Meh.. I think you should be proud to have made a convincing argument on the article's talk page, and influenced the article to be a better-weighted reflection of the individual's life/career. I don't think your criteria for success should include "convincing everybody" -- if so, you're just setting yourself up for frustration :)
I reviewed the comment linked, and also the [[Talk:Kelly Wearstler]] page, and it does seem to me that the candidate's statement is an inaccurate reflection of what happened. He states that the primary reason for changes to the article include the subject's preferences, and a judgment that being a Playboy playmate is "negative." I don't see evidence of any of that on the talk page. If you're concerned about ArbCom having reasonable people, you might consider asking him about the accuracy of his statements. I'd suggest keeping it short, dispassionate, and to the point; just ask him to reconcile his characterization with the actual article talk page. Or, just take the ArbCom candidacy page off your watchlist, and get back to writing great articles :) -Pete On Dec 1, 2011, at 6:37 AM, Sarah Stierch wrote: > Hi everyone, > > A few months ago Kelly Wearstler appeared - I think on this list. I had never > heard of her, but, a small stink was being made on her talk page about > whether to feature the Playboy model infobox for her page. So, I took a look, > and of course got sucked in. I rewrote the article and blahblabhlah. One user > was claiming that only claim to fame Kelly Wearstler has is being a Playboy > model. > > Someone linked me to an interesting comment on some arbcom case. Now, I'm not > into getting involved in the drama llama known as Arbcom, but I'm a bit irked > by this guy's comments here: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2011/Candidates/Kww/Questions#Question_from_Newyorkbrad > > And I'm not sure the protocol to going about handling this. It really > irritates me, and now he's making some assumption that Kelly " > Wearstler herself would rather that her Wikipedia page emphasize her interior > design business rather than her Playmate past." Uhhh...I wrote the page, to > emphasize that she wasn't just a Playboy model (and consensus agreed on the > talk page that it wasn't her main claim to fame). I also have NEVER MET KELLY > WEARSTLER let alone do I own her books, nor did I know who she was (I'm just > that involved in the fashion industry anymore.)... > > So, I'm fairly aggravated that this person is claiming that it was Wearstler > doing the manipulating to the article and that by revamping the page I'm > saying (or someone is) that being a Playboy bunny is inherently bad. It > states it in the lead that she was Playboy of the Month, and there is a > section for it - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_Wearstler > > Her clothing and interior design items are sold at Bergdorf Goodman (which is > a VERY high end store - think 1% ;-) ) and she's published a number of books > including a LA Times best seller. > > Obviously I'm pissed, so how does one go about saying "Listen dude, I didn't > write it FOR her, and if you don't think there's more to her, you need to > really look a little closer," without getting sucked into an Arbcom drama? I > try to assume good faith, that perhaps he's just misunderstanding something, > or I don't know what... > > It also doesn't help that I've had artist biographies I've written lately > speedy nominated because the speedy nominators 1) don't know anything about > art 2) don't do their research properly. > > So yeah, I'm grumpy. > > Sarah > > > -- > Sarah Stierch Consulting > -- > Historical, cultural, new media & artistic research & advising. > http://www.sarahstierch.com > _______________________________________________ > Gendergap mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap Pete Forsyth [email protected] 503-383-9454 mobile
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
