Minecraft Wiki talk:Wiki rules

To propose changes to the rules, you may edit the editcopy page as well as discuss the changes here.

Should that page get updated to the lastest rules, basically like the editcopy of the main page? Also, wouldn't it be more consistant to call the page "/editcopy" rather than "revision 1"? –KnightMiner · (t) 20:22, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I think there should be a language/swearing policy so users do not swear or use rude language. Thanks, TeamClawPath (talk) 16:45, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Possible text: Profanity should not be used anywhere except in official quotes.. In case it is not clear, I am in favour of this proposal. Related fact: "No profanity" is a rule on the Russian wiki. --GreenStone (judge me) 16:52, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

👁 Image
 I agree. By the way, I think GreenStone is about point 5 of the General rules sections of that wiki’s set of rules. Norrius et. al. made a more structured, grouped and wider set of rules. — Agent NickTheRed37 (talk) 17:12, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I think this is already covered by rule 3. Perhaps the language could be tweaked to be more explicit, but this doesn't need to be a separate rule. -- Orthotope^talk 17:53, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Oppose I think rule 3 is fine as it is. One person's profanity is another person's emphatic adjective and as long as the language isn't used to insult/harass/etc., it's fine. It's important that people be able to communicate in the way they are accustomed to doing -- saying that some forms of speech are inappropriate is equivalent to saying members of some cultures are not wanted here (and which words are appropriate can differ by location). Profanity is also subjective and evolving. For example, is "sucks" profanity? Most people of my generation use it as just a generic descriptive of badness, but previous generations and those from more modest cultures (e.g., American midwest) can be offended by it. How about SNAFU or FUBAR? Both evoke profanity, but not explicity, yet could offend older people while being completely unknown to younger. The word "bloody" has virtually no stigma to an American but can offend British speakers. Are we going to have a list somewhere of what words count as profanity and what debatable words do not? The path of censorship is a morass of questions. —munin · 👁 Image
👁 Image
· 18:44, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Oppose While I am personally against profanity, I would have to agree with Munin on this. It is impossible to define a list of all the disallowed profanity, especially since words may or may not be profanity based on the person. And with profanity already not being within the writing style on articles, the only pages really affected would be the rare talk page or edit summary.

On that topic, I would avoid adding rules added just for the sake of having them. There has not been any problem with profanity recently (in fact, I have rarely seen any), so such a rule would basically be saying "don't do this thing you are not doing". Instead if you don't like profanity, simply avoid using it, and if you see a user using profanity, you can kindly say something on their talk page like "while it is not against the rules, it would be nice if you did not use profanity in your talk page messages". –KnightMiner · (t) 04:28, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Vote for support withdrawn. However, I propose the following change to rule 2: Any actions falling under the definitions of vandalism, spam or disruptive editing are strictly prohibited. This provides links to relevant Wikipedia policies so that those who read the rules and want to learn more can simply click the links to do that. The proposed rule also sounds more official (which an official document (which the rules page is) should probably be). Also, the addition of disruptive editing makes a situation possible where a user is officially warned for using profanity when they were previously unofficially told to try to tone it down. --GreenStone (judge me) 10:04, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree to that. I have seen users blocked before for disruptive editing, so it makes sense to directly state it in the rules. (though "absolute no-no" was such fun wording :P) –KnightMiner · (t) 14:19, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually yes. Vote withdrawn. Point #3 can be changed to be topic-neutral — this should apply everywhere. And, “absolute no-no” won’t look or sound serious. — Agent NickTheRed37 (talk) 17:17, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support change to rule 2 but with modification -- I think the following is sufficient: Vandalism, spam, and disruptive editing are prohibited. —munin · 👁 Image
👁 Image
· 18:25, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

12. Empty pages are unacceptable. If you make a page, and put nothing in there, this page is considered spam (for nothingness in the page) and deleted immediately, because it breaks rule 2. PedrinhoCraft (talk) 17:07, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

What does that mean?--207.204.181.251 21:08, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism is when a user (any user, either anonymous or with an account), creates a page or edits an existing one with vandalistic intent. However, their edit is not constructive, as it would either remove content and replace it, or delete content, or add content that was never intended to be there. This type of editing is harmful to Wikis, as it adds content that should not be there, or harmfully modifies existing content. Reasons for vandalism vary. Hope I helped you out some. Thanks, Maethoredhel ^Talk | _Contribs 21:34, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Rip off?--173.228.205.51 19:54, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

No. See wikipedia:Sockpuppet (Internet) and wp:Sock puppetry. -- Orthotope^talk 01:45, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

The following are reasons to ban IP user pages:

• Often, unregistered users make a few edits and never return, or they decide to create an account.
• If they plan to remain as an anonymous user, their IP address will change frequently, and they cannot move their page to the new IP. Having registered users move their page all the time would be a hassle, and they could be using it as a trick to move someone else's page.

We need an official rule that says as follows:

Unregistered users may not have user pages, and IP user pages may be deleted without notice.

The Blobs^{👁 Image}
03:30, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't think we should block anomymous users from creating user pages, instead we should make something to automatically delete their user pages if they are inactive for a long period of time. Lê Duy Quang (Make some words | Contributions) 03:41, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Just thinking about it, is it ever relevant? I don't see how it could be, but I've not used/contributed to many tutorial pages so I suspect someone knows better than I do. -Xbony2 (talk) 12:22, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I don’t think posting server IP addresses does ever contribute to the content of tutorials. I support taking this amendment down. On Russian Minecraft Wiki (which has its own unique system of rules) there is no such amendment, and any server IP posting on tutorials is considered spam and prohibited with accordance to the Base Rules point 4 which is simple, strict and concise:

4. Publishing advertisement materials or materials intended for propaganda by any cause is prohibited.

— NickTheRed37 (talk | RU) 11:18, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I was thinking about it, and I suspect it means like as an example. It would be hard to create a tutorial about connecting to a server without any IP. -Xbony2 (talk) 11:56, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

An invalid IP could be used as an example. — NickTheRed37 (talk | RU) 14:00, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

An invalid IP is an IP :P -Xbony2 (talk) 14:34, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

But if it is proven that it doesn’t point to a server (maybe via a <ref>), it is fine to use. — NickTheRed37 (talk | RU) 15:19, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Text proposal: "Posting IPs or other server data potentially sufficient to identify a public server and/or connect to it is also considered advertisement. If information of this type is necessary on a tutorial page, invalid data or placeholders should be provided (e. g. 123.456.789.012 or xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx instead of what is a possible server IP address)."

Would we also need to require notes explicitly pointing out that the provided data are invalid?

Also, how do you prove that an IP doesn't point to a server? --AttemptToCallNil (report bug, view backtrace) 15:29, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Just recommend the use of IPs that are explicitly reserved and cannot be assigned on the Internet: 127.0.0.1, 192.168.1.1, etc., and whatever their IPv6 equivalents are. 「ディノ奴千？！」^{? · ☎ Dinoguy1000} 21:33, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Just curious, what is the general opinion about adding a rule to not use talk pages as forums? I've noticed this has been a bit of a problem lately, and I do feel like it's something worth mentioning in the wiki rules, as it's annoying and I have seen users get blocked for this. If we do add this rule, I'm thinking it should be sort of like the following:

Talk pages of articles are not forums. They should never be used to suggest a new idea for the game or to provide your personal opinion on a feature. Likewise, they should not be used to request for help with something in the game, unless it would directly relate to improving the article.

Thoughts?-- Madminecrafter12^{👁 Image
Talk to me👁 Image}
23:14, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Fits better on the talk page guidelines in my opinion. When we redid the rules a couple years back the goal was to make this page mostly major blockable offenses, using talk pages as a forum is not something you will get blocked for unless you do it repeatedly. Plus, the whole point of the talk page guidelines is they cover all things talk page. If you have to block someone in violation of that, you can just cite MCW:TALK. –KnightMiner · (t) 15:06, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree with KnightMiner. The forum part here could be added as a new list item of the first general guideline, phrased for example like this: [Talk pages should not be used for:] Asking for help with something in the game, unless it would directly relate to improving the article. (the rest of the above suggestion is already covered there I believe). – Jack McKalling [ 👁 Talk
👁 Contrib
] 15:43, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

What do you think about introducing a three revert rule or some variation of it? This has been suggested on Discord, and emoji reactions to the suggestion message seem to indicate substantial support. --AttemptToCallNil (report bug, view backtrace) 18:20, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

As I said on Discord, I 👁 Image
 Support this. I believe this would help reduce edit wars.-- Madminecrafter12^{👁 Image
Talk to me👁 Image}
18:30, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Or at least add something for us to refer to when edit wars occur other than to the catch-all "disruptive editing" clause in rule 2. --AttemptToCallNil (report bug, view backtrace) 18:36, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support 👁 Image
psl85 (talk • contribs) 18:35, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support Frisk (Talk page) 18:58, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support some variation of the rule described behind the link. With this new MCW rule, it should be very clear in which cases we can or cannot revert, and where/how to report potential cases, as well as what action should be taken by the relevant admin. I'm not sure we'd need to make an adaption of the rule, but I'm just not aware of any of the mentioned policies and noticeboards on that page, and can't tell we have any of them here. – Jack McKalling [ 👁 Talk
👁 Contrib
] 20:46, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Comment I have also written a warning to use if there is a user edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, we can move it from the userspace to the template namespace to use on user talk pages to warn them about they violated this rule. Should we use it to warn users if they violate the rule or not? 👁 Image
psl85 (talk • contribs) 13:48, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Your User:Psl85/editwar-warning template is just too overbose. Any message posted in response to edit warring could be made into a one or two sentence personalized message instead. It doesn't have to be as simple as a template transclusion, and personally, I would mind it if it were a template. – Jack McKalling [ 👁 Talk
👁 Contrib
] 13:57, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Jack McKalling what should I rewrite in the template to make so it can be subst:ed on user talk pages as warning? 👁 Image
psl85 (talk • contribs) 14:38, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

There are many flaws with the standard 3RR, including the fact that you can just make 3 reverts every day and that it covers material no matter how different it is. Here's my proposal:

12. Persistent edit warring is not allowed.

1. In specific, one must not make more than 3 reverts within the span of 1 week if it involves the same or similar material or the same user. When in doubt, don't revert.

1. Users who violate this rule may be blocked from editing.

2. Reverting clear, obvious, and deliberate vandalism is an exception to this.

2. Users may still be blocked for edit warring even if they don't violate this rule.

-- Madminecrafter12^{👁 Image
Talk to me👁 Image}
12:58, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

What if one of the edit war-ers is clearly in the wrong, for example these https://minecraft.gamepedia.com/index.php?title=Turtle&type=revision&diff=1259477&oldid=1259475 and https://minecraft.gamepedia.com/File:EntityCSS.png, will both be banned/punished, or only the one clearly in the wrong? FVbico (talk) 13:59, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I'd say the extent of measures taken against edit war participants, if any, depends on each specific situation. --AttemptToCallNil (report bug, view backtrace) 14:06, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) First of all, blocks should never be used as punishment, only to prevent disruption. But yes, if this continued, action would be taken against both users. Giorgo is clearly not vandalizing; his edit summary contained evidence as to why he thought the change was correct: "The Turtle spawn egg is called Spawn Sea Turtle, and Turtle Egg is called Sea Turtle Egg." In cases, like these, you would start a discussion on the talk page explaining your reasoning, and then allow other editors to get involved so that a general consensus can form.-- Madminecrafter12^{👁 Image
Talk to me👁 Image}
14:07, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Just an FYI I've taken it to the talk page of the other user on a couple occasions, but never got a reply back; so that also doesn't really solve anything. (including in the turtle case) FVbico (talk) 14:19, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

It's better to take it to the article's talk page, as the discussion should be more about the content in the article rather than the user.-- Madminecrafter12^{👁 Image
Talk to me👁 Image}
14:23, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Because timing and intermediate edits in my opinion have nothing to do with content conflicts, I would like to propose something else, although similar. This proposal is weaker in when an edit may be reverted, but stronger in how many may be reverted. Also, I'm not phrasing any consequenses to a violation of this rule, as I think that should be determined on a case by case basis by the related admin(s).

12. Persistent edit warring is not allowed.

1. The same or similar content may not be reverted more than three times.

0. This excludes clear, obvious and deliberate vandalism. ^{(added after ATCN's post below; 14:06, 18 October 2018 (UTC))}

1. This includes multiple people reverting the content, unless it is an interfering admin who sets the final resolution.

2. This also includes both using the "undo" tool on one or a set of revisions, and performing a regular edit that changes the content in a way that reverts the related content changes.

3. Any unrelated intermediate edits by any user, have no effect on the amount of times the content may be reverted.

2. There is no specific time frame in which content may be reverted, although the count is reset if the content to revert changes significantly over time.

3. Report the content instead of reverting, when it has been reverted three times already.

– Jack McKalling [ 👁 Talk
👁 Contrib
] 13:41, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

From Madminecrafter's proposal:

> 2. Reverting clear, obvious, and deliberate vandalism is an exception to this.

This should definitely be in the rules.

We need to point out that after the first revert a discussion should be started.

It may be worth saying that in case of an editing dispute the version that preceded the dispute should normally be kept until the dispute is resolved.

--AttemptToCallNil (report bug, view backtrace) 13:45, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

You're right, I've added it into the proposal above. Ignore the now zero-based numbering. – Jack McKalling [ 👁 Talk
👁 Contrib
] 14:06, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Anyway, if you think about it, this proposal will for any new change of content allow it to be freely reverted only twice, and freely proven to be correct after its first revert only once. I think this is important, because if your edit can only be re-done in that way once, you'll always need to carefully phrase the reason you think your change is correct, to convince those who reverted it without facing admin interference. – Jack McKalling [ 👁 Talk
👁 Contrib
] 14:43, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I support with this proposal. FVbico (talk) 13:45, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

> an interfering admin

While I don't agree with this reasoning, people may get unhappy that administrators get capabilities other than purely technical ones. I refer to the point of view that the administrator "mop" is available not for everyone for the sole reason that it requires trust, and absolutely no other functions than these technical capabilities may be exclusively assigned to administrators. Again, I don't agree with this reasoning.

Other than that, I think we can implement this proposal, and later write amendments if it becomes necessary. --AttemptToCallNil (report bug, view backtrace) 20:25, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

The current format of the rules page is:

1. You can do this.
   1. Except this.
   2. Also, when doing that you must also do this.
2. Do not do anything bad.
   1. This includes these.

...

This looks not very professional and I recommend changing to this:

1. You can do this.

1.1. Except this.

1.2. Also, when doing that you must also do this.

2. Do not do anything bad.

2.1. This includes these.

...

Lê Duy Quang (Make some words | Contributions) 03:25, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I remember this being doable using standard numbered lists with CSS counters (I remember that from a tutorial posted on a Russian "teach yourself HTML/CSS" site); I am neutral, leaning slightly towards support, until other people comment on the issue. --AttemptToCallNil (report bug, view backtrace) 07:55, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I do think that looks nicer, so I would probably support that. I have no clue how a CSS counter can be generated, though, and if it's something complicated, I don't think it'd really be worth it.-- Madminecrafter12^{👁 Image
Talk to me👁 Image}
13:54, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

This explains itself:

👁 Image

Lê Duy Quang (Make some words | Contributions) 03:31, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

All pages in the Minecraft Wiki namespace are considered to be project pages by the software - in fact, the project namespace name is actually an alias for it. (Try typing Project:Wiki rules). It could probably be changed with JS or something, but I'm not sure it's worth it.-- Madminecrafter12^{👁 Image
Talk to me👁 Image}
03:35, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Correct, the namespace the page is in has the same name as the wiki, so it's about the wiki project. You could say the MCW namespace is the space for all "meta" content of the wiki, or content about the wiki itself rather than the subject the wiki is about. Just like all our mcw:projects are specifically about the work on the wiki itself. – Jack McKalling [ 👁 Talk
👁 Contrib
] 07:29, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any issues with that display. We could change MediaWiki:Nstab-project (which means JavaScript isn't necessary), but I see no need to do it. I would do it if it were to be determined necessary though. --AttemptToCallNil (report bug, view backtrace) 07:42, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Agreed not necessary. – Jack McKalling [ 👁 Talk
👁 Contrib
] 07:50, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I guess I was wrong - a MediaWiki namespace system message does exist for it. I agree that it's probably not necessary though.-- Madminecrafter12^{👁 Image
Talk to me👁 Image}
12:22, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

"This includes posting server IPs on articles, though server IPs may be posted on tutorial pages if relevant."

I'd rather not encourage doing this. Can this part of the sentence be removed? – Nixinova 👁 Image
👁 Image
06:40, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I think the tutorial clause was for something like example IPs. But even then, I don't think posting actual server IPs should be allowed outside userspace. (Or IPs pretending to be actual server IPs. I still remember that incident when a spammer invited us to connect to something like 192.168.0.21.)

But why do we even need that sub-rule in the first place? Is it intended to prevent a form of "not advertising" when people use actual IPs as example data? --AttemptToCallNil (report bug, view backtrace) 10:37, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

"In order to keep the Minecraft Wiki free of spam and unnecessary items, there are a few rules you must follow when editing and creating pages:"

You know, I wanted to have a whole essay here. Detailed descriptions of specific issues, thoughts on the nature of policy, things like that. I guess it might be better if I just posted specific proposals.

For the introduction:

Rule 2 (reworded):

Rule 3 (completely rewritten):

Rule 4 (rewritten; note that 4.1 is merged into it):

Rule 5 (rewritten; note that 5.1, 6, and 6.1 are merged into it):

Rule 7 (rewritten):

Rule 8 (reworded):

Rule 9 (reworded):

Rule 10 (rewritten):

Rule 11 (rewritten):

Rule 11.1 (rewritten):

Afterword:

• Introduction: my version specifies some most fundamental items, and links to Wikipedia's IAR. Makes policy less of a dogma and more of a "we don't believe it can ever be better for the wiki to do otherwise, but in case we're wrong and you can demonstrate it, we will not stop you". Emphasizes consensus (with a link to a longer explanation to Wikipedia) as the key method of decision making. Emphasizes argument-based discussions (not "I like it"), civility, and the project's collaborative and freely editable nature.
• Rule 2: beyond the restructuring of the concept behind rules (see the explanation for the introduction), the word "otherwise" was inserted as spam and vandalism are already forms of disruptive editing.
• Rule 3: civility now required always and everywhere, and not just in discussions and not just "when possible". Assumption of good faith is now expected. Linking to Wikipedia's longer explanation of harassment. Replaced the reference to "ad hominem" with a single short sentence at the end.
• Rule 4: account for unintentional misleading (see AGF above), add expectation of verifiability, remove the term "nonsense" because it's rather problematic to apply. Remove "comedy" as questionably useful, AF versions could be considered "comedy". Merge with 4.1 by requesting not to add speculation.
• Rule 5: advertising already covered by the spam clause above; unclear how tutorials could require real (non-example) server IPs; unclear how tutorials could use links to fan communities; "and similar issues" is just weird in rules. Merged with 5.1, 6, and 6.1; note that block/deletion reasons already state "Rule 5/6", so these two are already referred to as a single entity.
• Rule 7: since we have Mojang staff biographies, it is possible that non-MC sources can be used for articles. Change "websites" to "sources" as the underlying reason behind it is copyright, which isn't specific to online content (so a physical book on Minecraft still shouldn't be copied from). Add an explicit fair use exemption for images.
• Rule 8: removed the reference to void, where no non-official videos can currently be found.
• Rule 9: do not refer to "we" as this is unusual in the context of policy; expand images to all files, and articles to all pages; weaker wording on deletion; "GUI screenshots" and "general wiki-related images" are questionable as unconditionally acceptable to keep if unused.
• Rule 10: reworded to link to a longer explanation on Wikipedia, and because it's not the username that is blocked, but the account.
• Rule 11: more specific in terms of what abuse means and how it can be handled; add link to the Wikipedia page.
• Rule 11.1: remove the discouragement clause as it false because it does not apply to legitimate alt accounts (most notably bot accounts).
• Afterword: remove specific userspace exemptions in favour of a general clarification on what "article" means. I don't believe the admin noticeboard exemption process has ever been used, so I replaced its mention with a request to ask on the community portal. I don't believe the "thank you" bit below is useful on a policy page. Added an explanation of links to Wikipedia pages, especially since my proposal introduces many new such links.

Rules that are merged in could be replaced with a reference to the rules they are merged into. This will allow to maintain numbering compatibility with the previous revision.

I may change the proposed text if improvements are suggested. If so, I will specify it in this section. (Please avoid editing it.)

Any suggestions? --AttemptToCallNil (report bug, view backtrace) 23:29, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

The only thing I see is that it seems the video rules (and especially the Video policy page) would say not to include things like the MC Spotlights videos or SlicedLime's snapshot videos. They aren't necessary to illustrate any concepts and have voiceovers. I'm not opposed to keeping these (especially if we update the spotlight videos) but it seems rules would need to be reworded. -PancakeIdentity (talk) 00:24, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

That is not exactly within the scope of my proposal though, it may warrant a separate discussion on the video policy page. Slicedlime's videos are covered by the official sources statement in the introduction of the video policy, and MC Spotlights are the Curse videos exempt from the policy as stated in its last section. I would be more concerned that this policy may interfere with our newly-created video project (designed to replace MC Spotlights videos as those are no longer created and are now outdated; I think staff have lowered their demands to keep all the videos here.)–Preceding unsigned comment was added by AttemptToCallNil (talk • contribs) at 02:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC). Please sign your posts with ~~~~

Hasn't SlicedLime repeatedly stated that his videos are not meant to be official? But yeah, I'll start another discussion eventually. -PancakeIdentity (talk) 03:01, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

For anyone interested, here's a link to the topic. -PancakeIdentity (talk) 03:07, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I would support this proposal; I particularly like your introduction much better than what's currently on the page and all the other changes you listed seem like improvements as well. You don't mention anything about Rule 1 in your layout; I presume that means you want to keep it the same way it is now? I've actually gone ahead and removed the link to the void on Rule 8, but the rest it would be best to wait for more participation before doing anything.--Madminecrafter12 ^{(Talk to me | View what I've done)} 15:52, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

It's been long enough since my proposal that I don't remember what exactly my intentions were, but yes, it's most likely I didn't see any need to change #1, and neither do I see any such need now. --AttemptToCallNil (report bug, view backtrace) 15:54, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Didn't make it very clear in my first response, but 👁 Image
 Support. -PancakeIdentity (talk) 15:57, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support, can't think of any counterarguments at the moment. Are rules 7-11 going to be moved up to 6-10 or retain the current numbering (with a gap between 5 and 7)? –Sonicwave ^talk 21:34, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm sure they would be, it doesn't make sense to have a random gap.--Madminecrafter12 ^{(Talk to me | View what I've done)} 21:40, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I've implemented most of it. This hasn't received a whole lot of participation, but there's been well-reasoned support, this has been open for many months, and I've linked it several times over Discord, so if someone objected to this they should've commented so a long time ago. However, I did not implement the part you changed to "Rules that disallow something for articles do not apply to your userspace" yet, not necessarily because there's a consensus against it but just a personal objection. "Disallow something for articles" is ambiguous; although the three rules that we presumably want exempted from userspace do mention "article" while the others don't, I think it would be less confusing if we could point out specific rules. For now I've changed the "4, 5.1, 6, and 8" exemption that was previously there to "4, 5, and 7" due to the switching around of the rule numbers, but I'm open to further discussion on this.

Additionally, I think we should change the userpage exemption of rule 5 so that it is clear that not all cases that fall under rule 5 don't apply to userpages, or just remove that one exemption completely. Do we really want a user page simply saying "Hey, join my Minecraft server at this IP!" I know this could technically be considered spam under rule 2, but since rule 5 specifically mentions "Do not advertise any fan communities or servers" and userpages are presumably an explicit exception to this, I could see this being unclear. But then again if we remove this exemption completely, you could question whether an established user briefly adding a link in their infobox to their presence on a certain Minecraft fan community media that's clearly not for the purpose of advertising, would be disallowed per this rule. --Madminecrafter12 ^{(Talk to me | View what I've done)} 14:45, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Have not read much of this discussion, but I should point out that if you change any rule numbers, make an archive of the page like MCW:Wiki rules/Archive 1. The archives exist so old references to rule #x can be cross referenced with the proper date. –KnightMiner · (t) 18:06, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't think about that. Not sure why you changed the rules to how they previously were on this page itself, however; I presume that was an accident? I've reverted it anyways.--Madminecrafter12 ^{(Talk to me | View what I've done)} 16:35, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I was editing an older version to get the original rules for copy/paste, but forgot to switch to the latest before I added it to the archive box. –KnightMiner · (t) 20:32, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Since the other two rule pages are protected at an administrator-only level, i think it would make sense to fully protect this archive of the rules. James Haydon (talk) 18:14, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

1. This archive does not exist (until you created it)
2. If you are referring to the parent page, no, it's to discuss the fully protected page.
3. What other rule page?
4. ---Humiebee ^{Discuss anything with me Look at my edits} 21:10, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

The two pages i am referring to are [[Minecraft Wiki:Wiki Rules]] and Minecraft Wiki: Wiki rules/Archive 1. James Haydon (talk) 20:02, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

This page could use {{shortcut|MCW:RULES}} at the top. -Bumblebink (talk) 11:03, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Done. Dhranios (talk) (Join the wiki videos project!) 11:44, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

on this wiki in English (perhaps most popular) are only 10 rules. On the Polish, for example, are 23 rules. What did you think? Kacpereng166 (talk) 13:54, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

All the rules were removed for a reason (if you look at archive 1), they were clumped together so it was easier to see. Also, you can propse changes to the editcopy.Humiebee (talk) 14:28, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Are you asking for more rules because the number of rules is too small? Rules exist for a reason, not to meet an arbitrary number. If you think there should be another rule, propose a specific rule and give a reason why. KnightMiner ^(t/c) 16:10, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Add {{editcopy}} to the top and add links to wikipedia for rule 3. Also add ad hom... Humiebee^{talk contribs} 22:16, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Should we state that rule #2 is the most commonly violated rule? Bianche2006 (My Messages My Edits) 22:58, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure what purpose such a message could serve. I haven't previously heard of policies including violation/enforcement statistical data as part of their text. As well, I believe this claim's factual correctness, and the evidence it's supposedly based on, could come under question: how do we know it is the most commonly violated rule? --AttemptToCallNil (talk) 10:32, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree with all of the news rules except that rule 4.1 might need some clarification of what that means. Same with rule 11, specifying that it means protected pages. It might also be worth adding something about fandom content, it doesn't have to outright ban it but something like "we ask that you refrain from using Fandom Wiki content as much as possible or at all". Otherwise, they look good. OtherConsumed (Talk│Contributions) 04:02, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't like the suggested rule changes. #11 ist just advice and has nothing to do with rules at all. The subpoints of #4 are also not needed. The differentiation from Wikipedia feels out of place as we are not Wikipedia and the rule is not linking to any Wikipedia policy either. The mention of sanctions or a block is not needed as that applies to any rules that aren't being followed. Making edits just to increase edit counts seems out of place in the rules as well. It's not unfair to other editors as you don't gain anything from a higher edit count nor does it do any damage which would warrant it to be in the rules. Should a user really do excessive edits just to increase their edit count, that would already be covered by rule #2 as disruptive editing anyway. -- 👁 Image
MarkusRost (talk) 16:42, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

My thoughts on all the new rule suggestions:

• Rule 3.1: 👁 Image
   Support I think edit warring is an important enough issue that it should be included in the wiki rules, and it makes sense to have it as a subpoint of Rule 3. However, the second sentence is a bit unclear in terms of when to leave a message rather than revert an edit and where to leave the message ("their" talk page implies the talk page of the user involved, but starting a discussion on the article's talk page may make more sense in most cases), so it would likely need to be reworded.
• Rule 4.1: 👁 Image
   Oppose I find this rule unnecessary and irrelevant to the main point of Rule 4. If someone is making edits just to increase their edit count, and the edits are disruptive, then that would be disallowed under Rule 2 or 4 anyways. If the edits are constructive, then they're not really making edits just to increase their edit count, and they are still improving the wiki. The only other possible scenario I can think of is edits that just add spaces or blank comments that don't affect the appearance of the page at all, but I've never seen someone spam edits like those just to get their edit count up. Overall I don't think it's a big enough issue to warrant putting as a rule.
• Rule 4.3: 👁 Image
   Oppose as a rule, as I find it out of place and not especially necessary. However, I would be open to incorporating something similar into the wording of Rule 4. For example, you could have (new text highlighted):

Avoid misleading readers and other editors. Make sure your contributions to articles are verifiable, either from in-game testing or a reliable outside source. Do not add speculation, parody content, or hoaxes to articles.

However, that's a bit of an oversimplification and I'm not entirely convinced it needs to be in the rules page at all.

• Rule 11: 👁 Image
   Oppose This "rule" does not seem like a rule at all to me, but more of a suggestion, making it irrelevant for a "Wiki rules" page. It is also unnecessary because if someone tries to edit a protected page, they will already see a message box telling them to propose changes on the talk page instead.

--Madminecrafter12 (talk) 16:58, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

I've reworded and moved the edit warring subpoint under rule 2 as it's more to do with being disruptive rather than uncivil, though I'm not sure if I'm totally happy with the wording yet. I also removed the subpoint on chasing edit count and expanded on rule 4 similar to Madminecrafter's suggestion, although it now seems a bit wordy. –Sonicwave ^talk 05:05, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

A proposal to add a rule and policy page disallowing the usage of generative AI in wiki editing is being discussed in this forum topic. –Sonicwave ^talk 03:54, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Impersonation of another user without the permission of that user is illegal and disruptive. Impersonation is already implied to be disallowed by the rules, but adding an explicit rule for it might be a good idea.

Forms of impersonation:

• (violates rule 10) Abuse of multiple accounts.
  • Essentially, impersonating multiple hypothetical "other" people.
• (violates new policy being discussed in wiki forum) Use of generative AI, because the content is not written by the user adding it.
  • Impersonating the AI.
• (violates rule 6) copying content from other sources.
  • Impersonating the copied sources.
• (violates rule 3) Impersonating is not civil, and can even be a way to harass, stalk, or insult to the victim.

Also, articles in the "User" namespace are clearly not exempt from the existing (implied) ban on impersonation.

To add this rule, we could put this after rule 3:

• Don't pretend to be someone else. Impersonation is disruptive and uncivil. It is also a form of identity fraud, and therefore illegal.

--Simanelix ^(T|C) 03:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to add a generic fraud rule. The current rule basically covers all cases of "fraud". Can you elaborate how your proposed rule looks like? GIM Dianliang233 T C 04:03, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

After reading w:Fraud, I realized that I didn't know the exact meaning of the term. I now realize that this proposal is for a rule against impersonation. --Simanelix ^(T|C) 13:04, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

For a rule about fraud, I don't think this is necessary since we don't need to reiterate existing laws in the wiki rules.

For a rule (modification) about impersonation, I think the existing rule3 could be modified to explicitly mention it. But I don't think there is a need to add another rule for it, because impersonating someone falls in the same category as harassing them as far as our rules are concerned. - Jack McKalling (talk) 13:19, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

We already have rule 9. Impersonation is a case of misleading username. GIM Dianliang233 T C 13:29, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

New users might not be aware that the style guide is somewhat important. I know it's not as strict as these rules are, but reminding them here to read it might be a good idea. --Simanelix ^(T|C) 13:48, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Oppose, the style guide would be very out of place between the other rules. There already is a link to the style guide in the edit notice and almost all places linking to the rules also include a link to the style guide. So new users who aren't aware of the style guide are most likely not aware of the rules as well. -- 👁 Image
MarkusRost (talk) 15:49, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Oppose per MarkusRost; that seems better suited for a "Help" landing page. –⁠Sonicwave ^talk 21:37, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Change it to Do not vandalize, spam, sockpuppet, or otherwise edit disruptively.

Sockpuppet redirects to Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry. 2001:4456:C7E:1400:D0BF:B3D:510E:B64C 08:30, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Oppose — Sockpuppetry is already covered by rule #10. BabylonAS 08:33, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

There is an editcopy of the wiki rules. Could you make an easy access to it? 2001:4456:C8F:1900:F9AC:4C3F:E6E6:E597 05:23, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Minecraft Wiki:Wiki rules/editcopy. I can't edit it, so... -~- Nerdyguy2000   Talk   Edits  02:02, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Tell MarkusRost. 2001:4456:C8F:1900:25F1:1BC0:4486:B9BE 02:18, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

... Or any other admin? It's called the MCW:admin noticeboard. -~- Nerdyguy2000   Talk   Edits  02:38, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

This page might need to be edited depending on the circumstance. New rules need to be added and some wordings needs to be tweaked. The current archive model can't work very well.

IMO we should keep these two big revisions (Prior to March 1, 2015, March 1, 2015 – April 27, 2020), but we should have a "history page" for the "3rd revision" of the rules to document minor changes. Thoughts? GIM Dianliang233 T C 07:24, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Oppose - The rules are concise. We can add new rules, if needed. But I support a history page for the 3rd revision, as it's just a minor revision. WarumHoekom (talk) 16:38, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Done – I've implemented this change. GIM Dianliang233 (talk) 03:08, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

I actually think we don't need the third archive at all. The archive pages are for major updates which change the rule numbers only, the block reason redirect then gets updated to the archive instead of the current rules to keep the link working correctly. Small changes to wording are a lot more common and if someone wants a full history of those changes the page history is available like for all other pages as well. -- 👁 Image
MarkusRost (talk) 03:27, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Introduce a Rule #12, saying "Do not advertise for your business or community. We do not allow advertising on this wiki."

Or if possible, turn Rule #5 into a "No advertising" rule. WarumHoekom (talk) 16:42, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Currently editcopy has some minor phrasing changes and some additions mostly proposed by Sonicwave. If there's no disagreement we should sync with editcopy. GIM Dianliang233 (talk) 03:13, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

In addittion, there should be some new rules added.

Change Rule #10 to "Abuse of multiple accounts for block evasion or other circumvention of policy may result in these accounts being indefinitely blocked. This is called sockpuppetry."

Also add new rules, like:

Do not allow users to get access to your account.

8.1: Do not add unrelated images to the wiki, unless it's for your userpage.

210.23.165.238 16:43, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

My changes were simply consolidating additional rules that had previously been added to the editcopy and discussed at #New_rules_in_editcopy, of which the only major addition remaining is an additional subpoint about edit warring. I also removed the note that "you may be blocked if you don't follow the rules", as it seemed intimidating and unnecessary.

Regarding the points above, I'm not sure if it's necessary to define "sockpuppetry" within the rules but wouldn't be against that. I also don't think there needs to be a subpoint of rule 8 that essentially says the same thing. It could be reworded, though even images related to Minecraft may not be useful or planned to be incorporated into articles. –⁠Sonicwave ^talk 06:03, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I think we should sync with editcopy. 49.145.104.110 07:59, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I think adding a rule against edit warring would be reasonable. I also think that the advertising/spam rule should be separate from rule #2 as well. Maybe merge into 5 instead? CitrusEgg7168 (talk) 19:39, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Support but don't merge spam onto 5. They're not the same thing. 49.145.107.76 09:25, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Support. Arina (she/her) 19:20, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Support - 👁 Image
StizzurpXDD^(talk) 09:27, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Seeing that there are no more changes in the current editcopy that are really worth discussing, I will sync the editcopy one week from now if no one opposes. GIM Dianliang233 (talk) 03:06, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Under rule 2, where it talks about edit warring, it has the "1." at the start. This just looks wrong, as it is nested underneath an already numbered list, and there is only one thing there anyway. I think it should be replaced with a simple bullet point.

• like this

Justjourney (talk) 02:58, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

True. Due to the first reason, number ten is awkward too, even if it's two things in that case. -~- Nerdyguy2000   Talk   Edits  03:24, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

It's supposed to be Rule 2.1. The thing under Rule 10, could be Rule 10.1, but I'm not sure. 2001:41D0:801:1000:0:0:0:1896 05:58, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

I started a discussion at Minecraft Wiki:Admin noticeboard#Using this wiki as a personal web hosting service but I thought I should propose a modification to rule 5 here.

I propose changing:

Do not advertise any fan communities or servers.

to

Do not advertise any fan communities, servers, or other content external to this wiki.

I think we also need a guideline about what user space can and can't be used for. Creating another wiki of user sub-pages to write about things that would never survive in main article space, I think, should be prohibited. We aren't an indefinite hosting service for articles that aren't appropriate for article space. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:23, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

"Articles in the "User" namespace are exempt from rules 4, 5, 7, and 11."

You would need to also amend this somewhat in your proposal to have it apply in the case mentioned. Mudscape 👁 Image
talk 20:30, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Oppose per MarkusRost. Anything "external" to this wiki would be essentially covered by Rule 2: Spam. 2001:41D0:801:1000:0:0:0:1896 06:00, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

I think the wording "other content external to this wiki" is already covered by rule 2, as that would fall under spam. Most Minecraft related stuff is already covered by "fan communities", however Mods specifically might be something worth adding as we only recently stopped having pages for them and they aren't really covered by "fan communities".

However to use this rule as reasoning for your mentioned discussion, you would also need to change the rule 5 exemption for user pages. I 👁 Image
 Oppose that change as it would disallow even mentioning on your user page which communities you are a part of or which servers you play on. -- 👁 Image
MarkusRost (talk) 20:58, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

I withdraw this proposal as badly thought-out. I still think, however, that we need to address the issue of using this wiki as a personal web hosting service. At the very least, it could be a valid reason for deleting a page. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:38, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Markus's comment on the AN; just let the user know that they shouldn't really be doing that. -~- Nerdyguy2000   Talk   Edits  17:51, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

I can't seam to find anything on the wiki so far that mentions the required Ages needed to Become a User and Edit, I have found Someone who might be underaged towards the wiki's rules but can't confirm it with it being nowhere in the Guidelines 👁 Image
MinecraftFan1000 (talk) 22:25, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

It's not in the rules but in Terms of Use of Weird Gloop services. Frisk (talk) 22:27, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Ah ok, good, i found a User who's confirmed to be Under 13 User talk:Moombloom25 and by the way they typed at the end makes me feel like there're implying that there not just younger then 13, but hey then again what do i know could just be a weird feeling i got. 👁 Image
MinecraftFan1000 (talk) 22:36, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

the rule in question is "# Users who have rollback rights may not abuse rollback rights or else they'll be blocked indefinitely. An admin once deleted a talk message because of using the rollback feature.", can someone please add it? oh, and the "An admin once deleted a talk message because of using the rollback feature." thing is real, it was done by MarkusRost 57.129.24.70 15:02, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

You're actually abusing edit rights! Admins know how to rollback edits, so they never abuse their rights. 👁 Image
 I wholeheartedly oppose! 👁 Image
BigEarsQuake 2 15:04, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

well why can't people even edit? 57.129.24.70 15:22, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

There doesn't need to be a rule for this, users not abusing their rights is self-explanatory. If you have any issues with edits or admin actions, bring them up on the admin noticeboard. | violine1101 ^(talk) 15:23, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Copying my request from MediaWiki talk:Ipbreason-dropdown. Since edit warring is now part of the rules, and is a semi-common reason for blocking someone, I believe that it should be added as a reason to MediaWiki:Ipbreason-dropdown. CitrusEgg7168 (🍊 ✏️) 13:20, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

This is a suggestion for a brand-new 12th rule stating that the intent of all editors must be building a game encyclopedia; this wiki. Some users may misuse it as a "playground" and either vandalize it or test their edits in the wrong place, flooding Recent Changes with their unnecessary edits. Users of this kind must be blocked per Rule #2 if it involved vandalism, per Rule #3 if it attacked other users, Rule #5 if it involved advertising, or otherwise per this Rule #12, and I suggest a block summary under this rule reading "Rule #12: Clearly not here to build a encyclopedia related to Minecraft". I recently saw a user blocked indefinitely for creating too many personal test pages with unnecessary content, but per Rule #2 despite the quasi-absence of disruptive behavior. 👁 Image
BigEarsQuake 2 20:14, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

rule 3 is missing a comma after "stalk" 👁 Image
amethyst_hhh👁 Image
03:16, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Done. Dianliang233 (talk) 04:07, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

This is just a random idea. It would be {{rule}}, and the code would be as folllows:

[[Minecraft Wiki:Wiki rules|{{#if:{{{1|}}}|Rule #{{{1}}}|one of the rules}}]]

You would it use like this. "That breaks {{rule|1}}."

• Which would become "That breaks Rule #1."

-- Simanelix ^(T|C) 00:18, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Nothing prevents you from creating and using it. I've created templates for which I turned out to be the only user for a long while. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:26, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Added ~2026-MinecraftPenguinWool11990 (talk) 16:15, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

On Minecraft Wiki:Wiki rules/Archive 3: change "Rule rule #11" to "Rule #11" –LauraFi - talk 06:54, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

👁 Image
 Done  Nixinova  T ⁄ C  07:04, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I think the rules should mention that the sandbox (and its subpages) is exempt from some of the rules, the same way user pages are. Also, some clarification about what is actually exempt from the sandbox would also be nice, because the sandbox is seen by everyone while most people wouldn't go look at user pages of other users randomly, so maybe it's not exempt from advertising? --MinecraftExp123^{(talk|contribs)} 07:52, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Right. So:

• Rules 2, 4, 5, and 7 simply don't apply to user pages.
• For rule 6, on user pages, you don't have to be as formal, and you can copy or quote content if you believe that you are following the copyright rules of the source.
• Rules 2 and 4 don't apply to sandboxes. Rules 5 and 7 still do apply, unless those sandboxes are also uer pages.
• If you edit in someone else's user space, you need their permission (or implied permission). Repeatedly bothering someone by editing in their user space can be considered harassment, which is against the rules.

-- Simanelix ^(T|C) 12:32, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I mean, this should be mentioned in the rules, as some parts of this isn't immediately obvious, and I think it's kind of a problem that the rules currently doesn't even mention the wiki sandbox. --MinecraftExp123^{(talk|contribs)} 12:34, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Update “last modified” to the edit’s date 👁 Image
Discussions 10:42, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Is it okay to dedicate a user subpage to a mod you’ve created? 👁 Image
Slimeball (Talk) 12:58, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes, you can do practically anything in your user space as it is exempt from the advertisement rule. ‑‑MinecraftExp123^{(talk|contribs)} 12:59, 13 April 2026 (UTC)