This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
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.
What about adding a feature list of the advantages of Debian over others? For example preseeded installations.
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)
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)
Since the dispute resolution will take some time and newcomers will not know what the problem is, these are the current overall changes:
This wording will be modified as discussion advances. 84.127.80.114 ( talk) 02:32, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
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)
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?
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
References
This was just hours before expulsion.
{{
cite mailing list}}
: Unknown parameter |mailinglist=
ignored (|mailing-list=
suggested) (
help)
I'm asking [...] Ban for 2 months Sven Luther from all the debian-mailing lists.
{{
cite mailing list}}
: Unknown parameter |mailinglist=
ignored (|mailing-list=
suggested) (
help)
we do not expell Sven but instead to suspend his account for 1 year.
{{
cite mailing list}}
: Unknown parameter |mailinglist=
ignored (|mailing-list=
suggested) (
help)
This was just hours before expulsion.
{{
cite mailing list}}
: Unknown parameter |mailinglist=
ignored (|mailing-list=
suggested) (
help)
I'm asking [...] Ban for 2 months Sven Luther from all the debian-mailing lists.
{{
cite mailing list}}
: Unknown parameter |mailinglist=
ignored (|mailing-list=
suggested) (
help)
we do not expell Sven but instead to suspend his account for 1 year.
{{
cite mailing list}}
: Unknown parameter |mailinglist=
ignored (|mailing-list=
suggested) (
help)
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:
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
This was just hours before expulsion.
{{
cite mailing list}}
: Unknown parameter |mailinglist=
ignored (|mailing-list=
suggested) (
help)
84.127.80.114 ( talk) 20:57, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Please do not add threaded replies to this section.
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)
Feel free to add threaded replies here.
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)
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)
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)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
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.
What about adding a feature list of the advantages of Debian over others? For example preseeded installations.
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)
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)
Since the dispute resolution will take some time and newcomers will not know what the problem is, these are the current overall changes:
This wording will be modified as discussion advances. 84.127.80.114 ( talk) 02:32, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
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)
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?
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
References
This was just hours before expulsion.
{{
cite mailing list}}
: Unknown parameter |mailinglist=
ignored (|mailing-list=
suggested) (
help)
I'm asking [...] Ban for 2 months Sven Luther from all the debian-mailing lists.
{{
cite mailing list}}
: Unknown parameter |mailinglist=
ignored (|mailing-list=
suggested) (
help)
we do not expell Sven but instead to suspend his account for 1 year.
{{
cite mailing list}}
: Unknown parameter |mailinglist=
ignored (|mailing-list=
suggested) (
help)
This was just hours before expulsion.
{{
cite mailing list}}
: Unknown parameter |mailinglist=
ignored (|mailing-list=
suggested) (
help)
I'm asking [...] Ban for 2 months Sven Luther from all the debian-mailing lists.
{{
cite mailing list}}
: Unknown parameter |mailinglist=
ignored (|mailing-list=
suggested) (
help)
we do not expell Sven but instead to suspend his account for 1 year.
{{
cite mailing list}}
: Unknown parameter |mailinglist=
ignored (|mailing-list=
suggested) (
help)
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:
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
This was just hours before expulsion.
{{
cite mailing list}}
: Unknown parameter |mailinglist=
ignored (|mailing-list=
suggested) (
help)
84.127.80.114 ( talk) 20:57, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Please do not add threaded replies to this section.
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)
Feel free to add threaded replies here.
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)
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)
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)