Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Larry Sanger/Nine Theses: Difference between revisions

User:Larry Sanger/Nine Theses (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)​

Oh boy, here we go. So I actually I already posted my concerns at User talk:Larry Sanger/Nine Theses, however after second thought I think this might be more appropriate. I’ll just copy over here what I said there:

After reading through this, I believe some many parts of this may have WP:POLEMIC problems. Let’s start with number 6 (I also don’t want to call these “theses” since that feels pretentious for just a wall of text). POLEMIC defines it as or statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities (these are generally considered divisive and removed, and reintroducing them is often considered disruptive). Within the context of the section, this statement Thus my question: If it has this world-class influence, why do the people entrusted with content decisions on Wikipedia go by twee handles like “CaptainEek,” “KrakatoaKatie,” and “WereSpielChequers”. feels especially problematic as it deliberately names specific editors and–in my opinion–is an attempt to vilify these editors and other functionaries in general. Other sections like this one have been edit-warred in and out of the essay with the concern accusing an identifiable editor of working to systematically marginalize Christians” so that his troll army will know whom to harass. This just feels like a deliberately divisive stance that is only here to try to cause arguments. More statements like in the End or loosen restrictions on “meat puppetry just feel like trolling as well. My point is that this entire thing reads purely like some kind of attempt to stir up off-wiki and on-wiki drama alike, without serving any real purpose.

So, looking back at this, I have come to the conclusion that this does not belong on-wiki. Some editors evidently believe that some of this problematic material should be included, as shown there. So what does the crowd think? Bon appétit mes amis. Sophisticatedevening^(talk) 15:20, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and suggest withdrawing. The named editors have thick enough skin to survive (a) the mild implied criticism that they shouldn’t be using anonymous user names and (b) the mild slight in “twee”. These don’t rise to the level of “attacking or vilifying”. We don’t need to waste as many words as will be wasted if this isn’t withdrawn. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:25, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Withdrawal no longer an option, since someone else has supported deletion. Good luck everyone. Keep it brief. Try and make one copy edit for every 25 words you spend here. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:16, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, the co-founder of Wikipedia surely has the right to publish thoughts about the backroom going-ons of the encyclopedia, and may or may not have innovated the concept of WP:SNOW (which would pertain here). Sanger is a Wikipedian and an active editor, he has as much right to publish a personal essay about Wikipedia concepts and rules and regs as the next person (but hopefully he will consider removing that the names of individual editors from the essay if the surrounding language is critical of editor actions). Randy Kryn (talk) 15:27, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• weak keep on the basis that i’m writing a really funny comment regarding it :flushedbread: consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 15:28, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• meh We have enough hard drive space. Sure these ideas have mostly been tried and failed. But deleting them will just bring more attention. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:51, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with Doc James and Firefangledfeathers. —MZMcBride (talk) 16:02, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, WP:USERESSAY says (bolding mine)

  Polemics in the form of personal attacks against particular people, groups, real-life ideas (e.g. artists or politicians), or against Wikipedia itself, are generally deleted at MFD, as unconstructive or disruptive. Likewise, advocacy of fringe POV and pushing of fringe content and conspiracy theories is not tolerated.

  , the motive of this essay seems to be to get us to both-sides pseudoscience etc. Kowal2701 (talk) 16:04, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – once we’ve all had a bit of fun with engaging with this claptrap, it should be deleted. For one thing it undermines core policies of the project. For another it gives undue prominence to an editor who has no special standing and hasn’t edited in mainspace for more than a decade. For a third it includes/encourages fundamentally destructive ideas like doxing. It’s textbook WP:NOTHERE, the editor is free to scribble this nonsense across the internet, it shouldn’t get further oxygen here. JMWt (talk) 16:11, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Invalid rationale for deletion. All of the reasons for deletion basically boil down to people disagreeing with the content or tone of the essay. @Larry Sanger has the right to make his opinions known, even if the majority of the community may disagree with him. We should not shove him out the door after he finally returns to Wikipedia just because we don’t like his criticism. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 16:22, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don’t really want to do this, even though I highly disagree with Sanger. But the wording of these 6 attacks our admins, sysops, and other people in positions of power on Wikipedia. So, per WP:POLEMIC, I have to vote delete. I have taken two examples, “Wikipedia’s editorial work is self-managed by a group of volunteers—or what is presented as such” and “It is time for Wikipedians to grow up”. If Mr.Sanger would reword his “theses” to disinclude attacks on our editors, I would be inclined to change my vote to keep. Also, on a completely unrelated note, protection from the Wikimedia Foundation won’t save people from authoritarian states, like what happened to those Belarusian admins. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 16:37, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – This is a case where the remedy for bad ideas is discussion of the badness of the ideas rather than suppression of the ideas. There has been lengthy discussion of these nine theses at Village pump (miscellaneous), almost all negative. If this original paper is deleted, would the discussion then be deleted, hatted, or left on the record? If the discussion were either hatted or left standing, readers would infer, maybe incorrectly, what Sanger had said. Leave these ideas standing for continued discussion and continued criticism.

  I think this is the first time I’ve ever seen WP:IDONTLIKEIT used as a reason to !keep. Bravo. JMWt (talk) 17:31, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – I disagree with a lot of Sanger’s views (and am disappointed that he has not engaged with any of my criticisms apart from saying that I sound like a reasonable person after sharing a lighthearted anecdote about how I used to work at McDonald’s) but this isn’t the kind of thing that usually gets deleted. People have a right to contrary opinions, especially in userspace. I’m too WP:INVOLVED to even think about closing something like this, but I think a speedy close would be a good idea if this keeps getting WP:SNOWBALL keeps. To anyone who is not a Wikipedian reading this, literally anyone can nominate anything for deletion at any time. That doesn’t nessecarily mean the content in question will be deleted. As an aside, I do think the page shouldn’t name certain editors, but that’s something that can be solved without wholesale deletion. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 16:44, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Unless one of the mentioned editors objects. This nomination feels like a moral panic more than anything. Paradoctor (talk) 17:00, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – The co-founder of this website should have a right to comment on it. T Magierowski (talk) 17:01, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Something he already did at his very own personal website. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 17:03, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  and twitter consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 17:17, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The issue at hand is not freedom of expression, but question of whether the form of expression chosen by Sanger is disruptive. Constructive discussion is always welcome. Paradoctor (talk) 17:32, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  How is it constructive? As you’ve said above there’s a clear issue of targeting other named editors – which you weirdly then waved away by saying that only matters if they object. What about all the other editors who object to this framing? Why should it only matter if I’m the person being targeted? JMWt (talk) 17:35, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  oh no, it’s definitely disruptive, i’m not even gonna give any credit to the idea that it isn’t. it’s made from a borderline childish misunderstanding of what reality is. hence my vote being based solely on the basis that it will be used for the sake of humor, because that’s really all the value i think we can wring out of it consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 17:36, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all the polemic parts at least. This is a personal essay and even the co-founders are subject to Wikipedia’s rules, as much as the keepers attempt to give Sanger a free pass (as a reminder, Wikipedia is not a monarchy). Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a personal blog, and the content is found at https://larrysanger.org/nine-theses/ his personal blog. And free text is saved at Wikisource, not Wikipedia. Ignoring what the content is about, which in my view is plainly naive, Sanger goes to the point where he says this: “I do not want [the following 62 people] to be doxxed, however. I do not want their identities to be revealed without their permission; I am asking everyone to respect their anonymity. If anyone does doxx them, it will be against my explicitly stated wishes.” Yet, mentions their user names for the sake of “transparency”. If anyone in that list is actually doxxed, Sanger has explicitly suggested that he’d be sorry for them, it’s good to know their names for the project’s transparency, but he wasn’t actually ask for their personal information. Coupled with this reversal of a violation of POLEMIC, the essay has the sole purpose to express polemical opinions that go against Wikipedia’s purpose and the purpose of user pages and essays. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 17:33, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Besides the WP:SNOW and pearl clutching, beware the Streisand effect. Mentioning specific editor names as part of an argument about the Wikipedia hierarchy says nothing about those editors in particular. Themoother (talk) 17:33, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – specific statements mocking or casting aspersions about specific people can be dealt with by any admin. Heads up to journalists who might be looking for a “co-founder tries to fix Wokipedia and far-left editors just delete the page!” clickbait: anyone can nominate a page and initiate this process for any reason. You could nominate the Earth article for deletion right now if you really wanted to. It takes consensus to actually delete it, and one person nominating something for deletion is not news. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:34, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Germane essay. The quasi-legal threat that Mr. Sanger has made in connection with this essay might be another matter for discussion elsewhere, but there is nothing about this particular essay that strikes me as running afoul of our long-established leeway for commentary. Carrite (talk) 17:39, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]