Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Risker

Edit Analysis
A detailed breakdown of this candidate's edits in article and Wikipedia spaces can be found here. Franamax (talk) 05:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Your statement
Dropping a note to say I like your candidate statement: it runs well, and the link from the theory behind Wikipedia to the problems it experiences—and why the job of an Arbitrator is therefore so important—is particularly good. Best of luck with your candidacy! AGK 11:50, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, AGK, I appreciate your thoughts. Risker (talk) 17:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I was authoring a few thoughts on a user subpage of mine earlier and realised that I'm unsure if using male pronouns when discussing you is correct or not... Is dear Risker a female or a male, if I may enquire? This is not pertinent at all to my vote—I simply realised I'm genuinely unsure! Feel free, if you so wish, to refuse to respond to this candid query. ;) AGK 18:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I am female, AGK. I have been advised that my username sounds "masculine" (which I find ironic, given the number of male admins with user names ending with 'ana'), and the question comes up on a fairly regular basis. I don't want to put a "THIS EDITOR IS A GIRL" on my page because it's a bit of a vandal/harassment magnet. I did mention this in response to Giggy's a/s/l question in the general questions, but I guess it doesn't necessarily stick out. Risker (talk) 20:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Argh, I should have remembered to check Giggy's question! Okay, thanks for the response. I just thought I'd clear it up. :) Yeah, I appear to be in the "wait, (s!)he might not actually be male..." group. No idea why I presumed so. AGK 22:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments by Sherurcij
I have to this point felt no need to respond to any of the oppose votes made on the accompanying project page, as I understand they are good faith expressions of the beliefs of the individuals who have made them; however, the oppose vote made by Sherurcij contains a few misunderstandings that I think I should clarify. Please note that I have no problem with Sherurcij opposing my candidacy; she is well within her rights as a respected member of the community to do so.

I did not delete any of the images mentioned by Sherurcij; the images are/were hosted on Wikimedia Commons, and I do not have administrative privileges on that project. The image that was deleted was a series of three screen shots taken from a poor quality video, depicting the three deceased as they lie in the battlefield, with their names superimposed; all three were pictured separately in the same image. The fact that they were American soldiers is irrelevant to me. I would have considered this an unencyclopedic use of the image regardless of their status as soldiers or their nation of origin because I believe that images of the dead should not be in articles without a clear rationale demonstrating that the article would be lacking in the absence of such an image. The undeletion discussion is occurring on Wikimedia Commons here. I did leave a note to the reviewing administrator on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring to alert the administrator that the image was deleted, but did not suggest any particular outcome for that administrator's review. I had made a single revert of the now-deleted image in one of the four articles in which it had been placed, and did not pursue the issue on this project when Sherurcij reinstated the image. The video of which Sherurcij speaks is currently nominated for deletion on Wikimedia Commons. I removed this poor quality video from the lead image position in our article on looting and replaced it with a better quality image that more closely complemented the text of the lead of that article.

I am happy to answer any questions about my actions in respect of this or any other matter, whether on this page, my talk page, or the questions for the candidate page. Thanks. Risker (talk) 07:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)