Wikipedia talk:IRC channels

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shortcut:
WT:IRC

/Archive 1

Contents

[edit] Confirmation

How can I gain confirmation for #vandalism-en-wp, since the article doesn't specify?  ~Steptrip 13:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

See User:Pilotguy/Verifications. John Reaves (talk) 16:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] hostmarks & CGI:IRC @ Web-based Java version

The Web-based Java version section mentions that the java client "retains the user's original hostmark, unlike CGI:IRC sites". CGI:IRC (at least in the current version running at ircatwork.com) does show the hostmark in the ircname field. IMO if it's going to mention that it's not available with CGI:IRC it needs to include that information as well. Also, FYI, CGI:IRC can show the same hostmark as the user would have connecting directly with a minor configuration change if IRC admins permit it and the configuration is coordinated. An example of a CGI:IRC instance where that happens is http://landfill.bugzilla.org/irc/ which connects to irc://irc.mozilla.org:6697. LinuxMigration 20:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The term is Hostmask. --ST47Talk 21:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
As I understood it, hostmark is the value for a specific user and hostmask is a filter used to match against hostmarks. For example what's sent with every message you receive from another user (but not necessarily displayed by your client), in /who{,was,is}, in join/part/quit msgs and displayed by nickserv as the last seen address in a response to the info command would be a hostmark. OTOH, a hostmask would be a value that chanserv/nickserv use in access lists and set in chanmodes like bans/exemptions/etc. I have now skimmed/searched the following RFCs: RFC 1459, RFC 2810, RFC 2811, RFC 2812, RFC 2813 and see no mention of hostmark. I would prefer that the there be some differentiation in the the terminology for the 2 uses I defined but I suppose that's outside the domain of Wikipedia. LinuxMigration 04:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Changes

I've made some minorish changes to the channel information. Please feel free to change and revert if you don't like it. GDonato (talk) 14:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I took out the change to the #wikipedia channel because of the uproar last night. There should be a discussion on whether it should stay in place or not. Kwsn(Ni!) 20:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed chan description

GDonato made this change yesterday to the channel describer (for lack of better terms). Now, last night, there was a massive uproar whether or not it should be followed. I currently removed it, but I feel a discussion is in order and the change holds some merit. Please put down support, oppose, or neutral and your reasoning (I can't stress that enough, I don't want this to be a poll) below this so a better consensus can be reached. Thank you. Kwsn(Ni!) 20:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

And what "massive uproar" is that? I see no edit-warring or discussion here. Also see no great issue with the edit. Thanks/wangi 20:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Last night IN the channel. Not on the project itself, sorry for being unclear. Kwsn(Ni!) 20:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
"Please observe http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_guidelines/wikipedia at all times :-)"(IRC header) which asks users to stay on-topic, GDonato (talk) 20:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I see, but the thing is, how can that be enforced? I've been on IRC for ages (not on the WP chans mind you), and one thing is clear in my mind: channels rarely stay on topic. I mean, it's not like when a new person comes in, it stays off topic, but it does go back on topic. One can only discuss a topic for a certain length. Kwsn(Ni!) 20:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
(to Kwsn) In which case... Who cares? If folk have an issue with a WP page then they can discuss it on-Wiki. Yeah? Just a bit of perspective. If people did have a real issue then I'd have expected more of an issue here. Thanks/wangi 20:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
(double ec)Drop the bit about #wikipedia-en having fewer users, since that isn't an intrinsic part of -en. The rest is fine, though, since it's basically just documenting what the new guidelines mean. It's not overly strict (as initial enforcement of the guideline was), but should be in line with how the guidelines will be enforced in the future. --Rory096 20:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ref desk channel

As far as i know, this is the only channel which in some way purports to present factual information or 'encyclopedic' content. This is a spectacularly bad idea. It's hard enough for the desks themselves to maintain even a semblance of compliance with the neutral point of view and verifiability policies, why should we be directing readers and editors to a chat room where it will be next to impossible? The external links guideline for articles warns us away from social networking sites, and "any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research." I think experience shows this channel would be exactly that: a place where soapboxing, trolling, and innacurate and unverifiable answers are the norm. Why should we be promoting this channel here? Why should we be draining readers and editors away from the project and directing them towards an IRC channel where we have absolutely no control over the content and no assurances that it will meet any minimal standard of content quality or user behavior?—eric 20:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The channel exists and is related to Wikipedia therefore it is entitled to exist on this page. Wiki =/= IRC =/= Social networking so there is no real concern. Are there guarantees that any of the other channels have those standards? GDonato (talk) 20:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
So far the consensus seems to be that IRC is vastly inferior to the wiki as a medium for reference desk functionality. I see no reason to fragment things on purpose by encouraging folks to use some chat room rather than the wiki. Friday (talk) 14:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
(The discussion I refer to is at Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/header/howtoask). Friday (talk) 14:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
In any case, it doesn't seem to be a supplement. I changed "is an IRC supplement to the Reference desk." to " is an IRC attempt at providing services similar to the Reference desk's." ---Sluzzelin talk 01:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Why would we use Wikipedia's dime to advertise competing services? Friday (talk) 14:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not in favor of referencing and, particularly, advertising any IRC-channels either, for many reasons, the most important being its lack of accountability and transparency, and the fact that large parts of the community, myself included, have little faith in its usefulness for building an encyclopedia. Another part of the community, however, seems to disagree, and until this is resolved (if ever) I'd prefer seeing a text that describes what a particular channel actually is, not what its designers wish it to be. The desk channel currently is not a supplement to the reference desk, so the text shouldn't reflect this wishful thinking. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I removed this per the discussion here, but the link was put back without comment. So far I still see no indication of why this channel would be beneficial. Friday (talk) 16:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

And so far, I've not seen a convincing argument why it would be harmful, As this is still in disscusion it would be wrong to remove the link prematurely. ShakespeareFan00 16:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
The channel ought to justify its usefulness before getting listed here. The objections again, briefly are: we already have a Wikipedia reference desk. It's instruction creep to also suggest people use some chat room. Also, IRC as a medium is much less suited to providing reference desk functionality. Please, try to keep up on the discussion before edit warring. Friday (talk) 16:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
We already have a help desk too. You ought to remove the link to that. We also have a Wikipedia. You should remove the link to that channel, as well as all the wikiproject channels, the vandalism channels, the admin channel. In fact, every channel ought to go by your way of thinking. And, it's not instruction creep - just a simple alternative. Believe it or not, some may prefer to ask in a more conversational environment. And you ought to stop with the edit warring yourself before telling others to. Majorly (talk) 17:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Not sure why you think I was edit warring. I made one edit, to address concerns raised on the talk page. And of course there's the Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/header/howtoask page too, where adding a link to this chat room was already shot down for the same reasons. I'm not out to remove mentions of chat channels that are already ingrained. But, when someone suggests a new one as an inferior alternative to an established reference desk, I think it's reasonable to think twice before saying "Oh, alright, more chat rooms are always good." I don't see a reasonable justification for fragmenting the reference desk. As pointed out elsewhere, we have much less ability to ensure quality control in some chat room than we do on the wiki. Wikipedia has grown, and we've recognized that getting it right is generally preferable to getting it fast. Friday (talk) 18:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, you joined an ongoing war in an agenda to remove the link at all costs. No comment to the rest of what you said though, this is getting tiresome and I'd rather do something else... :) Majorly (talk) 18:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Instead of discussing the substance of the issue, you just make assumptions about my "agenda"? That's really lame. If nobody's willing to give reasons in support of us linking to the reference desk chat room, I think it should probably be removed from the list. Friday (talk) 22:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Please read what I wrote: an agenda. Not yours. Plenty of reasons were given; you've either chosen to ignore them, or dismiss them as not good enough. Is it really worth discussing this, because will anti-IRC users ever change their minds? I don't think so. Majorly (talk) 10:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
This page is for discussing Wikipedia:IRC channels. Several editors are concerned that it does more harm than good trying to steer would-be reference desk users to a chat room. So, sure, why wouldn't it be worth discussing? But I have to say, if all you plan on doing is lumping anyone who disagrees with you together as "anti-IRC users" and disregarding them, that's hardly an attitude that's helpful to productive discussion. Friday (talk) 15:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "It exists"

We see above that "the channel exists" is being used as a reason to link to it from here. Is this really the threshold for inclusion we want to have? Maybe I'm way off in left field here, but before adding a new one to the list of channels we're advertising, I'd like to see some plausible explanation of why the channel benefits the project. And, if the benefit is unclear, I'd rather see us encouraging the use of the wiki to do whatever it is we thought the channel would do. Friday (talk) 14:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Yep, that does seem to be the only criterion. How does #wikipedia-social benefit creating an encyclopedia, that is not a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. Also, please quote fully, "exists and is related to Wikipedia" (i.e. #ubuntu exists but we're not going to list it here) GDonato (talk) 15:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I'd suggest being more selective, then. Content in project-space pages should benefit the project in some way, otherwise what's it doing there? Pointing people to some chat room just for the sake of doing it is instruction creep of the worst kind. Friday (talk) 15:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
The problem, as i see it, is that this channel claims to have some kind of factual content and you are trying to direct readers to the channel, not just editors. Doesn't that place this channel in a different class from the others? If it is "related to Wikipedia" then shouldn't we be concerned as to whether answers are presented from a neutral point of view and meet our standards of verifiability?—eric 16:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure someone has pointed this out before, they must have.. but questioning the IRC channel about NPOV or some other standard can be applied to the reference desk itself. In no way is an on-wiki talk page any better in regards to those things. -- Ned Scott 07:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I think we'll tend toward NPOV more effectively on the wiki because it's just more visible than some chat room - we'll get more eyeballs on it. I can look through stuff people wrote yesterday, on the wiki. In IRC, unless I had a client connected to the room at the time, or find a way to (zOMG!) review the logs, I can't see what people already said. Yes, we still have to do work to ensure neutrality on the wiki.. and we'd have to do work to ensure it in some chat room, too. We've already got a ton of people keeping an eye on the wiki; I see little value in making more work for ourselves by adding some other venue to keep in order. Friday (talk) 15:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Concerning IRC

I do not know how to use IRC and I was wondering if it's possible to have multiple accounts for IRC on a single machine. Someone who uses this computer uses IRC for gaming and I want a distinct name so that I can use it for Wikipedia, is that possible or impossible? Thanks. Wikidudeman (talk) 19:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The short answer is yes. You can each use a different client and thus connect to different servers with different user names, or you can do this within the same client at the same time (most if not all modern clients allow this), or use the same client separately (all depends on your setup). IRC is generally a rather fluid medium though, and there are typically not registered "accounts" for regular users in the sense of a Wikipedia user account. Many networks, including freenode, provide "nick services" which will allow you to register a nickname and set a password for it, although this is usually not permanent (the registration will expire if you don't use the registered nick for 60 days, or something like that). When you connect to freenode, just type /nickserv help. See Wikipedia:IRC tutorial for more information. Preventing another person that uses your machine from using your nick is up to you (by not leaving the computer unattended when you are logged in to irc, etc.) heqs ·:. 10:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History merge

This page was originally at Wikipedia Chat, which was deleted as a cross-namespace redirect. I have merged the first four edits of that history to Wikipedia:IRC channels to preserve authorship information. The rest of the history formerly at Wikipedia Chat is now at Wikipedia:IRC channels/History leftovers - I saw no reason to keep the rest of the page history deleted. Graham87 12:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] another alternative: Gabbly

Would it be appropriate to include a link to Gabbly under the "Alternatives" section? Gabbly is an online chat service that provides embedded chat rooms for any website. For example, http://gabbly.com/en.wikipedia.org creates an embedded chat room on the English Wikipedia. Since Gabbly doesn't require any installation, more users (especially those who don't like installing too much software on their computer) might find it useful. --Ixfd64 23:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] preferred choice

Hey, I've been hearing about IRC channels on Wikipedia for a while, and wanted to set myself up for it. What should I do? Which client is best (note: I won't really be on it outside of the Wikipedia channel). J-ſtanTalkContribs 03:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I found WP:IRCT, so I'm all set for now. I'll post there if I need assistance. J-ſtanTalkContribs 03:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Help!

I can't access Freenode. It says my security program blocked but I can't find it blocked on anything! Help me. Ric36 20:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Immature sysops.in the IRC.

The SysOps in the Wikipedia IRC channels are frankly immature and I do not think Wikipedia should encourage people to use these IRC channels if people are going to run them this way.

Two incidents:

The first time in #Wikipedia I was silenced for "personal attacks," though I was attacked myself and after I was silenced, I was insulted myself, including being called "stupid."

Just now, in Wikipedia-en, I made the remark that I think Japanese language and culture is stupid, except for the religion. The admin clearly didn't read my remarks because he blocked me for "racial and religious bigotry." Japanese language and culture is not a race and I am a Zen Buddhist. After I went to contest it, I was at first told that the block would last for 7 days by sysop, Gambit, in #Wikipedia. SysOp NotASpy (whom I believe is User:Nick) said it was only 6 hours. Gambit then told Nick that he did it incorrectly.

So, on Gambit's suggestion, I went to #wikimedia-ops to complain. After doing so, NotASpy said "!info 3269" amd dircbot popped out the info about how I was banned for "racial and religious bigotry." I laughed, type ROFL, and said, "I said I hate their culture and language, EXCEPT FOR THEIR RELIGION. I am a Zen Buddhist, you nitwit. Read before you block people, please," admittedly a personal attack. It was a knee-jerk reaction which, seconds later, I apologized for, "Nevermind, I'm sorry for calling you names..." NotASpy retaliated by banning me for 7 days.

Please: The sysops need to stop threatening and intimidating people with their powers and such powers shouldn't be exercised so trivially, the way they are over personal attacks, and so on.

If a person is spamming the IRC, obviously, it's disruptive, but as it stands now, the sysops in IRC act like corrupt policemen. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 20:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh hell yes. *raises hand*. I'll be happy to be the first to volunteer that I'm 100% immature on IRC channels. In fact, I've been on IRC most of my online life— long before the .com boom. It's been my home away from home, and my social network away from real life. Plus, it's a great place to engage in some playful troutslapping. Even better, we can mess around without offending anyone on-wiki. I think of it as a bar where you go to relax with your fellow colleagues.
You don't go to Cheers to get 100% serious help for real-world problems. You go to chill.
Immaturity on IRC? Yep, I'm guilty as charged. Immaturity on-wiki? Rare, if ever. Now that that's settled, can we get back to editing? Cheers. =) --slakr\ talk / 21:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I've decided to just accept my block for now and not contest it, because it's occurred to me that, yes, even if I am in the right in any particular situation, unless I have the utmost solemness and serenity, I am going to end up being one of the many good editors that is kicked out of this community.

I wanted to delete this thread to avoid any such continued flaming, but Slakr's already replied, so I can't do anything about it. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 21:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, personally, I've found the easiest way to avoid flaming is to simply avoid saying things that might even remotely evoke inflammation, and, be sure to qualify those that might. In communications mediums that lack facial expression or sufficient substitute (pictures, emoticons, voices), it's especially important for one to watch what he/she says, as even normal sentences lack vocal inflection, tone, or just a simple wink to communicate the writer's true message. As a result, anyone along the chain of communication only has the cold, hard text to go on; and, as a result, there is lots of room for interpretation.
Worst case, I just say go with the flow. Imagine this whole site is one big, crowded room, and you don't like a certain aspect about the room. You not only have to weigh how important the change is before implementing it, you also have to weigh how you'll convince everyone else in the room to go along with the change. It is rare, if ever, that someone who isn't in a clear position of power will be able to get people to go along with a proposed change to the room by being rude. As a result, the only other alternative available is to be polite, and, if needed, sugar coat things.
If, even after trying to be nice, you still can't enact a change, then move on. If even sugar and spice can't move people, then getting personal/argumentative/etc over it definitely won't get what you want. Just keep in mind that no group will ever agree with you 100% percent of the time, as any president will tell you. :P If, however, that concept is unacceptable, then simply research the alternatives and move on. Chances are somewhere out in the ether someone else agrees with what you believe within a margin acceptable to you— unless, of course, you're the Time Cube guy; then, you're pretty much screwed. :D Cheers =) --slakr\ talk / 01:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

You are right, Slakr, but that's not really my personality. It's true that if I had, as I said above, the passiveness and serenity of a monk or acted like Gandhi, if they were dicks to me, then they'd get in trouble. But most people aren't like that and expecting them to change themselves like that seems a bit unreasonable. From an individual standpoint, it's the most reasonable thing to do. From an outside standpoint, it's absurd: SysOps, period, shouldn't abuse their power and it shouldn't matter whether the person is a dick or not.

IRC SysOps, as noted above, act like corrupt policemen. They're belligerent, antagonistic, and often seem to enjoy baiting users into flaming so they can then say "LOL, U GET BLOKED NOW!11" That's pretty messed up and if it were up to me, I'd block spammers and that's all. IRC, in general, is so prone to cronyism and so difficult to keep track of what SysOps are doing that it's just not a good thing. The case above is an example where, in my block history on history, it now says I am a "racial and religious bigot," so that any SysOp is going to look at me as a Neonazi from now. That's screwed up, dude.

This is further exacerbated by having a policy that you can't post off-site content here, like IRC. Because, of course, if administrators face any off-site problems on IRC, they can just troll their enemies' contribs, find an excuse, and make something up, then ban them. In IRC, one administrator on Wikipedia actually directly acknowledged the fact that he\she had this ability to just frame users they didn't like for policy violations and then block them, and I've got the IRC log to prove it. When they can do that and get away with it, there's a problem somewhere. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 15:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It would seem that your primary concern is the fact that IRC is not fully transparent/logged, however, the same problem exists with Special:Emailuser. There will always be places you won't be able to see, and there will always be locked doors to which you don't have the key. When we're used to living in a glass house like Wikipedia, it's easy to become comfortable with the perceived omniscience everyone has; for, one can see everything that goes on. So, once we stumble across a solid wall (as opposed to a transparent wall), it's naturally uncomfortable.
IRC is a solid wall. Actually, pretty much every other communications medium on the internet is a solid wall; for, anything that's logged can be easily forged— including any allegations of what one person said or another in private conversations. Of course, that's nicely a double-edged sword, because should an administrator act erroneously (for example, by blocking someone due to an IRC comment), it's easy to contest the action and demand proof. As long as you've behaved on-wiki, you have nothing to fear. Of course, if you happen to get blocked around the same time as you use IRC for something you did on-wiki, then you've likely done something relatively recently that warranted a block anyway; and, if you haven't, you can quickly be unblocked, since blocks can only be preventative per blocking policy.
Taking all of this into account, I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at, what actions you actually feel need to be taken, or how I (or other viewers to this talk page) can help. I mean, if, say, I could magically wave a wand and all of the current IRC channels disappeared, what would happen? Everyone would simply migrate over to another network or jump into non-affiliated channels. Alternatively, they could just use MSN, AIM, Jabber, or any other of the gajillions of instant messaging systems, and the same situation arises: it's off-wiki. In fact, they could just start calling each other up on the telephone or use good 'ol email.
Long story short, there's always going to be some place where one can accuse others of conspiracies, hence our "there is no cabal" page. In reality, it all goes back to our current policies: if you get blocked, it will always be because of something you've done on-wiki (except in cases of legal threats, I believe). If not, you are free to post an {{unblock}} request, or, if you're worried about an unblock conspiracy too, then you can simply email the unblock list and everyone will see it. If even one out of the 1,500+ diverse admins thinks you should be unblocked, you can be unblocked— simple as that. Then, you're more than welcome to file a requests for comments or ask for arbitration, and if the admin clearly has abused power, he'll be desysopped.
Also keep in mind, stub blocks to your block log can be added in cases of accidents/errorneous blocks, so even if a block expires, you won't have to worry about people judging you by a single entry on your block log if it was clearly a mistake. Take a look at Riana's block log, for example. obviously she didn't edit war, vandalize, or do anything else evil. :P
Of course, if his block was justified in the first place by clear evidence, then I guess this whole discussion is moot. :P --slakr\ talk / 10:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Neither #wikipedia nor #wikipedia-en are the proper venue for expressing your bigotry. Please join a network other than freenode if that's what you need to use IRC for. John Reaves 09:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

"if his block was justified in the first place by clear evidence" -- it isn't. I sent the IRC logs of the whole thing to user Kim Bruning. I'd post them here, but of course I can't do that. I don't understand why that rule exists. It certainly makes sense for off-wiki forums and off-wiki sites. However, while this IRC is "unofficial" it still receives fairly semi-official patronage and support. The lack of transparency with the way it's run is a problem. And I don't really understand why Wikipedia would establish its own official IRC.

"Your bigotry" -- Nick's allegation that I'm a nazi is ridiculously absurd and the existence of "religious and racial bigotry" in the block log is an insult. Please see this diff I left on his talkpage. [1] If you saw the IRC logs, you'd also see what I mean. It's laughable and he should be desysopped immediately. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 23:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Note

To head off any questions, by former administrators in good standing I mean simply any former sysop who could get the tools back from a bureaucrat without having to seek them via RfA or the Arbitration Committee. Users who voluntarily give up their tools--be it from ennui, frustration, or inactivity--haven't lost the community's trust and the change in their status is purely technical. Best, Mackensen (talk) 02:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, Mackensen. If you or someone who is familiar with the process for requesting access could please look at the text of the instruction paragraph, I think there are some errant characters there from a past edit; perhaps the process was numbered differently before? Now that it's on a new page, a little tidying may be in order. Thanks. Risker (talk) 03:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
It looks accurate; I have no idea how frequently SeanW does cloak requests, but that's optional in any case. Mackensen (talk) 03:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay...I just noticed the number "5" sticking out in the middle of nowhere, and it looked like a numbering error, but on recalling all the interesting things I have learned about IRC lately, I believe that may refer to the access level. Thanks. Risker (talk) 03:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
That's correct; 5 is the base level for access to a channel that doesn't have open access (or something like that). Mackensen (talk) 04:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikichem IRC

We've been having weekly IRC meetings. Logs and other details posted here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry/IRC Discussions Perhaps someone can include them in the project page if appropriate? --Rifleman 82 (talk) 07:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ghost

I hope someone currently on IRC is reading this...I am currently a ghost and can't get back in. Could someone please ghost me so I can get back? User:Lady Aleena - LA @ 00:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

We can't do that without your password ;-) Just log in with a random username and type /ns ghost YOURUSUALNICK PASSWORD and the change your nickname to you normal one. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)