Featured Content

Jörg Seidel said:

That's absolutely sad to read. The CEO of @mullvadnet is not only financing the far-right Swedish Örebro party, but he even is their main financer. 70+% of their money is his donation. He is the reason why they go nationwide this year.

For obvious reasons i cease to trust this service. Also i do not finance parties that aim for forced deportations.

https://web.archive.org/web/20260627172939mp_/https://www.flamman.se/techprofil-ger-miljoner-till-orebropartiet/

Click to expand...

Mullvad VPN said:

@lostgen

Mullvad is a political company fighting for free speech, free information and privacy, with two equal co-founders, co-owners and co-CEOs who fundamentally disagree on many issues. Daniel's donation to a political party is private and not part of Mullvad's mission. We protect the right to express and access views we disagree with. We welcome anyone sharing these core values, whatever their other opinions. We are happy to refund others who don't, where we can.

Click to expand...

David Gerard said:

If you don't want your Mullvad fees going to fund neo-Nazis - or @mozilla VPN fees, which is rebranded Mullvad - cancel and get a refund immediately

that's whose "free speech" the official account is talking about here, and that's where your fees go to

EDIT: Mullvad has a 14 day refund policy. But the message below is a direct call to ask for a refund if you don't want to give money to Nazis.

If Mullvad refuse a refund, call your consumer protection agency. And reverse credit card charges on the basis of deceptive refund policy representations. It's not like you ever want to be a Mullvad customer again.

Click to expand...

In a July 2021 interview with Freddie Sayers of LockdownTV, Sanger opined that Wikipedia is not trustworthy and that its contributors have a left-leaning bias. According to Sanger, Wikipedia's coverage of U.S. President Joe Biden contained "very little by way of the concerns that Republicans have had about him" or the Ukraine allegations.

He further adds that since Wikipedia encourages the use of secondary sources instead of primary sources, Wikipedia's content is heavily influenced by coverage from center-left-wing media outlets, saying that "You can't cite the Daily Mail at all. You can't cite Fox News on socio-political issues either. It's banned. So what does that mean? It means that if a controversy does not appear in the mainstream center-Left media, then it's not going to appear on Wikipedia."

Despite having a neutrality policy, he says that the viewpoint of Wikipedia articles represent the consensus viewpoints and that users are prohibited from adding counter-arguments to established views, which would help create more neutral articles. He argued that Wikipedia can give a "reliably establishment point of view on pretty much everything" and that "if only one version of the facts is allowed then that gives a huge incentive to wealthy and powerful people to seize control of things like Wikipedia in order to shore up their power. And they do that."

Click to expand...

Spoiler: images in post

This is my formal defense, written fairly quickly, because a decision might be handed down at any time. I note that not everyone is given time and opportunity to write and have considered this sort of formal defense. I am not asking for any treatment that I would not ask for everyone else.

Since there is no designated prosecutor who has indicted me, I must reconstruct the charges against me. I will begin by doing that.

Moreover, since there is no one person making the case against me, but many self-selected "prosecutors," I must consider the words of everyone testifying. Indeed, I must reconstruct their case against me. I will do that as well, or enough of it to make clear what I am responding to.

Since anyone I might call on to testify on my behalf will naturally be intimidated (and are threatened with punishment simply by being associated with WPID), I must respond to the case myself. I am not sure whether admins will think of a full-throated, detailed defense as violating WP:BLUDGEON, but I will risk it by giving everything due consideration, as justice obviously requires. Again, I do not ask for myself anything that I would not ask for everyone else facing a case on ANI. Especially when a user (like me!) has spent many, many hours on the site, they should be given a fair, dispassionate hearing according to commonsense rules of due process.

While there have been many charges, many seemed to be of lesser importance. So I will limit myself to the three main ones: off-wiki canvassing, not being here to build an encyclopedia, and treating Wikipedia as a battleground.

Note that "WPID" means "WikiProject Intellectual Diversity," the proposed WikiProject that I am accused of inappropriately promoting.

CHARGE 1: OFF-WIKI CANVASSING

I see three main counts.

Count 1. By posting a link to an active WikiProject Council discussion on X/Twitter to 91,000 followers, and by appearing on CNN-News18's Plain Speak podcast urging viewers to "join Wikipedia and join the WikiProject Intellectual Diversity" and to "learn how to play the game," I am accused of engaging in "notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way" (WPANVASS), specifically by "contacting users off-wiki to persuade them to join in discussions" (WP:STEALTH).

This is the most important count in the most important charge, and I have several responses to it.

First, I had been promoting WPID on X for several weeks before this. This was an attempt to increase members of the WikiProject, which is a thing that the WikiProject guidelines instruct applicants to do: "You must recruit multiple participants before writing a proposal." The WikiProject Guide also says, "The first stop should be to look for projects with similar interests... check the talk pages of related articles for projects with interests that overlap with yours." I did this. I saw no language prohibiting off-wiki recruitment for WikiProjects. I reasoned that, surely, Wikipedia wants more editors.

Insofar as my goal was to recruit new members of WPID, I would like someone to explain to me what specific rule I broke, and why.

But what about CNN-News18 and other instances where I spoke to a perhaps larger audience about WPID? I do not understand how these are offenses. If they are, I would like the rule cited. I have given no interviews since the discussion of WPID began; I was simply trying to get people to join. If there is a rule against that, I am not seeing it.

What about the idea that we should "learn how to play the game"? This is just realism and not any sort of offense. Wikipedia is very much like a game with rules—where, if you break the rules, you are out. I want people to be effective Wikipedians. That means not falling afoul of the rules. What's wrong with that?

You might ask: "What about the fact that you announced on X that you had made the WPID application?" This was an update to my X followers who had already heard from me on the topic several times before; I thought it was interesting news. While I mentioned that some were opposed and others in favor, I neither asked people to support the application nor did it even occur to me that my tweeting about it would result in more support for the application. I deny any mens rea on that score; after all, it is extremely unlikely that anyone new would show up to support the application at the last minute. It was just an update.

I did not invite anyone to vote on the application, much less to support it. I deny that updating my followers about the progress of a project they had been hearing about for weeks constitutes canvassing. If it were any other person than me and any other WikiProject application, nobody would raise an eyebrow.

Count 2. These acts constituted "actively recruiting people (either on-wiki or off-wiki) to create an account or edit anonymously in order to influence decisions on Wikipedia," which "is prohibited" (WP:MEAT).

I do not believe what I did is what WP:MEAT prohibits, and I would like to see the argument that it is. If I want to go offline or off-wiki on the internet to recruit a bunch of skeptics or feminists—just for example—to make accounts and teach them how to edit Wikipedia, this is not forbidden by WP:MEAT. But that has happened not infrequently over the years. Why then would it be forbidden to recruit a deliberately broad tent of people who want to make Wikipedia more intellectually diverse? As I read WP:MEAT, it prohibits recruiting allies to edit particular articles or particular policy pages. What recruiting people for the WPID does is to recruit people who favor a certain policy direction for Wikipedia; this does not involve recruiting for any particular articles.

"But," you might challenge me, "surely you know that people who favor the goals of WPID will in the future support stances in line with the goals. Why isn't this just an indirect form of meatpuppetry?" If this counts as meatpuppetry, then so does every WikiProject that has ever recruited editors who share a topical interest. I would like to understand why this case is different. Wikipedians are, of course, allowed to recruit people who favor their national causes, or their religions, or their political parties. That is not against the rules or even, it seems to me, wrong. So similarly, I have done nothing to transgress WP:MEAT in recruiting for WPID.

Count 3. I was warned about off-wiki canvassing in April 2026 and continued the behavior, constituting WP:IDHT.

I rejected this advice because it was not presented as an official warning. It was not labeled as such, it did not come from someone announcing themselves as an admin, and it was not clarified that it might be cited in a later ANI case against me. If such talk page comments can serve as official warnings, that should be made a definite rule. As it was, I was not made to understand that there really is a rule against linking to and describing talk page controversies. I still do not think there is such a rule, but if I am instructed by whoever informs me of the outcome that there is such a rule, I will follow it just like everybody else.

If this set of charges is wrong or incomplete, I am asking for the person designated to close to specify them.

CHARGE 2: NOT HERE TO BUILD AN ENCYCLOPEDIA

Here, I see two counts.

Count 1. My editing history demonstrates that I am not here to build an encyclopedia (WP:NOTHERE). 4% of my edits in 2026 have been to mainspace. I have made 19 article-space edits in the past four months; the 20th prior article-space edit was in 2012. My total mainspace contributions between 2003 and March 2026 number fewer than 50. Any other editor with this record would have been indefinitely blocked long ago; my clean block log reflects co-founder status, not good conduct.

First, let's talk about the main claim. It's true that I have made few article space edits recently; but then, plenty of editors work primarily in talk space, project space, or policy space without being blocked. The reason I have avoided making many article space edits, even when I am discussing matters on talk pages, is that it would cause unnecessary controversy if I did. Believe it or not, I do take care about such matters.

More importantly, I categorically assert that I am here to build an encyclopedia. There are various ways to do that. Indeed, advancing the representation of unpopular views on the website would help build the encyclopedia. It would ensure far more information is found in Wikipedia, and in ways that would help it get an even broader audience. In any event, the fact that I have not worked so much in the main article space recently is obviously not an offense of any sort.

Count 2. The totality of my activity since returning—the Nine Theses, WPID, the PolicyScanner, the FAQ in support of WPID, the media appearances, and the "Welcome to Wikipedia (with warnings)" page instructing WPID members how to avoid getting blocked, and other essays—demonstrates that my sole purpose is to change how Wikipedia works, not to improve it. "Ultimately if someone is only here to try and change how Wikipedia works they're NOTHERE, as they're not here to improve the encyclopedia itself," especially insofar as my presence is to build a conservative pressure group within Wikipedia.

There is one thing that is true in this count. It is true that my purpose since last October has mostly been to foster some changes to how Wikipedia works. The ways in which it would be changed, however, would be a decided improvement; therefore, I am here to improve the encyclopedia. It is not a part of my goal to build a "conservative pressure group within Wikipedia." First, WPID would not properly be called a "pressure group," nor would it be specifically allied with conservatives. Indeed, it is a strongly liberal value to support the full representation of unpopular views; this is not particularly conservative, insofar as conservatives favor only a particular culture, and historically have been opposed to the representation of other views.

In any event, none of this establishes that I am not here to improve Wikipedia. I certainly am. And if an admin disagrees with the more tolerant direction in which WPID would attempt to push, that is certainly no reason to block me—at best it is a reason to argue against making WPID an official WikiProject.

Again, if this set of charges is wrong or incomplete, I am asking for the person designated to close to specify them.

CHARGE 3: TREATING WIKIPEDIA AS A BATTLEGROUND

I see three main counts.

Count 1. By organizing WPID, I have organized "a faction that disrupts (or aims to disrupt) Wikipedia's fundamental decision-making process, which is based on building a consensus" (WP:BATTLEGROUND). The PolicyScanner is cited as the mechanism by which this faction would be directed to specific discussions. My X post—"The left marched through this institution. There's no reason we can't march right back"—is cited as proof that I view Wikipedia as ideological territory to be conquered rather than an encyclopedia to be built.

First, even if true, this is not a reason to block or otherwise to discipline me; it is a reason to block WPID from being made official. If so, then this supposed, feared "faction" does not come into being. Problem solved.

Second, it is incorrect—and, arguably, a violation of AGF—to say that WPID aims to disrupt any policy decision-making processes. Indeed, our proposal makes it clear that we are encouraging participation in, not co-opting or otherwise disrupting, established Wikipedia processes.

Third, I concede that the cited X post about the long march through the institutions contains indefensible rhetoric, and I do regret it. Still, it comes from a place any group that is unfairly treated in Wikipedia can sympathize with. It is easily arguable that Wikipedia is largely "ideologically captured," and what I propose to do is to suggest that conservatives (sure), Hindus, Israelis, and Christians (among others) quite simply not concede defeat, but to get involved in the same way that the left wing Establishment has done.

Count 2. WPID's stated goals amount to an attempt to undermine core policies, specifically WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:FRINGE, and WPUE. The WPID page states that "attention to 'due weight' and 'fringe theories,' and the close connection between these determinations and tendentious policies about 'reliable sources,' tends to undermine robust neutrality." I am quoted from the Teahouse as saying "WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE need to be greatly weakened if not abolished." My defense of OpIndia—blacklisted for doxxing a Wikipedia editor—is cited as further evidence.

Our goals are not to undermine any core policies—even sections about WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE would remain if I could personally rewrite them. But I am not asking to rewrite them; the WPID would not be empowered to do so (obviously); and it is above all not a bannable offense to want these policies to be improved and brought in line with true intellectual tolerance. As to WP:NPOV, I am personally responsible for introducing the policy to Nupedia and Wikipedia and for drafting the longer version of the policy, which was left largely intact for many years after I left. My tolerance and advocacy for the fair representation of ideas that I disagree with—such as homeopathy, communism, and Hinduism—is arguably the single most important reason why Wikipedia has a neutrality policy.

Again, this is no reason to give me special treatment here. I say it only to refute the idea that I hope to "undermine...WP:NPOV."

Count 3. My conduct in the WikiProject Council discussion and on ANI constitutes bludgeoning (WP:BLUDGEON)—"the continuous, aggressive pursuit of an editorial goal" that "is considered disruptive" (WPON). Specifically: posting the 11-question FAQ in the middle of an active discussion, and responding at length to multiple critics while the proposal was being overwhelmingly rejected.

I do not see how this can be maintained to be improper, as the following should explain. First, I spent literally months carefully developing this proposal and supporting software, and while it had plenty of supporters, it was mostly my work. The sudden pile-on in the WikiProject Council discussion would obviously intimidate any of WPID's supporters. And no surprise: as I said above, and as I repeat, they were threatened with punishment simply by being associated with WPID. So I had a choice: either (a) speak for the group that had been largely intimidated into silence, responding to it all myself, or (b) allow many substantive points to go unanswered. I do not regret choosing (a). There was no other way for the proposal to receive a fair shake.

Once again, if this set of charges is wrong or incomplete, I am asking that someone—such as the person designated to close—specify them.

In conclusion, outside of ancient Greece, persons in the dock are not supposed to suggest what punishment would be fair. I will say, however, that a block of any length for any of these charges would be inappropriate. I did not invite anyone to vote in any particular way. I deny that any of these charges justifies a block of any length. Moreover, contrary to what some have said, I do not want to be blocked!

Finally, if this discussion proceeds any farther, I would like to ask that an authoritative person (I should hope the person chosen, or who volunteers, to report the final decision on my user talk page) clarify exactly what the charges are against me. This might be too much to ask, though; I am not to expect special treatment, and typically, no specific charges are listed against a blocked person until after sentence has been passed.

Larry Sanger (talk) 03:25, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Click to expand...

Videos​

Spoiler

0:58

0:34

0:51

1:32

0:38

Spoiler: NSFW

0:27

0:59

0:19

Article​

Rebel News has allegedly posted the manifesto of the shooter​

Mandatory Jewsperging Thread​

The Commission considers that at this stage it cannot propose a legal obligation to keep video games playable after they stop being provided commercially. This is due, also, to existing intellectual property rights. Under EU copyright law, rights holders enjoy exclusive rights over their creations. In addition to copyright, other intellectual property rights may also be relevant as they may protect different visual and technological aspects of a video game.

Existing EU consumer law already provides for important safeguards protecting the economic interests of consumers. Video game providers must inform consumers about the duration and the conditions for terminating the contract before the consumers signs up for the video game. The Directive on digital content and digital services provides consumers with remedies when the content or service provided does not conform with the contract and what consumers could reasonably expect. Consumers may be entitled to proportionate refund of their purchases.

However, to address players' concerns, the Commission has committed to taking several steps.
First, it will initiate an exchange with the video game industry and consumer representatives with the aim to draw up an industry code of conduct on managing video games' ‘end of life'.

Second, the Commission will work with consumer organisations and authorities to raise awareness about the applicable rights that protect consumers, including on safeguards protecting the economic interests of consumers. The Commission will report on the application of the Directive on digital content and digital services before the end of the year. Active enforcement of these existing consumer rights can also incentivise the providers to offer video games with longer lifespans and explore solutions for meeting consumer expectations.

Click to expand...