User talk:Man in a skirt

Self-welcome

A self-welcome to Wikipedia to avoid that "I'm a newbie!" redlink. Man in a skirt 18:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re Username

Sorry, but I felt I had to block you. "Man in a skirt" is an actual person, MC Jeremy Bell maninaskirt.com. Assuming you are not this person, I think it better to get a different username, if you don't mind. This is a fairly marginal case so if you are really attached to this username you can appeal its block. Cheers, Herostratus 08:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing marginal about this block, it is completely without justification. There is no such person as "Man in a skirt". The person you refer to simply has one domain name containing maninaskirt. Can you point to the Wikipedia policy that supports your action? If not, you have misused your administrator privileges. Man in a skirt 21:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am a little puzzled by this block as well. While this other individual does have a related name, the term "man in a skirt" is in itself not copyrighted, trademarked, or immediately referential to one person; in a general sense it is merely a slang term for those who wear kilts and such. I won't unblock at the moment, as I would rather hear what Herostratus has to say... as I'm about to log off, perhaps another admin could contact him and ask him to chime in? --Kinu ^t/_c 06:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Just because one person chooses to call himself "Man in a skirt" (a term that employs only two nouns, both extremely common) seems no reason for another person not to do so. I note that the admin who blocked did so apologetically. I would ask you, however, not to edit Man in a skirt, Man in a Skirt, or Jeremy Bell -- currently three red links, again suggesting to me that this Bell person, of whom I had never heard, is pretty obscure.

Request handled by: Hoary 13:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet allegation

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).

Man in a skirt (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This block is unjustified. My action was to ask User:JzG why he deleted an article, in compliance with Wikipedia policy WP:DRV. His response was uncooperative and uncivil. I raised the matter on WP:AN/I, whereupon JzG accused me of being a sockpuppet of another named user. I am not that user (which presumably can be checked by someone with checkuser access). Someone blocked me before I was given an opportunity to state this. I do have another account, but this is in accordance with the relevant Wikipedia policy, and I have not engaged in sockpuppetry.

Decline reason:

Justified block, clear example of a sockpuppet disrupting things. Don't care what your main account is, go back to it, and drop the disruption you've been doing. Mango juice^talk 17:27, 9 May 2007 (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.

Sockpuppetry aside, you are a clear SPA for POV pushing. – Steel 22:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steel, now presumably you can show me the edits where I have pushed a POV. Man in a skirt 08:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that WP:SPA is not policy, it is an essay. The relevant policy here is WP:SOCK, which does permit multiple accounts in certain circumstances. Mine is in compliance with this policy. Man in a skirt 08:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whats the main account? MrMacMan^Talk 23:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This account and all the editing I have done with it has been in compliance with Wikipedia policies. User:JzG, the person who pressed to have me blocked, has not. Why should I be 'outed'? Man in a skirt 08:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If your primary account is Mugaliens, I have written there. Sorry, my time is limited so I cannot volunteer to help you.VK35 01:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not Mugaliens, nor am I Dr1819. This is what JzG alleges, for which he has no evidence. Please can somebody with checkuser status confirm this. Man in a skirt 08:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Y	Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): No obvious reason to block. No evidence of sock puppetry. Request handled by: Ezeu 10:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reblocked. Sorry, we do not need POV-pushers. Dr1819 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Mugaliens (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), now you. Guy (Help!) 14:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ezeu, thanks for unblocking me. It is clear that you are a reasonable administrator, because you looked for evidence to support the block and found none. Unfortunately, reasonable behaviour no longer prevails on Wikipedia. The Qian Zhijun saga is a clear example of this. There is a group of administrators who will disregard Wikipedia's policies and procedures, where these prevent them from achieving their objectives. They state openly that they are doing this without fear of recrimination. They know they have the backing of ArbCom and Jimbo Wales. Whatever Wikipedia is now, it certainly is not a wiki. I don't intend to waste any more of my free time here. Man in a skirt 15:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Qian Zhijun

Hi! Qian Zhijun and Little Fatty are now back. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]