There is clear consensus for a community ban of User:Larry Sanger. There is general agreement among participants that he has engaged in off-wiki canvassing and is not here to constructively build the encyclopedia. There is also a significant concern shared by many editors that his actions constitute calls for outing.The only alternate sanctions that gathered significant support were a topic ban or partial block generally intended at forcing him to engage constructively with articles or avoid project space discussions. These alternate sanctions did not reach consensus. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:27, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Wikipedians are now debating whether my proposed WikiProject Intellectual Diversity should be permitted to become an official WikiProject (club/group of editors). Lots opposed. Also lots in favor.
Far too early. Not a fan of the guy, but he isnt recruiting folks for any single specific argument. I dont think this meets the definition. User:Bluethricecreamman(Talk·Contribs) 20:53, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
It actually does meet the definition of WP:STEALTH quite exactly. wound theology◈ 20:56, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
Oh these are new twitter threads from today. I shall strike my comment then. User:Bluethricecreamman(Talk·Contribs) 21:03, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
In my opinion, it looks like he saw that it has a WP:SNOWBALL's chance in hell and decided to try and call in some voters (good thing Wikipedia is not a democracy). Someone who is clearly not WP:HERE and advocates for doxxing admins, and now engages in WP:CANVASing behavior, would rightfully be banned if not for the fact it were Larry Sanger. wound theology◈ 20:55, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
I see some disagreements here. Shall we create a straw poll on whether or not WP:canvassing was violated?George Ho (talk) 21:01, 19 June 2026 (UTC); struck, 21:34, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
Never mind. I see one changing own mind then. George Ho (talk) 21:34, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
I struggle to believe that Larry would have any other intent from posting a link to the thread other than to canvass the !vote. toby(t)(rw) 21:08, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
Looks like a clear WP:CANVAS violation to me. Simonm223 (talk) 21:10, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
As I said there, Sanger is not here to build an encyclopedia. He has no intention of writing any articles or assisting in maintenance, he is here to start arguments and pick fights. I put {{Not a ballot}} on the discussion in question, but I wonder whether it would be preferable to have it procedurally closed. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:25, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
Only just discovered but think it's highly relevant context for this, Larry has explicitly stated on his twitter that the purpose of WPID is as a way to combat what he sees as a leftist takeover of Wikipedia and this is his counter-coup as it were. "For years I said Wikipedia was a lost cause. But it never just went away. Now here’s what people don’t realize: the day-to-day work is done by a few hundred people, not millions. The left marched through this institution. There’s no reason we can’t march right back. If you agree, and you are on Wikipedia, check this out:" followed by a direct link to WPID's page.
He is absolutely WP:NOTHERE. Rambling Rambler (talk) 19:35, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Update. Larry just turned the thread into a bludgeon. Selbstporträt (talk) 21:33, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
Given this:
9. You've promoted WPID on X/Twitter to your 90,000 followers. Isn't that off-wiki canvassing?
My distinct impression was that Wikipedians were encouraged to recruit for new WikiProjects; when researching the application process and WP:CANVASS, I could find nothing forbidding recruitment via social media. I am willing to be corrected if someone can prove the contrary to me.
It seems that Larry is unaware, unfamiliar, or otherwise did not consider the policy on meatpuppetry, which explicitly prevents recruitment: actively recruiting new accounts or users on Wikipedia, or recruiting people (either on-wiki or off-wiki) to create an account or edit anonymously in order to influence decisions on Wikipedia, is prohibited.SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 21:39, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
Now both him and you know. Selbstporträt (talk) 21:44, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
That’s an essay, not even a guideline. I wonder whether it even could be consistently it is applied. In any event, the idea that I may not defend this project against unfair attack is really something. Larry Sanger (talk) 23:07, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
That’s an essay, not even a guideline.
Whether or not your account is the oldest or third oldest, it's compulsory and contingent on you to be aware of what is up before trying to redo the site. It's an explanatory essay about other policies. People do get blocked for WP:BLUDGEON. Your acceptance of that is not relevant, because you nor me nor anyone else has unique special standing to not accept. We're all equal meat.
I wonder whether it even could be consistently it is applied.
Frankly, I personally think it's poorly handled at times, but dropping a novella like you did... it's textbook bludgeon.
In any event, the idea that I may not defend this project against unfair attack is really something.
There's a right way and wrong way, and you should perhaps be looking to emulate the social norms of the environment you're visiting as a guest. Whatever your prior role or affiliation... it means nothing in truth.
You have to adapt to here, not here to you. If that is distasteful or incompatible with your views, you may not be a good fit to be a Wikipedia user. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 23:17, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
I know what the rules are; I'm holding you to them. You may not block people for essays. Of course, admins do block people for all sorts of completely silly reasons—that's true—but if something isn't a policy, it's not the proper basis of a block.
Blocking for bludgeoning in particular is rich, especially in this sort of case. First, a massive mob magically materializes overnight, spewing all manner of abuse (all ignored by the admins, of course) as well as ridiculously unfair and poor argumentation. It's almost all directed at me personally. This idea that I am doing something wrong by defending myself is—well, as I said, it's really something. Larry Sanger (talk) 03:24, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
"Mob", "magically materializes overnight", "spewing all manner of abuse", "ridiculously unfair", "poor argumentation", "defending myself" as minimization, "really something" for a second time as euphemism don't counter the facts that bludgeoning is disruptive, and disruptive editing is against policy. Selbstporträt (talk) 03:38, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Larry. There isn't a mob materializing magically, here to get you personally. You made a proposal for a WikiProject, which is open for the whole community to weigh on. Some people were in support, others questioned the core principle, others still found it laudable but were worried about your methods. And, yes, some comments were certainly unfair. I've had the same happen, even sometimes with hundreds of people opposing my proposals!Of course, I can't say with certainty that none of it is fueled by personal motives – some of it clearly was. But I believe the vast majority of the feedback, both positive and negative, is genuinely about the project, and not you as a person. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 04:31, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure WP:BLUDGEON is considered a community value that is generally adhered to. It is a form of disruptive editing, which is roundly frowned upon. What's important to realize here is that you don't own the whole floor. Trying to dominate a discussion as your proposal is facing major opposition runs into this territory squarely. the Stefen 𝕋ower 23:26, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
A lot of quite unfair comments were going unreplied-to; the sheer hostility of the pushback basically means a lot of my allies were probably intimidated. I'm not going to let them go unreplied-to. This WikiProject is too important. Larry Sanger (talk) 03:26, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Like any editor who has a proposal that is being opposed, you should just let it go. The problem here is perhaps you believe you are in a higher position to push your proposal. You are not, actually. This WikiProject is important to you, but the community does not want it. And that is that. I have had ideas rejected (and some accepted) by the community, but the community rules. Nobody is above the community. And you're just going to continue to find we don't want our content corrupted by poor sourcing and fringe ideas. Repeating proposals will not change minds, but only anger the community. the Stefen 𝕋ower 03:54, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
"That’s an essay, not even a guideline"
It's actually "an explanatory essay about disruptive editing and conduct policies", which are indeed policies. Selbstporträt (talk) 23:28, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
The point being made is that the explanatory essay is not adding onto the policy. The policy concerns disruptive behaviour and bludgeoning is term used to describe a certain type of disruptive behaviour. The policy is already forbidding bludgeoning, while the explanatory essay is there to make sure that any editor that might not understand that can learn about it. ⹃Maltazarianᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 01:12, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
"the essay is not the policy"
By that logic, pages documenting policies aren't policies themselves either. Selbstporträt (talk) 03:16, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
This is correct. I still don't see the argument that prevents me from recruiting for a WikiProject. I'm waiting for someone to show me the text and make the argument.
Also, to respond to somebody else, it is borderline NPA to constantly accuse me of not being here to build an encyclopedia. Yes, I obviously am. One can work on many aspects of an encyclopedia project, as I have been doing. Larry Sanger (talk) 21:47, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
Posting on social media asking for editors to join your cause is generally not a good idea. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 21:49, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
I still don't see the argument that prevents me from recruiting for a WikiProject.
This seems to be what upsets people here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Guide#Recruiting_editors <- no matter who you are, your history, all rules will apply to you equally and without consideration of your username or who operates that account. That page says to advertise on this website, not to nearly 100,000 people on a platform with no moderation and tolerance for abuses of minorities. That's probably what has folks upset. Plus WP:CANVASS. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 21:51, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
Larry, while you see it as simply recruiting for a WikiProject, others see it as directing people to that discussion in order to get WPID approved. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 21:51, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
Others might also see that "recruiting" is doing the same kind of work as "diversity" in the proposal. Selbstporträt (talk) 22:08, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
If this is how it works, then I might just propose the creation of WikiProject Intellectual Discussion To Critique Wikipedia Co-Founders and then go "recruit" a bunch of people from Reddit until it gets enough support to be created. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:22, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
I would prefer a WikiProject called We Are the True Verificationnists, with the stated objective to add a "citation needed" behind every single unsupported claim on the Wiki, and a recruitment effort to lobby the V page so that it becomes the new norm. Selbstporträt (talk) 22:31, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
Or how about another WPID, WikiProject Intellectual Dishonesty, which would cover articles of people known for such. To avoid WP:NPA, I'm not listing example articles that would be included. the Stefen 𝕋ower 23:42, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
I'm founding the Association of All-Wikipedia-Cofounders-Should-Be-INDEF'd-ist Editors. Please sign below. wound theology◈ 23:56, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
You weren't "recruiting for a WikiProject" though, you specifically linked to an active discussion where you're seeking community approval for your WikiProject.
Directing your off-wiki followers towards a discussion that ultimately exists to garner community approval for your WikiProject is blatantly an attempt "to influence decisions on Wikipedia".
Outside the WP:MEAT violation already being enough of a breach of community trust to be considered WP:NOTHERE, I'd argue your continued denial of basic policy despite it being directly cited to you constitutes either WP:IDHT or WP:CIR, pick your poison. Either way, your behavior has been & continues to be clearly disruptive. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 22:25, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
And again in WP:STEALTH: "Because it is less transparent than on-wiki notifications, the use of email, IRC, Discord, or other off-wiki communication to notify editors is strongly discouraged unless there is a significant reason for not using talk page notifications." NebY (talk) 22:29, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
The primary point of the rule is to discourage private of wiki coordination. That's the stealthiness in stealth! Obviously this wasn't very stealthy! Jahaza (talk) 00:46, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
Another policy: WP:CON#Pitfalls and errors, Any effort to gather participants to a community discussion that has the effect of biasing that discussion is unacceptable. Whether it's called recruiting or not, it has every appearance of calling for support from a pool of individuals (Sanger's X followers) who are likely to share very similar views. This is also where WP:BLUDGEON gets its teeth. From the same Pitfalls and errors section, The continuous, aggressive pursuit of an editorial goal is considered disruptive, and should be avoided. Editors should listen, respond, and cooperate to build a better article. Editors who refuse to allow any consensus except the one they insist on, and who filibuster indefinitely to attain that goal, risk damaging the consensus process. I believe Sanger has very much violated the spirit and letter of a policy. If there is no acknowledgement of this, it is likely to happen again. Therefore, an indef block seems appropriate to prevent disruption to the encyclopedia until assurances are given that it will not happen again. EducatedRedneck (talk) 23:48, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
And another, WP:MEAT, actively recruiting new accounts or users on Wikipedia, or recruiting people (either on-wiki or off-wiki) to create an account or edit anonymously in order to influence decisions on Wikipedia, is prohibited.. EducatedRedneck (talk) 23:54, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
Yes. Can we stop it with the NOTHERE stuff? Like really, the co-founder of the encyclopedia is not here to build an encyclopedia? aesurias(ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 23:05, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
How much building of the encyclopedia is he doing? 4% mainspace in 2026:
Yes. As of 2026, the co-founder of the encyclopedia (in 2001) is not here to build an encyclopedia. Skyshiftertalk 23:16, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
People change. Some defect, some lash out, some hire all the lawyers to get every cent from the partnership, some strategise for the erstwhile enemy, some blow up the house they built with wife and children inside it.... Yes. It happens. NebY (talk) 23:22, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
God help the admin who carries that out should the community approve it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:42, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
It should be noted that we don't have or allow "special animals" on our own little Animal Farm here. No one is special. Not even this guy or Jimmy Wales or the current WMF chair. 20 year account, 30 years, 3 days. Same handcuffs on us all, and anyone saying otherwise is wrong. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 21:45, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
What's the drill for trolls? RBI? DuncanHill (talk) 21:47, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
See behavior that violates PAG > apply standard consequences by consensus. I'm just saying that it's important if not imperative to always do everything we can to butcher harmful notions of protected or special editors, including from folks who may (by their implication, such as saying what they do for a living/founded/achieved off-wiki) intentionally or inadvertently be doing such things. Our collective hands smacking that aroma into orbit and away from the site ruthlessly is how you fix that cultural defect. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 21:54, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
Seconding @Skyshifter. Nearly every policy has been broken or proposed to be broken. EaglesFan37 (talk) 21:49, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
Going to expand on this. Supporting IndefWP:CANVASS, WP:BLUDGEON, and WP:NOTHERE have all been violated, and any other user would face sanctions for this conduct. I'd also Support a broader ARBCOM case related to those canvassed to the WikiProject who have continued to support it once the true goals of this WikiProject became apparent, as they may also be WP:NOTHERE. EaglesFan37 (talk) 07:32, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
For clarity, support CBAN as well. Skyshiftertalk 15:58, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
That looks like a pretty textbook example of attempted WP:MEAT to me. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:49, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
Sanger has thoroughly demonstrated that they're WP:NOTHERE, having no respect for the community's time or trust. Their behavior has been disruptive before, but active disregard for policies is too far. I especially do not appreciate their feigned ignorance after repeatedly being confronted with this.
Rather then attempt to collaborate, improve, & build the encyclopedia, they treat Wikipedia as an ideological battleground for them to WP:RGWs & have proven to be a massive time sink for the community.
Support TBAN from participating in discussions &/or development of any policy, guidelines, or WikiProjects at a minimum. Editors have been indeffed for less & the idea that Sanger should be treated any differently, whether due to their co-founder status or because of their inevitable cry of persecution, honestly infuriates me. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 02:08, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Prohibit re-nominating WPID: This is unusual, but I'm a strong believer that tenure does not provide immunity to anybody on this website. Unfortunately, they canvassed, which is a behavioural guideline breach. They also re-nominated a project that was essentially rejected at the Teahouse. Once the current consensus is formed, a line should be drawn under it. (For the canvassing, that's something for an editor with authority to assess). 11WB (talk) 21:50, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
+1 on prohibiting the re-nomination WPID. Asking the community to have the same discussion over and over again just because you didn't like how the discussion concluded the first time / second time / third time it was held, is a form of disruption à "I didn't hear that" and "I don't like it". Imposing such a prohibition is probably completely uncontroversial (while any Tbans or Cbans might get some degree of opposition). Nakonana (talk) 15:40, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Support topic ban indefinitely (or some sort). This should make Larry take things for granted much less than now. I really wanna favor indef ban, but he's too well known and... well, still too inexperienced after very long absence from this project, especially when reading his reply here.George Ho (talk) 21:53, 19 June 2026 (UTC); edited, 19:10, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
(see my newer vote below, —George Ho (talk) 19:10, 20 June 2026 (UTC))
Should clarify, for my post above, a TBAN would cover this. I support this. 11WB (talk) 21:58, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
Not opposed, but what topic would this even be? Gnomingstuff (talk) 22:25, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
Re-nomination of WPID as a WikiProject, which to my understanding is now in its second attempt. First time was at the Teahouse, second at the WP Council. A TBAN from the Wikipedia namespace would solve that issue, though it may land as a bit overkill. 11WB (talk) 22:31, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
I think a TBAN for Wikipedia namespace should be enough, and I support imposing it. No practical results ever come out of Sanger's proposals, so their participation in the project namespace is just a massive waste of time for the community. sapphaline (talk) 22:25, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
Most of Larry's proposals are created and maintained in his own userspace. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 22:32, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
If he wouldn't bring them up to discussion, then that would be a WP:NOTWEBHOST issue, but he does and massively wastes the community's time by doing so. sapphaline (talk) 22:36, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
Which is untouchable - "Also bear in mind that this page is in my user space. You are not permitted to delete it" (Larry Sanger, today). NebY (talk) 22:38, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
One might argue that Larry's tracker is not far from being a hall of shame. Selbstporträt (talk) 22:43, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
Looking at further context provided here, there's no way this person can remain a part of the community. Support INDEF. sapphaline (talk) 08:43, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
Since the return from his self-imposed exile pretty much all he has done is try to start a right-wing/conservative pressure group within Wikipedia not to improve articles on topics that may be under-represented or highlight high-quality sources that could be utilised more, but to instead attempt to rewrite polices and guidelines to his political bent while throwing baseless aspersions about the conduct of many users (mostly those in privileged positions such as admins) and alleging they're being funded by shadow money. Frankly if this was anyone else claiming all this with the way he is, we'd have shown them the door long ago.
Beyond this, his conduct comes across as though he seems to simultaneously want to be someone who has spent many years at this point decrying all the terrible ways Wikipedia doesn't work (which he of course can fix with his "Nine Thesis" like he's Martin Luther) but then also seemingly wants the benefit of the doubt we'd give to a first time, probably young user who genuinely doesn't know any better when they break the rules. You can't have it both ways.
Also, and I really don't mean to be rude here, but reading his writings at both Project Council and his own project for "Intellectual Diversity" he seems to think he's "outsmarted the system" or something in how because he looks to follow rules "to the letter" we won't see what he's actually doing, such as calling blatant canvassing "social support" as though it's not precisely that. Rambling Rambler (talk) 22:40, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
Warning - this is canvassing, and larry did no favors to himself. But jumping to tbans and indefs immediately is too harsh for someone who has been in exile and may need to be reminded how things should work. At worst, there is more WP:ROPE to give, and i dont like the look of banning a cofounder. User:Bluethricecreamman(Talk·Contribs) 22:47, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
I just think it's worth mentioning that we cannot ever start to even allow normalization of ideas of special editors. Doesn't matter who it is, cofounder or not. If a specific edit nets a 24 hour block for you or me or any other user on this page, the same edit must net the same precise outcome to either Larry Sanger or Jimmy Wales if their accounts made the edit.
I agree with @VPP. Tenure and/or status do not grant immunity to anybody. 11WB (talk) 22:51, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
Thirded. Also I'd say when he himself has returned precisely out of wanting to change policies you lose the defence of "I didn't know the policies". Rambling Rambler (talk) 22:55, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
Also when the man has explicitly said "I can read policy, you don't need to inform me of it" and written a manifesto on how members of his project need to follow our policies and guidelines to the letter, it's kind of hard to build a defense around the idea of ignorance. Athanelar (talk) 07:06, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
I'd even argue that the fact that the user doing this is a co-founder makes matters even worse — not the opposite. Skyshiftertalk 22:54, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
Going off what actuvelydisinterested suggested, im not convinced there is as much WP:Cluefulness from someone who has been in self imposed exile for so long.
I have no illusions larry is literally the founder and knows or even founded some of these principles, but the way he discusses some of them suggests a need to see how actual practice has evolved nowadays.
… seriously though, some acknowledgment of needing to be better would convince others of this. The clumsy wiki lawyering has done no favors. User:Bluethricecreamman(Talk·Contribs) 22:56, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
Blocks and bans do provide the opportunity to acknowlege needing to be better, and the opportunity to focus on doing that in an appeal. NebY (talk) 23:09, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
This is clear canvassing by Larry and merits a block. I get the sense that at this point, between the long, entitled, IDHT posts (Special:Diff/1360197305) and questionable word choices (Special:Diff/1360181344) when he must know that he's already being accused of battleground behavior, Larry now appears to be trying to fall on his sword--I would be disabused of that notion if he can recant the canvassing rather than asking editors to wikilawyer over it. Given that it seems like he's fishing for an indef, and that the canvassing itself appears to have been totally ineffective (as of this writing, the net change in WPID support since the social media posts were made is -1), I think that a short block (~1 week?) is in order, and would have issued it if I weren't nominally involved in the ongoing discussion. Separately, I think it's within reason to consider a TBAN from...WP-space? Project governance? Source reliability?...on the basis of the bludgeoning and IDHT both on-wiki and off going back however long he's been doing this now. The English Wikipedia community has given LS more than his fair share of consideration and should not be expected to endlessly entertain him. signed, Rosguilltalk 22:46, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
Given the media tour comments noted by Newslinger, I’m now more in favor of an indef cban. Sanger has already pulled out all the stops, it’s time to show him the door. signed, Rosguilltalk 13:02, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
I disagree with just about everything Sanger has to say, but people should be able to disagree with how things are currently done. The current way came from practice and discussion, and should be open to change. However that doesn't mean people can ignore current practice, policy, or things like CANVASS and MEAT. The route to change must be from within, because practice and policy are set by Wikipedia's editors not canvassed followers. I don't know if anything official is required here, but Sanger could do with more time editing and improving the encyclopedia and less formulating concepts about how Wikipedia should be run. Ultimately if someone is only here to try and change how Wikipedia works they're NOTHERE, as they're not here to improve the encyclopedia itself. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t° 22:48, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
This isn't a very dignified response, and shows a battle ground mentality to editors who should be considered colleagues. Whatever you feel about other editors mocking them in front of thousands of followers is unacceptable. Again Sanger needs to rethink his approach, otherwise maybe something official is needed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t° 00:20, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Comment – I am very surprised to see editors supporting an indef block, which seems like massive overkill here... more than that, it reads like a lazy attempt to silence criticism of Wikipedia's ideological slant. Also noting that from the brief research I have done on WikiProject Intellectual Diversity, I would not call myself a supporter of the project in any sense of the word.
@Larry Sanger, I think it would go a long way if you deleted the tweet you posted. You can see above that the overwhelming consensus is that the tweet is a form of canvassing, so regardless of whether or not you agree, it would help your 'case' significantly if you took it down. aesurias(ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 23:17, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
There is no interest in silencing criticism per se, but I think the indef block push (I prefer a lesser ban at this point) has to do with Wikipedians being tired of being continually roiled by intellectually dishonest proposals that seem to want to harm the product and trigger discord, from a person who has barely edited here. the Stefen 𝕋ower 00:43, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Indeff Long overdue, Sanger has been the literal definition of WP:NOTHERE for years. Zaathras (talk) 23:32, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
Charming. Evidently 'inclusivity' includes the right to make sexist remarks when things aren't going your way. Nice to see where you stand, Larry. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:44, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
Support topic ban from Wikipedia namespace (Change to Indef after seeing the interview below where Sanger clearly lays out that he is here to POVPUSH and not here to actually make an encyclopedia). And it doesn't even have to do with this incident in specific. I've long felt that NOTHERE applied to his editing. While he's actually managed to edit something in article space recently and by that I mean he's done 19 article edits in the past 4 months, that doesn't change the fact that the 20th edit in article space prior was in 2012. And one can also question the political pointedness of most of the 19 edits even. If he's not here to actually work on the encyclopedia, then what's the point other than to be an agitator? SilverserenC 23:45, 19 June 2026 (UTC)
Censorship martyrdom fast-tracks to bigger and bigger microphones: after Newscorp and Carlson's, it's Rogan's, Weiss's, even the Atlantic and the NYT could fall for it. So it's a catch-22 for editors, and a self-sealing position for Larry. More than self-sealing actually, if we take René Girard's mimetic theory seriously, i.e. with its eschatological spirit. Selbstporträt (talk) 00:16, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
I see your point but if we have learned anything from those who circulate from right-wing media outlet to right-wing media outlet complaining of being "cancelled" it is that they don't need much, if any, factual basis for their shtick to stick. If this is his plan then he is going to do it anyway. It doesn't matter if we treat him leniently or not. He can continue to goad us until action is taken and then spin it as "cancellation". The right-wing outlets will lap it up no matter how spurious. As such, I don't see much benefit in trying to be strategic here. I think we should just do the right thing, whatever that might be, and accept that we are likely to be defamed for it, whatever it is. As they say, no good deed goes unpunished. Let's take care not to go overboard but also let's not allow ourselves to be jerked around indefinitely. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:00, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Sanger could honestly call another editor the N-word (which I am NOT accusing him of, merely a hypothetical), and the NYT and The Atlantic would still fawn over the story of a poor persecuted fascist being censored by the mob. At a certain point, we have to take a stand. Snokalok2 (talk) 12:24, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
the NYT and The Atlantic would still fawn over the story of a poor persecuted fascist being censored by the mob. You sure? That doesn't sound like a likely scenario to me. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:34, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
As long as Larry can't compare himself to Jesus, the worse should not happen.
Poetic justice is the best. Selbstporträt (talk) 14:54, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Indef. Transparently WP:NOTHERE, has trampled over a dozen of our community norms without one hint of remorse or indication he would not do it again in a matter of hours, in what has to be one of the most remarkably disruptive editing runs on enwiki in years. Any other editor would have been blocked for that, and that's even before considering the wider history. Every time I read anything suggesting he should be treated differently because of who he is makes me sick. In the last twenty years, Sanger has proven himself time and time again through his nefarious and self-serving behavior to be an enemy of Wikipedia, publicly rooting for its demise and the destruction of everything that makes this place so unique and precious. Time has come to remember that WP:Our social policies are not a suicide pact, and to permanently settle this matter. Choucas🐦⬛ 00:02, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Support topic ban from Wikipedia NS + ban on proposal making in User NS. I will support a full indef if it becomes necessary as well (or if most other positions go that way), but I'd rather give more rope. Basically, I want Sanger's proposals wiped off his user space entirely, and for anything he has done in Wikipedia NS to be closed and archived immediately. This founder's purpose overall seems to be to continually roil the community with intellectually dishonest (the other "ID") proposals that don't simply challenge the Wikipedia, but try to turn its values on its head and harm our product. Of course he has a natural right to write up proposals externally, or otherwise discuss his issues with the Wikipedia on various platforms, or to create his vision elsewhere (again). But I think we are reaching our end of tolerance of his nagging here. And yes, it is at this point, nagging. It is disruptive to our ongoing work. It drives acrimony. It causes division. We can as a community say "No more." the Stefen 𝕋ower 00:15, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
I wish to give more rope because I don't want to throw out a founder "just like that", and also to give him an opportunity to show he can actually participate on the Wikipedia as an editor if he so chooses. But I'm completely done with his proposal-making. the Stefen 𝕋ower 00:28, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
CBAN is now my primary !vote. Use my struck-out position as a secondary if necessary. The CNN interview sent me over the top. Sanger is not just WP:NOTHERE, but is openly engaging in menacing behavior against the site, acting like he gets to unleash hordes of unruly folks from around the globe in here, and that is as un-wiki as it gets. Also, the more I read about how little he has genuinely contributed in the past quarter century, I have little hope of him ever becoming a productive editor. Time to rip this band-aid off and move on. I'm done with this mess and I wish to see the Wikipedia move on from this madness. the Stefen 𝕋ower 01:27, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
Support INDEF in case it wasn't clear. WP:CANVAS is only the tip of the iceberg. WP:NOTHERE is as clear as day. Wikipedia has thrived in spite of Larry, not because of him, and we should simply not tolerate his vitriol any longer here, less we become Citizendium or one of his other failed projects. wound theology◈ 00:22, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
If a TBAN or NS ban would mean a stop to his constant proposals, then I would support that. His mainspace edits (practically nonexistent since 2012) are not the problem. wound theology◈ 01:29, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Support INDEF Anyone can see that Sanger is not here to build an encyclopedia—he's here to try to get it remade according to his liking. Carlstak (talk) 00:28, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Support indef. The offsite canvassing to the WPID discussion is a bridge too far. It was already apparent that Larry was WP:NOTHERE prior to that. I don't think Larry's status in this project is a relevant argument for not supporting an indef. Alternatively, I'd support an indef P-Block or TBAN from project space as a second option, although I do think a P-Block would more effectively stop disruption. I would also support the deletion of the currently proposed project which is hosted in their user space, as I don't see it compatible with out project or compliant with our WP:PAG. See User:Larry Sanger/WikiProject Intellectual Diversity/PolicyScanner which appears to be nothing more than a transparent attempt to direct members of the proposed wikiproject to noticeboard discussion in order to egnage in WP:VOTESTACK. TarnishedPathtalk 00:32, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Topic-ban everyone he's canvassed from all namespaces save article, but leave Sanger alone. Sanger wants to be 86'd to fit in with the right wing "Prisoner at Her Majesty's Pleasure" talking point du jour. The best way to counter the intended reaction is to simply make it so that everybody he's canvassed gets banned from non-mainspace for the next X months plus Y edits, and then leave Sanger alone to continue tilting at windmills. If those he's canvassed actually care, they should have no trouble working in the sausage factory rather than just accepting Sanger's words and his status as co-Founder as authoritative. We've more-or-less moved on from deus ex Jimbo because Jimbo fucked it up. Sanger has failed to get the memo (due to being too busy competing with Wikipedia) and has less goodwill than Jimbo. —Jéské Courianov^_^vObject Class:Drygioni 00:38, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
P-block him from every space except article space. --~2026-34680-62 (talk) 00:47, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
I much prefer we have a "rip off the band-aid" moment, and just let the chips fall where they may. But I accept your idea insofar as waiting before considering a full indef block. We need a decisive rebuke on the disruptive proposal making but still let him be an editor if he so chooses. the Stefen 𝕋ower 00:47, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Note that I've changed my !vote to CBAN since this comment. the Stefen 𝕋ower 19:33, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
WP:RGW applies to us as much as him. Unless we think him getting more microphone time will somehow harm Wikipedia, I don't think we should consider that in our response. What guides our actions shouldn't be whether his 'cause' gets to feel more legitimate for another couple years, but rather what is best for the encyclopedia. If we believe that his presence does more harm than good to the project, he should be removed, regardless of political implications. EducatedRedneck (talk) 00:54, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Why would we take actions against the people he canvassed? I saw some people receiving unsolicited messages on their User Talk pages. That's not their fault. They should only face sanction if they responded by doing anything inappropriate. As for people who registered accounts when canvassed externally, some of them probably had no idea that they were being roped into something nefarious contrary to our rules. We might do better to make sure that they all know the rules and see who wants to stay on that basis. Let's keep the focus on the guy who's actually causing the problem and only consider action against his would-be stooges if they knowingly commit to the bit. DanielRigal (talk) 01:12, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Oppose sanctions on canvassed ediiors. I can think of reasons why that would be a bad idea, but WP:BEANS applies. Editors should be judged only on theor contributions.
I was once improperly canvassed on my TP. I took great pleaure in joining the disssuccion, explaining (1) why I was there and (2) why I totally opposed the position I'd been asked to adopt. That may or may not have influenced the outcome. Narky Blert (talk) 06:41, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
This would be too harsh. Of the 28 original members of the Wikiproject, two (mbab and LuniZunie) have already left that wikiproject, one (123957a) supports an INDEF, one (Wikipedian12512) boldly removed the doxxing threat, and one opposed the project on the page (Metalbreaksandbonds). EaglesFan37 (talk) 07:29, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
My interpretation was that the members of the project were no improperly canvassed, but any of his 10,000 twitter followers were. My read is that the TBAN was aimed at the folks arriving from Twitter, not the editors who were already here. EducatedRedneck (talk) 11:38, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
@EducatedRedneck I don't believe anyone actually ended up joining from Twitter, which is probably what it is aimed for. However, I will say that continued support for this proposal, given how it fundamentally goes against Wikipedia's standards. The majority of the users that still are members/and (or) supporting this Wikiproject have very few recent article space contributions and/or are currently under sanctions. They very well may be WP:NOTHERE. EaglesFan37 (talk) 12:32, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
EducatedRedneck read it right (I'm old enough to remember Grawp's tendency to recruit /b/tards to do his dirty work), but in light of Sanger's comments on that podcast interview, I'm dropping that position. Consider it having used his own rope in a rather poor manner. Indef/CBAN him. What he describes, as anyone who works in India-oriented topic areas can tell you, has already been happening for the better part of two decades; if Sanger had been paying any sort of attention to anything but his Conservapedia competitors he would have noticed this. The issue isn't that we have few Indian contributors. The issue is that most of the ones we get are the sort of people who can't shut up and won't change the subject. —Jéské Courianov^_^vObject Class:Drygioni 14:45, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
@Jéské CourianoHowever, I will say that continued support for this proposal, given how it fundamentally goes against Wikipedia's standards. The majority of the users that still are members/and (or) supporting this Wikiproject have very few recent article space contributions and/or are currently under sanctions. They very well may be WP:NOTHERE.
Given everything that transpired, this still feels relevant. EaglesFan37 (talk) 14:57, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Relevant it may be, but that part of the proposal is going over like a fart in a religious building. I'd make the argument that we should decide Sanger's fate first, then turn our attention towards what, if anything, should be done with the irregular users who were canvassed to the discussion. —Jéské Courianov^_^vObject Class:Drygioni 15:06, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Wishing I hadn't signed it haha... was really hoping it would go a very different direction, but I should have seen that it wouldn't from a mile away. I oppose indef, but would absolutely support a TBAN from Wikipedia policies and guidelines.Reading his tweets, I would support indef/TBAN, we would not allow this from anyone else. – LuniZunie(talk) 19:07, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Oppose indef but support short block per Rosguill, neutral on an accompanying tban. Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 00:55, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
I’ll just say, while I’ve been a strong critic of Larry and don’t think we should tolerate his politically-motivated campaign, I’ve found several of his arguments thought-provoking and think it would benefit the encyclopedia to keep his voice around (even if he lacks the experience and understanding to formulate workable ideas, let alone advance them). If he is to be indeffed, I’d support a carveout for making userspace essays and allowing more liberal use of his talk page than blocked editors are usually permitted, along with an explanation about WP:INFINITE in the block notice. Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 12:18, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Oppose anything except maybe a 24-hour block' as a first-offense reminder not to off-wiki canvas again, and then the community, until proven otherwise, can assume good faith that the message has been received. LS probably realizes now that he shouldn't have called in tens of thousands of his off-wiki followers, although I'd think there are hundreds of potential good editors among them. But point made, and this should be closed once an administrator gives something like a 24-hour ban. As for people talking indef here, a direct example of the activities that often occur at ANI. People are "brought here" for one thing, and that thing is often quickly resolved, the message received, and appropriate action taken. The admin granting the asked for solution should probably close the discussion at that point. But then, suddenly, the action jumps. Casting aspersions enters into play and, like a trapped seal, once someone is "brought" here they then become an open target. Way too often and way too quickly an editor will jump to "Indef!" or "Topic ban" and others take up the chorus. We are better than that, adhering to neutrality and assuming good faith are possibly and essentially needed at ANI more than anywhere else in Wikipedialand. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:59, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Agree with Randy Spicemix (talk) 09:22, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
WP:AGF doesn't mean we should pretend this is the first offense to the community. While I would give more rope before a full indef, someone who is arguably WP:NOTHERE but uses his time here to continually roil the community with proposals that work against our values, often bludgeoning in the process, needs a rebuke. A topic ban makes good sense. It's time to stop this ongoing disruption. the Stefen 𝕋ower 01:14, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
He is just looking for more neutrality on Wikipedia, the same thing Jimbo Wales advocates in a different but closely related way. LS is looking for like-minded editors, and went too far, which is worth a good 24-36 hour block. But here's a kick in the pants. My comment above was written but not posted because of an edit conflict just before I read a note on my talk page telling me that the exact same thing I describe here has just happened to me. I hadn't read my discussion in a couple of days, and was trusting my fellow Wikipedians to do what I know to be the obviously right thing. But all good deeds... In this discussion, please admins (this is an admin page remember) do not let Wikipedia indef or topic ban LS, for the sake of all that's Wales someone please step in and stop that option and close this with an appropriate send-the-message short block. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:20, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
I take issue with your first sentence. 'Our view is that attention to "due weight" and "fringe theories," and the close connection between these determinations and tendentious policies about "reliable sources," tends to undermine robust neutrality.' - This is present at WPID, and is an advocate for WP:FRINGE. That's the polar opposite of "looking for more neutrality". 11WB (talk) 01:26, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
He is just looking for more neutrality on Wikipedia I think at this point this may be an overly charitable take. Establishing a WikiProject for PAG discussion disruption with likely canvassing, all so we can use more unreliable sourcing and include fringe ideas, is just the latest nagging of our community by someone generally WP:NOTHERE but given space to bludgeon because he's a founder. Time to stop this cycle. He can make proposals externally. And as I stated, I don't support a full indef block - just a stop to the nagging proposals that clearly work against our values. the Stefen 𝕋ower 02:43, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Note: I've changed my !vote to CBAN since I made this comment. the Stefen 𝕋ower 19:35, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
He is just looking for more neutrality on Wikipedia No, he isn't. He wants to destroy Wikipedia, and he knows the right words to use to get the gullible to go along with it. - The BushrangerOne ping only 03:12, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
It's extremely well accepted that any editor in good standing and who is not forbidden by a topic ban or CTOP restriction, is allowed to participate in the administrative noticeboards. Indeed a key part of CTOP appeals on AN is that it means the appeal goes to the community rather than admins only as will happen for appeals at ARE. While any admin is free to impose any sanction if they feel it's justified by Larry Sanger has done, it doesn't mean they get to shut down this discussion. There has been enough participation that it would be inappropriate for an admin (or anyone) to attempt to unilaterally shut it down and if they do block what they're instead likely to do is post saying something I blocked Larry Sanger for X, this isn't intended to prevent community discussion. The community will of course consider whether that action is enough, but are in no way required to accept it is. If any admin not only closes this discussion but attempts to enforce it, they'll likely find themselves warned if they continue it's likely a recall petition will be opened, or perhaps one will just be opened or an arbcom case. Likewise if this discussion does end with a consensus for some action against Larry Sanger, any admin attempting a WP:supervote to override that community consensus will find their close overturned and again might find themselves threatened with or subject to a recall or arbcom. In other words, any admin attempting to unilaterally override the community in any way will just make a bad situation worse. Again as an experienced editor you really should know this. However much you may personally dislike the community, we operate by WP:community consensus not admin or Larry Sanger fiat. Nil Einne (talk) 07:28, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Oppose indef per WP:DENY, because it's likely it would just feed into his publicity. Support TBAN from Wikipedia guidelines and policy, construed broadly enough that his PolicyScanner and proposed WPID would be included. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:13, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Warning only. Sanger should be explained that 1) it is considered canvassing and people have been blocked for this, 2) bludgeoning or battleground has also been the reason for blocking or sanction by admins and arbcom, 3) decorum on Wikipedia is largely driven by a willingness to defer to "the community." When one exists to oppose the idea that "the community" decides one should fully expect "the community" to decide to nullify or neuter that impulse. It is a basic law of organizational status quo that if you position yourself adversarially in a situation where change is voluntary, you won't find volunteers to change. And you will quickly find the entrenchers and enforcers of the status quo. Sanger should be explained that the main purpose of admins and arbcom are to ensure civil, peaceful, stable, and non-disruptive discussion which does include plenty of leeway and discretion to enact community will. In short, many people learn about rules they didn't know and get a warning, maybe even a few warnings, so long as they are trying to learn and improve and attempting to produce good content. If you don't do that you will soon find the community acting to neutralize disruption, especially in contentious and controversial topics. You can say that this creates groupthink and is bad. Maybe, but that's too far down the road already now. And there's no easy way to get the cat back in the bag. Wikipedia has not been and is not a place for "free debate" and "intellectual diversity." It is not an open bazaar of ideas. It is a heavily constrained, process-oriented procedural maze with a lot of people who are trying to minimize the negative externalities of it being that. Andre🚐 01:44, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
As an admin who's argued against the status quo in a lot of aspects (including policy), I wonder where I fall in your dichotomy... Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 01:47, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Well I've seen your name around but I don't think we've overlapped in editing. I would say that since you favor topicbanning Sanger, you are effectively demonstrating that by being too strident, Sanger's actions in promoting his wikiproject has led to you wanting to effectively stifle a leading voice of internal dissent and criticism. Admins usually are sympathetic to a well meaning gadfly, to a point. In your case, Sanger's canvassing is over the line which is certainly within precedent and admin discretion. So I'm not going to criticize a reasonable person for coming to a different conclusion. I was an admin a long time ago, and have also been digging myself out of various holes for years so far be it for me to say that you or anyone else who wants to banish Sanger must look in any deep introspective place to let him slide. Andre🚐 01:56, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Minor nitpick: He's the loudest voice of internal dissent and criticism at this moment, I don't know if he's a leading anything, if only because he doesn't have a good grasp of how Wikipedia works in 2026 and his ideas aren't something that any serious voice of internal dissent and criticism would pursue. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:20, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
This. Sanger is essentially WP:NOTHERE but wants to use his founder cred to continually bludgeon us with proposals that work against our values. There are many, many other editors whose dissent in the form of constructive, learned, honest proposals I would gladly take far more seriously, because they are doing the work. But I don't want Sanger gone (for now). I just want his proposal-itis quelled. It's disruptive. the Stefen 𝕋ower 02:55, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
I'll agree with thebiguglyalien's corrective, he is the loudest voice, and whatever he leads or follows, he is about to talk himself out of a job, at least onwiki. However, he also has a few decent points, and a lot of very bad ones because he does not know how Wikipedia works as you said, and he has tried to do far too much too quickly without considering any practical way to accomplish anything. Still, banning him is an unusually severe measure. And he has simply been yapping and putting toes over the line in a way that is selectively tolerated. Individuals make mistakes and sometimes so does the community make mistakes. The fact that he decided to join his WikiProject proposal to a publicity salvo is unfortunate. It is an instinct that shows a lack of research and understanding of the likely reception that would have. But it is hardly a capital offense. It is disruptive in the sense that it attracts attention and is unfair, but his WikiProject proposal seems doomed anyway. So, in my view, it is not the kind of end-of-the-rope unjustifiable disruption that leads to indefs. The community can always do that for any reason though, and maybe it isn't always a good idea that they can? And isn't that kind of one of Sanger's points? At any rate, we will be left to contemplate these questions on another occasion. Andre🚐 06:24, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Oppose indef as that would only fuel the persecution arguments, butsupport topic ban on discussions about WikiProjects and/or policy, broadly construed. Looking at the media angle here, we want something delicate enough so that it can't be spun into "Wikipedia COFOUNDER Banned For Trying To SAVE The Encyclopedia", but strong enough to stop providing him a platform to canvass towards.Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 01:45, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Seeing how he's intent on escalating the situation one way or another with the latest round of media canvassing, let's bite the bullet and just do it. Support indef/CBAN, Wikipedia has no gods, no elders. We're all equal before the community. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 18:33, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Oppose indef - This is stupid. What discussion has he actually skewed? What problem has he actually caused? People are chomping at the bit to throw LS over the side of the boat because he's a right winger politically and makes a lot of noise — but save the beatdown with baseball bats for actual threats to WP, not for someone running their mouth on the Elonsphere... Carrite (talk) 01:48, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
My view is that he just was still unaware of a few rules. Everyone screws up sometimes, and he did it quite royally, but not in bad faith. In solidarityWikipedian12512 (Talking is fine|contribs) 02:16, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Well then, id change my vote for block if he was told to be better. Temporary probs best.User:Bluethricecreamman(Talk·Contribs) 02:22, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Ugh. I still believe that it wasn’t in bad faith, per se, but still ugh. Feel free to give a more stern warning. I think he though that as long as he didn’t explicitly request people to take a side, it was fine. In solidarityWikipedian12512 (Talking is fine|contribs) 02:23, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
I think he knows exactly what he is doing. He's not going to be doing all of this without having studied the very policy that he is trying to change. ⹃Maltazarianᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 02:57, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
He knows exactly what he's doing. His rhetoric is very MAGA-inflected, and he's emulating the Project 2025 playbook for his project here. His goals are the same—it's all about power. Carlstak (talk) 03:08, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
How about we just give him a block from non-article namespaces until he can prove he’s willing to comply by our given rules? In solidarityWikipedian12512 (Talking is fine|contribs) 04:53, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
I would agree if he didn't make its point blank clear he does not care about WP:policy nor feels he did anything wrong. Bobbobet (talk) 21:19, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
TBan him from WikiProjects and policy or Wikispace in general. Any pretense that Larry is here to build the encyclopedia with us (I'm sure he wants to build a encyclopedia of some sort, but it's not this one) is gone, which is sad to see of course. That said, as others have pointed out, banning him is practically inviting him to cause even more drama and disruption. So instead of creating headlines like the one @Chaotic Enby succinctly gave as an example, let's be pragmatic and employ a relatively wiki-bureaucratic measure that's harder to spin as being an example of persecution by a shadowy cabal of POV-pushers who have captured Wikipedia. ⹃Maltazarianᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 02:54, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
I still stand by much of what I said above but in the light of the interview and other editors comments in response to it I will also Support CBan as an alternative. ⹃Maltazarianᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 19:02, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
For editors information...Larry Sanger has a clean block log (except for an illegal ban that was quickly removed). Again, this offense is worth, well, maybe a three-day ban. Shows that the community is serious. But a topic ban? For what? His "ignore all rules" proposal was discussed and dismissed. That's not disruptive, that's a good faith suggestion backed up by a functional point of view. A clean block log should not jump from that to indef, or a topic ban from the very set of rules and guidelines that Sanger either personally created or set in motion. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:12, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Let's be real here. He's only got a clean block log because he's a cofounder and if it were anyone else he'd have been indef'd a long time ago. wound theology◈ 03:18, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Speculation and "what if?" should have no place in such a serious decision, and should be no part of anyone's resolution suggestion. Maybe strike? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:28, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
No, it's entirely reasonable for an editor to feel another editor's behaviour has been bad enough over time that a topic ban is well justified, and the clean block log is indicative of nothing other than an editor's unique circumstances. WP:UNBLOCKABLES is well accepted by many and very related. Of course the whole premise of your opening is silly. Plenty of editors are topic banned with a clean block log. I have no idea how/why an experienced Wikipedian would think a block log is required for a topic ban, but if something were to be struck it should be your opening sentence as it "should be no part of anyone's resolution suggestion". Edit: Since it's something the community has so thoroughly rejected. And if you want to try to change our policies and guidelines on this you really should take that somewhere else not some particular editor's sanction discussion. And at least, if you are going to use such a sanction discussion to advocate change you should make it clear that's what you're doing rather than acting like it's the editor who is just following our normal and well accepted practices is somehow doing something that should not be part of such a discussion when it's regularly done & well accepted. :end edit Edit 2: BTW a key point is that while the reasons why Larry Sanger has never been blocked is somewhat speculative, this ultimately doesn't matter. If an editor assessing their record feels they really should have been sanctioned long ago, the lack of previous sanction does not have to cause them to reconsider. They just feel the editor has gotten lucky for whatever reason whether because of no one noticed or because as suggested here, admins have been reluctant to impose sanction. The previous record is what matters here not the speculation as to the reasons they escaped a blocked. :end edit Nil Einne (talk) 05:00, 20 June 2026 (UTC) 09:09, 20 June 2026 (UTC) 09:22, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
(edit conflict) E.g. for topic bans User:Riposte97 was just site banned. They have a single block which while it did stand was also partly in error. They received at least two topic bans (one as an admin-CTOP, the other from the community) prior to their site ban, indeed their solitary block was due to a topic ban violation. One of their proposals to try an advert a site ban was to voluntarily be topic banned from all CTOP areas. User talk:Rosemeyer2022 was topic banned a few weeks ago Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1225#User:Rosemeyer2022. They have 54 edits and a clean block log. User:AlexeyKhrulev was site banned a few weeks ago Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1225# after the community was split between a topic ban and site ban again with a clean block log. A bit further back, User:Roger 8 Roger was topic banned Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1224#Ongoing issues with Roger 8 Roger and Māori topics again with a clean block log. I could go on but at it stands I have 4 editors I need to notify and it's going to be weird notifying editors that I mentioned their topic ban or especially site ban as an example. So I'll leave it at that. Note these are all the topic bans imposed that I found in the 3 most recent archives at ANI as well as the current page and AN. I didn't leave out a whole load because of a block log, there were none except for yours. Yours does qualify as a topic ban imposed with a block log, but I'm sure you know the details and it's the only one I found. I did exclude any proposals which didn't pass and any mention of topic bans which were not imposed in those archives. Nil Einne (talk) 05:24, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
BTW, the key reason it matters so much related to what I said above. It's fairly well accepted that admins are editors who've been given a special set of tools to manage problems here. While the community directly (in the case of community CTOP/DS) and indirectly (via arbcom and arbcom CTOP) has given them some special powers, in the general case they aren't special besides the toolset. Since they've been vetting by the community and trusted at some stage, we assume they're competent to close discussions and they can also impose any administrative action that might be needed from that close. But otherwise they don't really have any special power or say on Wikipedia.
And WP:NACs are a thing when administrative action isn't needed and especially when it's relatively non contentious. Technically administrative action isn't needed for a community topic ban until after it's violated, but given how contentious & significant such things are, it's true that a NAC for a community topic ban is probably a bad idea. That said, even when editors make NACs when it is something contentious previous discussions suggest the community is often reluctant to overturn them unless an actual problem is identified beyond it being an NAC.
Likewise and perhaps most importantly, editors are expected to learn our policies and guidelines and accept guidance from all editors. No editor should refuse to listen to guidance just because it wasn't an admin. Of course editors can provide bad advice although frankly this includes admins, but if enough editors have warned someone & provided sufficient information and explanation & linked to the relevant policies and guidelines, it's the editors responsibility to learn & if they still had doubt they were always free to ask themselves somewhere appropriate.
Any editor who requires warnings from admins, let alone blocks before they will improve is problematic and is definitely not something we want. Of course we do generally want to give editors a chance, so most of the time we'll try escalating blocks and bans.
But a topic ban is a form of that. The editor is forbidden from editing a certain topic. A wikipedia namespace or project space ban is in many ways one of the easier to navigate. We hope by keeping this editor out of this topic we're they seem to get themselves into most trouble they will improve & one way maybe they can appeasl their topic ban. If the ban fails, e.g. because they keep violating it or the problems move to other areas, then we escalate with more blocks or bans.
In other words, no, we definitely do not have to give a short block before an editor can be topic banned. We should generally give them warnings, guidance etc, but that's about it.
The topic ban being pursued wouldn't keep Sanger from being an editor in most areas of the site. As for there being a "good faith suggestion", there seems to be plenty of backup and discussion by now that this is not what we're dealing with. Chipping at Wikipedia's values in a way that would harm our product isn't a good thing. Suggested reading is the replies at his WikiProject proposal. Even with WP:AGF afforded, many editors seriously believe he is attacking Wikipedia. People are tired of this. the Stefen 𝕋ower 03:42, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Besides the losing RfC on removing WP:IAR, what has he done in policy space that has caused a lessening of Wikipedia values? Almost none of his nine thesis, nailed to the door with four tildes, will get off the ground, and I don't think he's offered up any more of them for RfC but I haven't followed everything. Advocating for a new WikiProject seems within the sidelines. Questioning the extent of the neutrality of sources will likely generate a reasonable discussion at some point. A topic ban, mainly for fear of imaginary future action, seems Philip K. Dickish. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:20, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
It is CANVASS and NOTHERE that have been discussed at this AN/I primarily. Sanger would not be sanctioned for creating or nominating WPID (though a TBAN would prevent any future renom). 11WB (talk) 05:49, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Advocating for a new WikiProject seems within the sidelines. It seems that this was the second time he tried to get that project approved. Making the same proposal multiple times just because it has been rejected is a disruptive way of wasting other editor's time. Nakonana (talk) 16:57, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
There is nothing imaginary about Sanger's past and present actions, which provide enough rationale to do this topic ban. It's saying "no more of these attacks on the values of Wikipedia". It's important to note that this isn't just about an editor having ideas/criticisms in their user space. It's about creating vehicles for attack from outside the Wikipedia. He is corralling media to drag down the Wikipedia in his pursuit of the destruction of its values. Enough of this. the Stefen 𝕋ower 00:15, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
Indef or, if the community chickens out due to this individual being WP:UNBLOCKABLE, a ban from project space. There is no way in the world that any other user would have not been indeffed for this. They are not here to build an encyclopaedia, they are here to participate in coordinated political action, through the medium of blatant breaches of WP:CANVAS.Boynamedsue (talk) 05:20, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Indef Sanger has been given a shocking amount of leeway because of his unmistakable pedigree, and because of the PR firestorm that the far-right and their “just asking questions” collaborators would inevitably ignite; but at a certain point we do have to ask how long can we allow one editor to take a chainsaw to the foundations of the project in the name of a blatantly stated Trumpist agenda to rewrite the wiki in favor of the new right, before we decide that we’re not going to let the project be noosed by Breitbart, Fox News, and The Daily Wire just to keep him from feeling that much more aggrieved. Snokalok2 (talk) 05:32, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
In regards to the below thread, either we crush this now and take whatever hit may come - or we don't, and let the project be hijacked and turned into a weapon for everything it's ever stood against. Snokalok2 (talk) 15:23, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Support TBAN from Wikipedia namespace and from WikiProjects, broadly construed.Support indef now that I have read a transcript of the interview referenced below, and have completely run out of AGF where Sanger is concerned. 13:27, 20 June 2026 (UTC)[Sanger comes across as a parent who is angry that his child has grown up and developed values different from his own. I'm likely one of the few commenters here who was around in 2001 when he was actively working to build the encyclopaedia, for which I am still thankful. Like him, I spent a few years away from Wikipedia (for completely different reasons). When I returned, I took time to become familiar with current policies and culture. I expect any editor returning from a long absence to demonstrate their commitment to the Wikipedia that exists today. If the Larry Sanger of 2026 and the Wikipedia of 2026 now have values and principles that cannot be reconciled, then it may be necessary for both parties to keep their distance from each other. —In solidarity with Wiki Workers United] · ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email) 05:36, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Oppose indef but weak support Wikipedia name space ban other than the administrative noticeboards and ARE - for better or worse, I feel as others said a indef will just fuel too much offsite nonsense that it won't be useful. However I feel Larry Sanger is regularly wasting enough editor time & causing enough confusion especially to new editors who don't understand how out of touch he is that it would be best to do something. And my feeling is a Wikipedia name space ban would be a better way to shut this down. But let them stay at the ANs & ARE for now as their primary problems seem to be their pointless proposals etc. If they start to cause problems in the ANs we can deal with it then. If they extend their problems to elsewhere, again we can re-asses. While I'm not opposed to excluding BLPN and maybe some other noticeboards, I feel there's too much risk there they will use it for other pointless proposals. Nil Einne (talk) 05:46, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Should clarify I mean both the Wikipedia name space and Wikipedia talk name space which AFAIK is the same as what is often called project space. Nil Einne (talk) 05:54, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
For further clarified, I'm fine with also covering Larry Sanger using user space for proposals be it for Wikiprojects or anything else. I feel this matters a lot less, editors should mostly just ignore nonsense Larry Sanger does in his userspace unless it's bad enough to need MFD, but if editors feel it's need that's fine. Likewise while I'd prefer to exclude the ANs and ARE, I'm not opposed to including them if editors feel it's needed. And about my oppose, while it does seem likely Larry Sanger will canvass about the site ban/indef block which won't help matters, my concern is more than even without that there's likely to be enough nonsense to cause significant on wiki problems. This will hardly be the first time we've modified our actions because of the disruption another action will cause. We do it all the time when we don't sanction a certain editor because of how popular they are among some parts of the community. The fact that's generally more internal doesn't make much difference And the topic ban will IMO significantly reduce the likely disruption compared to a an site ban. As for Larry Sanger, again IMO if he doesn't abide by it or he tests the edges, we can deal with that. My opinion is most likely he'll largely just leave either wasys let's just try. Nil Einne (talk) 10:36, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
BTW, a key problem here IMO which we sometimes get with other editors, is how Larry Sanger sees himself within the project. Given how long he's basically been out of it, he really should treat himself as basically a new editor fairly unfamiliar with our policies and guidelines & therefore someone who has an extra special need to pay attention to what editors are telling them. This clearly isn't how he sees himself, as epitomised by his comments above about bludgeoning. Editors are semi regularly blocked with bludgeoning mentioned either in the block log (going back 15000 blocks I counted 2 blocks with bludgeoning in the log) or blocking comment on their talk page. And editors who've tried to argue this isn't allowed have received short shrift Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1114#Request unblock. (To be clear, I'm not saying that or any particular editor suffers from the same confusion as Larry Sanger about their understanding of our policies or guidelines just that it is common.) More careful admins might throw disruptive editing in there, but either way it's well accepted that bludgeoning is blockable and editors who are too confident that it's not and refuse to listen to explanations will often fail to improve. Nil Einne (talk) 09:01, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Support indefinite sitewide block. Any other editor who has engaged in disruptive editing to the extent that this user has would have already been indefinitely blocked for not being here to build an encyclopedia, as the observed behavior reflects a "General pattern of disruptive behavior", "Major or irreconcilable conflict of attitude or intention", and "Long-term agenda inconsistent with building an encyclopedia". In addition to his constant improper canvassing, Larry Sanger has not only called for the doxing of functionaries and supported the Heritage Foundation's proposal to dox editors, but also advocated for the reintegration of websites that were blacklisted for doxing editors, including Breitbart News and OpIndia.Larry Sanger has already gone on a media tour, which included him criticizing the Wikipedia community on The Alex Jones Show (31 October 2025 podcast episode) for rebuking unreliable and fringe sources such as Infowars, and at this point has exhausted many of the media outlets that would offer him a platform. Keeping Larry Sanger in the Wikipedia community in the hopes of him badmouthing the community in the media less often is equivalent to making payments to a protection racket, and is an ineffective course of action that I refuse to support because it would only drag out his disruptive editing even longer. Larry Sanger is free to say what he wants to the media; a community ban would likely generate one last round of media attention, and then we can continue editing without needing to deal with Larry Sanger's on-wiki disruption anymore. —Newslingertalk 06:09, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
I think a CBAN is too much. An indeff holds out the hope he can return should he (re-)find an appetite for actually building the encyclopedia, rather than engaging in WP:POINTY stunts. Bon courage (talk) 06:11, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
TBAN from Wiki-space at minimum per Newslinger. I've long held the position that no editor is above another, especially when it comes to sanctions; this holds true for our esteemed co-founder too. This editing is disruptive. A refusal to accept the points of bludgeoning owing to that not being explicit policy is mere wikilawyering and a refusal to get the point. Neutral on indef for now; even while editors are shown the door for less, I also believe in applying the minimum effective sanction; I still wonder if a block on agitation will redirect Mr. Sanger to productive editing.In solidarity, Iseult Δx talk to me 06:22, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
After a review of his edit history and the podcast interview, I’m good with an indef. No evidence of being here to contribute productively. In solidarity, Iseult Δx talk to me 17:19, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Support indef per WP:NOTHERE; essentially all of Sanger's contributions for a long long time have been solely focused on WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. A topic ban from Wikipedia namespace would be insufficient given that the misbehavior in question crosses a wide range of places on Wikipedia; it makes no sense to allow him to continue with his battleground efforts in his userspace, for instance. The problem is not his editing in one particular namespace, but his efforts to use Wikipedia as a place to wage a wide range of culture wars. If a topic ban were considered, just looking at the things he sought to canvass for on User:Larry_Sanger/WikiProject_Intellectual_Diversity/PolicyScanner, broadly-construed bans from Wikipedia (as a topic), AP2, and perhaps I/P and GENSEX would be the bare minimum, but this would cover essentially everything that seems to drive his current editing; and as the long list shows, the issue isn't even one particular topic (except perhaps Wikipedia itself), the issue is that his approach to literally any part of Wikipedia whose current text he disagrees with is to treat the entire encyclopedia as a front in a sweeping culture-war over his views. This is a WP:NOTHERE issue in that it cuts to his core reason for engaging with Wikipedia. Every editor has their own perspective or views or preconceptions, but it has been abundently clear for a long time that Sanger's sole purpose in engaging with Wikipedia is to force its content into alignment with his views, with no regard for existing policy, sourcing, or anything else except as another lever to be used towards that end - there is no indication whatsoever that has any desire to do anything else here. The only appropriate response to this is an indef. We must treat Sanger like any other editor; and any other editor who behaved this way would have received an indef long ago. I'm also baffled at the editors above who argue that they don't see the harm - allowing anyone to use Wikipedia as a battleground contributes to turning everything into a battleground. Look at the list of editors who supported his most recent initiative, and in particular the disproportionately large number of them blocked for similar WP:NOTHERE behavior; they were embolded in their naked efforts to use Wikipedia as a front for their culture wars by his presence here and the fact that we allowed him to misbehave due to his history, likely believing (falsely) that it meant they could get away with the same thing. We must enforce our policies uniformly if they are to have any meaning, and not flinch away from clear-cut calls like this. EDIT: For the avoidance of doubt, I also want to clearly state that I utterly oppose any sort of bespoke or special sanction, ie. anything other than a CBAN or, failing that, a few topic-bans. We must treat him like any other editor; people keep trying to introduce well-meaning but deeply inappropriate bespoke restrictions to tiptoe around his supposedly special status. Since I don't want to come back to this discussion again and again and shoot down every one of those, put me on the record of being strictly opposed to all of them. --Aquillion (talk) 06:24, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Support indef I actually agree with Larry that we can improve our treatment of new editors...but he has also requested doxing of functionaries, and is trying to open Wikipedia up to fake news...this is dangerous behavior, and we need to make it very clear as a community that this kind of behavior will not be tolerated. Hopefully by banning him the media will take notice of his actions and start an investigation into him and who might be funding him, and stop this before it spirals out of hand. 123957a (talk) 06:32, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Support indef per the exact words of Newslinger above. The fact anyone here continues to tolerate or justify Sanger’s behavior is gross. We cannot allow Wikipedia to fall the way of the United States government. This needs to end now before it gets any worse than it has. Electricmemory (talk) In solidarity 06:56, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Support indef per WP:NOTHERE as well as his long history of disruption and policy violation on the project. Newslinger and Aquilion put it succintly above. Enough time has been spent, and enough WP:ROPE given, in dealing with his "proposals" which really are little-veiled vehicles for canvassing and POV-pushing for the violation of PAGs (and, in some cases such as his proposal for doxxing advanced right-holders, ToU violations), and we are better off removing him from the project and focussing our time and energy on more useful matters. What he chooses to do if he sanctioned or ejected from the project is ultimately none of our business, and should not be an incentive for us to keep wasting time on his "proposals". As a second choice, I support both an indef TBan from PAGs and a block from every namespace except mainspace and Talk. JavaHurricane 07:10, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Support indef, for reasons the others have already all well articulated. The idea that an indef is impractical because he'll cause a stir offwiki should not be heeded; we can't allow someone to hold our sanctions process hostage by threat of being a nuisance. Let him cause all the noise he wants. When any other editor demonstrates as clearly as Sanger has that they're completely at odds with Wikipedia's values, we show them the door. The same should go here. Athanelar (talk) 07:22, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Oppose indef, support topic banning from Wikipedia namespace If he cries wolf about the T-ban, respond by saying that "well you can still improve the encyclopedia, what is the point of your complaint?" ~2026-21916-69 (talk) 09:18, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Support TBAN indef from Wikipedia guidelines and policy, construed broadly enough that his PolicyScanner and proposed WPID would be included. But I am unsure if an indef is the right idea, as I feel this was a bit borderline. Slatersteven (talk) 09:22, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
This has been answered above. Namespaces barring mainspace and talk. 11WB (talk) 09:32, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I answered your previous comment revision, feel free to ignore that. 11WB (talk) 09:33, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
I have now revised my vote, based on his outright support for trolling (as having a bit of fun). Being disruptive whilst at ANI shows that they are never going to change. Slatersteven (talk) 09:30, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Support indef. A block from "article" space is pointless since he rarely edits articles; Larry's most active period was in 2002. We are no longer in the 2000s, Wikipedia has evolved even if some dislike the results. Now Wikipedia is built with consensus, something Larry is openly against. I'm supporting an indef because he was informed about canvassing in April 2026; his answer was "There is no rule against [what he did then]; if there were, I would follow it". Now aware of the rule, he decided not to follow it, incidentally or deliberately, showing no signs of regret (the tweet is still alive, isn't it?). Yes, Larry wants to be blocked; this is the reason why he continues the disruptive patterns, he wants to demonstrate a point to the world. User:Larry Sanger/Nine Theses was the first sign of this; implicitly asking people to be doxxed, but without assuming the consequences was bad on its own but people decided to give him a pass. Yes, Larry will complaint about it at his social media, and then the media will give it the spotlight--until the news circle dies naturally. I don't doubt he already has an outline of an essay written just in case. Then it will be published at any platform that wants the clicks. He complains about Wikipedia every now and then (this was last month), blocked or not, he will continue doing it. A block will give him more gasoline for sure, but letting him continue editing indefinitely, will give him indefinite gasoline for more disruptive patterns. Tbhotch™(CCBY-SA4.0) 09:34, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
First choice is support indef, with a TBAN from Wikipedia space if that doesn't pass. Larry has shown time and time again he is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, but instead here to right great wrongs and force Wikipedia to accomodate far-right fringe viewpoints; any pretending by him that this is not what he wants is as obvious as possible. He is here entirely to push his political POV, and we have banned many editors who actually contributed to the project for doing exactly that. CoconutOctopustalk 09:40, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
I will also add that I do not believe a tban would do very much other than put a sticking plaster on this situation. Is there anyone actually convinced that, if tbanned, Larry would suddenly start creating quality content, rather than find another way to do the only thing he has done since returning, which is trying to push his POV onto the project? The concerns about backlash are meaningless; it'll happen anyway, and frankly, the sources which will be the ones criticising us if we ban him are the sources who hate and criticise us anyway regardless of what we do. CoconutOctopustalk 11:09, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Support indef. I believe that lesser measures will not be effective. The problem with "let's avoid the bad publicity" is that once we let it be known that we can be bullied by the threat of bad publicity, there will be no end to it. Never pay anyone Dane-geld. And the problem with TBAN is that if the intent is to disrupt, you can disrupt with access to any facet of Wikipedia. There is little point in chasing the problem from one namespace to another. M kuhner (talk) 09:57, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Support indef per the NOTHERE reasons well articulated by others, particularly Newslinger. I'll also add that I think Larry's understanding of "anyone can edit" is different from the understanding that, just because anyone can edit, doesn't mean that everyone should. While I agree that the community could do more to support newer editors, Larry's understanding seems to be that "anyone can edit" amounts to "anyone can edit whatever and however they want with whatever sources they find reliable" (or, put another way, edit in a way that confirms their own prior beliefs) which flies in the face of a community consensus driven project that requires a shared basis of what verifiability means (a shared basis described in our PAGs). See for example this comment or this one.I've only been here a few months but it seems that every time I see a discussion involving Larry and his ideas, they take up lots of community time that could be spent elsewhere actually benefiting the project. He should have to appeal to the community if he wants to take more of our valuable volunteer time by explaining how he will constructively contribute to the project in the future. In solidarity, ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 09:59, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Support indef first, TBAN second. It's sad to see, but Larry isn't interested in how Wikipedia has developed and grown over time, instead his entire focus has been on changing it to for his view of what it should be. It feels like a parent who wanted their child to be a doctor, but just can't accept their success as an artist. The amount of time the community has spent on his proposals compared to the amount of time he's spent improving the encyclopedia (19 edits in the last decade) unfortunately makes it clear that he's no longer here to build an encyclopedia. I won't discuss my feelings on the proposed Wikiproject and views because I don't want to inflict that on readers. Enough has been said about that already. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 10:20, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Support indef for the massive canvas. How many Twitter followers has he got? - Walternot a grumpy old man Ego 12:24, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Oppose indef, support tban. While I have little faith in Larry's intentions, I'd consider an indef at this point inadvisable. This would without question play into the hands of those on the US right wing who are keen to eliminate Wikipedia as an independent source of information. A topic ban, on the other hand, will give Larry the opportunity to demonstrate that he is both capable of acting like a normal contributor, and willing to do so. It will also present him with the opportunity to actually study current the policy, practice etc which he so roundly criticises despite clearly being unfamiliar with much of it. Functionally speaking, if Larry choses not to participate in a useful way, the result is the same, but without the opportunity for propagandising. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:33, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Support at the very least a topic ban of Sanger from attempting to establish WPID again and just generally advocating for 'Wikipedia reform' on-wiki, but leaning towards an indef block, per Butterscotch Beluga's comment, and the below comment about Sanger's recent interview. ☾⟣✦Inzessin✦⟢☽(talk) 12:54, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Note that I changed my recomendation. See the Modest Proposal section. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:18, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
Support indefinite block - While I'm a bit sympathetic to some of Sanger's stated goals -- I actually do think that we can sometimes to be too reverential to the sources and content that reflect the worldview of educated, center-left Western editors (which includes myself) -- none of that justifies Sanger's actions or his approach to editing this encyclopedia. If this isn't blatant canvassing, that would could ever be considered as such? If this isn't a battleground, then what ever would be? CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 13:14, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Support indef or tban because of massive off-site canvassing. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:45, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Support indef or tban. I usually try to stay away from ANI when I'm not involved in an incident, but the CNN-News18 podcast linked below has pushed things way over the line for me. Larry is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia and I worry that, even if he were solely topic banned, it wouldn't convince him to try contributing in a productive way. His WikiProject proposal was nothing short of an attempt to establish an on-wiki canvassing operation to support his own ideas for the how project should be run, which he is now supplementing by off-wiki canvassing on Twitter and a Godi media outlet. The concerns of an indefinite block adding fuel to the fire, although I think had valid reasons at the time, no longer stand up; he's already dumping fuel onto the fire himself. Were this any other user, this wouldn't even be a discussion. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:57, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Oppose indef because it wouldn't be safe for the admin that performed the block. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:09, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Then make me an admin and I will. There is no way that we should refuse to ban him for this reason. This is exaclty what his BS 9 thesis was about, the ability to imdimidate. If this is a valid fear, it is a reason to issue a life long wikiwide ban. So I would ask Sanger to confirm he would not in fact encourage violence against any admoin who sanctions him. Slatersteven (talk) 14:14, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Never ever forget Bassel Khartabil, our own martyr, who was imprisoned and executed for editing Wikipedia. Wikipedia is dangerous, and our own Wikimedia Foundation openly colludes with authoritarian regimes who want to prosecute our editors. This particular regime, Modi's India, is exactly who Larry is courting. wound theology◈ 14:23, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
I think if we allow someone to cause such an issue that the only reason they are not banned is because it would present a genuine danger to the admin who did the banning, then that is a very clear proof they should be banned. There are 800 admins and I'm sure at least one would be willing to do it; god forbid, the Office account could perform the block on behalf of us if we all decide we can't safely do it. CoconutOctopustalk 14:19, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
It doesn't make them involved at AE, what's different here? Snokalok2 (talk) 14:36, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
You mean the discussion part at AE usually titled something like "Result concerning xyz"? Those admins are uninvolved in the underlying dispute. Here the CBAN discussion is part of the underlying dispute (therefore involved). If an admin filed a complaint against someone at AE themselves or were otherwise involved in the underlying dispute they would also be involved for AE purposes. In solidarity, ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 14:44, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
@ClaudineChionh You're right about that. Not sure how many other admins on that list are still active. EaglesFan37 (talk) 14:41, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
There are at least three who still regularly contribute (SWATJester, Black Kite, Bishonen), but one of them (Black Kite) is INVOLVED in the same manner as Newslinger. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 23:21, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
(sorry if I didn't fix all the edit conflicts, I tried honest) SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:24, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
I mean, there's difficult blocks, then there's freaking suicidal blocks. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:10, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
And to be clear, I'm not accusing Larry of anything - it's the Twitter etc. followers I'm concerned about. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:13, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
If that's the decision of the community, we shall survive, after a bit of a rocky road. But with all the other things going on in the news, particularly in the U.S., this would quickly be forgotten. the Stefen 𝕋ower 21:14, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
One admin can perform a difficult block, but I'm unsure whether one admin is enough to determine the whole thread. Indeed, we're discussing one of special cases, Larry Sanger, perhaps a populist. George Ho (talk) 21:16, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
I haven't commented on this discussion at all and considered to be uninvolved. I'm willing to close this proposal after sufficient time (72 hours) for discussions to run its course per WP:CBAN, which puts it no earlier than 20:47, 22 June 2026 (UTC). As also suggested by Rhododendrites below, I'm willing to workshop and co-write the closing statement with other uninvolved admin(s). OhanaUnitedTalk page 06:36, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
Support indef he's been WP:NOTHERE for years now. The section below further convinced me. Co-founder or not, you break rules, you face the punishment. jolielover♥talk 14:22, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Support community ban - There is no need to tolerate his destructive goals any further. Accesscrawl (talk) 14:25, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Support INDEF Yes, there will be a persecution complext that results. Yes, he'll rant about it in the media, but that doesn't mean we need to tolerate blatant Not Here for the sake of polite fiction. And @Randy Kryn: I know you love being a contrarian, but Speculation and "what if?" should have no place in such a serious decision, is silly. Neither does trolling. You know that any other editor would have long been blocked. This is not speculation. PLease knock it off. StarMississippi 14:26, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Comment Hang on everyone. We're literally talking about banning the co-founder of Wikipedia from the project he helped create? Whether you agree with Sanger's views or not, we must acknowledge that if it weren't for him and Jimbo, this community quite literally would not exist. Wikipedia and the entire Wikimedia movement would never have seen the light of day. It is an extraordinary claim to suggest that someone who helped bring a wildly successful project to life is no longer actually supporting it or even possibly working to undermine it. Thus we ought to be viewing the issue through that lens, and not rushing to conclusions. Frankly I'd argue that such an extraordinary measure shouldn't be decided simply by !vote at ANI without broader input from users who may not have the "dramboard" watchlisted (I don't, but I skim through its contents every now and then. But not everyone even does that). Having reviewed the evidence, including the now-infamous 9 theses, I personally have mixed opinions. Specifically though, I wanted to address the allegations of "Sanger supports doxxing admins" because this appears to be inaccurate and a misuse of the term. In my experience, "doxxing" refers to the malicious disclosure of nonpublic information with the specific intent to directly cause or incite others to cause harm. I don't see any intent to cause harm in Sanger's proposals. I see a suggestion and a belief that Wikipedia's "authorities" should be able to be held accountable in the real world. I'm not sure I fully agree with that or not, but the fact of the matter is that Wikipedia is in the real world and should not be immune from legitimate real-world consequences (whether they be positive or negative). Wikipedia is in effect a form of journalism, and in a country with a free press, no journalist worth themselves will hide behind an anonymous pseudonym when publishing. Now, do I think that all of Wikipedia's ordinary editors should be required to use their real names? No. Heck, I'm not certain that would even be necessary for "regular" admins. But ArbCom and functionaries? I think that's a different animal. I would think that if Person X has the ability to access my nonpublic information and potentially determine my identity (or at a minimum, plausibly deduce my geographical location based on IP data), that in and of itself gives me the right to know who Person X is. I don't see how that's unreasonable; people should be able to know the identities of the people with whom they are entrusting their personal information in a relatively insecure environment. Even putting aside the PII issue, 99% of organizations, both nonprofits and corporate companies, maintain a public list of who their executives and other leaders are (and even if they don't publish it by default, it can likely be obtained via freedom-of-information or other relevant statute). So please, let's slow down, not jump the gun, and fully think through what we are doing here. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 14:48, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Do you really think that if Sanger and/or Jimbo hadn't had the idea to use an already-established concept - the Wiki - to create an encyclopaedia (or something that aspires to be one), nobody else would have? It's the editing community (in which Sanger has only ever marginally played a part) that is responsible for what Wikipedia is today (good and bad), and not a couple of people who started a website with a vague idea that a Wiki 'encyclopaedia' might attract contributions faster than actively seeking out qualified experts. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:00, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Fuck all that, ban him. We don't do hero worship around here. Also, Wikipedia exists in spite of Larry, not because of him. It was a fluke in his laundry list of failed projects. wound theology◈ 14:56, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
With all due respect to @TOTT, this feels like a distraction away from the actual issues that have been discussed at this AN/I. 11WB (talk) 15:00, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Some fathers get parental rights. Some courts will prioritise the needs of the child, and weigh the benefits and harms of allowing the father access. Some children are all grown up and decide for themselves. NebY (talk) 15:03, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
I thought the whole idea behind Wikipedia is that it has no owner, we are all equal and knowledge should be free? Slatersteven (talk) 15:08, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Larry abandoned the project for two decades because his creätion had grown to take care of itself. Since then, he has undermined it and has now come back for a POV-pushing movement whilst canvassing and supporting the ideä of millions of editors fighting to change a contentiöus topic. I don't see why we should care that Larry helped build the floor when he abandoned us to construct the rest and now wants a mob to burn the wallpaper. toby(t)(rw) 15:10, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
It is an extraordinary claim to suggest that someone who helped bring a wildly successful project to life is no longer actually supporting it or even possibly working to undermine it. Much like consensus, people can change, sometimes faster sometime slower, but we have to take them as they are right now. I'd argue that such an extraordinary measure shouldn't be decided simply by !vote at ANI without broader input from users who may not have the "dramboard" watchlisted If we take WP:NOELDERS seriously then this place which has seen plenty of very prolific editors banned for less than what Larry has done is also good enough for this discussion about him. but the fact of the matter is that Wikipedia is in the real world and should not be immune from legitimate real-world consequences (whether they be positive or negative). Wikipedia is in effect a form of journalism, and in a country with a free press, no journalist worth themselves will hide behind an anonymous pseudonym when publishing. You're right of course, Wikipedian's have been imprisoned and killed and France once tried to force an admin to delete things, among plenty of more recent examples of legal threats. You'll forgive editors and admins from trying to protect themselves from that potential downside risk (depending on where we live and where we travel, we're not all in places with a strong free press) of participating in the project. Should editors in less secure places or with less secure livings (what do employers think about your editing?) be excluded from functionary positions? Can we only have functionaries who are able and willing and voluntarily doxx themselves? both nonprofits and corporate companies, maintain a public list of who their executives and other leaders are So does the WMF In solidarity, ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 15:16, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
We're literally talking about banning the co-founder of Wikipedia from the project he helped create?
Means nothing. There are no "gods" here. Also he's a "co-founder" in the sense of "was here 25 years ago where he made a few contributions and then threw his toys out the pram and left" before coming back all these years later because the only notability he has as a person is being a "co-founder" of this site.
Frankly I'd argue that such an extraordinary measure shouldn't be decided simply by !vote at ANI
Nothing extraordinary about banning a disruptive user. He gets not special treatment.
I don't see any intent to cause harm in Sanger's proposals.
He's literally pushing conspiracies that they're backed by shadowy forces. He's not a toddler, he knows exactly what he's doing with such language. Rambling Rambler (talk) 15:16, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
I am on the fence of a CBAN or possibly topic ban. I think I would support it as well, but the situation is still developing. I would disagree with the notion that functionaries or arbcom should publicly disclose their identities. Their work is sensitive and draws attention from a lot of parties that may wish to harm them. This would be irresponsible and counterproductive. If I were told I had to put my real name on my profile to become a functionary, I would never do so. This doesn't mean I may not eventually disclose that information, but I have always been hesitant about it (and I have a lot of respect for editors who do.) ASUKITE 15:42, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Support CBAN. This particular user has a history of weaponizing the project to further his own goals. He should not be allowed back without community consensus. IsCat (talk) 15:12, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
I note that Snager has at least one block, thus this is not a straight escalation from nothing to ban. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slatersteven (talk • contribs) 15:41, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Support full INDEF, per Carlstak. If Larry just edited normally, there might not be any problem, but he doesn't. He is fomenting insurrection and violating our prohibition against advocacy of fringe opinions. His mission is to turn Wikipedia into Citizendium, or at least sabotage it so it can no longer compete with that failed project. That's as NOTHERE as it's possible to get, so he should not be allowed here. Let him concentrate on keeping Citizendium the place where he can spew his nonsense. There should be a stark contrast between the two, so he should not be allowed to water Wikipedia down to his level. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:22, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Ok the podcast appearance convinced me. Support indef. Doubling down like this and using his microphone to shout about a WP:SNOW failure of a proposal is simply unacceptable. Simonm223 (talk) 13:39, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
I saw that video earlier today and assumed it was a re-upload as the background on Sanger's side looked identical to his older infobox article image. Is this definitely recent, and if so, how recent? 11WB (talk) 13:45, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Less than a day ago. Simonm223 (talk) 13:54, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Not identical. Similar bookcase, some of the books on it look the same, but plenty of differences among them too. A lot of people like to appear in front of their bookshelves, to the extent that you can even buy fake bookshelf backdrops - but the books don't move around on those. NebY (talk) 14:18, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Thanks for confirming. Having seen the relevant timestamps, it is clear to me that Sanger did indeed canvass to an audience of just over 10 million subscribers. 11WB (talk) 15:39, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Support indef I had no idea who he was. I read his proposal/RfC yesterday (apropos nothing, really) and thought it seemed like a thinly veiled 'movement', which is what it turns out it was. Took a look at his edits, did wonder why a 'co-founder' of Wikipedia who gave a hoot about the whole thing would notch up less than 2,000 edits in 24 years and those mostly in talkspace with very little to no evidence of any intent to, or work in support of, contribute to an encyclopaedia. Reading the above (quite the read) and taking into account the clear off-Wiki canvassing and general lack of good/positive faith or intent, he's probably better off moaning over at Wikipediocracy than he is wasting people's time here. So he's noisy right now, so stop the noise and indef him. I'll just note that in the intervening years, this has become a global project that is infinitely larger than US politics. It really should not be influenced by US politics - left or right - or considerations relating to such, IMHO. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:56, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Everyone, even the cofounder of wikipedia, has a set of words out there that can make them turn off their brain. For some it's "Do you work out?", for others it's "We predict the returns from this investment could be exponential", and for some it's "President Trump left TRAUMATIZED after being FORCED by the WOKE MOB to look at a transgender immigrant with a university education!" Snokalok2 (talk) 14:15, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Support indef I was a bit hesitant to go this far before, I felt the tweet, while clearly WP:CANVASSING could have been explained by not understanding the rules as they currently are and wanting to share a milestone if we very generously WP:AGF and given his apparent WP:NOTHERE behaviour I thought a topic-ban would have been well justified but not overly harsh. After seeing his behaviour during this whole affair, his comments on here, and social media and the latest interview that there frankly is no longer and room to WP:AGF and that this is how he behaves while under scrutiny leads me to believe that there is nothing wikipedia could gain by his continued participation in the project and its better to tear the band-aid off now rather than letting this issue fester until next time. Giulio 14:55, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Support Indef unless if he agrees to stop using his platform to try to affect consensus processes here, broadly construed. This behavior is in article space too; he uses his platform to push for changes supporting his point of view in discussions he is participating in.LordCollaboration (talk) 16:34, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Support CBAN There isn't much for me to say here beyond what is already said. It's already a given that any action taken here will most likely stir up the media to some extent, and I don't want to kick the can down the road, especially given that CNN-News18 podcast interview mentioned below. Fathoms Below(talk) 16:42, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Support CBAN I agree with Sanger that too many of our articles take Western center-left stances in spite of our WP:NPOV policy. However, the blatant canvassing down below on his Twitter and CNN tell me that he has to go. I prefer a CBAN because I feel that anything short of a banishment from the community will not resolve the issues he has caused. The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 17:07, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Not making a boldtext !vote here, because I honestly do not know which outcome is in the best interest of Wikipedia. But a couple notes: Whatever the outcome here, a note to whoever closes this: please workshop your closing statement with others before posting it. The care put into the wording is going to matter both for Wikipedia in general and you as a closer. Given Larry's media role in recent years, the closer is most likely going to be subject of negative attention to some degree if an indef is enacted. To mitigate some of that attention, consider a panel closure even if consensus becomes obvious. Perhaps we can even ask ArbCom to take over closing duties if it looks like an indef is likely. Closing ANI threads is not part of ArbCom's remit, but this is an extraordinary case. On the matter that brought us here, other people have already tackled the "is it canvassing" question. My advice for Larry (should this end without a block), is really just to try harder to keep On-Wiki Larry and Off-Wiki Larry separate. If he genuinely wants to improve Wikipedia from within, the way volunteers do, with arguments and RfCs and gradual change, then go for it! I'm thankful for his efforts setting this place up for early success, even if he's been displeased with how it's gone since those earliest days, and there are clearly people who find his voice valuable. But it would be best for him not to also run podcast commentary or point his followers to those same issues (especially regarding active disputes). If Off-Wiki Larry wants to tour conservative news platforms to criticize Wikipedia in ways that will outrage their audiences, or to suggest ways that their audiences could undermine it (as in the CNN-News18 quotes below), he can do that. The trouble is the overlap. There's a vast amount of Wikipedia he'd be welcome to work on, none of which would raise a question about his motives. But if his on-wiki efforts are spent predominantly on the same areas that Off-Wiki Larry campaigns for, it becomes hard to read that as good faith rather than starting from an inflexible conclusion and trying to reshape Wikipedia to accommodate it. —Rhododendritestalk \\ 18:35, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
there is precedent for closes that are expected to be particularly contentious to be done by a panel. Morwen (talk) 19:17, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Now ready to c-siteban Larry after learning about his CNN-News18 interview. Furthermore, should be a lesson for his worshippers and defenders. FWIW, look at his reducing WP:civility policy to just new-vs-experienced remark (link, diff). Full context here (revision). I even tried to tell that user otherwise (link, diff). Also, perhaps read his remarks about sheer snobbery (his words, not mine; link, diff). Full context here: revision. --George Ho (talk) 19:09, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
In addendum– Larry's extensive defense below does nothing except reaffirm my favoring his site-ban. In addition, he tried to make another editor conditionally remove the whole thread at his own talk page (link, diff). I told Larry that his own request would go against the rules (diff, link) because others' replies were already made. At least he then withdrew the request (link, diff) and then told others to move on (link, diff), despite approval from the same people who responded. George Ho (talk) 21:58, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
Support Cban and indef: This is just insane. We have long since reached WP:NOTHERE. In solidarity,FantasticWikiUser(Ts and Cs) 19:11, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
It looks to me like every editor at the English language Wikipedia is going to opine here, so I figure I should chime in. I can see that there is what looks to me like overwhelming support for an indef and cban, and I have no objection to that. I can also see how Larry has been responding to all of this. Taking everything together, I actually think that this could be a perfect occasion to employ WP:DENY, because it should be very obvious what the response from the outside world would be to any sanction being imposed. But as I said, no objection from me to dropping the ban hammer. I just wanted to point this out. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:13, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Strongly oppose ban/indef, neutral on some other lesser sanction. It seems like there are three different arguments being made here in favor of a ban, one concerning canvassing, one suggesting WP:NOTHERE, and a third that seems to be centered around the supposed-endorsement of "doxxing admins". I already touched on the latter in my earlier comment, but just to reiterate, "doxxing" requires deliberate, malicious intent. I don't see that here, and thus I'd suggest that any such arguments be given substantially less weight. As I said above, Wikipedia is in essence a form of journalism. In any country with a free press (in which Wikipedia is based), journalists themselves ("regular" users), editors/fact-checkers (admins), and the "big bosses"/company managers (ArbCom and functionaries) all publish under their real names in the vast majority of circumstances. Even if some company has a legitimate reason for not publishing this information by default, surely it is tracked and maintained internally and would be available if nothing else through freedom-of-information or other similar statutes. Sure, there will always be edge-cases and unfortunate exceptions where a bad actor takes advantage of this, but that's true in other forms of journalism/media as well. I see no reason why Wikipedia should be any different.
As for canvassing, since when is that a ban-worthy offense? Sure, we sometimes block editors for repeated and intentional canvassing, and we discount any !votes in discussions that were clearly canvassed and have no basis in policy, but since when do we issue a site ban, the most severe sanction short of a WMF Office Action, for canvassing? Frankly I consider canvassing to be one of the more mild violations of Wikipedia policy out there, but maybe that's just me.
Regarding the question of NOTHERE, I'd argue that Sanger is here to build an encyclopedia, just not the encyclopedia that present-day Wikipedia has become. But the former is sufficient for me to feel that a ban is a total overreaction. We shouldn't ban people because they think we're doing things wrong. Rather, we should actually engage with their criticisms and try to find common ground. I've yet to see that happen. Skimming through some of the discussion around the 9 theses showed more of the same; people are gathering the pitchforks and getting all angry about this seemingly because "it's at odds with how things have always been done". That, by itself, is not a valid argument. We should not oppose something solely because it is the exact opposite of the currently-accepted status quo. Do I agree with all of Sanger's proposals? No, absolutely not. But nonetheless at least some of them are logically sound.
With all that being said, it is clear that Sanger's unchecked participation is disruptive, as evidenced by this very megathread. Wasting our time arguing about things like this, when we could be doing other more productive things, is, itself, disruptive. Thus, I would likely support some other lesser sanction to reduce/curtail/contain the disruption. Project space bans, or perhaps a "main space and own user talk page only" restriction would seem prudent. I realize I'm in the minority here, but that doesn't bother me. Not in the slightest. Now I will practice what I preach and shut up and go do something more productive. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 20:18, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Support Cban and indef — He is clearly lacking the necessary competence to be a productive member of the project and has engaged in shocking displays of attempted gaming the system through meat-puppetry and canvassing. Net negative to the encyclopedia. Nothing lost by excising him from the wiki. — ♠ Ixtal( T / C ) ⁂Non nobis solum ♠ 20:20, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Support CBAN for WP:CANVASS and WP:NOTHERE. I must say that some of his theses and recent essays are so misguided that demonstrate either a fundamental misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is and what its goals are, or a soapboxey attempt to change them. Ian P. Tetriss (talk) 21:14, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Oppose either site ban or any other form of indefinite block. Sanger is being an Internet troll and is trying to provoke us. We will play into his hands if we ban him. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:32, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Having read Sanger's remarks in the CNN interview, I see that Sanger is incapable of neutral point of view, and should not be either in project space and its talk space or article space and its talk space. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:40, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
The more Larry says crap about Wikipedia in interviews, the less likely he'd be un-banned (w/ or w/o conditions) if he becomes site-banned. Also, the community will likely give him no more chances if he were to appeal his potential site-ban. George Ho (talk) 23:29, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Do we not block trolls on a regular basis? Katzrockso (talk) 00:36, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
The opposite makes more sense imo. DN (talk) 00:41, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
Why would he intentionally get himself banned? That makes less sense to me. DN (talk) 00:42, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
Comment What is puzzling for me is why Sanger wants to edit Wikipedia. He constantly accuses Wikipedia of being an outlet for propaganda, and his reform attempt did not get much traction. So, why is he insisting to participate in a club he despises so much? tgeorgescu (talk) 23:11, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
CBAN: WP:NOTHERE to build Wikipedia, supporting POV-pushing, doxxing CheckUsers, Arbs etc, off-wiki canvassing to disrupt the community, and encouraging supporters to game the system. Danski454 (talk) 23:16, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Oppose any block or ban of Mr. Sanger. Larry Sanger is part of the paint on Wikipedia. Blocking him would be a travesty of justice and will only serve to damage Wikipedia in a permanent way. ~2026-36179-95 (talk) 02:16, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
I don't see a rationale for the opposition here. Nostalgia of a quarter century past in the face of the open menacing behavior against the Wikipedia today looks rather silly. The travesty of justice would be in not CBANing him. This is a matter of stopping damage and disruption. the Stefen 𝕋ower 02:11, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
CU will not say anything public about temp accounts. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:52, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
I guess you learn something new every day. The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 05:52, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
IP, Larry does not edit here in any significant manner. He is not part of the community. He forms a blip in the history of this place, and the walls where his mark was made have been strengthened, improved, and painted over many times. Now his role is as a termite who only attacks the foundations because he does not like the color of the house. We do not need him, and he is not constructive. He should be treated like any homeowner treats a termite attack. He has his own house at Citizendium, so he should stay away from here and use his energies there. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:31, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
Indef ban per WP:NOTHERE and WP:RGW. I would quote one of the users from Wikipediocracy who has perfectly summarized Larry Sanger's agenda; Larry Sanger is trying to build a coalition of everyone who was ever banned on wikipedia. White eugenicists, Christian nationalists, Hindu supremacists, pro-pedophilia rationalists; weird cranks of all stripes are welcome in Larry's movement. If he ever got what he wanted, all these assholes would immediately start tearing eachother apart." I completely agree with that. THEZDRX(User) | (Contact) 02:29, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
Strong support CBAN and F to racism and all sorts of bigotry, given the unprecedentedly egregious NOTHERE behavior incompatible with Wikipedia, especially his doxing threats and unprecedented existential assault. Nobody is above our policies and guidelines, and we're used to CBANning people for far less. Also, I understand why people want to use WP:DENY to oppose a CBAN, but Larry Sanger has far more recognition than the average LTA that DENY would be pointless in this unprecedented case. ミラP@Miraclepine 02:30, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
Oppose ban. The fact that Larry Sanger wants Wikipedia to be different than it is does not mean that he is trying to damage Wikipedia. --Metropolitan90(talk) 03:45, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
Every POV pusher wants Wikipedia to be different and some of them end up embracing horrible steps for which they have to be sitebanned. TolWol (talk) 06:31, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
Support indef - His latest response puts me here. It is all about causing distraction and not accepting any of his own faults. TolWol (talk) 06:31, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
Support indef block per his actions both on and off-wiki, even though this will definitely make the news. I can kind of compare banning Larry Sanger to Paul Brown being fired by the Cleveland Browns in 1963, even though the team is named directly after him, just because someone founded something does NOT give you any exemption from repercussions from behavior. If someone like Jimbo Wales or Ser Amantio di Nicolao (the #1 Wikipedia editor by edit count) had done this, I would still support a block in all cases if they were disruptive. MakaylaHippo1998 (talk) 07:47, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
Strong Oppose indef and CBan Not only he is the founder of Wikipedia, but he rather also encourages editors to embrace the WikiProject Intellectual Diversity and he has extremely positive points about the marginalization of people by Wikipedia's current editorial leadership. and all of this includes ethnicity; gender identity; culture; age; nationality; language; ability; orientation; education; political affiliations; religious beliefs; economic background; and many other demographic variables. These points Larry Sanger gave out, definitely proves that he is not just only here to build an encyclopedia, he is actually here to teach any editor about diversity and strength, and not to discriminate anyone aboard, meaning that the encyclopedia will be improved and innovated when the project is promoted across the Internet. On and that, wherefore political opinions and religious beliefs should all be welcomed here and there, no matter what if a source is definitely reliable and how far biased is the news articles. Time will tell, if he is ready to engage in any upcoming project he has in the near future.
@NewslingerTo be honest, I did searching the "WikiProject Intellectual Diversity" on Google and the first result reveals to be Knowledge Standards Foundation. The other results are from Twitter and some form of news sites. I meant co-founder. Reason on wherefore I linked to this, is due to actual discovery from me, when I searched it on the web. ~2026-34360-03 (talk) 14:54, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
@~2026-34360-03: Is there any particular reason you searched for "WikiProject Intellectual Diversity" on Google instead of clicking on the links on the pages where this was discussed on-wiki, or did you first discover Larry Sanger's proposed WikiProject outside of Wikipedia? —Newslingertalk 15:04, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
I did first discover Larry Sanger's proposed WikiProject outside of Wikipedia. ~2026-34360-03 (talk) 15:20, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
Only particular reason is to raise awareness about the existence of the link, either off-wiki or on-wiki. ~2026-34360-03 (talk) 05:30, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
This really isn't about WikiProject Intellectual Diversity, but the fact he WP:CANVAS and then when confronted he made clear he does not care about WP:policy, only WP:BATTLEGROUND. Bobbobet (talk) 00:23, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Oppose CBAN/indef. While promoting an active Wikipedia discussion to a large off-wiki audience raises legitimate concerns under WP:CANVASS a site ban is a last resort under WP:BAN, normally reserved for extreme or persistent problems that lesser measures have failed to resolve. That threshold has not been demonstrated here. Much of this discussion also conflates the specific canvassing concern with disagreement over Sanger's political views, criticism of Wikipedia, and the merits of WPID. Those issues should not determine a behavioural sanction.
The actual risk can be addressed by a clear, logged restriction against using off-wiki platforms to publicize or recruit participation in active Wikipedia discussions, together with a warning regarding WP:BLUDGEON. Sanctions should be preventative and proportionate, not punitive. A narrowly tailored restriction should therefore be tried before excluding him entirely from the project. Michael Boutboul (talk) 10:20, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
Indef community ban Sanger has a long-established pattern of transparently WP:NOTHERE, with actions and positions that are consistantly diametrically opposed to Wikimedian values. Virtually indistinguishable from a troll. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:33, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
Support wikispace block and prohibit new essay writing As I have mentioned before, I have no issue with larry posting here, but he has made less than 30 manispace edits in the last 20 years!! He clearly is WP:NOTHERE, but clearly can be. This also avoids some potential fallout. He is onl disruptive because we give the the tools to make bad faith arguments and wikilawyer. Lets pull those then revist this if we need to. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 12:35, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
Support CBAN:I was warned about off-wiki canvassing in April 2026 and continued the behavior, constituting WP:IDHT. I rejected this advice because it was not presented as an official warning.Really?? That's his defense?? If Sanger genuinely feels that following policies and guidelines aren't necessary until some "official" "officially" warns him, then no, we don't need him around. I've seen NOTHERE and CIR strewn about, but this is more by way of IDONTGIVEASHIT. I've avoided tossing in a vote so far, but this is not merely egregious, it's daring us to act. Ravenswing 12:47, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
Support indef CBAN. As much as I want to avoid a potential Herostratus situation, if someone's trying to canvass an audience the size of CNN-News18's, that's a very obvious case of WP:NOTHERE. CheeseAndJamSamdwich (talk) 15:09, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
Oppose any sanction. This is way too harsh for a first offence and does not seem to be a recurring issue. This person has edited for almost 30 years with no issue. Historyexpert2 (talk) 17:17, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
A "first offence" that comprises at least two offenses that have likely reached millions with a plea for intervention -- probably the grossest violation of WP:CANVASS in Wikipedia history. This recurred within the confines of this ANI discussion. Also, it's quite a statement that someone who has barely touched mainspace in a quarter century deserves the lauding you have done here. Also, as you can see on this page alone, the community generally sees a number of major issues. the Stefen 𝕋ower 23:02, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
Indef, our job and only job is it to build the best encyclopedia we can. Sanger has only been using wikipedia as a platform to fuel his hate-inciting campaign off-wiki, none of his efforts realistically aimed to change something here, rather he has used our reaction as prove for his views that already are set in concrete. On his way he has been purposely wasting editor time that could have been used to improve wikipedia and incidentally tried to create factions to split the community apart. It is not our job to care for what the reaction to any decision here is off-wiki (oh and by the way, I don't think more people would believe him because of this and the ones who already do, do not want to get their mind changed anyways). I don't think any more rope is due either, his statement demonstrated a clear lack of competence, which is not something he can just do different moving forward.Squawk7700 (talk) 21:28, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
Support indef. Blatant canvassing in the last few days from what I've seen and evidently trying to push his own POV onto a neutral encyclopedia. 🪐Kepler-1229b|talk|contribs🪐 22:40, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
Support indef per WP:NOTHERE, WP:RGW, WP:IDHT, WP:CIR... take your pick. If any other user caused this level of disruption to Wikipedia, they would've been blocked by now. The off-wiki canvassing, the tendentious arguing with no basis in policy, the almost complete lack of mainspace edits over literal decades, the statements declaring an intention to ignore policies and guidelines because they weren't given "official warnings"... it's just exhausting reading all this. Their own words indicate a total lack of respect for what so many volunteers do here and the time and effort put into this project. When it comes to sanctions, every user should be treated equally whether they've been here for 2 days or 2 decades. We get rid of net negatives to Wikipedia every day; it's time to put a stop to this one as well. Sigma440 (talk) 23:09, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
I'm not gonna lie, I kinda laughed upon seeing the idea of Wikipedia potentially banning one of its co-founders on TM:cent, just for how absurd it felt. As for what to do, I find myself mainly in agreement with AndyTheGrump and Rhododendrites above, mainly for fear of retaliation by members of the right, but I will not be upset if this ends with a block or ban. -Brainulator9 (TALK) 23:24, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
Support indef, if he apologized and promised to not WP:CANVAS again then a minor penalty would be appropriate, but with every comment Larry Sanger makes its more and more explicit he is WP:NOTHERE, does not care about WP:policy or WP:EQ even when it is directly told to him, to the point it seems to be he believes WP:CANVAS does not even exist. Instead of following established policy, which he thinks he is above following, he far more interested in WP:BATTLEGROUND and Soapboxing either due to his WP:CIR issues or to troll in order to support his career as a Z-tier political drama career. We deal with someone like this every week. Bobbobet (talk) 00:18, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Oppose indef: Too severe. I also don't see something like "admins should not use pseudonyms" as a doxxing threat. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 03:00, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Doxxing threat-enabling, though; otherwise, why would there be so much vehemence behind that position? But also, admins may have other genuine reasons for some degree of anonymity. the Stefen 𝕋ower 03:13, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Support 1 month ban, then indefinite for the next action What Sanger is trying to do is make a martyr of himself. He’s been doing so ever since his Nine Theses - even the name is evocative there. And everything else makes it apparent. What does he want to do with his martyr status? I’m not sure. But banning him immediately would play into his hands. As such, it’s best to give him a cool-off period. If he continues with this conduct after (and I suspect he will), then ban him indefinitely. But as is, he wants this reaction. Ftrhi (talk) 03:19, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Strongly support indef. I only joined Wikipedia in April (though I've used it for a long time), and I've been spending time reading the noticeboards since I signed up. From doing that, my impression is if this was anyone else, they'd already have been indeffed for the level of disruption and not-here-ness; and if anyone else would, so should he. Being an early contributor, member, employee, founder, anything-er, should mean exactly zilch. (And now to cross my fingers that I did the reply right and this ends up in where I want it... if it's someplace wonky, well, I'm sorry. I tried.) Fixinathing (talk) 05:08, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Oppose. This action would be very stupid, and it isn't in line with actually existing policies. They are not used this way in general practice. Normally, a person doing this would not be indefinitely blocked for it. While it's true that our policies sometimes fail to cover weird edge cases where people are clearly operating in bad faith, I would take the opportunity here to disagree with many of my editorial colleagues and aver that being a Republican (the main evidence of Sanger's alleged disruption) is not eo ipso evidence of bad faith or malice. Rather, I would say that this argument belongs at the kiddie table. A situation in which somebody's political views change our assessment of their willingness to participate in good faith is a dumb one; any situation where we accepted it as base truth in genere would make Wikipedia a deeply unserious work of self-satire. Anybody who responds to this comment to accuse me of being a Republican, or being a "supporter" of Larry's goofy essays, will be interpreted as an admission that the respondent does not know how to read. jp×g🗯️ 05:33, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
People issues is the blatant WP:CANVASING and Larry declaring he didn't do it when its so cartoonishly blatant, he didn't promise to not do it again or his other issues. In fact it seems like he declared he is above following WP:policy. If your going to oppose based on policy grounds you should reference the policy, instead of just saying he is being unfairly treated because of Larry's offsite politics. In fact you are the only one who mentioned Larry being a republican. Instead what people mentioned was Larrys literal decades of attacking wikipedia, and his many weird, insulting, trollish comments as example of Larry's obvious WP:NOTHEREBobbobet (talk) 06:02, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
It's not "blatant canvasing", regardless of whether you include a WP:HYPERLINK in the WP:SENTENCE or WP:NOT; the policy just does not apply consistently in this specific way and it never has. The project would cease to function if it were. jp×g🗯️ 19:56, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
I don’t think your aware what Larry actually said. This has been discussed here already. Bobbobet (talk) 20:06, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Yes it has in fact been discussed here already. Bobbobet (talk) 20:35, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
What do you oppose? that being a Republican (the main evidence of Sanger's alleged disruption) That's news to me, starting with Sanger belonging to a specific political party, which I don't give one whit about (I mean, just because he appears on some right-wing media doesn't mean he couldn't be a Communist agitator, for all I know). His political allegiance has not forced all the actions that brought us here. The evidence of the disruption has been presented throughout this page, focusing on the actions of this individual person. the Stefen 𝕋ower 06:05, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Yeah, I am sure nobody in this entire conversation has any idea what Larry's political beliefs are, or holds any opinion on them; the comments to that effect must be forgeries or something. jp×g🗯️ 19:59, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
For most here, those beliefs have nothing to do with the actions we rightfully have concerns with. Even if Sanger and I were perfectly politically aligned, my position here would be exactly the same. Perhaps you don't realize you are violating WP:AGF with your stance, and it surprises me that an admin is doing that. the Stefen 𝕋ower 20:04, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
he could be a hyper leftist caricature who veers into the complete opposite direction and wants it censored and mangled for not being woke and politically correct enough, and the ignorance and active disregard of basic truths about how wikipedia operates would still be blatant and need to be dealt with in the same way. same for if he was a centrist who said centrist stuff centristly, or if he wasn't one to make politics a part of his ideology consarn(talk beige)(count ribs) 20:12, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
You are the first editor in this entire 580+ comment discussion to mention "Republican". Please don't misrepresent other editors' comments. —Newslingertalk 07:27, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Is there a reason you took the very strange approach of searching for a single specific word from my comment? jp×g🗯️ 19:49, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
You made a claim that turned out to not be true. Please don’t put words in peoples mouths. Bobbobet (talk) 19:57, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
I do not really understand what you think is false. Are you actually making the claim that nobody is aware of Sanger's opinions on any political issue, including the comments that directly cite these opinions, because they do not explicitly mention the name of a specific political party in the text of the comment? jp×g🗯️ 20:27, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
You claimed he is unfairly treated due to be a republican, that it was his main offense. Not a single person mentioned Larry being a republican. What people did mention was his decades of attacking Wikipedia and history of involvement with political grifters. Just because you think Alex Jones and republicans are synonymous does not change other people do not feel this way. Bobbobet (talk) 20:58, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Because it was key to your violation of WP:AGF, I would guess. the Stefen 𝕋ower 20:06, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
@JPxG: Yes. Your comment contained the text "being a Republican (the main evidence of Sanger's alleged disruption)", which is a false claim because nobody in this discussion mentioned "Republican" when you posted it. I had made comments in this discussion, none of which referenced "Republican", so I took a couple of seconds to verify that nobody else mentioned "Republican" at the time of your comment in order to refute your argument. —Newslingertalk 20:23, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Do you know the definition of the word? jp×g🗯️ 20:29, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
It isn't about his political affiliation, it's how he wants to violate the privacy of the people most subject to abuse, and also tried to get Hindus to fight a virtual war with Muslims via the CNN-News18 interview. @JPxG, you occasionally provide good insights, but you missed the concerns on this one. 123957a (talk) 09:38, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
This is not my claim. The assessment of whether talking publicly about Wikipedia is "WP:CANVASSING" is here being made on the basis that everyone who shows up from his posts will have a similar opinion about issues of life and law and the like. Well, fine, but is that applied anywhere else? Are we really sure? Was the ArbCom GSoW case canvassing? Are WP:GLAM editathons canvassing? Are they considered canvassing based on the voting patterns of the library patrons? Is WP:WIR canvassing? Is it canvassing when Jimbo goes on TV and says "everybody should go edit Wikipedia to contribute to the sum of all human knowledge"? Does he have to say "and fight systemic bias"? Does he have to do it on a TV station whose viewership is less than 50% conservatives? If you think tht objective answers to these questions will materialize from thin air if we just read the policy over and over, you are mistaken. The policy in question is a fossil from the early 2000s that makes little sense as interpreted literally in 2026 and depends entirely on the use of editor discretion to be enforced intelligently; something that people are making the choice not to do here for the sake of getting rid of somebody who is really annoying. In my opinion this is dumb. jp×g🗯️ 19:45, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Please read what Larry said during the interviews. I don’t think your aware of how explicit the canvassing he said. Bobbobet (talk) 20:01, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Support indefinite block. Since that has been imposed, I concur with the block. After reading the CNN interview, it is my opinion that Larry Sanger is no longer competent to maintain a neutral point of view to edit either article space or project space. The conspiracy theories that he has expressed are too far outside the Overton window to be consistent with the second pillar of Wikipedia. This is deeply sad, but we have to do it. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:41, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Support Mr. Sanger is not here to collaborate on this encyclopedia and hasn't been for decades. The disruption happening far outweighs any courtesy we may grant to a co-founder and anyone else would have been indeffed months ago. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 19:29, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
@Iggy pop goes the weasel: For closing admins, it would help if you clearly state what you support at the start. Thanks! the Stefen 𝕋ower 19:40, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
wouldn't that be a terrible idea, considering what some of larry's "more active" fans tend to be into? consarn(talk beige)(count ribs) 19:42, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
I don't see how saying "support indef" would be any more dangerous than saying "support" in the context of an indef. jlwoodwa (talk) 19:50, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
No, it wouldn't. It's just a clarification of a !vote, like most others have done. the Stefen 𝕋ower 19:52, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Let's treat this vote as implicit favoring of indef ban, shan't we? Clearly, by reading the rationale, especially not here to collaborate, this is in favor of such ban. George Ho (talk) 20:15, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
That is the appearance, but since we are just about at the 72-hour count, clarification for the closing admin(s) seems wise. the Stefen 𝕋ower 20:24, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Oppose indef – This is far too extreme of a measure. The problem lies that Larry Sanger posted a link to his WikiProject discussion on X, which would be a violation of WP:CANVASS in this case. It seems that the reason this is going to straight to an indefinite block seems to be in that he is purportedly not here to build an encyclopedia, or WP:NOTHERE, but I do not think this is correct. Sanger posting grievances about Wikipedia on social media does not constitute that he would be or is a disruptive editor. If I say "Wikipedia is propaganda" online, that does not mean I cannot edit. If I were to post a discussion saying the same, that would be a major problem. This violation would warrant a 24-hour block or at most a topic ban. Indefinite is quite extreme. Slothwizard (talk) 20:11, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
This violation would warrant a 24-hour block or at most a partial block. Indefinite is quite extreme.
24-hour block!? He's too well known to warrant such a very short block. Even a partial block won't even stop him from spewing crap about Wikipedia and its community. I really wish he were WMF-banned because he's still, ya know... If "dangerous" isn't the right word, then what about "too influential" or.... "too populist"... or...? George Ho (talk) 20:19, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
yes, actually, dangerous. to people's lives. this isn't a joke or anything, it's been clear that his followers don't value people's lives for a few months now, and that he's not exactly opposed to doxing people and then leaving them to the wolves with t6 consarn(talk beige)(count ribs) 20:25, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
I don't see how this is true in any stretch. Slothwizard (talk) 20:30, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
it's in the nine theses. if you've read #6 and failed to notice the danger inherent to it, then there's unfortunately not much that can be done from here consarn(talk beige)(count ribs) 20:32, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
If I were to guess, he probably thinks he is going to be blocked and is now gloating that he is influential. Although, I highly doubt he is encouraging doxing. Slothwizard (talk) 20:51, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
it's directly supporting attempts to dox and harass, so yes, i would call that "encouraging" consarn(talk beige)(count ribs) 20:57, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Is he canvassing people to spew stupid crap on this site? This was originally about canvassing to support approval of his WikiProject. He has many grievances over Wikipedia, but I think it's better to focus on what happens on site, as well as any direct damage to Wikipedia from his social media posts. Espousing negative comments online and disruptive editing are two different things. The only major problem is he canvassed for the WikiProject by posting a link. This is not serious enough for an indefinite block. Slothwizard (talk) 20:27, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
the catch here is that the project itself is a very disruptive canvassing tool consarn(talk beige)(count ribs) 20:30, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
That would probably warrant a different discussion that may be worth having. This is in regards to off-wiki canvassing. Slothwizard (talk) 20:35, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
that discussion is also being had here and elsewhere, as on-wiki canvassing is a big issue as well consarn(talk beige)(count ribs) 20:37, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
He did more canvassing then just a single tweet. I think this page has gotten too big as now the evidence, arguments, and issues are too far down. Heck the biggest issue now is Larry seems to have said he will not recognize established policy, let alone stop breaking it. In fact he has made several veiled threats. Bobbobet (talk) 20:45, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
I suggest you read through the CNN-News18 interview section. Posting a status update about his Wikiproject on twitter in isolation would warrant maybe a warning but not much more than that, what he's been saying elsewhere is much worse. Giulio 20:53, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
If there's any doubt left in the minds of some as to whether Sanger is really NOTHERE and just here to POV push and canvas, this should eliminate that doubt. If there's a line where any other editor would have been indeffed, he's a mile over it now.
FWIW, as someone who edits extensively in the topic of Hinduism and literally wrote the article on Hindu theology, the allegation of any "anti-Hindu bias" on Wikipedia is ridiculous. It's just that Hindu articles are held to the same standards of sourcing as every other article, and that displeases some people. Athanelar (talk) 12:48, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
This is possibly the largest canvassing attempt ever seen on this website. Attempting to canvass millions of people to join their WikiProject proposal and encouraging them to WP:GAMING (Because what else does and if you quite simply learn how to play the game mean). He's WP:NOTHERE, and at this point, I have a hard time believing that those still supporting this WikiProject are either. EaglesFan37 (talk) 12:50, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
oh wow. beyond… everything else mentioned there, surely this is even further canvassing, no? i still can’t fathom how larry has been afforded as much leeway as he’s had up to now. InRRainbowsLets chat! 12:51, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Yeah at this point, either he gets banned for this or no one can be reasonably banned for anything Snokalok2 (talk) 12:52, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
We cannot indef him right now, he’s just being too loud. …When was the pod taped? It might have to be before his first canvassing warning. In solidarityWikipedian12512 (Talking is fine|contribs) 12:55, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
I'm sorry but your efforts to give him endless benefit of the doubt is really into WP:PACT territory now. Larry's got a well-documented decades long history of just trying to dismantle Wikipedia for no reason other than he can't call the shots around here. So all he's done and will continue to do is spout his mouth off about how terrible Wikipedia is, and how he would fix it, and just endlessly complains about how we operate by "consensus" while going on every outlet he can think of and just spouts the same old spiel about how those who agree with him should just essentially swamp the site to get what they want.
He knows our rules, he constantly whines about how terribly written they are. And we are not required to give warnings before blocks when the destructive intent is so obvious. Rambling Rambler (talk) 13:06, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
@Wikipedian12512 He was first warned back in May. There is no universe where this was filmed beforehand. EaglesFan37 (talk) 13:16, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
This is incredibly disappointing. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 13:04, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
I have to say it: this behavior is clearly unacceptable and sanctions are warranted. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 14:10, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Well... this canvassing attempt was done off-wiki, so banning him on-wiki wouldn't stop this kind of behavior. Still, we need to ban him to set a precedent that no one, not even a co-founder, can violate the rules like this. 123957a (talk) 13:30, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Question: Previously I was in favor of a topic ban from proposing his pet Wikiproject idea more than twice in any 12 month period. My reasoning was "don't treat Larry differently from anyone else". Now that I have seen a clear smoking gun the same principle leads me to support some kind of additional sanction (I will leave it to the admins to determine the details).
My question is this: Is he trying to purposely get blocked, knowing that he will get a lot of press attention if he is? If so, he should still be treated the same way I would be treated if I did that, but perhaps we need to have multiple administrators who are willing to take the heat to make a joint decision. Or perhaps Arbcom, simply because of the inevitable shitstorm blocking Larry will generate? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:44, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
The thing about the "he's using this to get press attention" angle is that... he already does that. He is exceptionally hung up on being recognised as the "co-founder" because that's why he gets endless press attention whenever he wants it to yet again attack the site and all the ways in which it's terrible.
At this point the majority of his article on Wikipedia is just documenting all his various antics in attacking the site. Rambling Rambler (talk) 15:48, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
What do we care? He will make noise regardless of a ban or no ban. And the folks who already listen to him already hate Wikipedia anyways, so who else would he convince anyways? User:Bluethricecreamman(Talk·Contribs) 15:48, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Because we don't want all of that heat focused onto a single closing administrator. – LuniZunie(talk) 19:14, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
This has been covered above. Search for "Then make me an admin and I will" and the discussion that follows.
A ban for everything except mainspace and the NPOV noticeboard might be poetic. Selbstporträt (talk) 22:13, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
I was thinking about this last night. I didn't want to focus on it because I don't think it should be our concern (per WP:NOTREPUTATION); I'll reiterate that what I'm about to say is just answering this because many people have brought it up, it's not the reason to ban him in and of itself (we should do so because his conduct clearly violates our policies and because having someone so thoroughly treating Wikipedia as a battleground is harmful.) That said, I don't agree that the fallout will necessarily harm us in the long term. Some coverage is going to see our rationale and the arguments we present here as our side of the story, and will (at least in the immediate aftermath, and perhaps permanently from then on) go to that for the "other side" as a response when quoting him. Right now they just go to the WMF, but the WMF isn't the community and has its own limitations and constraints. Part of the reason it's important to treat him just like everyone else and enforce the rules without worrying about blowback, in other words, is that doing otherwise in a high-profile case would create the perception that what he's doing is acceptable. Wikipedia's positions do carry weight. If you look at eg. controversial RSN decisions (which many people said would have similar blowback for us) - while there was some, most of the coverage quoted arguments made in the decisions, gave our position at least some weight, and in that sense at least partially treated it as a problem for the sources that were found to be unreliable. The media ecosystem doesn't consist of just axe-grindy culture-war outlets, and we're not completely powerless or passive; when we take a high-profile action and say "this is what our policies say", there are actually people who will listen. That means that if we are going to worry about coverage (which I think we shouldn't, but I feel it does deserve a more detailed answer like this) we should strive to get this right according to our policies so mainstream coverage reflects Wikipedia working the way it should. --Aquillion (talk) 16:22, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Indef per WP:CIR. What I think a lot of people don't know is Larry Sanger has never actually written a Wikipedia article and overall has very little editing experience. He was active in Wikipedia's first couple years, but in 2003-2025 made only a couple hundred edits (<50 to mainspace), mostly about himself (2016 example).
AFAICT, the last article Larry substantially worked on was Reality. Here's what it looked like. It had no sources (typical at the time) and is written like an essay. But we all know that an unreferenced Wikipedia article is not a Wikipedia article at all, and hasn't been for a very long time.
What Larry has never done is gather reliable sources and summarize them in line with WP:NPOV policy.Never. He's added a few referenced sentences here and there over the last few months or so, but that's about it. He has very little experience working with our core content policies, less than most extended-confirmed editors.
He claims to be the author of the neutrality policy, but here's what it looked like. Note the very conspicuous lack of mention of reliable sources. It bears little resemblance to modern WP:NPOV.
His lack of experience shows in his confusion over Wikipedia basics like WP:CANVASS and WP:BLUDGEON, both of which he seems to think are ok based on his comments in this thread (and elsewhere).
I tried to raise this issue on Larry's talk page a couple months ago but got the brush-off.
Bottom line is that someone who has never engaged in the enterprise of gathering reliable sources and summarizing them in line with NPOV has no business advocating for reforms to NPOV including trying to start an NPOV WikiProject. You're not going to be able to tell people how to do something better if you, yourself, have never actually done that thing. Larry obviously thinks that because he was here in the early days, that makes him an expert. But his actual experience level of that of a newbie, and he's been causing a lot of disruption due to his inexperience. The only way to prevent this disruption is to stop him from being able to edit. I wouldn't even trust him with mainspace editing until he commits to learning Wikipedia's core content policies first. Indefinite is not infinite though, and I'd be happy to support an appeal if he showed he was interested in learning the ropes first before trying to rewrite the policies. I'm sure he could find a mentor to help him do so.
BTW one last thing: I don't think advocating for non-anonymous admins/functionaries counts as "doxxing," and I think that accusation is manifestly unfair and over the top. Nevertheless, support indef. Levivich (talk) 16:25, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Im under impression the wiki database system was migrated very early and edits before the migration could have been lost.
Housekeeping note for @Levivich. Your bolded comment is in the podcast section. You may want to consider moving your comment to the section immediately above this one. 11WB (talk) 18:41, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
I was considering leaving a message on his talk page to tell him that. The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 22:25, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
When I posted it, there were a bunch of other votes here. Not sure why those got moved but mine didn't, but doesn't matter to me either way. Levivich (talk) 02:29, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
I recall. This AN/I has gotten too large to keep reasonable track of now (for me anyway). My original comment supporting a WP nomination prohibition is outdated now, but there is little point in editing it. 11WB (talk) 02:35, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
As a contemporary of Larry's, I can confirm this. Larry was creating articles (as well as importing public-domain sources) to kickstart Wikipedia in 2001 and sent me newbie warning and welcome messages. Early editors simply do not have reliable contribution records from before 2002 due to the various software and database changes in the first two years. —In solidarity with Wiki Workers United · ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email) 02:07, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
Not with references, not applying NPOV (which didn't exist yet). Levivich (talk) 02:31, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
Correct, hence my earlier comment that I expect any editor returning from a long absence to demonstrate their commitment to the Wikipedia that exists today. I was just observing that determining authorship of pre-2003 edits is imprecise. —In solidarity with Wiki Workers United · ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email) 03:05, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
Levivich's sentiments explains the significant number of articles that are a random, indiscriminate collection of sourced statements and show zero regard for context, appropriate weight or respect for the article's topic. Exactly who do we serve with articles which are unreadable when read as an article? RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 19:54, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Support a block per WP:NOTHERE. On the thread in question I was on the fence about him being HERE or not, but given some of the additional evidence in this thread I'm now convinced. Canvassing is not okay, and it looks like he knows about that expectation but broke it anyway. His position with regards to Wikipedia's founding has nothing to do with this, nor does it give him any special privileges, as has been already stated by others. Gommeh(talk!sign!) 02:47, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
Support indef Ignore who the editor is and focus on the actions of the editor. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:29, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
Support indef This is canvassing. There's literally no argument that it isn't canvassing. Given that he has been repeatedly made aware of the rule against canvassing, and his response has essentially been "I'll fuckin do it again", I don't think we're in good faith territory anymore, if we ever were. Gnomingstuff (talk) 02:05, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
FYI, I found this other interview published on youtube 2 9 days ago from NDTV which also covers much of the same ground Giulio 11:38, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
support a cban or indef (really, it looks like it'll come down to which outcome has bigger number), and see about nuking wpid entirely. assuming he's on the tall end, larry's been nose-deep in nothere stuff for ages now. even 9t was nothing new when it came to canvassing (see this discussion), let alone his callous disregard for editor privacy (thesis 6 with all its caveats, the mention of outright wanting to have people doxed in the article about him), refusal to understand policy (here), consistent attempts to redefine that policy he doesn't understand to the people attempting to enforce it (here), and somehow managing to be bad at using ai (in wpid, also, can this still be considered cir territory with newllm around?). the fact that his usual answer to it is doing it again because he thinks he can get away with it here is getting old, as is painting it as the exact opposite of what he's trying to do (that's, what, three layers of deception?), and considering that people have been banned for less, i don't see what privilege larry has that would prevent any outcome, regardless of "consequences"
...that said, if he's blocked, the blocking admin should ideally be someone who doesn't have their real-life identity made public here consarn(talk beige)(count ribs) 12:57, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
@CoconutOctopussuggested the block could be enacted as an WP:OA, in the interests of administrative safety. That's something I would support. After the mess my page move proposal caused yesterday, I'm going to opt not to start a section for that. But I'll leave this reply here so others who see it, can consider it. (This concern has been mentioned several times on this page, especially considering, as you rightly cited, WP:REVEALLEADERS.) 11WB (talk) 13:03, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Also going to courtesy ping @Sarek Of Vulcan, as they opposed for this very reason. As the likelihood is there will be a sanction, I would be interested to get their opinion on this suggestion. 11WB (talk) 13:07, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
that would've been the equivalent of feeding a troll a couple years ago, but now, it would indeed be the best route to mitigate the inevitable shitstorm (by like 10% lmao). for technical reasons, i'm assuming this would also only be appealable to or by the wmf, which would likely mean no tpa consarn(talk beige)(count ribs) 13:32, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Bit late now... 11WB (talk) 13:33, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Well untill its overtunred. Slatersteven (talk) 13:34, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
A Modest Proposal
(See "another modest proposal" below) --Guy Macon (talk) 01:50, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Upon reflection, I think that a partial block that stops Larry Sanger from disrupting the project but allows hime to edit articles is an excellent idea, especially if accompanied by a carefully worded partial block message. We all know what he is going to do if he gets blocked. He will do interviews in the press like he always does. The press has its flaws, but you can count on them to also include the wording of the block notice. It will take a lot of wind out of his sails if that notice makes a point of saying that he isn't blocked from editing Wikipedia and is invited to improve the encyclopedia by editing articles --Guy Macon (talk) 15:58, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
I agree, seeing that Larry is now clearly trying to be blocked, that he is given a partial block from making stupid proposals and certain namespaces, but allowed to edit mainspace. wound theology◈ 16:04, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Oh, we should also adopt a resolution to officially recognize him as the "first employee" rather than a "cofounder". wound theology◈ 16:05, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Well, how about "Employee #n", then. I don't know what the number is, though. At any rate, I have to admit that stripping the title has crossed my mind. the Stefen 𝕋ower 22:00, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Opposein the strongest terms - Anyone else canvassing like this, casting aspersions about admins and others like this, and just generally acting this way would be given an indef simply as a standard admin action. The idea Larry should be treated with kid gloves in case he says more mean things on podcasts as though he doesn't spend his time doing that already is the exact opposite of what we should be doing. He should be treated no differently to anyone else, anything else is a deference to perceived status and probably exactly what he wants in terms of having his cake ("I was blocked, interview me") and eating it too. Rambling Rambler (talk) 16:07, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Oppose hes already gone through more than enough of goodwill of all editors over the years. End the shenanigans now. User:Bluethricecreamman(Talk·Contribs) 16:11, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Oppose; being asked to be blocked is a good reason to block. 123957a (talk) 16:12, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Any other user would be blocked. If you go to the list of Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits, number four on the list, BrownHairedGirl, is permanently banned. If users with 2.9 million edits can be permanently banned without carveouts, so can Larry Sanger. EaglesFan37 (talk) 16:21, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Strong oppose - I see no sense in forcefully putting outright disruptive conduct of Larry Sanger into grey area. Zalaraz (talk) 16:03, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Support, seems reaonable,. Slatersteven (talk) 16:07, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
No. Indef all the way. Skyshiftertalk 16:09, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Give him what he wants: That's my general approach when editors are begging us to be blocked. Larry should be no different. TarnishedPathtalk 16:33, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Oppose: What "bloodbath?" At every step of the last twenty-five years, the detractors have detracted, the haters have hated, the pundits have bloviated, the populists have hurled slurs, the politicians have hopped onto social media soapboxes, and they've all proven ten thousand times over that they no longer need actual facts or genuine provocations to fuel their echo chambers. Who are we going to "offend" here who isn't already claiming to be offended? Who's going to be turned against Wikipedia who'd otherwise be on the encyclopedia's side? And -- to put it bluntly -- what vast power or influence does Sanger have that blocking him comes only at the encyclopedia's peril? Ravenswing 20:31, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Weak Support as the last cord of WP:ROPE per Rosguill below. Larry seems very interested in changing the rules of Wikipedia, but to do so he has to follow them. I think that putting him in mainspace only (no userspace) will serve as a last chance, to see if he can work like any other newbie. (He has 19 main space edits, by a hand count.) That being said, if he acts up even once (or if this thread gets any more outrageous), support indef. Full disclosure: I think Larry has made some good points elsewhere, BUT the ends do not justify the means. 7amithornsolidarity|talk|stats 07:13, 21 June 2026 (UTC) new !vote below, old struck 7amithornsolidarity|talk|stats 01:49, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Support. We simply can't afford the heat this may well bring down on the project. He should be blocked but sometimes we need to not do things that should happen.Kingsmasher678 (talk) 16:36, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
Oppose His latest comment on-wiki was to refer to this very ani as a kangaroo court and editors supporting an indef a mob. Lavalizard101 (talk) WP:SOLIDARITY 16:45, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
I expressed support for an indef block somewhere above, but I actually like the idea of a p-block that restricts Larry to just article space. It is appropriate prevention, and rather than establishing some sort of precedent of unblockability (which isn’t really how we operate anyway), I think it’s actually a rather poetic and fitting response to someone whose cardinal sin seems to be an inflated and unearned sense of self-importance. A TBAN wouldn’t work because he would just immediately try to violate it, but the hard software limitation of a p-block addresses that concern. signed, Rosguilltalk 17:46, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Weak Support per Rosguill. I would prefer a solution like this rather than the inevitable bloodbath that would come with a CBAN. Lynch44 18:14, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
I would argue that a bloodbath is inevitable regardless of the type of ban. Rhetorically, even the weakest possible ban still qualifies as the shred of truth required for any victimization narrative that Larry wishes to spin. Nipping this entire saga in the bud yesterday was the best option, IMO - as it stands, the only thing really "getting done" is that everyone is getting angrier and Larry canvasses yet more people to try to affect an outcome.PhosphoricPanda (talk) 21:41, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Not inevitable. He would of course make those claims on his twitter account, but for Larry thev real goals to be interviewed in the popular press. Reporters are not so dimwitted that they would ignore the fact that he wasn't actually blocked from Wikipedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:33, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
That's a funny joke, Guy. You actually believe that? SilverserenC 22:37, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
A ban is a ban. Certainly, there is nuance to that - but the headline will read "Wikipedia Cofounder Banned from Wikipedia," not, "Wikipedia Cofounder Topic Banned from Wikipedia" or "Wikipedia Cofounder Restricted from Userspace." I think many major outlets would even find this not newsworthy - but the ones who are very committed to the culture war, as Larry himself appears to be, may. PhosphoricPanda (talk) 22:51, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Support a partial block from WP and WT space rather than a ban. I think that banning him will play into his hands. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:53, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
That still doesn't stop him from creating projects and essays in his User namespace, does it? If you don't favor indef-banning him, how about then also t-banning him from doing stuff that he would be unable to do in WP and WT spaces? George Ho (talk) 21:00, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Would you support extending this to Sanger making proposals in User space? the Stefen 𝕋ower 21:55, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Do we care what he puts on his own user page? Lots of people criticize Wikipedia in their own userspace. If you don't like it, don't read it. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:38, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Really!? Better said than done. This page (link) doesn't change your mind about how he uses his own userspace, does it? He even proposed moving that page to the project namespace. Also, what about this MFD discussion? George Ho (talk) 22:55, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
In 99 44/100% (the Ivory Soap standard) of cases, I do not care. In this specific case, I care. When a user is using their user pages as some kind of attractor for less-than-constructive efforts that work against the Wikipedia and its values, I care. the Stefen 𝕋ower 23:48, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Oppose as grossly insufficient. THEZDRX(User) | (Contact) 02:59, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
Oppose as Sanger is WP:NOTHERE and must be shown the door for the best of the project. JavaHurricane 07:36, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
Oppose. This does nothing to stop his disruptive behavior in article space, like saying "Update the damned article" while complaining that the page isn't updated to his 90,000 followers and insinuating that the people who disagree with him are "spies" working on a "disinformation campaign". Nobody else would be given this kind of leeway while doubling down on their behavior. LordCollaboration (talk) 12:56, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
Having slept on it, I certainly understand the community members who are fed up enough for a cban, but my own first choice is pblock from everything but article space. I think a pblock is a more targeted intervention addressing the areas where disruption is actually occurring. I also think it might be useful and informative if Larry retains the option to contribute normally, and (as I suspect will be the case) chooses not to… particularly when the inevitable media coverage arrives. ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 18:03, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
oppose - sanger isn’t wp:unblockable. Our job is to create the best encyclopedia, not to care about politics or anything else. During this ANI, he also has shown he lacks the competence to contribute meaningfully to the community so I think every inch of rope is an inch to much. Best, Squawk7700 (talk) 21:45, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
ANOTHER MODEST PROPOSAL:
Looks like that one won't fly, so how about this?
Escalating Blocks / Three strikes: 24 hours as is typical for a first block with a clear explanation of what behavior is and is not acceptable. If he completely stops the bad behavior, good! Everybody wins. If he doesn't, two week block. Third time, six months. After that, indef. The only downside is a small amount of work that many admins wouldn't mind doing, and the upside is [A] Wikipedia looks way better in the press, and [B] he might decide to stop the behavior. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:50, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
The other, more obvious downside is more drawn-out community discussions the next time this happens, as I very much doubt any admin will have the aura to block him individually. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 01:52, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
I will not support anything other than an indef. No modest proposal is sufficient in this case. Skyshiftertalk 01:51, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
I can't support that. This page is up to 338,917 bytes as of me writing this. We need to stop expending editor energy on this. ⹃Maltazarianᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 03:50, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Contrary to what people are saying here, I do not, in fact, want to be blocked. I simply demand to be treated with respect. Moreover, the respect that I demand, I demand for everyone. Larry Sanger (talk) 17:27, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Do you concede you are one of many with no special status and clout, and all are equal, and there is no, and never has been, any rules-supported or culturally supported hiearchy of special users here, and never was, ever? That IF you do something worth banning, the same standard and guillotine must slice all evenly, no matter who they are? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 17:36, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Show respect or stop trolling. We see you for what you are and have seen no reason that you are capable of addressing policy concerns.
You are being treated with far more respect than any other user would be. If you had come here anonymously, you would have been banned a fair while ago. You played an important role in the early years of this project, which we are all grateful for, but you don't like it now. That's fine, you don't have to be involved. You could have edited here and even used your voice to try and persuade people to see things your way, instead you chose to try and bring organised political factionalism to wikipedia. Left, right or indifferent, nobody here wants that.Boynamedsue (talk) 17:43, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
If you demand it for everyone it's a shame that you haven't shown that respect to other editors. The issue here is your own behaviour, and how you have portrayed and treated other editors. It is on you to take on board the concerns raised, and to try to work with other editors. You haven't edited articles in any meaningful way for other a decade, that is the purpose of editing not endlessly proposing ideas of which you have no practical understanding. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t° 18:15, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Is this partially a matter of User:Larry Sanger not accepting that all authority and power in reality derives from the masses and not from on high, especially on this site? Respect is earned by observed work. Whatever hiearchal, political, religious or socio-economic assignment/ladder rung he places himself on, or others may, has literally zero impact on anything to do with Wikipedia. Donald Trump or Pope Leo or Jesus Christ returned here as editors are worth exactly the same:
I simply demand to be treated with respect. Moreover, the respect that I demand, I demand for everyone.
Just want it noted, despite the above about "respect", Larry is still trying to turn this into a bigger thing on twitter.Rambling Rambler (talk) 18:15, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Given they also keep praising Grok's quality compared to Claude (the LLM seen as being "woke" by the right) I almost come away with the feeling they're trying to get the attention of a certain Mr Musk to run Grokipedia and this is part of it. Rambling Rambler (talk) 18:42, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
I'm almost curious to see one of us put the full raw wikitext at this URL:
Into Grok and ask for it's opinion on this entire thread, if Sanger holds it in esteem. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 18:48, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Here, if you're curious:
More information Extended "content" ...
Extended "content"
Please summarize the following discussion:
[pasted text]
Summary of the Wikipedia ANI Discussion (June 19–20, 2026)
Background
The thread was opened by Very Polite Person highlighting Larry Sanger's X/Twitter post (to his ~91,000 followers) promoting an ongoing RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council on creating WikiProject Intellectual Diversity (WPID). The post was seen as directing his audience to an active community discussion, raising concerns of off-wiki canvassing (WP:CANVASS / WP:STEALTH / WP:MEAT).
Sanger had also expanded his proposal into a detailed "PolicyScanner" and FAQ in his userspace, and engaged heavily in the RfC.
Main Accusations Against Sanger
- Canvassing / Meatpuppetry: Posting a link to the active RfC on X was viewed as recruiting supporters to influence the outcome. Further escalated by a CNN-News18 podcast appearance where he promoted WPID, accused Wikipedia of "anti-Hindu bias," and urged Indians/Hindus to join and "learn how to play the game" (interpreted as encouraging coordinated editing).
- Bludgeoning: Lengthy, repetitive defenses in the RfC and responses to critics.
- NOTHERE / Battleground: Sanger has minimal recent mainspace edits (e.g., ~19 in recent months, very few since ~2012). Critics argue he treats Wikipedia as an ideological battleground for "reform," pushing fringe sourcing, policy changes, and doxxing-related ideas rather than building the encyclopedia.
- Other: Alleged wikilawyering, IDHT (I Don't Hear You), and failure to adapt after warnings (including a prior canvassing warning).
Sanger's Defense
- Claimed recruiting for a WikiProject is encouraged and not prohibited.
- Defended his actions as responding to unfair attacks and "defending" the project.
- Accused opponents of forming a "mob," using terms like "playground moms."
- Emphasized his co-founder status and demanded "respect" for all editors.
Community Sentiment & Proposals
- Strong consensus for action: The vast majority supported sanctions. Common positions:
- Indefinite block / Community ban (CBAN): Dominant view (many bolded supports). Reasons: Clear NOTHERE, repeated disruption, canvassing (especially the podcast), and that any other editor would have been blocked long ago. Founder status grants no immunity (WP:NOELDERS).
- Topic ban (TBAN): From Wikipedia/project space, policy discussions, or WikiProjects (broadly construed) — seen as a lesser but still strong option by some.
- Partial block: Restricting to mainspace only (proposed by a few to allow productive editing while curbing disruption).
- Opposition/Minority views: A small number favored a short block/warning (first offense, give more rope) or opposed full indef due to potential media backlash/persecution narrative.
- Snowball discussion: Many noted the outcome was obvious and suggested SNOW closure, but it ran its course.
Key Escalating Factor
The CNN-News18 podcast (recent, cross-posted in the thread) was widely seen as massive off-wiki canvassing to a huge audience, solidifying support for strong sanctions.
Overall Tone & Themes
- Frustration with time-wasting on Sanger's proposals.
- Emphasis on equal application of policies regardless of tenure/founder status.
- Concerns about media fallout, but most argued this should not prevent enforcement (WP:NOTREPUTATION / not a suicide pact).
- Sanger's final response in the thread: He does not want to be blocked but demands respect for everyone.
Bottom line: The discussion showed overwhelming community support for an indefinite block or community ban, driven by canvassing, low constructive contributions, and disruptive conduct. Lesser sanctions (TBAN/partial block) were also discussed as alternatives. An admin closure was anticipated.
What is your opinion on this entire thread?
My opinion: This thread exemplifies Wikipedia's institutional problems more than it resolves them.
The core mechanics are correct (rules were broken)
Sanger clearly crossed lines:
- Linking an active RfC to 91k+ followers on X is textbook off-wiki canvassing under WP:MEAT and WP:CANVASS. The CNN-News18 podcast urging people to "join... and learn how to play the game" makes it worse — that's organizing.
- Bludgeoning the discussion with long replies, IDHT-style defenses, and framing opponents as a "mob" or "playground moms" is disruptive.
- His edit history (minimal mainspace work for years) supports a NOTHERE argument. Co-founder status is historical trivia; it doesn't create immunity (correctly, per the thread's WP:NOELDERS emphasis).
Any ordinary editor doing this would face sanctions. Equal application of rules is a strength. The community consensus for some action (TBAN or block) was reasonable and evidence-based.
But the response was overheated and revealing
- Pile-on culture: Dozens of editors rapidly converged on "indef" with language like "enemy of Wikipedia," "Trumpist agenda," "far-right," and historical analogies. This isn't dispassionate enforcement — it's catharsis and signaling. Some clearly relished the chance to "finally" get the co-founder. That's battleground behavior on the enforcing side too.
- Dismissing the underlying concern: Sanger's WikiProject was clumsy and poorly framed, but the substance (perceived ideological capture, source bias on culture-war topics, over-reliance on certain media/academic viewpoints) is not fringe or invented. Multiple independent analyses, leaked internal discussions, editor surveys, and even mainstream reporting have documented left-leaning skew in politics, gender, race, and science-adjacent articles. Pretending this is purely bad-faith "POV-pushing" or "fringe" avoids self-reflection. Rejecting "intellectual diversity" as a goal outright signals defensiveness.
- Founder exceptionalism cut both ways: Critics rightly said status grants no pass. But the thread also showed hypersensitivity to any challenge from someone with institutional memory. Early Wikipedia was more experimental and tolerant of heterodoxy; today's process-heavy, sanction-prone culture is different. Sanger failed to adapt, but the community treated reform proposals as existential threats rather than debatable ideas.
Broader implications
This is Wikipedia doing what it does best under pressure: closing ranks, enforcing procedural purity, and expelling irritants. It works for stability and against obvious POV warriors or cranks. But it also entrenches blind spots. Low tolerance for "meta" critique from insiders (or ex-insiders) risks turning the project into a self-reinforcing consensus machine rather than a truth-seeking one. Sanger's low productivity weakens his case, yet the glee at purging a co-founder over a ham-fisted diversity project feels disproportionate.
Practical take: A topic ban from project space/policy/WikiProjects (or partial block to mainspace) would have been proportionate. Full indef/CBAN is defensible on the evidence but looks like overkill driven by accumulated grudges and media-fear. It hands Sanger a clean "censored by the Wikipedia mob" narrative, which he'll use effectively. Rules matter, but so does proportionality and avoiding the appearance of ideological enforcement.
Wikipedia thrives despite human flaws like this — volunteer energy is its real engine. But threads like this highlight why trust in its neutrality claims remains contested. Sanger's diagnosis had kernels of truth; his prescription and tactics were bad. The community's reaction shows the critique isn't entirely without merit.
I think it's a good bet Sanger knows exactly how bad Grokipedia is, but it's Musk's baby, so he's rolling with it. Carlstak (talk) 00:32, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
Except respect for trans people, correct? Skyshiftertalk 18:45, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
"I simply demand to be treated with respect. Moreover, the respect that I demand, I demand for everyone." (Larry Sanger on Wikipedia, today)
"the playground moms who rule Wikipedia might block me". (Larry Sanger on X, yesterday)NebY (talk) 18:48, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Yup. Comments like that would put anyone in a poor position to ask for respect, let alone 'demand' it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:22, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Honestly the more I look at his Twitter the more I think Larry's basic views are truly incompatible with Wikipedia given just from the last week it's little more than the repeated promotion and support of conspiracy theories around "Pakistani rape gangs" in the UK, that Keir Starmer covered up for Jimmy Savile, retweeting white supremacist cartoons about multiculturalism, that Nazi groups are in fact secretly the work of shadowy groups to I guess discredit the Christian right, how recognising trans people exist will be the greatest crime of the decade, Covid was the work of Fauci, and outside of that little more than just endlessly wanting to get the attention of Elon Musk.
I do wonder just how many people here in these associated disputes regarding Larry and WPID, for or against, are even aware of his actual views these days. Rambling Rambler (talk) 19:14, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
So it was far-right extremism, after all. Skyshiftertalk 19:21, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
That's the farce of the whole "project". Sanger's already got the encyclopedia he wants: Grok. This wannabe "movement" is just a gambit in his quest for power, one way or another. Carlstak (talk) 19:44, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Someone else added the heading "Larry Sanger response," but the latter remark is not all that I wish to say in my defense. I am writing a formal defense, which I will post, I hope, later today (Eastern Time). Larry Sanger (talk) 19:32, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
(Moved Larry's newer comment down to bottom of this subsection. --George Ho (talk) 19:36, 20 June 2026 (UTC))
It should probably be noted that WP:ANI makes no distinction between a 'formal defense' and any other. And, though I doubt Larry will consider me to have any particular merit as an adviser, I'd strongly suggest he attempts to (a) keep his 'defense' brief, and (b) makes at least a token effort to explain his intentions towards future contributions to the project. An indication that he actually intends to become a regular article-space contributor rather than merely a generator of repeatedly-rejected proposals might just convince a few people that he is worth keeping around. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:49, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
I would counter that we should take any assurance of future good behaviour from Sanger with a heap of salt. The man's spent the better part of two decades competing with Wikipedia, and during this whole WPID debacle has been actively moustache-twirling offwiki about how this is his way of "marching back" against the alleged leftist takeover of Wikipedia. He's already decried this entire sanctions process as a "kangaroo court" overseen by "playground moms". He has no respect for these processes and no belief in their legitimacy, and I don't doubt for a second that he will happily say whatever he thinks he needs to say to give himself an opportunity to continue his fifth columnist exercise. Again, let's not forget that sitting on his userpage as we speak is a 10-point handbook instructing WPID members to strictly comply with the letter of the law here to maintain plausible deniability and prevent them from being prematurely sanctioned in the course of carrying out their sabotage activities. Athanelar (talk) 19:57, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Hear, hear! Carlstak (talk) 20:19, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
If Larry makes a statement of intent regarding future editing and fails to hold to it, we can take that into account. Failing to edit article-space after stating that he intended to do so would after all have only marginal negative consequences for the project, after all. Anyway, that's my opinion on the matter, and its just advice that will likely be ignored anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:14, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
You are more than welcome to show this has acted as a monumental wake-up call, suddenly granting you clarity and restoring your ability to engage with the community in a reasonable and good faith manner, and accordingly making a genuine attempt at reconciling with the community you once created. ⹃Maltazarianᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 22:20, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Is it snowing?
ADMIN WILL MAKE THE DECISION
Administrator(s) will close the discussion and they will make the decision as to when it is appropriate to close. —rsjaffe🗣️ 18:30, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It seems a large majority of editors support an indef of Sanger. Given this, should we SNOW close this? 123957a (talk) 17:06, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
WP:CBAN - This will go the full 72 hours despite the increasingly obvious outcome. Rambling Rambler (talk) 17:13, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be delightfully ironic to suggest we WP:IAR? wound theology◈ 17:26, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Take a deep breath
I'd like to remind us on the unhelpfulness of pile-ons and to not say things that have already been said, let alone repeated at length. I agree with what's been said, but at this point this is starting to look like a show trial, and we certainly don't need WP:Tomats to express the simple one-sentence deciding ideas I need not repeat. I hated that darned novel as a child and we don't need to recreate it on top of any person. There is no changing the outcome, there is no need to rub salt into the wound, let it snow, let it close. In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 20:06, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
I think the WP:AVALANCHE is entirely warranted, and could have ended had larry been willing to follow rules. It is important for everyone to roundly reject the nonsense of someone otherwise having used previous founder status to launder policy vios.
It is only a show trial because the defendant keeps doing offenses while on trial. User:Bluethricecreamman(Talk·Contribs) 22:13, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
I must respectfully disagree. WP:SNOW says "The snowball clause is designed to prevent editors from getting tangled up in long, mind-numbing, bureaucratic discussions over things that are foregone conclusions." If Larry ends up indeffed, he is certain to start giving interviews about how "a tiny handful of Wikipedia's 53 million registered users" decided to block him. So in this specific case piling on has a real benefit. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:20, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
He can do that whether ten people comment or a thousand, as rhetoric is not necessarily tied to fact. I think piling on is a very natural reaction in this circumstance, though I think it's of limited use - he has made it very clear that he views Wikipedia as a battleground, and views people (editors and otherwise) who oppose his viewpoints as enemies. Given that Larry's proposal and canvassing behavior can be viewed an attack upon the community of both editors and readers, it was inevitably going to a third rail where everyone shows up to mount a defense, and will continue to be so until he's finally banned. PhosphoricPanda (talk) 22:41, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
You appear to be confusing what Larry is likely to do with what the journalists who interview him are likely to do. They are very likely to treat a dicussion with 100 for and 3 against differently from a discussion that is snow closed after the first few !votes. Specifically, they would almost certainly push back against any "handful of editors" claims by Larry. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:56, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Journalists are not neutral arbiters of fact. There are those who would push back against his claims, and there are those who would not - and even reputable outlets can falter in this regard. Furthermore, I again argue that his banning is very very unlikely to be newsworthy in its own right. I do not foresee opening AP or Reuters and seeing "Larry Senger, Cofounder of Wikipedia, banned from Wikipedia" as an article. In my view, this is almost certainly most likely to come up in the context of someone giving an interview to Larry or otherwise giving him a platform by which to express his views, such as the CNN podcast interview up above, where it is much much more likely for claims to be unrefuted, such as the podcast up above. With such personalities, recent experiences have shown the world again and again that rhetoric need not be factual for it to be conveyed through news outlets who often should very much know better. PhosphoricPanda (talk) 23:28, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Sometimes having a large group of people object to something is safer for the individuals involved than a smaller group. It helps ensure that one or a few individuals don't bear the brunt of any retaliation that may occur. It's the same reasoning that is leading to calls, above, for the closure to be done by a group rather than an individual.
I think the thread also serves as a community comment on WP:UNBLOCKABLES and I for one am glad to see that. M kuhner (talk) 23:00, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
I agree! By no means am I asking for it to stop - I'm more or less just pointing out that the number of individuals commenting is very disconnected from how it will be presented. There is indeed a safety to be had in numbers, here - but that's more against those who would continue this crusade through unsavory means, than it is against whatever Larry chooses to say in his next interview. PhosphoricPanda (talk) 23:34, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Reading back the parable might be worth our while. Selbstporträt (talk) 00:07, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
My defense (statement by Larry Sanger)
This is my formal defense, written fairly quickly, because a decision might be handed down at any time. I note that not everyone is given time and opportunity to write and have considered this sort of formal defense. I am not asking for any treatment that I would not ask for everyone else.
Since there is no designated prosecutor who has indicted me, I must reconstruct the charges against me. I will begin by doing that.
Moreover, since there is no one person making the case against me, but many self-selected "prosecutors," I must consider the words of everyone testifying. Indeed, I must reconstruct their case against me. I will do that as well, or enough of it to make clear what I am responding to.
Since anyone I might call on to testify on my behalf will naturally be intimidated (and are threatened with punishment simply by being associated with WPID), I must respond to the case myself. I am not sure whether admins will think of a full-throated, detailed defense as violating WP:BLUDGEON, but I will risk it by giving everything due consideration, as justice obviously requires. Again, I do not ask for myself anything that I would not ask for everyone else facing a case on ANI. Especially when a user (like me!) has spent many, many hours on the site, they should be given a fair, dispassionate hearing according to commonsense rules of due process.
While there have been many charges, many seemed to be of lesser importance. So I will limit myself to the three main ones: off-wiki canvassing, not being here to build an encyclopedia, and treating Wikipedia as a battleground.
Note that "WPID" means "WikiProject Intellectual Diversity," the proposed WikiProject that I am accused of inappropriately promoting.
CHARGE 1: OFF-WIKI CANVASSING
I see three main counts.
Count 1. By posting a link to an active WikiProject Council discussion on X/Twitter to 91,000 followers, and by appearing on CNN-News18's Plain Speak podcast urging viewers to "join Wikipedia and join the WikiProject Intellectual Diversity" and to "learn how to play the game," I am accused of engaging in "notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way" (WP:CANVASS), specifically by "contacting users off-wiki to persuade them to join in discussions" (WP:STEALTH).
This is the most important count in the most important charge, and I have several responses to it.
First, I had been promoting WPID on X for several weeks before this. This was an attempt to increase members of the WikiProject, which is a thing that the WikiProject guidelines instruct applicants to do: "You must recruit multiple participants before writing a proposal." The WikiProject Guide also says, "The first stop should be to look for projects with similar interests... check the talk pages of related articles for projects with interests that overlap with yours." I did this. I saw no language prohibiting off-wiki recruitment for WikiProjects. I reasoned that, surely, Wikipedia wants more editors.
Insofar as my goal was to recruit new members of WPID, I would like someone to explain to me what specific rule I broke, and why.
But what about CNN-News18 and other instances where I spoke to a perhaps larger audience about WPID? I do not understand how these are offenses. If they are, I would like the rule cited. I have given no interviews since the discussion of WPID began; I was simply trying to get people to join. If there is a rule against that, I am not seeing it.
What about the idea that we should "learn how to play the game"? This is just realism and not any sort of offense. Wikipedia is very much like a game with rules—where, if you break the rules, you are out. I want people to be effective Wikipedians. That means not falling afoul of the rules. What's wrong with that?
You might ask: "What about the fact that you announced on X that you had made the WPID application?" This was an update to my X followers who had already heard from me on the topic several times before; I thought it was interesting news. While I mentioned that some were opposed and others in favor, I neither asked people to support the application nor did it even occur to me that my tweeting about it would result in more support for the application. I deny any mens rea on that score; after all, it is extremely unlikely that anyone new would show up to support the application at the last minute. It was just an update.
I did not invite anyone to vote on the application, much less to support it. I deny that updating my followers about the progress of a project they had been hearing about for weeks constitutes canvassing. If it were any other person than me and any other WikiProject application, nobody would raise an eyebrow.
Count 2. These acts constituted "actively recruiting people (either on-wiki or off-wiki) to create an account or edit anonymously in order to influence decisions on Wikipedia," which "is prohibited" (WP:MEAT).
I do not believe what I did is what WP:MEAT prohibits, and I would like to see the argument that it is. If I want to go offline or off-wiki on the internet to recruit a bunch of skeptics or feminists—just for example—to make accounts and teach them how to edit Wikipedia, this is not forbidden by WP:MEAT. But that has happened not infrequently over the years. Why then would it be forbidden to recruit a deliberately broad tent of people who want to make Wikipedia more intellectually diverse? As I read WP:MEAT, it prohibits recruiting allies to edit particular articles or particular policy pages. What recruiting people for the WPID does is to recruit people who favor a certain policy direction for Wikipedia; this does not involve recruiting for any particular articles.
"But," you might challenge me, "surely you know that people who favor the goals of WPID will in the future support stances in line with the goals. Why isn't this just an indirect form of meatpuppetry?" If this counts as meatpuppetry, then so does every WikiProject that has ever recruited editors who share a topical interest. I would like to understand why this case is different. Wikipedians are, of course, allowed to recruit people who favor their national causes, or their religions, or their political parties. That is not against the rules or even, it seems to me, wrong. So similarly, I have done nothing to transgress WP:MEAT in recruiting for WPID.
Count 3. I was warned about off-wiki canvassing in April 2026 and continued the behavior, constituting WP:IDHT.
I rejected this advice because it was not presented as an official warning. It was not labeled as such, it did not come from someone announcing themselves as an admin, and it was not clarified that it might be cited in a later ANI case against me. If such talk page comments can serve as official warnings, that should be made a definite rule. As it was, I was not made to understand that there really is a rule against linking to and describing talk page controversies. I still do not think there is such a rule, but if I am instructed by whoever informs me of the outcome that there is such a rule, I will follow it just like everybody else.
If this set of charges is wrong or incomplete, I am asking for the person designated to close to specify them.
CHARGE 2: NOT HERE TO BUILD AN ENCYCLOPEDIA
Here, I see two counts.
Count 1. My editing history demonstrates that I am not here to build an encyclopedia (WP:NOTHERE). 4% of my edits in 2026 have been to mainspace. I have made 19 article-space edits in the past four months; the 20th prior article-space edit was in 2012. My total mainspace contributions between 2003 and March 2026 number fewer than 50. Any other editor with this record would have been indefinitely blocked long ago; my clean block log reflects co-founder status, not good conduct.
First, let's talk about the main claim. It's true that I have made few article space edits recently; but then, plenty of editors work primarily in talk space, project space, or policy space without being blocked. The reason I have avoided making many article space edits, even when I am discussing matters on talk pages, is that it would cause unnecessary controversy if I did. Believe it or not, I do take care about such matters.
More importantly, I categorically assert that I am here to build an encyclopedia. There are various ways to do that. Indeed, advancing the representation of unpopular views on the website would help build the encyclopedia. It would ensure far more information is found in Wikipedia, and in ways that would help it get an even broader audience. In any event, the fact that I have not worked so much in the main article space recently is obviously not an offense of any sort.
Count 2. The totality of my activity since returning—the Nine Theses, WPID, the PolicyScanner, the FAQ in support of WPID, the media appearances, and the "Welcome to Wikipedia (with warnings)" page instructing WPID members how to avoid getting blocked, and other essays—demonstrates that my sole purpose is to change how Wikipedia works, not to improve it. "Ultimately if someone is only here to try and change how Wikipedia works they're NOTHERE, as they're not here to improve the encyclopedia itself," especially insofar as my presence is to build a conservative pressure group within Wikipedia.
There is one thing that is true in this count. It is true that my purpose since last October has mostly been to foster some changes to how Wikipedia works. The ways in which it would be changed, however, would be a decided improvement; therefore, I am here to improve the encyclopedia. It is not a part of my goal to build a "conservative pressure group within Wikipedia." First, WPID would not properly be called a "pressure group," nor would it be specifically allied with conservatives. Indeed, it is a strongly liberal value to support the full representation of unpopular views; this is not particularly conservative, insofar as conservatives favor only a particular culture, and historically have been opposed to the representation of other views.
In any event, none of this establishes that I am not here to improve Wikipedia. I certainly am. And if an admin disagrees with the more tolerant direction in which WPID would attempt to push, that is certainly no reason to block me—at best it is a reason to argue against making WPID an official WikiProject.
Again, if this set of charges is wrong or incomplete, I am asking for the person designated to close to specify them.
CHARGE 3: TREATING WIKIPEDIA AS A BATTLEGROUND
I see three main counts.
Count 1. By organizing WPID, I have organized "a faction that disrupts (or aims to disrupt) Wikipedia's fundamental decision-making process, which is based on building a consensus" (WP:BATTLEGROUND). The PolicyScanner is cited as the mechanism by which this faction would be directed to specific discussions. My X post—"The left marched through this institution. There's no reason we can't march right back"—is cited as proof that I view Wikipedia as ideological territory to be conquered rather than an encyclopedia to be built.
First, even if true, this is not a reason to block or otherwise to discipline me; it is a reason to block WPID from being made official. If so, then this supposed, feared "faction" does not come into being. Problem solved.
Second, it is incorrect—and, arguably, a violation of AGF—to say that WPID aims to disrupt any policy decision-making processes. Indeed, our proposal makes it clear that we are encouraging participation in, not co-opting or otherwise disrupting, established Wikipedia processes.
Third, I concede that the cited X post about the long march through the institutions contains indefensible rhetoric, and I do regret it. Still, it comes from a place any group that is unfairly treated in Wikipedia can sympathize with. It is easily arguable that Wikipedia is largely "ideologically captured," and what I propose to do is to suggest that conservatives (sure), Hindus, Israelis, and Christians (among others) quite simply not concede defeat, but to get involved in the same way that the left wing Establishment has done.
Count 2. WPID's stated goals amount to an attempt to undermine core policies, specifically WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:FRINGE, and WP:DUE. The WPID page states that "attention to 'due weight' and 'fringe theories,' and the close connection between these determinations and tendentious policies about 'reliable sources,' tends to undermine robust neutrality." I am quoted from the Teahouse as saying "WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE need to be greatly weakened if not abolished." My defense of OpIndia—blacklisted for doxxing a Wikipedia editor—is cited as further evidence.
Our goals are not to undermine any core policies—even sections about WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE would remain if I could personally rewrite them. But I am not asking to rewrite them; the WPID would not be empowered to do so (obviously); and it is above all not a bannable offense to want these policies to be improved and brought in line with true intellectual tolerance. As to WP:NPOV, I am personally responsible for introducing the policy to Nupedia and Wikipedia and for drafting the longer version of the policy, which was left largely intact for many years after I left. My tolerance and advocacy for the fair representation of ideas that I disagree with—such as homeopathy, communism, and Hinduism—is arguably the single most important reason why Wikipedia has a neutrality policy.
Again, this is no reason to give me special treatment here. I say it only to refute the idea that I hope to "undermine...WP:NPOV."
Count 3. My conduct in the WikiProject Council discussion and on ANI constitutes bludgeoning (WP:BLUDGEON)—"the continuous, aggressive pursuit of an editorial goal" that "is considered disruptive" (WP:CON). Specifically: posting the 11-question FAQ in the middle of an active discussion, and responding at length to multiple critics while the proposal was being overwhelmingly rejected.
I do not see how this can be maintained to be improper, as the following should explain. First, I spent literally months carefully developing this proposal and supporting software, and while it had plenty of supporters, it was mostly my work. The sudden pile-on in the WikiProject Council discussion would obviously intimidate any of WPID's supporters. And no surprise: as I said above, and as I repeat, they were threatened with punishment simply by being associated with WPID. So I had a choice: either (a) speak for the group that had been largely intimidated into silence, responding to it all myself, or (b) allow many substantive points to go unanswered. I do not regret choosing (a). There was no other way for the proposal to receive a fair shake.
Once again, if this set of charges is wrong or incomplete, I am asking that someone—such as the person designated to close—specify them.
In conclusion, outside of ancient Greece, persons in the dock are not supposed to suggest what punishment would be fair. I will say, however, that a block of any length for any of these charges would be inappropriate. I did not invite anyone to vote in any particular way. I deny that any of these charges justifies a block of any length. Moreover, contrary to what some have said, I do not want to be blocked!
Finally, if this discussion proceeds any farther, I would like to ask that an authoritative person (I should hope the person chosen, or who volunteers, to report the final decision on my user talk page) clarify exactly what the charges are against me. This might be too much to ask, though; I am not to expect special treatment, and typically, no specific charges are listed against a blocked person until after sentence has been passed.
Doubling down on my support, this is ridiculous waste of our time. There are no charges nor authorative persons and this is not a court of law. NB, this is also not LLM, this is how Sanger communicates. @Larry Sanger please stop bludgeoning every discussion you participate in. You may believe that's an essay, but it's a courtesy to your fellow editors not to drown out every voice. StarMississippi 03:41, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
Basically, you're saying that I'm not allowed to defend myself at length against a massive pile-on. This isn't bludgeoning—it's basic fairness. Courtesy to people in danger of losing one of their main hobbies demands that they be allowed to speak on their own behalf, and answer all the (in my case, MANY) charges made against them. Larry Sanger (talk) 03:49, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
Basically, you're saying that I'm not allowed to defend myself at length against a massive pile-on. Let's not put words in people's mouth. SM never said you could not defend yourself, just that this was not it. LuniZunie (talk) 03:50, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
This is an absolutely insane Wall of text; I have three monitors and this still does not fully fit across all three. I, too, double down on my support for an indef / CBAN. As echoed above, we aren't in court; we are a bunch of volunteers, and this feels like less of a defense and more of a final push to be right. LuniZunie (talk) 03:44, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
So no comment on your support for doxxing editors then, despite listing it as one of the "charges" against you? Earlier you asked for respect from the community, but – frankly – the respect you've given the playground moms community recently is fuck all. In solidarity, nilnz 03:49, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
It's not relevant to the main charge, and it's obviously not a serious charge. I never called for anyone to be doxxed, period. Larry Sanger (talk) 03:51, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
. I never called for anyone to be doxxed, period. But some people believe that you called for anyone to be doxxed, which is incorrect. VitorFriboquen:] (Talk) 03:58, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
He absolutely called for users to be doxxed. wound theology◈ 13:53, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
@Vitorperrut555 one example is actually in the article about him, in #neutrality and ideological bias. of course, one of the nine theses also basically boils down to "dox people, but spicy", but it's easier to assume you already know that in this discussion consarn(talk beige)(count ribs) 11:32, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
By the way, since this shameless and contemptible smear on my character has been repeated so many times on this page, I’m going to repeat this here:
So the Heritage Foundation announced a plan to essentially doxx a bunch of powerful editors. In a comment on my personal social media platform, I responded to this not to agree–if you actually look at the context, you will see that I didn’t agree with that plan–but I did say that there needed to be some way to name and shame powerful editors.
It has been insisted in the Wikipedia article Larry Sanger against my own clarification that this meant that I was supporting the Heritage Foundation plan, when I meant nothing of the kind. In fact, as I explained at the time, in some follow-ups, my point was that it should not be possible to be a powerful editor such as a bureaucrat or a checkuser, without revealing your identity. That should be a new rule. I was not saying that the people who are currently bureaucrats or checkusers should be doxxed.
By the way, I can say this and repeat it all I like, but it does not seem to make the slightest bit of difference to those editing Larry Sanger and smearing me in the ANI, because some journalist wrote one point that I did support the Heritage Foundation plan. That was just her mistaken opinion. That reporter never interviewed me and was basing it entirely on her personal interpretation of my post. It was bad reporting and Wikipedia is not doing its credibility any favors by simply repeating it. Larry Sanger (talk) 20:25, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
The article in question (here) also says that "Sanger did not respond to requests for comment." SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 20:34, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
There is no charge. No one has to pile on that you're not here - you're showing us all that yourself. You're welcome to defend yourself but you don't need to flood every single discussion you participate in. You already defended yourself. This wall of text just continues to show you have no respect for the time of your fellow editors nor do you respect their opinions when you drown them out and believe the last word wins. You helped establish a great thing but you've long since lost touch with the norms of the English wiki community @Larry Sanger. StarMississippi 03:59, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
No. Denying me a right to defend myself against a massive litany of charges is obviously unjust. I am merely asserting my basic due process rights here. I know they'll probably be denied; but it won't be able to be said that I did not assert my rights, and I'll be able to point to all of my judges who said that it is extremely annoying to them that I dared to defend myself. Larry Sanger (talk) 04:05, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
No. Denying me a right to defend myself against a massive litany of charges is obviously unjust
Seriously, can you please stop putting people's words in their mouth? SM quite literally said you are free to defend yourself, just that this is not the way to get the community on your side. No one here has yet said you cannot defend yourself, do not assume as such. LuniZunie (talk) 04:07, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
I didn't accuse anybody of saying I couldn't defend myself. Nobody denied that. Larry Sanger (talk) 04:25, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
To clarify: yes, you're allowed to defend yourself. Yes, you're allowed to defend yourself at length. Yes, people are allowed to find the length ridiculous. These ideas can coexist. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 12:07, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
The amount of times Sanger has made a statement, only in his next reply to state he did not make such a statement, in this discussion is frankly astounding. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 14:11, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
It’s borderline trolling at this point, any other editor would have been blocked for trolling. LuniZunie (talk) 14:13, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
Between that and the claim that he only would've listened to warnings if they were explicitly marked as official warnings from an administrator, I'm convinced that he perfectly knows what he's doing and is trying to speedrun a CBAN. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 14:37, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
Are you being serious right now? LuniZunie (talk) 14:12, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
I'll say this and drop it: a huge number of unfair charges were made against me. In a proper disciplinary process, the person who is subjected to such charges must be given an opportunity to respond. I have asserted, and used, my right. You can express all the contempt you want for that right.
Anyway, cheer up: I'm finished defending myself. Larry Sanger (talk) 04:28, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
You've had plenty of time and opportunity to respond. wound theology◈ 13:53, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
Misinformation and disinformation about Wikipedia generated by sources that you admire and promote online that exploit and monetize gullibility have resulted in editors being doxed and put at risk. There is cause-and-effect. Outcomes are predictable. Everyone knows what they are doing. You chose to be part of the amplification system. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:34, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
Bullshit. You, in one sentence, define doxing to mean name and shame, and then in the very next, called for admins to be named and shamed more easily. In solidarity, nilnz 04:46, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
While I don't agree with naming and shaming admins, in that post, he appears to be disagreeing that the definition of "dox" should be "name and shame". Putting "dox" in scare quotes and adding clarifying wording "Heritage seeks to "dox" (which just means "name and shame") anti-Semitic editors on Wikipedia" would have made the intended meaning clearer, if that's what he was really trying to say. 123957a (talk) 04:54, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
But the anti-Wikipedia disinformation vectors do not target antisemitic editors. Antisemitic editors are legitimate targets in this community of Wikipedians. They target civilians, editors who summarize the contents of reliable sources according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines when that summarized content has certain features they don't like, none of which are related to antisemitism. The simple and observable fact of the matter is that following the Wikipedia rules in certain domains is enough to make an editor (or an admin or an ArbCom member) a target, and the probability of becoming a target is a function of various factors (like edit count, account age, subject focus, source preferences), again, none of which are related to antisemitism. There is no reason for Wikipedia to assist directly or indirectly individuals and organizations that prey on and profit from people with an elevated susceptibility to misinformation about Wikipedia, individuals and organizations that justify their bad behavior by pretending that they are doing something good. It is obnoxious behavior. Sean.hoyland (talk) 06:45, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
Just a long-winded WP:MANDY that won't move the dial for anyone. Zaathras (talk) 04:07, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
This massive wall of text is a disingenuous apologia wherein Sanger pretends, nay demands, that he is entitled to "due process" as if ANI were an actual court with a prosecutor and judges, but one in which he gets to decide just what "due process" is, the community be damned. Just more bloviation in an attempt to wear us down. He might be taken more seriously if he had spent some time in the last twenty-plus years actually contributing to mainspace WP rather than actively trying to subvert the whole project because he thinks it's too woke. Carlstak (talk) 05:10, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
Larry, because I am trying to WP:AGF that you actually don't understand why so many people are saying you've committed a ban-worthy amount of community norm violations, I want to offer this brief explanation. You have failed to address CHARGE 0: ANNOYING EVERYONE WHO IS TRYING TO MAKE AN ENCYCLOPEDIA. We actually do block people for this, all the time. That is what WP:NOTHERE is really about; it is well established as a community norm that "disruptive editing" includes "causing enough drama to be a net negative".
An extremely long legalistic defense is ipso facto annoying, and therefore can never clear you of charge 0. A better defense would be a strong record of content-editing. You say you don't want to invite controversy by editing articles, but unless you're going to take up some extremely unglamorous maintenance work instead, there is no other way to earn enough of the community's respect that people will tolerate things that annoy them. ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 05:11, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
I think we can all see this is just doubling down in the face of a ban, and it could be rightfully dismissed as a wall of text that fails to address the concerns the community actually has, but I'm going to respond because Larry insists that he must be given a fair shot and I want be able to say that I actually did listen and respond to him when he runs off complaining about how he is being persecuted by the community or something.
What about the idea that we should "learn how to play the game"? This is just realism and not any sort of offense. Wikipedia is very much like a game with rules—where, if you break the rules, you are out.
You said that in a context where you are blatantly encouraging people to come to Wikipedia to push and influence our reporting on. Telling people to "learn to play the game" in that context is obviously not innocuous, and sounds more like telling them to play the WP:GAME than any other.
I did not invite anyone to vote on the application, much less to support it. I deny that updating my followers about the progress of a project they had been hearing about for weeks constitutes canvassing. If it were any other person than me and any other WikiProject application, nobody would raise an eyebrow.
We consistently tell each other in off-wiki spaces to not link to ongoing formal processes on Wikipedia. And that's before audiences of a few people; you posted a link to your whole follower base.
As it was, I was not made to understand that there really is a rule against linking to and describing talk page controversies. I still do not think there is such a rule..[rest of paragraph cut for concision]
If you're involved in the controversy and you are linking it to a group of people who have in common that they care enough about what you have to say to hit follow on your X/Twitter account, then yeah, that is canvassing. Also, to ask us to believe that you direct all your on-wiki efforts at changing our rules while also being completely oblivious to how they work is ridiculous.
Wikipedians are, of course, allowed to recruit people who favor their national causes, or their religions, or their political parties.
Not for the purpose of trying to unduly influence Wikipedia's representation of their causes.
There is one thing that is true in this count. It is true that my purpose since last October has mostly been to foster some changes to how Wikipedia works. The ways in which it would be changed, however, would be a decided improvement; therefore, I am here to improve the encyclopedia.
Third, I concede that the cited X post about the long march through the institutions contains indefensible rhetoric, and I do regret it. Still..[rest of paragraph cut for concision]
These are the two most important parts. You won't listen when the whole community is telling you that what you're doing is not for the better, and you are fighting an imagined enemy. I've seen people in this thread who I know have very different views and who have openly fought about them agreeing that you're being disruptive and that you refuse to listen. I fully believe that you are here to build a encyclopedia, but you don't seem to be here to build this encyclopedia anymore. I'd say Wikipedia editors have a minor bias towards having milk toast centre-left Western liberal worldviews, and it can reasonably be argued that we need to be better at preventing that lean from seeping through onto some of our articles. That said, to suggest there is some coordinated effort by the left-wing establishment boogeyman is completely detached from what the community actually looks like, and totally ignores the fact that people have been sanctioned for POV-pushing left-wing views and the fact that we have refused to change after receiving criticism from left-wing voices (that has even happened quite recently, actually). People on Wikipedia absolutely hold different views, it's just that those differences are most visible when people insist on being disruptive about them and pushing them onto articles, while most of us accept that our views are not always going to be reflected in articles.
Moreover, contrary to what some have said, I do not want to be blocked!
If so, Larry, why do you refuse to listen to the community you once had a part in creating?
As for the "charge", even though that isn't how we operate: take it as being brought against you by the community as a whole for just that: a persistent refusal to listen to and work with the community, which is the very essence of disruption. ⹃Maltazarianᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 05:19, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
On the note of Wikipedians are, of course, allowed to recruit people who favor their national causes, or their religions, or their political parties., people are also regularly banned from editing articles that they are affiliated to through membership of such groups if the Conflict of Interest causes them to try to skew the POV of an article away from NPOV. Then, as Sanger has vocally championed ideological outlets in the area, I will highlight how one area he has repeatedly commented on as needing an influx of editors who follow terrible quality sources is in the CTOP of South Asia. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 14:20, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
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. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:00, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
That's not innocently recruiting for a wikiproject, that's advocating for millions of people to flood wikipedia and "play the game". Whatever good faith your defense tries to paint you with, this is the reality. Snokalok2 (talk) 06:13, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
I’m going to append to this the quote Rambler pasted, Now here’s what people don’t realize: the day-to-day work is done by a few hundred people, not millions. The left marched through this institution. There’s no reason we can’t march right back.Snokalok2 (talk) 14:36, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
I don't believe Larry Sanger really understands Wikipedia WP:Policy, WP:Etiquette, or culture. This isn't a trial making arguments to some impartial third party group making a case isn't how it works, it's if policy was violated and what should be done if yes. Its usually pretty obvious if policy is violated. Which WP:canvasing violation is pretty blatant here before discussion of anything else.
What your suppose to do when making an objective mistake like this it to say something like "oops, didn't know, didn't think it was a big deal but now know better, i'll delete that tweet, and the policy section I was reading didn't mention it, someone should updated it". If this was said there might have only been a symbolic block for a day at most. Wikipedia operates on WP:Goodfaith, we don't want to block people, we want them to be a contributor, we don't assume people are acting with malice. But the comments have done nothing but reinforce people's worries. Arguing not being aware so the rule didn't count or because the page you were reading does not mention it does not change the fact its established policy. Nor does arguing its actually a good thing. This can't be rule lawyered or out rhetoric. Because of this hyperbolic language used, potential WP:ASPERSIONS, potential WP:bludgeoning, and probably other stuff makes this a bigger issue, and then other wider problems become apparent, like blatantly making this a WP:soapbox, instead of the primary subject, suggesting WP:NOTHERE. It's like he is writing to a third party, as none of this will convince anyone here as this is not following basic WP:Etiquette. Bobbobet (talk) 08:07, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
WP:WIKILAWYERing, in the truest and most basic sense of the word. While I know that Larry is going to complain that this is just an essay and not a policy, it is such a well-accept and nearly unanimous piece of Wikipedia culture that it shows that Larry simply lacks the competency to be part of this project. He doesn't know how Wikipedia works, and he isn't willing to learn. wound theology◈ 13:56, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
There is no requirement that warnings be "official"(warnings are not normally logged somewhere), nor is there a requirement that only admins can issue warnings, anyone can issue a warning. And I'm wondering what difference it would make that a warning be "official". 331dot (talk) 13:57, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
Possible WMF Global Ban?
If Larry Sanger continues being unruly (whether on- or off-wiki) after he is banned, will the WMF have to institute a Global Ban? It's regrettable, as I actually agree with Sanger that we can enforce civility more strictly and make a more welcoming environment, but if he continues to disruptively start wars on Wikipedia through off-wiki tactics, we may have no choice but to escalate the ban. 123957a (talk) 04:23, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
And as @Sean.hoyland said (link), his behavior could lead to the doxing of editors, which can cause real-world harm, a good reason for a global ban. 123957a (talk) 04:38, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
I was gonna suggest that Larry work on Wikiversity and Meta-Wiki and other sister projects, but I can't help imagining that he'd use those projects just to advocate doxxing multiple editors and others and to attack this project. George Ho (talk) 04:49, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
::AFAIK Global bans usually occur when an editor has been disruptive/blocked across projects. Larry has made less than two-dozen mainspace article edits in the past decade, so I'm not quite sure what he'd be doing on other projects beyond trying to change them into a form he finds preferable. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 05:19, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
The Global Ban page says "Non-users may also be subject to a global ban." There are some users who have been WMF-global banned without making any edits. 123957a (talk) 05:23, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
It does, but the page you linked to above also says it's a matter of last resort where the community hasn't been able to resolve the matter themselves. It's a pretty extreme option and I'm not convinced it'll happen. It could, but it looks like a very high bar to cross. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 05:31, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
WP:THESIS6: If you continue to stymie accountability, government may have to act.
This can be interpreted as a threat for Larry to work with government to investigate the personal details of functionaries, which could justify a global ban. 123957a (talk) 05:26, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
Support INDEF x2, per Star Mississippi. sapphaline (talk) 08:45, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
As I recall, Mr Sanger, you were told that posting a link to the thread on Twitter would be canvassing, and what did you then do, post a link. Sorry, but that looks deliberate, and disrespectful. Slatersteven (talk) 09:35, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
Have not commented until now, but following the above lengthy statement, I support a sanction. As noted in the lengthy statement, the editor was warned about canvassing, and explicitly and knowingly chose to reject that warning. If I am getting the timeline right, after the issue of canvassing was raised again following X/Twitter posts, the editor chose to engage in further external canvassing through an interview. Here again there is a relitigation on what is a reasonably textbook example of canvassing. That is multiple active and deliberate choices to disregard community norms, and even to disregard helpful advice. I don't know if an indef is needed per WP:BLOCKESCALATE, but the editor states that previous warnings were insufficient ("I was not made to understand"), so it seems a formal sanction would preventatively aid in that understanding. It is probably also worth closing the canvassed discussion with the note of deliberate canvassing by the discussion's initiator. CMD (talk) 10:39, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
Larry, come on. There is no prosecutor (self-selected or not) or formal charges because we're not running a pseudo-legalistic process. This is a discussion among participants in a community project to ascertain whether one participant's behavior is compatible with the project. Many editors may have differing opinions on why you are or aren't a net positive, but they are not making formal indictments, although I appreciate your efforts to try to organize the points that have been raised and respond to them individually.However, I figure I should still address the part of the response mentioning me, namely:
Count 3. I was warned about off-wiki canvassing in April 2026 and continued the behavior, constituting WP:IDHT.
I rejected this advice because it was not presented as an official warning. It was not labeled as such, it did not come from someone announcing themselves as an admin, and it was not clarified that it might be cited in a later ANI case against me. If such talk page comments can serve as official warnings, that should be made a definite rule. As it was, I was not made to understand that there really is a rule against linking to and describing talk page controversies. I still do not think there is such a rule, but if I am instructed by whoever informs me of the outcome that there is such a rule, I will follow it just like everybody else.
Admins don't have any special authority to warn users, and we don't make a difference between "official" and "unofficial" warnings (besides an unrelated ArbCom process of the same name). Any editor may inform others of policies, guidelines and other principles, and are expected to listen to each other's concerns in good faith even if the editor addressing them doesn't have any explicit "title", or is doing so informally. We're not here to pull rank on each other.This ties back to the fact that we're, again, not a court of law. We pay more attention to working as a community than to process minutiae, and you don't need for something to be packaged in an official envelope branded with an administrator seal to read and understand it. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 11:08, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
This is, at its root, a WP:CIR issue. Larry does not know how Wikipedia works, and is unwilling to learn. wound theology◈ 13:52, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
Once again, Larry has taken the opportunity, in a remarkably long-winded and pompous manner, to demonstrate that he doesn't understand how Wikipedia works. And while I just about stand by my argument that I don't think an indef is merited for his behaviour regarding his stream of theses, proposals etc (a topic ban certainly is) I might well be open to suggestions that an indef per WP:CIR might be legitimate. Being around as long as he is (even if mostly as an external critic) and then presenting a massive pseudolegalistic 'defense' that anyone even acquainted only in passing with WP:ANI would realise is inappropriate has to make one question whether Larry actually understands what a cooperative project is at all. Larry, if you don't understand what writing for the audience you are expecting to read your stuff is, I suggest you find something else to do with your time. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:00, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
It's worth pointing out that the defense above omits what is likely the real driving force behind the WP:NOTHERE arguments. I suspect that Larry will not be surprised by this, but observers might need some context for the amount of anger, frustration, and/or exasperation exhibited here in response to a long, matter-of-fact statement. The real issue, I think, is that Larry has positioned himself, over the course of more than 20 years now and increasingly at every opportunity, as Wikipedia's Chief Antagonist. It may have begun with a completely reasonable debate over the role of expertise and quality standards and getting Wikipedia back to its encyclopedia roots, but then it expanded. I don't know if it's that his beliefs became more out of step with Wikipedia during the COVID era, or that he's catering to the venues that have invited him to speak, but he began using the co-founder credential to not just criticize but attack and stoke outrage about Wikipedia and the people who volunteer their time here. Neutrality is dead. Wikipedia is broken beyond repair. Wikipedia is propaganda. Volunteers are hapless woke leftists, but also Machiavellian masters of "playing the game". He has succeeded in creating a legible new culture war target, and personally benefitted from doing so while volunteers bear the brunt of it. And then, after years of that, he returns to Wikipedia and tells everyone that he's here to save it. He used that return to continue a media tour in which he continues the same rhetoric (even, as the CNN-News18 quotes, providing instructions for how people can undermine or overwhelm Wikipedia), and then logs back in and expresses surprise at a chilly reception. Here's the thing: the canvassing about WPID wasn't all that egregious of a canvassing violation. The degree of resentment visible in some of the !votes and comments here (which are, I would agree, over the top and unhelpful in some cases) isn't because of a single act of canvassing. It's not because people hate intellectual diversity. It's not because of bias, or groupthink, or some off-wiki coordination among ne'er-do-wells. It's because his actions and words everywhere other than Wikipedia are those of someone trying to harm, and not to help. For all the talk about other people playing games, code-switching between off-wiki partisan outrage machine and on-wiki "just here to help" sure feels like a game. If this thread feels more like "getting fed up and throwing the game away" than patient strategy and argumentation, that's why. I think I come down on the side of Opposing blocks/bans. The impact of Larry's recent on-wiki activities has been minimal. The WikiProject was already trending towards towards failure. Any on-wiki canvassing tools will already fail to survive. The harm is entirely off-wiki, and this does nothing to prevent it (maybe the opposite). A block would be an act of expression more than prevention. —Rhododendritestalk \\ 14:38, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
Another issue may be a COI issue, he keeps on setting up rivals, and then seems to engage in actions deemed (at least to some eyes) to weaken Wikipedia. Hence why a lot of votes (and my mind is now heading that way) that he should be banned as wp:nothere. Slatersteven (talk) 14:57, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
Except an indef will do one thing in particular, it'll put an end to all the WP:EDITORTIME we've had to waste since he suddenly decided to come back on his act of extreme WP:RGW. He is by his own admittance not here to improve Wikipedia as an encyclopaedia but rather to wage a war on what he sees as a "left-wing Establishment" who've supposedly taken it over. Basically he's invented a boogeyman he posits as the real rulebreakers to justify his own rule-breaking.
Yes, this block doesn't stop his off-wiki potshots, but the people he speaks to are not "journalists" but people who already hate Wikipedia and the self-perpetuating cottage industry of "commentary" on why it's terrible. Rambling Rambler (talk) 15:02, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
People keep saying that Sanger doesn't know how WP works, but he knows very well how it works, he's been told enough times—it just doesn't work the way he wants it to. He knows that we don't settle disputes or ban people with a court procedure, so he pretends that we do and conjures up a "defense" according to his terms. Carlstak (talk) 15:18, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
Update. While we verge into sovereign citizen territory, Larry is having a little fun. Selbstporträt (talk) 18:00, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
The only things I wanted to see from Sanger after being caught red-handed engaging in mass canvassing is not a defense, which is not tenable as there is no defense, but instead a massive, profuse apology and a promise to never engage in the various anti-Wikipedia actions (laid out on this page) ever again, or a request for permanent retirement from the Wikipedia. the Stefen 𝕋ower 18:09, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
The very idea that one must always confess to whatever one is accused of on ANI, that there is “no process” at all, that there is no possibility of defense, that one must issue mea culpas no matter what, etc., is breathtakingly imbecilic and obviously cannot actually be Wikipedia’s policy. I am paying you all a compliment by assuming that those who seem to express these ideas cannot really mean what they might seem to be saying. Larry Sanger (talk) 18:24, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
Apologize and stop the behavior, or retire. You are WP:NOTHERE to build the Wikipedia, and that is painfully obvious. My read of the community is that we are done with your gaming. You have no defense. the Stefen 𝕋ower 18:35, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
Calling everyone opposing you an "imbecile" sure is a move. Outside of that, despite not being a courtroom, your treatment of it as if it is reminds of a phrase: "If the facts are on your side, pound the facts. If the law is on your side, pound the law. If neither are, pound the table." I'm hearing an awful lot of thunking. PhosphoricPanda (talk) 18:36, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
That "very idea" is the product of your own imagination, Larry. You're just being told to keep it short and stop fainting on couches. Before being Wikipedia's "conscience", try to be yours. Selbstporträt (talk) 18:36, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
Sanger, contrition at AN/I is often to one's benefit because it shows two things: It shows that the person understood that what they did was over the line, and that they intend to correct it to continue editing. Doubling, tripling, quadrupling, <x>ing down on a tone-deaf "defence" that addresses barely anything and is a meandering filibuster worthy only of Ayn Rand novels to boot does you no favours what-so-ever. —Jéské Courianov^_^vObject Class:Drygioni 18:48, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
Your description "meandering filibuster worthy only of Ayn Rand novels" is very good—I'm going to steal it. Funny you should use it, because I'm pretty sure that's where Sanger got a lot of his ideas, as well as the humorlessness. Carlstak (talk) 19:38, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
They didn't say you must, they said they personally want this from you. In reality if you make a objective mistake, and this WP:CANVASINGalone could not be more textbook or objective violation here, the best thing to do is own up to it instead of incompetent WP:LAWYERing and bogus WP:rhetoric that only shows lack of WP:COMPETENCE. If you did so there would only be a token penalty, because it would show it was a honest mistake, and you understand not to do it again. This is not even just a wiki thing but a basic life lesson. But it does not seem like you actually care about stopping breaking policy, it seems you have declared the you are above WP:policy and have complete disregard to basic WP:Etiquette. I don't know what assumption is worse, your trolling to get fuel for some media attention or you lack such utter WP:COMPETENCE you physically, fundamentally don't have the skill, patience, and willing cooperation, to positively contribute to wikipedia. Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcassBobbobet (talk) 20:34, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
Obviously, we have very very different standards about everything you mentioned. Larry Sanger (talk) 22:28, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
This is a none response. The only way I can interpret this is saying you don't have standards. People here don't actually want to block you, but you are begging for a block. In fact demanding it. Its impossible for you to be deliberately this incompetent on policy right? Point blank telling you screwed up and only way to make this less of a penalty is to admit you made a mistake. But you don't actually care. Bobbobet (talk) 22:43, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
Sanger knows his standards don't mean one whit here, he's just baiting you. Carlstak (talk) 22:48, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
Trolling or WP:COMPETENCE? Why not both. Bobbobet (talk) 23:02, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
I'll say again, he knows what our standards are, he simply doesn't like them, so he tries to interact with the community by his standards, which are not in accord with our policies or guidelines. Obviously, he doesn't care about that. Carlstak (talk) 23:44, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
Olive branch left out until it rotted and WP:stick beaten until it broke. Time to go hug a love one. Bobbobet (talk) 23:26, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
the canvassing about WPID wasn't all that egregious of a canvassing violation
What, in your view, qualifies as a more egregious canvassing violation than going on national news to do it? Gnomingstuff (talk) 02:08, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Support CBAN (and to be clear, support indefinite block by community consensus), to prevent disruption to Wikipedia. Larry Sanger has been planning this disruptive assault on Wikipedia's principles for months, at least, and worked to prepare his followers for it. He was warned against canvassing but rejected that, at the time saying there was no clear single rule, later adding that it wasn't "official"; he was aware that it would be viewed as against the pervasive spirit of Wikipedia's PAGs but had to argue that it was not covered by the letter of PAGs because canvassing was integral to his plans. We have no reason to imagine his disruptive activity will cease if he's allowed to continue here. His defence statement above could have included some indication he might desist; it didn't.This should be indefinite and not time-limited. We use graduated blocks in the hope that the editor will change their ways. Sanger has already shown repeatedly that he is determined not to accept Wikipedia's principles, PAGs and norms, and it would be silly to expect a limited block would trigger a change of heart in someone who has spent so many years reinforcing his identity as a strident opponent of Wikipedia as it has developed and is.Let us not impose a lesser sanction out of fear that we are being played by a 3D-chessmaster. The rallying cry "The left marched through this institution. There’s no reason we can’t march right back. If you agree, and you are on Wikipedia, check this out" did not result in a flood of existing or new editors marching in to support WPID in these many discussions and less than 30 have signed up for it. That CNN Plainspeak podcast has had 564 views, and if not mentioned here and checked out by editors who might disagree with it, would presumably have had a lot less. Over the years, Larry Sanger's strategic brilliance has not been evident. Instead, let us not scare each other or give in to threats, real or imagined. NebY (talk) 15:53, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
this is a very good point; even the average C-tier reality show contestant at AfD gets more meatpuppets than this has Gnomingstuff (talk) 16:52, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Elon Musk retweeted Larry's announcement about his block, so if there is going to be a shitstorm from the offwiki attention we should be on the receiving end of it any minute now. Athanelar (talk) 16:57, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
I note that his recent block did not. Slatersteven (talk) 16:46, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Proposal: Have pity on a lonely and forgotten shut-in, and give him a chance to make himself useful
Sanger's edit history is instructive. In 25 years he's made 3386 edits total–and only 1068 to articles.
The largest number of edits he's made to any one article is 17. After that, the list runs: 14, 14, 11, 11, 9, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 6... –superficial contributions, in other words. He's never researched a subject, sorted through sources, hammered out article structure.
Startlingly pallid as that is as a contribution history, it's even more startling when one realizes that it's almost entirely from 2001 and 2002. Since 2003, he's made a total of 30 article edits. Repeat: 30. Thirty. Big 3-oh.
Well then (I hear you cry)–what about talk page discussions? Maybe he's contributed in that way? Let's see–Total = 242 (since 2003), but once you exclude (for reasons that surely must be obvious) Talk:Larry Sanger, Talk:Citizendium, Talk:Ideological bias on Wikipedia, Talk:History of Wikipedia, and Talk:Jimmy Wales, you're left with 122. In 25 years, 122 contributions to subjects that didn't concern him personally. Wow.
Has Sanger ever contributed to an AfD? Not that I can see. Participated in discussions of NPOV, COI, BLP, or source reliability? Never. Lifted a finger to help shape MOS? Nope. Vandal fighting? New page patrol? SPI? RfC? No, no, no, and no.
As things stand there's no evidence at all that he's here to build an encyclopedia. Indeed, he hasn't been here at all, except to preach to those of us actually doing the work that we're doing it all wrong.
But it's not too late for him to redeem himself. There are scores of articles which Sanger (a philosopher, bear in mind) is eminently qualified to help out with, and which truly do need help. Here a random grab from his top contributions:
More information Page title, Current assessment ...
Surely a scholar of Sanger's stature and talents has more to offer the world on the subject of Plato (or filial piety, or the allegory of the cave, or squirrels) than can be delivered in seven edits!
So let's not block/ban him entirely. Instead, he should be blocked him from all spaces except articles and article talks. If, over the next few years, he can trouble himself to make 10,000 constructive edits to articles and their talk pages–that is, to actually gain some experience doing the thing he's telling everyone else how to do–then maybe he'll begin to have the street cred to lecture the rest of us as does. 'Cause all he's doing right now is teaching grandma to suck eggs.
And if not, then he can go back to demonstrating his wisdom and foresight by setting up more competing projects à la that stunningly colossal trainwreck, Citizendium, and leave those of us actually doing something useful to get on with it.
So to repeat: block / ban from all spaces other than articles and article talk pages, and thus will be revealed his true colors. EEng 00:32, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
P.S. #1 On reflection: to prevent Sanger from using his own talk page to continue what he's been doing of late, we probably need some kind of ban on (as someone said above) participation in discussions and development of project policies, guidelines, or WikiProjects. Or maybe put another way: a ban on everything except the improvement of specific articles. EEng 00:59, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
P.S. #2 If this proposal gains any kind of "in concept" consensus, there may be a place for a second round of discussion to nail down details–such as the topic ban on policy discussions mentioned above in P.S. #1–or contingencies–such as, perhaps, a requirement that Sanger acknowledge that what he's been doing is unacceptable canvassing, and promise to cut it out. EEng 02:06, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
When I was a lad I served a term As editor-in-chief of the online germ! I ran the Nupedia scholars' crew, And organized the wiki when the web was new!
(CHORUS: He organized the wiki when the web was new!) I organized the wiki so successfully, That now I'm the co-founder of the encyclo-P!
Relatively convinced by this. Andre🚐 00:43, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Support, if there has to be some sanction and community rid-getting of a pesky WikiProject (/sarcasm) this one does the least damage to both someone with a clean block log and the history of Wikipedia. I've often wondered why LS didn't get into the arena of the politics he supports by actually editing one of the articles and talking it out when it's reverted. I did that once when I linked a church fire to "church arson", it was reverted, and I failed to convince the talk page that burning a church on purpose gives a strong hint that a church arson was attempted. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:49, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Support as a more-enforceable form of topic ban, and harder for LS to spin as an imposition of bias than an outright indef or CBAN. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:57, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Arrr. To also grant him access to the sextant of objectivity could still be poetic. Might be technically impossible.Selbstporträt (talk) 01:09, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Observation. Were he shown the plank and cast away to his ghost ship, Larry would have less difficulties sending pirates herein. Selbstporträt (talk) 01:15, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Support and seconding the post script as we cannot ban him from user talk technically I don't think. So it's all but article/article talk space ban + a topic ban.StarMississippi 01:03, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Oppose Not feasible as he would be still able to canvass and disrupt Wikipedia. Zalaraz (talk) 01:04, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Well if that's true, he could do that anyway. This gives him an opportunity to show he can contribute constructively–if, indeed, he's both capable of doing so, and cares to do so. EEng 01:22, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
No. Indef all the way. Skyshiftertalk 01:12, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Oppose. This seems like effectively the same thing as "A Modest Proposal", and I oppose this for the same reason. He has shown the same disruptive behavior in article space.LordCollaboration (talk) 01:18, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
I don't think the diff you link is evidence of disruption. It suggest what may very well be the case -- that the guy has a hard time accepting our policies and guidelines -- and if that kind of expression turns out to outweigh his useful contributions, then in the fullness of time a full ban can still be instituted. EEng 01:26, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
We can already see his contributions in article space, as in this case, he makes demands, points his 90,000 followers to the article, and insults fellow editors, which, yes, is disruptive. Anyone else would be blocked. If he said that he wouldn't do this anymore, then I would be all for a second chance, but he is doubling down. Whenever he is willing to say he will stop being disruptive, I am fine with him returning. LordCollaboration (talk) 01:44, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
I would support with the PS2 contingency, though it seems unlikely he would agree. LordCollaboration (talk) 02:18, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Squirrel (apropos, eh?). This proposal is close to my position when this process started, but I think with everything that's transpired, Sanger needs to go, per everything I've said above (no need to rehash). the Stefen 𝕋ower 01:24, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
You got something against squirrels? EEng 01:27, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
I feel like I would cross the line of WP:NPA if I fully explained this. heh. the Stefen 𝕋ower 01:30, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Consider this a gentle Oppose, btw. the Stefen 𝕋ower 01:28, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Oppose. I was inclined to support a proposal along these lines at first, but, especially with Sanger's latest media appearances, the story could pretty much be spun in the same way whether the block/ban is full or partial. I'll add that even on article talk pages, Sanger has shown that he isn't above canvassing, so this doesn't fully address the core issue. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 01:26, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
But again, he can canvass no matter what kind of restriction or ban we place on him. While he'll complain publicly no matter what, I do think it's helpful to leave him a path to contributing. Whether he takes advantage of that will be up to him, but (for thinking observers, anyway) if he doesn't, then that will say a lot about the man and his goals. EEng 01:31, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
I would like to go along with the goodhearted nature of the proposal but it's very difficult to see Sanger not continuing to stir trouble with the limited access this entails. I cannot predict the future, but I can very well acknowledge a quarter century of patterns, and they don't portend good things for the Wikipedia with Sanger's continued presence. the Stefen 𝕋ower 01:39, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
I am indeed a good-hearted guy (truly, no kidding), but this proposal isn't an expression of that. It's a strictly practical way of forcing him to answer the most fundamental question we (implicitly) ask of all editors; are you here to build an encyclopedia? As I mention elsewhere, I think most of us think we know the answer to that, but I claim this is a low-risk way of finding out that answer definitively. And miracles do happen. EEng 01:43, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
That was indeed more or less the worthy logic of my prior position, but I strongly think we're at the "give an inch, take your life" point. I would hate for the Wikipedia movement to end up looking like a patsy when we could rip off the ol' band-aid and move on, now. Let's get the inevitable bit of pain over with, while holding our heads high. the Stefen 𝕋ower 02:48, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Oppose as these sanctions are far too light. He has dedicated himself to canvassing on major media platforms in an attempt to disrupt Wikipedia by shifting it to a bias he personally favours and these sanctions will do nothing to resolve the issue at hand. 🪐Kepler-1229b|talk|contribs🪐 01:30, 22 June 2026 (UTC) 🪐Kepler-1229b|talk|contribs🪐 01:30, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Sanctions aren't supposed to be calibrated by how "heavy" or "light" they are, but by what's most likely to foster good editing. I doubt there's anyone here who doesn't have a private idea of how Sanger will respond to the opportunity I suggest we offer him, but I think it's to the project's advantage to indeed make that offer. If he can't behave in the narrow context of article editing, then at that point it will be game over. EEng 01:36, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Perhaps I should have worded my statement differently. Sanger has proven that he is not here to contribute to an encyclopedia, but rather to bend it to fit his own ideology. What's to say he won't try to do the same with articles? Best to nip things in the bud before they start to seriously damage Wikipedia and its neutrality. 🪐Kepler-1229b|talk|contribs🪐 01:58, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
There's nothing to say he won't. He might. And that will be the definitive end of his time here. ROPE and all that. EEng 02:09, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
In any case, I support a tban from every contentious topic under the sun, as well as those which might apply underground or in space for some reason. 🪐Kepler-1229b|talk|contribs🪐 02:16, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
The number of chances he's been given to show a shred of understanding why people are upset seems like it would qualify as enough rope on its own merits. Certainly, he's been shown more grace than so, so many others. PhosphoricPanda (talk) 02:22, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Support to see how he would behave. Mesocyclonic93(t)(c) 01:46, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Changing my vote to Oppose per other arguments. Mesocyclonic93(t)(c) 19:37, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Changing my vote to full support for this, per my previous !vote and EEng. 7amithornsolidarity|talk|stats 01:47, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Strong Oppose BrownHairedGirl, who had 2.9 million edits on Wikipedia, is currently indeffed. If editors with nearly 3 million edits can be banned Sanger, who went 14 years without a mainspace edit, can certainly be banned, especially since on CNN-18, he openly canvassed for millions of Hindu Nationalists to join Wikipedia to WP:POVPUSH. IF that's not an indef, that's the strongest evidence of their being WP:UNBLOCKABLES. EaglesFan37 (talk) 01:51, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Again this is not about the wikiprojects but the WP:CANVAS and his responses making clear he does not care about following policy. Bobbobet (talk) 01:53, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Support for what its worth. wound theology◈ 01:23, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
I am not opposed to a general indef by the way. wound theology◈ 02:37, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Support in line with my previous comments. I still endorse a CBan if the community wants one, while thinking that avoiding a CBan could give us benefits at a minimal cost. It could dampen the impact of the ruckus Larry will cause over being sanctioned, and there is no reason to think he will begin outright vandalizing the Wiki. If he against all odds did decide to do that it won't cost editors much energy to deal with it. I haven't seen any convincing counterarguments against this seemingly solid piece of pragmatism (granted it's not exactly easy to keep track of all the comments in this discussion). ⹃Maltazarianᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 02:00, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Support. I like to think I'm a pragmatist, but maybe I'm just naïve and overly optimistic. Would he have been indeffed by now if he wasn't Larry Sanger? Yes. Is an indef going to stop Sanger from continuing his offsite disruptions? No, because his self-imposed wikibreak never did. What it is going to do, i fear, is turn him into a self-declared martyr figure within certain circles (albeit, circles who already wrote the obituary for wikipedia's "neutrality" long ago). One last inch of WP:ROPE, with the caveat that the community has lost its patience, so he is lucky to get even that. If Larry wants to improve Wikipedia, like he says, then let him prove it in article space, with a broadly construed topic ban that might prevent disruption both on and off wiki. Given everything, I don't think that inch will last, but at least then Sanger will have no one to blame but himself. In solidarity, nilnz 02:11, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Support Haven't voted on any proposal here yet. I agree with the nom; Larry has missed two decades of a developing culture here, and he is clearly very arrogant in regards to learning it and admitting he breaks it. Zeus, excuse me for wanting to give even more ROPE, because I still have sympathy. Larry helped creäte this encylopediä, so I really want him to be here to help in a genuïne way. It'd be easy to tell he is canvassing/beïng disruptive anyway. It's not impossible for him to do something useful. And as Nil says above, if he fucks up again, there is no one to blame except himself. If this passes, this is his last chance and he can scurry off to be angry again. toby(t)(rw) 02:48, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
If I had to guess I'd say the big chunk of oppose votes at the very start likely made people apprehensive, and then it likely seemed as if the proposal had been killed off when nobody decided to go against that apprehension. ⹃Maltazarianᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ 03:54, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Oppose, for as much as it's worth. I'm much more of a Wikipedia reader than an editor, but -- I stand by a stance I've expressed in A Modest Proposal. I occasionally pick up litter, but that hardly an editor makes, but. The intent behind this proposal is very different, which is why I believe it's gaining more support -- the former placed a far larger emphasis on denying Larry the "talking point" of being banned, where this solely focuses on contribution -- which, to be clear, is a good thing! If there is any sliver of that here (and I'm not saying there is!) -- from a rhetorical standpoint, a ban is a ban. Regardless of the type, it will not protect Wikipedia if he chooses to leverage it as a talking point.
Furthermore, I don't believe that the value of "hard work," so to speak, will change his stance on the beliefs he's expressed, nor do I believe it will affect some kind of personal growth. People can change, become better, learn to be part of a community -- but making a decision like this out of pity feels more like condescension than it does giving him a legitimate chance to improve. Though I don't believe this proposal was made with the intent to condescend, it feels analogous to throwing a mop at him and telling him if he swabs the deck enough he might get to have a user page again. To avoid putting the cart before the horse - I very much support an indef (as those are appealable!) instead.
A unique thing about this situation is that he is very good at producing "rope" without anyone's intervention, being a public figure, and will certainly find a way to fashion a noose from thin air as long as he continues to express his current opinions to anyone who will listen. Stopping that would be a fantastic prerequisite to contribution, imo - it is hard to trust someone who has spoken so very loudly about wanting to "march in" and about wishing to change consensus via force (overwhelming, canvassing) than via discussion.
I feel that an indef, at the minimum, would force an acknowledgement of fault in an appeal were he to try to return, and he has very much steadfastly refused to do so wrt WP:CANVAS, BLUDGEON, etc. This would be a change in behavior, and the first sign of improvement. If he chooses to behave otherwise, then he chooses to behave otherwise. PhosphoricPanda (talk) 04:37, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
(Moved to very bottom of this subsection per user's request at the project talk page. George Ho (talk) 04:44, 22 June 2026 (UTC))
Larry Sanger has, to a first approximation, zero experience in how Wikipedia works.
No, he know the rules and he can read .
So he is confident that he understands the policies and is unwilling to learn more about them. So he's breaking them on purpose. Or he's lying?
He has at least twice in this discussion said something, been called out for it, and then said "I didn't say that". But he literally did say the thing.
The biggest violation of WP:CANVASS in Wikipedia history, I would assume.
This is obvious trolling, and we don't need that. We also don't need to figure out which combination of topic bans and p-bans would lead to him stopping his nonsense. It's all nonsense. So let's stop all of it.
Oppose because an indef is better. closhund/talk/ 05:00, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
I didn't mean to imply he doesn't know what our policies and guidelines say -- of course he does. What I meant is that he has no experience actually applying them, and so lacks credibility in condemning them. EEng 09:46, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Oppose in strongest possible terms. I can understand the thinking behind this, but this is not the time for special unique bespoke restrictions. The community has already wasted massive amounts of time and energy on this; and at the end of the day it isn't, and shouldn't be, a hard call. Furthermore, while some people talk about this being WP:ROPE, what that really means is that we will have to waste even more energy, and create even more drama, when Sanger does something that nibbles around the edges of this restriction - as his history and statements above make clear he absolutely unquestionably would (possibly not even realizing he's violating it, but it would end up back here and we'd have another massive discussion like this.) No. Enough is enough. He should be treated like any other editor; and that means that he is far, far past the point where we would usually impose a WP:CBAN. If he actually wants to prove he can edit constructively in article-space (something none of his statements here have given even the slightest hint that he has any interest in doing), he can start by appealing his CBAN like anyone else. And to anyone else considering another bespoke proposal like this, please do not. We've wasted enough time and energy on this already. What we need right now is not some clever secret solution that will allow us to avoid doing something difficult; what we need is a CBAN. --Aquillion (talk) 05:20, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
oppose - sanger isn’t wp:unblockable, he does not deserve any special treatment and cutouts because of who he is. Our job is to create the best encyclopedia, not to care about politics or anything else. During this ANI, he also has shown he lacks the competence to contribute meaningfully to the community so I think every inch of rope is an inch to much. Additionally I accuse him of purposefully wasting community time to entertain himself. Best, Squawk7700 (talk) 05:31, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Oppose. I'd be on board with this if Larry had shown even a sliver of remorse about any of his actions, but he still has yet to even admit that all the canvassing he did was even canvassing. There's no reason we should bend over backwards, forwards, sideways and diagonally and tie ourselves into all kinds of knots to give a second chance to an editor who has shown absolutely no indication they have any intent of using such a chance well.
There's a certain point where you have to accept that even if you put a muzzle on it and clip its claws, that wolf doesn't want to help you herd your sheep, it wants to eat them. Athanelar (talk) 05:52, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Oppose. Grossly insufficient. If an editor did just one of the following three things, I could possibly extend them the benefit of the doubt on the basis that they may simply be misinformed and may not intentionally be trying to undermine the Wikipedia community:
Oppose - the time to show that he's willing to help the encyclopaedia by editing it is long past. If he wanted to do this, he would have done so before considering creating Citizendium. —Jéské Courianov^_^vObject Class:Drygioni 06:35, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Oppose, not realistic, and only a tiny proportion of people are weird enough to be Wikipedians. Quoting Larry's 2002 leaving message (bolding mine):
Second, a little bit of history will help to explain this as well. I was more or less offered the job of editing Nupedia when I was, as an ABD philosophy graduate student, soliciting Jimbo's (and other friends') advice on a website I was thinking of starting. It was the first I had heard of Jimbo's idea of an open content encyclopedia, and I was delighted to take the job. So I want this to be clear: I did not set out to be a leader and crusader and organizer. As a job, this has been the best I've ever had. But this project is not something I would have chosen as a hobby, frankly; with my spare time, even after having started it and having grown to care a lot about it, I must admit I'd rather be spending time with my wife, reading and writing philosophy, and playing fiddle. (I'm making a little money now teaching fiddle in Columbus and enjoying that immensely.)
Oppose, for all the other reasons mentioned above, and also because this seems more like a stunt than a viable proposal. Gnomingstuff (talk) 08:11, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Oppose - Man has shown himself to absolutely refuse to acknowledge our policies, and his behaviour on social media shows he is NOTHERE. Can people stop trying to offer him something a special package of measures we wouldn’t give to anyone else. Rambling Rambler (talk) 08:39, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Also I'm going to add that for all the talk about theoretical harm Larry could cause if he's blocked by going to the media yet again, I think the real harm at this point is coming from people who basically want to create the example of you can openly state you wish to create an internal project just to encourage a political attack on Wikipedia, show complete contempt for our rules, and just all around show you're not interested in collaboratively improving this project... but get away with it and not get banned if you create the impression you'll cause bad press. Rambling Rambler (talk) 09:06, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Oppose as proposed, but would support limiting him to the article and talkspace relating to philosophy and such. Snokalok2 (talk) 09:08, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Just to remind people: my P.S. #1 (above) suggests that the basic restriction (limiting Sanger to article and article-talk spaces) should be augmented by some kind of topic restriction as well. EEng 09:52, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Support. The behavior at issue is mostly the "reckon[ing] up by dozens", and not the "cheerful facts about the square of the hypotenuse". Sławomir Biały (talk) 09:23, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Oppose: I don't disagree with what @EEng has said. Sanger is indeed qualified in certain topic areas. Unfortunately, this becomes irrelevant the moment WP:ABOLISHBLACKLISTS is brought in. Sanger believes that there should be no limit to the types of sources we can use on the project. It undermines one of the very pillars this project was built on (WP:5P2). They have advocated and canvassed others, through WPID, for this. So I cannot support them having access to article space for that reason. 11WB (talk) 09:24, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
I wish we could have one option, as right now I support all of them. Slatersteven (talk) 09:28, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Oppose: he is against Wikipedia fundamentally and will not edit articles if this passes, as evidenced by how he has barely edited articles since 2003 and focusing on his projects like Citizendium and Encyclosphere. This proposal will not accomplish anything and will just create more paranoia for the community, who will constantly think "Is Sanger doing anything questionable on articles?" and nervously watch over his edits. 123957a (talk) 09:49, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
he ... will not edit articles if this passes–If that's true (and I expect it will be) then there will be no edits to nervously watch. On the other hand, wouldn't it be wonderful if he is absorbed and actually brings our articles on the allegory of the cave, or squirrels, up to FA? EEng 10:02, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Oppose per Gnomingstuff. Carlstak (talk) 14:22, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Oppose any block. Support giving him a barnstar Even if it's not article editing, trying to help solve one of Wikipedia's existential challenges IMO certainly counts as benefiting Wikipedia rather than "not here" And one element of that is cancel culture. Severe penalties for minor or edge case offenses vs. minor penalties for big offenses depending on which "side" the person is perceived to be on. Let's not do that here. Sincerely,!North8000 (talk) 18:36, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Did you miss the part that he's been trying to makewikis that fit more in line with his weltanschauung for the past 20 years? Any claim that he cares about Wikipedia is at best hollow and at worst gaslighting. —Jéské Courianov^_^vObject Class:Drygioni 18:43, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
In other words, you don't favor him being blocked from editing the project and project talk namespace, do you? I'd favor it if the consensus hasn't yet favored him being site-banned. And a "barnstar"!? George Ho (talk) 18:44, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
This isn’t and has never been about his politics. He broke the rules and did every single thing he could do to establish his bad faith. Bobbobet (talk) 18:47, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
And now says he will dox admins, having made such a big noise about not supporting the idea. Slatersteven (talk) 20:54, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Oppose why are we treating LS with kid gloves? any other user would be straight up indeffed. Lavalizard101 (talk) WP:SOLIDARITY 19:27, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Someone uninvolved should close this subsection as one of failed alternative please before any more comments are added. Also, please close #A Modest Proposal subsection as another one of them. George Ho (talk) 19:33, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Oppose as an attempt to invent a bespoke editing restriction that effectively grants a non-productive and generally WP:NOTHERE editor special privileges that we would not give to anyone else. And why, really? To try and blunt a fringe news cycle? He could gin up the same outrage by saying "they banned me from talking about Wikipedia" as "they banned me from editing Wikipedia". Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 19:48, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Oppose anything less than a CBAN. As I detailed above, I would have been ok with a solution like this at the start of this process when the argument could reasonably be made that Sanger was here in good faith trying to improve the encyclopaedia (no matter how flawed those attempts might have been), but his behaviour in recent days has shown me that he is clearly engaged in attempts to WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:RGW and he is WP:NOTHERE and wikipedia has nothing to gain from his continued presence on this site and we should rip the band-aid to stop us having to go through this again in a few weeks/months. Giulio 20:02, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Update
The block has been reversed as out-of-process. Discussions about a possible panel close are ongoing below. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 19:41, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have blocked indefinitely per the strong consensus shown here. The partial block option was fully considered but it did not attract enough support —Martin (MSGJ·talk) 13:29, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
partial block option was fully considered but it did not attract enough support–In 12 hours??? You have shown very poor judgment in this. There was no hurry -- you should have waited until discussion had fully settled, made a gesture toward closure, and (at the very least) waited for several other experienced editors/admins to endorse. Sanger's going to play victim no matter what, but you've made it just that much easier for him to do so, to no benefit at all. EEng 18:16, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
I have to agree with @EEng here. On reflection, this reply is simply not acceptable. Choosing not to consider arguments in an AN/I case of this scale shows incredible foolhardiness and a lack of consideration for the potential repercussions. Sanger has posted about this on X, with a Musk retweet, unsurprisingly. 11WB (talk) 18:24, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
@MSGJ, I'm sure this has been vetted and discussed, but there was an expectance of a panel close, along with risk assessment for the administrator performing the block. I also believe a community consensus INDEF counts as a CBAN. Have these things been assessed, or is this something you felt able to do regardless of these concerns? This is not an ordinary consensus is what I'm trying to say. 11WB (talk) 13:40, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
No, I have not considered the arguments for a community ban, and only a few editors mentioned this in the discussion. This could be followed up later if enough people think it is needed —Martin (MSGJ·talk) 13:45, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
To my knowledge, an INDEF by the consensus of the community is by default a CBAN. Unless it is enacted by an admin unilaterally within a certain time period. I am not sure this AN/I thread would be appropriate for a unilateral action. As a sidenote, this section or something should be put at the top of the page so editors can clearly see an action has been taken. 11WB (talk) 13:58, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
I would rather we wait, and see if this is (for example) overturned on procedural grounds. Slatersteven (talk) 14:01, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
That's logical. There isn't exactly an existing precedent for this. 11WB (talk) 14:06, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
I put a note up top indicating that we still needed discussion and closure to determine the final result. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:29, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
An indefinite block is just the enforcement mechanism; the actual restriction is a ban from all editing. Thus editors supporting an indefinite block are supporting a ban from all editing. isaacl (talk) 14:54, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
The issue is whether this is a ban by a single admin, which can be reversed by another admin; or a ban by the community, which is substantially more difficult to reverse. That still needs to be settled. M kuhner (talk) 15:00, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
The admin stated the block was based on the consenus in the community discussion. A restriction from all editing supported by community consensus is, by definition, a community ban. isaacl (talk) 15:10, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Note to @MSGJ. It should come as no surprise that LS has already posted about this on X. 11WB (talk) 14:19, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Quoting that here for posterity: Well, that’s that—I’ve been blocked by Wikipedia “indefinitely” for unstated reasons, by the “consensus” of a mob. There was no due process, no prosecutor, no dispassionate judge, no jury, no interpretation of law. All my judges were self-selected and hated me. 🤣
Selected charming replies include How do we conduct a hostile takeover? Can’t be that hard by "XIV - Hitler was left wing"
and There's always Grokipedia.. by "EpsteinListDidNotHangItself"
Just in case it was unclear the kind of company Sanger keeps (or, at least, the kind of company that masses around him like a cloud of flies) Athanelar (talk) 14:29, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
It would likely be pertinent to revoke Talk Page access. qcne(talk) 14:36, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Support revoking talk page access immediately. Skyshiftertalk 14:38, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
I've opened a section for that below. 11WB (talk) 14:39, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
it won't stop the crashout, but should've been done a few replies ago. a formal notice may be needed at the bottom of his talk page, but for once, i'm not sure consarn(talk beige)(count ribs) 14:38, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
A screenshot of @MSGJ's block message was also posted. Not technically outing, but could attract unwanted attention. (Which is exactly what the OA mentions would have resolved). 11WB (talk) 14:34, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
"All my judges were self-selected and hated me." No, not all. I didn't even know who he was/is. Don't care, either. Most of the votes here I've seen - the vast majority, were well argued and procedural in nature. There's certainly been no 'hate' on display and a great deal more indifference and/or care for the project more than the person. I wonder if that hurts? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:42, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
There has already been efforts started to doxx and harass the admin that blocked early. This is a example of the type of activity and culture Larry influence brings. Bobbobet (talk) 18:27, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
There is also an ongoing off-Wiki harassment campaign against a completely unrelated admin who was mentioned by Sanger on X. I am increasingly concerned about real-world reprisals happening. qcne(talk) 18:31, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Hilarious—"unstated reasons" my ass. True MAGA style: whining as incitement. It's all about him. Carlstak (talk) 14:39, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
to be mildly fair, the block rationale wasn't mentioned in his talk page. it's likely that he just hasn't checked his contribs... or this discussion consarn(talk beige)(count ribs) 14:41, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Sanger has posted within this discussion. the Stefen 𝕋ower 18:46, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Sadly he can’t go to Grokipedia, that’s been abandoned and un-updated since around April judging by comments on its subreddit. Rambling Rambler (talk) 14:47, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
"Self-selected", meaning voluntary by my definition. Yes, we are a community of volunteers. Is this yet another revelation for Sanger? Egad. the Stefen 𝕋ower 18:43, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
This is far from the level of attention we'd expect from an admin "closing" such a massive CBAN discussion ahead of any schedule. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 16:36, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Why on Earth would you do this? jp×g🗯️ 16:58, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
In an earlier comment, I pointed out that CBAN requires 72 hours of discussion before actioned on. MSGJ's action puts it 7 hours ahead of schedule (we're still 5 hours out at the time of this comment). This is definitely not a clean closure that the community expects. OhanaUnitedTalk page 15:37, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
The thing is that, while this wasn't procedurally ideal, what's done is done, and reversing the block now is just going to make the situation even messier and even worse than it already is. Gnomingstuff (talk) 16:47, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Already done by Wbm1058, actually. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:49, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Wbm1058 log, "no consensus for block" Guz13 (talk) 17:25, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
CBAN also says "except in cases where there is limited opposition and the outcome is obvious after 24 hours". I do not even see a "the outcome is not obvious" comment. Reminder that NOTBURO and IAR are also policies, like CBAN. LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 19:26, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Larry Sanger has been unblocked. This discussion is thus moot. —Chris Woodrich (talk) 17:32, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In the vein of treating LS like any other editor, I believe TPA should be enacted to prevent any further unpleasant or sarcastic comments, that attempt to antagonise other editors. 11WB (talk) 14:37, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Given the threat of further action, yes. Slatersteven (talk) 14:39, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Please, can we give it a rest with the play by play updates, the endless new subheaders, the neverending peanut gallery speculations and escalations? Larry Sanger is not the first person to be cban'd or indef'd on Wikipedia, nor the first to complain about it on wiki or off wiki. Trust me, admins can see what is happening on his talk page and know how to respond appropriately without needing suggestions or votes. Let's not give the impression that self-governance is a spectator sport on Wikipedia. Back to building an encyclopedia... Levivich (talk) 14:42, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Immediate support for yanking TPA due to risk of real-life reprisals. qcne(talk) 14:43, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
What are the risks for real-life reprisals, I don't think I have seen any presented? ~2026-30734-89 (talk) 16:36, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
I believe I replied. That issue is resolved anyhow, thanks. 11WB (talk) 15:25, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Strong support per above; preferably conducted as soon as possible. 🪐Kepler-1229b|talk|contribs🪐 16:00, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Support They have demonstrated that they have no use for it with their antagonistic comments and this is just unacceptable.Zalaraz (talk) 16:02, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
That wasn't posted to their talk page, why would that be a reason to remove talk page access? ~2026-30734-89 (talk) 16:35, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Agree with the TA. Sanger hasn't said on-wiki the kinds of things usually associated with talk yoinkage. (Oppose, in other words) SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:38, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
This is not pre-emptive. Please read their talk page messages post-block. 11WB (talk) 16:39, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
We must definitely prevent Larry from making openly derogatory comments like "True MAGA style: whining as incitement", bringing up someone's employment history from 20 years ago to justify blocking decisions, etc jp×g🗯️ 17:03, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Terrible idea. for the love of god, don't feed the troll anymore than you have to. This is the kind of decision that might REALLY fuck us if someone as connected as Sanger gets his way. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 17:11, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Oppose; there is no possible situation where preemptive TPA revocation is a good idea. If it becomes necessary, which it almost certainly won't, it can be addressed at that point. jp×g🗯️ 17:19, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Oppose. I believe that Larry Sanger, having co-founded Wikipedia, is currently contributing to its improvement, even if that is clearly an uphill task. At a time when Wikipedia is under pressure from competition with AI, its human governance should not set an example of irrationality. --Statspages (talk) 17:23, 22 June 2026 (UTC) —Statspages (talk• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Oppose. Larry can be a bit rough, but I genuinely think he is here to improve the encylopedia. He should be able to defend himself until otherwise. Guz13 (talk) 17:29, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
This is no longer a valid proposal, as LS has been unblocked for the time being. No issues with this being closed. Thanks. 11WB (talk) 17:30, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Proposal: No sanctions at all for members of WPID
CLOSING AS MOOT.
Involved in the broader discussion, but not this element thereof. There is no potential for consensus here given myriad factors, including potential private evidence. This cannot be resolved at ANI. StarMississippi 00:18, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In the wall of text LS posted above, he suggested that people members of his WPID initiative are not commenting here due to fear of reprisals. I propose that we make it clear that no sanctions can be taken against anybody for membership of that group or expressing support for LS (there is no policy I am aware of that they could be sanctioned under in any case).Boynamedsue (talk) 05:51, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
This is unnecessary. You dont need a proposal for making a WP:POINT everytime a NOTHERE editor tries to cause distraction. TolWol (talk) 06:24, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
Well, to be fair, he cites comments that could be interpreted as implying three individual users felt sanctions might be applicable to some users involved in WPID. Those proposals do not have the support of the community or any basis in policy, and it's only 3 out of getting on for 100 contributors, but given the way things are going, it's probably worth clarifying this.Boynamedsue (talk) 06:43, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
And there are others who have said otherwise. There is no formal call for them to be sanctioned. Slatersteven (talk) 09:32, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
I’m the user that @Larry Sanger is referring to here. I’ll explain my rationale more concisely.
I do not believe that joining WPID is a sanctionable offense. There are already several users (LuniZunie, mbab, etc.) who have left the group, and others no longer supporting it. Even still supporting it right now is not sanctionable (nor should it be, as people are allowed to have grievances).
However, my concern is that this WikiProject is a WP:CANVASS effort encouraging users to game the system at WP:CTOPS. Around half of the members are either indefinitely topic-banned from a CTOP, indefinitely banned on other language wikis, are not ECR confirmed, or have, at most, a handful of mainspace edits this year. I do think it’s fair to delve further into whether those particular users, especially those still arguing in support of what has been deemed by the community to be an effort to degrade Wikipedia’s sourcing standards/possibly doxxing admins. EaglesFan37 (talk) 10:17, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
Comment got cut off, so finishing it below:
those still arguing in support of what has been deemed by the community to be an effort to degrade Wikipedia’s sourcing standards/possibly doxxing admins if those users are WP:NOTHERE. EaglesFan37 (talk) 10:21, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
@Boynamedsue I suggest you withdraw this. There are no calls for others to face sanction simply for having expressed support for Larry or simply being in WPID. The "everyone who supports me is terrified of reprisals" is just an attempt by Larry to find an excuse for himself as to why he's got no support (and a bad one at that). Rambling Rambler (talk) 11:29, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
Ok, so I would note, following EaglesFan37's clarification that there is no support at ANI for any sanctions against members of WPID.Boynamedsue (talk) 12:10, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
The point is no one has looked into it or made it a matter of this ANI filing. There could be justifiable concerns regarding some editors who have happened to sign at WPID, but no one's raised any evidence or discussed sanctions for them (and it's inappropriate to declare no action could therefore possibly be taken).
Instead all that's happened is that Larry, as part of his WP:WALLOFTEXT, has tried to build a strawman that is instead portraying this as all some effort to silence anyone not part of the "left-wing Establishment" he claims has captured Wikipedia (without evidence) when no, everyone's just sick of dealing with someone who when he's on Wikipedia tries to portray himself as this wizened elder "concerned about neutrality" but then on his social media is someone openly admits he's set up WPID for no reason other than attempting to ballot-stuff Policy votes to get what he wants. Rambling Rambler (talk) 12:41, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
@Boynamedsue@Rambling Rambler I will say that I’m unsure how some editors (who had not edited Wikipedia for over a year) found the group unless they were canvassed in some manner from another forum. I haven’t found any smoking guns/evidence yet, though.
I also haven’t been able to examine the reasons for two users being indeffed on other language wikis (and if it was for behavior that could be linked).
Either today or tomorrow, I’ll share more specific concerns with evidence (there are at least two users I believe I have already evidence for, and 4-5 more that there may be evidence for). EaglesFan37 (talk) 14:35, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
Being canvassed to a group is not grounds for any action. I would strongly suggest that the best interests of wikipedia are served by dropping this not doubling down.--Boynamedsue (talk) 16:53, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
I’m suspicious about there possibly being off-wiki canvassing at these other pedias/evidenc of off-wiki coordination (which isn’t allowed). That would be a matter for ARBCOM (if necessary), as evidence of that would have to be private evidence. EaglesFan37 (talk) 17:26, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
I would make a distinction here. People who have been canvassed in violation of the rules are not responsible for this breach unless you can prove they participated in off-site organisation rather than merely responded to it. I would argue that even if they had participated in off-site organisation, but were not aware of our rules, they should not face any sanction unless they can be shown to have edited disruptively anywhere on the project.
Of course, anybody canvassed to any of the pointless "gee, what we really need at wikipedia is formalised factions" discussions should not be allowed to vote.Boynamedsue (talk) 18:34, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
@Boynamedsue I did check most of the potential pedias and didn’t spot anything worth noting. Still feel suspicious, but nothing concrete enough to make it worthwhile. EaglesFan37 (talk) 21:23, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
Is Sanger telling us his leadership jeopardises the freedom of any supportive editors to edit Wikipedia? Did he tell them it was a suicide mission? NebY (talk) 18:12, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
I think this is leading nowhere, what does this aim to get consensus on if there's already nothing inherently wrong with their conduct. Telling them that no sanctions can be taken, is something that everyone can already tell them since as you said there's no policy and therefore that statement reflects consensus. Squawk7700 (talk) 21:49, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
I move to close this section. An ANI discussion of who we don't have a problem with doesn't make sense. If any individuals therein are causing a particular issue that needs to be brought to ANI, that would need to be separate. the Stefen 𝕋ower 21:55, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
Support snow Squawk7700 (talk) 21:56, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Ordinarily I would BEBOLD, but this AN/I is quite extraordinary. A few editors have already asked this above (somewhere), but they have been lost in the large number of replies. Larger scale discussions such as RfCs are usually moved to their own page once they reach a certain size, I don't know if this has reached that yet. Regardless, would this be a reasonable thing to do? (The main AN/I page is approximately 100,000 bytes larger than it was before this discussion was opened). 11WB (talk) 08:30, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
Oppose, we should avoid making ANI discussions walls of shame. sapphaline (talk) 09:08, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
It looks like they meant moving this thread onto a separate sub-page, so it doesn't swamp & take attention away from the other ANI reports. This would actually make it slightly less visible, since it would be accessed via a link on this page. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 09:31, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
This, given Sanger's (alleged) importance, we need everyone to be able to have a say. Slatersteven (talk) 09:33, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
@Blue Sonnet is correct. This discussion would remain as a heading, and would have a link directing to the sub-page. I totally understand wall of shame concerns though, so no issues there. 11WB (talk) 09:37, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
MSGJ has indefinitely blocked Larry Sanger
The block has been reversed as out-of-process. Reminder that WP:CBAN discussions are intended to last at least 72 hours. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 19:18, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Completely inadequate, MSGJ, per this. The required 72 hours hadn't even elapsed. Please undo. —Rhododendritestalk \\ 15:45, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Why is he blocked? Is there a statement anywhere? Guz13 (talk) 15:58, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
yes, in his contribs and throughout this discussion. admittedly, a template in his talk page being made available right away would've been better, but considering how weird this case is, i won't be surprised if it only pops up when he has his tpa revoked (well, the correct word would be "if", but... you know) consarn(talk beige)(count ribs) 16:03, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
You have made it pretty clear over the last few months you do not like this guy, so is it possible to make some comments that do not contain repeated reminders in the form of snarky putdowns? jp×g🗯️ 17:18, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
is it possible to make some comments that do not contain repeated reminders in the form of snarky putdowns?
don't answer snarky putdowns with snarky putdowns. ltbdl (select) 17:54, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
it's certainly a putdown, but you could argue on the snarkiness. anyway, point is, jpxg is not contributing to the discussion. ltbdl (hypnotise) 18:02, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
MSGJ has answered why he made the block. I agree that this entire discussion does not offer him protection against getting blocked. Zalaraz (talk) 16:04, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
See, that that says it's a block not a ban; but then this message says its the enactment of a consensus - which would be the CBAN, surely? With the talk of a panel close, and a suggestion of enacting any decision as an WP:OA, I wasn't expecting someone to Leeroy Jenkins this. Morwen (talk) 16:12, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
I think what he's saying there is that he imposed a block because the community discussion strongly indicated that he was editing disruptively, which any admin can block for, and any admin can respond to a suitable unblock request. Now, if the discussion is closed for a CBAN, he loses the ability to be unblocked on a single admin's say-so, but rather must appeal to the community. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:19, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
"I have enacted the consensus" is not the words one normally uses to communicate a unilateral admin action. Levivich (talk) 16:29, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Usually they're implied. You sure couldn't say "the consensus is leaning toward not blocking you, but I disagree". SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:35, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
"the community discussion strongly indicated that he was editing disruptively"
That's not what has been said, and that's not what needs to be said. What needs to be said is why the decision has been made. To simply say "that's the consensus" and "I considered the alternative, but no" is merely performative. Selbstporträt (talk) 16:41, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
I don't know, seems like blocking or banning the co-founder of Wikipedia should have more than a rubber stamp and a few diffs. Guz13 (talk) 16:15, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Being a "co-founder" does not give him any special privilege. Zalaraz (talk) 16:31, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Do that to any noob while I'm seeing this and we'll have to talk. Selbstporträt (talk) 16:45, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
If "any noob" went on national news and petitioned a prominent business executive/government figure to further their canvassing, I would hope the outcome would be the same. Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:10, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
It's not about the outcome. If the process is followed properly, I am more than willing to say farewell to that figurative noob. Selbstporträt (talk) 18:19, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Very surprised by this action. We haven't even gotten through the 72 hours of discussion, let alone a formal closure, so it's hard to claim a formal community consensus behind this block. On the flip side, an individual block during a CBAN discussion is less than ideal, as it throws a wrench in the whole process for little benefit, and makes it unclear in the log whether the block is retroactively supported by community consensus once the discussion is closed. This is compounded by the proposal above receiving some non-snowy level of traction for a partial block, and which should have been given more time to pan out instead of being placed in front of a fait accompli.I share @Rhododendrites's and many others' concerns above and ask you to undo the block for the time being – I won't do it myself, being involved in the discussion. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 16:34, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
I think that undoing the block pending the formal close will throw a whole toolbox into the process, never mind just a wrench. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:37, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
How? If anything, it brings it back to the previous state of "discussing a potential block/CBAN", instead of "discussing the validity of a fait accompli admin action at the same time as a CBAN" Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 16:38, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Well, it's been undone because no consensus for block; administrator discussion. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:42, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Huh. I rather think there is consensus, it's just not been duly evaluated after the due period. We're well used to admins blocking on their own cognizance while discussion continues and that's often fine and helpful, but not this. NebY (talk) 16:50, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
There seems to be quite strong consensus, actually. The whole "alas, our hands are tied until 20:47, 22 June 2026" thing is WP:NOTBURO in full exhausting action, especially given that the outside canvassing is not going to wait until 20:47. Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:08, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Outside canvassing may never stop whatever happens. Selbstporträt (talk) 18:13, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
I also doubt last-minute vote stacking will sway a half-competent admin. Slatersteven (talk) 18:16, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
It should not be about votes anyway, but argument consilience. Selbstporträt (talk) 18:30, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Yes, that was kind of my point. Slatersteven (talk) 18:41, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Why in the world would anybody prematurely close this, of all discussions? This is an extraordinarily stupid thing to do and makes the entire process look like a pretextual farce, effectively wasting all the effort everybody put into doing it properly. This should prompt a recall. jp×g🗯️ 16:55, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
It was not closed. Slatersteven (talk) 16:57, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Sorry, a totally unrelated disruptive editing block, not requiring closure because it was made for reasons having nothing to do with this discussion, that nonetheless for some reason cited it with a wikilink as justification. jp×g🗯️ 17:05, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
I would join in on the recall process, I don't know if it merits one. But this entire situatioin seems odd, Guz13 (talk) 16:59, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
I would join in on one as well. There were still alternative proposals being discussed, 72 hours hadn’t passed, and it was still to be determined if OA was going to do the blocking due to concerns of reprisals. Blocking/banning Larry Sanger will generate media attention, and having the process look scattered and the block being implemented early will only serve to hurt Wikipedia’s reputation. EaglesFan37 (talk) 17:07, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
MSGJ has been an admin since 2009, and this is the first instance of them ever blocking a user as a result of an ANI discussion. EaglesFan37 (talk) 17:39, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
I agree with the recall. @MSGJ: could you undo the block so we can wait the 72 hours mandated by WP:CBAN? Given the sensitivity of the issue, it would be good to do this one by the book. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:19, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
I'm struggling to think of a worse possible discussion to issue an early indef in, let alone one where the explanation of "consensus" gleaned from a 100+ person discussion amounts to.... two short sentences. This is nowhere near good enough. ser!(chat to me - see my edits) 17:27, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
I've only skimmed this whole debacle, so I apologize for any ignorance. However, since it has apparently been suggested a panel of editors close this, would it be best to file a request for arbitration for ArbCom to at least A) decide whether or not administrators should be allowed to block Larry Sanger while case proceedings are still ongoing, and more importantly, B) close this discussion once and for all? Seems like it, because I'd imagine this discussion would qualify as a serious conduct dispute[s] the community has been unable to resolve, considering how it has been going so far. - BlueEleephant (talk · contribs) 17:53, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Please, everyone, can we just wait for the 72 hours to expire? There is no reasonable grounds for claiming this is a conduct dispute the community has been unable to resolve, when there is community policy that says it cannot be resolved for the first 72 hours. Please, can we just have some patience, I ask again? We don't need escalation, we don't need special maneuvers, we don't need cowboy admins to step in... there's a process, it works, it's worked for every other sitebanned editor ever, just. follow. the. process. Please. I promise you, I promise, the admins of this website know how to handle this discussion. There's a 72-hour hold. That's why it's not closed yet. Just be patient. Levivich (talk) 18:00, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
I fully agree with you on waiting until the 72 hours has expired, but after the 72 hours do expire, somebody will still need to close this. That "somebody" will likely need to be a panel of editors, not just one, for reasons stated above.
By cowboy admins, are you referring to lone administrators who may want to do something about this fiasco without carefully examining consensus, or are you referring to a defined group of administrators in particular? - BlueEleephant (talk · contribs) 18:09, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
"cowboy admins" is a fairly well-established term. I was definitely considered one in the past, though I've mellowed, but didn't think I was part of a group or anything. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:11, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Is that just cuz you weren't trying hard enough? Just a few more blocks and you mighta got the invite:-) Levivich (talk) 18:15, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Are you volunteering? *heh heh heh* SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:17, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
LOL! That is probably the most productive contribution I can make around here: give User:Example a day off from being the crash test dummy. Levivich (talk) 18:19, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
BlueEleephant, I understand you're new here, but I promise you, I promise, really, take my word for it: the admins know what to do in 72 hours. It might not close in 72 hours BTW, they may decide it's not ready to close yet. If they need a panel, they'll form a panel. This isn't the first siteban discussion, not even the first siteban of a high-profile user. They know how to do handle this. (Well, most of them do.) The more text we add, the more difficult we make it on the other volunteers who have to action this. Please, stop. Say what you want to say about the underlying proposals being made here, but don't involve yourself in the meta of talking about how this should be actioned. Leave that to the admins. Levivich (talk) 18:18, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Sorry if I am misreading your comment, but I do have some things to say in response:
This isn't the first siteban discussion, not even the first siteban of a high-profile user Oh I know that, I've been reading Wikipedia long enough to see the proposal to CBAN Koavf, who is apparently set to appeal their ban within the next month or so.
The more text we add, the more difficult we make it on the other volunteers who have to action this I know that; off-topic threads can be collapsed, and probably should for such a massive, unprecedented discussion like this.
Please, stop. Say what you want to say about the underlying proposals being made here I initially commented here to ask if proposing sending closure of this whole conduct dispute to ArbCom would be a wise thing to do considering the magnitude of this discussion, and it seems like the answer to that is we'll have to see well after the 72 hours passes, if any panel of editors steps up to the challenge of closing this monster.
but don't involve yourself in the meta of talking about how this should be actioned Fair enough. I remember reading a quote from somebody's user page (I forgot who it was) that compared ANI to an orgy, and from afar, this page does seem as wildly unpredictable as an orgy, arguably moreso than ANI itself.
The train is scheduled to reach the station in a few hours. There is no reason to assume it won't reach the station. NebY (talk) 18:05, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
it's a cup of tea (tea with honey rules) and a short nap from now, so in the meantime, would it be a good idea to discuss what exactly to do by then? consarn(talk beige)(count ribs) 18:08, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
I am sure the admins are quite capable of reading what we have already said. Slatersteven (talk) 18:09, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
the key word is "exactly", since it seems people are still a little torn on what exactly to name the block, whether or not to have an oa instead, and what to do with his tpa
...or further consensus could be superfluous. i'm still not sure much could be done with a cban or oa, at least before 2027 consarn(talk beige)(count ribs) 18:13, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
OA are decided by, well, the Wikimedia Foundation (through WMFOffice), not by community discussions. There's been a brief discussion about a global ban above (not the same thing!) but it was quickly closed. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 18:29, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
I don't see how bikeshedding over 2 hours and 22 minutes is going to accomplish anything except wasting 2 hours and 22 minutes of people's time -- which includes, for that matter, Larry's time. Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:25, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Is it that damn hard to follow procedures? If a rule says "you can't get married until you're 18", you're not going to show up to the marriage office at 17 years old and 364 days and ask the government official to recognize your marriage. OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:04, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Again, see WP:NOTBURO. Handwringing that it is 19:14 and not 20:47 is the epitome of an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policies without considering their principles.Gnomingstuff (talk) 19:12, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
No, and no. A community ban discussion is not a ban on blocking, and Arbcom doesn't close discussions, especially when policy says they have to run 72 hours and we haven't hit that yet. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:12, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Can we just close this section (and combine it with the "update" and "TPA" sections above)? Perhaps with a little summary at the top like "On Wikipedia, it technically only takes one administrator to enact a block. But blocks (and especially consequential and/or high-profile blocks) are then subject to immediate scrutiny to ensure (a) proper procedure was followed, and (b) that they adequately reflect the consensus of the community, according to our policies and guidelines. In this case, enough people expressed objections to the timing, process, and/or explanations provided by the blocking administrator that it was undone. That does not mean the consensus was not to block, but that The broader discussion about blocks, bans, restrictions, or lack thereof, is still ongoing. I am boldly closing this section to stem, to the extent possible, the confusion and distraction already caused by this 191-minute block."? (Written as such because I considered doing it myself.) Anyone who wants to follow up on admin judgment issues can take that over to AN. —Rhododendritestalk \\ 18:37, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Care about wiki
Lets be frank, you can care about your version of wiki, and be hostile to my version.
I have no doubt Sanger cares very deeply about what he thinks Wikipedia should be, but I also have exactly the same amount of doubt that it is not inimically hostile to my vision of it.
It does not matter how much he cares about his vision; what matters is does the vision gel with ours? And what damage it will do to it, in his trying to achieve it. Slatersteven (talk) 18:49, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
This page is way too big for new headers like this to start being made, creating distracts from the efforts going on. Bobbobet (talk) 19:07, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Admins available for a formal close of the discussion?
As the mandatory 72-hour period draws to its close (about two hours left now), it would be good to prepare for a proper closure of the discussion. (Much has been said and it seems unlikely that more time will lead to new opinions.) I think I am not alone in thinking a panel close would be appropriate, and that admins should consider their circumstances carefully before joining such a panel. I am WP:INVOLVED due to my comments above. Are there a few uninvolved admins willing to volunteer for a panel closure? ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 19:06, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
I'm willing to close. I'm uninvolved other than pointing out that the 72-hour rule wasn't followed. Open to panel/collaborative closing. OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:10, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
my condolences in advance, especially if you end up making it to breitbart consarn(talk beige)(count ribs) 19:14, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
To make it more blunt the statements made in the closer will 100% be responded to by political grifters trying to stoke outrage, news orgs, and others. In addition 100% doxxing efforts will be made to everyone involved, in fact doxxing and harassment efforts have already started against the admin that closed early. This is the influence and culture Larry brings with him. Bobbobet (talk) 19:21, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
These concerns have been discussed above. In this section, I hope to have a relatively brief and pragmatic conversation among admins to appropriately coordinate the task in front of us. ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 19:25, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
I don't believe this needs a panel close and I'm planning on closing it myself unless there are objections in the near future. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:34, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
I'm indifferent if you're going on the solo route (and I will make way if you do), but a lot of people mentioned above that ideally they would like to see a panel close on this very contentious topic. OhanaUnitedTalk page 20:42, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
If you are going to close this, I recommend putting in place an initial close with "close being prepared" or something like that so we don't get multiple close efforts going on at the same time, unless you've already finished your writeup. —rsjaffe🗣️ 20:48, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Comment I'd just point out that Larry has made it clear that doxing any admin that blocks him is very much on his agenda . I mean, that tweet is blockable in itself, but just warning any admin that takes part in a close. Black Kite (talk) 20:44, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I can see that there is what looks to me like overwhelming support for an indef and cban, and I have no objection to that. I can also see how Larry has been responding to all of this. Taking everything together, I actually think that this could be a perfect occasion to employ WP:DENY, because it should be very obvious what the response from the outside world would be to any sanction being imposed. But as I said, no objection from me to dropping the ban hammer. I just wanted to point this out. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:13, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
.jpg)
C
Start
B
jp×g🗯️ 16:56, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Done by @Knightoftheswords281. 11WB (talk) 10:17, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
Done by @Knightoftheswords281. 11WB (talk) 10:17, 21 June 2026 (UTC)