Harry Potter Wiki:Requests for administrator attention

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 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c7/File-manager.pngLists of archived requests and their results. Sorted by year in which the discussion started. Archive 1 (2009) Archive 2 (2010) Archive 3 (2011) Archive 4 (2012) Archive 5 (2013) Archive 6 (2014) Archive 7 (2015) Archive 8 (2016) Archive 9 (2017) Archive 10 (2018)

User welcome template

I'm not sure that having auto-welcome is a good idea, as it can give the false impression that the welcome is a manual one; but never mind that, the point is that the current template needs to be fixed, as new users are having two welcome messages posted to their talk pages. — evilquoll (talk) 08:05, January 14, 2019 (UTC)

User:Bärchenwurst

It's hard to tell, as I can only read this page through the Googlefish ("In AD 2019, AYB was continuing..."), but this page appears to purely be spam for a particular brand of German sausage, and thus suspect even though there is no link (pun NOT intended) as yet (doubtless the intention is that if he is allowed to get away with adding the page, the link will come later). I believe there is at least one legitimate user here who is de-4 or de-5, and thus better qualified to check this (I am en-5 but no other language). — evilquoll (talk) 08:05, January 14, 2019 (UTC)

User:GayAtheist

The use just went happy trolling pages. Do trolls still have to be warned for 3 time until they can be blocked? Can the act of 3 and more very obvious vandal to be taken in to account? --Sammm✦✧(talk) 00:09, January 15, 2019 (UTC)

Obvious vandalism-only accounts like this one are usually blocked without warning, as has indeed happened here. — evilquoll (talk) 03:42, January 15, 2019 (UTC)

Done --Ironyak1 (talk) 03:45, January 15, 2019 (UTC)

User:PreviouslyOn24

I'll start by saying there's nothing wrong with adamantly believing in what's previously established to be true; hey, it's one's belief, it should be respected. However, beating over a dead thestral and refuse to see the evidence and reasoning provided by others, along with insisting to restore statements that conflicted with latest revealed information, is just unproductive. What is the point of insisting Minerva McGonagall being born in 1935 when she's already alive and clearly not even a newborn in 1927? What is the point of doing the equivalent of shouting "JKR made an error! We are going to pretend it didn't happen because we know it's an error and keep the 1935 as the birth year!"? I'm serious, I'm genuinely confused about what this is achieving. The issue that generated the debate is already covered in the BTS section.

I'm not here to get this person blocked or anything, like I said, they are free to hold onto the notion that Minerva was born in 1935, they are entitled to do so; I just don't personally understand how stating it (which now is not a fact) in the infobox would benefit this wiki's credibility. 2 Users have tried to inform them of the Harry Potter Wiki:Canon, and failed, so am hoping an Admin can help out the matter.

Thanks!

(And please don't try to convince me or anyone else here about the birth year matter, it's not the right place to do so, and I'm just following the canon policy.) --Sammm✦✧(talk) 20:18, January 26, 2019 (UTC)

User:Harrypootterfan‎

Special:Contributions/Harrypootterfan = Troll. --Sammm✦✧(talk) 02:05, February 2, 2019 (UTC)

Done --Ironyak1 (talk) 02:10, February 2, 2019 (UTC)

User:Harry91

Requesting for temporal block (1 week). Please check User talk:Harry91#Image uploads. While the gap of warning appears to be quite big, ever since this User resurfaced, they have so far not done what was asked of them: properly using {{information}}. A top of that, the most recent GIF uploads (Special:ListFiles/Harry91), are ones that already exist somewhere on HPW. Please issue a temporal block to at least cease the damage on the duplicate-GIF front, for a while. Thanks. --Sammm✦✧(talk) 22:26, February 7, 2019 (UTC)

Please make that 2 weeks. The user is still uploading images without taking care of them; while some at least was replacing instead of uploading separate duplicated images, some, unfortunately, is in fact in the latter situation. The user is non responsive, so while I'd love to assume they really just "didn't notice" all the warnings, it's not helping that they continue to upload dupes without info. Please make a temporary stop to this. Thanks. --Sammm✦✧(talk) 01:36, February 8, 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, I am aware that another warning has been issued to this user, however, I am sincerely requesting that, upon the next upload (which, I am pretty sure, would again be un-taken care of; this is not prematurely thinking the worst of someone, up till now, they have plenty of time to clean up after themselves, and they have not), please issue the block immediately. In the span of 3 days, they have MASS uploaded 30+ images, with the majority being duplicates. That is two fronts, duplicates and no file info, despite already being warned.

I understand that people are too busy to view Forum:Treatment for similar images, so I'll sum it up, currently there's 148 incidences documented there with similar GIFs, as in, there are at least 296 files listed on that page. I said at least, because some scenes have up to 5 variants. Doing the math, I don't think any one can casually say I'm overreacting and that it is not a lot of images.

In a few days, I will be starting on merging around 50 cases, and due to Wikia's rate-limit thing, it won't be some smooth or fast process (I cannot merge files immediately one after the other; I'd get a message saying the act cannot be performed at this time, and have to wait for a bit), I would very much appreciate the act of preventing this user from likely uploading dupes to hinder this process even more, as if it isn't already enough work without dupes being thrown in the mix. I want to make it clear that I'm all for second chances and I'm not looking to get them permanently blocked, but it is past that point and I think the temporary block is needed for them to realize they are doing an equal amount of harm as they attempt to do some good on HPW. --Sammm✦✧(talk) 21:31, February 9, 2019 (UTC)

As I compile the large lists of images lacking description information and sort out what to do with them all, I completely understand the frustration of having new messes repeatedly made that I get to clean up. I can assure you that a block is in waiting for this user should any more image uploads occur without efforts made fixing the past uploads. Please let me know right away should this occur. Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 22:06, February 9, 2019 (UTC)

Please block the user ASAP. I actually waited for another 30 mins since the upload, giving the last benefit of doubt, but nope, the edit done was to add the upload onto an article, granted, this new upload does not seem to be a dupe (if it is, I don't recall), but the user has made multiple edits since the warning you gave, and none of them are the ones they were specifically asked to do. --Sammm✦✧(talk) 10:59, February 10, 2019 (UTC)

Please don't mind me interrupting but could it be possible that the user doesn't understand english? I mean according to his profile he is a contributor of another harry potter community that is in a different language. Maybe that is why they aren't able to understand your warnings, and maybe that is why their only contribution has been uploading images, and maybe that is why they have never replied back to anyone's warnings/request in past or in future. If that ks the truth then according to them they are simply just contributing to the wiki. I don't understand what the other language wiki is but i will check it. Maybe after that you guys can yourselves or via FANDOM staff request a native language speaker to write a warning in that language and atleast give them a chance to understand their mistake or ban them temporarily with the reason in their language.   Reverb frost  |  What's new?     12:16, February 10, 2019 (UTC)

The user is blocked for now. I will see what can be done to add a message in their possibly native language and hopefully this will give time for them to work to understand the situation. At the end of the day this is the English language wiki so the onus is on users to be able to understand policies and messages provided. Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 14:05, February 10, 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of the situation.

Just so people don't mistaken this as "bullying a non-English speaker", I feel the need to clarify that, no, the statement of "their only contribution has been uploading images" is FALSE and can easily be checked by looking through said user's editing history, hence, please excuse me for being skeptical and finding it hard to believe that this user can't really understand English, given how they managed to contribute expansion of content, as seen at this revision and this revision, just to name a few. I'm not saying this user is only causing problems, like I said, they've done some good, some real good, just that at the same time they are doing a lot of bad. Looking at the user's block history on the pl HPW may shed some light on the matter as well. --Sammm✦✧(talk) 16:56, February 10, 2019 (UTC)

Please issue a block, ranging from 1 month to 1 year, I don't particularly care, but think about this: User:Andrewh7 got 2 particular "warnings" prior to their 1 year block, due to "Category spam, making a huge mess, failing to clean up that mess when warned."; yes, it appears there's another "discussion" about a related issue, but that was that, so at most, 3 warnings in total (based on Talk page information), and this was about edits that could be easily undone, and the block was ONE YEAR. Now, take a look at User:Harry91. The mass Patronus uploads, to me, is like another "f*** you, I'ma do whatever I like". I have provided Forum:Treatment for similar images for them to look at; those images are dupes and are listed. Do they care? Sure doesn't seem so to me. --Sammm✦✧(talk) 06:36, April 17, 2019 (UTC)

(I did not have time to fully compile the reasoning for the above, so now here goes.) Please especially read User talk:Harry91#Image categories and note the timestamp of his promises "I already know what to avoid in the future. Now I know what I did wrong and to which category I should throw gifs or photos, and what informations should be included." and within 24hrs of said statement, continues to add incorrect categories to files, as seen [1] & [2]. Before trying to dismiss it as "it's no big deal; it's like you said, category issues are easy to fix" which is still true; however, for those 2 examples, the more concerning problem to me is that the User was actively unseeing what's already on the page, and proceeded to add incorrect versions of a category, when the correct version is already there. I AM thankful that, at least, they didn't modified the correct one into the wrong one, but still, it's puzzling that a revert was needed to be done afterwards at all.

But yeah, the mass Patronus GIFs should warrant a lengthier "temporary" block; regardless of the continuing muck up of image categories, (I'm willing to see that as honest mistakes to some degrees; doesn't mean I can stand it and think said User should continued to be let off easy for the wrongdoings) they were explicitly told NOT TO UPLOAD DUPES, and they did it anyways. As stated above, "I'm not saying this user is only causing problems, like I said, they've done some good, some real good, just that at the same time they are doing a lot of bad." I might have been willing to look the other way, had the User not fixate on uploading dupes while doing other edits. Occasionally, there would be some accidental dupes from different Users, but no one is uploading them in mass like this User, and after so many warnings at that. Please do something about this, thanks.

--Sammm✦✧(talk) 02:33, April 18, 2019 (UTC)

Did I miss some or are you referring to the 6 patronus gifs uploaded on 4/16? If so, this doesn't seem like a mass upload and at least they have their proper summary info. That said, if they are complete duplicates and aren't an improvement over existing ones, then they should just be deleted, with a note to the user as needed. This probably isn't completely satisfactory to you given your request, but if I had blocked them before they wouldn't have been able to go back and fix all their uploads, which they ultimately did. Having their work deleted should get the point across about the value of checking for duplicates, but if they continue to force the issue, then a block would result. Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 19:14, April 19, 2019 (UTC)

It is relatively mass when considering the other themed dupes uploaded by this User: Boggart dupes, Duelling dupes (random spell demo dupes), then Patronous dupes. What, just because they take some breaks in between each batch uploads, it cancels out they are all uploaded by the same User, despite being warned not to upload separately but to replace existing images instead? Seth's reply from last time was "Alright, Harry91 doesn't seem to have uploaded any more pictures since Ironyak1's last message on their talk page, so I think I ought to leave it at that; if they persist, please ping me and I'll issue a short cooldown block whenever I'm available.", the reason for the no action, from this statement, to me, was due to the User's temporary cease of upload. Even if they were back uploading, had the content been brand-new, I wouldn't have had a problem, but they aren't; the User is once again deliberately uploading variation of existing images separately, when warned not to. And no, it's not a matter of just being deleted, though that itself should also be a problem: why is it okay for someone to continuously upload stuff for deletion? If things are warrant for deletion, and specific people repeatedly throw those things onto HPW, consequently requiring someone else to delete after them, why is this acceptable? How is this not disruptive, and how is it so very different from User:Andrewh7's case? I do think a 1 year block is on the extensive side, but that doesn't mean I agree with passively allowing this User to have free roam; they were initially doing very well after the previous block, no dupes and occasionally fixing up their old stuff, however, it's like they've gone back to old habits and decided that uploading dupes are okay. (and from your reply, it actually does seem that way. Yeah, go ahead and upload dupes, someone else can just delete them when found out.) Perhaps said User is like you and felt like 6 dupes are so little in number, that, come on, no real harm done, right? Um, sure? I had assumed good faith, but idk, after the next very likely 9 times the User uploads with this small-quantity tactic, perhaps the damage those small acts would then be reflected after seeing the accumulation. Don't really understand the passive encouragement.

--Sammm✦✧(talk) 01:56, April 20, 2019 (UTC)

User:PotterFanabc

Being new isn't an excuse for doing immediate damage en mass. Please step in. My stance is clear, I find dupes appalling, especially ones of lower quality, which is what's happening here. --Sammm✦✧(talk) 19:57, February 18, 2019 (UTC)

I resorted to temporarily locking Hogwarts uniform to prevent the perverse damage being more widespread; I don't like it, but until there's a way to make this User alone stop and think before upload, this seems to be the only way (and locking any other pages they may look to do massive image spam.) NOT IDEAL at all, so some help would be appreciated. --Sammm✦✧(talk) 20:18, February 18, 2019 (UTC)

Template:User Dumbledorenotgay

This userbox was created some 8 years ago, and almost immediately attracted edit warring hence had to be locked. This is now a problem as (1) it is sorted incorrectly and (2) having been created long before the present template system, its type is unset. Someone needs to set the type to "Non-article" and change the category parameter to "Dumbledorenotgay". — evilquoll (talk) 21:40, February 27, 2019 (UTC)

This still needs to be done, and wouldn't take long. — evilquoll (talk) 17:18, March 16, 2019 (UTC)

Still needs to be done. — evilquoll (talk) 21:41, April 4, 2019 (UTC)

Done (I think) --Ironyak1 (talk) 02:20, April 10, 2019 (UTC)

Various checks

Spectacularly now being diligently marked for deletion by User:MechQueste, an issue surfaced, and since it's one I was going to compile later to ask about, as I was personally weirded out by it, I figured it's time lol. Amongst those unused images, photos of clearly one same specific individual are noticeably showing up with a higher frequency; I wouldn't have found that too concerning had they all been uploaded by the same User, but they weren't.

I'm not sure if this is the case of sock puppetting, or if the individual featured in those photos was some well known fan (I don't have this type of common sense), so please see the following:

• User:Edita Pipenbaher (file:005.JPG; file:007.JPG)
• User:Luna Lowegood (file:@@.jpg; file:841425152 1537225.gif.png)
• User:838971 (file:88px-Percy weasley 1.png)

I feel like there may be more, but those are currently the ones marked; in any case, I'm just confused as to why 3 different accounts were uploading images of this same individual. --Sammm✦✧(talk) 23:56, March 2, 2019 (UTC)

Certain posts on User blog:Beverlyjones

I don't think all posts are violating the blog policy, but I think strictly speaking, the following are, and should be deleted, if not consolidating to be turned into 1 single User subpage that would meet the policy:

1. User blog:Beverlyjones/Half-stag
2. User blog:Beverlyjones/Matilda Wormwood (Film)‎‎
3. User blog:Beverlyjones/Elsa Clayton
4. User blog:Beverlyjones/Matilda Wormwood
5. User blog:Beverlyjones/Half-apple

Even if "no one really uses the blog namespace" (a statement expressed by several people), well, the policy is right there, not sure why it shouldn't be followed/enforced just as the rest.

--Sammm✦✧(talk) 19:14, March 16, 2019 (UTC)

Done --  Seth Cooper  owl post! 23:53, April 3, 2019 (UTC)

There's a new one: User blog:Beverlyjones/Rachel Claus. — evilquoll (talk) 21:40, April 4, 2019 (UTC)

Skurge

Please view those particular revisions in an edit history:

• https://harrypotter.fandom.com/index.php?title=Skurge&diff=1190643&oldid=932781
• https://harrypotter.fandom.com/index.php?title=Skurge&diff=1215408&oldid=1215407

In mid September 2015, a User moved article "Skurge" to "Skurge Scouring Charm" because "It has been referred to a s a scouring charm multiple times", however, in early January, 2019, the very same User manually added back the info (instead of discussing with anyone with Rights so that a proper move can be performed to preserve edit history to trace back how the page came to be in its state) because "no evidence of it being called "skurge scouring charm"". Again, this is coming from the same User who themselves made the initial move, claiming that's how it had been referred to many times, now saying there's no evidence.

I'm assuming good faith that it can be interpreted that the initial move and meaning behind the statement, was for differential purpose (as in the title is conjectural), and the 2nd move was then to emphasize there's no evidence of the conjectural title ever being used (but, um, conjectural anyways??) Whatever the reason of those moves were, the fact was that there was no discussion, as advised in Harry Potter Wiki:Policy#Page moves and rewrites; this wouldn't have been a big deal, had it hadn't happened more then once: The very same User then once again went manually relocating the content onto a different page, which now claimed to be the "correct title".

I am not looking to get this User blocked, however, I'd like some input on just which one is the actual name of this spell, and correctly merging history so there'd be no sole relying on faulty manual relocation. --Sammm✦✧(talk) 20:01, March 27, 2019 (UTC)

The two useless double redirects flagged on Category talk:Candidates for deletion

There is now edit warring going on; a new editor called Tazenda for some reason believes that he(?) will succeed where everyone else has failed, and has thus twice in the past 24 hours violated the "do not remove a delete tag without proper discussion" rule. As noted on the category talk page, we really need to delete these two pages, and if it turns out that even this deoesn't resolve the phantom double redirect, we will then need to get the staff to look into the problem. — evilquoll (talk) 06:46, May 9, 2019 (UTC)

Not saying you haven't, but for anyone who'd like to contribute to this convo, I suggest thoroughly digesting the response at Category talk:Candidates for deletion/Archive 11#Wizard Card Collectors' Club boy; Boy of Card Trading Club and Wizard Card Collectors' Club boy and have been deleted for 6 and 7 times so far respectively, and deleting them did not make a difference. --Sammm✦✧(talk) 16:47, May 17, 2019 (UTC)

But has anyone ever tried deleting both of them at once? And if even this doesn't resolve the matter, even after giving it 24 hours to take effect, we could then contact Staff. — evilquoll (talk) 17:33, May 17, 2019 (UTC)

User:RedWizard92

This user needs to be blocked for repeated vandalism and trolling when asked to stop. Too strange of a coincidence that they have chosen a username very closely to that of another editor and I suspect they could be a sockpuppet. - Kates39 (talk) 10:23, May 17, 2019 (UTC)

I concur. A clear vandalism-only account of which the username was deliberately chosen to resemble legitimate user RedWizard98. — evilquoll (talk) 10:55, May 17, 2019 (UTC)

Somewhat done; said User is now blocked across Fandom, though idk if it's infinitely.

--Sammm✦✧(talk) 16:47, May 17, 2019 (UTC)

User:NeverGonnaGiveNeverGonnaGiveNeverGonnaGIVEYOUUP!

This user has performed a fairly severe act of vandalism on the Magizoologist article, which I immediately reverted. I fear they may start vandalising more articles, just for the sake of being idiotic and obnoxious, so perhaps watch out for them, and block them should they ruin any more articles, as this clearly is not a legitimate or serious account. - User:RedWizard98

This user is now using a sock puppet account, called User:RickAstleyIsNeverGonnaGiveYouUp, and are still vandalising articles. Block them indefinitely along with the IP address to stop them coming back. - User:RedWizard98

Fiendfyre

Well I am aware this page is for reporting users, which I am not doing in this post, but I am using it as Ironyak1 has asked me to use this page as opposed to their own message wall. The Ironyak1 bot does insist on removing the category "Curses" from the "Fiendfyre" article; I am aware why, because the page does eventually link up to Horcruxes, which are "Cursed objects", and while the two topics Fiendfyre and Horcruxes are related as Fiendfyre can destroy Horcruxes, they are still separate entities. The category "Curses", as by title, is reserved for all individual spells with are classified as curses, which Fiendfyre is. Horcruxes are cursed objects, not individual curses which can be cast from a wand, and while yes Horcruxes have dark curses placed on them, they are entirely separate curses from Fiendfyre, which is conjuring up cursed flames. A very similar error occurred when the bot also removed the category "Objects with personality" from the Sword of Gryffindor because it happens to fall under Horcruxes too; but of course, the Sword is not a horcrux, but a separate entity, like how Fiendfyre is. If some administrative trick or fix could be put in place to keep both categories on the Fiendfyre intact, I would appreciate this; I also suffer from very strong OCD, which does affect my daily life, and editing online is one thing I really enjoy, and it cause me unusual anxiety when tiny errors occur. If someone could look into this, that would be great, thank you. - User:RedWizard98

As explained several times before, the bot removes any redundant parent categories when a more specific child category is present. In the case of Fiendfyre, Category:Curses was being removed as Category:Horcrux destruction methods was under Category:Horcruxes - Category:Cursed objects - Category:Curses. However, Horcrux deconstructions methods are not themselves Horcruxes and should never have been under this category to begin with. When users cross-link categories without considering the entire chain of parent categories problems like this tend to occur.

As these categories have now been fixed, the bot should no long trip over this issue. As the bot handles thousands of edits at a time, it may make the occasional error, just like any other editor. After all, nobody, or no bot eh, is perfect. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 18:21, June 11, 2019 (UTC) Thank you. - User:RedWizard98

Fanon

This piece of fanon was created today, titled Bartemius Lupin. It needs deleting swiftly, thank you. - User:RedWizard98

Done --Ironyak1 (talk) 17:27, June 18, 2019 (UTC)

Mother Shipton?

This page was created today, apparently about a hag named Mother Shipton, but I cannot find any sources or references for her anywhere in canon, so I think this article possibly might be fanon, although I am unsure. Perhaps an admin could look into this to see. - User:RedWizard98

Done --Ironyak1 (talk) 17:13, June 27, 2019 (UTC)

Layout issues

Hello, I am having some format issues with wikitables on the Jinx and Shield Charm pages. On the former I deleted a spell that was not a jinx from the table and it has caused the layout to sprawl over in parts. The format on the Shield Charm is quite poor anyway, and I can't work it out. Thanks User:RedWizard98

User:Luna13556

This is a Sock puppet account that is trolling the Discussions. — Harrypotterexpert101 ^(talk) 17:16, July 1, 2019 (UTC)

EDIT: forgot to show proof: https://harrypotter.fandom.com/f/p/3343172654596306975 — Harrypotterexpert101 ^(talk)

Sorry if I come off as impatient, but please do deal with this account. They keep posting the meaningless "squeezing hat" post. Cheers, — Harrypotterexpert101 ^(talk) 02:45, July 22, 2019 (UTC)

Done --Ironyak1 (talk) 07:09, July 22, 2019 (UTC)

Image category merging

There are two image categories for images of Porpentina Goldstein, one titled "Porpentina Goldstein", and the other titled "Porpentina Scamander". They need to merged, as they are the same person and are quite deceptive. There are also two pages for GIFS from Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (film), which is potentially misleading also. Kind regards - User:RedWizard98

Elladora Ketteridge

A disagreement has sprang up between me and another user called User:Oerk, regarding the witch Elladora Ketteridge, who is known for discovering the magical effects of Gillyweed. I have argued that she was a Herbologist in her lifetime, either professionally or not, because experimenting with Gillyweed by eating it, and discovering and documenting its effects, is scientific work, heavily implying she experimented and researched plants in her life. A witch or wizard can be a Herbologist, without having to be a professional one, much like with Magizoologists. With regards to the dispute, the user Oerk has reverted these edits entirely on multiple occasions, and has been highly belligerent and almost furious in their responses, strangely deciding to almost loudly shot their responses in huge capital letters, which is not how to debate something well. I have tried to argue my point with him, on his talk page, but he has not responded or even attempted to debate with me, on my talk page or their article page. This user has also in mine and other's opinions engaged in edit warring on the Protego Diabolica article, and their tone was extremely angry and unpleasant then as well (see talk page history). My tone has always however, been professional, informative and polite to the best of my ability, and I can't help it if I come across a tad abrupt sometimes. If an admin or content moderator could look into this, and give an expert opinion, that would be hugely appreciated thanks. - User:RedWizard98

BartemiusLupin

This user, called User:BartemiusLupin, has inserted a couple of pieces of completely fabricated information into articles, which is either fanon or vandalism. I think their account needs to be evaluated, to prevent false information being established. - User:RedWizard98

Review Blog Posts

Hey admins,

It has come to my attention that there are a good bit of blogs in violation of our Blog policy that I will link below:

1. https://harrypotter.fandom.com/wiki/User_blog:Bio-mech_Matthew_Riley/I%27m_leaving,_good_riddance!!!!!!

2. https://harrypotter.fandom.com/wiki/User_blog:Unicorn22/I_Just_Discovered_That_Drarry_is_Indeed_A_Fact_(Sorry_About_That_Rant_Last_Year)

3. https://harrypotter.fandom.com/wiki/User_blog:Harrys-left-testey/My_left_testicle

There are a few more, but these are the ones that really stuck out. Cheers, — Harrypotterexpert101 ^(talk) 03:23, July 18, 2019 (UTC)

Unicorn22 is also violating the rule that "blogs must not be one's main contribution to this wiki". — evilquoll (talk) 04:53, July 18, 2019 (UTC)

Jjdeharrypotterfan

Longterm ban evader Hpfanjianjie is back with yet another sock account, the sock account being Jjdeharrypotterfan. He is currently on the loose resuming his usual nonconstructive editing patterns. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 08:19, July 21, 2019 (UTC)

Done --Ironyak1 (talk) 07:09, July 22, 2019 (UTC)

Galanthus Nivalis/Snowdrop rename

Considering the Galanthus Nivalis article, it needs to be renamed to "Snowdrop", as this is the plant's formal name given on Harry Potter: Wizards Unite. The titles for plant articles on this wiki generally do not use scientific plant names, so it should be changed, as I have also updated its profile image to the one from Wizards Unite. Thanks - User:RedWizard98

However it appears as Galanthus Nivalis on a second-tier prop label which is higher canon than the games so probably should be used as its "most formal" name. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 03:09, August 20, 2019 (UTC)

User:Ninclow2

Obviously a sock puppet of Maester Martin. Also, we have a blog that needs to be taken care of (revealing personal information). Cheers, — Harrypotterexpert101 ^(talk) 04:51, August 25, 2019 (UTC)

Done --Ironyak1 (talk) 16:53, September 17, 2019 (UTC)

Request duplicated article deletion

Hello there, could someone please delete this article (Skirmishh at the Great Lake), as it is a mistakenly created duplicate of the "Attack at the Great Lake" article, so thus it does not need to exist. Thank you. User:RedWizard98

Done - Again, in the future do not remove the page's content, just add the delete template to the top. Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 01:10, September 26, 2019 (UTC)

Request image unblock

This image of the Burrow from Pottermore was blocked in 2015 for apparent vandalism to its file; as a result, no one can edit it, and it contains no file information (no license, source, description or categories). Could it be unblocked so I (or someone else if they want to) can add its needed information, in accordance with the image policy. Thanks - User:RedWizard98

Done --Ironyak1 (talk) 17:20, October 6, 2019 (UTC)

Nonsensical template

This below is a nonsensical template that was created recently, which needs deleting. Thank you. - User:RedWizard98 https://harrypotter.fandom.com/wiki/Template:Chesirein_individual_infobox

Done --Ironyak1 (talk) 03:33, November 8, 2019 (UTC)

Fanon

This article titled "Anisa Castellino" is pure fanon and therefore must be deleted immediately, thank you. Its creator, User:Nicholasflamellololol is also inserting unacceptable fanon content into articles so they will also need blocking swiftly. Thank you --RedWizard98 (talk) 22:08, November 10, 2019 (UTC)

This User has a total of 4 edits when I'm typing this; one batch is that Fanon page and the other on another, that's not a lot of damage that warrants a block already, unlike some Users that repeatedly make the same mistakes and have a full talk page to prove all the warnings they've received. I've renamed the Fanon page since policy states Users are at least allowed to have one. If newer ones continued to pop out, that's a different story and then further warnings and block could be considered. It makes no sense to block them when those are the first offense. That's just my opinion though.

--Sammm✦✧(talk) 00:16, November 11, 2019 (UTC)

Sammm鯊 has it correct - people do not get blocked on their first offense, except for the most egregious and agressive vandalism, but rather are given the necessary warnings and chances to improve their contributions. However, thanks to you for giving them the {{Fanon}} warning and thanks to her for taking the extra effort to move their fanon page into their user namespace. Looks to be all Done --Ironyak1 (talk) 01:30, November 11, 2019 (UTC)