Talk:Libreboot

RfC: How should the fork and libreboot.at be included?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No Consensus, but closing this for deletion discussion. Yae4 (talk) 18:38, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

---

How should the fork and libreboot.at be included?

1. Ignore it like article does now did when RfC started
2. Include basic history and info based on primary sources if independent secondary sources are not available
3. Other

Background: There is a dispute over the direction of Libreboot, and the name is now being used by two projects. The new GNU/FSF website[1][2] and project was announced in March at a Libreplanet presentation.[3] Some discussion of issues is at libreboot.org.[4]

At this article, these changes, Special:Diff/1146204066/1149329352, on April 11, added a basic statement, but were reverted and called "VANDALISM" by these changes, Special:Diff/1149329352/1152487905, on April 30.

-- Yae4 (talk) 19:50, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Let's also tag @GNUtoo who is the author of that Libreplanet presentation.

@Yae4 so far it does not seem it has been covered by independent WP:RS, so let's not mention it yet. PhotographyEdits (talk) 04:43, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

I just did a thorough research and didn't find any reliable coverage, except a few trivial mentions on blogs. Given the circumstances, it is better not to include it. If the info is added, it would need to be explained, that would not be possible without any availability of third party coverage. Just mentioning facts or history is not that important, provided it has an impact, be it positive or negative.Cruzdoze (talk) 08:31, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Cruzdoze has no other edits? -- Yae4 (talk) 18:15, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Yae4, Pardon me if I did anything wrong by presenting my views. Is it against the policy to comment on RFC if there is no edit history? Please guide me.Cruzdoze (talk) 19:44, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

No problem. Noted it for anyone scanning the comments, for weighting purposes. -- Yae4 (talk) 12:47, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

@PhotographyEdits: This article, a stub, now cites several primary and self-published sources including GNU.org and libreboot.org, and a mailing list post. Some secondary cites are shallow coverage or brief mentions. IMO, the cites I linked above are similar to primary current cites, and the info' should be added to the article, not ignored. I'm open to other opinions, if convincing. -- Yae4 (talk) 18:14, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

These primary / self published sources should be used for things like alternative names and numbers in infobox (which is currently the case for the other sources), not for writing an entire paragraph. Yes the list of notable users is short and I would accept it if there were several notable users where the others could be cited using secondary WP:RS, but in the current case I'd say no to this and the libreboot.at issue. I woud say to use WP:3O now. PhotographyEdits (talk) 09:49, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Hackaday is cited 4 times, but reliability is suspect: See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_296#RfC_Revisiting_Hackaday and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_281#Hackaday. That looks like a WP:DUE issue. Anyway, we should separate the discussion of sourcing and Notable users from this RfC on linbreboot.at. Already two editors, Ian_Kelling and I want to add something about libreboot.at and issues, which is why I started the RfC. -- Yae4 (talk) 12:46, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

@Yae4 Thanks for fixing the Hackaday issue! Not sure if WP:DUE is really the issue here since the content can still be referenced from other sources. Though, I'm not sure about the potential COI of Ian Kelling since they work at the FSF, where Richard Stallman is on the board of directors of. I agree to split this discussion, will open a new section. PhotographyEdits (talk) 13:56, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

The declared COI puts their edits in a different light, but they are not wrong in this case, IMO. Thanks. -- Yae4 (talk) 14:32, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

I just found this discussion. "The new GNU/FSF website" is not the right way to describe libreboot.at. The page itself says: "Denis ‘GNUtoo’ Carikli and Adrien ‘neox’ Bourmault are the interim maintainers" Ian Kelling (talk) 18:57, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

@Ian Kelling: Welcome. Tell us what is right; not what is not right. :) That said, $whois libreboot.at shows "personname: Hostmaster GNU FSF" so it seems about right to me, for Talk purposes. Also the libreboot.at page says "...motive for developing the GNU operating system and starting the Free Software Foundation" early on, so yeah. -- Yae4 (talk) 19:07, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

I understand. It should be made more clear somehow. Ian Kelling (talk) 19:28, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

I note that https://libreboot.at/contact.html has a link to their mailing list which is 404, along with links to their source code. So, it appears the project is not publicly active at the moment. Ian Kelling (talk) 19:03, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

404 happens. The link probably should point here, here, or here, which are functioning. -- Yae4 (talk) 15:39, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC: Should a notable users section exists and should Richard Stallman be included?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus was reached to delete the Notable users section. Yae4 (talk) 18:21, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

---

Should a notable users section exists and should Richard Stallman be included?

1. No to both
2. Include Stallman in a different section
3. Yes

PhotographyEdits (talk) 13:58, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

• No to both or Different section if there is a reliable secondary source. It is currently WP:UNDUE by using his primary website. PhotographyEdits (talk) 14:02, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

  @PhotographyEdits: I observe you've gone from "Let's not be too strict about WP:RS and allow Hackaday..." above in August 2021, and having a "Inclusionist" label[5] on your User page, to removing a lot of content from this article. Has your approach changed that much, or is it something about this article that makes you a stickler for secondary sources here? I agree with not including personal stuff, especially about non-notable people, but it seems the History has been gutted, and there is avoidance of even mentioning involved people? -- Yae4 (talk) 14:18, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

  Note that I did not removed the Hackaday refs, you did that (and I thanked you for it). Since it did not resulted in removal of content, I'm fine with removing Hackaday sources in this case and I would not oppose adding them back either. I removed a lot of content from this article that was based on unreliable self published sources indeed, and that is mainly enforcing Wikipedia policies. In general, I prefer adding more content to Wikipedia, unless some other users that prefer deleting content. That is what makes me an inclusionist in my view.

  Also I don't see the point of including coreboot history in this article, which is already included in the coreboot article. Including the history about libreboot sources from a book is a great addition. Adding a sentence of information on the GNU split based on a mailing list post is not acceptable in my view. The libreboot.at information should also not be added as long as it's only based on primary sources. Same applies to Stallman their usage of Libreboot. I agree with @SWinxy this can be classified as WP:FANCRUFT. PhotographyEdits (talk) 14:31, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

  Maybe it should be water under the bridge, but I was referring to a series of edits in August 2021, which gutted the article.

  A brief mention of Coreboot introduces the History of Libreboot. It would look like a brief mention if the history of Libreboot hadn't been entirely gutted, and is now in rebuild mode. As said above, "I agree with not including personal stuff, especially about non-notable people,"

  These are the same kinds of primary AND self-published sources used without objections[6][7] IMO a presentation at a conference by a known expert, Carikli, is a better source than self-published mailing list postings, or self-published website postings at libreboot org, still in the article, which tend to disappear or change. -- Yae4 (talk) 15:42, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

  >used without objections

  Yes, for the name of the software. That is a reasonable use. Using it for writing complete sentences or paragraphs, not so much.

  >known expert, Carikli

  According to Wikipedia policy, we need to verify that and make sure this person has sources published in the relevant field in reliable sources. PhotographyEdits (talk) 18:44, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

  Carikli presentation is not self-published; and is secondary for libreboot org, or primary for libreboot at. -- Yae4 (talk) 23:00, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

• 3. Yes, include a list, for now, and consider adding more info. Example, Kyle Rankin (software) may not be wiki-notable, but could be listed as a user who wrote a lot about Libreboot. -- Yae4 (talk) 19:29, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
• No, imo it's WP:FANCRUFT. Doesn't add to the article. SWinxy (talk) 23:53, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

  @SWinxy: Flaws in your position: WP:FANCRUFT is more about articles, not lists in articles; Many articles include lists of notable users;[8] The Richard_Stallman article talks about libreboot and wiki-links to this article. This article is a stub and a lot of information has been removed since the peak History content around August 2021.[9] If this article is not to remain a stub, and have anything approximating an accurate history on the subject of Libreboot, Stallman will be mentioned. In the meantime, I don't care too much whether the list is called Notable Users, or the more wiki-standard, See also, but related articles should be wiki-linked somewhere, probably including Alyssa_Rosenzweig based on comments farther above in this talk. -- Yae4 (talk) 14:03, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Yae4 Based on the number of secondary, reliable, independent sources that is available on this subject, I think that a stub is a reasonable article length for this subject. The article lenght at its peak used way too much primary and self published sources. Including possible defamatory statements regarding the event in March 2021 described in that version, based on a blog post. That is completely unacceptable. PhotographyEdits (talk) 14:36, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

  As said above, "I agree with not including personal stuff, especially about non-notable people". Selected use of primary sources is OK for basic, non-controversial stuff, like existence of a fork, which this article should not ignore. Compared with Coreboot, you've over-gutted the primary sources. -- Yae4 (talk) 15:43, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

  The coreboot article also needs to be cleaned up, but we're now talking about this article. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If you want to look for other reliable sources about coreboot, please go ahead, but currently I'm focusing on this article.

  >Selected use of primary sources is OK for basic, non-controversial stuff, like existence of a fork, which this article should not ignore.

  No, this article should not ignore the fork if there are secondary and independent sources describing it. Als long as those don't exists, it is better to ignore the fork. PhotographyEdits (talk) 18:41, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

• No, Why would we? Do we have Mac users or Samsung phone users? The fact that this is not commercial software doesn't fundamentally alter that. As Stallman has some 'expertise', his opinions might be considered worthy of inclusion, if his site is considered to be a WP:RS. Equally if some very substantial body started using it, it might be worthy of inclusion, but as framed no to both. Pincrete (talk) 07:28, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
• No because it's trivia. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 10:20, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

  @CactiStaccingCrane and Pincrete: "Many other articles include lists of notable users. If the history section of this article had not been gutted, as discussed above, Stallman's influence on Libre boot would be covered in some detail. I agree as the article stands, it looks like trivia. -- Yae4 (talk) 16:38, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

  I think ALL of these sections should be gutted. They don't contribute much to the article itself and is borderline promotional. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:41, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

  By "these sections" I mean "Notable users" ones, not other sections of this article. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:42, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

  Which articles? But even if you are right, I agree with CTC, it doesn't contribute anything very useful and is promotional. Pincrete (talk) 16:51, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

  These articles? Did you miss the link above? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?go=Go&search=notable+users&title=Special%3ASearch&ns0=1 This section of Manual of Style seems to agree, but how to distinguish from See also lists? -- Yae4 (talk) 17:09, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

AfD or Merge?

IMO an issue here is: What is "Libreboot" really? Along with that is: does and should this article serve as advertisement for Libreboot org and Minifree business, or, should this article be about efforts to have Libre booting?

Assessment of non-self-published, non-primary, presumably "reliable" sources:

• Assuming Linux-magazine is reliable, the 2018 cite " Transparency in firmware with Libreboot, Liberated"[10] covers "making firmware free as in freedom". There is coverage of "Libreboot" (org), but also "Several small international companies have emerged..." including Purism_(company). The interview of Rowe covers Librecore, coreboot, BIOS, Laptops; ...Trisquel, FSF Approval, difficulty with a T400, codecs, lots of stuff other than Libreboot org.

• Related Content from the above cite includes other articles on earlier history, preceding "Libreboot" brand and "Minifree" sales, but these are not cited here.

• The 3-part series by Kyle Rankin in 2015 and 2017,[11][12][13] are mostly very detailed, technical How-to articles. Like Linux Magazine, these cover many topics besides "Libreboot".
• ZDNET Vaughan-Nichols, 2015 "Taurinus X200: Now the most 'Free Software' laptop on the planet"[14], let's face it, is more about FSF, RYF and the hardware, with mentions of "Libreboot", but sold by Libiquity, and called Tarinux or Taurinus in different places. Used to support a "some developers..." paragraph?
• James Gray, 2017 Linux Journal " Minifree Ltd.'s GNU+Linux Computers":[15] is about Minifree and a few details on a few different products being sold, and is cited for an ASUS motherboard I didn't see mentioned in the source?
• John Biggs 2017 Tech Crunch (?), "T400 is free as in freedom",[16] is an advertisement for the refurbished T400 with passing mentions of Libreboot and Minifree.

I dislike AfDs, but this article is looking like it should go. There is too much distorted presentation of sources used, and very weak sourcing in the first place -- Yae4 (talk) 23:04, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

>I dislike AfDs

I do as well. It seems that there currently is mostly a disagreement between us, so it would be nice if we can resolve it without an AfD.

Years before I proposed to merge this article with coreboot and that was strongly opposed by some now blocked IP editor.

Something I also considered was the high number of translations. It is not really a particular good argument grounded in policy to keep an article, but usually I find it quite annoying if English is the only missing prominent language of a particular subject on Wikipedia. (this is my inclusionist side showing I guess). Back then I thought that a stub would be appropriate for some subject like this that has weak quality sourcing.

I'm not sure if the article really not meets the notability guidelines, if you feel like it should be deleted then feel free to open an AfD anyway. In that case I will vote to merge it into the coreboot article. If you want to merge this article without AfD, then I'll also assist with that.

Hopefully then we can have some more productive work by cleaning up the coreboot article :) PhotographyEdits (talk) 20:07, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Other translations seem to have easier, or minimal, sourcing requirements. English Wikipedia seems to push some, more political, articles in desired directions by banning designated "unreliable" sources, but that's a larger issue.

IMO both Coreboot and Libreboot, to varying degree, have become advertisements and link farms for selected projects and sales efforts. Neither has enough good "notability" sourcing to have articles, although I've done less looking at Coreboot. I weakly feel merging Libreboot into "Coreboot" could be a mistake. What would you think about a different article on the more general topic of efforts to replace proprietary vendor boot firmware with more "free" or open source firmware? Such an article may be able to pass AfC, and if ever Libreboot.x or coreboot has enough "good" sourcing to justify a split article, it could have one. -- Yae4 (talk) 21:20, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

For Libreboot I can agree with regards the advertising because of the Minifree company, but for coreboot? Are they selling stuff? I'm pretty sure that coreboot meets the notability requirements though. This article from Tweakers.net wrote a quite lenghty review of the project somewhat recently: https://tweakers.net/reviews/10032/de-bewogen-geschiedenis-van-coreboot-hoe-chromeos-een-bios-alternatief-redde.html

I need to look for more references but this looks pretty convincing already.

I support of the existence of a generic article, but I don't think that coreboot should be merged into that one. I created open-source firmware before, I think that one could be significantly extended.

For the merge of Libreboot, I think that a sentence or two in the coreboot article variants section would be totally fine. We don't need to list their supported machines since they only support upstream coreboot machines anyway. PhotographyEdits (talk) 08:38, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

At Coreboot I've changed a few spam external links disguised as cites recently, but more remain. It's good to see Open-source_firmware, but not so good to see 2 of 4 cites are Hackaday. Coreboot#Supported_platforms and Coreboot#Variants is where the spam link cites were most obvious. Seems we're not agreeing on the merge direction. -- Yae4 (talk) 16:29, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

>not so good to see 2 of 4 cites are Hackaday

Well it seems that the current state regarding the reliability is actually a no-consensus if I understand it correctly. I think a new post should be made to establish the consensus more thoroughly.

>Seems we're not agreeing on the merge direction.

Indeed. We could use WP:3O or an AfD, I think that the first one is the least bureaucratic. PhotographyEdits (talk) 08:19, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

@Yae4 I have cleaned the article up a bit with the comments on this talk page in mind, I think the current 'characteristics' section would be well suited for merging into the coreboot article. I would like to hear your comments on that. PhotographyEdits (talk) 12:09, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

@PhotographyEdits: There was no consensus to delete some things you deleted, particularly mention of Libreboot at. That said, IMO it's an OK brief Libreboot org summary paragraph, but the paragraph would fit better under Libreboot org in the Examples section of Open-source_firmware. Also, "Characteristics" as a section title seems odd for Wikipedia. -- Yae4 (talk) 17:06, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Lengthy accusations, opinions and personal attacks

Hi, I think the AfD proposal is spurious at best. Also read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Open-source_firmware where user @Yae4 was adding links to the libreboot.at project with only primary sources, and when I removed it on these grounds, Yae4 re-added it, before I again re-deleted it for violating wikipedia citation guidelines. Yae4 has indeed posted links to libreboot.at on the libreboot article, and seems to be advocating for its removal (merge with coreboot). I could look for other examples to point to this from other people, but I strongly suspect bias against libreboot by some of the editors here, as opposed to any genuine concern for meeting wikipedia guidelines. This is simply a witchhunt against the libreboot project, for reasons I'm unsure of as of yet. I call into question the legitimacy of recent discussions surrounding the Libreboot article. The article should remain as it is, and be allowed to expand as more articles become available about it online. The project was more or less dead for years owing to a rewrite of the project that was later scrapped, so the current Libreboot project has been in development since a virtual reboot of the project about 2 years ago (and you can find articles about that online, it may be interesting to talk about in the article, indeed it's mentioned in earlier revisions of the article but they were removed due to having only primary sources). Furthermore, why is Alyssa Rosenzweig mentioned on the Libreboot article? She clearly has nothing to do with the Libreboot project, having only had brief connections with the project about 7 years ago, and there are no secondary sources anywhere to confirm her involvement regardless. The same goes for GNU and FSF links on the article, why are they there? The Libreboot article should be about Libreboot. On this same basis, libreboot.at should not be mentioned at all. It simply carries the same name, but it is a completely unrelated project. When you look at the libreboot.at website, they don't even have releases and their downloads section doesn't work. There is nothing of any consequence about libreboot.at anywhere online, so why mention it on wikipedia? libreboot.at clearly does not meet notoriety guidelines of wikipedia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.218.255 (talk) 03:55, 1 June 2023 (UTC) — 92.40.218.255 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. To follow-up: I believe a substantial portion of editors on this article have a clear conflict of interest, going both ways. Indeed, some of the editors here seem to be biased in favor of Libreboot, while others are so in favor of FSF/GNU and libreboot.at. Reading between the lines, this seems to be the basis for recent editor wars on the Libreboot article and other spin-off articles elsewhere, such as the one I mentioned above. Conflict of Interests are clearly regulated against by Wikipedia guidelines. The edits to this article are tainted because of it. I think there needs to be serious, honest talk about it, especially after the one sided discussions on the AfD for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Libreboot For example, several of the edits were performed by @Ian_Kelling who has a known connection to the FSF as systems administrator: https://www.fsf.org/about/staff-and-board The libreboot.at domain is owned by GNU Hostmaster, as per domain name Whois data, and the GNU project is administrated by the FSF. The FSF has a connection to libreboot.at. Primary sources have been permitted for libreboot.at, and its inclusions rarely challenged, while the article for libreboot proper is being targeted for deletion. I believe these changes are hostile. FWIW I think Leah's nuts (Leah Rowe is the leader of Libreboot), an absolute piece of work, but fair's fair. Alas, I don't know what can be done to rectify it, because going back, there seem to be about 2 years worth of such hostile / biased edits to Libreboot, as of this day. 92.40.218.255 (talk) 04:08, 1 June 2023 (UTC) — 92.40.218.255 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I've not reviewed all the recent disputes, but the recent edits by Yae4 are prima facie an improvement in terms of sourcing. Given there are some ongoing developments, it makes sense to have sections focused on the past tense, as we don't necessarily have good sources for the events of the past few months. When more and better sources appear, we'll hopefully be able to describe Libreboot's connection to GNU/FSF, mention any relevant forks etc. We don't need to decide that now.

It commonly happens that an article about a software product also deals with related efforts like any forks and participating companies (see for example Nextcloud which is also about Nextcloud GmbH and mentions ownCloud, or Mastodon which also deals with forks and Mastodon gGbmH). Branding everything as "advertisement" serves little purpose.

I'd also recommend to avoid personal comments on the individuals involved. Speaking of which, I happen to be an FSF supporter and I've met Leah at FOSDEM once, but I don't think this makes me a "connected contributor". I've received some messages about the article on account of my previous edit where I removed an unsourced sentence. Nemo 16:58, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

@Nemo bis: Thanks for the comment. Sure, WP:NOTNEWS, but this article was being maintained with very misleading content, as though there was only one supplier of hardware with Libreboot, and one unified effort, led by one person. It is looking like that may have never been true. It was certainly not true in 2015, based on more independent citations, and it is certainly not true today based on the LibrePlanet 2023 conference presentation. We should not pretend otherwise, and allow this article to mislead readers about basic facts. -- Yae4 (talk) 23:06, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I have a COI, having been involved with the project briefly in 2017, so I originally wasn't going to say anything. But I think that's all the more reason for me to say something here and agree that the root problem here really is WP:COI. There's a collection of IP socks arguing for libreboot.org (really gluglug/minifree), there's an FSF editor or two arguing for libreboot.at, and since someone linked my BLP from the See also I'm on the sidelines watching the whole thing with mild interest.

Personally, I think 'libreboot' re-including blobs is a big deal since the entire point of libreboot was that it was coreboot sans blobs, and if that's been changed quietly I don't know why anybody would use/contribute to it instead of making coreboot easier to install. That this develpment hasn't been covered by a RS (only the libreboot.org primary and the libreplanet COI secondary) reflects on the marginal notability of the project itself. And the notability question would be easier to deal with without the COI/POV edits.

I don't know what should happens with the article. I'm generally an inclusionist, but the edit warring and namecalling and someone pinged me on my talk page?! are testing my patience.

Just my $2 (sorry, inflation). Do as you will. -Arzg (talk) 14:20, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

LWN.net

@Yae4: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#LWN.net PhotographyEdits (talk) 12:30, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Libreboot.AT, again

IMO, for saying something about GNU/FSF taking back "Libreboot" at Libreboot.AT, and why, the Carikli presentation is a WP:SECONDARY source, and reliable. Carikli presents (briefly) the results of technical analysis of what was happening at Libreboot.ORG, and the conclusions, and actions based on the conclusions. Therefore, including a summary of the what and why meet policy. I do not feel Libreboot.ORG can be considered a reliable source, partly because it is self-published; however, I feel this statement supports Carikli as someone (expert) to do such analysis. It says there, Carikli:

• gave a lot of advice and helped found the libreboot project.
• was a mentor
• taught about registers...

Lastly, Carikli is a developer of Replicant, and probably a lot more I am not aware of. -- Yae4 (talk) 8 June 2023 (UTC)

The libreboot.at page is a reliable primary source for what FSF/GNU thinks is the GNU Libreboot project. It states «Denis ‘GNUtoo’ Carikli and Adrien ‘neox’ Bourmault are the interim maintainers», which is one way of saying the project doesn't yet have a stable maintainer and is still being (re)formed.

As for the rest, there's a dispute acknowledged by both sides on where to draw the line for "libre" firmware. Nemo 05:48, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm opposed to referencing libreboot.at on the article, but if it's insisted that we do reference it, should we not also include reference to libreboot.ORG's "binary blobs reductions policy"? i refer to this article: https://libreboot.org/news/policy.html and also https://libreboot.org/freedom-status.html

It seems only fair to reference both sides of the dispute. 86.30.133.163 (86.30.133.163) 20:06, 7 June 2023 (UTC) — 86.30.133.163 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The article mentioned libreboot.at, but has not yet "referenced" it or used it as a source. The source is a presentation at LibrePlanet 2023, and it has not yet been summarized to include why or reasoning. I'm undecided on whether to use libreboot.AT itself as a source. IMO libreboot.ORG is unreliable, self-published, and a questionable source even for about-self statements. I could be wrong. If there is a dispute to be included in the article, it needs "reliable" sourcing.

86.x, Please, if you're going to continue editing Wikipedia, spend a little time learning a few things about how to do it according to Wikipedia rules and practices, such as they are. -- Yae4 (talk) 11:01, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I believe there is a cabal of FSF-aligned editors editing the Libreboot article. Based on libreboot.at's affiliation with the FSF, this can only mean that such editors have conflict of interest. I believe there is persistent vandalism against article, by Yae4 and others. Today, 9 June 2023, another user "Taking Out The Trash" appeared to remove edits, and is from Massachussets according to the user's page - FSF is from MA.

I suspect foul play. These people usually immediately block people from editing just because they make edits they don't like.

A serious review of the editors on this article is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.219.187 (talk) 19:34, 9 June 2023 (UTC) — 92.40.219.187 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

FYI, Yae4 has never knowingly been a member of any cabal, and I am pained by seeing people get blocked. Sadly, Wikipedia shows it is sometimes the least bad option. I came to this article in October 2019 to remove a Liliputing cite, but it wasn't until I saw Carikli's presentation, and saw what a crock the article had become after Crocfarts (another WP:SPA) and PhotographyEdits editing in May 2023, I took an interest in trying to find better sources and improve the article. Suggestion: See WP:CYCLE -- Yae4 (talk) 21:03, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Name of the project

The first sentence starts with:

> Libreboot (previously marketed as Gluglug, GNU Libreboot, and Libiquity Taurinus)

Are Gluglug and Libiquity Taurinus really some of the project names and not a products and company that used Libreboot? I believe only GNU Libreboot really is a former name. Tagging @Yae4. PhotographyEdits (talk) 14:43, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

• NameS of the projectS: Caution: How one frames the questions can bias the answers, as done above.

WP:LEAD: "The lead should identify the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight."

As said above, "IMO an issue here is: What is "Libreboot" really? ... should this article be about efforts to have Libre booting?" I agree the lead needs updates. I feel "Libreboot" is a broader topic now, as the body now says, based on what sources say. Sources say there have been a few companies using a few names making contributions to "Libreboot" (and coreboot). Sources say GNU and FSF got it started with RYF, have been involved throughout, and have now started another effort, by the same name. So, I think "Libreboot (previously marketed as Gluglug, GNU Libreboot, and Libiquity Taurinus)" correctly reflects the body of the article, but am not sure if "previously marketed as" meets Wiki-Standards. IMO "is a free software project" should be changed to something like "has been free a series of free software projects" or something to better fit what the body says about the history and companies involved. -- Yae4 (talk) 15:12, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Adding: The infobox and external links are out of date, IMO, but I'm not ready yet to propose changes. It should be consistent with existence of two efforts with two repos, with two websites. When I refer to article body above, I am excluding the infobox and external links. -- Yae4 (talk) 15:22, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion. Usual COI disclaimer but trying to remain neutral, I have no horse in the race anymore.

Gluglug is the previous name of Minifree, a company selling devices with Libreboot pre-installed.

Libiquity is another company selling deivces with Libreboot pre-installed. Taurinus X200 being an X200 ThinkPad with Libreboot installed. Minifree/Gluglug sold the same.

None of these are projects. Just companies/products associated with the Libreboot projects.

IMO, none of these should be in the lead.

---

Libreboot is Leah Rowe's distribution of coreboot. Originally intended as coreboot but free of blobs and packaged for easy installation. At one point in its life it was under the GNU umbrella and known as GNU Libreboot. After parting ways it reverted to being simply Libreboot.

In response to Libreboot changing its policy on blobs, those on the GNU/FSF side forked Libreboot but kept the name as Libreboot.

For an article titled Libreboot, the question is one of "true successors". We definitely cover Libreboot in its GNU and post-GNU era. The question is, what does Libreboot refer to today? Is it libreboot.org (Leah Rowe's project, as BDFL)? Is it libreboot.at (FSF/GNU's project, as the spiritual successor following the core principles of the original Libreboot that libreboot.org now rejects)? Is it both?

The core issue is whether the project's identity is tied to its values or to its BDFL. Given we're dealing with open source projects with no meaningful governance and no trademark, there's no easy objective resolution.

The usual solution is to follow the WP:RS but I don't think any reliable sources have covered Libreboot in the post-Nov 2021 era. It isn't up to Wikipedia to decide whether Rowe's project or Carikli's project is the "true" Libreboot anymore. It is genuinely unclear to me which project users / secondary sources / the world will back in the end. For now Libreboot.org is receiving active development while Libreboot.at risks becoming vapourware. Although Libreboot.org's 180 about its blob policy is probably worth discussion independent of what happens with Libreboot.at. I am unsure what that means for the article.

But for the lead, there are only two relevant names for the project(s): Libreboot and GNU Libreboot. So far the latter name isn't used by libreboot.at. Which means, regardless of the above problems, the lead should be "Libreboot (formerly GNU Libreboot)". Arzg (talk) 20:15, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not responding to most of what was posted, because no sources were given. If you haven't recently, I'd suggest skimming Wikipedia:But_it's_true! and WP:TRUTH.

Can you list some reliable sources that use the term "GNU Libreboot", or say Libreboot was formerly known as GNU Libreboot? -- Yae4 (talk) 21:35, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not saying any of this belongs in the article, so I don't think WP:TRUTH is relevant here -- I'm just trying to give the context to help you and PhotographyEdits figure out the right approach for the article. I doubt there are WP:RS's discussing this because the project itself is only marginally notable. However, the fact of the "GNU Libreboot" name once being used is agreed by both parties of the dispute, namely

https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/info-gnu/2017-01/msg00001.html from Richard Stallman who heads the FSF/GNU.

https://lists.defectivebydesign.org/archive/html/libreboot/2016-09/msg00036.html from Leah Rowe on the Libreboot.org side Arzg (talk) 22:02, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

As for a few other claims. All primary sources because a big chunk of this is true but not justified to include in the encyclopaedia. As I said I don't have a horse in the race and don't have strong feelings what should end up getting put in the article (ranging from "delete" to "include absolutely everything and more"). But the current lead is misleading at best and (assuming good faith about the edits) I wanted to clear up any misconceptions there might be here about the relevant figures.

Minifree: Leah claims in linked email signature, Minifree claims to be Leah in https://minifree.org/faq/

Gluglug: "Leah Rowe of Gluglug" https://www.fsf.org/news/gluglug-x60-laptop-now-certified-to-respect-your-freedom , don't have a citation for the Gluglug->Minifree change itself but I digress

Libiquity Taurinus X200: right from their own product page https://shop.libiquity.com/product/taurinus-x200 "Right down to the fast and secure Libreboot firmware, the Taurinus X200 subnotebook runs entirely on software that anyone is free to study, modify, and redistribute" ... the firmware itself is clearly called "Libreboot", the product is "Taurinus X200", the product vendor is Libiquity

Condition of libreboot.at: the listed source repos all 404 https://libreboot.at/git.html (the notabug links are libreboot.org repos that weren't forked) as does the only release mirror that's for libreboot.at and not libreboot.org on https://libreboot.at/download.html -- this one in particular is absolutely WP:OR and is not destined to be put in the article, I bring it up only to underscore the uncertainties around the fork

libreboot.org that is seeing active development in a public source repository: https://codeberg.org/libreboot/lbmk/commits/branch/master Arzg (talk) 22:25, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I've removed the page from my watchlist since I've already said too much. You have the facts. Edit well. -Arzg (talk) 22:42, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm well aware of numerous products with Respects Your Freedom certification, and many including coreboot or Libreboot.[17] Some of these, such as tehnoetic.com aka Technoethical laptops[18] have not been mentioned in this article, because of weaker sourcing. With all due respect to those who wish to say "Libreboot" is only all about Rowe and Minifree, and their other company or marketing names, the Wikipedia-better or more independent "reliable" sources don't say that. -- Yae4 (talk) 06:50, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Following up: A good source was found and summary added to the article.[19] -- Yae4 (talk) 17:01, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Deletion of navboxes and edit summary

This edit by PhotographyEdits removed 5 navboxes, but called it "Remove a few navboxes...", which under-states the magnitude of the change - several, IMO.[20] I dislike quibbling about semantics, but I feel we need to take some care here. -- Yae4 (talk) 08:50, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Sure, we can discuss this edit. I don't think all these navboxes should be listed since none of them include Libreboot except the booting and firmware one. PhotographyEdits (talk) 08:53, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

IIRC I took the ones I added from Free_Software_Foundation, which plays a major part in this article, and which has 5 navbars plus authority control. I've been unable to find wiki-guidance on a suggested maximum, but collapsed they take very little space. They all seem closely related to the topic and content of this article. What Wikipedia-guidance makes you think the navbars must "include Libreboot"? -- Yae4 (talk) 09:17, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

> What Wikipedia-guidance makes you think the navbars must "include Libreboot"?

See WP:BIDI, it must be bi-directionally linked and I don't think Libreboot is in scope for those navboxes either. PhotographyEdits (talk) 11:34, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Adding: Because Libreboot.ORG was previously, and Libreboot.AT is currently a GNU/FSF effort, Template:GNU could have Libreboot added to the Software list section or to more:List_of_GNU_packages, but I'm not being that bold until this article is more stable. Likewise, the (list of) Open-source firmware could be added to Template:FOSS Software packages section. Those changes would eliminate a "not included" objection (whether valid or not). -- Yae4 (talk) 11:21, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

> See WP:BIDI, it must be bi-directionally linked

@PhotographyEdits: WP:BIDI says: "Every article that transcludes a given navbox should normally also be included as a link in the navbox, so that the navigation is bidirectional." Also: "Whether to include navboxes, and which to include, is often suggested by WikiProjects, but is ultimately determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article."

It's not a must be or a shall. I feel those templates are useful for readers, and the connections are obvious. -- Yae4 (talk) 12:01, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

That is correct indeed, and I think they should not be listed even though they are related. PhotographyEdits (talk) 14:11, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

@PhotographyEdits: What other objections besides not being "bidirectional" do you have, if any? -- Yae4 (talk) 14:15, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

- Libreboot.org, the main subject of this article, is not a GNU project and neither an FSF project.

- Not a very generic free software subject

It is a firmware project involved in booting, so I think that navbox should be kept. PhotographyEdits (talk) 10:30, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Condition of hardware

Yesterday I removed three referenced sentences from the article, describing how a review of a refurbished computer with hardware certification from the Free Software Foundation had been in poor condition. I removed them, as this article is about what its opening sentence calls a "software project", and I considered the fact that the software was once installed on some damaged hardware as irrelevant. My edit summary read "remove content that's not relevant to the subject".

Yae4 has restored the sentences with the edit summary "Undo cited info' removal. Please explain how condition of reviewed refurbished hardware, as described by source, is 'not relevant to the subject'". Ok, I'll try. The article is about a software product (or software philosophy, or a set of software products – I don't think that matters for this issue). The condition of some hardware that it was once installed on has no relevance. The fact that that hardware was certified by the FSF may be relevant to an article on the FSF, but not to an article on a software product. Maproom (talk) 15:07, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

@Maproom: Thanks for explaining. IMO, you were misled by the lead. As discussed above but not settled, the lead needs updating, and is currently misleading, IMO and in others' opinions; however, we haven't agreed how to fix it. Most of the more reliable sources are reviews of refurbished laptops sold by entities who installed the firmware on old, used hardware, and may have refurbished the hardware, before selling it. Therefore, the condition of the hardware was relevant and important to the reviewer/source, and is relevant and important to this article. -- Yae4 (talk) 15:42, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Doesn't the opening sentence specify what the article's about? Whatever, I'll be keeping out of this. Maproom (talk) 16:31, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

@Maproom: It should, yes. WP:LEAD says "The lead should identify the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight." Oddly, editors don't agree what the article is about. It's somewhat evident why if you review the article history[21] or web search for sources. I will add a disputed tag to the lead as a caution to readers. -- Yae4 (talk) 16:40, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Discussion of FossForce.com as a source

​is here -- Yae4 (talk) 18:17, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

ItsFoss, TuxMachines, and FSF and GNU as sources

PhotographyEdits, I'm trying to understand your persistent removal of info from this article, and recent objections to sources. Can you explain why you now object to the statements and sources you have recently removed (and I will be restoring)? A ranking of those sources in order by WP:RSness, as you see it, could be helpful for prioritizing discussion. FYI, here is what I've observed from looking at this article's history. It appears you wish to maintain this article as a stub, billboard.

In September 2021[22] after your edits the article was left with sources from libreboot-ORG, notabug, coreboot, GNU, lists.gnu.org, Hackaday (2), and some better cites, but the article was a stub, billboard. In March 2023[23] about the same, but a linux-magazin.de cite (with passing mention) was removed. On 2 May 2023,[24] about the same, on 3 May 2023[25] Hackaday cites increased to 3, a TechCrunch was added, and a section with "Supported hardware". On 19 May 2023[26] about the same. The persistent appearance is a stub, billboard, and no progress towards WP:GA.

So, my questions are: (1) Why do you think FossForce (now better discussed at WP:RSN), ItsFoss, and TuxMachines are not WP:RS? (2) Do you think news or official announcements (not personal mailing list posts) at FSF and GNU are WP:RS for this article, and why? -- Yae4 (talk) 13:58, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Official Links

WP:ELOFFICIAL criteria are:

1. The linked content is controlled by the subject (organization or individual person) of the Wikipedia article.
2. The linked content primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable.

Based on the more WP:RS cites/sources that allow this article to survive AfD, it is clear to me that libreboot.AT is now the official website for Libreboot, and the Libreboot-ORG infobox should be removed. Discussion? -- Yae4 (talk) 14:56, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

No, this is ridiculous. Virtually all sources in this article are about Libreboot.org and not Libreboot.at. PhotographyEdits (talk) 12:48, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, in general they talk about Libreboot as part of Respects Your Freedom, and Free Software Foundation. -- Yae4 (talk) 15:30, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

but they link to libreboot.org

ergo, libreboot.org is the official website of the project. the fact that the policy has since changed (as of november 2022) does not affect the validity of those cites, in preference of libreboot.org

in fact, the website is in a git repository:

https://codeberg.org/libreboot/lbwww

you can find the old versions of libreboot, prior to policy change, in that repository, and the software repository:

https://codeberg.org/libreboot/lbmk

so there's that too. it's not like the pre-policy-change libreboot no longer exists. git-scm keeps records of it all.

i ask that you restore libreboot.org to prominence, in the article, while also mentioning libreboot.at (such a request has also been made by me, elsewhere in this talk page). specifically: have an infobox only for libreboot.org (restore the one that you deleted), remove the libreboot.at infobox, but:

• retain the mention of libreboot.at in the history text
• perhaps expand that into a dedicated section? example: "libreboot.org vs libreboot.at controversy"
• perhaps when liberboot.at does releases and/or somehow gains widespread notability (outside of cites to FSF), then have an infobox mentioning both projects, and again have the "libreboot.org vs libreboot.at" section.

i won't lie, i'm not a fan of libreboot.at, but this is *wikipedia*. i'm attempting to be neutral here. can you extend upon me the same courtesy? Libreleah (talk) 20:36, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

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)

Advice by Maddy from Celeste

Alright, @Yae4 and Libreleah: cut this bullshit. Libreleah, nobody is going to read 22 000 bytes of your complaints about Yae4. In particular all of those edits you call disruptive, you should have discussed with Yae4 on this talk page. And Yae4, disrupting this discussion isn't going to help. Both of you need to stop casting aspersions at each other. Attacking each other like this is not going to help you. Wikipedia articles are built using consensus, not by whoever can throw the most shit at the others.

Now for the article. Wikipedia articles are about topics, not words (WP:NOTDIC). And they are about one topic each. From what I can tell, this article currently tries to combine three distinct things called "libreboot":

1. A line of laptop computers by Gluglug
2. A software project maintained by Leah Rowe
3. A fork of Rowe's libreboot, by the FSF

For each of these, we'll need to asses whether they are notable on their own. Separate articles should be written about each notable one, and everything about non-notable libreboots should be removed. If we end up with an article about one software project but not the other, then the other one could be relevant to mention, provided that there is a reliable source that connects them. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 17:23, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Maddy from Celeste, I find part of your comment confusing. The article speaks of it as a software-and-hardware project. Why do you consider the hardware stuff separate from the software? The article makes it sound as if the recent org/at schism is the only difficulty in ascertaining the article's topic and scope. I'm unfamiliar with this subject, being generally uninvolved in free software; the WP:AN discussion was the first time I've ever heard of Libreboot. Nyttend (talk) 23:45, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

The issue is that the libreboot.at fork doesn't even have a Git repository, nor any actual code that they've written. They do have a downloads page, but the links are either broken or they link to *libreboot.org* libreboot releases.

I also think that the Libreboot article should just be about Libreboot, and not about a particular company that provides Libreboot pre-installations; this includes not just my own company (Minifree Ltd) but also others.

I don't think I'm casting aspersions on Yae4, or at least that's not the primary intention. Rather, I raised criticism about the precise nature of the edits by that user, edits which I believe violate Wikipedia's neutrality guidelines. Libreleah (talk) 17:51, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Your opinion on FSF-libreboot's codebase is not per se a factor in its notability. The relevant criterion is WP:GNG, and there is a software-focused explanatory essay, WP:NSOFT. In essence, what is needed is reliable sources that are independent from the topic discussing it at some depth. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 19:37, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Right, and the current sources for libreboot.at are the FSF Free Software Directory, and LibrePlanet 2023 archives. Libreplanet is run by the FSF, as is the FSF Directory website. That, plus a lack of releases on libreboot.at.

The libreboot.at domain name is owned by the FSF, as shown by whois data, and the current IPv4 address of libreboot.at is in the same subnet as gnu.org, so it's natural to assume that libreboot.at is an FSF project.

Therefore, the current sourcing for libreboot.at cannot be considered reliable, neutral or otherwise dependent in any way. Outside sourcing is needed, from independent sources that they've so far been unable to get. Libreleah (talk) 19:45, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Comment: If you haven't already, I suggest reviewing the AfD discussion,

An article on Libreboot.ORG would fail, and almost did fail, AfD. An article on computers with Libreboot sold by any one of the several companies that have sold them would fail AfD. An article on Libreboot.AT would fail AfD. An article on Libreboot as backed by FSF is what we're left with, IMO.

Also see WP:EDITREQ.

Unresolved questions on particular sources WP:RS issues are also still open above, and input on those from non-conflicted editors would be helpful. -- Yae4 (talk) 20:51, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

An article on Libreboot as backed by FSF is what we're left with, IMO. – would an article on FSF-libreboot survivie AfD? From the sources currently in the article, I'd say no. I don't understand your edit request comment. I don't have a COI; libreleah hasn't edited the article. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 20:53, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

@Yae4 @Libreleah

There are multiple issues here.

One claim is that Libreleah is socking. Yae4, if you believe she is socking, file an SPI and let the checkusers do their thing. Innocent until proven guilty. Unless an SPI proves otherwise - those IP editors are not Leah. Especially since its a popular project which means there are fanboys who would edit the article before leah. I have seen fanboys edit other Wikipedia articles before, its not a new phenomenon. Any further discussion on this should be on a SPI report and not here or on the AN board.

The other claim is that libreboot.org should be changed to libreboot.at. Leahs reasoning against this makes sense, but it seems Yae4's reasoning for the change is unclear. Most of his writing on the AN page was about how Leah could be a sock. You reverted me because you said the "cite"/"source" has libreboot.at but I don't know what you were referring to. This is what this talk page is for.

There are a bunch of other things but these seem to be the 2 main issues. Rlink2 (talk) 21:09, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Comment: Rlink2, Only one issue is relevant for this WP:TALK - article content. All the allegations, especially the TL;DR, should not be here. You also could stop mentioning those here. :) On Revert: You changed wording in a paragraph with cites. Did you find the words you used, or similar, in the source? Are you following what sources say, or are you following what a declared WP:COI account user tells you? Same question for all the other sources and the Official link change? Sources talk about many things related to Libreboot, but the one constant is not details about libreboot.ORG. The constant (or almost constant), especially in the arguably more reliable sources, is Libreboot as part of Respects Your Freedom certifications, and Free Software Foundation. Libreboot.ORG is no longer part of that, and a reliable source tells why. I was on the fence whether to even mention libreboot.AT initially. After reviewing the sources, I strongly support changing the Official link to libreboot.AT.

Any person with WP:COI should follow WP:EDITREQ to request edits. It has good guidance which is not being followed here. -- Yae4 (talk) 22:09, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

@Libreleah @Yae4

All the allegations, especially the TL;DR, should not be here I also agree that Leah's allegations should not be here, but she isn't very active on Wikipedia. Maybe she didn't know better.

You changed wording in a paragraph with cites. Did you find the words you used, or similar, in the source? The existing sources all refer to libreboot.org. In fact the FSF themselves say that libreboot.at is a fork. There are two different projects called Libreboot. Its important to distingush which source is talking about which libreboot. The sources are very clearly talking about Leah Rowe's libreboot (libreboot.org). All of the sources written before the fork, which is basically all of them, have to be talking about Leah Rowe's libreboot by very definition. There is only one link in the article I could find that references Libreboot.at: https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/Libreboot - and that's just an entry somewhere. I fail to see how that source weighs up against actual coverage - coverage that mentions Rowe and Libreboot.org.

Sources talk about many things related to Libreboot yes, the sources are talking about the original Libreboot orgnization, and many of those sources still link to libreboot.org. Example: https://lwn.net/Articles/631697/ . Many of these sources also mention Rowe as well.

or are you following what a declared WP:COI account user tells you? A sock saying 1 + 1 equals 2 does not mean 1 + 1 does not equal 2. A COI editor saying that the sky is blue does not mean the sky is not blue. She hasn't even edited the article and stated that she had no plans to, in fact she mostly approves of your edits to the article.

Sources talk about many things related to Libreboot, but the one constant is not details about libreboot.ORG. Repasting my example from above, someone making a Wikipedia fork called "Wikipedia" and using a domain name like "wikipedia.top" does not make it the Wikipedia. It might be a wikipedia, but not the same Wikipedia that the sources in the Wikipedia article would be referring to, nor would be the Wikipedia that would come to mind. So the Wikipedia article would still refer to wikipedia.org. Rlink2 (talk) 22:35, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah and look what the FSF themselves have said:

https://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/from-freedom-trail-to-free-boot-and-free-farms-charting-the-course-at-libreplanet-day-2

Here, they admit, themselves, that libreboot.at is a fork. They're clearly not suggesting that the new domain replace the old one. By their own admission, libreboot.at cannot be considered the official website, but rather, a competitor by the same name.

(hence my suggestion that both domains be promoted, with .org more prominent as the main project, and .at as a footnote until it gains more notability) Libreleah (talk) 22:59, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Yae4, but your argument relies upon the assumption that the *FSF* owned Libreboot all these years. They did not. I have control of the libreboot.org domain name, and I lead the project.

It just so happens that libreboot, as conveyed via libreboot.org, once aligned closely with FSF positions, but it since adopted its own criteria. The actual criteria that it now adheres to is very similar to the FSF position, in that it advocates blob-free operation whenever possible, on any given supported mainboard.

Libreboot.org stands on its own, independently of the FSF, and this was always the case, even when it did adhere closely to the FSF; such adherence was a choice of the project, and did not (and does not) imply that the FSF had any ownership or domain over it.

Another user here also pointed out that the FSF themselves acknowledge libreboot.at is a *fork* of the original project, libreboot.org. By their own admission, then, libreboot.at cannot be considered the official domain name for the project, but my earlier suggestion is still the same:

Regardless of points raised, mention libreboot.at in the article, for now as the footnote that it is in the history section. When or if libreboot.at starts doing releases later, and gains more notability, it could be mentioned alongside libreboot.org in the infobox, with a dedicated section more rigoriously describing the split between the two projects. (yes, *alongside*, not in replacement of, as you implemented in your previous edits) Libreleah (talk) 22:55, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Comment:

> FSF themselves

Are you supporting using more FSF.org published info', such as that blog post, for this article? A quick blog post like that shouldn't be given much weight, and had not been cited. I've avoided all except one basic fact cite of fsf.org directly. More FSF and GNU cites were used in earlier versions of this article.

> There are two different projects called Libreboot

You are free to assume there are two. I assume there are likely more than two, possibly many more than two, but it doesn't matter how many projects named Libreboot exist in various development websites, or in company or individual computers, if no reliable source talks about them.

> only one link in the article I could find that references Libreboot.at

So you have not carefully reviewed the cited sources. Micrometers to the right of that cite you mention, or one past it in numbered References, is another, better cite. I searched the PDF from the LibrePlanet 2023 presentation for "fork" and did not see it. I do not recall "fork" being said in the video presentation either (but would not swear it wasn't without watching again). And, for all I know, they will start from coreboot, not Libreboot.

> my suggestion that both domains be promoted

For years this article has been a WP:SPAMPAGE: "Spam is the inappropriate addition of content to Wikipedia with the intention of promoting or publicizing an outside organization, individual or idea, and is considered harmful to the encyclopedia. Do not disrupt Wikipedia with spam. If you find spam, please remove or rewrite the content." I found spam here. I removed and rewrote it. -- Yae4 (talk) 00:09, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

@Yae4 @Libreleah

A quick blog post like that shouldn't be given much weight, If anything, the video you linked has about the same weight as the FSF blog post calling it a fork. Except that the blog is published by an organization (FSF), rather than one person.

There are two different projects called Libreboot Even the libreboot.at website says there are more than one versions of libreboot: when it uses phrases like no other version.

The website has the following text:

Libreboot was first released in 2013. It has been widely recommended in the free software community for the last nine years. In November 2022, “Libreboot” began to include non-libre code. We have made repeated efforts to continue collaboration with those developers to help their version of Libreboot remain libre, but that was not successful.

In this paragraph, they are clearly referring to Leah's libreboot (libreboot.org).

The following paragraph:

Now we’ve stepped forward to stand up for freedom, ours and that of the wider community, by maintaining our own version – a genuinely libre Libreboot.

Here they acknowledge they create a new version of the software also called Libreboot.

Almost all of the citations are referring to Leah's libreboot, as they were written before the fork took place. The fact the a fork took place is documented by multiple sources, even by libreboot.at

So if you want to change it to libreboot.at you have to remove all the citations that talked about Leah's project, and at that point it probably would not be notable.

Micrometers to the right of that cite you mention, or one past it in numbered References, is another, better cite. How is this source is any better or worse than the other sources? In fact, the others might be better due to the fact they are not self published and primary sources.

I do not recall "fork" being said in the video presentation either You don't have to use exact words, if it uses a synonym for fork then the word "fork" can still be used.

But even if it didn't mention it was a fork, there is then an issue of multiple valid sources conflicting with each other. In that case we have to cover what all of the sources are saying. Therefore meaning both libreboot.at and libreboot.org are mentioned in the article, which no one (even Leah) has a problem with.

Also, when the slides say that "development continued at Libreboot", the "Libreboot" they are referring to is their fork.

my suggestion that both domains be promoted In this context WP:SPAM wouldn't apply. Spam would be like pasting a random link in the middle of the article. All of these links are relevant to the article. We can have a discussion over whether or not the article is notable, but the article itself does not look like spam to me. I think she was using the word "promoted" in a different way than how WP:SPAM uses it.

All you've really proven is that there are sources that mention libreboot.at. Yes, that means it should be mentioned in the article, but it doesn't mean it should replace the libreboot.org link. Maybe links to both of the sites could be appropiate.

Rlink2 (talk) 00:38, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Please see the middle paragraph at Talk:Libreboot#ItsFoss,_TuxMachines,_and_FSF_and_GNU_as_sources for dates and links from 2021 to 2023 when this article's history shows it was a WP:SPAMPAGE, i.e. "Advertisements masquerading as articles", for years. Feel free to weigh in there too. We may have difficulty making much progress if you keep not answering my direct questions, and keep asking different questions. Please look at LibrePlanet, consider what it takes to have a presentation approved for the conference, and re-evaluate whether Carikli's presentation is "self-published and primary". We could consider changing the title of this article. I don't know what better describes the history of FSF efforts to support Libre booting, but IMO, that is what most cites currently cover, as well as reviews of an assortment of small companies selling FSF-certified products. -- Yae4 (talk) 01:22, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

@Yae4 @Libreleah @Maddy from Celeste @Nyttend

my direct question I haven't seen any direct questions from you, if you have them now is the time to ask

Please look at LibrePlanet, consider what it takes to have a presentation approved for the conference, and re-evaluate whether Carikli's presentation is "self-published and primary". We can have different discussion over whether LibrePlanet presentations are more reliable, but for the sake of the argument lets say its a good source. In fact, lets say its the best source in the entire article. The slides still talk about a Libreboot that's different from Leah's Libreboot. So that would be deserving of its own article (if notable enough), or a mention in this article, which was written before the fork and thus is referring to Leah's libreboot. The libreboot.at site also mentions its a seperate project.

self-published and primary Maybe not self-published, but still primary (it comes from the developer in the article)

I don't know what better describes the history of FSF efforts to support Libre booting, but IMO, that is what most cites currently cover, as well as reviews of an assortment of small companies selling FSF-certified products.

The articles are mostly talking about Libreboot itself, and if they mention the FSF, they mention their efforts in supporting the original Libreboot project. They eventually stopped supporting the Libreboot project but the fact still remains they supported Leah's project.

Let's go through the sources, one by one:

https://www.linux-magazine.com/Issues/2018/210/Free-Firmware-with-Libreboot - The Libreboot project [3] was founded in December 2013 in the UK with the goal of replacing the BIOS and video BIOS of common GPUs with free components by reverse engineering.. This is referring to Leah's Libreboot, as the fork was founded in 2023. The article was also written before the fork

https://www.linuxjournal.com/content/libreboot-x60-part-i-setup - written before fork

https://www.linuxjournal.com/content/flash-roms-raspberry-pi - written before fork, mentions libreboot.org

https://web.archive.org/web/20050301104744/https://www.fsf.org/campaigns/free-bios.html - written before fork

https://www.pcworld.com/article/461621/new-fsf-logo-highlights-hardware-that-respects-your-freedom.html - written before fork. The FSF endorsed Libreboot, according to the article, but since it was written before 2023 it had to be endorsing Libreboot.org

https://www.pcworld.com/article/422917/why-linux-enthusiasts-are-arguing-over-purisms-sleek-idealistic-librem-laptops.html - written before fork, links to libreboot.org

https://lwn.net/Articles/658841/ - written before fork, citation for libreboot is libreboot.org

https://www.zdnet.com/article/a-new-free-software-laptop-arrives/ - written before fork, links to libreboot.org

https://www.techrepublic.com/pictures/fed-up-with-windows-10-10-laptops-for-linux-lovers/?slide-index=10 - before fork

https://fossforce.com/2017/01/gnu-officially-boots-libreboot/ - this is an important article. After this point, the Libreboot project was no longer affilated with the GNU project. This is still the same project referred to by the sources, and the project was still active.

https://fossforce.com/2016/09/libreboot-leaves-gnu-claiming-gender-identity-discrimination-fsf/ - similar to above

https://www.linux-magazine.com/Issues/2017/203/Open-Hardware-Technoethical - before fork, after break up with GNU/FSF, mentions libreboot.org

https://www.itsfoss.net/libreboot-20211122-released/ - before fork

http://www.tuxmachines.org/node/151505?quicktabs_bottomtabs=0 - before fork

That leaves us with two (possibly three) sources that are after the fork

https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/Libreboot - a FSF page linking to the libreboot.at page. According to the edit history, libreboot.at was added on 20 March 2023‎, which meant that the FSF began endorsing this new Libreboot around this time.

https://media.libreplanet.org/u/libreplanet/m/taking-control-over-the-means-of-production-free-software-boot/ - the video you have mentioned. I'll take your word they didn't mention the word fork in it. As mentioned before Carikli is still referring to the new project that started in 2023, which is different than Leah's project.

https://libreboot.at - the main website of the new project. Its clear the fork owners are treating the name Libreboot like a generic trademark. Even though people may refer to toliet paper as "Kleenex", there is still only one true "Kleenex". Likewise, the libreboot.at developers are calling it "Libreboot" because it refers to a libre boot software, but it still cannot be confused with the original Libreboot.

We could consider changing the title of this article. Sure, if we reach consensus that we want to refer to the new project instead of the old one.

Feel free to weigh in there too. That's another issue we can take a look at next, but regardless even without those sources the remaning ones still refer to Leah's libreboot

Also the call to action on the site Another way to help this project and take a stand for fully free software is to change URLs across the web from <libreboot.org> to <libreboot.at>, does not mean the original project has moved to libreboot.at. It can rather be construed to mean that they want people to promote and share the fork over the original. Rlink2 (talk) 02:16, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

yeah and with those points in mind, could we not consider Yae4's removal of libreboot.org to be *hijacking*? we have established that libreboot.at is an entirely separate topic from libreboot proper, as shown on libreboot.org with corresponding wikipedia citations, and as pointed out by yourself. see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_hijack (libreboot.org and libreboot.at both say "libreboot", but the article is about libreboot.org, so making it only about libreboot.at constitutes hijacking)

by the way, Yae4 has, as i write this, once again removed reference to libreboot.org, linking only to libreboot.at in the article Libreleah (talk) 02:42, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

*to be clear*, article hijacking is against wikipedia rules, which means yae4 is in violation of wikipedia terms of service. Libreleah (talk) 02:51, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

@Yae4 @Libreleah

Yae's edit summary says that Libreboot.ORG is not certified as free software, libreboot.at is a website - i'm not even sure what that is supposed to mean

I think we should just have both links right now, but the coneensus is clearly learning towards. 3 other people (not including me) have made statements lending credibility to the fact that Libreboot.at and Libreboot.org are different projects. And 2 other people (not including me) have stated that they think the link should be libreboot.org. So at the very least consensus is to have the libreboot.org link in there somewhere.

edit: After some thought I realized that Yae4 could be saying that Libreboot project is only notable because the FSF endorsed it, and that the article is about the FSF and Libreboot. However, the title of the article is "Libreboot", not "FSF's relationship with Libreboot". If it was an article on FSF's relationship with Libreboot then libreboot.at would be the correct link. But it is an article on the original Libreboot project. Even if the articles mentioned the original Libreboot worked with the FSF, it doesn't mean the article subject changes because the FSF is working with a new Libreboot. If Lizzo's boyfriend had an article, and most of the articles talking about Lizzo's boyfriend mention he was dating Lizzo, and Lizzo breaks up with im, we don't change the main subject of the article because the article is about the person, the article is not "Lizzo's Boyfriend". Even if Lizzo's boyfriend was only notable because of Lizzo, Lizzo breaking up with him does not mean the article would be changed for the new boyfriend. Instead, a new article would be written for the new boyfriend if he was notable enough. Whatever the FSF is doing now does not change the main subject of the article.

Rlink2 (talk) 03:31, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

@Rlink2:

Unanswered:

"direct question"

> FSF themselves

Are you supporting using more FSF.org published info', such as that blog post, for this article?

Now, are you supporting using libreboot.AT as a source for this article?

> (reliability of sources is) another issue we can take a look at next,

To the contrary, in haste to say libreboot.ORG is the official website for this article, you over-weight sources that others have argued are not WP:RS, and thus may carry zero weight in the end. What you call an "important article" from FossForce, PhotographyEdits has called not WP:RS, and is getting mixed or weak support at WP:RSN now.

Sources and non-sources review: Focusing only on a mention or a link in a source does not give WP:DUE weight to what each source says in total. We could as well arbitrarily count how many sources say "Libreboot" in the title, which is significantly fewer. Summaries of what each source says are in the article. It was after reading the summaries it dawned on me they are mostly not about Libreboot.ORG, except in passing. Also missing from your comments, not sure if you noticed: From 2018 to 2023, ~5 years, there are only two (weak) sources - ItsFoss and Tux Machines, which again PhotographyEdits wants to delete - cited. This is probably fallout from the 2016/2017 debacle, but apparently nobody covered it except Christine Hall of FossForce (see previous paragraph), and it's hard to know as an outsider. I'll be frank, now that you've prompted me to review sources again. If we eliminate the weak sources and passing mentions, I'm afraid this article would go down in flames at AfD, and maybe that's the best for Wikipedia.

> FSF's relationship with Libreboot

Most of the sources approach it something like that, plus Respects Your Freedom and several international companies, so maybe renaming this is something to consider.

> the coneensus (sic) is clearly learning towards

Not really.

PS. I WP:AGF regarding your analogies, but FYI, I find them no help, because they are hypothetical and distractions. -- Yae4 (talk) 04:30, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Yae4 has now created a 2nd AfD: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Libreboot_(2nd_nomination)

The reasoning is even more shaky than on the 1st AfD, and comes after recent very productive discussions on this talk page, where the arguments seem to now be favouring libreboot.org. Libreleah (talk) 09:25, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:CANVASS -- Yae4 (talk) 10:35, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

@Yae4

Are you supporting using more FSF.org published info', such as that blog post, for this article? The fact that the FSF made it doesn't really matter if it was made before the fork. I don't care if sources from the FSF are used or not.

Sources and non-sources review: All of the sources except those two support libreboot.org. Even if half of them are unreliable, the others still support libreboot.org. You're missing the point of why i reviewed the source.

Now, are you supporting using libreboot.AT as a source for this article? I don't mind either way. I say if we use it as a source it still says its a different project

FSF's relationship with Libreboot I also explained articles are written about things, not relationships. So you are admitting there you want the article to be about something it is not.

the coneensus (sic) is clearly learning towards

I think youre the only one on this talk page that supports renaming it to libreboot.at. All the other people support keeping it as libreboot.org, or at the very least, acknowledging libreboot.org and libreboot.at are different projects. Rlink2 (talk) 12:13, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

• Agree with Maddy. Most of this article is a coatrack. The hardware is off-topic, and the fork isn't worth mentioning since it has no secondary sources. I disagree with what Yae4 argued here and elsewhere: a speech by a fork's developer about why he forked, is a primary source on that fork. Forks are commonplace and we need secondary sources.

The only way I can make sense of this dispute is by assuming that Yae4 sees the FSF as the arbiter for what's libre/free, and believes the article should either reflect the FSF's views, or not exist. Rowe distanced the project from the FSF's Respects Your Freedom (RYF) certification for libre firmware, and the premise behind our current dispute is that if the FSF wouldn't call it "libre", then it's not libre, making the current Libreboot.org off-topic in its own article. The problem is that treating the FSF as a yardstick is not WP:NPOV, as they're an advocacy org, not a reliable source. Further, the FSF's RYF certification, the yardstick we are being asked to use in a SYNTH-y way, is controversial in the free software world. Some dismiss it as arbitrary nonsense, for example reverse-engineer Hector Martin ([27][28][29][30][31]), software engineer Ariadne Conill ([32]), and ActivityPub creator Erin Shepherd ([33]). LWN.net covered it ([34][35]). The FSF's RYK is controversial for precisely the same reason Leah Rowe distanced Libreboot from it: the incoherence around proprietary blobs. So we can't use it as a yardstick. Respectfully, DFlhb (talk) 11:35, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

@DFlhb I mostly agree with your opinion, but just to be clear there is no prohibition of primary sources on Wikipedia. Its just that When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised.. Rlink2 (talk) 11:44, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I use primary sources regularly (where it's wise), but I wouldn't use them as a basis to bring up a distinct seemingly-inactive project. DFlhb (talk) 12:06, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

@DFlhb: Nearly all of your long list of cites are non-reliable sources - user-generated, self-published, Twitter, blog. LWN-1 is a re-publish of a blog, which as discussed previously does not cleanse it of its non-reliability, IIRC. LWN-2 in 2011 pre-dates Libreboot, so while interesting, doesn't help this article. I agree with you, personally, that there has been a bunch of hokum and ridiculous, twisted logic involved in the certifications, but my opinion, your opinion, or self-published unreliable opinions are irrelevant here. The best (of mostly poor) sources found for this article consistently talk about FSF, Respects Your Freedom certifications, sometimes GNU. Nearly all sources used here don't scratch below the surface of this non-notable topic, and that is much of the wiki-problem here. On Carikli, it was discussed above. On incoherence, that's what this Talk section has degenerated to, and from what I can see, that was the intent - have a long, rambling, disorganized discussion. Then claim "consensus". -- Yae4 (talk) 12:34, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

My point is that unless secondary sources take issue with Libreboot not complying with FSF RYF, then we shouldn't either. The debate about which Libreboot is the "true" one become moot, and it's simply a matter of secondary sources covering Rowe's project, and not Carikli's ".at" announcement. We shouldn't retrofit sources that were published pre-fork to support the fork as being the true Libreboot.

You said in the 2nd AfD, it is difficult to pull together a coherent article without, in essence, a lot of WP:OR. Every time I've felt that way, I quickly realized that the problem was of my own creation. That my approach was what was wrong, not the topic nor the sources. I think that's the case here too. DFlhb (talk) 13:07, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Carikli's analysis of what Libreboot.ORG was doing, by adding proprietary blobs, and his conclusions regarding what this means, published and presented at a conference, is a WP:SECONDARY source on the subject of Libreboot.ORG. If not, why not? -- Yae4 (talk) 13:30, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

> The hardware is off-topic,

How can you say this when most of the sources are mostly about hardware products? -- Yae4 (talk) 13:33, 16 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)

Removing infobox and external links

• Support: these two edits by Nemo bis. Hit the nail on the head. Thank you. -- Yae4 (talk) 09:18, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
• Keep the infoboxes and external links to Libreboot.org. I disagree with @Nemo bis: assessment that the edits are controversial, as you are the only one that wants it to be different than what the 4 other editors want. But if it must be removed, the details of the libreboot.at fork should also be removed as well so it doesn't mention the original project or fork directly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rlink2 (talk • contribs) 13:03, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
• Keep. Agreed with Rlink2. The article is mainly about Libreboot.org and should include that infobox and external link. PhotographyEdits (talk) 10:28, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Leah Rowe is misspelled

Lenah Rowe!

This is true, as of https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Libreboot&oldid=1160620022 Libreleah (talk) 19:33, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

The text, on that same revision, also says "ThinPad" (incorrect) instead of "ThinkPad" (correct), on the entry pertaining to Technoethical. Libreleah (talk) 19:34, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, fixed! -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 19:41, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

article once again biased (only one version of the libreboot project mentioned)

Look at the edit Yae4 has made, once again restoring mention of a libreboot domain name: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Libreboot&diff=1160724278&oldid=1160627822

This is in clear defiance of the consensus recently reached by other editors here, whereby the article shall not specifically promote either libreboot.org or libreboot.at; such consensus also established that the sourcing for libreboot.at is weak enough that it should not be mentioned prominently, but it is currently the only mention.

I myself originally suggested that both projects be mentioned, with libreboot.org being more prominent. Yae's edit reverts @Maddy's edits, culminating in this revision: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Libreboot&oldid=1160627822

Based on current consensus established here by the other editors, I propose that one of two edits should be made, either:

• Revert to Maddie's revision above, which is much more conservative and covers the topic more succinctly, whilst not promoting either project directly, OR:

• Keep the version as it currently exists, but re-introduce the infobox from *this* revision: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Libreboot&oldid=1156925198 <- this infobox prominently talks about liberboot.org, while libreboot.at is a footnote in the current article.

tl;dr: either link to libreboot.org prominently and libreboot.at as a footnote(until it can gain more notability via its own releases and public press releases), OR don't directly mention either project at all (and thus, remove the final paragraph referencing libreboot.at in Yae's current revision). if neither project is mentioned, the sources (either in Maddie's version, or Yae's current revision) carry the topic enough that people can receive adequate education, and there is nothing stopping people from simply googling "libreboot", whereupon they shall most likely find libreboot.org first since it's much more strongly established.

Once again, I must declare that I have a conflict of interest, as the founder of the project at libreboot.org, but I believe my arguments are worth considering regardless.

PS: and reminder, there is currently a report open about Yae4, alleging that Yae4's edits are disruptive with a non-neutral point of view: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Username_Yae4_engaging_in_persistent_disruptive_editing_of_the_Libreboot_article Libreleah (talk) 14:03, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

@Yae4 - to be clear, edit waring referrs to someone undoing edits. If you make an edit, and someone expands on it, by defnitin that is not a revert. When Nemo bis made his edit, the edit I made after expanded on it, I did not revert his edit. Also the edit warring rule is within a 24 hour period, not an infinite period.

: A series of edits that reduced the article from over 16 000 Bytes to under 8 000 Bytes violates the spirit, and letter of WP:3RR Reducing the article size has nothing to do with WP:3RR which is about edit warring

I have no problem with either approach, and it's very clear that the consensus is for one of these two options. You can't just cherrypick phrases from guidelines and use them to support your case.

I prefer the 1st option (keep infobox) but I support both options. Rlink2 (talk) 16:25, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

i can even see a third option:

• use the 1st option from above (use maddy's revision), BUT: have a footnote about libreboot.org vs libreboot.at split, with context given, and have the same infobox as proposed in bullet point 2 above, prominently mentioning libreboot.org

personally, i think maddy's revision is better because it's shorter, so it's easier to read. yae4's revision is quite long, and repeats a lot of things. maddy's revision gets straight to the point.

but yeah, mention *both* projects or *neither* project, otherwise it's not neutral. like, if someone were to only mention libreboot.org that would also be bad. both or nothing are equally fair, in my view. Libreleah (talk) 16:43, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion by Yae4 - discussion of reliability of sources

It was discussion of Official links, which really stirred up the hornets nest. Could we table that for now, and resolve some questions on reliability of sources? After those are settled, it could be clearer what the article should include. Please comment at the unanswered question above. Comments at FossForce RfC at RSN could also be helpful. -- Yae4 (talk) 20:58, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

RfC: the primary (or only?) subject of this article

I think this is the main dispute on this talk page and AfD. It should be concluded in this RfC. I encourage people to cast their vote here:

1. The Libreboot(.org) project by Leah Rowe

2. The Libreboot.at project by GNU/FSF

3. Something else

• Option 1: Pretty much all sources refer to this project, so this article should be primarily about that one. It should include that infobox as well, and the relevant external link. I think it is a good idea to include a section on hardware sold with Libreboot(.org) firmware. From my current understanding, no hardware with Libreboot(.at) was sold. The earliest occurrence of Libreboot.at on the Wayback Machine was March this year, the sources about hardware are older. See here. PhotographyEdits (talk) 08:52, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
• Option 1 because that's what the article is about, and what the sources are about. So far I haven't seen any reliable independent sources about libreboot.org, and the idea that the FSF's recent fork of libreboot somehow is the same thing as libreboot which was and continues to be maintained by Leah Rowe is absurd on its face. By the way, is the lack of an RfC template intentional? -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 09:07, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  >By the way, is the lack of an RfC template intentional?

  @Maddy from Celeste No, sorry, I just didn't lookup how to do that. PhotographyEdits (talk) 09:14, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  Added. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 09:46, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

@PhotographyEdits Option 1 per Maddy — Charles Stewart (talk) 11:25, 21 June 2023 (UTC)