User Talk: Jimbo Wales

Server-side rendered snapshot of this editor's Wikipedia talk page discussions.

{{pp-sock|small=yes}}
{{pp-move|small=yes}}
{{noindex}}
{{Stb}}
{{Usercomment}}
{{#ifeq:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}|autoconfirmed|}}
{{Notice|1={{Center|1='''Jimbo welcomes your comments and updates – he has an open door policy ↗.''' 
'''He holds the founder's seat on the Wikimedia Foundation ↗'s Board of Trustees ↗. The current trustees ↗ occupying "community-selected" seats are Laurentius, Victoria, Kritzolina, and Nadzik. The Wikimedia Foundation's Lead Manager of Trust and Safety is Jan Eissfeldt.'''}}}}
{{Notice|1={{Center|1='''This page is semi-protected ↗ and you will not be able to leave a message here unless you are a registered editor. Instead, you can leave a message here '''}}}}
{{Talk header|search=yes}}
{{Wikipedia:TPS/banner}}
{{Press
| subject = talkpage
| author = Matthew Gault
| title = Wikipedia Editors Very Mad About Jimmy Wales' NFT of a Wikipedia Edit
| org = Vice Media ↗
| url = https://www.vice.com/en/article/qjbkvm/wikipedia-editors-very-mad-about-jimmy-waless-nft-of-a-wikipedia-edit
| date = 8 December 2021
| quote = The trouble began when Wales posted an announcement about the auction on his user talk page—a kind of message board where users communicate directly with each other.

|author2 = Emanuel Maiberg
|title2 = Jimmy Wales Says Wikipedia Could Use AI. Editors Call It the 'Antithesis of Wikipedia'
|date2 = 21 August 2025
|org2 = 404 Media ↗
|url2 = https://www.404media.co/jimmy-wales-wikipedia-ai-chatgpt/
|lang2 =
|quote2 = The ongoing debate about incorporating AI into Wikipedia in various forms bubbled up again in July, when Wales posted an idea to his Wikipedia User Talk Page about how the platform could use a large language model as part of its article creation process.
|archiveurl2 = 
|archivedate2 = 
|accessdate2 = 22 August 2025

|author3 = Mia Sato
|title3 = Hundreds of prolific Wikipedia editors are threatening to go on strike
|date3 = 29 May 2026
|org3 = The Verge ↗
|url3 = https://www.theverge.com/report/939442/wikipedia-editors-protest-wikimedia-layoffs-strike
|lang3 =
|quote3 = Jimmy Wales, a cofounder of Wikipedia, argued with contributors on the site’s discussion pages, saying it was “time to get serious about meeting community needs,” and assuring volunteers that there would still be dedicated staff working on the wishlist. Volunteers did not find it comforting.
|archiveurl3 = 
|archivedate3 = 
|accessdate3 = 29 May 2026
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo = old(10d)
| archive = User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive %(counter)d
| counter = 255
| maxarchivesize = 350K
| archiveheader = {{aan}}
| minthreadstoarchive = 1
| minthreadsleft = 3
}}
{{Shortcut|WP:JIMBOTALK}}
{{Centralized discussion}}
__TOC__
{{-}}

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Council#Proposing_a_new_WikiProject_Intellectual_Diversity ↗

For the interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:10, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

:Seems larry sanger was referred to ani for the interested as well. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs ↗) 19:43, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

This is a real shame I would say. Leaving aside the particular issues here, broadly I think that intellectual diversity is an important value to Wikipedia and that failing in it effectively failing pillar 4 (civility) and therefore risks failures of pillar 2 (neutral point of view). I hope that rather than rejecting that concept - which is absolutely destructive of the purpose of Wikipedia - people work to correct/improve the failings of the existing proposal.

And for the record, I find the idea of any of this deserving an indef ban for Larry is ludicrous and people need to sit back and have a hard look at what they are saying.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:17, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

:Jimmy, if you desire to participate in the subpage about Larry, which is listed in WP:CENT ↗, then please feel free to do so. However, would giving out a statement be better than leaving out a comment like any other regular editor?
:Furthermore, this isn't about intellectual diversity but rather about Larry's actions, which has contrasted longstanding values of the whole community. Speaking of intellectual diversity, he even declared {{ld|intellectual diversity}} irrelevant to the WikiProject's supposed goals, and even the draft itself was formerly an article. Also, his proposal itself either has improperly or hasn't yet defined "intellectual diversity". Are you willing to defend Larry who has expressed his views especially about policies?
:Also, rejecting the proposed WikiProject doesn't signify the impact of Wikipedia. Rather it illustrates the overlap between Larry's failures and viewpoints that would attract especially his worshippers... or fan base. There are other ways to promote awareness of intellectual diversity, not just re-proposing the failing WikiProject. I might stand corrected about all of the above. George Ho (talk) 09:35, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
::@George Ho, to address your points - I'm certainly willing to defend Larry for expressing his views on intellectual diversity, on policies on sourcing, etc., without thereby endorsing (or disagreeing with) those views. If we walk to talk about Wikipedia's longstanding values I think civility and a willingness to listen have to rank very high. Listen to Larry and respectfully disagree if you like, of course! Debate the issues. Vote no on the Wikiproject if that makes the most sense. But also: note well that intellectual diversity is important for Wikipedia and there's a very good reason - always - to be prepared and indeed eager to focus on it. Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:52, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
:::have to agree here. The debate of the behavior if what Sanger dud is a wholly separate issue, but WP has a long standing problem that a large portion of experienced editors tend to dismiss any notion that doesnt align exactly with reliable sources, which restricts intellectual diversity. Its hard enough getting editors to neutrality describe controversies rather than implicitly weigh one side of them. We are never going to stop leaning left/liberal/progressive, but that doesnt mean we cannot ever consider ideas that come from right/conservative viewpoints. That may create challenges in sourcing, organization, and tone, but its something we need to pursue. Masem (t ↗) 18:29, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
::::Considering that part of what Larry critiques is how we assign reliability to a source, I'd say that's actually an understatement of the problem. I would take his position to be that a large part of the Wikipedia community curates what is a reliable source in such a way that restricts intellectual diversity. This presentation changes "reliable source" from an objective metric to a subjective metric. --Kyohyi (talk) 18:57, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::the problem is that we have experienced and senior editors that use RSP as a crutch to ignore anything that is not mentioned in a RS, which is creating the ivory tower that is more harmful than collaborative, and often exploiting the notion if WEIGHT and FRINGE. A typical case will be something involving some type of controversial statement that has no objective answer or means to prove it. These editors will tend to put everything on the side of the controversy that the RSes have favored, and wing hear any attempt to be more neutral by considering that the topic may even be controversial because no RS describe the counter points. Now, while we do want yo use RSes to source things, abd it may be impossible to source an opposing views due to this treating such cases as bring non contested is a massive problem against viewpoint diversity. We can't be working out of ivory towers here. Masem (t ↗) 21:19, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::@Masem, RSP is in the process of being restructured https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/tag/english-wikipedia-rsp-restructuring/ ↗. The new structure will allow for more nuanced guidance, so you'll likely get the chance to make this point in future discussions. FWIW I agree, but obv what we normally do is balance disagreements in sources which would otherwise be reliable enough for their claim to be stated in wikivoice. We could include attributed POVs from sources otherwise unreliable for their claims, but theory-wise it doesn't work as we'd be consciously correcting for perceived bias, which is subjective and irreconcilable if there's disagreement between editors. There might be some way of making it work, ie. determining when to do this and how much weight to give, but I'm not seeing it Kowal2701 (talk, contribs ↗) 21:35, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::::@Kowal2701 How on earth would the new structure allow for more nuanced guidance? If anything, it will make it far less nuanced by allowing us an endless number of entries. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:18, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::::@PARAKANYAA, allows for more detail Kowal2701 (talk, contribs ↗) 06:31, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::::That'll fix part of it, but I still suspect, having run into this many times, we will still have editors that deny the existence of a counterpoint to a contestable statement that might appear in weaker RSes, and stand by their approach that because so many good RSes take a stance on an issue, then that stance must be fact.
:::::::Common case is when it comes to any contentious labels, particularly those directed towards extreme conservative/far or alt right views. Unless someone has self-stated their political or ideological leanings, we should never treat this assessment by sources as fact, but instead with context and attribution. So what happens is that we get editor that can point to a activist or politician that dozens of RSes call out as being far right or similar, and so the label is applied factually with no context or sourcing, and even when there are sources that we simply cannot use that call this labelling as poor or inappropriate, we get editors that insist there's nothing contentious about this label since you can't find a usable source to challenge it. (The solution in this case is simply not to treat the label as fact but with attribution, there's not even a need to spell out that its contested, but that's a wall I've hit many many times). Part of this problem is that we do have a lot of well-intended editors that get into inadvertently stuck on RIGHTGREATWRONGS, desiring to show someone that is against the average moral/ethical/political stance of the average Wikipedian is not a good person, but that should never be our goal. Masem (t ↗) 04:23, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::::For better or for worse, that's never going to happen. We can say it should, we might, but it won't. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:48, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::Saying we can't do anything about it is part of the problem. It 100% is fixable if editors are aware of what they are doing and willing to fix. Masem (t ↗) 11:36, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::@MasemYou are 100% right on all points. This is already policy and so it really is about a willingness to fix it. One problem that we have in at least some areas is that there are people who camp out on certain articles and react with hostility to efforts of good editors to move articles in line with policy. Actual policy is that contentious labels "are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." MOS:LABEL ↗
::::::::::It isn't a fight I want to have right now, but I am very much on the record pointing out that in one particular case that we are likely all familiar with, the vast bulk of high quality reliable sources (100% of normal media sources as far as I have seen) including Reuters, the BBC, CNN, even Al Jazeera refrain from using a particular contentious label and we use it anyway in wikivoice, without attribution. Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:14, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::::I’d rather we ditched labelling people and parties with reference to the political spectrum, sourced to media, altogether. It’s not educational since it’s ridiculously reductionistic, and is mostly 'vibes-based' anyway. Scholars mostly avoid using the terms for good reason, and often when they do use them it’s in passing mentions and not the product of any kind of analysis. Not to mention the BLP concerns. But that’ll never happen. (also, wrt to attributing a claim to a source that's unreliable for it, it's more akin to trivia since we've decided it can't contribute to our understanding of the reality)
::::::::A big issue with the wiki model is that few people start editing purely with the interest of building knowledge, the benefit of pouring hours of limited spare time is to be able to influence said knowledge. But for the most part wrt to current event topics we’re hamstrung by a broken media landscape, editors supporting their POV with low quality sources lose disputes and end up disenfranchised (obv changes to the external situation leads to changes onwiki). Also not to mention the role Wikipedia plays in science communication ↗, such that we take the flak when the views of the public diverge from those of scholarship (and obv we can’t always treat analysis as opinion, belies the point of scholarship). I know it isn’t what you’re saying, but I don’t think the narrative that Wikipedia is biased because it’s been captured by biased editors is accurate at all, and it's a shame that that's what it looks like from the outside. Kowal2701 (talk, contribs ↗) 09:34, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::Yes, part of these issues is tied to how we are handling current events, far too much detail, particularly in the area of commentary, being taken from primary, shortterm sources rather than waiting for long-term viewpoints to be developed. Its fine that editors want to get the 5 W's of reporting into encyclopedia while the topic is in the news, but editors often go overkill. Its always worthwhile to compare contemporary events to events before WP started. Even something like the Watergate scandal is far less detailed compared to any other political scandal today. How WP writes about significant people with respect to these events is a problem that extends from that. Masem (t ↗) 11:35, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::In a great many cases you are absolutely right, @Kowal2701. But I just want to add that it is also the case that there are articles/areas where ''in that topic'' it is very difficult to say that our articles follow our own neutrality policies. We see cherry-picked sources and other similar intellectual errors. It tends to persist in areas with a lot of emotional overtones because the warriors are more committed to "righting great wrongs" than to the values of Wikipedia. It needs to change. Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:18, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::I’m not sure I see a way for that to change, on some topics it is very rare to get someone with a deep interest who doesn’t have strong views. Usually on contentious topics you get say two editors with opposing biases/POVs, and they eventually compromise to make a somewhat neutral article. But the balance of editor POVs in a topic area often maps onto strength of sourcing, and a shift in that can be self-perpetuating as it becomes majority vs minority. Imo our focus should be on fostering collaboration and compromise between opposing editors, instead of them constantly trying to get each other banned, but that is very difficult when people view the other's biases as morally objectionable (and "always compromise" doesn’t work as in some disputes there is just a right answer), and when people deserve to get banned lol. RfCs are good when one 'side' is right and the other is wrong, as people outside the topic area come in to resolve matters, but they’re often binary and awful at producing a compromise, which is not great given they’re our main way of resolving disputes. Reforming that would go a long way to improving matters, but we’ve struggled at WT:RFC ↗ to come up with anything (other than what's at WP:RFCBEFORE ↗). Kowal2701 (talk, contribs ↗) 16:35, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::I think the proliferation of RfCs is a massive part of the problem. They are often a tool to POV push by evading the need to get consensus in the community. And there's this very strange idea that's crept up in recent years that somehow consensus in the community isn't necessary in order to use WikiVoice for a contentious claim if there's claimed to be consensus in the sources. (Usually, whether or not there is consensus in the sources is precisely what there isn't consensus about!)
:::::::::::I'm mostly trying to avoid talking about specific cases because that will easily distract people from what I'm trying to say. But I'm sure most of us know of cases where many Wikipedians in good standing are overruled by a majority vote in an RfC. That's absolutely not consistent with our values and tradition. If you can't get consensus in the community, it's time to rewrite, to avoid pejorative labels, to attribute the view to the sources. You never ever ever should use a negative or pejorative (or positive, but less often an issue) in WikiVoice unless there is very strong consensus in the community and the sources to do so. That's the wiki way. Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:27, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::: Not to be a downer, but here's a non-specific problem with this wiki way. The community determines who is part of the community, the community determines the how's and the why's on what determines someone is part of the community. The community determines what are the sources, the community determines the how's and the why's of sources selection. This ultimately means that Wikipedia is merely the voice of the community that writes it. Not a NPOV encyclopedia, but the wikipedia community view encyclopedia. --Kyohyi (talk) 12:54, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::::I think the bigger problem is the problem inherent to every democratic/consensus-based system. The decisions are made by the people who show up. If you're not an editor who makes a point of engaging with the behind-the-scenes stuff, and you instead spend all your editor-hours directly contributing to articles, then you might not hear about every RfC or AfD or what have you, and your voice might never be heard. If we want our decisions to be really representative of the will of the wider editing body, we need to develop better systems for notifying editors that these conversations are taking place, and encouraging them to participate. Athanelar (talk) 13:01, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::::: Bigger problem isn't how I would put it, I think what you have brought up reinforces the issue I identified. Basically, the people who show up are the people who determine who can show up in the future. So you have a system which reduces in on itself. --Kyohyi (talk) 13:51, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::::::The problem then becomes how, because it would have to be something that lets every editor who might have an interest in it know. A user's Twitter feed, well I might not subscribe to it, same with Facebook or any social media platform. Send a link automatically to every user, how long before geting 15 alerts a day effs everyone off? Slatersteven (talk) 13:29, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::::This isn't really true. Anyone can edit, anyone can bring a source, anyone can get their voices heard. Anyone who follows the rules can be part of the community. Sources are selected based on whats available followed by best practices. Bobbobet (talk) 19:04, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::::: 500/30? Semi-protection? Full-protection? topic bans from noticeboards? Topic bans from article topics? site bans? These are all things that either outright deny participation, or limit it. The community controls the rules, so the community controls who is part of the community. Are Hindu nationalists part of the community, broadly? Or do people think they should be excluded? Would they have to renounce their Hindu nationalism to edit? Do we ask that of other ideologies? Would it be wrong to say, hey come join and edit Wikipedia? I think we already know the answer. --Kyohyi (talk) 19:29, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::There is good why those exist, there isn't really a real argument for there removal. The real discussion is how they should be improved. Like for example, there are a lot of 500/30 articles with NPOV and quality issues. They put on 500/30 on those articles as they became targets. What someone would think would happen is a number of experience editors would take over those articles and make them good, thats not fully what happened, many extended user will not work on those article so the selection of people doing them becomes small leaving greater room for mistakes to not be corrected, gapes in someones blind spots not filled, and because it takes a long time to become a extended user, even if someone in good faith wants to work on those articles they often can't as its unreasonable and honestly don't want someone to game a account into extended status just to work on one topic or article. So the question becomes how to fix this. Being a extended user does not make someone specially qualified or master of content generation of a given topic it just means they have made a bunch of edits. So the way of naturally improving articles is by having more editors work on it. 500/30 drastically shrinks the talent pool of potential editors, while also does not actual make the article immune from bad edits. So whats the fix? Changing to 250/30, make it so someone has to pass a test on policy, something else? I think there is a real discussion there.
:::::::::::::::Obviously Hindu nationalists can edit Wikipedia, they just have to follow policy, the same as anyone else. Also Larry did way more then just say come and join Wikipedia. Bobbobet (talk) 20:20, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::That they exist means anybody can edit, bring a source, get their voices heard and such is meaningfully and factually untrue. The why they exist doesn't change that. It isn't about whether or not he did more, it's that there is a boundary, we have to be able to discuss the boundary. Also we can't pretend that there aren't people we prevent from influencing the boundary. --Kyohyi (talk) 20:39, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::You're being vague on alleged malfeasance. Anyone can discuss policy, if its respected or not is another thing. Bobbobet (talk) 21:10, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::You're presuming that malfeasance is needed and not just a system without rails. There have been plenty of studies on human behavior on what happens when the rails are taken away. That doesn't specifically require bad actors coordinating them. --Kyohyi (talk) 12:06, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::Yup, several of my co-nationals (Romanians) were banned because they were WP:SOAPBOXING ↗ for Romanian nationalism. I have participated in those discussions, and I was not on their side.
::::::::::::::::E.g., Wikipedia is by no means anti-Russian, it holds no grudge against people of Russian ethnicity. But in the war between Russia and Ukraine, an objective narration of facts is pro-Ukrainian because Russia chose for propaganda based upon lies. So, an objective narration helps Ukraine, and Russian authorities hate that. Ukrainian propaganda is based upon allowing criticism, Russian propaganda is based upon disallowing criticism. Ukrainian authorities encourage their citizens to know the reality about the war, Russian authorities dissuade their citizens from knowing the reality about the war (and especially from discussing it publicly). So, Wikipedia is pro-Ukraine by merely telling the reality. If Russian citizens learn the reality, that's dangerous for Putin's regime. So, telling as it is creates asymmetrical effects. Wikipedia chose a side by merely reporting objective facts about the war. Putin's regime is hell-bent on denying reality. Reporting both the good news and the bad news favors Ukraine, not Russia. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:32, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
::::Yes, source-restricting is a huge part of the issue. I want to shout out UAP research on this. There are people that believe in UFOs/UAPs and I don't see it harmful to say "hey this is what they bellieve". And if SETI finds something significant, then it will no longer be fringe. Guz13 (talk) 19:08, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::SETI has made it very clear, on numerous occasions, that they are not investigating UFOs/UAPs. https://www.seti.org/research/seti-101/uaps/ ↗https://www.calameo.com/read/0048123637a4a64903b14 ↗ AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:15, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
:I would also say that's not about "intellectual diversity". Intellectual diversity would be working to improve encyclopedia articles on ''all'' schools of thought. But to do that, we have to have a consensus on ''how'' to do that, and we manifest that consensus on how to do that in our content policies and guidelines.
:As a corollary, we manifest our consensus on behavior in other policies and guidelines. So, to the extent that anyone is not addressing those policies and guidelines, they should. Go there and address those. I take no position on the CBAN.
:In either type of matter, if working and deciding by consensus is the implacable enemy, then we have no way to work together on this project. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:03, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
::I agree completely as far as I understand you. Intellectual diversity should be about working to improve encyclopedia articles on all schools of thought - and also improving encyclopedia articles that aren't "on" schools of thought but also those which are about subject matter on which there is serious intellectual debate. And in a genuine awareness that we may all have intellectual blind spots such that having people of diverse backgrounds and points of view is critical in order to help us all grow and learn and be respectful to the rich world of human knowledge.
::Definitely working towards consensus is key to all of this. But working towards consensus by banning someone who is raising an argument that is not popular is a mistake. Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:55, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
:::But I think the attack chosen by the misnamed project or rather its progenitor was to attack the consensus making of content policies and guidelines, and if the supporters of the CBAN are correct, in a manner not allowed by behavioral guidelines. To put it more concretely, we need ONE consensus on what is a reliable source in whatever domain is being worked on, a variety of consensuses is not a consensus at all. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:58, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
:Larry has been indefinitely blocked ↗. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 14:04, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
::That block is confusing in itself and no, has not closed the discussion. The blocking editor has both left it open and agreed that {{u|EEng}}'s commonsense alternate proposal is ongoing. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:09, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
::The EEng Compromise is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Possible off-wiki canvassing by User:Larry Sanger#Proposal: Have pity on a lonely and forgotten shut-in, and give him a chance to make himself useful ↗ if you'd like to comment your sentiments above to the discussion, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:16, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
:::Larry's refusal to consider good-faith advice ↗ and continued antagonizing of other editors ↗ leads me to doubt that this will end with anything other than a community ban. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 14:26, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
::::I agree that Larry could have conducted himself with more graciousness in those two exchanges. They are very far from any sensible "indef ban" traditions that we've ever had. Lots of people get grumpy in the emotional heat of a difficult exchange. It would be best for him to apologize for that and get on with the work.
::::It's worth noting that there will be people who say that Larry's been banned for proposing intellectual diversity. And that at least some of the people who campaigned for it were doing so in no small part because of that advocacy rather than any behavioral issues. Surely we can all agree that's unfortunate. Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:59, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::Very unfortunate. Larry has some great ideas, but his conduct has been less than ideal. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 15:01, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::Well, ok! "Less than ideal" doesn't usually get people indef banned. We should bend over backwards to assume good faith. People get upset and lash out sometimes. It's unfortunate but it's human. The best thing to do is for everyone to dust themselves off, relax a notch or two, and dig to find common ground and ways to compromise and collaborate. Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:55, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::::I think that this whole fiasco about canvassing and an indef ban started because editors saw Larry's tweet about WPID and immediately assumed he was trying to votestack to get it approved, even if he was simply recruiting for it or updating his followers on its progress. And once it got to ANI there soon emerged a massive pile-on of editors calling for a ban. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 18:02, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::::{{Comment}} @Jimbo Wales I've stated my opinion on our rules/enforcement a few times in a few places. I think we are much to fast to indef people, especially long time editors with long track records of productive contributions. That said, I have seen many editors indef banned for far less then this. I support changes to policy that assume good faith and allow people to get upset and lash out sometimes, provided they eventually cool off and apologize, but avoiding an indef here would be an '''exception ''' to the current norm. At least in my opinion. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 07:46, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::I have exercised extraordinary restraint, in fact, against a massive mob. Larry Sanger (talk) 18:56, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::You may want to look at User talk:Larry Sanger#It appears likely you will be blocked for clear off-wiki canvassing '''''Froglord (Finnfrog99) (talk)''''' 23:51, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
::::In Larry's defense (gasp!) that second diff is in response to a comment of mine that was, in all honesty, a bit of grave-dancing. Athanelar (talk) 15:20, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::Perhaps, then, you should strike it? Lynch44 16:43, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
:@Jimbo Wales Larry, after being told to avoid off-wiki canvassing after encouraging users to join WP:WPID ↗ on his 90k follower Twitter, went on CNN-18 and canvassed for millions of Hindu Nationalists to begin editing Wikipedia to WP:POVPUSH ↗. Any user would have been blocked for that, especially one who went from 2012-2026 without a mainspace edit. It’s very much WP:NOTHERE ↗. EaglesFan37 (talk) 16:16, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
::Why is asking new editors to join the project a bad thing? The number of active editors is going down. Any parisan editors can be blocked if they do POV. Guz13 (talk) 17:04, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
:::Because recruiting editors to support your position is meatpuppetry ↗ and is not allowed. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 17:12, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
::::I haven't seen the CNN clip, but the tweet to 90,000 followers to join WP:WPID was unambiguously fine. Many editors, including myself, are regularly and quite rightly encouraging people to join Wikipedia. This is particularly important for groups who feel less represented in Wikipedia. The idea that it automatically constitutes canvassing is a stretch to say the least.
::::I have said many times, in many venues, that I would like to see more editors who disagree with things in Wikipedia to join! It is something that we should welcome, it's part of the core value of Wikipedia that we seek neutrality. One of the best ways to achieve that is with outreach to editors who may have the wrong impression that if they have certain ideas or beliefs they will not be welcomed here.
::::If Larry went on CNN to canvass for millions of Hindu Nationalists to come in and misbehave, then of course that's not good. If he canvassed for them to come to Wikipedia and disrupt a particular vote, then of course that's not good. But if he said "If you think Wikipedia has a problem with bias in any area, the best thing to do is come and get involved" then I'm right there with him. We are open, we are a serious and thoughtful community, and we aren't afraid of asking for more people to review our work and help us improve it.
::::Let me quote my own words from my book: "After all, if Musk convinces conservatives that Wikipedia is nothing more than leftist propaganda, conservatives who might otherwise have become Wikipedia editors will stay away. That would mean that when editors get together to discuss editorial matters, there will be no conservative voices, conservative perspectives won't be part of the mix, and the risk of editorial judgments becoming significantly biased against conservatives will grow. "Diversity" isn't a word that gets a lot of live in Musk's circles, but as we saw in an earlier chapter, diversity in its full sense -- not just demographic diversity but also *intellectual* diversity -- is precisely what makes open-source projects like Wikipedia work best." (p. 184 of the US edition).
::::If people want to take me to AN/I and argue for a ban for that, I think it's pretty obvious how silly that is. It's advocating for our core values, not "canvassing". Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:50, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::The problem is that Larry linked directly to the discussion where WPID is being considered for approval, giving many editors the impression that he intended to bring in supporters for the WikiProject to get it approved, even if that's not what he was actually trying to do. If Larry had just posted "join WPID!" that would have been fine, and I completely agree with you in that regard. Past me explained this well ↗: {{tq|There's a difference between simply recruiting people to a WikiProject and directly linking people to the discussion that will approve or reject it.}} SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 17:58, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::I find that to be a very minor difference, and a very minor thing indeed. It would definitely be better to link directly to WP:WPID ↗ of course, but in the grand scheme of things, I don't see it as particularly disruptive. Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:07, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::@Jimbo Wales, now that I am unblocked again, I just want to thank you for weighing in here. This is not likely to make you popular (on Wikipedia), so I appreciate you putting your neck on the line. I would prefer not to be blocked and I don’t actually want to continue any unpleasantness with Wikipedia and Wikipedians. We actually can work together. But I am very serious about trying to reform Wikipedia. I think it desperately needs reform. And there needs to be a proper openness to discussions about reform; creating a serious reform group should not cause a person to be banned; neither should promoting that group off Wikipedia. Larry Sanger (talk) 18:11, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::Wikipedians seem to have a general aversion to off-wiki promotion, probably because there are many documented cases of offsite actors who try to influence Wikipedia content. But not all off-site promotion is bad. It's just that one has to be ''very careful'' to avoid creating the appearance of recruiting editors to support a particular position. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 18:15, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::@Larry Sanger: For the record: I don't think you were intentionally trying to sway the discussion in favor of approving WPID by making that post, but evidently other editors see it differently. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 18:17, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::Of course I agree, there needs to be a proper openness to discussions about reform, and creating a serious reform group should not cause a person to be banned. My own recommendation would have been to tone down a bit of the rhetoric on the page as it seems to have rubbed people the wrong way, but as I outline above, I think the proper Wikipedia way is for people not to get their backs up but rather to help out with what is obviously an uncontroversial idea directly in the main core of the traditions of Wikipedia: to be open, to be intellectually curious, to be kind and thoughtful and accepting that even when people can't agree on the underlying issues, they can still agree to be collegial and present things in a way that's fair to all reasoned points of view. Intellectual diversity is a strength and virtue for a project like Wikipedia, and will help us to avoid blind spots and worse. (By worse, I mean: hijacking by POV pushers who might someday somehow manage to somehow get the upper hand.)
::::::One argument that I did find significantly persuasive is that a WikiProject might not be the right place for this to sit. Generally, WikiProjects have been about pretty uncontroversial subject area improvements, I'm thinking here of WP:BRIDGE ↗ as an example. A WikiProject that attempts to grapple with deeper questions of editorial policy might not succeed and might degenerate into a set of flame wars. Let me be clear: I'm not making this argument, I'm just considering it as at first blush a pretty sensible point.
::::::But alternative proposals such as doing it on the relevant policy pages aren't really fully persuasive to me either. The reason is that, as far as I have seen, the relevant policy pages are actually pretty clear and pretty good. The problems that I see from time to time aren't about the policy pages not giving good guidance, but about local areas of Wikipedia following existing procedures and practice (as opposed to policies) in ways that can give rise to results that are clearly quite contrary to policy. The NPOV ↗ policy is very clear that NPOV can't be superseded by editor consensus, but there are very clear cases (fortunately rare) where our actual practice follows neither NPOV nor editor consensus but rather an unpleasant combination of bullying and majority vote by a tiny group of committed POV pushers.
::::::If I'm right that this is where the problem lies, rather than on policy pages, the solution can't really lie with discussing and debating tweaks to policy - that's not the point. So where should it happen, and in particular, where might interested good Wikipedians who care more about intellectual integrity and the history and culture of Wikipedia that has served us so well over the years gather to work on the issues. If it isn't a WikiProject, then where? Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:23, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::::I think this hits the nail in the head, the very real NPOV issues needs to be fixed through micro, not macro efforts. By pulling up our sleeves and making them better, not by allowing say Breitbart as a reliable source or doxxing admins. Bobbobet (talk) 23:56, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::@Jimbo Wales Here's @Newslinger's summary of the CNN-18 interview https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents/Possible_off-wiki_canvassing_by_User:Larry_Sanger#c-Newslinger-20260620124000-CNN-News18_podcast_interview ↗.
:::::Encouraging millions of people to weigh in on a WP:CTOP ↗ and to commit WP:GAMING ↗ is very problematic at its core.
:::::Also, intellectual diversity does exist on Wikipedia already: each Wikipedia has a different background and perspective than their fellow Wikipedians. Intellectual diversity does not mean allowing more media outlets to be permissible if they aren't deemed to be meet reliable sourcing standards just because they would allow for more sources from another part of the ideological spectrum to be used. EaglesFan37 (talk) 19:35, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::While of course intellectual diversity does exist on Wikipedia already - it is imperfect and surely could be improved. Even if we think that it's absolutely 100% fine as it is (I don't think it is as good as it could be), we should still take seriously looking after it and openly defending and promoting it. I disagree with Larry on the particular sources mentioned there (I intend to listen to the full podcast tomorrow, thank you for the link, I thought it was a here-and-gone television appearance) but I also think we should welcome a discourse about it. If we aren't always willing to revisit decisions (subject to people running out of patience of course, but even then we should take a deep breath and try!) then we run the risk of ideological stagnation. Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:29, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::{{tq|If Larry went on CNN to canvass for millions of Hindu Nationalists to come in and misbehave, then of course that's not good.}} Not "if": he did. He didn't have to ask for disruption explicitly, the message was clear with whatever scrap of plausible deniability he was trying to maintain. With that said, I agree with everything else you've written here. I listened to the NYT podcast interview you did while you were promoting your book last year and I'd love to see you advocating the things you said there. If Larry wanted to commit to that, as opposed to what some call the "right-wing grift", I'd support his efforts too. '''Thebiguglyalien''' (talk) 20:05, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::Great! I will listen to Larry's CNN podcast tomorrow. And if you're right (probably you are from the quick quotes I just read) then I hope Larry will take that to heart. The main thing I would say to him is that people like you are precisely the people he should have in mind in terms of having influence within the community and who might need support.
::::::The wider culture outside of Wikipedia is often toxic and combative for whatever reasons. Some will call it "right wing grift" but let's be clear: in social media and tv conflict culture there's a lot of grift to go around. My thought is let's be generous and understanding that people will come to us from that world and may need time to remember the kindness and goodwill that we (however imperfectly) advocate with each other here. (By the way, even though I have a lot of complaints about social media, it's more or less always been the case. People even in the earliest days would wander in from Usenet ↗ with a WP:Battleground ↗ mentality that wasn't helpful! Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:33, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
:@Jimbo Wales Larry was blocked and then unblocked ↗. Guz13 (talk) 17:15, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
:the main issue was the need to reframe the project less adversarially, but its workable otherwise.
:the whole ordeal has been an absolute mess User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs ↗) 19:29, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
:Well, yes, but there's an unfortunate issue which pretty much anybody who has dealth with creationists, homeopathists, antivaxers and the rest, will readily identify: 99%1 of those calling for "intellectual diversity" are in fact calling for crank ideas to be granted parity of esteem with reality-based scholarship.
:1 This is one of the 87.6% of statuistics that are made up. '''Guy ↗''' (help! ↗ - typo?) 16:53, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
::Aren't 'statuistics' numbers that are set in stone then? 20px ↗ AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:09, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
::Yes, the bulk of those trying to advocate for fringe or minority views ''will'' be adversarial or want to push unworkable sources or any number of other things that are just not going to fly on WP.
::But first, we often too quickly bite the newcomers when their intentions are not obvious, and may be chasing off those that actually have a possible argument for inclusion who are fumbling with the wiki-way. Second, experienced editors get so stuck in their mindsets that they will refuse to hear valid arguments for possible inclusion. There's been more than enough ANI cases of senior editors being reported for going off on newcomers because their frustration had reached a limit, and while in most cases there is usually other circumstances that had justified their behavior and thus no ANI action short of a trout, that represents this larger problem of editors getting dead set in their ways and refusing to deal with anything that might challenge what they've edited.
::Or basically, while it is fair to complain that most arguing for "intellectual diversity" are not hear to actually build an encyclopedia, there are some that ''are'' here to that, and that now makes the problem of head-strong experienced editors refusing to give that editor a chance becomes a problem. That's not a healthy behavior to handle. Masem (t ↗) 17:09, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
::@JzG I don't think this is true at all, or to be a bit more gentle and precise: if we are talking about creationists, homeopathists, antivaxxers, then yes of course, a call for intellectual diversity is frequently cover for wanting to promote crank ideas that aren't in any way supported by the sources. Let's not forget the UFOlogists. But that's actually an extreme minority of people in the world, and not the issue that most people are quite rightly concerned about.
::The issue is that in many parts of Wikipedia, we are not living up to our NPOV premise because people who dissent from a local consensus in that area are systematically chased off, often with bullying, but also with what I would say - assuming good faith - is a bit of blindness to alternatives to that local consensus. To see this problem requires putting in some work because part of the issue is that it's often quite hard to see the issue without digging in. Our articles, even when biased, don't usually (there are exceptions) scream their bias from the rooftops.
::Let me give a small little example, not especially controversial and steering clear of the "culture war" issues of our time (mostly, I mean, almost anything can be dragged into that sphere!). Jack the Ripper ↗. Read it over, it is superficially perfectly fine. But then notice that it doesn't cite The Five: The Untold Lives of the Women Killed by Jack the Ripper ↗ which won the Ballie Gifford Prize ↗ and was shortlisted for the Wolfson History Prize ↗. It's a good book, I've read it.
::Why isn't it cited? The local consensus there decided that the book is "fringe" - mostly because it contradicts/updates a very long historical narrative. Essentially, starting from initial lurid tabloid news reports and continuing through true crime writing for generations, the women were reported to be prostitutes - but the actual historical evidence for that claim is quite thin, and the press of the time aimed at upstanding middle class newspaper readers very often painted the lower classes in disparaging ways.
::It would be fine of course for Wikipedia to '''not take a side''' in this historical debate, but to instead acknowledge and describe the controversy. But we don't. We describe the women as prostitutes and do not cite the most important historical book in recent years which details evidence to the contrary.
::What this amounts to is abandonment of NPOV in favor of substituting in the judgment of a handful of Wikipedians - not something we should be doing.
::I pick this example just because it's one that I know of, but it isn't rare. And in a great many cases, the issue is much more severe because the issue is "hot button" and the people camping out on the articles are ready to immediately proposing sanctions and banning of anyone who crosses them.
::It's a real problem, and a campaign for a greater deal of intellectual diversity is important and a banner I hope many of us will take up. Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:38, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
:::Found Talk:Whitechapel_murders#RFC_Description_of_5_victims_as_prostitutes ↗, technically still ongoing as of January though most of it is from 2020. Perhaps her book has had more response by other historians/academics by now and it's possible to make a new attempt at finding a WP:DUE ↗ place for it? There are several articles that could be of interest, for example all the C5 have their own articles. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:22, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
:::To use your example of the Jack the Ripper article, I see that you have never edited that article or its talk page. You're an editor like everyone else, why don't you get down into the trenches and make some of your points there and on the talk pages of other such articles, or even do some bold editing on them? I'll bet the gatekeepers would be a lot nicer to you, and maybe you could even set a precedent that would have some effect. Or am I being naive? Carlstak (talk) 14:32, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
::::I bought her book and read it, and I also bought another book which is used as a reference. The other book is Holmes, Ronald M.; Holmes, Stephen T. (2002). ''Profiling Violent Crimes: An Investigative Tool''.
::::I fully read her book, but only skimmed the other one because I was dismayed to find out that we treat it as if it's a history book, but it's actually a book that is about exactly what it says that happens to have something about Jack the Ripper in a section toward the end. (Illustrating the concepts of profiling discussed elsewhere). A review of the book in The Journal of Forensic Sciences ↗ says "Although this monograph will be helpful to law enforcement agencies, I cannot recommend it to colleagues in the behavioral sciences. The author makes intermittent state merits that are extremely outdated or completely wrong, thereby casting a shadow of doubtful credibility over other portions of the book."
::::So you are of course correct that it might be useful for me to have gone in to edit it, but at the time I realised that I was probably badly procrastinating on finishing work on my own book, so I set it aside and unfortunately mostly forgot about it until today.
::::And to be clear, I don't think this one amounts to a massive issue. It mostly serves as a useful example for us to have a bit of "epistemic humility" about our work when we are criticized for bias - we do have issues with bias (of course, being human) and there is significant evidence that in some cases we get things very badly wrong. Some of those cases, unfortunately including some really important ones, are difficult to talk about precisely because there are people who are extremely angry and difficult and POV pushing. I hope this example is easier to think through for even those people.
::::And if I get time, I may try to make some edits over there on Jack the Ripper ↗. :-) Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:19, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
:::A new front in the history wars? Responding to Rubenhold’s feminist revision of the Ripper ↗ indicates that she made an impression, the conclusion section is not that long. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:42, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
::::That's a great article. Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:38, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::Added something:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jack_the_Ripper&diff=prev&oldid=1361875348 ↗ Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:17, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::Discussion on that addition: Talk:Jack_the_Ripper#Rubenhold_BRRRD ↗. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 04:27, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
:::::"We describe the women as prostitutes". Specifically, at Jack the Ripper ↗ we describe two of the women as prostitutes: Frances Coles and Elizabeth Jackson. The other victims are not described as such. It's the kind of sloppy writing that paints all the victims as either all prostitutes or all not prostitutes that editors at the article are trying to counter. History is never so neat. The article does not say all the women were prostitutes, nor should it, but nor should it say none of the victims were prostitutes, which misrepresents Rubenhold (who does not say that), nor give undue weight to one work. DrKay (talk) 16:53, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::The article does say "Attacks ascribed to Jack the Ripper typically involved women working as prostitutes". Which may be correct even we subtract Rubenhold's 3. Whitechapel murders ↗ etc is also on-topic. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:56, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::I don't think anyone has proposed that we say either all or none so I'm not sure what your point is. If you're over-interpreting my remarks here, I apologise for any imprecision. The bigger issue is that the article doesn't cite an important book in the field because of a local small consensus that it's "fringe" when it clearly isn't. That's the only point I am making. Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:16, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
:::Sure, but look at the "intellectual diversity" initiatives at US puyblic universities - almost all of which are aimed at crowbarring fringe ideologies into mainstream scholarship. The reason trickle-down and the Laffer curve are not taught as fact in economics is not down to lack of intellectual diversity, it's because they are bullshit. '''Guy ↗''' (help! ↗ - typo?) 11:21, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
If you really are passionate as Larry "has" been, then perhaps you should tell the '''whole''' Board of Trustees and WMF about promoting awareness of "intellectual diversity". ...You're not gonna perform a functionary action ↗ on Larry, are you? George Ho (talk) 17:28, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
:::Hi Jimmy. I've been watching some of the recent discourse about "intellectual diversity" both on Wikipedia and in academia. Seemed like a good a place as any to respond.
:::First, though, I don't think I agree that there's any "abandonment of NPOV" going on. Rather, it's one of many possible applications of NPOV through the imperfect system of deliberation that we have. This place is a process, after all, and sometimes it takes time to get things right (but "right" in the sense of achieving a sort of policy-based equilibrium rather than the Platonic ideal of neutral or objective).
:::I haven't read the book or been involved in that Rubenhold dispute at all, but I wonder if it's gone through a proper RfC? I see one disaster of a section that includes "rfc" in the heading, but it falls far below expectations set out at WP:RFC ↗, with a plainly non-neutral opener and strange proposals that omit the most basic starting points, e.g. inserting a line in the body of the article like "In a 2019 book, Hallie Rubenhold controversially argued against the idea that the women were all prostitutes" (or something like that). Tangentially, it's surprising there is no section in that Whitechapel murders FA that deals with the murders as a whole -- just background, individual cases, and legacy. This doesn't need a grand project in pursuit of intellectual diversity; it needs to properly go through the existing dispute resolution escalation chain.
:::Speaking more generally about "intellectual diversity", the problem with figuring out where to draw the line for which perspectives are worth including is that everybody has a different line, and their own beliefs always happen to fall on the inclusion side. When those aren't included is when "intellectual diversity" becomes a passion project. The reason it gets pushback isn't because anyone at all disagrees with the abstract notion but because in ''advocating'' for it, you're starting from the point that it does not presently exist. Wikipedia has ''extraordinary'' intellectual diversity -- unlike any reference work before it -- and nobody disagrees that it's an essential part of the project. Advocating for intellectual diversity, then, is arguing for one intellectual diversity to replace another intellectual diversity that is more in line with one's own views. And indeed at least one of the items in your list above ({{tq|...then yes of course, a call for intellectual diversity is frequently cover...}}) is precisely one of Larry's major grievances and thus a substantial part of the audience he is recruiting from. That this is so transparently true is why people have been so cynical. (FWIW I disagree with him on an awful lot, but opposed his ban as not in Wikipedia's best interest).
:::That said, we absolutely get some things wrong, and we are currently in a better place in some subjects than others regarding NPOV. But it's not for lack of intellectual diversity. You have the influence around here to lead an alternative approach to reform. Larry's effort began with "what articles ought to say" and sought to reshape Wikipedia to accommodate them. You can start with an ''audit of the system as it is''. Diagnose inconsistencies. Find the contradictions. Maybe not NPOV in the abstract, but narrower guidance like WP:WEIGHT ↗, MOS:LABELS ↗, WP:WTW ↗, WP:BLPCRIME ↗, etc. Present the findings, have some conversations, propose changes. That will be cold comfort for anyone outraged by the state of an article today, but I think it would be more effective for reform. Any of us who have been around a while probably already know a bunch of policies/guidelines that are applied differently in one context from another, whether that be article subject or user edit count (sometimes rightly, sometimes wrongly).
:::I think some folks around here suspect you'll be putting together some writing about Larry's ban. My hope is that it doesn't boil down to "he was wrong on canvassing but right on intellectual diversity". My hope is that, to the extent there's something to support in the best-possible-faith reading of Larry's proposal, you provide an alternative (or better yet, a roadmap to an alternative). Food for thought. — <samp>Rhododendrites talk ↗</samp> \\ 16:26, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
::::I don't agree with you when you say "That said, we absolutely get some things wrong, and we are currently in a better place in some subjects than others regarding NPOV. But it's not for lack of intellectual diversity." I think a lack of intellectual diversity is absolutely an important factor.
::::I do agree with you that an effective path to reform will be about systemic change. I'm not sure what you mean about Larry's effort beginning with "what articles ought to say" but I am happy to assume you're broadly right about that. But I'll just point out that in many cases, the starting point for systemic change will be about looking at what current guidance says '''in relation to what some articles say'''. There are (at least) two kinds of failure: one is if guidelines are sloppy or allow things that aren't neutral, in which case those specific policy pages like MOS:LABELS ↗ will need revising, but the other which is also important is if the broader process means that the written policies aren't being followed. It's important to have evidence of that - an audit of the system as it is has to include that. (To be clear, I don't think you disagree with any of this, I'm just writing more detail to check. Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:23, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

:I don't intend to act directly in any way in this matter nor similar matters. I am here to remind people of our values (all of them) and to advise as best I can about better courses of action. Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:35, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
::@George Ho Just to add, I do talk to the board and to the world to promote awareness of intellectual diversity as a core value of Wikipedia. We all should. Obviously I have many disagreements with Larry - all of which is pretty irrelevant to the broad point: we should not let any disagreement with Larry to poison the idea that Wikipedia is intellectually open and welcoming of constructive consent, and that there should be no ideological litmus test to come and join us. Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:53, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
:::Right now the page {{ld|intellectual diversity}}, which I've nearly hard reset and then started from scratch, may still need re-expansion... but an appropriate re-expansion. The previous revisions were more essay-ish. George Ho (talk) 18:11, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
:::In re to Larry's reply above, I can't help comparing and contrasting Steve Jobs ↗ with Larry. Jobs co-founded Apple and has impacted the world.... Well, in-between, Jobs was forced to step down some time after less than successful first Macintosh ↗ and was reduced to making NeXT Computer ↗s and then NeXT Software ↗ stuff. His then-failing ex-company Apple then acquired low-profile-ish(?) NeXT ↗, and... the rest is history.... including his sudden death.
:::OTOH, the Wikimedia Foundation ↗ has not acquired Larry Sanger ↗'s failing projects and all, and Sanger's endless rhetorics haven't yet stopped. Why should the WMF have bothered? George Ho (talk) 18:39, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
::: So you're good with doxxing administrators as well then, Jimbo, as Larry has said should be done? Black Kite (talk) ↗ 18:46, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
::::This is a loaded question ↗. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 19:10, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
::::: OK then, have you seen the reaction of Larry's far-right mates to the admin that blocked him? The man is toxic. Black Kite (talk) ↗ 19:37, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::No, I haven't seen them. Can you provide links? I can't find them via Google search. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 19:44, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::: See the main discussion page. Black Kite (talk) ↗ 19:48, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::::I did a page search and as far as I can tell the only x.com or xcancel.com links on that discussion page are to Sanger's own posts and nothing from his supporters. @Black Kite: Can you please provide links here, on this page? SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 19:52, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::@SuperPianoMan9167 Elon Musk retweeted it already. EaglesFan37 (talk) 19:54, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::Can you please provide direct links? I'm not on X and there are ''zero'' links to posts by people other than Larry Sanger on that ANI page. (I checked.) SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 19:56, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::@SuperPianoMan9167 Reply to the email I sent you and I can send a screenshot. EaglesFan37 (talk) 20:01, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::::Received. Thanks! I'll try to see if I can find more posts. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 20:30, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::::{{ec}} Welp ↗. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 20:37, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::::That's pretty vague. – robertsky (talk) 19:59, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::I agree and I would just ignore it as not being worthy of response, but for absolute clarity, I do not support doxxing administrators and if Larry has advocated for that (as opposed to random people on X who are termed here as "right wing mates" of Larry, though I doubt that they are mates) then I'm happy to denounce it of course. Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:35, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::As I understand it, Larry believes that admins, check users etc. should have to reveal their identity to hold the position, seeing their influence on the global information landscape. I believe Larry meant for the admins to reveal their identities, ''not'' have the community do all the digging. If the admins consent to revealing such information to hold onto their positions, that would not be doxxing ↗. Mitchsavl (talk) 22:08, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::::That is my understanding as well. I think he's wrong about that (it's a terrible idea and doesn't solve any problem that we actually have while introducing new ones that are horrific to contemplate - imagine admins in authoritarian countries being arrested for insisting on NPOV) but it definitely is very different from advocating doxxing.
:::::::A milder position might be that admins should be required to reveal their identity to the WMF. I haven't given it a lot of thought because I don't see a need for it, but a case could be made that such a requirement might be a defense against state sponsored sleeper accounts working diligently to get power in Wikipedia. I don't think we have a problem with that but yeah, that's at least a rationale that has some conceivable purpose. Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:37, 30 June 2026 (UTC)
::::This is as good a place as any to clarify the facts. Not that I haven’t clarified them before, but I haven’t gone into any detail since the recent unpleasantness began.
::::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) 20:06, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::In that particular Bloomberg article (this one ↗), right after the information that you supported the plan, it says that "Sanger did not respond to requests for comment." SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 20:26, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::He has replied here and so I think people should definitely drop that particular stick.
::::::Let me tell a little story, uncontroversial I think. Today I did an event where I was interviewed on stage. The organizers had prepped some suggested questions for Hannah Fry ↗. One of the questions (not written by her, and she didn't ask this on stage) started: "You proposed integrating ChatGPT into Wikipedia's editorial process — and your own community voted it down." I understand why that is there - there's an otherwise reliable source which made a similar-enough but equally false claim. I protested it to the journalist, who looped in an editor, but in the end they refused to correct it. So - I doubt if Wikipedia makes that claim but it's entirely possible that it could, and if people with an angry axe to grind pushed to make it stick, even though it's misleading and I absolutely take a totally different position, that would obviously be silly. And claiming that the article doesn't show that I disagree with it would be... pointless.
::::::Lots of stuff appears in the media, even reliable sources, which is confused, misleading, often innocently and sometimes out of bias. We can and must exercise thoughtful editorial judgment. Saying that someone supported something when they have clearly explained that they don't, particularly when it reflects negatively on them, is a clear WP:BLP ↗ violation. Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:44, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::::Makes sense. This reminds me of when a bunch of media outlets incorrectly reported you protected Gaza genocide ↗ when it was in fact ScottishFinnishRadish ↗ who placed the protection. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 20:47, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::::{{talk quote|He has replied here and so I think people should definitely drop that particular stick.}} Not until the ongoing subpage about Larry is concluded. ...I think you were referring to that news article, right? Even so, there have been issues about Larry already. George Ho (talk) 21:09, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
::::: I see. And in what way should there be a method of "naming and shaming" powerful editors, other than doxing them? Black Kite (talk) ↗ 20:36, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::: Well, at least you're "honest" https://x.com/lsanger/status/2069157083778347479 ↗ about it. Black Kite (talk) ↗ 20:42, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::If I understand Larry position (which I don't agree with, as I think it completely misunderstands a number of issues) it isn't that anyone should be doxxed, but that going forward, it should be a requirement for certain high level positions that real life identities are publicly disclosed, as policy. Currently it is not possible for perfectly good reasons for board members of the Wikimedia Foundation to be anonymous or pseudonymous. The argument is that some high level community positions should be similar.
::::::That's a really bad idea, but it isn't advocating for doxxing. Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:01, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::::Well Larry has just indicated support for doxxing admins ↗ on Twitter/X, so I think this will soon be over. The ANI discussion is currently in the process of being closed. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 21:13, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::::@Jimbo Wales@SuperPianoMan9167 Basically confirmed now that that's the plan (unsure if that extend to all participants at ANI or not): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Larry_Sanger&diff=prev&oldid=1360660770 ↗ EaglesFan37 (talk) 21:37, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::Even if that wasn't his intention, he flirted so much with doxxing and canvassing that his denials are no longer credible. Since he got flak about those, the proper reaction would have been to avoid any appearance of suggesting doxxing and canvassing. He did not call millions of Hindus to edit Wikipedia neutrally, but to skew it towards flattering their ethnic and religious biases. Wikipedia loves objective knowledge about Hinduism, but it should not be pandering to piety. So, yes, the problem is seeing mainstream academic learning as his enemy. There is of course the charge that stressing rationality and objectivity is a form of colonialism. While that opinion surely can be rendered, it is not normative for editing Wikipedia. E.g., I don't edit in order to promote my ethnicity (Romanian), nor my religion (Einsteinian-Spinozism), nor my countries of citizenship (Romania and the Netherlands). So, in the end, editors of a certain ethnicity or religion should not seek to promote their ethnicity or religion, but just the POVs of mainstream WP:RS ↗. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:32, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::::I can't let this pass. I looked at the post where SuperPianoMan9167 claims that "Larry has just indicated support for doxxing admins". I suppose someone might twist himself into a knot and say that it's hinting at something or other but claiming it expresses support for doxxing, is in my opinion, a dishonest summary of that post. I reached out quietly to urge the retraction but that request failed. Can someone else look at that post and see if they think it's accurate to call it "support for doxxing admins" S Philbrick(Talk) 14:52, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::That's how it reads to me. Carlstak (talk) 15:16, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::Really? Between how Larry reacted to WP:HERITAGEFOUNDATION ↗, Larry writing WP:REVEALLEADERS ↗, and now ''this'' - Larry tweeting a screenshot of an editor expressing genuine fear that everyone who opposed him is going to get doxxed and harassed by his supporters, Larry pointing and laughing saying "they're just now figuring this out", and Larry responding onwiki saying "what I am trying to do is make you accountable to the real world", I am shocked anyone would call it "a dishonest summary" to suggest Larry has expressed support for doxxing Wikipedia admins and/or editors, and I question the judgment of anyone who views that as such a far-off reading that it warrants demanding retractions. This is how most editors read it, and it's part of his ban reason.  Vanilla  Wizard ↗ 💙 ↗ 16:46, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::Yes, that's exactly how I read that Twitter post and its accompanying on-wiki comment as well.
::::::::::(Unrelated note - anybody know why the Reply preview below is showing a pair of square brackets at the end?) SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:55, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::I've continued discussion at Talk:Larry Sanger#I'm gonna leave this here ↗. '''Thebiguglyalien''' (talk) 20:37, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::: (this comment went before ones below, so moving this... —George Ho (talk) 02:29, 23 June 2026 (UTC))
:::::Let's not forget that this is the guy who coined the acronym "GASP" ↗ for, you know, "globalist, academic, secular, and progressive". "Globalist" is a familiar red meat dogwhistle for the MAGA crowd. I think we all know who he means by that. Carlstak (talk) 02:14, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::I don't think that Sanger understands that connotation. In general, I think he has problems understanding what other people understand from what he is saying. E.g., he invited millions of Hindus to "play the game". That would be abiding by WP:NPOV ↗, in his view. But the obvious connotation is that he invited them to skew the POV of the articles about Hindus. He failed to notice it. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:32, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::::Eh, he knows the connotation, that's why he said it. He's been taking lessons from Tucker Carlson. Carlstak (talk) 02:51, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::::I don't think that Sanger is antisemitic. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:10, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::Nope. He is however entirely capable of playing to his audience, and using whatever phraseology meets their approval in a manner that just about meets a minimum level of plausible deniability. At least, it does until you notice the pattern. Sanger's sudden concern for Wikipedia's apparent antipathy regarding Hinduism (which is nothing of the sort - it's antipathy towards concerted efforts by a small minority of Hindu's that engage in relentlessly peddling divisive and fact-free BJP propaganda on Wikipedia) has nothing to do with a newfound interest in religious diversity (not something normally found amongst the Christian right wing), but is instead clearly aimed at winning over further support from the right. The only 'diversity' Sanger is concerned with is picking up support from rightists, wherever they can be found. One week he's pretending to be Martin Luther, the next he's defending the poor persecuted Hindus of India (1.2 billion of them, or abouts) from the evils of a project he claims is run by 60-odd evil admins... AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:37, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::This WP drama did not occur in a political vacuum, and we should not act as if it does. Sanger is a right-wing extremist who laid out his program in his "Wikipedia Is Badly Biased" essay (I'm not linking to his propaganda) in which he rejects the scientific consensus on global warming, the MMR vaccine, and who embraced the phony "scandals" manufactured by the Republican party about President Obama: "Benghazi, the IRS scandal, the AP phone records scandal, and Fast and Furious, to say nothing of Solyndra or the Hillary Clinton email server scandal", yet now he is silent (as far as I can see) on the real scandals of the lawlessness and corruption of Trump and his fascist regime. Sanger doesn't hesitate to resort to racist dog whistles and to fraternize with Nazi-adjacent media personalities when it suits his purposes. The community rightfully kicked him off the platform. I would like to know why Wales supports such a figure. Carlstak (talk) 15:12, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::I support intellectual diversity in Wikipedia. When we are attacked by people who we don't like, people who misbehave in various ways, whether they be Larry or Elon or the Heritage Foundation, we should never use that as an excuse to put our heads in the sand about our own issues, nor should we throw out any good ideas that come from them because they have a tainted source. Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:22, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::I assume that isn't intended as a response to my post, since I don't recall ever being accused of putting my head in the sand regarding the many deeply-embedded structural problems Wikipedia has. As for good ideas, if Larry has presented any recently, it's hard to find them amongst the morass of confused and conflicting proposals he describes as his 'theses'. Likewise, if 'intellectual diversity' is a worthy-sounding objective in the abstract, it certainly isn't in the way that Larry has been framing it. Or more to the point, using it as a slogan to push to the decidedly non-diverse audience he's been seeking out. If one takes Larry at his word, he seems to have three objectives with regard to Wikipedia. (a) To instigate a root-and-branch revision of policy. (b) To fundamentally rewrite or replace much of existing content. And (c) to replace (or dilute to an extreme extent) the existing contributor base. The end result, in the unlikely event that Larry's objectives were carried out, would be a 'Wikipedia' that resembled the current one in name only. Given the complete lack of evidence that more than a very small percentage of the existing readership actually ''want'' such a change, one would have to conclude that Larry's proposals aren't in the interest of said readers. For all its faults (there are many), Wikipedia as it stands, regardless of biases (real and imagined) and/or secret admin cabals etc, seems to have attracted quite a user base, and throwing that away per Larry's WP:OWN ↗ arguments seems ill-advised to say the least. It isn't as if Larry hasn't had ample opportunity to present alternatives. None of which got very far. His latest foray into the topic appears to me to amount to little more than a proposed URL usurpation in effect, and if there is a 'good idea' or two hidden in his profligate waffling and catering to critics who are clearly more interested in silencing Wikipedia than reforming it, it is very likely there by coincidence. Anyone can utter abstract slogans about 'diversity'. They mean nothing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:52, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::I really don't see that evicting a miscreant who spouts racist tropes from a platform that he has no inherent "right" to occupy, a person inimical to its rules, no less, equates to burying "our heads in the sand about our own issues", at all. Carlstak (talk) 15:58, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::::That's good. So let's turn the conversation to those issues to make something productive out of what is otherwise just an unpleasant mess. Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:08, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Which issues are you referring to Jimbo, and why does a discussion of such issues need to revolve around the questionable agenda of an individual the community evidently considers disruptive? Wikipedia's structural problems need consideration on the basis that doing so would be of benefit, and not because one individual has the capacity to raise an almighty stink. You evidently have the clout/social capital to get things discussed, and if you think something merits discussion, you don't need to sidetrack (or even unintentionally disrupt) what should be a considered discussion by bringing Larry's profligate meanderings into such discussions at all. That isn't how we are supposed to do things here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:53, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::::::I don't think a discussion of such issues needs to revolve around Larry. Obviously. I don't even know why you ask me that. Perhaps you've misunderstood something. Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:02, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::About Sanger and Hindus: Sanger understood that pious people don't like what mainstream scholars publish about their religion. So, yup, I got the point that many Hindus were offended. But so were many Muslims and many Christians. We render WP:SCHOLARSHIP ↗. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:10, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::Yes of course that's right, but we should also always be willing to take a hard look at things to see how we can improve. Critics will often push too far, particularly outside critics in a media/social media battleground culture. But critics can also help us to reflect on improvement.
:::::::::::In a recent case, one that is hardly rare, we held an RfC ↗ about the descripton of the film Dhurandhar: The Revenge ↗ as "propaganda" in WikiVoice. News coverage ↗ That it took an RfC to change that is itself symptomatic of a problem. The issue isn't our content policies, but there are clear cases where our processes are inadequate in various ways: in this case we reached the correct policy-based result and removed something that was a clear violation of policy, but it took too long.
:::::::::::We have a firm rule, generally followed, in biographies of living persons ↗ that works reasonably well. The core idea is that some things should be removed '''immediately''' while a discussion happens on the talk page to reach community consensus about whether the sources and policy justify some contentious language. This spirit should reach much wider in Wikipedia because we have cases where language that is clearly outside of policy lasts for much longer than it should.
:::::::::::What has happened in some areas of Wikipedia is that a "local consensus" of frankly POV pushing editors takes the view that the default should be to include the pejorative and that it requires community consensus to remove it. In fact, NPOV demands the opposite - find first the simple language that everyone can agree to, and if there's something more contentious that needs to be done, justify it clearly and hold an RfC if necessary.
:::::::::::I'll just throw in one more thing - the proliferation of "moratoriums" in which a relatively small number of editors lock in something that is clearly not the consensus of the community is a scourge and should be limited. Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:21, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::::(last comment here), imo proposals for moratoriums should only take place at WP:AN ↗, and editors involved in the underlying dispute should make that clear in their !vote (like we do w WP:CBAN ↗), I've been meaning to propose this but haven't got round to it Kowal2701 (talk, contribs ↗) 11:28, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Tht's a really great idea. Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:25, 24 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::::Are "moratoriums" really becoming such a widespread issue? They're fairly rare and only used in exceptional circumstances as far as I'm aware.
::::::::::::There's only one I can think of off the top of my head, and it's the Gulf of Mexico ↗ moratorium on renaming the page to "Gulf of America" or giving the latter name greater prominence (e.g. putting it in the intro/lead). This was done for understandable reasons. The amount of people proposing the same things again and again - no matter how many times these proposals were WP:SNOW ↗ opposed & how recently the last discussions concluded - was becoming completely unmanageable. Talk:Gulf of Mexico ↗ rapidly went from <1 page of talk page history in >20 years to >6 pages in <1 year, and nearly all of these new talk discussions are about the same topic. This is a good example of when a moratorium is absolutely necessary for the sake of not wasting editors' time. These moratoriums don't last forever and have to be re-approved through a new consensus every so often, so I don't see it as {{tq|something that is clearly not the consensus of the community}}.
::::::::::::A very important thing to keep in mind about moratoriums is that they already ''de facto'' exist for any discussion that involves !voting and requires formal closure. Implied moratoriums just don't usually need to be explicitly stated because most people have the sense to understand this and do not need it spelled out to them that an issue's been settled too many times too recently for fresh discussions to be appropriate. For example, if an article is nominated for deletion, and within a week or a month an editor nominates it again, the new deletion discussion can be prematurely closed because the whole point of !voting is to settle an issue. There's a usually-unspoken rule that you shouldn't bring the same article back to AfD for at least 6 months. Same goes for RfCs. If we just had an RfC closed about this or that, and someone comes along and starts a discussion asking the same question that was just answered by the RfC, their discussion will probably be closed. That's a "moratorium" too, just not in name. A formal moratorium only becomes necessary when it's a recurring problem that a consensus isn't being respected. In that sense, a "moratorium" is nothing more than an explicit statement of what was already implied and its only function is to empower editors to more easily enforce an existing consensus.
::::::::::::Are there any specific current moratoriums that you take issue with? And do you disagree that "moratoriums" are already implied to exist for every type of discussion that involves !voting & closure, whether the word "moratorium" is used or not?
:::::::::::: Vanilla  Wizard ↗ 💙 ↗ 15:04, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::: On the other hand, regarding ''Dhurandar'', we wouldn't be holding RfCs about including "propaganda film" in Wikivoice if there wasn't the propensity for some Indian film-makers to ''actually'' create propaganda films under the guise of entertainment; we have a number of articles (i.e. ''The Bengal Files ↗'') where we ''do'' use that label because the sourcing is strong enough to do so. As for moratoriums, they're not idea but in the two examples I'm familiar with at the moment (Gulf of Mexico/Gulf of America and Turkey/Turkiye) they are both naming disputes where the moratoriums are simply there to attempt to stem the incessant flow of editors not familiar with WP:COMMONNAME ↗ from flooding the talk page and wasting other editor's time. There may be others that I'm not aware of, of course. Black Kite (talk) ↗ 06:53, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Czech Republic ↗ and Adam's bridge ↗ are articles where I've supported moratoriums in the past (both expired now, I think). Kyiv ↗ may have had some. "Propaganda" didn't get an rfc at ''Melania ↗'', but it did come up in discussion. There was an rfc, but not about that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:37, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::It seems unlikely that anyone reading or contributing to this discussion hasn't spotted the article ''Wikipedia Is Battling for the Soul of the Internet'' in the NYT (which, ''inter alia'', makes the observation that Wikipedia is "an organization that holds neutrality as a cardinal rule" which has of late been required "to go on the offensive"){{--}}however, in the spirit of liberal ↗ exchange of ideas and information (in the British or "classical" sense meaning "free"), and with an abundance of goodwill, I'm linking it here ↗ for reference. Thanks also for the link to GASP. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 16:54, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for not being a top-down boss. Slatersteven (talk) 11:01, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Here's an example I often use when discussing coverage fairness. In 2020 the White House in Washington, D.C., was attacked one night by a large group of protesters trying to knock down fences, harm Secret Service agents and police, and intending to eventually enter the building. This was accompanied by a church arson. Now, where is the article about this major incident in White House and United States history? Is it at 2020 White House attack ↗, or 2020 White House protest ↗, or....you may or may not be surprised at the spin Wikipedia has taken on the incident. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:00, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

:Was it in response to First Lady Melania Trump redesigning the Rose Garden? That was the only hit for 2020 I got at White House ↗. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:27, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

::Oh man, this made my day.;-) Carlstak (talk) 16:55, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

:@Randy Kryn I'm interested in your example and I confess that I'm not sure what incident you are referring to. I thought for a moment you meant January 6 United States Capitol attack ↗ but that was in 2021. If '2020' was just a small error, that's no problem, but if you did mean the events of January 6, 2021, then I'm curious to hear more about what you mean by "the spin Wikipedia has taken on the incident". Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:27, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

::'''Replying to myself''' - I now realize you probably meant this: George Floyd protests in Washington, D.C. ↗. It would be a very interesting thing to see a full comparison of that and the January 6th article, including comparing to sources, etc. Clearly the two incidents are of a very different nature and magnitude and of course a good look at both articles would need to acknowledge that. I've just glanced over both articles - inadequate I know - but both look pretty good to me. Since you brought it up, you can probably guide me quickly to the more interesting particulars that you have in mind! Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:33, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

:::I actually meant that the stand alone article about the worst attack on the White House since 1814 is Donald Trump photo op at St. John's Church ↗. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:23, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

::::Yes. That is a very odd article. It is unclear to me that the photo op itself is the sort of thing that should have an article, though I could go either way on that. But this article seems to go into a whole bunch of other stuff about the attacks in a way that is confusing. WP:NC ↗ says "The title indicates what the article is about and distinguishes it from other articles," and this title doesn't really very well describe what the article is about at all. (But also, the article isn't about that one night of the protests either.)

::::Having said that, I think the George Floyd protests in Washington, D.C. ↗ article is the main article anyway and seems more or less fine to me. If we were to ask the question - should the section on the particular night you're talking about be expanded and broken out of the broader article, I think that's an interesting question. Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:47, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

:::::Just wanted to point out an example of what might be considered bias, turning the attempted attack on the White House into a criticism of Donald Trump. I try not to become involved in current political issues and articles on Wikipedia, but was involved in this one a few years ago in a losing attempt to link the church arson ↗ mentioned in the lead to Church arson ↗, which someone put up as an RfC question. When the event occurred I and millions of others watched the attack live on television, so am aware of its intensity and seriousness. Trump even had to be moved to shelter, hopefully a rare occurrence for any head of state. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:29, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

discussion close

The discussion just closed with community consensus to ban. Alternative proposals failed to gain consensus. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs ↗) 23:17, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

:Also, the discussion proposing WPID (hmm.... ID = identification, huh?) is now closed as "not created". George Ho (talk) 23:21, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
:Press coverage of ban: New York Post piece ↗ by Ashley Rindsberg ↗.
:It includes the blatantly false statement "The exact reason for his blocking was not given." Which is obviously not true as it's given right on his talk page. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 00:02, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
::The article also calls the project WID. EaglesFan37 (talk) 00:14, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
:::I didn't even notice that. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 00:17, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
::::For supposedly being an "expert reporter on Wikipedia", Rindsberg continues to show a failing to even read the text of what he reports on. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 11:21, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::Well, it's a lot of text to read. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:23, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::While the discussion is a lot of text, the close isn't, and if you are reporting on the matter, I would like to think you know what a close is and are able to identify and read it. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 11:24, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::::Changing topic slightly, I put ''larry sanger banned from wikipedia'' into Google's AI and it told me ''"The blocking process faced brief internal turmoil. Wikipedia's fellow co-founder, Jimmy Wales, initially stepped in to defend Sanger and briefly unblocked his account. However, Wales’ intervention was ultimately unsuccessful. Wikipedia’s decentralized community of volunteer administrators quickly overrode the action, reinstating the permanent indefinite block that evening."'' I don't think he did that, am I wrong? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:19, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
::::::::@Gråbergs Gråa Sång What happened was that an admin prematurely blocked him 7 hours before the 72 hour CBAN discussion window had closed, so another admin (not Jimbo) temporarily reversed the ban. EaglesFan37 (talk) 12:21, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::Yeah, I just managed to click my way to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=User%3ALarry+Sanger&type=block ↗. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:23, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
::Ashley Rindsberg has made an entirely career out of making things up about Wikipedia. If he's upset about what you're doing, you're probably doing something right. '''Thebiguglyalien''' (talk) 00:22, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
:::I once got called out for reverting misgendering and deadnaming ↗ on 2025 Annunciation Catholic Church shooting ↗ so I must be doing something right. At least Ashley correctly noted that I was following MOS:DEADNAME ↗. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 00:25, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Attempted but self-reverted closure by Aunva6

The <s>below is</s> above was closed by {{noping|Aunva6}}. --George Ho (talk) 19:54, 23 June 2026 (UTC); updated, 21:22, 23 June 2026 (UTC)
:It is. I'd like to know why anyone would consider it remotely appropriate to arbitrarily close an ongoing discussion on another contributor's talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:05, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Start a newer thread then?

If we're gonna continue discussing "intellectual diversity", shall we then do so at a newer thread? BTW, the less we mention Larry and his failed pet project, the better. Right? Also, this thread is getting longer. —George Ho (talk) 16:41, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

:Newer related discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#Adapting_some_form_of_Sanger's_fourth_thesis_for_neutrality? ↗. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 04:15, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
::That thread hasn't yet mentioned "intellectual diversity", has it? Also, how is that related to "intellectual diversity" itself? George Ho (talk) 05:10, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
:::That thread speaks of NPOV and Larry Sanger, and User:Larry Sanger/WikiProject Intellectual Diversity speaks of NPOV and "genuine neutrality". To me, that's "related." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:27, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
::::"intellectual diversity" ≠ "neutral point of view" (or "genuine neutrality"), does it? Isn't intellectual diversity a diversity of intellects or ideals or viewpoints... Wait, that's "viewpoint diversity", isn't it? Even "viewpoint diversity" ≠ "neutral point of view", huh? George Ho (talk) 06:35, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
:::::What intellectual diversity is (or ''should be'') in the WP-context seems to be somewhat disputed. Seems to be related to NPOV though. If you want to start a new thread to continue discussing "intellectual diversity" somewhere, do that. Village pump (miscellaneous) might be as good a place as any, but I don't know what you intend to write. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:45, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
::::::Unfortunately, as you said, the meaning of "intellectual diversity" is up in the air. Right now, I'm still awaiting another AFC review on {{ld|intellectual diversity}}. Meanwhile, hopefully, someone else can raise the "intellectual diversity" issue at VPM better than I. George Ho (talk) 08:00, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
:::::::I read that draft, it looked quite decent. It doesn't help me very much on the "What intellectual diversity is (or should be) in the WP-context" though (not that it's supposed to). I get the sense of something newspeak/buzzword-ish that, like "neutral", often means "stuff I agree with." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:28, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
::::::::I'm unsure that {{tq|something newspeak/buzzword-ish}} reflects what "neutral" is actually. WP:SOURCEBIAS ↗ and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV ↗ should already address this, i.e. counter the definition "stuff I agree with", right? George Ho (talk) 18:15, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Share your view on the Signpost!

Hi Jimbo, looking through the discussion around Larry Sanger and the communities response, you have provided great insight into the situation and the issues that you perceive with the current state of Wikipedia and the way policy is practiced by editors. I think that, if you are up to it, you should share your view in an opinion article for ''The Signpost'', as I see your perspective as valuable for the movement, with an article there being the best way to communicate it. If you do decide to do this, follow the instructions in the newsroom ↗. Mitchsavl (talk) 11:37, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

:Thanks for the idea. I might just do that. Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:49, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
::The next issue is currently tabled for the twelfth, so if you would like to get your opinion published then, you’ll have to get it in soon. Mitchsavl (talk) 21:27, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Larry Sanger, the Heritage Foundation, and doxxing

Jimmy, read Larry's response to this:
: "On Jan. 7, the Forward, an American-Jewish news organization, reported on an alleged Heritage Foundation plot to “identify and target” Wikipedia editors working on pages about the Middle East that were labeled anti-Semitic. The Heritage Foundation didn’t respond to a request for comment from Bloomberg News."1 ↗

Larry's response? He supported the Heritage Foundation:
: "However, Sanger, the other Wikipedia co-founder, who has frequently criticized the website for being too left-wing, backed the Heritage Foundation’s alleged targeting of editors on the social media platform X. “Admins and those with significant authority in the system should be as easily named and shamed as any ordinary journalist,” he wrote. Sanger did not respond to requests for comment."

I don't trust Larry. Heritage is a far-right, nationalist, ultra-conservative Christian Taliban-type organization. Give them the power, and they'll start stoning adulterous women (not men) and disobedient children to death. Their version of "intellectual diversity" would mean to give them such power, and to allow them to advocate such views at Wikipedia. — Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:24, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

:Unsure whether it's enough grounds for global ban, but <s>his favoring the doxxing by the Heritage Foundation is still very alarming. Makes me wanna propose a such ban at Meta-Wiki soon.</s> George Ho (talk) 04:49, 1 July 2026 (UTC); corrected, 19:51, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
::Larry hasn't been editing on any other parts of the Project since his enwiki ban, so I am not sure what a global ban would accomplish, other than being a performative measure. -- Aunva6 ↗talk ↗ - contribs ↗ 14:29, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
::George, why do you keep saying that Larry has been "favoring the doxxing by the Heritage Foundation"? I think he has made it clear that he does not favor doxxing anyone. His position - and please do direct me to anything that will correct me if I'm wrong - is that we should change policy so that a requirement for adminship is to use a real public identity. That isn't doxxing. I think it's a bad idea, as I have said quite clearly, but I think is is in no way appropriate to misrepresent his position. Addendum: This is pretty clear ↗]: "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." I will assume good faith here and assume that you didn't see this, but please do clarify for us all? --Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:31, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
::: Okay, okay. He may not have favored the doxxing, but the following still makes me cautious: {{talk quote|but I did say that there needed to be some way to name and shame powerful editors.|by=Larry Sanger|ts=20:06, 22 June 2026 (UTC)}} As for your suggestion, revealing names of thousands of admins to the WMF isn't what I'm favoring at this time. I mean, ''thousands'' from all language sites... George Ho (talk) 19:51, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
::: I posted this ↗ link in the conversation above, which shows that even if he doesn't ''actively'' support doxxing, he is well aware that his fellow travellers on the far-right ''will'' do that and he doesn't have a problem with it. Black Kite (talk) ↗ 20:00, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
::::To me, this reads as him making a bit of a joke with the tweet. I do think that threats of doxxing the admin that enacted the premature ban should be taken more seriously. I can see how you got that impression, but I'm not convinced that he {{!xt|doesn't have a problem with it}}, but rather that he used his sarcastic style of humor in a situation where it's best not to.
::::Larry has stated on this talk page that he '''does not support doxxing''', though I think if he hasn't already, to make his position clear on X and other platforms, especially since even if he is joking, it can still have an influence on the actions of his followers, and perceptions held by critics. Mitchsavl (talk) 10:51, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
:::::The thing is Larry has to say he does not support doxxing or he will open himself to lawsuits, addition doxxing being one of the biggest faux pas on the internet that even many people in his political aligned don't agree with, openly at least. Its hard to have good faith when Larry has made a bunch of statements similar to the above, while also a lot pretty open trolling, while also having a ideology that everyone names should be public. Bobbobet (talk) 00:17, 5 July 2026 (UTC)
::::::Its just an opinion though. Correct me if I am missing something he wrote that I am not aware of, but Sanger, from what I have personally seen, has never advocated for actual doxxing, but simply advocated for a policy change in Wikipedia that would make it necessary for future admins to reveal their identity to become admins, as well as possibly making it necessary for current admins to reveal their identity to remain admins. At least that is my understanding. I have mixed feelings about it too, so I am not totally in favor of this particular solution of his, but do think Wikipedia could use some transparency. SpidersMilk, Drink Spider Milk, it tastes good. (talk) 16:27, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
:::::::That's exactly the same understanding as I have. I think people are very very wrong to be saying "Aha but all he ever said is that he's never supported it, he didn't actually say he opposes it." That's just a nonsense way to analyse any situation. Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:50, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
:::::::: It still comes down to what he DID say: "some way to name and shame powerful editors." That is a totally repugnant idea and jusitifies his siteban. I hope you can at least say a resounding YES to that. If not, we are all truly fucked. Here we focus on the edit, not the editor. As long as the editor is, in good faith, editing neutrally, we judge the edit on its quality, not the editor.
:::::::: Larry's sentiment is very unwikipedian, but then again, he is against Wikipedia. The only version of Wikipedia he would like is one that plays bothsidism, allows false balance and the use of unreliable sources, and treats far-right sources that push lies and conspiracy theories as worthy of inclusion. That's BS. Not all opinions are equal, and we favor those from reliable sources.
:::::::: Wikipedia's credibility is on the line, and Larry's ideas would make it much worse. His solution is to name and shame editors whose edits differ from <s>MAGA</s>. He wants to create a chilling atmosphere that would control editors through the use of fear. That's the clear meaning of his words. There is actual research about what increases Wikipedia's credibility, and blocking Larry just increased it. Blocking fringe editors increases it immediately. This has been measured and solutions proposed. Read about it '''here ↗.''' -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:17, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::Larry was not banned for promotion of fringe theories or right-wing viewpoints. He was banned for off-site canvassing. Whether or not that increases Wikipedia's credibility is irrelevant, because our goal is to build an encyclopedia, not to win praise or look good. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 23:55, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::Also, @Valjean, by mentioning MAGA you are violating your topic ban from "Donald Trump, broadly construed". SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 23:59, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::: Duly stricken. Am I allowed to breathe, because that too would likely violate it? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:02, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::Sorry, but "MAGA" as an adjective exclusively refers to Trump. (wikt:MAGA#Adjective ↗) SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 01:03, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::: I see your point, although I was referring to supporters. I didn't know they were off-limits. I'll be more careful. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:09, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::{{!xt|Larry's sentiment is very unwikipedian...}} Wikipedians are in no way confined to specific perspectives; I strongly disagree with this statement as I don't believe Wikipedians are homogenous enough to have universal beliefs to go against.
:::::::::{{!xt|That is a totally repugnant idea and jusitifies his siteban.}} I don't think it does. While it is an idea that I am not the biggest fan of by any means, I don't believe this goes anywhere near the threshold of a bannable belief, and if the Wikipedia Community justifies it as such, it would set the groundwork for the stratification ↗ of knowledge and ideas to far more extreme levels than what we have today, and in the very opposite direction of the conglomeration ↗ of information an encyclopedia is supposed to be. I believe that large part of why a lot of the "right wing" media is unreliable comes from discounting ideas which they don't agree with, ridiculing them, and silencing those dissenting voices from their platforms. If we go down the path of banning people for ideas, we risk becoming something more akin to a "crowdsourced leftist version of the ''Daily Mail ↗"'', which is something we should avoid. Mitchsavl (talk) 02:42, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::I see no reason for not allowing far right sources, because after all, the solution to allowing far right sources is to also allow far left sources, which will balance each other out. If you don't like someone citing Newsmax, then you can always counter it with The Young Turks. Sanger does have a point, and all one has to do is look at certain articles, especially on the Israel/Gaza topic, to know just how one sided things are. If they want to ban sources connected with the IDF then fine, but in that case they should also ban sources connected with Qatar's government and Iran's dictatorship like Al Jazeera. SpidersMilk, Drink Spider Milk, it tastes good. (talk) 03:36, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::Removal of WP:RS ↗ would destroy Wikipedia. You don't fight disinformation with more disinformation. The way to improve articles with WP:NPOV ↗ issues is by going in and working on them. Bobbobet (talk) 19:44, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::The problem with the "reliable sources" policy is that it is based on human judgement, which is prone to biases based on one's own ideology. Those who lean right would have a bias toward Fox News, and those who lean far right would have a bias toward Newsmax. On the other end, those who lean left would have a bias toward CNN, and those who lean far left would have a bias toward The Young Turks. There is no objective metric that everyone can agree on, at least none that I am aware of, and thus, Wikipedia should present both sides, as Sanger has argued for years, and as Wales is now beginning to increasingly support as well with the Gaza and Israel articles. Wikipedia seems to have increasingly departed from the intentions of both Wales and Sanger, especially post 2020. SpidersMilk, Drink Spider Milk, it tastes good. (talk) 21:04, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
:::::I know what I'm about to say sounds like splitting hairs, but Larry has never said anywhere that he is against doxxing, he only denied stating that he said he supports it. That sounds like a distinction without a difference, and in most contexts it certainly would be. But Larry's support for doxxing is on the list of reasons why there was a consensus for the community to show him the door. It's really, really hard to look at the tweets he posted during the CBAN discussion as anything other than him supporting doxxing, outing, whatever you prefer to call it. Not just supporting it, but explicitly acknowledging that a) his fans are the type of people who would do that / his actions are making it more likely to happen, and b) in Larry's own words, that's exactly what he wants to happen, it's what he's "trying to do". The result of the CBAN discussion should have settled the questions of whether or not Sanger is acting in good faith and whether he supports doxxing, the answers being no and yes respectively. He can say he's never said he supports it, and we must take that into consideration and adjust his BLP page accordingly. But here, where we're just discussing on a non-article talk page whether he supports it or not, yes he obviously does.  Vanilla  Wizard ↗ 💙 ↗ 13:07, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
::::::I am not persuaded one bit by this line of reasoning. Not one bit. Larry has been very clear that he did not support the doxxing agenda of the Heritage Foundation. I don't know where you get the idea that it's "splitting hairs here". He didn't just deny saying that he supports it, he denied supporting it. Drop the stick, the horse is dead. "But that does not mean I support doxxing people who rely on their anonymity in the system. If the journalist thought I was saying so, she was mistaken, and that was poor journalism. What I would have meant, if I said that at all, is that I support something like Thesis 6—which see! In other words, persons with significant authority should be required (as a condition of their higher degrees of authority) to reveal their names, so that they take real-world responsibility for words and decisions that do, after all, have real-world effects. This is simply common sense. " Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:52, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
:::::::Exactly what I got from reading Sanger's proposal. That is not doxxing at all, but simply a policy change. If the policy never changes, then no identities will be revealed, and even if it does change, the implication is that the admins would have to consent to having their identities revealed to remain in their position. Doxxing is the non-consensual revealing of a person's identity. SpidersMilk, Drink Spider Milk, it tastes good. (talk) 18:02, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
:::::I would tend to concur with @Bobbobet and @Vanilla Wizard—the fact of stating that one is against doxxing (which, as Vanilla has pointed out, may not even accurately describe what Sanger does) need not be taken into account if one's actions clearly contradict those claims. If you claim to hate meat-eating while simultaneously supporting people who explicitly love eating meat and never claiming that you don't want to eat meat but only that you never SAID you wanted to eat meat, one might suspect that your claim to hate meat-eating is insincere. Given his history, I think it's over-generous to continue to AGF. LieutenantZipp (talk) 14:58, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
::::::I don't even think that analogy is persuasive at all. I mean, seriously. I have a vegan friend who I think it is safe to say hates meat-eating. She's still my friend even though I love meat-eating. And the idea that he only said that he never said he supported doxxing is just factually 100% false. He said and I quote: "I didn’t agree with that plan". Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:54, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
::::::: It's not a good analogy. A better one would be someone who claims to be against shooting game birds whilst loading the guns for the shooters, but not actually firing themselves. Black Kite (talk) ↗ 18:16, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
:::::::: Black Kite, that's an excellent analogy. He supports it when others do it, and his "name and shame" words incriminate him. He wants a chilling atmosphere to reign here. He wants focus on the editor, not the content or sourcing. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:16, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
This entire sorry episode shows a major weakness at WP:ANI ↗. Supposedly a page watched over and controlled by administrators, at the moment that the Sanger thread veered into wanting an indef an administrator should have stepped in and either given Larry Sanger a 24-hour block, or not even that, just to tell him that when mentioning a project thread outside of Wikipedia maybe don't link it. The very brief comment that contained what editors criticized as canvassing wasn't a full-scale attempt to flood the zone by Larry Sanger but a simple "Here's what's going on" type of wording. One or more administrators, reading the escalating pile-on that ensued, should have noted that Sanger's block log was clean, given him a reminder not to go full outside canvas, and shut the thread down. Instead, well, the rest is history, and at the very least shows that ANI is broken when it comes to administrative control over the numerous rapidly escalating punishment discussions which occur there. As for doxxing, no, Sanger didn't do that, and, again, one or more administrators should have recognized that and quickly stopped the aspersions. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:42, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

:The ANI isn't that "broken" as you think, especially considering how "pro"-Sanger you may have been. Now that we have WP:RECALL ↗ (unrelated), that would take perhaps multiple ANI threads before taking a problematic admin to a recall. Meanwhile, a non-admin editor like Sanger can be either easy... or hard to handle, depending on various circumstances. Well, it's not as if a problematic editor is an ArbCom-like case, is it?
:{{talk quote|administrative control over the numerous rapidly escalating punishment discussions}} Were you referring to primarily admin handling itself or proposals on certain problematic editors like Sanger? George Ho (talk) 17:54, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
:Our process, messy as it was, worked—we booted a non-contributing editor who spouted racist tropes and dog whistles off the project, which he assiduously disrupted. Good job, WP community. Carlstak (talk) 18:47, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
:I think some thing that can be easily misunderstood, especially how hard it can be to read the discussion flow, but one of the main reasons Sanger was banned was not just due to canvassing, but because Sanger said, at least from my reading of his response, was basically him declaring himself above following policy and promising he will not follow policy in the future, while declaring WP:CANVASS ↗ does not even exists.
:Someone bringing up a genuine concern and then the accused declaring they are WP:NOTHERE ↗ resulting in a ban when otherwise the sanction would be much less severe is surprisingly common on WP:ANI ↗. Bobbobet (talk) 19:38, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
::Not as much pro-Sanger as pro-not indeffing one of Wikipedia's pioneers over one pretty small post off-site. An admin could have stepped in at any time, stopped the discussion when the crowd began to gather, and had a good talk with Sanger and maybe a 24-hour penalty box. It did not have to escalate, which it often does at ANI. I'd think one of the admins monitoring the discussion would have recognized the ANI tendency to escalate from the original charge, realize that the editor had a clean block record, and stepped in and ended it when it became evident that some editors were going for an indef. That's all I mean about the system being broken. ANI escalation is a known thing, and happens way more than it should, in my opinion. Especially when it turns into aspersions and/or assuming intent, which go together in many cases. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:34, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
:::&ast;sigh&ast; If you still insist, then why not please go to WP:AN ↗ to appeal Larry's ban? Why spouting your so-called {{tq|pro-not indeffing}} remarks here, especially about {{tq|ANI escalation}}? ...Wait, does WP:banning policy ↗ allow third-party editors to appeal the ban? George Ho (talk) 06:08, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
::::No. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:43, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

One structural note. Due to the (necessary-in-our-system) structure, when we get into editor conduct issues, the rules are so vague and the process for adding structure to such discussions so absent, that the Wikipedia system for those situations is basically mob rule. Perfect if the mob wants to get somebody with views opposite their own lynched for an offense too small for that. We could benefit from some structural/systemic fixes. Sincerely, ''North8000'' (talk) 23:03, 8 July 2026 (UTC)
: That sounds very much like "a large group of people making a decision I agree with is consensus, but a large group of people making a decision I don't agree with is mob rule". Black Kite (talk) ↗ 06:45, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
:: Or more accurately, "consensus" which has no mechanism to be bound by principals is mob rule. --Kyohyi (talk) 12:19, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
::Black Kite, that's a pretty bad faith invention from a sincere observation on our system. Imagine if a real trial consisted of just a self-selected group of people having a discussion on what should happen to a person. Vague laws, unlimited choice of penalties available for even the smallest violation, no judge, no structure. Sincerely, ''North8000'' (talk) 12:27, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
::: Well, you have stated that the people involved in the discussion wanted "to get somebody with views opposite their own lynched", so where's the good faith there? Black Kite (talk) ↗ 12:47, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
::::I gave it as a part of a general case statement, but even if taken as implying being about this situation, it was not about anybody in particular. Sincerely, ''North8000'' (talk) 17:33, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
:::::Not about anybody in particular, just everyone you call "the mob", ie, those editors whose opinion formed the consensus. Carlstak (talk) 17:39, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
:::::That doesn't sound particularly believable, but of course if it is true you will be able to provide many more examples of a mob getting an editor indeffed "for an offense too small". Please list them here. Black Kite (talk) ↗ 18:17, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
::::::North's wording is unhelpfully over the top, but I do think he gets at a weak point in the structure of ANI. ANI is really good for dealing with obvious trolls, and medium difficulty behavioral challenges. But it's a known issue that ANI struggles to deal with unblockables and complex matters. That's one reason ArbCom retains relevance. In the other direction, it is easy for discussions at ANI to become a pile-on. A similar phenomenon happens at RFA, where just a few too many votes either direction can suddenly drive large numbers of votes, creating a lopsided outcome that ensures in-group homogeneity. Few people have the courage to be the odd man out. Now, I think Larry was toast anyways, but I wouldn't miss a chance to reflect on the ways that ANI works well and the ways it doesn't. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ ↗ 19:55, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
:::::::Just to emphasize, my comment and motivation was about structure and processes, not Sanger. My knowledge about his situation is much more limited. ''North8000'' (talk) 12:45, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
::::::::Well, the trade-off is bureaucracy. And I don't think comparisons to a judicial system are apt, it is a community system, and there is no life, limb, property, or imprisonment, at issue. In form, it is like a town hall meeting where people put forth their (hopefully rational arguments on policy, evidence, and arguments on remedy) and then they are summed up by an uninvolved, hopefully neutral administrator who sees if there is a consensus on what to do within policy. We do have a more formal system at Arbcom, but there are also dissatisfactions with that. Is either a great system, are there any great systems, and what would they be. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:18, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
:There seems to be consensus among people defending Sanger that they need to be obfuscate facts in order to claim the ban as unjust. Sanger was not banned because of one tweet, he canvassed multiple times, even after being told not to, including on a major news orgs podcast. Sanger response to this accusation was arguing he didn't break the rules because he didn't recognize the rules and will continue what he is doing. This isn't complicated. If you declare you didn't break rules while nakedly doing so while declaring themselves as WP:NOTHERE ↗, results in a indef. This isn't a minor mistake people pouncing on to ban someone they don't like. Bobbobet (talk) 17:57, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
::In Sanger's interpretation, it wasn't canvassing. But it is the interpretation of the Wikipedia Community which matters. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:30, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Nice to meet you!

Nice to meet you at WMUK's Big Birthday! A couple of links:

The Guardian article ↗ that I think contributed to the award I got & more on the challenge is here

Wikidata:WikiProject Smell ↗ (which i think I saw you raise an eyebrow at with interest)

Happy cooking! ↗

Lajmmoore (talk) 19:06, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

:It's amazing how I somehow missed "an article for at least one woman from every country in the world" since I love that kind of stuff!
:I'll have a... sniff around (ha!) the other links! Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:02, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

"intellectual diversity ↗" now an article

Just to notify you: {{la|intellectual diversity}}. George Ho (talk) 21:15, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
:Perhaps Jimbo might like to comment in the thread I started on the talk page, regarding whether the article actually has a clear topic at all or is concocting one out of diverse sources that use the phrase 'intellectual diversity' to mean several entirely different things. To quote your lede: "The definition and usage of this term have varied over time". That's not 'a term', it's two words found next to each other. It's possible that in later years, and ''in one particular context'' there is some sort of vague agreement about what this two-word phrase might mean, but even that doesn't make the two-words-together-occurrence a topic in of its own right, as far as I can see. Certainly not one that makes out that usages entirely beyond this particular discourse (the usual repetitive US-focussed academic 'culture wars' one) are actually discussing the same thing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:29, 10 July 2026 (UTC)