Larry Sanger

Original Archive

Something I wrote

I wrote User:SuperPianoMan9167/An academic bias is still a bias. I think you might be interested in reading it, as I make similar points to your fourth thesis.

I believe it is possible to alleviate systematic Western bias while still remaining credible among the mainstream, and I will use your own words to explain:

Now, when large groups (as, for example, astronomers talking about the Flat Earth theory) feel it is crucial to label something as “pseudoscience,” then by all means, report this fact: “The common view among the academic and scientific research community in Astronomy is that the Flat Earth theory is nothing more than pseudoscience.” But in that case, it is not Wikipedia that has made the claim, but astronomers.

SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 00:06, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

This used to be obvious to Wikipedians, and it used to be official policy, not an "essay." Larry Sanger (talk) 15:54, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

An encyclopedia has to endorse mainstream science and mainstream history. If it does not do that, it is lost. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:07, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

An encyclopedia can still endorse mainstream science and history by explicitly stating that mainstream views are mainstream and that minority views are in the minority (instead of outright omitting minority views). SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 17:11, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

No—an encyclopedia does not have to endorse anything. It can be neutral, as WP was in its first five years or so. So, agreed with SPM. Also, there is mainstream and then there is mainstream. Sometimes WP favors one stream of legit science and history and disfavors another. It is just wrong to pick winners and losers; you make this into an organ of propaganda if you do. It is better to support independent thinkers in making up their own minds about controversial issues. Larry Sanger (talk) 18:17, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

"The age of the Earth is above 4.5 Ga" is a fact, not opinion. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:35, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, and no one here is saying it isn't. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 19:23, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

SPM is correct again. Not only does that not respond to anything I said, it is irrelevant to all questions actually under dispute. Larry Sanger (talk) 19:44, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Are you arguing that young earth creationism is insignificant to conservative thought? Sesquilinear (talk) 21:11, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

No. tgeorgescu intentionally brought up young earth creationism in order to find something easier to attack than Larry's original argument. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 21:17, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I think it's possible to endorse mainstream science without having subtexts of moral judgement on those who do not accept the science.

For example, compare my reverted edit to Creation science (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creation_science&oldid=1302929068) to the current version.

I did not remove the part about the scientific consensus, because it still has to comply with WP:FRINGE, but I removed the WP:WEASEL wording by attributing the "dishonest and misguided sham" wording to its author in quotation marks, since the language is loaded and should be attributed to its author for WP:NPOV and should not be in WP's own voice. Needless to say, the other editors did not like it.

(This is not an endorsement of YEC. I just think that it's possible to not give undue weight to fringe theories without using such loaded language that implies moral judgement.) Félix An (talk) 02:49, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

I put it back. Let's see if they are more welcoming of it now... Félix An (talk) 02:55, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Gone already! Félix An (talk) 10:43, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Great essay by the way. Keep up the good work. SpidersMilk, Drink Spider Milk, it tastes good. (talk) 03:09, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Off-wiki canvassing at Talk:Republican Party (United States)

Hi! Please do not use outside platforms to link and comment on an ongoing on-wiki RfC, as this can give the impression of canvassing. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:31, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

No. Please do not ask again. There is no rule against this; if there were, I would follow it. Many people comment on ongoing Wikipedia controversies off-wiki, and I did not invite people to take one side or even to vote. Larry Sanger (talk) 13:25, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Disruptive editing is policy. Selbstporträt (talk) 02:45, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

That obviously is not what I was doing, and it is a violation of both NPA and AGF to accuse me of it. Larry Sanger (talk) 21:34, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

I see no way this is a personal attack, they quite literally commented on your content, and not on you. – LuniZunie_(talk) 21:36, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

"Disruptive editing" is a behavior, not content. Larry Sanger (talk) 00:55, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Disruptive editing is about a user's content... i.e. it's disruptive. Are you saying we can no longer block people per disruptive editing because that's a personal attack?? – LuniZunie_(talk) 00:56, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

"Sorry, can't block people for vandalism because that's their behaviour and that would be a personal attack" – LuniZunie_(talk) 00:57, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I know that you can read policy, so I don't need to inform you that WP:NPA states: Discussion of behavior in an appropriate forum (e.g. user's talk page or Wikipedia noticeboard) does not in itself constitute a personal attack. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 00:33, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

It sure is one if it is false, groundless, and vague. Larry Sanger (talk) 00:56, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Well, there's a gap between disagreeing with the merits of an accusation and calling it a personal attack. We can agree to disagree on whether your behavior on that RfC was disruptive editing, but there were clearly grounds for believing it was (namely, the off-wiki posting itself).

In fact, it's a good thing we don't see personal attacks that broadly, as treating every reasonable but ultimately wrong suspicion as a personal attack would cause a massive chilling effect – especially on newcomers raising good-faith suspicions about the behavior of established editors, who would be afraid that they might have missed some obscure policy. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 01:03, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Hey Larry Sanger!

Hey @Larry Sanger!
So I have a question: Where's your new easy? The Ordinary Legal Rights You Lack on Wikipedia? VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 15:38, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

I've been working on it little by little for a few weeks. I should sit down and finish but I always seem to have higher priorities. Larry Sanger (talk) 17:46, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Larry Sanger/WikiProject Intellectual Diversity/PolicyScanner

User:Larry Sanger/WikiProject Intellectual Diversity/PolicyScanner, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Larry Sanger/WikiProject Intellectual Diversity/PolicyScanner and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Larry Sanger/WikiProject Intellectual Diversity/PolicyScanner during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. wound theology◈ 12:06, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

WP:ANI notice

Hello, for your information: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Possible off-wiki canvassing by User:Larry Sanger — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 20:48, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

You’ve turned south…

And I suggest you stop digging. My advice for you:

1. Reread all the policies. Then reread all of the essays. The community doesn’t like you right now, so give them as little ammunition as you can.
2. Contribute to Wikipedia directly! There are features I like in the preferences area of gadgets! Become a copy editor, make a few additions (well-sourced, of course), and maybe make a draft or two!
3. Help other projects. I advise, say, translating English articles into simple English. And,
4. Avoid arguments at all costs.

_{In solidarity} Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 02:37, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

“ The community doesn’t like you right now, so give them as little ammunition as you can.” Damm, Wikipedia community now hates Larry Sanger? VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 04:41, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

I didn’t say that, but kinda. I’d just ask that he follow the rules and become an editor again. _{In solidarity} Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 04:55, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

He's done nothing but try and hamstring Wikipedia and only recently realized that his work is in vain. wound theology◈ 06:25, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

+1 This is a great suggestion. I can understand being frustrated with everything going on with Wikipedia (I suppose I have tried to avoid it, but I don't care anymore), but frankly we could always use more help building an encyclopedia rather than causing chaos in project space. Something to consider. Lynch44 18:11, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Larry Sanger/Editorial parties should be permitted on Wikipedia

User:Larry Sanger/Editorial parties should be permitted on Wikipedia, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Larry Sanger/Editorial parties should be permitted on Wikipedia and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Larry Sanger/Editorial parties should be permitted on Wikipedia during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. 11WB (talk) 14:36, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

CNN-News18 Interview

Quick question about your interview, Larry:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5wmrNOpgpY

Was this interview conducted before or after you were complaining about playground moms on Twitter? Selbstporträt (talk) 15:31, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

I guess you're one of the latter? Larry Sanger (talk) 15:55, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Did you know that there are ways not to guess, and that there's a NPOV noticeboard already?

A simple timeline would do. Selbstporträt (talk) 16:52, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

It appears likely you will be blocked for clear off-wiki canvassing

At this time the ANI thread linked above is demonstrating a pretty strong consensus for an indefinite site-wide block. This thread is NOT that block, but instead a polite, neutral notice that trusted administrators like myself may be charged with enforcing the outcome of that discussion as it fully matures. BusterD (talk) 16:18, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

You know that I am aware of this, since I posted on the kangaroo court page where the mob is carefully weighing what to do with me. Larry Sanger (talk) 16:33, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

It's remarkable how fast you're willing to drop the pretense of respect for Wikipedia's processes the second they work against you. WPID was all about "playing the game" but as soon as you get called out, now it's "playground moms" in a "kangaroo court".

It was already abundantly clear that you weren't actually intending to engage in good faith with the system you're trying to change, but it's just remarkable how readily you've abandoned even the pretense of doing so. Athanelar (talk) 16:43, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

I have great respect for the ideas behind Wikipedia, for many Wikipedians, and for the process, in general, of disciplinary proceedings. My complaint is about this particular shape of the process. I am, of course, perfectly within my rights not liking the way I am being treated (and saying so). Accusing me of "bad faith" is unfair and unreasonable. Larry Sanger (talk) 19:28, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Please, Larry, please stop digging. If you apologize now, focus on content, make constructive edits, and not give anyone more ammunition, you have a chance of being able to push some of your things through in a few months or years.

Some of the things that people don't like are:

1. Calling the community a "mob"
2. Calling the admins "playground moms"
3. Calling the process and venues for such a "kangaroo court"
4. Affirming you're right without checking to see if you are
5. Canvassing
6. Refusing to follow expectations
7. etc.

You have the exact same rights as other members of the community- that is, you can edit, talk, ask questions, and be blocked. Currently, you are making it increasingly clear that the latter is the best choice. And currently, you are trying to double down in the hopes that the community will agree with you if you do.

I think you have less than three days before you either the community decides that they're done with you and block you, or you decide to change. The community will not change within that time. You have to do so.

In that time, your best course of action is to apologize to those you have any suspicion you have wronged, make a few good edits, and otherwise cool down. If you avoid a block and become respected again, you have a chance of getting some of your requests done.

In that time, I would avoid the Wikipedia namespace unless to give an apology.

I know you probably won't listen to this, but this is the best call you can make right now. Stop acting like a founder, and start acting like an editor. _{In solidarity}Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 20:20, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

I also know you likely have many interviews lined up about this. Your best action would be to cancel them immediately. If there's something about to be posted that you regret, you can put it under this comment and ask it to be ignored. _{In solidarity}Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 20:27, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

If you actually thought I already had many interviews lined up about this, why do you suppose I would take your advice about this? For the record, I do not have any interviews lined up about it. Larry Sanger (talk) 21:41, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Okay, I apologize for that. Please take my advice though. There is a goal for you, and there is a way to reach that. The way is not to yell increasingly loudly until glass shatters. Please take my advice. It’s okay if you don’t apologize for your beliefs, but apologize for canvassing, bludgeoning, etc. It will end much better for you if you do. _{In solidarity} Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 21:51, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm not the one doing the yelling. Larry Sanger (talk) 00:24, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

And neither are we. – LuniZunie_(talk) 00:49, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

You have to understand that even Jimbo is more of a spokesman than somebody who holds power over en.wiki. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:12, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

My complaint is about this particular shape of the process.
However, the issue is that you seem to assume the shape can bend around yourself. – LuniZunie_(talk) 21:33, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Obviously false Larry Sanger (talk) 21:37, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Then how come you seem to believe that Wikipedia:Canvassing is not a guideline? I mean, I understand getting frustrated and stuff, but at least be honest. – LuniZunie_(talk) 21:42, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Wait for my response. Larry Sanger (talk) 21:43, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Okay, that's fair enough. But I would strongly recommend not trying to play any sort of victim card (I'm not at all saying you do, but it is what happens in this cases with other peoples). It never goes well. – LuniZunie_(talk) 21:45, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

If you have a response, I would try and get it out ASAP. There is talk of closing the discussion early with a CBAN, which I assume is what your response intends to address. I would be very surprised if it wasn't closed outside of the general 72-hour period for discussion listed at WP:CBAN. Lynch44 01:07, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Almost done. Larry Sanger (talk) 02:30, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Larry, even though we often don't see eye-to-eye, we both genuinely wish for change, and I can see how much of what you did came from a genuine place of wanting to improve the encyclopedia. To make it more open.

We're far from the only ones, and even many other admins would be receptive to many of your ideas. Maybe not all, of course, but there were genuinely things of value there and we could see this.

People don't want to ban you because you wanted change, because you didn't fit in Wikipedia's orthodoxy. The reason why so many of us find that your place here isn't as productive as it once was is, mostly, because of how you went at it. There's a community, I'm part of it, you're part of it, many are. The community is not your enemy, not a system hell-bent on self-preservation that you have to defeat. But, by calling upon this framework, those who could've been your best allies in calling for change became your worst enemies. Calling on people from other platforms strengthened this adversarial framing in the eyes of many.

My point is – this situation is, regrettably, of your own making. And this is also a sign of hope: it means that you and only you can reverse it. Show the community that you trust us, that you respect us as you expect respect from us, and that you genuinely care about us. And about this project. Build on top of it, don't burn it down to rebuild from its ashes. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 01:15, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

This is essentially gaslighting dressed up as high-minded compassion, and it represents an absolute refusal to consider anything I’ve said. It’s ultimately juvenile, which is a fair characterization of the disciplinary process as a whole. I don’t know you, you aren’t my friend, and I won’t take advice from one of a mob of anonymous Wikipedia administrators who blocked me. Larry Sanger (talk) 14:21, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

If you get site-banned by the whole community (WP:CBAN), then less likely the whole community will give you any more chances (WP:UNBAN), especially at WP:AN. You can try appealing if that happens, but... what do you think are your chances? Also, there's a difference between a "block" and a "ban" (WP:BANBLOCKDIFF). Dunno why the OP used "blocked" instead of "banned". George Ho (talk) 05:36, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

The use of "blocked" is also correct considering "banning" someone is usually enforced through "blocking", unless Larry is allowed to edit mainspace like some have proposed. toby ^(t)(rw) 05:42, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

...Good point, but both blocks and bans have different systems of imposition, of appeal, and of lifting either sanction. An admin can't unilaterally and completely lift/remove Larry's "block" should he be site-banned by the community. George Ho (talk) 05:55, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Regrettably, I have enacted the consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Possible off-wiki canvassing by User:Larry Sanger and blocked your account indefinitely. I would like to endorse and echo the thoughtful words of Chaotic Enby above, on your future in the project — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:34, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

MSGJ, the discussion is still open and has not reached a consensus, as the commonsense proposal by EEng has gained much traction. No consensus at this point to enact. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:40, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

If the partial block option does gain traction, then I have no problem with the block being modified accordingly. I am not seeing the consensus for it currently — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:48, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Nicely played! I get blocked and then someone immediately says matters are still fluid. Can I tell the world the news? Maybe not! LOL!

Such a stunning and brave disciplinary system you have here. You must be so proud to be a part of it!

Congratulations in any event to MSGJ for being the one to take the step of actually blocking me. That’s quite a feather in your cap! Larry Sanger (talk) 13:49, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Maybe not! LOL!
I think you should post this block on X, and see how the anti-sanger group will react in comments. VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 19:08, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

It's not a good look to propose that a banned editor brigade discussions he was part of, Vitor. In solidarity, QuicoleJR (talk) 16:58, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

"much" isn't "much more than current consensus that no". at this point, it seems more that this is a temporary action to prevent further bludgeoning while the admittedly kinda split discussion decides whether a block, cban, or oa would be better, because an unblock seems unlikely consarn _{(talk beige) (count ribs)} 13:54, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Snark might not be the way to go, listen to those who are telling you to act more like "just another editor". Slatersteven (talk) 13:59, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

No, Steven, we’re quite done here. You lot are quite done pretending to “give me advice.” LOL. Larry Sanger (talk) 14:13, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Mercifully, you're also quite done pretending to give advice to Wikipedia... Athanelar (talk) 14:22, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

LOL don’t be so sure Larry Sanger (talk) 14:24, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

that's a threat, and a sloppy one at that, as it only technically avoids being a legal threat by being too vague to be anything. are you aware of just how bad of an idea that is? consarn _{(talk beige) (count ribs)} 14:37, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Larry, I honestly think that a great deal of your ideas arn't bad. For instance, I think masters thesis should be allowed to be used as references much more easily, and that we should force people to make accounts before editing. My, and I think many of the others here, mostly take issue with the fact that you seem to be a touch arrogant and VERY snippy whenever someone disagrees with you, and the fact that you don't really seem to value the community here. I am genuinely sorry to see you go, and I hope the measure confining you to mainspace passes instead of a total block, because you clearly are VERY capable of helping the project. Not that I imagine you really want to after all this. I do hope you can come back sometime in the future. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 16:57, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Why do you people vote to block me and then have the gall to think I would listen to your advice? Larry Sanger (talk) 20:19, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

In the hope you will listen and then they can see you in a different light? Slatersteven (talk) 20:23, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Larry, a significant and incredibly important reason why people want you blocked is because you are so arrogant with refusing every little bit of critical advice anyone wants to give you. You see a wall of legitimate care and a way forward from Chaötic Enby and you go out of your way to say it represents an absolute refusal to consider anything I've said, a statement that you really need to hear from yourself. For two decades you've reïnforced the ideä in your head that every experiënced Wikipediän who suggests adequate punishment for what you've done for the past week or so has some sort of agenda against you. And now here you are having a tantrum because someöne decided to block you in-line with what a lot of people want (albeit, it was a very early block).

There are some admins and very established editors who actually agree with some of the stuff you've proposed! Just go look at Jimbo's talk page!

Personally, I really just wish that you'd to take a step back and consider everything every good-faith person has told you here in good-faith. If you are banned, you can always appeal and come back. And afterwards, I believe you can legitimately accommodate to the website you helped make.

It would certainly disappoint me if you just dismiss everything I've said. It would be immature, and would not help with fighting the movement to have you banned. toby ^(t)(rw) 20:44, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I repeatedly voted to allow you stay unblocked in article space. I am sorry it ended like this. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 16:37, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

p.s. MSGJ, just noticed that you left a note at the bottom of the discussion but did not close it, hence my confusion. The options are still open, so not understanding why you've enacted a decision without closing, especially since you rightly leave the option for EEng's commonsense option to be fully discussed. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:57, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

It's being discussed. It would be more appropriate to direct your procedural concerns there, rather than here. 11WB (talk) 14:09, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

The very idea that something this important even could be left in a state of limbo is a profound indictment of this kangaroo court. You all have convicted yourselves most completely. Larry Sanger (talk) 14:23, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

You are subject to WP:TPA. Your sarcasm and unfriendly responses here are doing you no favours, @Larry Sanger. 11WB (talk) 14:24, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Larry, please note that Jimbo came out against the block before it was enacted (and yes, much confusion as to it even being enacted!), see User talk:Jimbo Wales#Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Council#Proposing_a_new_WikiProject_Intellectual_Diversity. I wish you guys had made up long ago and gone forward on an alternate project, such as a WMF-supported early reading project. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:30, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

For the recorded Jimbo didn't say he was against the block, he said he was against the block if the only thing that happened was the tweet and nothing else. Larry is blocked for way, way more then just one canvassing tweet. Bobbobet (talk) 07:27, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm out of the loop. What else happened? OzzyMuffin238 (talk) 15:56, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Making a general nuisance of himself and a complete disregard for our policies, and for showing no desire to learn them. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 16:35, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Since you're still using the "court" language, I'm going to assume you missed my message so I'll repeat it here: This is not a courtroom, it's more akin to a center where people are volunteering. Some guy—who happens to have been involved in the volunteering 20-something years ago—came in to the volunteer site and started complaining at everyone without picking up any tools and helping, so now the volunteers are deciding whether to ask the gentleman to leave or if it would be better to just let him tire himself out. Given how he's been acting, the volunteers are understandably asking the man to leave. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:54, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

This is an ugly self-admission, to be Frank. By insisting that the process is nothing like a courtroom process, and that rules of due process don’t apply, you are essentially admitting that ANI and blocking generally follows a largely arbitrary and capricious disciplinary procedure. I am going to push to have it reformed if I am not blocked. So get ready and understand the consequences of not blocking me! Larry Sanger (talk) 20:17, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Your refusal to understand policy does not change the fact that policy exists. Bobbobet (talk) 20:28, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I quite understand your patently idiotic policy about how to go about blocking people. It’s not that hard to understand how it works. It’s simply unjust and immature and needs reform.

I call upon @Jimbo Wales and the Trustees to intervene. Larry Sanger (talk) 17:43, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

That old canard: when you can't win over the majority, appeal to authority! Athanelar (talk) 17:45, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

The irony is that you can get unblocked by the community, you just did not provide assurances that your misbehavior won't continue.

I would prefer that you get unblocked, if it ensures good behavior. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:10, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I call opon @Jimbo Wales and the Trustees to act according to the long-established norms of Wikipedia practice, and let the community decide such matters for itself. Which no doubt they will, since it would be grossly inappropriate to show Larry preferential treatment on the basis that he either has some right to be treated differently because of things he did a couple of decades back, or because he has friends amongst a particular part of the political spectrum who will gladly (for their own reasons, which may not necessarily coincide with Larry's) provide him a platform to complain about a supposed 'injustice' resulting from the community's extensive discussion of his behaviour. Personally, I wasn't entirely convinced that Larry's behaviour would best be dealt with through a block, and said so during the discussion, but unlike Larry, I respect the right of the editing community to decide such matters for itself, even when things don't go my way. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:19, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Arguing your above following rules because you just don't like them, offering no assurance you will not violate policy again, and basically telling everyone to screw themselves, not just doesn't work on wikipedia, but unlike what you seem to believe does not in fact work in the court of law either. Bobbobet (talk) 19:49, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Well, at this point I don’t know what you’re trying to accomplish. You blocked me, and you failed to get me to admit that I was wrong—because I wasn’t. 🤣 Jimmy Wales, I, and every sensible person knows that you’ve beclowned yourselves and exposed the corruption and stupidity of the disciplinary system. From here on out the adults in the room will have to explain why Wikipedia’s co-founder was blocked, and in such a bizarre fashion and for such transparently stupid reasons. What a headache for them!

Block my access to this page. I don’t want to be tempted to reply any further. Larry Sanger (talk) 22:18, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

"Those Rules Can't Stop Me Because I Can't Read" Bobbobet (talk) 22:40, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I've passed on Larry's request for a talk-page block to User:BusterD, the blocking admin. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:18, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

The right body to appeal a ban is the Arbitration Committee. WP:APPEAL and WP:GAB offer useful advice. Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:57, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

@MSGJ, you need to undo your action. Per WP:CBAN, the discussion must run for at least 72 hours. Your action puts it 7 hours ahead of schedule. Combining with no closing statement, this is likely to be challenged as you didn't dotted your i's nor crossed the t's. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 15:26, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

For a ban so momentous, I don't think even 72 hours is sufficient to build a proper consensus. I've just recently heard about Larry's ban, and not originally via Wikipedia. I can only imagine that there are many other editors out there like myself who don't, so to speak, eat, sleep, and breathe Wikipedia, who've heard this news belatedly, such as via the news, and who don't really know the ins and outs of this site. What if there's real dissent? I'm sure someone out there, even someone who isn't a meat puppet, would disagree. We should be able to hear from them. We should be able to hear from him. Consensus need not be unanimous, but it surely ought to represent the view of an overwhelming majority of editors over time, not a mere simple majority of editors who happen to have caught wind of the matter within a paltry three days.

I'm not saying to give the man special treatment, and I've observed that he's conducted himself rather poorly in these threads, but I would also note that that's a natural reaction to what he perhaps reasonably perceives as targeting. It appears to me that his alleged canvassing, from his perspective, may well have been a necessary evil in an attempt to effectuate reviving true neutrality: a laudable goal, albeit with an unorthodox means of achieving it. It's no secret that Wikipedia is biased, after all. In light of this possibility, then, it would seem, contrary to many of the above comments and many entries in the thread that's now archived (to which I had been unable to contribute because of said 72-hour deadline), that his desire at the end of the day just might actually be to improve the site.

Moreover, he's directly explained why he wants to reveal the identities of administrators and other figures of authority: accountability. Whatever the merits or viability of such a hypothetical change in policy, that is not mala fide in any sense. We thus ought to hear him out. OzzyMuffin238 (talk) 17:57, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Go look at the ANI thread and you'll see the consensus was overwhelming, not to mention the plain evidence of rulebreaking on Larry's part. There's no additional discussion or dissenting opinion that will change that. Athanelar (talk) 17:59, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

there's a small handful of problems in this

• his idea of neutrality is presented as "giving all sides equal weight no matter what" (which opens it up to quackery from what would then be most sides), and is in practice "comfort people i agree with" (which, considering his ideas of what wikipedia should be and is, would make quackery mandatory). wikipedia does indeed have to prohibit the use of certain sources, but it's over their statements being any mix of inflammatory, false, poorly researched, and criminal, not just for "being right wing" or "being left wing"
• the thing he called for with t6 was indeed doxing, and he wanted an inconsistently-defined group to consent to their own doxing, on top of making it a job where employees would need to be routinely re-elected or tossed aside. his defense of "accountability" is so full of obvious holes that it would only work in equestria, and even then, it doesn't even disqualify it from being doxing, and he's pivoted to just admitting support for the part where they get in danger over it. this isn't even scratching the surface of how many problems t6 has...
• piss lorax. it's still on the bird app. don't look it up, it's awful
• he only successfully defended himself against one claim of supporting doxing... a year too late, during the ani stuff, after deliberately having refused to comment on it
• his alleged intent to improve the site was not met with attempts to do so, only boss people around, try to change the rules to a system he liked more, and act like his version of the rules was already at play when it was convenient
• a good part of the nine theses, and the stuff that followed it, was the idea that wikipedia is too globalist, academic, secular, and progressive (whoa that spells the gasp word, it's like one of them engagement thingies). coming out of anyone else, saying that an encyclopedia being academic is "bad, actually" would look like a joke
• he's had two substantial mainspace edits in the last 24 years, hardly enough experience to want to overturn the whole thing. that's right, his third-to-last big mainspace edit is just a few months younger than me (oh no)
• he repeatedly failed to imply that he actually knew the rules at all, up to and including thinking that wikipedia has leaders, is like a court, and should humor the thought of allowing conmen like andrew wakefield on the basis of merit
• his proposed solutions to multiple problems have been the nonsensical, valueless "toss ai at it" and "someone else can figure it out", but it sure didn't stop the outlandish scenarios they'd require
• he's bad at legal threats
• his means of advertising wpid pretty unambiguously fell into the category of off-wiki canvassing, and he seems to have realized it a little too late... and then gone the way of leeroy jenkins anyway
• multiple of his claims of not being not here as hell were directly preceded or proceeded by proving himself wrong (for example, saying he didn't support or encourage doxing of editors and then immediately supporting or encouraging doxing of editors on twitter)
• idk mang immediately going on podcasts, news, and the such to stir up attention for your controversial stuff seems pretty sus to me, shame i already spent my andrew wakefield mention
• wpid's policyscanner (one word, except for when it's not), the thing essential for it to run, is an ai-powered black box, which isn't a very good look for a supposedly public deal
• the policyscanner was itself a canvassing tool by design, so it wasn't even just off-wiki canvassing
• he's repeatedly put words in people's mouths to support his narratives, and still not in a way that suggests that he knew what either set of words actually meant (most examples are on ani)
• regardless of how many people "missed" the event, people in support of a ban (well, most were in support of a block, but that block would be a ban anyway) outnumbering people specifically against it by over 4:1 (and only barely not outnumbering people not explicitly in support of a ban by 2:1) implies that a whole lot of editors would need to come in or convince others in the discussion to just be even
• we heard from him, and it didn't do much
• agf is not a suicide pact. if someone is operating in demonstrably bad faith (as larry was), no one needs to pretend otherwise or let those people use wikipedia as a platform

even a fraction of those problems has routinely been enough to have people blocked for problems like nothere, cir, incivility, threats of legal variety, battleground behavior, copyright violation, ai slop, wikilawyering, canvassing... really, i'm kinda surprised the ani lasted the full 72 hours, because how do you defend any of that!?

also, the ban being "momentous" means effectively nothing. jimbo would be subject to the same procedure if he engaged in this much disruption, with just as little fanfare, as would i consarn _{(talk beige) (count ribs)} 20:42, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Block undone by User:Wbm1058. Lynch44 16:48, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Where is the case being decided if the block id undone? Guz13 (talk) 17:12, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

already linked above. Slatersteven (talk) 17:14, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

@Larry: In re to this comment, are you trying to goad others into responding? Also, the following is another one of your strawman arguments, huh?:

By insisting that the process is nothing like a courtroom process, and that rules of due process don’t apply, you are essentially admitting that ANI and blocking generally follows a largely arbitrary and capricious disciplinary procedure.

Also, your declaration to "reform" the ANI would not end well with you, IMO. Have you considered disengaging yourself indefinitely until the conclusion of that ongoing subpage (of the ANI venue) about you? (I was gonna say one week or one month, but I bet you'll be site-banned by the community, so....) George Ho (talk) 20:34, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Larry just posted this on X. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 20:40, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Suddenly, I feel less bad about the inevitable outcome of this shitstorm. Lynch44 20:47, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes I did.

A large part of what I am trying to do is to make you all responsible to the real world and stop being so insular.

This will require that the community become more mature and adopt more reasonable, common standards of behavior.

Hints for you: mob justice and participation in pile-ons are both bad ideas. Larry Sanger (talk) 20:52, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Then goodbye. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 21:08, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Larry. If you are genuinely afraid of mob justice, please realize that doxxing administrators on X will only lead to more mob justice. But I expect someone as familiar with reasonable standards of behavior as you are to have already realized that. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 21:08, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

It’s funny you said your not supporting doxxing and this now sayings your supporting doxxing. Bobbobet (talk) 21:13, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm confused as to where the accusations of doxing are coming from, since the Tweet reads "they're just now figuring this out". Could someone provide the context? Somepinkdude (talk | contribs), in solidarity 21:33, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

check the screenshot that tweet is referring to, and also thesis 6 consarn _{(talk beige) (count ribs)} 21:39, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Oops, I have images turned off in my browser by default. With the screenshot, it makes a lot more sense. Somepinkdude (talk | contribs), in solidarity 23:17, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Stand by for the standard MAGA playbook: "I wasn't the one who said that. I just noticed that someone with 9 followers said it and retweeted it to my 90,000 followers with a vaguely approving plausible deniability comment! Don't blame me!!"

I expect to be doxxed for writing the above, even though I !voted against the indef block. I am already being harassed off-wiki by the employees of The Daily Mail and someone in the Ministry of Ayush, so why not add the sangeristas? (smile) --Guy Macon (talk) 17:06, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Page move.

Hi @Larry Sanger. Leaving this as a courtesy update as notifications will no longer function due to the moving of the AN/I to a subpage: Wikipedia:Possible off-wiki canvassing by User:Larry Sanger. (The page name will likely be amended to include the full "AN/I" part before the page title). Thanks. 11WB (talk) 11:22, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Notifications do function—as long as the first comment's user and timestamp remains the same. In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 23:18, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	You have demonstrated tenacity and restraint to defend good-faith and necessary efforts to improve Wikipedia. I know it can be taxing. But look past the dog piles and keep your self dedicated to building a great encyclopedia! Bravelake (talk) 23:28, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate that! Larry Sanger (talk) 23:34, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

A fox for you!

I've seen that you've always shown good faith, but some anti-Sanger group want to ban you, and I defend that you shouldn't be deserved to be banned.

I don't like the discourse accusing you of fascism or being far-right.

As a farewell, here's a sleeping fox for you. :)

VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 03:26, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks very much! Larry Sanger (talk) 04:08, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

June 2026 [1]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for canvassing, not being here to constructively build the encyclopedia, and calls for outing as determined by community consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Possible off-wiki canvassing by User:Larry Sanger..

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request through the unblock wizard or through your talk page.  ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:33, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

June 2026 [1] Discussion

I'm guessing, he got banned by the entire Wikipedia community, despite being the co-founder on Wikipedia, along with Jimbo Wales and how coined the term "Wikipedia" for the invention of this project? ~2026-34360-03 (talk) 22:58, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes because the rules apply to everyone. – The Grid (talk) 23:29, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

@The Grid I found the link to his project: https://wiki.encyclosphere.org/WikiProject_Intellectual_Diversity

What do you think about this? And read the goals too. ~2026-34360-03 (talk) 23:54, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts

Hello @Larry Sanger (if you are reading this). I wasn’t aware of these events until very recently. But I still wanted to thank you for your efforts to attempt to improve the encyclopedia. Even though we share different opinions on Wikipedia, especially regarding the Nine Theses and your ways to demonstrate your concerns, I do agree that some of it is content are true and worthwhile to be considered a policy. Wikipedia is not perfect, and will probably never be. I’m sure that several editors here (including me) probably share the same concerns as you, and I hope that Wikipedians implement some of your ideas to make Wikipedia a better place. Perhaps this words of hope can cheer you up. Regards, EvanTech10 (talk) 00:39, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I also want to send a thank you to Larry for helping create Wikipedia! Guz13 (talk) 00:41, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I also I want to thanks Sanger for create the nine these. VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 01:05, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Goodbye

Hello @Larry Sanger.

Well, I'm sorry to hear that your account was banned because of a favor from a group of people who are against you. (I call this as Anti-Sanger group or Anti-Sanger). Even if someone calls you or your WikiProject Intellectual Diversity ‘fascist’, ‘far-right’, ‘conservative’ or ‘Nazi’, I don’t agree with someone labelling your project.

I also wanted to thank you to create the Nine these, the WikiProject Intellectual Diversity and the Wikipedia (Even though they've ruined your creation). Wikipedia is really a not perfect website as the User:EvanTech10 says. I'm think you shouldn't be deserved to be banned. Perhaps here, things will be the same.... Goodbye Larry Sanger, I miss you. VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 01:14, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, Victor, I appreciate the good wishes. Larry Sanger (talk) 03:02, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

@Vitorperrut555 originally there are some members of the community still sympathetic to Sanger but unfortunately when the CNN podcast was discovered it was just too much bad behavior to bear, especially with Sanger accusing with unfounded evidence that we have an anti-hindu bias and promoting WP:OPINDIA. ~2026-21916-69 (talk) 08:20, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Sorry that you were blocked by the Anti-Sanger group (I was never a member of that group). As a farewell gift, here's a kitten for you =) Thank you for being the co-founder of Wikipedia!

HypnoBlader (talk) 04:34, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

See you too, Sanger. ~2026-34360-03 (talk) 01:06, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Such a depressing end…

Well, see ya! Thanks for co-founding Wikipedia with @Jimbo Wales though Yacàwotçã (talk) 08:38, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move. wound theology◈ 19:07, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

I do love me some Douglas Adams Kingsmasher678 (talk) 19:32, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

@Wound theology what? Yacàwotçã (talk) 19:55, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

It's a reference to Douglas Adams: In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move. wound theology◈ 20:05, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Not sure its widely regarded as such when it was the community that decided on the decision in the first place in a well attended discussion. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 08:01, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

It's a famous quote. – The Grid (talk) 14:22, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

what a load of dingoes' kidneys. Slatersteven (talk) 14:31, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Ohh ok thankyou I did not know GothicGolem29 (Talk) 00:12, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

So long, and thanks for all the fish. Benjamin (talk) 09:29, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

June 2026 [2]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked per your own request.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.  BusterD (talk) 22:44, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Quite ill-advised decision, but put me in the screenshot anyway. jp×g🗯️ 20:22, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

🇧🇷👋 Yacàwotçã (talk) 21:06, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for co-founding Wikipedia, and taking the time to write your Nine Theses, which highlight very real issues.

“The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.” — George Orwell Thefakeslimshady777 (talk) 18:00, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

A final note

As this rather unusual chapter, "Larry charges back into Wikipedia," draws to a close, I think a couple things resonate.

• One: there is a legitimate argument to be made that Wikipedia's permitted and proscribed sources policy and practice holds at least the potential of skewing content.

• Two: it is really hard to change the status quo at WP given its established mechanisms. If Larry was serious about change, he attacked established practice on too many fronts instead of concentration on one or two where he might have won allies and made an impact.

• Three: Larry went up to the plate with two strikes given his two decades of public insults and attempts to stir up anti-Wikipedia forces against Wikipedia. It was a little bit preposterous to think the leopard had changed its spots. Building a broad coalition from within takes massive amounts of goodwill, connections made over time, and patience. Larry's "reforms" more closely resembled the form of a hostile takeover.

• Four: The Athanelar comment above: "It's remarkable how fast you're willing to drop the pretense of respect for Wikipedia's processes the second they work against you. WPID was all about "playing the game" but as soon as you get called out, now it's "playground moms" in a "kangaroo court". It was already abundantly clear that you weren't actually intending to engage in good faith with the system you're trying to change, but it's just remarkable how readily you've abandoned even the pretense of doing so." pretty much nails it.

• Five: Larry's eagerness to shut down further discussion through a self-block on this page closely resembles his approach to "intellectual diversity" on Twitter, which has historically involved blocks, blocks, and more blocks. "Intellectual Diversity" is not an honored concept to him, philosophically speaking, it is a political slogan.

• Six: I think it was a tactical mistake for WP to move from a clean block log to a community ban for the "wikicrimes" of political organizing and canvassing without putting Larry on formal notice—but I do appreciate that this was pretty clearly a WP:NOTHERE situation and the debate was not close.

Anyway, that's all I have to say. Back to Wikipediocracy. —Tim Davenport //// Carrite (talk) 18:20, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

I can't help but wonder if the discussions so far, peppered with policy citations, are missing the forest for the trees.

The proximal reason for his ban appears to be the nature of his efforts to fight said ban, which is rather circular. Along with people personally finding him unpleasant, which ought to be trivial in a text-based medium in which someone can simply be ignored if need be.

In the interest of clarity and objectivity, the real question is whether or not his recent editing activities have so impaired the mission of informing the public as to be a fundamental hindrance to the project's basis functioning. Which is a pretty high bar to clear. Jmaranvi (talk) 22:39, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

he cleared the bar years ago, see above, and also the nine theses, and also the ani, and also wpid, and also- okay, maybe there are no more noteworthy examples that aren't also blacklisted sources consarn _{(talk beige) (count ribs)} 00:46, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

As far as the nine theses, I respectfully have a little difficulty wrapping my head around what harm is caused by proposing (not imposing) policy changes, let alone how such harm rises to the level of a ban. I am admittedly unfamiliar with many or most of the undoubtedly numerous other controversies surrounding this public figure and heretofore editor. Jmaranvi (talk) 00:53, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

i made a really long comment about it (now stuck in talk page archive limbo), but in short

1. terrible for encyclopedic work, also his alternative was just consensus
2. makes quackery the norm on the basis that people believe in it hard enough
3. you're not trusting andrew wakefield with your autistic kid, and neither should wikipedia
4. he just admits to wanting views that comfort people's (his) views over truth
5. gives rules too much power they're not fit to have; effectively destroys editor agency
6. Can Actually Just Fucking Kill People Lmao
7. not gonna work as long as articles can be edited, will force articles into binaries of "good" and "bad" based on whether or not people like its topic, or just turn it into reddit
8. larry does not know why blocks exist, or how they can be appealed
9. would just turn wikipedia into a 9-5, or worse, a pastiche of the us government

the further ones had their own miscellaneous issues (one was just keyword salad, one was literally making wikipedia a 9-5, so on), but that's the gist of the big 9, but the ban itself had surprisingly little to do with this consarn _{(talk beige) (count ribs)} 01:20, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

What I'm saying though is that these were his personal thoughts on his personal page. Whether they were sane or ridiculous is neither here nor there. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that your own page is the one real soapbox you get here. Jmaranvi (talk) 01:27, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

that much is true, but when he wants those nonsensical ideas to be policy, canvasses to raise his chances (you can see how that backfired), and tries to act like they're already in place when it's convenient to him, things get a little more obviously disruptive consarn _{(talk beige) (count ribs)} 01:30, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Folks, this is not the place to discuss Larry's reform ideas. This is Larry's talk page, which is for communication with Larry. He is blocked and can't respond, so there's really not much at all that is on-topic here. Policy reform conversations are best had at WP:VP. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 01:50, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

My purpose was neither of those, for what it's worth. I simply wanted to register a note of caution regarding the ban that occurred here. Is there an appropriate place for that, or is this site simply not interested in feedback on currently closed decisions? That would be a shame, in my humble opinion. Jmaranvi (talk) 01:59, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

None of Sanger's suggestions will happen. He should give up. WP:NOTHERE reason for block against Sanger was right and just. Just forget about Sanger. Ahri Boy (talk) 02:45, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Forget about the guy who helped create this site? The guy who helped shape it and its mission in the early days of its existence? Are you nuts? Mk8mlyb (talk) 07:15, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

The pre-departure Sanger was great. Sanger, just like any other average US-based conservative today, is deluded with Breitbart nonsense. Sanger will not be engraved in Wikimedia achievements. Ahri Boy (talk) 12:54, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

So because he said a bunch of things you didn't agree with, you'll just brush him off and forget everything he did? Did you even read what he proposed? I've got news for you, pal, not all American conservatives are beholden to extremist insanity. Mk8mlyb (talk) 18:15, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

WP:9T is indeed a direct and indirect call for insertion of far-right sources, which contradicts WP:NOFASH, WP:ACCEPTANCE, and WP:NORACISTS. Remember, we are not a free speech platform. No platform, whether major or not, is a free speech platform. Ahri Boy (talk) 04:45, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Yet far-left sources such as Salon, The Nation, and GLAAD are acceptable? The policies listed have been tilted to reflect ideological narratives on what constitutes racism and fascism, and because sources like Salon and GLAAD say all the "acceptable" things on social and political issues, they're considered reliable. That doesn't make sense. I understand if certain articles or individuals are considered off-limits for espousing extreme things, like violence and dictatorship, but banning entire sources for maintaining positions that are popular among the public, the very people this site is supposed to reach? Not a good idea.

Let me give an example. GLAAD, as well as many other organizations that would be considered reliable by Wikipedia standards, regularly expressed support for youth gender-affirming care by claiming "the science was settled", even though there were many scientific studies proving there was no proof that gender-affirming care was safe or saved lives. If a conservative source like National Review had done something similar even once, that source would have been blacklisted as "far-right" and "unreliable" on the spot. (I want to clarify that I am not telling anyone what their views on the issue should be. I am merely describing what the science has stated.)

As for being a free speech platform, free speech is a key cornerstone of speaking and writing the truth. Free speech forces us to examine our positions and question why we believe the things we do. So while this platform should not tolerate all speech, specifically speech that provides no useful knowledge or intelligence, it should enable and even encourage open debate that serves to understand the major issues we tackle. Mk8mlyb (talk) 06:35, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

You appear to be confusing "biased" with "unreliable". Biased reliable sources are allowed. Unbiased unreliable sources are not. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:09, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Who decides the difference between "biased" and "unreliable"? GLAAD wasn't merely expressing a view on an issue--they were openly ignoring what the actual science said in favor of activism. That's a clear definition of "unreliable" if there ever was.

It appears as though any instance of bias from the right is treated as "misinformation" or "extremism" while the left's bias is treated as not only acceptable, but principled. This glaring double standard has contributed to the major slant in coverage of political issues. The people who created the reliable source list have taken it upon themselves to dictate what's right and wrong based on their own political views rather than letting readers decide for themselves. This has proven harmful to the site's mission of stating facts and truth. Mk8mlyb (talk) 18:51, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Nonsense, See:

• WP:GLAAD
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 429#Are any of these sources reliable for covering LGBT representation on Nickelodeon?
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 457#GLAAD & anti-LGBT groups

We didn't arrive at our consensus regarding GLAAD based upon politics, We arrived at it because they usually get the facts straight and clearly label their editorial opinions. We came to the same basic conclusion about WP:REASONMAGAZINE for the same reasons, even though their political stance isn't anywhere close to being liberal. Same story with WP:WSJ. Biased but reliable. Also note that we require attribution and due WP:WEIGHT for any use of editorial opinions from the above sources.

Or you can look at the other side: WP:OCCUPYDEMOCRATS, WP:DAILYKOS Palmer Report, and PoliticusUSA, are very much left wing and yet we have determined that the,y are unreliable. Their politicas bias didn't save them.

My personal bias is strongly against both major US political parties, but for different reasons. I would most likely be against all of the minor US political parties as well if they ever managed to actually be in a position where they are able to make decisions instead of just talking about how great it would be if they could win an election. I have been editing Wikipedia for twenty years and I have never seen what you think you see. Anyone who tries to claim that a source is reliable or unreliable based on the source's political bias is instantly shot down. This is true whether the source is right wing or left wing. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:21, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Bias doesn't need to be said outright in order to be there. In fact, almost every source has at least a small bias. It's how they treat that bias that defines them. The Daily Wire was targeted for deprecation a couple of years ago, but much of its reporting on issues like COVID and climate science turned out to be correct and later verified by major institutions. The New York Post was dead-on with its investigation of Hunter Biden's laptop after people from the intelligence community claimed it was Russian disinformation. While both of them have strong partisan tilts and write stories to paint conservatism in a good light, they generally don't publish outright falsehoods and try to stay factual. And there's National Review, the metaphorical bible of American conservatism, which by itself seems to be considered reliable by many editors, but for some reason, the reliable source list states there is "no consensus". If that's what they think about the original pioneer of American conservatism, I shudder at what they would think of other, less well known conservative sources.

By the standards we have set, these sites should be reliable, no less than sites such as CNN and the New York Times. But because many folks were offended by what they had said, they were struck down, or in National Review's case, simply ignored. While I can understand Fox News' demotion to unreliable status in light of its controversial reaction to the 2020 election, this should not serve as a blanket excuse to censor any source that questions pro-institution, pro-establishment narratives.

People deserve to know what these sources have to say, and decide for themselves whether they're right or wrong. Our job is to simply present the information that all trusted sources say without bias, and give people the facts. If we're going to be a media company, we need to act like it. Mk8mlyb (talk) 04:13, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

We're biased for fact-checking. That's okay. I don't understand why people who hate fact-checking call themselves "conservatives". They came to hate mainstream science, mainstream history, mainstream media. That's not conservatism by my book. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:23, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

I remember seeing a quote something along the lines of, "if Wikipedia existed in the 9th century, it would say the Earth is the center of the universe."

Wikipedia's job is to relay viewpoints of reliable sources. When those sources disagree on a topic, Wikipedia should relay that disagreement. It isn't your job, as a Wikipedia editor, to "fact-check" or to editorialize on the perceived shortcomings of a political faction. Bravelake (talk) 04:30, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

You missed the point: the sources without fact-checking are not reliable. By definition a reliable source checks its facts. If it is wrong, it publishes retractions. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:26, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

funny story, that. by the 9nd century, beliefs were torn between that and heliocentrism, so wikipedia's stance would be closer to "it might be one of those"

maybe that would be the case if it was in the 3st century, but i doubt it would've been the unambiguous predominant belief at many other times

...this is ignoring that sources checking facts is a thing that can lead to wikipedia adjusting or correcting claims, and would thus make this quote irrelevant for today's standards, but i'll recommend continuing to ignore the main point because it's funny consarn _{(talk beige) (count ribs)} 11:25, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

It is perhaps telling that QI regularly has jokes about just this, the fact that in fact it was not a fact that the sun orbited the earth or that the world was flat. Slatersteven (talk) 11:28, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm not the one ignoring the main point. I addressed his (polemic) argument. Wikipedia isn't the place to arbitrate disputes, much to the disappoint of certain editors. Bravelake (talk) 12:50, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

i'm not accusing you of doing it, i'm recommending doing it for a quick chuckle. very important distinction

the main point being that wikipedia can have stuff corrected if sources check their facts, and ones that don't actively avoid doing that are generally considered more reliable. it's not arbitrating disputes, just relaying what sources have to say consarn _{(talk beige) (count ribs)} 12:57, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

By 4.54±0.04 Ga the primordial Earth had formed from Earth—rendered as fact, no dissenting opinions mentioned. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:58, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Folks, every single edit you make to this page sends Larry a notification, and he doesn't have talk page access and can't even tell you himself to put a sock in it. Please leave him alone. If you must continue this argument, please do it on one of your own talk pages. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 15:28, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Larry Sanger has the same ability to turn off notifications as anyone else. Also, the reason he doesn't have talk page access is that he requested that it be removed. He can have it restored at any time. All he has to do is ask. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:40, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

🙄 jp×g🗯️ 20:17, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Count me as a conservative of the Reagan and Thatcher sort: I don't agree with Sanger. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:51, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

His written a lot of text, "none" isn't that certain. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:31, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

There is no point talking at Sanger, and we need to stop grave dancing. Slatersteven (talk) 12:57, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

There are a lot of people backing Sanger off-wiki. As far as I know, any further discussion in relation to Sanger can be a magnet for off-wiki canvassing. Ahri Boy (talk) 13:54, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Which is why I suggested a lock, nothing can be gained with the grave dancing or the eulogies, except more drama. Slatersteven (talk) 14:09, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Darn

Hey Larry, I'm very sorry you got booted for promoting your ideas. I agree with you on the need to reform Wikipedia, and I am a big supporter of your cause. I wanted to thank you for creating the Nine Theses, and I support many of your ideas and believe they should be adopted as policy. The people who wanted to ban you obviously didn't like hearing what you had to say, and they made a huge mistake trying to silence your voice. Thank you for what you've done for this place, Larry, we'll carry the torch for you and keep fighting. Mk8mlyb (talk) 07:14, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Maybe even.. carry the flame? JTtheOG (talk) 07:40, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

We are Larry Sanger... Loytra^✨ 10:29, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

TOMA TOMA TOMA Yacàwotçã (talk) 16:55, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, we will carry the torch for you. I hope your project is a success in one way or another.SpidersMilk, Drink Spider Milk, it tastes good. (talk) 19:12, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

You Have My Support

I found out you got banned through the media. I hope your UTRS appeal succeeds and it gets reversed. As a co-founder, you've been a major influence on me and you deserve better. GamerKiller2347 (talk) 09:20, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Thank you larry 2x2x2x2x2 (talk) 18:05, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	Thank you for cofounding Wikipedia Isla🏳️‍⚧ 18:34, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the effort

I've been an editor of many different wikis over the years, and a moderator of some. I gave up trying to edit Wikipedia long ago due to the glaring conflicts of interest and bias that I saw. It felt to me like doing anything would be an exercise in futility. I appreciate your work trying to highlight these issues and return Wikipedia to an unbiased and neutral source of information. Rsrdaman 20:52, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Oh well.

What a dog's breakfast that all was. Thanks for making an effort anyway. Perhaps we will see you back around someday; I at least hope so. jp×g🗯️ 01:12, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Lock

It might be an idea to lock this talk page. Slatersteven (talk) 10:01, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

I will if we have to. But recent messages have been helpful, such as Jimbo's advice on appeals, the archive bot, and Guy's fixing of the archive bot. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 12:49, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Pease don't, some of us are fans of Larry and this is a way to say goodbye. Guz13 (talk) 15:37, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Does anyone imagine that if this page was locked there would not spring up another place for the comments somewhere on Wikipedia? There have been disruptive comments, but they have been quickly reverted. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:08, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

That said, it does seem that any WP-relevant discussion should happen somewhere else. Larry is the only one who can ask for an un-banning, and he can't do that here, not at present anyway since he doesn't have talkpage access. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:17, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Larry could email me or a number of other editors and I would post any unblock request he wants to be on this page. Or he can get unblocked with a single email -- you can do that if you requested the talk page block.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Guy Macon (talk • contribs)

His Twitter activity attracted a lot of attention. The risk of canvassing remains very high. Ahri Boy (talk) 10:58, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Canvassing for what? Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#Proposing a new WikiProject Intellectual Diversity closed six days ago. Most of the posts on this page are from people thanking Larry, and nobody is disagreeing with them. The ANI case closed five days ago. There are no other discussions regarding Larry to canvas. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:08, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Whether it makes sense or provides any benefit is basically irrelevant; the important thing is that people feel like "doing something", and this is "something". jp×g🗯️ 20:19, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Going nowhere fast. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:14, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

I am with you there. The more these people do stuff like this, the more I think they are just being vindictive, because there are other indefinitely blocked users, some of whom are vandals or people who engaged in actual disruptive editing, whose talk pages are not locked, and people occasionally give them cookies and barn stars. Sanger was neither a disruptive editor nor a vandal, so it should be less harsh for him. I am more and more of the opinion that the Wikipedia leadership is acting in bad faith. That is just my honest opinion. Even Jimbo Wales seems opposed to this block, and on his talk page, has implied in the conversation about the block, that some of the "consensus" reached here is not true consensus. While he still disagrees with much of what Sanger said, he seems to think he has a right to say it, and that while he may have done some things wrong and been too provocative, he does not yet think it warrants a block, let alone an indefinite one. SpidersMilk, Drink Spider Milk, it tastes good. (talk) 18:35, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "Wikipedia leadership", and Jimbo's opinion means fuck all.

You seem to think that some cabal decided to ban Sanger for his opinions, when in reality he was allowed to write long-winded multi-part essays and promote them here for years. It wasn't until he began going on Twitter or to Hindutva media to recruit tendentious editors that the case was opened against him and the consensus for his block was massive and overwhelming. And Sanger absolutely was a disruptive editor, he spent no time actually writing articles and spent the entirety of his time proposing to overturn long-standing consensus with batshit alternatives like "there should be competing Sunni Muslim, Catholic, and French Wikipedias", "let AI rate Wikipedia articles", and "we should doxx these 62 editors". All of these proposals, which could have been snowclosed, have to be debated and discussed, which takes time away from us who actually write, edit, or otherwise improve articles.

In the end, Sanger was not blocked for his opinions. He was blocked because he was not here to build an encyclopedia, because he did not bother to learn how Wikipedia works 25 years after his self-imposed exile, and because despite his constant talk of "true neutrality" and "intellectual diversity", he has always only meant giving undue weight to his personal beliefs, mostly Christian Zionism and various conspiracy theories. wound theology◈ 19:43, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Bingo. The “ID” stuff is so painfully transparent. He was given way too much leeway imo. JTtheOG (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

no, it still gets worse. it gets much worse. t6 was already inconclusive about who it actually referred to (up to "every admin" and "every editor"), but if coupled with theses 1 and 9, would have to extend to every editor. larry's only plausible excuses towards doxing everyone being extremely not good would be not having considered it at all or "ai did it"

i hope this alone is enough to state why i'm glad this dude isn't going to have much reach here anymore, and that people trying to spread messages on his behalf can now be procedurally told to shut up. and it's not even the only factor at play that could warrant an exception to bans being appealable on their own, to the point where a youtube video listing everything he's done to seemingly speedrun rule breaks could last hours, so on top of all this, i'm surprised he only got banned now consarn _{(talk beige) (count ribs)} 21:16, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

At least one of his failed projects involved all editors using their legal names. wound theology◈ 00:45, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Eh, Jimbo's opinion is probably more important than yours. PackMecEng (talk) 20:41, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

...not really, outside of societal placebo. as far as what should lead to action goes, his opinion is as that of anyone with experience, like you, loytra, or jpxg. maybe more valuable than that of the account with zero other edits beforehand who mysteriously manifested to call out the wokies for banning should-be god-emperor larry sanger, but that's not a very high bar... consarn _{(talk beige) (count ribs)} 21:02, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

I mean.... thats a great theory, but not really accurate in reality. Rules as written, you are correct, but that does not translate to what actually happens. PackMecEng (talk) 21:22, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

What is real is not always true. Jimbo's opinion should not matter any more than mine or yours. There is significant hero worship around here, but any sort of hero worship is inappropriate on Wikipedia, and doubly so for Jimbo, who is an outspoken Zionist and very vocal about his dislike of community consensus on genocide. We, editors, the boots on the ground, built Wikipedia, not Jimbo and certainly not Sanger. They may have been instrumental in its early history, but we trump all. Kill your heroes (figuratively). wound theology◈ 00:44, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

I concur with Slatersteven before any more worshippers and bashers come and post here. This is becoming memorial-like (if not circus-like), IMO. George Ho (talk) 18:42, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:RATEARTICLES" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Wikipedia:RATEARTICLES has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 29 § Wikipedia:RATEARTICLES until a consensus is reached. Justjourney (talk | contribs) 04:51, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Ad Hominem Attacks on Wales and Sanger

Guessing at the agenda of vague groups of editors is not going to lead to a productive discussion. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 20:01, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

It shocks me that many of the people here celebrating the block of Larry Sanger seem to have an agenda, and when I bring up that even Wales, usually at odds with Sanger, is opposed to the ban, the people here resort to "Wales and sanger are both Zionists." As if that should matter where they stand on Israel when considering their ideas. In my opinion, they both have a point about neutrality being violated both in the block of Sanger, and in the Gaza "genocide" issue. Wales previously disagreed with Sanger over blacklisting certain sources, arguing such a decision was reached by democratic consensus, but after seeing the Gaza issue, he is increasingly in agreement with him and thinks it is neither consensus nor democratic, and as such, I imagine many of the original editors in the early 2000s are as well. This is not the Wikipedia Wales and Sanger built, and now even Wales agrees. I would not be surprised if Jimmy Wales himself is blocked from editing in the near future by these people. SpidersMilk, Drink Spider Milk, it tastes good. (talk) 18:24, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

I expect less and less conservatives and libertarians contributing after the wars conducted by Israel and Washington. Reality affects editing outcome. Ahri Boy (talk) 19:18, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

One day, everyone will claim to have been against the crimes being committed. JTtheOG (talk) 19:22, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

I like(ed) your passion in making Wikipedia better, but

persuasion is something someone should not do, especially when asking the US President and his friend to legally change Wikipedia (oversimplification). I appreciate your efforts, but if you’re going to do the complete opposite of your original goal(s) and the goals of Wikipedia, that’s definitely not the way to do it.

I agree on making Wikipedia less biased, but is this the way to do it? I know and believe you mean well, and I hope for your unban, or at least so you can edit on your userspace. don’t forget to make public appearances and website essays :)

ping: @Larry Sanger. — Aurora :3 • (📭|edits) 18:28, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

You never need to ping someone on their own talk page. Pings just notify them of a post and we all get notified when someone posts to our talk page. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:41, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

I just wanted to make sure he saw it, lol — Aurora :3 • (📭|edits) 17:21, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

for an unban, he'd need to appeal it. for that, he'd need to go through the unblock ticket request system to have an admin submit the appeal to the proper venue for discussion. if the discussion ends in consensus that the ban was inappropriate or that he's not going to repeat the stuff that led to the ban, he will then be unbanned

this is to say that step 1 is on him consarn _{(talk beige) (count ribs)} 19:02, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

this makes me think he will. he’s very dedicated to this — Aurora :3 • (📭|edits) 19:27, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

His email access isn't blocked. Speculating on what he's going to do isn't a productive use of any of our time. If something is going to happen, it'll happen. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 20:04, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree 👍 — Aurora :3 • (📭|edits) 17:22, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Fan

I just wanted to let you know I am a huge fan of yours and all you have done thus far, so here is a fan for you.

		Fan!
		Spidersmilk has given you a fan! Fans are good for two reasons: They blow air and allow hot Wikipedians to cool off, and also cheer them on when they need it, Just like a fan of a football or basketball team. Cool off, and enjoy the cheering and the breeze. Hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread "WikiLove" and "WikiCheers" by giving someone else some a fan, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or someone who just needs a some fan to cheer them on and/or a good, refreshing breeze. To spread the goodness of fans, you can add {{subst:fan}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

SpidersMilk, Drink Spider Milk, it tastes good. (talk) 03:59, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Support for you

Dear Larry, I very rarely comment as I am mostly in the corners hiding and reading. I wanted to briefly step out form my corner to drop you a note of support and solidarity. What has happened to you has been the end result of mob rule. Hiding under the banner of "consensus" and applying the rules arbitrarily this mob has effected a decision which I can only hope will be the snowball which will grow into a giant avalanche of change. This conjures up the Kingpriest of Istar who would pronounce Foripon (excommunication) upon those who dared to break with his rule no matter how correct and how earnest they were (you are both correct and earnest). Ultimately it led to his downfall and hundreds of years of ruin until the races embraced humility something which the mob rule currently utterly lacks. You have my support, Larry. Dr John Carter from ER (the TV show) (talk) 09:28, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

I am totally with you here, and am disgusted by the mob mentality and hiding behind "consensus." As you imply above, we must play the long game and be patient, because good will come out of this project in the end. SpidersMilk, Drink Spider Milk, it tastes good. (talk) 19:39, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Well, we kind of use mob rule here. Thats is kinda what consensus of a group means. It is very explicitly not a democracy or oligarchy. No reason for it to be one either. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 21:05, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

I argue that it is both mob rule and oligarchy, which is exactly what Sanger implied it is, where he called Wikipedia an odd combination of oligarchy and anarchy. I think it should be neither, and instead be a constitutional republic with elections and separation of powers, just like Sanger also advocated. SpidersMilk, Drink Spider Milk, it tastes good. (talk) 02:29, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Why? It is arguably the most successful single project in human history. The only reason to formalize stuff is to allow people in "power" within the website to exert more control than they do. At least now control is based on not being a dick to people around you. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 13:21, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

humoring this idea for a moment, it kinda fails at nearly every step in practice because it doesn't apply to wikipedia in the first place. this would effectively put fallible people (y'know, admins, crats, arbcom, all that jazz) where their power is only not absolute because it's had a tier list taped to it (with jimmy wales-shaped people getting that absolute power), instead of the current situation where different people have different roles, and while an admin has the power to enforce rules and consensus, their input is worth no more than that of any other editor worth their salt

to call it "mob rule" or "oligarchy" is only really accurate in the same way that a human is a chinchilla because both are social mammals and like grabbing stuff. calling groups "mobs" implies they're organized by means other than public discussions that effectively boil down to "here's stuff to do, who's up for it?", have leaders (really, t6 should've been killed in the crib for even thinking that wikipedia can have conventional leaders), and work under those leaders. any level of analysis of wikipedia's functions deeper than taking larry's word for it reveals that people predominantly just do whatever they want wherever they want whenever they want, and sometimes, enough of them get together for long enough that a consensus or project comes out of it. nothing holds anyone in, and nothing keeps anyone away unless they've shown to be disruptive or are Doing a Crime™

so, how's it a mob rule or oligarchy, and how would making power a concrete thing that a few people unambiguously have over others make it not an oligarchy? consarn _{(talk beige) (count ribs)} 22:19, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

I would remind editors that wp:npa applies to user's talk pages, so be careful. Sanger can say what he likes off Wiki, we are still governed by its rules. Slatersteven (talk) 09:18, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

If he decides to join WPO, that is his own choice. Ahri Boy (talk) 10:08, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

WPO? Slatersteven (talk) 10:11, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Wikipediocracy. And I think he's commented there before, but don't take my word on it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:19, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Goodbye! We will miss you!

I'm sorry your time on Wikipedia had to end this way. I only realized now since I was busy through exam season with exams. I hope you will be unbanned in the future! Thank you for proposing the changes to Wikipedia! (Coincidentally, I have just graduated from university too. Everything must come to a bittersweet ending eventually, apparently. It is quite sad.) Félix An (talk) 12:24, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

"intellectual diversity" now an article

... ... ...Well, I'm notifying you now: Intellectual diversity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). George Ho (talk) 21:15, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Page protection

I've full protected the page at the request of the editor. They do not have talk page access and requested that this message be left on their talk page. As their talk page access was pulled by request not misbehavior I am posting the message here on their behalf.

I am requesting that this page be locked. If you're reading this, it is because an admin has honored my request. Since its purpose is to communicate with me, and since I have (by asking to be blocked from commenting on this page myself, as I did last June 23) signaled that I don't care to communicate with Wikipedians here, it is misplaced to continue to talk at me (or, worse, each other about me) on this page. You can talk to your hearts' content about me in other places on WP. And if want to reach me, you can use the form on my blog or, if I haven't blocked you for abuse, on X. By the way, I am not planning ever to ask to be unblocked by Wikipedia. By blocking me because I tried to recruit new people for WikiProject Intellectual Diversity, you have demonstrated very neatly and completely that you are opposed to intellectual diversity. That being the case, I leave to your echo chamber. Larry Sanger

ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:04, 11 July 2026 (UTC)