Valve Developer Community:Administrators' noticeboard

From Valve Developer Community
Revision as of 01:05, 1 March 2011 by Thelonesoldier (talk | contribs) (Forever is a very long time: typo)
Jump to: navigation, search

This page is for items that need the attention of admins.

For items concerning the community but which do not require administrator action, please post at the Community Portal talk page.

Current notices

File Upload Bug

Apparently there is a {known bug} which rejects any uploaded file which contains the characters '<?' within the first 1024 character block. Bugzilla indicates that there is a patch for this error, however the VDC appears to be unpatched as yet.

Thanks for the report. We'll look into this. --JeffLane 22:23, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

New standards for mod articles

I didn't know how to run things by you until now, so I went ahead and set some official standards for creating mod articles here, to prevent "noobs" from spamming the wiki with things they'll typically never even finish. ...but it's ultimately your wiki, so let us know if you disagree on this. --MossyBucket (formerly Andreasen) 11:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. ModDB already does an excellent job at this function, and a mod and game database is not really part of the scope of the VDC currently. Documentation specific to a particular mod (how to use its entities, for example) seems more suited to the site. --JeffLane 22:23, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi, as you might be aware there are dozens, probably hundreds of useless mod articles. Using the new criteria we've established as mentioned above, a few of us have been marking those articles for deletion. To assist the administrators in more easily locating and deleting offending articles, I've added a {{deletemod}} template which automatically adds the articles to the new category Category:Mods for deletion. Hope this is helpful. Thelonesoldier 00:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Please unprotect Making a Mod

The protection of Making a Mod has been desputed for six YEARS now, without so much as a comment from Valve. (Read its discussion page.) You could also check what other protected pages are being disputed/needs updating. --MossyBucket (formerly Andreasen) 15:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

There are very few pages that we would prefer to remain protected; this is one of them. We wish this particular page to remain as coming from a Valve perspective. If others in the community want to expand the topic from their perspective with additional pages, that is not a problem. Multiple pages can be linked from the appropriate locations and we can add links to this page on request.
If there are requests for unprotection, they can be tagged with a request and found here: Category:Pages to be unprotected --JeffLane 22:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Are russian non-localized pages allowed?

It appears (from what I understand) that Kostya won't bother writing unlocalized pages in english because he's not that good at english, and online russian-english translators gives too poor results.

(Quote from my talk page and his russian pages: "otherlangs I didn't make. Here I will write stuff in Russian language, If You wont translate. Me pester. Translators bad, good results I don't get. I will write in Russian")

I think both me and him would like to know if this is allowed.

--MossyBucket (formerly Andreasen) 16:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Ideally, the page has a version in Russian with the pagename:ru format, and a version in English with no suffix. From a practical standpoint however, if you're referring to his likely Russian-language mod page, I don't see much of a problem with it co-existing in one page as long as there is an introduction in English. This will not work on other pages, however. --JeffLane 23:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


This article needs to be confirmed or denied by a Valve employee. I tried out the console commands, and they don't even seem to exist, but it still might have worked at some point. Rumors say you need Episode 1, and then when Episode 1 was released, suddenly it's Episode 2, and then people tell you that you would need a certain map. This wouldn't be the first time where people got together to promote something that doesn't exist. (You'll see what it looks like in the video: Like a rollermine that creates a vortex.) --MossyBucket (formerly Andreasen) 23:02, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe the hopwire was only available from the leaked HL2 beta and the 'Missing information' mod based on its content.

--Tehrasha 22:47, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I had it mixed up with a different 'hopwire' item. Found this though [1] --Tehrasha 23:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

External link captcha

Whenever you add an external link to an article, the Wiki gives you a captcha. That's fine for the most part, but it also gives you a captcha whenever you add a template with an external link. This is a massive nuisance; I do a lot of maintainance edits including adding various tags, and most of the tags (including stub and deletion) always bring up the captcha. It wastes a lot of my time, particularly since I have trouble reading some of them and I sometimes have to retry several times. Is there a way to disable the captcha from coming up for templates?

Thelonesoldier 00:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

We can look into this, but there might not be an easy fix. Unfortunately, the CAPTCHA has been instrumental in reducing spam edits. --JeffLane 23:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
All right, thanks. Thelonesoldier 00:44, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Hammer Hotkey Reference

In the title article Erik Johnson (employed at Valve) wrote that Ctrl+Shift+C would "Carve selected objects" and that Ctrl+H would "Hollow selected objects". They don't seem to do that at all. In fact, pressing Ctrl+H seems to delete all brushes except the selected ones. Perhaps the article needs updating by someone who knows these shortcuts well. --MossyBucket (formerly Andreasen) 01:59, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

That's probably happening because a lot of those hotkeys have been changed for the 2009 branch, so yeah, it either needs updating or clarification about the version it thematizes. --Biohazard 02:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
That is correct. Those were the correct shortcuts when the information was originally posted (and actually may still be the case in one or more branches). --JeffLane 23:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Forever is a very long time

As he isn't able to do so himself, I want to appeal MrTwoVideoCards permaban. I've read through his discussion with Thelonesoldier, and while I'm not in any way condoning rude behavior, overconfidence, or swears, I don't think he was some sort of an enemy of this wiki, like the spammers or vandals are. He was just overly passionate about a subject. Judging by his maturity, I get the picture of a boy probably going through his teens, where hormones create a naturally aggressive behavior, but that's nothing that won't pass in two years time, and bans for even a month would be enough for him to think things over and build some patience. This user has even made a mod for this community.

While I wasn't fond of him personally, I'm concerned over this because I've been permabanned from lots and lots of forums on moderator whims, and have experienced how poorly chosen words can be a virtual death-sentence. As long as you have an option to ban a user for a limited amount of time, I think this would be the time to show mercy.

--MossyBucket (formerly Andreasen) 01:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Most of the discussion has been deleted. You're not nearly getting the whole picture here. Thelonesoldier 01:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Then what is the whole picture? Looking twice, I find probable ban evasions, and a general arrogant and aggressive behavior, but do you really think that he will be the same person 1-2 years from now? --MossyBucket (formerly Andreasen) 02:32, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
When he's given a final warning by an administrator and his response is "I'm not sorry" and more insults, that's not indicative of a desire to change or function cooperatively. In the workplace, if you create a hostile work environment, you get fired. They don't keep you in case you have a turnaround several years down the line. You are biased because you know him from some time ago, and I'm biased because he repeatedly attacked me and another user, but if the conversation continues in this direction it will look like I'm flaming him. It's pointless to debate amongst ourselves anyway, since neither of us has any authoritative powers and Jeff will do what he wants to do. Thelonesoldier 09:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Is that how you work? If you're all fired up over something, and a mod comes along and says that you nearly dodged a ban for flaming, but that he is instead willing to hear you out, do you suddenly out of the blue feel remorse and want to apologize for everything that you were so passionate about just a minute ago? ...because that's not a normal human reaction. Sure, you can feel enough fear to feign being sorry, but some people have more pride and sincerity than feigning an apology.
Also, this board is a lot different than a workplace. People can come and go as they please here. There are no "occupied positions" here that can result in somebody being "replaced", so the wiki is always open.
PS. I would also like to make it clear that while I knew MrTwoVideoCards from a couple of years ago, over all he was a beginner that I patiently tolerated - not a partner.
--MossyBucket (formerly Andreasen) 11:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
So when you act out and are reproached by an authority, you take the opportunity to reaffirm you should be disciplined? You get called to the school office on threat of detention, and you gloat? The officer is teetering on letting you off with a warning and you brag about speeding? That's ludicrous. An adult can look at his or her behavior and think "I got carried away." Even if you can't admit to yourself or others that you made a mistake, a wiki offers the very convenient out that you can literally just not respond at all. It's necessary for a wiki, at least to a degree, to behave as rational adults in a cooperative workplace - otherwise, we get flame wars and edit wars and very counter-productive behavior.
Unforunately Gear did not learn to patiently tolerate others.
Again, there is no point in having this conversation, but to be more clear I'm not going to continue participating in it. Thelonesoldier 11:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't do these things in the first place, but my point is that it's futile to expect an honest apology from someone who gets this carried away, without some kind of dialogue to take place. Of course he's not going to apologize - from his perspective he had been given no valid, honorable reason to, and he was still very much upset (because it didn't look like he did all of this with dead calm). In this case it looked like Jeff was giving him an opportunity to explain himself, and not replying would also be rude.
...but all of this is beside the point. You never did answer my question of whether you thought he would still be the same angry, rude person after 1-2 years. I don't think so. There's a big difference between a 1-2 year ban, and a lifetime ban. --MossyBucket (formerly Andreasen) 12:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Although this latest incident was the primary cause of the ban, this was not an isolated case. An existing pattern of inflammatory interactions with other users was also a contributing factor. Bans are never considered lightly. --JeffLane 23:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Okay. I did what I could. --MossyBucket (formerly Andreasen) 01:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
It's okay, here I am. Yeah like I had stated on the AO page, I was never extremely angry with Lonesoldier. However seeing as quite a few other people were in the same boat I was, I felt somewhat annoyed by the lack of understanding on lonesoldiers part. It eventually dwindled down to the group not liking any of lonesoldier's arguments and reasoning realizing the Lonesoldier is the alpha and Omega over here at the VDC now, and that we are all but mere mortals who should never dare to challenge the all amazing might that is lonesoldier God of Thunder. I digress. I also stated I didn't apologize for my behavior, and honestly no one else did as well. That entire situation got out of hand, and I'm totally okay with putting it behind me, but it doesn't change the fact a lot of people still don't agree with how lonesoldier walks around the vdc, or that he was extremely annoying to deal with on the AO article. I must admit, I am quite surprised someone went and appealed my ban though.
My problem is I fail to see how everyone entirely disagreed with lonesoldier on the AO article, even someone who COMPLETELY IMPLEMENTED AO into the source engine, yet Jeff completely ignored those users, and they never we're talked to. I'm not trying to point fingers at other users here, or imply others should be punished in any way, just that quite a lot of users had an issue with lonesolder, yet you completely ignored that issue Jeff. You didn't bother to ask any of the users why they had such a problem with the AO article, and Lonesoldier themselves. Fuck, Lonesoldier didn't even get a slap on the wrist for the whole situation. Thats why I didn't care for apologizing for me behavior. I could honestly care less about getting angry about some whiner-baby kid over the internet, but when the moderators come on, and basically ignore the face of the issue, I get mad. I get mega jelly.--MrFourVideoCards 23:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Aside from the inability to stop insulting people, will anything be done about the block evasion? Thelonesoldier 04:17, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
THE LEVELS OF MAD, THEY ARE SO HIGH DOCTOR! THEY ARE ALMOST OVER :::9000!--MrFourVideoCards 06:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
There are several mistaken assumptions here. Here are some points that will hopefully be useful for other users to understand the thinking in these cases.
  1. The validity of the article in question had no bearing on the bans dealt out. Whether the article is "right or wrong" is not the issue -- the attitude and method taken in the discussion is. Disagreements on occasion are bound to happen. In fact, they're often helpful to get all the sides of an issue covered. However, when your argument gets reduced to only personal attacks and flaming, it won't be tolerated. If there is a demonstrated pattern of an unwillingness to discuss issues without resorting to anger-filled responses and personal attacks, that just won't work.
  2. Users do not get banned for writing articles that are technically or factually incorrect, unless it is obvious that it is intentionally misleading. Also, requesting another user get banned just because you disagree with them is not going to be looked upon with a positive light. They're also not going to get banned if they ask reasonably-stated questions and follow-ups about corrections to their articles. If that was the case, many of our current users would no longer be here. Writing useful new articles and content is the most valuable contribution a user can make. Knowledgeable users that can then help teach and correct any errors are invaluable. That's essential to how a wiki should work. Flaming them for their mistakes without adding to the article is destructive and it discourages the writing of any new articles. It's not easy, and sometimes requires a lot of patience.
  3. As I stated earlier, this particular ban is not the result of just a single event, so comparing treatment of one user over another should be viewed with that consideration. It is a poor assumption to think otherwise. Regardless of time spent on the site, users that are consistently positive, well-intentioned, and helpful in their contributions will likely get greater leniency and consideration when a moderator is forced to act. The opposite is also true.
  4. The opinions of various users in the discussion are never ignored. In fact, the AO article was changed specifically because of the input of others, contrary to the wishes of the author. Don't assume because moderators don't take part in every conversation that no one is paying attention. We can't take an active part in every discussion, that's not even desirable, so only do when it's absolutely necessary. It is far preferable that community members work out their own solutions. If they can't, a moderator will to step in, and will try address the issue as objectively as possible.
  5. No one has demanded, is expecting, or is requiring an apology. That's entirely optional. Just listen to the moderators on the rare occasion they have a specific request, and that's all that's required. If a moderator is warning you, it's serious. Failure to listen may well resort in a ban. It's really that simple.
  6. Do your part by trying to avoid being drawn into edit wars, flame wars, and heated arguments. Much anguish can be avoided if you just stop, step back, and evaluate whether continuing to be involved in a discussion will actually get a positive result. You don't need to respond to every thread. No one is asking you to be a saint, just be reasonably fair and respectful towards other users. Before you respond, think about what you expect to achieve. If your answer is "to be right", or "to shut that guy up", you may be headed on the wrong path, and don't be surprised by the results if you follow it.
For more information on this topic, Wikipedia has some excellent pages on the issue and related ones. I'm pleased to say that the VDC has had relatively few of these problems over the years, and we've relied on the fact that our community is generally a fantastic one, so we've deliberately avoided burdening the site with some of rules and processes that Wikipedia has to address these situations.
Hopefully this provides some clarity. --JeffLane 04:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, but you still haven't addressed the block evasion. What's the point of a ban if users are free to ignore it and create a new account? That pretty much invalidates the entire point of civility or any other reasonable standard behavior, if you can approach the wiki with the attitude "I can do whatever the hell I want because if I get banned I can just make another account, whine and insult other users and administrators and generally continue the same behavior that got me banned, and they won't do anything about it". Thelonesoldier 05:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Firstly, please read #6 on my earlier post. To be clear, I suggest you post no further on this issue, it is really not necessary. Secondly, if anyone assumes that they can continue the same behavior after a ban without consequences, they would be making an error. --JeffLane 06:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, I thought permanent bans were permanent. You've stated several times that we use rules similar to those at Wikipedia, and there block evasion is a serious offense. Now I understand permanent bans aren't permanent, I got the information I wanted. Thelonesoldier 06:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
While I understand your point, I'm puzzled as to why you care about him staying forever banned this much, as he seems to have left you alone since. --MossyBucket (formerly Andreasen) 07:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Aside from the fact that he devoted nearly two paragraphs to attacking me more, I was concerned more about the degrading the integrity of a ban. As I said, I feel it invalidates the rules and standards of behavior. Sort of like giving out traffic tickets but letting it slide when people don't pay them. Anyway, the discussion is over.
EDIT: Well actually, I have more. I want to say to be clear: I believe in rules. That's why I've written a few help and policy pages. Rules set standards for everyone to go by and help to avoid problems. You can say there are unwritten community rules developed over time, but these are useless to a newcomer. Time and effort is uselessly wasted trying to explain conventions that aren't already put to writing, and this may have to be repeated for many individuals because there is no central location for the information. This isn't even exclusive to newcomers! Look what Jeff said: "There are several mistaken assumptions here". We would have fewer mistaken assumptions if the things Jeff said were already written up in a policy page. Likewise, I had to bring up the block evasion several times to get any kind of answer about it, because the approach being taken at present is counter-intuitive.
I respectfully present my opinion that we need a few more community guidelines. I understand but disagree with the sentiment that this will in some way impede work on the wiki. We don't need a beauracratic nightmare like Wikipedia; we don't need hundreds of convoluted help, policy, guideline, etc pages. We don't need to be as strict or as encompassing. We can add a few more policies at most. I feel like we need a behavioral guideline, something that says what Jeff has brought up: "work together, don't flame each other, if someone is wrong help correct them instead of insulting them, correct bad information instead of maliciously deleting it", etc. I would have thought these things inherently obvious common sense, but it seems this is not the case for everyone.
I also think, at this point, we might need some info on bans. I am frustrated that I had to bring up the issue four times before it was dismissed offhandedly. I can only think of three ways of interpreting the information: 1. Permanent bans are not enforced across multiple accounts; any banned user is free to make a new account. 2. Permanent bans are enforced and block evasion is forbidden (clearly not the case here, even though it is the case on Wikipedia which is supposedly our model), or 3. Permanent bans may not be permanent and users may arbitrarily be allowed to make a new account on a case-by-case basis. Regardless of the stance, it should be public knowledge. I hope the third case is not true, as it is unfair to everyone to have an inconsistent rule for the most serious of all adminsitrative interventions. And in that situation wouldn't it be more practical to never issue a permanent ban? Maybe make a 1-month maximum? Thelonesoldier 07:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Custom source markup tags

I noticed that this wiki has implemented GeSHi <source> markup tags to supercede the standard <pre> (and <code> and <div>) tags when marking listings of source code and scripts. (It does not support the newer <syntaxhighlight> tags, however.) I'm not an experienced PHP programmer, but I'm curious if there was a way to code a custom script markup for Valve's scripts. (Right now the argument lang=actionscript3 looks pretty okay, but that's for Flash.) It should be pretty easy for anyone who has the time, by referring to the GeSHi documentation. --MossyBucket (formerly Andreasen) 05:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)