Wikimedia Forum

← Discussion pages

Wikimedia Forums

Archives →

The Wikimedia Forum is a central place for questions, announcements and other discussions about the Wikimedia Foundation and its projects. (For discussion about the Meta wiki, see Meta:Babel.)
This is not the place to make technical queries regarding the MediaWiki software; please ask such questions at the MediaWiki support desk; technical questions about Wikimedia wikis, however, can be placed on Tech page.

You can reply to a topic by clicking the "[edit]" link beside that section, or you can start a new discussion.

Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

• About Meta
• Discussion pages
• Request pages
• Policies and guidelines
• Information and statistics
• Categories
• Help pages

Participate:

• How to edit a page
• Meta-Wiki discussion page

SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} and sections whose most recent comment is older than 30 days.

Suggested Values

From April 29, it will be possible to suggest values for parameters in templates. Suggested values can be added to TemplateData and will then be shown as a drop-down list in VisualEditor. This allows template users to quickly select an appropriate value. This way, it prevents potential errors and reduces the effort needed to fill the template with values. It will still be possible to fill in values other than the suggested ones.

More information, including the supported parameter types and how to create suggested values: [1] [2]. Everyone is invited to test the feature, and to give feedback on this talk page.

Timur Vorkul (WMDE) 14:08, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikimedia thematic organizations

Where can I change the contents of the section "What are Wikimedia thematic organizations?"? There is a missing word that I want to add. Currently, only the section's title can be changed. Thanks! Nguyentrongphu (talk) 15:53, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

@Nguyentrongphu: If the issue is in the English version, then either just make the edit, or suggest an edit page's talk page. If it is one of the translations, then use the translation tool on the page.  — billinghurst sDrewth 08:39, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

billinghurst I clicked "edit" the page, but only the title can be changed. The contents of the section is nowhere to be found. Can you give me a link to edit the contents of the section "What are Wikimedia thematic organizations?"? Thanks! Nguyentrongphu (talk) 11:05, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

@Nguyentrongphu: In English I see a standard wikipage with a standard edit tab and it opens to a standard edit page, there is not protection, whether I am logged in or as an IP address. If you are not in English, then you need to be using the "Want to help translate? Translate the missing messages" link.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:26, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

billinghurst I don't see this part in the edit page: Wikimedia thematic organizations are independent non-profit organizations founded to support and promote the Wikimedia projects within a specified focal area. Like the Wikimedia Foundation, they aim to "empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally". Thematic organizations use a name clearly linking them to Wikimedia and are granted use of Wikimedia trademarks for their work, publicity, and fundraising. Currently, 2 thematic organization exists.

Recognition from the Affiliations Committee allows a group to apply for using the Wikimedia trademarks, access to unique grants, and additional affiliate support; however, recognition is not required to do any of the work a typical Wikimedia user group, and groups are encouraged to consider that model if they do not yet meet the requirements of a thematic organization. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 12:35, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

@Nguyentrongphu: are you on the Wikimedia thematic organizations/en or the Wikimedia thematic organizations/vi Vietnamese version? If /vi, then there should be a translate labelled tab.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:05, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

billinghurst I'm not trying to translate anything here. I want to edit something in the italicized part above, but it is nowhere to be found in the edit page. Although, this is also a problem for those who want to translate. In the translate page, only the titles can be translated and not the contents. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 13:25, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Ah okay, you haven't deciphered how to interpret {{TCT}} templates (template name it imports and the switch). The text is in Template:Wikimedia movement affiliates/Content though I would not recommend tinkering with that template unless you are really good at templates and not f*cking them up. Much better to suggest some text here.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:49, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

billinghurst Looks complicated. Anyway, however, recognition is not required to do any of the work of a typical Wikimedia user group. I believe the word "of" is missing. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 16:30, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Done  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:23, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

The local name of Lombard language (lmo)

It would be better if the name of the Lombard language used for interlingual links were changed. Now it is "Lumbaart" but "Lombard" would be better, as the old spelling is no longer used. According to the spelling most used in in both wikipedia and wiktionary (New Lombard Spelling), "Lombard" should be written instead of "Lumbaart". How should you do to change it?--Gat lombart (talk) 10:25, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Where is "lumbaart" not used any more? What's the source of this claim?

Usually such changes to the "autonyms" are decided as part of the definition of the locale. It needs confirmation by trusted sources and a consensus among translators/speakers of that language (not just the Wikipedia users). The easiest starting point may be a discussion at translatewiki:Portal talk:lmo. Nemo 15:16, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

We need a bit of backstory of the Lombard Wikipedia. When lmowiki was created, there was a catalanist administration, which created an ortography based on both the work of a Nordic academic of Lombard descent and on the Catalan language. In that ortography, "Lombard" was writter "Lumbaart" but a quick search shows basically every occurence is in some way linked to lmowiki. Today no ortography, except maybe some ortography used in some dialects in Canton Ticino, uses "lumbaart". Basically every Lombard, to say "Lombard", says "Lombard", which may be pronounced as "Lumbard" or "Lombard": Since the two pan-Lombard ortographies today, the historic classical Milanese ortography and the Tiraboschi's phonetical ortography uses "Lombard", I think it's safe to say it's the more used word in Lombard language to define the language itself. --Sciking (talk) 18:23, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@Gat lombart and Sciking: I am not sure that we can have any valid opinion, and all we can say is that if there is authoritative fixes required on the WMF wikis that it should happen in consultation with Language committee for WMF-controlled spaces. You were also pointed to translatewiki where some holistic discussions around translation take place for general Mediawiki and like issues—so more operational and non-WMF.  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:03, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Proposed further changes of Bot policy

Global bot policy is overhauled in Requests for comment/Refine global bot policy. I proposed some further change:

1. Remove the entire Bot_policy#Automatic_approval section. This is nowadays mostly succeeded by global bots. (Existing bot flags assigned per this policy is not affected.)
2. Replace the second section of Bot_policy#Community_consensus as follow: "If there is no local community and the above does not apply, stewards may grant bot flags at their discretion after a local discussion; the bot flag should usually be temporary".

--GZWDer (talk) 15:07, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

In what sense is "automatic approval" superseded? Are you saying the number of requests decreased? There are a few wikis who may have relied on the existence of the automatic approval process to not have local bureaucrats. It would not be nice to force such communities to either elect a bureaucrat or go through a global bot approval every time they want a local bot.

If the reason is that double redirects and interlanguage links aren't so important any more, maybe that criterion could be relaxed. Nemo 15:19, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Interlanguage links are handled by Wikidata; I think double redirects can be handled by existing global bots, and if a local bot is wanted, existing process (request flag from stewards after discussion) is enough.--GZWDer (talk) 16:55, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I am against temporal bot flags. They have never been granted and are unnecessary. Ruslik (talk) 20:37, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

What about removing "the bot flag should usually be temporary" clause?--GZWDer (talk) 15:27, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

OK. Ruslik (talk) 20:54, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

How can "a local discussion" happen if "there is no local community"? Leaderboard (talk) 09:38, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

This is in align with how we grant administrators in wikis without community - stewards may grant them at their discretion, especially if the user is trusted elsewhere.--GZWDer (talk) 16:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

What would "a local discussion" mean in that discussion when there isn't any (I get your point though)? Leaderboard (talk) 16:03, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Steward_requests/Permissions/Minimum_voting_requirements#Temporary_Administrator - "Allow 1 week for discussion", and also see Steward_requests/Permissions#Administrator_access.--GZWDer (talk) 16:24, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Internal Ticketing System

Hello,

I read the following presentation that is a presentation out of the tuning sessions. It is very interesting to read this presentations because it is a possiblility to learn more about the Wikimedia Foundation and the Processes and currenct Projects of the different teams. I read the presentation of the Operations Team [1]. And in the Presentation I read that there is intrudoced Zendesk at the Wikimedia Foundation. What does Phabricator or another free Software not offer that is needed in a internal Ticketing System for the Wikimedia Foundation. I think it were good if it is easier to find the presentations of the tuning sessions.--Hogü-456 (talk) 19:56, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Freenode (IRC)

See also: discussion from <- https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T283157 (closed, moved to here)

With most of the staff resigning and freenode changing hands, the future of Wikimedia channels, all of which are hosted on Freenode seems uncertain. There has been discussion of moving to libera.chat and I feel that it's important to notify the global community as IRC is home to a lot of important communication, including office discussions, steward requests and local oversight requests. Pinging our primary GCs: @Snowolf:, @Dungodung:, @Fox:, @Az1568:. Is there a better place this can be posted as this will impact a lot of editors and services. Praxidicae (talk) 12:54, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Also @Beetstra:, might want to think about migrating the spam channel bots over ASAP. Praxidicae (talk) 13:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• IMHO, Libera is probably the best place to go to at the moment, as it's the new home of the old freenode staff that we've come to know and trust. stwalkerster (talk) 13:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
• To me it seems a given that we stick with the people who built and ran Freenode, not the domain name. But it's not clear to me what exactly we need to do to migrate, do we need to re-register channels and set ops/perms? Will they be migrated? And so on... Legoktm (talk) 13:21, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

That's why I'm bringing this up - we have some channels and maintenance/log bots that I'm worried won't be able to be migrated for various reasons. :( Praxidicae (talk) 13:24, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@Praxidicae it took me about 15 minutes to move wikibugs over to Libera. I suspect most other IRC bots are either in a similar state or they're entirely unmaintained and were going to die at some random moment anyways, and need someone to take them over in a sustainable manner. Legoktm (talk) 17:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Legoktm i'm mostly worried about my favorite bot, which is CSDrbot and has been unmaintained for about 5 years and the operator is MIA, but it would be a great loss. :( Praxidicae (talk) 21:23, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Moving to User_talk:Praxidicae#CSDrbot. Legoktm (talk) 21:33, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

According to Libera people it's best if the freenode-era group contacts are in touch with them and sort things out. Freenode data will not be migrated due to the possible legal issues of doing so (which caused its creation in the first place). Majavah (talk!) 13:26, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Makes sense. I hope the GCs can give us some direction soon :) Legoktm (talk) 13:47, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• Is IRC (which libera is) even the best place to continue? It feels like an antiquated and old piece of technology. Why not consider moving away from IRC? I was thinking of an open-source alternative to Discord. Leaderboard (talk) 13:23, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

For many of us, IRC is a primary means of communication, there's no reason to fix what isn't broken. Seems to have been working well enough for the last 20 years. Praxidicae (talk) 13:24, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I think it's more of a reluctance to move away from something which has been used 20 years, which this is a good opportunity to. And relying on a technology that is 20 years old has its drawbacks, such as outdated mobile support and a lot more. There's a reason why Discord is popular even within Wikimedia. Leaderboard (talk) 13:27, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Tell that to the average user from a region of the world where Discord is not A Thing. IRC is considerably more universal. Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 13:29, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I didn't mean Discord on its own (as that's for-profit), but an open-source equivalent. IRC just hasn't kept up with the times. Leaderboard (talk) 13:30, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

The main reason to keep it alive is that we have lots of bots and monitoring channels that many people rely on – while it's likely that people will migrate away over time, but we have a good amount of infrastructure that currently depends on IRC, for better or for worse. Blablubbs|talk 13:33, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Matrix/Element is great but quite frankly Freenode is currently run by a seemingly hostile or at least untrustworthy operator and it appears we need to migrate ASAP. A migration to Matrix/Element cannot be done in that timeframe. Legoktm (talk) 13:34, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm with stwalkerster on libera. Praxidicae (talk) 13:36, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@Leaderboard: ^{[citation needed]}. There's zero need to fix something that isn't broken, and the protocol isn't the issue here, it's the humans running a particular IRCd instance. This isn't a "let's move away from IRC" discussion, this is a "to what server should the IRC stuff be moved to from freenode because reasons" discussion.
Libera appears to be a fine replacement, given that it's run by the people we know and trust, unlike present-day freenode, apparently. What a sad, sad day this is. --Jack Phoenix _(Contact) 13:40, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@Jack Phoenix: I know the protocol isn't responsible for what has happened today, but what I am saying is that the protocol itself is badly outdated and I don't think relying on that is good. If we need to make a switch, why not move to something modern? IRC isn't that one. Leaderboard (talk) 13:42, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Because we should migrate sooner rather than later: Again, some channels contain PII (-checkuser, -privacy, -en-accounts come to mind) and should not be in the hands of an untrusted operator, and some workflows depend heavily on existing, IRC-specific bots. Blablubbs|talk 13:44, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@Blablubbs: Can only the sensistive/PII channels be migrated to Libera then (as an emergency) while rest of the work is focused on moving to a better and more modern system? Leaderboard (talk) 13:51, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Badly outdated? It might be old (like many other protocols like HTTP and SSH), but (just to name a few) IRCv3, new servers and other IRC-related projects are under active development. Majavah (talk!) 13:45, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

If I have to struggle finding a proper mobile client, I think that can count as outdated. I'm not familiar with IRCv3 and such, are they modern enough to rival Matrix.org/Discord/any modern communication client? Leaderboard (talk) 13:47, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

It's mainly because mobile developers don't give a rat's ass about IRC, not due to it being outdated but due to it being old. Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 13:55, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I know more good mobile IRC clients than good mobile SSH clients. Does that make SSH also outdated, or it has to be you who looks for the clients? :) --Base (talk) 13:57, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@Base: Unfortunately (at least on Android), I didn't find a good mobile IRC client (and desktop, while better, is not good either). Conversely, I know of at least two good mobile SSH clients on Android, never found that to be a problem. Leaderboard (talk) 13:59, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

For SSH VX ConnectBot works fine for me, but it is hardly the most convenient app I have used. For IRC I prefer to stick to IRCCloud's client, it is extremely modern looking, but I also had good experience with I believe AndroIRC, although it has been a while since I have used it, so I had to look it up in my Google Play directory. --Base (talk) 14:07, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@Base: Seems that IRCClound works on a freemium model ("Stay connected for 2 hours while inactive" isn't nice)? Leaderboard (talk) 14:11, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

It does, what helps is to have its web client open 24/7 on a computer, then it does not disconnect. For me it worked better because where I live metro has got 4G only this year, so whenever I was commuting with traditional clients I was missing some messages. So a power move is either to set up a bouncer, which I have never bothered to do, or just use IRCCloud, even free account is enough to give proper time buffer. If you do not have such particular problem then any other client works fine. Also since it is a protocol, you can write your own client, there should be plenties of libraries for it too (I remember having zero problems to write a simple IRC bot). --Base (talk) 14:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

+1 for libera. It's online, the #wikimedia- namespace is already reserved and IRC group contacts already know many of the people there because they're freenode staffers. Given that some of the channels we run contain PII, I think it's more important to have a trusted and functional solution as soon as possible, as opposed to a perfect one in 2 months. Blablubbs|talk 13:41, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Considering that we need to make a switch anyway, I would think that it's better that we do it properly rather than as a stopgap measure based on outdated technology. Leaderboard (talk) 13:41, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I do not think an emergency migration is the proper time to reconsider this. I think once the dust has settled a bit, people will certainly have more appetite to discuss it. Legoktm (talk) 13:48, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that would happen in practice - the tendency to stick with something that works (no matter how bad or outdated it is) is quite prevalent in this community. Leaderboard (talk) 13:50, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• How about moving to Matrix.org. It's a modern, open-source, and decentralized option and has apps for almost all platforms. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 13:30, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• How does Matrix handle private logging? (I keep logs for #wikipedia-en-help out of practicality, especially if a user, problem or otherwise, comes in over multiple days.) Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 13:35, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• As of I am aware their public server (matrix.org) deletes the old data, but we can run our own server to control what to save and what not. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 13:39, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• I invite you to re-read what I wrote above. (I didn't ask about public logging; I'm asking about private, personal logging.) Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 13:42, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• That's what I am talking about. There's no option to log on your own machine and everything is stored on the server even when the channel is private. So how long your private log will stay depends upon the server. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 13:48, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• That is not acceptable to me. I do not want to have relevant logs from months ago removed just for age, and I do not want the logs' longevity to otherwise be tied to an Internet connexion if I can help it. Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 13:51, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• If you run your own matrix homeserver (you can still seamlessly connect to all other servers), you can configure it to never delete old messages as you describe (as I understand Matrix). If you lose connection, you'll regain any missed messages when you reconnect: that is a fundamental part of the Matrix protocol. Additionally, Matrix is intended to have a very friendly API: you could fairly easily collect data that way.Calumapplepie (talk) 02:01, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

• I don't see why that can't be done: https://matrix.org/docs/projects/other/matrix-recorder Leaderboard (talk) 13:46, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

While there is nothing wrong with offering support and tech channels on other open source & not profit communications platforms (in addition), I'd argue an irc version should at least be kept as well as it is established, working, many are comfortable with it and using it for non wikipedua/media topics in parallel anyhow plus the requirement on resources are extremely low.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:43, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

You cannot rely on multiple support systems. That's been going on now (with Matrix, IRC, Discord etc) and it just doesn't work and looks fragmented. Leaderboard (talk) 13:45, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

You can. It's called "redundancies". And the loss of IRC is a serious issue for users who won't have access to anything else whether because of local issues or software blocks. Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 13:46, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Does Matrix.org have this problem as well ("local issues or software blocks")? And no, people will gravitate to one major system in the end (like IRC is the case right now). Leaderboard (talk) 13:48, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Best to have 1 central point (to take advantage of network effects), but perhaps allow multiple ways to access it. Eg. IRC bots do exist for many major chat systems. --Kim Bruning (talk) 13:57, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

yes and the matrix link above is mostly about running matrix as an irc client, so we kinda need an underlying irc network anyhow.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:01, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

To be clear, I am advocating moving away from IRC entirely - so using Matrix.org technology perhaps, not an IRC layer (which is what the link focuses on). Leaderboard (talk) 14:03, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

That's an argument one can make, but I don't think this is the time or place for it. Blablubbs|talk 14:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

At least restrict the use of IRC to the ones that need to be urgently moved (the "sensitive" channels) then. Leaderboard (talk) 14:13, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

(also in response to your question above) Leaderboard, advocating migration to an entirely different platform seems to be a minority viewpoint in this discussion. Given that this is somewhat urgent, I suggest focusing on what most people here seem to be focused on, that being the migration of all wm/wp-related channels to libera or potentially another network. There seems to be clear consensus for that – we'd probably have to discuss things for weeks until we figure out whether people actually want to migrate away from IRC and if yes, where to, and fragmenting the infrastructure early on does not seem like a sound idea to me. Some people might not want any of their data in the hands of freenode's new operators, even if the things they are discussing on IRC aren't PII-related. Blablubbs|talk 14:17, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• Matrix has full support for two-way IRC bridges. If you ever see someone with an [m] after their name, they are connected via matrix. There are many communities where the majority of people use matrix, and IRC is kept available for those who desire it. The only difference is on what is considered the "primary": which one new users are pointed to. If you consider Matrix the primary, you can freely use some fancy features not found in IRC.

• +1 for libera. But I would like to know more about there democratic process. It is a few friends who ran the Freenode but without the now-hostile actors, yes? What stops this from happening again? Will moderator decisions be transparent? Will the community be consulted on decisions? If so, how? I hope I am not alone here in seeing that this is a clear problem that keeps arising in internet spaces and wanting to see a system would be better for everybody without endlessly repeating the same mistakes (such as behind the scenes decision making, single points of trust/failure, for example). W1tchkr4ft 00 (talk) 15:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

  Libera is being run as a Swedish non-profit association, which should prevent a similar takeover. Majavah (talk!) 15:11, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Libera seems to have some growing pains, I can barely stay connected to their servers. It may also be worth considering using more established networks like OFTC (used by Debian, others), efnet, etc... Legoktm (talk) 13:51, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I'd prefer going with libera if they can sort out the teething issues within a few days, given our pre-existing contacts there. Blablubbs|talk 13:53, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I just managed to get on myself. I guess we'd best hang on and give the ops a chance to stabilize the net. One could also consider offering a node or two. --Kim Bruning (talk) 13:55, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I asked how to offer servers or money and they said they'll get back to us, understandably they're a bit busy :) Legoktm (talk) 13:59, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

EFnet is not a good idea. They don't have NickServ. I prefer going with libera as well. I trust the former freenode staff running that network. Pandakekok9 (talk) 13:58, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't see other networks than libera and oftc as practical options for our community, and of those I'd go for libera. Majavah (talk!) 14:00, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

The IRC network is currently experiencing technical difficulties, likely a result of a massive influx of people. We're working on fixing it. --Thibaut (talk) 14:51, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
We should not rely on other servers imo. If this problem has happened once, this can happen at other places too -- and it will be best if we use irc.wikimedia.org or something self-hosted for this.
acagastya 14:58, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

WMF SRE here, I'm going to come out with a reality check here: running an actual IRC network is a time-consuming activity and it's neither simple nor something we have expertise with - what is irc.wikimedia.org right now would surely not satisfy our current or future needs. It's surely not something we can consider without time and resources being invested in the process. GLavagetto (WMF) (talk) 15:53, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Not the worst of ideas, but we do mostly trust the freenode opers. They managed to keep the network up for > 20 years as is, and appear to be migrating pretty quickly. I think that's a good track record. --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:00, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Do you think it is sensible that we are relying souley on trust? There should be more to it than this, simple trust seemed to be in part in this ongoing saga with freenode, sadly. W1tchkr4ft 00 (talk) 15:06, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with that, plus it would probably take us a while to spin up our own infrastructure, so I'd argue it's better to migrate now, using the existing contacts we have, and then potentially have an extended discussion once the urgent issue is addressed. Blablubbs|talk 15:02, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

And Freenode Libera staff are pretty good at running an IRC network. Wikimedia sysadmins don't really have that experience (current irc.wikimedia.org doesn't really count). Legoktm (talk) 15:11, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, and we'd ideally want something that can be used to coordinate things if Wikimedia's sites had major outages. Majavah (talk!) 15:13, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree completely FWIW but i think Libera would be a good stop-gap whilst this is considered. It should certainly be discussed once we are again stable. W1tchkr4ft 00 (talk) 15:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi folks, we are aware of the ongoing situation with freenode and are considering a potential move to Libera - but nothing concrete yet. We will update once we know more. For the GCs. —-Az1568 (talk) 15:49, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi [User:Az1568]], a lot of people are already on Libera and have set up temporary +o etc until the chanops from freenode show up :-). --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:50, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Intuitively I would avoid migrating to a system different than IRC. The migration would certainly come to be problematic since there is a paradigm shift (imagine having to rewrite all bots for an entirely different protocol) and it seems wiser to stick to the IRC protocol, at least for now. Freenode events are fairly recent and might settle eventually, but with staff resigning and creating a new network, I am afraid Freenode might not live long. Should we follow the Freenode staff to Libera.chat? Maybe since I am assuming we have established tight connections with the admins, that would certainly make it easy. But would Libera has the ability to sustain the load of various projects migrating to it? Oftc might seem appealing in that regard since their infrastructure has been there for almost a couple decades.

At least both Libera and Oftc are held by non profit foundation, and it would be very nice to have the Wikimedia Foundation to join and formally sustain any of those networks. Antoine "hashar" Musso (talk) 15:54, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• I support a move to Libera. Freenode is no longer compatible with our goals, in my opinion. Changing off of IRC would require too much redevelopment. Waggie (talk) 16:29, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• I support a move to Discord or Matrix. IRC is not a modern communication platform, a small minority of the community congregates there, and we should move our "sanctioned" off-site communication somewhere else. – Ajraddatz (talk) 17:06, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

  Wikimedia is a conglomerate of multiple communities :) Most of the technical community is still on IRC for example. But I get your point, and have no opposition to properly considering a switch to Matrix (I don't think Discord should be on the table as it's proprietary) and bridging IRC to it...but I think we're kind of in an emergency mode here and think we should first move to a new server and then start discussing long term plans. Legoktm (talk) 17:23, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

  Definitely understand the concern with Discord, even if I don't share it (other parts of Wikimedia use proprietary software, including the WMF, doesn't seem to be an issue). My concern is that the Wikimedia community is horrible at making decisions and once something is done, it tends to stay done that way even in the face of serious problems. IMO we should put the work into moving to a long-term solution now, but I also don't want to be a huge roadblock here, just sharing my opinion :-) – Ajraddatz (talk) 17:27, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

  What should the next steps be for getting to a long-term solution? Matrix.org already exists. Should we be drafting an RfC? (not *yet* volunteering) Legoktm (talk) 18:49, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

  I don't see the community going for a long-term solution other than moving to a different IRC host, so no real plans from me for that because it wouldn't go anywhere. The IRC group contacts on Freenode have already unilaterally decided to move to Libera, and I imagine most existing IRC users will join. But I do love putting out a dissenting opinion now and then :-) – Ajraddatz (talk) 23:18, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

/me opposes the above message. Discord is non-free and can fuck off for even the list of candidates. An insult used against IRC is "it is not modern" -- that is not the case. HTTP and SSH and SMTP are not modern either, but I don't see you all opposing that. It serves the purpose what it was built for.
acagastya 17:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Most people are using HTTP/2.0 or HTTP/3.0, which are pretty modern protocols (2015 and later). That's not including all the various changes to TLS over the years. In any case, I think it's pretty objective to say IRC isn't modern. For some people that's a feature, for others it's very lacking. I strongly agree with Ajraddatz that IRC is declining in popularity and not as accessible as some alternatives could be. Legoktm (talk) 18:54, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

irc.wikimedia.org should be at least used for the channels like #wikimedia-otrs-en -- we ideally should not be trusting other servers.
acagastya 17:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

My point is more that IRC doesn't serve the purpose that it was built for. It is used by only the "old guard" of the movement, is not welcoming or easy to use for new users, and is not a "mainstream" method of communication in the population as a whole nor does it even attempt to be or attempt to mimic common communication principles like a platform like Matrix does. If we as a movement are looking to be more inclusive, open, and engaging to new audiences, insisting that we move from one confusing and inaccessible option to another doesn't make much sense to me. – Ajraddatz (talk) 17:30, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

That. Just that. Leaderboard (talk) 17:35, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

IRC is pretty old, traditional, well worn, and works. And one can provide webchat, at which point most of these objections pretty much go out the window: using your own client is optional, but not required. Also note that a bunch of technical stuff (probably still) works via IRC because it's a simple and open protocol: you can pretty much use it with a telnet client in a pinch. --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:58, 19 May 2021 (UTC) (disclaimer, libera.chat doesn't provide a webchat *yet* , but freenode does, so presumably they'll include the same tools as work on their new website progresses).

You can literally connect using kiwiirc and things are as intuitive as any other chat platform. Don't know why the fuss about "old". It works well for what it is supposed to do. You prolly don't like the irc clients you have been using.
acagastya 18:02, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Anyone claiming it is not mainstream has never seen how many people use freenode, let alone IRC.
acagastya 18:07, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Not going to respond much further, but would like to point out that you don't know whether I like or dislike my IRC client nor my knowledge of how many people use IRC. I've presented specific arguments completely unrelated to my own subjective like or dislike of IRC (which I use and personally like), and which are not informed by a lack of knowledge on the subject, and I don't appreciate it when you construct strawmen versions of my arguments to attack. Thanks. – Ajraddatz (talk) 18:38, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Feel free to drop in and explain why "old" is a problem then. And what new features are "missing".
acagastya 19:15, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I've never been active on IRC, but came across this. It's probably worth mentioning that, if the consensus for what to do ends up being "not IRC", there already exist Wikimedia Chat (based on MatterMost) and mw:Outreach programs/Zulip, both of which are open source and work on mobile. Vahurzpu (talk) 17:57, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Sure. And even better: these systems are bridge-able (see topic below), so a person using one of the options can still chat with people using one of the others. --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:00, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I think OFTC would also be an option, they have support for NickServ as far as I've seen. Ahmetlii (talk) 17:59, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I think it'd make more sense to move to Libera.Chat as most of the staff are there as founders. Most of my communities have already moved there, and I think it makes sense not to splinter communities too much. Don't fix what's not broken. MJ94 (talk) 19:41, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Freenode now only lists a skeleton crew of 3 staff remaining. The original staff are (almost) all listed at Libera.chat now. In a sense we can almost treat this as a rebrand of freenode. We'll be having the same people and the same software as before, just a different domain name. --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:36, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• I urge a move to Libera rather than changing protocols. Users are familiar with IRC, it works worldwide, it doesn't require either a learning curve or registration with a new provider. Wherever the migration is to, please ensure there are announcements on the projects so that project members who do not follow technical noticeboards are aware, and either migrate cloaks or set up a process for registering for them. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:54, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

• I would ask that if we do move to Libera Chat for the Wikimedia IRC operation, then the Wikimedia Foundation offers/makes some legal and accountancy staff available to assist Libera Chat in getting the correct legal and financial structures established for their new network. Freenode and the staffers who are now running Libera Chat have been an enormous part of the Wikimedia success story, the very least we can do is offer to help them in their hour of need. Nick (talk) 21:48, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Libera.Chat is based out of a nonprofit organization in Sweden. harej (talk) 22:31, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I also support OFTC. Their IRC server hostname is irc.oftc.net . They've been doing almost the same thing as Freenode for a long time. If you're the kind of old-timer like me who values stability and don't want to join a new fashionable website every year, come there. Just be aware of the differences in ritual that stem from the schism way back in prehistory: on OFTC the NICKSERV IDENTIFY command takes its two arguments in the opposite order from what you're used to on FreeNode. – b_jonas 00:00, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

The Wikimedia IRC group contacts have made the decision to support a move to Libera.Chat and join other open-source communities that have already moved over. We are actively working with the staff there, and have begun the groundwork of getting a group registration with the network and reserving our primary channels. We will not force users to move away from freenode, however, we hope that slowly folks will choose to move over on their own. Project affiliated cloaks will more than likely, no longer be issued on the freenode network (supporting one network is already a challenge!) and we will begin processing cloak requests for Libera.Chat once the needed infrastructure is in place. Please be patient with us, as this is not a simple process, and please stay tuned for further updates. For the IRC Group Contacts, --Az1568 (talk) 03:41, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Bridging chat networks

When bridging networks, it's important to test your bridging solution, and to get permission from the network operators. See eg https://www.hackint.org/archive#20181028_Matrix_Bridging_Sunset for reasoning on a different network. --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:33, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

wikitech:Tool:Bridgebot is used in some freenode + telegram + discord channels. It could theoretically be used to bridge freenode and libera if people wanted. Legoktm (talk) 15:10, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

If we're going to leave freenode for this reason, I don't see a good reason to go halfway with the bridge; My thought is that we should either move completely or not at all. MJ94 (talk) 22:09, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm worried about new users who follow old guides/links and end up in Freenode and find no one or some alternative community than ours. How do we make sure that doesn't happen? We could lock the channels, but I don't think getting a "You're banned from #wikipedia" is a good way to point people to the right place. Legoktm (talk) 22:57, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I think we can set most channels to +if #wikimedia, which will automatically forward them to #wikimedia. We could then have a join message set pointing people in the right direction. Not sure it's the best solution, but it is a solution. stwalkerster (talk) 22:59, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I'd recommend caution wrt leaving anything important on freenode. --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:27, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

One channel that migrated had a bot posting "please use <other channel> on <other network>" every couple of minutes; seemed to work fine. Enterprisey (talk) 02:01, 20 May 2021 (UTC)