:::::It was this fact you didn't familiarize yourself with the history-log of the Carnatic music article that was most frustrating - even if you didn't wish to take sides on a content dispute, it still is very clear (especially after I pointed this out, even if this was not on the AN/I) that there are multiple users engaging in edit-warring on the article (where Naadapriya didn't even receive so much as a final warning or block). While admins may not care for, or find equity theory relevant, it does unfortunately often creep its way into such disputes, particularly when things get heated.  
 :::::Unfortunately, the only memory I had of you was in relation to the Sikhism article, and while I thought your contributions/proposals were fine, there was one thing that I was not at all impressed with (and this opinion has also taken quite a fall given the recent events). After having some doubts over whether it met the FA standard, I thought to check the talk page, where sure enough, I did find some personal attacks directed at you. I removed them (and this prompted me to ask for a cool-down on the article's talk page), and went to make a note on the editor's talk page. I found it very inappropriate that you gave a final warning to Ajjay for his personal attacks right after his first real outburst. Template warnings (for personal attacks for example) have a progressive scheme, and this scheme exists for a reason, and is often very effective. I felt it necessary to modify your final warning about personal attacks to a 2nd level personal attack warning, which is considerably different in both what is said in the request/warning, and more importantly, how it is said - so-I-did-as-you-can-see-here. And if you see his talk page here-now, his response was naturally much more positive and appeared to cool down on the matter much quicker. It was beyond me why you would not follow the progressive scheme, even if you are not required by policy to do so (as it is still effective). I assumed perhaps this was because you were an involved editor and didn't think of it again until for the second time, instead of trying something lower in the scheme of things, you enforced an immediate block, and I'm afraid I still don't think that the initial block by you was appropriate, instead of a warning. I am however glad that you decided not to personally try a reblock yourself, as this whole case might not have taken a turn for the positive as it has now. 
 :::::While you may well disagree, I think you too have some more 'things' to learn, particularly in relation to human behaviour, and how to deal with it (even here on Wikipedia), and this is the sole reason why I am even replying, despite my relatively unchanged opinion (which can only probably be changed with time). More than that, having read your final para, this para in place of the initial block was what I thought was reasonable. This shows that you are clearly capable of demonstrating a more positive attitude in dealing with certain types of behaviour that are discouraged, or not allowed here at Wikipedia, in your position as an admin - I can only hope you will keep this in mind, and if necessary, make the appropriate change to your approach of such a situation in the future. You might be thinking 'who does he think he is to come off saying things like that', or your opinion of me may again take a drop, and though I can say I'm sorry if it does, given my still relatively indifferent feeling today, such an opinion would have no effect on me. Have a think about it, because it isn't intended for anything else. 
 :::::The most valuable discussions/comments I have read or had in relation to this incident were from the 3 editors I thanked in the above section, and as far as I'm concerned, the incident ended there. So, similarly, I too would pretend I had just met you in case we run into each other again. Regards -