Talk:Libreboot/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Persistent vandalism, or otherwise disruptive, non-neutral editing with clear conflict of interest for those involved

More information Extended content ...
Close

Libreleah (talk) 14:16, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Some of the things Libreleah claims in the above post can't be proven by an independent source and as such are hearsay.
User Libreleah claims to be the founder and lead developer of libreboot. In that case this user is also the owner/CEO of Minifree Ltd., the company selling laptops with libreboot. As such, said user has a strong financial interest of keeping the Libreboot article up. IMO this should disqualify that user from having any say in whether this article stays up or merges into something else.
I suggest that we let others make this decision who are independent. We should also leave it to more experienced Wikipedia users and admins to suggest blocking users. Banishment should be the very last straw, against users who engage in vandalism. Edidds (talk) 13:44, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
I just want to point out that the *exact* same argument can be made about pro-libreboot.at edits, where libreboot.at prominently links to RYF libreboot sellers promoted by the FSF; such sellers are not promoted at all on libreboot.org.
The FSF has a keen interest in saving face by crushing my work entirely, and I have reason to believe Yae4 and a few other editors here are FSF-aligned.
For example, Ian Kelling initially added links to libreboot.at that someone later removed, and in response, Yae4 said at one point to Ian "I agree with your edits". This is all public record on Wikipedia.
I believe my initial post has provided more than enough food for thought, despite my clear connection to and preference of the subject matter at hand. If you were to imagine that anyone other than me wrote it, someone who is unaffiliated to libreboot.org, the arguments would still be just as valid. Libreleah (talk) 14:00, 15 June 2023 (UTC) — Libreleah (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
I should also point out that, in my submission above, I *did* in fact suggest that mention of libreboot.at should be *retained* in the article, whilst simultaneously retaining prominent reference to and promotion of libreboot.org.
As PhotographyEdits pointed out, in text above this section of the talk page, virtually all of the cited material is in reference to libreboot.org, *not* libreboot.at, thus the article should ideally promote libreboot.org prominently. At best, libreboot.at belongs as a footnote in the article, at least at this present time.
It may be that in the future, libreboot.at does releases and gets widespread attention. I propose that then, and only then, should libreboot.at have an *infobox*, and even then, the libreboot.org infobox should be retained (and come first, since libreboot.org is the original project, with development still ongoing). Libreleah (talk) 14:03, 15 June 2023 (UTC) — Libreleah (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
@Edidds I have no conflict of interest with regards to Libreboot, but I do support the analysis by @Libreleah. PhotographyEdits (talk) 14:18, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

FYI,The length of the first comment starting this section was more than the length this article has ever achieved, and looks to be from another WP:SPA / WP:SOCK account used to evade a block, IIUC. This is not the place for such editor attacks. Take it to a more appropriate admin venue, if you wish.

As for article content, I am waiting for a response above from PhotographyEdits on WP:RS of a few sources. I have expanded the summaries of cites already used in this article when I took an interest in this article - after seeing the Crocfarts/PhotographyEdits edit war and very strange usage of cites - have restored some cites with different summaries, and have found some cites that weren't used here before. If you wish to discuss what those sources led me to conclude and why, there is another section above for that already. -- Yae4 (talk) 15:36, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

You're mistaken. I'm not sockpuppeting. My account is also not single-purpose, it's simply unused for several years until now. I made other edits earlier to another article. Actually, your engagement which prompted me to finally log back into wikipedia, has inspired me and I may in fact start contributing to other articles.
FYI, and as stated (per requirement of wikipedia policy) by me on your talk page, I've now reported you to Wikipedia admins for abusive editing, and generally abusive engagement on wikipedia. See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Username_Yae4_engaging_in_persistent_disruptive_editing_of_the_Libreboot_article
Alas, I don't need to justify myself to you. I'll let the wikipedia administrators deal with you. Libreleah (talk) 15:51, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Also, collapsing my arguments against your edits does not detract from the validity of my arguments, regardless of my connection to the subject matter. I gave a lengthy list of diffs for changes you made, criticising them for being non-neutral, biased and in many cases disruptive - you responded by collapsing them, thus hiding them from view, but this will not prevent people from seeing them.
I formally request that you answer my criticisms, thoroughly and thoughtfully. Libreleah (talk) 16:09, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Furthermore, I see that you have accused me formally (via tags) as being a SPA. How do you account for the fact that I'm currently editing many articles on wikipedia?
Stop trying to ignore the criticisms raised above, and start answering them. This is actually a tactic that you seemed to deploy with other editors before.
Here are examples of other edits I've made today, on other wikipedia articles:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Libreleah
Your insecurity is evident, but I've said all I want to say here. Editing wikipedia is very fun indeed. My most recent edit, as I write this, was a citation on the Conservative Party (UK) article stating that the government in 2014 (under David Cameron) openly supported marriage equality in the UK - see: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conservative_Party_(UK)&diff=prev&oldid=1160303974
or this entry about openbsd: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=OpenBSD&diff=prev&oldid=1160303431
or this entry about uganda's erstwhile gay king: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LGBT_rights_in_Uganda&diff=prev&oldid=1160301521
I'm going to remove your tags. They are entirely facetious, exploiting the fact that, aside from edits in 2016, my account is relatively new, and I happened to edit Libreboot first. Your actions against Libreboot were what made me log back in in the first place, but now that I'm here, I have every intention of contributing to wikipedia. In fact, I'm spending all of today doing just that, on whatever piques my interest. Libreleah (talk) 16:33, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
@Libreleah - is there any proof to the claim that you are Leah Rowe? Anyone can create an account and say they are you. Rlink2 (talk) 17:28, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Does it matter? It wouldn't give them any special authority here, and since Rowe isn't notable, WP:IMPERSONATE doesn't apply. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 17:30, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I certainly can prove it, but to make it convincing, please give me a few suggestions for how I can do so. Libreleah (talk) 17:43, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
I figured out how to prove it. See this post on Mastodon, that I did just now:
https://mas.to/@libreleah/110549963175518954
It's actually a follow-up post about the fun I'm having on wikipedia. Aside from my participation on this talk page, I've been having fun improving random articles.
Now see:
https://libreboot.org/contact.html
On that contact page, it links to https://mas.to/@libreleah/
Are you satisfied now?
I am the real Leah Rowe. All the other Leah Rowes are just imitating. Libreleah (talk) 19:51, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
@Libreleah
Yeah, this is good enough. Reason why I was asking was because someone was making sock allegations against you, so I feel like proving that its actually you dispells some of those claims. (I personally do not think you are a sock but others might think differently).
I do agree with Maddy that those 3 topics need to be reassessed for notability seperately, including the fork. The fork may be notable enough for a simple mention here but not notable enough for an entire article. I think libreboot
Libreboot.at is a seperate entity, if I read your claims correctly, and links to the article should remain to libreboot.org. So I mostly agree with you here. Rlink2 (talk) 20:06, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Well, I think libreboot.at *should* be mentioned on the wikipedia article.
Some people reading this talk page may think I'm acting with hostility, but I'm not. I've said before and I'll say again, I want them to exist, if they want their own project, that's absolutely fine!
I happen to disagree with their ideology, and they disagree with mine. The split between libreboot.org and libreboot.at exists precisely on ideological grounds (libreboot.org's pragmatic "binary blobs reductions policy" where as few binary blobs are provided as possible but otherwise permitted when required for each given board, versus the FSF's policy on libreboot.at, a continuation of libreboot.org's old policy in fact, that simply bans all binary blobs).
For full context of discussion, there is:
https://libreboot.org/news/policy.html - this is libreboot.org ideology, implemented during November 2022.
https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.en.html - this is libreboot.at ideology.
This is the basis of the libreboot.at effort, in that libreboot.org previously adhered to the latter (FSDG), but now has its own policy (dubbed "PSDG" informally, within the .org libreboot project - pragmatic system distribution guidelines).
I digress. Indeed, I do believe libreboot.at should be written about on the Libreboot article. It is proposed as a fork of Libreboot proper, so it ultimately has the same heritage in that sense, and it can be seen as continuity of the old policy (prior to November 2022).
My only point above is that because libreboot.at currently does not have any releases, nor any real notability (except literally 2 pages on FSF websites, which are considered primary sources since FSF owns the libreboot.at domain name, as revealed by whois). For this reason, and the reasoning that libreboot.org is ongoing development-wise and release-wise, and the original project, libreboot.org should remain the most prominently promoted version of the project, with its infobox restored, and (for now) libreboot.at should be a footnote in the history section.
When libreboot.at does releases and gains more notability (via independent) sources, then it could be more prominently promoted, with its own infobox below the libreboot.org one - alternatively, one infobox advertising both.
I also think that there should be a dedicated section specifically to covering the AT vs ORG libreboot split.
Now, obviously libreboot.at presents a potential "threat" to libreboot.org, given that it's a same-named proposed fork, run by a... multi-million dollar organisation. But I don't think like that. Nothing about its existence prevents libreboot.org from existing, or doing the work that it does, but the current version of the article *only* mentions libreboot.at, which is quite far from the Neutral Point of View required by wikipedia policy.
That's my only concern. Everything else is utterly trivial to me. Libreleah (talk) 20:16, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
@Libreleah
Reading this again, this makes much sense. Why is Yae4 opposed to what you are saying?
To me it makes perfect sense to have the main link be to libreboot.org since thats the original project, and a mention of the libreboot.at fork, which is also clearly significant, but still not the original project.
Take this example: if someone makes a Wikipedia fork and uses the name "Wikipedia" and domain "wikipedia.top", does that mean all references to Wikipedia.org in the Wikipedia article should be changed? One might make the argument that the reliable sources were only referring to Wikipedia and not Wikipedia.org directly, but its still very clear they were referring to the original Wikipedia organization and not the fork. Most of the sources in the article were made before the fork, so they were very clearly referring to the original libreboot at libreboot.org. Almost all of them link to libreboot.org.
As a result I just changed it back to libreboot.org right now because its very obvious the sources are referring to libreboot.org, original libreboot. I didn't make any other changes because I think they can be discussed.
Regarding the IP editors its well known that bringing attention to an issue outside will attract random IP editors, it doesn't mean that those IP editors are Leah. Ive said this before: any popular thing will have dedicated fanboys along with haters, and Libreboot is no exception. The IP editors might have very well been socks but that does not mean Leah is a sock or sockmaster nor does it mean leah is working with the socks. EDIT: Also even the offical FSF page says libreboot is a fork of the original libreboot. The libreboot.at people are acknowledging its a fork and not the original. (Rlink2 (talk) 20:42, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Rlink2 The current sockpuppet allegation is because the Libreleah account became active again shortly after numerous IPs were blocked here. If you observe the statements/behaviors and edit histories of the IPs (now far, far above), you may notice similarity with the Libreleah account. I noted this at the Admin board, and I am considering whether to go to SPI. One example is up here.
The proper course for a person with close connection and WP:COI is to request edits according to WP:EDITREQ. -- Yae4 (talk) 20:49, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
@Yae4 Ok, i will reread through what you wrote. But it doesn't change the gist of what i wrote. If a sock says 1 + 1 = 2, 1 + 1 would still equal 2 Rlink2 (talk) 20:51, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
@Rlink2: If you wish to discuss substantial issues related to this article, please a new section or use a recent old one. It's too confusing trying to skip over the BS allegations in this section to find any substance. -- Yae4 (talk) 21:02, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Yeah I mean, you have no idea how many people fawn over me and my work on the internet. I have no idea about those IP editors.
As for why Yae4 seems so hostile? No idea. I think Yae4's initial edits adding more sources were excellent, but yeah removing all mention of libreboot.org went too far, and that's why I thought maybe there was bias involved. Although anecdotal on my part, I've observed a small but vocal minority of hardcore FSF types who are determined to revert the new canon set by liberboot.org since the policy shift - such seems to be the policy of libreboot.at (for example, on its website, it asks websites to retroactively change old links - and the FSF themselves have been doing just that, in fact one of Yae4's cites is the Free Software Directory which previously linked libreboot.org). See: https://directory.fsf.org/wiki?title=Libreboot&type=revision&diff=89166&oldid=53806
Alas, I can't answer your question; you need to ask Yae4 why they removed libreboot.org from the article. I've guessed at the reason, probably accurately, but only Yae4 can answer that question authoritatively. Libreleah (talk) 20:52, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
@Rlink2 btw small nitpick: although you did revert the domain, the box currently says "TBD" for a bunch of stuff like repository, stable releases etc.
Also for authors/contributors it says "Libreboot contributors", perhaps change it back to what Yae4 originally put there? I think it was something like: "Leah Rowe and contributors".
It's rather minor, and of course I can't tell you what to do, but that's what I would probably do.
Of course, libreboot.at is still mentioned on the article, in the proper place - and that is good. As I've said before, I think they should mentioned as they are part of the overall project history. Libreleah (talk) 21:02, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
@Libreleah
Out of respect for Yae4, I don't want to make any further changes to the article until an agreement is reached. He already reverted me once for these changes, and if he does it again, I won't edit war over it. Rlink2 (talk) 21:13, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, that makes sense. No worries. Sorry I asked. Libreleah (talk) 21:14, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

2nd AfD "article for deletion" proposal

Hi, please look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Libreboot_(2nd_nomination)

Yae4 has proposed yet another deletion of the Libreboot article, at the same time that discussions on this talk page seem to be weighing in favour of libreboot.org over libreboot.at, with the argument being that libreboot.at is poorly sourced but that libreboot.org is well-sourced.

I encourage everyone to comment there on the AfD. Personally, I don't think it's appropriate to make such a proposal right in the middle of discussions about how to improve the article, especially when the problems raised by the first AfD (weak sourcing in general) have since been fixed.

So I voted "Keep" (with the clarification that I think libreboot.org and libreboot.at should both be mentioned in the article, with libreboot.org having the most prominence due to better sourcing), but of course other people can make up their minds and write their thoughts there. Libreleah (talk) 10:19, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:CANVASS -- Yae4 (talk) 10:34, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
I don't think this is canvassing, because Libreleah is only stating their own view but is not encouraging other people to vote the same way. PhotographyEdits (talk) 10:46, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
"When notifying other editors of discussions, ..., keep the message text neutral,..." The first line is neutral. The rest is not, particularly the bold vote statement. -- Yae4 (talk) 10:55, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
@Yae4 It wouldn't be canvassing because this is the talk page of the article you want to delete Rlink2 (talk) 11:28, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
It is canvassing because it is not neutral message text. It obviously solicits support for a particular position. -- Yae4 (talk) 11:48, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
@Yae4
Canvassing is notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way, and is considered inappropriate.
Everyone on this talk page knows about the AfD already, so it's not canvassing. She's simply stating her position. If she had posted this in places like the Village Pump or random peoples talk page, it could then be canvassing. You quoted the tl;dr of the page but the actual page goes into more detail. Also, you cant take snippets of a paragraph and use them out of context.
keep the message text neutral the message text is neutral.
She said So I voted "Keep" (with the clarification that I think libreboot.org and libreboot.at should both be mentioned in the article, with libreboot.org having the most prominence due to better sourcing), but of course other people can make up their minds and write their thoughts there. She didn't say other people should vote keep, she simply stated a fact which is that she voted "keep".
I don't think this the main issue here though. Rlink2 (talk) 12:00, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI