Icemountain2

Hello. You’ll be pleased to find out that like me you’ve been named in advertising scam because like me you contributed to the wikipedia page on Rikki Lee Travolta. Someone has nominated the Rikki Lee Travolta page for deletion but instead of notifying principle contributors per deletion guidelines, this person has ignored the guidelines and only notified people who have ever vandalized the site to urge them to vote that the page be deleted. Talk about a kangaroo kourt. That makes me angry. I don’t care whether the Rikki Lee Travolta page stays or goes but I don’t like people blatantly breaking the rules like the person doing this one sided delete campaign. So, I’m a little busier than normal. I figure the rules are that contributors are supposed to be notified so they can state their opinion, being the most informed. So, I’m notifiying you even though the person who was supposed purposely didn’t. What you want to do from here is up to you. Here’s where you were named as being in the “advertising scam” (not sure what was being advertised):

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Possible_advertising_scam

Here’s where the self appointed moral majority leader is holding kangaroo kourt:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rikki Lee Travolta

~ Bostic5.0 04:41, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

If you have a complaint about me please post at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. Arniep 22:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Please do not call people names, as that is clearly against Wikipedia policies. -- Zanimum 21:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Your complaint about Arniep

I saw your complaint about Arniep on the administrators noticeboard and was coming here to briefly explain, but I see you are already familiar with the Riki Lee Travolta deletion debate and already complained on Arniep's talk page. I'm not sure what is to be gained by bringing it up again. As you remember, the article on Riki Lee Travolta was nominated for deletion because the only thing that could be proven abut him through wikipedia's reliable source policy is that he was a small-time actor. His claims to be considered for parts like James Bond and various superheroes, and his claim to be related to John Travolta, could not be verified. Arniep identified a small group of accounts that only had a few Travolta-related edits and then showed up to vigorously dispute the deletion. He was perhaps over the top in posting a notice on the noticeboard and labeling it a scam. Bostic, one of the accounts Arniep listed, posted a notice to all the other accounts Arnie listed, which was also over the top. There is no negative action associated with Arnie's suspcions, so go ahead and do whatever it is you joined wikipedia to do and don't worry about it. Thatcher131 19:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. I just don't think it's fair for someone to accuse people of something like an "advertising scam" behind their back without confronting them. I asked Arniep to tell me what I was even advertising and he told me to go place a complaint about him at some link so that's what I did. I mean I thought Wikipedia was supposed to be about working together. If you ask me there should be rules that if you have an issue without someone first you go to them rather than posting attacks behind their backs. That's why I went directly to Arniep to find out what his deal was, he just chose to hide rather than deal straight. Just my thoughts. I appreciate your reply. Thanks. Icemountain2 20:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia has lots of guidelines but very few hard and fast rules. All I can say for myself is that I would have handled the situation differently. I hope you enjoy wikipedia and can find some things that interest you to work on. Thatcher131 22:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you help?

(pasted from user talk:Thatcher131)

CAN YOU HELP? I am the first to admit that I am a relative novice at Wikipedia. I created the Joey Travolta page because I happen to know Joey and think he's a good guy. I have made a few minor contributions. That's about it. So, I don't know a lot of the terminology. When this person Arneip said I was a part of something called and "Advertising Scam" I tried to address it with him directly and he refused to enter into any kind of discussion with me. He told me to post a complaint about him at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. So I did what he told me to do. I didn't do it maliciously. I presented the facts and my thoughts that there should be rules against that kind of behavoir. Now - again rather than address me and open a discussion, the Arniep has put a label on my user page naming me something called a "Sock Puppet." I don't know the terminology. I don't know what an "Advertising Scam" is or what a "Sock Puppet" is. I just don't understand why there is this whole sense of back stabbing and fear of talking one on one. Like the last time this Arniep person attacked me my first move has been to contact him/her directly and request conversation. However given track record I expect he/she will avoid one-on-one communication. My question to you is what am I supposed to do? I'm small time. I do a few little edits here and there. Is this an exclusive club that I'm not invited to? Is it the bully system where the person who attacks the most wins? What is an "Advertising Scam" and what is a "Sock Puppet"? I'm just trying to fit in and here I am under attack yet again. Can you help? Icemountain2 14:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I removed the sockpuppet tag per wikipedia policy Assume Good Faith. For a definition of sockpuppets see WP:SOCK. During the debate on whether to delete the article on Riki Lee Travolta, it was discovered that there were 5-8 accounts that all registered in October-November 2005 and made edits to Riki's article, to his book My Fractured Life, or to add references to Riki to other articles (like the claim that he was considered for the role of James Bond). These accounts were then mostly dormant until the articles were nominated for deletion, at which point they became active again making all sorts of unverifiable claims about Riki. This was highly suspicious of sockpuppetry and looked like an effort to bolster the resume of this actor about whom nothing could be verified. Your account is suspected by Arniep, and to a lesser extent by me, because you fit the general pattern, because your first edit to Joey Travolta included a link to "matinee idol Riki Lee Travolta", and because of this edit [1] where you claim that Travolta's book, which very few people seem to have read, was the inspiration for Less than Zero.

My personal opinion is that Mr. Travolta runs a very efficient self-publicity machine with very little in the way of reliable sources to back it up. See my comments at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Rikki Lee Travolta for a partial analysis. Also at the bottom of that page is a comment that Margaret Travolta has sent a verified e-mail to the Wikimedia Foundation regarding her family's articles.

At this point I think there is a chance you are connected somehow with Riki Lee and the former effort to inflate his resume by posting articles here, but there is also a chance you are entirely innocent, and got fooled by the hype machine RLT has built for himself. Per wikipedia policy I am willing to assume good faith that you are an innocent bystander who has been unfairly suspected as a sockpuppet. I would not support restoring the sockpuppet label (which I feel is somewhat aggressive) unless your future edits continued to support that theory.

A likely reason that Arniep tagged your account without communicating with you first is that wikipedia has extensive experience with sockpuppets and they always deny it. Many editors (including in this case Arnie) would probably find my taking you at your word to be somewhat naive and the 15 minutes I have spent writing this as a waste of time.

The best thing you can do is go about your business and edit whatever articles interest you. If you make good edits, you will develop a good reputation that will eventually overwhelm any lingering suspicions about your first few Travolta-related edits. Good luck. Thatcher131 15:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)