User talk:109.153.116.158

January 2014

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action. 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.

You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved.  A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:38, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

The comments which preceded the legal threat were defamatory, outrageous and should not have been allowed. I ask you to read the page. Yet the Editor of the page allowed those comments in violation of the rules that no personal abuse should be allowed. The article implies Miss Sagay committed fraud, the latest in along list of accusations. Content which is defamatory should not be allowed. The page for the film Belle has been used as for several months as a forum for Amma Asnate to publish extremely defamatory material about the writer Misan Sagay and the WGA; and distort and manipulate the public record. All writers in America belong to the guild and every credit awarded in Hollywood since 1935 have been determined by the guild by fellow writers. Miss Asnate participated in an arbitration that she lost. Since then she has waged an unbelievable campaign of defamation against Misan Sagay. Unable to get any responsible or industry media to take up her story, she got a gossip columnist friend (Baz BAmigboye) to write this one article claiming actors had said things. This non story was not taken up by any of the industry press. The Actors have apologised for any impression they gave as have the Producers and the comments have not been repeated. Indeed it is unclear whether the actors made the comments attributed to them. Yet Miss Asnate has nevertheless placed this one article on the wiki page to create an atmosphere of intimidation and abuse of Miss Sagay and overturn and violate the credit she was awarded at independent arbitration. Asnate's behaviour has been disowned by the Producers and financiers and they have taken legal steps against her. Asnate is under a "cease a desist order" by the Producers to stop her making these "outrageous" claims . She did not write the screenplay. Her behaviour has been labelled "delusional" and despicable. She is accused in a claim filed recently in Los Angeles of attempting to plagiarise Miss Sagay's work and of making up a concocted backstory, of misleadingly placing her name as sole author on screenplay, misleading the Actors. She is accused of manipulating the internet to ensure defamatory content she has brought into being is al the top of the search for Miss Sagays name. Most of that content has now been removed. Yet this article gives the completely false impression that the controversy is over Miss Sagay's credit, and not over the behaviour of Asnate who was exposed by the arbitration. The article is therefore misleading. The authorship issue section should go or be amended. The talk page of the film is about discussing the content and not for a disgruntled person to conduct a campaign of defamation against another. The wiki page may report a controversy but should not be used by someone to artificially create one. After 5 month this one article should not be given the prominence it has. I nevertheless withdraw the threat which was made in sheer exasperation at the way the WIKI page which should be serving the film has been hijacked. I would request some sort of review of the way this page has been used. it should eb about the film.reason=Your reason here 109.153.116.158 (talk) 12:13, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Since you say that you withdraw your threat of legal action, I am unblocking you. I have no idea whether your grievances are justified or not, but I will advise you that you are more likely to get people to take notice of your case and give it serious consideration if you come across as making your point in a civil and rational way than if you seem to be making angry and belligerent demands. Unfortunately, we do get large numbers of people with a point of view to promote who come here and try to force their way through by aggression, and the result is that anyone expressing anger is likely to be seen as doing that, even if in fact they have good reason for being displeased. Also, it may help to bear in mind that most of the people you are addressing are good-faith volunteers, who may not be personally to blame for any problems that you see in an article. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:05, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

---