Minecraft Wiki:Admin noticeboard

= Block requests =


 * evading blocks. TheGreatSpring (talk) 03:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * evading blocks. Also vandalizing and reverting edits. TheGreatSpring (talk | contribs) (Tagalog translation) 11:36, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

= Protection requests =


 * Protect . Vandalism almost every day that ends up getting reverted. – Unsigned comment added by VillagerCraftMC (talk • contribs) at 19:48, 19 February 2021‎ (UTC). Sign comments with
 * 5 days of nothing, maybe it's not needed anymore. Dhranios (talk) (Join the wiki videos project!) 14:24, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Recently got a reverted useless edit. VillagerCraftMC the Sponge! 13:27, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Which wasn't bad faith. Dhranios (talk) (Join the wiki videos project!) 13:57, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Well there just was some vandalism recently, so maybe keep it. I'll check back up on it later on. James Haydon (talk) 16:13, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Unprotect because it was a redirect. I reached 400 edits! Android 1123581321 (talk) 09:26, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

= General requests =

blocked
When you get blocked and it says account creation disabled does that mean you can't have a Minecraft wiki account. it will say some thing like this (anonymous users only, account creation disabled) 73.89.66.98 21:09, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It means you cannot create a new account while blocked.  Nixinova   T   C   21:28, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That setting exists for good reason, though it doesn't work all the time. James Haydon (talk) 21:36, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, yea that makes sense.Good because I want to create a permanent account eventually. Thanks! bye. 73.89.66.98 01:44, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

My autopatrol candidates, 5 Jan 2021
I keep running across these users while patrolling article edits, and I think they should have the autopatrol bit enabled: I'd rather not see these users keep appearing in my watchlist when I'm looking for vandal unpatrolled edits. Please give them the autopatrol right. Amatulic (talk) 16:21, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * - highly active user, mostly maintenance edits, and at the moment seems to be the most experienced user that I keep having to mark edits as patrolled (several dozen in a matter of days), no bad edits that I can see.
 * - most activity is adding interlanguage wiki links to articles, but there's occasional content edits and vandal reversion, all good.
 * - highly prolific file categorizer.
 * - been around a while, constructive, I recall having to revert him a couple of times but no more than I've been reverted myself by others.
 * , although I am not a patroller yet, I see these users in my watchlist often, and granting autopatrol to these users would be very helpful P.S. is female btw Blockofnetherite Talk Contributions 17:07, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think they called Dlljs a male for a reason, though i am not gonna say it. But i do think that definitely deserves it the most because of their file uploading. James Haydon (talk) 17:11, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Added autopatrol to all of them, I have seen them enough as well to have given them the right without discussing, honestly, but it just never popped into my mind. Dhranios (talk) (Join the wiki videos project!) 19:30, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

User:JEC6789 and mcw:Patrollers
Can you give the right? JEC6789 seems to be the person who does the most edits in Special:RecentChanges, 95% of which are vandal reverts. at least between 6:00 PM and 1:00 AM (UTC) I don't get why the right was not given to JEC6789 but was given to NineTreyBlud and TheGreatSpring. They mostly use the undo option but briefly, they used popups.Humiebee (talk) 00:23, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

RevDelete 1 revision on page Ender Dragon by User:Hypixel Network

 * by

Contains vulgar content and personal attacks on Jeb and MojangHumiebee (talk) 15:07, 18 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't think that one edit qualifies for RevisionDeletion; it's just one brief and harmless attack that I doubt would qualify as "Extremely vile vandalism" or "Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material." If it were a death threat or something it would be another story, but this is likely not something worth hiding. --Madminecrafter12 (talk) 15:14, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

My autopatrol candidates, 25 Jan 2021
I nominate these editors to get the autopatrol user right, so I don't have to see them and keep patrolling their edits in my watchlist of unpatrolled edits: Pinging - All of these editors have been editing this wiki for over a year, and I haven't seen any problems with their edits. Amatulic (talk) 17:45, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "Due to a bug in the Reverb system, pings currently do not work" is what the talk page guidelines says, so pinging them might not have any effect. James Haydon (talk) 18:34, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Even if it did, it wouldn't do anything; I already watch this page, as all admins should. Dhranios (talk) (Join the wiki videos project!) 18:36, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Also would also make a good autopatrol considering that they often revert vandalism and sometimes make constructive edits. James Haydon (talk) 18:37, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Not sure if these 2 should get autopatrol as they are a bit new but
 * Humiebee (talk) 18:41, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Defintely not Judah since most of their edits are on talk pages and the ones that arent contain speculation. Most of Shaughns edits are on their user space so they arent contributing to the wiki all that well. I would give some time and see if they actually become constructive to the wiki first before giving autopatrol. James Haydon (talk) 18:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 200% agreed with NineTreyBlud, I checked their last 100 edits, and almost all of them were in their own userspace. Dhranios (talk) (Join the wiki videos project!) 10:57, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see some more non-minor edits from PJronq before I give them autopatrol. Most of there edits seem to be chained minor edits on the same page. Dhranios (talk) (Join the wiki videos project!) 10:57, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Either way, I strongly support, and  receiving Autopatrol as it is difficult having to patrol all their completely constructive edits and their edits seem to be generally constructive throughout. James Haydon (talk) 18:41, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Me too, I looked at the contributions of and they are mostly vandal reverts.Humiebee (talk) 20:35, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay but they haven't been active in a few days, so i think wait on that one. James Haydon (talk) 22:24, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , changes in Pocket Edition Alpha to v and had been editing actively since June of 2020 (if you include the edits on their IP, shown on their user page).Humiebee (talk) 18:58, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay but they haven't been active in a few days, so i think wait on that one. James Haydon (talk) 22:24, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , changes in Pocket Edition Alpha to v and had been editing actively since June of 2020 (if you include the edits on their IP, shown on their user page).Humiebee (talk) 18:58, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

No user pages
The user pages do not work for me. They display the message "This user has not filled out their profile page yet." Even MarkusRost's and Game widow's user page says that! My friend Sebastian7227 is gone too and he used to have a good one. Is this happening because of the migration? Do I have to log in to view the user pages? 73.89.66.98 18:36, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * As a logged in user, this is also happening to me, so logging in doesn't change anything. I can only view my user page, but it looks nowhere near as good as some others. Hopefully they will resolve this, unless its a new permanent change. James Haydon (talk) 18:40, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok. That would be annoying if only the user can view their own. I though user pages were supposed to have stuff you like about minecraft and things you want to show about it and other minecraft things. Now is it a personal sandbox? idk, I hope they fix this(unless this is permanent).73.89.66.98 18:45, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You cant even view their revision diffs (which I must see as a patroller) and the page history. The only way you can view them is through the visual editor, though that is most likely unintentional. James Haydon (talk) 18:48, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes I looked at your user page in source editor and it showed. PS.(Cool face, that must have taken a while). 73.89.66.98 18:52, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah this is so annoying. I want to notify editors when I am active but since we can't view user pages, no one knows. UCP is the worst.Humiebee (talk) 18:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I found that face on some vandalized page, and I thought it would be a cool novelty to put on my user page. But yea, considering you can still access the editor on them leads me to believe this was a unintentional bug/glitch and that it will get fixed. James Haydon (talk) 18:55, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Cool! Well... hope it gets fixed. 73.89.66.98 18:57, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I know! It’s soooo annoying... plz fix it fandom people! VillagerCraftMC (talk) 23:57, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I think its being worked on. Meanwhile you can kind of check someone's userpage by appending  to the url --Asarta (talk) 13:56, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You can also see the first few sentances using popups.Humiebee (talk) 14:26, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Maybe the difference is filling out one's profile? I put some minimal things into my profile a while back. Perhaps that's the workaround? Is my user page visible to any of you? I have no problem viewing it myself. Amatulic (talk) 18:45, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No. All user pages can't be seen except for your own user page. TheGreatSpring (talk) 22:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Well I'm hoping it gets fixed soon,, I've seen some great looking user pages in the past and now I wont be able to see them again without having to use the visual editor. James Haydon (talk) 22:15, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * : the bug has been fixed. TheGreatSpring (talk | contribs) (Tagalog translation) 07:08, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Removal of Obsolete Section
I received the following message: "Error: Your action has been disallowed by an automated edit filter. A brief description of the matched rule(s) for your action is: You are attempting to remove a section of this page. As a new user, your action has been disallowed. If you believe your edit was constructive, please post a message on the admin noticeboard or notify an admin directly."

I'd like to remove the section entitled "Limits in Bedrock Edition" in the Altitude article, as its content otherwise adds nothing to the content already discussed in the section entitled "Features and effects by height"; its length was only around 100 words. Previously, there was some new information, but I copied this over to "Features and effects by height".

On a side note, I moved some bug-related info from "Features and effects by height" to the section entitled "History" in accordance with the Minecraft Wiki style guide, but couldn't get the sentences to show for some unknown reason. I've left a comment with this bug-related info in the source code for this section. Pearlia (talk) 09:58, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Removed it for you. TheGreatSpring (talk | contribs) (Tagalog translation) 10:03, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Help
There is a "Gamepedeia pro" thing next to every page. Please fix. very annoying. is this a bug and it supposed to only show up on the Fandom website. I used to like this wiki because it didn't have whatever that is. My dad has an add blocker so if it is an add the yea i will tell him. Can someone tell me if this is permanent? I mean at least make it smaller and on the side other side of the page under tools in a little box or something like that. very annoying -_-. 73.89.66.98 19:33, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see whatever you are seeing. Amatulic (talk) 23:29, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * IPs can only see it. TheGreatSpring (talk | contribs) (Tagalog translation) 23:30, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I get it. Fandom is trying to advertise their website on their website... never mind If you "upgrade" to "PRO" then you get an "add free" experience. So it isn't a bug... it is a... add. 73.89.66.98 03:23, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I still don't even see it when I access this site as an IP address without logging in. Amatulic (talk) 03:43, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Have you used an ad blocker? I can see a PRO ad in mainspace pages as an IP. TheGreatSpring (talk | contribs) (Tagalog translation) 03:45, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes it is a PRO add. 73.89.66.98 11:52, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Blanking old user pages
I reverted 's blanking of user pages with a note that it's better simply to tag it with inactive. In response, he left me a rather uncivil note on my talk page. The user has made some constructive edits but seems bent on vandalism today, replacing pages with obscenities.

What's the recommended practice for inactive users? In my view, a user page shouldn't be touched by anyone except maybe to tag it. Amatulic (talk) 22:00, 28 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I think the original goal of the blanking of user pages and replacing with InactiveUserpage was for user pages that both: belong to users who haven't edited in a very long time and are unlikely to soon, and also have multiple broken links that can't be easily fixed (to avoid cluttering maintenance categories). However, I've noticed users recently taking this to the extreme, by blanking the userpage of any user who hasn't edited in the last few months, regardless of there are actually any broken links or not. I personally would probably support using the template if the user hasn't edited for at least a year or two and the userpage contains like 3 or more broken links. Otherwise, I just think it does more harm than good. But this may be worth starting a community portal discussion over, since I feel like different users have a wide variety of criteria for which they consider userpages eligible for blanking/tagging. --Madminecrafter12 (talk) 22:36, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, if something happens in my life that takes me away from this wiki for a year or more, and then I decide it's time to return, I'd like my user page to be the way I left it... although speaking for myself, I'd likely put a message at the top before leaving for an extended time. User pages often contain useful information about the users and what they've done. If the information is old, then there should be some sort of banner at the top informing the reader of that fact, but it's still useful. I don't want to have to look at the page history to see what somebody other than the user decided to blank. Amatulic (talk) 22:55, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This discussion has actually been had before in the past. This is the discussion I am referring to. James Haydon (talk) 19:49, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed, we should have proper guidelines around blanking and say that its only for old and broken pages.  Nixinova   T   C   23:27, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The most recent edit by blanked User:AndrewAB's page. Note that the page had 2 broken links. I also agree with . In my opinion, pages should be blanked if


 * 1) If the person has not been active for more than 2 years or
 * 2) If the person's user page has at least two broken links.
 * 3) Exception: If the person does NOT want their user page to be blanked OR if they are still will recieve messages (like )
 * Any thoughts? Should there be any other requirements like if the person is blocked, etc?Humiebeetalk contribs 23:35, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Btw the user who was blanking those user pages was blocked for 2 weeks due to a similar incident today. James Haydon (talk) 22:34, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh dear... The last time I recall a person with PRO getting blocked is .Humiebeetalk contribs 23:10, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yea and there was another pro user named that was blocked for vandalizing Dhranios' user page (yes a pro user actually did that). But because  is blocked now, we will be unable to hear their side for quite some time, so we may just have to decide ourselves. James Haydon (talk) 23:15, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, "PRO" doesn't necessarily mean "experienced on the Minecraft Wiki". It's a designation bestowed by Gamepedia to any user who has been active for a short period on any of the gamepedia.com properties. I am skeptical that the designation makes any distinction between productive and harmful edits. If someone participates enough (even annoyingly) on The DOTA 2 Wiki to gain PRO status, that status carries over to here even if the user has very little background on this wiki. Amatulic (talk) 21:47, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * And to prove it, here's a PRO editor whose contribution history is basically that of a newbie: . Amatulic (talk) 06:03, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Archive for and
Should there be an archive for it? It makes sense ( also does this) and I really dont like just throwing out the reports. Any thoughts?Humiebeetalk contribs 23:04, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Massive edit of Minecraft - Volume Beta article that isn't being allowed to go through
Hi, I just tried editing the article for Minecraft - Volume Beta, making some massive changes that I worked hard on for a few hours and that I really believe improved the article, and an error came up saying it contains an "unwanted word". I'm not sure if that means that it wrongfully detected a curse word were there wasn't one, or if it detected a word that breaks the enforced writing style of this wiki. Either way, can you please look through my edit? Here's a copy of it:

https://pastebin.com/JStMwd5v

Oh yeah, and here's the edit summary that I had for it:

"Added a lot to the descriptions of The End, Taswell, and 11. Partly reordered the list of tracks that can be heard in The End to more closely match the actual order that they appear. I plan on checking the track to make sure that all of the tracks listed are, in fact, in there. Also gave some general polishing, made some smaller, though still significant changes to the other descriptions, and added some new info and speculations. I plan on making further revisions to the descriptions."

73.139.156.87 04:42, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. TheGreatSpring (talk | contribs) (Tagalog translation) 04:46, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! I really appreciate it!

73.139.156.87 04:59, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Create page "Blue Nethershroom"
This page was previously deleted because it was thought that it was going to be a level decoration, however, it can interact with players and mobs (creates blue Poison Clouds when stepped on) and is thrown by the and. 94.252.122.25 08:16, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Well that's cool that it can do that, but it still doesn't really qualify for its own separate page. James Haydon (talk) 14:51, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Edit caught by edit filter on Terracotta
Hey, y'all, I registered a Fandom account to remove what looks like a self-promotional section on Terracotta, specifically Terracotta, based on what I'm reading in Minecraft_Wiki:Wiki_rules/Video_policy. My edit got caught in an edit filter, though, presumably because I would need to remove the whole section and there's a filter for that. Just a heads up. Thanks, YetAnotherLurker (talk) 14:49, 2 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Took care of it for ya. BDJP (t 14:52, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

New Mountains sub biomes
New mountain biomes have been added in the latest Bedrock Edition beta. We should make articles for them.24.179.74.21 19:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Please post this in Talk:Mountains.
 * 2) They will be a subsection of Mountain. They dont warrent a separate page.
 * Note: I do agree that they do need to be documented in the wiki. However, please be patient as it has only been a few hours since the beta was released. Also, BE info is less focused on than JE info.Humiebeetalk contribs 01:02, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Minor edit to the Trivia section of the Volume Beta article that was disallowed by an edit filter for containing an "unwanted word"
This is an extremely small change to the article, so it makes even less sense than the last time that an edit that I made was blocked.

Here's a copy of the Trivia section after my changes: https://pastebin.com/tf7mvJfs

As you can see, my edit amounts to just a couple of words, a fix on an unnecessarily spaced-out citation, and a link to the jukebox article.

I don't know what words here are "unwanted" lol

73.139.156.87 22:25, 6 March 2021 (UTC)