User talk:Chris Langan

Identity

Hi! Are you, Chris Langan, the same as the subject of the article Christopher Langan? - Scarpy (talk) 18:38, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and that's correct. Thanks for your offer of attention. Chris Langan (talk) 00:00, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Langan, you are invited to the Teahouse!

exc

Hi Chris Langan! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Cullen328 (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:04, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

June 2020

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, as you did at Talk:Simulation hypothesis, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 15:56, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Roxy. I don't quite know what "personal attacks" you mean. Could you be more specific, being careful to name the exact individuals toward whom the "attacks" were directed? (I note that you seem to be ignoring venomous personal insults by "Nigerian chess player" and others by "Gary", who was recently banned for trolling but then inexplicably unbanned despite others having identified him as a troll.) As far as I can see, my remarks and mine alone have been completely relevant to the article.

You should be aware that when Wikipedia "cancel culture" specialized in my case back in 2006, I eventually straightened things out by communicating directly with Mr. Wales. With all due respect, Wikipedia is nobody's license to hound me, insult me, and defame me, let alone for 15 years. Please make a special effort to be fair, neutral, and evenhanded.

Thank you.

Hello again, Roxy. As I know how concerned you are with "personal attacks" and violations of WP:TPO

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines,

I assume you've warned "Nigerian chess player" and "Gary" to stop their abuse on the Talk Page of the Wikipedia article on the Simulation Hypothesis. Remember, "Gary" is coming off a ban, and I haven't seen any justification for reinstating him.

I'm officially registering a complaint. I know you've been on that page, and that you are concerned with "personal attacks" on it because you have accused me of making such attacks for merely trying to improve the article exactly as prescribed by Wikipedia, namely, on the Talk Page with enumeration of proposed improvements. There is no question that I'm in total compliance with WP:COI, and I know that you are aware of this abuse and will want to issue appropriate warnings to the users I've mentioned.

As you warned me directly for an alleged violation, I assume that you are a legitimate channel for reporting such violations. If not, kindly direct me to the proper page. Thank you. Chris Langan (talk) 21:18, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lol do you even read what you write?

“What personal attacks” roxy?

And then

“ they are trolls”

 Nigerian chess player (talk) 18:43, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Chris Langan. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page Christopher Langan, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 15:58, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Independent sources

As I previously mentioned on the biography article's talk page, what matters for Wikipedia are independent sources. Wikipedia not being a research journal, cannot be used as such (WP:NOT) and primary sources are discouraged with exceptions. Wikipedia not being for self-promotion, instead of trying to debate the topic itself to cite your own material (which talk pages are not for either), you should present third party sources that refer to your work. Wikipedia as an encyclopedia does appeal to authority (WP:RS). Third party sources that discuss yours is what could convince editors that what you are proposing is WP:DUE. I've noticed that some editors that you claim to know may not themselves reflect the spirit of WP:TPG and they could eventually face sanctions for that. Assuming it was the case, this would nevertheless still not magically make your material legitimate at simulation hypothesis. The claims about that being Wikipedia's problem are typical and cannot change or avoid its core policies. We've all read complaints like Among the problems faced by Wikipedia is this: few knowledgeable and well-intentioned people have time for an "encyclopedia" glutted with rampaging trolls and Wikipedia warriors who, when they run out of real "pseudoscience" or "pseudomathematics" or "pseudophilosophy" about which to complain, will settle for pretty much anything. Again, for emphasis, an independent reputable source would help to show that your own material has received attention from relevant people and may possibly serve to argue that the edits you propose are acceptable. —Paleo Neonate – 12:14, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you're not being disingenuous, PaleoNeonate. The bio article itself mentions several third-party sources for the CTMU. Some of them have made positive remarks; other, especially less informed and/or biased sources, have made negative remarks. Ben Goertzel, Chu-Carroll, Justin Ward, even Popular Science and Malcolm Gladwell have mentioned the CTMU. Many of these sources were ignored when my bio and the CTMU page were attacked by the "anti-pseudoscience" crowd here at Wikipedia circa 2006, inaugurating a 15-year-old circle-jerk in which my work was suppressed by what essentially amounted to mob action based on false pretenses, which has been used ever since as a reason to continue suppressing it and references to it in other articles. So you see, third-party sourcing can't really be the problem.

The CTMU is the only mathematically coherent theory of full-reality simulation. There's simply no one else who has even taken a credible shot at it. Yet the CTMU page was driven off this site nearly 15 years ago. But amazingly, Wikipedia has an article entitled "Time Cube", now accessible only via the Wayback Machine, ostensibly because Wikipedia warrior / "crank fighter" skeptics find it a useful example of "pseudoscience". I don't think that the CTMU, which was maliciously misidentified as "Intelligent Design Creationism" and for which I was endlessly and absurdly harassed and harangued here in the first decade of the millennium, needs to take a back seat to "Time Cube". The mere suggestion would be ridiculous. It's clear that there's a systemic problem here, and that asymmetric administration has much to do with it.

The comment you mention is perfectly generic and completely accurate, as I know from long experience with this site. If anyone's feelings were hurt by it, it is obviously because he or she chose to be hurt, and I therefore have no apologies for it. On the other hand, the many insults against me on Talk:Simulation Hypothesis are hurtful and inaccurate, as any intelligent person can easily see just by reading what's on the page. Under the circumstances, I think I should be spared any pretense that somehow, those responsible have not yet crossed the line. Of course they have, and insofar as I was warned for posting a perfectly accurate observation without attaching any particular name to it, they should have been sanctioned already. [We might as well cut to the chase - at least one of these people was recently blocked for trolling, they are trolling me now, they are clearly specializing in my case (look at their edit histories), they have announced their intention to use the page for "debating" me, and their trolling is right in your face. With all due respect, you couldn't possibly have missed it if you actually examined the page.]

Once again, I'm requesting that these people and their utterly nonconstructive insults, innuendos, and personalized invective be dealt with in a symmetrical manner. Thanks in advance for your help. Chris Langan (talk) 15:52, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you're not being disingenuous I prefer the term artificial person myself.

The reason for this joke is that I may be repeating like a robot. If other editors are misbehaving with personal attacks, the procedure is to warn them about WP:PA on their talk page; if they persist, they can be reported at WP:ANI. Comments like as any intelligent person ... are not very convincing on Wikipedia that must simply cover what's in reliable sources... On the treatment of pseudoscience, it's also part of the encyclopedia's policies (WP:PSCI and WP:FRINGE), not the result of an activists cabal (and the fringe theories noticeboard is part of Wikipedia's processes where anyone can participate). Sometimes the demarcation problem is not unambiguous, here again sources should help to determine. In any case, in this particular instance, Talk:simulation hypothesis is the place to seek consensus, but I tried to explain above why the current approach is unlikely to succeed. —Paleo Neonate – 23:28, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@PaleoNeonate: the "any intelligent person" bit is referring to the conduct of people on he talk page for the simulation hypothesis, so the rejoinder that it's "not very convincing on Wikipedia that must simply cover what's in reliable sources" is a bit of a non-sequitur. I agree these people are being jerks. - Scarpy (talk) 00:16, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Chris Langan: I find the CTMU interesting and I wish I knew more about and it and I wish it was covered in more WP:RS. I'm truly disappointed that CTMU hasn't been judged meritocratically. If you'll allow me to make a suggestion? Let's make an important distinction between autoplastic adaptation and alloplastic adaptation. From an autoplastic sense, there's more you could do to make your work less radioactive (e.g. foregoing divisive and I will say tactless commentary about culture war topics). Of course, you could say that in a strict meritocratic sense those comments shouldn't detract from the CTMU, and you'd be correct but you'd also be asking for an alloplastic adaptation and those don't come easily. I get the sense that many people who are less than supportive of you on Wikipedia are not just skeptics but are people who have an axe to grind with your more recent commentary. Don't needlessly make more enemies. - Scarpy (talk) 00:16, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To confirm your identity...

...please go to WP:OTRS and contact the folks there. As I'm sure you understand, anyone could show up here and claim to be a notable person. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:14, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Simulation_hypothesis

I have protected talk:Simulation hypothesis due to edits by people who seem to be there primarily to troll you. That protection will probably also stop you from editing, but I don't think there's anything more to say there anyway. You can always comment here. Guy (help!) 17:33, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Guy. Thanks for your assistance. (Yes, the users you mention have been stalking and trolling me tirelessly for at least the last 2-3 years.)

Here's your last remark on the talk page, which you invited me to answer here: "The operative policy here is WP:UNDUE. You need to show substantial coverage in reliable independent secondary sources. In an article on a scientific topic, those need to be in the peer-reviewed literature. This is not a special rule made up to suppress your theory, it's how Wikipedia works. Unless you have sources, we're into WP:NOTFORUM territory here."

My work has certainly been published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals. But I'm having trouble making sense of the idea that a scientific, mathematical, or philosophical paper must be cited by professional academics to be notable.

Academia is a closed, self-reinforcing circuit which effectively excludes people who happen to be "out of the loop". Thus, the academic citation / peer review criterion amounts to self-dealing by academics who lock out the competition and take undeserved credit for certain types of original content. Although some have tried to deny it, elite academic journals are not, practically speaking, open to non-academics. As a result, modern intellectual commerce resembles an elite country club with a case-hardened lock on the door, a kind of economic monopolism in which suppliers end up controlling the allegedly free markets they claim to serve. Products deteriorate, and standards of value tend to go right down the toilet.

If it were true that (1) academics are the only people able to properly reason about intellectual matters, and that (2) anyone can become an academic, this might still be a viable situation. Unfortunately, neither of these things is true - I can perform certain mental tasks naturally that most academics would struggle to even approximate. (Indeed, that's evidently what I did here.) But I have neither the time nor the money to retreat from the real world and do time in the ivory tower, and worse yet, I don't seem to be welcome in academia at all - I'm evidently notorious for not fitting the academic mold.

And those aren't the only problems. I live on a ranch in rural North Missouri and am not in a position to attend academic events, avail myself of academic resources and relationships, or work the academic grapevine to personal advantage. I'm not invited to academic gatherings or admitted to most academic fora, and I'm far from any university or university library. I'm 120 road miles from the nearest commercial airport, it takes at least an hour to park the car and get to the terminal once I get there, and I must check in at least an hour in advance. If anything goes wrong - a TSA-related delay, for example, which in my experience occurs all too often - it can literally take 24-48 hours just to catch a flight out of here. Effectively demanding that I commute to an academic center to attend academic conferences at personal expense in order to rub elbows with prominent intellectuals and solicit academic attention would be a major hardship and represents a very serious disadvantage.

I'm informed that science fiction belongs in the article if and where relevant. Obviously, the same should be true of my (1989) paper. Yet academics don't usually talk about science fiction, and those immersed in popular culture don't usually talk about academics and their papers. The only equitable, ethically symmetrical solution would be to adjust the citation / peer review criterion so that the kind of reference an author's work requires depends on the culture in which the author resides - either in academia, or in the real world. This would loosen the death grip of academic monopolism, and because my work has received popular attention, people should have no problem putting it where it's relevant. But evidently they do.

This problem leads to problems of a more general nature. For example, a user can come in here, start an "Applications" section like the one I propose, and misrepresent the actual history of the field. Such a user could, in effect, award unmerited credit for impressive scholastic achievements, memory-holing prior work and robbing its originators of credit in favor of self-promoting academics who exploit the ivory tower academic-citation daisy chain to claim the ideas of others as their own. In fact, this is just one of several articles in which this has actually been happening.

I can't think of any legitimate encyclopedia that would knowingly do this, or operate in a way that makes it all but inevitable, but that's what you seem to be saying about Wikipedia.

Is this really the case? And if it is, then why shouldn't Wikipedia be willing to change its policy to be more inclusive of academic outsiders and appreciative of their contributions? Granted, there aren't many cases like mine, but that's no reason not to allow for them as necessary.

Thanks for any insight you might care to offer. Chris Langan (talk) 23:34, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Langan, Wikipedia is a mainstream project. That's it, really. Your ideas are fringe, and we're mainstream. Guy (help!) 23:47, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I think I mentioned, the 1989 paper in no way relies on any "fringe theory". It uses standard computation theory to solve a mainstream problem in an original yet straightforward way. It departs or deviates from the mainstream only to the extent of its originality.

But thanks anyway for your explanation. Chris Langan (talk) 23:53, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Langan I've heard Eric Weinstein and his brother Bret Weinstein make similar noises about academia. have you ever thought of contacting them? They both do podcasts. I've been editing Wikipedia since 2006, and agree with JzG Wikipedia will likely not change policies on this point. But the bar to get enough attention for your theories so that they would pass WP:GNG is lower than you think. You may have a difficult time getting papers published, but you may have an easier time getting a reputable publisher to publish a book, for example. That book would likely get reviewed and those reviews would likely be enough for a Wikipedia article on the book and that article would naturally contain a summary of it's contents... But I do hope you will heed the advice I gave earlier. Personally, I often want to bring up CTMU with friends and family but I don't because if they do a few minutes of poking around they're likely to find articles like this one and that will quickly shutdown further useful conversation with many people. I implore you to stop giving the Justin Wards of the world a sword. - Scarpy (talk) 06:50, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, regarding lack of access to a university library - you may find Gwern's tips (specifically the section on dealing with paywalls) very helpful: https://www.gwern.net/Search

For books, many local libraries also have an Interlibrary Loan for books. I know you're far from Kansas City, but for example: https://www.kclibrary.org/services/interlibrary-loan (edit: probably nearer [1] [2])

I have great grandparents from Newburg, so I get it. - Scarpy (talk) 07:14, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Langan, Wikipedia relies on material published in reliable independent (ideally secondary) sources. You have yet to provide anything other than self-published sources. And yes, a theory that purports to be broad in scope but which lacks mainstream scientific acceptance is, by definition, fringe. It could be based on Euclid's Elements and still be fringe, because it's the theory, not the mathematics or the reasoning, that is under consideration. Guy (help!) 08:32, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your advice, Scarpy! It's great to hear a friendly voice. (And you too, PaleoNeonate and Guy.)

The CTMU has indeed received mention in reliable secondary sources. It has been mentioned, for example, by several television networks and national publications including Popular Science starting in the late 1990's, and discussed by Wikipedia bio subjects like Malcolm Gladwell and Ben Goertzel. Yet in the past, it has emerged that such sources are not secondary, independent, or reliable enough to satisfy certain parties here at Wikipedia.

Yes, I've heard of the Weinsteins, but I haven't been invited to their podcast. (In order to avoid accusations of "self-promotion" - I've got a few Internet trolls on my six, and this used to be one of their favorite themes - someone in my position can't just run around requesting interviews. An interview is properly solicited by the interviewer. The Weinsteins probably regard me as a competitor in the field of reality theory, which makes such an interview highly unlikely.)

I no longer have quite as much difficulty getting papers published as I once did. But as Guy has observed, getting one's work published in an academic journal is not sufficient. Apparently, certified academics have to make a big deal of it.

Unfortunately, academics have a severe generic conflict of interest when it comes to mentioning the work of others, because they don't want to advantage their competition. Thus, even when your work is highly relevant to their own - as, for example, mine is highly relevant to Bostrom's - they clam up about you, just the way Ford avoids mentioning GM and Microsoft avoids mentioning Apple. Nick Bostrom, like other academics mentioned in the article, is presently regarded as a heavyweight in the field of reality simulation, and expecting such people to willingly share their authority with academic outsiders - especially "off-narrative" outsiders who can already establish seminal priority - would be unrealistic.

If I might be permitted an illustrative example, say that we have an encyclopedia E, and a closed and very expensive club A (standing for "Academia") whose members are all self-appointed experts on various fields, but who exclude any and all non-members of A from their allegedly august but often raucous and chaotic discussions. Clearly, in view of the fact that A is closed against its complement ~A, the proper thing for E to do is allow for the existence of ~A. Let's assume that E does this. But what if E then says "Although we allow primary sources from ~A, we still require that their notability be certified by secondary sources from A!" Then E is not really allowing for ~A at all, is it. Obviously, because A is closed against ~A on both the primary and secondary source levels, the card-carrying members of A will not be providing "air time" for ~A, and so E has trapped itself in an inconsistent and exclusory policy loop.

Distilled to plain language, my point is that if Wikipedia policy is to qualify as both fair and practical, it should treat primary sources evenhandedly and allow for the real-world situations of contributors to the fields covered in its articles. In other words (and without pointing at anyone in particular), one can't just say

"Yes, academia is a closed pay-to-play network of jealous competitors who screen out any and all outsiders, and X is an outsider. Of all those who disagree with them, academics mention only those who might qualify as academic allies or competitors, so as to avoid unnecessarily giving anyone a leg up on them in the ivory tower. Despite the fact that X has actually gotten his work into peer-reviewed academic journals and is known for having a very advanced ability to reason his way through difficult problems, he's not an academic and is not accepted in academic circles. So let's just continue to let certified academics - the only sources about which we actually care - use our encyclopedia to take credit for his achievements and insights, even those which have been linked here for years. Power to Academia, and power to the Hive!"

As for books, when it comes to technical/scientific nonfiction - in fact, nonfiction in any "academic" field - the publishing houses are now squarely in the academic sphere. The first thing a publisher does these days is call up an academic adviser to "test the wind" regarding any given book idea. Worse, authors cannot pitch such ideas directly to publishers, but must go through an agent. Not that many agents have access to "reputable" publishers, and those who do usually don't invite direct contact from authors. They prefer to get their clients by other means, i.e., recommendations from other agents, academics, and publishers themselves. So at this point, it's really all about academic/industry closure and self-dealing. One can of course publish one's own material in book form, but this will cause the book to be discounted as an "independent source".

And then, of course, we must allow for the possibility that there may be something more below-the-surface going on here. Because anyone can become a Wikipedia editor, Wikipedia may contain one or more coherent subsets of biased editors who begin with a premise like "The presence and/or weight of X must be minimized at all costs!", and then pursue it with extraordinary single-mindedness, sometimes bending the rules as they do. I'm pretty sure that this is what happened to me and my work back in 2006, which ended with what amounted to a Greta Thunberg-style "how dare you!" moment with CTMU supporters on the losing end of the deal.

But again, thank you kindly for sharing your advice and your constructive spirit! Chris Langan (talk) 18:49, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Langan these are thoughtful responses. Some of my thoughts...

Re: The CTMU has indeed received mention in reliable secondary sources. It has been mentioned, for example, by several television networks and national publications including Popular Science starting in the late 1990's, and discussed by Wikipedia bio subjects like Malcolm Gladwell and Ben Goertzel. Yet in the past, it has emerged that such sources are not secondary, independent, or reliable enough to satisfy certain parties here at Wikipedia.

Do you keep a full list of these? Dates, times, networks, etc. It's possible that the case wasn't made with the full weight of the material. There are plenty of things that weren't notable in 2006 that are notable now.

I share many of your sentiments about Wikipedia. Jaron Lanier, if I recall correctly, described it as Maoist in the sense it gives the perception that there's one "correct" narrative for each topic. Things that came before it, like Thinkquest, were better in my opinion. Larry Sanger has some interesting ideas on the topic too although I believe some of his criticism is misplaced and I doubt that building an encyclosphere to showcase superior approaches to Wikipedia (as he describes in the linked video) will work as he suspects... I hope I'm wrong there.

At the same time, I also find Wikipedia more rewarding than almost all other destinations on the Internet. On Wikipedia I can write an article on megavitamin-B6 syndrome and provide good information where there's a gap and this will help prevent some number of people from developing sensory neuropathy due to taking poorly concocted multivitamins. So I try to use it for what it's good for, which is not everything.

Re: the publishing houses are now squarely in the academic sphere

It sounds like you've tried before, and I haven't personally though I've known people who have. I know that publishers like successful books and you have an audience. I suspect some of the barriers could be overcome if you had some other authors on your side to vouch for you. But I could be wrong.

Re: An interview is properly solicited by the interviewer. The Weinsteins probably regard me as a competitor in the field of reality theory, which makes such an interview highly unlikely.

I wouldn't go in cold like that. My read of them, specifically Eric, is a bit different. My gut tells me there's circumstances where he'd welcome a conversation even if it's not a good "brand match" for his podcast. You're both on Twitter and I'd imagine you'd have insightful things to say about an episode like this one or this one. Start building rapport in ways like that. Just an idea. - Scarpy (talk) 06:10, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Scarpy. Yes, Wikipedia can be rewarding - that's why I donated to the site the last time I was solicited - but only with respect to what it properly includes and what it gets right. Unfortunately, this does not include everything that belongs in it.

The case for the CTMU was made here in 2006 with reference to most of the supporting citations. The citations were summarily discounted, and justified resistance by CTMU supporters was met with concerted action by several administrators. The editors and administrators responsible were ultimately supported by the Wikipedia ArbCom. If this seems unimaginable, rest assured that it was an eye-opener for everyone who knows anything (valid) about me and the theory. I'm only here now on the possibility that Wikipedia has improved in this regard over the last 1.5 decades.

I agree that Wikipedia is "Maoist" in its tendency to imply that there is just one correct narrative for each topic. Of course, much has been written about this problem by Lanier and others. I also note that despite the hive-minded "popularism" of Maoism and its Cultural Revolution methodology, it was never more than a control interface for mass manipulation of an activist underclass. Wherever one sees it, one also sees ample evidence that it is ultimately centralized and oligarchical, with a few sneaky "elite" orb-spinners pulling strands from the center of the web. It is to their interests that hive-generated "grass-roots" narratives are generally advantageous. On the other hand, very seldom are these narratives nearly as advantageous for the "masses" in whose name they are advanced.

This appears to be a generic truth about Wikipedia and similar projects. Here at Wikipedia, secondary sourcing of the articles on the topics claimed as "turf" by professional academics is usually confined to the claimants, usually a small and jealous group of self-styled experts with a severe conflict of interest which causes them to exclude new blood and new perspectives. Wikipedia merely enforces their self-created monopoly by ensuring that no one who both disagrees with them and is able to dominate them intellectually, and whose work they accordingly refuse to mention except under academic pressure, gets a word in edgewise. Regardless of what anyone might think, that's not what an encyclopedia is supposed to do. At best, it's just an imperfect method for resolving editorial disputes arising in general-access formats like this one.

Yes, I tried several publishing houses years ago. The answers I received were of two kinds: responses and non-responses, with nearly all of the responses advising me to seek out a "reputable literary agent" trusted by the publisher. Unfortunately, no list of "reputable literary agents" was ever provided. Although I tried writing to a few of what seemed to be "reputable agents", I received no satisfactory responses from them either. The entire industry appears to be locked.

As for why it is locked against me in particular, I can only guess. My guess is that (a) if an academic was called for advice, the caller was directed elsewhere (e.g., to "fellow experts" of the adviser), and/or (b) web search results were too heavy on trolling, and the trolling was of so vicious and disinformational a kind that I and my ideas seemed like too much of a risk. Either that, or the agent himself/herself was a militant atheistic materialistic pseudoskeptic who "doesn't believe in" metaphysics, a breed still far more common than any rational person might think.

Incidentally, despite any claims to the contrary, I've "self-published" three or four books. The first was a book of essays written near the turn of the millennium. All of them are available through Amazon.

As for the Weinstein brothers, I've been a known quantity considerably longer than they have, and I've already published plenty of material relevant to their own speculations. Had they been interested, they could have called me or dropped me an email any time they liked - I'm still right where I was 16 years ago. Chris Langan (talk) 18:35, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Langan, This is Wikipedia. Reliable independent secondary sources or go home. Guy (help!) 22:17, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for another helpful comment. (I generally go where I want to.) Chris Langan (talk) 07:55, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Langan, well, now. You know how you're an expert in CTMU? I am an expert in Wikipedia. Guy (help!) 22:59, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Langan Re: The case for the CTMU was made here in 2006 with reference to most of the supporting citations. The citations were summarily discounted, and justified resistance by CTMU supporters was met with concerted action by several administrators. The editors and administrators responsible were ultimately supported by the Wikipedia ArbCom. If this seems unimaginable, rest assured that it was an eye-opener for everyone who knows anything (valid) about me and the theory. I'm only here now on the possibility that Wikipedia has improved in this regard over the last 1.5 decades.

Ahh yeah I see the talk page (Talk:Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe) and AfD discussion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe) even some discussion on the AfD (Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe). Looks like it generated a lot of discussion outside the article as well (Special:WhatLinksHere/Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe)... but The Wayback Machine doesn't seem to have it. So I'm still missing the citations in the 2006 version of the article. I've never had to ask before, but I believe I've seen admins are able to restore these for reference outside of main namespace. I'll ask and see. (edit also an AfD here Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cognitive_Theoretic_Model_of_the_Universe and revision history exists for the redirected version although as Tim Smith pointed out there's many different versions of that article).

I think CTMU deserves a second shot at passing GNG, and if I have the time and resources during the pandemic I could do the research, writing and give it a shot. I'll warn you, though, you may not like how it turns out. Not out of any kind of malice towards the CTMU, but the WP:RS out there (assuming there's enough to meet notability requirements) may not be flattering and the Wikipedia article would reflect that... because for better or for worse that's how Wikipedia works. - Scarpy (talk) 21:30, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Scarpy, try it if you like. But see morphic resonance. Guy (help!) 23:00, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JzG I'm not sure what comparison you're drawing. It does remind me of a old LW post Parapsychology: the control group for science. :) - Scarpy (talk) 01:16, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Scarpy, the comparison is simpler than you think. Morphic Resonance is a theory that has no significant acceptance beyond Rupert Sheldrake, so morphic resonance is a redirect to Rupert Sheldrake. I'm not seeing any evidence that CTMU has any life independent of Langan. It has not, as far as I can see, been the subject of significant discussion in the literature. Guy (help!) 08:42, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's very nice of you, Scarpy.

As for Guy's statement that "I'm not seeing any evidence that CTMU has any life independent of Langan," I understand where he's coming from, However, apart from what I'm sure is its solid grounding in Wikipedia policy, I'm not sure it reflects the real world. I run CTMU interest groups with thousands of members, many of whom display pretty impressive comprehension of the CTMU. Given that they learned of the CTMU "independently", out there in the real world, it seems that the CTMU does indeed have a "life independent of Langan".

Guy also writes that "It has not, as far as I can see, been the subject of significant discussion in the literature."

Let's examine Guy's statements in conjunction. The first involves the term "evidence". The second involves the two terms "significance" or notability, which (like "evidence") has a subjective dimension, and "the literature", which refers to the body of evidence from which significance or notability can be inferred.

Unfortunately, there's a problem: this amounts to a recursive definition which implies that "significance" is to be determined or quantified dependently on the meaning of "significance". It's a tautological self-definition. Just as problematically, "the literature" is unavoidably founded on an academic conflict of interest, having been generated by people with vested interests in protecting their own self-interested (non-neutral) viewpoints from "outside competition".

In short, "the literature" is generated by people who share a viewpoint which is "notable" because they say it is, and Wikipedia determines what is or is not notable on that basis. Basically, we're down to two wolves, or insiders, and a sheep, the outsider, voting on who should be sacrificed to whose nutritional requirements.

Together, the relationship between the recursive definition of "significance" (or notability) and the COI of those who produce "the literature" mean that the subjective dimension of the notability criterion cannot be exorcised. Neutrality is defined on reliable sources defined on academic notability, which is essentially a self-derived property of a small clique of self-interested professional academics who may not know their rumps from their elbows.

My point is simply that the relevant and worthwhile viewpoints of some notable people are effectively locked out of Wikipedia on this basis, and that where the circumstances are exceptional, rational allowances should be made for them. Otherwise, Wikipedia is simply ensuring that they're locked out for good.

Certainly, I can understand the usual objection: "Well, if we make an exception for X, then we have to make it for everybody! Everybody would claim to be an exception!"

No doubt that's true. However, it doesn't change the fact that Wikipedia is relying on a circular notability criterion based on subjective opinion, of not only those who wrote "the literature", but the Wikipedia editors who limit its scope to a self-certified academic in-crowd. If that's where the discussion ends, then it's probably time for Wikipedia to own it, and admit that neutrality is unattainable for it.

As for what is or is not objectively true, that's another matter, and it can be satisfied only by an examination of content. But here we have another problem. Wikipedia says that notability does not rest on content. But when the "non-notability" of my own work was decided here in 2006, that rule became a mockery. The content of my work was grossly misrepresented as "ID Creationism", which caused it to be swarmed by anti-ID trolls.

The CTMU is still being misrepresented in exactly the same way, as an examination of the talk page for my bio article readily confirms: "...the paper ... presents circular arguments of design and objects to mainstream biological evolution and mainstream cosmology ... seeing the fellows page unfortunately further confirms the association. This appears to correspond to Justin Ward's assessment in The Baffler...". (Unlike ID, the CTMU does not infer design by probabilistic reasoning, but begins with the cognitive-perceptual intelligibility of reality and develops the logical implications. Circularity is unavoidable in logical reasoning; where propositional tautologies are the "axioms" of sentential logic, logical inference equates to tautological inference, and this holds true throughout the sciences, philosophy, and mathematics.)

In other words, we have an ongoing misreading of the CTMU - it cannot be accurately described as "a circular argument from design" - which allegedly confirms the opinion of a no-name know-nothing freelance journalist who called me a "racist" and panned the CTMU without having read or understood a word of it himself, and another no-name journalist who simply accepted his opinion on its face and repeated it.

That's not the only way I know I'm still getting the short end of the stick here. We also have the the repeated removal of links to my academic papers from my bio article. Obviously, these links are relevant as support for my reportedly high intelligence; in fact, the CTMU was one of the reasons my IQ was noticed in the first place. Yet because the CTMU is not the primary topic of the bio article, they were eliminated. That is, they are acceptable neither in conjunction with me, nor independently of me, which means that they are unacceptable, period. I could be mistaken, but it seems to me that suppressing links relevant to a bio subject's notability is not consistent with the rules here.

So anyway, given that the Simulation Hypothesis cannot be properly understood without some mention of my work, I'd merely ask to be spared any further hypocrisy regarding the a priori unacceptability of the CTMU despite its relevance to my bio article, widespread real-world notoriety, scholarly integrity, and provenance (back to the 1989 paper based on standard computation theory and applied to an outstanding problem in philosophy).

A couple of final remarks. Just as your mention of GNG is relevant, so is your mention of WP:RS. But about this, I have misgivings. As I've already mentioned, I have a squadron of monomaniacal trolls on my tail, they've made some very uninformed and very unkind remarks about me and my work, and if the past be our guide, they would be happy to come here and anonymously insist on the inclusion of their own defamation and disinformation just to get their names into Wikipedia. They're non-notable in their own right, but for that very reason, would be happy to get in here on my back and have nothing to lose by trying. So if legitimate references are inadequate, I'd prefer not to be further tormented by the Wikipedia troll population. I already know they're here, and I simply don't have the patience for a CTMU article on which they are allowed to sit for their personal defamatory pleasure while I'm deemed to have a COI which prohibits me from correcting their misinformation even on the talk page.

Thanks for your understanding, which I very much appreciate. Have a very nice day! Chris Langan (talk) 21:40, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Langan, Wikipedia policy is all that matters here. Reliable independent secondary sources or forget it. Guy (help!) 21:57, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting, and thanks for the clarification. I take it that the topic of the article and the topic of the source, and how these topics relate to each other, make no difference whatsoever. (The links I'm talking about were not included in the bio article as source material regarding the CTMU, and they're not primary sources with respect to the topic "Christopher Langan". Nowhere in the content of those articles am I mentioned, and the journal is independent of me. All the links were intended to show is that I have a corpus of peer-reviewed scholarly articles and don't just sit around taking IQ tests between farm chores these days.) Chris Langan (talk) 22:49, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Langan, basically no. I understand the problem of trolls, and have already blocked at least two, but this all sits squarely in the area we call WP:FRINGE, and breaking out of that requires publication and replication in mainstream scientific journals. Guy (help!) 22:56, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean, and I do appreciate your help with the trolls. But as most people understand the Simulation hypothesis, it isn't really empirical science - there are no observations or experiments to be replicated. It's closer to logic and philosophy. Aside from their mutual admiration, those who "run the show" have no objective advantages on which to rely regarding their various opinions. Chris Langan (talk) 23:24, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Langan a couple of thoughts.

My point is simply that the relevant and worthwhile viewpoints of some notable people are effectively locked out of Wikipedia on this basis, and that where the circumstances are exceptional, rational allowances should be made for them. Otherwise, Wikipedia is simply ensuring that they're locked out for good.

I agree with you here, I'm not sure how how to tweak Wikipedia policy to fix it without it opening the gates to chaos. I will say, if you're looking for Wikipedia to make an alloplastic adaptation (change to how the Wikipedia system works) a good place to start would be to collect some of these thoughts are put them in a user space essay. That would be a more central place for like-minded people aggregate around than this talk page section. I would write it as a response to WP:RS and WP:N in the same way that User:DESiegel/Template the regulars is a response to WP:DTTR. Some other good examples user space essays are User:Guy Macon/Yes. We are biased. and our Guy's own User:JzG/The_politics_of_sourcing (I don't 100% agree with them, but they are good examples of well-written essays). - Scarpy (talk) 01:52, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Langan unrelated - have you ever put CTMU in Coq? - Scarpy (talk) 19:19, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also unrelated, if something akin to panconsciousness exists, how is it possible that quantum cryptography works? - Scarpy (talk) 07:20, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If every cigarette you smoke takes seven minutes off of your life, every tweet like this sets meaningful engagement with the CTMU back seven years. I respect your contributions to metaphysics, but I disagree with your politics. - Scarpy (talk) 03:25, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Scarpy. I'm not quite sure what to make of your questions. No, I haven't put the CTMU in "coq", but I'll look into it. (The CTMU is not a standard formal system of the kind you'd put through a stock theorem-prover - it has a new kind of structure called "metaformal" and "supertautological" which accommodates undecidability.) Regarding panconsciousness, any form of it which incorporates the mental (or machine) states of quantum-cryptographic senders and receivers has no need to eavesdrop - it's the message and its actual communication that count. And as for setting back acceptance of the CTMU with political tweets, it's probably not a good idea to conflate politics with reality theory - whereas we all share the same reality, the same cannot be said for politics.

When it comes to politics, I usually work from personal experience, and I happen to have life experiences of a kind with which other people may be unfamiliar. For example, when I was considering starting a family but couldn't afford to do so because I was stuck in menial jobs, I found myself unable to get a higher-paying civil service job because minority (actually, worldwide majority) applicants were being spotted 30 (thirty) points over majority citizens on the civil service exam in the state of New York. It turns out that many people have had such experiences, and it makes some of them feel as though Western nations are a bit like bird nests filled with large and exigent cuckoo chicks instead of the chicks of the birds who built the nests. (Of course, I allow for the possibility that you've had other experiences entirely. One of the great things about the United States is that we can have different experiences and opinions and still get along, at least in principle.) Chris Langan (talk) 07:44, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Chris Langan. The first two just occurred to me as I was reading sources for the now re-redirected version of the CTMU article, thank you for answering those. The last one is just a reaction to that tweet, which I hope you'll consider. My experience discussing/debating cultural war topics publicly online is similar to Scott Alexander's -- eventually it leads to a nervous breakdown. So I don't want to get in to it here.

To your point about not conflating reality theory with politics -- I completely agree. I will say, there are plenty of people that take say Syntactic Structures seriously without buying in to Noam Chomsky's politics. At the very least I would recommend keeping a similar separation and not linking to ctmu.org in tweets like that... but more than that, I'd say your chances of have meaningful conversations about the CTMU increase as the amount of culture war engagement you participate in publicly decreases. - Scarpy (talk) 20:31, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

July 2020

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia because the username, Chris Langan, matches the name of a well-known, living person.

If you are the person represented by this username, please note that the practice of blocking such usernames is to protect you from being impersonated, not to discourage you from editing Wikipedia. You may choose to edit under a new username (see information below), but keep in mind that you are welcome to continue to edit under this username. If you choose to do so, we ask the following:

Please be willing and able to prove your identity to Wikipedia.
Please send an email to info-enwikimedia.org. Be aware that the volunteer response team that handles email is indeed operated entirely by volunteers, and the reply may not be immediate.

If you are not the person represented by this username, you are welcome to choose a new username (see below).

A username should not be promotional, related to a "real-world" group or organization, misleading, offensive, or disruptive. Also, usernames may not end in the word "bot" unless the account is an approved bot account.

You are encouraged to choose a new account name that meets our policy guidelines and create the account yourself. Alternatively, if you wish for your existing contributions to carry over under a new name, then you may request a change in username by:

Adding {{unblock-un|your new username here}} below. You should be able to do this even though you are blocked. If not, you may wish to contact the blocking administrator by clicking on "Email this user" from their talk page.
At an administrator's discretion, you may be unblocked for 24 hours to file a change of name request.
Please note that you may only request a name that is not already in use. Therefore, please check the list here to see if a name is taken prior to requesting a change of name.

Appeals: If, after reading the guide to appealing blocks you believe you were blocked in error, then you may appeal this block by adding {{unblock|Your reason here}} below this notice,. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:19, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I unblocked.--S Philbrick (Talk) 18:03, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:48, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

Your reason here Apparently, I've been blocked for following Wikipedia's own advice.

Requested details:

View source for Talk:Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe ← Talk:Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reason: Your username or IP address has been blocked. The reason given is: There are multiple blocks against your account and/or IP address. Start of block: 20:32, 21 July 2020 Expiration of longest block: no expiry set Relevant block IDs: #9962223, #9962213 (your IP address may also be blacklisted) Your current IP address is 216.139.113.98. Please include all above details in any queries you make.

On July 17, 2020, I was blocked from the CTMU Talk Page for using the identity of a well-known person. (This was apparently triggered by a user calling himself "beeblebrox".) I am in fact the person in question. Per instructions, I wrote to the Wikipedia Volunteer Response Team. The response was as follows:

Wikipedia Volunteer Response Team Jul 18, 2020, 11:02 AM (3 days ago) to me

Dear C Langan,

Let's start by figuring out whether you really want to confirm your identity and use that account.

But first, I hope you appreciate that, assuming you are the subject of this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Langan

That the block was done for your protection. We don't want someone who is not you creating a username that leaves the impression that they are you.

The next step is to determine whether you want your account name to reflect your real-life name. Many people edit Wikipedia using pseudonyms and that is an option. Many people write into this address, asking for help confirming their identity because their goal is to edit the article about them. When I point out our guideline: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Autobiography

And they realize they should not be directly editing the article about themselves, sometimes the request goes away. If your sole goal is to edit the article about you, then it may not be worth jumping through the hoops to confirm your identity.

You might wonder why I talk about "jumping through hoops". After all, isn't it trivial to provide a scan of a passport or driver's license? It is, but we do not want to have those documents in our possession for a variety of reasons.

We have other alternatives for confirming identity and we can investigate those if you still want to get it under your real name. If you want to edit under a pseudonym , with the caveat that the prohibition against directly editing the article about you still applies, you are free to do so and if you have difficulty creating an account with a pseudonym I can help you.

If your intention was to edit articles other than about you and you want to edit using your real name, let me know and we will walk through the options for confirming your identity.

Yours sincerely, Stephen Philbrick

Notice the part about establishing an alternate identity. I didn't want to use an alternate identity, but after four days, I relented and created one. That is, I waited four days before taking Wikipedia's advice and obtaining an alternate account. During this period, a number of false and/or defamatory statements about me and my work appeared on the page I had been editing.

Evidently I was unblocked in the early afternoon of July 21, but when the notice came, I was already in the process of responding on the CTMU Talk Page. Again, this response was necessitated by the false and/or misleading statements, and was worded in a perfectly civil and respectful manner.

Wikipedia Volunteer Response Team 1:02 PM (2 hours ago) to me

Dear C Langan, I unblocked you. I didn't jump through all the hoops I probably should have but I do remember your name from 999 or mega or something, so I'm convinced.

In short, (1) I do not attempt to edit articles in which I have a conflict of interest; (2) When I encounter inaccuracies (or trolling), I calmly edit the talk pages to request changes or make my points; and (3) I am to my knowledge in actual violation of no Wikipedia rules whatsoever.

Please note that we live in a very rural area. Much of this county shares the same ISP, and (up to) several residents may have contributed to the bio article, its talk page, and the CTMU talk page.

Please unblock my wife and me, as we have broken no rules here.

Addition: I just found this under my unblock request. It seems to suggest that TonyBallioni has decided not to honor it.

"You also pretended not to be yourself (referring to yourself in the third person), edited with that account after this account was unblocked, had an implied threat that more SPAs would be created, and had created two additional sleeper accounts that you looked to try to be aging for use later. Now, to be fair, I don't know whether it was you or your wife that created the sleeper accounts, but that does make it hard for me to assume good faith. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)"

Hold on a minute. Had I introduced myself as Chris Langan using the new account, I'd have been immediately blocked for "pretending to be a well known person", which is why I was blocked the first time. I don't know anything about any "sleeper accounts" - as I explained, I like to contribute under my own name. And as for "good faith", it's supposed to work both ways, I can tell when I'm getting it, and the only one on that page who has come close to showing me any good faith worth mentioning is the user called "Scarpy".

Please let me know if I need to go the the Arbitration Committee (or Mr. Wales) with this, because it's getting very tiresome. Thank you.

Addition 2: "Anyway, like I said, its up to the reviewing admin how to review this and your wife's block. I'd point them to GorillaWarfare's comments on the history here in the SPI, though."

Then perhaps I should add that GorillaWarfare has not been what I'd call a wellsprings of "good faith" where I'm concerned. She is responsible for protecting the inclusion in my bio of libelous accusations sourced to a no-name journo "Justin Ward" in a sporadically published "magazine" called "The Baffler". With all due respect, the inclusion of hurtful and spurious accusations which were themselves unsourced by Ward/Baffler fails to strike me as remotely consistent with WP:BLP. Perhaps it would be better if the reviewing admin were to review my actual comments as opposed to the opinions of administrators with their own special viewpoints in play. But thanks anyway.

Addition 3: "Arguing that criticism published in a reliable source ought not to be whitewashed off the page simply because the article subject finds it unflattering is not acting in bad faith, nor is it contrary to WP:BLP." - GorillaWarfare

I most emphatically disagree. WP:BLP states that "We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources." The Baffler is absolutely not a "high-quality source". A high-quality source would carefully source hurtful accusations like "racism" and "antisemitism", making sure that they are substantiated by my own output rather than go fishing for anonymous scuttlebutt on 4chan and Stormfront (at neither of which I've ever posted). These journalistic frauds did nothing of the kind and this was duly pointed out, but there was simply no stopping GorillaWarfare and company. (Wikipedia needs to be much more careful about damaging accusations for which its supposedly "reliable sources" give no actual evidence.) It's a violation of WP:BLP plain and simple. GorillaWarfare is an administrator, others tend to follow her lead, she has been sitting on this article for months, and she unquestionably bears a good deal of responsibility for its content.

Addition 4: If I'm not mistaken, I've just been explicitly accused of "lying" by one "TonyBallioni". This accusation is false and defamatory, and therefore cannot be rationalized in terms of "good faith". I have only one alternate account, I have proven here that Wikipedia advised me to create it, and third-person self-references are not "lies". Rather, under the circumstances as explained here, they were perfectly explicable given Wikipedia's 4-day lag in unblocking me under my real name per this request, which it did mere minutes before I posted under "Ctmu" (I usually check my email only twice a day or so, so if you wait days to respond to a simple request, don't be surprised if I assume you have no intention of doing so). This accusation is a mistake on TonyBallioni's part, and on the part of anyone who publicly credits or repeats it. My own good-faith explanations have been ignored, a false scenario has been concocted, and harmful accusations have been made in a pretty obvious departure from "good faith".

I also note that the decision has been made by JzG or "Guy", who has a conflict of interest. Specifically, he appears to be retaliating for a perfectly civil comment I made regarding his long-term (15 year) policy of disparaging me and the CTMU without having the vaguest idea what it is or what it says. Although he claims that I was "litigating content", this is false, just as it is false that the CTMU was ever presented as "a scientific theory" as JzG asserted. The argument was over notability of the topic and the reliability of given sources.

Administrative decisions based on opinion and speculation, and false accusations based exclusively thereon, cannot coexist with credible claims of neutrality, objectivity, or even decency. I hope that Wikipedia has at least one administrator capable of admitting it, and of removing this block. Thank you. Chris Langan (talk) 17:32, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Addition 5: "My only involvement has been triggered by Chris' BLP complaint, and this was a procedural close: it was not a properly-formed unblock request. But whatever. Fact is, it's a doomed request: two people and five accounts, all pushing the same POV, technically indistinguishable from each other. Guy (help!) 08:28, 23 July 2020 (UTC)"

Pardon me, but (1) Wikipedia sanctions pseudonymous accounts, as we know from the above email which I received directly from Wikipedia; (2) I am not required to coordinate with my wife regarding her accounts, pseudonymous or otherwise (and I neither know nor care what alternate accounts she may possess except insofar as they may permit her to operate here in a corrective capacity despite what she tells me is chronic interference); and (3) it is not our fault that we are forced to share the same ISP, so lumping us together on that basis is untenable.

It appears to me that JzG is simply trying to patch together an impromptu rationalization for what he has been doing here, reverting to the 15-year-old pattern mentioned above. Again, I request that a neutral administrator - and when I say "neutral", I mean emotionally uninvolved and cognizant and respectful of the rules here - reverse this block. Again, please bear in mind that I am in violation of no rules myself, and have confined myself to what I see as helpful, civilly worded talk-page suggestions, precisely as Wikipedia suggests. Thank you.

Decline reason:

Most of this is not an unblock request, but an attempt to relitigate, yet again, the content question. Guy (help!) 15:05, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

.

You also pretended not to be yourself (referring to yourself in the third person), edited with that account after this account was unblocked, had an implied threat that more SPAs would be created, and had created two additional sleeper accounts that you looked to try to be aging for use later. Now, to be fair, I don't know whether it was you or your wife that created the sleeper accounts, but that does make it hard for me to assume good faith. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Also for your addition: this account had been unblocked before you made your first edit with Ctmu (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). You were aware it would not have been blocked. Also, as this is not a CheckUser block, the community will review it and there isn't a need for ArbCom review since everything is public. Jimmy Wales also doesn't get into unblock disputes as his role on this project is more of a figurehead these days.
  Anyway, like I said, its up to the reviewing admin how to review this and your wife's block. I'd point them to GorillaWarfare's comments on the history here in the SPI, though. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:25, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arguing that criticism published in a reliable source ought not to be whitewashed off the page simply because the article subject finds it unflattering is not acting in bad faith, nor is it contrary to WP:BLP. I am also not "responsible" for its inclusion–I was one of the people who commented that I believe it ought to remain in place, but I was hardly the only voice in that discussion. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:30, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to unblock anyone but have some comments. My personal opinion is that it would be better if Christopher Langan and DrL were to forget about Wikipedia—it's very likely that unreasonable trolling will be handled appropriately and your attention is not needed. In fact, your attention only encourages trolling by those who want to personally interact with you. However, you could rarely (say one comment per month) post on your talk page to draw attention to a perceived problem if really needed. Further, you are never going to be satisfied with what is written here because Wikipedia will not report favorably about a topic of this nature. Regarding the current block, it seems very likely that the face-value explanation is valid, namely that User:Chris_Langan merely tried to follow instructions on this page and in emails received. The timeline is:
- 20:19, 15 July 2020 Beeblebrox blocked Chris Langan as using an unconfirmed well-known name
- 17:24, 21 July 2020 Ctmu (talk · contribs) account was created
- 18:01, 21 July 2020 Sphilbrick unblocked Chris Langan as confirmed Christopher Langan
- 18:40, 21 July 2020 Ctmu made their only edit, a long message at at CTMU talk
- 19:47, 21 July 2020 TonyBallioni blocked Chris Langan from a sockpuppet case
The above is entirely consistent with someone unfamiliar with Wikipedia trying to follow the instructions given. If I had been Ctmu, I could easily take an hour to compose and check that message, and even if I noticed that User:Chris_Langan had been unblocked (how would I notice that if logged in as Ctmu?), I would be inclined to press on and post the message I had worked hard to compose. @TonyBallioni: The unblock request above includes "Had I introduced myself as Chris Langan using the new account, I'd have been immediately blocked...". I think that is a likely explanation (and consistent with the instructions given) for why Ctmu wrote "Langan has never presented the CTMU...". Johnuniq (talk) 07:10, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the ping, Johnuniq. I have a few concerns with extending AGF here: first, they presented themselves as someone different in their edit. They’d been unblocked, but even assuming that they hadn’t seen it, an assumption I’m not entirely willing to make as a talk page message triggers an email for most people, it’s typically considered deceptive outside of Wikipedia to pretend to be someone different in a discussion and act as if you’ve never met anyone there before, and that you have no connection at all to the subject. DrL apparently also told Chris to make sure people knew it was him by creating an account named Ctmu, based on the comments on her talk page, so the stories here are inconsistent.
  Second is because of the comment regarding SPAs. This account had been unblocked, they likely knew that, and they made a comment with an undisclosed alt about how other SPAs would appear to counter the SPAs on the other side with an account that is an SPA. On its face, that’s disruptive and in bad faith even ignoring the question of whether they knew the wikirules on this.
  Finally, there’s the creation of the sleeper accounts and continued lying about them both by DrL and Chris. I’m not entirely sure whether DrL or Chris created them, but at least for Marxist Frogg my money is on Chris based on the timing. The odds of it being a visiting person are extremely low to non-existent. Creating sleepers to age and use later, and then lying about it in an unblock request, makes me not be sympathetic.
  Basically there’s a lot of deception going on here, and I’m basically a Kantian on lying, so I don’t have much sympathy in that regards. At the same time, I realize this is a complex situation and left it admin reviewable on purpose so that non-CU admins could see if they thought it was within the norms of behaviour and policy. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:13, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - @TonyBallioni: Re "they presented themselves as someone different in their edit", that's because he was instructed that he must not present himself as Christopher Langan, and was in fact blocked for doing that. He never suggested he was not Langan, he simply used the style of using the Langan surname to refer to the topic because that's what he was told to do. Re SPAs, this topic has had several SPAs attacking Langan (I indeffed one for pretty egregious harassment). It is claimed that there are more SPAs active and Langan pretty reasonably thought if it was ok for them to attack his ideas, it would be ok for him (an SPA) to defend them. I'm conflicted because I think it would be in the interests of the two editors to forget about Wikipedia, and it would help to reduce drama here if they were to do that. However, this is very likely to be a case of unfortunate timing plus naive experimenting, not sockpuppetry. Chris Langan wants to edit under that name and everyone involved knows he is Christopher Langan although it is correct that the identity has to be confirmed. To enforce the confirmation requirement, he was blocked with a long message including "You may choose to edit under a new username". After waiting six days, he created Ctmu, logged on as that user and posted a single message. At the same time, his preferred account was unblocked. You might receive and read emails within 40 minutes of sending but I don't. Actually, there was no email because there is no "email this user" link on this page. I agree that Marxist Frogg looks like a sleeper sock that would be created by a sockpuppet master, except they would know not to use the shared IP. I don't recall any sockpuppet accusations in connection with this topic and it's entirely likely it was just an experiment, as they wrote, "I am practicing my editing!". Why would someone cunning enough to create a sleeper on 12 June 2020 create a new account (Ctmu) on 21 July 2020 and immediately post a message guaranteed to draw attention to themselves? Johnuniq (talk) 01:13, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Based on the emails Mr. Langan has posted above, there was an email when he was unblocked (via OTRS, not via the automatic talk page notification). No idea how often he checks his email, just figured I'd mention it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:29, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Good point, but that would have been after the unblock meaning the time difference from knowing about the unblock to Ctmu's message would be even less than 39 minutes. I only know a new email has arrived when I feel like looking. Also, despite using a major ISP, my incoming emails can be delayed an hour. Johnuniq (talk) 01:40, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Johnuniq, just as a bit of background here GW flagged this for an uninvolved CU to look at because she suspected that Ctmu was DrL. I agreed there were similarities that if they were the same person would amount to abuse of multiple accounts, and I ran the checked. I discovered the two sleepers, and the husband/wife pairing. I was not aware of the username block/relation when I ran the check, but discovered it afterwards and before blocking.

I considered the softblock/create a new account option and debated not blocking because of it, but the reason I ultimately ended up doing so was because I saw what to me appeared to be a fair amount of intentional bad faith. The sleeper accounts, which are either Chris or DrL (I just requested Mz7 re-run the check and he came to the same conclusion), could easily be explained away was experimenting if it was just one of them, but there are two. To me, that is more than just experimenting. I also think that the post on the talk page and the discussion of being an SPA was essentially a threat that more would appear. Both of those together combined with the fact that the block had recently been lifted (albeit ~40 minutes earlier) led me to the conclusion that a block would likely be the best starting point for any future discussion. I'm also fairly unimpressed with the continued denial about the two sleepers: like I said, I don't know which spouse it is, but one of them created the accounts.

That being said, the reason I made it a regular block and not a CU one is because I get the complexities of this case, and since everything but the sleepers is fairly obvious/admitted to, there's nothing really private. Having community members and admins outside of the SPI world look at it seemed like the best way to deal with the complexity to me. So, in that regards, I don't mind you doing whatever you think is best. I'd also be fine with you taking it over as a "disruptive editing" or similar block if you think that'd be more accurate to describe the issues. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:27, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just confirming for the record that as Tony mentioned, I also reviewed the technical evidence, and it strongly indicates that the Marxist Frogg and Lemail accounts were created by one of either Chris Langan or DrL. Mz7 (talk) 20:34, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I do agree with Chris Langan that it would be best to leave the unblock request open for an admin who has not been involved in the content discussions. (Ping JzG). GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:38, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GorillaWarfare, My only involvement has been triggered by Chris' BLP complaint, and this was a procedural close: it was not a properly-formed unblock request. But whatever. Fact is, it's a doomed request: two people and five accounts, all pushing the same POV, technically indistinguishable from each other. Guy (help!) 08:28, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, Guy's involvement in this topic goes back over a decade, and he has made no secret of his opinion of Langan's work. He wrote that the CTMU is "pseudoscientific" and that its claim to be a philosophical theory "appears to be, in the main, a smokescreen to obscure this." He later edited the article about Chris Langan to add an unsupported assertion about Langan's IQ, and to say that his theory is "religiously-based", without evidence. He has repeatedly used pejorative ([3]) and incivil ([4]) language in connection with it and its author.

For Guy to be involved here in an administrative capacity is a violation of WP:INVOLVED. I second GorillaWarfare in agreeing that it would be best for an uninvolved admin to handle the unblock request, and would ask Guy to revert his denial of the request and recuse himself. Tim Smith (talk) 03:42, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To preempt any accusations of bias before I weigh in, I'll just quickly put my bias in my own words. Skepticism is not a monolith and it is less effective, often even counter-productive, when it functions like an orthodoxy--especially when it's a sneering orthodoxy. I try to follow examples like Michael Shermer's brand of skepticism: Shermer can debate someone like Deepak Chopra and then go on to develop a friendship and mutual respect with him despite their disagreements. I try to bring Shermer-Chopra vibes to disagreements like this one.

The above is entirely consistent with someone unfamiliar with Wikipedia trying to follow the instructions given. - Johnuniq I agree here. In fact if it wouldn't be redundant I would just quote everything you said because they're such excellent points. Unless DrL and Chris have an interest in editing on topics outside of CTMU and closely related concepts, I would suggest stepping away from Wikipedia (even if it's something like raising a concern on your talk pages --those might be better handled through WP:OTRS).

I also think that the post on the talk page and the discussion of being an SPA was essentially a threat that more would appear. - TonyBallioni I think this is a stretch. Looking at the contributions from Marxist Frogg and Lemail they don't seem engaged on Langan/CTUM stuff.

two people and five accounts - JzG is it five? am I missing one? I see four mentioned here.

Tim Smith I agree that JzG is "involved," but I also don't think you would get a different response from most other admins accustomed to dealing with WP:FRINGE content. In fact, if anything I think JzG was pretty amicable in this recent thread.

I'm not very familiar with the nuanced ins and outs of blocking and unblocking. If something like WP:STANDARDOFFER is possible here, I believe that's reasonable (with the caveat of staying out of the CTMU-related topics). If not, something like a change of venue to get admins that are outside of FRINGE Wikipedia seems wise. - Scarpy (talk) 06:12, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That his theory is "religiously-based", without evidence the papers are public and so is the information about the association with ID proponents, the journal without proper peer review, etc. You may want to read the talk page of the BLP article, the previous deletion discussions, etc. —Paleo Neonate – 15:49, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Scarpy, Five. DrL, Chris Langan, Ctmu, Lemail, Marxist Frogg.

You are missing an important point. Wikipedia is a volunteer-run project to create an encyclopaedia. Michael Shermer is not involved at any level with curating or controlling the spread of Deepak Chopra's woo. Shermer gains by being seen to inject reality into the Chopralalia in front of Chopra's audience (and actually Leonard Mlodinow is probably a better example anyway because he doesn't have the baggage that Shermer does).

When you have people who have a vested interest in a concept,. as Chris does, that gives an asymmetry of motivation on Wikipedia. We don't do "change of venue" to exclude people with experience of dealing with fringe topics. That would be like trying to get a source ruled as reliable by excluding people who frequent WP:RSN, because they say it's not reliable. We don't do that. The Wikipedia community generally (and including fringe specialists) don't give a rat's ass about CTMU as such but just want to ensure neutrality.

We can include CTMU in Chris' article as long as there independent are sources that establish significance, and in that context (uniquely) we can also use some self-published sources by Chris as part of that description. On a standalone article, because of WP:FRINGE, we must insist on sticking entirely to reliable independent secondary sources. And that is pretty much impossible because it's not even published in a reliable independent source. Until there are reality-based sources describing and critiquing CTMU, we can't have an independent article.

This is how we handle fringe topics. You don't get a stand-alone article until we can reliably describe it from a reality-based mainstream perspective. Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopaedia. As Chris acknowledges repeatedly, this has no significant traction in the relevant academic community. It's a one man pet theory, regardless of how much you or anyone else might like it.

Example: we have a separate article on quantum mysticism because a lot of new-age woo-mongers promote it, and there's a significant literature critiquing new-age "quantum" arm-waving. That does not appear to be the case for CTMU. Guy (help!) 09:05, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JzG I'm sorry if my point was so obscure to be misunderstood so easily. We have an exceptionally good article on cultural cognition. TL;DR if you haven't read it: Just giving people information on polarizing topics doesn't change their opinions, in fact it often pushes them more to one side or another. Your only hope is to make them engaged and and make them curious, that's nearly impossible to do when you take an adversarial "us vs. them" stance.

The way forward is to remember that everyone is "us." We're all on Team Human and we're all trying to understand the world and make it better. The minute you make a "them" is the minute you sabotage your own efforts. You would still be hard pressed to find a larger fan of Hitchens than myself (and I have a lot of respect for Harris, Dawkins, and Dennett) but if we're being empirical, that kind of skepticism has failed hard. The purpose of policies isn't to revel in how well you follow policies, the goal of policies is to make things better. If policies aren't making things better, they should change. - Scarpy (talk) 09:58, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Scarpy, you are arguing from an entirely different premise. This is not about suppressing anything, it's about ensuring that any articles we have are verifiably neutral. In the case of fringe topics, that requires reality-based reliable sources discussing the concept in some depth and noting its level of acceptance and validity. Guy (help!) 11:43, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JzG I would ask you to please read this carefully: judging people and articles on how well they follow policies is not the same thing as ensuring (or measuring how well) those policies produce effective and persuasive science communication. I'll point you to more material from/on Dan Kahan TED, Vox and an excellent commentary on Ezra Klein's latest book. For any FRINGE article on Wikipedia, do we have any reason to believe the content in them, for example, will make readers less polarized on the topic? I see no evidence that anyone on FRINGE Wikipedia thinks about this (feel free to correct me if there's studies where you've measured and quantified this, then made adjustments accordingly). Frequent recitation of policies does not at all mean those policies produce prosocial outcomes. It's entirely possible, and I would say likely, that for all the hand-ringing of FRINGE Wikipedia, it commonly backfires--making more "lunatic charlatans" and making existing lunatic charlatans yet even loonier.

If, when someone makes a suggestion on improving a policy or when someone asks you "can you show me evidence that your policy is effective?" your answer is to just to recite the policy for the nth time... I'd suggest a better use of those calories allocated for policy recitation that day would be to take a break from Wikipedia and read The Trial. I have nothing more to say on here. I'll give you the last word. - Scarpy (talk) 19:50, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If it results in more accurate articles, the policies are in the right direction. WP:PSCI for instance is not about polarizing but about accuracy and avoiding misrepresentation. But the policies are always a work in progress and there is a community process to improve them. —Paleo Neonate – 15:49, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Scarpy, the problem is that every time we get lectured on this it's always, purely by coincidence, by someone who wants to have an article on some fringe theory that has no reality-based sourcing, or wants to reflect some bollocks as if it were real.

As Jimbo says: our policies are exactly right. Bending them so that we can discuss things that have no substantive reality-based sources, because they are WP:INTERESTING or WP:IMPORTANT, has never been a good idea. And small groups of editors backed by WP:SPAs, sockpuppets and trolls endlessly insisting that we have an article on something with no reality-based sources, is an even worse idea.

The way forward is for Chris to publish his theory in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, and then we can reflect the consensus that develops around it. Guy (help!) 22:25, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just two comments: first, when aging sleepers it’s really common to have them not edit anything related, go dormant for months, then use them (this is something we see at SPI all the time.) The two accounts follow a pattern here. I think the threat of more SPAs isn’t a stretch, and I’d read it that way even without the other accounts, but the two sleepers definitely don’t help. Second, the way to get uninvolved admins is just to make another unblock request. No need for a “change in venue.” TonyBallioni (talk) 14:01, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I also felt this needed clarification and would have said the same. It's a textbook socking practice. —Paleo Neonate – 15:49, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Smith, it was a procedural decline: it was not a well-formed request. And in as far as I am "involved", it has been in support of Chris, whoi has a problem with trolls, several of whom I have blocked (and that's my primary involvement). In any case, he can submit another appeal or reopen this one. But he won't get a different answer I think, certainly not wiuth thgat request., He may if he focuses on the reason for the block, rather than trying to relitigate the content issue through the unblock request. In my view Chris is a nice guy: I would be fine with havbing him unblocked as long as DrL remains blocked, as she is purely disruptive. Guy (help!) 08:19, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are misrepresenting the unblock request, your role in closing it, and the extent of your prior involvement. The request argues that Chris was "blocked for following Wikipedia's own advice", citing communication with OTRS, and that he has broken no rules. I see no procedural grounds that would allow an WP:INVOLVED administrator to close it. Even if it were attempting to "relitigate the content issue", that is a content issue in which you are involved. You were involved in the recent dispute, you have been involved with the article about Chris, and you have disparaged his work as "pseudoscientific". Multiple editors here have agreed on this point. You are in violation of WP:INVOLVED, and that will remain the case until you revert your denial of the unblock request and recuse yourself. Tim Smith (talk) 23:12, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Chris

I closed your unblock request on purely procedural grounds as addressing the content question not the block. Please read WP:GAB, which describes how to write a well-formed unblock request. Note that you need to focus on the specific reasons for blocking, and show how community concerns will be addressed. I think you don't have a big problem there because you have to date been very patient and not aggressive, and we generally err on the side of allowing biography subjects some leeway in order to keep our biographies accurate. You are absolutely allowed to open a new unblock request following WP:GAB. Guy (help!) 09:09, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Irregularities

I would like to draw attention to certain irregularities in the circumstances surrounding the two blocks here, the denial of the unblock request, and the conduct of the administrators involved.

In brief, it appears to me that:

the first block violated WP:BEFOREBLOCK and provided no evidence of wrongdoing,
the second block failed to WP:AGF and disregarded WP:SOCKLEGIT,
the denial of the unblock request violated WP:INVOLVED, and
Chris Langan made a good-faith attempt to comply with Wikipedia policies and with what he was told by OTRS.

I hope that the details below will prove useful to Chris and to any uninvolved administrator who gets a chance to review the situation.

Background

User:Chris Langan is the subject of the BLP Christopher Langan. His identity has been verified by OTRS (see below).

His account was created in September 2019. Its edits have been entirely confined to talk pages, where he has made suggestions for improving some articles and asked editors to respect WP:BLP in connection with him and his work.

Block by Beeblebrox

On 15 July 2020, Chris was blocked, without warning, by User:Beeblebrox, because his username "Chris Langan", which he had been using for 10 months, represents a well-known person (Chris himself). Beeblebrox issued this block

without notifying Chris of the relevant policy (WP:REALNAME) beforehand (a different user had asked him a month earlier to confirm his identity, but without linking to this policy or alerting him to possible consequences),
without warning him beforehand that he was at risk of being blocked,
knowing that Chris might be blocked for days while OTRS resolved the issue,
when WP:REALNAME only says "the account may sometimes be blocked as a precaution against damaging impersonation" (my emphasis), and
without providing any evidence that "damaging impersonation" was occurring (or even alleging this to be the case).

WP:BEFOREBLOCK says: In general, administrators should ensure that users who are acting in good faith are aware of policies and are given reasonable opportunity to adjust their behavior before blocking.

When questioned on his talk page about his action, Beeblebrox characterized it as "routine". Asked if it was in accord with WP:BEFOREBLOCK, he replied that he had "adequately explained [him]self" (in fact, he never contacted Chris before blocking him) and that he didn't "feel inclined to continue discussing this here".

Block by TonyBallioni

Chris then reached out to OTRS, who told him that unblocking his account would involve "jumping through hoops" to confirm his identity, that "[m]any people edit Wikipedia using pseudonyms and that is an option", and that "[i]f you want to edit under a pseudonym", "you are free to do so".

Chris's initial preference was to use his real name, and he waited several days for OTRS to confirm his identity. When this did not happen, he relented and created a new account, User:Ctmu. He made a single edit with it, on the talk page about his theory, making suggestions to "move the debate in a positive direction" with reference to WP:BLP. In this edit, he referred to himself in the third person, explaining afterward that "Had I introduced myself as Chris Langan using the new account, I'd have been immediately blocked for "pretending to be a well known person", which is why I was blocked the first time." Independently, in the hour between the creation of the new account and its single edit, OTRS confirmed his identity and unblocked his original account.

One hour later, without having made any further edits with either account, Chris was blocked indefinitely by User:TonyBallioni, for "abusing multiple accounts". Here is the sequence of events:

20:19, 15 July 2020 -- Beeblebrox blocks Chris for "representing a well-known person" (himself)
16:02, 18 July 2020 -- OTRS tells Chris that he is free to edit under a pseudonym
17:24, 21 July 2020 -- Chris creates User:Ctmu
18:01, 21 July 2020 -- OTRS unblocks the original account
18:40, 21 July 2020 -- Ctmu makes its one and only edit
19:47, 21 July 2020 -- TonyBallioni blocks Chris for "abusing multiple accounts"

Tony seems to have been unaware that Chris had just been told by OTRS that "[i]f you want to edit under a pseudonym", "you are free to do so". Additionally, Chris uses a shared IP, so there was some confusion regarding his wife's account (User:DrL), whose relationship to him had already been disclosed, and two others ([5] and [6]) with no connection to Langan-related topics, neither of which had been used in over a month, and of which Chris disclaimed any knowledge.

WP:SOCKLEGIT says:

Alternative accounts have legitimate uses.
[E]ditors who contribute using their real name may wish to use a pseudonym for contributions with which they do not want their real name to be associated.
[I]f you are blocked for having an inappropriate username, and that is the sole reason for the block, you are permitted to create a new account with an appropriate username.
These accounts are not considered sockpuppets.

None of the above constitutes "abusing multiple accounts".

The fact that Chris's single edit with User:Ctmu was on a page that he had edited a single time before as User:Chris Langan might seem to run afoul of WP:BADSOCK's rule against Contributing to the same page or discussion with multiple accounts. However, in Chris's defense:

The e-mail from OTRS which told Chris he was free to edit under a pseudonym makes no mention of this policy.
He could not identify himself as Chris Langan, because doing so would put him at risk of being blocked again for "impersonating" a well-known figure.
He was not aware that his original account had been unblocked, since that did not happen until after he had created the new account, while he was in the process of posting with it.

Thus, Chris's single edit with User:Ctmu seems to have been a good-faith attempt to move the discussion in a positive direction with reference to WP:BLP, while adhering to WP:REALNAME and not representing himself as a well-known figure.

Tony also brought up Chris's remark that "when single-purpose troll accounts are tolerated, single-purpose corrective accounts may spring into existence", interpreting this as a "threat" to create more accounts and/or deploy existing "sleepers". Tony seems to have missed the context of this remark, which was Scarpy's comment two posts above on the same page, addressed to "IPs and single purpose accounts" defending Chris's work. Chris was pointing out that in addition to the IPs and SPAs referenced by Scarpy, there had also been opposing SPAs targeting him and his work, (e.g. [7], [8]). None of these were created by Chris.

Denial of unblock request by JzG

Chris then made an unblock request, which was denied by involved administrator Guy (User:JzG). Guy was involved in a recent dispute about the notability of Chris's work, involved with the article about Chris, had disparaged Chris's work as "pseudoscientific", and had used incivil language in reference to Chris and his wife.

WP:INVOLVED says that In general, editors should not act as administrators in disputes in which they have been involved. [...] Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute.

When confronted with his previous involvement, Guy claimed that his denial of the unblock request was only "procedural", misrepresenting the request as an attempt to "relitigate the content issue". In fact, the unblock request argues that Chris was "blocked for following Wikipedia's own advice", citing communication with OTRS, and that he has broken no rules. There are no procedural grounds that would allow an WP:INVOLVED administrator to close it. Even if it were attempting to "relitigate the content issue", that is a content issue in which Guy was involved.

Conclusion

The two blocks and the denial of the unblock request were subject to a number of irregularities. The first block violated WP:BEFOREBLOCK and provided no evidence of wrongdoing, the second failed to WP:AGF and disregarded WP:SOCKLEGIT, and the denial of the unblock request violated WP:INVOLVED.

Chris Langan seems to have made a good-faith attempt to comply with Wikipedia policies and with what he was told by OTRS.

I hope that this situation can be reviewed and steps taken to rectify it, beginning with unblocking Chris. Tim Smith (talk) 03:51, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, SOCKLEGIT was not ignored. I just at the time (and now) believe that the use of at least three other accounts in the way that was used is not legitimate. This is not a checkuser block, however, because I wanted to leave it open for review by non-CU admins because of the complexities. The starting point for any discussion after two sleepers and an SPA that misrepresented itself as being uninvolved is a block. There might be a good faith explanation, but an explanation and assessment is needed. I won’t be commenting more on this as I think I’ve fulfilled the accountability requirements, and am happy to trust other admins’ judgements here. If they want my commentary; I’ll respond to them. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:01, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Smith, there is a long-standing Wikipedia consensus that endlessly rehashing arguments that have failed, can end in sanctions. I declined the unblock for a very simple reason: it was procedurally invalid as an unblock request. I noted to Chris that he was free to try again, following WP:GAB.

Endlessly repeating this "but JzG!" nonsense doesn't overcome the obvious facts here:

My "involvement" has been entirely in the form of trying to help Chris out;
It was not a valid unblock request;
Chris has not filed a new request following the advice at WP:GAB;
Other admins are engaged here, any one of whom could have reverted that closure, but they did not.

If Chris wants to be unblocked then he needs to start with a new unblock request following WP:GAB. The rest of your comment is an attempt to relitigate, yet again, the deletion of the CTMU article. That is becoming boring. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:30, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We've indeed seen those arguments before. It's possible that some of it are unfortunate facts, although it doesn't change that multiple socks were discovered and that promotional and tendentious editing lasted years (using accounts concurrently or not). Nevertheless NinjaRobotPirate's advice here is relevant. Too much time was wasted and reiterating perceived injustices results in more of the same. It would be likely for DrL and/or Chris Langan to be unblocked with a credible proposal to edit on unrelated topics where no conflict of interest exists (for it to be plausible, I would suggest to propose an editing plan). WP:STANDARDOFFER also has good advice. Meanwhile, if there's a serious BLP issue that must be addressed, it's possible for Langan to contact the volunteers team who could relay any message they consider important to other editors via a noticeboard or the BLP article's talk page. —Paleo Neonate – 01:42, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]