UESPWiki talk:IRC

Related Discussions
Archived discussions about IRC
Page Archives
Archive 1: May 2006 - Apr 2007
Archive 2: July 2007 - Apr 2012

PG or PG-13?

This topic has been coming up a lot recently in the IRC, so I figured I would bring it here. Considering the fact that MW, OB, and SR are all at least rated Teen (13+), it makes sense that the rules would be built around that same age group. The illegality rules and whatnot would still apply. Since this is a policy change proposal, we can hold a vote on it:

• Support as proposer. elliot (talk) 17:15, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support: --kiz ^talk_email 17:16, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support: ES^{Question?•Email•Contribs} 17:17, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: Oh geez, no, that's okay--I've seen enough in there :P. eshe^talk 17:20, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support: ABCface^◥ 17:19, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support: --Krusty 18:02, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Consensus: Support. I've gone ahead and changed to PG-13, though I couldn't figure out how to summarize the difference between that and PG, so if anyone has good examples, feel free to modify the ones listed. Since I was there anyway, I also tweaked a few other things based on various recent conversations. I believe these are all uncontroversial, but if there are any concerns, please start a new topic. – Robin Hood↝talk 07:28, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Changing Policy with No Discussion

I would like to know where the changes made by RobinHood70 came from. I know a few admins have emailed each other about it, but this is not how policy is changed. It's also not how consensus is reached. So administrators, please hold the discussion here rather than email, so other users can participate. elliot (talk) 11:25, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

You're right, Elliot, it should have been opened up for discussion on this page first. There has been a small discussion among channel ops and admins basically focused on these two points in the IRC guidelines:

• Logs of chatroom discussions should not be posted or distributed.
• Statements made by other contributors in IRC should not be quoted.

It was proposed that we clarify those two points based on actual practice as well as recent concerns that have been raised about the tone of conversations in IRC.

First off, the "no sharing logs" rule always goes right out the window whenever there's a serious problem in IRC. I know of several times in the past when someone has felt attacked by another user in the channel or in private messages and has reached out to an administrator via email. I think users having the ability to contact an administrator when there's a serious issue is important, and I think it's equally important to let users know they have that right by making a wording change to that point in the guidelines.

I want to be clear here that having the right to share IRC logs with an administrator does not mean it's always necessary. If a problem has already been resolved in the channel in some way (the user causing the issue was talked down, kicked, or banned, or whatever), then there's no need to go to an admin with logs. In cases where it is necessary to send a log of IRC chat to an administrator, it's really important that the log be as complete as possible. Little snippets and quotes only show one side of the story, and it's hard to take action based on something like that.

So, if we're going to change the wording of the policy to reflect what's actually done (and in my opinion, should be permissible in emergencies), then the point immediately below it needs to be changed too. I suggested the two points be tweaked to say this (although the change RH made looked fine too):

• As a rule, logs of chatroom discussions should not be posted or distributed, but users may if absolutely necessary share logs with an administrator via email if there is a serious problem.
• Statements made by other contributors in IRC should not be quoted on UESPWiki.

I hope that clarifies things a bit. I for one hope the change is totally unnecessary, because IRC is supposed to be a fun tool that all editors can enjoy, but I think it's important that this particular guideline be fleshed out a bit just in case. eshe^talk 12:25, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I changed the text of the page based on the bold, revert, discuss concept. As Eshe points out, this has been the practice in the past, and I don't feel it reflects a change in policy in any meaningful way. If it did, I would have brought it up here first. Most users—and I've spoken with users of all rights levels publicly in IRC, this wasn't private by any means—assumed that sharing logs with channel ops was not only acceptable, but expected, in the case of a serious breach of IRC guidelines. In the end, it's the channel ops' and half-ops' duty to keep the channel running smoothly. That applies equally whether any of them are in the channel or not. Sending logs of conversations when guidelines have been significantly breached is therefore the appropriate (and only) way of ensuring that ops are aware of any issues that arise when they're not around. It's another thing entirely to send logs of private discussions, but those that take place in the channel are public, by definition. – Robin Hood↝talk 20:33, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Since Elliot wants a Wiki-side discussion on RobinHood70's changes, let me be the first to formally place my support behind the policy changes that are proposed. ES^{Question?•Email•Contribs} 21:21, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Elliot, I’m sure I explained this to you when I demoted you on the IRC channel. Stuff like this will never happen again. Also, please be aware that I notified all participants (and would like to encourage everyone else) to send me an e-mail if they feel harassed on the IRC. No more problem solving in there and that’s the reason for the policy change. --Krusty 01:32, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Krusty, I'm sure I explained to you that you cannot enforce a policy you create without input from the community (this counts the IRC community). Let me repeat that for you, you cannot enforce a policy that is created behind closed doors. As I have told you before, I am not opposed to the change at all; I actually think it's good for transparency. But there is a serious problem among the administrators if they seriously believe they can make changes to policy of their own accord. (See UESP:Consensus) elliot (talk) 03:30, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Which policy is it Krusty's trying to enforce, exactly? He got a report of incivility and personally witnessed inappropriate behaviour, both of which are already part of channel guidelines, and he took appropriate action. If you're concerned about logs being shared amongst channel operators in response to an incident, if you don't believe that's fair, then by extension, you're advocating that there be no rules whatsoever when there no channel operators are around. That's just not the way it works. It has always been practice to report misbehaviour to a channel operator privately if there was reason to do so. I think it's a safe assumption that when those two guidelines were written, they weren't intended to muzzle people from privately reporting incidents, they were intended to prevent widespread distribution of informal conversations not meant to be taken seriously, conversations gone awry, or where someone said something embarrassing in front of a few people and wouldn't want it spread to the world at large. My edits were an attempt to clarify existing policies and practices, not change them.

Now, are there any objections to those clarifications, or any wording changes that should be made? They were written off the cuff based on different conversations, so if I've missed anything or worded anything poorly, let's fix it now before we put them back in place. – Robin Hood↝talk 05:14, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

(←) Since no one has raised any objections to the content of the changes RH made, I'm going to go ahead and re-implement them on the article. If anyone has any further concerns about this clarification in policy, please feel free to raise them as necessary. Thanks! eshe^talk 15:13, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Switching to Xertion, Take 2

In light of the numerous difficulties ChatSpike has had recently with either going down completely or losing channel and nick services, I'd like to re-open the discussion of switching to Xertion as our primary IRC host. We've been with ChatSpike for many years, and understandably, many people (myself included) felt no strong need to switch during the various service interruptions ChatSpike had a few months ago. Since then, however, the service has been much less reliable than it's been for the past several years, and I'm beginning to think a change might be in order.

The drawbacks are that it would take some time to transition everybody's rights, plus there would be a certain amount of re-learning required, since not everything at Xertion will work precisely the same way it did at ChatSpike. For the most part, however, I think the learning curve is extremely small, with Krusty probably being the user who would be most affected.

The benefits are that it would be more stable (at least from several users' reports) and that we'd be using the same host as the forums are currently using (#uespforums), making it marginally easier on users who use both the wiki and the forums.

Does anybody else have any thoughts on this? – Robin Hood↝talk 02:58, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I have been in support of this change since day one. How many times does the channel need to fail before it's determined that it's broken. An obvious support from me. Eric Snowmane (Talk | Contribs | Block) 03:09, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I too support this transition. I didn't mind it too much when ChanServ went down every now and then, but ChanServ is down more often than not, and now the entire network has been completely down for over 6 hours now. We really shouldn't be sticking with ChatSpike when we have a perfectly good alternative. Plus, we already have our forum channel set up on Xertion, so it makes sense to integrate everything into a single channel.

At some point in the future, we also need to look into setting up our own IRC server. Having our own server would also be very convenient to link to, and if we wanted we could set up UESPWiki:IRC to have a IRC client built in. • JA^Talk 03:57, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

ChatSpike is back online. Just a heads-up, although I still think we should push the vote for switching to Xertion. Much more reliable network. Eric Snowmane (Talk | Contribs | Block) 04:37, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Really? I still can't access it. • JA^Talk 04:40, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that in regards to #uespforums, that channel has an average of 5 people, including Kiz and I, who just hang around to answer questions and direct lost people to the wiki channel, Xertion (which is a bot), and Elchzard, who seems to work for Xertion, although it's unclear. For those of you who have never visited the channel, it's not exactly a hub of activity, so that's not much of a motive to move to Xertion. The forums moved their channel from Mibbits to Xertion a while back, and activity in the channel dropped considerably. I wouldn't want to see that happen to our channel, too. Kitkat ^{•Talk•Contrib•E-mail} 10:32, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

To be fair, Kitkat, 80% of the occupants of #uespwiki's memebers are idlers who I have never seen speak in the channel in the 4 1/2 months that I've been using the IRC. The people who actually gather in it to talk would know where to find the new channel, and the people looking for the IRC page to come for help would see the link for the channel and go there. Eric Snowmane (Talk | Contribs | Block) 14:27, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello! Just here to address a few points that have come up. Kitkat: Yes, I am Xertion staff. :) In light of that, I, and the rest of the admins and opers, can make the change to our network incredibly simple for you. There's already a nicely implemented webchat currently set up, which can be embedded into UESPWiki:IRC or similar, pretty easily. On the point of "setting up your own IRC server," I think this would be counterproductive. It would mean quite a lot of technical hassle that has already been handled, and is being handled, by Xertion's staff and I.

On the point of stability: Xertion has 5 servers, based in various places around the world. It's highly unlikely that it'll ever be wholly down, unless it's due to a large upgrade. In the same vein, all of Xertion's IRC staff based in various different countries - Meaning that there will pretty much always be one of us on hand to help you out with any issues, (Something I doubt you'd have at ChatSpike).

In some areas, I'd say our services surpass ChatSpike - We offer vHosts more readily, for one, meaning you can even further mask your IP address than the default, with a humorous collection of words, or something which represents you. There's even the opportunity to CNAME "irc.uesp.net" to our network, meaning that anyone trying to connect to that address would instead be connected to Xertion.

Obviously, it's not up to me - But I think your choice here is pretty obvious. Unstable network and services with rarely-available staff help, or everything always up, with round the clock help available, should you need it. :P

I hope you choose well. Elchzard 17:07, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Kitkat, using the forums as an example - there is *no* activity there anymore, none at all after the switch. Where as there atleast used to be a core of 6 people on the old forum chat meaning it was always active when people wandered in. No one ever used to talk in Xertion, and like Kitkat says - there are those of us who just won't use Xertion. I don't see whats gained, ChatSpike works almost all them (considering when I joined Xertion today there was a message (I presume everyone got it) saying that their servers are having problemsits hardly a good sign is it?). I think we have a good IRC community currently of friendly helpful users, that point users in the right directions and try to help out - whats the point in splitting it up by making a channel move which i'm sure i'm not the only one who doesn't want it. --kiz ^talk_email 18:07, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

In regards to having some server issues, the issues we refer to are server splits. No clients get disconnected, just servers tend to delink from one another from time to time. This doesn't mean that we're dying, or there's issues with connecting. Regardless of any issues the server delinks--Xertion is never, and will never, be down. We have more than just one server. We have servers in France, Germany, and California, Denver, and Chicago. We have multiple hub servers as well, located in Europe, and the other in the United States. The message you see is our operators keeping users informed of why things are happening, or any changes we're possibly making, instead of just dropping off having everyone wonder what's going on and when we will return. Our website is hosted off-site of our client servers, as well as our services. We always have backups made weekly, and sometimes daily depending on what's going on. When myself and Sakura`Kinomoto started Xertion, we strive on being helpful and supportive of Xertion's users. You can't take the one time you log on and just one occurance as a bad sign. Server downtime can, in fact, happen to anyone at any time. As I stated earlier though, we have multiple servers linked together, not just one, to ensure that Xertion's clients are always able to connect. -- Kaishiro 05:13, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Is the IRC working?

Is anyone else able to connect to the chatroom or is it down? Or, is my end causing the problem? Thanks. Snowmane^{(talk•email)} 17:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

It's your end, there's a few chatty people in there right now and more are connected. Vely^►t►e 17:33, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Your end, the regulars are there! --kiz ^talk_email 17:34, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks... I hate my internet :( Snowmane^{(talk•email)} 17:35, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Spoke too soon, my connection snapped and the java client's not working, and my internet rarely has problems. Not just you, I suppose. Vely^►t►e 17:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The Java client is working fine for me. —Legoless 17:56, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Using IRC on job network.

I'm chomping at the bit to jump into the IRC but am hesitant because it asks me to run the program and such things usually don't go unnoticed by our IT department. Any suggestions or advice beyond not doing it? --FubarFrank (talk)

Download an IRC client, such as IceChat or mIRC, and access the chatroom through there. Vely^►t►e 16:11, 15 September 2012 (GMT)

Trying to use it through the browser without having to download. --FubarFrank (talk) 16:21, 15 September 2012 (GMT)

You would need to allow Javascript to run (always or "just once") and allow "potentially unsafe components" to run; if you don't, you can't access it. It's not unsafe and Javascript is commonly used on sites. If you don't allow Javascript to run, you won't be able to interact with the chat at all. Vely^►t►e 16:34, 15 September 2012 (GMT)

Ok, I'll give it a try shortly, thanks for sorting it out for me.--FubarFrank (talk) 17:14, 15 September 2012 (GMT)

(edit conflict) Slight correction: you need to allow Java to run, which is quite different to Javascript. If the IT boys are watching what you run, I don't think we have any way for you to inconspicuously access the IRC channel from work. —Legoless (talk) 17:18, 15 September 2012 (GMT)

(←) Just saw this last post Legoless, I have tried and haven't been able to get on at work, though the Forums Chatroom is good. IDK.--FubarFrank (talk) 01:44, 29 September 2012 (GMT)

I don't know about finding one, but you could potentially put an IRC client (the program itself) on a flash drive and run it directly from it. I've done that with similar applications in the past. • JA^T 02:01, 29 September 2012 (GMT)

I could try but I'm afraid I'm not that tech savvy (And yes, I'm sure someone is shaking their head at that comment). I'm going to find a way darn it, I spend too much time on the Wiki in the day light hours to not be able to chat away on the IRC.--FubarFrank (talk) 02:53, 29 September 2012 (GMT)

Chatspike.net is down!

It appears that the entire chatspike.net site/servers are down atm. The Alternate IRC listed at the top of the page IS working. Lord Eydvar ^{Talk|Contribs} 04:31, 27 October 2012 (GMT)

It's probably something on your end. Seems to be working fine for others. — ABCface^◥ 04:41, 27 October 2012 (GMT)

Really? Weird cause I can't get on at all... damn... Lord Eydvar ^{Talk|Contribs} 04:42, 27 October 2012 (GMT)

Also a couple people on the Forum IRC can't get on Chatspike either... seems like it might be the US server. Lord Eydvar ^{Talk|Contribs} 04:45, 27 October 2012 (GMT)

(edit conflict) Instead of connecting to irc.chatspike.net, try connecting to 208.68.94.113 (it's their IP address). I ran into this same problem about a month ago. • JA^T 04:47, 27 October 2012 (GMT)

(←) Yeah IP address works to get onto #uespwiki at Chatspike. Lord Eydvar ^{Talk|Contribs} 05:01, 27 October 2012 (GMT)

(edit conflict) I want to throw my voice in that Chatspike is giving me trouble, and may I raise the discussion on using Xertion again, which is never down? Eric Snowmane^{(talk•email)} 05:03, 27 October 2012 (GMT)

Digital signature

'But the digital signature for our java client is expired as of today(November 3,2012).Also the program gets unrestricted access to your computer and can access your webcam,microphone,etc.

This was just added to the page, I don't know how accurate such claims are, so can someone find this out and post their findings. Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 11:13, 3 November 2012 (GMT)

Well, the signature expired in 2006. And yes, a signed java applications gets more rights, but that doesn't mean it accesses all that stuff. --Alfwyn (talk) 12:55, 3 November 2012 (GMT)

Language guideline

I'm proposing a new guideline: "Non-English conversations are not permitted as they are considered disruptive. A couple lines in a foreign language are fine, but any more than that should be taken elsewhere, whether or not the conversations are related to Elder Scrolls."

It could be reworded, too.

Anyway, while some of us speak some foreign languages and it's fun, there are complaints past the first few lines, as most other chatters can't understand it and, for them, it clutters up the chatroom with nonsense. Since it's been coming up frequently, I thought a guideline might be necessary. Vely^►t►e 22:57, 28 April 2013 (GMT)

I support this. I mean, I find it perfectly acceptable (like Vely said) if a few phrases or words in fact were spoken in another language. That I do not mind. But having being in the channel where there has been a constant discussion in another language can be very disruptive and disconcerting at most. -helenaanne  ^{talk ♥} 23:00, 28 April 2013 (GMT)

Agreed, it's annoying. If anyone has any objections, let's hear them as soon as possible. Otherwise, the guideline will be added on tuesday. --Krusty (talk) 23:16, 28 April 2013 (GMT)

I don't visit the channel much, but I always hate this when I see it. Count me as supporting this change. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 23:18, 28 April 2013 (GMT)

More support here, if it's really needed at this point. Chances are, it's only two or three users speaking anyway, and they can take it to a private channel if it's going to be more than just a couple of lines. – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 23:34, 28 April 2013 (GMT)

Sure, but I wouldn't be opposed to an exception for computer languages. Sometimes a fella's just gotta rant in binary, you know? Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 02:07, 29 April 2013 (GMT)

Making the chat tab more visible

There's been a few complaints lately about the chat tab at the top of each page not being visible enough. I don't want to make it visually distracting, but I do have a proposal: replace "chat" with a chat bubble or place a chat bubble next to it. This could be the chat bubble that shows up next to links like this or another one. Simple, makes it a little more noticeable as different, but remains easy to ignore. Thoughts? Vely^►t►e 23:35, 2 May 2013 (GMT)

I would admit that I do in fact notice it already, but that's because I'm a frequent editor myself on the wiki and I tend to notice the tabs at the top of every page (due to frequent editing, etc). However, taking into account some of the issues about it perhaps not being as noticeable for other users who may or may not edit on the wiki itself, but are users of the wiki, adding a speech/chat bubble within the tab itself, will signify and clarify better that it's a link towards the webchat, without making it too blatantly obvious and deterring too much attention to itself. -helenaanne  ^{talk ♥} 23:50, 2 May 2013 (GMT)

Another user to the chat room who has been "using the wiki since Morrowind came out on X-Box" just found the chat for the first time. I think it needs to be more visible to draw in more users to the chat. -Talmon 20:55, 19 May 2013 (GMT)

Chatroom topic change

Right, so the topic's been nearly the same thing for ages, and I'm putting this conversation on the wiki instead of the chatroom to avoid people from missing the conversation, in case of disagreement.

"Welcome to #uespwiki, the channel for www.uesp.net. Feel free to ask your questions here. | Please be patient as it may take a few moments for us to respond. | IRC help: http://bit.ly/ap1H6Y | Channel stats: http://www.krweb.net/uesp | [Something fun here.]"

Now, the first sentence is fine; for some people, it hotlinks the website, etc. The second sentence isn't really necessary--we're here to answer questions and discuss things, and if people want to ask "can I ask questions here?", they will ask that question whether or not the topic says they can. It's pretty much implied that questions can be asked. Now, I know it's a polite thing to have there, but it also makes the topic unnecessarily long.

The IRC help link is unnecessary now due to the link being right above the chat window on the new webchat page. Nobody looking at the topic knows what the channel stats mean, so it's sort of useless there. We get a lot of conversations like this:

[16:21] <bob> haha look at that quote on the stats

[16:21] <mary> stats? what?

[16:22] <bob> http://www.krweb.net/uesp

[16:22] <mary> haha ty

Plus, it's now on the IRC page itself, for those who keep losing the link.

Mainly we want the "please be patient" part to be more visible, because a lot of people hop in impatiently. So having something like "Welcome to #uespwiki, the chat for www.uesp.net. | Please be patient as it may take a few moments for us to respond. | [Something fun here.]" removes the clutter, makes the patient bit more visible, and allows for a fun topic to be more than just a few words. So I'd like to shorten the long-standing topic to this from now on. Vely^►t►e 20:34, 3 May 2013 (GMT)

I've thought for a long time that our IRC topic is too long. It used to be that we changed it frequently, but I think either people just became unimaginative or we settled on one that worked well enough, and nobody felt strongly enough to ever change it. I'd support all of your changes. The one thing I'd like to point out is that not all of us use the webchat page, so the IRC help wouldn't be available to us. That said, I think anybody who already has a client of their own probably knows general IRC commands and such, and if UESP-specific issues arise, we can point them back to the Wiki page, much as you outline above with the stats page. (Besides which, it just occurs to me, probably 99% of them will have gotten the server info from that page in the first place.) – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 21:35, 3 May 2013 (GMT)

Slap function

Can we remove the slap function from the webchat? It only ends up annoying people, and half the people who use it are just wondering what it does. I don't know how one would do that, though, or who has permissions. Vely^►t►e 04:42, 31 May 2013 (GMT)

I don't know if it's possible, but I'm definitely in support of removing it from the webchat client. — ABCface^◥ 04:44, 31 May 2013 (GMT)

Yeah, this was supposed to be taken off a looong time ago, but I think Jak just got busy. Does anyone else know how to modify webchat, or shall we poke Jak to death? ⇠eshe^talk 14:01, 31 May 2013 (GMT)

I emailed Jak about this yesterday. It was supposed to have been removed/blocked from use, but it evidently didn't work. He is going to look into it. Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 17:26, 31 May 2013 (GMT)

(←) Just wanting an update, because today I have kicked two people for repetitive use of the slap function, even after the fact I politely warned them and asked them to not do so again. It provides a notifiable nuisance due to the fact that people use it randomly to ping random users, and also to target users (such as myself), a multitude of times when I have warned them of the fact. Jak hasn't been relatively active recently, so I'm not sure when he'd even be able to get around to trying to remove the function from webchat. -helenaanne  ^{talk ♥} 03:13, 16 July 2013 (GMT)

Just noting this here that the slap function has finally been removed. • JA^T 04:32, 2 February 2014 (GMT)

Can't Connect to IRC

So I've run into a problem I've never come across before: I've tried a few times in a row and keep getting this following message-- "[16:52] qwebirc v0.92 [16:52] Copyright (C) 2008-2012 Chris Porter and the qwebirc project. [16:52] http://www.qwebirc.org [16:52] Licensed under the GNU General Public License, Version 2. [16:52] == *** (qwebirc) Looking up your hostname... [16:52] == *** (qwebirc) Found your hostname. [16:52] == Connected to server. [16:52] == ERROR: Closing link: (unknown@174.142.196.117) [No more connections allowed from your host via this connect class (global)] [16:52] == Disconnected from server: Connection to IRC server lost." Any ideas? What should I do? The only connection that I have active to the IRC right now is the computer I'm typing this from. *WoahBro^►talk 20:56, 29 June 2013 (GMT)

Are you trying to get on via Webchat or your own client? I've had something similar happen with IceChat before and restarting fixed it. There's also been some oddness with the chat this morning, but this doesn't seem to be related. — ABCface^◥ 21:06, 29 June 2013 (GMT)

I'm trying via WebChat. I made it on fine this morning, but I can't get on now. Weird stuff. *WoahBro^►talk 21:09, 29 June 2013 (GMT)

ChatSpike connection issues

I seem to be having quite major connection issues to ChatSpike this past week or so, from not being able to get in to being dropped by the host at random, sometimes every few minutes, sometimes it might take several hours.
I don't quite know what causes it, but I sometimes get the following error message: "Remote host closed socket." I also presume it's either very specific connection problems on my end because nobody else seems to get it, and I can stay logged on to Mibbit and Xertion at the same time and they don't drop out (and the wiki loads correctly which differs from my usual connection problems).
Also, channel lag seems to sit a +0.5 seconds constantly, as opposed to where it used to sit at +0.1 seconds. -- Kiz ^{(email - talk)} 16:36, 12 January 2014 (GMT)

No messages?

Let me preface this by saying that I've never used IRC before (or chat, instant messaging, anything). I've figured out how to get in and got the right channel (well, it's showing some usernames I recognize from here anyway) but though I've waited several minutes the only message that has popped up past the "topic for uespwiki is..." message is that a user left the chat. That's it. Is it too early in the morning to be trying? Is my computer weird? (I'm using an old desktop with XP on it now, though I think I remember this same problem a while back on my new laptop.) I've tried the ChatZilla client and the web client -- Java issues. --likelolwhat ^{talk lulzy to me} 12:15, 24 January 2014 (GMT)

Yeah, depending on the time of day the IRC might be silent for hours at a time, it sounds as if you're in though, try sending a message, I'm not on at the moment to respond but someone might. I'll be on in ~1 hour if you're still trying. --Kiz^{(email - talk)} 15:14, 24 January 2014 (GMT)

Thanks! Finally saw a message just before I went to bed. Time zones, haha. --likelolwhat ^{talk lulzy to me} 18:27, 24 January 2014 (GMT)

Webchat alternative

I commented out Nephele's java client, it doesn't work anymore. After giving a security warning about a missing permission attribute in the manifest, it just displays an error. Does somebody know of a lightweight alternative (that is, not just doing another media wiki extension)? --Alfwyn (talk) 20:56, 5 March 2014 (GMT)

Chatspike Dead

Chatspike's currently experiencing some technical difficulties. If you wish to join the UESPWiki channel, you must directly attach to Chatspike's server via their IP addresses (208.68.94.113 and 208.68.94.158). So, for example, you would type in /attach 208.68.94.113 or 208.68.94.158 (note syntax may be different, IPs would be the same though) to get onto it. After that, you can log on normally. I don't know what's going on, I'm not in contact with Chatspike, but doing this does work for now. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 03:28, 6 August 2014 (GMT)

The /join command is to join a channel after having connected to a server. As the command syntax may vary between IRC clients, I recommend consulting the documentation for your respective IRC client. Ben (talk) 03:44, 6 August 2014 (GMT)