User talk:Guinnessdrinker32
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I have also contacted OFCOM under the online safety act which protects individuals from false allegation and the act which wiki will no longer challenge in the high court.
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Daniel Case (talk) 19:43, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
Guinnessdrinker32 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)
Request reason:
Dear Daniel you have 7 working days to provide evidence to false malicious allegation accusing me of being sock it is a criminal offence under UK law to make such allegation. This fall in line with the Malicious communication act. The Malicious Communications Act 1988 allows for the prosecution of individuals engaged in harmful and slanderous communication. The law aims to shield individuals from harmful' Malicious and slanderous communications that may result in person being wrong accused or allegation made at them that untruthful and cause harm. Examples Defamation law in the United Kingdom is designed to protect individuals and entities from unjust damage to their reputation. Defamation occurs when false statements are made about someone that harm their reputation and posted on social media, website platforms or other form of communication .
The two main forms of defamation are libel and slander. While both fall under the umbrella of defamation, they are distinct in terms of how the defamatory statement is communicated. Libel refers to defamation in a permanent form, typically written or published statements, while slander refers to defamation in a transient form, usually spoken words or gestures.
The severity of a sentence typically hinges on several factors, including the nature of the communication, whether it was a singular incident versus repeated behaviour, and any aggravating circumstances, such as prior convictions. Under the Malicious Communications Act 1988, the courts categorize these offenses as criminal. in recent ruling in France saw 10 individuals given prison sentence and suspended sentence for making malicious claims: and I have contacted info@wikimedia.org to have your allegation investigated. this means wiki will now have to disclose your details under UK law. you have 7 days to provide proof to your claim. Wiki don't take kindly to to admin making false allegation as this leads to law suits against the foundation. I will of course copy the details of the email into my talk page when sent for transparency
Decline reason:
Wikipedia:No legal threats allowed – you will remain blocked until you have retracted the threat of any and all legal action against Wikipedia or its editors. DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:22, 6 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.
The policy on defamation is to delete libel as soon as it is identified so unless all these user remove there talk comments it will be treated as libel and this includes the false block by Daniel. I have sent official letter to wiki informing them that content on the Matt Goss talk is libelous and, emailed to info-en-q@wikipedia.org.
January 2026
Your recent edits could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution, or submit a DMCA request if you believe your copyrighted content is being used improperly. Please be sure to comment on content, not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. User3749 (talk) 09:37, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
- Dear User3749 firstly I have contacted info@wiki as their is no such policy about blocking user who threaten legal libel action against malicious allegation, I suggest you now read the new online safety act which wiki will not appeal the high court decision. I have made no threat to the user but asked to simply provide evidence to their claim. no longer can platform allow false allegation to posted and i will work with wiki legal team. however wiki will have duty to disclose information under freedom of information or a subject access request. this means all the information on the talk pages have been printed off and uploaded to wiki they have 30 days to comply with subject access request and if they don't then court action will taken against the foundation. I have asked the foundation to investigate all users to ensure transparency and to protect other new users from admin who make false allegation. wiki is free for all however what I have observed is certain people who no the site better than others feel they can abuse there power. this is why the online safety bill have been brought into to companies and user accountable to there post. Guinnessdrinker32 (talk) 09:50, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
Update this is now formal court case against wiki foundation do not tamper with this page or remove any content
this email has now been sent to legal at wiki do not remove
Dear Wiki Foundation,
Firstly, I want to express that I do not take this report lightly. I have been a victim of libelous comments posted on the talk page for Matt Goss. These false and malicious comments by users on your platform breach the Online Safety Act as well as the UK Libel and Slander Act.
I recently signed up for Wikipedia under the username Guinnessdrinker32 and made some edits, typically adding "citation needed" to ensure that all information on your platform is factual. After reviewing the page for singer Matt Goss, I initiated a discussion on the talk page to seek clarity on sourced edits. However, due to my inquiry, I was blocked by user and admin [Daniel Case](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Daniel_Case), who accused me of being a sock puppet. This has led to further malicious and false allegations against me, damaging my reputation and resulting in libelous content.
This includes the following users: (Redacted)
It is clear that certain users and administrators are making false allegations against new users and blocking them from making correctly sourced edits. This behavior is in violation of the new Online Safety Bill. I respectfully request an investigation into this matter and an outcome.
I have consulted a solicitor and provided them with screenshots and printouts of the comments on the talk page, clearly stating that this content is libelous. The responsibility lies with these users, as well as the foundation, to substantiate their claims or face legal action in court.
I believe that Wikipedia is for everyone, but certain administrators and users on your platform seem to think it is acceptable to post malicious and libelous comments without consequence. I await your response, but I have also sent a letter to Ofcom reporting this bullying and the malicious, slanderous comments.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely, Guinnessdrinker32
- The article has been edited for neutral tone by myself and others, the talk page contains zero malicious content about you or anybody else? Theroadislong (talk) 14:01, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
- Dear Member accusing people of being sock puppet is libel under UK law also posting stuff like this is also classed as libel, false information and ruining a person reputation
- Please note that User:Guinnessdrinker32 has been blocked as a likely sock of User:Lionkings3t3t3, who also had a lot to say about Matt Goss. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:20, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
- If they're not "real", then they've made a considerable effort. It's odd that the cover and the flyer has the same photo. @Bri, this might be "funny" enough to mention in the Signpost. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:28, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
- I did wonder if the were fake, the formatting seems off for physically published media. FYI apparently not agreeing with this editor's whim is a criminal offence![2] -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:44, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
- I hope the editors Above can back up their claims just because they live abroad does mean they cant be investigated by wiki and this is being used as evidence against wiki foundation. the onus is on the user and wiki foundation to prove there case not me, if they cant and wiki don't act on this report. I simple win the libel case and as court papers have been served on wiki. I really think you admins and user need to understand the law. Guinnessdrinker32 (talk) 15:25, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Legal threat. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:25, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
January 2026
(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.
- Hello Guinnessdrinker32. The English Wikipedia's policy (see: Wikipedia:No legal threats) is that you may not edit while you are pursuing a legal action against Wikipedia or any Wikipedia editor, or threatening to do so. This is both for your and our protection. As such you have been blocked from editing; the block message contains information if you wish to appeal your block, but you will be required to publicly retract your threat of legal action. Otherwise, you must direct all communication regarding your legal concern to the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department; they can be reached at legal
wikimedia.org. Other email addresses of the Foundation will not process a legal threat and will not reply. Thank you. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:39, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
Your thread has been archived
 |
Hello Guinnessdrinker32! The thread you created at the Teahouse, You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please .
See also the help page about the archival process.
The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing |