Minecraft Wiki:Admin noticeboard

a new page was blocked
I've created a tutotial on how to play in Minecraft in LAN using software. Was blocked because it's possibly can be unwanted. What I did wrong? –Preceding unsigned comment was added by Arbaktos (talk • contribs) at 14:08, 7 December 2018 (UTC). Please sign your posts with

I can't edit here
everytime I try to edit, it won't let me. Can you make an update to fix this bug? I can't even create pages. They would be very helpful. –Preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.105.247.66 (talk) at 18:24, 10 December 2018 (UTC). Please sign your posts with


 * The filters appear to be working correctly. As per the style guide, articles must contain a reasonable amount of content, and should not duplicate existing pages (such as this one). -- Orthotopetalk 01:04, 11 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Yeah, the filter that "prevents creation of unwanted pages" is quite strict and it makes it extremely difficult for unregistered and new users to actually create a page. I would probably support lowering the strictness of the filter. We can't disable it completely because most of the pages it catches are unconstructive and without the filter the Minecraft Wiki would be overrun with vandalism pages. In you're case, I'm not sure about EE 1.7, as looking at the website it seems like it's actually Education Edition 1.7. If that's the case then we should make it a redirect but again, I'm not really sure enough to do anything. As for TU1, I've now redirected it to the Console Version History page. It's a likely search term and readers, like you, may think that there is no article on it yet if it doesn't redirect. We may should create redirects to the LCE version history page for all versions (e.g. Patch 24, TU63, etc.) for ease when searching. I hope you continue contributing to the Minecraft Wiki!-- Madminecrafter12 Orange Glazed Terracotta.png to meLight Blue Glazed Terracotta.png 14:24, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

delete section TFF multiplication clock from Clock circuit
my reason: the youtube video no longer exists. Jessietessie (talk) 11:16, 26 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting us know. I've removed the YouTube video, but I'm not sure about removing the whole section completely, as it does contain some info other than the video. However, the info is very limited and it is a bit messy as well, so rewriting and expanding that section would probability be beneficial, preferably with a video that works for demonstration.-- Madminecrafter12 Orange Glazed Terracotta.png to meLight Blue Glazed Terracotta.png 16:19, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Imbedded Twitch link
The Twitch link that is usually at the top of the page disappeared after I reloaded the page. After reloading the page several more times it still didn't come up again and I can't figure out how to get it to appear again. Please help!!! –Preceding unsigned comment was added by Rowanmbs cat (talk • contribs) at 23:00, 08 January 2019 (UTC). Please sign your posts with
 * It was removed by Curse as a result of the acquisition. --Pcj (talk) 23:10, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Will it ever return?--Rowanmbs cat (talk • contribs) at 23:00, 08 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Since Curse Media (the subsidiary that runs Gamepedia) is no longer owned by Twitch, that part of the site header no longer made much sense to continue to include. It most likely will not return. Any changes to the Twitch channel embedding on content pages, however, have not yet been confirmed. Twitch will remain as the primary authorization / login method for Gamepedia at this point in time, however. DSquirrelGMGRASP logo.png &#120035;&#120031;&#120018; 05:19, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Licensing legal issues
The licensing WikiProject has members who are adding license templates to unlicensed non-Minecraft-related files but some of the licenses are possibly not correct. For instance some images that are almost definitely copyrighted by Mojang are being tagged with CC-BY. This could have legal implications for the wiki if this continues to happen. Should something be done about this? – Nixinova   01:17, 11 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Fixed some of them just now. Some are copyrighted by Mojang as Minecraft is either shown or mentioned, or part of the Mojang logo is shown. Others are in the public domain as they are freely seen on web articles or social media. -BDJP (t 02:17, 11 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Public domain usually only applies to government works, or if the creator has explicitly placed it there; whether or not you can find an image on other sites has no bearing on its copyright status. If the licensing status is not known, it is probably copyrighted. -- Orthotopetalk 05:00, 11 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Honestly, I'm not a fan of the whole license system right now on Minecraft Wiki. We allow many images to have no specified license on them indefinitely, and nothing happens. What if all of them turn out to be fully copyrighted? If using the wrong license could have legal implications, wouldn't this as well? In addition, License copyright says that fully copyrighted are allowed with a fair use rationale, but what? What kind of fair use rationale is needed?-- Madminecrafter12 Orange Glazed Terracotta.png to meLight Blue Glazed Terracotta.png 13:25, 11 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't know anything about licences. But I do think a whole overhaul of our system is needed, because right now I don't have a clue which licence applies to which type of image. My rule of thumb is, if I don't know, others might not as well. – Jack McKalling [ Grid Book and Quill.png Grid Diamond Pickaxe.png ] 09:07, 13 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I suggest a license template for logos (e.g. ). CuervoTalk 07:33, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Mods/2DCraft Vandalism
The Mods/2DCraft page has an entire section about another game by that game's creator stuck in the middle. Isn't this irrelevant to the mod? --Aido (talk) 14:34, 13 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Well, now the mod page has been moved to the FTB wiki and that wiki has dealt with it, so we don't have to worry about it anymore. :) I would say, for other mod pages like this, that it's a bit much to have a whole section about a game based on a mod with a ton of links when it's not particularly relevant, a slight mention would probably do.--Madminecrafter12 (Talk to me 15:02, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Vandalizing offensive image uploader
The user uploaded six versions of the same offensive image, and (used them when he) vandalized a page twice. See his contributions, it's the only things he's done. – Jack McKalling 09:34, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Blocked and nuked. That's not exactly the thing I want to wake up to. --AttemptToCallNil (report bug, view backtrace) 09:39, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note that I've requested on Discord for a Gamepedia Staff to check the IP addresses of Diagnosticlord and, as behavior similarities make me think that they might be the same person. If they do turn out to be the same person, I'm not sure if I should go ahead and up ItsWreep's block to indefinite or keep it as it is.-- Madminecrafter12 Orange Glazed Terracotta.png to meLight Blue Glazed Terracotta.png 15:24, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Something About My user page
Please do not delete it again, It is the only place where I could find my talk page, I put the link. 108.34.205.36 21:43, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I have created a redirect from your user page to your talk. In the future, please create an account if you would like a user page. – Nixinova Nixinova sig image 1.png Nixinova sig image 2.png 22:26, 16 January 2019 (UTC)]

It is ok if I make a new page, right?
I want to make a page called upcoming 1.14. Is it ok? 50.90.140.195 13:33, 20 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you could elaborate a bit further what content you're thinking it would have? We already have the page 1.14 so I don't see why we would need another one.-- Madminecrafter12 Orange Glazed Terracotta.png to meLight Blue Glazed Terracotta.png 16:03, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I did not remove content on the Lab table Page.
i tried to tell the truth that you can only obtain lab tables from creative mode.

New video for Composter
I tried to posted the video for the composted page but I need a admin. Here is the code: (sorry you have go to edit souce to copy the code) and the page : Composter/video (I also cannot make the page so you have to make the page). If you did the stuff, then go to my talk page! Andrew36903690 (talk) –Preceding unsigned comment was added by Andrew36903690 (talk • contribs) at 00:48, 21 January 2019‎ (UTC). Please sign your posts with


 * /video pages are not going to be added for any youtuber's videos, the only youtube accounts that get video pages are from minecraft spotlights (retired, they used to who own the wiki IIRC), and slicedlime (mojang employee). Any other channel's videos on this wiki would make the style of the videos inconsistent across the whole wiki. Slicedlime's videos are only for update pages, so that's fine, but then we shouldn't add aome other random youtuber's update video to update pages as well/instead. Same with articles about mechanics, blocks, items, entities, etc. FVbico (talk) 00:55, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * There doesn't seem to be any restriction about videos on Tutorials subpages, however. ~ Amatulic (talk) 15:36, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Add speedrun tutorial
I'm trying to add a tutorial page for speedruns, but I got the message below. Can someone help?

Error:

An automated filter has detected that you are attempting to create a possibly unwanted 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.

Tyger plays (talk) 00:46, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * What was some of the contents of your edit? Were you creating the page as a Subpage of Tutorials (eg Tutorials/Speedrunning)? – Nixinova Nixinova sig image 1.png Nixinova sig image 2.png 00:50, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the goal was to create a subpage under Tutorials. I have temporarily posted the proposed content on my own Talk page so you can see it.

Tyger plays (talk) 03:56, 22 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi and welcome to the Minecraft Wiki! Your edit was caught in an abuse filter, which is basically a set of rules that disallow an edit that meets certain conditions. They are meant to prevent vandalism and spam but occasionally hit false positives. This particular abuse filter you got caught in, although effective, catches quite a few false positives and makes it difficult for a user who has made less than a certain number of edits to create a new page; I'm sorry you had to go through that. You did the right thing reporting here; I have now created the page as Tutorials/Speedrun, given you the attribution in the edit summary of my creation, and will be doing a little bit of cleanup to it. Thank you for contributing the Minecraft Wiki and let me know if you have any questions.-- Madminecrafter12 Orange Glazed Terracotta.png to meLight Blue Glazed Terracotta.png 04:06, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

My talk page
My talk page : https://minecraft.gamepedia.com/User_talk:Andrew36903690 Could you ban this user on my talk page?

It really annyoying! It is the one say that I'm a sucker :( . Andrew36903690 (talk) 05:49, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Edit: Oh never mind I think it is gone Andrew36903690 (talk) 05:50, 22 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Late response, but yeah, it was reverted a while back. Stuff like that happens when you are a wiki editor; it is nothing to take personally. :)--Madminecrafter12 (Talk to me 15:14, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

(untitled)
due Oracle have dropped support Java 9 and 10,it's needed to update that link,I suggest to change it to https://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/archive-139210.html which can made you could find all the java version you want to use,including 9 and 10.I don't know about this and don't know how to reverse that link back to I have to remove that link temporary for further editing. --103.122.22.194 00:23, 12 Feb 2019 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/188.48.37.134
Repeatedly blanking Nether reactor and redirecting it to the bedrock edition removed features page, and outright ignoring all reverts and requests for it to be discussed. - User-12316399 (talk) 10:58, 15 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Frisk blocked them for four hours and now they're blocked for a week as they've done the same thing after their four hour block.--Madminecrafter12 (Talk to me 22:19, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Technical Issue
Hello; i now see that there is technical issues on my account used here; while i read talk pages and some other pages; it looks that i appear logged out; there is default font; the default black netbar, the default layout; and all default layouts, the tab text changes to the default text instead of "minecraft wiki", it now says "(page) - Official minecraft wiki", can someone help me please >:I :angry:. --  Philip57sundfors TALK CONTRIBUTIONS 09:27, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * (edit) also, i cannot go to gamepedia just to sign in, while i click the link to the login page the wiki redirects back to this page, please i need help; but only while reading occurs this; editing and then i will be logged in again :). please help --  Philip57sundfors TALK CONTRIBUTIONS 10:08, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * If I'm understanding you correctly, which I'm not sure I am, those seem like strange problems that I've never heard of before. So you're logged out and then when you click the edit button you're logged back in, and then when you go back to reading the page you're logged out? Often one gets randomly logged out occasionally, it happens to me a lot, but usually you should be able to sign back in with no issue. I'll report this on Slack.--Madminecrafter12 (Talk to me 20:09, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I know you play around a lot with your profile skins (and scripting?). Have you made any recent changes that might be involved? – Auldrick (talk &middot; contribs) 20:13, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Nope, my javascript page does work without problems, and the issue with being logged out was unknown; i cleared cookies and then logged out and logged back in, and then i are logged in again and the problem is over :-). Good that while i click the edit button and i'm logged in, but if i're logged out and reading the wiki might be some problems, i hate the default font/color/text. logged in is better than logged out. -- Philip57sundfors TALK CONTRIBUTIONS 09:29, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Reduce overprotection
Can archived versions of the admin noticeboard as well as Minecraft Wiki talk:Community portal have the admin protection lowered to autoconfirmed protection where applicable? It is otherwise impossible to perform maintenance tasks without admin intervention. - User-12316399 (talk) 22:13, 20 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I would support this. I don't see a good reason for protection and non-admins can not perform maintenance tasks on the archives. If no one objects in one or two days, I think I'll go ahead and unprotect all the archives of the community portal and the admin noticeboard. I would be curious to see what other people think of this.--Madminecrafter12 (Talk to me 22:20, 20 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I also this.  Perhaps it would make sense to have an edit notice saying that it's an archived discussion similar to when editing someone else's userpage, but that might be excessive (archive already exists and people editing old archives doesn't seem to have been an issue).  --Pokechu22 (talk) 22:24, 20 February 2019 (UTC)


 * archive actually appears in the edit notice when in edit mode for all archive pages already, so I think what you're suggesting has already been done.--Madminecrafter12 (Talk to me 01:13, 21 February 2019 (UTC)


 * It doesn't seem to do so for me, at least when testing with Minecraft Wiki:Admin noticeboard/Archive 30. Actually, looks like it does work on mainspace archive pages (e.g. Talk:Block/Archive 1), so I guess the issue is specific to only pages outside of the mainspace... which is probably an easy thing to fix but currently is broken. --Pokechu22 (talk) 01:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Ah, I know what it is. The admin noticeboard is not considered a talk page by the software, and MediaWiki:Talkpagetext (which is what makes archive show up as an edit notice) only applies to talk pages. I was testing this function on the community portal talk archive pages, so it worked there. Let me try something.--Madminecrafter12 (Talk to me 01:33, 21 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Should work now.--Madminecrafter12 (Talk to me 01:38, 21 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Yep, can confirm it works. And it makes sense that the admin noticeboard isn't a talk page (since it's in the Minecraft Wiki namespace, not Minecraft Wiki talk); I just assumed it didn't work for any mainspace/main-talk-space pages but didn't think about how that might actually differ. --Pokechu22 (talk) 02:20, 21 February 2019 (UTC)


 * lowering the protection on talk page archives to semiprotection. The origin of admin protection is probably that some people are categorically opposed to maintenance edits of user pages and archives. "They're called archives for a reason" is what I'd expect to hear from them... and should I say the "reason" they refer to may actually make maintenance edits encouraged? --AttemptToCallNil (report bug, view backtrace) 22:37, 20 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Do you any particular reason why you don't think they should be outright unprotected? I have no issue with simply lowering the protection to semi instead of completely removing it, and I'm not trying to badger you, but I'm just trying to figure out what protection level I should lower the archives to soon.--Madminecrafter12 (Talk to me 02:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I actually would prefer having them unprotected after your post. I just didn't think anyone even considered total removal of protection an acceptable option. --AttemptToCallNil (report bug, view backtrace) 08:37, 21 February 2019 (UTC)


 * lowering protection to allow maintenance edits; as long as no one's violating normal talk page guidelines or adding actual responses it should be fine. – Sonicwave talk  08:43, 21 February 2019 (UTC)


 * . Constant maintenance of archive pages is not practical or desirable. Imagine having to consider every archived talk page before you're able to move or delete a page, just so a report is less cluttered? Absolute madness. No, maintenance is the complete wrong approach, and archives should ideally be static snapshots of the conversations as they were originally anyway. As such I propose we instead simply eliminate the maintenance issue entirely by making them more like a static page. This can be accomplished by converting links to static external links (thereby removing them from any reports that I know of), and removing any external embedded content (either by substituting it into the page where possible, or creating a static link).
 * If we were to do this, archives would remain as close to how they originally were at the time of archiving (especially beneficial when it comes to templates, as they will stay at the state they were at the time), the archives maintain their usefulness as opposed to removing the links, and there is no ongoing maintenance required. Any new archives would be converted once when they created, and ideally never need to be touched again. I would then recommend removing protection from all archive pages, and instead replace it with an abuse filter, as it will allow for easily reenabling edits to archives should some unseen maintenance issue come up in the future. –Majr ᐸ Talk Contribs 09:05, 21 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Does that conversion process mean all templates are substituted until the page uses no templates, and all internal links are replaced with external links until there are no internal links? Unless there is some way to automate this highly nontrivial process (a complicated wikitext template with multiple layers would be problematic to fully substitute), this might even be more time-consuming than maintenance.
 * I assume this alternative proposal has all file links retained, including files in signatures? --AttemptToCallNil (report bug, view backtrace) 09:48, 21 February 2019 (UTC)


 * It would obviously just be a bot/script that converts the page upon archiving. Expanding all templates should be trivial using the API, however having them expand properly depends if they have subst support (mainly an issue for modules I think, normal templates should work although they might contain unnecessary parser functions), which we'd need to look in to, and it doesn't have to happen straight away if we don't care about Special:WantedTemplates and I don't reckon there's that many templates on talk pages anyway. Converting links is the most important and is also trivial. If we're willing to sacrifice Special:WantedFiles we can keep file embeds, otherwise I'd want to convert them to links (embedded images in talk pages are a nuisance anyway). –Majr ᐸ Talk Contribs 10:34, 21 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Here’s an idea, just throwing it out there: Why not the whole archives? FVbico (talk) 10:03, 21 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Significantly reduces usability. –Majr ᐸ Talk Contribs 10:34, 21 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Another thought: how about blanking the pages entirely, but leaving a template on the page that links to the latest revision before the page was archived? - User-12316399 (talk) 09:08, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


 * That would reduce accessibility and it would be quite annoying to have to do as well. Also, often archives aren't necessarily done in large chunks on one page but individual discussions gradually pile into a single archive. It just doesn't seem worth it. I think we should just go with Majr's suggestion.--Madminecrafter12 (Talk to me 17:59, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Blanking would be a lot quicker and easier to do, though, given how many pages we're talking about. It'd also mean that people wouldn't be able to scroll past and ignore the box at the top, which could be an issue on Issues/notice, and then end up thinking that the bug reporting pages are still the currently used method - they'd have to confirm that they indeed want to go to an archived version. There'd also be no need to replace internal links or leave dead image links (the latter of which are also somewhat of a maintenance issue). The only issue I see is that some integral templates may end up being seen as unused and then end up deleted, hampering the pages.


 * Whichever method we use, though, shouldn't matter too much; I'd just rather get something that works done sooner rather than later. - User-12316399 (talk) 09:11, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Issues pages
Can Issues/ subpages (as well as Known bugs/, which redirect to these) be unprotected for the same reason? These ones are long-time offenders. - User-12316399 (talk) 22:27, 20 February 2019 (UTC)


 * for the same reasons. While one can express the concern that people may still try to post issues there, it's unlikely given those pages are not prominently linked to. --AttemptToCallNil (report bug, view backtrace) 22:37, 20 February 2019 (UTC)


 * based on ATCN's reasoning. – Sonicwave talk  08:43, 21 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I reckon we treat them as archive pages, and do the same as I suggested above. –Majr ᐸ Talk Contribs 09:05, 21 February 2019 (UTC)


 * They should be move to Minecraft Wiki:Projects /Issues Archive, per Majr, since these pages are not suitable in the Main namespace, since technically, the content of these pages are not encyclopedic, and Issues (not Issues/) should redirect to Bug tracker. — HaydenBobMutthew ( talk, contribs ) 09:26, 21 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Another thing I was thinking of would be to export the issues archives to another wiki which deals with the technical side of the game, such as wiki.vg or the EigenCraft wiki, removing them from this wiki. Having these pages be on an unofficial wiki may be less confusing for players using the official wiki to figure out how to report bugs. I'm not as much of a fan of this idea, anymore.


 * Moving the pages to a non-main namespace would also have the added benefit of stopping them from appearing on the Content pages list, which is an added bonus (although there's definitely worse problems plaguing that list right now - I'm tempted to propose either we also move translation pages to their own namespace as well, or nuke every single translation project except for the Icelandic project from orbit due to the almost zero project-related attention they've recieved in the past two years). - User-12316399 (talk) 11:29, 21 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Any idea as to when this moving will actually happen? - User-12316399 (talk) 08:59, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

How about the Known bugs/ pages that redirect to Issues/? - User-12316399 (talk) 13:51, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Video pages
Yet another case is that of /video subpages, which are also unnecessarily high protected. I'd request the protection be toned down for all of these, so we don't need to unnecessarily create talk pages to mark the main pages for deletion and such. - User-12316399 (talk) 22:33, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Just get rid of /video subpages and substitute them on the content page(s). This has been discussed before several times, and such an action should not violate any policy. --AttemptToCallNil (report bug, view backtrace) 22:37, 20 February 2019 (UTC)


 * –Majr ᐸ Talk Contribs 09:05, 21 February 2019 (UTC)


 * The video pages should all be subst now, and so can start removing crap videos at your leisure. Didn't do the update video pages yet, nor have I deleted the subpages yet. –Majr ᐸ Talk Contribs 10:24, 21 February 2019 (UTC)


 * The abuse filter preventing edits to video subpages was already removed, but almost all of the pages are still protected. I think it was discussed that a bot should simultaneously substitute the /video subpage content onto the main article and unprotect/delete the subpage, but it would have to be a bot with admin powers. – Sonicwave talk  08:43, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This task is now working using MajrBot. This section should be settled. — HaydenBobMutthew ( talk, contribs ) 09:35, 21 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Should I go ahead and delete all of the /video pages that have already been substituted on their root page by MajrBot?--Madminecrafter12 (Talk to me 14:58, 21 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I'd say yes, but don't forget to remove the protection from such pages in the process. - User-12316399 (talk) 15:28, 21 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Why would I need to remove the protection of the /video pages if I'm deleting them?--Madminecrafter12 (Talk to me 15:28, 21 February 2019 (UTC)


 * There's no benefit that I can see in keeping said pages locked from editing or creation. It's an unnecessary restriction. - User-12316399 (talk) 16:27, 21 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure that if you delete a page that is fully-protected from editing, anyone can still create it, as creation protection and edit protection are different things. See if you can create User:Madminecrafter12/sandbox 4. This would make unprotection a waste of time as opposed to just deleting.--Madminecrafter12 (Talk to me 16:32, 21 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I didn't delete them straight away as I didn't verify the result of all the subst (AWB doesn't show it), so they're still there in case something got lost. –Majr ᐸ Talk Contribs 00:49, 22 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I would be fine with checking each individual one to make sure the subst worked ok. Video pages are very short, so it should take a few seconds to check each one.--Madminecrafter12 (Talk to me 15:32, 23 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Madminecrafter12@undefined Have you done this? –Majr ᐸ Talk Contribs 07:40, 1 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Not yet; I wanted to make sure you didn't have any objections before doing that, just in case you wanted to keep them for a little longer or something. Will start deleting now.--Madminecrafter12 (Talk to me 14:28, 1 March 2019 (UTC)


 * While not exactly protected to the standards of /video, can /Update Video pages also be transcluded? - User-12316399 (talk) 14:37, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Mods pages protected by Goandgoo
The pages Mods/New content, Mods/Outdated, Mods/APIs, Mods/Aesthetic, Mods/Mod packs and Mods/Fixes seem to have all been protected to the admin-only level by Goandgoo in April 2014. Absolutely no explanation has been given for these protections, and the information on them has been slowly left to rot. Why was this level of protection put in place in the first place, and can it be removed (especially in light of the transferring of Mods pages to the other wiki)? - User-12316399 (talk) 13:51, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Unprotected all of those pages. --AttemptToCallNil (report bug, view backtrace) 16:22, 12 March 2019 (UTC)


 * As I recall, that action came from a discussion about archiving those pages, reason was given by adding the template mods/read the instructions to the page. Essentially, since we no longer maintain a list of mods it seemed counter-intuitive to allow people to continue to add mods to that list. Same case as the old texture pack articles before those were deleted.
 * My opinion is those pages should either be left protected as archives or deleted, really has no reason to leave them as unprotected pages or it just becomes a target for users adding their own mods that belong on the forums, plus they have no useful content to transfer to another wiki. – KnightMiner  · (t) 02:48, 13 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Any reasons not to delete those pages then? I doubt they can be useful given they're incomplete, unmaintainable, horribly outdated, and probably have other problems as well. --AttemptToCallNil (report bug, view backtrace) 11:07, 13 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I personally see no value in the pages either, but given how long the pages have existed a wider discussion should probably happen before deleting (probably on the community portal, as its a few too many pages for an individual discussion per page). Mostly just a "what should we do with these pages" type discussion, as we also have a few other options such as soft redirect – KnightMiner  · (t) 17:00, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Ancient protected titles
There's some titles which are currently locked to indefinite admin-only protection, likely due to major vandalism or other reasons. A decent amount of these are potentially close to a decade old at this point, and could safely have their protection lowered. Whether doing so or not is neccessary I'm not sure though, since I can't see any of them seeing legitimate use.


 * Aspergite - early Alpha redstone naming controversy, so probably not a problem at all anymore.
 * Pain forest
 * Kizzycocoa
 * HEROBRINE
 * Іnfdеv
 * Веdrоck
 * C00ked P0rkch0p
 * Моѕѕ Ѕtоnе‏
 * Ransco
 * Fire place
 * Numerous others

- User-12316399 (talk) 12:44, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Prevented from posting on talk page
After a night of trying to get one of the programs on this page to run and having no luck I decided to warn other users using the talk page about problems with the software but I was denied because I was making the first post, thus creating the page. If you believe my post was appropriate, I would also like to attach a brief warning to the project page so that users are made aware of the problem. --Merry midlight (talk) 06:21, 12 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for reporting the issue here; I went ahead and made the edit for you on Talk:Programs and editors/Resource pack creators. The filter that caught your edit tends to be more aggressive towards new users, but should ease up once you make around 5 edits. – Sonicwave talk  06:27, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism by anon user 104.6.241.184 (Grass Block page; Trident page)
Had to revert several changes to page: Trident by anon user 104.6.241.184 (three sets of changes dated 03:26, 23 March 2019‎ and 03:28, 23 March 2019‎). Example change: Added text "its lit its lit its lit its lit its lit its lit its lit its lit its lit its lit its lit its lit its lit its lit its lit its lit its lit its lit its lit its lit its lit its lit its lit its lit its lit its lit its lit its lit its lit its lit its lit its lit its lit its lit its lit its lit its lit its lit its lit its lit its lit its lit its lit its lit its lit its lit its lit its lit its lit its lit its lit its lit". User also added links for random words on the page to the page-edit function.

Subsequently, same user vandalized Grass Block page. Nixinova reverted them already.

Suggest IP-level ban.

&#8212; Memetics talk &#124; edits 03:42, 23 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi ; thank you for reporting! I actually blocked them for a few days two minutes before you posted this, so we shouldn't have any more trouble from this person unless they start editing from another IP address. :-) See the block log. Cheers, --Madminecrafter12 (Talk to me 03:47, 23 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Great; you act fast. :-)  Is there a faster or more effective way of reporting vandals, or is this the preferred method?  &#8212; Memetics  talk &#124; edits 03:49, 23 March 2019 (UTC)


 * On the wiki, this generally is the best place to report vandals. We do have a recent changes feed so admins can see the edits vandals make and reports that are made to this page in real time. Usually at least one admin is active at any given time (or if not a member of GRASP), but there are exceptions. If you'd like, you can join the Minecraft Wiki Discord server, which can sometimes be a quicker way of getting admin attention. This page explains all the details about the server and gives the invite link. Let me know if you have any questions!--Madminecrafter12 (Talk to me 03:53, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Range block
This IP range belongs to a long-term disruptive editor who edits both MCW-EN and MCW-RU. They've been using about 10 IPs from that range; the whole range has been blocked for two weeks three times now (twice by and most recently by me). That doesn't include the countless times the individual IPs have been blocked (,, , , , , and to name a few). So, if they start disruptively editing again after this block expires, would it be alright to go ahead and block the range for a month? Before blocking any range for longer than two weeks, Gamepedia Staff should be contacted, so pinging as the wiki manager to see if this would be alright. Thanks, --Madminecrafter12 (Talk to me 13:42, 24 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Also, note that all edits that have been made by the range since February 2016 have been that disruptive editor.--Madminecrafter12 (Talk to me 13:53, 24 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Just a month? I'd set the block to three months. --AttemptToCallNil (report bug, view backtrace) 14:44, 24 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Three months may be a better idea, considering they have been editing MCW-EN for such a long time and as I mentioned, there hasn't been a constructive edit from the range in years.--Madminecrafter12 (Talk to me 14:46, 24 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Three months at least. Is there any room in this wiki's policies to permanently ban such an editor?  Seems as though it would be warranted, based on the history you've described.  He's had plenty of chances to adjust his behavior and has chosen to continue being disruptive, yes?  &#8212; Memetics  talk &#124; edits 22:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the suggestion, but we very rarely block IPs indefinitely and never ban ranges indefinitely. IPs can always change periodically or be shared, so if we blocked one indefinitely, a constructive user on that IP address would never be able to edit. In the case of a /24 range, it actually has 256 IP addresses within it, so there it is even more important to try to avoid very long blocks, especially when not necessary. I hope this helps!--Madminecrafter12 (Talk to me 22:26, 24 March 2019 (UTC)


 * If you are quite sure it's the same vandal, a longer block for those IPs is fine — Game widow (talk) 11:38, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks, the block has been changed to three months.--Madminecrafter12 (Talk to me 16:06, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I can't edit anything, even though I'm just correcting some info and adding more.
I always try to correct some outdated info and add more, but since I'm considered a "New User", I can't save any changes. I truly believe that everything I do here is indeed constructive, but I won't be able to continue if none of my changes are saved. –Preceding unsigned comment was added by LateLag (talk • contribs) at 13:22, 28 March 2019 (UTC). Please sign your posts with


 * Hello, I'm sorry that happened to you; your edit that got caught in the abuse filter does indeed look constructive or at the least made in good faith. Users who have made less than 10 edits cannot edit the userpages of other users due to a global abuse filter (which local admins cannot change); it's meant to prevent accidental changes and vandalism because the userspace rarely needs editing besides its own user, but there are occasionally false positives. As I said, your changes look constructive and I could make the changes for you; however, I really know nothing about that page so I'm going to ping to make sure everything in there is correct before adding it (for reference, it's Special:AbuseLog/4594091). I'm glad you've decided to contribute to the Minecraft Wiki and let me know if you have any questions! Cheers, --Madminecrafter12 (Talk to me 13:29, 28 March 2019 (UTC)


 * For the entries you tried to remove removed, could you tell why you removed them? (if they’re implemented or removed, you should use the upcoming and until templates (for future reference). If you can tell it for all, I can apply your full edit.
 * Thank you for wanting to help keep the wiki correct. FVbico (talk) 18:05, 28 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I checked everything you edited in-game, and your edit seems correct, I have updated the page accordingly (due to checking, I found a few more minor things too).
 * If you ever want to help out on the parity page again, but it's caught in the abuse filter, just leave a message on the talk page. Thank you for your help, . :D FVbico (talk) 19:53, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive editing on 19w13a and the IP’s own talk page. -BDJP (t 13:58, 28 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I blocked them a few hours ago.--Madminecrafter12 (Talk to me 18:31, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Unnecessary protection
If you take a look at the [ protection log], the disambig pages for versions have autoconfirmed protection which isn't necessary. – Nixinova   20:53, 5 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Went ahead and unprotected all of these pages. I'm also not sure that Java Edition 1.9-1.12 (or many of the other indefinitely-protected version pages that are not the current or upcoming version) need to stay protected, since they're not necessarily high-traffic anymore. – Sonicwave talk  21:09, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Rana being protected to directors-only also seems excessive, given that the only actual perpetrator with an account appears to have been block-evading anyway and all other edits are IP edits. - User-12316399 (talk) 12:55, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Trying to remove erroneous info from Fletching Table
There's a section in Fletching Table that has info that appears to have been copied in bulk from Cartography Table, and claims that a Fletching Table can be used to edit maps. I tried to remove it but it won't let me. Could someone fix it please? 86.189.175.73 11:24, 7 April 2019 (UTC)


 * -BDJP (t 11:43, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Zombie needs semi-protection
If I see a page that suffers from frequent vandalism, where would I request protection? On en-wiki we have WP:RFPP, but this page here is the closest thing I can find. The Zombie article seems to experience frequent vandalism from anonymous IP editors, and hardly any of those edits in this past month have been constructive. On Wikipedia I'd semi-protect it, but I lack the admin tools here. Would this be a candidate for semi-protection here on the Minecraft Wiki? ~ Amatulic (talk) 04:55, 10 April 2019 (UTC)


 * This would probably be the best place for requesting protection. I protected it for 2 months (not indefinite since there were a few constructive IP edits), though another admin is free to change the protection time if they wish. Several of the vandalism edits (including the most recently reverted) are from 47.212.83.204, who has been blocked in the past. – Sonicwave talk  06:37, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I was thinking 1-2 months protection also. ~ Amatulic (talk) 14:17, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The admin noticeboard is basically a combination of WP's AIV, RPP, edit filters/false positives, AN, ANI, requests for undeletion, history merges, etc. all in one page. We don't need separate noticeboards for all of those because MCW is not nearly as big as WP so there's no reason to separate the admin noticeboard into a bunch of other pages. So yes, this would generally be the best place to request page protection. An admin's talk page would work as well if you see that they have been active recently, but otherwise you'll likely get a quicker response here. Now that a Discord server for the wiki has been created, many use that to request admin attention instead (I personally prefer using the admin noticeboard to do so, however, as not everyone is on Discord).--Madminecrafter12 (Talk to me 14:34, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I followed the discord link but gave it up after I decided I prefer all my Minecraft-wiki communication in one place. This noticeboard will serve the purposes you describe well enough. I'm happy that it isn't a WP:CESSPIT like ANI over on en-Wiki (I avoid ANI whenever possible). ~ Amatulic (talk) 02:02, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I stay as far away as ANI as I can; I'm happy doing the content work and the vandalism fighting in the background, no dramaboards for me. :-) I understand your perspective; I do think that probably a bit too much discussion about important topics takes place on Discord rather than on the wiki itself. Obviously it's easier to chat on Discord and I'm guilty of doing so myself, but not everyone is on Discord and it is better to keep discussion centralized.--Madminecrafter12 (Talk to me 03:29, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I also appreciate how the conversations here are documented/archived - easier to see at a glance what's been going on.  Conversation on Discord is nice but more ephemeral and harder to examine once past.  &#8212; Memetics  talk &#124; edits 04:53, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Might be time for another range block
IPs in bold have been blocked before.



For nearly a month now, these IPs have been inserting false information into articles. -BDJP (t 12:25, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the range would be . Contributions from that range. --AttemptToCallNil (report bug, view backtrace) 15:03, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, those IPs cover a /17, and they all belong to a cable internet company in Mumbai whose range is 27.4.0.0/14. I know that's rather large, but if Contributions from that bigger range (Special:Contributions/27.4.0.0/16 and Special:Contributions/27.5.0.0/16) are also nonconstructive, it might warrant blocking as two /16 ranges. ~ Amatulic (talk) 15:21, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually 24.4.0.0/16 looks fine, only old contributions. ~ Amatulic (talk) 15:26, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If the IPs currently listed above are excluded, and so are the two edits made from that range in 2015, this range has other IPs with recent contributions. Listing them here:
 * So many edits from these IPs are false, many other edits are questionable. There do seem to be some valid edits though, but I doubt that means we shouldn't block the range. Note that some of these edits remain in current versions of articles and need to be checked.
 * I looked up contributions from 27.5.0.0/17 to see whether this pattern covers a wider range. It doesn't seem that way, so it's likely the original /17 is our target. --AttemptToCallNil (report bug, view backtrace) 15:28, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Whew, that is a lot of IPs... as ATCN says, some of the edits are blatantly false, others are borderline, and others are constructive. I can't tell whether all these edits are coming from the same person; if they are, I'd definitely support a range block, but otherwise I'm not quite as sure. Unfortunately, it does look like /17 is the smallest we can go while still making sure most or all of the IPs are blocked, even if it does prevent 32,768 addresses from editing.--Madminecrafter12 (Talk to me 16:07, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * So many edits from these IPs are false, many other edits are questionable. There do seem to be some valid edits though, but I doubt that means we shouldn't block the range. Note that some of these edits remain in current versions of articles and need to be checked.
 * I looked up contributions from 27.5.0.0/17 to see whether this pattern covers a wider range. It doesn't seem that way, so it's likely the original /17 is our target. --AttemptToCallNil (report bug, view backtrace) 15:28, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Whew, that is a lot of IPs... as ATCN says, some of the edits are blatantly false, others are borderline, and others are constructive. I can't tell whether all these edits are coming from the same person; if they are, I'd definitely support a range block, but otherwise I'm not quite as sure. Unfortunately, it does look like /17 is the smallest we can go while still making sure most or all of the IPs are blocked, even if it does prevent 32,768 addresses from editing.--Madminecrafter12 (Talk to me 16:07, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * So many edits from these IPs are false, many other edits are questionable. There do seem to be some valid edits though, but I doubt that means we shouldn't block the range. Note that some of these edits remain in current versions of articles and need to be checked.
 * I looked up contributions from 27.5.0.0/17 to see whether this pattern covers a wider range. It doesn't seem that way, so it's likely the original /17 is our target. --AttemptToCallNil (report bug, view backtrace) 15:28, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Whew, that is a lot of IPs... as ATCN says, some of the edits are blatantly false, others are borderline, and others are constructive. I can't tell whether all these edits are coming from the same person; if they are, I'd definitely support a range block, but otherwise I'm not quite as sure. Unfortunately, it does look like /17 is the smallest we can go while still making sure most or all of the IPs are blocked, even if it does prevent 32,768 addresses from editing.--Madminecrafter12 (Talk to me 16:07, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * So many edits from these IPs are false, many other edits are questionable. There do seem to be some valid edits though, but I doubt that means we shouldn't block the range. Note that some of these edits remain in current versions of articles and need to be checked.
 * I looked up contributions from 27.5.0.0/17 to see whether this pattern covers a wider range. It doesn't seem that way, so it's likely the original /17 is our target. --AttemptToCallNil (report bug, view backtrace) 15:28, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Whew, that is a lot of IPs... as ATCN says, some of the edits are blatantly false, others are borderline, and others are constructive. I can't tell whether all these edits are coming from the same person; if they are, I'd definitely support a range block, but otherwise I'm not quite as sure. Unfortunately, it does look like /17 is the smallest we can go while still making sure most or all of the IPs are blocked, even if it does prevent 32,768 addresses from editing.--Madminecrafter12 (Talk to me 16:07, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * So many edits from these IPs are false, many other edits are questionable. There do seem to be some valid edits though, but I doubt that means we shouldn't block the range. Note that some of these edits remain in current versions of articles and need to be checked.
 * I looked up contributions from 27.5.0.0/17 to see whether this pattern covers a wider range. It doesn't seem that way, so it's likely the original /17 is our target. --AttemptToCallNil (report bug, view backtrace) 15:28, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Whew, that is a lot of IPs... as ATCN says, some of the edits are blatantly false, others are borderline, and others are constructive. I can't tell whether all these edits are coming from the same person; if they are, I'd definitely support a range block, but otherwise I'm not quite as sure. Unfortunately, it does look like /17 is the smallest we can go while still making sure most or all of the IPs are blocked, even if it does prevent 32,768 addresses from editing.--Madminecrafter12 (Talk to me 16:07, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * So many edits from these IPs are false, many other edits are questionable. There do seem to be some valid edits though, but I doubt that means we shouldn't block the range. Note that some of these edits remain in current versions of articles and need to be checked.
 * I looked up contributions from 27.5.0.0/17 to see whether this pattern covers a wider range. It doesn't seem that way, so it's likely the original /17 is our target. --AttemptToCallNil (report bug, view backtrace) 15:28, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Whew, that is a lot of IPs... as ATCN says, some of the edits are blatantly false, others are borderline, and others are constructive. I can't tell whether all these edits are coming from the same person; if they are, I'd definitely support a range block, but otherwise I'm not quite as sure. Unfortunately, it does look like /17 is the smallest we can go while still making sure most or all of the IPs are blocked, even if it does prevent 32,768 addresses from editing.--Madminecrafter12 (Talk to me 16:07, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I have blocked the /17 for 2 weeks. --AttemptToCallNil (report bug, view backtrace) 16:44, 13 April 2019 (UTC)