The bulk update request #5432 has been rejected.

create alias food_theft (13) -> stealing_food (0)
create implication stealing_food (0) -> stealing (1316)
create implication stealing_food (0) -> food (155072)

Reason: Self explanatory

EDIT: The bulk update request #5432 (forum #374942) has been rejected by @slyroon.

Food_theft shouldn't change since it matches the naming conventions of other things being stolen. If anything 'stealing' should be changed to 'theft'

The bulk update request #5432 (forum #374942) has been rejected by @slyroon.

The bulk update request #6777 is pending approval.

remove alias steal (0) -> stealing (1316)
remove alias theft (0) -> stealing (1316)
remove implication clothing_theft (517) -> stealing (1316)

Reason: Followup:
imply clothing_theft -> theft
alias stealing -> theft
alias steal -> theft
imply food_theft -> theft

Stealing as the tag name was decided without discussion, renaming to fit the *_theft line

Also leaving out food_theft -> food as I believe food_theft can be displayed without showing food directly (though by that logic, clothing_theft can be depicted like such too)

A little confusing, but the thread of logic seems to be that you need to make the implications run in a specific configuration to work, right.
So:
clothing_theft or food_theft -> theft from implication
stealing or steal -> theft from alias
You do NOT want food_theft implying stealing which is then aliased to theft. It breaks the chain, right?

Hmm, so reversing the direction of theft <-> stealing, too?