a few of my readers. There were two versions of the blog post, the first version attributed a deleted section of Water on Mars, and the second version and kindle booklet did not. This was just a mistake.

Since it was only a few words, I have fixed that by simply saying the same things in my own words (it was not original material, it was an editor’s summary of a reliable source). The revised 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 is not a reason to block anyone.


 * ===Tune Smithy===

In the case of the article about my software Tune Smithy, I added it as my second edit of Wikipedia ten years ago because of a review in Sound on Sound. This is the top magazine for  musician’s gear in the UK, also sold internationally, and is frequently used as a reliable source in this topic area in Wikipedia. It also had several academic cites. Other editors in the topic area edited the article over the last decade. They shortened it but nobody suggested it be deleted until this sanction debate. Tune Smithy is also still mentioned in Wikipedia in the article on Generative music, and I did not contribute this edit.

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”  and did everything required of someone who discovers the guidelines on COI after contributing an article like this.

All the votes cite the sanction debate itself as the reason to delete it. Also they did not publicize the deletion debate on the Music Theory project or any other relevant project. The people who voted to delete it didn’t have the background needed to assess notability.

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.


 * ===Buddhism topic area===

It has been made clear to me that my Buddhism topic ban still applies to me even during appeals of the Buddhism topic ban never mind an indef block appeal. So, I do not think I should comment on anything they said in the discussion. All I wish to say here on this topic is that I have no wish to edit Wikipedia in this topic area and do not intend to appeal again.

I and another former Wikipedia editor have set up a new encyclopedia of Buddhism based on material deleted from Wikipedia. It 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 faster than the growth of Wikipedia itself in its early years (Wikipedia’s numbers doubled roughly every year). Any editing in this topic area that I do is now in that encyclopedia.

The only situation in which I might attempt to appeal that ban again is if there is a major change of policy in the Buddhism topic area such as an independent decision by other editors to restore the material contributed to Wikipedia by Dorje108 that is the basis for our new encyclopedia.

This is not relevant to any decision to lift the indef block.


 * 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”. 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.

This should not be a reason to continue to indef block me.


 * That I contributed material that other Wikipedia editors later corrected

Nearly all Wikipedia editors have done this, and it is part of the “Be bold” that we contribute material in good faith that follow the guidelines here to the best of our understanding. It is not an indef block offence to make a mistake here.


 * So what will I do if I'm unblocked?

I will work in the topic areas of Music, Maths, and Astronomy. I have done many edits in these areas in the past.

I will also fix minor errors. I notice many of these when browsing Wikipedia, usually two or three a week.

I have a list of some of the ones I noticed since I was indef blocked here. 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.


 * 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

I got a recent post to my talk page asking me to contribute to a discussion of the page Global Catastrophic Risk. I had to reply that I can’t because I am indef blocked. If unblocked, I would take part in relevant discussions where I have knowledge that can benefit Wikipedia.

I would also return to my occasional edits on microtonal music.See the list of things to do for my microtonal project proposal. Some have been done since then, but most remains unfixed.

If the same thing happens for any other topic area as happened for the Buddhism and astrobiology topic areas, I will do as I did for them, copy the material into another wiki, and attribute Wikipedia under CC by SA.


 * 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 as a reminder to do this.

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