Dilmun~enwiki

Fringe views

Dilmun, Wikipedia:fringe theories do not belong on Wikipedia. I've found a lot fringe theories in your edits, all the major historians agree that Qarmatian's "Mahdi" was a Persian from Isfahan who claimed to be the direct decent of the last Sassanid king, yet you've somehow managed to turn him into an "Iraqi" citing a source that claims he was brought back from Iraq which at time was populated by both Arabs and Persians anyways. In another edit, you call Sanatruq, an Iranian Parthian prince, "the King of Bahrain" citing a source that also clearly says he was a Parthian, an important detail which somehow escaped your attention. This type of tendentious editing and cherry-picking sources is not acceptable, please reconsider your behavior before someone files a formal RFC about it.--07fan (talk) 17:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

O7fan,

You mustn't be aware of the facts: all major historians don't agree that he was from Isfahan at all - at least two references site him being captured from the village of Qasr Ibn Hubayra. These aren't some "fringe theories" as you claim: Cambridge University Press, one of the sources cited, isn't a fringe publisher.

As for Sanatruq, he is described as the "King of Bahrain" in the source (Arabia and the Arabs: From the Bronze Age to the Coming of Islam), which doesn't as you claim "clearly say he was a Parthian" - instead it says "his name suggests he was Parthian". Before you accuse others of inaccuracy and saying your going to report them for this and the other, you might want to make sure you read over your own edits for accuracy before you post them.

Dilmun (talk) 18:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Now you're falsifying sources, Farhad Daftary also agrees with the academic consesus that the "Mahdi" was a Persian from Isfahan. Bring a quote from him that suggests otherwise. Also, Sanatruq was a Parthian, there is no debate about that, you just suppressed that part of the information since you didn't like it. --07fan (talk) 18:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

07fan,

You've got no basis to accuse me of falsifying anything, especially given that you’ve just told an enormous whopper with your claim that in the book, Arabia and the Arabs: From the Bronze Age to the Coming of Islam, regarding Sanatruq that it "clearly say he was a Parthian". As you know it doesn’t say anything of the sort and I notice that you've not mentioned it again. You want to repeat that claim, or better for you if we don't mention it again?

The source (reference 239, p68 in Farhad Daftary in Mediaeval Isma'ili History and Thought) states that the false Mahdi was captured in the village of Qasr Ibn Hubayra, which is what my edits show. Elsewhere Daftary may say he’s from Isfahan also, but that’s doesn’t mean he doesn’t say at this point he’s was captured in Qasr Ibn Hubayra. I don't want to waste both our time with an edit war over this so I think it should go to WP:mediation - I see you've already been banned for disruptive edits so I'd advise such a course in your case.

As for your claim that I’ve “suppressed” information that Sanatruq was Parthian, have you got any evidence of suppression on my part? Its another allegation you’re making without any evidence to back it up. I’ve not included this information on the History of Bahrain page, just as I've not included other information about Sanatruq. However, on the Tylos page I clearly state that Sanatruq was a "Parthian governor". It was me who added this not anyone else.

This is the problem, every time one edits anything relating to Persia one feels one’s walking on eggshells, in case someone takes offence and sees it as part of a vast anti-Persian conspiracy. Most people don’t care one way or the other – what people get irked about is some editors getting excited before they know the facts.

Dilmun (talk) 22:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Farhad Daftary says that he was captured in the village of Qasr Ibn Hubayra, in what is today Iraq, but where he was captured has nothing to do with his background or where he was from, specially when Daftary himself explains later that he was from Isfahan. Therefore, you`re making false assertions based on a source that does not support your conclusions. You only have one source claiming that he was an "Iraqi", while every other source says he was a Persian from Isfahan whose name was actually al-Isfahani, so this is a classic case of an editor trying give undo weight to a fringe theory, which is against Wikipedia rules. If you wish to seek mediation, go ahead, I am standing on solid ground here with two dozen sources even primary classical sources that were written at that time identifying the man in question as a Persian, while you have only 1 obscure modern source calling the him an "Iraqi" when there was no Iraqi nationality or identity at that time. I would like to assume good faith with you, but some of your edits give me the impression that you`re systematically Arabizing Bahrain`s history, at the cost of diminishing the non-Arab history and heritage of the island. Otherwise, I just don`t see why you`d insist that Qarmatian's "Mahdi" was an "Iraqi" to confuse the readers and imply that he was an Arab, when there was no Iraq at that time (people who lived what-is-today Iraq at that time were either called Arab or Persian, not Iraqi), and all the evidence and sources suggest that he was a Persian from Isfahan who was obsessed with Zoroastrianism and Persian mythology.--07fan (talk) 19:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Where to start with this? Ok, to begin with your claim:

I would like to assume good faith with you, but some of your edits give me the impression that you`re systematically Arabizing Bahrain`s history, at the cost of diminishing the non-Arab history and heritage of the island.

You never assumed good faith. You began this discussion by accusing me of “tendentious editing”, “cherry picking” and raised threats about reporting me. After that you accused me of “falsifying” and then suppression of information. If you need reminding it’s very easy: just scroll up.

Now you’re claiming that I’m “systematically Arabizing Bahrain’s history”. This is after I’ve pointed out that it was me who edited the Tylos page to state that Sanatruq was “Parthian”. Sanatruq was supposed to be your evidence that I “suppressed information I did not like” – your Exhibit A, remember? - and yet as I’ve pointed out to you it was me and only me who edited Wikipedia to show he was Parthian. Obviously there’s no acknowledgement of this on your part – no taking back your claim that I suppressed Sanatraq’s Parthianism.

The Daftary and Halm references you've just deleted state that he was captured in an Iraqi village, as the statement that I wrote and you've deleted shows: 'cited the individual as a slave captured from the village of Qasr Ibn Hubayra in Northern Iraq in 928'. Heinz Halm isn’t a fringe source – he’s an extremely distinguished German scholar of the Shia world, published in English and German, by publishers as reputable as Princeton University Press and the academic publisher, Brill – the company that published the source you keep deleting. So reputable in fact that he’s even got wikipedia entries about him in German and Spanish. Look him up. Just because you don’t know who he is doesn’t make him a fringe source.

Not that this is going to make much difference given your previous edits as I can see this going round and round in circles: you assume bad faith, plaster the page with accusations and then ignore my response when the evidence shows otherwise. From your user page I can see you’ve a long history of disruptive edits, resulting in warnings and being banned, yet when someone engages you your response is just to repeat the same thing again and again whatever the evidence. So what’s the point?

Dilmun (talk) 19:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Now I am sure that you're not interested in genuine discussion, and you're knowingly compromising the integrity of Wikipedia, since you did not even bother addressing my points about "Iraqi" not being a nationality/identity at that time, and his place of capture being irrelevant to his background. It seems like you're dodging the questions, and still insisting on falsifying/misrepresenting sources, to draw POV conclusions that are simply false, and can only be considered crank theories . I think you've underestimated the intelligence, and patience of the community, which is why I can't wait till you take this case to formal mediation. You'll be surprised by the result, I assure you. --07fan (talk) 22:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Official Language

Hello Dilmun. The Bahrain infobox lists English as an official language. Is there any truth to that? -- Slacker (talk) 22:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello Slacker, great edits - and many thanks for editing many of my contributions. Big improvements.

I don't think English is an official language. According to the Bahrain Embassy in Washington's info sheet only Arabic's an official. (http://www.bahrainembassy.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=section.home&id=18)

Dilmun (talk) 22:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I corrected the info box based on the link you gave me. Keep up the good work. -- Slacker (talk) 23:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Village Pump

Thanks for the message. -- Slacker (talk) 18:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

RFC

I replied to you on Eric's talk page. --07fan (talk) 00:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Bahrain#History

I added some info and citations on the Portuguese and Safavid periods. Since you seem pretty well-versed on Bahrain's pre-Islamic history, how would you like to rewrite that part of the "History" section? It seems quite mangled right now, and it would be nice to have it replaced by a brief outline of the main points. -- Slacker (talk) 11:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, of course, take your time. Regarding the Portugeuse, Rentz said they invaded in alliance with "Hormuz," and relied on "Persian Sunnis" during their rule. Maybe I was wrong to conclude he was referring to the same group, and it's possible there were Huwala involved as well. Let me know if you happen upon another source that talks about this. I'll change "Hormuz" to "Sunni Persians" for now. -- Slacker (talk) 08:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you're right that Rentz was referring to the same group - let's go with him for the moment. I think my question stemmed from the difficulty in telling what the Kingdom of Hormuz was, and hence the identity of the Hormuzi governors appointed by the Portuguese. According to some accounts Hormuz is an Arab kingdom and others its described as Persian. Contemporary accounts by Portuguese travellers say that both Arabs and Persians lived there. Dilmun (talk) 10:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Utub / Bani Utbah

User:Alutbi has gone around changing everything with any reference to the Utub so that it represents his/her specific view of how the Al Bin Ali are the only true members of the tribe. Anyways, after deleting Original Utub s/he has created Bani Utbah as a separate page from Utub. What do you think should be done? --Arabbi (talk) 17:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello Arabbi.

Thanks for the message & the one on the Talk:Huwala page. Who was the admin who deleted the Original Utub article? If you know who it is maybe the best thing to do would be to inform that admin about this attempt to get round the deletion of the Original Utub by creating this new page, Bani Utbah, and that there are now two pages on the same subject. Because at least this particular admin would be familiar with the situation and might be able to quickly resolve it - ie through speedy deletion. Otherwise do what you and Slacker did last time and tag it, highlight the tag at the relevant place to be actioned and wait for an admin to act. If the infos the same as before the outcome will be the same, although you might have to be patient.

Is some of the info on the Bani Utbah page salvageable? It might be worthwhile copying and pasting what’s usable into the Utub page, so that when it comes to deleting the page verifiable content isn’t being deleted as well.

I'll have a word on User:Alutbi's talk page as well because he's obviously got something to add, but he seems to be going about it all wrong.

Dilmun (talk) 21:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Al Madhkur

Hello Dilmun. I took the liberty of reverting your removal of Abu Hakima and I also removed the tags. Abu Hakima is as good an academic authority on the Gulf as any, and WP discourages the use of primary documents except when necessary. I've asked user:07fan to take any objections he has towards the reliability of the sources to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. -- Slacker (talk) 21:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello Slacker, sure no problem. Yeah, good idea. Let's see something specific about the reliability of the sources. Dilmun (talk) 21:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Erroneous block

I’ve been erroneously blocked indefinitely by User:Alex Bakharev on the basis that I am a sock puppet of User:Islami who was a sockpuppet of user:Serenesoulnyc.

Bakharev on his talk page where he justifies the block acknowledges that there is no IP evidence of me being any of these people, and asserts this only on the basis of what he ascertains as “patterns of editing”.

As far as I'm aware I’ve never edited any page that they’ve edited, nor have I edited anything relating to their subjects which seem to be about Sunni Islamic doctrine and the Levant. Mine relate to history of Bahrain, Golkonda, the Persian Gulf littoral and the Portuguese Empire.

According to Barkharev my edits show that I am an experience user, but how this shows I am Islami isn’t clear. Then I’m said be editing from an “extreme Suni (sic) position” and "like to Arabize” people who are not considered Arabs. Obviously no evidence is provided to support such assertions.

Even so let’s have a look at this “extreme Sunni position”. An extreme Sunni position considers Shias to be little better than infidels. So my edits in this context:

•On the Bahrani page, about Bahraini & Eastern Province KSA Shia Arabs, I edited the page to replace the word “sect” to describe Shiaism with the word “tradition”, because I felt that the word sect was very slightly derogatory and tradition was less POV. [1]
• On the Bahrani page I edited it to highlight the role of Bahraini Shias’ contribution to the Kingdom of Golkonda. [2]
• I edited the Golkonda page to highlight its role as a focal point for Shiaism in India. [3]
• I have created the page of the Twelver Shia scholar and jurist Sheikh Salih Al-Karzakani.

My user name is Dilmun & given that Bakharev is obviously skilled in detecting evidence of extremist Sunnism he won’t need me to explain the significance of the name.

The “Arabized” claim is equally ridiculous and equally easy to show it as such. I’ve done what the sources suggest; whichever way they’ve gone I’ve done. On the History of Bahrain page I inserted a sentence plus source to show that the original inhabitants of Bahrain who created the Dilmun civilisation did not speak a Semitic language but a Sumerian based one (ie a non-Arab related language). In addition, I added information that Bahrain had a Parthian governor in the second century AD. So does this indicate that I’ve somehow now “de-Arabized” people? No, I’ve just gone with the sources.

On the issue of User:Readers and Writers, I hold my hand up and acknowledge that I did use this as an alternative account. But I did not engage in any sock puppetry activity: there was no attempt to get round any bans, participate in debates, edit warring, 3RR or involvement in any nefarious activity that could be defined as WP:sock_puppet#Sock_puppet_accounts. Neither was there an attempt to somehow mislead editors & none of these edits have been controversial in any way. I assumed my edits were covered in legitimate uses of alternative accounts as the account was to be used solely in connection with developing specific areas of the region's history – Shia scholars, Qarmatians and the early modern period. Maybe I subsequently strayed too close to the line between the subjects of the two accounts but this wasn’t an attempt to mislead, but because the two subjects took a dynamic of their own and ended up being interrelated. As a result of concerns about a possiblity of a conflict I stopped and never restarted using Readers and Writers and instead I went back to Dilmun. If I've erred and misunderstood the policy I'm very sorry and offer my apologies.

I’m not User:Rezawashahi either – whoever they are. And even if I were given their edits I believe this would be a legitimate use of an alternative account, since the subjects of their edits are completely segregated from mine. As such it is in my view be another example of Bakharev jumping the gun presuming that an alternative account = sock puppet.

I contacted Bakharev by email yesterday, but he's never got back to me or acknowledged my correspondence, even though he has subsequently been editing wikipedia.

Dilmun (talk) 20:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Slacker

Thanks Slacker, I really appreciate you advocating on my behalf. The suggestion that I'm User:Islami is risible. This ban's absurd and other administrators such as User:Will_Beback have questioned Bakharev's blocking policy in the last few days[4]. The fact that he's standing by the indefinite block even though he's got zero evidence and has to resort to arguing his case by making more unsubstantiated allegations obviously reflects on his competency as an administrator.

Dilmun (talk) 20:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I’ve been erroneously blocked indefinitely by User:Alex Bakharev on the basis that I am a sock puppet of User:Islami who was a sockpuppet of user:Serenesoulnyc.
Bakharev on his talk page justifying the block acknowledges that there is no IP evidence of me being any of these people, and asserts this only on the basis of what he ascertains as “patterns of editing”.
As far as I'm aware I’ve never edited any page that they’ve edited, nor have I edited anything relating to their subjects which seem to be about Sunni Islamic doctrine and the Levant[5]. Mine relate to history of Bahrain, Golkonda, the Persian Gulf littoral and the Portuguese Empire.
According to Barkharev my edits show that I am an experience user, but how this shows I am Islami isn’t clear. Then I’m said be editing from an “extreme Suni (sic) position” and "like to Arabize” people who are not considered Arabs. Obviously no evidence is provided to support such assertions.
Even so let’s have a look at this “extreme Sunni position”. An extreme Sunni position considers Shias to be little better than infidels. So my edits in this context:

•On the Bahrani page, about Bahraini & Eastern Province KSA Shia Arabs, I edited the page to replace the word “sect” to describe Shiaism with the word “tradition”, because I felt that the word sect was very slightly derogatory and tradition was less POV. [6]
• On the Bahrani page I edited it to highlight the role of Bahraini Shias’ contribution to the Kingdom of Golkonda. [7]
• I edited the Golkonda page to highlight its role as a focal point for Shiaism in India. [8]
• I have created the page of the Twelver Shia scholar and jurist Sheikh Salih Al-Karzakani.
My user name is Dilmun & given that Bakharev is obviously skilled in detecting evidence of extremist Sunnism he would have recognised how the name is befitting an extremist Sunni.
The “Arabized” claim is equally ridiculous and equally easy to show it as such. I’ve done what the sources suggest; whichever way they’ve gone I’ve done. On the History of Bahrain page I inserted a sentence plus source to show that the original inhabitants of Bahrain who created the Dilmun civilisation did not speak a Semitic language but a Sumerian based one (ie a non-Arab related language). In addition, I added information that Bahrain had a Parthian governor in the second century AD. So does this indicate that I’ve somehow now “de-Arabized” people? No, I’ve just gone with the sources.
In addition, Islami and Serenesoulnyc's edits are usually in poorly written & spelt English, unsourced, and often involve massive content deletion, usually involving deletion of sourced material. The contrast with my edits speaks for itself.
On the issue of User:Readers and Writers, I hold my hand up and acknowledge that I did use this as an alternative account. But I did not engage in any sock puppetry activity: there was no attempt to get round any bans, participate in debates, edit warring, 3RR or involvement in any nefarious activity that could be defined as WP:sock_puppet#Sock_puppet_accounts. Neither was there an attempt to somehow mislead editors & none of these edits have been controversial in any way. I assumed my edits were covered in legitimate uses of alternative accounts as the account was to be used solely in connection with developing specific areas of the region's history – Shia scholars, Qarmatians and the early modern period. Maybe I subsequently strayed too close to the line between the subjects of the two accounts but this wasn’t an attempt to mislead, but because the two subjects took a dynamic of their own and ended up being interrelated. As a result of concerns about a possiblity of a conflict I stopped and never restarted using Readers and Writers and instead I went back to Dilmun. If I've erred and misunderstood the policy I'm very sorry and offer my apologies.
I’m not User:Rezawashahi either – whoever they are. And even if I were given their edits I believe this would be a legitimate use of an alternative account, since the subjects of their edits are completely segregated from mine. As such it is in my view be another example of Bakharev jumping the gun presuming that an alternative account = sock puppet.
Its a really poor decision concerning something as final as an indefinite block - the strongest sanction in wikipedia. There's no evidence at all to support it - only Bakharev's supposed 'patterns of editing' which I believe I've shown to have no basis.
Dilmun (talk) 00:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Decline reason:

See my review below. I am unblocking and reblocking to change the block reason, to clarify the record. Mangojuice^talk 16:52, 23 April 2008 (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.

I feel like I need the cliff's notes version of this. I've looked at contributions to try and prove or disprove the claim. It's difficult because of the sheer number of accounts involved. To make it easier, could you list here the accounts that you admit are your's? --B (talk) 12:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into this. Sure:

• User:Dilmun[9]
• User:Readers and Writers[10]

Dilmun (talk) 12:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Also can I add, that all my edits are from scholarly English languages references, clearly footnoted - citing leading academics on the Middle East - while I'm not aware that Islami ever's done such a thing, using sources such as Islam web http://www.islamweb.net/ver2/archive/article.php?lang=E&id=37699 In fact he's chosen specifically to mark text as 'western view'[11], as if to undermine it, by making it seem subjective. Again the contrast couldn't be clearer. Dilmun (talk) 13:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I've even written statements such as "In Karbala Yusuf Al Bahrani became the prestigious dean of the Shi'i scholarship and as such presided over the religious establishment." and that "In Karbala, Al Bahrani and his followers continued the intellectual debate with Usulism that has spurred Bahrain's intellectual vitality." How anyone could think that an extremist Sunni with their view of Shi'ism [12] could have written something like this defies belief. Dilmun (talk) 13:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not this account is specifically related to User:Islami or any other older banned user is almost beside the point with evidence as weak as what Alex Bakharev points to. What I am concerned about is that you used sockpuppets abusively, and there is no reason that this would mean a temporary rather than indefinite block. Furthermore, there is some convincing evidence to suggest that you have edited Wikipedia substantially before you started using this account, namely, your quick familiarity with Wikipedia, the big gaps in your edit history, and your use of sockpuppets itself. Can you explain any of this? And, can you explain why you started using a second account? Mangojuice^talk 16:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Dilmun wrote to me asking me to look into this block. I see that Mangojuice, a competent and fair admin, is already investigating. Please let me know if another set of eyes are needed to review anything. Otherwise I'll stay out of it to prevent confusion. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to look into this. There are edit gaps in the history as I’ve edited it when I’ve had some free time and had a chance to contribute something. All my edits I’ve tried to add something substantial. Looking at it most of my edits coincided with holidays.

As for quick familiarity, my initial edits on my first day show that I hadn’t yet worked out how to use "[[]]" not being able to link the page properly with another site [13] and having to go back again when it came out wrong [14]. True I’d linked the History of Bahrain page with the Dilmun page using the “main article tag”, but this tag was already in use on the same page in the State Security Law section, so it would have been easy to copy and paste it.

As for the second account, I used Readers and Writers between 8 Dec 2007 - 19 Feb 2008, with the intention of writing on the history of Bahraini theologians, topics which I don’t think I’d touched particularly as Dilmun (last edit was Jun 07)which was about Bahrain history in general at the time. I assumed it was covered under legitimate uses of alternative accounts: “A user making substantial contributions to an area of interest in Wikipedia might register another account to be used solely in connection with developing that area.” Which was my intention. Although in practice it became apparent that the two areas couldn’t be segregated and after the possibility of a conflict arose I stopped using Readers and Writers. I also felt that the name Readers and Writers sounded too pretentious but that’s neither here nor there. So I stopped using Readers and Writers on 19 Feb and I've never edited again with it; I only started using Dilmun again on 24 March. I didn't use them interchangeably going from one to the other or seek to mislead and as soon as I felt that I was nearing the line on the above policy I stopped using the account.

Dilmun (talk) 18:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

From my looking through contributions, I have found evidence neither to absolutely prove nor absolutely disprove socking. Assuming (I know this is a big assumption) that Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Islami and Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Serenesoulnyc are accurate, I checked edit ranges and found no instances of either overlapping editing (meaning two different people were editing) or obvious gaps (one disappeared while the other appeared). There are obviously a lot of users there, but for the most part, they weren't active at the same time, so it wasn't actually that bad to check. I took a pretty close look at Islami's talk page comments. He is not a very good speller and mostly uses short sentences. [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]. I have found no such spelling mistakes from Dilmun. Their edit summaries don't look anything alike. So from the evidence I looked at, I'd say it's more likely than not that Dilmun and Islami are two different people. --B (talk)

Dilmun, I'm afraid your answer doesn't make me feel any more at ease about the situation. You gave no reason for the second account, just that you thought it was legitimate by the policy. Why didn't you just start editing about Bahranian theologians with your main account? Mangojuice^talk 12:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a tough situation for me to judge on. Weighing in your favor: (1) The evidence presented by B above convinces me that you aren't Islami, and there was never any evidence of that anyway. (2) You had an illegitimate alternate account, but you didn't do anything really bad with it. There were some articles that you edited as both accounts (e.g. History of Bahrain) but given the time separation, I don't think I would consider that an abusive use. No edit warring, no vote stacking, no block evasion, just an illegitimate alternate account. If you had not returned to editing under this account afterwards, I doubt anything would have happened, and the RFCU would probably have been declined.

Weighing against you: (1) A lot of things you have said, and many other observations have given me the firm opinion that you have used other accounts. You refer to Dilmun not as yourself but as merely one account. You created an inappropriate alternate account over concerns that clearly weren't significant (you claim you did this to separate contributions, and yet you ended up contributing to the same articles). You've come clean about Readers and Writers but no other accounts and I don't believe it. CU confirmed that the third account, involved in linkspamming, was likely to be related to you. (2) You've been involved in tendenitious editing, of a type that we have had problems with on Wikipedia before: see #Fringe theories for instance. So overall, I don't feel comfortable unblocking you.

Only you know the truth. If you are a reincarnation of an older banned or blocked user, please just go away. If you aren't, realize that your edit history is just too suspicious to allow you to be unblocked. Obviously you are aware that it is possible for you to create a new account to evade this block. If you were to do so without really changing your approach here, you will probably just create more problems and end up blocked again. So please don't do that. Mangojuice^talk 16:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed

Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Dilmun. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Dilmun~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours,
Keegan Peterzell
Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation

23:27, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed

This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: Special:GlobalRenameRequest. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk)

12:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)