UESPWiki talk:IRC/Archive 2

This is an archive of past UESPWiki talk:IRC discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page, except for maintenance such as updating links.

Channel Change

Earlier today (at about 2:30 pm PDT), Aristeo effectively shut down the #UESP IRC channel that had up until that point been used by the UESPWiki community. He redirected all incoming traffic and kicked out everyone who was in the channel at the time.

Therefore a new channel, #UESPWiki, has been put in place. The IRC article has been substantially modified in order to provide information describing some of the ideas on how to run this new IRC channel. People familiar with the old channel may want to read through the page, in particular the guidelines, because there have been several changes.

One important change has been making the IRC policy subject to community consensus, just like all other policies on UESPWiki. Therefore, the current page basically represents the initial proposal for how to run the new channel. If anyone has any suggestions or feedback about the guidelines, this talk page can be used to discuss the guidelines. The entire community is welcome to participate in the discussions, even editors who do not use the IRC channel (in particular with regards to questions of how IRC and the rest of the wiki interact). --Nephele^Talk 22:37, 14 July 2007 (EDT)

Magnus

I just noticed that Magnus is not listed as an operator on the main article. He is an operator, isn't he? --GuildKnight^Talk2me 22:02, 7 December 2007 (EST)

Indeed, fixed. --TheRealLurlock ^Talk 02:15, 8 December 2007 (EST)

Virus?

My anti-virus software (Symantec) found a "High-Risk Virus" (actually, 8770 of them) called "Backdoor.IRC.Bot. Just thought it might be worth mentioning so that people know to look out for it. It allows a hacker to use IRC channels to control your PC, from what I can tell. --GuildKnight^Talk2me 22:02, 7 December 2007 (EST)

Hmmm, you might want to make sure to get that off as quick as possible. Most irc servers see that and assume its an open proxy, shutting you off from the server. It's reversible of course (sometimes the proxy scanner catches me every once in a while for no apparent reason). --Timmeh ^Talk 23:36, 7 December 2007 (EST)

I'm running Symantec all the time and it's never reported finding a virus called "Backdoor.IRC.Bot". Any chance it came from somewhere other than #UESPWiki? I just don't want to warn IRC users about a virus if it didn't come from our IRC channel. Especially since my impression is that chatspike has a few mechanisms in place to prevent such types of bots from propagating in chatspike. --Nephele^Talk 01:18, 12 December 2007 (EST)

If no one else has seen the problem, then it's probably not something worth mentioning. It's just that that's the only place I can think of that it may have come from. But ya never know. --GuildKnight^Talk2me 01:20, 12 December 2007 (EST)

Time to Talk?

I had an idea (might not be mine, can't remember too well) to have a special night where we advertise that we will be in the IRC room. Sort of like a meeting, where new people would be guaranteed to get help and be able to talk with other editors. This is course isn't a replacement for the Community Portal, but a good way how to get new editors in the room. --Timmeh ^Talk 18:54, 22 January 2008 (EST)

Proposed Changes

I'd like to rearrange the main IRC page and move almost all the material to a "Joining" subpage. This is intended to make it more inconvenient to get onto IRC, but for a good reason. I've seen several people come on to the channel and assume they are being deliberately ignored when nobody replies. A good example came along last night. I happened to be AFK at the time and assume everybody else was too. Having asked a question (incomprehensible, but that's not the point) and waited a couple of minutes for a reply, the user typed:

21:38 <UESPUser075>       Hmm..,. no one is responding. Uncalled for
21:39 <UESPUser075>       bye I have to go...thanks for not responding really uncalled for

I remember another case where the user thought he had been hit with some kind of read-only ban, so we couldn't see his comments.

I'm proposing to have a brief initial page at UESPWiki:IRC that simply asks people to make sure they've read the site before asking questions about the game, and explains that people may not respond immediately - or indeed, at all. There would then be a link to the subpage that would contain the policies, list of operators and, most importantly, links to the applet.

None of this will change any existing policies, just rearrange things a bit to ensure people understand things a bit better. Any comments? –Rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 14:14, 18 March 2009 (EDT)

Private Messages

Recently, a frequent user of the IRC Chatroom was private messaged (PMmed) a long stream of vulgarity from a UESPUser. I read through the rules and saw nothing about any PMming. Something should be said about PMming on the page to clear anything up. I'm not sure weather to call this harassment or if PMming is a way to avoid the PG limit on the channel. Personally, I think it should be used to avoid the limit but in a friendly way. Personal attacks should be dealt with like normal.--^Corevette₇₈₉ 21:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I've had the same experience myself, but it's not down to UESP to police it. If you think somebody has violated ChatSpike's Rules, report them to ChatSpike. There may be grounds for blocking from official UESP channels, but you will need to contact an administrator about the specific circumstances. rpeh •T•C•E• 21:33, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, my mistake. The Etiquette policy says "It is not okay to harass other users in IRC, even in a private discussion. If you feel you have been a victim of abusive behavior, contact a channel operator." rpeh •T•C•E• 13:42, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Minor Change

I changed the "general explicitness" wording to something at least a little less ambiguous before noticing that changes should be proposed here first. I don't think there'll be a general outcry from the community about this change, but just so that I can say I followed the rules, if a little bit after-the-fact, I thought I'd mention it here. ‒ Robin Hood↝Talk 22:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Staff Channel

I have made and registered a IRC channel for staff members. I would like to make it an official channel and I can assure everything would be fair in this channel. One thing I have done to ensure this is to make ALL users no higher than the rank of voiced in the channel (even I am just voiced). It is currently #UESPStaff in irc.chatspike.net, same as #UESPWiki. I will eventually set a password only staff members would have access to, keeping it staff-only channel. I understand I will have to leave the channel after setup and that's fine with me. My goal was to create a fair and even channel for staff members of UESP after hearing some things had happened in another channel that acts like this but with actual ranks being used. There is no password set as of now, so if you would like to get a feel for the channel as of now, please go ahead. Any feedback would be appreciated.--^Corevette₇₈₉ 05:16, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no, nor has there ever been, a reason to make a separate channel. Elliot (talk) 05:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Um, actually there has been a channel being used for things like discussing who is in line for Patroller next and such. I feel like we need one where everyone is equal and it is official.--^Corevette₇₈₉ 06:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that channel is #UESPWiki. #Aetherius is not; nor is #UESPStaff. Elliot (talk) 06:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Anyone else--^Corevette₇₈₉ 06:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I've been doing it in PM/UESPWiki, depending on who is around, but it's nice to have a specific place to brainstorm, without having to deal with people yelling and creating long pages full of comments that lead nowhere. --Tim ^Talk 06:07, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

#Aetherius was never intended to be a staff channel and has never attempted to be one. It is a place where people can hang out and chat about TES, beer, football, or anything else. Yes, UESP gets discussed a lot but that's because the residents typically include several members of the OBNPCRP and there's a lot of technical discussion about bugs and various details of NPC schedules. It's easier to do it there where we won't get interrupted by people asking what your favourite sword is.

A password-protected staff only channel seems like a very bad idea. If it's open then fine, but password-protecting it makes it seem as though there are things to hide. rpeh •T•C•E• 07:32, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I am fine with users discussing things in a different channel. But to make one official is unnecessary. Elliot (talk) 07:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

To rpeh, that was something I was kind of debating about. But seeing as the client does not connect to #UESPStaff, we should not get too many "I swung my sword indiscriminately and now I broke my game. What do I do?--^Corevette₇₈₉ 15:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

(←) I agree with rpeh that #Aetherius was never intended to be a staff channel, but it did sometimes serve as one, intentionally or not, and I remember saying that I liked that it served that purpose and others agreeing. Nevertheless, it isn't an official staff channel, and in light of recent events, I suggested that it might not be a bad idea to make an official one. I wasn't intending for anybody to create it right away, just to see if people thought it was desirable and then have a wiki discussion about it, but Corevette took the initiative on it, which certainly isn't a bad thing.

My original concept was that it would be strictly staff-only, but rpeh's point is well taken. It should probably remain open to other users, just geared towards patrolling and administrative discussions that would be more likely to get interrupted in the main channel. I can also see another side to it where, for example, a regular user might have an issue that he'd like to discuss semi-privately with the staff, and wants to join the channel, which they couldn't do if the channel were completely closed. ‒ Robin Hood↝Talk 16:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

That is another very good point, So then #UESPWiki could be geared to fixing something relating to the game and #UESPStaff could be a channel used for the public on rare occasions regarding Wiki business.--^Corevette₇₈₉ 17:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Nyeah, well. #UESPwiki was never really intended for game help, in my opinion. I usually referred people to #eshelp or #elderscrolls if they needed hardcore help (i.e. stuff that couldn't be solved immediately). Obviously I'm not everybody, but that was my understanding. The guidelines don't specifically deny game related questions (indeed, they shouldn't be turned away), they point out better channels for them.

Either way, there's also the problem that not everyone on staff goes on IRC. True, most of them do, but have a staff channel with most of the staff but not all of them frequenting it seems kinda... not a great idea. And, also, is people who aren't staff are allowed to idle in it, what stops it from turning into a smaller #UESPwiki? •Atreus• 19:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't see it as a place for all staff to be expected to go, just somewhere you can go to readily find other staff members when you want a second opinion, general conversation about edits or wiki issues, etc. Anything "official" should of course go on the wiki. As Core mentioned, I see it as a place to feel other staff out about things like how to handle a problematic edit, whether someone should be approached as a potential new patrollers or admins or if it's likely to raise false hopes, new policies that you want to hash out a bit before making an official posting, that sort of thing. What stops it from turning into a smaller #UESPWiki? The topics of discussion. I wouldn't see it as a place for random chatter, it would be for those things that patrollers and admins have to deal with that the general channel doesn't care about. ‒ Robin Hood↝Talk 20:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

You can find any applicable staff members (the ones on IRC) in #UESPwiki. And you can talk about second options and wiki-related in #UESPwiki also. You can also handle problematic edits in... well, you get the idea. I just don't see the difference between -staff and -wiki except the user levels, which, well, ...okay, got nothing for that. Still. Anything you can do in -staff you can do in -wiki. •Atreus• 03:58, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

And with "staff", you segregate patrollers and admins from normal users, when titles are nothing more than extra buttons. Elliot (talk) 04:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

You'll get no argument from me that anything you can do in #UESPStaff can be done in #UESPWiki. But then, you can do it in any other room too. Segregation is the goal here, after a fashion, in that it avoids cluttering the main channel with discussions that only staff care about, and in reverse, it avoids cluttering staff-type discussions with too much unrelated chat. Switching gears slightly, I'm not a big fan of the term "staff", but I'm at a loss as to what else to call it, so that's what I've been using. "Elected editors" sounds too much like "elected officials" and way too pretentious. If we keep the room at all, I'm open to other terms. ‒ Robin Hood↝Talk 04:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

(←) I believe you are missing the point. The initial purpose of #UESPWiki is to hold discussions pertaining to the wiki. This includes informal discussions about members, projects, and any possible planning. The channel is for discussion about the wiki (hence the name). People pushing for this complain about users coming in to ask questions about TES series. If you do not want people "annoying you", then do not allow TES conversations and direct them to #ElderScrolls. If you don't to stop such discussions, then don't complain. Making another channel is akin to making #UESPWiki2, where the same rules would apply to the new channel. It seems to be overly redundant, and it seems Corvette made the channel for the sake of making it. Elliot (talk) 04:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

They're not really pushing for it because of TES-related questions. They push for it basically to, as RH said, segregate the users and to not clutter the main channel. Still, though, I see no benefit from this. This is IRC, a chat protocol. If you don't want to be bothered by other users, go to the wiki. If you really want to have the discussion on IRC and it's that important, -wiki is fine. In -staff, you'll still have your important discussions interrupted, whether by, you know, other users, or part/join messages, or Peregrine randomly screaming obscene insults at you (that may just be me, though). •Atreus• 05:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it's fine if people want to start another channel where they can just speak with the people they want to. So if a few "staff" members want to discuss something, they can use another channel. Just remember that any consensus agreed on outside this wiki holds no value here. Because of that starting an official "staff" channel will not succeed in being a channel where all the staff is on equal footing; the people who don't use IRC will be left out (though why you don't want to use IRC is beyond me :P). --Timenn-<talk> 08:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately (at least from my POV), given the varying opinions, I think an unofficial channel or created-on-the-fly channel may be the way to go here. Does anybody object to leaving UESPStaff registered and just not making it official on the IRC page? I agree with Timenn's second point — like anything on IRC, it's not official on-wiki, even if by some chance you had every active patroller and admin in there all at once — if for no better reason than the fact that we aren't the only ones who get to give opinions on the wiki (even if it sometimes seems we're the most opinionated <g>). ‒ Robin Hood↝Talk 15:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

There have been many times where it's not... "politic" to discuss a subject in the main channel, but it works better to have several patrollers/admins discussing rather than several one-on-one PMs. In those situations, it's never been a problem for everyone involved to join a "created-on-the-fly" channel for the discussion (to steal RH's wording). In other words, I don't really mind if "UESPStaff" is left registered, but there's no real reason to keep it registered, and I don't think it should be an official channel.

As an aside, another reason anything in IRC is unofficial until it's discussed on the wiki is that editors should have the opportunity to express their opinions themselves, and should also have the opportunity to simply change their minds, since more thought usually goes into wiki discussions than IRC discussions. I'm sure there are others like me who use IRC to think out loud in a way, and have more time to polish statements when writing them on the wiki. --GK^talk2me 20:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Channel Permissions

I inadvertently changed the channel permissions on #uespwiki due to a badly-formed /mode command. I've tried to restore what I think are the correct permissions, but if anybody's more familiar with the correct permissions than I am, please verify that I've done everything correctly! Namely, the permissions I seem to have changed at the channel level were +ABci (the last of which I shouldn't even have permission to change, I don't think, but it went through anyway and Krusty had to change it back); I removed the other three, but have no way of knowing if they were there in the first place or not, and documentation on those permissions seems to be fuzzy. Currently, that leaves us with +fnt. ‒ Robin Hood↝talk 17:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I just checked, they were all correct. As a side note, I also de-voiced all the regular users, leaving just Peregrine (HaskillBot) voiced, as it says on this article. Personally, I think "voicing" everyone is a waste of time, but if we decide to adopt this practice it should be explained on this article. --GK^talk2me 22:46, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, GuildKnight! And yes, I agree, we should probably stop voicing users. It was amusing, but really serves no purpose, and it's better that we follow our own policy. ‒ Robin Hood↝talk 00:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Java Client

Ok, so, ChatSpike is refusing to allow mibbit connections (or at least, at the time I tried to connect). I got "irc.chatspike.net: Closing link: (unknown@78.129.202.38) [No more connections allowed from your host via this connect class (local)]" while trying to connect.

I tried the java client. I was quickly greeted by an error: "Startup error : java.lang.Error: Unable to load interface pixx : java.lang.SecurityException: trusted loader attempted to l" and the rest got cut off.

Uh, what? I don't have NoScript here, so it's not that. Any ideas? •Atreus• 18:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I tried it and it worked, although I got two security prompts rather than just the usual one (about the dodgy certificate). Your Java implementation might not be allowing you to override security problems. This didn't happen last time, so it's probably to do with the latest Java version I downloaded a while back. rpeh •T•C•E• 18:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I got two also. I might need to update Firefox... 3.6.3 :| Dunno if I can update java, though. School computer. (Thus why I'm using mibbit and a java client, they block IRC >:( I usually use LogMeIn but I don't have that installed on my laptop.) •Atreus• 18:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Atreus, I hate to suggest this knowing you will hate me...ChatZilla works wonders at my school for web-blocker killing. Plus ChatSpike has *horrid* proxy protection, so you may want to get on TOR or some other proxy then use Mibbit.--^Corevette₇₈₉ 20:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Chatzilla sucks badly. I'd rather use mibbit. And, tor is too much work for IRC. •Atreus• 20:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I also just tried it and got a different error from Atreus: "Unable to connect : java.net.UnknownHostException : irc.chatspike.net". I can only guess what that might mean, but I'm wondering if they've tightened security or something and are refusing connections from some sources. – Robin Hood↝talk 21:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I've got the same security error as Atreus and something about error in certificate which i permitted. I loaded with blocking unsecure elements, if it can make any difference. latest chrome, latest java. app refused to work Oxyk 00:33, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Channel Host

I'd like to say that I would vote to keep #uespwiki on ChatSpike as the official IRC channel, I don't see any real benefit to switching over - nor do I see any real need to. If we are so concerned about down time we should host it ourselves, and its not as if we're lag free. Any server can have down time. It seems that Xertion is a very new channel, so its reliability will be good. After a few years this may not be the case, their servers might fail, and where does that leave us? In the same place again? --kiz ^talk_email 16:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Having a backup channel for downtime is a good idea, even if it's only temporary during IRC downtime. Having it set up in the java client and ready to go in place of our normal server will make it a trivial process to switch over during communication blackouts. I'm very much in favor of having two, but only publishing one address at a time. Lukish_ Tlk Cnt 16:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

We can set one up real easy, I set one up in Mibbit during the downtime for example just as a place where we could talk. It was more the fact how many non-uesp ops and non-uesp operated bots we had in all the time, it was like being watched I s'pose. It just didn't feel as open and as free as ChatSpike does. --kiz ^talk_email 17:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe we should stay at Chatspike. #uesp didn't feel very uesp-ish. 199.19.105.156 17:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I see the benefit of staying with chatspike, simply because we have used it for years, however, looking at functionality, the Xertion channel can be of greater use. Thanks to members of the Xertion staff, this channel has a set of excellent bots enabling us to do things like enter something in it's wiki style (i.e. [[User:Eric Snowmane]] or [[Skyrim:Windhelm]]) and get a link to the page put on the chat, a feature that could make the coordinating of efforts to clean up our new SR namespace a lot easier. Not to mention, various other cool tricks, like if there was a youtube video detailing a bug (since those seem popular), just put !yt <name of video> and it gives you a result, usually fairly accurately. Not to mention some other neat tricks that it would take a while to list. So, if we want to stay on chatspike because that's where we have always been, that's fine, but my vote is we switch over to the Xertion channel. ES^{Question?•Email•Contribs} 19:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm largely ambivalent, but one thing I'll say for Xertion is that I've never received any IRC "wallops" (read: spam) from them, whereas I get them every once in a while on ChatSpike. Of course, I was only on Xertion for a few days, so that may just be luck. – Robin Hood↝talk 04:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Kiz, trying to predict what will be happening in a few years is largely pointless. And as I said in IRC (but you denied), it seems that you wish to have secrecy, by making it an all UESP chat. If that is the case, we need to remove the multiple idlers that sit around in chatspike. The Xertion chat is equally open. The only "bots" and non-uesp members in there were bots from the server (logging mainly, "Veetor"; I log the chat too, so that's no difference) and ChanServ (which essentially is "Azura", but much more flexible). The other bots, for the most part, aren't necessary and can be removed. Kaishiro and Sakura are the actual owners of Xertion, so to say that cannot be in the IRC would be ridiculous. Lastly, there is Firebolt. He is associated with the VTF with Wikia, but his main purpose is his bot, Trixie. As ES said, she is superior to Peregrine in every way and makes it possible to link to any page on the wiki without having to know !sr !ob !uesp commands. (He could also be de-opped if we feel it is necessary.) Kaishiro would like us to say, and I am sure he is more than willing to address any needs or problems we may have. I must say that I find this resistance to change quite odd. elliot (talk) 05:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it was a good thing to have another channel while chatspike was down (especially during the time it's future wasn't certain). But for me there are not enough incentives to change to this new channel, when the old is perfectly good. --Alfwyn 15:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Elliot, I can deny what I like, it did explain it. I do not wish for secrecy, I wish to feel comfortable. As I said in IRC, if I do not feel comfortable - I will not go into chat. I'm not alone before that point is brought, I can think of atleast 3 others who would not join the Xertion chat, in its current state. I won't name names, its not for my to say who is who really. Considering Firebolt has been scavenging things off of Peregrine to make trixie better, the comment on his superiority is pointless. If we copied another IRC we'd be back to square one. As Alfwyn sort of implies, now ChatSpike works we might as well stay. --kiz ^talk_email 18:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Moved from article:

The proposed new channel is set up at #UESP on irc.xertion.org', using Xertion. To quickly join the channel in your browser (without installing any software), you can use Xertion's web client.

Lukish_ Tlk Cnt 19:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Lukish, you probably should have waited until a consensus was reached on the host. Kiz, I am fairly sure Firebolt isn't trying to copy anything from Peregrine (it's completely different). However, I am cede this issue because it's fairly apparent that people want to stay. No love lost. elliot (talk) 23:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The idea of Trixie is somewhat different, however I do know that Firebolt was going to copy a couple of things off peregrine. Like our daft !blame function. --kiz ^talk_email 15:07, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

"Kaishiro and Sakura are the actual owners of Xertion, so to say that cannot be in the IRC would be ridiculous." No, it's not ridiculous. If we were asked to leave, we would leave the channel like civilized people. Me and Sakura`Kinomoto are friendly people, and just like meeting new users of Xertion. No more, no less. Far as server loss issues go, don't count on it. We plan on being around, and not having some downtime like Chatspike had the few days where you guys used ours as a back up channel for the time being. I do understand that moving to a new network is different, but it's not all bad. From the time you guys were using Xertion, I talked to a few of UESP users, and some had mentioned how they would have liked to stay on Xertion versus ChatSpike with it being easier to use. I'm not up-to-date on the whole Firebolt taking the !blame command, but it was probably along the lines of "Since you like Trixie, I can add that command to her as well, so it's an all in one." kind of deal. He wasn't going to just straight up steal it without asking permission first. Firebolt's not like that. In addition to Azura (ChanServ, with extra features), there's DenServ which links to chat statistics of the channel. Who talks the most, who is online the most, etc which can be viewed from a web page. There's also the !bash, !fml, and !isup commands provided by one of Xertion's eggdrops. I don't mind creating a new eggdrop that is #UESP specific either, with a name of your choice. (As long as the nickname is available). Each network will have problems, this is true. However, Xertion doesn't plan to just POOF! for days, having people wonder "what happened?" or "is it coming back?" This is why we have several servers for users to connect and stable DNS servers so using the domain name is never hard to land on a server that's online. Xertion also has several channel/server protections and responsive opers to take care of any serious problems like botnets and chaotic users. Xertion is a laid back network, we're small, but the network and staff are reliable. If you don't want log bots to be in the channel, such as "Veetor" which is Elchzard's, I'm sure he'll have no problem removing it form the channel either. He can't be online 24/7 so he likes to be able to read up on what hes missed. Don't get me wrong, I'm in no way saying Xertion is better than Chatspike, well not directly, because every IRC network does have key differences and it's more or less boils down to personal preference of what features you like to have. If anyone has any questions, please feel free to email me or you can come talk to me on IRC or request that I come to ChatSpike. I can lay things out for you if you need me to do so. -- Kaishiro 18:48, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Kiz: People said they liked Peregrine's style of commands, so I asked if they would like me to implement them into Trixie because Peregrine was not on Xertion. They said yes, so I went ahead and did it. I wasn't trying to take over Peregrine's position, nor rip your code; I was just trying to make things a bit more familiar for those who didn't know how Trixie's linking function worked. I'll happily remove the commands from Trixie, and I'm sorry for failing to make my intentions clear -- I should have asked you first. Firebolt 19:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Hope we sorted this out Firebolt in the PM --kiz ^talk_email 19:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Channel Host 2.0

Since chatspike went down again, I think it is important to go ahead and bring this discussion back up. We should seriously consider where we are sitting when it comes to which reliable server we use. I still think we should move to Xertion for the reasons stated above. elliot (talk) 06:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I could understand everyone wanting to stay at Chatspike after one crash, but this is the second time in weeks, so I am still supporting Elliot and recommending a switch to Xertion. Snowmane^T•E•C 06:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Whatever we do, we shouldn't just wipe out the channel details for chatspike, as long as there is no concensus for moving. --Alfwyn 19:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

You're right. I think your change, adding access to the other channel, is the appropriate one until a decision is made. The fact that ChatSpike has had unnanounced (that I'm aware of) outages twice in the last week is a bit concerning, though. – Robin Hood↝talk 22:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I did it to inform the community as to what we were currently using. "Wiping out" is irrelevant because this is a wiki, and all information is kept in the history. So that doesn't matter. But instead of commenting on my actions, can you comment on the discussion at hand? elliot (talk) 02:38, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I see no reason to change from ChatSpike. Sure, they’ve had their problems, but it is already back again and nobody was hurt. Just use the e-mail function if something is really important. --Krusty 10:23, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, wiping out is relevant. The page states under Channel Guidelines: "...ChatSpike, the IRC network we use." and goes on to explain how the guidelines can be changed (propose on talk page, implementing change once concensus is reached). Repeatedly just changing the page is a concern for me - changing Chatspike to Xertion is no grammar/typo fix by any means. This discussion was started only after the changes were made, and not by the people making those changes. A note about Xertion would have been sufficient to inform people.

As for the proposed channel, I see several problems. The guidelines say "Statements made by other contributors in IRC should not be quoted.", but this page just does that. There were several non-UESP OPs the last time I visited the channel. But most importantly, it just doesn't look (to me) like a channel in control by the UESP community. If we are really concerned about server stability, it would probably easier to reach concensus with a more "neutral" channel. --Alfwyn 14:12, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Alfwyn, we have one of those stat pages for ChatSpike. I think the quotes on there are alright, I think the ban on quotes used here is because one of your lines in IRC can look like the opposite of what it means. Besides this, I still think stay with ChatSpike. By all means, keep the other channel open. But, I still don't see the need to change over. --kiz ^talk_email 17:59, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

(←) Perhaps, as we've more or less already done unofficially anyway, we can keep ChatSpike and list Xertion as the designated alternate should any problems arise. The one trouble I see with that is that we then either have to maintain channel permissions on Xertion as well, or risk that they'll be badly out of date when we might need them. – Robin Hood↝talk 21:38, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I went ahead and made some tweaks, I think these reflect the mode of keeping it as a back up channel. I left a note at the top (but without a flashy banner) as well as one under the 'Other Channels' section. I also added a link to the Forum channel whilst I was at it. --kiz ^talk_email 13:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Issues with IRC?

Hey, I lost my half-op rights on the IRC somehow. Was there some discussion or something I missed, is it an issue with the IRC itself, or is it on my end? I just thought it may be worth mentioning. Not that my rights really matter, as I have never had a need for them. We have a quiet IRC. Just wanted to know the situation on that. Thanks, guys. ES^{Question?•Email•Contribs} 02:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

It's not just you, the entire process that normally promotes users seems to be down currently. Congratulations Atreus, Peregrine and Thuraya, for the moment, you guys have the highest rights of anyone! ;) – Robin Hood↝talk 03:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Prev: Archive 1

Up: UESPWiki talk:IRC

Next: None