Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Indian military history/Evidence: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 551: Line 551:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive331] - looks isolated, but putting it together with everything else might be a pattern.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive331] - looks isolated, but putting it together with everything else might be a pattern.
[[User:Kaleighlight|Kaleighlight]] ([[User talk:Kaleighlight|talk]]) 23:46, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
[[User:Kaleighlight|Kaleighlight]] ([[User talk:Kaleighlight|talk]]) 23:46, 8 June 2025 (UTC)


==Evidence presented by Chess==
Vanamonde makes an oblique reference to a discussion I closed at [[Talk:Kshatriya]].[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kshatriya#Responses] I'm not very involved in the area, but what struck me when closing that discussion (about whether Rajputs were the "most successful claimants" of Kshatriya) is that most editors agreed that varna is a subjective term with conflicting definitions. They generally agreed that Rajputs ''are'' the most successful claimants to this subjective term. They also presented reams of high-quality academic sources discussing the caste system in modern India, and the many different ways the term Kshatriya can be interpreted.

The only real disagreement was on the necessary context to understand the Indian caste system in the modern world, and what "claimant" means. But the "disagreement" was editors throwing out different ideas of what the appropriate context should be, less so than actual arguing on the precise nature of the claims (which were widely acknowledged to be under dispute). After I closed, with a recommendation to come up with better wording, nobody even bothered to draft a better paragraph. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kshatriya#c-Koshuri_Sultan-20250430075700-Sitush-20250429170000]

That means on Wikipedia, the history of Kshatriya effectively ends in 700 CE. I'd like more reasonable editors to consider adding content instead of just giving up on social issues that they believe to be unimportant.




Revision as of 23:59, 8 June 2025

Main case page (Talk) — Preliminary statements (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Target dates: Opened 22 May 2025 • Evidence closes 8 June 2025 • Workshop closes 15 June 2025 • Proposed decision to be posted by 22 June 2025

Scope: Military history and related caste issues on the Indian subcontinent.

Case clerks: HouseBlaster (Talk) & SilverLocust (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Aoidh (Talk) & ScottishFinnishRadish (Talk) & Elli (Talk)

Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes

Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at fair, well-informed decisions. This page is not designed for the submission of general reflections on the arbitration process, Wikipedia in general, or other irrelevant and broad issues; and if you submit such content to this page, please expect it to be ignored or removed. General discussion of the case may be opened on the talk page. You must focus on the issues that are important to the dispute and submit diffs which illustrate the nature of the dispute or will be useful to the committee in its deliberations.

Submitting evidence

  • Any editor may add evidence to this page, irrespective of whether they are involved in the dispute.
  • You must submit evidence in your own section, using the prescribed format.
  • Editors who change other users' evidence may be sanctioned by arbitrators or clerks without warning; if you have a concern with or objection to another user's evidence, contact the arbitration clerks by e-mail or on the talk page.

Word and diff limits

  • The standard limits for all evidence submissions are: 1000 words and 100 diffs for users who are parties to this case; or about 500 words and 50 diffs for other users. Detailed but succinct submissions are more useful to the committee.
  • If you wish to exceed the prescribed limits on evidence length, you must obtain the written consent of an arbitrator before doing so; you may ask for this on the Evidence talk page.
  • Evidence that exceeds the prescribed limits without permission, or that contains inappropriate material or diffs, may be refactored, redacted or removed by a clerk or arbitrator without warning.

Supporting assertions with evidence

  • Evidence must include links to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are inadequate. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those change over time), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log is acceptable.
  • Please make sure any page section links are permanent, and read the simple diff and link guide if you are not sure how to create a page diff.

Rebuttals

  • The Arbitration Committee expects you to make rebuttals of other evidence submissions in your own section, and for such rebuttals to explain how or why the evidence in question is incorrect; do not engage in tit-for-tat on this page.
  • Analysis of evidence should occur on the /Workshop page, which is open for comment by parties, arbitrators, and others.

Expected standards of behavior

  • You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being incivil or engaging in personal attacks, and to respond calmly to allegations against you.
  • Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all).

Consequences of inappropriate behavior

  • Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator or clerk, without warning.
  • Sanctions issued by arbitrators or clerks may include being banned from particular case pages or from further participation in the case.
  • Editors who ignore sanctions issued by arbitrators or clerks may be blocked from editing.
  • Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Evidence presented by asilvering

   Asilvering's statement contains 407 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

Not an assertion per se, but here is a list of 2025 AfDs in the topic area, for anyone looking to use AfD discussions in evidence: User:Asilvering/IndianMilHistAFDs

Basic AfD facts

  • generated from the list linked above, may be missing some relevant ones
  • by month: January (7), February (5), March (7), April (24), May (1)
  • roughly 2/3 of the AfDs resulted in consensus to delete; only three resulted in a keep outcome
  • those keeps are: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anglo-Mughal war (1686–1690) (created by Olegwiki in 2011, nom: Shakakarta); Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siege of Kangra (creator HerakliosJulianus, nom Koshuri Sultan); Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Execution of Sambhaji (creator ImperialAficionado, nom Maniacal ! Paradoxical, as Mnbnjghiryurr)
  • editors who nominated more than one article: CharlesWain (2), Onel5969 (2), Ratnahastin (2), Srijanx22 (3), Garudam (3), Koshuri Sultan (9), Shakakarta (10)
  • editors who created more than one nominated article: Tiipu (2), Garudam (3), Kirny Wirny (3), Ranadhira (3), Xtremedood (3), HerakliosJulianus (4), ImperialAficionado (6), Ronnie Macroni (6)
  • four of February's five nominations are by Koshuri Sultan of articles created by ImperialAficionado

Other notes

Not as in-depth as I was hoping to be able to deliver, but the deadline looms, so:

  • There are, obviously, a lot of low-quality and non-notable articles being created in this topic area. As described by Sitush in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Uruli: there are many largely fictitious/pseudo-history "battle of ..." articles created & supported by a seemingly extensive sockfarm of glorifiers.
  • There's also a lot of very low-quality AfD participation, which makes it difficult to assess consensus in the AfDs that do get disputed.
  • Two editors in particular had their articles targetted for AfD: ImperialAficionado, whose favourite topic was the Mughals, and Ronnie Macroni, whose was the Sikhs.
  • Various editors in the topic area have recently taken to accusing each other of AI use and copyvio. It is indisputable that both are happening in this topic area. But if you'll forgive me some cynicism, I suspect this one may be coming up not because editors in the topic area are getting better at noticing it, but because editors in the topic area have found that CV/AI accusations can get ideological opponents and content they dislike removed more easily. Some AI/CV-related AfDs: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5].
  • These two AfDs with source tables are both unusual (for having a source table) and illustrative (of the general problems in the topic area): [6], [7].

Evidence presented by Tamzin

   Tamzin's statement contains 467 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

AE handled at least 13 cases in the topic area from February through May

Copied from my preliminary statement with slight modifications. Also includes one related unilateral sanction.

Date Subject Filer Other involved participants Closing/imposing admin Outcome
2025-02-09 Ekdalian Chronos.Zx [NXcrypto] Orientls, LukeEmily, Capitals00 Seraphimblade Ekdalian warned for PAs and canvassing
2025-02-10 PerspicazHistorian Dympies Vanamonde Guerillero PerspicazHistorian indeffed as a non-AE action
2025-03-01 Adamantine123 Capitals00 Vanamonde, Rosguill Tamzin Adamantine123 indeffed as a non-AE action
2025-03-03 Big fan of the Mughals AlvaKedak none Abecedare Big fan of the Mughals indeffed as a non-AE action
2025-03-04 RevolutionaryPatriot Capitals00 none Valereee RevolutionaryPatriot p-blocked from mainspace as a non-AE action (since unblocked)
2025-03-28 Hu741f4 AlvaKedak Koshuri Sultan, Capitals00 Valereee Hu741f4, AlvaKedak, and Koshuri Sultan advised to go slow in CTOPs
2025-04-02 AlvaKedak Extorc none Tamzin No action
2025-04-05 Akshaypatill Abhishek0831996 Koshuri Sultan, LukeEmily, Fowler&fowler, Ratnahastin Rosguill Logged warnings: Akshaypatill for edit warring; Capitals00, Abhishek0831996 and Koshuri Sultan for failure to AGF; Abhishek0831996 furthermore for frivolous complaints and word limit violations.
2025-04-08 ImperialAficionado Mr.Hanes AlvaKedak, Vanamonde, Extorc SilverLocust Archived unclosed after subject's retirement
2025-04-20 Dympies Malik Al-Hind Chronos.Zx [NXcrypto], Ekdalian, Sitush, LeónGonsalvesofGoa, HerakliosJulianus, IAmAtHome, LukeEmily, Capitals00 Valereee Procedural close to allow refiling by a non-sock
2025-05-08 Dympies unilateral sanction Bishonen IPA TBAN for Dympies
2025-05-08 Dympies Capitals00 AlvaKedak, Ivanvector, AirshipJungleman29, Kowal2701, Ekdalian, Akshaypatill, Abecedare Tamzin This case
2025-05-08 PadFoot2008 Srimant ROSHAN Kowal2701, Shakakarta, Dympies, AlvaKedak, Mithilanchalputra7 Tamzin PadFoot2008 TBANned
2025-05-08 Srijanx22 HerakliosJulianus Maniacal ! Paradoxical Tamzin Maniacal ! Paradoxical TBANned

Multiple parties have a history of sanctions

Copied from my preliminary statement with modifications for newly-added parties. Excludes sanctions listed above.

Other usernames of parties

A likely incomplete list:

  • Chronos.Zx: MahabaliKhali (renamed), Oxiyam.Primal (account abandoned), NXcrypto (renamed to Oxiyam.Primal)
  • Dympies: Yoonadue (sockmaster, see above), Togggle (sock, see above)
  • Koshuri Sultan: Based Kashmiri (rename), Mr Anonymous 699 (sockmaster), Gaudeshwar (sock)
  • Maniacal ! Paradoxical: Mnbnjghiryurr (rename), Koitot (sockmaster), Waosonn (sock), Woason (sock)
  • Srimant ROSHAN: Drt450 (sock)

Evidence Presented by Robert McClenon

   Robert McClenon's statement contains 43 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

Disputes at DRN

The following disputes have been brought to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard during the time period in question:

I have not attempted to analyze the involvement of individual users in these disputes.


Evidence presented by Capitals00

   Capitals00's statement contains 992 words and complies with the 1000-word limit.

Evidence of misconduct

Akshaypatill

  • Akshaypatill has a long history of disruptive editing on Maratha articles, which has included adding original research to sanitize Maratha critical content[8], misrepresenting the sources to claim that "Shivaji is also known as Chatrapati Shivaji Maharaj" when both Chatrapati and Maharaj are honorifics and not part of his name.[9] This attempt was reverted, but Akshaypatill edit warred to retain his problematic edit[10][11]. Introducing copyright violations that required revdeletion[12][13] into Shivaji's article. More instances of edit warring long term editors[14][15][16]
  • Has a history of making snide personal remarks in this area, see [17], -- "these are blatant lies",[18] -- "no excuse why you lied over there".[19]
  • Has edit warred in this area even violating arbitration remedies in doing so [20], was reported for it, but the report seemed to have been withdrawn in good faith perhaps with a belief that this won't happen again, but it continued even after it[21][22] leading to a logged warning for edit warring[23]. In some of his latest reverts, he restored misrepresentation[24] of sources and copyright violations[25] into the article in spite of edit warring logged warning he received. [26]. He was bludgeoning the talk page by repeating the same argument over and over saying that Shivaji was an independent ruler since he was a teen, although the detail he was opposed to, was sourced to an authoritative source on Shivaji and Marathas. [27][28][29][30][31] while the dispute at hand had nothing to do with his point, but instead was about Shivaji 's brief service to Mughals in 1657 [32][33][34] Misrepresenting the source at Rajput to portray a skewed POV. [35][36]
  • He resumed his edit warring on Shivaji by 20 April 2025 with the this revert and re-added misrepresentation of the source. Upon being told about the issues with his edits, he declined the opportunity to make a self-revert.[37]
  • Has falsely accused me of "meatpuppetry".[38]
  • Displays WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality by landing on the reports to defend the reported editor and attack the reporting editor when the report does not even concern him.[39]

AlvaKedak

  • Displays battleground mentality by landing on the reports to defend the reported editor and attack the reporting editor,[45][46] or for making the weak report look stronger.[47] None of these reports concerned him in the first place.
  • Has a highly disruptive presence in AfDs within this area, with his !votes resulting in opposite outcomes.[48][49][50][51][52]
  • Falsely accuses people of engaging in "canvassing", and provides no evidence.[53][54]
  • Engages in off-wiki canvassing through emails.[55]

HerakliosJulianus

HerakliosJulianus has been using ANEW, SPI, AE and ANI to harass his perceived opponents.

  • First filed a frivolous ANEW report against Noorullah21 that resulted in no action.[56] After that, he filed SPI against Noorullah21, AfghanParatrooper19891 and Southasianhistorian8. [57] that was closed for lack of evidence the same day and then filed a frivolous ANI report that was closed before a boomerang was about to hit him. [58]
  • Filed an SPI against 8 editors editing for years.[59]
  • Filed an AE report against Srijanx22 because they nominated his articles for deletion. The AE report was closed without any action against the reported user.[60]
  • After the Maharashtra government registered criminal cases against ImperialAficionado and Ratnahastin over their edits to Sambhaji's page,[61][62] HerakliosJulianus reported ImperialAficionado to ANI[63] while asking for a topic ban from ARBIPA, where the report was closed for "calling for a sanction that is a more severe remedy than what the "evidence" supports." [64][65]
  • Taking a look at their own content creations, we see a concerning trend of copyright issues:
  • When warned about their copyright violations, they instead abused the warning template for a retaliatory warning. [69][70]
  • Has a highly disruptive presence in AfDs within this area, with his !votes resulting in opposite outcomes.[71][72][73]
  • Displays battleground mentality by landing on the reports to defend the reported editor and attack the reporting editor,[74] or for making the weak report look stronger.[75] None of these reports concerned him in the first place.
  • Has continued this battleground attitude even during this Arbcom case.[76][77]

Shakakarta

  • Has a highly disruptive presence in AfDs within this area, with his !votes resulting in opposite outcomes.[81][82][83][84][85][86]
  • Creating articles on those battles were Marathas emerged victorious[87] while seeking deletion of the articles where Marathas lost.[88][89][90][91][92]
  • Nominated an article about a highly notable war where Mughal Empire (rivals of Marathas) emerged victorious.[93] One user commented, "if this is a bad-faith nomination or a competence issue".[94]

Srimant ROSHAN

To establish the fact that this user is causing disruption for a long time, I am providing some years-old diffs and the new diffs.

  • Adding original research to promote Maratha caste POV.[95]

When reverted, the user brings up their undisclosed sockpuppet to make reverts.[96][97][98]

  • Months ago, he removed sourced content based on POV conflating the modern surname (Parmara) with the historical polity (Paramaras) despite them not being regarded as anything but a Rajput dynasty the cited sources. [100]
  • Has continued edit warring even during this Arbcom case:

Dympies

Dympies is topic banned from WP:ARBIPA since 8 May 2025,[105] however, they are still making India-related edits. This edit mentioned "Kerala", and edit mentions "West Bengal and Orissa regions". These edits violate his topic ban.

On Ivanvector's evidence

All AE reports I filed in the last 12 months resulted in sanctions.[106][107][108][109][110][111] This comment being cited by Ivanvector was misleading regarding me, and I debunked it before he completely withdrew it.

Evidence presented by Akshaypatill

   Akshaypatill's statement contains 735 words and complies with the 1000-word limit.

Clarification regarding my participation -

Because the case has many other angles, I would like to clarify that, unlike the most here, I haven't participated in any ANI, AFD or any other such forum on Wiki, except the one comment on an AE thread. (Other- I was dragged on AE twice, one was withdrawn and other was found to be frivolous.)

Capitals00 (Rebutting)

Capitals00 has been accused of keeping tabs on their perceived opponents and trying to eliminate them using various tactics on multiple occasions by reputed editors in the CTOP like Fowler&fowler (this is a very important observation)-

...Editors who engage in it are careful not to cross the lines themselves but keep tabs on other editors. When these others become impatient with what would have been called (Civil) meatpuppetry in the old days, they quickly report them to the powers-that-be... These editors report other editors for what are often superficial but easily punishable forms of offense, but they get away with bias or collusion that prove harder to identify and slippery for punishing. I'm not saying that Abhishek* or Capital00 are in the wrong, but admins should perhaps consider how often these editors report others at AE or ANI. [112].

A CheckUser had recently condemned their actions in very strong words [113]. This is more or less an attempt in the same line to get me banned.

Most of their diffs have already been checked and discussed by admins at AE recently [114] and found the complaint to be frivolous, earning them and a few others an AGF warning [115], so I ain't going to reiterate things again wasting everyone's time. There are already a few other attempts to get me banned, which I suspect to be part of meatpuppetry and the teaming [116]. Again they all have failed. As expected, here they are back with one more attempt, and I am not surprised at all [117]. Akshaypatill (talk) 09:29, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Capitals00's modus operandi (an example): See how false and twisted his first diff [118] itself is. He could have checked the source before the accusations. Anyways, that 'sanitized content', (as per Capitals00) was discussed with admin Vanamonde93, who checked the source and confirmed my observation [119]. It was not OR but the source indeed has mentioned it. Also, a lot of his diffs like the honorifics part are from years ago when I was very new to CTOP and unaware of the policies. Akshaypatill (talk) 10:04, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extorc (Rebutting)

Again, Extorc is just reiterating Capitals00 and Abhishek's words, which has already been discussed at length in the last AE, which was found to be frivolous. I don't know why Extorc is doing this as I don't even remember any interaction with him except his message on my talkpage from years ago [120]. The AE against me was checked thoroughly by no less than two AE admins [121] and it was further discussed on admin Rosguill's talk page [122], because interestingly Capitals00 had raised very much similar points just as Extorc here and again was told that the actions werer correct.

Extorc's Rajput page accusations-> The talk page thread was open for more than a month, and no one objected the whole time.[123]. I don't know how else consensus building works other than this. One new editor even praised the way everyone was participating there-

..consensus like these helps new editors to learn lot about the wikipedia and it's policies.[124]

In my opinion, the admins at AE handled the matters really well, especially when the suspected tag-team members were ganging up and poisoning the well in every way possible. A deeper study of the evidence posted by Admin Vanamonde93 should reveal a lot about all these things [125].

Note to ARBcom

I have decided to confine myself to rebuttals. I don't have energy to fight the team anymore. As I said earlier, unlike most here, I haven't been part of any ANI, AFD or any other such forum. I mostly confine myself to articles and talkpages, and I am already drained from the tag-teaming on the talk pages and the AEs and all the places I have been dragged to for last few months. I will request the ARBcom members to pay attention to the teaming part too. It is so bad that you can assume everyone here to be part of a team, until you find otherwise.

Evidence presented by Extorc

   Extorc's statement contains 993 words and complies with the 1000-word limit.

AE reports have been mishandled

The AE reports have been mishandled since last few months in this area. This has caused not only this topic to become more heated but also unfortunately encouraged disruption.

AE against Akshaypatill

The first AE report was filed against Akshaypatill on 3 February 2025 over his violation of WP:1RR.[126] It was later withdrawn upon acknowledgement from Akshaypatil that he was "sorry for the mistake".[127]

Another AE report was filed against him on 27 February 2025 over his continued edit warring on Shivaji and Sambhaji.[128]

While this report had to be closed with a topic ban for Akshaypatill, it was instead closed with a warning for edit warring for Akshaypatill, while other 3 editors were warned over AGF. While I saw no evidence of any violation of AGF in reporting the long term disruption of Akshaypatill, I find it rather unbelievable that Akshaypatill was merely warned for edit warring. The report highlighted continued edit warring by Akshaypatill during the report,[129][130] use of self-published source,[131] his use of an unreliable source regardless of consensus against using it,[132] his long term POV pushing on these articles,[133] and more issues.

To say this much disruption only deserved a 'warning', makes no sense. This AE was entirely mishandled.

Even after all this, we can still see instances of edit warring from Akshaypatill as noted above.[134] I would also like to add that the battleground response with unsubstantiated accusations by Akshaypatill on this very page is itself concerning. Their quote in question does not, in fact, accuse Capital00 and accusations made by anyone are not evidence. The fact that he is citing a retracted statement of Ivanvector, by claiming "A CheckUser had recently condemned their actions in very strong words",[135] further speaks of behavioral issues.

AE against AlvaKedak

During March 2025, AlvaKedak participated and filed AE reports against editors over their edits to the Sambhaji article. In the AE report he filed against Hu741f4,[136] he falsely described the edits from this editor as "inflammatory" and wanted to get Hu741f4 indef'ed because he considered him as having "anti-indian" POV with a "religious hatred than just trolling" [137] and accused him of having WP:COI.[138] The report was closed without any action. He also tried to get the AE report against ImperialAficionado to be closed with a topic ban by citing the concerns of India's Hindutva government (that is harassing ImperialAficionado over edits to Sambhaji) and concerns of "Pro-Sambhaji" readers [139][140] despite the report being filed by a sock and the admins issuing explicit clemency.[141] The report was closed without action as well.

Seeing such disruptive behavior of this editor, I filed a report against AlvaKedak on 25 March 2025,[142] to highlight his battleground mentality, misuse of noticeboards to get rid of opponents and his violation of WP:ASPERSION. However, the report was closed without any action. We can agree that it was a bad decision to close it without action because AlvaKedak has continued to exhibit the same battleground mentality since.

After the report, he has continued to make blanket frivolous accusations of WP:COI and WP:EXTREL on editors.[143][144]

He also makes copyright violations such as directly copying "Jai Singh sent a Bundela contingent under Chhatrasal's son to Khimlasa and Bhorasa," from the source while closely paraphrasing the rest of the sentences from the source to the article.[145][146]

AE against Srijanx22

AE report against Srijanx22 was filed on 2 April 2025,[147] with the diffs showing no disruptive editing, and a series of misleading claims to present the diffs to be something else than what they were.

While the report was closed with a topic ban for Maniacal ! Paradoxical, for his misleading claims on AE report, there was no sanction against HerakliosJulianus (filer) who has a long history of misusing noticeboards to get rid of perceived opponents as highlighted in the report itself.[148]

Apparently, another report was recently closed with a topic ban against the filer[149] where HerakliosJulianus caused distraction and engaged in the same poor behavior,[150][151] however, his conduct was not scrutinized once again.

AE against Dympies

An AE was filed against Dympies on 27 April,[152] after it had been agreed on an earlier report[153] (filed on 30 March 2025) against Dympies that a new report should be filed because the filer of the earlier report was blocked as a sock and various editors raised concerns over the editing of Dympies.[154]

It needs to be noted that Dympies was indefinitely topic banned from "from all content and discussions related to Rajputs" in June 2023.[155] He was topic banned from India, Pakistan and Afghanistan on December 2023.[156] The topic ban was successfully were appealed in August 2024,[157] but not much before he would see a page-block in December 2024.[158]

Given these long-term issues, the report was an open-and-shut case, however, it was unnecessarily made complicated with no comments on the report itselfp Unacceptable battleground mentality on this report from AlvaKedak[159] and Akshaypatill[160] also re-surfaced. Though the report was closed after Dympies was ultimately topic banned, the behavior of Akshaypatill and AlvaKedak was again not scrutinized.

>>> Extorc.talk 16:32, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

=Update

On 7 May, Akshaypatill violated the consensus required restriction of Rajput by reinstating his edit,[161] which as described by Capitals00 above was a misrepresentation of the source, without affirmative consensus at the talk page. When reverted, and told to gain consensus or propose his edit before reinstating, he replied in a condescending tone, "It's been more than a month since the thread is open, do you expect me to personally invite editors to come and reply". At the same time, he was also misrepresenting an enquiry made by Sitush as consensus for his edits. [162][163]

While Dympies has below apologized for the topic ban violations he has made so far,[164] such an apology is ultimately futile because he is still violating his topic ban as clear from this 7 June edit he made just 15 hours later by mentioning "Pakistan". >>> Extorc.talk 16:29, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Vanamonde

I lack the time to present the analysis I had hoped to, so I am dropping some disjointed material here in the hope that it will be useful.

  • Refusal to discuss substance. I am going to (perhaps unhelpfully) recommend that ARBCOM read through the talk page archives of Rajput, beginning at approximately archive 30. Any discussion there in isolation may not be of concern, but taken together show a consistent pattern of uncollaborative behavior. I apologize that I cannot analyze that in greater detail myself. Also see this related discussion.

Evidence presented by Dympies

Apology

I am sorry for negligently violating Tban in some of my recent edits, as pointed out by Capitals00. I wasn't aware that Indian topics are this much embedded in the Sri Lanka based articles. I will take extra caution in future while editing Sri Lankan topics. Dympies (talk) 15:31, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Wynwick55gl

An AE was filed against Dympies on 27 April,[165] after it had been agreed on an earlier report[166] (filed on 30 March 2025) against Dympies that a new report should be filed because the filer of the earlier report was blocked as a sock and various editors raised concerns over the editing of Dympies.[167]. Wynwick55gl (talk) 08:51, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Ivanvector

Like the other admins who have commented here, I had planned to do a more thorough analysis on the dataset below to compare trends to the general Wikipedia editor community, but besides not having time to do it, I also lack the diskspace to acquire the base dataset for the analysis. And as time is short, I'm presenting what I have without much commentary.

Parties are frequent visitors to SPI

When I ran this data for the accounts' entire histories, the list of distinct sockpuppet investigation reports that any of the accounts has edited was 157 cases long. The list of 54 cases below covers the period from 1 January to 6 June 2025. Bold indicates cases filed against named parties, but excluding AlvaKedak because the filing was clearly frivolous.

As another data point for this: all of the accounts (including confirmed socks) have a combined total of 1,058 edits to SPI pages. I have been an SPI clerk since 2014 and a checkuser since 2018, and my account has 4,151.

Parties do not attempt to resolve disputes through collaboration

The table below shows the named parties' edit counts in various administrative noticeboards (arbitration enforcement, sockpuppet investigations, and the administrators' noticeboard including ANI and AN3) versus edits to the dispute resolution noticeboard, for the period 1 January to 6 June 2025.

Account Administrators' noticeboard
(and subpages) 		Arbitration enforcement Sockpuppet investigations Dispute resolution noticeboard
Abhishek0831996 69 26 52 0
Akshaypatill 24 66 14 6
AlvaKedak 24 58 11 0
Capitals00 231 136 229 22
Chronos.Zx 83 26 20 0
Dympies 120 53 37 0
Ekdalian 11 22 38 14
Extorc 44 8 9 3
HerakliosJulianus 46 18 16 0
Hu741f4 1 44 0 0
Koshuri Sultan 45 5 29 12
Maniacal ! Paradoxical 4 5 2 0
PadFoot2008 84 26 18 0
Ratnahastin 221 20 600 2
RevolutionaryPatriot 0 0 0 1
Shakakarta 9 8 8 0
Srimant ROSHAN 7 11 0 0
SurajMal sir 0 0 0 0

Capitals00 forumshops complaints to multiple administrators to achieve a predetermined result

See my redacted preliminary statement, which was entered into evidence by Akshaypatill. Capitals00 is not the only editor who does this, but this is the only example I have at hand.

Sockpuppetry is rampant

Per Tamzin, five of the named parties have blocks for sockpuppetry in their block logs (Capitals00, Yoonadue/Shinjoya/Togggle/Dympies, Koshuri Sultan, Maniacal ! Paradoxical, Srimant ROSHAN). Also note that the evidence directly above my section was provided by an account that was 22 minutes old at the time of its submission.

Recidivism is rampant

Again from Tamzin's evidence, three of the named parties have multiple sanctions relevant to the topic in their histories (Capitals00, Dympies et. al., RevolutionaryPatriot).

Evidence presented by {Kaleighlight}

Possible teaming

Set 1: [168] [169] [170] [171] [172] [173] [174] [175]   Set 2: [176] [177] [178] [179] [180] [181] [182] Set 3: [183] [184] [185] [186] [187] [188]

Few more links: [189] [190] [191] - looks isolated, but putting it together with everything else might be a pattern. Kaleighlight (talk) 23:46, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Evidence presented by Chess

Vanamonde makes an oblique reference to a discussion I closed at Talk:Kshatriya.[192] I'm not very involved in the area, but what struck me when closing that discussion (about whether Rajputs were the "most successful claimants" of Kshatriya) is that most editors agreed that varna is a subjective term with conflicting definitions. They generally agreed that Rajputs are the most successful claimants to this subjective term. They also presented reams of high-quality academic sources discussing the caste system in modern India, and the many different ways the term Kshatriya can be interpreted.

The only real disagreement was on the necessary context to understand the Indian caste system in the modern world, and what "claimant" means. But the "disagreement" was editors throwing out different ideas of what the appropriate context should be, less so than actual arguing on the precise nature of the claims (which were widely acknowledged to be under dispute). After I closed, with a recommendation to come up with better wording, nobody even bothered to draft a better paragraph. [193]

That means on Wikipedia, the history of Kshatriya effectively ends in 700 CE. I'd like more reasonable editors to consider adding content instead of just giving up on social issues that they believe to be unimportant.


Evidence presented by {your user name}

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Indian_military_history/Evidence&oldid=1294642790"