I wasn't sure how to go about this, but considering the user's past conduct and the fact they revert unfavorable messages on their talk page such asthis message from you, in which you voice your own concerns, I decided to bring this to your attention.
UserRomaniResearcher reportedOpala300 to the Administrator's noticeboard already[1], and while I agree thatRomaniResearcher's conduct wasn't appropriate (and their own edits questionable due to outdated sources), their concerns regardingOpala300's edits and refusal to discuss changes were valid and the matter should have been looked into. What I find particularly concerning are multiple page moves that are not only not discussed, but also marked as minor edits, which they were doing underEggplantSandwich already.
A lot of (if not all) Romani pages are a mess now, on account of both users, and due to the sheer mass of edits and content changed in such a short timespan, I'm not even sure where one would begin to fix any of it. While I hopeRomaniResearcher will be open to changing their approach, I don't thinkOpala300 should be allowed to edit these pages any further, at least not without providing sources.
The Romani pages are struggling at the moment with Opala300. He clusters around Albanian and Muslim Roma pages, which has allowed users to possibly track his multiple (several, in fact) accounts. He's been blocked for POV-pushing under multiple accounts and on Simple English Wikipedia. 8 days ago, I received this message from another Wikipedia user who wished to remain private:
I believe Florian, another user on the Romani topic-articles, may be another account of his.
Concerning the pages, the previous information contained on the pages were incredibly inaccurate. Some, like myself, take seriously academic principles and a neutral standpoint. Everything I've written has been fact-checked by the original source material. Concerning the "old sources", they are not less authentic, in this case we shouldn't use Homer or Hesiod in discussion on Ancient Greek religion. In Romani Studies, much of the available ethnographic material is from older sources. For instance, nothing substantial has been written ethnographically on Scottish Travellers for over half a century except Stanley Robertson's unavailable article from 2004. Most of the available sources, such as Colin Clarke, Donald Kenrick and Thomas Acton are in the domain of social and racial policies (i.e sociology), not ethnography. This is why researchers (I've been doing this for over 10 years) use older source material. In additional, many of the citations are incorrect. For instance, the information concerning the strong north-south divide in the Romanichal community actually links to a 2013 report on Roma in the UK - which are completely different ethnic group[s]. Therefore, what I've written on the Romani pages is updated, reliable, fact-checked information. The sources have been cited correct and are available to view. In conclusion, I kindly say that it does not need "to be fixed", in fact, I fixed what was unreliable, incorrect and uncited. The actual source material, which is reflected in academia, is now manifested in the articles. I take academic principles very seriously and I'm not offended if you can prove me incorrect; please scrutinise the sources if you believe they are incorrect. I will be happy to change or discuss them. The reason I joined Wikipedia is because your information was creating utter confusion in the Romani community in other spaces online. As a researcher I had to do something about it. Saying this, if a user wishes to update the article, then I welcome this. Again, I'm not adverse to be proven wrong; I welcome scrutiny - it helps me as a researcher to correct my own mistakes. I stress, however, that unlike Opala300, I have never reverted another user's article (except Opala300's edits due to the problems discussed).RomaniResearcher (talk)20:43, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
I forgot to add that Opala300 often removes cited information without discussion. For example, all available source material refers to Kirk Yetholm Tinkler's as "Kirk Yetholm Gypsies." I provided sources that confirmed this usage, and I was in the process of gathering more. However, Opala300 removed the information without explanation.
From what I’ve observed, he appears to have a limited understanding of British Gypsies and Travellers, yet does not engage in discussion about why he removes cited material. When asked to provide sources or evidence for his edits, none are given, and most inquiries go unanswered. At times, he seems to take on an "admin-like" role, but his rewrites often introduce inaccuracies, as they are not grounded in the cited material.
To avoid misrepresentation and erasure, I’ve had to include longer quotations from source material so the information cannot be easily altered or erased. This issue has already occurred on the Scottish Traveller page, where sourced and accurate information was removed, leaving the article factually incorrect and incorrect cited. The current version written by Opala300 no longer aligns with the cited sources, whereas the earlier material which I wrote did, as I was the original citer. Again, he is incapable of citing and checking source material.RomaniResearcher (talk)21:00, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi both.@Alexeji: it sounds like this is something that would be best discussed atWP:ANI, rather than on my talkpage - that would get more eyes on the issue, and you might find some people willing to help with any clean up that is required. I appreciate that it's been raised there before, but if you can demonstrate with diffs that they have carried on as they were without paying heed to the warning, it is likely that stronger action would be taken to get them to stop.@RomaniResearcher: if you suspect sockpuppetry, please raise your concerns (with diffs) atWP:SPI. If you use Twinkle, that makes it very easy to create a properly formatted report, using the 'ARV' option from the Twinkle drop-down menu. Regarding your comments on the content and your approach to editing, I know very little indeed about the subject matter you're talking about, or the state of the scholarship on the subject. With that being said, you are describing yourself as a researcher. I just want to ensure that you are aware of our policies onWP:OR, and that you have readWP:SECONDARY. Please let me be clear that I have not reviewed your editing, and am not accusing you of having breached either of these - I just want to make sure that you are aware of this. Our content should be based on what the best and most up-to-date secondary sources have to say about a subject; primary and historic sources are not entirely forbidden (WP:PRIMARY), but editors should never use their own interpretation of those sources and should rely on secondary sources for any analysis. Where sources simply don't exist, we must remain silent. And to address the example that you raised, we would not use Homer or Hesiod in an article to support an assertion of fact regarding ancient Greek religion; we would rely on the work of modern scholars who interpret Homer or Hesiod. Hope that makes sense. CheersGirthSummit (blether)21:32, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The number has been kept deliberately low to give us a fighting chance of improving them to at least GA status, also so we can concentrate our efforts on these first.
Wiki Loves Monuments
Thanks to all who took part in the annualWiki Loves Monuments to get some photographs of listed buildings. There was 67 photographs of Yorkshire submitted during the month. North Yorkshire had the most at 34, followed by West Yorkshire with 32, South Yorshire manage just 1 while the East Riding of Yorkshire did not submit any photographs.
WikiProject Yorkshire Collaboration of the Month Project
The October 2025 articles selected below are an editor choice as there were no nominations on the project talk page.
The project is subscribed to aclean-up listing which lists articles tagged with various clean-up tags that need attention. The listing is refreshed by a bot on a regular basis, usually on a Tuesday.
Monitoring is essential Use thewatchlist to keep an eye on changes to the project's articles so that vandalism and spamming can be removed as quickly as possible.
Moves Please be careful when performing articles moves and ensure that you also move all the talk sub-pages and update any image fair use rational. Otherwise the archives, to-do lists, assessment comments and GA reviews get lost and the image may be deleted as it has an incorrect FUR. You will also have to check that the Commons link is set correctly.
Thanks
A very bigThank you to all the editors who labour away quietly and help make this WikiProject what it is; no edit goes unnoticed.
To members who have added suggestions to the ToDo list atYorkshire Portal.
To the football and rugby editors who have done sterling work in keeping abreast of the top clubs.
To all the WikiProject Yorkshire editors who have been busy on vandal patrol atwatchlist.
Great!
Comments, questions and suggestions about this, or any, issue of the newsletter are always welcome and can be made by pressing the feedback button below...
Would you like to write the next newsletter forWP:YORKS? Please nominate yourself atWT:YORKS! New editors are always welcome!
Delivered October 2025 byMediaWiki message delivery. If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add anN to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage.
Thanks forreining me in the other day. I really appreciate you taking the time to do that.
Question: In the opening post of that discussion I pinged all the folks who were involved in the previous ANI discussions about this editor. The vibe I get is it would have been better to not, even though that's what was done previously. Am I reading that right, or was there some hidden value in doing this?Uhoj (talk)00:42, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily an easy question to answer - 'it depends'. I didn't read the whole discussion - how far back did you go with the previous ANI cases? Did you ping all the editors who commented in those discussions, or just a subset? And if the latter, how did you decide on the subset - was it just the people who filed the complaints? Just the people who close the discussions? Just the people who complained against the editor (and by extension, not any people who might have spoken in support of them)? Can you also point me towards whatever people have said that gave you the vibe that you shouldn't have done it?GirthSummit (blether)13:47, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aftera motion, arbitration enforcement page protections no longer need to be logged in the AELOG. A bot now automatically posts protections atWP:AELOG/P. To facilitate this bot, protection summaries must include a link to the relevant CT page (e.g.[[WP:CT/BLP]]), and you will receive talk page reminders if you forget to specify the contentious topic but otherwise indicate it is an AE action.
I just noticed more sockpuppet accusations by JeanClaudeN1 that link me to even more accounts. I'll say this because I do find JeanClaudeN1's edits very POVish and it appears that other random editors in Poland do too. Apparently all of Poland is one big sockpuppet because Polish people get upset that an editor inserts a heavily German-centric POV on Poland related articles.
What I find concerning about JeanClaudeN1 is that their edit pattern resembles a single-purpose account or a paid-contributor. JeanClaudeN1's edits primarily focus on Germany and if JeanClaudeN1 edits in Poland related articles they only focus on German history there. Also, looking at JeanClaudeN1's edit history it is clear that they spend a lot of time editing EVERY DAY - going through articles in a very mechanical way, as if they had a list or something. Finally with all this sockpuppet accusations going around, I noticed that a lot of Poland related article that JeanClaudeN1 edited also over lap with Tino Cannst, as seen in the Editor Interaction Analyse[2].
Here is one good example, some small hole-in-a-wall village in PolandSłoszów. A while back Tino Cannst added a very one sided summary of the village's history "The town was colonized by Germans in the Middle Ages. Its German name Roms likely refers to the place Rommerz in Hesse." That's it, that's the history, just German stuff, and sure enough JeanClaudeN1 chasing all of Poland's sockpuppets reverted that text back after and IP deleted it. Could we check JeanClaudeN1 for possible sockpuppets and examine their edit patters, which as I mentioned before are very specific, same with Tino Cannst.
Also, by the way, Tino Cannst, only edits Poland related articles and exclusively focusing on German history in those places. Don't believe me, see for yourself[3], about as single purpose and niche topic area as you can get.
It seems that JeanClaudeN1 is trying to block everyone that disagrees with their POV push, perhaps it's their way of solving content disputes.PJK 1993 (talk)22:29, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PJK 1993 is already known for making false accusations. However, these latest ones are unparalleled in their absurdity. They appear to be the next stage in their personal campaign against me. I have absolutely nothing in common withUser:Tino Cannst (see below for how the edit overlap happened). I'll not even comment on the other accusations given their lack of substance. The facts are as follows:
PJK 1993 has been engaging in disruptive editing and POV pushing for weeks, mostly within a contentious topic area. They have been blocked multiple times in a short period.
Recently, they started two separate discussions on different noticeboards (here andhere). When neither discussion went in the direction they wanted, an IP address from Poland suddenly appeared and began trying to steer the discussions in PJK 1993’s preferred direction.[4][5][6] The only edits made by this IP address are comments on those two noticeboard discussions. I therefore initiated asockpuppet investigation.
Shortly thereafter, the associatedIP range was blocked. Upon closer inspection, I noticed that dozens of disruptive edits had been made from this IP range in recent weeks (which is already apparent from the frequent edit summary tags such as “possible vandalism,” “reference removed,” “section blanked,” etc.). I reverted several of these edits perWP:BE.
After seeing the baseless accusations mentioned above, I took another close look to understand where the overlap with Tino Cannst came from. Here’s what I found: the blocked IP range appears to have been following this user and, as if working from a list, reverted many of their edits (seeEditor Interaction Analyser) Since I had reverted some of the edits made by the blocked IP range, the overlap with both the IP range and Tino Cannst can be explained that way.
The fact that PJK 1993 is now complaining about me reverting these IP edits speaks volumes. It not only provides further evidence that they might be connected to these IP edits, but the false accusations above seem to mark the next stage in PJK 1993’s ongoing campaign against me personally. It is yet another strong indication of their battleground mentality, for which they have already been warned multiple times, e.g.hereJeanClaudeN1 (talk)00:45, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
JeanClaudeN1,PJK 1993 - I don't know why either of you is on my talk page - does this relate to a case I've handled in the past? Allegations of sockpuppetry can be dealt with at SPI; other types of abuse, including false accusations of bad faith, can be handled at ANI.GirthSummit (blether)13:41, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comment. I don’t know why PJK 1993 wrote that on your talk page. There’s no further action required from my end (the user has already been sanctioned) — I just didn’t want to leave this uncommented.JeanClaudeN1 (talk)14:08, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Administrator changes
CheckUser changes
Arbitration
