3

Despite the teaser in this Meta question's title, the title of the question that was closed is How to install a downloaded .deb file along with its dependencies in a system with an internet connection, however it was closed as a duplicate of How can I install software or packages without Internet (offline)?.

I saw this coming when I routinely checked the question's reviewing status, so I edited the question and made it clear that the question was a about a system that was connected to the internet in three ways.

  1. I added with an internet connection to the title.

  2. I added My system has a working internet connection. to the body text.

  3. I added the tag which has as a synonym.

  4. As a bonus, the accepted answer which I posted had the following text in it: You will need a working internet connection.

  5. Don't keep on editing this question in order to make it match the offline question the it was closed as a duplicate of. If you're that worried about that question got incorrectly reviewed, give up and vote to reopen it. It was obviously wrongly closed as an offline question even though the asker's computer was internet connected. Now it's being edited to make the closure look legitimate. It makes the closure look legitimate, but this question has a story to tell now. Don't downvote this question and then edit it to make it look like it deserved to be downvoted. Remove the For Sale sign from this question and allow it to be treated like an ordinary question.

  6. It's getting worse with every new iteration. Before the question was wrongly closed, but at least the information in the accepted answer was still available to anyone who needed it. Now that the question is being sold to protect its reviewers, the information in the accepted answer is no longer as easy to access by users who may need it. We don't even want Ask Ubuntu users to get that information. That's not only sleazy reviewing, that's censorship of Ask Ubuntu content masquerading as aggressive implementation of the Stack Overflow "be nice" policy.

  7. I consider this question to be a test case of the power and scope of the Stack Overflow "be nice" policy. The "be nice" policy is being extended to provide blanket protection for censorship of any and all Ask Ubuntu content purely on the basis of personal likes and dislikes. According to a strict interpretation of the "be nice" policy it should be strictly forbidden to discuss censorship at all because it's not nice to the censors. In other words it's OK to censor any content on the site, but it should be forbidden to censure the policy of de facto censorship.

I couldn't possibly be more explicit in pointing out what the reviewers overlooked with making the question look like inappropriately formatted, although I was worried that some reviewers would play the unclear card by claiming that they couldn't understand it anyway. Instead muru played the unethical card by claiming that I have no right to edit the question even though I fundamentally changed nothing in the original question. Stop setting an impossible standard of refinement on these questions, so that I can relax and not feel compelled to edit them to protect them.

Despite the enormous effort I made to make it clear that the question was not about installing a .deb file offline, rather resolving dependencies of a downloaded .deb file on an internet-connected system, this question was closed anyway and it was also downvoted twice. Despite the downvotes that it received, this question is a nice destination for anyone who encounters dependency issues when trying to install a downloaded .deb file, and it does not deserve to be treated as a question about a forbidden topic. The way it was reviewed and downvoted goes beyond the boundaries of "voting by nature is subjective" which has been used as a defense for this sort of pattern of reviewing.

I don't believe that this question was reviewed correctly, so I have voted to reopen it and I'm asking for help from other reviewers to reopen it.

  • I find this disingenuous. You edited the question to include the mention of working Internet connection, which wasn't present originally – muru Apr 11 '18 at 17:18
  • It's not the least bit ingenuous. My answer was already accepted by the asker of the question before I edited the question. The purpose of the edit was to prevent other potential close voters from making the same mistake, but it did not convince them. – karel Apr 11 '18 at 17:21
  • And if previous questions by that user are any indication, they are ultimately trying to setup an Ubuntu system without a working Internet connection. Quite frankly I find to your appropriation of this question, especially given that you answered it, quite unethical. – muru Apr 11 '18 at 17:21
  • I haven't done anything unethical because all I was doing was making the information that was already included in the original unrevised question more obvious to protect the question from being downvoted and closed, but it was downvoted and closed anyway based on the incorrect assumption that I was unethical which I wasn't. I was restating the obvious to protect the question from the "voting by nature is subjective" theory. – karel Apr 11 '18 at 17:24
  • It doesn't take a genious to see why they'd want to install from debs if they had a working connection. If you can't see that, then you have no business trying to stick your interpretation on it – muru Apr 11 '18 at 17:26
  • You'll never understand this question until you force yourself to see that the question is not about having no internet connection when installing a .deb file, it is about how to install a manually downloaded .deb file together with its required dependencies. – karel Apr 11 '18 at 17:29
  • Exactly my point. – muru Apr 11 '18 at 17:30
  • Nope, I can't see that. – muru Apr 11 '18 at 17:34

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .