Harry Potter Wiki

Harry Potter Wiki:Requests for administrator attention

12,003pages on
this wiki

Redirected from HPW:RAA


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.



User:Hpotterf0r3v3r is, as stated on his user page, only ten years old, below the minimum age limit (13) in Wikia's Terms of Use. -- 1337star (Drop me a line!) 01:42, January 9, 2014 (UTC)

Speedstinger011, or underage user?

If the statement on his userpage is anything to go on, this guy is less than the minimum age to create an account here, and his edits are not inconsistent with it. It's probably none of my business, and he's one of the quieter users around, but, considering the fuss I've seen on other wikis about such matters, I wonder what the policies are here. Thanks, MinorStoop 02:30, January 9, 2014 (UTC)


This user left a hate message on the talk page of Hunnie Bunn. I thought he/she should be stopped.

He/she got already a warning from me: here.  Harry granger   Talk   contribs 20:11, February 1, 2014 (UTC)

Apart from the hate message, said user (who has left no gender with which to refer to them) has added fanon repeatedly despite warnings about the matter, and has repeatedly deleted said warnings despite requesting not to do so. --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 20:21, February 1, 2014 (UTC)
Jennyboom did it again today. Insultings on Hunnie Bunn's userpage.  Harry granger   Talk   contribs 17:31, February 13, 2014 (UTC)


Aestes27 has been repeatedly adding fanon to the page Elder Wand despite several warnings on their talk page. I'm uncertain whether they simply didn't notice that they had three warnings and that their edits were repeatedly being reverted, or if they're simply ignoring all attempts to prevent their addition of fanon. --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 19:49, April 6, 2014 (UTC)

Even after the blocking period was up, he or she continued to add fanonical (or at the very least highly speculative) informations to the page Protective enchantments. I have yet to leave another warning on their page, of course, but I highly doubt such would do much good. --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 11:04, April 15, 2014 (UTC)
Blocked for one week. Next breach will constitute a permanent block. --Cubs Fan (Talk to me) 12:52, April 15, 2014 (UTC)
I would say that Aestes27's contributions to Patronus Charms constitute a relapse of his fanonical activity. MinorStoop 17:18, April 24, 2014 (UTC)
Agreed, but it was only really the addition of his own patronus; the rest of his edits appeared to be in good faith. So I'll hold off for the moment, but if he adds obvious fanon again, then I'll block him. --Cubs Fan (Talk to me) 17:56, April 24, 2014 (UTC)
At first I would think it was mere forgetfulness or accident, but when coupled with his past edits, it is clear that Aestes27's fanonical edit today to Category:Wandmakers (on the same topic as his edits to this page) was intentional and with at least six warnings about fanon on his talk page it is clear that mere warnings have no effect. I therefore feel that perhaps a block of some sort may be necessary, although I will leave that up to the individual responsible for taking care of this issue. --Hunnie Bunn (talk) 21:34, May 9, 2014 (UTC)


This user is engaging in a series of edits, to various degree, incorrect, disruptive and useless, regularly reverted and rapidly causing his talk page to be filled with explanations, requests to stop, and rebukes by a number of other editors. I'm not surprised in discovering that early signs of this behavior go back to 2009, and as shown on said talk page, it holds true in at least two other wikis.

Any possibility to bring this situation to a stop? Thanks, MinorStoop 06:03, April 27, 2014 (UTC)

There might be a way out to this impasse without needing admin intervention - it might however take some time before we can see the results. If possible, I'd like to put this request on hold, at least temporarily. MinorStoop 09:59, April 27, 2014 (UTC)


This user seems to be fairly persistent in both putting up her fantasies about HP on main pages and categorizing herself under inappropriate categories. I'm wondering if we could get her some down time? MinorStoop 19:14, May 18, 2014 (UTC)

By the look of it, Mrs Jenna needs some more down time. MinorStoop 20:43, May 24, 2014 (UTC)
Afraid that this character needs a longer time off - her fanon is back with a vengeance. MinorStoop 17:38, June 9, 2014 (UTC)


A fairly nice case of vandalism, which might or might not be eligible for some downtime. Please, keep an eye on him on the next day or two. MinorStoop 09:20, May 19, 2014 (UTC)

Borderline case? User:TheUnlimitedFanPage

I suspect she needs to be warned. She describes her user page as "The Official Wikia fanpage for actress and UN Goodwill Ambassador Emma Watson", which surely isn't what this wiki is about.

According to her contributions page, according to Microsoft Excel a few minutes ago her contributions were: total, 152: user/user talk page, 23 (15.13%, of which edits to other users' talk pages, 4, 2.61%); article page, 49 (32.24%); file uploads, 80 (52.63%). She may not quite be violating the editing policy, but she's certainly coming perilously close. — RobertATfm (talk) 08:21, August 4, 2014 (UTC)

Current counts are: Total edits, 155, of which:

  • Own user page, 22, 14.19%;
  • Other users' talk pages, 4, 2.58%;
    • Total user-space edits, 26, 16.77%;
  • File uploads, 80, 51.61%;
  • Article edits, 49, 31.61%

I think something needs to be done. — RobertATfm (talk) 10:10, August 7, 2014 (UTC)

Latest counts: Total edits 157, of which:

  • Own user page, 24, 15.29%;
  • Other users' talk pages, 3, 1.91% (I don't know why this has dropped);
    • Total user-space edits, 27, 17.20%;
  • File uploads, 80, 50.96%;
  • Article edits, 49, 31.85%

This user is definitely extracting the liquid waste. — RobertATfm (talk) 16:01, August 11, 2014 (UTC)

Latest totals: own user page, 31 of 164, 18.90% of total; other users' talk pages, 4, 2.44%; total user-space edits, 35, 21.34%. Definitely no longer a borderline case. But what is the use of policies if they're never enforced? — RobertATfm (talk) 13:52, August 19, 2014 (UTC)

I think this here is overlooked. Perhaps it's better to contact an admin directly.  Harry granger   Talk   contribs 17:13, August 19, 2014 (UTC)
The editing policy technically says no more than 15% of a user's edits should be to their own page. This is surely intended as a guideline, not an absolute, because it would be unreasonable to expect users and admins to monitor and tabulate editing behaviour to the extent which you have done.
We're dealing with an editor who, by your calculations, is only 3.9% over the allowed amount of user page edits. But her edit count is small enough at this point that every edit she makes has a noticeable impact on her editing statistics. The percentage of user page edits increased from 14% to 19% over the course of just nine edits. I only think it'll become problematic if she's got 100 user page edits out of a total edit count of 500.
I will drop a note on her page nonetheless. - Starstuff (Owl me!) 01:48, September 1, 2014 (UTC)
Your decision, of course, but in my opinion it is not worth admin intervention. Even though Unlimitedfanpage spreads over a few wikis, she limits herself to innocuously decorate her own userpage, without willfully misediting/vandalizing main space pages, and can be left alone without any harm to anibody else. Best, MinorStoop 12:30, September 2, 2014 (UTC)

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki