I've taken this to mediation, since you expressed as desire to take it to arbitration. We can't go straight to arbitration without trying things like this first. See the mediation case here: Wikipedia:Requests for mediation#Issues to be mediated A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Case name, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

RJII 23:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You need to sign "Agreed" in the case. Or, do you refuse to engage in mediation? RJII 03:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe mediation would be fruitless so I do not agree to it, and we should go right to arbitration, which we can if mediation would be fruitless. I am writing the request now. If you agree, please add your side when I am finished. Kitteneatkitten 04:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Kitteneatkitten Just got through looking over your recently filed arbcom case and I doubt the case will be accepted. Arbcom looks at cases with disruptive editor behavior that seriously interferes with the writing of 'pedia. Please look at all the steps in WP:DR. Your case looks like a content dispute. Content disputes are best settled by the parties involved focusing on the editing policies and guidelines- WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOR. If you can not agree then try to get other editors to come give an opinion. Often arbcom cases take a month or more to finish and are time intensive, requiring hours of work to present your case. If you focus on following policy, I'm sure your dispute can be settled on the article talk page right away. I'll stop by the article talk page and leave a few suggestions. : ) regards, FloNight ^talk 05:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although Kitteneatkitten may not have gone through all the proper steps, RJII has a long history of being a disruptive and impolite editor. If you need any help, just ask and I'll do what I can with regard to providing evidence of RJII's generally negative interactions with other users (except other anarcho-capitalists) here on wikipedia. RJII constantly assumes bad faith, has engaged in countless edit wars and made several personal attacks and near personal attacks. The Ungovernable Force 06:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Here comes you again. You never cease to take an opportunity to attack me. Seriously, what ever caused you to choose to be an enemy of mine? I don't remember ever having any kind of interaction with you before you vandalized by user page with a "fuck you." RJII 16:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, is that the only thing you can ever remember? I almost said in my post that you were about to mention that, but it seemed like bad faith. We had at least a month's interaction on the anarchism page before that idiotic edit on my part (which I have apologized for). Actually, we had a bit more from when I was an anon as well. Of course, now you're going to just say that I wasn't sincere when I apologized and such like you always do, but whatever, anyone can see through it. The Ungovernable Force 02:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flo, I appreciate your suggestion, but our problem involves a dispute over what is "neutral." I realize that the arbitration process will take much of my time as well. Also, many other editors have made the same objections that I have to no avail on the talk page. RJII's propensity to engage in edit wars and engage in personal attacks also makes me pessimistic. I note that he has already been in three arbitrations aside from this proposed arbitration, which is really quite amazing when you consider that there are only 99 total in the archive and about 10 open.

TUF, thank you for your offer.

- Kitteneatkitten 08:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You find it amazing that I've been involved in a few arbitration cases? That's what happens when a person doesn't change his log in name. His history stays with him. Making him look like a bad guy is easy. --it feeds on itself. You can always point to a previous arbitration and say "look he's a bad guy" and create a negative image for arbitrators to assist in more arbitration cases when you want to get rid of an adversary. I could easily edit from another log in name and you wouldn't be able to use any of that against me. I would have no history. Why don't I? Go figure. Maybe it has something to do with integrity. You obviously know your way around Wikipedia and seem to be familiar with my history but have only had an account for a few weeks. Did you have an account before this? Were any arbitrations filed against you. I can't help but admire your spotless record. RJII 16:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm sure your dispute can be settled on the article talk page right away."

No offense Flo, but I do not think you have much experience dealing with libertarians/Objectivists on the Internet if this is your view.

I meant that this particular dispute can be resolved if every one puts their energy toward working together to represent the verifiable major point of view and all verifiable minor points of view. FloNight ^talk 13:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh that's great. Instead of dealing with the issue, you launch in to attacks against the person. You're accusing me of engaging in "edit wars and personal attacks" and talk about me being in arbitration cases. Whatever. By the way, I have a pretty good idea of who you are. RJII 16:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flo, the central issue of our dispute is that libertarians think that their views reflect the ideals of early liberals, why we 21st century liberals think that our views best reflect their ideals. I think the term "classical liberal" as it is commonly used by libertarians is inherantly biased, and should not be used to describe any modern figure absent scare quotes and some acknowledgment and/or some other acknowledgment that the term is not neutral.

Also Flo, I am also interested in what you mean by major and minor POV's. The libertarian view is certainly a minor POV when you consider the views of the American public or the American intellectual mainstream, but they are an large and extremely vocal minority here on Wikipedia. Is that enough for them to qualify as major?

I would say no. Strident and very vocal minorites (libertarians, Objectivists, Mormons, anarchists, Scientolgists, Amway members, etc.) that will not accept any compromise on articles relating to their central views and central ideological narratives are a serious problem for any type of wiki.

RJII, you claim not to have ever engaged in edit wars or personal attacks? I guess you are entitled to that opinion, and I have no desire to debate the point with you, though anyone looking at the endless series of censures and bans on your user page I think would disagree.

I really doubt you know who I am, but I am curious about what you think, and even a bit flattered that someone would bother to speculate. So what is my name?. Kitteneatkitten 22:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, no good is going to come from this type of conversation. We need to stay focused on discussing article content based on reliable sources not the editors involved with the article. FloNight ^talk 22:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, ay arbitration case involves RJII too. You may post evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Infinity0/Evidence of RJII's behaviour if you so desire. -- infinity0 17:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. Um, what you put on the evidence page really belongs on the main page – Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Infinity0 – as in "Statement by Kitteneatkitten" – just follow the other peoples' examples.

"Diffs" (for example [1]) go on the evidence page (since they show the user making the accused edits) – again, look at the other examples on that page for a rough guide :). -- infinity0 00:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia.

You can help improve the articles listed below! This list updates frequently, so check back here for more tasks to try. (See Wikipedia:Maintenance or the Task Center for further information.)

Help counter systemic bias by creating new articles on important women.

Help improve popular pages, especially those of low quality.

You might find these links helpful in creating new pages or helping with the above tasks: How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Naming conventions, Manual of Style. You should read our policies at some point too.

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

• If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username.

• You can sign your name using three tildes, like this: ~~~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too.

• If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted.

Again, welcome! --Jondel 07:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

====Regarding reversions[2] made on May 16 2006 (UTC) to Classical liberalism====

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. The duration of the block is 8 hours. William M. Connolley 07:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On 14-June, you blanked Algore. Blanking pages is generally considered a bad idea. I've reverted it to the previous version. If this was the result of a broken edit, you may wish to make the correct edits. If you believe the redirect should be deleted, please follow the redirect portion of the deletion procedures. If you believe an article should be written instead of the redirect, please write a stub. If you have questions, please let me know. Thanks! -- JLaTondre 12:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Algore," is Rush Limbaugh's derogatory nickname for the former vice-president, and should not have its own page, even a simple redirect. There is no purpose for this other than to insult the man. I will nominate it for deletion, thank you for the info.Kitteneatkitten 20:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have added to the thread at Wikipedia:Speedy deletions because this does not seem to qualify for speedy deletion and precedent suggests keeping it. Please relist this in WP:RfD if you wish to pursue this. Also, please sign your comments by typing ~~~~ at the end of your post. Dgies 02:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Kitteneatkitten : - ) I understand your frustration and anger. What happened to you was terrible. I'm very sorry it happened to you. The problem has been addressed by blocking the account of the person that framed you for a period of time in order to make them stop this behavior. After the block is over they will subject to future blocks or action by the arb com if further disruptive behavior occurs. Please let me or another administrator know if you have any other problems with this user.

I encourage you to explain your situation on AN/I. Do it as calmly as possible. I do not think unblocking ZigZogger is a good idea but I'm not going to object if some other admin wants to unblock the Zigzogger. account. Take care, FloNight ^talk 03:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you think an ineffective block lasting only one month will stop his behavior and deter future offenders? I don't. Anyway, why a month and not just a day? I'm looking for some justification of the one-month period. Kitteneatkitten 03:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kitteneatkitten, I did not make that decision but I think that it was a reasonable one. A month block is considered a long block at Wikipedia for an active user. The important issue is if the user is now behaving properly toward you and other users. The only real purpose of the block is to change behavior. The block is not to be a punishment or a deterrent for future offenders. regards, FloNight ^talk 03:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The rewrite you made for Gold as a measure of inflation seems to be biased toward your view on "gold bugs". I have tried to temper it but all but the most trivial edits have been removed. If you find my edits unacceptable, I would appreciate you making changes that will emphasize gold's ability to store value thoughout written history and it accuracy as a measure of inflation of fiat currencies. I understand that you don't personally agree with these assertions but that is exactly why the contributions you have made are POV Carbonate 17:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per the discussion on AN/I, I removed the sockpuppet templates on Zigzogger's user page and made a redirect to KitteneatKitten user page.

This is taking a middle ground by eliminating the harsh sockpuppet templ while still keeping the account blocked. The other option discussed was unblocking the account and labeling the account with a less scary looking user sockpuppet template. There was less support for this idea. If after a month you do not find this new arrangment satisfactory we can talk about changing it to the second option, okay. Give this a try. Take care, --FloNight ^talk 17:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A fine edit, I do hope you stick around.Proabivouac 08:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]