Talk:"Paravant"

I used to use the account Miekal before this one

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>

, (new)

Knock on the door

Are you in there? What's going on? I'm a bit worried about you... SolPyre (talk) 01:48, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh shit. SolPyre (talk) 01:49, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I think he's removing himself from the situation. I'm not sure if it has been the two weeks that the prior coop case involving him agreed upon, if it hasn't, he violated his own agreements towards giving distance to Ryulong, in which case I see why he is doing it. Otherwise, he's being dramatic, and he should come back. Essentially, the three of us (Paravant, Ryulong and I) agreed that Paravant and Ryulong should take a two week long break from each other, akin to an internet restraining order, in an attempt to ease tensions (This was Paravant's suggestion). - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 01:52, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Ryulong and my separation was conditional on Ryulong upholding any sort of attempt to not be a tool, instead of declaring victory and moving on to the next dramafest. This is my leaving the wiki until such time as it decides that ignoring and trying to hide away the user conflicts is not how you make them stop, and the fact it was the preferred solution long before I came here, I don't see that happening. Even if it did, I don't know if i'd come back, i'm rather big on Leaving and actually not returning when I decide to leave a place. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 02:03, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I do not remember any conditions, Paravant. Indeed, you blocked yourself for two weeks unconditionally, though I presume someone removed it early and you came back because you saw the coop case. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 02:05, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I undid my own block because I saw that nothing had changed and infact things had gotten worse. And i never stated it, but should have. Ryulong doesn't get a pass from administrative attention if all he's going to do is the same things he already was before, the only thing waiting another week would have done is delayed my moderating him for another week. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 02:07, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Then you violated your own agreement, as the agreement was so the tensions between the two of you and not between ryu and the rest of the site could cool down, as the tensions between the two of you were causing you to act out and abuse your powers as a mod, which is irrespective of Ryu being a dick. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 02:08, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Tensions were never going to cool down between me and Ryu because Ryu is incapable of the concept of doing so. He is ruining this site with his attempt to turn it from a collaborative wiki into his personal fiefdom, where only what he wants can stay. Now go away, I'm done talking to a puppet who lies about why they are here or how they know Ryulong. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 02:11, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Ryu isn't a mod, and so the problems with the two of you are not balanced in the slightest. "He's a dick!" isn't an excuse for mod abuse. What I was hoping for was that you would be able to bring your issues towards Ryulong forward in such a way as you didn't rely on your mod powers to shut him down for little to no justifiable reason, but as this appears to not be the case, I agree with your decision to unmod yourself. And what on earth kind of conspiracy theory do you hold towards me? - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 02:14, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

As a Habitual embellisher, It's not hard to spot a obvious liar, you are an obvious liar. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 02:17, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

You have zero reason to assume this, other than your seeming desire to believe that I'm a part of some pro-ryulong cabal, which is fucking hillarious to me. And do note that I asked you to explain what conspiracy theory you held, but you seem to refuse to do so. Why? - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 02:18, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Paravant, let the bastard have the last word. She's not going to let you go on your way in peace without her having the last word. SolPyre (talk) 02:20, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Seriously? Restoring yourself calling me a "bastard"? - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 02:22, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Dilly Dally Shilly Shally, and all. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 02:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

"Just let him abuse you and let me have asinine conspiracy theories about your relationship with ryulong in peace" okay, now I really agree with your decision to unmod yourself. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 02:24, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps I don't know what the Dilly Dally ect. bit meant but I doubt it had any such meaning as you ascribe it. SolPyre (talk) 02:29, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

It's okay, SolPyre, it's an FFVII Advent Children joke, which basically means "move on". Only context I've ever seen it used in. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 02:31, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ "[...] other than your seeming desire to believe that I'm a part of some pro-ryulong cabal, which is fucking hillarious to me." I don't see why the conclusion that you're an avid Ryulong supporter is just completely off the wall (as your comment seems to suggest), considering that a high proportion of your edits lately have been either in outright defence of Ryulong or, in the case of the Baptist talk page, deflecting criticism of Ryulong's obviously bad behaviour by attacking those making this criticism and focusing on whether the form of the criticism was appropriate.
Similarly, your comments on the latest in the string of Ryulong coop cases seem to be mainly concerned with either pointing out other editors with bad behaviour (as if, for instance, Aneris being a prick somehow cancels out or is relevant in judging Ryulong's behaviour), or suggesting that the critics of Ryulong's behaviour should be punished, while ignoring the actual problems with the way Ruylong has behaved and how systematic the pattern has been.
Excuse me, but how exactly are you not a Ryulong supporter? ScepticWombat (talk) 03:08, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I have never once brought up Aneris in the coop case. You are getting me confused with someone else. I did bring up Arisboch, and for entirely justifiable reasons. And as you may have noticed, in the coop case, my only agenda was trying to tackle the deep seated grudge others had towards him, while not explicitly denying that Ryu has some problematic aspects about him, rather tackling it from an angle such as "You guys's behavior towards this has only seemed to exemplify any sort of problem you may percieve". Which is true in any of the cases I've ever seen in my tenure here at the site. It is also disingenuous to say that my edits have been mostly for Ryulong here-- I have made plenty contributions to this site outside of him, and it seems that you're guilty of cherry picking. And "Ryulong supporter" is a far cry from what Paravant seems to be suggesting of me, which is some sort of insane conspiracy I guess? I have never denied being friends with Ryulong, which is why I'm tackling this from such a perspective like "The world is big enough for the two of you", which I feel is an admirable stance, though simply being friends with someone isn't enough to suggest that my purposes here are completely dubious. What about my stance on the issue do you personally disagree with? - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 03:13, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Ah sorry, my bad about Aneris, but the fact that other editors behave badly is immaterial to whether Ryulong should be censured. If they behave in unacceptable ways, I suggest starting a separate coop case on each of them.

As for edits, I'm referring to your recent edit history back to the beginning of this month which, especially in the last couple of days, seems to contain an extremely high rate of edits concerning Ryulong and none actually trying to tackle his behaviour other than, and now I'll caricature a bit, encouraging other editors to be nice and empathetic when trying to rein him in.

I'll be frank and admit that I have a really hard time seeing why Ryulong has gotten the amount of rope he has. While other editors have displayed some of the same traits (i.e. Mona tending to be very aggressive with a streak of drama queen, Arisboch swearing a lot, and Aneris and Avenger being something of monomaniacal editors who blow up when challenged), none have the entire package or with the degree of consistency that Ryulong has demonstrated. It seems to me that Ryulong's supporters are far too lenient in being willing to forgive and forget or dismiss the criticism that a wide variety of editors have voiced of Ryulong's behaviour and the accompanying string of coop cases as "the deep seated grudge others had towards him".

My only reason for voting on not doing anything was that I saw no point in trying to impose censure (e.g. a systematic sysop-lock on articles and talk page whenever Ryulong throws a wobbler and vandal binning him for the foreseeable to cut back on his ability to do so) when Ryulong apparently still have supporters willing to let his behaviour run unchecked and I don't believe in empty gestures (clearly, the very clear message of being cooped, called to order and generally told to behave with a minimum of decorum over and over has zero effect on Ryulong). ScepticWombat (talk) 03:43, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I have started coop cases before, I did so for Paravant. Also Arisboch's problems isn't just "swearing a lot", he's blatantly abusive, which is why I think he should be banned. Ryulong's additions to the site in my entire tenure can hardly be considered worthy of "Vandal binning" or even banning-- The only thing that even comes close is the MLP article, and that invovled every opposing editor behaving like a complete twat towards his additions, so I don't blame him for loosing his temper. The fact of the matter is, Carpetsmoker's coop case is insubstantial, and has nothing worthy of banning or vandal binning him. I would believe efforts to criticize Ryulong would be much more productive if they even tried to come from a place of good faith, which I rarely see. Which is why I think that that is a better solution than what Carpetsmoker wants. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 03:51, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Also, it's LUDICROUS to say the "last couple of days" of my edits have been concerning Ryulong and use that as some sort of argument-- there's been a fucking coop case and i've been trying to argue a point. That's the definition of cherry picking. I was trying to convince people of the same things I'm talking to you about-- a better way to ease hostility. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 03:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Definitely not LUDICROUS or cherry picking, its more like a cherry harvest out there, remember the Baptist thing? Better ways to ease hostility have been tried and they haven't worked. Its time for worser ways. SolPyre (talk) 03:58, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

They have not been tried. I have not seen them be tried. I have only seen bitterness furthering bitterness. An ouroboros. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 04:00, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

They have been tried. You have seen them be tried. The agreement talked about above between you, Paravant and Ryulong was a far better way of resolving conflict. It did not work. It is time, as I said. SolPyre (talk) 04:06, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

"I would believe efforts to criticize Ryulong would be much more productive if they even tried to come from a place of good faith, which I rarely see. Which is why I think that that is a better solution than what Carpetsmoker wants."

As I've posted in the coop, I've tried this several times. Ryulong has either immediately archived the offer, ignored it, or accused me of being a gator out to stalk him. This despite me offering him to edit at my wiki, where anyone harassing him would get an immediate ban. So, y'know, if you're not seeing them it's either because he's been hiding them from you, or because you're trying not to see them.KrytenKoro (talk) 04:07, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay Kitsunelaine, so you claim that empathy, whatever that means in practice, is going to fix the problem. Great, could you give a few hypothetical examples of such an empathetic approach likely to get Ruylong to actually change his behaviour while also pointing out that his behaviour so far has been unacceptable and is pissing off a large section of the other editors? Because so far, I'm simply getting the impression that other editors are being asked to accommodate bad behaviour from Ryulong on a quite larger scale than from anyone else. Again, the sheer number of coop cases and complaints from a wide spectrum of other editors and the fact that Ryulong lost his mop is an indication that this is probably not mainly a problem with everyone but Ryulong. ScepticWombat (talk) 04:16, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I was a Ryu fan when I joined last August. The Gamergate piece is one of two articles that drew me. It took a few months -- largely because I don't edit GG more than minorly once or twice -- but I came to see he's an utterly disruptive presence here who needs to go. Gators didn't convince me of that. Nor did Paravant. Ryu did.---Mona- (talk) 04:17, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

---

Sorry to see you bullied away. Have a last goat

Goat!

Carpetsmoker (talk) 02:32, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

You accusing someone else of trying to bully someone away is fucking hilarious. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 02:33, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

You may kiss the goat: Carpetsmoker (talk) 02:35, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not gonna kinkshame you, Carpetsmoker, what you do in your own time is your business, but I'm not THAT furry. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 02:36, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Goat for you. Carpetsmoker (talk) 02:49, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

That is, indeed, a cute goat. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 02:51, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

In case you missed it

Unblocked, remodded (etc). FuzzyCatPotato of the Emancipated Wiis (talk/stalk) 04:56, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

What happened?

Are you gone, back, both, or neither? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 06:52, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I had decided enough was enough and left, much because of people voting in a way which "admitted defeat and would hurt the wiki" which seems to have shocked a number of people and then moderator action to resolve the issue took place. In emails with Fuzzy he convinced me to come back around the same time.

And for reference, the main reason I refused to implement moderator fiat was I didn't want to. I wanted the community to be the decider on this, because it proves nothing about our ability to actually handle issues if we just let the small group decide things for us. Seeing so many people vote "lets just not do anything cause it won't matter" was breaking for me because it's just so counter to my way of thinking to do that. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 07:01, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

1. I am glad you reconsidered. 2. You were entrusted with powers by the community in order that you would use them. Do not shrink from that. 3. Next time -- and there will be one -- remember that. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 07:40, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I'd still rather it had been the community, however. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 07:44, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

That's nice. It is also completely unrealistic. We trust you. We even voted on it. Be bold, but wise. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 07:47, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Agree with AgingHippie here. As I told FCP before I vandalbinned Ryulong, I couldn't possibly conceive a peaceful way for that HCM to end. But if we moderators acted by fiat to end it, then it would at least stop the worst of it and we would just have to deal with the "I don't like that decision" fallout. I can only imagine the sorts of wars that would've occurred had we left it up to the mob. Gooniepunk (talk) 08:06, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Would you look at this?

Not requesting action from you, but... Seriously. I am dissapoint. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:38, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

"also fuck you too then, if you think fighting me when you were in the wrong was ok."

I'm sorry, I did not realize that voting a particular way -- even the wrong way -- in a community vote was something you would take so personally/find so egregious. I honestly believed that any attempt to deal with Ruylong was a fool's errand, and, we'll see in a week or a month, but I would not be surprised if I turn out to be right on that. Or maybe I'll be wrong. That's okay, I've been wrong before, and am always pretty willing to admit it. But I am a little taken aback by how strongly you put it. Hope you're doing okay. Really. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 06:43, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I think Paravant was referring to the Ace situation... Gooniepunk (talk) 06:44, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I thought so to until I noticed this from 5 minutes earlier: (Block log); 01:11 . . Paravant (Talk | contribs | block) blocked AgingHippie (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 31 seconds (account creation disabled) ‎(And if you want to talk "bad moves" lets talk you letting the wiki go to shit so you could have yourself a little fucking "yay i won something" feeling). Most definitely about yesterday. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 06:48, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

That edit summary had more to do with my pointing out you were fighting with me when the problem you had had been resolved already and you just going "whatever" to my pointing it out. But for my block comment - I have my values, one of which is to not just let things happen "because what can one do it won't stop". it's utterly against who I am to think like that, and watching so many people willingly vote to ensure that RW would be left to Ryu because Fait Accompli disturbed me, including you "simply because you wanted to win this one". I cannot accept that line of reasoning in the real world on issues I have been told I shouldn't worry about, and i'm not going to change that idealistic liberal part of me on the internet. I am, as I said, who I am.--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 06:53, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that. Honestly. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 06:55, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Chillax bro, relieve some stress

Here, take out some stress on my punching bag. I bet you could beat the shit out of it with all the bullshit from the last 36 hours. Gooniepunk (talk) 06:50, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

== Sorry to bother you ==

Paravant, please do something about Typhoon. S/he is unreasonably running around removing alerts to our readers that a book we reference is available freely online. He's annoyed by my edits on the Postmodernism page, and so is removing the same alert on the Zionism page. This is just untenable. And leading to absurd edit wars. Thanks.---Mona- (talk) 20:00, 10 December 2015 (UTC) Nevermind. Rev came up with the obvious solution: an "External Links section.---Mona- (talk) 22:33, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Dude, it's absurd that you're mad about me making the articles follow the RW style. We don't need "alerts" breaking up the flow when Ref tags are here already for people who want to know more. Typhoon (talk) 20:02, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

This doesn't violate any style rules, and you are acting like a petulant child. I'll leave it with Paravant.---Mona- (talk) 20:03, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

You start a edit war over this nonsense, try to drag other people into it and then you have the nerve to accuse others of being petulant children? Irony is dead. And it is breaking the style when the only places with these "alerts" are articles you heavily edit and act like you own them. Typhoon (talk) 20:05, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I did a thing! Or so they tell me! :D Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:36, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Just a user

[1] Are you sure? [2] What should be done with the vacancy? FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 03:12, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeh. and idk, Tielic says we should do nothing, since we neglected to mention alts in the election, but I think that;s foolish. Your guys call.--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 03:17, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I totally understand. No amount of money could get me to do it. I've moderated sites a few times and found it extremely stressful.---Mona- (talk) 03:19, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

[EC] Should I wait a day to make sure you don't have a change of mind before bringing up the issue at the bar? FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 03:26, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Neh, I'm sure about it. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 03:26, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Nobs is back. Make him dictator! CorruptUser (talk) 03:29, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I am sad but not surprised to read this. Years of dealing with childish RW shit-fights.... --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 03:33, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Damn, I feel like I have missed so much of this drama. I have mostly been doing infrequent minor edits and adding to the WIGO, but I feel like I should have been helping more in order to prevent the continually shitshow. Thanks for contributions as our mod though--Owlman (talk) 04:52, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

This is the sort of shit that all of us are responsible for. Hell, I started shit-fights before, and we're paying. Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt: hablale a este hijo de la verga! ^Look! 06:18, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I go out for a few hours to earn a living, and you fucking fall apart on me? Nut up, son. "Illegitimis non carborundum," and all that. Okay, seriously, I respect the decision. It's a bit of a drag that it comes so soon after the elections, but I get it. Hope you'll still stick around as an editor though. You do good stuff here and make me laugh sometimes. That's gotta be worth something. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 06:31, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll stick around to a degree, but not to the same degree as i've been, I don't have the energy to throw into that anymore. I'll atleast be here until I stop being a bum and finish that Europe section. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 06:41, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

just edit pages and step away from the drama ... It might make rw fun again! --carpetsmoker 109.236.139.113 (talk) 08:51, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Y U not logged in, good buddy? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 09:00, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Would like to have my mop back

I have returned to contribute here again, and I request my mop back so I can be a lowly janitor once more. It was removed for this reason, and you have my word such errors in judgment will not be repeated. I was requested to petition you for this here. If you see fit not to restore my mop, I understand, and even if I do get it, I will not be using it for revision deletions, block abuse, wheel warring, or other childish antics, as I plan to contribute meaningfully and respectfully, please feel free to review my most recent contributions if you like to verify my intentions. In any event, happy holidays, Paravant! Arcane (talk) 04:46, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

FuzzyCatPotato already handled this, but do feel free to review the decision if need be. Arcane (talk) 04:49, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I will defer to Paravant on this, if he disagrees. FuzzyCatPotato of the Morbid Pencils (talk/stalk) 04:55, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't even remember the circumstances besides revdels being involved, so maybe? idk. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 06:20, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I'd like mine back as well, please. Hipocrite (talk) 16:36, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

No. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 16:37, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 16:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Please don't block me for non trivial times - I'm unable to unblock myself. Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 16:42, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

You are unable to unblock yourself due to your own fault, so I feel little sadness over you being blocked for a non-trivial 30 seconds. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 16:44, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok. I realize I forgot to say that my intention was to not play in the gamergate mess and fly off the handle like I did a few days ago (and was in error for doing) but rather to go about promoting the valuable users who fall through the cracks and dealing with vandalism, like I did when I was more active here. If there's any way you could reconsider, I'd appreciate it. Hipocrite (talk) 16:45, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't trust you, so no. Somebody else, which includes not you and your socks, can restore your rights. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 16:48, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Another deceitful display is for Hipocrite kick up a baseless chicken coop, taking the time to recruit people to argue for him in said coop case, while at the same time soliciting other users to give him his tools back without mention of any controversy; passing it off as a happy little accident of a mere technical nature. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:52, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Finals week

Good luck, buddy. As somebody else who is going through finals week, I feel your pain. I think, come Saturday, I'll have earned the right to sleep all damn day. Supposedly, my number theory final on Wednesday normally takes students 10-12 hours to complete over 2-3 days. Gooniepunk (talk) 02:52, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm sad to see you go, but I wish you well

This edit is against etiquette but as someone who has had harsh, undeserved things to say about you, I'd just like to say, that you won my respect in the end. I hope you enjoy the retirement. You deserve it. Peace be with you. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 18:10, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Confusion on whether I'll be coming back: No.

There seems to be some confusion on whether I'll be coming back, likely because of my reversing my decision previously. The answer is no.

I came back then because it seemed that we might be actually trying to get out of the dramafest, but almost right away we jumped in feet first into even more of it, and I said I'd leave if that happended.

I have no interest or desire to be caught up in the fighting that turned me off tumblr, I have no desire to have a target on me because some other people are defending a person I'd never heard of until a few days ago, and I have no interest in watching a site iv largely stayed on because of a sense of loyalty to the place that helped me stop being a fundamentalist Christian continue on this path.

So if you want this to just be another battleground, if you want to have a go with Reddit and the farms, go ahead and go for it, but leave me out of it, imma be trying to find a part of the internet that isn't part of this stupid conflict. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 16:00, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Such is the reality of life's ever-changing demographic composition, bud. Where you go, go well, and a fair wind home. Alec Sanderson (talk) 16:12, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Come back!

The drama is well past over. Mona has left for good, and Arisboch is actually behaving now under another name. We'd love to have you back! PBfreespace (talk) 20:26, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I miss Paravant, too. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:33, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, it's eight days since Mona's last edit - wouldn't exactly call that "has left for good".--JorisEnter (talk) 20:37, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

The point is she's not engaged in battle anymore, and won't be for a really long time. PB (talk) 20:40, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Far more importantly; Ryulong, the patron saint of bad-faith edit warriors, was banished to that eternal void whence he came (admittedly leaving behind the excellent GamerGate articles). Also guys, don't you think it might be a little pushy to throw up a petition on the man's talk page? It's perhaps one thing to say we miss him, it seems another to literally petition him to do things. If he wants to return he has to be the engine for that choice himself. It can't be because we dragged him here. That being said, I do miss Paravant. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:52, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Get Paravant Back! Sign the petition today!

1. PBfreespace (talk) 20:40, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
2. Add your name!
3. Please stay gone. You were a particularly poor sysop. Plutoniumboss (talk) 21:40, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

You've been nominated as a moderator

You've been nominated in the upcoming moderator elections. See the nomination at RationalWiki:Moderator elections/Nominations.

Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 04:22, 22 December 2016 (UTC)