Find an administrator

Before reporting a user here, please be sure that they have been warned.

Please add new incident reports at the BOTTOM of this page. Don't forget to sign your post with "~~~~", which translates into a signature and a time stamp automagically.

Archived requests
Lists of archived requests and their results. Sorted by year in which the discussion started.

User:RedWizard98 mini-modding

RedWizard98 acts like a moderator despite several users (e.g. Oerk, AppFroggy) asking him to not do that (See: "Your attitude", "A question", "Stop removing our edits"). He basically deletes almost all edits people do. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RogueOwner (talkcontribs).

I noticed in the last request for administrator attention you mentioned his repeated use of insults towards other editors. Can you please direct me to those? (Also, please be sure to sign your messages :) Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 19:32, June 22, 2020 (UTC)

Oerk talked about it on DarkWiard98's talk page. --RogueOwner (talk) 19:50, June 22, 2020 (UTC)

That message from Oerk was posted in May 2019. RedWizard has already received blocks for that. There is no point in blocking him for something he has already been blocked for. Sirius (talk) 19:58, June 22, 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry but is spiteful and ridiculous, and borders on bullying. I have already been blocked for using some unpleasant language in the past which I have learned from immensely and have not used since. Informing people about wiki policies is not wrong in the slightest, it is polite, well-meaning and helps people mutually understand things. --RedWizard98 (talk) 20:02, June 22, 2020 (UTC)

You cleary have learned nothing since you got told about it again on June 8, 2020. --RogueOwner (talk) 20:15, June 22, 2020 (UTC)

This is why I am asking for clarifications on which conversations were being referenced. However, RedWizard you also know better than to edit other people's messages like you just did here, regardless of how benign you think the edit is. RogueOwner - please let me know if there are recent conversations that need administrator attention. Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 20:19, June 22, 2020 (UTC)

What messages have I edited since? I don't edit other people's talk page messages. --RedWizard98 (talk) 20:26, June 22, 2020 (UTC)

I think this whole situation is so bizarre over something which is not an issue. I have never resorted to foul language so I think this whole accusation is bogus. What I have done in the past which I do regret, I have been blocked for, so such comments from last year no longer apply, since I have stopped it.--RedWizard98 (talk) 20:29, June 22, 2020 (UTC)

In this edit you corrected the spelling in MrSiriusBlack's post. You've been warned in the past about correcting other people's posts to fit your expectations, so I would hope you would be extra careful about not doing it further. --Ironyak1 (talk) 20:30, June 22, 2020 (UTC)
That was a very minor spelling mistake which he accurately corrected. I understand that some people might take offence at others correcting the spelling in their posts, but I am okay with what he did just then to my post. Sirius (talk) 20:34, June 22, 2020 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if you are ok with it, users should not be editing other people's messages as a matter of policy. Unfortunately, this behavior was an ongoing issue with RedWizard, so while this edit specifically is rather benign his history of "my preferences should be respected" weighs heavily on such actions. Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 20:41, June 22, 2020 (UTC)

I haven't said anything but I decided to say something. In the linked talk page messages, one is from May 2019, so I am ignoring that. The other two links are messages by User:AppFroggy so I will address this user's concerns. In the two instances by AppFroggy, I decided to dive into the editor's edits to search merit.

  1. 1 The account AppFroggy is blocked globally. That's a staff block and only occurs due to Terms of Use violations.
  2. 2 A few acts of blatant vandalism, specifically, this edit, and this edit,
  3. 3 this edit is repetitive.
  4. 4 this edit was wrong It was her fifth year in fall of 1994, not spring of 1994.
  5. 5 This edit is more based on speculation than actual stated canon material in the books. Same with this edit. More speculation/non-canon than actual canon. It was hinted that they want to see each other again but not.

Overall, I checked the entirety of the article edits by AppyFroggy before her initial message to RedWizard on 8 June. All were correctly reverted by Redwizard98. In conclusion, all but one edit (her initial edit) are disruptive and non-constructive. MechQueste 20:45, June 22, 2020 (UTC)


I'm a little bit concerned about this user's willingness to rename pages without consulting anyone. It basically says here not to do that, and Category talk:Candidates for renaming and its associated template exist for a reason.

She also tagged the redirect left behind by her most recent page move for deletion for being 'unneeded', despite the number of pages that link to that redirect. We have enough problems with Special:WantedPages at the moment.

She also carried out some dubious category removal today, which has all had to be reverted as well. -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  21:09, July 6, 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I think this editor does mean very well, just perhaps that she has made some very good faith edits that we others have disagreed with. I definitely don't think this editor is a problem user, although there may be a few minor issues that need fixing. Overall, I think this user comes across as very pleasant, well-intentioned and trustworthy. --RedWizard98 (talk) 21:12, July 6, 2020 (UTC)

Hi all - I see the edits were reversed and there doesn't seem to be any more related activity. In general it usually helps to check in with the user on their talk page to understand their reasoning for the change. I appreciate the heads-up on the concerns, but nothing to really administrate about currently.
@MrSiriusBlack - I saw that redirect delete request as well. There is something unclear going on as lots of items showing up in WhatLinksHere, but can't actually find the info in those pages or related templates. Seems like pages/templates need to be purged and rendered again or something. Anyhow just waiting to see if WhatLinksHere resolves itself or not before proceeding. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 22:19, July 6, 2020 (UTC)
I know I could've and probably should've directly talked to her about it on her talk page, but I thought it might have sounded better coming from an admin, & also I wanted to know what an admin thought about it. That's what this page is for, after all. -  MrSiriusBlack 

Image deletions and file renames

Why aren't poorly titled images being renamed, and poor quality images being deleted? Seen as though we seem to have agreed how to properly rename image files, shouldn't there be an effort to start renaming those that need renaming? Furthermore, they are lots of images in the deletion bin, many have been there for a long time, that are not being deleted, despite not meeting image policy standards or for being duplicates? --RedWizard98 (talk) 00:44, July 15, 2020 (UTC)

I think the focus right now is fixing the problem caused by mass renaming without redirects; it's a slow process, for starters, people who aren't involved don't really know how/why the renamed files were selected, and the people involved were understandably busy with RL. The few ways to check what still needs to be fixed include checking specific logs; doing new renames would add more to those logs, so it has been put to the side until the cleanup is done. I haven't checked what you've tagged, but heads up, if any of them appears on Forum:Treatment for similar images, renaming them now would kind of be redundant work, since they are likely going to be merged with other files, and that process includes move/rename. That particular task was put aside because at the time, a User basically kept on uploading similar .gifs, sometimes right after a merge was done. It was stressful, hence a break lol. --Sammm✦✧(talk) 00:55, July 15, 2020 (UTC)


User is uploading mendacious fan-fiction and practising edit warring; Amycus Carrow is not shown in LEGO Harry Potter: Years 5-7 to have a Voldemort boggart, simply because boggarts don't even play a role in this game unlike the first one. This statement is a lie and anyone who thinks it is true or even possibly true based on this utter lack of evidence is mistaken indeed.--RedWizard98 (talk) 02:14, July 17, 2020 (UTC)

Report rubbish pages

These two pages are completely nonsensical and I can't believe nobody has deleted them yet (Harry potter full characters by book and Draco is a werewolf). --RedWizard98 (talk) 23:06, July 19, 2020 (UTC)

Duplicate category

This category ( as noted by Mr Sirius Black is a mistaken duplicate of that already exists, so it needs speedily deleting; this is being specifically raised here due to the genuine lack of deletions being performed currently.--RedWizard98 (talk) 14:55, July 30, 2020 (UTC)

Why does it need "speedily deleting"? What makes it a priority over any other suggested deletion? It's an empty category (and now deleted) so trying to understand what the reasoning is here. Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 17:25, August 2, 2020 (UTC)


This user has created two similar pages which are clearly blog-like posts in the main namespace, THE CARROWS and The carrow siblings, which have been flagged for deletion. Putting this here in case the delete tag gets removed again. -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  21:35, July 30, 2020 (UTC)

They were already deleted. I have de-linked them. MechQueste 23:14, July 30, 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that --RedWizard98 (talk) 12:48, July 31, 2020 (UTC)
Unfortunately, not all the links to these pages were removed when deleted. When someone chooses to delete something please be sure to check Special:Whatlinkshere and the Page History, as instructed on the {{delete}} template, to make sure all links to the item are resolved. Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 18:06, July 31, 2020 (UTC)


This user has completely copied information from the admin Harry Granger's profile page, including several awards that they have not earned (Order of Merlin, Harry Potter Fanatic, Prefect and Administrator status). Perhaps an admin should remove them, since I know it is generally not allowed for users to edit the profile pages of other users.--RedWizard98 (talk) 12:48, July 31, 2020 (UTC)

List of spells used by Harry Potter

This article linked above I think is of inadequate quality and needs either reviewing and/or deleting, and this article (List of known incantations by first mention) I also really don't think seems necessary since each individual spell article already lists its first appearance and/or mention. Thanks --RedWizard98 (talk) 23:35, July 31, 2020 (UTC)

Albus Potter name origin

This article ( contains information all of which is found under the etymology section of Albus Potter's article, so it needs deleting. In fact, the same user User:PragyaChaudhary has created this same article three times for some reason. All three articles also contain fanon. --RedWizard98 (talk) 16:48, August 4, 2020 (UTC)


User is endlessly uploading fanon content to Delphini's article with zero regard for our canon policy, and does seem to be listening to any of our concerns over her edits. User has also blanked her talk page, removing other people's messages. --RedWizard98 (talk) 14:54, August 5, 2020 (UTC)

Muggle Prime Minister

This article ( is a duplicated article created today that needs deleting ASAP. I have a feeling this was created as a joke as well. --RedWizard98 (talk) 17:24, August 13, 2020 (UTC)

Hello all, Kirkburn has since turned this into a re-direct, so please ignore this message. --RedWizard98 (talk) 17:36, August 13, 2020 (UTC)
Within 10 minutes of the page creation you contacted Staff about a couple sentence article? Does this really seem like something that should be treated like an emergency that needs Staff attention? --Ironyak1 (talk) 02:51, August 16, 2020 (UTC)


This user is continuing to insert nonsensical names into articles with no regard for our canon policy. This is either vandalism or fan-fiction. --RedWizard98 (talk) 17:36, August 13, 2020 (UTC)

User has 5 edits spread across 2 months, with warnings for their missteps - what are you requesting to be done? --Ironyak1 (talk) 03:46, August 16, 2020 (UTC)

Years 2020A, 2020B, 2020C, 2020D?

Are these articles for real, or are they some kind of joke? Their creator User:Beverlyjones has published fanon before so I am totally unconvinced this is genuine content. --RedWizard98 (talk) 15:32, August 14, 2020 (UTC)

J. K. Rowling's article

I know this wiki needs to be open to new ideas and editing, but ever since Rowling has embroiled herself in controversial topics on Twitter her page has been vandalised numerous times, often with people expressing strongly personal and political views about her, all of them highly negative in nature. People can of course have these opinions, but we are strictly a factual wiki so I do not believe this content is really welcome here. I think her article should be considered for some of protection to ensure that vandals can't damage her article; perhaps only let established accounts edit it. --RedWizard98 (talk) 14:31, August 24, 2020 (UTC)


I intend on putting forth a proposal to revise the fanon policy so that it explicitly bans fanon of all kinds on any place on the wiki. The Current policy allows on page in the userspace, but the proposed version I will propose will reduce that to 0 in favour of the Harry Potter Fanon. MechQueste 22:10, August 25, 2020 (UTC)

The trouble with that approach is that Discussions has an entire category for "Fanfics and Roleplays" - the Roleplays in particular are quite active and popular and were voted-in for allowing them by the community. Some people store their RP character(s) on the User page or a subpage or their related fanon info. What is the argument against allowing this single page that supports users in related activities here? Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 22:24, August 25, 2020 (UTC)


I am sure this user means well, but they are continually inserting far too much fan-fiction into articles, which is also highly irreverent in nature and has no basis in HP official canon. --RedWizard98 (talk) 16:38, August 28, 2020 (UTC)


This user has violated HPW:USER, specifically this: "User page fan fiction must be restricted to either the main user page or a single subpage." The user has something of a growing "sub-wiki" of sorts in his user namespace, consisting at the time of me writing this of the 12 following entirely fanonical pages:

- MrSiriusBlack  Talk  20:30, September 6, 2020 (UTC)

User notified of policy and given chance to correct the issue - will leave this open for now to make sure it gets resolved. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 16:31, September 10, 2020 (UTC)
User has completely ignored the message on his talk page and has continued to edit his fanon subpages, and has also continued to make more. -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  09:37, September 13, 2020 (UTC)

Harry (Goblet of Fire)

This article is almost certainly a fan-creation, given its lack of references, out of universe style, and incorrect information, as it states a voice actor played a character in the fourth film, which IMDB does not support.--RedWizard98 (talk) 18:02, September 12, 2020 (UTC)

Rodolphus has deleted this page, so case closed.--RedWizard98 (talk) 22:02, September 13, 2020 (UTC)

The Ground Beneath Her Feet

As our wiki usually does not allow for the publishing of fan-fiction articles (as they are not official pieces of franchise material), should this article be subsequently be deleted in accordance with our policy? --RedWizard98 (talk) 22:02, September 13, 2020 (UTC)

Not sure if you are aware of this, but coverage on fan fics are allowed, for example: James Potter (series) and Draco Trilogy. The page in question seemed structured alright, and as long as that's the entirety of it, it should be fine? --Sammm✦✧(talk) 01:44, September 14, 2020 (UTC)
I was looking at this article and the referenced fan-fiction and it really seems to be right on the border of the Harry Potter Wiki:Notability guidelines. It definitely got a fair amount of attention and reviews in various circles, but never quite the media attention of an item like the James Potter (series); however, I may just have missed some articles as it shares a name with both a Salman Rushdie novel and the related song by U2. If someone could find some wider media references for this story, I think that would better help establish it as duly notable. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 03:48, September 14, 2020 (UTC)

User:Golden-White True Total Oneness‎

Not entirely sure of how to make of this User; so far the "contributions" on Wandlore, Dark Lord, and Ronald Weasley don't look positive as there's no explanation of the removal whatsoever. --Sammm✦✧(talk) 08:21, September 16, 2020 (UTC)

The User continues blanking pages after being warned. --Sammm✦✧(talk) 01:12, September 17, 2020 (UTC)

Wiggenweld Potion Cauldron

I don't think this article qualifies as being notable or in-universe. I don't think these cauldrons are anything special; they are just generic cauldrons in the games. This article is also written in an out of universe fashion.--RedWizard98 (talk) 20:16, September 19, 2020 (UTC)

User:Rodolphus, thank you for addressing this issue.--RedWizard98 (talk) 21:35, September 21, 2020 (UTC)

The Silver Trio

This article constitutes fanon and needs deleting. Thank you. --RedWizard98 (talk) 21:35, September 21, 2020 (UTC)

This is a piece of fanon. Somebody should delete it. --RedWizard98 (talk) 11:00, September 22, 2020 (UTC)

*Disclosure: Some of the links above are affiliate links, meaning, at no additional cost to you, Fandom will earn a commission if you click through and make a purchase. Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Stream the best stories.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Get Disney+