Wikipedia talk:Editor review/Rama's Arrow 2

message: I know you from the very beginning. Still, in order to present a better review, I would review your contributions and shall give my views. Please give me a week. Regards. --Bhadani 16:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely no problem. Rama's arrow 17:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sure

message: I rather recently had my own RfA and managed (somehow) to pass it, though now I find myself peripherally involved in a ArbCom case due to what was, to some editors, a blocking mistake. (Opinions vary on if I was correct or not in this action, I reserve no opinion except regret that I was involved at all.) If you found yourself in a similar situation, that is, you woke up one morning and realized that one of your admin actions were questionable: What would your response be? ~Kylu (u|t)  22:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If my action(s) are of a questionable nature, I would take some time to retrace my steps and think about it. If questions linger in my mind or with others, I would ask for some advice on ANI or directly approach a colleague. I think the insight given here by Taxman and Ambuj is particularly instructive. Regret is something I feel when I repeat a mistake - I regret the times I've been uncivil to folks here because I've been trained since childhood to be friendly and helpful. I don't think I would feel regret in making a mistake as an admin, but I would damn sure do my best to repair the damage and improve myself. On RC patrol I have I think twice or thrice reverted edits I wrongly judged as vandalism. I immediately undid my revert and apologized, even though the person was a anon IP. I was okay the first two times, but the third time has made me take a few days off. If I find myself repeating errors (or committing a bunch of new ones) and being unable to adapt, I would not hesitate to hand in the tools - I want to do this for Wikipedia and my colleagues, not for myself. In your context, I don't think you should regret that you were "involved at all." You're a young admin (and I suppose a young person like me) - you're an unblooded weapon. It is commendable that you didn't hesitate to do your bit in a difficult case. Rama's arrow 02:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm kinda middle-aged now, but mentally young. ... er, anyway, unblooded weapon? Interesting metaphor. ~Kylu (u|t)  05:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text: You're new (I presume) to the battlefield. First day in the trenches - sword or rifle hasn't claimed its first target yet. Eat some dust, have a narrow escape from death and you're in. Rama's arrow 05:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: If you made a questionable admin action...

message: As incoming comments have slowed down, I'd like to just word out how much I appreciate the input given. This has really been a valuable review and I sincerely thank the people who took some of their own time to think of me. Their advice is very valuable and even more so outside Wikipedia. I will be a better person because of this process.
Looking at the comments, I'm a bit concerned that folks might just assume that I've been frequently uncivil - nothing could be further from the truth. Also I would like to reiterate that I would like to be firm and direct, but carefully and certainly not overstepping civil bounds. Nothing gives me more satisfaction than an opportunity to be of help to someone else - both here and in real life. This feeling will be the guiding force of all my actions. 
Patience, care, respect and being circumspect in thought and action are the chief lessons I take from this review. Rama's arrow 19:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  at this point 

message: I have at least seen your comments once in Hinduism discussion.  I understand from your user page that you have knowledge and you have interest in the article.  I feel, how has the debate of Raj Yog controversy and removal of branches of Vedas incorporated by me escaped your attention or comment?  I also suspect sock puppetry because of RamRamji's comment on the day of joining and his being the only comment.  Another reason, some annonymous IP requested some editor to vote.  When there were only 2 more editors excluding me in the controversy, who could have done so?
I am interested that distorted facts be removed and no attempt to monopolise the article take roots.
If, you have no problem to dis-please senior editors there, pl. take interest to make the article an encyclopedic article.
Swadhyayee 11:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry about not participating but I've have been busy on WP with 2 FACs. I suggest you take the help at WP:HINDU and that of D-Boy, DaGizza, Nidish and Blacksun. I don't think you should worry about sockpuppetry as of now, but if you do have fresh suspicions please ask for the advice/intervention of an administrator like Blnguyen, Ragib or Sundar. I don't know what you mean by me having no problem "dis-please[ing]" senior editors - I hope you're not making any negative insinuations. Rama's arrow 22:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm actually curious if you'd like to try your hand at mediating Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-10-10 Udit Raj perhaps? ~Kylu (u|t)  05:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I've dropped a compromise offer. I read this situation as akin to what was happening at Narendra Modi. I've encouraged the involved parties to see that article as an example of how editors can clean messes up. Rama's arrow 05:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hinduism