User talk:Larry Sanger

☆ Save On Wikipedia ↗

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)

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)

WikiProject in userspace

Hi! Are you planning to move User:Larry Sanger/WikiProject Intellectual Diversity to projectspace soon? The guide on WikiProjects clarifies that they should reside in the project namespace, with user sandboxes being dedicated to draft proposals. Since the project seems quite well-organized already, I am wondering if you are planning to do so – if that is the case, don't hesitate to submit your WikiProject proposal this way!

While it may seem like a technicality, having our projects in projectspace (instead of userspace) is necessary for a few reasons. The greater latitude given to userspace material prevents them from involving the same level of community accountability, which directly conflicts with the influence that WikiProjects may have. This especially matters as WikiProjects don't have a single owner, while, by definition, material in userspace has one. Without that level of community oversight, delicate policy issues like the question of canvassing may be exacerbated in frustration, as users may feel like they can't have equal voices in how the project should operate. Also, listed projects are more easily discoverable: especially for a project focused on intellectual diversity, reaching to a wider range of editors from across the community is ideal if you want a thriving project.

To clarify, this isn't about you or your project's specific goals! I've already encountered a similar situation before (and, in fact, talked about it during my request for adminship), and it is really a matter of defusing tensions by making things more open whenever possible. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 09:48, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

I haven't detected any tensions yet, for what it's worth. We're in start-up mode right now. I haven't been posting the PolicyScanner daily, but I intend to do so when we're launched (and when I'm working on it daily). I want to start doing that for at least a week before I make a proposal. It's not actually permitted to move a WikiProject to the project namespace until the WikiProject is approved, so that'll be the next step. So, as you can see, I am moving slowly and deliberately, proving that the WikiProject has legs, activity, and support. Larry Sanger (talk) 14:54, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
I would like to be notified when you make the proposal. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 14:03, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
I think the way to do that is to add the relevant WikiProject page to your watchlist? Larry Sanger (talk) 17:48, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wiki Workers United solidarity

This is too important for your dirty laundry. Your rightward turn is the exact opposite of what the rest of us here stand for. Someone who has so often demonstrated just how much he loathes all of us here—and our work—is hardly a credible champion of workers' rights. Let's not kid ourselves: once again, this is nothing more than petty sniping driven by purely personal motives. Please take this crap over to Tucker Carlson. Marcus Cyron (talk) 14:35, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Marcus, dear Marcus, exactly how is this quote by LS dirty laundry: "Agreed with all those saying the WMF should spend its money to support editors in the most impactful ways. Giving them the technical tools they ask for is just such a way." Seems accurate and fresh to me. By the way Larry, today the 1,000th English Wikipedia editor reached the 100,000 edit level (and Marcus has his share of edits all across the board, thanks), an event which deserves a toast to you, Jimbo, and all Wikipedians. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:46, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
Personal attacks and aspersions now? How helpful. toby in solidarity 14:48, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
Marcus, this wasn't necessary, and accomplishes exactly nothing. I note that your comment is a violation of WP:NPA. I won't report this, but I will encourage you to do better. You can feel free to remove the whole thread from this page (my user talk page) if you agree with me that it was ill-judged and pointless. Larry Sanger (talk) 17:42, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

You can feel free to remove the whole thread from this page (my user talk page) if you agree with me that it was ill-judged and pointless.

Marcus can't per WP:USERTALKSTOP and WP:TALKO, can he? Indeed, two other people (besides me) responded, and I'm uncertain whether they are okay with this. Why not you instead, Mr Sanger? George Ho (talk) 17:58, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
While the first doesn't apply (since I gave him permission), the second does seem right, so I withdraw what I said. Marcus would need Randy's and Toby's permission as well, I suppose. Larry Sanger (talk) 18:34, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
Marcus could ask for Larry to take it down, and Larry could, but having to do that seems much too bureaucratic, considering Larry gave permission. In solidarity Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 20:48, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
Of course, and I think it would be wise to remove a claim that has no basis in fact. The linked quote says the opposite of what Marcus Cyron claimed, so maybe Marcus read it wrong or let his personal opinion about the political climate affect his perception of what the quote said? In any case, it was an inaccurate description of the quote in question, and removing this section may make the most sense. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:41, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
Oh, I think I'll leave it all up. But I will ask you all to move on. Thanks Larry Sanger (talk) 01:27, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi there!

How are you doing, Larry Sanger? ~2026-33778-68 (talk) 02:47, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Great. Busy with many things... Larry Sanger (talk) 05:14, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
Have you read this thread and the other page about the OP yet? George Ho (talk) 17:23, 9 June 2026 (UTC)
No. But, considering how many admins need blocking themselves, I'm not caring that much, TBH. Moreover, considering how much other crap I let remain on my talk page, I can hardly make exceptions now can I. Larry Sanger (talk) 20:21, 9 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 solidarityWikipedian12512 (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 solidarityWikipedian12512 (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. OhanaUnitedTalk 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]

Stop icon
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)

June 2026 [2]

Stop icon
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)

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)

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)
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)

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)