Talk:Libreboot/Archive 3

Advice by Maddy from Celeste
Alright, 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: , 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 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  to , 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)


 * 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)
 * 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, software engineer Ariadne Conill , and ActivityPub creator Erin Shepherd . LWN.net covered it . 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)
 * 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)

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)

Removing infobox and external links

 * Support: these two edits by . 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 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)

Deletion of navboxes and edit summary
This edit by removed 5 navboxes, but called it "Remove a few navboxes...", which under-states the magnitude of the change - several, IMO. 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
 * 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)
 * 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)

I think Yae4 was/is working for FSF, thus conflict of interest (undisclosed COI)
I also wrote this on the ANI entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive_editing_by_Yae4 - i believe it's useful on the talk page too, since the ANI entry will disappear at some point.

I've accused Yae4 of being biased in favour of libreboot.at, but I now believe he may in fact have a Conflict of Interest; I believe Yae4 is actually working on behalf of the FSF, without having disclosed such fact.

My evidence is thus:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Yae4/Hundred_Rabbits&oldid=1161284056 - draft article by Yae4. Hundred Rabbits isn't well-known, but put into context: Hundred Rabbits was the keynote speaker at FSF's "LibrePlanet" conference of 2022. This on its own doesn't mean anything, but consider Yae4's aggressive editing in favour of libreboot.at on Libreboot, edits that have now been largely removed per editor consensus

Now, more items:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Free_Software_Foundation&diff=prev&oldid=1159761316 - on its own, a trivial change, just adding info to the FSF page

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Free_Software_Foundation&diff=prev&oldid=1158799817 - more FSF edit

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Free_Software_Foundation&diff=prev&oldid=1159762149 - again

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Free_Software_Foundation&diff=prev&oldid=1159761316 - ditto

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FSF_Free_Software_Awards&diff=prev&oldid=1158988792 - pertaining to FSF Free Software Awards which are held at LibrePlanet conference.

LibrePlanet is a relatively obscure conference. It only has a couple hundred people who view it and doesn't really reach much news online, very much an internal FSF thing that members get involved in. FSF relies a lot upon intern/volunteer labour, and, well:

Yae4 has been editing the Libreboot article since about 26 May 2023, almost a month now, and has warred with multiple people (his actions qualify as edit warring, he was constantly reverting people's changes often without giving any reason).

Even if Yae4 isn't in league with the FSF, these diffs show a pattern of preference towards the FSF, and thus it could be argued that Yae4 had bias (non-neutral point of view) while editing the Libreboot article. Yae4 has also made numerous edits on articles like GNU Taler and GNU LibreJS, all positive edits.

(GNU is closely associated with the FSF, who provides hosting infrastructure and funding for it)

Here is the talk that Hundred Rabbits gave at LibrePlanet 2022, hosted by the FSF: https://media.libreplanet.org/u/libreplanet/m/software-doldrums/

one part i forgot to mention earlier, look at this diff from Yae4: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ALibreboot&diff=1161276868&oldid=1161273531 - regardless of the merit behind the argument (merit rejected by other editors on that talk page, per consensus agreement:

pay attention: Yae4 refers to "distroboot". distroboot.org was only online for about *2 hours*, and not widely publicized, I mainly only mentioned it on Libreboot IRC (private chat room); i used another name instead (osboot) that same day, and it stuck for a while

this, combined with the recent crusade by Yae4 against Libreboot, suggests that Yae4 is definitely someone inclined to watch closely what the Libreboot project gets up to, far closer than most people would inspect it; it could suggest that Yae had a vendetta on behalf of the FSF. I think Yae4 works for the FSF.

the last, and arguably most damning bit of evidence against Yae4, is in diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Libreboot&diff=prev&oldid=1157433496 <-- yae4 makes reference to links that are *not public* - how would Yae4 know about these, unless he was intimately involved with the project? I sense that Yae4 likely had an undisclosed conflict of interest the entire time while working on the Libreboot article

Libreleah (talk) 01:00, 22 June 2023 (UTC)


 * the text of the above report has now been posted on WP:COIN. See:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Suspected_COI_by_User%3AYae4_on_Article%3ALibreboot Libreleah (talk) 07:49, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Article talk pages really aren't the place for issues relating to other editors. We're already at ANI, and I see you've found COIN as well, so please keep it to those pages. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 07:54, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * yeah i'm a quick study. i'm quickly learning all the different mechanisms on wikipedia. sorry for the bloat. i've collapsed the text here. Libreleah (talk) 08:12, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

More sources - and possibly ones that can expand the history section
Hi, again as stated before I'm the founder of Libreboot, thus COI, so I can't+won't edit the article myself, but recent discussions have prompted me to search for more sources myself. Sourcing has been an issue for this article. Anyway:

2023 source: https://hackaday.com/2023/04/21/getting-the-most-from-fading-thinkpads/ - April 21st, 2023, and it has been established in consensus that HackADay is an OK source. This one probably counts towards general notability and maybe it could go under "reception"

https://wiki.debian.org/InstallingDebianOn/Asus/C201 - Debian is a noteworthy project and it references Libreboot, in context of ASUS C201 (one of Libreboot's supported platforms, in earlier releases)

History section:

from 2022: https://www.zdnet.com/article/debian-linux-accepts-proprietary-firmware-in-major-policy-change/ - this source is about Debian mainly, references https://libreboot.org/news/policy.html which is Libreboot's policy that was changed in November 2022 - context: https://libreboot.org/freedom-status.html pertaining to Libreboot's Binary Blob Reduction Policy

In the history section, I'd like ideally for it to cover this policy as linked above, referring to Libreboot's policy change of November 2022, described on that same policy page. Quite a lot went on in Libreboot since ~2017 which is when the current history section runs up to.

Libreboot is also referenced on https://coreboot.org/users.html - Libreboot is technically its own project and I work on that, while coreboot is separate. Coreboot is quite notable and mentions Libreboot, perhaps this page could be provided as a source for notability?

2020 hackaday source mentioning libreboot prominently - not sure how to place it in article though: https://hackaday.com/2020/08/12/degrees-of-freedom-booting-arm-processors/

https://freesoftware.org.au/hardware-and-software-recommendation/ - importantly not the FSF, but an unaffiliated organisation that prominently mentions libreboot (sourced from google searching 2019 results)

2018: https://hackaday.com/2018/08/20/installing-libreboot-the-very-lazy-way/ - may already be sourced, didn't check

2018: https://rosenzweig.io/blog/living-on-a-rockchip.html - blog, but from a notable person (who has a wikipedia page at Alyssa Rosenzweig), could be used as source to add ASUS C201 on hardware support

2017: https://wiki.debian.org/AMT - prominent mention of Libreboot, in context of Intel ME advice

2017: https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-amt-vulnerability-me-dangerous,34300.html - prominently mentioned in context of Intel ME advice

2016: https://hardenedlinux.github.io/firmware/2016/11/17/neutralize_ME_firmware_on_sandybridge_and_ivybridge.html - in context of Intel ME removal, libreboot is prominently mentioned

A few more sources, probably not worthy of wikipedia (they're blogs):

2021 source: https://ariadne.space/2021/10/19/trustworthy-computing-in-2021/ - references libreboot quite prominently Libreleah (talk) 03:40, 23 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Finding stuff between 2017-2021 is harder, because Libreboot suffered a lapse in releases during that period; during that time, the project was in a state of flux due to development going off in many different directions on an ambitious re-write, one that I later scrapped. In early 2021 I virtually rebooted the project from scratch, started over from development as of ~early 2017, and brought the project up to date.
 * Libreboot has been picking up again since 2021, and has been gaining a lot of traction. As I write this, I'm working on a new stable release and hope to get fresh new sources for this article.
 * For the time being, finding such sources as above seemed to be high priority given recent discussions. What do people think of these, for use in the article? Libreleah (talk) 03:43, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * please someone fix the rfc template in case i messed it up, i'm still relatively new to working with wikipedia's infrastructure - i don't see this topic mentioned on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Maths,_science,_and_technology ?? Libreleah (talk) 04:02, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * more sources, these were mentioned by someone in the 2nd AfD page: https://archive.org/details/NAGMagazineMarch2015ZA/PC%20World%20-%20March%202015%20%20USA/page/n23/mode/2up?q=libreboot and https://archive.org/details/LinuxVoice/Linux-Voice-Issue-021/page/n19/mode/2up?q=libreboot
 * these are really strong sources too, could probably be put under "reception" Libreleah (talk) 04:09, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * These last two ones seem to mainly discuss Gluglug's "LibreBoot" laptop, not libreboot itself. As for the rest, we generally don't use wikis or random websites, also most of these only mention libreboot without providing significant information about it. If you think there's some specific new information that one of these could bring, feel free to propose an addition. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 09:08, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I've removed the RfC template from this section; WP:RFCs are specifically for resolving contentious questions that local discussion has not resolved, by asking for wider community input. This just seems like a list of sources. I'll try to remember to look at these once I have time. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 05:46, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, never copy the rfcid from another rfc - always leave off both the parameter and value, let Legobot assign its own. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 20:13, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Does the article need to talk about Libreboot sellers?
Hi, my recent edit removed the sellers section, but editors please reintroduce it if you think it belongs there. I feel that the article stands on its own without that section, which rather comes across as an "ad" (albeit it for multiple sellers). Unless the article is about a commercial product, I believe it should focus just on the main topic, which is a FOSS project.

I think articles should be written about those three companies instead: Technoethical, Minifree and Libiquity. Even as stubs, articles about them would likely meet WP:GNG.

I also expanded the histories and reception subsections in this article. Thoughts welcome! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.243.86 (talk) 17:54, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I have partially reverted your additions to the History section. Rosenzweig's post on libreboot.org supports neither Rowe "relinguishing control" over libreboot or apologizing – that's just not what it says, and even if it did, it couldn't be used because of WP:BLPSPS. Your "period of stagnation" is WP:OR. All you have are sources showing that there was a five-year gap between releases. Nothing about "stagnation", nor anything connecting it to the GNU exit. Using a blog post to say Rowe did a "hostile takeover" again violates WP:BLPSPS. <b style="font-family:Monospace">-- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH)</b> 18:13, 25 June 2023 (UTC)