Sussexman

/Archive 1

Blocked - legal or personal threat against another user

---

As a result of your comments made to User:Edchilvers—namely in a dispute with Mr Chilvers threatening that he would "soon discover" why he was wrong, followed by the receipt of a solicitor's letter threatening legal action—you have been blocked from editing Wikipedia indefinitely, for posting what could be seen as a threat against another user on Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not tolerate such threats. Users who make threats, whether legal, personal, or professional, that in any way are seen as an attempt to intimidate another user, are immediately blocked.

See Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:No legal threats for more information.

For more information, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 19:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC).}

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I would like to appeal against this twisted injustice. But I seem unable to access anything other than this page. So could I be advised as to how I may appeal. Sussexman 09:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Decline reason:

WP:ANI supports block so far. No unblock at this time. pschemp

---

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.

It would appear that there is quite a gap between my suggesting that anyone breaking the law would soon discover the consequences, and the letter the Mr Chilvers says he has just received. To me its rather outside of a "soon" basis. It is unfortunate that proper and correct advice cannot be given without it being construed as a "legal threat" and good excuse to ban an editor who a few had had enough of. I have done quite a bit of work on Wikipedia (obviously unappreciated) and felt obliged to withdraw from it to defend an old friend who was being defamed all over the WWW. Sussexman 14:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Help

I refer the the article you commenced in May on John Scholey, the colliery proprietor. I taught out there for a decade and would be grateful if you could advise me as to whether you had any further information on this gentleman which is not yet up on the article. Please feel free to leave a message on my talk page. Christchurch 18:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I did have some more info on him because I was (academically) interested in coal-mining. I'll look. Sussexman 11:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

We seem to be editing similar articles, are you currently banned or do you operate under another account? (Couter-revolutionary 15:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)).

I am currently banned, Mr.Counter-revolutionary. Sussexman 11:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC).

Banning

What is the position now? I see the GLF article has been taken down. I see also that people are calling for me to "apologise". My position has always been that I was warning other users they were breaking UK Law. This was perceived by some as a "legal threat" whereas I was not personally in a position to threaten anyone. What I find astonishing on Wikipedia is that some users seem to think they can place upon the Law their own interpretations of it, discuss those interpretations, and then dismiss it if they so desire by some kind of majority vote? Quite astonishing. I'm afraid that if they went before a court and attempted to discuss the law or argue about its meaning with the judge he would give them very short thrift. I do apologise to anyone who may have been upset by my warnings. I felt that overall I had made intelligent contributions to Wikipedia and that I have been most unfairly treated. Sussexman 12:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The GLF thing finally seems to be over and as the person who Sussexman made the percieved legal threat against I wish to place it on record that I fully support his attempt to have his Wiki ban lifted.--Edchilvers 14:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

As someone who hasn't been involved in this debate, looking at it objectively, I quite agree that there is no longer any reason for a ban to be in place, assuming that a legal threat merited one in the first place.--Couter-revolutionary 14:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Sussexman

User:213.122.18.37 wrote:

You have arbitrarily deleted my User Page. I have appealed against the block and await a result. I have made many good contributons to Wikipedia and I believe that you are out of order with this deletion. Please reinstate my User page or leave a message on my talk page as to whose instructions you are following in this matter so that I can take the matter further. User:Sussexman Sunday 5 Dec 2006

Sorry about that. I checked your talk page first but couldn't find any indication of an ongoing block appeal (your last unblock request appears to have been denied five months ago). I've restored the page – Gurch 17:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Followed your posts in here Sussexman. I have looked at some of your excellent work and I think you have been badly treated. Wikipedia needs people like you. I will plug for your reinstatement. Chelsea Tory 11:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The thing is, it is standard Wikipedia policy to block anyone pending legal action against another contributor. Ian¹³/t 14:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

But I cannot see where he personally issued a legal action or why he personally would have done so? Chelsea Tory 20:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I have done my bit for you. The answer by someone called Zoe is that I am you, even though I have a user name and can write and edit as many articles as I wish to under it. Its pathetic, but I've had a go for you. Chelsea Tory 10:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Wingfield

You added the text below to the Wingfield site and I would be most interested to know where you got this information.

The body of Sir William de la Pole, K.G., 1st Duke of Suffolk, was returned to the Collegiate Church at Wingfield, Suffolk, where it was buried beneath a purfled arch. Deben Dave 13:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Block

• For over a year this user has now been blocked. Whether the reason surrounding the block was valid or not the heated issue of the debate has now long passed. I imagine this user could successfully contribute, and be a benefit, to Wikipedia and request an Administrator to champion a request for unblocking. Thank you. --Counter-revolutionary 13:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Unblock Request

Given the degree of elapsed time I would like to again appeal to be unblocked. I apologise for any distress caused by anything said. In addition, it states on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BP#Unblocking that if a block has been made because of a legal threat and the threat appears to be no longer apparent then the block may be lifted. I personally know of no current legal threats. I believe I have made valuable contributions to the project. --User:Sussexman (talk) 14:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I will support that. Chelsea Tory (talk) 16:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

If Chelsea Tory will assume responsibility for making sure you behave, they can lift the block. pschemp | talk 16:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I am very happy to do this and assume all responsibility; I know Sussexman will behave! --Chelsea Tory (talk) 19:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd support Chelsea Tory too, having had no dealings with Sussexman before (I wasn't a member when he was still an editor) I see has made a valuable contribution which might hopefully be revived. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 11:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm quite happy to agree to all of this. --User:Sussexman (talk) 12:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Er guys, you misread, I am not the original blocking admin, so I don't feel comfortable lifting the block. Leave a note for the original guy first please, then if he doesn't respond, I'll consider it under the condition that he doesn't edit anything related to Gregory Lauder Frost. The ANI discussion is here for people to read [1] and the incident was very serious. pschemp | talk 22:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. User:jtdirl placed the block and he/she appears to have departed or is at least on long holidays from Wikipedia. I have looked at the original ANI discussion and clearly there was a dedicated team out to get Sussexman (some of which have also departed Wikipedia). But surely that is now ancient history and the guidelines clearly state that once an issue like this has well and truly passed on the block can be lifted. I hope you can deal with this. Chelsea Tory (talk) 11:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

What stage are we at now. I think we can all be satisfied the issue relating to my block has been removed and there shall be no repetition of what occurred. --User:Sussexman (talk) 14:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

the reason for my original block, apart from being a lie, is now ancient history. I am asking to be unblocked as per Wikipedia rules on indefinite blocks and their duration

Decline reason:

Per Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Sussexman. — Sandstein (talk) 19:22, 29 February 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.

In addition, having preused the current accusations, could I say:

1. Regardless of shared interests in Conservative politics I am not User:Chelsea Tory who I see has now been successfully exiled from Wikipedia. I thank him nevertheless for campaigning for my unblock.
2. I have not broken my block at all and only edited my pages here.
3. I don't know User:David Lauder from Adam.
4. I don't know User:Immanuel Can't from Adam.
5. I don't know User:Counter-revolutionary from Adam, although I thank him also for calling for my unblock and am please to see that he has a interest in Conservativism and monarchism.

Given the length of time I have been blocked, over 18 months, and my User page was left intact by the powers that be, could I ask just why it has now been vandalised and stigmatised to the extent it has. Could the name of the administrator who authorised that be left on this page please. User:Sussexman (talk) 18:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I have no opinion about the merits of your block, but I will ask the blocking admin to consider lifting it now. Sandstein (talk) 18:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• ADMINS - before considering unblock, please note that this is now a checkuser-related block, per Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Sussexman - Alison ^❤ 19:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

the reason for my original block, apart from being a lie, is now ancient history. I am asking to be unblocked as per Wikipedia rules on indefinite blocks and their duration. In addition I would point out that I was approached some months ago by two Wikipedians urging me to again become active. I said I was not that interested as I had been treated badly and abusively. They offered to help and one of them, David Lauder, (whom I don't know), said he would tone down my pages for me so I afforded him my password. I see now from the masses of correspondence that was wrong and has got him into hot water. I hope that you will correct this even if I remain blocked.

Decline reason:

Per Alison and One Night, the nature of your block and the checkuser evidence would indicate that an unblock is inappropriate at this time. I would recommend that you review Wikipedia:Appealing a block, and submit further appeals to the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee. Best, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:34, 8 July 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.

Note to any reviewing admin, Sussexman is community banned and the block is also a checkuser block, so a simple unblock request cannot result in his unblocking. Shortly before this unblock request an IP editor removed templates from the userpage, and also edited Giles Alington, Lord of Horseheath, an article created by Sussexman, so there's ban evasion as well. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 11:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser note: - Sussexman has been evading his ban using this anon account, including removing templates from his own userpage. This IP has also been extensively used in the past on the now deleted-redirected article, Gregory Lauder-Frost - Alison ^❤ 23:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

BTW - have you just admitted that your account is compromised thru a shared password? - Alison ^❤ 23:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)