User talk:Sïleïni

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).

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

Request reason:

There is no edit i have made on the Help Desk, just look at my contribs. I asked a question on the reference desk. --Sïleïni (talk) 10:36, 28 July 2013 (UTC) Sïleïni (talk) 10:36, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You know what he meant, Herr Latest Sock of the Reference Desk Troll. — Daniel Case (talk) 16:19, 28 July 2013 (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.

Thank you for your contributions to WP:RD/S, but we are trying to write an encyclopedia here, so please keep your edits factual and neutral. Our readers are looking for serious articles and will not find joke edits amusing. Remember that Wikipedia is a widely used reference tool, so we have to take what we do here seriously. If you'd like to experiment with editing, use the sandbox to get started. Thank you. Tevildo (talk) 21:03, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

July 2013

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:00, 28 July 2013 (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).

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

Request reason:

I was blocked for asking a perfectly logical question on the Ref Desk. I got a logical answer. Clearly some admin here is a little trigger happy on the block button. Sïleïni (talk) 07:11, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

It was most certainly not an either logical or appropriate question by any stretch of the imagination - especially since the help desk is there to assist you with Wikipedia editing questions. Your question was either racists; shows a lack of understanding of human reproduction; or was the beginning of a ridiculous joke - none of which are in the remit of Wikipedia. The fact that you re-added it after it was rightly removed is what got you blocked (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:21, 28 July 2013 (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.

I do not believe the block of User:Sïleïni was appropriate. The account had three edits, two to ask questions on the Refdesks and one to revert the deletion of one of his questions which was done without an edit summary. No one seems to think that his Humanities desk question was inappropriate (Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#When_did_separate_toilets_for_blacks_and_whites_end_in_South_Africa.3F) so this was not a vandalism-only account. I believe his Science Refdesk question was interesting and did make some reply (though the bottom line is that the answer to his question is unknown, but would be interesting to know).^[1] I have seen genuine vandals given warnings, short blocks and multiple chances by admins here - why is it so much worse to ask a question with a racial or potentially humorous interpretation? I would say the whole concept of "trolling" is unsuited to evaluating the operations of the Refdesk - good science (like human embryonic stem cells) is intrinsically provocative. There is only interesting and uninteresting, and you need to be willing to give a question full consideration before you can determine which it is. Wnt (talk) 12:59, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I am unblocking you, as the first question might be asked in good faith. Please in future increase the ratio of productive edits (improving the encyclopaedia) to trolling. Good luck Alex Bakharev (talk) 22:06, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]