User talk:Tyrone Jahir

GGS Dispute

Information on wikipedia must be neutral SpaceExplorer12 (talk) 22:27, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The information added is entirely neutral. Additionally, it's a more accurate reflection of the sources cited on the page.

John Tooby

The policies laid out at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons say that information on a BLP must be referenced with a reliable source. Where did you learn that John Tooby had died? _signed,Willondon (talk) 19:14, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Announced by respected close friends and several obituary sites. Tyrone Jahir (talk) 14:55, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a link for one of those obituary sites? The Wikipedia policies are quite clear and firm: a claim of death on a biography of a living person must come with a reliable source confirming it. _signed,Willondon (talk) 15:06, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, announced by respected close friends https://twitter.com/sapinker/status/1723060810958741764. Though, I believe I got the exact date incorrect. Should be the 10th, not 11th. Tyrone Jahir (talk) 15:16, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't consider Twitter to be a reliable source (see WP:RSPTWITTER). It would definitely not be accepted for reporting someone's death. Is there an obituary in a newspaper or other reliable source? _signed,Willondon (talk) 15:57, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I added the report again after finding two sources. The English one could be unreliable as the site has no links to "Home" or "About Us" to say where the information comes from, or if there is any editorial control. There is no information about the author of the obit, but they authored many articles on that site, so it doesn't seem to be a user generated content site, where a fly-by poster can just say someone died. Also, even if they copied the obit from somewhere, somebody went to some effort to piece together an account of his life. The other source is in Spanish, but it is from the website of a university that he was affiliated with, so I consider that a reliable source if the first one isn't. Thanks for helping keep Wikipedia up to date. Cheers. _signed,Willondon (talk) 16:24, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I changed the date of death to November 9. That's what the university source reported, and the other source didn't say. _signed,Willondon (talk) 16:26, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, Twitter was never the source. Steven Pinker is the source. The fact that the information was conveyed through Twitter is irrelevant. Unless you're going to seriously argue that a highly respected academic would lie about the death of his friend, then he is a fine source to use. Glad to see you corrected your mistake. Tyrone Jahir (talk) 17:02, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem, I was spending the time to correct your mistakes anyway, so it was no extra trouble. _signed,Willondon (talk) 17:08, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Love you buddy, stay safe out there. Tyrone Jahir (talk) 22:30, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moderator Fiasco

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Reverse racism. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

Accusing another editor of having "racist" opinions is a violation of WP:NPA and WP:Civility. NightHeron (talk) 12:47, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I made no "personal attacks" against any editor because I made no claims about another editor's character. That is why I pointed out the opinion as racist, and not the person. In other words, I "commented on content, not contributors."

Accusing another editor of having a racist opinion is certainly NOT a violation of WP: NPA or WP: Civility. "Racist" is a word with a clear definition that I used to (quite accurately) describe the editor's opinion.

If you want to assume that when someone shares an opinion that happens to be racist, they must certainly be a racist person at heart, and therefore criticizing a racist opinion is actually a character attack on the person who shared it, fine; don't include me in your personal heuristic. Tyrone Jahir (talk) 13:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Hell you didn't. Probably the most egregious personal attack I have received in my 16 years here. I demand that you strike any and all suggestions that I have racist opinions. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:16, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't tell if this response is a joke or not. If me pointing out that you shared a racist opinion is "the most egregious personal attack [you] have received in [your] 16 years here" you must have never even been criticized on this website before.

Going out of your way to get someone blocked on false grounds must be grounds for a block itself. Tyrone Jahir (talk) 06:41, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are actually making a personal attack while blocked for such. I did not get you blocked. O3000, Ret. (talk) 10:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Acroterion (talk) 14:26, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Tyrone Jahir (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Arbitrary policy enforcement. Reason given for block never occured (made no personal attacks) Tyrone Jahir (talk) 06:48, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Upon review, I concur that you made a personal attack. I think you are fortunate you have not yet had the block extended or talk page access removed. I suggest you stop doubling down. 331dot (talk) 19:23, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Fortunate indeed, as editors are willing to arbitrarily block people who have not violated Wikipedia rules, I suppose I should count myself lucky that my simple disagreement has not also been interpreted as a violation, or as a "personal attack." You can suggest whatever you want, I'm never going to not "double-down" on the truth - especially when the editor in question has such censoring tendencies as to delete my own statements off of my own talk page. Too bad.

Four editors, including two admins, stated that you have violated Wikipedia policies and made several personal attacks, indeed one of Wikipedia's five pillars WP:5P4. If you do not understand that, you are not going to last long here. Wikipedia is about collaboration. False accusations are not conducive to such. I hope you find a way to realize this and become a useful contributor. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:24, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you keep on attacking people, you will lose talkpage access, and the block will be extended. You did indeed make an egregious personal attack, which isn't excused by rhetorical hair-splitting. I've removed the latest personal attack. And no, O3000 din't "get you blocked." I saw your attack and blocked you. You are not entitled to treat other contributors to this encyclopedia like that. Acroterion (talk) 12:35, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have to stop claiming I'm attacking people. That's a fabrication. Insisting people understand proper use of language is not "rhetorical hair-splitting" and the kind of attitude that would lead one to label it so is deeply troubling and censorius. You can't insist I personally attacked someone, then, when I ask you to provide specific evidence of how I've violated WP: NPA or WP: Civility with my comment, just ignore the request. How dare you strike my reply to that person from the record. If you see it as grounds to block further, just do that instead of erasing my cogent and accurate reply because I guess you think it makes the person I replied to look bad (which is biased moderation). It's my talk page.

Let me be plain once more. I made no personal attack against anyone (even if I had, the reply you removed couldn't qualify as one, because it referred to the act of having said something in the past).

How the editor who enacted a ban is allowed to be the same person who reviews the appeal for said ban, I have no idea, but that's problematic for obvious reasons. I want a different editor to review my appeal, and I certainly want my reply restored.

I haven't reviewed your block. That will be by another admin., But I can and will remove talkpage access and/or extend your block if you use this talkpage as a platform for attacks on other editors. Reviewing admins may decide the same thing, since you clearly haven't taken my admonitions seriously. You are in a hole, stop making it deeper. Acroterion (talk) 14:34, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I already understand you're eager to remove my talkpage access; that you banned me for something I didn't do made that obvious enough. Hard to take "admonitions" seriously when the warning is to stop doing something I was not doing - I'm sure you understand. It's a hole of your making, not mine. Restore my stricken reply.

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Acroterion (talk) 21:45, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since you've made more personal attacks after the previous block for personal attacks expired, you're blocked again. I will remove talkpage access if you reiterate them in any way. You have been repeatedly warned that your conduct is not acceptable; this is the consequence. You are not the judge of whether your actions violate community expectations for collaborative editing. Any further block is likely to be indefinite for WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct. Acroterion (talk) 21:49, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How can you ban me for a message I left while still blocked, then reinstate my ban after it has already expired?

I did NOT make personal attacks after the previous block had expired, and I demand you immediately produce the evidence for such a claim so it can be reviewed by an unbiased editor. I have not, in fact, been appropriately warned that my conduct is not acceptable, because you have never explained how my content constitutes a violation of Wikipedia rules - something I asked you to do multiple times. Furthermore, you continue to engage in censorship by REMOVING talkpage content (none of which were "personal attacks") I have written instead of just banning me.

I am indeed a valid judge of whether my content violates community expectations, as I have read the Wikipedia rules. After repeatedly being asked to explain how my content constitutes a violation of WP: NPA and/or WP: Civility, you have failed to produce any kind of reasoning whatsoever. Tyrone Jahir (talk) 12:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Tyrone Jahir (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Incorrect policy enforcement. Reason for ban never occured. Tyrone Jahir (talk) 12:32, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Further evidence, as if it were needed, of battleground mentality. — Daniel Case (talk) 06:20, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Hilariously biased and incompetent moderation. Indeed, some evidence at all is needed to make statements like you just did - and none has been provided. You'll notice I was not banned for "battleground mentality" but for something different altogether. You can't cite a violation that has nothing to do with why I was banned as a decline reason, because that fails to demonstrate why the ban was justified. You can't justify it, because below is a conclusive demonstration of a factually unjustified ban. What the moderator said I wrote is literally not what I wrote. Given your logic, if I am guilty of "battleground mentality", then the moderator who banned me must be unequivocally guilty of the same due to their shameful and shameless bias.

When the block expired you went straight back to Talk:Reverse racism and continued doubling down [1]. Acroterion (talk) 13:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. I reaffirmed my belief that the person in question was NOT personally attacked. I did not, however, reiterate what you perceived as the "personal attack" you believed warranted the original block. You need to unblock me.

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Doug Weller talk 09:59, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 2024

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Islamophobia. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. See comment of Admin who reverted you Doug Weller talk 15:13, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what occured. I explained the issue of with the section of the article, justified my edit, and provided superior sourcing to what was included previously.

In future, please do not accuse editors of adding their own commentary, point of view, or breaching WP: POV without adequate evidence. Thanks. Tyrone Jahir (talk) 15:26, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't revert you, just warned you. Take it up with User:Firefangledfeathers who wrote "This worsened the NPOV of the article, by weakening the reliability of the cited sources and being less specific about attribution of analysis/opinions'. I thought you should know this. Doug Weller talk 15:30, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, this reply was intended for that editor. Tyrone Jahir (talk) 15:34, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making personal attacks towards other editors.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Acroterion (talk) 15:30, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Tyrone Jahir (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Incorrect policy enforcement. You can't block someone who has not violated wikipedia rules. Or, upon insisting they have, not explain precisely why. Tyrone Jahir (talk) 15:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This edit is a clear example of casting aspersions, which constitutes a personal attack. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:32, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

The idea that Acroterion, the same biased moderator who blocked me on false grounds, gets to do so again on a totally unrelated matter, and once again, for a statement that in no way violates WP guidelines, is biased moderation. You have to undo this block. Tyrone Jahir (talk) 15:36, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, editor Doug Weller claims I "repeated" a personal attack in a talk page section of the reverse racism article. Given that he doesn't provide the evidence, and no personal attacks were made in the article, I am very curious to know which attack he imagines has been repeated. Tyrone Jahir (talk) 15:41, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My pronouns are they/them, and I did not say you "repeated" anything. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:43, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. Congratulations.

2. Doug Weller was meant to be in that sentence, not you. Tyrone Jahir (talk) 15:45, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Tyrone Jahir (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The edit cannot possibly be an example of WP: ASPERSIONS because I literally state what I believe to be the evidence, and tell people where they can find even more of it. The fact that someone personally doesn't find that evidence convincing doesn't make the claim an aspersion, nor does it make it a personal attack. Please note that WP: ASPERSIONS was never alluded to or in any way listed in the original block, which makes this decline reason seem like an arbitrary and contrived justification. You must reconsider and undo my block.

Decline reason:

That you cannot desist from casting aspersions, and do not believe them to be aspersions, is indeed the problem here. Shut up about other editors if you want your block lifted. The block is about your behavior, nobody else's. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 20:45, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Please excuse my erroneous edit, likely a mistaken rollback or revert caused by my fat fingers, hypnagogia, or one of my ridiculous cats. I have likely self reverted or noticed the mistake after you corrected it. Again, my apologies. Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:18, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]