Hello Sixonline and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your contributions, such as the ones to Sharron Davies, do not conform to our policies. For more information on this, see Wikipedia's policies on vandalism and limits on acceptable additions. If you'd like to experiment with the wiki's syntax, please do so in the sandbox (but beware that the contents of the sandbox are deleted frequently) rather than in articles.

If you still have questions, there is a Help desk, or you can click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia.

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

I hope you enjoy editing and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! Eagleash (talk) 17:53, 25 February 2022 (UTC) Eagleash (talk) 17:53, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove referenced content without providing a fuller explanation, add unreferenced content to a WP:BLP or add WP:OR. Thank you. It seems all your contributions have been to Davies's article; if you have any sort of connection to her, you *must* read WP:COI and maake the necessary declarations. This is not a reflection upon any individual editor but just one of the ways in which Wikipedia tries to ensure neutralty. Eagleash (talk) 17:53, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for being some issues to my attention. I have read the rules as suggested which will now allow me to make the changes to the Sharron Davies Wikipedia page which is both factually incorrect and misleading. Sixonline (talk) 06:13, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits to Sharron Davies could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content, not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 20:05, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to contact Wikipedia to discuss the issues but receive generic responses. I have spent a lot of time doing the research and have provided citations etc but constant defamatory content against a person is wrong and should not be allowed. I will now attempt the dispute resolution process Sixonline (talk) 03:22, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot remove information supported by reliable sources and replace it with unreferenced opinion &/or original research. Restoring your version of a page after it has been reverted and an explanation provded is edit-warring and can lead to the loss of editng privileges. Follow WP:BRD. You say you intend to, but it is not clear whether you have done so. Davies's children are non-notable; I.e.they have no Wikipedia article and the conventionn is that their names are not included.

It also seems very much like you have some sort of connection to Davies and therefore WP:COI must be complied with and it is requested that you do not edit the page further until you have clarified this aspect. Please feel free to make edit request via the article talk page. Please see WP:Edit request for how to proceed in this respect. Via the talk page you can also provde an explanation as to what you find 'defamatory' and what (and why) you think it is 'hearsay'. Eagleash (talk) 16:30, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please do not edit the page directly until you have clarified the position with regard to COI. Edits made otherwise may be challenged or remeoved. Eagleash (talk) 12:14, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do NOT know this person. I follow her on Twitter & Instagram, and taking an interest making sure the content is consistent, true/accurate and protects the person from people writing fake news or relating to the transgender debate only generically and not infringing on any persons legal rights. I will continue to edit the page to protect the content, as I have now explained. Sixonline (talk) 03:18, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See your edit above where you acknowledged WP:COI applied to you (here), saying Thank you for being some issues to my attention. I have read the rules as suggested which will now allow me to make the changes to the Sharron Davies Wikipedia page which is both factually incorrect and misleading. Also you have added information to the article that gives the appearance of personal knowledge, such as the number of rounds of IVF the subject had, the exact number of surgeries she has had, the exact number of Olympics she has covered in her presenting career, her children's info including their names/schools/scholarships/level of athletic competition achieved (diff). You have essentially edited no other article (except this).

Your first edit was adding her new fitness website, saying without any reference that she "has more than 40 years of elite-level training and competing in the world’s biggest competitions, and she knows what’s required to help people get a better quality of life through regular exercise and diet." You have also gone to some lengths to remove any criticism of her like this.

Then we have the edits summaries such as this and vandalism like this. Solipsism 101 (talk) 19:42, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have made myself clear, and have you heard of email, Twitter etc? I will not continue this dialog with you Solipsism 101. I've made my position clear and you need to ensure that you have accurate information. Which is what I have added. I have performed no vandalism like you did but I had put in the wrong place which has now been resolved Sixonline (talk) 01:18, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war, according to the reverts you've made to Sharron Davies. This means that you are repeatedly reverting content back to how you think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree. Once it is known that there is a disagreement, users are expected to collaborate with others, avoid editing disruptively, and try to reach a consensus – rather than repeatedly reverting the changes made by other users.

Important points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive behavior – regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not engage in edit warring – even if you believe that you are right.

You need to discuss the disagreement on the article's talk page and work towards a revision that represents consensus among everyone involved. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution if discussions reach an impasse. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to engage in edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. tony 20:11, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I course corrected this article in 2022. I am simply doing the same today, as I was not aware that the page had wandered so far off course. Rather than undoing the hard work I have put in, read my statements on the talk page. And feel free to give feedback, or make suggestions. Sixonline (talk) 20:31, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Sharron Davies. Plasticwonder (Cat got your tongue?) 20:17, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I course corrected this article in 2022. I am simply doing the same today, as I was not aware that the page had wandered so far off course. Rather than undoing the hard work I have put in, read my statements on the talk page. And feel free to give feedback, or make suggestions. Sixonline (talk) 20:31, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You do know that editing your own wikipedia article without declaring a COI ahead of time is a bannable offense, right? Snokalok (talk) 20:34, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have any conflict of interest thank you. I simply wanted to course correct the page which has drifted off course into a negative narrative. The edits were to make the content neutral. And when you three weren't happy I course corrected on the article by including the two viewpoints in a neutral manner as possible. Watching a woman on TV, reading her articles and judging interaction along with actual fairness, what is the problem ?

Advocacy for Women's Rights

Sharron Davies defines her position as a defense of sex-based rights, arguing that her activism is rooted in the pursuit of fairness, safety, and equal opportunity for biological women. She maintains that the physiological advantages gained during male puberty—such as increased bone density and lung capacity—create an unbridgeable performance gap that necessitates sex-segregated categories to ensure women can compete on a level playing field. Drawing on her own experience of losing an Olympic gold medal to state-sponsored doping, Davies advocates for the creation of "Open" categories to include all athletes while preserving the female category as a protected space. She views the retention of single-sex facilities and sports as essential for upholding the legal status and physical privacy of women and girls.

Criticisms and Allegations of Transphobia

Conversely, critics and LGBTQ+ advocacy groups argue that Davies’ rhetoric and campaigns are transphobic, claiming her efforts contribute to the marginalization and exclusion of transgender women from public life. They contend that her framing of drag as an "insulting mockery" and her opposition to transgender inclusion in sports deny the validity of trans identities and fuel a hostile social climate. Organizations like Stonewall and various human rights activists suggest that her focus on biological sex over gender identity serves to erase trans women from female spaces, which they view as a form of discrimination. From this perspective, her activism is seen not as a neutral defense of rights, but as a concerted effort to restrict the participation and acceptance of a vulnerable minority group. Sixonline (talk) 20:46, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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:Sixonline reported by User:TonySt (Result: ). Thank you. tony 20:23, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I course corrected this article in 2022. I am simply doing the same today, as I was not aware that the page had wandered so far off course. Rather than undoing the hard work I have put in, read my statements on the talk page. And feel free to give feedback, or make suggestions. Sixonline (talk) 20:31, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even if we take you at your word from back then that you don't have a COI, pretty much everyone who edit wars thinks the version they are reverting to is the "correct" version. Being right is not an exemption. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:39, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The whole idea of me making those edits were to show that it had drifted away from being neutral - the argument on this page has become one sided. I spent a long time researching this woman, and found that it is wrong the way she has been portrayed. I made adjustments in 2022 to backlash but at least we course corrected. I did not delete anything from the page. I re-organised the content, especially when the one argument has two sides Advocacy for Women's Rights and Criticisms and Allegations of Transphobia. Two truths can exist. Once I made the edits, someone rolled them back, so I explained on the talk page my reasons. I did not enter any war with the three, but they did gang up on me and reported me when I do not believe I have done anything wrong. I even invited feedback, and suggested they could edit. But wiki is about fact, not fiction, or any individual point of view.

I am not saying I am right, or saying a delcared LGBT activist are right! I simply seperated the content into new headings, and I was accused of changing the point of view, which was not my intention. I therefore course corrected and added BOTH points of view. The work was then sabotaged by multiple individuals - who were all having hissy fits at the edits, rather than explain why they didn't like the format. They suggested I go on the talk page, which I did and explained why. Sixonline (talk) 20:43, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your response here is still trying to justify your reverts, which is missing the point. Yes, you went to the talk page. But you still continued to revert. The point there was to stop reverting, try to come to a consensus, and only then make the relevant changes to the article. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:50, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This has been blown out of proportion. I simply wanted to show both viewpoints. But the wokewarriors kept undoing my work rather than discussing why they were reverting. If they had wanted an amicable solution they would have explained why they didnt want both viewpoints on there. And when I was trying to make further edits ie. to add references, they had undone my work again. Having this page very one sided shouldnt be allowed. If Womens Rights Vs Transgender rights cannot both be highlighted, the trans stuff should be removed. Sixonline (talk) 20:56, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The edit warring was the main thing that got you blocked, at least as I see it. People have been blocked for edit warring over much more trivial things than this. TornadoLGS (talk) 21:09, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain pages (Sharron Davies) for abuse of editing privileges.

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 ~~~~}}.  Mfield (Oi!) 20:29, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear from your single purpose account edit history that you are either the subject themselves or someone with a more than passing connection to them. Your edits further demonstrate an inability to edit the article in a neutral manner, and the removal of cited criticism, and choice of POV terminology further support that assessment. From now on you will need to bring any edits you wish on the article talk page and let other editors decide if they merit inclusion. Mfield (Oi!) 20:34, 17 December 2025 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

The whole idea of me making those edits were to show that it had drifted away from being neutral - the argument on this page has become one sided. I spent a long time researching this woman, and found that it is wrong the way she has been portrayed. I made adjustments in 2022 to backlash but at least we course corrected. I did not delete anything from the page. I re-organised the content, especially when the one argument has two sides Advocacy for Women's Rights and Criticisms and Allegations of Transphobia. Two truths can exist. Once I made the edits, someone rolled them back, so I explained on the talk page my reasons. I did not enter any war with the three, but they did gang up on me and reported me when I do not believe I have done anything wrong. I even invited feedback, and suggested they could edit. But wiki is about fact, not fiction, or any individual point of view. Sixonline (talk) 20:39, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You've provided no reason to restore your access to the article. You are free to use the talk page to propose formal edit requests(click for instructions) or otherwise discuss your concerns. 331dot (talk) 22:03, 17 December 2025 (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.

is closed. User has an open unblock request here, and even if not, we wouldn't consider a request like that. --Yamla (talk) 21:00, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, 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 an expanded level of powers and discretion 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 practices;
• 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. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

You have recently made edits related to living or recently deceased subjects of biographical content on Wikipedia articles. This is a standard message to inform you that living or recently deceased subjects of biographical content on Wikipedia articles is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:07, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]