User talk:Revent

This is a Wikimedia Commons user talk page.

This is not an article, file or the talk page of an article or file. If you find this page on any site other than the Wikimedia Commons you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than the Wikimedia Commons itself. The original page is located at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Revent.

This is the user talk page of Revent, where you can send messages and comments to Revent.

Please sign and date your entries by clicking on the appropriate button or by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end.
Put new text under old text.
New to Wikimedia Commons? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers as soon as possible.
Click here to start a new topic.

Be polite.
Be friendly.
Assume good faith.
No personal attacks.

What COM:AGF says[edit]

My criticism at AN/B was that at least one Admin/Crat was citing AGF without actually having understood it. Interpreting just those three words "Assume good faith" without actually reading what the policy says. Let me repeat again for you:

Unless there is clear evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it.
If criticism is needed, discuss editors' actions, but avoid accusing others of harmful motives without clear evidence.
If at all possible, assume good faith for the intentions of others, and try to help them or resolve disputes with them on that basis.

And what you said:

You accuse me of forum shopping, making a complaint due to "personal issues", that it is "purely personal" and "due to interpersonal drama". The "purely personal" is particularly bad in that "purely" implies I am doing this 100% out of spite rather than for any merit, say DefendEachOther. Now where in our AGF policy does it entitle you to comment negatively about my motives here without having the slightest evidence. Could it possibly be because you have a personal problem with me? I couldn't possibly comment! Further, you admit you have not looked at Tuvalkin's history, yet you seem sure there is an ongoing personal issue between me an Tuvalkin. There isn't. I haven't had, to my knowledge, any significant interaction with Tuvalkin on this project, though I am aware that he pops up occasionally to throw insults. I made a very mild criticism of Tuvalkin's block rationale at one discussion for which he responded with an outrageous personal insult, and which he labelled a "personal attack" (for some reason), which made it all the easier for an admin to immediately block him. When he appealed his block, I made a perfectly reasonable comment that I did not wish the appeal to be agreed, and further to that suffered more insults from him and a couple of his friends, for which further blocks were handed out. That is, to my knowledge, the extent of any negative interaction between us. It hardly forms some "ongoing interpersonal issue". It was one event, which came out of the blue, from Tuvalkin. Do you seriously suggest, as Nick did, that because I was insulted by Tuvalkin, that somehow this censors me from making any further criticism of him, or of defending others when they are insulted by him. You need to seriously examine your admin role and why you continue to look the other way when serious personal attacks occur under your nose. Your comments at AN/U are indefensible and utterly at odds with clear policy. Keep your nasty unfounded thoughts about me to yourself. That's what AGF says. -- Colin (talk) 07:11, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

@Colin: You, yourself, used your past conflict with Tuvalkin as an excuse to not attempt to engage with him when it was suggested.

If Tuvalkin indeed has a long history of intimidating and harrassing behavior (and, from his block log, that certainly appears to be the case) then that is indeed 'interpersonal drama'... his, not yours... and a short block truly will not fix it. It never does. Revent^talk 14:38, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

See, you are misrepresenting things again. It isn't "my past conflict". I have no ongoing dispute with Tuvalkin. He attacked me out of the blue and that's in the past. End of. It isn't an "excuse", but a fair reason why me engaging further on this matter with Tuvalkin would be rebuffed. You and Nick spend your time lecturing on what other people are doing wrong or ineffectively, yet your alternative is simply to ignore and do nothing. Revent, that isn't acceptable, yet is your pattern of response to outrageous personal attacks against certain people. You know quite well that you described my going to AN/U as "purely personal" on my aspect, not Tuvalkin's. You were suggesting this was a vexatious request out of spite because you claim I had issues with Tuvalkin. At AN/U you are engaging in ad hominem attacks on me, and you're clever enough to know that. You once again repeat the slur about "your long term pattern of behavior" without providing any evidence of any long term pattern of behaviour. Stop doing that Revent, it isn't allowed per COM:AGF. If you ever want to mention my "long term pattern of behaviour" do that in the relevant forum or talk page, in a discussion about me, and supply dozens of diffs to justify this extraordinary claim. Otherwise, stop side-tracking a discussion on Tuvalkin with slurs about me. -- Colin (talk) 15:22, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Looking at links from something else entirely, I happened to come across you referring to Tuvalkin as "a good example of bad faith"Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_55#Colin.27s_use_of_anti-LGBT_language. Your description of the history is apparently incorrect. Revent^talk 22:37, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually I was talking generally about three users when I made that statement. If you're going to lecture me on incorrect descriptions of history, you might want to make sure your description is fair and accurate then also. Seems like I made a rather mild response to an insulting comment by Tuvalkin. Once again, this is simply an out-of-the-blue attack on me, having not interacted with Tuvalkin before or afterwards, or indeed, ever. Clearly Tuvalkin has "personal issues" with me, for reasons I cannot fathom. But that's not how you phrased it above. You were clearly stating that my reason for posting the AN/U was "personal" on me. You do remember that the mental health insult was on Jcb, not me. So your disruptive campaign at the start of that page was an ad hominem attack that this AN/U was vexatious and out of some personal spite. I rather suspect you didn't do your research, assumed there was a mutual conflict, and ran with it. You are wrong. -- Colin (talk) 23:21, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

This conversation is pointless. There is clearly a history between you and Tuvalkin, and you derailed the discussion about Jcb to be about him, then forum-shopped it to ANU when you did not get the response you wanted, after you yourself explained that there was a history between the two of you. That the accusation of bad faith that I quoted above was toward three users instead of just one doesn't make it any better, but I've seen you make such statements many times, though usually they are more 'implicit'.

You claim that I was making 'ad hominem' attacks, yet several of the statements you linked weren't even about you, and the others were criticism of your actions. That's not what 'ad hominem' means. Steinsplitter (talk · contribs) told you to stop, and you instead attacked him. If I was actually making repeated ad hominem statements about you on ANU, while you complained about it, someone else would have said something. They didn't, because they were not ad hominem attacks.

And by the way, saying that your statement on Elcobolla's talk page looked like trolling was not an ad hominem attack... I did not call you a troll, I made a statement about your actions. You, on the other hand, have directly said to me "you are a troll", which was far more of a personal attack. Now go away. Revent^talk 23:53, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I received a notification that you had sent me an email. But no email arrived. This also often happens to me when I send email through Commons, depending on the recipient. It's a known bug and the MediaWiki folk are frustratingly slow to do the simple fix necessary (essentially, media wiki spoofs the sender of the email, which many email providers consider to be naughty and so block). You can tell the email did not get delivered if you requested a copy of the email -- you won't have got that either. I suspect if I tried to email you through Commons, I'd get the same but I'll give it a go. I know we corresponded a long time ago, but a quick search on my phone did not turn up any messages I could reply to, and I have forgotten your email or name. Perhaps my desktop PC has this, or perhaps you still have an old email from me. -- Colin (talk) 07:40, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

@Colin: Nevermind. To be honest, after sleeping on it, it's probably a better thing, since you have made it quite clear you are not interested in what I have to say. I'm sure that you will eventually become aware of what I was going to tell you about through someone else's actions. Revent^talk 10:33, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

*sigh* Your comment suggests it was more of your "How do I loathe thee? Let me count the ways". So, yes, I guess it is for the best. -- Colin (talk) 11:16, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Not even remotely. Revent^talk 11:19, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

What was the purpose of your post at 10:33? I do in fact wonder that about much of what you post about me. You could have written "Actually I have changed my mind." and left it at that. Instead we get something vaguely hostile and with the intention of indicating your superiority in the situation and my loss. Fine, it's your user page, so you can use it to boost your ego if you like. Unwatching. -- Colin (talk) 11:49, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

For this record (though he says he is no longer listening) my deciding that it was probably a better thing is because Colin has specifically, in the past, asked me to stop attempting to help him. Revent^talk 17:29, 30 September 2016 (UTC)