Talk:Debian/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

84.127.115.190 (talk) 18:21, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

This article was up for review for promotion to "Good Article" status in December 2008. The promotion failed. If anyone would like to contribute please follow instructions from the reviewer miranda at: GA Review.

Feature list

What about adding a feature list of the advantages of Debian over others? For example preseeded installations.

Steam

It seems to me that the availability of Steam for Linux has gotten a lot of attention in the trade press, with some commentators saying it could be a game changer. I think it is notable enough for a mention.--agr (talk) 23:39, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but isn't that better suitable for the Linux Gaming and maybe SteamOS articles? -- Dsimic (talk) 01:51, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Steam OS beta is now available and Debian Wheezy (stable) based. See following blog post why this is more relevant than ever for Debian: http://richardhartmann.de/blog/posts/2013/12/14-SteamOS/ There is no doubt that SteamOS should be covered on the Debian article :) Skx7 17:49, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Got it! You're right, that totally deserves to be mentioned in this article. — Dsimic (talk) 17:58, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I do not know if this "SteamOS is a Debian derivative" fact should be in Debian, but it has been notable enough to appear in the project news. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 17:41, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Debian private practices and Debian Women activities

Proposed changes

Since the dispute resolution will take some time and newcomers will not know what the problem is, these are the current overall changes:

• Add to the last paragraph of "Developer recruitment, motivation, and resignation":

Although expulsion has happened in the past, other penalties may be settled instead, like list bans or account locking.

• Add to "Developer recruitment, motivation, and resignation":

==== Female recruitment ====

The influx of male applicants is far greater than that of female ones. As of February 2014, there are only 15 developers identified as female. The Debian Women project was found in 2004 to increase the participation of women in Debian.

However, given the lack of results, their activities have been questioned. The lack of female presence has been the target of jokes. Debian Women organizes positive discrimination events in an effort to encourage women. For instance, they consider showing a woman talk about Debian subjects does encourage. But that reason is not among the real motivations that actually encouraged in the past.

• Split "Reception" into "Awards" and "Criticism".

• Add to "Criticism":

Debian makes many non-security decisions not available to the public, via debian-private. This questions the transparency of the project and Debian acknowledged it. In 2005, they decided to establish a declassification procedure for future posts to debian-private. Nevertheless, they have not implemented the procedure yet.

Some Debian developers send intimidating messages privately to Debian users. Debian officers support this behaviour. Dissenting users that disclose this intimidation are permanently banned from the community. Debian is accused of arbitrary bans. The reasons for the ban are sent to debian-private, therefore not available to the public.

Dissenting developers can be banned too. In 2007, Sven Luther openly disagreed with other developers including Anthony Towns. Sven Luther was among those against Dunc-Tank and its effect on Debian Etch. He complained about this and other subjects many times. His account was suspended and it is still locked. The suspension prevented him to work in the PowerPC port, which does not seem an appropriate solution. Sven Luther has not given up on the project yet.

This wording will be modified as discussion advances. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 02:32, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

As was explained to you at User talk:GorillaWarfare#Arbitration case request assistance and several other places, the consensus is clearly against your proposed changes, and nobody is willing to continue engaging you on this forever. You have been advised by me and by multiple arbcom members to pursue the RfC route instead. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:15, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

The undoing from 80.100.245.50 claims vandalism. As I understand, the content does meet Wikipedia requirements (neutral point of view, verifiability, etc). Most references are already in Debian, from many different contributors. The bug reports cited are archived, hosted in Debian and have been subject to Debian review. All references are appropriate for an article about Debian.

I would like whoever makes the undoing to challenge the material or to prove that what was written is wrong. In the meantime, I will restore the content. It is obvious that the user from 80.100.245.50 is the one doing vandalism. For instance, it is a fact that debian-private and a related General Resolution exist.

I would like to request for arbitration if consensus cannot be reached. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.127.80.114 (talk) 04:23, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

The users removing content are refusing to talk, challenge the material or prove the opposite. What does campaigning have to do? Please be specific, what points have been infringed (advertising, opinion pieces...)? This is the second time a user has removed debian-private existence, which is an easy verifiable fact.

Rwxrwxrwx has removed the references about account locking, leaving the material unsourced. The reference in "Developer recruitment" shows that Sven Luther, Andrew Suffield and Jonathan/Ted Walter are in this situation. This is not one specific case. This is not an ongoing dispute, but facts that happened in 2007. Expulsion from Debian is not something theoretical.

About applicant influx, "As in the wider technology field", I challenge that edit. Debian has less than 1% developers identified as female.

The removal of the "Female recruitment" subsection would make sense if the previous edits were right, but it is not the case.

Rwxrwxrwx is a proud Debian user. It is significant that the user has Catalan skills and that those are better than Spanish ones. Rwxrwxrwx has removed facts without a good explanation and has proved to be unable to keep neutrality. This user has a conflict of interest (WP:COI).

miranda already found this article to fail the neutral point of view. I request that readers do not remove facts they do not like without explained reasons. I will restore the content again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.127.80.114 (talk) 00:17, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

• How is it "significant" that I know some Catalan? You should familiarise yourself with WP:NPA. And how do I have a "conflict of interest"? Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 10:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Rwxrwxrwx has removed virtually all content without a good explanation, twisting the remaining content. The user advertises to contribute using Debian GNU/Linux, therefore a conflict of interest is a likely cause. Assuming the user has actually read the content, one reference title is "debian-user-catalan ruled by fear". Thus Catalan and Spanish skill levels are significant. The user may be subscribed to debian-user-catalan and know the background. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 22:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I am biased in favor of Debian by default, and a few factoids found in these edits should be included in the article, but the edits overall are an egregious WP:SOAPBOX violation. The English is bad, the references are largely sub par, and the use of weasel words is plentiful. Overall, it's just a lot of editorializing over largely fringe topics. Please don't use Wikipedia if you have an axe to grind. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, Joy is a Debian developer. But he may help anyway. Please tell what "factoids" should be included and suggest a better English wording. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 22:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

The users removing content are still refusing to talk, challenge the material or prove the opposite; Rwxrwxrwx has challenged the WP:COI only. Another excuse: bug reports and emails are not necessarily reliable sources. But these bug reports and emails are reliable sources for the presented material. WP:REF even mentions the template to cite public mailing lists. I can improve the citation style if necessary. Besides, there are other reference types. A General Resolution is a reliable source. This is the third time a user has removed debian-private.

There has been only censorship so far. I am trying to improve a Wikipedia article. The dispute resolution is not advancing. Can we start moving forward?

Developers can be expelled by the leader's delegates.

Any objections?

In the meantime, I will restore the content. There has been not a single sensible explanation to remove it. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 22:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Consensus has been acquired, the content should not be on the Debian page see here mthinkcpp (talk) 09:54, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Consensus has not been reached, since there has been no consensus-building in the first place. I would like to point that mthinkcpp cannot handle criticism. This user did remove the C++ criticism along with the content despite an ongoing discussion (Mthink cpp). This user lies in the user talk page when claiming that I accuse "those (several users) who revoke the edits of vandalism"; this Debian talk page clearly shows what I have actually written. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 01:40, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

No other user is even trying to talk. There has been not a single effort to challenge the material. This is plain censorship. This is not a content-related issue, but conduct-related. Since administrator help has already been requested, I will wait for their answer. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 01:40, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

• Guys and IP addresses, this whole thing is quite ridiculous. Personally, I've been following it from day one, but haven't had enough energy to investigate/research the whole thing into detail. Are there any people who can shed some light, please, but not only by stating that the provided references are not good enough etc.? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 01:57, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I ask Dsimic to check just the first sentence, the one I have written:

Developers can be expelled by the leader's delegates.

This is in the Debian Constitution, section 3.2.2. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 02:30, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

So what? Should a Debian developer be protected like a polar bear, making his/her own membership unconditionally of a lifetime nature? Sure thing that a constitution needs something like this, as the last measure in line if a developer starts acting crazy. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 02:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Please keep to the point. Did I provide a fact and a reliable source? 84.127.80.114 (talk) 02:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you did. What next? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 02:50, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I do not want to abuse Dsimic's time. I am still waiting for the administrator answer and there are other users that disagree. The next sentence for a different volunteer. Of course, if Dsimic thinks he can do better than other users and that he can represent them, I will proceed. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 03:02, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think I'm better than other people; anyway, you should be presenting your arguments more cleanly, possibly with alternative/additional references, if they're available. Just as an advice. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 03:22, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

What about this explanation of the debian-private mailing list (which is part of this 2005 article), for example? That makes it look completely different when compared to the conspiracy theories presented by 84.127.80.114. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 02:25, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Can anyone cite or explain these so called "conspiracy theories"? How does an article about a General Resolution and a user reply compare to the actual General Resolution? 84.127.80.114 (talk) 02:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I have received an answer from the administrator. Please try to assume good faith. As I said, I am trying to improve a Wikipedia article. I know there is a reason users acted that way. It is difficult to accept the truth. Maybe I presented too much material at once. But criticism is actually a good thing. Wikipedia has its own criticism page and users are still in the project. I will try to reintroduce the material more slowly.

My intent is to not cite too many references and keep the changes within a reasonable size. Of course, I hope users can provide more useful feedback if they think further explanations are necessary.

The administrator made a content challenge in the reply. I would like to request the assistance of Joy.

Debian makes many non-security decisions not available to the public, via debian-private.

The reference proves debian-private existence. A reference in the next paragraph will show one decision. I do not know if security decisions are made in debian-private. As I understand, it is absurd to criticize security decisions done privately. Is it disputed that Debian makes many non-security decisions via debian-private?

Because there are no objections, I will add the previous sentence about expulsion. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 12:22, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I have contacted administrator JamesBWatson again. mthinkcpp wrote "They can alternatively be forcefully dismissed from their position when necessary.". This is a good chance to see the reaction from the other editors. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 15:27, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I would like to request the assistance of Dsimic about the changes I am trying to make. His feedback is far better than the silence of everyone else. I do not find fair that Dsimic has to do the work reverters have not done. I will not blame him if he remains silent. Discussions on this talk page are not going anywhere, thus I should start using the noticeboard.

I repeat my last question: is it disputed that Debian makes many non-security decisions via debian-private? 84.127.80.114 (talk) 14:05, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, unfortunately I have no first-hand insights regarding the way Debian development works internally, and what actually goes through the debian-private mailing list, for example; therefore, I can rely only on published sources, like this explanation. See, 84.127.80.114, majority of your edits did look like some kind of revealing the conspiracy theories, and people tend to react badly to those; however, very few editors were willing to discuss the whole thing and provide references. To me, that's strange, but it's not my call to draw any conclusions here. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 22:28, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Insight is not required, just neutrality and will to accept whatever is true. Revealing facts about "decisions" and "private" does sound like a conspiracy theory. I already stated my intent but I guess I should provide further explanations.

I think we can agree on these facts. debian-private exists for private discussion. This private status is important enough that a General Resolution was necessary.

The controversy does not lie in those time-sensitive messages or with personal information. The criticism comes because of messages related to decisions.

That view about debian-private should be included, it would be representative. Can we reliably assume that the reply is actually from Joe Wreschnig (piman)? 84.127.80.114 (talk) 16:59, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Hey Sven, is that you? This style reminds me of those discussions on the Debian mailing lists, maybe I'm wrong. Anyway, it doesn't really matter. The onus is on the person who adds content to make sure that that content abides by the relevant policies and guidelines. If you've read up on these, just go ahead and try again. If the content is acceptable, it will stay; otherwise someone will probably remove it. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:11, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Patterns emerge indeed. That would explain why I was blocked.

I see Joy knows Sven Luther from long ago. May he could help when I address the Sven Luther case later.

I am aware of the burden of evidence. I do not expect Joy to reveal anything not published already. I was asking about the provided reference, where Don Armstrong confirms that "Bans are published as they are done with reasoning to debian-private and are subject to the oversight of Debian Developers." I guess the reference should be near the "many decisions" sentence. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 16:59, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

While Dsimic's change restores the neutrality, the fact is inaccurate. The project leader cannot expel developers directly, as explained in section 8.1.2; only delegates (and resolutions) can. I still believe my wording is better. Perhaps it should be added that "A project leader cannot expel developers directly." The "when necessary" is noise, but I guess consensus is better than perfection. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 16:59, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

D'oh! Is there an end to that bureaucracy? Project leaders, delegates, resolutions, general resolutions... What's next? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 20:25, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

The paragraphs could be changed to:

Debian Developers may resign their positions at any time by orphaning the packages they were responsible for and sending a notice to the developers and the keyring maintainer (so that their upload authorization can be revoked).

Existing developers can be expelled by the leader's delegates when necessary. A project leader cannot expel developers directly.

Is this acceptable? 84.127.80.114 (talk) 20:22, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Dsimic has been the only one contributing to the discussion and he did not revert my edits in the first place. There are currently 344 watchers to this page as well as to the article. I infer that users know there is a discussion. As I said, I will reintroduce the material more slowly. Because of this WP:SILENCE, may I assume consensus and start committing the changes? 84.127.80.114 (talk) 21:00, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

You may not. Read WP:SILENCE#What_does_not_constitute_silence. This states that an editor may withdraw from a discussion or debate after having made their position clear and that should they not argue or debate further does not constitute silence, or consensus. This also includes reverting the edit. Likewise if you debate this point, should I not respond it is not a case of WP:SILENCE.

mthinkcpp (talk) 20:51, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I would like to invite those interested to participate in this content dispute discussion. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 21:56, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

For those interested, the material has been re-tagged (as part of the dispute) as violating Wikipedia's policies by the volunteer. Therefore it cannot be used, or placed on the Debian page, with no compromises possible. mthinkcpp (talk) 21:41, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Correction: I am a dispute resolution volunteer at the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. This does not imply that I have any special authority or that my opinions should carry any extra weight; it just means that I have not been previously involved in this dispute and that I have some experience helping other people to resolve their disputes. My only "power" is that of persuasion and anyone is free to ignore me. DRN was set up this way purposely, so that we can be a good starting place for those with content disputes. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:22, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Like I said in the case, I request reverters to let me work an acceptable version with Dsimic or another editor willing to discuss. Resuming the work, I would like to add:

Although expulsion has happened in the past, other penalties may be settled instead, like list bans or account locking.

The paragraph would look like I showed in the case. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 22:12, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

• Please see User talk:GorillaWarfare#Arbitration case request assistance. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:20, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I am trying to request an arbitration case. The request is currently in my talk page, so feel free to make statements there. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 20:03, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

As I said, the Arbitration Committee has spoken. Dogma: refusal to discuss is not a conduct issue.

It is RfC time. According to this very talk page, three article policies must be met: no original research, neutral point of view and verifiability. While I wait for more information, I think 1 simultaneous request is a safe assumption.

Any comments before proceeding? 84.127.80.114 (talk) 10:36, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I think it is worth noting that the Debian Developers Database does no longer list former developers and many of those with their account locked. We cannot see Ian Murdock, Thiemo Seufer and this controversial Sven Luther anymore. I am curious about whether those locked developers were expelled eventually.

Assuming the reply that Dsimic mentioned is actually from Joe Wreschnig (who is no longer listed as well), the answer to "There are what, like 3000 of us now?" is no. There is no evidence that Debian has ever reached 2000 developers, including former ones. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 20:19, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, putting together many people and steering them into the same direction has always been full of troubles. In such environments, there will always be those who had their feelings hurt, or who experienced lack of justice. That's life, and life sucks; in many cases, unfortunately, nobody cares. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 20:28, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Dsimic replied. I am still trying to improve the article. Someone cares. No fuck, no life. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 21:27, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Information about former developers has not disappeared. It is not easily accessible. I see that Joy has many roles, including administration. Of course, he is a long time developer. According to the data, there are 9 deceased developers. It is more likely to end up dead than expelled. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 22:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

This is why my contribution is so important.[1] (I am not against the change actually.) A Debian developer promoting his project? There it goes the unbiasing effort. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 22:57, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Is the reason why your contribution is so important because you are a current or former member of the Debian Project? (Please avoid any personally identifiable information in your reply. A simple "yes" or "no" will be fine.) --Guy Macon (talk) 03:09, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Guy Macon has a strange way to deny trolls.[2][3]

Joy and Dsimic made similar observations.[4][5] One would think the reverts to my edits were not because of the material but because I could be "a current or former member of the Debian Project". But the edit by Per Olofsson proves that this is not an issue. So the problem would be if I were a specific "current or former member of the Debian Project".

I am working in a RfC now, discussing content. Would a simple "yes" or "no" help in any way? I do not think so. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 00:11, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes. people do change their minds. In my case, I changed my mind about responding to you when you became obsessed with me and started bringing up my name in message after message. You can keep posting snide comments about it if you wish, but everyone is just going to laugh at you.

"Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet is a sucker's game because they almost always turn out to be -- or to be indistinguishable from -- self-righteous sixteen-year-olds possessing infinite amounts of free time." --Neil Stephenson, Cryptonomicon

From your non-answer above, it has become clear to me that you are a former Debian developer and that you were expelled. See WP:DUCK. And given your behavior here, I have a pretty good idea why. Given this, I am going to treat you the same way I would treat any other stealth COI editor. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:08, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, and so much time and effort went into this whole thing, that instead at least one good new article could've been created if the energy had been channeled in a different way. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 07:44, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, there is something one could do to speed up the current RfC and ease that effort. Could any Debian developer state in a proper Debian mailing list that "Jonathan Walther was not expelled from Debian" or that "Developer expulsion has never happened in Debian"? 84.127.80.114 (talk) 02:52, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

References

References

RfC: WP:NOR/WP:VERIFY - Expulsion event

The following discussion 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.

---

Regarding this proposed clause:

expulsion has happened in the past,

The source is a message from Aigars Mahinovs, a member of the Debian organization. He is talking about Ted Walter (Jonathan Walther) who is no longer a member of the Debian organization.[6][7] Current members are listed in a Debian database.

Is this source reliable and directly supporting the proposed clause?

References

84.127.80.114 (talk) 20:57, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Survey

Please do not add threaded replies to this section.

• No. The phrase "expulsion has happened in the past" does not belong in this article. No other open source project contains such details about the project's internal politics. Furthermore, the cited source doesn't support the claim, directly or indirectly. Two people agreeing that one should leave "just hours before expulsion" does not actually establish that any expulsion has ever actually occurred. Please note that this has been to the Dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN)[8] and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom).[9]. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:07, 23 March 2014 (UTC), Edited 16:35, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• No. I agree with Guy Macon's points. That is, this text is not encyclopedic. Additionally: 1) this source is a WP:Primary one, not from a WP:RS, 2) if this text was encyclopedic, it would have to be handled carefully, according to WP:BLP (I'm assuming the person who was being considered for expulsion is still alive). 3) The text with the references supplied violates WP:OR, so clearly does not belong in the article. Lentower (talk) 10:19, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• No. Hi. Without looking at the source, this sentence is using weasel words. This sentence would be true if any company, organization, team, family or group expelled a member since the start of human history. But even if it is complemented with adequate specifiers, so what? Is it justifying arbitrary expulsion on the basis of a precedent? Hardly so. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 15:16, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• No Did any third party sources report on it? Did it make the quite extensive technical press? It looks like an attempt to push a POV.--Salix alba (talk): 05:42, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• No. The article is about the project, not the people working on it, who change from time to time for various reasons. This is a technical article and the organization's internal politics are not appropriate for discussion here. Roches (talk) 11:35, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

• No, a message sent to an email reflector is not a reliable source. If whatever we're fussing about here has not been covered in a secondary source, it should not included in the article. ~KvnG 12:53, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

• No to both questions. A message from a mailing list is not a reliable source, and the reference does not support the statement. The relevant section in the reference is: "[b]y the end he agreed that it would be best for all involved if he would search for another free software project to contribute to. This was just hours before expulsion," which means that the person in question left before they were expelled. There is also nothing in the reference to suggest that any others have been expelled. Ca2james (talk) 00:57, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Status of this survey

As of this version of this talk page[10], the consensus on this RfC is seven No-s and zero Yes-es. The creator of this RfC has yet to post their Yes, No, or Maybe in the Survey sub-section. Lentower (talk) 19:25, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Feel free to add threaded replies here.

• The question is flawed as is the RfC title. Even if there is a consensus that the source is reliable and directly supports the proposed edit, that alone would not allow 84.127.80.114 to insert it into the article. The statement "The scientific name of the rainbow trout is Oncorhynchus mykiss" is directly supported by Trout and Salmon of North America by Behnke and Tomelleri, and that book is a reliable source, but if I were to insert it into Debian, the consensus would be that it is not suitable. 84.127.80.114 needs to ask whether it is suitable for the Debian article instead of asking a loaded question. (Note: you are allowed to improve the question in an RfC while it is running as long as it is not done in a deceptive manner that invalidates existing responses.) --Guy Macon (talk) 01:02, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I know what I have asked. As I said, three article policies must be met. If Guy Macon has any further requirements, speak now. There is no such thing as WP:Suitable. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 04:15, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

NOTE: This is my last response to 84.127.80.114; I refuse to waste any more time on this. It is NOT true that simply meeting selected requirements means that we must include the material. Meeting those policies is necessary but not sufficient There is an overwhelming consensus against any and all of 84.127.80.114's proposed changes, including this one. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:36, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

So Guy Macon does not specify further requirements. I should note that Guy Macon, the uninvolved volunteer,[11] was the one advising to file a RfC.[12][13] Now the user is trying to disrupt this RfC that is supposed to get opinions from outside editors. Overwhelming consensus... any actual diff about this RfC question? 84.127.80.114 (talk) 08:48, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

This RfC is young. Only three editors have made statements. And based on those three statements, the source and the text are found not to be worthy of inclusion in this article. I note, I'm an outside editor, new to this discussion. Lentower (talk) 10:31, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Sure, the founding member of the Board of Directors of the Free Software Foundation[14] is new to this discussion, has never heard of Debian and had to make clear that is an outside editor (Guy Macon needed some help). Who is this third editor that has made statements? 84.127.80.114 (talk) 21:13, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I've had enough of your antics. First you demand at "formal answer that Wikipedia will never accept this content. Wikipedia will never admit that it rejects the content not because of lack of reliability or verifiability, but because of the topic."[15] Then you claim that because someone used Debian as an example at Template:Cite mailing list and because Wikipedia's servers run on Ubuntu, the entire arbitration committee is somehow "affiliated with Ubuntu and Debian".[16] Then you claimed that I somehow control arbcom, [17] and now you are accusing Lentower of lying about being an outside editor.[18]

When you were just accusing me I shrugged it off; I stopped caring about such things back on USENET. When you accused arbcom, I said nothing because people are always accusing arbcom of things. But now that you are playing your nasty little game with an uninvolved editor responding to your RfC, I am putting my foot down. Knock it off, or there will be consequences. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:38, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

This does not look like a last response to me.[19] I request Guy Macon to talk about content (specify further requirements, provide a diff about overwhelming consensus and this RfC question, who is this third editor that has made statements in this RfC, etc). There are other venues to discuss conduct. E.g. I have a user talk page.

I have made a simple question ("Is this source reliable and directly supporting the proposed clause?") and I would like editors to keep to the point. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 00:41, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

It can be seen clearly that Guy Macon is trying to disrupt this RfC.[20] While I do encourage editors with free time to look at previous dispute resolution attempts, I repeat that this RfC question has never been answered. Guy Macon is unable to provide a single specific diff or quote. And of course, it is not this user's last answer.[21][22] 84.127.80.114 (talk) 17:17, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Could Salix alba explain the POV the source is trying to push? 84.127.80.114 (talk) 22:42, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

"... I'm an outside editor ..."

If anyone beside 84.127.80.114 needs clarification to this statement, I made above: "I note, I'm an outside editor, new to this discussion.", please ask. Please be as specific as possible. I have no idea how to make this clearer to 84.127.80.114. He seems to have to push his need to include this text in this article using any tactic he can think of, ignoring both the consensus (to date[23]) of 4 Nos to 1 assumed Yes to not include this edit, and {{Wikipedia_policies_and_guidelines}}. Lentower (talk) 22:31, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I request Lentower to not "fix" any of my edits. I guess he is referring to me when talking about "1 assumed Yes". I can safely say that this user is not an outside editor or, at least, is involved with Debian. I remind editors (again) that the question is "Is this source reliable and directly supporting the proposed clause?". This RfC does not ask about including any edit. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 23:40, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Lentower's edit was proper. See WP:TPOC.

You keep using that phrase "outside editor". I do not think it means what you think it means. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:06, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Guy: Do you think engaging 84.127.80.114 further is going to help? This editor doesn't seem to want guidance on how Wikipedia's culture works. This editor doesn't seem to understand how consensus is reach here on Wikipedia, or that they can't re-define how things work here by endless words. This editor doesn't understand, or doesn't care, that they have already "lost" this RfC consensus, even on their narrow grounds of WP:RS. I hope his contributions elsewhere have improved this encyclopedia. They certainly haven't here. Your call, if you want to pursue any of the administrative options against 84.127.80.114. Lentower (talk) 19:01, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Guy: I commend you adding the Maths, science, and technology list to this RfC. It is the list, any RfC about this article should have been directed at in the first place. It widens the audience for consensus. Good Wikipedia form. You deserve a Barnstar for it. Lentower (talk) 19:07, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

According to the WP:DUCK test, 84.127.80.114 is a former Debian developer that was expelled, presumably for the same behavior we are seeing here. I am now treating 84.127.80.114 the same way I would treat any editor who has a conflict of interest and attempts to hide that fact from the Wikipedia community. Right now, there is no specific behavior that is a blockable or even warnable offense. Stealth COI editors are allowed to push their agendas and to be annoying up to the point where it becomes unambiguously disruptive, and 84.127.80.114 is nowhere near crossing that line. Even if there is unambiguous disruption, it is almost impossible to get a block for disruption if the editor asking for the block is engaging with the disruptive editor. I am going to try to ignore him from now on, but some things need to be said, like the fact that on Wikipedia "Involved" means "having edited the page or commented on the talk page" or "having a clear and direct conflict of interest". Your work with the FSF in 1985 doesn't make you involved on the Debian page. My well-known advocacy of Slackware and Linux From Scratch (but not to the point where I have anything against Debian or Windows) doesn't make me involved. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:36, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Could anyone provide a policy reference supporting Guy Macon's definition of "Involved"? According to WP:INVOLVED, involvement has a different meaning. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 02:29, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

You are citing a policy that only applies administrators, telling them when they should not use their administrator's tools. If Lentower becomes an administrator and then blocks you, then and only then will he be considered to be WP:INVOLVED. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:42, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Again, could anyone provide a policy reference supporting Guy Macon's definition of "Involved"? 84.127.80.114 (talk) 02:57, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Becoming a disruption

Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass describes the situation here, consensus is clearly in the no camp. A further pursuing the issues is becoming a lot like Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point "Such behavior, wherever it occurs, is highly disruptive and can lead to a block or ban." The points raised by 84.... are looking like Wikipedia:Wikilawyering which I no fan of.

I'll give you one warning. Drop this now. Or you I will block you.--Salix alba (talk): 06:35, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Update: The user in question has been blocked for a week (by another admin, not by Salix alba) --Guy Macon (talk) 13:28, 29 March 2014 (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.