Talk:Freenode

Primary source overuse in section about May 2021 developments

I previously removed a large amount of the section on the May 2021 takeover and resignations because it was largely sourced to former staff members' resignation letters, an unofficial FAQ stored in a GitHub gist, etc. I see that the section has once again been expanded with those sources, though at least this time with more clarity that these are claims being made by various individuals rather than RS reporting.

That said, I think we really need to wait for and rely on secondary reliable sources for this. The whole situation seems to be a bit of a whirlwind and there are a lot of unknowns (for example, see the struck-out portions of the Gist indicating where misstatements once were). I was briefly concerned that there might not be much RS coverage of this, given that Freenode is somewhat niche and less used these days than it once was, but Boing Boing and Vice have already released articles and so I suspect more publications will shortly as well. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:10, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare, Robertsky, Bpt, Agent Isai: I have removed the parts of the article that was based on self-published sources (both from Lee and from the staff) for now and added back just the content that could be cited to Vice and Boing Boing. Emotions around this topic are heated because of the recent events, and I think it is better base the content on third-party sources (and to wait for such sources) than to cite the involved parties' own writings. --Joshua Issac (talk) 21:27, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Joshua Isaac: While I understand the concern, the articles are nothing more than recitations of all the sources which were previously listed on there. In any case, I can simply cite the articles made and still convey the point as they base themselves off the same sources which I cited. Agent Isai (talk) 21:31, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Not everything stated in the resignation letters, etc. has been republished by the RS, and I think it's best we stick with what the RS have chosen to republish. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:45, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

The Register just posted an article which published Lee's statement in full, so I think it's safe to cite anything in there now. Additionally, the only things not yet mentioned in any source are the allegations of deleting a blog post. Everything else can be found inside one of the currently cited articles. Agent Isai (talk) 22:17, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@Agent Isai: That is plainly not true. I have just removed content that you restored that is not supported by the cited articles. Please stop warring to remove secondary sources and replace them with primary ones, adding unsourced content, and saying that statements could be cited to secondary sources rather than just citing them properly in the first place. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:59, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: The only thing that I found which was removed that could not be cited in an article is the claim that the servers were sponsored and could be removed from freenode. I agree with you taking that down, that slipped through my edit. I am not warring, this is not a dispute. All the claims made in the article, save the one previously aforementioned, were backed up by sources (which in turn, all relied on previously cited primary sources). I am not removing secondary sources to include primary sources, I simply expanded what was on there and correctly cited the secondary sources which were needed. Agent Isai (talk) 03:36, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

See my other edits for other statements that were not supported. Repeatedly restoring challenged content is warring. I do appreciate your additional RS (The Register, Hackaday) but like I said, we shouldn't be making statements that aren't in secondary sourcing. I want to present a complete picture of this as much as you do, but we do need to be careful how we go about it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:48, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: Regardless, I do think that you have done an impeccable job of revising the article and I do thank you for that. Agent Isai (talk) 03:51, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

The other side of the libera.chat conflict

I'm not a wiki editor, and not sure if these links are good for the wiki, or would that count as "original research". So I'll just leave it here, in hope that someone more skillful knows if they can be used.

There're two sides of the conflict.

First side is libera.chat. Links: (1) (2) (3)... Summary: Andrew Lee is the bad guy, Thomas Wesley is the good guy, in May 2021 Andrew Lee have taken over the control of Freenode server. It's not safe there any more. Leave to libera.chat, entire Freenode Staff is there now.

Second side is freenode.org. Links: (1) (2) (3) (4)... Summary: Andrew Lee is the good guy, Thomas Wesley is the bad guy, in April 2021 Thomas Wesley (tomaw, head of Freenode Staff) tried to take over the "freenode.org" domain. Andrew Lee (legal owner of the domain) went to lawyers, and got the domain back. So Thomas registers a new "libera.chat" domain and spreads misinformation among the staff about a takeover.

PS: according to whois, the "libera.chat" domain was registered 23 April 2021, so things definitely did not start in May. 93.76.57.142 (talk) 05:23, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Until this is covered in reliable sources, information from primary sources like what you have linked won't be included in the article. – robertsky (talk) 06:27, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@Robertsky: @93.76.57.142: primary sources like these, or primary sources in general, shouldn't be used at all. this is clearly conflict of interest. just don't use them. keep with the reliable sources.Hfnreiwjfd (talk) 22:02, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Ship of Theseus

The entire staff and vast majority of channels + users have now transitioned to irc.libera.chat.

The irc.freenode.org network is being run like a chan board, with users given op for using transphobic slurs.

In quality and composition, the Libera Chat community today is identical to the Freenode community of last year. Libera's history is Freenode's history; it doesn't belong to Andrew Lee except in the most artificial way.

I think there's an argument to merge this article into Libera Chat. As such the lead of the article would begin "Libera Chat, stylized Libera.Chat and formerly known as freenode and Open Projects Network, is an IRC network" and would include Freenode's history. 82.39.97.150 (talk) 19:13, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Articles must be based in reliable sources, and from what I have seen the sources are treating them as two separate entities. I understand your point—that it is primarily the people and users who made Freenode, and what was once Freenode is no longer now that the staff and many of its users have migrated to Libera, but unless sources also take that view I don't think the two articles will be merged. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:40, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

freenode is probably not going to die out. When you consider the sort of reputation it's probably going to build for itself going forward, we wouldn't be doing Libera any favors by merging the articles. ApLundell (talk) 01:23, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

The suggestion to merge this article into Libera Chat is premature. That may well happen eventually, but it is much too soon. At present, Freenode is still nominally a going concern, and some of the old network's servers are even still online, though it is not clear for how much longer that situation will continue to obtain. (The round-robin DNS no longer points to them. It points to a new network which is not large enough to be notable on its merits, except for via its connection to the Freenode name.) Be patient. Wikipedia is not Twitter, and an article being a little out of date with quite recent events is not a huge disaster. --Jonadab the Unsightly One, 2021 Jun 15.

And even if it dies, it doesn't automatically follow that the article should be merged.

Wikipedia is full of articles about dead stuff.

ApLundell (talk) 18:40, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

A graph has been proposed which is cited to the self-published website netsplit.de. As we have said already, we need to base this article on reliable secondary sources. netsplit.de is a questionable source. The owner disclaims any quality control of the data. I object to its use to support assertions in this article. Elizium23 (talk) 00:54, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

It's worth noting that netsplit.de is also where the user and channel counts for this article (and the Libera article) are coming from. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:42, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare, thanks for pointing that out. No longer included in this article. Elizium23 (talk) 03:50, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't think inclusion of netsplit.de data is inherently out of line, as long as we're not editorializing on their meaning; but yeah, be careful not to do that. netsplit.de is a largely unbiased gatherer of statistics, unaffiliated with any particular IRC network, with reasonably good data going back to the turn of the century, and I don't see a problem with including statistics or graphs from it where relevant, for illustrative purposes. (Frankly, if netsplit.de isn't an acceptable source for data about IRC networks, then Alexa probably isn't an acceptable source for data about websites. Which is, I think, taking RS a bit too far.) With that said, netsplit provides statistics, but the interpretation of those numbers can get into subjective, Original Research territory if we aren't careful. Sure, it looks to the casual observer as though Freenode under new management is self destructing, rapidly, but that observation does not belong in the article. A sharp decline in the number of users, in the short term, could potentially have any number of explanations. As further developments unfold, the situation should become more clear, and hopefully the, umm, I'll call it the "transition" for now, will get written up by, I don't know, Ars or someone, whom we can reasonably cite. Netsplit statistics and graphs are all well and good when used for illustrative purposes, but they're just statistics and should not be used to justify Original Research. Be patient; yes, the article is out of date with very recent developments; as I said before, it's an encyclopedia, not a Twitter feed. Gathering enough secondary sources to assemble an article takes time. --Jonadab the Unsightly One, 2021 Jun 21

freenode was killed and replaced by "new freenode"

There was a wall message on 2021-06-15 (times in UTC):

00:20:31-keitwo(~kei@freenode/staff/kei)- [Global Notice 1/3] We are moving past legacy freenode to a new fork. The new freenode is launched. You will slowly be disconnected and when you reconnect, you will be on the new freenode. We patiently await to welcome you in freedom's holdout - the freenode.
00:20:41-keitwo(~kei@freenode/staff/kei)- [Global Notice 2/3] If you're looking to connect now, you can already /server chat.freenode.net 6697 (ssl) or 6667 (plaintext). It's a new genesis for a new era. Thank you for using freenode, and Hello World, from the future. freenode is IRC. freenode is FOSS. freenode is freedom.
00:20:47-keitwo(~kei@freenode/staff/kei)- [Global Notice 3/3] When you connect, register your nickname and your channel and get started. It's a new world. We're so happy to welcome you and the millions of others. We will be posting more information in the coming days on our website and twitter. Otherwise, see you on the other side!

Now ~ 14 hours later, that disconnect happened. The old network is gone and chat.freenode.net points to a new network which reuses the old name. All entries from NickServ and ChanServ are gone. I.e. "freenode" and "new freenode" are two separate networks.

In my opinion, today is the day freenode died and that should be reflected in the article's infobox. And perhaps a new article "new freenode" created. --Wulf4096 (talk) 14:18, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

We need to base this article, like all others here, on reliable secondary sources and not personal accounts of what may or may not have transpired. Unfortunately, this will mean poor coverage of this kind of topic, because most of this drama is being carried out in chat rooms, forums, news aggregators, blogs and GitHub. None of those are sufficient to cite for this article. It does also relate to our biographies of living persons policy, insofar as these are the actions of Andrew Lee (entrepreneur). Elizium23 (talk) 14:23, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Of course! But I'm certain that it won't be long until reliable news sites will write about this latest development. --95.163.172.236 (talk) 14:34, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

The only source thus far with a brief mention about the change is a Finnish website: https://www.tivi.fi/uutiset/tiedot-ovat-vihamielisen-tahon-kasissa-linux-kehittajat-ja-wikipedia-aktiivit-joutuvat-vaihtamaan-irc-verkkoa/84c66ade-8da1-4882-9861-f1f346f9fff4 – robertsky (talk) 00:29, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Robertsky, at a glance, through Google Translate, that looks like a WP:RS. Elizium23 (talk) 02:47, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Status as a historical website

According to this page and other recent developments, Freenode now requires SASL, TLS and an advance registration in order to actually use the network - among other things, this means netsplit is no longer able to track the status and usage of the network. Should the article be updated to reflect this change, and if so how? --Umbire the Phantom (talk) 10:27, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

I already updated the article to past tense. pandakekok9 (talk) 11:05, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Ah. You'd mentioned that on IRC, yeah, but I was wondering if it'd been incorporated into the article proper. --Umbire the Phantom (talk) 11:13, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

But does "the connection process has changed and netsplit can no longer track usage" accurately translate to "Freenode is now a former, past-tense entity that is no longer active"? Or from another perspective, should Wikipedia have more than one source before declaring Freenode no longer exists? Vague | Rant 13:16, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

This needs secondary sourcing. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:45, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

I also think this is too soon. Freenode clearly still exists in some form. Even if it's just a sad shadow of its former self.

Just because netsplit's bots can't collect data on it anymore isn't a good source to pretend it's completely offline.

ApLundell (talk) 17:47, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Unregistered users cannot connect to the network any more. It requires off-site login at the irc.com website, which currently neither works for an existing user nor for registration of a new user. So it can no longer be used stand-alone with an IRC client. Also, look at https://www.hinner.com/ircstat/Socip_F.html especially the yearly graph. What else is needed to label this as a thing of the past? --94.219.18.112 (talk) 10:27, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Would that (the techrights.org link above) be a sufficiently reliable source for "On 28 July 2021, TLS+SASL with a registered account became a requirement to connect to Freenode. Therefore, clients that did not register new accounts after the network was replaced could no longer automatically reconnect." (or perhaps something better formulated by someone else)?

Here's the error message that (unless something has changed recently) anyone can currently see for themselves by trying to connect: [You must use TLS/SSL and authenticate via SASL to connect to freenode please visit https://irc.com/login/sso in order to create an account. SASL Configuration: https://freenode.net/kb/answer/sasl - Webchat: https://webchat.freenode.net/]

Κσυπ Cyp   10:46, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

To answer 94.*, we need a reliable source describing Freenode as a thing of the past. The techrights.org link does not appear to me to be a reliable source, but even if it were, it describes the "beginning of the end" for Freenode—it does not say that Freenode no longer exists as a network. For all we know there is a bug that Freenode is working to fix, and the network will settle on some (admittedly odd) form of login and return to whatever form it's in these days. Reliable sources don't appear to have decided that the network is done for good; neither should we. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 14:47, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

The network no longer announces itself as "freenode" but as "Joseon" in its MOTD. Also, chat.freenode.net is now an alias redirecting to irc.joseon.kr. User count has dropped to around 600 (from more than 80000 at the beginning of the year). Arguably, the name was the only thing that was common between the old and the new Freenode, so maybe this is the point where it can no longer be considered as the same entity? --178.4.105.166 (talk) 07:17, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Should this page be moved (or split) to Joseon (IRC network) to match the new name? Although they apparently haven't moved the web server yet. Would [1] be an acceptable source for TLS+SASL being a new requirement — they're announcing it themselves now? It's definitely not a neutral source, but I assume it's undisputed. Κσυπ Cyp   08:20, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

He doesn't deserve his own article.

It has more relevance historically, so no page move. Also, would Joseon (IRC network) be relevant enough for an article? There are no articles for other networks with 4-digit user numbers either, e.g. no GeekShed, GIMPnet, or Snoonet. --178.4.105.166 (talk) 08:49, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

All of these changes would require reliable sources before they could be incorporated. But to answer Cyp specifically, WP:COMMONNAME determines page names, and unless and until "Joseon" becomes the commonly-used name for the network, the article should stay where it is. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:19, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Why would Joseon become the name for the network historically known as Freenode? It is a different entity: All former staff have left as well as 99% of users (and we don't even know if its few users had been there before or are new). It uses a different software stack, and now also a different name as can be seen in its DNS record and MOTD. Ship of Theseus indeed, and good luck finding secondary sources for something that has no relevance. --178.4.105.166 (talk) 17:07, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I know it's really probably premature to move it to Joseon (IRC network) (if ever), I was just making a (probably-unclear) point that (in my opinion) the current ~1k user network calling itself Joseon and/or Freenode doesn't really have much (if anything) in common with the ~45k user network formerly known as Freenode. Κσυπ Cyp   17:41, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

The current network is Freenode in name only, and therefore I believe that notability should be evaluated for the new network. Does Joseon/"Freenode" meet Wikipedia notability guidelines? Rua (mew) 18:30, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 11 October 2021

Freenode → Joseon (IRC network) – Freenode has changed its name to Joseon and the new domain when you connect to the network is irc.joseon.kr. 81.156.169.244 (talk) 20:00, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. See section above. If there's a RS confirming the rename it could be mentioned here, but Freenode is the MOS:COMMONNAME. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:06, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. Joseon isn't even in the top 20 of IRC networks, and fails notability as a result. Freenode was notable, but Freenode as it was exists no longer (fell from 80,000 users to not even 2,500 after the Joseon people built the new network from scratch; Libera.chat, meanwhile, has 50,000 users). If anything, this article should be in the past tense ("was") since there is no longer Freenode (which was notable, hence is notable as a historically large network), but only Libera and Joseon, and Joseon is neither large enough to be noteworthy nor well-documented by third-party sources. 71.62.227.79 (talk) 22:42, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppse An encyclopedia isn't just about now, it's also about history. The notable thing is Freenode. I don't believe that whatever is being built from its ashes will ever be more notable than Freenode itself. ApLundell (talk) 22:51, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per GW and that the rename isn't even discussed in the article. As a procedural note, I (and presumably every Wikipedia editor who knows IRC) are former users of Freenode, hopefully we can just ignore "INVOLVED" as this doesn't appear to be a close call at this time. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:36, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose for seemingly obvious reasons. Suppafly (talk) 15:30, 12 October 2021 (UTC)