User talk:InquisitiveWikipedian

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi InquisitiveWikipedian! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

-- 21:57, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Impacts of restrictive abortion laws in the United States for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Impacts of restrictive abortion laws in the United States is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Impacts of restrictive abortion laws in the United States until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

DocZach (talk) 06:00, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reaching out about two abortion articles I'd like your help improving.

Hi @InquisitiveWikipedian, I wanted to reach out to let you know about two different articles that you have significantly contributed to that I am concerned about. I am hoping to be able to work with you to come to a solution on how to improve or adjust both of these articles. I just wanted to reach out to let you know that my concerns with these articles, specifically Impacts of restrictive abortion laws in the United States and Misinformation related to abortion, are in no way meant to be a personal attack on your writing or ideas. I am concerned about the neutrality, sourcing, and wording of these articles, and I will address them on each of their talk pages. I hope to be able to have a civil conversation with you and others about ways to improve these articles and to reach a consensus. Don't hesitate to reach out on my talk page or replying to this if you have any questions for me. DocZach (talk) 21:46, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do not attack other editors or canvas for specific viewpoints.

Take this as a warning and a reminder to carefully review WP:AGF, WP:NOPA, and WP:CANVASS.

You went onto the personal talk page of another editor to make personal remarks about me, characterize me based on your assumption of my views, and frame my participation as an obstacle to collaboration. This is inappropriate and a violation of Wikipedia's policies on assuming good faith and avoiding personal attacks.

Furthermore, your message appears to be an attempt to canvass support for your preferred editorial outcome by appealing to like-minded editors privately rather than continuing discussion transparently on the article’s talk page. This is especially concerning given that the current wording of the article — which you described as "begrudgingly agreed to" — was something you yourself helped propose and support on the talk page. Undermining that agreement behind the scenes while attacking another editor's character is not acceptable.

Avoid recruiting only those you agree with to respond to requests for comments, which is a violation of WP:CANVASS. Please keep future discussions focused on content, not contributors. DocZach (talk) 19:28, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DocZach I am absolutely not canvassing, and I don't appreciate the "warning" label as though you're an authority over me. I did not seek someone out at random. And I did not seek anyone out who was not already involved of their own volition, etc.

Another editor made an edit on the misinformation about abortion page. At the time, I thought it was most appropriate to revert that edit, NOT because I disagreed with it, but because I'm still learning all the rules and everything and I know there had been plenty of talk on the talk page and so I thought I had to go back to the version discussed on the talk page. And I thought they should then know why their edit was being reverted.

I have since obviously realized I maybe should've let their edit stand as you actually made the edit too early. You and I were going back and forth and said it seemed fine but I wasn't sure and wanted the opinion of the 3rd editor who had been in the conversation, and you went ahead and made the change, which I was not okay with, but shrugged my shoulders a little like well, I guess someone will fix the edit if he did change it too early. Not two people have tried to make their own edit getting rid of the minority view, so clearly the gun actually was jumped. (You even mention in one of your other posts that someone who starts a conversation like that shouldn't be the one to close it. And I think that should especially be true if you don't have actual consensus and you just have someone tentatively trying to compromise but wanting the input of others in the conversation first.

So, I agree that I shouldn't have written on their talk page, in that I shouldn't have had anything to say, because I shouldn't have reverted their edit, because they are not going against consensus as a genuine consensus has not been built.

I "helped propose" the wording because as I said, I'm still learning the rules. I thought we had to include the minority viewpoint, but I obviously misunderstood DueWeight and clearly more experienced editors understand it better. And it was extremely begrudgingly because I'm trying as hard as I possibly can to be collaborative (and to not get in trouble in this maze of wikipedia rules), but that is VERY hard when like one of the other editors pointed out, it feels like you are bludgeoning and congrats, you wore me down to tentatively being okay with certain wording that most importantly(!) I wanted reviewed by a more experienced editor first because I was not 100% sure of the rules, and it feels like you have taken advantage of that by glomming on to my tentative agreement in good faith (with the expectation that we would wait for the other editor involved to join in as I said over and over that we needed another opinion). You're acting like I signed a legal document in blood instead of gave collaboration considerations on a platform I've already admitted to still learning and wanting more expert opinions.

I have absolutely not recruited one single sole. The only thing I have done is tag editors who were already part of conversations that they had come to of their own volition, or tag editors who left a reasonable edit that got reverted because those editors - who came to the page on their own without me - deserve to be made aware of conversations involving the edits they want to make.

I very much dislike the way you framed your comment and we do not see this situation the same at all. Please don't accuse me again of things I'm not doing. But I will take the kernel of truth in this comment, and refrain from saying that I do think your participation has at points absolutely been an obstacle to collaboration and when I tried my best to collaborate with you, it feels like I gave an inch and you took a mile by acting like I have actually fully agreed to a 'consensus' that isn't one when I specifically said I wanted another set of eyes, but you ignored that part. But nonetheless, I won't again say on any talk pages how exhausting and annoying this is and I'll focus on the subject at hand InquisitiveWikipedian (talk) 19:51, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your response only reinforces the core issue: instead of addressing content in good faith, you continue to make this personal.

You’ve accused me of “bludgeoning,” of “taking advantage,” and of being “an obstacle to collaboration” — all because I pressed for clarity, sourcing, neutrality, and policy alignment. That is not collaboration, it’s character assassination. You don’t get to frame principled disagreement as abuse simply because you’re "tired of it." This behavior violates WP:NPA, WP:AGF, and borders on WP:BATTLEGROUND.

It is also concerning how you elevate the voices of certain editors as if they are authoritative “experts,” while undermining and dismissing my contributions as those from an "anti-abortion advocate," an assumption you made about myself on another editor's talk page. Wikipedia doesn’t operate on hierarchy or popularity contests. We operate based on verifiability, due weight, and consensus — not majorities or your "exhaustion."

You’ve also admitted you “begrudgingly” agreed to the language — yet now claim I exploited you by implementing what you yourself proposed and supported. That is not how collaboration works. You don’t get to reverse positions, vilify editors, and then deflect by citing that you are new and don't know much about Wikipedia yet.

Wikipedia is not here to protect anyone’s comfort at the expense of neutrality. I am concerned that you are editing articles in a way that exerts your personal opinion, but unlike you, I will address my concerns with you directly instead of talking behind your back on another editor's page. DocZach (talk) 20:03, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DocZach I did begrudgingly and most importantly *tentatively* say it *seems* okay to me. That's my exact quote "seems okay to me, but I would also want Avatar317's opinion" (emphasis mine here). I guess lesson learned that I need to be EXTREMELY careful how I phrase things, because I did not (and still do not) think that saying it seems okay but I want the 3rd editors opinion means I am absolutely agreeing 100% that this should be the accepted wording and go in the article.

And I walked right into it. With the way you ran with it, I just kind of assumed it was consensus, not taking a beat to be like 'what a second, I did not actually fully agree to this. This is not consensus. Why am I accepting something I did not actually fully agree to, but instead was just discussing the possibility of?'

And those mistakes I made, those are lessons I'm learning, in part, because I'm not as experienced as the other editors in our conversation. So, it is reasonable for me to look to people with longer histories who are indeed more expert at Wikipedia than I am while I continue to learn lessons here. I don't believe I elevate the voices of certain editors, but I do learn (as I should!) from people with tens of thousands of edits who better know how to handle things than I do.

You keep saying I "proposed and supported" the wording but that is misrepresenting(!) my position. YOU proposed changing it and I was ideating ideas that might be okay. I TENTATIVELY said it seems fine but that I wanted another involved editor's opinion before actually agreeing. The fact that you a) ran with it and somehow convinced me it was consensus when it definitely wasn't and basically closed out that conversation by implementing the edit when you yourself in a discussion on the abortion page said people who bring up topics shouldn't be the one to close them out and b) continually misrepresent me as either fully being in support of something (which did not happen) and going back on it and/or fully being in alignment/consensus with you (which I never have been) to me is not being fair in, whatever way you think is most appropriate to state its unfairness, since you don't like any of the phrases you've put in all your very many scare quotes above (acting like you are the reasonable one when if you don't like how I'm treating you, well, you are treating me the exact same way).

It was a different editor who originally suggested bludgeoning and linked to the wiki page about it, and the page explaining it did seem appropriate to me to talk about your behavior on the talk page. But it's not a hill I'm willing to die on whether you were or weren't. That part really doesn't matter to me. Maybe you were, maybe you weren't. You contend you weren't. So, fine. I just want to move on.

I am not editing articles in a way that exerts my personal opinion. I'm editing articles in line with the prevailing science. I disagree that I was "talking behind your back." I think I was explaining to an editor why their edit was being reverted but I've already agreed to take care to not talk about you in a way that can be construed as negative about you on someone's talk page, so I don't know what else you want.

You want to be respected. So do I. Let's just move on and get back to work, please, if that's fine by you. InquisitiveWikipedian (talk) 20:26, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up that I'm not done! :-)

Hey there! I see you're working on one of my draft articles right now. I know you started when it was up for AfC (and it was rejected), and that anyone can edit on Wikipedia. So, I'm not meaning to stop you. But I just wanted you to know I'm not ready to resubmit yet. I'm still finding more reliable sources and I'm still finessing some sections. So, you can keep going if you want, but just know this isn't like what I'm meaning to present to the world yet! Wikipedian339 (talk) 23:13, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikipedian339 Totally! If you want me to stop right now, I will. I just ended up wading into some contentious articles lately and my brain needed a bit of a break. So, I just picked something non-controversial from my watchlist (which this was still on from as you mention when I saw it in AfC) to do tiny spelling/grammar/etc. stuff, for a little relaxed Wikipedia wind-down. But if you don't want me to touch it yet until you resubmit it, I'm completely fine to wait! InquisitiveWikipedian (talk) 23:15, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@InquisitiveWikipedian You don't have to wait! I actually appreciate the fresh eyes. I just wanted to let you know if you see a section half done, or other issues, it's still in progress and I'm working on it. But if you want to refine simple things, it's all good with me (and I know you don't even actually need my permission either way!) Wikipedian339 (talk) 23:19, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I'll move forward lightly with just some basic grammar/spelling/etc that I've noticed, but I won't make any giant changes or anything. And if you change your mind, let me know. I don't want to crowd your space! Have a good night InquisitiveWikipedian (talk) 23:21, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]