Talk:Libreboot/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

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

Extended content

Hi, first of all let me say: I have a connection to the Libreboot topic that is the subject of this talk page. I am the founder and lead developer of Libreboot, the one hosted at libreboot.org - as a result, I feel it would be wrong for me to edit the article itself. However, I don't see a problem with discussing on this talk page. I have been following the recent discussions and changes on the Libreboot article, with great interest. I believe that there is a persistent and determined effort to pervert the text of the article, with edits that clearly violate Wikpedia's rules in demand of expressing a "Neutral Point of view", and in violation of Wikipedia's regulations against biased / conflict of interest editing. I will explain why I think this is the case: Recently, since around late May 2023, the user account by name "Yae4" has been slowly but surely editing the article in favour of a proposed *fork* of Libreboot, hosted at domain name libreboot.at. For the context behind this dispute, see: https://libreboot.org/news/policy.html https://libreboot.org/freedom-status.html The Libreboot project policy changed in November 2022, as reflected by the above documents, and certain people within the Libreboot community disagreed with this change. That is the purpose of the Libreboot.AT domain name. Before I continue, I must stress that I have *no* problem whatsoever with people forking Libreboot. As a free software activist, it is my purpose to provide people with *free software*, as is the mission of the Libreboot project. I must also state that I'm *OK* with libreboot.at being talked about on the Wikipedia article. What I'm *not* OK with is the clear agenda to remove all reference to libreboot.org, which is the original project lead by myself, and currently ongoing. Indeed, there have been several recent releases as of this year, and as I write this post, I'm currently working upon a new stable release of the software, which will be released soon enough, though I can't provide an exact ETA; alas, I'm getting off-base, Libreboot release scheduling is not the purpose of this post. Yae4 initially proposed that the Libreboot article be *deleted*, redirecting to the Coreboot article on wikipedia. The AfD for this was proposed under the pretense that Libreboot had weak sourcing (for Wikipedia purposes), and indeed that was a fair argument. I also thought that such a merge would be reasonable, since Libreboot *is* a distribution of coreboot (with some modifications made); for example, other coreboot distributions like Heads or MrChromebox do not, to my knowledge, have Wikipedia articles about them, but they are mentioned on the coreboot article and linked to on the coreboot website. In the end, the AfD was defeated and the Libreboot article was retained, with a view to improving it by adding more sources. Several editors here, including Yae4, began doing just that, and at that point, the discussions and subsequent edits were very reasonable, even beneficial. However, this turned out to be a pretext for what came next: the utter removal of all reference to libreboot.org, the official website of the Libreboot project, in favour of libreboot.at, a project speerheaded by the FSF who has appointed (currently) two maintainers. When you look at the pattern of Yae4's edits, you will find several edits that suggest bias, or a non-neutral point of view. I will link to the specific diffs in a little while, but first I will provide a summary of the sorts of changes that were made by Yae4: When deletions of libreboot.at were made by other editors, Yae4 would revert the deletions, retaining libreboot.at When additions/edits in favour of libreboot.org (the original and ongoing project) were made by others, Yae4 persistently and deliberately reverted them, offering (in many cases) no rational explanation Slowly but surely undermined the importance of libreboot.org, via minor edits that appear innocent on their own, but put together, show a larger picture of the editor's agenda; finally, all reference to libreboot.org has been removed, citing only libreboot.at as the official website When editors tried to provide *context* for the dispute (between libreboot.at and libreboot.org), they tried to link to Libreboot project policy (as stated on libreboot.org), to provide an explanation for libreboot.at's existence. Such context would be a good fit for the article, to educate readers, yet Yae4 removed all such edits, weighing in favour of libreboot.at only (the article says that "Libreboot added proprietary software" without giving context or even a citation) Yae4 had various IP editors banned/blocked from editing, asserting that they are connected to the Libreboot project. This is false. Neither I nor anyone I know has been editing the article, and many of those edits were good, but Yae4 seemingly blocked them because they went against the agenda as asserted above. I propose: re-introduce the full infobox for libreboot.org, listing it as the official website for Libreboot, and have this be the main infobox, deleting the libreboot.at infobox, BUT: also retain mention of libreboot.at in the article, in the history section where it's currently mentioned. The libreboot.at fork does not currently have a repository, nor any code published, nor do they have any releases of any kind; they also do not have very good sourcing for citations (the citations in the article are all in reference to libreboot.org, at present), and so, I would say that libreboot.at is *not* worthy of Wikipedia at this time, but that may change and the dispute itself (between myself and libreboot.org, versus FSF and their followers who wish to see libreboot.at thrive) is still technically a part of libreboot history, so it makes sense to reference it here on wikipedia. I further propose: provide links to Libreboot project "binary blob reduction policy", for context in the paragraph describing FSF/libreboot.at's grievance with libreboot proper, as hosted on libreboot.org. The link to that policy is provided above, in this text that I've published. Even though I am of course biased (I have a clear conflict of interest, thus I will not edit the article), I implore anyone reading this to consider: Wikipedia is intended to be a neutral source of information about a wide variety of topics. It is not the place of Wikipedia to take the side of any particular argument one way or the other. Its purpose is to provide information as generally accepted by people in society, as a general purpose encyclopedia; accordingly, libreboot.org *must* be prominently promoted and documented in the article, even if certain FSF-aligned editors take offense or even personal insult to it, as seems to be the case with Yae4 (and a few other editors). I welcome any and all discussion, including from Yae4, and I shall be bringing this to the attention of Wikipedia administrators. Now, I will discuss specific edits by Yae4 and provide my thoughts on them. These are intended to demonstrate the slow but consistent pattern of disruption caused by Yae4's edits: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Libreboot&diff=prev&oldid=1156820160 - minor point, but Richard Stallman is *not* a notable authority or expert on Libreboot. I can tell you for a fact that he always outsources configuration of his personal machines to FSF staff. Even in the early days when I openly cooperated with the FSF, Richard Stallman always deferred to me for advice about anything; his technical knowledge about coreboot, and Libreboot, was and still is about average compared to any normal person. Richard Stallman has never engaged in Libreboot development, nor contributed anything substantial to the project in any way; he merely has a blog that states he uses Libreboot. In short, he has nothing to do with Libreboot but this edit by Yae4, accordingly, suggests a preference in favour of GNU/FSF. Libreboot is not currently affiliated with the FSF in any way, and has been so unaffiliated for several years now. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Libreboot&diff=prev&oldid=1157110046 - although I stated that I'm fine with libreboot.at being mentioned on the article, it does indeed have no relation to Libreboot, despite the domain name. libreboot.at currently has no code, no releases of any kind, and very poor sourcing. The current version of their website is a slightly modified version of a much older version of the website from libreboot.org https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Libreboot&diff=prev&oldid=1157201345 - the first edit that weighed in favour of the FSF arguments, without giving arguments from libreboot.org as context. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Libreboot&diff=prev&oldid=1157277971 - removed a cite to Libreboot's former status as a GNU project; I was the leader of the project at that time (I've always been the leader of the project, since it's inception, both before, during and after its GNU membership) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Libreboot&diff=prev&oldid=1157278688 - the citations for libreboot.at are self-published (FSF), and FSF is the one running libreboot.at so it is also a primary source. The mention was removed for that reason, but Yae4 re-added it anyway. (if you check libreboot.at on whois, is it owned by GNU HostMaster and FSF, and the current IPv4 address at this time is in the same subnet as gnu.org, for the website) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Libreboot&diff=prev&oldid=1157484955 - minor point, but part of the larger pattern. Yae4 removed a citation for a machine that Libreboot supports. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Libreboot&diff=prev&oldid=1157895997 - seemingly minor, but these entries add "See also" links for Alyssa Rosenzweig, Free Software Foundation, GNU and Richard Stallman. Alyssa Rosenzweig was briefly a member of the Libreboot project, as an impromptu spokeperson, sysadmin for project infrastructure, and also improved the website; in *2017*. Alyssa later became an FSF intern and has done two talks at FSF LibrePlanet conferences. I greatly respect Alyssa and her work such as the Panfrost project, but she has nothing to do with Libreboot for some time, though she is deeply associated with the FSF by her history. Similarly, Libreboot has no affiliated to FSF, GNU or Richard Stallman and is even openly critical about these entities on its website. When, for this reason, certain editors removed these links, Yae4 re-added it. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Libreboot&diff=prev&oldid=1157903413 - the AfD proposed by Yae4. Given the more recent edits removing libreboot.org from the article, reverts by Yae4 against neutral or pro-libreboot.org editors, and other examples, I can reasonably assert that the purpose of this AfD was to censor the existence of libreboot.org due to its policies that are now in contrast to FSF policy. Of course, this is supposition on my part, and whether it's true has no bearing on my overall assertion: that Yae4 is editing with a non-neutral, biased point of view. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Libreboot&diff=prev&oldid=1158680263 - seemingly minor, but here Yae4 is suggesting that Libreboot's primary purpose is commercial (software for profit of a single entity), as opposed to grassroots (software in the public interest). Such becomes clearer in subsequent edits, when you read between the lines. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Libreboot&diff=prev&oldid=1158680699 - I forgot to cite the earlier edit adding this, but Yae4 added a note about a reviewer of Libreboot laptops from my company, stating that the laptop "reeked of cigarette smoke" - this fact has no bearing on the subject matter, and seems to be an attack, rather than a neutral edit in favour of improving the quality of the article. Several editors have tried to remove this, only for Yae4 to restore it each time. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Libreboot&diff=prev&oldid=1158724134 - minor point. Indeed, Libreboot receives many contributors, and technically has received in excess of 100+ contributors over the years. In any normal circumstance, an editor adding this note would seem innocuous but in Yae4's case, it fits in with the wider pattern of trying to "undermine" libreboot proper, in favour of the FSF fork - NOTE: I'm OK with such text remaining, in fact it is a compliment that Libreboot receives so much attention! https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Libreboot&diff=prev&oldid=1158803931 - again part of the pattern, talking favourably of and in bias to FSF. Even when Libreboot was in favour with the FSF, RYF technically had nothing to do with Libreboot (it complied with FSDG criteria, not RYF - it's companies selling Libreboot preinstalled that can comply with RYF, but the assertion is nonsense for actual software in absence of a tangible commercial product). The Free Software Foundation has never been directly involved with Libreboot development; I've always been in charge, and people work with *me*. I merely received promotion from the FSF a few years ago, where they would tell people about the Libreboot project. Promotion that I'm still grateful for, to this day, but my point stands: the Free Software Foundation is entirely irrelevant, in this context. Yae4 is simply plugging them as part of a wider agenda against libreboot.org, which is now in dispute with the FSF over binary blobs policy. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Libreboot&diff=prev&oldid=1158806212 - Yae4 removed prominent linking of the libreboot.org website, in the libreboot.org infobox when it existed. Yae4 also removed reference to the Git repository. There was neither consensus nor removal for such discussion, and the edit again appears to be one of biased censorship in favour of the FSF (hiding the existence of libreboot.org as much as possible, in preparation for later promoting libreboot.at instead) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Libreboot&diff=prev&oldid=1158806496 - seemingly stealth edit, it says "short description" but stealthily removes reference to the libreboot repository, and current released version. Again, seemingly to undermine Libreboot, which is the subject of the article. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Libreboot&diff=prev&oldid=1159011418 - Yae4 is now equating the name Libreboot with entities that have nothing to do with it, the purpose of which I can summise would be to confuse readers. There can be no other explanation, especially given the lack of citations and future removal of this text in favour of the FSF. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Libreboot&diff=prev&oldid=1159015454 - seemingly to confuse people, this text added by Yae4 suggests that as of 2021, Libreboot was a GNU project. Libreboot left the GNU project in 2017 officially, which has even been referenced by this very article, with proper citation. Again, all part of a pro-FSF bias (FSF and GNU are basically the same entity, for all practical purposes, at least in this context) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Libreboot&diff=prev&oldid=1159024557 - first major mention of libreboot.at added by Yae4, but it is written to suggest that libreboot.at is the new official website, with no reference to any context behind it or arguments from the side of libreboot.org (attempts later by editors to add such context were swiftly removed by Yae4) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Libreboot&diff=prev&oldid=1159126088 - removal of Leah Rowe (myself) as named lead developer, which seems fine on its own, but fits into the larger pattern of trying to undermine the official Libreboot project as hosted at libreboot.org https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Libreboot&diff=prev&oldid=1159747016 - similar point to above, Yae4 added reference to FSF/GNU despite Libreboot having no clear affiliation with these entities, for at least a few years now. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Libreboot&diff=prev&oldid=1159753083 - added external links pointing to libreboot.at *only*, without also pointing to libreboot.org https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Libreboot&diff=prev&oldid=1159768387 - ditto to above https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Libreboot&diff=prev&oldid=1159768414 - ditto to above https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Libreboot&diff=prev&oldid=1159796481 - *here*, Yae4 brazenly edited the article to say that libreboot.org is the *unofficial* website, despite evidence to the contrary. This clearly demonstrates that Yae4 is not editing with a Neutral Point of View, and the wider pattern suggests possible bias / conflict of interest. very sus editing indeed. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Libreboot&diff=prev&oldid=1159803704 - innocent on its own, but this and many other edits link favourably to resources about companies still promoted by the FSF who sell Libreboot. This in and of itself is fine, and regardless of anything, should be kept as it is a good fit for the article, but again points to a wider picture of bias in favour of the FSF, on Yae4's part https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Libreboot&diff=prev&oldid=1159825059 - Yae4 added libreboot.at's arguments against libreboot.org, without pointing to libreboot.org's counter arguments which are published publicly (and self-published, yes, but so is libreboot.at's arguments, thus the edit is biased). Again, other editors attempted to add counter-arguments by libreboot.org, which Yae4 reverted every time (with no clear justification for doing so) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Libreboot&diff=prev&oldid=1159831485 - Yae4 added an infobox for *libreboot.at*, and put it on top, suggesting it to be the official/main project, despite libreboot.at having no releases and less-than-reliable sourcing, and double despite the fact that libreboot.org itself still has regular development, contributions and *regular releases* https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Libreboot&diff=prev&oldid=1159960902 - disputed the body text, without providing justification for the dispute (nothing written on the talk page, as far as I can tell). https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Libreboot&diff=prev&oldid=1160114064 - PhotographyEdits removed unreliably sourced information, that just so happened to be in favour of FSF, and Yae4 re-added that information. PhotographyEdits has made several good edits to the article, that Yae4 keeps reverting indiscriminately https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Libreboot&diff=prev&oldid=1160122496 - *finally*, we see that Yae4 has removed the libreboot.org infobox, as was Yae4's likely objective all along; first it was the AfD, and then this, all with a view to *censoring* the existence of an actively developed and well-received software project that happens to be in dispute with the FSF, an entity that Yae4 is, as demonstrated by all of these edits, clearly biased in favour of. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Libreboot&action=edit - final icing on the cake, and the current final edit by Yae4 as I post this. this edit by Yae4 references the FSF's "campaign for a free BIOS", which has nothing to do with Libreboot proper, but serves Yae4's seemingly pro-FSF stance in defiance of wikipedia guidelines about bias and neutral point of view. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Libreboot&diff=prev&oldid=1160122704 - ditto, Yae4 removed reference to libreboot.org as the official website, replacing it with libreboot.at - this, despite libreboot.org having regular development, and libreboot.at not even having a code repository at the time of writing The speed at which Yae4 edits makes it very difficult for other editors to weigh in, and Yae4 actively engages in tactics to thwart/sequester other editors. I should point out: most of Yae4's more aggressive editing (such as total removal of libreboot.org from the article) only occured *after* the article received an Extended Lock upon it, which was placed on it when certain *genuinely* vandalising edits were made (there was a sockpuppeter adding racist/nazi stuff, those edits are now quite rightly censored from view in accordance with wikipedia's policy against hate speech). Why would Yae4 only go for the most aggressive edits after such an Extended Lock? (expiring on 23 June 2023, and today's date as I write this is 15 June 2023) - I assert that this is because Yae4 knows such edits would receive fierce opposition if the article were open for editing to everyone. This, and the pattern already demonstrated above by myself, seems to suggest again that Yae4 is editing in favour of the FSF, a clear violation of Wikipedia's regulations about conflict of interest, lack of bias and the requirement to edit with a Neutral Point of View. When you look at Yae4's history, you will find that Yae4 has had many complaints from other editors on Wikipedia, for disruptive editing on other articles, and was even banned from editing articles about Climate Change. In general, Yae4 has also been extremely quick to always constantly revert edits done by people when those edits are similarly in opposition to or not overtly supportive of the FSF and libreboot.at. Such can be gleaned from the pattern shown by these and other edits. Based on Yae4's past behaviours, I request to Wikipedia admins that Yae4 be *banned* from editing the Libreboot article, though my request to include libreboot.at in the history/reception section of the article be kept. As I said, I'm OK with libreboot.at existing, but removing libreboot.org from the libreboot article on wikipedia is not cool, especially as Libreboot is a currently develped project which receives many contributors, patches and still provides regular releases.

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)