This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
I am having some browser issues I hope to resolve shortly. A story line is almost always listed as a series of events unless using flash-backs. Not only is it not necessary to expound on a possibility or probability of a guilt or implication without merit, it is against Wikipedia policy to unjustly smear someone. Add to that the fact that I am sure the three co-defendants, that ended up with guilty charges, merit prominence in the lead as the principles, but also as the order of events unfold. This means that lead material should introduce content concerning those, with content on the husband placed in a paragraph below, which at this time would be the last paragraph. Otr500 ( talk) 16:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
collapsed working draft for lede paragraph
|
---|
Anni Ninna Dewani (née Hindocha; 12 March 1982 – 13 November 2010) was a Swedish woman of Indian origin who was murdered while on her honeymoon in South Africa after the taxi she and her husband were travelling in, was carjacked. Arrests were made in the days following the crime, with hijackers Mziwamadoda Qwabe and Xolile Mngeni, and hotel receptionist Monde Mbolombo admitting to their involvement in a robbery/kidnapping that went fatally wrong. [1] Facing life in prison, Qwabe and Mbolombo subsequently changed their stories to allege that the crime had instead been a premeditated "murder for hire" at the alleged behest of Anni's husband Shrien Dewani. Taxi driver Zola Tongo initially claimed to be an innocent victim of the hijacking but faced with the weight of evidence implicating him in the crime and in the wake of his fellow conspirators' allegations of a "murder for hire" plot, he too changed his story to allege that the husband was the instigator. [2]. Attractive plea bargains were offered to the conspirators in exchange for future testimony in legal proceedings related to the crime. The allegation of the husband's involvement made global headlines, with his supporters emphatically denying the accusations saying that it was "ludicrous" to suggest that he had solicited a hit on his wife within hours of arriving in Cape Town, from the first taxi driver he met. [3] Zola Tongo pleaded guilty to murder in December 2010 and was sentenced to 18 years in prison. Mziwamadoda Qwabe pleaded guilty to murder in August 2012 and was sentenced to 25 years in prison. Xolile Mngeni was tried and convicted of murder in November 2012, and was sentenced to life in prison. Monde Mbolombo admitted involvement, but was offered immunity in exchange for testimony against the other conspirators alleged to have been involved in the crime. South African prosecutors formulated charges against Anni's husband Shrien Dewani, based on the later discredited confessions of Tongo, Qwabe and Mbolombo, who were found to have committed perjury. [4] Charges were brought on the basis that Anni had been the victim of a premeditated kidnapping and murder for hire, that was staged to appear as a random carjacking, at the alleged behest of her husband. Following a long legal battle, Shrien was extradited from the UK to South Africa to face trial. He was exonerated by a Western Cape High Court ruling in December 2014 that there was no credible evidence to support the allegations against him, nor to support the allegation that the crime was a premeditated murder for hire. [4] References
|
There is a concerted and somewhat delusional campaign in progress on social media, led by banned sock puppeteer Lane99 aka @perugiamurderfi. This campaign is designed to deceive unknowing readers into believing that this article on the murder of Anni Dewani is a product of agenda driven editing.
For the record, it would be helpful if this talk page reflects the facts of the situation. The section of this page entitled "[ Vandalism and disruption by sock/meat puppets: summary of situation]" details Lane99's behaviour thoroughly and I don't intend to repeat that content here. What needs to be highlighted is the fact that this article has indeed been the target of agenda driven editors; back in July of 2015, Lane99/ @perugiamurderfi and "pro guilt" activist ally "Justice4anni" decided that they were unhappy that the Wikipedia article on this crime was (in their view) slanted in favour of the exonerated husband. They wanted the article to paint the husband in such a way as to imply that he was actually guilty of the crime, despite the court halting his trial midway and acquitting him because no credible evidence linked him to the crime. Lane99/Perugiamurderfi is the primary agenda driven editor who has attempted to inject his agenda into the article. In a strange inverted reality type strategy, Lane99/@perugiamurderfi is trawling Twitter and engaging any journalist who has anything negative to say about Wikipedia and is attempting to co-opt them into his own misguided agenda - by (of all things!) accusing others of pursuing an agenda here on Wiki and repeating his baseless allegation that I am a PR agent. He has been challenged numerous times to provide proof of this allegation and he cannot do so, primarily because there isn't a grain of truth to it. I am merely a person who took an interest in this case.
I would caution anyone who views this talk page to familiarise themselves with the actual facts of the case and the relevant court documents before buying into the social media rantings of these agenda driven "pro guilt" activists. Dewanifacts ( talk) 11:43, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Edited so that content above does not get auto-archived. This article remains a target for vandalism and is the subject of a social media campaign to have the contents amended to lend credit to the "murder for hire" story told by the criminals who murdered Anni. Screenshots here. Dewanifacts ( talk) 09:48, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia is misleading its readers- and one imagines recklessly inflicting emotional pain and suffering damages upon Anni Hindocha’s family in the bargain- by publishing an article which advocates that Anni’s murder was not a contract killing, despite it being a proven, legally documented fact that it was.
It is an established fact that Anni’s killing was a murder for hire. And by whitewashing this central fact from the article, Wikipedia is flouting virtually every editorial standard to which it claims to adhere. Including, but not limited to, standards of completeness, bias, neutrality, and consensus-based edits.
An honest, neutral, description of the murder- based on multiple unbiased and reliable sources- has already been proffered. And it should replace the partisan propaganda which Wikipedia is currently presenting to its unsuspecting readers. Advocate the 2nd ( talk) 22:12, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Advocate the 2nd : based on your name, I wonder if you have any legal background (Advocate being the designation in South Africa for what North Americans call lawyers)? If so, can you comment about whether Anni Hindocha's murder has been proven to be a contract killing? As a layman, it seems so. So it is troubling that this essay is telling readers that is was not a contract killing. More troubling still that this does not seem to be a random oversight, but a deliberate choice to cover up the facts of the murder. 64.141.83.200 ( talk) 21:55, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
This article continues to be the intended target of vandalism.
In brief: there is a fringe group of people who believe that the exonerated husband was actually an instigator rather than a victim of the robbery/kidnapping during which Anni Dewani was killed. This fringe group would like the Wikipedia article on this crime to imply that the husband "got away with murder". They are furious that the article does not reflect this viewpoint and are vilifying Wikipedia on social media, claiming that the article is "biased" and rigged by a PR agent.
This faction is so small that it barely qualifies as a "fringe group". It is comprised of the all but defunct "justice4anni" collective who maintain two Facebook pages - the libelously titled "Shrien Dewani: getting away with murder", and the "Memory of Anni Hindocha aka Dewani".
The social media ranting is largely driven by incorrigible banned & blocked sock puppeteer Lane99 aka" perugiamurderfi"/ Al_Trainer/ ahindocha/ Factsnotlies/ Noanon/ Forbeshighland/ Kesadilla22, who continues to canvas social media for meat puppets, vilify Wikipedia, broadcast the fact that he has engaged Jimbo Wales and persists in begging random twitter users to take up his cause.] Even to that end he fails dismally. Those few netizens who may be sympathetic to this sock puppeteer's misguided beliefs, have not taken up his cause on Wikipedia because even they realise that the facts and court findings do not support the claims being made.
Most recently, this sock puppeteer has taken to appealing on Jimbo Wales' talk page for intervention, a sure sign of desperation.
This sock puppeteer has an axe to grind because he has not been allowed to insert his rhetoric into this article. He has also adopted a somewhat delusional strategy of stating that Wikipedia and its editors have "tacitly admitted" that the article is biased. He further goes on to claim that Wikipedia is refusing to publish the "truth" due to fear of legal repercussions. His line of argument here apparently refers to WP:BLP; he is furious that he is not being permitted to imply and ascribe guilt to a person who has been fully exonerated by a court of law. For the record it should be noted that aside from vociferous backing from his own army of sock puppets, this puppeteer's views have enjoyed no support here on Wikipedia. There has been no admission, tacit or otherwise, of any bias in the article aside from a bias toward reality rather than the distorted libelous slant that this sock puppeteer would prefer.
This sock puppeteer continues to make the wholly false, unsubstantiated claim that this article is written by a PR agent.
I am the person he falsely accuses of being a PR agent. I can assure everyone (as I have done on many occasions prior on this very talk page) that I am nothing of the sort. I am merely a person who took an interest in this case and have continued to follow it.
On numerous occasions this sock puppeteer has been challenged to substantiate this baseless claim and no evidence has ever been forthcoming. Nothing new here. People associated with the "lynch Shrien Dewani" movement have been employing this strategy ever since the crime occurred in 2010, casting aspersions over the credibility of any individual, journalist or online discussion participant who dared to present exculpatory facts that showed Mr Dewani to be innocent and accusing those people of being on the Dewani payroll. Such claims have never been substantiated but that has not stopped the lynch mob from propagating said claims as though they are fact. I invite this sock puppeteer, yet again, to provide evidence to back his claim.
This article has had input from many editors with diverse backgrounds and interests, many of them seasoned Wikipedia contributors. As a person with an interest in this case I participated in the discussion and drafted parts of the article. Every single sentence and section was subject to rigorous analysis and discussion on this very talk page and those discussions can be read by anyone who takes the time to do so. The sock puppeteer was invited to participate in the discussion on many occasions, however the only contribution he has ever been willing to make has been to insist over and over again that this crime should be referred to as a "murder for hire".
Despite the dramatic cries of "bias", in reality this sock puppeteer's sole bugbear concerns the first paragraph of the article, in which he would like Wikipedia to state that this crime was proven to be a contract killing. This claim is blatantly false and constitutes a gross violation of WP:BLP. The sock puppeteer's motivation for champing at this bit is rather obvious; he and his other "pro guilt" cronies wish to use Wikipedia as a trojan horse of sorts, so that they can point to it and say "even Wikipedia says that the crime was a contract killing - and the husband is the only person who logically could have ordered it", thereby implying that the exonerated husband was actually guilty of the crime.
In line with overwhelming consensus on this talk page, the false and misleading claim that this crime was "proven" to be a contract killing has no place here on Wikipedia. This sock puppeteer has specified the three court rulings upon which he bases his claim and on many occasions now it has been explained to him why those rulings carry no weight since they were all proven to be based on perjury by the people who committed the crime and murdered Anni Dewani.
In summary, what this sock puppeteer likes to term "proven facts" are actually nothing more than fabricated stories told by lying criminals. This position is avowed by the court in S v Dewani. Paragraph 23.1 of the court's judgement in S v Dewani explicitly states that the only crimes that had been proven to have been planned in advance were the crimes of kidnapping and robbery.
23.1 It is clear that Mr. Tongo, Mr. Qwabe and Mr. Mngeni (and Mr. Mbolombo) acted in execution of a common purpose to commit at least the offences of kidnapping and robbery and possibly also other offences"
Paragraph 23.1 is irreconcilable with this sock puppeteer's claim that this crime was "proven" to be a murder for hire. In actual fact, it shows the sock puppeteer's claim to be patently false.
It should be noted that this sock puppeteer has also embarked on a strategy of emotional blackmail, attempting to bully Wikipedia into making his desired amendments by drawing the murder victim's family into the discussion and claiming that they are being caused distress by the content of the article. This tactic is especially distasteful in light of the fact that this same sock puppeteer recently impersonated a member of the victim's family with his banned ahindocha account. There is no evidence of the murder victim's family being caused any distress by the contents of the Wikipedia article, and even if this were the case, it would not and should not influence the inclusion of neutral and reliably sourced consensus based content.
Its time to stop flogging the horse. I am sure I am not alone in asking this sock puppeteer to please desist from contributing in this way to Wikipedia and to rather go and write his own article and publish it somewhere else where he is free to write whatever he wants. All the best. Dewanifacts ( talk) 13:25, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Just a heads up for the record. Lane99 (in his twitter guise @perugiamurderfi) and rabid pro guilt activist " justice4anni" both continue to trawl Twitter, slander Wikipedia and spread false unsubstantiated allegations claiming that Wikipedia is allowing a PR agenda to be pushed with regard to the subject of this article. Yet again, I would challenge lane99/perugiamurderfi to come forward with proof to back up these allegations, or to admit that no such proof exists. Dewanifacts ( talk) 01:23, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Edited so that content above does not get auto-archived. This article remains a target for vandalism and is the subject of a social media campaign to have the contents amended to lend credit to the "murder for hire" story told by the criminals who murdered Anni. Screenshots here. Dewanifacts ( talk) 09:49, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
I have had my attention drawn to a thread about this article on an anti-Wikipedia website - wikipediasucks - started by Lane99 and used by Lane99 to further slander Wikipedia and specific Wikipedia admins and to allegedly prepare for an imaginary lawsuit that he intended to file. Dewanifacts ( talk) 13:21, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Shrien Dewani redirects here but has no section or anchor, where should it redirect to? Banak ( talk) 14:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
I am having some browser issues I hope to resolve shortly. A story line is almost always listed as a series of events unless using flash-backs. Not only is it not necessary to expound on a possibility or probability of a guilt or implication without merit, it is against Wikipedia policy to unjustly smear someone. Add to that the fact that I am sure the three co-defendants, that ended up with guilty charges, merit prominence in the lead as the principles, but also as the order of events unfold. This means that lead material should introduce content concerning those, with content on the husband placed in a paragraph below, which at this time would be the last paragraph. Otr500 ( talk) 16:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
collapsed working draft for lede paragraph
|
---|
Anni Ninna Dewani (née Hindocha; 12 March 1982 – 13 November 2010) was a Swedish woman of Indian origin who was murdered while on her honeymoon in South Africa after the taxi she and her husband were travelling in, was carjacked. Arrests were made in the days following the crime, with hijackers Mziwamadoda Qwabe and Xolile Mngeni, and hotel receptionist Monde Mbolombo admitting to their involvement in a robbery/kidnapping that went fatally wrong. [1] Facing life in prison, Qwabe and Mbolombo subsequently changed their stories to allege that the crime had instead been a premeditated "murder for hire" at the alleged behest of Anni's husband Shrien Dewani. Taxi driver Zola Tongo initially claimed to be an innocent victim of the hijacking but faced with the weight of evidence implicating him in the crime and in the wake of his fellow conspirators' allegations of a "murder for hire" plot, he too changed his story to allege that the husband was the instigator. [2]. Attractive plea bargains were offered to the conspirators in exchange for future testimony in legal proceedings related to the crime. The allegation of the husband's involvement made global headlines, with his supporters emphatically denying the accusations saying that it was "ludicrous" to suggest that he had solicited a hit on his wife within hours of arriving in Cape Town, from the first taxi driver he met. [3] Zola Tongo pleaded guilty to murder in December 2010 and was sentenced to 18 years in prison. Mziwamadoda Qwabe pleaded guilty to murder in August 2012 and was sentenced to 25 years in prison. Xolile Mngeni was tried and convicted of murder in November 2012, and was sentenced to life in prison. Monde Mbolombo admitted involvement, but was offered immunity in exchange for testimony against the other conspirators alleged to have been involved in the crime. South African prosecutors formulated charges against Anni's husband Shrien Dewani, based on the later discredited confessions of Tongo, Qwabe and Mbolombo, who were found to have committed perjury. [4] Charges were brought on the basis that Anni had been the victim of a premeditated kidnapping and murder for hire, that was staged to appear as a random carjacking, at the alleged behest of her husband. Following a long legal battle, Shrien was extradited from the UK to South Africa to face trial. He was exonerated by a Western Cape High Court ruling in December 2014 that there was no credible evidence to support the allegations against him, nor to support the allegation that the crime was a premeditated murder for hire. [4] References
|
There is a concerted and somewhat delusional campaign in progress on social media, led by banned sock puppeteer Lane99 aka @perugiamurderfi. This campaign is designed to deceive unknowing readers into believing that this article on the murder of Anni Dewani is a product of agenda driven editing.
For the record, it would be helpful if this talk page reflects the facts of the situation. The section of this page entitled "[ Vandalism and disruption by sock/meat puppets: summary of situation]" details Lane99's behaviour thoroughly and I don't intend to repeat that content here. What needs to be highlighted is the fact that this article has indeed been the target of agenda driven editors; back in July of 2015, Lane99/ @perugiamurderfi and "pro guilt" activist ally "Justice4anni" decided that they were unhappy that the Wikipedia article on this crime was (in their view) slanted in favour of the exonerated husband. They wanted the article to paint the husband in such a way as to imply that he was actually guilty of the crime, despite the court halting his trial midway and acquitting him because no credible evidence linked him to the crime. Lane99/Perugiamurderfi is the primary agenda driven editor who has attempted to inject his agenda into the article. In a strange inverted reality type strategy, Lane99/@perugiamurderfi is trawling Twitter and engaging any journalist who has anything negative to say about Wikipedia and is attempting to co-opt them into his own misguided agenda - by (of all things!) accusing others of pursuing an agenda here on Wiki and repeating his baseless allegation that I am a PR agent. He has been challenged numerous times to provide proof of this allegation and he cannot do so, primarily because there isn't a grain of truth to it. I am merely a person who took an interest in this case.
I would caution anyone who views this talk page to familiarise themselves with the actual facts of the case and the relevant court documents before buying into the social media rantings of these agenda driven "pro guilt" activists. Dewanifacts ( talk) 11:43, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Edited so that content above does not get auto-archived. This article remains a target for vandalism and is the subject of a social media campaign to have the contents amended to lend credit to the "murder for hire" story told by the criminals who murdered Anni. Screenshots here. Dewanifacts ( talk) 09:48, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia is misleading its readers- and one imagines recklessly inflicting emotional pain and suffering damages upon Anni Hindocha’s family in the bargain- by publishing an article which advocates that Anni’s murder was not a contract killing, despite it being a proven, legally documented fact that it was.
It is an established fact that Anni’s killing was a murder for hire. And by whitewashing this central fact from the article, Wikipedia is flouting virtually every editorial standard to which it claims to adhere. Including, but not limited to, standards of completeness, bias, neutrality, and consensus-based edits.
An honest, neutral, description of the murder- based on multiple unbiased and reliable sources- has already been proffered. And it should replace the partisan propaganda which Wikipedia is currently presenting to its unsuspecting readers. Advocate the 2nd ( talk) 22:12, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Advocate the 2nd : based on your name, I wonder if you have any legal background (Advocate being the designation in South Africa for what North Americans call lawyers)? If so, can you comment about whether Anni Hindocha's murder has been proven to be a contract killing? As a layman, it seems so. So it is troubling that this essay is telling readers that is was not a contract killing. More troubling still that this does not seem to be a random oversight, but a deliberate choice to cover up the facts of the murder. 64.141.83.200 ( talk) 21:55, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
This article continues to be the intended target of vandalism.
In brief: there is a fringe group of people who believe that the exonerated husband was actually an instigator rather than a victim of the robbery/kidnapping during which Anni Dewani was killed. This fringe group would like the Wikipedia article on this crime to imply that the husband "got away with murder". They are furious that the article does not reflect this viewpoint and are vilifying Wikipedia on social media, claiming that the article is "biased" and rigged by a PR agent.
This faction is so small that it barely qualifies as a "fringe group". It is comprised of the all but defunct "justice4anni" collective who maintain two Facebook pages - the libelously titled "Shrien Dewani: getting away with murder", and the "Memory of Anni Hindocha aka Dewani".
The social media ranting is largely driven by incorrigible banned & blocked sock puppeteer Lane99 aka" perugiamurderfi"/ Al_Trainer/ ahindocha/ Factsnotlies/ Noanon/ Forbeshighland/ Kesadilla22, who continues to canvas social media for meat puppets, vilify Wikipedia, broadcast the fact that he has engaged Jimbo Wales and persists in begging random twitter users to take up his cause.] Even to that end he fails dismally. Those few netizens who may be sympathetic to this sock puppeteer's misguided beliefs, have not taken up his cause on Wikipedia because even they realise that the facts and court findings do not support the claims being made.
Most recently, this sock puppeteer has taken to appealing on Jimbo Wales' talk page for intervention, a sure sign of desperation.
This sock puppeteer has an axe to grind because he has not been allowed to insert his rhetoric into this article. He has also adopted a somewhat delusional strategy of stating that Wikipedia and its editors have "tacitly admitted" that the article is biased. He further goes on to claim that Wikipedia is refusing to publish the "truth" due to fear of legal repercussions. His line of argument here apparently refers to WP:BLP; he is furious that he is not being permitted to imply and ascribe guilt to a person who has been fully exonerated by a court of law. For the record it should be noted that aside from vociferous backing from his own army of sock puppets, this puppeteer's views have enjoyed no support here on Wikipedia. There has been no admission, tacit or otherwise, of any bias in the article aside from a bias toward reality rather than the distorted libelous slant that this sock puppeteer would prefer.
This sock puppeteer continues to make the wholly false, unsubstantiated claim that this article is written by a PR agent.
I am the person he falsely accuses of being a PR agent. I can assure everyone (as I have done on many occasions prior on this very talk page) that I am nothing of the sort. I am merely a person who took an interest in this case and have continued to follow it.
On numerous occasions this sock puppeteer has been challenged to substantiate this baseless claim and no evidence has ever been forthcoming. Nothing new here. People associated with the "lynch Shrien Dewani" movement have been employing this strategy ever since the crime occurred in 2010, casting aspersions over the credibility of any individual, journalist or online discussion participant who dared to present exculpatory facts that showed Mr Dewani to be innocent and accusing those people of being on the Dewani payroll. Such claims have never been substantiated but that has not stopped the lynch mob from propagating said claims as though they are fact. I invite this sock puppeteer, yet again, to provide evidence to back his claim.
This article has had input from many editors with diverse backgrounds and interests, many of them seasoned Wikipedia contributors. As a person with an interest in this case I participated in the discussion and drafted parts of the article. Every single sentence and section was subject to rigorous analysis and discussion on this very talk page and those discussions can be read by anyone who takes the time to do so. The sock puppeteer was invited to participate in the discussion on many occasions, however the only contribution he has ever been willing to make has been to insist over and over again that this crime should be referred to as a "murder for hire".
Despite the dramatic cries of "bias", in reality this sock puppeteer's sole bugbear concerns the first paragraph of the article, in which he would like Wikipedia to state that this crime was proven to be a contract killing. This claim is blatantly false and constitutes a gross violation of WP:BLP. The sock puppeteer's motivation for champing at this bit is rather obvious; he and his other "pro guilt" cronies wish to use Wikipedia as a trojan horse of sorts, so that they can point to it and say "even Wikipedia says that the crime was a contract killing - and the husband is the only person who logically could have ordered it", thereby implying that the exonerated husband was actually guilty of the crime.
In line with overwhelming consensus on this talk page, the false and misleading claim that this crime was "proven" to be a contract killing has no place here on Wikipedia. This sock puppeteer has specified the three court rulings upon which he bases his claim and on many occasions now it has been explained to him why those rulings carry no weight since they were all proven to be based on perjury by the people who committed the crime and murdered Anni Dewani.
In summary, what this sock puppeteer likes to term "proven facts" are actually nothing more than fabricated stories told by lying criminals. This position is avowed by the court in S v Dewani. Paragraph 23.1 of the court's judgement in S v Dewani explicitly states that the only crimes that had been proven to have been planned in advance were the crimes of kidnapping and robbery.
23.1 It is clear that Mr. Tongo, Mr. Qwabe and Mr. Mngeni (and Mr. Mbolombo) acted in execution of a common purpose to commit at least the offences of kidnapping and robbery and possibly also other offences"
Paragraph 23.1 is irreconcilable with this sock puppeteer's claim that this crime was "proven" to be a murder for hire. In actual fact, it shows the sock puppeteer's claim to be patently false.
It should be noted that this sock puppeteer has also embarked on a strategy of emotional blackmail, attempting to bully Wikipedia into making his desired amendments by drawing the murder victim's family into the discussion and claiming that they are being caused distress by the content of the article. This tactic is especially distasteful in light of the fact that this same sock puppeteer recently impersonated a member of the victim's family with his banned ahindocha account. There is no evidence of the murder victim's family being caused any distress by the contents of the Wikipedia article, and even if this were the case, it would not and should not influence the inclusion of neutral and reliably sourced consensus based content.
Its time to stop flogging the horse. I am sure I am not alone in asking this sock puppeteer to please desist from contributing in this way to Wikipedia and to rather go and write his own article and publish it somewhere else where he is free to write whatever he wants. All the best. Dewanifacts ( talk) 13:25, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Just a heads up for the record. Lane99 (in his twitter guise @perugiamurderfi) and rabid pro guilt activist " justice4anni" both continue to trawl Twitter, slander Wikipedia and spread false unsubstantiated allegations claiming that Wikipedia is allowing a PR agenda to be pushed with regard to the subject of this article. Yet again, I would challenge lane99/perugiamurderfi to come forward with proof to back up these allegations, or to admit that no such proof exists. Dewanifacts ( talk) 01:23, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Edited so that content above does not get auto-archived. This article remains a target for vandalism and is the subject of a social media campaign to have the contents amended to lend credit to the "murder for hire" story told by the criminals who murdered Anni. Screenshots here. Dewanifacts ( talk) 09:49, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
I have had my attention drawn to a thread about this article on an anti-Wikipedia website - wikipediasucks - started by Lane99 and used by Lane99 to further slander Wikipedia and specific Wikipedia admins and to allegedly prepare for an imaginary lawsuit that he intended to file. Dewanifacts ( talk) 13:21, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Shrien Dewani redirects here but has no section or anchor, where should it redirect to? Banak ( talk) 14:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)