Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2009/Comments/Steve Smith

This is a public page for voters who wish to comment briefly on the candidacy of Steve Smith or the way they have voted in relation to the candidate. For extended discussion, please use the attached talk page.

Voting in the December 2009 Arbitration Committee elections will be open until 23:59 UTC on 14 December 2009, at which time this page will be archived.

To cast your vote, please go to your personal SecurePoll ballot page. Only votes submitted through the SecurePoll election system will be counted.

Candidate statement • Questions for the candidate • Comment on the candidate • Discuss the candidate

Comments

• Example: I am supporting this candidate because I feel they have the necessary qualifications for the position. Examplevoter, 00:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• I am supporting this candidate because I feel they have the necessary qualifications for the position, although their stance on judicial restraint seems extreme. Novickas (talk) 02:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Has a range of background experience and knowledge of Wikipedia, and appears to be calm and level headed. SilkTork *^YES! 17:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• I definitely support. Is dedicated to the project, goes above and beyond the call of duty in thoroughly reviewing other people's articles, and is consistently level-headed. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

• Without any intended sarcasm, this candidate is ideal (note his previous username). His qualifications and demonstrated suitability for the job notwithstanding, Steve appears to be a man of his word. If very few people can agree on ArbCom standards like a strong content background (which this candidate has) or not wasting all their time on "dramaboards" like AN/I (I get the impression Steve actively avoids drama), at the very least I hope we can all agree that we need honest arbitrators. Master&Expert (Talk) 21:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support. With reference to my own questions, asked intelligent questions in response and provided a thorough (and completely on target) followup on management of disputes. A very cogent: well thought out and well expressed understanding of the ArbCom terrain where conflicts are concerned.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  01:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Intelligent answers and comments, overall good impression from previous admin interaction, and one of the few candidates this year I can think of no concrete concerns or objections. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
• FPAS more or less says what I was going to. Moreschi (talk) 18:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support Good resume, good answers to questions.--SPhilbrickT 21:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support - For experience and other merit, see User:Camaron/ACE2009 for details. Camaron · Christopher · talk 20:43, 13 December 2009 (UTC)