A neutral, data-driven dossier of one editor's complete public record — 22,364 edits across 3,370 pages, pulled straight from the MediaWiki API and independently fact-checked.
Only about 48% of edits land in articles. The majority live in discussion and process space — talk pages, user talk, and Wikipedia's dispute-resolution noticeboards. This is a discussion-heavy profile, typical of an editor working in contentious topic areas.
Activity explodes through 2021 (8,540 edits) and stays hot through 2022 (7,746), then tapers steadily. The single near-silent month — April 2023, just 7 edits — was a personal break, not a block: the account has a clean block log and was editing arbitration pages that same month.
Each row carries two shares: of edits (how many of the page's revisions this account made) and of content (how much of the text live on the page today they actually wrote, per the WikiWho authorship engine). The gap is the story — on the history articles the surviving-text share dwarfs the edit share (deep authorship: 87.9% of Multan Sun Temple, 86.4% of Gyanvapi), while on The Kashmir Files both stay low. Open any page for its full breakdown.
Across four years the net byte change is nearly flat — this is not a one-directional "adder" or a pure "deleter." The largest single moves are mostly reverts and restorations on contested articles (Sati, Talk:Sun), not greenfield prose.
A strongly enforcement-oriented footprint: hundreds of edits to deletion debates and the noticeboards where contentious-topic conduct is litigated.
Analysis here rests on edit summaries, page titles, namespaces and byte deltas — not the diff content itself. Findings are signals for human review. Every large move inspected carried a stated policy or talk-page rationale, so the record is consistent with both principled sourcing enforcement and a directional slant. Distinguishing the two requires reading the diffs.
Mostly telegraphic summaries ("ce", "+", "rm"), punctuated by a recurring sardonic-combative register.
The same record shows genuine good-faith collaboration — thanks given, assume-good-faith reverts, sourcing help on the Resource Exchange.
Net byte-removal on Hindu-grievance / Hindutva-aligned pages; net addition on academic critics of Hindutva. A signal to verify against diffs — with policy rationales attached throughout.
Reverts/undos cluster tightly in South-Asian history and Hindu/Hindutva-adjacent BLPs, mirrored by heavy talk-page presence on the same titles.
The data is consistent with both principled NPOV/RS enforcement and selective slant — and the summaries alone cannot tell them apart. — Fact-checked conclusion, tone & bias analysis
Two independent fact-checkers re-derived every quantitative claim from the source data. Verdict on both reports: mostly sound. Corrections below are already reflected on this page.