Minecraft Wiki:Admin noticeboard/Block requests

= Block requests =


 * Is edit-warring their vid into Fishing. --MentalMouse42 (talk) 14:32, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree, it's been going on for a couple of days now. Based on the videos, it seems like a kid trying to self-promote. Also replaced a video in a tutorial so the new video was out of context. Amatulic (talk) 16:24, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Can we voice our opinions here, or should we use the talk page? Anyway, can something like assume-good-faith-policy be applied here? I had a discussion with the person elsewhere and it seems the situation is resolved, and their actions were due to ignorance of guidelines and wiki rules, not malice. Unless the edit warring continues, I'd like to vouch for them. Blue Banana whotookthisname (talk) 18:21, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The user has re-added the video to fishing and I just reverted it a couple minutes ago. What we have here is either incompetence or bad faith. A 24-hour block is appropriate for edit-warring. Amatulic (talk) 18:41, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I note that they are now editing under an actual user account. Their edits on Desert Pyramid include more tutorial stuff and an innocuous but misspelled addition.  JEC6789 reverted the tutorial stuff, I fixed the mispelling. --MentalMouse42 (talk) 22:10, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * actions indicate a vandal-only account. Many edits so far in the contribution history, nothing constructive. Amatulic (talk) 18:48, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * sockpuppet of . TheGreatSpring (talk | contribs) (Tagalog translation) 02:00, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * One of the problems I've observed on this wiki is that there is no appeals process established for blocked editors. They can write on their talk page, but no admin may see it. The blocked user isn't given any instructions how to appeal, and there isn't any category listing of pending appeals that administrators can check. So a blocked user who wants to make constructive edits has no choice but to become a sockpuppet. The English Wikipedia has a good process that works. Every block notice template includes instructions (for example wikipedia:Template:Uw-block) for the template to use to appeal a block, and a user who applies that template gets automatically added to a category page of appeals (see wikipedia:Category:Requests for unblock). Amatulic (talk) 02:19, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The thing is, if the sock were in fact to make constructive edits, we wouldn't have any objection -- indeed, if they weren't causing problems, we might not realize it was a sockpuppet. Somehow, that doesn't seem to be how these things go.... --MentalMouse42 (talk) 16:09, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * See Template:unblock &#91;&#91;User:Jonjinbutter&#124;ddf&#93;&#93; (talk)
 * It's good that you created that, but it's one small step. There needs to be a category page for unblock requests, preferably like on Wikipedia so it tells you status. A template for block notices is needed, which must include instructions about how to appeal a block. And administrators need to be diligent about informing a blocked user of the process when they apply a block. Amatulic (talk) 18:02, 1 July 2021 (UTC)


 * - Blanking talk pages, violating rule No. 1 (and 2), and saying that they have the "right" to vandalize. Humiebeetalk contribs 18:01, 1 July 2021 (UTC)