IRC/Replacement of default chat platform in WebChat extension

Add topic
From Miraheze Meta, Miraheze's central coordination wiki
< IRC
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Freenode will be removed as an option from WebChat, and additionally removed from the Content Security Policy (CSP). All wikis still configured to use freenode will be migrated over to Libera.
With note to concerns raised by R4356th, any community still actively using Freenode may request for it to be re-added, and SRE will evaluate the request. -- Void Whispers 20:53, 30 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Proposal 1: Endorsement of making Libera.Chat the default IRC chat network[edit | edit source]

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 extension and, secondarily, by replacing *.freenode.net with *.libera.chat in the Content Security Policy whitelist, particularly given all of the above.

Support[edit | edit source]

  1.  Strong support as proposer. Dmehus (talk) 21:59, 13 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2.  Strong support 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)Reply[reply]
  3.  Support 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 - (on) 22:30, 13 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4.  Support as freenode has shown itself to be untrustworthy as a result of the takeover. — Arcversin (talk) 00:02, 14 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5.  Strongest support I absolutely agree with this proposal. I've been seeing complaints from people like Southparkfan, MacFan4000 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)Reply[reply]
  6.  Support Yes, Freenode is a privacy risk. User:Universal Omega/Sig  02:27, 14 June 2021 (UTC) ］ |
  •  Support Per above, I think it would make sense to make this change. Reception123 (talk) (C) 06:21, 14 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support - Mazzaz (talk) 08:21, 14 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support 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)Reply[reply]
  •  Strongest support Freenode sucks now. —MarioMario456 20:18, 14 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support - All The Tropes had a discussion about this here, with the votes being unanimously in favor of switching to Libera. --Robkelk (talk) 21:53, 14 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Strongest support per above. Fredster33 (talk) 01:56, 15 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Altilunium (talk) 04:52, 15 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Strongest support freenode staff has shown that they are incredibly incompetent, just ~2 days ago, services went down and some servers didn't have service nicknames Q-Lined (reserved) causing 2 users to take the NickServ nick and gaining access to hundreds of passwords. Using freenode is a security risk, we must move away from the Clown Prince's disaster network and use Libera. Agent Isai (talk) 05:01, 15 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Strongest support per Mario. Song Ngư MGR (talk) 06:39, 15 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Strongest support per above. Sario528 (talk) 11:20, 15 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Strongest support per Robkelk and the ATT discussion. Looney Toons (talk) 13:36, 15 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Strongest support Per LT, Rob and the ATT folks. --Umbire the Phantom (talk) 21:56, 15 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    • Oppose[edit | edit source]

    Neutral[edit | edit source]

    Proposal 2: Adding *.freenode.net to the Content Security Policy whitelist[edit | edit source]

    The community endorses the above and additionally supports adding back *.freenode.net as an additional line item to the Content Security Policy whitelist.

    Support[edit | edit source]

    1.  Strongest support 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. Redmin Contributions CentralAuth (talk) 10:22, 14 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Oppose[edit | edit source]

    1.  Strongest oppose 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)Reply[reply]
    2.  Oppose Freenode (Andrew Lee) can't be trusted anymore. MacFan4000 (Talk Contribs) 12:17, 14 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    3.  Oppose Freenode is untrustworthy. User:Universal Omega/Sig  19:25, 14 June 2021 (UTC) ］ |
    4.  Weak oppose Freenode is evil, but some IRC channels are still on Freenode. —MarioMario456 20:18, 14 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    5.  Strong oppose 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)Reply[reply]
    6.  Oppose per above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fredster33 (talk • contribs) 01:56, 14 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    7.  Strongest oppose Per my comment above, freenode is insecure and should not be trusted. Agent Isai (talk) 05:01, 15 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    8.  Strongest oppose Per dmehus. Additionally, between the inability to perform basic database migration and the choice of opers hired, it's clear trustworthiness is well below zero. I'd rather not inconvenience the users that've yet to move, but I'd think jeopardizing the security of WebChat users falls under just that. --Umbire the Phantom (talk) 05:47, 15 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    9.  Oppose per above, it seems clear that Freenode can no longer be trusted and we shouldn't be keeping at as an option for our wikis. Either way I'm not sure that any wiki is using / planning to use Freenode anyway. Reception123 (talk) (C) 06:22, 15 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    10.  Strongest oppose per Dmehus. Song Ngư MGR (talk) 06:41, 15 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    11.  Oppose per above. Sario528 (talk) 11:21, 15 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    12.  Strongest oppose Freenode has already demonstrated that it is a security risk due to its management style and the incompetence of its operators. Looney Toons (talk) 13:38, 15 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Neutral[edit | edit source]

    Proposal 3: Reversion to the status quo[edit | edit source]

    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[edit | edit source]

    I will note that the change(s) has now been reverted by @Reception123:. MacFan4000 (Talk Contribs) 12:15, 14 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    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)Reply[reply]

    Void 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)Reply[reply]
    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  done. Dmehus (talk) 20:20, 14 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thank you, I've already sent out a discord notice as well. -- Void Whispers 20:22, 14 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    No problem, and thanks for posting the announcement on Discord, too. Dmehus (talk) 20:32, 14 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    As an update, freenode has now switched to a different ircd, and a new services database (meaning all accounts and channels are gone, and things have to be reregistered), with the old one supposedly being deleted. In reality the old services database still exists, and you can still directly connect to some of the old servers. I did that and dropped my nick. MacFan4000 (Talk Contribs) 12:51, 15 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Not anymore - shit's fucked, cap'n. The old servers were simply abandoned for a time until Lee remembered they existed - he tried to market it as Freenode Classic™ at first, claiming to be addressing the wishes of the "community" (read: pretty much no one, save for probably some bootlicker fans of his who finally realized the leopard they wanted to eat people's faces might eat their face). Of note was that his staff had been saying the complete opposite around the same time.
    Naturally, within less than 24 hours he went back on his word and started pulling the plugs on the software - there's only one server left that seems to have genuinely been forgotten, and there's no telling how long that'll last. Umbire the Phantom (talk) 22:06, 15 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Hey all, quick update, LiberaChat has been added as an option for WebChat, and you should be able to pick it on Special:ManageWiki/settings soon. -- Void Whispers 02:05, 17 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Thanks, Void, for implementing this interim measure. I think we can probably close this RfC tomorrow and implement the results of the consensus formed. Dmehus (talk) 15:05, 17 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Chat in Wikis (Special:Chat)[edit | edit source]

    As an alternative, but requires a log in, it requires an extension named MediaWikiChat, and is currently available in few wikis soon.

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section
    Retrieved from "https://meta.miraheze.org/wiki/IRC/Replacement_of_default_chat_platform_in_WebChat_extension?oldid=379154"