Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rama's Arrow


 * ''The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Rama's Arrow
Final (45/19/5) ended 19:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

– My name is Nirav Maurya and I am nominating myself for adminship because I have a deep passion for Wikipedia and I strongly desire to help protect the integrity and quality of its content, and be of direct help to my colleagues (ahem...you...), especially young users. I began here as, which I was from August to November, 2005. I've worked as Rama's Arrow for nearly seven months over mainly India-related and Hinduism-related articles. Although for a long while my passion was article building, I came to realize that those who help protect content, fight vandalism and help other users are most invaluable here. I want to do my bit. I've had janitorial experience in category and stub sorting, welcoming new users and in policy debates, and a more modest bit of vandal-fighting and AfD participation. I've proudly been able to work with a lot of good people on WP:FAC and WP:PR. I've also had good experiences in conflict resolution, defense of NPOV and WP policies on article and projectspace talkpages. I can list all my achievements, but they will be dwarfed by the ennumeration of the wonderful things I've learned from so many in my time here.

I've learnt a lot about Wikipedia from the mistakes I made as a young user and even recently. Happily they have resulted in me making more friends and being helpful to others. I had earlier committed myself to gaining more experience on janitorial work before I sought adminship. I asked my colleagues to review my contribution and behavior, and I was very surprised and honored to receive many compliments and honest advice that I took to heart. After thinking hard, I've decided to ask for adminship now because I trust myself about my commitment to helping others with the tedious yet critical duties. Rama&#39;s Arrow 09:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I will respect both support and oppose votes - I genuinely regret the mistakes I've made, and I will completely understand if anyone feels I'm not ready yet. I love Wikipedia, and I take this opportunity to thank everyone for teaching me so much through interactions and by simply writing articles! Thanking myself for a generous nomination, I accept. Rama ji ki Jai! Rama&#39;s Arrow 10:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I am withdrawing my request for adminship, because I cannot be seen as accepting the total mis-representation of myself regarding my response to Ardenn's vote. Call me obstinate, but my response to Ardenn was based purely on principle. And I cannot understand why despite being civil and concise in my reasoning (and ultimately restraining further comments), other people felt I was "harranging" opposers, "not admin material" and "unable to take criticism." I will not accept any comment that I should not have asked him to see the fallacy of his own reasoning - as a candidate, I expect all Wikipedians to have an honest look at my record. Otherwise, why should I respect any oppose vote? In as much as I have a responsibility to respect Wikiquette, exhibit civility, NPOV, others have a responsibility when I ask for their permission/approval on stuff like this. Ask me to be practical, but not at expense of my principles and Satya. Rama&#39;s Arrow 19:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Support Oppose
 * 1) Strong support in an RFA I'm sure will reach WP:100 Outstanding editor. --Srik e it ( talk ¦  ✉  )  10:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Very Strong Support: I have known him for long. I can certainly say that he is an asset of the Project. --Bhadani 10:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Strong Support. He is a late bloomer — and this flower I am sure will go on for 100 years. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 11:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * How is he a late bloomer, he is only in his twenties? If you are referring to edits his super active month was March, awhile ago now. GizzaChat  &#169; 13:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I think he means in perspective of my avatar as Rama&#39;s Arrow 13:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yup. I meant with perspective of the long edit history he has with the old ID. Anyway, why the fuss about it. Note to DaGizza and Rob Church: "When I am not serious, don't take me seriously". -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 15:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - Good editor, and could make good use of admin tools. --Knucmo2 11:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC) Changed to oppose
 * 1) Strong and Obvious Support - Would've nominated him myself after my RfA was completed :) Excellent contributor who has been very accommodating, even when I have disagreed with him.  Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 11:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong Support. The amount of edits and valuable contributions by this user is scary. DarthVad e r 11:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Weak Support. How many edits can the human body withhold?--Gangsta-Easter-Bunny 12:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Why weak support? GizzaChat  &#169; 13:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support The very good example of a 'reformed' editor. Tintin (talk) 13:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Always uses summaries and quality of edits seem good. Gsingh 13:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. Tremendous contributor. Even in the case lethe points out Nirav simply did his best to gather opinions and discuss a controversial issue. It had not been handled well by others previous to that, and his efforts were clearly an attempt to be helpful. - Taxman Talk 13:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Strong Support per all ten reasons stated above. GizzaChat  &#169; 13:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. Discussion with user (see talk) has convinced me that I misinterpreted some of Rama's remarks, and that Rama is more familiar with and committed to Wikipedia practice than I assumed.  I no longer think that Rama is a nationalist, and I change my vote to support unreservedly. -lethe talk [ +] 13:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Dr Zak 13:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Very strong support - As one of the users who interacts with him almost daily. His work on articles like Patel and Jinnah has been extra-ordinary. He is a mature person and a perfect admin candidate. - Aksi_great (talk) 14:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) I beat the nom support. You have my support for the 14 reasons above.  F e  tofs  Hello! 14:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Fine editor, good luck! gidonb 14:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC) Withdrew support in light of some reactions to votes.
 * 1) Support. A prolific and energetic editor who has proved to be an asset to the project.  Buck</b><b style="color:green;">ets</b><b style="color:grey;">ofg</b>✐ 14:19, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Thoroughly Confused Support I could've sworn you were one already. joturn e r 14:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Very Strong Support Did a tremendously nice job on Hindu and Bharat(India) related articles. He would be an asset to wikipedia. Hikingdom 14:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Yezzir! Very happy to support this deserving candidate. AreJay 14:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. Strong candidate, whose Wiki-enthusiasm and commitment with the project is clearly out of question. Easy choice. <font color="#009900">P <font color="#00AA00">h <font color="#00BB00">a <font color="#00CC00">e <font color="#00DD00">d <font color="#00CC00">r <font color="#00BB00">i <font color="#00AA00">e <font color="#009900">l  <font color="#FF0000">♥   <font style="color:#22AA00;">tell me  - 14:53, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. Rama's Arrow is a fantastic contributor who has made a big difference in certain area of the project. The answers to the questions below are very good. The answers display an understanding and dedication to Wikipedia that is important in an admin candidate, but also show an ability to recognise his own failings (which is perhaps even more important). Rje 14:56, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) STRONGEST EVER SUPPORT, AND I MEAN IT. Whooppeeee! Yahhhhhhhooooooo! I've been waiting for this RfA for, like, forever, and finally it's here!!!!!!!!!!-- May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 ($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|)  15:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Support great editor, maybe even too active :-) I hope you take a break every now and then. --Ton e  15:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 15:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 25 votes in 5 hours! This is gonna be a long list in a week!-- May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 ($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|)  15:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * :))) - Mailer Diablo 16:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I smell overconfidence... It is still a long list as you said :) <b style="color:teal;">Gizza</b><sup style="color:teal;">Chat  <b style="color:teal;">&#169;</b> 12:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support Trustworthy, very friendly editor. Xoloz 15:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. We need more like him. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 16:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support A great user. -- S iva1979 <sup style="background:yellow;">Talk to me  18:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Will make a good admin. - Ganeshk  ( talk ) 18:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support not a admin? Jaranda wat's sup 18:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Known him for an year or so, great editor. --Ragib 19:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Support per above. &mdash; Khoikhoi 19:19, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Support has given me great advice! Computerjoe 's talk 19:55, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Support defenitly a good editor who could use the admin tools well <font style="background: #008003" face="Comic Sans MS" color="#FFFFFF" size="1"> Heltec  <font style="background:#FFFFFF" face="Comic Sans MS" color="#001D000" size="1"> talk 
 * 10) Support per cliché #1 and per the answers within the Ardenn discussion. First, Rama's Arrow is absolutely right: a candidate is entitled to know how the voters feel about that candidate's tools and abilities&mdash;or the lack thereof&mdash;and not have to deal with an editor making a general point, regardless of whether that point is made to everyone's RfAs. Second, while this discussion is necessarily confrontational, it remains civil, and that's what we're looking for in an admin. Deserves the mop. Radio  Kirk   talk to me  22:25, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Support willing to admit his own mistakes, that's a big plus in my book. -- e ivindt@c 23:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) SupportI can't believe I almost missed this!  Noble eagle   <font size="0.5"> (Talk)   01:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Support Nobody is perfect, and this user seems to have potential. At the very least, Rama's Arrow is a committed Wikipedian. Brisvegas 01:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Support. --Rory096 01:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Weak support excellent editor and contributor. However, responses to "oppose" votes reveals need to be more accepting of the short-comings of others. Too easily offended. Needs to put matters in greater perspective and not waste energy arguing futile points. Energy would be better spent focusing on project instead.  :) Dlohcierekim 01:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Support Good, high quality editor; no sign will abuse tools. --CTSWyneken 01:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) Strong support, or powerful support as Nirav would say! He's a superstar, in my opinion! -- <font face="Arial">Samir [[Image:Canadian maple leaf 2.jpg|20px]]<font face="Arial Narrow"> (the scope) धर्म 02:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) SUPPORT I have seen first hand the work this editor has done. I also like the remorse felt for previous actions. Definite support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheesehead Fan (talk • contribs)
 * 19) SUPPORT Especially after seeing his constructive feedback on the Pakistan Talk page ramit 08:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 20) Very Strong Support. We are in touch for quite a long time. An extremely helpful and wise editor. Has a number of FAs to credit. I would have liked to be the first one to vote. Sorry, Rama...was travelling. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 12:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 21) Outstanding and brilliant editor. Strong Support -- Andy123  (talk) 13:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 22) Strong support There was a time when I thought that I'd have nothing to do with him. Yes, I'm the user on whose contribs he had committed trolling and vandalism. After he apologised, I was still circumspect, but he proved me wrong with great all-round work. Yes, he loses his cool, but he realises his mistakes. From my experience with him, I can say that he holds no malice and is sincere with his efforts in WP. I've recently become inactive on WP but asked him to let me know in case he needed help on his rfa nomination. Had I nominated him, half the oppose votes would probably have not been cast. Knowing this very well, he still went ahead with a self-nom as he wants to stand up by himself and own up to his mistakes. I admire him for that. I don't think he would have accumulated 11k odd edits just to become an admin and undo others' work - also please look at the quality of those edits. If his real intention - as some oppose votes seem to hint at - is to destroy the integrity of WP, I'm sure that the self-policing nature of WP wouldn't let that happen. However, if we deny the opportunity to him to become an admin, the loss would be as much WP's as his. Sorry for a longish vote. --Gurubrahma 16:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Long argument about whether Rama is a nationalist moved to talk page.  Changed to support.  -lethe talk [ +] 13:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) Oppose until we get a method to remove abusive admins. I also don't think anyone should get in without any opposition. Ardenn  14:25, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Look Ardenn - I perfectly understand and respect your motives, but it is offensive to me that you are voting against me for no reason about me, except to say that I'm not perfect. I know I'm not perfect. A unanimous outcome will not change that, I know. But opposing without a proper reason is insulting to me, and discouraging to many others. Rama&#39;s Arrow 14:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Why should you find it offensive? Ardenn has expressed this view about adminship on other RfAs, and since he doesn't cite any particular behaviour of yours, it cannot be understood to be meant as a personal affront.  Ardenn has expressed this view on other RfAs.  If you find the position inappropriate, you should bring it up on the talk page.  Otherwise, you should simply recognize the validity of Ardenn's position, and let it be.  -lethe talk [ +] 15:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I am requesting adminship, so I feel Ardenn should make a judgment on whether I'm capable of handling the job or not. I am prepared to respect any/all oppose votes that are based on this question. Instead, I find Ardenn giving no regard to my record or behavior. He's not voting on me, but on policy. Shouldn't he place his comments/vote be on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship or Village pump? Rama&#39;s Arrow 15:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * What perturbs me is that these comments could have been easily made on the support column. How am I supposed to know how Ardenn really feels about my going for adminship? Has he analyzed my record at all? I don't think such votes should be placed on any RfA. Rama&#39;s Arrow 15:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's true, Ardenn also could have brought it up on the talk page. And perhaps people would have said as much to him (or the closing bureaucrat would have been otherwise been made aware).  I just find it unseemly for the nominee to be disputing every oppose vote, especially when the oppose votes are not in any way personal.  This is not the place for anyone, neither you nor Ardenn, to discuss RfA policy.  Just because he does so, can you not still take the high road, and leave this page for what it's meant for (establishing consensus about your appropriateness for adminship)?  -lethe talk [ +] 15:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Lethe, you misunderstand me again. I'm the guy who doesn't want to discuss policy here. I'm the guy who wants to respect all oppose votes. But I'd like Ardenn to fulfill his responsibility to me - he's not concerned whether I'm right for the job or not. If he is, how am I supposed to know? If you had voted "oppose" despite our discussion, I would have respected your choice as an honest opinion of me. But Ardenn's is not an honest opinion of "me." His vote does nothing to evolve a consensus about whether or not I should get the tools - he wants to make a statement on abusive admins and candidacies succeeding without opposition. I will take the high road and not post further on this issue, but I want him and others to know this is not right IMO, for any RfA. Rama&#39;s Arrow 15:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It just seems to me that someone who is here as a self-nom should take extra care to allow all opinions on his RfA. Vote-by-vote arguing against opposes is never appreciated, and it's especially useless when the oppose vote wasn't even directed against you. -lethe talk [ +] 18:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Isn't there a method existing already? (arbcom??) - Aksi_great (talk) 14:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, per the Arbitration Policies, the Arbitration Committee can revoke the sysop or bureaucrat status of another user, as can Jimbo Wales or the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation, of course. Rob Church (talk) 15:05, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, Ardenn's vote is frivolous. Please raise your concerns appropriately, not on individual RfA's -- <font face="Arial">Samir [[Image:Canadian maple leaf 2.jpg|20px]]<font face="Arial Narrow"> (the scope) धर्म 02:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. I was pretty neutral, until I saw the candidate's responses above, which filled me with foreboding (though I should add that I find Ardenn's reason for opposition either frivolous, mischievous, or just wrong-headed).  Rama's Arrow's comments here  confirm dab's misgivings below, and I'd be unhappy to see this editor made an admin just yet. (I was also a little concerned to see a flurry of new-user welcoming just before the self-nomination, but perhaps that was just a coincidence.) --Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 17:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Mel, I had the pleasure of interacting with you on many occasions and let me tell you that if there is an award for "the most improved Wikipedian", it should go to him. I was the one who suffered his vandalism in his previous avatar; so, if I am making this statement, you can understand the import of it. --Gurubrahma 16:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Self-nomination...hmm! Hindu-Arabic or Indo-Arabic numerals? Anyway, I have an issue with his user name which I believe is either a sign of islamophobia or far-right Hindutva. It looks similar to usernames like Sword of Allah or Jehovah's Gun, for instance. Stubborn POV pushing (as evident in above conversation) and here. He has reverted the Jinnah article atleast 16 times to his POV in the past 4 weeks. That's more than assertion. That's ideology. Answers below are not satisfactory. Anwar saadat 18:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I feel that you have made this remark in bad faith. How is Rama's arrow "a sign of islamophobia or far-right Hindutva"? Please don't convert this RfA into an attack on his religious belief. You are entitled to your say, but if you have specific proof that he shows signs of islamophobia or far-right Hindutva then we all would like to see that. - Aksi_great (talk) 18:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Saadat, actually I find Hinduphobia and far-right islamofascism in your approach to colour him in a certain way because he refered to a Hindu symbol in his name. Hikingdom 19:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Ditto. I find it difficult to believe that anyone would find 'Rama's Arrow' offensive.  Jeez! :D Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 21:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Anwar, I can't believe you're now going to RFA's and opposing for no reason apart from that he's reverting your POV and has a Hinduism-related username. You've been blocked already, hasn't it changed you at all?  Noble eagle   <font size="0.5"> (Talk)   01:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Rama's Arrow is such a cool username! It would correspond to a name like "Mohammed's teachings" in Islam. I doubt anyone would oppose such a nickname. Besides if you are concerned about his name, you should be familiar withUsername and Be bold enough to request a change the moment you met him rather than oppose on his RfA. <b style="color:teal;">Gizza</b><sup style="color:teal;">Chat  <b style="color:teal;">&#169;</b> 14:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Rama used bow and arrow to demolish demons in Ramayana. I haven't come across Allah using a sword or Jehovah using a gun in any of the religious texts. So, the comparison is meaningless and borders on stupidity. Am sorry if it appears like a pile-on. --Gurubrahma 16:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - Changing to oppose as a result of this: "I found his criticism of my work as arbitrary and disrespectful. In turn, I was abusive of him, and commmitted few acts of vandalism and trolling" and his own admission: "Unfortunately my talk-edits do sometimes expose any irritation or peevishness that I may be feeling, but I've been very comfortable with receiving criticism and I've worked well with others since." Frequent examples of incivility abound that I did not look for originally, and concerns about responses above as raised by Mel Etitis. --Knucmo2 18:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The episode you talk of ocurred between September - October, 2005. Please see these links to know what happened next:,, , "Bye" and Gurubrahma's comments here. Gurubrahma and I have worked on Mahatma Gandhi's FAR/PR, and the incidents of conflict can be read at Talk:Purushottam Das Tandon, Talk:Gandhism and Talk:Indian nationalism. I'd also like you to acknowledge that I was never warned or blocked regarding vandalism. Rama&#39;s Arrow 20:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I will acknowledge that, but even here your stance on this RFA is aggressive, counter-calling all of the opposition; why don't you let your supporters defend you instead, you seem touchy when it comes to criticism. Just because you are not punished for something (e. g. you've admitted vandalism, past or present this a no-no for any admin), that does not make it so.  I don't believe your temperament has changed enough. --Knucmo2 23:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Please see the comments section Rama&#39;s Arrow 23:55, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per Mel Etitis, answers to Q3, dab's misgivings, and harranging of opposes - it all adds up to making me nervous. --Doc ask?  21:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't want to be mis-understood or mis-interpreted. I'm sorry you feel that I'm "harranging" oppose votes, when it is not my intention at all. I am also sorry that you feel its wrong for me to ask Ardenn to make his vote based upon my record. Rama&#39;s Arrow 21:20, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Tony Sidaway 21:32, 13 May 2006 (UTC) Not admin material. At least not yet.
 * Tony, while I immensely respect your judgment, I believe that your judgment is not based only on the discussion on this RfA, but on the totality of Rama's contributions to the Project. "Not admin material" is a rather sweeping remark! --Bhadani 11:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per Tony and Doc. Mackensen (talk) 21:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per qualms expressed above and hypersensitivity to criticism. Sorry. Guinnog 22:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Per lethe and Mel. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose Good editors don't always make good admins, and the reaction to oppose votes concerns me. Admins receive a lot of flak, and the best skill an admin needs is the ability to ignore it, or at least not take it personally. Regards, MartinRe 00:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose Per all of the above. --Masssiveego 00:53, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose. It is obvious that Rama is not only an amazing editor, but probably a good person as he's said. He may even work well with peers and seems to be a great editor - however, if you react to a negative vote that negatively, it's never a good sign. One might work well with peers, however, if you're going to be an administrator, you must be able to show restraint from criticism. It's especially suprising to me, when the majority of people support the user, he attacks most oppose votes as if it's an attack against his being. I've read his comments below, and I understand he respects all votes and is sorry for his comments. However, kind words and apologies do not nullify some actions, especially when it comes down to an adminship nomination. I am forced to respectfully oppose this nomination. --NomaderTalk 02:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose. Sorry. But I feel that the candidate's responses to other oppose votes above was over-sensitive. Admins need to be able to be more level-headed than Rama's Arrow currently seems to be. Zaxem 03:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose Mainly per Mel and Zaxem. The candidate is a good editor but there are two many issues for me to feel comfortable with him as an admin. JoshuaZ 03:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Very, Very Weak Oppose As per Mex and Zaxem. You need to keep a more level head, and thought it pains me to vote this way because you seem like an amazing editor, your reaction above made me change from Support. Sorry, Thetruthbelow<sup style="color:blue;">(talk) 09:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose due to childish attitude to other oppose votes. Cynical 12:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose due to his response to prior oppose votes as voiced above by others InvictaHOG 17:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Weak oppose per Knucmo2. Admins get a tremendous amount of criticism and shouting-at, I don't think this user is ready for adminship yet. Stifle (talk) 18:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose much of his edits are just doing one thing, like 1000 edits adding a category to pages, another thousand adding a template, and more like that. This shows care only for edit counts. And because of incivility, I don't think he's ready yet. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 19:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Neutral
 * 1) I suppose Rama's good deeds more than outweigh his mistakes, so I will not vote oppose here, but I would ask everyone not to cast sheep votes and review the user's history. In my opinion, Rama has often proven too convinced of himself and too aggressively immune to criticism for me to be comfortable about his adminship (see also the Hindu numeral debate above, and Rama's wordy 'refutations'. It is simply not true that he never indulged in pov-pushing, but this is of course not illegal) . My premonition is that Rama as an admin will need watching by other admins. That's not a disaster, but it leaves open the question whether his promotion will be a net benefit. I have no doubt about Rama's basic good faith, but he has repeatedly shown lack of common sense in the past. Of course in the zeal of this self-nomination, he is telling us he has learned from his mistakes and this is all in the past, but what else than the past do we have to judge a candidate by? dab (&#5839;) 17:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral - Looks like a good contributor. However, I am concerned about the discussion related to the first Oppose; thus, I don't feel I can support at this time. Nephron  T|C 01:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral as well, worried by the opposes, but not enough info to oppose. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 03:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Please see the comments section. Rama&#39;s Arrow 00:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral. I'm concerned with the way the nominee handles criticism. However, I do find Ardenn's initial comment as out of place. __earth (Talk) 15:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral until the conflicts are better resolved.--Jusjih 15:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments
 * Why is WP:100 relevant to anyone's support? Every time I see that mentioned, all I think is "user sees this as a straightforward vote" and I'm inclined not to agree with them. Rob Church (talk) 15:05, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Response to concerns regarding replies to opposers I don't feel I or anybody else is obligated to "defend" me - I only want to make sure people don't misunderstand me. When Knucmo2 talked about my uncivility with Gurubrahma, I simply gave evidence of the conflict resolution, and work Gurubrahma and I have done together since the start of 2006 - five months, and Gurubrahma's own comment that I've improved a lot. I only wish you would see my interactions with other users - I've been extremely civil, helpful and friendly (why not? its a self-nom anyway). My stance on this RfA is not aggressive - I merely wanted to point out that I didn't feel Ardenn was voting for the right reasons - Lethe objected/questioned to this and I wanted to clarify myself again. I haven't been uncivil nor arrogant, and I have not attempted to get a bureaucrat to disqualify any vote. And becoz there are a couple of people who feel I'm behaving in bad faith, I wanted to clarify myself again. I respect any/all oppose votes. I have no desire to impose myself on anyone. Rama&#39;s Arrow 23:55, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Response to Dab's doubts I completely respect Dab and Mel Etitis's stands. However, I would like to point out that in the five months of 2006, I've worked in a civil, productive fashion with a lot of users over peer reviews, FACs and writing articles. I've not pushed POV on any of the political/religious topics I've worked on, and I've been able to resolve disputes on pages like Jinnah regarding POV and factuality. I've tried to be of help to everyone. I freely admit the mistakes I've made. Rama&#39;s Arrow 00:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I am the person he refers to in Q.3. Please see my support vote above to understand how much he has improved. --Gurubrahma 16:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

User's last 5000 edits. Voice -of-  All T 20:56, 13 May 2006 (UTC) User contributions --Viewing contribution data for user Rama's Arrow (over the 5000 edit(s) shown on this page)-- (FAQ) Time range: 63 approximate day(s) of edits on this page Most recent edit on: 20hr (UTC) -- 13, May, 2006 Oldest edit on: 23hr (UTC) -- 11, March, 2006 Overall edit summary use: Major edits: 99.55% Minor edits: 100% Article edit summary use: Major article edits: 98.84% Minor article edits: 100% Average edits per day (current): 79.73 Recognized significant article edits (non-minor/reverts): 1.06% Unique pages edited: 3085 | Average edits per page: 1.62 | Edits on top: 35.32% Breakdown of edits: All significant edits (non-minor/reverts): 25.78% Minor edits (non reverts): 73.42% Marked reverts: 0.68% Unmarked edits: 0.12% Edits by Wikipedia namespace: Article: 57.46% (2873) | Article talk: 18.52% (926) User: 0.22% (11) | User talk: 13.48% (674) Wikipedia: 5.58% (279) | Wikipedia talk: 0.58% (29) Image: 1.02% (51) Template: 0.64% (32) Category: 2.04% (102) Portal: 0.14% (7) Help: 0% (0) MediaWiki: 0% (0) Other talk pages: 0.32% (16)
 * See Rama's Arrow's edit summary usage with Mathbot's tool.


 * Rama's Arrow's edit count using Interiot's Tool2 as of 10:12, Saturday 13 May 2006 (UTC);

Total edits 11117 Distinct pages edited 4586 Average edits/page 2.424 First edit 01:50, 19 November 2005

(main) 6348 Talk 1722 User 579 User talk 1371 Image 97 Image Talk 21 Template 212 Template talk 39 Category 124 Category talk 1 Wikipedia 487 Wikipedia talk 116

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
 * 1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
 * A: My primary goals are - (1) protecting content and quality and (2) helping users contribute better. I'm willing to work on any issue and any request for help, but specifically I will be active on WP:AIAV, WP:ANI, WP:CP, WP:SSOCK and WP:AE. I will also be active in working on lonelypages, dead-ends, and thus WP:VFD as need be. I want to focus patrolling on pages that require clean-up, are the scene of edit wars, POV-pushing and trolling, and I will use my tools not only to stop violations and uphold WP:NPOV, but to raise the quality of content so the pages come out of the mire. I will always be on the lookout for ways I can interact with and help users having difficulties. I know that as one person, I can only do so much - I will work seek to help my brother/sister admins to share the workload, and if ever in a time crunch, I will always defer to performing my duties than building articles. Rama&#39;s Arrow 10:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
 * A: I'm proud of all the work I've done here - I've written featured articles, created templates, DYKs, categories every bit of it. I was very, very pleased with making Political integration of India - the achievement of my idol Sardar Patel - and Lothal - which I had visited as a young boy - into featured, main page articles. I was particularly pleased with starting Defense of content, in an attempt to radically eliminate the appearance of vandalism across Wikipedia with a stable version - although it will not attain consensus, I was excited with the feedback and interactions I got from a bunch of people, and how much my practical understanding of WP and anti-vandalism efforts improved. Rama&#39;s Arrow 10:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
 * A: Let me know tell you the wonderful, heart-warming tale of how Nirav came to love Wikipedia: I had bumped across WP in June 2005, and I had intermittently edited as Nirav.maurya and with anon IPs with the intention of off-loading an immense amount of data I had on Indian history and Hinduism - and then leaving. I never bothered to read policies, get to know the community, understand NPOV or how to write a good article. It was a lean patch in my life, and WP helped me unwind with writing, which I enjoy very much. It was September-October, that I ran into Gurubrahma, who slapped POV tags all over my hours of hard work. I was so infuriated (these tags can appear quite provocative) with him for demeaning my work, that we got into arguments that became increasingly hostile and abusive. Multiple times I felt that it was insane to be arguing with people on the net, and wanted to pull out, but I kept coming back. I committed a few acts of vandalism and trolling on Gurubrahma's work. In October, I somehow pulled myself out and stopped editing. But the tug came again, and after calming down, I revisited what had happened. I suspect it had something to do with the death of my idol Eddie Guerrero on November 13, 2005 - was very quiet that week and I became very introspective. I was very saddened to realize how abusive I had become, and began to understand the errors I was making without understanding WP:NPOV. Rama's Arrow was born on November 18, 2005. I saw Gurubrahma's brilliant work in perspective of Wikipedia's mission - he had honored me with a mention on his RfA - and apologized to him. Since then, we've worked together on Mahatma Gandhi, and I've been happy to receive useful criticism/advice from him, as well as his compliments in my editor review. On Talk:Political integration of India/Comments, I unfortunately flared at ImpuMozhi - my tone and language carried a lot of heat, and though I was not abusive, I do regret losing my temper. Happily, the matter was recently patched up. Unfortunately my talk-edits do sometimes expose any irritation or peevishness that I may be feeling, but I've been very comfortable with receiving criticism and I've worked well with others since.

I'd also like to list two errors that I made in March-April - I had by-passed the procedure laid out for creating stubs by WikiProject Stub sorting out of hastiness. I was also reprimanded by Dbachmann for uploading 3 Indus Valley maps - these maps came out of an old file, and I had absolutely no way of ascertaining which book or publisher they came from. I wanted to have these maps on WP, and having refined these maps on Adobe photoshop, I thought I had the right to pass the maps as my own creations. I defended my actions, but I realized soon enough that I was wrong. I regret these errors deeply but this was only due to my mis-understanding back then of copyright policies. Rama&#39;s Arrow 10:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.