Talk: Wiki rules

If you want to propose change, please edit in editcopy.

MCW:Wiki rules/Revision 1

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)

Possible rule addition

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)

 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)

 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 · · 18:44, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

 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)

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

Vandalism

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)

Does sockpuppet means...

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)

IP user pages

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 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)

"...though server IPs may be posted on tutorial pages if relevant."

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)

Possible new rule?

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^{Talk to me} 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 [ ] 15:43, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Three revert rule?

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  Support this. I believe this would help reduce edit wars.-- Madminecrafter12^{Talk to me} 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)

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

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

 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 [ ] 20:46, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

 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? 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 [ ] 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? psl85 (talk • contribs) 14:38, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Proposal

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^{Talk to me} 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^{Talk to me} 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^{Talk to me} 14:23, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Alternate proposal

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 [ ] 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 [ ] 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 [ ] 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)

Sub-rules should be numbered as x.y

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^{Talk to me} 13:54, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

The main rules page is named "Project page"???

This explains itself:

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^{Talk to me} 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 [ ] 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 [ ] 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^{Talk to me} 12:22, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Server IPs

"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 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)

Could use some improvements

"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:

Minecraft Wiki is an online source of information about the video game Minecraft and related subjects. The wiki can be edited by anyone and is governed by the consensus of its users, derived by argument-supported, civil collaboration between them. Minecraft Wiki has a set of rules all editors should normally follow.

Rule 2 (reworded):

Do not vandalize, spam, or otherwise edit disruptively.

Rule 3 (completely rewritten):

Keep your behavior civil and assume good faith. Do not harass, stalk, or insult anyone. Address the action, not the person behind it.

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

Avoid misleading readers and other editors. Make sure your contributions to articles are verifiable. Do not add speculation, parody content, or hoaxes to articles.

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

Do not advertise any fan communities or servers. Articles should not contain information about or links to fan communities except in cited references.

Rule 7 (rewritten):

Do not copy content from other sources, including those that discuss Minecraft. If you believe there is a legitimate need to use some copyrighted image as a fair use file, mark it as such.

Rule 8 (reworded):

Do not link or embed external videos in articles, unless there is no other way to demonstrate the phenomenon, or the video is official. For more details, see the video policy.

Rule 9 (reworded):

The wiki is not a file-hosting service. If an uploaded file is not integrated into a useful page soon after the upload, it may be deleted without notice. Uploading images for your userspace is allowed.

Rule 10 (rewritten):

Accounts with offensive, misleading, or otherwise inappropriate usernames may be blocked indefinitely.

Rule 11 (rewritten):

Abuse of multiple accounts for block evasion or other circumvention of policy may result in these accounts being indefinitely blocked.

Rule 11.1 (rewritten):

An editor may have more than one account only if all accounts used by the editor are clearly marked.

Afterword:

Rules that disallow something for articles do not apply to your userspace. If you are not sure whether something is acceptable, please ask on the community portal.

Linked Wikipedia pages are intended to provide more background on specific issues. They may not completely apply to Minecraft Wiki.

Explanation

• 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.

Amendments

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

Discussion

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  Support. -PancakeIdentity (talk) 15:57, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

 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)

Shortcut template

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)

More rules

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)

Sync with MCW:Wiki rules/editcopy

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)

Rule #2

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)