The Signpost

File:Queen lewis chessmen fragment 2.JPG
Finlay McWalter
CC BY SA 3.0
50
300
News and notes

An exclusive club

Contribute   —  
Share this
By Bri, Smallbones, Pine, and HaeB

Larry Sanger community-banned

portrait
See also this issue's In the media

Larry Sanger, known to many as the co-founder of Wikipedia, was banned by the Wikipedia community following a lengthy discussion on June 22, under accusation of canvassing his 90,000 followers via X (formerly Twitter) to support his proposed WikiProject Intellectual Diversity (WPID).

Sanger has a long history of confrontation with Wikipedia. Over the last two years, he has been campaigning against Wikipedia's purported lack of a neutrality policy and against the Reliable sources noticeboard page that sometimes deprecates sources as being generally unreliable. His campaign took place on Fox News and other right-wing news sources, some of them deprecated.

Sanger was banned as the result of an WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents complaint, which was closed on 22 June. The closer offered this rationale:

There is clear consensus for a community ban of User:Larry Sanger. There is general agreement among participants that he has engaged in off-wiki canvassing and is not here to constructively build the encyclopedia. There is also a significant concern shared by many editors that his actions constitute calls for outing.

The only alternate sanctions that gathered significant support were a topic ban or partial block generally intended at forcing him to engage constructively with articles or avoid project space discussions. These alternate sanctions did not reach consensus.


— ScottishFinnishRadish, WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, Special:Diff/1360671935

The ban – itself not without contention over procedure, but reinstated by a second administrator after a 10-hour interval to allow the discussion clock to run out – follows years of Sanger's on-and-off involvement in the community, from the beginning of Wikipedia.
SB

Wikimania

TKTK
Wikimania 2026 logo
TKTK
Go somewhere northeast of la Tour Eiffel. Kscolan PD

Wikimania 2026 will be held in Paris from 21 to 25 July under the banner of Liberté, Équité, Fiabilité (Liberty, Equity, Reliability). In-person tickets have been sold out – with a very long waiting list – but everybody can register online for free virtual attendance at the registration site until 24 hours before the event. Videos will be streamed live on YouTube and Eventyay, with the latter offering a monitored chat for remote participation.

Some notable differences from previous Wikimanias include a serious emphasis on security and a fairly academic tone to the program. In-person attenders had to first request an invitation and then wait for up to two weeks to hear whether they passed a security check. The actual name and location of the venue has not been disclosed online except that it is in Northeast Paris near the number 7 metro line.

The program can be found here. Presenters are listed together on one page, but without the title of their presentations. You'll recognize several names from earlier Wikimanias or from reading Wikipedia, Diff, or The Signpost. Other presenters appear to have predominantly academic, tech, or perhaps government backgrounds. – S, H

Brief notes

Queen, reproduction from the Lewis chess set. Finlay McWalter, CC BY-SA 3.0
Signpost
In this issue
+ Add a comment

Discuss this story

These comments are automatically transcluded from this article's talk page. To follow comments, add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can try purging the cache.

Larry Sanger

  • Yawn, Randy. He instead spent the past 20 years trying to get Wikipedia taken down or conforming to his pseudoscience conspiracy nonsense views. And his recent attempt included not only canvassing, but also calling for the outing of all Wikipedia administrators, despite well known events of even regular outed Wikipedia editors being jailed in repressive dictatorships. SilverserenC 17:04, 13 July 2026 (UTC)reply
  • "Calling for" and "getting" are two vastly different things, and seriously, putting forward an idea is now indef worthy? And even this 'calling for' has been disputed and disproved on Wales' talk page. The only one of Sanger's recent ideas that he tried to implement was to get rid of WP:IGNOREALLRULES, and this was, as it should have been, roundly defeated. In simple terms, Sanger was more or less indeffed for what editors thought he may do in the future, a kind of pre-crime Philip K. Dickish move. As mentioned above, one of our hundreds of administrators could have put a stop to the thread on ANI with a simple reprimand and a short ban for outside canvassing, especially if they noticed the discussion had started to escalate into an all-purpose tar and feathering of a Wikipedia pioneer. Possibly including, and somewhat resulting from perception, aspersions, and an opening to rid Wikipedia of what editors imagined as a disruptive influence, some believed that Sanger was endangering the project. He was not, as his failure to delete IAR proved. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:57, 14 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Randy Kryn's depiction above bears zero resemblance to the actual reasons Larry Sanger was blocked. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Possible off-wiki canvassing by User:Larry Sanger'
The actual reasons were:
  1. Engaging in off-wiki canvassing -- Inviting hundreds of his twitter followers and reader of an Indian social media page to come to Wikipedia and stack the !vote
  2. Not being here to constructively build the encyclopedia.
  3. Calling on his thousands of followers to out Wikipedia administrators.
And, BTW "putting forward an idea" has always been worthy of a block. Just try "putting forward the idea" that all blacks and jews should be executed or that the law should allow sex with children and see how fast you get blocked. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:55, 16 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Ideas about improving Wikipedia, but you know what I meant. As for zero resemblance, we must have read and followed different discussions and links, just re-read the thread or at least its first few hours before an editor came up with "indef". Sanger's not stupid, he probably got the message during those few hours. At that point the often repeated and arguably exaggerated claims and aspersions begin to drive the comments, perceptions, and reasoning of many commenting editors. To separate accuracy from jumping on a runaway bandwagon should be one of the jobs of administrators monitoring their own noticeboards to assure, in a perfect world, that out of proportion claims do not escalate while handling the overall situation with a talk page discussion and a short lesser block, especially for long-time Wikipedians who have a clean block record. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:36, 16 July 2026 (UTC)reply
If you think his record was clean, I have a bridge to sell for you. WMF has blocked people without our input in the past in regards to off wiki harassment. – The Grid (talk) 13:07, 16 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Yes, Sanger had a clean block log before the indef. So about that bridge you'd like to sell for me, I'll give you a 20% commission, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:22, 16 July 2026 (UTC)reply
As long as you are moving the goalposts to make your case appear stronger (The Grid clearly stated "if you think his record was clean" and you pretended that he said "if you think his block log was clean" -- even silently editing your original post to gaslight The Grid and make it look like you had been talking about the log all the time[1]), let's clear up another detail that you got wrong. Larry Sanger was not Indefinitely blocked. If you had bothered looking at his block log he has previously been indefinitely blocked twice, once 16 years ago and once last month, and both were undone as being improper blocks. Most recently he was banned by the Wikipedia community (WP:CBAN).
As explained at Wikipedia:Banning policy:
"Bans are different from blocks, which are used by administrators to technically prevent a user account or IP address from editing Wikipedia. Blocks are used chiefly to deal with immediate problems such as vandalism, disruptive editing or edit warring. A ban, on the other hand, does not technically prevent editing; however, blocks may be used to enforce bans."
So please use the correct term, which is "community banned" or "received a WP:CBAN" instead of the incorrect "indeffed". --Guy Macon (talk) 19:22, 16 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I was talking about the block log all along, and thought that Grid was as well, what else is a "record" aside from the block log? Sanger's was clean, aside from a mistaken block that was changed within minutes. And yes, he has been indeffed no matter what name you use, and "indef" was what editors were calling for in the discussion. Please lay off the aspersions. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:12, 16 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Everybody but you thinks that your record on Wikipedia consists of your entire edit history and that your block log consists of any blocks that a wikipedia administrator has imposed on you. You can even be blocked without making a single edit. Happens all the time. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:50, 17 July 2026 (UTC)reply
  • I think I can speak for more than just myself when I say I voted to indef Sanger, rather than simply warn him, because he was making credible threats to endanger Wikipedia and its individual editors. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:24, 13 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Wikimania

As I have requested on pretty much every Wikimania for years, I call for the WMF to publish a detailed accounting of how much this Wikimania is costing the donors who are paying for it. With names of individuals redacted, of course. Adding a section on what the objective benefits are would be a nice addition. Even nicer would be a section documenting any bad effects from cancelling Wikimania during Covid. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:44, 13 July 2026 (UTC)reply

I have witnessed and endured the changes at this year's Wikimania in Paris, and it is truly disheartening.

Let’s start toalking about money and organization. I should mention that I have attended two previous Wikimanias: London in 2014 and Esino Lario in 2016. On both occasions, I paid for all my expenses out of my own pocket. I was accompanied by my wife and two sons, and I covered their costs as well. I do this because Wikimedia is a voluntary activity for me, and I believe I should pay my own way. As a side note: at a meeting in Esino, I asked if anyone else had paid for their own expenses. The look of surprise on people's faces was indescribable—they wouldn't have been any more astonished had I asked for representatives from Wikimedia Uranus.

This year I applied for a grant to attend, mainly just to secure a ticket. At first (back in February, I think), I was told that my application had been rejected. That’s just how life goes! I have other things to do—responsibilities, commitments, and a life of my own—so I simply made other plans. When I received an email months later (in June, I believe) saying I’d been awarded the scholarship and that I had to answer in two days time, I simply couldn't go. The thing is—and I can't stress this enough—I have a life, and I can't just put it on hold.

I should add that my first impulse after the refusal was to buy the tickets and head straight to Paris. Paris is a fourteen-and-a-half-hour drive from where I am sitting now, and I am capable of doing the drive—I’ve done it many times. But the idea of ​​just paying my way was quickly abandoned because all available information indicated—with every source saying the same thing, including several official sources from the Organization and the Chapters—that there were no tickets. Punto-pelota!

So far, I have addressed two issues. One that you have already discussed: who is paying for all this. And another that you haven't discussed, but which is also infuriating: the very poor organization.

Now, let’s turn to the subject of security. I’ve been looking into this, and in the state of Ohio—with the exception of the city of Toledo—police officers patrol alone. In France (and in many other European countries—at least in Spain, Germany, and the United Kingdom), the standard practice is to patrol in pairs; think, for instance, of the classic Spanish Civil Guard patrols: “la pareja de la Guardia Civil”. Furthermore, in France, as an extra precaution, many public spaces are patrolled by a special unit known as the CRS, who operate in groups of three. You see them quite often. Needless to say, firearm laws in France are nothing like those in the United States. Consequently, the situation in Ohio differs significantly from the situation in Paris. Other things can happen, of course, because there is always the risk of encountering some heartless individual. But establishing an entirely new security paradigm because of the actions of some moron in El Quinto Pino is truly disproportionate. I am well aware that risks do exist—they always do. On December 20, 1990, an ETA bomb exploded about 300 meters from where I am now, at a bus stop on San Vicente Street. Yet, life in my neighborhood didn't come to a halt because of it.

Now it turns out there is an unspecified threat that has materialized into an incident—an isolated one, perhaps? What should be an occasion for Wikimedians to gather has turned into an event requiring a security scrutiny and individual express approval to assist. I believe the only other time I’ve been asked to undergo a formal security clearance process to gain access to something was when entering an Airbus factory. Certainly, you don’t go through security checks to attend a gathering of colleagues—or a football match, a concert, a university graduation, and so on—beyond whatever standard procedures might be in place due to specific circumstances. And such measures were not applied at the Wikimanias I have attended. (I wonder: how would they have been organized in Esino? Would have all the village be seald off for a week?)

For me, the most important part of attending Wikimania isn't the official program of events. You really gain knowledge and spark new ideas through interactions with the random people you meet: a guy with a project on Timor-Leste, a couple telling you about Month of Asia, a young professor organizing editing sessions on Spanish literature in Arabic, or someone interested in whether Catalan is older than Polish or whether it’s possible to cover 90,000 square kilometers in a year taking pictures. That’s where you get new ideas. You don't get much out of listening to the official presentations. If those random people can't attend, the project is being ruined.

It is truly sad.

B25es (talk) 16:08, 15 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Tickets were first come first served. I think there is some valid criticism to be made of the organizers for not picking a larger venue, but beyond that i really dont know what else you are expecting here. They can't sell more tickets then room in the venue, if you are on a waitlist and you get in last moment because someone dropped out last moment, of course you are going to have to make a last moment decision. How else could it possibly work? Bawolff (talk) 10:27, 16 July 2026 (UTC)reply
At one very early point, the information was that there were no tickets available. That there was room for 1,000 people. Two-thirds of that capacity was already reserved for WMF and other groups. The rest, some 300~400 places, were not available for other reasons. There was no such thing as a waiting list to join.
As of February 11, 2026 (12:27 CET) I was informed that "On behalf of the Wikimania 2026 Core Organizing Team and the Wikimedia Foundation, we regret to inform you that we have been unable to accept your application for an In-person Travel scholarship to Wikimania 2026." and that "You are encouraged to join Wikimania 2026 virtually." That's when we (my wife having received an answer in the same line) started looking for tickets that we could buy.
(Side note: it seems that people find impossible to attend Wikimania at their own expense, even when it takes place in Paris, right in the heart of Western Europe.)
Then there's the emails we recieved on June 24, 2026 (17:19 CET). "Congratulations! On behalf of the 2026 Wikimania Scholarships Committee and the Wikimedia Foundation, thank you for your interest in Wikimania 2026, scheduled 21-25 July 2026 in Paris, France. We are pleased to inform you that you have been awarded a full scholarship to cover your accommodation and travel for the event! The deadline to accept this scholarship is this Friday, 26 June 2026, 23:59 Anywhere on Earth through the registration link below, replying to this email will not count as scholarship confirmation." My poor English prevents my from expressing in a better way how bad an answer it is. My first instinctive response would be Have you even checked your own email of Feb.11?
So no, for us there was no "first come first served".
As an additional information, my wife and I are members of two Chapters. So we know that our case is far from unique. Some people can attend, others cannot. In all cases they have been informed very recently. I one case the day before yesterday. Other people, over the last two weeks.
The Wikimedia community is made up of volunteers. Some of us have family obligations, and in most cases, people have jobs they need to attend to. One might be able to request their holidays at a certain time of year, but you certainly can't just play fast and loose with that. In 2016, I coordinated my vacation time with my boss and a colleague. I can't —and most Wikimedians can't— just keep changing plans as if life were a game of roulette. We deserve respect. I don't get paid to edit or to organize events; the car I use to travel to events is my own, and I pay for its maintenance, I eat my own food. I’m not asking for a salary; I’m asking for a minimum level of respect and decency toward volunteers. I know there are employees who do their jobs the best they can and deserve my respect. And I know there are people who brazenly exploit the situation to set up their own little schemes to cash in on Wikimedia—those people don't deserve my respect, but that’s another story. What I am asking for is respect for us grassroots editors/organizers, the ones who have no budget, or rather, the ones who spend their time and efforts. B25es (talk) 14:30, 17 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I figure it's downright crazy that all the tickets were sold out in hours. Where the money goes doesn't much bother me; intercontinental air travel and hotels always cost me a lot more than the tickets. The organizers ought to have projected much larger sales than for Nairobi or Katowice and adjusted their plans appropriately; after all this is Paris, one of the great cities of the world, one of the great tourist attractions, and within easy rail access to a great density of Wikkians though not me.
Security clearance? Goodness gracious; just X-ray us and our laptops for guns and bombs same as at World Cup; what's the big problem? It's not like we need to protect our precious secrets from clever international spies with glass daggers and false beards. Anyway, even if the lack of tickets were not a problem, I suffered an injury last month, won't fly, and will be peeping at the formal activities by livestream and whatever recordings are available. This is obviously not the best part of Wikimania; the valuable parts are the chance meetings in corridors and lunch tables and the like. Jim.henderson (talk) 07:43, 20 July 2026 (UTC)reply



       

The Signpost · written by many · served by Sinepost V0.9 · 🄯 CC-BY-SA 4.0