IRC/Replacement of default chat platform in WebChat extension

In the course of the past month, following the majority of IRC network Freenode staffers decamping to start Libera.Chat, raising concerns over their former network's control of the crucial NickServ nickname registration database, Freenode has responded in kind in rather negative ways, by:


 * 1) Unilaterally adopting policy change(s) governing channel topics;
 * 2) Conducting a wholesale takeover of channels whose topics don't adhere to the hastily approved policy change(s);
 * 3) Banning all IRCCloud users without warning or explanation;
 * 4) Reverting the ban of all IRCCloud users, again without warning or explanation; and,
 * 5) Banning all IRCCloud users without warning or explanation a second time, this time permanently;

Additionally, there are anecdotal reports of Freenode having unilaterally banned established Freenode users separately from the above, again without explanation.

In the previous RfC, I countered Universal Omega's argument somewhat vehemently that it could not be said that the Freenode's security and integrity was in doubt. I now no longer hold this view, as Freenode is apparently living up to the predictions of its former staffers.

Thus, the following proposals are presented. Proposals 1 and 2 can pass independent of each of other. Proposal 3 is an administrative point that passes only should Proposal 1 fail; thus, it will not be voted upon. Additionally, one should be either a registered or unregistered Libera.Chat and/or Freenode network participant in order to express a view. Dmehus (talk) 21:59, 13 June 2021 (UTC) __NEWSECTIONLINK__

Proposal 1: Endorsement of making Libera.Chat the default IRC chat network
Though it would've preferred a discussion, the community understands the urgency for the change and endorses Site Reliability Engineering's making Libera.Chat the default IRC network in the WebChat and MediaWikiChat extensions and, secondarily, by replacing  with   in the Content Security Policy whitelist, particularly given all of the above.

Support

 * 1)  as proposer. Dmehus (talk) 21:59, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 2)  Now that freenode have banned the use of both IRCCloud and mibbit, they can't be trusted. MacFan4000 (Talk Contribs) 22:08, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 3)  Freenode's actions have made things seriously risky. I'm not going to go into specifics on any record but a quick search of Twitter or joining the freenode channel on Libera will give you many ideas.  ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  22:30, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 4)  as freenode has shown itself to be untrustworthy as a result of the takeover. — Arcversin (talk) 00:02, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 5)  I absolutely agree with this proposal. I've been seeing complaints from people like,  amongst other users like yourselves. Freenode has really became the epidemy for closeted parasitic people behind the team. So, all in all, I'd say go for it. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 01:07, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 6)  Yes, Freenode is a privacy risk.  02:27, 14 June 2021 (UTC) ］ |
 * 7)  Per above, I think it would make sense to make this change. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 06:21, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 8)  - Mazzaz (talk) 08:21, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 9)  There is zero reason for us to have any sort of business on freenode in light of all the chaos that's happening. Andrew Lee does not have the interests of FOSS in mind; any claims otherwise are either misguided, misinformed, or an outright lie. — k6ka  🍁 ( Talk  ·  Contributions ) 20:02, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 10) Freenode sucks now. —Mario Mario 456  20:18, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Proposal 2: Adding to the Content Security Policy whitelist
The community endorses the above and additionally supports adding back  as an additional line item to the Content Security Policy whitelist.

Support

 * 1)  As I previously mentioned on GitHub where SRE demonstrated they were not willing to value my opinion, unless T&S thinks this is a serious privacy issue, communities which still trust Freenode should be able to keep using Freenode on-wiki. Not only should Freenode be added back to the CSP "white"list but also the WebChat configuration so that communities can use the special page provided by that extension.  10:22, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1)  Ehhhh, no. I'd say blacklist it basically because of how shady their business practices have became as of late. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 01:09, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 2)  Freenode (Andrew Lee) can't be trusted anymore. MacFan4000 (Talk Contribs) 12:17, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 3)  Freenode is untrustworthy.  19:25, 14 June 2021 (UTC) ］ |
 * 4)  Freenode is evil, but some IRC channels are still on Freenode. —Mario Mario 456  20:18, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 5)  Per the above and my comments also articulated above. For one thing, we don't have any indication there are still many, if any at all, wikis, still using Freenode as their IRC chat platform. However, more or equally importantly, the actions taken by Freenode put into grave doubt the security, integrity, reliability, and stability of the Freenode network. Is the NickServ registration system still secure? How do we know? Even if it is, if users are being denied access to Freenode merely on the basis of the IRC client they use, they are effectively and functionally being denied the right to remove their data via dropping of their Freenode nickname registration, by being limited to using less privacy-focused IRC clients, which puts their privacy at risk. While I agree that Site Reliability Engineering should've consulted more broadly with community-elected global functionaries on whether a formal discussion was required or not prior to implementing this change, and, if there was approval to move forward with this change, to providing an advance sitenotice on affected wikis, I see no need to upend SRE's Content Security Policy whitelist approval regime by calling for it to be reinstated without having gone through a new CSP approval process in accordance with SRE's approval regime. Dmehus (talk) 20:24, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Proposal 3: Reversion to the status quo
Though this would be untenable, since the majority of Miraheze IRC channels and many, if not most, Miraheze-hosted wikis have migrated to Libera.Chat, this proposal would pass if Proposal 1 fails and thus does not need to be voted on expressly.

Comments
I will note that the change(s) has now been reverted by. MacFan4000 (Talk Contribs) 12:15, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Should this be broadcast out with a global sitenotice? I think we should increase the notice of this discussion, particularly on wikis where the extension is enabled. -- Void  Whispers 19:28, 14 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I'd say go for it. Most other users aside from me have relied on you and you seem to actually function well as a leader, so I'd give you the go ahead (if I was an admin I would). DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 19:37, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Void I was debating whether to use a central notice or sitenotice in this case, as it related to IRC platforms; however, I was definitely leaning towards the former, so this has now been ✅. Dmehus (talk) 20:20, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I've already sent out a discord notice as well. -- Void  Whispers 20:22, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * No problem, and thanks for posting the announcement on Discord, too. Dmehus (talk) 20:32, 14 June 2021 (UTC)