Wikipedia

Talk:GrapheneOS/Archive 1

< Talk:GrapheneOS
Latest comment: 2 years ago by 84.250.14.116 in topic Free_and_open-source_software or Open-source_software (or less open)?
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Article now exists; delete Draft?

Latest comment: 5 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion

I don't know what's going on here, User:AngusWOOF, but this page now exists, and I've moved my edits (more sources) there. Maybe this draft could be binned now? -- Yae4 (talk) 18:48, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Someone bypassed the draft process. I've moved that one back to draft as (2). AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:03, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
I'll list my 3 best - based on my guess as to "professionalism" or having editorial staff, and amount of detail included in articles - here. Otherwise I'll wait for some indication it's not going to be a waste of time before spending much more. It seems to have international attention from a variety of sources, although some are blogs etc.:

0. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/gadgets-news/doing-these-6-difficult-things-may-make-your-smartphone-hack-proof/articleshow/71252998.cms

1. https://www.origo.hu/techbazis/20190403-grapheneos-android-alapu-biztonsagos-rendszer.html

2. https://hub.packtpub.com/androidhardening-project-renamed-to-grapheneos-to-reflect-progress-and-expansion-of-the-project/ and

3. https://andro4all.com/2019/06/grapheneos-alternativa-android-caracteristicas

-- Yae4 (talk) 20:59, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

User:AngusWOOF, why was the article quickly moved back to draft, but SO slow to be moved to "active?" Wondering. -- Yae4 (talk) 16:31, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Yae4, I was hoping for someone who knows about tech/computing blogs could review this. They don't look like reliable sources on the WP:RSP to me so I tried to stay out. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:36, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

​ AngusWOOF, Below is more information supporting reliable sourcing.

I believe these, at least, demonstrate notability with reliable sources, based if nothing else, on many previous uses at Wikipedia. That's not always a guarantee, but combined with 3 sources having Wikipedia articles indicating decent reputations, I believe this should be sufficient. FYI, I have nothing to do with GrapheneOS (although I would give it a test run if I owned the right kind of phone). Could you please move this to an article? -- Yae4 (talk) 18:25, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't think this draft has clearly established notability yet. Some of the sources focus on Edward Snowden's endorsement, but the coverage is brief enough to be considered passing mentions (and not significant coverage of GrapheneOS). Many of the blog sources are borderline in terms of reliability; they could be classified as self-published or marginally reliable, and I'm not comfortable making the call myself. The reliable sources noticeboard could help judge these borderline sources. Note that there are quite a few high-profile RfCs on that noticeboard at the moment, so a discussion might not get as much attention as usual. — Newslinger talk 11:59, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

​​ Times of India source lists 6 things to do to make your phone "hack proof." One of the 6 (17%) is install GrapheneOS. Yes, it's based on Snowden recommendation, which is why it got attention, but it is not just passing mention. Packt Hub source is focused almost only on GrapheneOS and Micay, and pre-dates the Snowden news. To me it doesn't look like a blog. Origo Hu source is solely on GrapheneOS and Micay. It's news, not blog. Der Standard is news, not blog. Yes, prompted by Snowden recommendation, but it's the only phone ROM recommended. Then there's several blog-like geek news sources that also covered it. For ROMs not actively doing PR (it appears), that's about as good as it gets. I don't know if precedents matter on Wikipedia, but sourcing for this article seems better than Resurrection_Remix_OS, OmniROM, and Smartisan_OS. -- Yae4 (talk) 16:28, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Passing the notability test is as much about the quality of the sources as it is about the quantity. Significant coverage is not very well-defined in Wikipedia's guideline, but commenters in deletion discussions generally expect qualifying sources to be longer than the Origo article. Packt Hub is a blog that promotes Packt's main publishing business – the blog is a borderline source, and routine announcements like the page provided tend to be ignored in deletion discussions when it's not coming from a more highly regarded source.

In the Smartisan OS article, the cited Engadget (RSP entry) piece, "Smartisan OS unveiled in China, takes a fresh approach to Android UI design" provides a detailed overview of the software, and counts more toward the article's notability than any of the other sources mentioned so far. But, I agree that the sourcing of the articles you listed is not great. I've proposed deletion of the Resurrection Remix OS article, and tagged the others as needing more sources. — Newslinger talk 06:04, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

This makes 2 for 2 on unexpected results related to discussions on this draft... Not moved to article, and proposed deletion of another article... Oh well. -- Yae4 (talk) 19:03, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, Yae4, I didn't mean to discourage you. The honest truth is that many software-related articles in article space don't meet the notability requirements, and they're not very good examples for what would pass a review. (I think this is because casual editors who are technology-oriented tend to be more capable of using wikitext, but still might not be familiar with the notability guideline.) Also, Wikipedia's standards across the board have gradually increased over time, and older articles are likely to have been reviewed against lower standards than newer ones.

Since significant coverage is difficult to define, you might find it informative to participate in some discussions at Articles for deletion. The instructions at WP:AFDFORMAT, along with the notability guidelines, policy on what Wikipedia is not, list of reasons for deletion, and list of arguments to avoid can help you get started. In AfD discussions, editors review the article and its sources, then express an opinion on the action that should be taken on the article (most commonly: keep, delete, redirect, or merge). The deletion sorting list for software and FOSS article alerts can help narrow down discussions of interest, and there's also a bot-maintained list of all deletion discussions.

Many of these discussions refer to the general notability guideline, and some contain analysis of whether certain sources meet the significant coverage requirement. I hope this helps. — Newslinger talk 00:17, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Any comments on new golem.de source?

Latest comment: 5 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

To me it is a thorough review, but what seems to be a good source. -- Yae4 (talk) 18:54, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

​Nice find! "Ein gehärtetes Android ohne Google, bitte" from Golem.de is exactly the kind of source we're looking for to establish notability. Although I previously expressed some reservations with the other sources, the Golem.de review combined with the rest of the sources in the article should show that GrapheneOS is notable. I think this article would survive if nominated for deletion.

The Articles for creation review process is optional for editors without a conflict of interest, so you can publish this article by moving it to GrapheneOS whenever you're ready. Keep in mind that the 7-day timer for "Did you know" starts immediately after you publish, if you're interested in submitting a hook for GrapheneOS. — Newslinger talk 05:51, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Actually, before you move the article, I would remove the citations to the websites that clearly aren't usable:
— Newslinger talk 06:30, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
​ Thanks! Deleted others as listed. It's new, just long enough by my count; not sure about the "hook" thing; within policy AFAIK; Also don't know about the QPQ thing. I would move it, except last time I tried, I ran into problems because of the re-direct, so I'd appreciate some help with that. -- Yae4 (talk) 15:38, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Great job, Yae4! The article is published at GrapheneOS now. I forgot about the redirect issue. When the target page is occupied by a redirect, you'll need to perform a page swap, which requires either a technical move request or the page mover permission. I was able to swap the pages for you. The article will undergo one last round of review by a new page patroller, but you'll most likely not have to do anything else.

For "Did you know", the quid pro quo requirement is waived for your first 5 DYK nominations. If you want to see GrapheneOS mentioned on the Main Page, DYK just needs a short, interesting fact about GrapheneOS that's supported by a reliable source. — Newslinger talk 23:22, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help, Newslinger, and thanks for the star. Jumped through the hoops for the hook, and we'll see what happens with DYK. -- Yae4 (talk) 15:52, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Recent edit

Latest comment: 5 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

I recently undid this edit, which removed List of custom Android distributions from and added CopperheadOS to the "See also" section. This is because:

  • GrapheneOS is listed in List of custom Android distributions. The project states on its home page that "In the long term, it aims to move beyond a hardened fork of the Android Open Source Project". Reliable sources are still describing GrapheneOS as Android-based ("Android basierende"). Until there are substantial changes in GrapheneOS's software architecture, calling it an Android distribution is reasonable to me.
  • We're not supposed to add links to the "See also" section that duplicate links in the article body. See MOS:NOTSEEALSO.

— Newslinger talk 00:45, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

It's Android-based but Android distribution seems misleading to me. According to the developer, it already makes changes deviating from what's required to be Android:

GrapheneOS is explicitly not Android, because it deliberately doesn't conform to the Compatibility Definition Document and Compatibility Test Suite requirements for considering an OS to be part of the Android family. It's entirely possible to make an OS with an entirely different kernel and software stack that's allowed to be referred to as Android as long as it is fully meets the compatibility and other requirements. Those are the rules for using the trademark. I make fair use of that trademark by referring to GrapheneOS as being almost entirely fully compatible with Android apps. It's not entirely compatible though since it deliberately makes restrictions for privacy/security that are not permitted by the CDD / CTS. [...] However, that doesn't mean I can refer to GrapheneOS as literally being Android since it's not a matter of copyright law / software licenses.

So they are not actually distributing Android but something else. Perhaps the article List of custom Android distributions should be renamed but I think this talk page is not the place to discuss this and I do not have a "reliable" source other than the Android documentation (https://source.android.com/compatibility/cdd).

We're not supposed to add links to the "See also" section that duplicate links in the article body.

Yes, I missed that link. 187.160.10.45 (talk) 11:04, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for responding. I see what you mean, since GrapheneOS is not able to describe itself as "Android" due to trademark restrictions. @Yae4: How would you prefer to resolve this? Do you think GrapheneOS should be removed from List of custom Android distributions, or would you rather request to move the List of custom Android distributions article to a more generic name like List of Android-based operating systems? — Newslinger talk 11:18, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Removing GrapheneOS from List of custom Android distributions doesn't make sense because the other entries do not meet the requirements to be called Android either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.160.10.45 (talk) 12:13, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
We're supposed to rely on the language used in reliable sources regardless of the preference of the trademark holder. For example, LineageOS is on the list, and it's described as an Android distribution by TechRepublic, ZDNet (RSP entry), Golem.de, and Heise, among others. But if a title like List of Android-based operating systems would be more accurate, then I suppose the list can be renamed. You may want to consider filing a requested move for List of custom Android distributions. If the list gets renamed, the "See also" link would be updated here. — Newslinger talk 12:35, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
@Newslinger: I'm OK with including the list of "custom Android distributions." The compatibility document seems to be primarily for hardware requirements for compatibility with Android operating system (including Google services), and we're talking about operating system (and default apps) software here. It says, for example, "Where this definition or the software tests described in section 10 is silent, ambiguous, or incomplete, it is the responsibility of the device implementer to ensure compatibility with existing implementations. For this reason, the Android Open Source Project is both the reference and preferred implementation of Android. Device implementers are STRONGLY RECOMMENDED to base their implementations to the greatest extent possible on the “upstream” source code available from the Android Open Source Project." Thus, for these purposes, if the operating system starts from AOSP, which GrapheneOS does as I understand, then calling it a "custom Android distribution" works for me, and it's what sources call it too. If Graphene becomes more significantly different, then it could move to a different list like Comparison_of_mobile_operating_systems, and be moved from Mobile_operating_system#Android. -- Yae4 (talk) 12:38, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

"One man show" versus team of developers, based on golem.de source

Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

​​Quotes from golem.de source:

  • "Micay and Graphene users repeatedly stress a lack of developers and maintainers."
  • "So far GrapheneOS, like its predecessor Copperhead OS, has been developed almost entirely by him, says Micay."
  • "A few developers have started to contribute to GrapheneOS."
  • In concluding remarks: "We are also a bit worried about how few developers and maintainers are currently working on GrapheneOS - the project is currently more like a one-man show."

In balance, the article is saying it's a "one-man show" with a start of some other contributions. It does not support saying GrapheneOS has a team of developers. -- Yae4 (talk) 16:38, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

  • "Micay and Graphene users repeatedly stress a lack of developers and maintainers." - does not indicate that there is a single developer, but rather an overall lack of developers / maintainers.
  • "So far GrapheneOS, like its predecessor Copperhead OS, has been developed almost entirely by him, says Micay." - does not indicate that there is a single developer, but rather than the lead developer has done most but explicitly not all of the work. In fact, that sentence implies that there are other developers doing a subset of the work. Also, in this sentence, it's largely the historical work being talked about. Since the project has historically had a single developer (not anymore), of course the bulk of the work was done by a single developer. The other developers have not been around for the vast majority of the lifetime of the project. The amount of the project created by a developer does not reflect the current division of work between them, and there are explicitly other people working on the project including people the project refers to as officially being involved.
  • "A few developers have started to contribute to GrapheneOS." - which is the source stating that other developers had started to contribute to the project at the time of the article being written. Therefore, it is clearly incorrect to state that there is a single developer.
  • "We are also a bit worried about how few developers and maintainers are currently working on GrapheneOS" - which once again refers to there being a development team, with Daniel Micay doing the bulk of the work at that time. An uneven division of work does not justify claiming there is a single developer. Events have also occurred since then, such as Pixel 4 support being launched based on community support. The golem.de source is a high quality article providing a historical snapshot but is not up-to-date coverage of the most recent state of the project. It's usable to explain the state of the project at a particular point in time, but not the current state of it. At that time, it did have multiple developers that had come on board, and the project itself shows that those developers / others are still around.
"It does not support saying GrapheneOS has a team of developers." - strongly disagree. It supports stating that there is a development team led by Daniel Micay. It definitely does not support claiming that there are not other developers working on it as that's explicitly in contradiction with the sources. You could state that the OS is primarily developed by Daniel Micay with help from some other developers / contributors, but that's not going to fit well into the infobox. The previous infobox claiming that there was only a single developer conflicts with the sources. The project itself states that it has multiple developers too, which is verifiable due to the open source nature of it, and while those aren't secondary sources it is wrong to deliberately make an inaccurate article based on cherry-picking and misinterpreting from a source.
Even with the way that you've cherry-picked quotations from the source, it doesn't back up what you're saying, and reading the source with the full context presents a much different story.
If you're going to be reverting all of my work, can you please do separate reverts with specific reasons instead of rolling back my changes with a generic reason that does not apply to all of the changes you are rolling back.
Note: Signature copied and new section started below by Yae4 to separate topics...Pitchcurve (talk) 19:46, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
@Pitchcurve:
  • When the article was created in July 2019, it said developer: Daniel Micay.
  • When I brought the golem.de source to this article and to this Talk page and convinced Admin Newslinger it was time to the page from Draft to Article space, it said developer: Daniel Micay.
  • When I and others helped get the article on the front page of Wikipedia, in January 2020, after extensive review, it said developer: Daniel Micay.
  • Have you brought a new source? No. The same golem.de source should NOT now be interpreted to say developer: GrapheneOS development team led by Daniel Micay The source has not changed. You just want this article to say something different.
  • Go ahead and show us some convincing links from github, or better, new reliable secondary sources, supporting "development team led by Daniel Micay."
  • In general, please start bringing specific sources and quotes to support your positions. That would be much more convincing than TL;DR arguments.
-- Yae4 (talk) 21:23, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
The golem.de source states that are multiple developers. Your own points attempting to support your argument show that there are multiple developers involved. In many cases, you're pushing a narrative not based on the sources and are inventing facts / details to fill in the gaps as you see fit. You can say that my arguments are "TL;DR" but they are based on the sources, unlike your claims. https://github.com/GrapheneOS shows that there is 1 other core developer with repository access who has made their organization membership public (by default, organization membership is private - you can see from actions in the bug tracker and elsewhere that there are other members that have not toggled their membership to public) along with 1 outside collaborator with commit access to one of the repositories. You can see for yourself that there are ~4-6 developers working on various repositories (look at PdfViewer, Auditor, AttestationServer, Vanadium, platform_bionic, etc.). I am not sure why there's a need to refer to GitHub when the article you reference yourself states that there are multiple developers and that Daniel Micay is the main / lead developer. I am not debating that Daniel Micay did the majority of the work on the project (it is becoming much less true particularly since the Pixel 4 has device maintainers rather than him doing it all), but it is incorrect to refer to him as the only developer.
Mistakes that were made during the creation of the article are not a justification to keep inaccurate information. It's not a point in favor of the inaccurate information. It not being noticed during the creation of the article doesn't justify it. You cannot use past versions of the Wikipedia article as a reference for itself.
GrapheneOS itself has repeatedly brought up that one of their developers was threatened by Copperhead: https://renlord.com/posts/2020-03-25-copperheados-legal-threat/. This isn't covered by a secondary source as far as I know so I don't think it should be included in the article - but I really don't know how you can claim that the project has a single developer. Pitchcurve (talk) 22:21, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

(unindenting)@Pitchcurve:

  • Alternative 0: Developer: Daniel Micay

Long-standing wording, based on secondary sources. This says there is one main person. Readers understand there are others also involved. This is like Replicant, which lists a few names.

  • Alternative 1: Developer: GrapheneOS development team led by Daniel Micay

Your proposed wording for the infobox. This is too long, implies an organization, probably a company, with a leader and followers. To my knowledge (which is based on what I've seen in secondary sources, and looking briefly at github), this over-states, or exaggerates both the reality, and what secondary sources say.

  • Alternative 2: Developer: Daniel Micay and contributors

To me this is also supported by secondary sources, but looks odd, because "and contributors" is obvious and understood (i.e. extraneous).

  • Alternative 3: Developer: GrapheneOS team

This is like CrDroid, AOKP, Paranoid Android.

  • Alternative 4: Developer: GrapheneOS community

This is like LineageOS or OmniROM.

I'm OK with either of Alternative 0, 3, or 4. Other opinions? -- Yae4 (talk) 17:53, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

New section on how a quotation is NOT backed up by a source, and more

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Can you please explain how "The main developer, Daniel Micay, was the creator and lead developer of CopperheadOS until he left the company and continued the open source project as GrapheneOS." is not backed up by the golem.de reference and the others. And what about "After the schism between the two founders of Copperhead, Micay renamed the open source project to the Android Hardening project and then later to GrapheneOS to reflect the revived state of the project"? Why are you rolling back both of these sentences in the same change as the others? Also, where's your source for 64-bit ARM being the only supported architecture? The https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gentoo_Linux article does not claim that 0 architectures are supported just because they are only supported for builds from source. Also, looking across the articles for Linux distributions, this information is obtained from the website / documentation for the distribution rather than expecting all the trivia to be available in up-to-date secondary sources. Listing out the architectures the project says it supports really shouldn't be controversial. Pitchcurve (talk) 19:46, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
@Pitchcurve: I can't prove a negative. Can you present quotes from the sources supporting your interpretations? Part of the problem is you continue to re-use ONE source without properly "re-using" the source for the reference list. This makes it more confusing to see how much emphasis (aka weight) is being put on individual sources. If you wouldn't make so many unsupported changes, then I wouldn't revert them all. Most of your changes to CopperheadOS and GrapheneOS are not consistent with WP:NPOV or the sources, in my opinion. Re: X86_64 etc., When I went to verify the primary source, I found only a mention that it was tested, not available for download or using. So it looks like advertising something not really available. In general, a lot of these kind of articles list far too many non-encyclopedic details, but it is often tolerated in these topics almost nobody cares about or reads. -- Yae4 (talk) 21:23, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
I'd be happy to remove the architecture field, but if it is included, it should be accurate. There is no basis for claiming that only arm64 is supported. It is not based on a source. It should be removed or left as the corrected version. Either way, that is solution to the problem of inaccurate information. It's you that wants to claim that it only supports arm64 so where is your source? It conflicts with the website (which is the only place where architecture support appears to be discussed) and isn't accurate.
You're repeatedly making unsupported changes based on your incorrect interpretations and assumptions. You keep accusing others of doing what you are doing which is writing content not matching the sources.
Per the source, arm64 is supported in the same state as x86_64. There are no official builds for arm64, but rather specific arm64 devices. It states that there are official releases / support for generic 32/64-bit arm, x86 and mips but that production releases / official builds are made for specific devices. I don't know where you get the information that it specifically only supports arm64.
The sources are definitely available for download and the official release announcements include the tagged source releases (in fact, they only link the source releases, not the official builds for specific devices). I don't know why you're claiming it's not available for download. It is an open source project and just like Gentoo something being supported does not imply there is an official build available. Source-based distributions are a thing.
Pitchcurve (talk) 22:11, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
@Pitchcurve: I'm OK with deleting the platform field in the infobox. Or, if an accurate, brief list can be put in the infobox, with wiki-links similar to LineageOS, then I'm OK with that. It would be ideal if the infobox summarized the article, based on what secondary sources say. However, I realize that is not always the case for this type of article. That said, I'm not OK with turning this article into an advertisement, or adding more and more material based only on primary sources. -- Yae4 (talk) 18:18, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Lack of source for claiming only (64-bit) ARM support

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This is not discussed in the secondary sources. I've redone it and used their site as the source for the time being, which matches what is done for articles like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gentoo_Linux.

GrapheneOS itself refers to support for 32/64-bit ARM, 32/64-bit x86 and 32/64-bit MIPS at a source level. Official builds are only made available for a selection of devices they deem to meet their standards and have the resources to support. There are no official generic 64-bit ARM builds but rather that is only supported at a source level. The only official builds are for a selection of Pixel phones at the moment. It's not accurate to suggest that it has official builds targeting 64-bit ARM generically, when in fact 64-bit ARM has the same level of support as x86_64 including official Vanadium releases (multiple secondary sources cover Auditor and Vanadium so the article should probably mention those). 32-bit ARM, 32-bit x86 and 32/64-bit MIPS are supported at a lower tier, but are supported nonetheless.

Where is a source for it only supported 64-bit ARM to counter what their own site says about the project? In a case where a secondary source is not available, I do not think coming up with the information out of thin air rather than referencing the official documentation is appropriate. Most Wikipedia articles retrieve this assortment of trivia for the infobox (supported architectures, most recent release, etc.) from the project's own documentation / announcements.

The sources do not differentiate arm64 as having special support, other than Vanadium only having official builds for x86_64 / arm64. Official builds being available for a selection of devices that are arm64 devices does not imply that arm64 in general has special support. That is not stated by any available source, and is an inference being made here that's not correct. The reason I changed it from saying "ARM" to "64-bit ARM" is because that made even less sense. At least there's some basis for arm64 being special compared to the others i.e. the fact that the official builds are for devices that are arm64 - but generic arm64 releases are in the same state as x86_64.

Pitchcurve (talk) 20:06, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

@Pitchcurve: Repeating above section response: I'm OK with deleting the platform field in the infobox. Or, if an accurate, brief list can be put in the infobox, with wiki-links similar to LineageOS, then I'm OK with that. It would be ideal if the infobox summarized the article, based on what secondary sources say. However, I realize that is not always the case for this type of article. That said, I'm not OK with turning this article into an advertisement, or adding more and more material based only on primary sources. -- Yae4 (talk) 18:24, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Open-source_software in Infobox versus Free_and_open-source in lead; Applicable licenses?

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This inconsistency has been in the article since early versions.[1] I note the golem.de source says "free software" when discussing F-droid, It says "real open source project" (paraphrasing Micay) when discussing licensing terms. Which of the above two wiki-links is a better fit? Also, the infobox lists MIT and Apache licenses; are those the only two? -- Yae4 (talk) 12:35, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Recent changes and WP:NPOV

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  • In Reception, "devices" was added after "other Android." My interpretation is the article is referring to use of GrapheneOS compared with other Android operating systems, not to "devices."[2] Neither is explicitly stated in that context, so I think the word "devices" should not be added there. Relevant excerpt:

"In the test we could use GrapheneOS like any other Android. We enjoy the Google freedom, we don't notice the additional memory protection, but that's the way it should be. It is regrettable that the development of a secure Android was set back by the dispute of the Copperhead founders. We are also a bit worried about how few developers and maintainers are currently working on GrapheneOS - the project is currently more like a one-man show."

The source does go on to discuss "compatible devices" and the "pity" there "are only a few." This article currently mentions devices becoming "garbage" in a neutral fashion; however, it does not balance it with the criticism. In conjunction with adding Pixel 4 and 4XL in Compatibility section based only on a primary source, this begins to look like adding advertising and ignoring criticism, which is non-neutral.

  • In Developer, the wording has been changed significantly[3], and sourcing has only been re-arranged; no new secondary sources added.
    • golem.de does not call Micay the "creator" (wording added), only that he "co-founded" the project and was the "main developer".
    • golem.de does not say anything about "the revived state" (wording added) as a reason for renaming from Android Hardening to GrapheneOS, only that developer Micay "Micay wants to continue the development of Copperhead OS and the Android Hardening project with GrapheneOS." If anything, the statement should be more clear Micay is the source being paraphrased, and not state the renaming explanation in Wikipedia voice.

I am therefore re-instating previous wordings. -- Yae4 (talk) 14:04, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Recent news about using grapheneOS as a base

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Daniel micay has in the grapheneos matrix room stated that he wants and has nothing to do with us politics. So, he also wants nothing to do with other people selling phone with grapheneOS. But has stated if they misuse the trademark (grapheneOS logo), he will take legal action against them. It maybe suitable to say while they are using this OS as a base, the project owner has stated they don't agree with them with a clear no racism stance. But since it was in a chat room it cannot be linked as a source.

Mainly to discuss how to present this and what the developers stance is. Vodoyo (talk) 16:08, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

@Vodoyo: Interesting developments. The court filing[4] also discusses "business deals with criminal organizations" more on Copperhead, but overlaps background of Graphene history. Omerta digital is advertising phones with GrapheneOS. [5] It's a primary source, but may deserve mention in the article? Breitbart is banned at wikipedia IIUC, and all the quoted twitter posts are not reliable. (https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2021/01/09/free-speech-platform-gab-reports-750-increase-in-traffic/) AR15.com is a forum, self-published source, so also not reliable.[6] Do you have any reliable or primary sources covering it? -- Yae4 (talk) 15:38, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Unjustified warning notices and territorial behavior

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I've been removing these warnings placed here without any real justification:

I don't think these should be added back without a talk page discussion with an explanation of why it makes sense. This kind of thing is discouraging making improvements to the article, which it desperately needs.

See Talk:CopperheadOS#Connected_user_status_disagreement about accusations that have been made against editors to these two articles (including myself) in a way that drives away contributors. Many months ago, I was one of the people that Yae4 made accusations against. In the warning notice Yae4 added for User:Pitchcurve, Special:Diff/975851969 is given as the reason, which simply doesn't make any sense. I think it's unfortunate that the improvements to the article were reverted. This article shouldn't be treated as one person's territory rather than basing it on the sources and consensus-based decision making.

This is what an administrator said on the other talk page:

Yae, as far as I am concerned, your repeated focus on the contributors here, rather than the content of the article, has made this article a toxic environment to edit in, and amounts to disruptive editing.

Unfortunately, that appears to have persisted here despite ending for the CopperheadOS page.

I'll also note that they made a similar veiled accusation against me in their recent edit summary, similar to what they did before. 142.126.174.52 (talk) 16:20, 15 January 2021 (UTC)


Hey, I was the one to make the second edit(red Daniel Micay) link. I am still new to this, but if I am not wrong Daniel has been credited for lots of security related work on Android, WhonixOS, Rust programming language and obviously this project. These citation are from verifiable and reliable sources. So, I am a bit confused on what exactly would be missing from his page. Thanks in advance for replying :) --Greatder (talk) 03:29, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
@142.126.174.52: I'm focusing on articles, sources, edits and facts; not on editors, under threat of a complaint being filed[7] by User:Mr._Stradivarius. I would ask you, 142.126.174.52, to do the same. I didn't think the other discussion applied here, so I re-added the tag. If you feel so strongly about it, fine, I don't really care that much. Re: Red Linking non-existent Micay page, a red link only highlights Micay's non-notability, unless or until a page is drafted. I don't feel too strongly either way, but weakly support leaving it out. Re: Tagging missing lawsuit information. It's clear there are some legal processes happening, as a filing was posted on Graphene's website. A reminder tag, to follow up if/when it hits the "reliable" sources seems OK to me. I'm not sure if it's appropriate to use that primary source now, but it does contain some interesting information.
@Greatder:, Why should we link to a non-existent page? Is anyone working on a Draft? If you can bring reliable sources showing notability, go ahead. -- Yae4 (talk) 20:22, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I am working on it, so I would encourage keeping a link to indicate work in progress  :) Greatder (talk) 08:13, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Letters and filings, how to use?

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

What if anything can be taken from these PDFs of letters and filings from Graphene and Copperhead? [8] [9] [10] -- Yae4 (talk) 13:42, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

It's generally not a good idea to rely on public documents as primary sources for anything remotely controversial – secondary sources are preferred. Court records and public records are prohibited for making claims about living persons, according to WP:BLPPRIMARY. — Newslinger talk 13:25, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

"Compatibility" Section

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Wikipedia is not a directory, (5) sales catalog or (7) simple listing, Ref. WP:NOTCATALOG. The list of "currently" supported devices is not encyclopedic, it is advertisement. Few ROM articles include device lists. Those that do, are more historical, for example OmniROM#Supported_Devices. However, without secondary sourcing, even that is probably not worthy of including. Therefore, I am deleting the detailed list and changing to a general statement more consistent with the secondary source. -- Yae4 (talk) 21:04, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Android Hardening or AndroidHardening

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Golem.de source says "Android Hardening" in the original German version. Packtpub.com source says "AndroidHardening".

First, "Android Hardening" related to GrapheneOS does not seem notable for wikipedia. It is hard to find more than one or two reliable sources that mention it. If it is to be included in the article, I support "Android Hardening" for the following reasons.

  • Golem.de is a better source than Packtpub.com. Packt has an unfavorable, though old, RSN discussion.[11] and the Packt article is currently tagged for poor sourcing, for what that's worth. The Packt source used in this article mainly repeats Micay's twitter, which is not very independent.
  • This is original research, but even today, GrapheneOS' AndroidHardening Github calls it "Android Hardening". [12] Usage has been inconsistent, but as far back in time as June 2018, and November 2018, it was called "Android Hardening". [13][14]

Thus, if included, it should be "Android Hardening". -- Yae4 (talk) 11:18, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Android Police "review" in the reception section

Latest comment: 2 years ago12 comments2 people in discussion

The last added paragraph of Special:Diff/1094410995 may not do much beyond possibly establishing subject notability in a weak way. The article from Mascellino, published in Android Police (lacking encyclopedic notability as much as MakeUseOf), is not even a critical "review", it's restating what the primary sources already say (found from the "External links" section), not comparable to the previous paragraphs from more substantial publications (netzpolitik.org et al.). I would remove the whole paragraph and two references from Mascellino. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 23:29, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I hope to have resolved this with a rewrite in a new "Features" section. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 00:35, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
AndroidPolice is an OK but not great source, IMO. Consensus on MakeUseOf was marginal reliability at best, some said unreliable.[15] My opinion on Features sections - ROM promoters like the section and eventually add allllll the features. The section becomes out of date over time as features change. In general most of the features are not notable and this is why I prefer only a (historical) Reception section. -- Yae4 (talk) 10:50, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Adding: Most "news" and "reliable" sources are not critical reviews. Regardless of how interviews are spoon-fed to publications, we are supposed to assess reliability of sources and "fairly" balance what "reliable" sources say about the topic. -- Yae4 (talk) 11:35, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict) In this context Android Police source by Mascellino is worse than, for example, Huff or Peckham's news reporting articles at Android Police on this subject. Worse because I get a feeling Mascellino's authored posts are sponsoring / SEO / infotainment quality. Qualitatively I would only use the post by Mascellino for a few non-controversial statements (WP:MREL), until more authorative sources (that's not regurgitating the primary source) can replace it. I can happily agree to remove the "Features" section altogether, although I tried to stay brief and mostly copied your edit. But this doesn't belong to the "Reception" section, in my opinion. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 11:56, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
I disagree with this removal of "OK" sourced info.[16] after previously moving it from Reception.[17] and leaving in place other statements based on the same publication, Android Police. Maybe take the source to Reliable Sources noticeboard (although not getting much help on the other attempt). I suggest restoring it in Reception.-- Yae4 (talk) 14:23, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
I've restored it: Special:Diff/1095644893. Thanks. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 14:32, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Your edit summary "Restoring "Features" section per User:Yae4's objections to removal" is, in short, a lie. I did not suggest "restoring". I suggested restoring it in Reception. Huge difference. -- Yae4 (talk) 14:37, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
The edit summary is accurate. It restores what I've removed myself (Undid revision 1095522108 by 84.250.14.116 and Restoring "Features" section), based on your disagreement above (per User:Yae4's objections to removal at Special:Diff/1095643963 and I disagree with this removal). Sorry about the lack of comma. However, I still disagree with moving it back to the reception section, because an overview without critical commentary doesn't fit the dictionary (Wiktionary) definition of reception. Please remember to WP:AGF; it could be moved to the reception section as a next step, this has been intermediate. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 14:48, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
So, what do you propose next? 84.250.14.116 (talk) 14:55, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
I think what I stated above is obvious. If it is not obvious to you from what I stated above, then we can wait another day or so and I'll show you. I'm basing my views of Reception sections on practices in other ROM articles. -- Yae4 (talk) 18:08, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
We'll follow WP:DUE (or other relevant policy) if unsourced or poorly sourced things are added. "Features" sections can work, see Debian#Features for an example. But, there is no need to discourage contributors to add reliably sourced features, particularly if those differences are exclusive traits of the article's subject. Besides that, I'm not familiar, and I'm not sure I even need to know what "in other ROM articles" is happening (they can be improved too if they're that bad). This is, after all, WP:AGF of contributors. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 18:36, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Compatibility section & support release cycles

Latest comment: 2 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion

Regarding Special:Diff/1096795401/1096802922 from IP 84.250.14.116

Support release cycles aren't particularly "Compatibility" related either, I think the Golem.de source already said what's necessary?

I do agree that support release cycles aren't exactly related to compatibility; this information would be better addressed elsewhere. However, a portion of the original text — until they no longer receive updates from Google — is no longer accurate and I believe it should be removed. "As of 2019, GrapheneOS supports the most recent smartphone models in the Google Pixel product line" would be more accurate, however, that's a rather short paragraph. I'm not sure what a good resolution would be, but the current phrasing in present tense is simply incorrect.

According to the GrapheneOS website, the Pixel 3 (XL) and Pixel 3a (XL) devices receive additional extended security support releases of GrapheneOS (as of July 2022).

This is slightly misleading and does not fully represent the entire picture. Saying that they receive extended security support releases misleads readers into a false sense of security; as the GrapheneOS website states, "it's not possible to provide full security updates". They might contain some security patches, but there's a reason the authors call them "harm reduction" releases and omit "security" from "extended support". At the very least, "security" should be removed. Additionally, in its current state, the section implies that only four devices will receive extended support while the project has committed to providing ten devices with additional support. I believe this phrase should be revised to say either of the following (my preference is the latter).

According to the GrapheneOS website, the Pixel 3-5 devices will receive additional extended support releases of GrapheneOS (as of July 2022).

According to the GrapheneOS website, they will provide extended support releases for devices that Google has committed to supporting for three years, such as the Pixel 3, 4, and 5 series (as of July 2022).

Amolith (talk) 20:33, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I admit I didn't understand the source you provided (and was about to ask for your opinion, before I went ahead and tried to correct it myself). I don't want to combine sources to come up with a conclusion of something they don't explicitly say. The way I wrote it was the most straightforward statement I could understand; later, another editor also supported it with a secondary source (Lamont) in almost exact (but expanded) words from the source. Is it better now? 84.250.14.116 (talk) 21:21, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Again your statements are misleading. I oppose using Lamont as a source, but you already cited it regardless, without any consensus. I also note this WP:PRIMARY source was added after, I thought, agreeing to minimize primary sources. How do you square adding this selected primary source, but not adding the GitHub primary sources? -- Yae4 (talk) 21:38, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Don't bark at the messenger, resolve this with User:Amolith. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 21:41, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
By the way, I did also make it hopefully clear using Lamont's review as a biased source for factual reporting has additional considerations. I did not cite them for factual reporting, as was done here. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 21:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
I have no opinion on this, really. I've tried to assume good faith for Amolith and help them cite information dated correctly. Prefer independent, secondary sources when available. Good luck. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 21:46, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
WP:PRIMARY sources should be minimized. Anything controversial or requiring interpretation or explanation should be avoided. Expanding the section based on primary sources is a mistake. I favor the simple, one-sentence statement, in absence of significant coverage. -- Yae4 (talk) 22:18, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
PS. Simply open-source licensing is also factually incorrect, based on Micay GitHub posts, but I can't seem to get even a note added. Sad to say, "factually correct" is apparently not the wiki-criterion. -- Yae4 (talk) 22:22, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Re: "As of 2019, GrapheneOS supports the most recent smartphone models in the Google Pixel product line" would be more accurate, however, that's a rather short paragraph." I see no problems with this short paragraph, and have no issues with shortening the sentence as suggested. It is still consistent with the secondary source, and eliminates any need for primary source or other, complicating, secondary source. With 84.x saying they "have no opinion on this", I agree with this suggestion by Amolith, and will make this change. -- Yae4 (talk) 22:43, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
    I think simply shortening the paragraph is a good resolution. It removes the no-longer-accurate caveat and focuses the Compatibility section on compatibility.
    I do not understand why citing a primary source is undesirable in this specific situation, however. According to WP:PRIMARY, a primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. I was not extrapolating my own conclusion when citing #How long can GrapheneOS support my device for?, I was rewording the phrase, "GrapheneOS aims to provide harm reduction releases for devices which only have a minimum of 3 years support", to make more sense in context.
    I'll address the bullets in WP:PRIMARY individually.
    1. GrapheneOS.org is a reliable source because it's the subject of this very article. A factual statement made by the project on the project's website is directly relevant to the article.
    2. My use included no interpretation; I reworded a factual statement from the project's website.
    3. My use included no interpretation; I reworded a factual statement from the project's website.
    4. My use "[did] not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize [the] material"
    5. This would have been the only primary citation in the article.
    6. My use included no unsourced material; I reworded a factual statement from the project's website.
    I can understand why use of primary sources should be minimised and agree with that. In this specific situation, however, I believe using a primary source would be perfectly acceptable. Amolith (talk) 01:36, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
    @Amolith: Thank you for your point-by-point assessment. I don't have time at the moment to tell you in detail why I disagree with much of what you said in the 6 items. Suffice for now to say: When someone like 84.x says "I didn't understand the source you provided"[18], it calls into question whether WP:VERIFY is feasible. I could not take time to more than glance at that self-published web page myself, but you used "factual statement" for each item. Please consider guidance: "Even if you are sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. from WP:VERIFY, and have a skim or more of the essay Wikipedia:Verifiability,_not_truth. Regarding self-published web pages, I suggest having a look at the criteria at WP:ABOUTSELF, and considering how the GrapheneOS website stands up to those. Finally, while I am taking a short (?) wiki-break, I would appreciate if you could take a look at my unanswered point-by-point assessment of WP:ABOUTSELF criteria here (above):
    Talk:GrapheneOS#GitHub_(or_Gitlab)_as_sources_at_Wikipedia and let me know (up there) what you think about that; to me, the issues are closely related to the kind of citations you are wanting here. -- Yae4 (talk) 04:25, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

"partly" open-source

Latest comment: 2 years ago25 comments4 people in discussion

Because there was an edit war, I'll start this. Nothing in cited sources of Special:Diff/1094475710 (nevermind they are user-generated and therefore unreliable anyway) specifically says something to now be proprietary or only "partly" open-source. I don't think the editor in question (nor me) could even link to any source, primary or not, that would non-controversially support the statement that some parts of the project would now be proprietary. At least one of the cited sources seems like a I would like you to... request to remove some code from another project (or multiple projects) due to a schism (or schisms). With further inspection the messages on GitHub seem to be at least a little bit legitimate with deeper inspection (the GitHub issue's OP's profile links to a well-known author with contributions to GrapheneOS repositories), however a regular reader cannot make the correlations from the cited single page alone. I also cannot make that statement in the article, because I would be editorializing and that's not the purpose of Wikipedia; Wikipedia says what other third-party sources say (usually "reliable", even if the definition of "reliable sources" is arguably heavily weighted on "consensus" or virtue signalling with sometimes undue weight based on the language and culture of the wiki, e.g. biased towards Westerner viewpoints on enwiki). This needs reliable third-party sources to be uncontroversial. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 21:45, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

If I have to put this in another way, the two problems were: WP:SYNTHESIS ("partly"); and citing WP:UGC sources stating claims about third-parties (CalyxOS) that are not found in sources (original research) Wikipedia considers "reliable" for inclusion, even if such claims (in those sources) may be true. Therefore, I've reverted this. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 22:22, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

aka Primary source statements by GrapheneOS/Micay on Github (and Twitter) re: "Don't use my source" (paraphrase)

​​The "not open source" change was actually first suggested, not by me, but by an IP editor[19]. I did not agree with the addition,[20] at first, but when 3 Github primary sources are readily found, not to mention a bunch of tweets (which are not appropriate for sources), it seems relevant to include some basic facts. Strcat and thestinger are nicknames used by Micay (as if anyone editing, or most people viewing this article don't know). GrapheneOS/Micay has tweeted and posted on github re: not wanting others to use their sources. This information is similar to other factoids included in this article and primary-sourced to GrapheneOS FAQ or other webpages. As previous licensing issues were also germane to CopperheadOS history, and are germane to GrapheneOS history, why not include info' on these statements? It is basic, relevant info' of interest to readers of this article. The statements are not editorializing; they are basic summary of statement by the primary source. -- Yae4 (talk) 22:28, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Adding: Based on this edit[21] it seems we are, or should be, in agreement that limited basic "about self" factual statements are OK to include. We shouldn't be cherry picking only selected such statements, however. IMO, your edits have that appearance. -- Yae4 (talk) 23:09, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

I was thinking of having it as a footnote immediately after the open-source word in lede (and infobox), possibly with a supporting quote in the citation template. I almost submitted an edit, but I don't know anymore why I didn't submit it (not thoughtful). I kept the original text because it supports what's said in the lede, even though I was not too happy to introduce a primary source (I'd be fine with removing that statement too), and it was easy to copy-paste from diffs (although doing that also introduced errors, which another contributor quickly fixed). I also don't know about CopperheadOS history in-depth, but as I see interpret it, there are no licensing issues in GrapheneOS (from those 3 GitHub issues), only schisms (where some parties seem to respect requests to remove code and some don't). However, as an editor I should not interpret primary sources (WP:PSTS), so I can't interpret/make/synthesize/editorialize the statement that there are licensing issues - none of the sources stated explicitly say so. I don't see the statement According to the GrapheneOS primary developer, they request CalyxOS and bromite developers not to use any GrapheneOS sources. as a problem, the problem is the sourcing – it's improperly sourced, and in the latest edit you seem to have also removed the "better source needed" tags. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 23:49, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

I was thinking of having it as a footnote immediately after the open-source word in lede (and infobox), possibly with a supporting quote in the citation template. I almost submitted an edit, but I don't know anymore why I didn't submit it (not thoughtful). I kept the original text because it supports what's said in the lede, even though I was not too happy to introduce a primary source (I'd be fine with removing that statement too), and it was easy to copy-paste from diffs (although doing that also introduced errors, which another contributor quickly fixed).

I was going to comment here that it being kept in felt out of place in the History section because it was originally part of the other removed content (Special:Diff/1094307821), but the last reversion in Special:Diff/1094489078 which exceeds the WP:3RR without giving enough time to reach a consensus here... Resonantia (talk) 01:29, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Special:Diff/1093735316, linking to The Open Source Definition § 5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups, says: The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons. I don't see the license as a subject of contest in question, I see schisms. Vanadium / LICENSE – GPL-2.0 is on OSI's approved licenses list. The argument proposed by unregistered contributor that this is not "open source" by OSI definition is not convincing me. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 00:12, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Particularly troubling is the Bromite issue #2102 citation, which is anchored to the comment which says (among other things): collaborating with a group (Calyx) involved in a substantial misinformation and harassment/bullying campaign directed towards our project and developers – this is according to thestinger, but no "reliable" sources (by Wikipedia's standards) exist to reference in support of these statements, so the source is very questionable without the appropriate context (hence removal as original research). It doesn't simply say GrapheneOS doesn't want Calyx to use our sources in support of the original statement, it also goes beyond to make other claims (which are more challenging for an uneducated reader to verify and trust the sources) – nevermind its also not easy for an uneducated reader to understand thestinger to (likely) be Daniel Micay. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 00:43, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Note I'm not making a statement here if thestinger is right or wrong with those claims; I'm trying to make a claim how it's improperly sourced for an encyclopedia (Wikipedia). 84.250.14.116 (talk) 01:01, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
IMO, You, 84.x, are giving far too much attention to deeper analyzing, synthesizing, and interpreting deeper meanings in those github sources... which IS WP:OR. A basic summary of the plain statements, by thestinger/Micay are 3 examples[22][23][24] saying they wish for CalyxOS and bromite developers to stop using their code (and will be changing licenses to push it). Yes, it is not a great source, but it IS a primary source, similar to GrapheneOS website. Wikipedia misleads readers to simply say GrapheneOS is Open Source, and not mention non-open-source behaviors. I would also support a new section on "License issues", Controversies, or similar to include basic statements clarifying GrapheneOS is less than fully open source in action. That said, I would also support, as perhaps better, improving the article by removing MORE primary sources and most links to GrapheneOS site: This includes current Reference 1, 2, 12, 20 as well as the marginal quality sources like 11-PacktHub. We do not achieve WP:NPOV by cherry picking only selected primary-source statements from GrapheneOS website. As example, the FAQ[25] clearly indicates there is ongoing dispute over code ownership and licensing; this article references it but does not say anything about the disputes. Anyway, the GrapheneOS site is biased and not reliable for much more than some technical facts. -- Yae4 (talk) 02:31, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
GrapheneOS changing the Vanadium license from MIT (permissive) to GPLv2 (copyleft) clearly doesn't make Vanadium open source. You're also making sure to omit the context of Bromite preventing GrapheneOS by using their code since GrapheneOS is unable to include GPLv3 code from Bromite. Bromite was earlier permitting GrapheneOS to include their code under the MIT license and started disallowing it. Why are you omitting the context? GPLv2 is a copyleft open source license which largely exists to require that people using the code (such as Bromite using GrapheneOS code) permit using their own code in the other direction under the same license. That doesn't make the project in any way less than open source. Open source does not mean there aren't requirements on using the code. It means that the code can be used by anyone for any purpose while respecting the licensing terms including attribution, including the license notice which are both almost always required (but often not respected) and if applicable also copyleft enforcing making derivative work available under a compatible license. GPLv2 does not permit the restrictions added by GPLv3, so Vanadium is requiring that Bromite switches to GPLv2 / GPLv2-or-later instead of using GPLv3 which GrapheneOS considers unacceptable. Neither of the projects is not open source for not providing their code to each other under licenses that the other side is willing to use. GrapheneOS is not willing to use GPLv3, and Bromite is not willing to use GPLv2-or-later instead of GPLv3 to use the GPLv3 code from Vanadium. This is nothing like the narrative you are trying to push. The CalyxOS thing you are bringing up involves CalyxOS kicking GrapheneOS out of a project and disallowing them using the code followed by GrapheneOS asking them not to use their code in the same project in response. How is that anything like what you are portraying? 142.126.170.15 (talk) 06:53, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

In response to User:Yae4:

saying they wish for CalyxOS and bromite developers to stop using their code (and will be changing licenses to push it).
I agree this to be the case, however the availability of sources is rather low quality and not all the sources given are suitable for inclusion due to involving exceptional claims about third-parties.
Wikipedia misleads readers to simply say GrapheneOS is Open Source, and not mention non-open-source behaviors
I disagree. I think I've already said why, but this is objectively an extraordinary claim which needs extraordinary sources, not guided by feelings or emotions. There may be fallacy involved for licensing (i.e. relating to the android-prepare-vendor repository by AOSPAlliance), or a misinterpration of the OSI definition/generally accepted definition of "open source". The repository URL found in the infobox gives me an impression that the majority or all repositories are "open source", the licenses used seem to be OSI-approved, and there are no reliable third-party sources to claim otherwise with a neutral viewpoint.
See also WP:FRINGE for deviation from prevailing or mainstream views (the definition of "open source").
"License issues", Controversies, or similar
I'd name it Controversies, however I would also expect it to be well sourced with views from both sides and not giving WP:UNDUE weight to extraordinary claims from a single party (i.e. Bromite issue #2102 anchored comment should not be used as a reference, because it involves extraordinary claims about Calyx not published in third-party sources Wikipedia considers "reliable").
Re: "licensing issues", don't they belong in the CopperheadOS article instead?
GrapheneOS is less than fully open source in action
I disagree, in the most neutral viewpoint possible, after reviewing the Vanadium license and OSI definition (which was a point of contention in the cited sources). The claim that this is "less than fully open source" may be editorializing or original research, and would also contradict a primary source about self (FAQ), which at the time is the only available source of information; prepare to cite reliable third-party sources for it (or undo Special:Diff/1094478406 as a source of dispute). The decisions, schisms, requests, whatever you want to call them, cannot be objectively seen as restrictions of the license (GPL-2.0 WebView exception) as OSI defines them, but desires of authors/contributors. The subject of whether GPL-2.0 is "open source" or not should not be in question (even then the GPL-2.0 also prohibits inclusion in proprietary programs without code sharing, but that's a non-issue in this conversation).
improving the article by removing MORE primary sources
I agree with points of contention. Keep references 1 & 2 (and move them to the Wikidata project), these are not exceptional claims nor questionable (software release information). Remove 12 and the statement of dispute as contentional, until reliable sources become available (this is what User:Resonantia also wanted). Remove 20 because it is already supported by 9 (a notable publication). Keep 11 because the Packt publication seems to mee encyclopedic notability here; the source may only partially supports the statement (Micay transitioned to work on GrapheneOS) or may have been misinterpreted and the scope should be clarified for involvements prior to 2019 (renaming in the "AndroidHardening project" to GrapheneOS).
the [GrapheneOS] FAQ clearly indicates there is ongoing dispute over code ownership and licensing [in GrapheneOS]
I disagree. The FAQ doesn't indicate a dispute to be ongoing in this article subject. (There may have been a former dispute.)
I've understood from reading CopperheadOS there is an ongoing dispute in that separate article subject. If these two subjects would not be too distinct from each other, the articles would be merged. Currently the referenced sources seem to indicate notability of GrapheneOS for a standalone article.
the GrapheneOS site is biased and not reliable for much more than some technical facts.
The five points of WP:ABOUTSELF guidelines and WP:PRIMARY in general apply.
At least a few of the third-party sources (in the history section) here seem to support non-technical facts also published in the primary source.

84.250.14.116 (talk) 13:34, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

On its face, GrapheneOS releases most of its sources under open source licenses; on this we agree. In practice, Graphene/Micay uses at least a couple public communication channels to ask other projects to, in essence, ignore the licenses and not use their sources. This is a basic historical fact, from Micay's fingers, not an exceptional claim or fringe view. More interpretation should wait for "reliable" sources, but basic facts are basic facts: GrapheneOS asks a couple other projects - Calyx and bromite - to not use their sources.
Ongoing versus previous disputes over code ownership and licensing: Clearly it is ongoing. Not yet for the article, but obviously the disputes have not been settled or (1) we would see at least tweets about it, if not "news" (2) the "history" at Graphene webpage would say so. Instead it uses long, winding explanations... To the extent your edits push this article to match Graphene's version, it is demonstrating biased presentation of sources, IMO.
I may take Packt pub to RSN for more opinions. I've considered it a poor source since the beginning of this article, as said before; Newslinger called it a "blog" and "borderline source" above.
PS. I disagree with copying from CopperheadOS because it is not a good example, and should not be considered as precedent; see lack of consensus etc at that Talk[26]
PPS. It would also be great to see more input in this Talk from all the interested accounts and IPs. -- Yae4 (talk) 16:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Micay [...] ask[s] other projects to, in essence, ignore the licenses? That's not what the three user-generated sources you added said. If "thestinger" is Micay, then Micay says in the bromite thread the license will be strictly enforced with legal action taken if it's not followed, but we've gone too far to interpret these sources anyway. I don't claim the requests to not use their sources to be fringe, I said your deviating viewpoints of what is the definition of "open source" may be fringe (in context of this conversation and using the fringe viewpoint as a basis to say something isn't "open source"). I don't want to involve myself in this much further.

The edits I've done have attempted to fill omissions – publication bias? – which are supported by both primary and third-party sources (particularly the gap of events between the CopperheadOS schism and the announcement or "rebranding" to GrapheneOS) – the omission of the Android Hardening project (mentioned in the Golem.de source) could give the different impression of the history, inception or continuity, which would not be supported by sources. In sense, I have pushed this article to match more accurately both Graphene and Golem's version of events, not only Golem's Yae4's version of the events. I still see it could be improved to state both viewpoints neutrally, if there remains any confusion I've yet to understand to be inaccurate.

84.250.14.116 (talk) 17:44, 23 June 2022 (UTC); edited 18:12, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
What I meant to say in the first paragraph, the following is my neutral viewpoint of the new schisms and sources: thestinger uses at least a public communication channel (GitHub) to ask other projects to, in essence, ignore the licenses and not use GrapheneOS sources [because of schisms]. The reasons behind it are not something I'd reference, until reliable sources say why. There's also the other issue: Wikipedia shouldn't publish original research to tell thestinger is Micay (?), unless the alias can be reliably referenced. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 18:04, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
  Moved to #History, transition from CopperheadOS with "Android Hardening", to GrapheneOS
 – Some discussion about Android Hardening history and origins I started didn't belong in here, whoops. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 22:11, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I saw no objection in this discussion to remove the WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims made by thestinger on GitHub about Calyx developers in the bromite #2102 citation, so I removed that citation there: Special:Diff/1094693770. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 01:21, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

On this, exceptional claims were never included in this wiki-article to my knowledge. The only thing included was a basic factual statement of what Micay/Graphene requested (actually near demanded). Additional claims in the source about others should be excluded from the article but I'm less sure this is justification to not use the source for info about itself. However, in general, I agree self-published info from Micay/Graphene is very low reliablity, and should be minimized to as close to zero as possible, without making the article misleading on important issues like how they really handle "open source" and licensing. Of course the long history of difficult, or toxic, relationships with other people/projects would be important to include, if reliable sources ever cover it. -- Yae4 (talk) 11:15, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
You're making sure to omit the fact that CalyxOS and Bromite prevented GrapheneOS from using their code prior to Daniel Micay requesting they stop using theirs. It is your incredibly one sided interpretation of what happened
Collapsing off-topic, false, editor attacks

and it needs to be noted that you have a substantial personal investment in this article due your personal feud with Daniel Micay. You're clearly not able to participate in editing the article or even here on the talk page without acting out this personal feud. You're continuing to make unsourced accusations about Daniel Micay both here, in the article itself and elsewhere. You filed an investigation into multiple accounts which was rejected. You're turning this whole talk page into being about your personal feud with Micay and are trying to insert it into the article with unsourced claims that are your own inaccurate interpretation of things that have banned. It's completely inappropriate and further intervention by an admin is desperately needed at this point. Your talk page history shows you have been repeatedly warned about your involved in the CopperheadOS and GrapheneOS articles along with elsewhere, but it's only getting worse.

142.126.170.15 (talk) 06:49, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Proposing to non-admin close this discussion following the consensus: 2 editors in favour of removing it as original research (particularly on the alias and identity of thestinger), 1 editor in favour to keep the current revision. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 10:30, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Disagree with "closing" Only 2 editor accounts or IPs have given opinions and reasons here, unless I missed it. Also, re: harassment and licensing claims as a general and ongoing "thing" by GrapheneOS, this is also supported by primary source statements at their website, claiming similar re: CopperheadOS and the CEO.[27] More uninvolved 3rd party opinions could be useful here. -- Yae4 (talk) 15:13, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Implicitly I supposed Special:Diff/1094363773 and Special:Diff/1094473794 by the same user were favoring it as original research, in addition to myself. Re: those claims, to use those primary sources, the other party's opinions would need to be included in the article too for WP:DUE. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 17:27, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
No explanation in edit summary, and lack of participation here in Talk gives lack of understanding of "the other party's opinions" or reasons.
By the way, see WP:PRIMARYCARE: "The person's autobiography, own website, or a page about the person on an employer's or publisher's website, is an acceptable (although possibly incomplete) primary source for information about what the person says about themself. Such primary sources can normally be used for non-controversial facts about the person and for clearly attributed controversial statements.". While this is under "an article about a person" it should apply here when covering Micay's statements about his wishes or GrapheneOS, as it is more a personal project and less a business. -- Yae4 (talk) 11:35, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Cite reliable sources and suggest such sources to be added, I'm not interested to argue more about policy. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 13:12, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
  • 84.x starting fresh edit warring: This reversion[28] removed Dubious tag, which referred to this section of Talk, to try to get more opinions. Ignoring 142.x inflammatory personal attacks, only one other editor/account, Resonantia, has given an opinion. Their suggestion, a footnote, has not been added. I suggest you should not remove tags which are intended to highlight points of disagreement, and solicit discussion to reach consensus. Yae4 (talk) 12:06, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

thestinger aka Micay, and Wikipedia POV pushing

Latest comment: 2 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Partly regarding: "nevermind its also not easy for an uneducated reader to understand thestinger to (likely) be Daniel Micay." 84.250.14.116 (talk) 00:43, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

With all due respect, hogwash. Self-published, primary, marginally reliable info at Graphene repository linked in this article infobox says thestinger is Micay.[29] This is not a secret, it is not hard to see and understand, and it is not in doubt. I don't think this is WP:OR for editors to read and summarize a little of the self-published info by the subject of the article about itself. Is LinuxReviews a reliable, independent, secondary source on Linux topics? If so, they say so too.[30] There is no doubt. What is in doubt is significant coverage by reliable sources. Micay/thestinger is also concerned about this, and Wikipedia coverage generally, understandably. June 13, and 25, 2022 saw creation and 3 revisions of a list of "notability" sources for wikipedia, with a little commentary included.[31] Relevant points for this article: Timing - started around the beginning of the latest "swarm" of IDs and IPs to this article, around June 13. Wiki-knowlege: Micay confuses notability of a source and reliability of a source, and this is exactly the same confusion demonstrated here by 84.250.14.116. Another example - lack of understanding of significance of "Forbes Contributors" WP:FORBESCON, by listing a Forbes Contributor's post as a "notable" source, when they are explicitly not reliable sources (without at least providing arguments supporting the author's expertise). -- Yae4 (talk) 15:13, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't hold, nor disagree with those beliefs. But I (too) could register an account on GitHub, contribute to GrapheneOS repositories and later change my profile name to be "Micay" and make (questionable) claims about third-parties. I'll wait for reliable sources (there is no rush) – actually I've been waiting for a bit longer, and I'm still waiting, and in the meantime trying to get a closure or more opinions to a discussion to remove (dubious) user-generated views (which are not at least supported by reliable sources), until such claims are proper verifiable (and not mere beliefs of editors) and not come from an unnamed "GrapheneOS primary developer" in WP:WEASEL words.

If you would consider LinuxReviews or anything else to be a reliable source for information about thestinger, add it, to support other statements in the article. This is not currently done, because such non-questionable sources don't exist (and only because of these arguments for consensus, the requests not to use GrapheneOS sources is temporarily allowed – with maintenance tags). I highly doubt LinuxReviews to be reliable and will recommend you not to do add it, because it's a WP:UGC source – anyone could've created or edited that LinuxReviews page, and can edit at any time, to push their viewpoint. Somebody has surely explained WP:UGC to me better in the past.

I try to WP:AGF here, but these arguments (like this one, based on LinuxReviews) using user-generated sources and original research is a bit tiring to rehearse policy. After taking the extended effort to read all the cited sources (some which you've formerly added yourself) – which I did not originally plan on, intend, or want to read extensively, but I did – and write what those multiple sources agree on (hoping to at least improve accuracy, to represent a neutral viewpoint for everyone) and making a conscious effort to follow WP:DUE and other policies, here we are still talking about "POV pushing". I'd say most of the significant coverage with reliable sources concerns were solved today, versus no coverage or inaccurate/biased coverage with questionable sources that this article had a week ago.

I don't know enough to understand how the last things you mentioned has any significance here (for the current state of the article, or since you were partially blocked, when I started contributing to this article), or what faith that message wants to assume about unregistered contributors. (Seemed only like one IP-address around "June 13", which got reverted for adding original research about the "open sourceness" of the project – and I agreed with that revert. No correlation whatsoever around the 25th.) I'm not connected to any project with a Wikipedia article either – personally I don't own and have not owned a smartphone for the past decade, to begin with (you'll have to take my word on it).

I would recommend to read WP:V's first paragraph in its entirety, maybe also get more feedback from persons involved in WikiProjects, etc.

And as User:Awilley once said (paraphrased from your talk page): Make Wikipedia better by making sure it reflects the highest quality reliable sources (vs my POV). I've assumed good faith too and changed several points of contention you've brought up here, one example being deprecating using Packt Hub as a source (a citation was not originally added by me). Keep the suggestions coming.

84.250.14.116 (talk) 19:06, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
The significance is a few IDs and IPs, including yours, began editing here around the time Micay published "a call for help" (my interpretation), and recruitment of meat or sock puppets is not a good thing. No particular inference on IP editing in general was intended, but it does occur a lot on these kinds of remote backwater articles that also have hornet's nest environment, and accusations of puppetry; see Talk:CopperheadOS where Strcat, another Micay ID made some too, if you haven't already. Linux Reviews was something that came up with a search and appears to be a secondary source. I didn't say it is a reliable source; I asked if it was. Please don't twist or mis-interpret my statements to something other than the plain meaning.
You could lie and create an ID with fake info', but it would obviously not appear on the "People" list[32] of the GrapheneOS project[33], which is linked from this article. You're stretching credibility. -- Yae4 (talk) 11:43, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
You've created an inaccurate story about that GitHub Gist which is completely refuted by actually looking at where it was linked and the content of the Gist. This is the same thing you're doing with your unsourced licensing claims, where you link 2 comments on GitHub from Daniel Micay requesting for 2 projects which blocked him from using their code to stop using his code in response. It has nothing to do with the licensing about GrapheneOS.
Collapsing off-topic, false, editor attacks

You're acting out the very apparent personal feud you have with Daniel Micay here. You should really not be editing an article about an open source project where you have a personal feud with the developer and are unable to refrain from posting your completely unsourced original research where you are very clearly misinterpreting posts on GitHub. You've been repeatedly warned by admins about your behavior on this article and elsewhere, and an admin needs to intervene here. You're treating the article as your property and have blocked people from improving it by adding better sources and content. You've scared off most people from editing it now.

142.126.170.15 (talk) 06:26, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

To make it easier to find the suggested WP:PRIMARY, WP:ABOUTSELF published information, here are the links. The first two are enough.[34][35] The third example provides more discussion, but is probably too critical of 3rd parties to be used. It also demonstrates why one might call it "badgering" or "abuse" for descriptive purposes - not for the article.[36] Yae4 (talk) 19:01, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
The GitHub post you're linking about was clearly posted for https://twitter.com/GrapheneOS/status/1536489966498369543 as a list of the 10 articles they used to demonstrate notability for Twitter verification. Daniel Micay criticizes those sources in the GitHub post and states that most of them are inaccurate and bad sources. Wikipedia is listed because Twitter requires linking to a Wikipedia article to prove notability for verification, and he includes the same disclaimer he does for the articles.
Collapsing off-topic, false, editor attacks
Yae4 has made it clear both here, on their talk page and in the history of their edits to the article that they have a massive personal grudge against Daniel Micay. Yae4 is very openly trying to push their POV by creating their own interpretation of Daniel's comments on GitHub without any reliably source showing that their highly questionable interpretation of those comments has anything to do with Yae4's non-sourced claims that GrapheneOS is not open source and doesn't permit other projects to use the code under the open source licensing.
It should be noted that Yae4 and Daniel Micay have repeatedly talked about each other based on their personal feud. Just as Daniel Micay should not be editing this article, Yae4 should be refraining from editing it too when they have made it abundantly clear with many of their posts that they are highly personally invested in their personal conflict with Daniel Micay. The sockpuppet investigation they filed was rejected and they continue to refer to it along with attempting to do doxxing after being asked to stop by an admin. This is really getting out of hand and an admin needs to intervene ASAP.
Your claims about the GitHub post are completely false and once again entirely based on your own original research which comes to conclusions not backed up by what you are linking. Just as you're making false claims about the licensing of GrapheneOS and what was requested by Daniel Micay from CalyxOS and Bromite in response to them disallowing GrapheneOS from using their changes, you're doing the same thing with your story telling about the GitHub post not at all aligned with how it was posted about Twitter verification and heavily criticizes most of the linked articles as a disclaimer to avoid anyone thinking they are accurate or good sources.

142.126.170.15 (talk) 06:18, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Free_and_open-source_software or Open-source_software (or less open)?

Latest comment: 2 years ago16 comments4 people in discussion
  Moot
 – This was resolved to address the original poster's concerns before the discussion happened. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 14:15, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Re: This edit[37]. Setting aside earlier discussion of "partly" open source, do we really need to discuss FOSS versus OSS? At best GrapheneOS is permissively licensed OSS. Only the kernel is FOSS, unless I'm mistaken; not familiar with every detail, but do have the big picture. -- Yae4 (talk) 14:05, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I had already corrected the reasoning 8 minutes prior to this talk page discussion: Special:Diff/1095640037. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 14:09, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
This may be "moot" regarding the one mistake edit, but it will probably come up again, so it seems worth documenting a consensus, if there is. -- Yae4 (talk) 15:29, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Open-source. It is my original research belief they are also permissively licensed under free software licenses, but this is not referenced at the moment in the infobox (although not difficult to verify from various LICENSE files in repositories). I wouldn't go as far as calling it "free and open-source software" (or "free, libre and open-source software") until the significant sources do. I'm not familiar what proprietary firmware is involved, so I abstain giving an opinion on it. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 15:39, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Partly Open Source with abusive behavior from GrapheneOS lead, trying to badger other projects into being more restricted than licenses would allow. So far we only have WP:PRIMARY sources supporting the "badgering", however, but that is sufficient for statements about themself, with care. -- Yae4 (talk) 17:49, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Not covered in significant third-party sources so no, it's not sufficient, it's plain WP:OR (and WP:SYNTHESIS). Not only the sources you are stating are primary sources using WP:WEASEL attribution, they are also WP:UGC, which are generally unacceptable, and possibly WP:FRINGE interpretation of the OSI definitions. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 17:57, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
You haven't provided any sources showing any abusive behavior or any evidence of Micay badgering other projects to stop them using the code under the terms of the open source licenses. What you've done is provide a one sided, POV interpretation
Collapsing off-topic, false, editor attacks

based on your personal feud / conflict with Daniel Micay where you cite their comments on GitHub while omitting the context of CalyxOS kicking GrapheneOS out of AOSP Alliance / ending their code sharing and in the case of Bromite, Bromite disallowing GrapheneOS / Vanadium from using their code. None of this is covered in any reliable sources, and your attempt at pushing a highly one sided editorialized story based on your own interpretation is clearly not appropriate. GrapheneOS is very clearly open source licensed and arguments on GitHub about whether projects are welcome to use each other's code have nothing to do with the licensing. You're talking about abusive behavior while you have spent years holding back this article acting out a personal conflict with the developer. 

142.126.170.15 (talk) 06:31, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm very unsure what "abusive behaviour" and "badgering" are referred here. I see you have also claimed that Micay (the person in question associated with this project?) is recruiting "meat/sock puppets" but I don't really see any evidence that proves that other than an investigation you conducted which had an official verdict as unrelated and I don't see how you could have came to the conclusion that the individuals you mentioned were related at all.
None of that right now, but I will have to agree with IP 142.126.170.15 that lack of evidence of "abusive behaviour" (which is a very strong word so I would expect evidence for such a serious claim) is based on your interpretation and is not WP:NPV and I don't think you should be writing about developer conflicts with this negative POV. Furthermore, I am agreeing with IP 84.250.14.116 that the citations used from Github are WP:UGC as I explained in Special:Diff/1096511268, which I hope you both User:Yae4 and IP 84.250.14.116 could take a look at. But I am having a hard time believing the wording in Special:Diff/1094307821 and Special:Diff/1094489078 are in WP:GF which appear to be written in a strangely negative tone (may not be by a lot but it does not appear to be WP:NPV) and I am failing to understand why these conflicts have any relevance to the main article which is about GrapheneOS when it's more of a developer conflict that heavily requires WP:OR,WP:UGC, and is heavily open to interpretation and should not be included here. I don't intend to stretch for anything, but including these situations would give this page a negative tone to the reader for one that is simply trying to understand what GrapheneOS is and not about conflicts that don't appear to have much impact on any of the projects in question and appear to be operating just fine.
I apologize if I did not answer the original question here that appears to have a verdict of moot, but I'm seeing these quite bold claims in this talk page by User:Yae4 and do not appear to be very neutral. EndariV (talk) 23:49, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
@EndariV: I do not advocate including a description or interpretation of the statements, only a brief summary. For this article, the behavior characterization is irrelevant, to wikipedia, unless a reliable secondary source covers it. I should not have mentioned a characterization. A factual statement or note regarding "open source" positions is relevant. It doesn't really matter how it was said, but the facts that GrapheneOS asks other projects to not use their sources does warrant at least a note where "open source" appears. -- Yae4 (talk) 12:42, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
A factual statement or note regarding "open source" positions is relevant. 4 citations in the article supporting the statement with various levels of reliability and counting. Giving you the benefit of doubt, discount one for Origo. It's quite clear the editors here disagree with the latter interpretation as original research, so I'll not rehash. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 14:45, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
And as I said on 23 June 2022, need to give due weight, particularly if   142.'s unsourced claims of Bromite disallowing GrapheneOS to use their sources has any basis, to have a neutral viewpoint of what's going on with that debate. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 14:50, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
To make it easier to find the suggested WP:PRIMARY, WP:ABOUTSELF published information, here are the links. The first two are enough.[38][39] The third example provides more discussion, but is probably too critical of 3rd parties to be used. It also demonstrates why one might call it "badgering" or "abuse" for descriptive purposes - not for the article.[40] -- Yae4 (talk) 18:58, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
The WP:PRIMARY sources to be cited were in 2021 or 2022 (do verify). Thus, earlier published (poor) sources could not, obviously, say anything about it. So that means nothing. The finer details of licensing are also not usually discussed by secondary sources, so insisting on that seems unreasonable. Most minor or obscure licensing details like this, in articles like this, do not cause disagreements. I fail to understand why anyone wishes to hide or obscure the simple facts of these requests by GrapheneOS for a couple other projects to not use their sources. If anyone can explain this without getting into extraneous detail, it would be appreciated. -- Yae4 (talk) 20:49, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Review

  Doing... I'll start fresh and review the events I'm aware of again. Please wait. I doubt I will be able to help in this case alone, but I'll review it with the best of intentions to assume good faith. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 02:11, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

"Ted Talk" on articles histories
  1. 14 September 2019: The earliest edit by User:Yae4 to CopperheadOS, and seems to be the only edit before getting involved with the GrapheneOS article.[1]
  2. 15 December 2019: GrapheneOS AfC cleanup date. The source model is described as "free and open source", "free" and "open source".[2] It's somewhat safe to argue, at least, User:Yae4 had contributed to the definition of "free", while "open source" was originally contributed by User:Paewlostr (limited contributions to different topics by Paewlostr).[a]
  3. On 4 August 2020, CopperheadOS is semi-protected by User:Drmies for edit warring / content dispute.[3] User:Yae4 is not involved, to my knowledge.
  4. Since 17 August 2020, User:Yae4 becomes more involved in the CopperheadOS article actively.[4] After this, some content dispute in the CopperheadOS article.[b]
  5. Around 27 August 2020, an editor with many edits in the CopperheadOS article comes to the GrapheneOS article, adding statements Micay "continued the open source project as GrapheneOS", cited to a new Golem.de source.[5] User:Yae4 becomes active in the GrapheneOS article again and reverts this editor.[6] Content dispute / edit warring follows.[c][d]
  6. On 30 August 2020, User:Yae4 opens Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Strcat against four editors.[7]
  7. On 1 September 2020, User:Yae4 adds NPOV and COI templates to the GrapheneOS article, referring to the SPI.[8]
  8. On 3 September 2020, the editors suspected of sockpuppetry are concluded to be unrelated.[9]
  9. On 28 October 2020, the COI and NPOV banners are removed by 154.3.42.90 for having "found no foul play" (referring to the closed SPI).[10][e]
  10. For some time prior to 24 December 2021, the GrapheneOS article was described as "free and open-source" and "open source with proprietary components".[11]
  11. On 24 December 2021, 47.198.1.28 (single-purpose account) changed the status to "mostly free and open-source". No references were added, modified or removed, nor was the statement clarified (unsourced).[12] On 26 December 2021, they addded statements about "extended support releases".[13][f]
  12. On 26 December 2021, User:Yae4 rewrites the lede and history section to remove mentions of AndroidHardening and "extended support releases", reverting much of what 47.198.1.28 had added, claiming the changes as "promotional".[14] The history section now claims: After the incident, Micay transitioned to work on GrapheneOS.[g]
  13. On 16 January 2022, User:TiltedLeft2 (single-purpose account) reverts 47.198.1.28 and restores the status to "free and open-source" with no mention of "proprietary components", requesting a source.[15]
  14. On 17 January 2022, User:Yae4 reverts User:TiltedLeft2 (now "mostly free and open-source" and "open source with proprietary components"), explaining with an edit summary "Similar has been added to most Android OS articles".[16][h]
  15. On 20 May 2022, 2001:2003:F40A:7100:E8A5:EAC3:E566:3A15 makes trivial changes to Android 13.[17] This is me (84.250.14.116) self-claiming to be sharing a connection.[18]
  16. On 25 May 2022, I (84.250.14.116) make changes in Android related articles.[19]
  17. Starting on 5-7 June 2022, the Anonymous twin accounts start editing in the GrapheneOS article.
  18. On 13 June 2022, thestinger publishes some text file on GitHub Gist.[i] User:Yae4 interprets this as Micay being concerned about Wikipedia coverage (?).
  19. On 14 June 2022, 2a02:8440:9111:f44d:d11b:234d:6e75:47c9 (single-purpose account) changes the release year to 2014.[20] User:Yae4 promptly restores to 2019, claiming "vandalism".[21][j]
  20. On 18 June 2022, 125.235.133.212 (single-purpose account) makes a claim in edit summary GrapheneOS is no longer open source, referring in edit summary to OSI definition and AOSP Alliance issue. They removed definitions of "free software" and "open source" from the article, replacing it with "source available".[22]
  21. On 19 June 2022, User:Yae4 reverted 125.235.133.212 for original research.[23]
  22. On 21 June 2022, User:Yae4 claims "partly free and open-source" and adds three GitHub sources.[24]
  23. On 22 June 2022, User:Resonantia (anonymous proxy user according to WP:SPI) reverts User:Yae4's claims of "partly free and open-source" for original research, removes Yae4's GitHub sources.[25] Edit warring follows.
  24. On 22 June 2022, I (84.250.14.116) start contributing to the GrapheneOS article at a coincidental time, disagree the statement's match to sources, and revert User:Yae4's "partly open-source" claims and GitHub sources.[26][k] Lots of edits and dispute happen around this time.
  25. On 22 June 2022, User:Yae4 changes the status from "partly free and open-source" to "partly open-source".[27][l]
  26. On 22 June 2022, User:Yae4 requests semi-protection of GrapheneOS article.[28]
  27. On 22 June 2022, User:Yae4 suspects sock puppetry.[29]
  28. On 23 June 2022, User:Yae4 is partially blocked for violation WP:3RR at the GrapheneOS article, no page protection applied.[30]
  29. On 23 June 2022, I (84.250.14.116) reverted some of User:Yae4's 26 December 2021 edits to the history, to match sources.
  30. On 24 June 2022, User:Resonantia (anonymous proxy user according to WP:SPI) tags the GitHub sources from User:Yae4 as user-generated and disputed.[31]
  31. ...[m]
  32. On 28 June 2022, I (84.250.14.116) added the heise online / c't source to reception.[32]
  33. On 29 June 2022, User:Yae4 makes an SPI case about four GrapheneOS article editors.[33]
  34. On 29 June 2022, I took heise online / c't sources to WP:RSN.[34]
  35. On 3 July 2022, thestinger publishes another Gist talking about Twitter verification and Wikipedia article. GrapheneOS and "Daniel Micay" made tweets.
  36. On 3 July 2022, User:Yae4 gets harassed off-site?[n]
  37. On 3 July 2022, User:EndariV (single-purpose account) joins to edit the GrapheneOS article. They remove Yae4's GitHub sources as "highly editorialized interpretation/analysis based on a primary, not notable source".[35][o][p][q]
  38. On 3 July 2022, User:Jann ruhe (single-purpose account) removed the c't source I (84.250.14.116) had added.[36][r]
  39. On 3 July 2022, User:Yae4 reintroduces the GitHub sources under a section named "Licensing history".[37][38]
  40. On 3 July 2022, User:Jann ruhe (single-purpose account) removed User:Yae4's GitHub sources yet again, edit summary GrapheneOS lead developer making a claim in a GitHub issue and citing it here does not count as "Licensing history."[39][s]
  41. On 4 July 2022, I (84.250.14.116) warned User:Yae4 for continuing to add GitHub sources, after seeing new editors disagreed for various reasons.[40][t]
  42. On 4 July 2022,   Quacking.[u]
  43. On 4 July 2022, I (84.250.14.116) had some suspicions about the new single-purpose accounts.[41]
  44. On 4 July 2022, User:Yae4 makes claims me (84.250.14.116) to be wikihounding User:Yae4.[42] I (84.250.14.116) didn't understand what this was about, until several hours after finding the sources. AN/I case opened against 142.[43] and 84.250.14.116[44].
  45. On 6 July 2022, the Anonymous twin accounts are confirmed socks and get blocked. User:Resonantia is "ostensibly unrelated", no comment on 84.250.14.116 (no sleeper accounts on a cursory check). The SPI is awaiting for a clerk/administration.
  46. On 5 July 2022, I (84.250.14.116) understood 142.x may be a logged-out Wikipedia account.[45]
  47. On 6 July 2022, I (84.250.14.116) took MobileSyrup to WP:RSN[46] and WP:NPOVN[47].
  48. On various dates, I invited contributors from this article and WikiProjects to participate in some RSN discussions.
  49. On 7 July 2022: You are here, thanks for coming to my incomplete and biased TED talk.[v]

I may be omitting a lot of information where I have been reverted myself by User:Yae4. This list will not be complete, I do not have the time or patience.[w]

Yae4: After doing this (incomplete and somewhat biased) review, I have to say I appreciate most of this and sincerely understand you've assumed good faith, it must've been difficult to deal with this. I'm patient about making personal claims (as some editors here have accused you of bias), even if the civility and patience may not always be shared (and why I may not always have the patience to reply or argue, but there is no AN/I section about you).

In my short-sighted opinion, the article integrity may have started falling apart sometime around December 2019–January 2022,[x] and there have been many attempts of promotional or COI editing in the past before that date. Unfortunately since then received some opposition to critical review by other editors, but it is better now than it was in late June 2022.[y]

I also don't understand what this "AOSPAlliance" is, how it relates to GitHub, GrapheneOS, CalyxOS, etc. I understand bromite is a web browser (?), but also don't understand how that relates to any of this. The GitHub sources don't tell me enough information to know what has happened in 2021/2022, how these editors got into a conflict, why they got into a conflict, who is right and what sources are involved (if any). I understand Vanadium is also a web browser and in someway related to the dispute, but its license seems be GPL-2.0 WebView exception - perhaps a deliberate license incompatibility with bromite's GPL-3.0( )? I see the secondary sources report "open-source", and I see open-source licenses (with potential license incompatibilities), but more importantly, I see the secondary sources report "open-source". So I say: Okay, "open-source" it is.

What should I say? I can't think of a way to help you much Yae4, if this shows how several editors who have disagreed with you re: GitHub sources and my swing vote may not turn it around, if new and single-purpose account editors should be given less weight.[z] Know that I'm not happy with all of the editors either at least, and it's a bit troubling to see this happen at this article. If there's something I can do, it's probably to give you a little bit of more leeway and tolerance for your edits, continued patience and assuming good faith, and give less weight to opinions of the new editors. That's what should be done.[aa]

I want to end this by with a remark I have also noticed some sources talk about "based on Android Open Source Project", without explicitly mentioning "open-source" as a definition. There's also an open side-question the article has left me unanswered: How does one verify there is "proprietary firmware" in GrapheneOS? 84.250.14.116 (talk) 07:53, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Special:Diff/915641536
  2. ^ Special:Permalink/930933433
  3. ^ Special:Diff/971085355
  4. ^ Special:Diff/973478273
  5. ^ Special:Diff/975104180
  6. ^ Special:Diff/975169481
  7. ^ Special:Diff/975717062
  8. ^ Special:Diff/976098047
  9. ^ Special:Diff/976585027
  10. ^ Special:Diff/985883602
  11. ^ Special:Permalink/1061628673
  12. ^ Special:Diff/1061820149
  13. ^ Special:Diff/1062056352
  14. ^ Special:Diff/1062118459
  15. ^ Special:Diff/1066027271
  16. ^ Special:Diff/1066195289
  17. ^ Special:Diff/1088335110/1088907533
  18. ^ Special:Diff/1096497668
  19. ^ Examples: Special:Diff/1089720192/1089830025.
  20. ^ Special:Diff/1093074533
  21. ^ Special:Diff/1093157841
  22. ^ Special:Diff/1093157841/1093736028
  23. ^ Special:Diff/1093819680
  24. ^ Special:Diff/1094307821
  25. ^ Special:Diff/1094363773
  26. ^ Special:Diff/1094477304
  27. ^ Special:Diff/1094401513
  28. ^ Special:Diff/1094487331
  29. ^ Special:Diff/1094493094
  30. ^ Special:Diff/1094504980
  31. ^ Special:Diff/1094710764
  32. ^ Special:Diff/1095442203
  33. ^ Special:Diff/1095716411/1095716857
  34. ^ Special:Diff/1095666130
  35. ^ Special:Diff/1096319209
  36. ^ Special:Diff/1096321430
  37. ^ Special:Diff/1096361293
  38. ^ Now it said: In November 2021, GrapheneOS leader Micay wrote, "GrapheneOS android-prepare-vendor Android 12 port must not be used by CalyxOS". and In June 2022, Micay wrote, "Bromite is no longer welcome to use any code from Vanadium or GrapheneOS." But how would a reader interpret it still was "GrapheneOS leader Micay" without original research, or making the connection to the infobox?
  39. ^ Special:Diff/1096391164
  40. ^ Special:Diff/1096455200
  41. ^ Special:Diff/1096457124
  42. ^ Special:Diff/1096467663
  43. ^ Special:Diff/1096450794
  44. ^ Special:Diff/1096467191
  45. ^ Special:Diff/1096668439
  46. ^ Special:Diff/1096808948
  47. ^ Special:Diff/1096791729
  1. ^ In this revision, there were at least three sources stating "open-source".
  2. ^ Consensus on reliability of sources seems to be followed by at least User:Yae4 favorably.
  3. ^ It is my opinion neither editor acted the best they could've in this situation. In my opinion, I would side with User:Yae4 to have stood closer to the newly introduced Golem.de source and its statements.
  4. ^ This is one of the sources which mentions "open-source".
  5. ^ Kind of late.
  6. ^ This IP editor says, among other things, our build numbers, source to our licensing model in FAQ, which may indicate undisclosed connections. Did they perhaps attempt to "mostly free" here to mean open source proprietary components? Nonetheless, it wasn't what was said in sources, and may be biased.
  7. ^ In my opinion, neither the previous revision by IP or this revision by User:Yae4 stood very accurately to the sources at this time.
  8. ^ No source or self-reference was provided.
  9. ^ For Twitter verification?
  10. ^ I'm fine with this. There's been many more such year changes before, all have been reverted to 2019, this is one example.
  11. ^ Anecdotally, my browser history says I searched about GrapheneOS on 20 June 2022 for the first time, two days prior. The first IP edit on wiki I can track is around November 2016, accounts much before that.
  12. ^ Not clear why this was done, but I've come to agree with removing "free" anyway.
  13. ^ At least I think to know well what happened between 22 June 2022 and today. Please understand, there's so much I don't want to spend much longer writing about it.
  14. ^ I think? Twitter, Matrix and Gist.
  15. ^ As I understood, they side with IP editors and may have called User:Yae4 biased.
  16. ^ The statement before this was: According to Micay, the GrapheneOS main developer, they request CalyxOS and bromite developers not to use any GrapheneOS sources. Right now the infobox links to a GitHub profile named "Daniel Micay", but in my opinion it's still leaning on original research.
  17. ^ Notice the timing to tweets.
  18. ^ Notice the timing to thestinger's Gist. They didn't edit or discuss again.
  19. ^ Notice the timing to tweets.
  20. ^ I argued the behavior was similar to previously sanctioned behavior with 3RR. In hindsight of knowledge, maybe this has not been the best thing? But with more knowledge of surrounding events, I've learned not to tag User:Yae4 with {{Uw-disruptive3}} so easily.
  21. ^ This editor may have attempted to persuade me to stop adding a particular source, because it mentioned CalyxOS? Particularly, I later found off-site conversations of an user claiming the GrapheneOS Wikipedia article was being used to promote CalyxOS as a cherry-picked quote. Hah.
  22. ^ The AN/I is still open.
  23. ^ Sorry in advance if any of the diffs are also wrong, I don't have the time or patience either.
  24. ^ I've had doubts if the article has turned more viewpointed towards what the sources don't say around that time, or selective bias.
  25. ^ Perhaps the editing in this article has come to a breaking point where all sources get questioned and burned down, unless the sources are very good, to discourage promotional and COI editors? But it also frustrates legitimate editors too. I also see Yae4 somehow being so concerned about some Micay's list, whether sources appear there or not.
  26. ^ I still wouldn't agree to interpret the source.
  27. ^ Or should I've done? Have I done? I have. Have I?

Heise.de Youtube transcript as a proxy for self-published Youtube source?

Latest comment: 2 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

Ignoring the way the information was summarized in the article for now, this edit[41] added a source to heise.de, which gives a transcript of a Youtube video. There is a disclaimer at the bottom, saying (translated): c't 3003 is the YouTube channel of c't. The videos on c't 3003 are standalone content and independent of the articles in c't magazine. Editor Jan-Keno Janssen and video producers Johannes Börnsen and Şahin Erengil publish a video every week. This source then appears to be contrary to WP:RSPYT. The source and statement(s) it goes with should be removed. Note: It does not escape notice that this is one of the sources suggested off-wiki by Micay at Github.[42] -- Yae4 (talk) 15:52, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I had not noticed the disclaimer in the translation process, I admit that mistake. This is best to be taken to WP:RSN for evaluation, it does sound a little bit like WP:FORBESCON. I'll take it there. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 16:12, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
It sounds exactly like WP:RSPYT. Because you delay and decline to remove the added material, I'll add: your summary:
In April 2022, Jan-Keno Janssen of heise online for c't stated GrapheneOS' approach of running Google Play services differently without system level access "works quite well", and said the operating system's focus on security is "uncompromising".
shows bias. Another, more neutral quote is:
" In April... stated, "These three OSes would also be my recommendations: Graphene or CalyxOS if you want uncompromising security and have a Pixel smartphone, /e/OS for everyone else."
-- Yae4 (talk) 17:45, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
We don't cite the YouTube video, we cite a reliable source (publisher) of said video. Different things. So no, I'm not removing it now (my belief this follows Wikipedia's policies). We'll see what the reliable sources noticeboard says. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 18:19, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
This choice of quote is low quality and borderline off topic, regardless of the reliability of the source. As a on time podcast-type video it's also unable to be edited / corrected and there is no publisher standing behind it. Can we please just agree to omit this?
Collapsing off-topic, false, editor attacks

Yae4 has been repeatedly including their original research and has a personal feud with Daniel Micay resulting in them being unable to edit the article or participate in these talk page discussions without substantial bias, but in this case despite their inaccurate claims about a GitHub Gist and their regular personal attacks and accusations directed towards Daniel Micay which are pervasive in their involvement here, they are not wrong that this really shouldn't be included. My suggestion is that if you're going to be editing this article and others regularly, make an account so that it's easier for people to remember who you are and refer to you, and then ask for an admin to look at Yae4's involvement here over the years and the multiple warnings / bans they have received about their highly POV editing across multiple articles including the CopperheadOS article and this one. They make it very clear in their comments here and with their editing to the article that they are here with motivations not simply based on editing the article. It appears they got into conflict with Daniel Micay about the Wikipedia article and now both of them are fighting about it across platforms. It really needs to step, and Yae4 seems unlikely to realize on their own that they are highly personally involved and making biased edits.

142.126.170.15 (talk) 06:43, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

  I don't think we can agree due to behaviorally evident bias and connections in this topic. 84.250.14.116 (talk) 23:49, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
I forgot to address: Corrections in e.g. magazine or newspaper may be published as errata in another number of the publication later. The same could be said about videos. I also don't see it very difficult for a publisher to publish a correction in the text article of web videos that my edit was citing (which was later removed by another SPA editor for being "dubious", "editorialized" and "self-published", a diff I disagree with). 84.250.14.116 (talk) 00:09, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
It's a strange quote to choose for inclusion in the article even aside from the sourcing since it's mostly not about GrapheneOS. There are a bunch of articles which could be used as reliable sources instead. However, your claim about the GitHub post linked at https://twitter.com/GrapheneOS/status/1536489966498369543 by @GrapheneOS on Twitter to show the 10 sources they used to try to prove notability for Twitter verification is clearly not accurate. The content of the GitHub Gist states the following: "Note: these 10 news articles were chosen based on notability of the publisher and for directly covering the GrapheneOS project rather than it just being mentioned or a team member being asked to provide comments. Most don't have particularly accurate or good coverage of the project, but that wasn't the point of this selection.". It is very clearly not what you are repeatedly claiming it is here.
Collapsing off-topic, false, editor attacks

Yae4, you have made it clear that you have a personal feud with Micay and are unable to participate without being heavily biased against GrapheneOS and Daniel Micay. The research that you're doing and your interpretations of it are very clearly highly biased and not based on the content of what you cite. 

142.126.170.15 (talk) 06:37, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

2019-2020 Did You Know as precedent? Mistakes and moving on

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
  • What was said in the DYK is not a good basis for what should be in the article now. Staying consistent with the Did You Know has been discussed some. We should put that concern away. The DYK statement and discussion are at near top of this page. It said "Did you know... that GrapheneOS, a free and open-source operating system... with link to Free_and_open-source_software. Clearly, GrapheneOS is not, and was not in 2019, "a free and open-source operating system". There are parts, like the kernel, that are FOSS, and there may be other parts that are FOSS; however, above limited consensus was "Open-source_software" fit better (ignoring unresolved disagreement on "partly" or requesting non-open-source behavior from other projects). Thus, the first phrase and 33% of the statements in the DYK were false. Therefore, we can move on from the DYK statement and try to be more accurate in future.
  • The DYK is not a basis for "reliability" of included citations. Reviewer Constantine mentioned "spotcheck" and limitations of automatic process, and said "AGF on Hungarian/Czech/Turkish sources". The DYK review process did not give a thorough review of all the sources. The DYK is not a basis for "reliability" of citations. -- Yae4 (talk) 16:26, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Collapsing off-topic, false, editor attacks
What has changed is that you now have an extreme personal grudge against the developer of this project which is driving you to make incredibly biased and baseless claims, along with vandalizing the article with false claims you are pushing as part of your vendetta. You have an on and off site feud with them and engage in stalking and doxxing and which the admins have repeatedly warned you about. With that context, it should be noted your claims that it is not open source / free software are completely fabricated and you have absolutely zero evidence or sources. Open source and free software licenses have requirements including attribution and potentially copyleft. Not all open source / free software licenses are compatible. Open source / free software has absolutely no connection to an argument between 2 projects on GitHub leading to one switching from MIT to GPLv2 (both open source and free software licenses. Admin intervention is desperately needed. Yae4's bias and vendetta is completely off the rails and out of control. 142.126.170.15 (talk) 19:45, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:GrapheneOS/Archive_1&oldid=1115796912"