Minecraft Wiki:Admin noticeboard

Continuous misinformation, mainly regarding Single Player Commands and the Human entity, but also including other things. --Pokechu22 (talk) 18:30, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

More spam accounts
and. Neither of them have made any contributions, but it's pretty obvious by their user profile. -BDJP (t 22:09, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * And more: and . – LauraFi  -  talk  03:10, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * ,, Is there any way to improve our spam filter to insta-block these sorts of accounts? I've noticed many occurrences of spam accounts recently.  –Goandgoo ᐸ Talk Contribs 06:47, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Because the content of user profiles is saved in your preferences, it bypasses the spam filters as well as such things as the URL blacklist. In addition, admins don't have any way of removing spammy or abusive content from a profile - we can ask a user to do so themselves, and block them if they refuse, but that's the extent of it. I would hope that staff has the means to do so, but it would be inconvenient to have to make a request of them every time such content needs to be removed. 「 ディノ 奴 千？！ 」? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 09:17, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I tweaked MediaWiki:Titleblacklist to try to catch some of it. What's really frustrating is that the spammers seem to have discovered that user profiles aren't subject to the abuse filter or spam blacklist, and we can't do anything to clean up the mess. -- Orthotopetalk 09:23, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * It’s Curse staff that should be able to resist that. Game widow? — Agent NickTheRed37 (talk) 15:02, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * More incoming: Special:Log/newusers. Maybe IP-block them? — Agent NickTheRed37 (talk) 15:58, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * My god. That's a lot. The words "Watch" and "movie" seem to be in the vast majority of the spam account names, so those shouldbe the main ones to blacklist. - MinecraftPhotos4U (talk) 16:41, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I've updated the blacklist, but this is just a game of spam whack-a-mole, and it's not even effective as long as the profile content remains; we desperately need staff's attention here. 「 ディノ 奴 千？！ 」? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 18:40, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Autoblock should be blocking the IPs used to create the accounts, but they're probably using a botnet or proxies to get around that; only Curse staff have the checkuser right to see IP addresses. I'm a bit frustrated that Curse developed and pushed out the profile system without appearing to consider its spam/abuse potential. The only real solution I see is to have profile edits go through the spam and abuse filters, and give admins the ability to edit or delete profiles and comments. Until that can be implemented, I wouldn't mind having account creation disabled temporarily. -- Orthotopetalk 20:53, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry to speak out of turn, just happened to be wondering around the pages, and I could not help noticing the checkuser related comment above. Clearly that would help a lot here, and also at other times...  This may be info you guys already have, but it is my understanding that from a "legal" point of view on any wiki if the "admins" were / are willing to provide their real world names and details to the owner of that wiki then there is no reason (from a legal point of view) why the owner of that wiki should not grant "admins" checkuser rights.  MrN9k (talk) 17:57, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * These spammers (or this type of spammer) is prevalent across a lot of sites. I know I've seen tons of them on reddit (I used to try and deal with it - they create subreddits which also don't really get spam filtered properly; same kind of whack a mole there), and I've also seen them post spam on gameinformer and on some abandoned jira bugtracker (mostly so that they can link to it without getting caught in other spam filters...).  At least I see that the profile links have   set.  Getting proper spam filtering on profiles would be pretty important, and blanking them too. --Pokechu22 (talk) 22:50, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Another one:. -BDJP (t 09:53, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I've sent out an email about the implementation issue with user profiles, so hopefully something can be done about it.
 * They have random IPs and user agents, so I would assume it's a botnet. Since you can probably still edit your preferences while blocked, there's probably not much point to even blocking them, as they could just edit their profile again. –Majr ᐸ Talk Contribs 10:37, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Another one: . -BDJP (t 18:53, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Another few: and.
 * Also, for the record, I would like to say that I suspending user creation until this matter is fully resolved.
 * Another one: . -BDJP (t 20:38, 8 January 2016 (UTC)


 * More:, , , ,.
 * I think you should add HD to the Titleblacklist. --Mine4017 (talk) 18:29, 12 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Even more: and . -BDJP (t 18:34, 12 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Blacklisting "HD" seems likely to have a lot of false positives. At least Curse did change things to let admins edit profiles and delete comments, so we can get rid of the spam links. A lot of it appears intended to boost a site's search engine rankings by having a popular, reputable site (i.e., the Minecraft wiki) link to it. -- Orthotopetalk 02:32, 14 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if it would make sense for this to be an SEO issue - as I previously mentioned, those links have "|rel=nofollow" set on them, which should deincentivize it. (Also, if you're looking for words to block, perhaps "putlocker" would be one of them - I don't think that would have any normal use here).  --Pokechu22 (talk) 02:39, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Another one:. -BDJP (t 17:51, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Spam. – LauraFi -  talk  14:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism and unexplained changes. -BDJP (t 17:30, 10 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Many of the changes reference the pt-br wiki (pt-br:Minecraft: Story Mode/EP4), where the name "Reuben" is used instead of "Gabriel". Although I've never played Minecraft: Story Mode, is it possible that the character's name is different in Portuguese?  --Pokechu22 (talk) 18:55, 10 January 2016 (UTC)


 * No, it is not. -BDJP (t 19:43, 10 January 2016 (UTC)