User talk:Tikitorch2

Welcome!

Hi Tikitorch2! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Bon courage (talk) 04:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to COVID-19, broadly construed, 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.

Bon courage (talk) 04:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 2024

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Martin Kulldorff. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

Slow motion edit-warring is still edit warring. Bon courage (talk) 05:27, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The edit war was instigated by Geogsage and Newimperial going forward with an edit without achieving consensus on the controversial portion. Although it may have appeared I made the first edit, this was not the case as they sought to end a talk page discussion without consensus and I simply attempted to minimize the harm done by their “consensus” by removing the most limited portion of their edit I could. There wasn’t really a good way to keep the portion I removed without redundancy if it were properly attributed to its source. You will note that similar text existed before their edit and I refrained from removal while good faith discussion on the talk page was still ongoing.

I find threats of a block from you ironic because of your own one-sided opinion on the same talk pages prior to this “edit war” and your pattern of reverting to reintroduce false allegations on this and similar contentious articles (see my edit on Gupta’s page) Tikitorch2 (talk) 02:54, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 2024

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 05:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This was archived with no action, perhaps because an editor accused me of being a white nationalist based on my username. More interestingly, it turns out there are other editors who have been banned related to issues with the status quo on the Kulldorff page…I guess claims of consensus are true if non-concurring editors all get banned.

Ultimately the most interesting part was the corroboration from an admin that Wikipedia does not support any evaluation of the claims of approved secondary sources based applicable primary sources. I.e. officially editors are encouraged to choose what/what parts of secondary sources to summarize and include without considering their plausibility or veracity. Tikitorch2 (talk) 21:05, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1174#c-Liz-20241223043000-The Bushranger-20241223040400 Tikitorch2 (talk) 21:11, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Martin Kulldorff, you may be blocked from editing. Ixocactus (talk) 00:23, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you take the high road and remove the "falsely" from the article while the talk page discussion is pending? I know you have previous edit history on the page.

The "falsely" is an untrue (or contentious at best) allegation against Dr. Kulldorff on his BLP page and reads as Wikipedia attacking Kulldorff instead of being properly cited to the source (Howard). This has been brought up before but the CDC has updated their statements and data on the subject so now there is a high quality source on the subject. Tikitorch2 (talk) 02:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 2025

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Martin Kulldorff. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Bon courage (talk) 03:01, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am seeking consensus on the talk page for a better solution but in the meantime have done a minimal edit to correct the poorly sourced contentious BLP material per WP:BLPSOURCE Tikitorch2 (talk) 03:08, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Tikitorch2 reported by User:MrOllie (Result: ). Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 03:26, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 2025

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you believe that 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 ~~~~}}. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:42, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a description of my perspective of the situation on the banning noticeboard that Bon Courage and Mr. Ollie set up. Tikitorch2 (talk) 04:55, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Tikitorch2 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I followed Wikipedia's guidance to remove harmful, poorly sourced material from a BLP page. Instead of removing it I just added in-text attribution so as to minimize the impact without consensus. I though the guidance was that the material should not be reverted until adequate sourcing could be found.

I believe I was targeted for blocking by Bon Courage and maybe Mr. Ollie. See their talk page discussion on my proposal after successfully achieving my ban to maintain consensus. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Martin_Kulldorff#c-Bon_courage-20250620040800-GeogSage-20250620035500

Tikitorch2 (talk) 04:59, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I followed Wikipedia's guidance to remove harmful, poorly sourced material from a BLP page. Instead of removing it I just added in-text attribution so as to minimize the impact without consensus. I though the guidance was that the material should not be reverted until adequate sourcing could be found. 

I believe I was targeted for blocking by Bon Courage and maybe Mr. Ollie. See their talk page discussion on my proposal after successfully achieving my ban to maintain consensus. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Martin_Kulldorff#c-Bon_courage-20250620040800-GeogSage-20250620035500
[[User:Tikitorch2|Tikitorch2]] ([[User talk:Tikitorch2#top|talk]]) 04:59, 20 June 2025 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I followed Wikipedia's guidance to remove harmful, poorly sourced material from a BLP page. Instead of removing it I just added in-text attribution so as to minimize the impact without consensus. I though the guidance was that the material should not be reverted until adequate sourcing could be found. 

I believe I was targeted for blocking by Bon Courage and maybe Mr. Ollie. See their talk page discussion on my proposal after successfully achieving my ban to maintain consensus. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Martin_Kulldorff#c-Bon_courage-20250620040800-GeogSage-20250620035500
[[User:Tikitorch2|Tikitorch2]] ([[User talk:Tikitorch2#top|talk]]) 04:59, 20 June 2025 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I followed Wikipedia's guidance to remove harmful, poorly sourced material from a BLP page. Instead of removing it I just added in-text attribution so as to minimize the impact without consensus. I though the guidance was that the material should not be reverted until adequate sourcing could be found. 

I believe I was targeted for blocking by Bon Courage and maybe Mr. Ollie. See their talk page discussion on my proposal after successfully achieving my ban to maintain consensus. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Martin_Kulldorff#c-Bon_courage-20250620040800-GeogSage-20250620035500
[[User:Tikitorch2|Tikitorch2]] ([[User talk:Tikitorch2#top|talk]]) 04:59, 20 June 2025 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

One can see how they discuss their past successes at banning editors who tried to correct the WP:EXCEPTIONAL WP:REDFLAG and how they only consider a single point of view worth of inclusion in the encyclopedia.

Neither Bon courage nor MrOllie are admins, so they are incapable of blocking you. Reporting someone who is edit-warring to the edit-warring noticeboard is not "target[ing] for blocking" in whatever nefarious sense you mean; it's the very function of the noticeboards. See also WP:NOTTHEM, a subsection of the guide to appealing blocks linked above; it is advisable for you to talk about your behavior, not others' behavior, when seeking an unblock. And you were edit-warring; having reverted the Martin Kulldorff article to your preferred version 6 times in 2 hours, you had sailed far past the 3-reverts-in-24-hours threshold that is the bright line for unambiguous edit-warring. And while there is the BLP exemption for edit-warring, note the caveat: What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption. Given all of the Sturm und Drang you've been involved with on the Martin Kulldorff talk page, you must've known that there is far from a consensus in considering this poorly-sourced, so it shouldn't be a shock to you that it earned you a block.

While I myself am an admin, I am obviously involved in the content dispute surrounding this, so I won't decline your unblock request (and I would never have been the one to block you myself). But I can tell you that this unblock request is woefully inadequate, and you're not likely to make a successful one without a serious course change. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:49, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For whoever reviews this request, you can see that the last time I tried to correct this false REDFLAG claim against Kulldorff (when I was less knowledgeable about about Wikipedia's policies) Writ Keeper accused me of being a racist based on nothing but my username. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1174#c-Liz-20241223043000-The_Bushranger-20241223040400

Note also the offending editor also ~~took this to~~ argued this[1] at BLPN and got no traction, so the WP:CRYBLP rings especially hollow here. Bon courage (talk) 17:23, 20 June 2025 (UTC); amended 01:08, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. I did not take it to BLPN, I although I believe someone else did. Tikitorch2 (talk) 23:49, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Amended. Bon courage (talk) 01:08, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from blocking admin - I blocked this editor as NOTHERE because nearly all of their 131 edits have been about COVID and Martin Kulldorff. Starting over a year ago, their very first edits were to dispute things about COVID-19 ([2]) and "correct" how Wikipedia describes Kulldorff's essay ([3], [4]). They quickly began accusing other editors as stonewalling and bad faith ([5]) and dismissing the "opposing" citation's author saying "His writing style is like a middle school book review, describe the plot diagram to prove you did the reading, while simultaneously posing moodily as a critique to regurgitate the prompt." ([6]). The user then goes on to edit war ([7], [8], [9], [10], [11]) while using edit summaries to accuse other editors of stonewalling, aspersions, and having agendas. After dozens of talk page edits and a trip to ANI, the user stopped editing in early January 2025 only to resume on 18 June 2025. In the past couple days, the user continued their push re: COVID and ramps up the accusations against other editors ([12], [13]) and starts on about the truth ([14], [15]). They then go on to edit war again, making 7 edits within 24 hours ([16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22]). This user is not here to build an encyclopedia. They are here to get their preferred version of an article. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:39, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like an odd quote to share from an awful lot of talk page discussion--just to be clear I was describing the author of a secondary source, not another editor. Tikitorch2 (talk) 00:11, 21 June 2025 (UTC) I am new my entire edit history has been trying to correct two sentences which stood out to me because they seemed to make strong scientific claims with little sourcing. One of them was successful on Sunetra Gupta's page, the other is this sentence about an essay by Kulldorff. If I am let back on I may eventually stumble on a third sentence that seems poorly sourced to improve Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tikitorch2 (talk • contribs) 00:30, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear: is this[23] contribution yours? Bon courage (talk) 01:10, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No Tikitorch2 (talk) 10:00, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

also it looks like the prior comment on your talk page, which you have since deleted, was from another editor you just banned. Maybe use common sense instead of trying to influence this decision here. Tikitorch2 (talk) 10:07, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]