Hallo all! I have browsed, admired and edited articles on Wikipedia for more than six months. It is a wonderful site as a comprehensive encyclopaedia, but the arbitration committee needs to handle the disputes more effectively and impartially (including the fact that hoax claims must not be highly entertained). Hence I feel that the members of the arbitration committee need to have a sufficiently large knowledge base, so that they could distinguish points which conform to the neutral point of view from those that are naïvish and that have been added out of emotional ecstacy. As far as knowledge with relevance to India, Hinduism, Indian philosophy, Hindi, linguistics, phonetics, engineering, Indian Institues of Technology are concerned, I feel that I am a good candidate for this post. I also propose a strict action against vandalism. I request you all to consider me for this opportunity.

As for myself, I am Mr. Saumya Ranjan (appearing in wikipedia under the name of Cygnus_hansa), a fourth year Chemical Engineering student from the prestigious insitute IIT Bombay. I have been editing various articles, especially those related to Hinduism, for a long time to bring them in conformity to the neutral point of view and yet with an Indian perspective.

Questions

1. Support freestylefrappe 04:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
2. Support. -- Kefalonia 09:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Support -- Deepak| वार्ता 10:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

   Support. -- ΜιĿː talk 13:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply

   • Miljoshi does not have suffrage; he registered at 12:25, 6 October 2005 (UTC). ( caveats) — Cryptic (talk) 15:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply

   Support from hydkat 04:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply

   • Hydkat does not have suffrage; he registered at 16:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC) and he had only only [http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special:Contributions&limit=150&go=first&target=Hydkat 22 edits as of 00:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC). ( caveats) — Cryptic (talk) 06:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply

4. Support - Carptrash 05:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC) I feel as if we need more diversity and that he might help supply it. reply

1. Oppose, lack of experience. See my voting rationale. Talrias ( t | e | c) 00:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
2. Michael Snow 00:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 00:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Mo0[ talk] 00:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Oppose inexperience. David | explanation | Talk 00:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
6. — Kirill Lok s hin 00:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
7. Oppose. Too new. Ambi 00:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
8. Oppose - Inexperience - Mackensen (talk) 00:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
9. Oppose, lack of experience. -- Interiot 00:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
10. Cryptic (talk) 00:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
11. Oppose. -- GraemeL ^(talk) 00:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
12. -- Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
13. Oppose. Inexperience, and I also have policy concerns. Batmanand 01:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
14. Oppose. JYolkowski // talk 01:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
15. Oppose -- Angelo 01:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
16. Oppose -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
17. Oppose. — Bunchofgrapes ( talk) 02:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
18. Oppose.-- ragesoss 02:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
19. Reluctantly oppose as experience really does matter in this type of role. Jonathunder 03:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
20. Oppose. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
21. Oppose. - Paul August ☎ 04:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
22. Oppose 172 05:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
23. Bobet 05:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
24. Oppose -- Crunch 05:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
25. Oppose. android 79 06:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
26. Oppose Too new.— Catherine\ ^talk 06:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
27. Oppose-- cj | talk 06:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
28. Oppose. Inexperience issues. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
29. — Nightstallion (?) 12:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
30. Oppose sorry but I must oppose.   ALKIVAR ™ 13:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
31. Oppose .  Grue  13:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
32. Oppose, xp. R adiant _>|< 13:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
33. Oppose I would like to vote for some people outside the USA and Europe, but I don't feel you have enough experience nor has your competence been demonstrated. Maybe next time. -- kingboyk 14:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
34. Oppose, lack of experience. the wub "?!" ^{RFR - a good idea?} 15:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
35. Oppose. "Large knowledge base" is extremely helpful for arbitration, but so is experience.— Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 16:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
36. Oppose. siafu 17:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
37. Oppose. — Quarl ^{( talk)} 2006-01-09 20:22 Z
38. Oppose - needs experience. Awolf002 20:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
39. Oppose - vague policy. -- It's-is-not-a-genitive 20:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
40. Oppose. Too new to be familiar enough with policy, etc. H e rmione 1980 22:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
41. Splash ^talk 23:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
42. Oppose. A whole six months! Avriette 23:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
43. older≠ wiser 02:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
44. Oppose Sarah Ewart 03:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
45. Raven4x4x 09:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
46. Oppose. Concur with kingboyk. Gamaliel 10:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
47. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
48. Oppose, too new. HGB 19:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
49. Oppose. Candidate does not adequately address the nature of arbitration in their candidate statement. In ignorance: I must oppose. With so many candidates, the statement is the extent to which I can engage in becoming an informed voter. Any candidate so contemptuous of the demos as to make it difficult for me to become an informed voter: I must oppose, it bodes poorly for their capacity to take on social responsibility. Fifelfoo 22:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
50. Oppose, too inexperienced. Sorry. — Ian Manka ^{Questions? Talk to me!} 23:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
51. Oppose (Note: Vote only reflects suitability of candidate to the role, and does not reflect overall contributions or personally.) - Mailer Diablo 01:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
52. Oppose.....possible case of "emotional ecstacy" -- JWSchmidt 03:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
53. Oppose. enochlau ( talk) 05:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
54. Oppose. -- Masssiveego 07:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
55. Oppose, doesn't seem to understand the role. Gazpacho 19:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
56. Oppose, statement & experience. KTC 19:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
57. - Vote Signed By: Chazz- Place comments here
58. Oppose. Statement focuses on content disputes rather than interpersonal disputes; which is not what the arbcom is (presently) about. Thryduulf 20:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
59. Oppose Experience, statement -- EMS | Talk 04:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
60. Oppose: But not based on lack of experience Dr. B 17:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
61. Oppose - inexperienced. -- NorkNork 21:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
62. Oppose, lack of experience. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
63. Oppose. I don't think the candidate fully understands the function of ArbCom. Velvetsmog 23:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
64. Oppose, too inexperienced. Why? ++ Lar: t/ c 04:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
65. Oppose -- Adrian Buehlmann 18:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
66. Oppose - too new -- Francs 2000 00:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
67. Oppose. Inexperience. -- Aude ( talk | contribs) 06:13, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
68. -- Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
69. Oppose looking for prestiege and University study has great demends on time Gnangarra 14:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
70. Oppose. Stood so late that candidate couldn't properly be investigated via hustings, perhaps deliberately. -- Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 18:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
71. Oppose. Neutrality ^talk 20:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
72. Oppose. Preaky 22:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
73. Oppose. Inexperienced. He has only had 4 Wikipedia: namespace edits. 3 of them were to set up this ArbCom bid. Superm401 | Talk 22:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
74. Oppose XP -- Masonpatriot 05:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
75. Oppose - kaal 17:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply
76. Oppose -- Loopy ^e 05:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
77. Insufficient experience Ingoolemo  ^talk 07:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
78. Bratsche ^{talk | Esperanza} 05:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
79. Oppose inexperience wrp103 (Bill Pringle) - [[User talk:Wrp103|Talk]] 19:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
80. Oppose — inexperience (though may be a great candidate next year) — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 01:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply
81. Oppose Flcelloguy ( A note?) 01:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
82. Oppose Alex43223 19:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply

1. Neutral. Not going to pile it on. Youngamerican 17:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply