Please restore the Xlibre page
The reason given states: The Xlibre project goes against
respect and should not be listed on ArchWiki. See
about.
↵The deletion appears to be vandalism. Nothing on Xlibre's About page violates the ArchWiki respect policy. The project states that it respects everyone. If you believe the About page needs changes, raise the issue on the article's Discussion page first.
↵As an Arch Linux user and a contributor to that Wiki page, I've never encountered such blatant discrimination. I feels really bad to have your work removed like that.
↵Gentoo has a Wiki page about Xlibre
here. They don't seem to have any problems with the project. Artix also has a
Wiki page. Recently, Artix announced that
XLibre is now the default X server in Artix Linux.
↵Arch Linux should follow. Including Xlibre in the official repositories is already long overdue, ↵given that other distros have already done so. There's a huge demand, given that Xorg doesn't get new features anymore, and hasn't been for 15 years.
Tatsumoto (
talk) 02:34, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
I assume the problem here is the lead developer's political views however from a quick look at the page before it was removed none of that was carried over to the wiki artcile. It is also worth noting that Arch already packages in its offical repositories and mentions on its wiki many packages tied to specifc groups not everyone aligns with and those users may simply ignore them.h
Knotrocket (
talk) 03:05, 17 April 2026 (UTC)I don't agree with the lead developer's political views but I see their views having very little to do with their project and about page, plus providing information on the project on the wiki doesn't take any political stances to begin with, one can discuss a project without that automatically meaning an endorsement of everything the author has ever said and done
Ammonium (
talk) 05:17, 17 April 2026 (UTC)Even if the accusation of the Xlibre's is substantiated, deleting the page has
zero effect in mitigating the issue. However, it does have a direct effect to create troubles for Arch (and other distros') users when searching for information. If people can accept the logic of deleting a project description page based on it being "disrespectful", then whoever proposed the deletion should be sanctioned for the disrespect of community members who are using this project. --
Yangwenbo99 (
talk) 06:12, 17 April 2026 (UTC)I agree with the fact the page needs to be restored. The wiki is not about politics or personal beliefs. The wiki is about preservation and the presentation of valid information needed to show and guide users to packages that are available either from the AUR or the main repos.We have already had several pages defaced and restored by contributors for many reasons, such as fixing the ZFS pages to restore information about using tools already included with zfsutils rather than a pet project from a 3rd party repo not even in the AUR or wiki itself. Work that mind you, took me the better course of a few months to get back and clean up, and the work is still ongoing.While all of us share many beliefs and personal political views, we leave that outside the door when we come here to contribute. Nothing about Xlibre has been shown to be in violation of the CoC of ArchLinux. The people who have made packages or contributed time and efforts to the page have clearly had their work defaced and destroyed just to appease some petty political view that is not reflective of the general consensus here. Basically, the ArchWiki is apolitical. This is adding politics and is a clear violation of the CoC in and of itself for even presenting it as such.
ReaperX7 (
talk) 06:49, 17 April 2026 (UTC)agree with everyone else here that advocates for its restoration. if solely disagreeing with someones/not liking them is enough reason for a article deletion we might as well delete 99% of all articles not written by a single person. ideological purism is unattainable and quite frankly goes against Archlinux own principle of
Pragmatism."
Arch is a pragmatic distribution rather than an ideological one—the principles here are only useful guidelines. Ultimately, design decisions are made on a case-by-case basis through developer consensus.
Evidence-based technical analysis and debate are what matter, not politics or popular opinion."
Supernova (
talk) 07:25, 17 April 2026 (UTC)Exactly. A lot of people use the wiki and not just Arch, or Arch based distributions like Manjaro, Artix, or any spinoffs of theirs. People from even Slackware, Gentoo, and other distributions reference the ArchWiki due to its extensive topics, coverage, and availability.By deleting the Xlibre page, this basically is hurting not just Arch, but users in general from accessibility to information.If Alad has an issue with the page, then simply don't visit it, contribute to it, or bother with it. Many people don't agree with ZFS in a GNU/Linux system, but we have a full set of pages that clearly show you how to literally take the GPL license and flush it in favor of your own tastes. Does everyone visit it? No. Does everyone contribute to it? No just a few of us who have taken the time to research it for our own needs to help others. So how is Xlibre any different?
ReaperX7 (
talk) 09:19, 17 April 2026 (UTC)It was removed because they frequently and openly insult and slander other FOSS projects which is a violation of Arch CoC. The page should be reinstated once the XLibre team starts behaving like adults and adopts a neutral discourse and tone, no different than any other project.The devs political views have been known for quite some time now and the page stayed up during that time.
Gumbo (
talk) 02:24, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
General comment since I'm not going through this whole mess: in the 10 odd years I've been here, not a single project was allowed that officially took the stance of being inflammatory, sparking controversy, and just being plain disrepectful. It's not because a specific project has a particularly vocal fanbase that any exceptions should be made on this regard. Closing --
Alad (
talk) 09:26, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
"General comment since I'm not going through this whole mess: "Translation: "I'm the problem here and I have the agenda."
Msoltyspl (
talk) 09:50, 17 April 2026 (UTC)I understand the concern, but the project in question has no alternatives right now, so users need information about it on the Wiki. I'm not a fan of any particular project, I just want a working system. Wayland cannot replace X11 yet, Xorg isn't getting new features anymore, Phoenix and Wayback aren't ready either. Please say what needs changing on the
about page you linked for the article to be restored. I'm going to pass that to xlibre's maintainers.
Tatsumoto (
talk) 09:55, 17 April 2026 (UTC)Since you seem to be the sole reasonable person in this discussion - the original article contained little more than an installation notice. How about some historical notice is added in
Xorg that explains the origination of the fork?As to the about page - while wiki pages serve purely as documentation, ArchWiki has a certain reputation. In particular, the mere presence of an article here can be seen as an endorsement for the documented project. And such an endorsement includes, in particular, what the project writes on their homepage.Removing the Xlibre article may not be the perfect solution, but it seems like the only choice we have if the project's page is that expressive about the malice regarding Xorg. --
Alad (
talk) 10:26, 17 April 2026 (UTC)"the mere presence of an article here can be seen as an endorsement for the documented project. And such an endorsement includes, in particular, what the project writes on their homepage."in no world does a simple wiki article imply endorsement. Do you think wikipedia endorses all topic it has an article about? I think its total unreasonable to delete a notice about a project simply because you interpret "malice" towards another project.
Supernova (
talk) 10:33, 17 April 2026 (UTC)You're arguing a strawman at this point. Xlibre is a fork of Xorg, and honestly, leave it at that. We have. Your turn. Nobody cares what the developer feels is his personal business. It's not yours, mine, or our business to be his critic or anyone else's. ArchWiki is also not Wikipedia. Apples and oranges comparison.Again, leave the software as it is, apolitical and leave the Wiki as apolitical as possible also. I don't bring or invite my views in here and neither does anyone else.If that was the case, many pages like Wine, ZFS, the various GNU projects, and others would be out due to their authors being just as inflammatory.No, you defaced the page on purpose to cite a personal beef and it needs to be restored. If you want to flaunt the CoC then please check yourself before you tout it as such because you blatantly violated it wholely by being political. You dragged politics into a topic and you're called out on it. You need to fix this and rectify the deletion of this page, and if needed, restore it, or we can edit the Xorg page and add the necessary entries to show a compare and contrast between the two branches.
ReaperX7 (
talk) 12:22, 17 April 2026 (UTC)On second thought, you're right that their homepage is inflammatory. It's full of hostility toward the Xorg Foundation and freedesktop.org and can be uncomfortable to read. It should be factual, technical, and neutral.If possible, I suggest:
- Restore the Xlibre wiki page with a clear disclaimer stating we do not share the project's beliefs, and optionally note which beliefs are rejected.
- Contact the project and ask them to make their homepage professional and neutral instead of inflammatory.
- If they ignore the request to tone it down, I guess pursue the only remaining choice.
I think it would be inappropriate to write about Xlibre on the Xorg page since they're different projects, and that would cause confusion. But if the Xlibre page is restored, it could be listed as an alternative to Xorg.
Tatsumoto (
talk) 12:30, 17 April 2026 (UTC)Thanks. On the suggestions:
- Keeping the page with a banner will likely result in the same kind of discussions we have now.
- Someone is welcome to contact the project and update us on the results here.
- This seems the most likely outcome. Or you'll get a reply that matches the kind of comments that flooded my talk page.
Mind that even if these points were addressed, the article had little more than an installation notice. If listing it in
Xorg is confusing, we can consider a more abstract category - something like
Display server, similar to
Sound system. Though with
Mir abandoned, there's far less options to choose from there... edit: there is also
arcan<small>AUR</small>. We could also include things like
Xephyr in the page, similar to
w:List of display servers. --
Alad (
talk) 14:43, 17 April 2026 (UTC)i think most people here would be more than fine with a simple "Archlinux does not agree/endorse xlibre's opinion" notice instead of full on deletion.
Supernova (
talk) 15:09, 17 April 2026 (UTC)Just leaving my two cents here: restoring the page with a banner disclaiming any potential endorsement of political beliefs is 100% A-OK with me. My only grievance is with the personal beliefs-fueled suppression of a genuinely valuable page on the wiki, not with anyone disagreeing politically with anyone.I have a feeling that this is a take that a lot of people will also agree with, this is not a "pitchforking riot" as you seem to subtly imply, politics has nothing to do with this. Maybe more people can contribute to this conversation, but so far assuming that a banner is not a viable solution because "people will riot anyways" is not very logical given the current arguments people have brought up
Ammonium (
talk) 15:11, 17 April 2026 (UTC)If you didn't want people flooding your talk page then why didn't you put a deletion template on the article and post your resoning on its talk page instead?
Knotrocket (
talk) 15:12, 17 April 2026 (UTC)Deletion templates are not suitable for rules infractions. --
Alad (
talk) 15:20, 17 April 2026 (UTC)For the sake of transparency could you please tell us what exactly was the rule infractions? We all playing a guessing game until you tell us. Thank you.
Supernova (
talk) 15:31, 17 April 2026 (UTC)Unfortunately, they don't seem to want to address any of the other commenters besides the one they chose. This is disappointing, since I have made repeated efforts to start a civilized and respectful conversation seeking for a resolution path but they have already stated they believe every other comment is "unreasonable" and stated their unwillingness to even read other comments as "not going through this whole mess". It seems like they will stick to their actions no matter what, and anyone offering genuine insight or alternate resolutions gets instantly dismissed
Ammonium (
talk) 15:36, 17 April 2026 (UTC)The issue is the majority of people here disagree that it was braking the rules in the first place including those who also oppose the developer's potitics and don't use the software themselves.
Knotrocket (
talk) 15:34, 17 April 2026 (UTC)Dude, you broke the CoC yourself by deleting the page over personal politics! Either you're a liar or a hypocrite.
ReaperX7 (
talk) 16:11, 17 April 2026 (UTC)I wish you can calm down and reflect on the facts. You are the only person behaving unreasonably throughout the while discussion. Your deletion of the page started the drama and it's a blatant disrespecl to Arch users using Xlibre and a potential challenge to the pragmatic principle of Arch Linux.
Yangwenbo99 (
talk) 14:24, 17 April 2026 (UTC)"not a single project was allowed that officially took the stance of being inflammatory, sparking controversy"So now simply "sparking controversy" is enough to justify deleting knowledge and destroying contributors effort. What project articles that are "controversial and inflammatory" in your opinion will be deleted by you next?bcachefs article because of there controversies in the LKML?linux kernel article because of linus torvalds inflammatory comments such as "fuck nvidia"?to be clear i am NOT a fan of xlibre, i don't even use it. i have been using wayland for many years and see no reason to change that but this behavior is quite disappointing.
Supernova (
talk) 10:13, 17 April 2026 (UTC)I am deeply saddened by such a dismissive and hostile reply from such a figure in the Arch Linux community.First you dismiss every person with a valid request about wanting the information about how to install a software to remain available in a wiki as you're "not gonna read through this whole mess", and *then* you insult everyone understandably and validly expressing this, as calling someone you reply to "the sole reasonable person in this discussion".This shows a clear act of ignorance and dismissiveness to the needs and wants of the community, putting your own personal beliefs over what might benefit the community most.I am going to repeat myself just so you don't label me as "unreasonable" again like you did with all the other members of this discussion: *I do not agree with the political beliefs of the Xlibre author*. However, I don't see what this has to do with the matter at hand. In my opinion, allowing a wiki article should not be about "do I agree with the political beliefs of the original author and every single thing they have ever said", but just if said article is genuinely useful information to provide to the community.
Ammonium (
talk) 14:11, 17 April 2026 (UTC)I sent an email to
wiki@archlinux.org reporting his misconduct. I encourage others to do the same.
Italomourag (
talk) 17:15, 17 April 2026 (UTC)In this case,
Alad’s misconduct.
Italomourag (
talk) 17:17, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
More XLibre Vandalism
Hey can we all just universally agree that randomly deleting articles and tutorials for XLibre is completely utterly frustrating?
I really can't stand Wayland, I really wanted to checkout this new fork as I love X11, but NO.
Even in ArchWiki! ARCH!!! There's rogue admins with some childish vendetta against their dev team over some political nonsense that's presumably happening in the states. Newsflash I'm AUSTALIAN! I DON'T GAF!!! I'm just an END USER!
Let me follow the guides to compile and load the damn thing! Do I really have to start mirroring these tutorials on my forum just so everybody else can just get by? Seriously?
Kippykip (
talk) 08:36, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
The central point must be kept clear: we are dealing with things of different natures, and mixing them leads to confused decisions.There is a real difference between political discourse and code. Political discourse carries intentions, values, and direct effects on people and groups. It can, in itself, offend, exclude, mobilize actions, or even demobilize actions through mechanisms historically well known. Code does not function this way. It is another kind of language structure: it does not argue, it does not persuade, it does not express positions. It executes. It is a restricted language, aimed at making things work in a simple, direct, and operational way.When we think about political movements with execrable far-right tendencies, the problem is not only in practical actions, but in the discourse itself. The discourse is already part of the practice, in an imbricated and inseparable way: it carries, in itself, exclusion, attack, or denial of certain groups. In this case, there is no clear separation between what is said and what is done. Saying is already a form of doing.With code, this does not happen. Code does not have this type of content and does not operate on that level. There is nothing within it that is equivalent to this kind of discourse, neither explicitly nor subliminally. A programming language, such as the one used in Xlibre, does not, in itself, have any structure capable of conveying hate speech. Its meaning lies in its function, not in the expression of values.This brings us back to the initial point: not every language functions in the same way. Some languages are oriented toward describing, arguing, and influencing, while others are oriented toward operating and making systems work. The mistake begins when we treat one as if it were the other, as if code could carry, in itself, the same kind of content as political discourse. For this reason, it is necessary to separate two things in this case. On one side, the code itself. On the other, the opinions or attitudes of those who develop it.In the case of Xlibre, the criticism is not directed at the code or the technical documentation, but at external positions taken by developers. This is a criterion that does not belong to the object that the Wiki should be evaluating.Then the problem arises: if this becomes the standard, where does it stop? Will it be necessary to investigate every project, every developer, every “About” page to decide whether something can or cannot be documented? This is not consistently applicable. It becomes selective, reactive, and inevitably arbitrary, in addition to conflicting with the very nature of language as described above.Furthermore, a technical Wiki is not a space for political endorsement. It exists to document. To document is not to agree, not to support, not to promote. It is simply to record useful information for those who use the system.When a page that fulfills this role is removed for reasons external to its content, what is lost is not only a specific article, but a principle. The principle that technical criteria should be evaluated on technical grounds.On the other hand, this does not prevent anyone from criticizing the project, its developers, or their positions. Such criticism is valid and necessary. However, it belongs in another space. In a broader sense, mixing these domains weakens both: criticism loses focus, and documentation loses consistency in its purpose.That said, if the Xlibre page on the Arch Wiki is technical, informative, and does not contain offensive content, there is no coherent reason for its removal. In order to maintain clear and consistent criteria regarding code, to assist users, and nothing beyond that, it should be restored.Criticism should be made where it belongs. It is necessary to preserve the freedom to use code, which is a fundamental principle of GNU/Linux. This is a freedom that is not merely formal, but lived and practiced. A freedom that is strengthened precisely when it confronts us with what we disagree with.Those who truly value freedom do not defend it only in the comfort of agreement, but also in the confrontation with dissent. It is in this confrontation that freedom becomes concrete, demanding positioning, action, and growth. There is also a direct relationship between loving freedom and being willing to fight for it. The more one recognizes the value of freedom, the more one develops the willingness to defend it in practice.And this defense is not carried out through erasure or technical exclusion, but through conscious action. Criticism should take place directly, in appropriate spaces: in public debate, in mobilizations, in affinity groups, and in the streets. That is how one confronts, in a concrete way, any authoritarian tendency or model that threatens the existence of people. Not by erasing technical documentation, but by acting where the problem truly lies.
Italomourag (
talk) 11:29, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
Malicious article removal
Personal (political) preferences of one person should not decide which software is allowed for all Arch Linux users to see.
Clipboardgun (
talk) 01:15, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
The issue was moreso violating Arch Code of Conduct by slandering other FOSS projects, the main developers political views have been known for quite some time now and the page remained up during that time. The lead claiming it was taken down due to political bias is a way to shift blame away from them.
Gumbo (
talk) 02:19, 18 April 2026 (UTC)There is ongoing discussion about this in the prevoius two sections as well as on
ArchWiki_talk:Requests and
Talk:Xorg.
Knotrocket (
talk) 02:26, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
x 18 
