User talk:Fdom5997

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is Fdom5997's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Add new text under old text.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Start a new topic

Archives: 1: 3 months

3RR warning

To go through the motions, I'm formally warning you before reporting you for 3RR.

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing a page's content back to how you believe it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree with your changes. Please stop editing the page and use the talk page to work toward creating a version of the page that represents consensus among the editors involved. Wikipedia provides a page explaining how this is accomplished. If discussions reach an impasse, you can request help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution such as a third opinion. In some cases, you may wish to request page protection while a discussion to resolve the dispute is ongoing.

If you continue edit warring, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, or whether it involves the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also, please keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule— if things indicate that you intend to continue reverting content on the page. — kwami (talk) 21:37, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

hold the horses

I would disagree with this characterization. Of the 5 other people (besides yourself) currently involved in the discussion, 4 of them (including myself) have suggested that there must be a clear and maintained distinction between phonemic and phonetic charts, and the 5th has suggested only calling them phonetic charts. Consensus certainly has not been reached yet, and essentially everyone has asked you to stop warring over this until the discussion has reached a settled point, including an uninvolved third party on AN/I. You just picked up on one person's comment and immediately started running with it, which they themselves then asked you to stop warring. I appreciate that you have been keeping (most of) your comments in a more civil tone, but please be more patient with the process; you are jumping the gun. ~ oklopfer (💬) 22:16, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Well so far I need to read all of them and better comprehend what they said, TLDR. Fdom5997 (talk) 22:18, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

I also strongly suggest ceasing interaction with kwami wherever possible, as you both get at each others' throats very quickly, and it makes it difficult for others to come in to try to cool things down. From my perspective, it is getting fairly close to the need for an WP:IBAN between each other, which puts an unfortunate blocker on constructiveness. ~ oklopfer (💬) 22:22, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

User talk page conduct

Please read and understand WP:DRRC and WP:REMOVED for guidance on editor expectations on others' user talk pages. Van Isaac, GHTV^contr_about 22:36, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

December 2025

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for incivility and hounding following an ANI report.

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 ~~~~}}. — Wug·a·po·des 07:24, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

I concur with this block. Your behavior is completely out of line with our conduct policies. That, combined with a demonstrated unwillingness to modify your behavior shows you are incompatible with this community. Thus, a temporary block will not be useful. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:59, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Block appeal

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).

Fdom5997 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

Request reason:

I personally feel that this block is not justified (not just for me but for any other overall good-faith editor). For one of the reasons being that I am aware that I was wrong in my obsessive and persistent reverts of changes to articles, edit-wars, hounding and incivility. For that I sincerely apologize and will do as much as I can to work on not persistently reverting other edits (unless they are vandalisms or unsourced info or evidently factually wrong) or engaging in edit-wars and instead use talk pages, provided that I explain myself in a civil manner without any vicious attacks towards other users, and not resort to edit-warring and hounding as well. I hope that it does not seem too soon or too late for me to already address my flawed behavior, but as of now, I have spent the past days doing so. All of the edits that I intend to publish and have published before, truly are in good-faith from me, despite the amount of times that I do and did mess up in my constant stubbornness, reverts, edit-warring, hounding and incivility. But for the record, all the times that I did engage in all of those bad behaviors, and even went out of my way to try to force my interpretations on others, eventually I did concede to them (the other users), and realized that they were correct and I then saw the light. So for that, I am open to improvement, criticism and addressing my errors as well. I am aware that I truly messed up while I was still working on trying to pass consensus regarding my proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Languages/Linguistics to include *some* allophones in phonological charts across the various language phonology sections on each page. I was quite a bit impatient, and truly should have waited until everything was settled, case in point: these revisions and . Not to mention but in three of the cases that I was reported on (specifically in August 2025 between me, and users Timthemanofficial and Manaaki teatuareo), these were instances where these two users were changing up and altering the information in the articles and replacing it with either unsourced info that was not proven to be correct according to any citation, or information based on non-reliable sources (in the case of Manaaki teatuareo). That being said, I still may have resorted to incivility, hounding and obsessive-reverts of edits and edit-warring, to which I do take back and will continue to work on moving forward. I understand how it is important that I break those habits, and am open in the future on anything I can do to improve myself and my behavior, and try to prevent my bad behavior from coming back. I have also been diagnosed with an obsessive-compulsive disorder, and overall struggle with mental health (specifically with a general anxiety/depression disorder). A lot of times, that tends to get in the way of how I function properly in my day-to-day life. But I always try to overcome and advocate for myself, and try to not to let my disability get the best of me as an individual. And one of those ways, is embracing my hobby here, which is making notable contributions to the site and to the project, regarding publishing info regarding languages across each page. Over the past 8 years that I have been editing on Wikipedia, I do admit that I have had several quarrels with other users, but overall, I have been able to work things out with other users by hearing them out, engaging in discussion and debate, listening to their ideas and any other information they cite from other sources, and vice-versa. And in a lot of cases, I was wrong and they were right. Some of them even proved to me that the information that I cited, was not correctly cited from the source that I used, or that some of the info was even left out from the sources I used. In many cases I actually did do the right thing and did use a talk-page in order to strike a discussion that I felt was necessary. And I am also for the most part, truly open to any substantive or constructive criticisms, discussions or differing views regarding any of my edits. I deeply feel that overall my edits have been very productive and good-faith and I have worked incredibly hard in order to search for reliable sources from all across the internet and even access and receive sources from beyond and from distant libraries or from authors themselves. I feel that I have made great contributions to all the language pages that I have edited all across the site, especially regarding the phonology sections and I would surely continue to provide productive edits to add to each article-section. As a linguistics/anthropology major myself, I am aware that phonology may not be the *only* significant factor of linguistics, but I do feel that it is a key first-step in understanding the basic fundamentals of any language whether it be existing, endangered, revitalized or extinct. The main reason why I want to be a part of this project is sincerely because I want to improve the site, and to improve the language pages and information, and make sure that they are properly cited with good sources as well. I am also open to other solutions, if there exists information published with conflicting information per another source, or more than one source as well. Maybe I still have my flaws in my behavior and differing opinions, but my objective is still the same as any other user or editor on here, especially in making the information published and displayed, accurate, and also be easily legible, understandable and comprehensive for any other viewers or readers, or users out there. I have a deep and sincere compassion for human-rights causes all across the world regarding any identity or background. If you look at my user-page you will see exactly what causes I stand by and for, by taking a look at all the userboxes that I have labeled across my page. And for the record, I do not just simply have them all there just for that purpose alone. I sincerely stand by each and every one of them, or at least strive to do so. Every human being deserves love, justice and prosperity regardless of their race, color, ethnicity, faith, culture, immigration, identity, gender/sex, sexuality, size/height/weight, disability or age. For that I have a deep passion and compassion for any language or culture, and deeply, sincerely believe that every language, race, ethnicity and culture is sacred, and must be nurtured and aided in order to preserve and embrace it. However; with all of that said, I am still aware that I have been a bit uncivil and ruthless at times, but deep inside, it may truly stem from my passion for publishing the correct information, as well as for cultural/linguistic awareness in human language and human cultures. I truly hope that I made myself clear here. As fellow users across the site, we may all tend to resort to *some* incivility towards other users (or especially IPs) to one way or another, if we are truly passionate about what we believe and the info we cite, but I do sincerely believe that it is important to acknowledge those flaws, be open to self-improvement and criticism, and do whatever you can to be able to improve your behavior. I may still have my views and opinions, as many other users have theirs (often in contrast and opposition with mine), but I am open to try to improve myself in order to have a healthy debate, and a healthy discussion. Please let me know your feedback, and I truly hope that this indefinite block can be overturned. If it is, from then on, I promise to find different ways that I could combat my stubbornness and toxic behavior, rather than harass, edit-war or resort to incivility. Fdom5997 (talk) 01:45, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Procedural decline. This WP:WALLOFTEXT is well over 1300 words long. It's much, much too long. Yamla (talk) 10:40, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

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.

Fdom5997 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

Request reason:

I personally feel that this block is not justified (not just for me but for any other overall good-faith editor). For that said, one of the reasons being that I am aware that I was wrong in my obsessive and persistent reverts of changes to articles, edit-wars, hounding and incivility. For that I sincerely apologize and will do as much as I can to work on not persistently reverting other edits (unless they are vandalisms or unsourced info or evidently factually wrong) or engaging in edit-wars and instead use talk pages, provided that I explain myself in a civil manner without any vicious attacks towards other users, and not resort to edit-warring and hounding as well. I have been an active editor on here for 8 years, and despite my bad behavior and quarrels, I deeply feel that overall my edits have been very productive and good-faith and I have worked incredibly hard in order to search for reliable sources from all across the internet and even access and receive sources from beyond and from distant libraries or from authors themselves. I feel that I have made great contributions to all the language pages that I have edited all across the site, especially regarding the phonology sections and I would surely continue to provide productive edits to add to each article-section. For the record, I am a linguistics/anthropology major myself. The main reason why I want to be a part of this project is sincerely because I want to improve the site, and to improve the language pages and information, and make sure that they are properly cited with good sources as well. I am aware that I truly messed up while I was still working on trying to pass consensus regarding my proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Languages/Linguistics to include *some* allophones in phonological charts across the various language phonology sections on each page. I was very convinced that my proposal was a fair deal, so I was quite a bit impatient, and truly should have waited until everything was settled. But for that, it would be very appreciated if I could still some way get some slack, and have my block shortened. I truly hope that this indefinite block can be overturned, and if it is, from then on, I promise to find different ways that I could combat my stubbornness and toxic behavior, rather than harass, edit-war or resort to incivility, specifically by using talk pages, instead of this bad behavior I did not intend to mentally or verbally harm anyone that was engaged in my quarrel, I was just speaking from an incredibly passionate (but yet rather impatient and stubborn) standpoint. If anyone else could let me know of anything else I could improve on, or even ask any questions, please let me know. Thanks. Fdom5997 (talk) 09:12, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Looking at the WP:ANI thread, I disagree with you, I think the block is justified. I think you need a break from editing linguistic articles. I suggest re-applying in 6 months time, and even then a topic ban on linguistic articles would probably be needed. PhilKnight (talk) 11:12, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Fdom5997 (talk) 09:12, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I've reinstated your first appeal, please note that the template explains you cannot remove declined appeals whilst you block remains in place. Blue Sonnet (talk) 18:02, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

ok got that. Fdom5997 (talk) 21:24, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

UTRS appeal #109705 was a word for word copy of the above unblock request, which has already been dealt with. Please don't waste administrators' time in that way. You may find it helpful to read WP:ADMINSHOP. JBW (talk) 02:11, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

@EducatedRedneck, JBW, PhilKnight, Wug·a·po·des I’m sorry, but I do genuinely think this is an incredibly harsh and unjust action against me here. Like I stated before, most of what I have contributed to the Wiki project has been very useful and productive and most of all, in good-faith (including some of my reverts). Don’t believe me? Then take a look at all of my other edits, prior to the changes to the Chungli Ao language at around the past mid-November, where the major conflicts started happening. Yes I do admit that I was impatient and reverted a lot and all of that, but for the record, in order for me to be able to appeal my block, it must be said that there are other sides to who I was arguing with. Which is that I still see the exact same behavior (possibly worse) from Kwamikagami, who had both @Oklopfer’s and another TA's cited edits reverted in the Shawi Arabic page, as well the other cited edit from a TA in the Choni page.

Diffs shown here

Another incident with Kwami happened back in the previous ANI thread before I was blocked in December where I was referred to as a “psychopath”.

Is it me, or does it seem like this is pure ownership and bad-faith behavior coming from Kwami, who is currently doing the same behavior that he accused me of doing, and then further had me blocked for?

I don't know, but something is seriously, genuinely wrong in regards to the behavior on Kwami's end. Perhaps he was responsible for initiating the bad-faith-edit arguments about a month ago, just in order for me to object and try to make my case, only then to have me blocked.

Fdom5997 (talk) 02:23, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

I do genuinely think this is an incredibly harsh and unjust action against me here This is a problem. You were blocked for a reason, and if you cannot see or understand how this is an appropriate response, it seems unlikely that you will be able to change the problem behavior. Most of this post sounds like WP:NOTTHEM, which won't help your unblock. Specifically, You are blocked because of what you did, not because of what others did. (emphasis original)

Kwami's actions do not seem like ownership or bad faith from Kwami to me; it seems like upholding community consensus. Note that I don't recall you being accused of bad faith; it's easy to believe that you honestly were doing what you thought was best for the project, just happened to be mistaken in what that was.

Speaking only for myself, I think your unblock would be much more convincing if you identified why you had been uncivil and hounding, and what steps you will or have taken to prevent that in the future. "I was hounding. Now I won't hound." is not terribly convincing, especially when then undermined by "but others behaved badly, too" at the end. EducatedRedneck (talk) 13:43, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

No, of course I see what I did and I understand why I was blocked for it, and of course it’s not the fault of other users for my actions alone. The reason why I was uncivil and hounding was because I genuinely felt/feel that what I was publishing was purely in good-faith, and not at all worth deleting or undoing to “withhold consensus”, and yet way too many users were objecting to me, and further slandering false information that I “didn’t know the difference between allophones and phonemes” shown here]. Not to mention that what I was publishing wasn’t even necessarily “wrong”, but “not normally shown”, according to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Linguistics/Phonetics/Phonology template itself. Sure there have been many times where I was wrong or vague in what I published, but I truly feel that this wasn’t necessarily it here. It’s also likely possible that I was being hounded after my edits done to these same language pages here and here back in December. But as per my behavior towards it, I do know that what I did was wrong, and I genuinely want to try to change that behavior and not resort back to it, if unblocked. But what I meant to say was that the penalty, or being blocked for more than 1-2 months (or even 6 months to a year) is what’s incredibly harsh.

On the other hand, as I was also wrong, both me (or anyone else) should still be allowed to point out the actions of other users (like Kwami) too, and not just give a one-sided narrative. Just because I point out the behavior of other editors in these incidents, does not at all mean that I am dismissing or undermining my own. Why are you constantly defending his actions and assuming him in good faith, as opposed to me? I just provided you with examples of how he was very likely acting in bad-faith. You claiming he was just “upholding community consensus” sounds like you’re assuming nothing but good-faith only for everything he does, as opposed to what any other editor does. Which seems pretty one-sided. Fdom5997 (talk) 20:01, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

You ask, Why are you constantly defending his actions and assuming him in good faith, as opposed to me? Yet above did I not write, Note that I don't recall you being accused of bad faith; it's easy to believe that you honestly were doing what you thought was best for the project, just happened to be mistaken in what that was.? Good faith doesn't mean right action. It only means the intent to improve the encyclopedia, which I believe everyone here had.

Also, when you talk about your edits being "wrong" or not, that's not the problem. People are allowed to be wrong on the internet. Editors disagree all the time. That's okay. You weren't blocked because the community thinks your wrong on linguistics. You were blocked because you edited against consensus. Put another way: there are two ways to drive on a road, on the left side or the right side. Let's say the left side objectively better, but the law of the land requires us to drive on the right. If you try to do the "correct" thing and drive on the left, you're quickly going to be relieved of the ability to drive, and for good reason. The left side might be better off for everyone, but when the rest of the country drives on the right, you'd cause chaos by driving on the left.

Now, while I think it contributed, that editing against consensus wasn't listed as a reason for the block. What was listed was personal attacks and harassment. So here's a question: Your block log shows that you were blocked for the same reasons three times before now, first for 2 days, then a 2 week p-block, then a 1-week site block. Why do you think you didn't change after those blocks, and what's different now? EducatedRedneck (talk) 20:12, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

They'll also probably need to address this. Blue Sonnet (talk) 20:49, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, @Fdom5997:, could you talk more about the SPI I linked below and the allegations of loutsocking / block evasion? – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 21:12, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

I will admit that some of those suspected SPs were me, but my intention was strictly in reverting any misinformation, and also adding any information that had not been added previously. Although I do admit a few of them were me, I sincerely hope it doesn't affect my block-appeal here, and the reason I did it was to try to make good-faith contributions, even while I was blocked. I still also am a bit frustrated, and I firmly believe that an indefinite or long-block is quite beyond what I deserve, considering all I have done that was good for the site in the last 8 years. Fdom5997 (talk) 22:33, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Block evasion is taken very seriously, it's a breach of trust as well as Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

I don't think your appeal will be successful because you chose to evade your block on repeated occasions with several temporary accounts ("...some of those suspected SP's were me"). You're experienced enough to be fully aware that you were evading your block by doing this, honestly you should have known better.

You've unfortunately shot yourself in the foot pretty badly here and should look into the Wikipedia:Standard offer as the most likely outcome. Blue Sonnet (talk) 00:02, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

I’m just saying that this whole indefinite block of me here, is BS. I would say a 1-2 month block should be enough. But this is just incredibly harsh, and unfortunately, there can easily be desperation from anyone else if they were harshly blocked like this. I have made great contributions to this site, and nobody sees it. Give me a break. How they have treated me here is just massively unfair. Especially since there has also been pure bad-faith acting from one of those other users involved (committing the same actions as me if not worse) that is going completely unnoticed. I will not fall for this. Fdom5997 (talk) 01:03, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Indefinite is not infinite - three prior time-limited blocks were unsuccessful, so this is a strong indication that giving you a fourth time-limited block wouldn't change anything.

This is why you were given an indefinite block, which can be lifted at any time if an admin feels that you won't continue to cause problems. Indefinite blocks can even be lifted immediately, although this is extremely unusual.

I want to again reiterate that the problem wasn't necessarily what you were doing, but how you were doing it. Creating good articles isn't a get-out-of-jail-free card if you're causing problems for other editors while you're doing it.

Being right isn't enough, this project has hundreds of thousands of editors working on millions of articles - if we don't work together, Wikipedia literally cannot function.

I won't discuss the actions of other editors because your Talk page should only be used for discussing your block, but Wikipedia:NOTTHEM will give you more context if you wish. Blue Sonnet (talk) 03:05, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

@EducatedRedneck I'm sorry, but I do not think that editing "against the consensus" should be considered what is wrong. Using your argument, does that mean we should not be listening to any of the guidelines or publish info based of proven and well-cited information? Why should the consensus have to determine what is right? They could easily all be wrong too. So I respectfully disagree. What does matter is what is proven right as per the sources and also the Wiki guidelines. But to be clear, none of that was why I was blocked. It was in regards to my behavior and attacks, harrassment, etc.

But anyway, to answer the question, I didn't change after those blocks in that I was still too impatient and still resorting to reverting edits, when I didn't know that the rule is to only use a talk page whenever there is a conflict (even if I felt it was a bit time-consuming) and not revert at all, unless it is strictly unsourced or vandalized info. I now know that I should only use a talk page, and I also now just figured out that I can even use a notebook in my phone to keep track and write down which pages I want to discuss. Fdom5997 (talk) 22:21, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

What you described is pretty much the opposite of what I said. I'll keep it short and simple: you edited against consensus. That's bad. All editors, even if they think consensus is wrong, must not edit against consensus. Otherwise, it's all chaos. As for the rest, it sounds like you're on the right track. EducatedRedneck (talk) 22:50, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Well then what is the point of having works cited then, if consensus is what matters so much? Why should a group of people need to dictate how information is published, let alone being accurate? So then, what if we *know* that a consensus is wrong, based on a cited source of information? Does that mean we need to still obey them (the consensus)? “Even if we [know] they are wrong”. I’m sorry, but using this logic, you could use this “consensus” argument for anything then. I would think that as an editor, accuracy and legibility should be what matters the most. Not politicizing how the info should be published. Just my two cents. Fdom5997 (talk) 01:07, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

what if we *know* that a consensus is wrong then we follow consensus. The point of citing works is so readers (and other editors) can verify that something is indeed reported thus by reliable sources. The thing is, Wikipedia is not about truth. It's about verifiability and editorial judgement of which sources to use. Editorial judgement comes from consensus.

And you're right; if the consensus was to only use Robert F Kennedy Jr. as the source for information about vaccines, it'd be totally wrong, AND people would be required to follow it. You can try to change consensus, but you can't just ignore it. Put another way, imagine if everyone thought it was okay to ignore consensus. You'd have flat-earthers constantly edit warring over Earth, conspiracy theorists trashing articles of every type, all because they were certain they were correct. It's the same reason why soldiers are required to obey orders, even bad orders: the alternative is anarchy that costs far more than getting it wrong just a few times.

And, at the end of the day... what you think is nice, but it doesn't matter in this case. WP:Wikipedia is a social club. You can dislike the rules, but if you don't obey them, you don't get to participate. The fact that you broke them not just leading up to your block, but after it, gives the appearance that an indefinite block was correct. Regardless of your intent, the appearance is that time-limited blocks, and now this indefinite block, weren't enough to induce you to obey the rules.

WP:Indefinite is not infinite, it just means you have to convince an admin to be unblocked (which often happens sooner than 1-2 months). The WP:LOUTSOCKing mentioned above will have severely eroded the community's trust in you. I wouldn't expect to be unblocked soon; the WP:Standard offer is probably your best bet. Edit a different project for six months, productively, to show you can be trusted, then come back and request an unblock. If you stay out of trouble and do some good somewhere else, it's likely you'll be unblocked here. Short of that, I think you're out of options. Even if you have a come to Jesus moment, the damage has been done. Time to cut your losses and build a record somewhere else. EducatedRedneck (talk) 02:18, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Fdom5997 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

Request reason:

The following request was written through the unblock wizard.

Can you explain, in your own words, what you were blocked for?

For obsessive and persistent reverts of changes to articles, edit-wars, hounding and incivility.

If unblocked, what edits would you make and what (if applicable) would you do differently?

I would make much more constructive and productive edits, address myself and my views in a civil manner without edit-warring or hounding, and at least use a talk page instead.

Is there anything else that may be helpful to your unblock request?

Most of what I have contributed to the Wiki project in the last 8 years, has been very useful and productive and most of all, in good-faith (including some of my reverts). Yes I do admit that I messed up, and was impatient and reverted a lot and all of that, but also for the record, in order for me to be able to appeal my block, it must be said that there are other sides to who I was arguing with.

Fdom5997 (talk) 08:40, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Recent block evasion is a non-starter. If you want to take the standard offer, you will need to wait at least another six months. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:57, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Note to any patrolling admins considering this unblock request: see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fdom5997 – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 14:53, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Blocked for sockpuppetry

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fdom5997. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Giraffer (talk) 14:22, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Well, that was foolish. You can appeal in six months per WP:SO. Giraffer (talk) 14:24, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

@Giraffer After hilariously coming onto my user talk page, telling me they weren't a sock puppet, and getting blocked only a few minutes later. Then have now decided to go cross-wiki! – LuniZunie_(talk) 01:53, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Well the cat's out of the bag, but please restore those pages. At least for the public and for viewers. Fdom5997 (talk) 01:57, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Well the cat's out of the bag
Crazy that you thought trying to hide this would be the best route. – LuniZunie_(talk) 01:58, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Can you please do it? I promise you, I ask for nothing more. Fdom5997 (talk) 02:01, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

@Yacàwotçã I ping you too. Fdom5997 (talk) 02:08, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

No. As I said on meta, I don't have respect for long standing editors who sock. Never have, never will. Maybe you'll get lucky, maybe a passerby will see this, and undo my edits, I don't care if they do; but I'm not reinstating them because you asked. If you get what you want out of breaking the rules, then you are in no way learning from your mistake. And pinging another editor here (and doing so xwiki—multiple times, see 1, 2, 3, 4 5) is only making things worse for yourself.

As a famous singer once said:
You know the rules, and so do I. – LuniZunie_(talk) 02:12, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Seriously. Why do you need to be such an idiot? Fdom5997 (talk) 02:14, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm disappointed to see how things have gone. Fdom5997, this was a poor approach. Now editors will have a harder time making the edits you requested; per WP:PROXYING, they'll have to show that they think the edits are good, and that they would have done the edit independently of your asking, or else they risk getting blocked, too. Before you asked, all they would have to do is make the edit.

I understand you think your edits are good, and should be live. Okay, here's how to do that: 1) Edit another project, without issues, for 6 months. 2) Don't edit here, including talk page posts, during that time. 3) Do not sock under any circumstances. 4) Take the WP:SO after six months, own up to the socking and behavior that got you blocked, and explain why neither will happen again.

I understand that you want your edits up for the public now, but remember that you are not the only editor in this field. If it's so critical, another editor will make the edits. If nobody else makes the edits, they weren't as critical as you seem to believe, and can wait for you to return legitimately. EducatedRedneck (talk) 04:10, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

@EducatedRedneck Well let me ask you, why should they not think that these edits ([1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]) are good?

They look fairly productive to me, and most other people. Literally none of these are even considered "disruptive", but yet these zealots just had to get rid of them without any reason, other than it happening to come from a sock account. I truly want to display this cited info for the public, at least. The reason why I am doing this, is for the public viewers and readers, and especially those who are indigenous peoples trying to learn their forgotten tongue. I deeply care about the rights of indigenous peoples across the world, and this is why that info was added. Yes this is pretty critical, it should not have to wait. Neither should it matter who added it, or when it was added. Fdom5997 (talk) 04:33, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Fdom, once again, just like my ex, I'm breaking no contact. I do not think you are in the right place to be having this discussion right now, you are a long standing, good faith editor, and you made some mistakes, but that doesn't mean it has to be the end of the road. I really think you should take a step back for a few days, and come back when everything isn't so "explosive". We can all see the tensions are really high right now, and that isn't going to help anyone. So please, take a step back, relax, let the dust settle, and then come back and respond if you still think necessary. – LuniZunie_(talk) 04:49, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

why should they not think that these edits... are good? I don't know; it's not my field. But WP:ONUS applies; they'll still have to explain why they think the edits are good, which is one more step for them to take.

What you said at the end re: indigenous people sounds like you are trying to right great wrongs. This might explain why you have trouble abiding by consensus. While I doubt most people would learn a language through Wikipedia, perhaps some do. In that case, someone else will add it. As for your last two sentences, you're arguing about what should be. I'm telling you what is. Your actions have harmed your cause. You can keep socking and trying to force your edits in, but that will just make them less likely to ever be included because yes, here on Wikipedia, WP:BANREVERT does mean that who added it matters, whether you think that's fair or not.

If you want to keep tilting at windmills, I can't stop you. But I know that blocks and reverts are cheap, and it'll make people try all the harder to keep your edits out, and they may never be included. If, on the other hand, the edits are more important than whether you were treated correctly, you'll follow my advice, not sock, edit on another project for six months, take the standard offer, and build consensus for those edits legitimately once you return.

I also endorse LuniZunie's suggestion of taking a step back and waiting a few days. As for me, I've said my piece. If you ask a question of me directly (e.g., with a ping), I'll respond. Otherwise, I'll stop injecting myself into your talk page. EducatedRedneck (talk) 04:53, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

@EducatedRedneck No, that is not what I am doing, and if you think I am "righting great wrongs", then that only sounds like you're assuming bad faith from me, as if I am trying to manipulate my actions here. What should any of this even have to do with the "consensus" thing again? I am adding information, not reverting it like I did before, and like these Wikihounders are doing to me now. No, it's not like "learning a language" through this site, but it is still a step in the right direction in trying to revitalize (at least in this case the pronunciation) a language.

I am sorry, but that whole "WP:BANREVERT" rule is just absolute bull. Not to mention that the rule in and of itself is actually contradictory in that since categorization can impact many pages, and deletion of a category without merging can leave pages orphaned, you should carefully consider what to do with categories created by a banned or blocked user.. Care should nonetheless be taken to see if articles need to be merged to a parent category before the speedy deletion. Categories created by a banned user which may be useful or fit into a larger category scheme can be tagged for discussion and possible merging using the categories for discussion process instead of deleting them outright.

The fact that we allow rules that allow people to just rudely erase anything regardless if it is *good*, is incredibly unfair and unjust. Especially to those who sincerely do make good-faith edits, despite their idiosyncrasies. They do not deserve to be mistreated and disrespected like this either. I am getting nothing but unfair and unjust treatment, all because of unnecessary politics on how phonology charts "need" to look, because "consensus". Last time I checked, Wikipedia was a place where users just simply publish articles or information, provided that it was properly cited using reliable sources, and properly written. Now it's like everyone needs to follow these red-tape "rules" (like cosmetic edits or whether or not they were "legitimate" users) and god-forbid one user doesn't follow all of them, exactly how they be. I am sorry, but the world (especially my country, the US) is not too good of a place right now. If we want to make the world a better place, as long as editors are following all the basic, fundamental rules like citing info, using reliable sources, and writing it properly; we should not be policing what, or how editors should publish. That is not a democracy, that is a bureaucracy, and also tyranny. Fdom5997 (talk) 05:27, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

The fact that we allow rules that allow people to just rudely erase anything regardless if it is *good*, is incredibly unfair and unjust.

You know what else is rude, unfair, and unjust? Socking. – LuniZunie_(talk) 13:06, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Well why should we have to sock, when we’re unfairly blocked? Fdom5997 (talk) 17:02, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

RGW and good faith are not incompatible. Consensus applies to adding material as well, per WP:ONUS. And whether you think a rule is absolute bull or not, those are the rules. You can either abide by them, or not use the website. You keep talking about what should be, I am describing what is. If you want your edits to stick, I told you how. If you do anything else, expect them to be removed on general principle, whether you think it's unjust or not. EducatedRedneck (talk) 13:10, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Talk page access revoked

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked because an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the Unblock Ticket Request System that have been declined leading to the posting of this notice.

PhilKnight (talk) 17:11, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Road to unblock?

I was initially in favour of an indefinite block as everyone else, particularly with the sockpuppetry taking place after the block. However, some discussions on Meta provided some context that I think may provide some context to what has happened. Relevant discussions: . Fdom5997 has claimed that they are receiving professional help for their mental health difficulties, and on a previous version of their userpage has claimed to have ADHD, OCD and major depression. I'm personally also a sufferer of ADHD, and I understand that on one hand ADHD comes together with highly obsessive interests, and on the other hand forcible removal of those interests can be a highly traumatic experience which I know from personal experience - with this knowledge, the sockpuppetry is an understandable reaction (not that I'm trying to justify it, but it's understandable why things turned out this way).

In my opinion, it's relevant that Fdom5997 hasn't received any serious blocks prior to this indef; the longest is a minor block of 1 week. I think this ordeal has scared them enough that they will be much more careful about following community norms after being allowed back (and if not, then at least we know that is the case).

The WP:SO involves waiting for 6 months, but Fdom5997 has made it clear that the trauma from the indef block is too great to simply stay away from the project for 6 months (hence the sockpuppetry). Since they are clearly a good-faith contributor that wants to improve phonology information on Wikipedia, I suggested a possibility that Fdom5997 could find a place on Wikipedia with these conditions: an unblock request that focuses on their own behaviour (not that of others), a zero-revert restriction, and an understanding that any further edit warring or incivility will lead to a permanent ban without possibility of appeal. Fdom5997 indicated on Meta that they would accept these conditions as long as they were free to discuss phonology edits on talk pages and make edit requests, which I think is perfectly fair enough.

Since blocks shouldn't be WP:PUNITIVE, I don't think it's necessary to punish Fdom5997 for the sockpuppetry (something which will anyway only take place if they are blocked). I thought I'd bring forward this proposal to the community; I understand it might unpopular, but I personally would be in favour of allowing Fdom5997 to return with conditions without having to wait 6 months. Pinging blocking admins @Wugapodes @Giraffer @PhilKnight. Stockhausenfan (talk) 03:46, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Stockhausenfan Fdom was and is blocked for hounding and tendentious editing (and they are still doing it on meta), sock puppet-ed, and is now asking other users to edit on their behalf on meta and on commons. Mental health difficulties do not give someone permission to behave in this way, and it seems like the block is preventing further disruption. Why should we unblock Fdom and let them edit talk pages when not even two weeks ago they were still trying to disrupt Wikipedia by posting on other projects? — Wug·a·po·des 05:43, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

As someone who also has ADHD and problems with impulse control I still have to agree with Wugapodes.

Whilst ADHD (and any other conditions) are an explanation they aren't an excuse - the wellbeing of the project and multiple other editors needs to be placed before the wishes of one single editor. If they have off-wiki problems then it's important that they address that properly before returning. Rejection sensitivity can lead to overreactions for sure, but this socking has been going on for a while now & is more than a single knee-jerk reaction to the indef.

There's the ongoing hounding of other editors, IDHT shown in the original ANI thread and the mass socking we're seeing now. One editor restored their edits as a show of good faith, only for Fdom to misuse that good faith and copy their exact wording on a subsequent sock to restore their own edits.

If my ADHD got to a point that I'm disrupting Wikipedia and upsetting other editors, I'd fully expect (and honestly want) to be blocked until I could get my behaviour under control.

Unfortunately there's nothing to show that Fdom has their behaviour under control and plenty to show that it's still a problem as their socking continues to this day. A lack of impulse control isn't a good thing on a community project like this, regardless of cause.

If they can go for six months without sockpuppeting, hounding or trying to proxy, I'd be happy to support an appeal as this would demonstrate that they've been able to overcome whatever problems led to this situation.

For now, they should continue with treatment if they feel that is best for them. Blue Sonnet (talk) 07:00, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Comment: Fdom is WP:3X’d, so they must got through WP:UNBAN, which means creating a topic at WP:AN (someone for them). But I honestly don’t think it’s going to succeed. I don’t oppose nor support their return FWIW Yacàwotçã (talk) 06:49, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

I gotta be honest, I think this is a compelling argument to not unblock them, rather than one to lift the block. Someone who cannot control their conduct is risky to have editing Wikipedia, and if this editor is so fixated on Wikipedia editing that it causes them actual harm to not edit on Wikipedia, I don't think it's compassionate or constructive to simply let them start editing while the underlying problems remain unresolved. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 08:35, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not therapy. I was skeptical the indef block was proportionate, but Fdom has repeatedly proven it was. Blocks are made to prevent disruption, whatever the cause, and dissuading Fdom from editing is not only not punitive but probably the more compassionate thing to do at this point, since it seems to be making them feel miserable. Nardog (talk) 10:42, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Fdom was blocked for incivility and hounding, socked around the block, was caught, and is now continuing the hounding behavior at Meta. Fdom5997 has made it clear that the trauma from the indef block is too great to simply stay away from the project for 6 months (hence the sockpuppetry) is absolutely not a reason to unblock, not least when the behavior that led to the original indef is still ongoing on other projects. An appeal in six months is fine, but I do not support shortening that. Giraffer (talk) 11:48, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Related Articles