Talk:Murder of Anni Dewani

Discretionary sanctions

I have explicitly placed this page under BLP discretionary sanctions. New editors are reminded that BLP applies everywhere, even on talk pages, and taking up the positions of topic-banned editors may result in blocks. Editing the article against consensus may also result in blocks. Experienced editors can help out by placing discretionary sanctions notices on new editors' talk pages and notifying admins if problems persist. Bishonen and myself are familiar with the situation so you may want to approach us first. Please provide diffs if you do. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:09, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

For the sake of transparency and so that all editors are aware of what is spurring this flurry of sockpuppet activity, it is likely being driven by the hysterical posts of rabid pro-guilt fringe group "justice4anni" who have been tweeting furiously that this Wikipedia article is "biased" because it doesn't permit their BLP violating views to be inserted. Random journalists and even Jimmy Wales are being tweeted and fed the completely false unsubstantiated line that "a PR agent for Shrien Dewani" is contributing to the Wikipedia article. Prominent "justice4anni" member afd has contributed to this article in the past. It is curious that "justice4anni" does not discuss what they perceive as issues on this talk page but instead have gone down the avenue of slagging Wikipedia on Twitter. Tweets can be seen here.

"justice4anni"'s antics are being ably assisted by topic banned editor Lane99 with tweets such as this one Dewanifacts (talk) 08:18, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Dewanifacts your above comment is discourteous and inflammatory. Your mention of my contributions in this context is entirely unnecessary, and a direct violation of WP:NPA which states: "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor." Your private war with the 'justice4anni' group should have no place on this talk page. Please acquaint yourself with Wikipedia guidelines WP:GF, WP:CIV, WP:NPA and WP:HAR and refrain from such ad hominem attacks in future.afd (talk) 02:58, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi afd, apologies if it came across as discourteous. Was not the intent. Where is the inflammatory part? You were mentioned only in the context that as a current Wikipedia contributor, it is curious that you don't discuss your concerns on this talk page, but rather use your group's libelous social media pages to publish wholly false, unsubstantiated allegations against Wikipedia and Wikipedia editors. Perhaps you can address that issue, rather than seeking to deflect attention onto others. I'd suggest you acquaint yourself with WP:MEAT and WP:CAN. Aside from making scurrilous allegations, the latest posts on your group's social media pages are direct violations of the above Wiki guidelines and constitute grossly inappropriate sock puppetry, meat puppetry, campaigning, vote stacking and stealth canvassing. They also appear to be almost verbatim replicas and endorsements of the words of banned editor Lane99/Noanon. All screenshots are preserved - https://dewanifacts.wordpress.com/canvassing-sock-puppetry-and-meat-puppetry/ Dewanifacts (talk) 09:23, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Dewanifacts you wrote above: "you don't discuss your concerns on this talk page, but rather use your group's libelous social media pages to publish wholly false, unsubstantiated allegations against Wikipedia and Wikipedia editors". Those are wholly false unsubstantiated allegations by you, concerning my conduct. Your intent is quite clearly to imply that I am responsible for false and libelous content on social media, and thus to disparage and discredit any opinion I might choose to express on this talk page. I invite you to substantiate your allegations by citing even a single posting or comment I have placed online. If you can't do that, you owe me an apology. afd (talk) 03:40, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

afd I cannot prove that it was you who typed the social media messages, therefore I apologise for implying that you personally typed them. The unfortunate reality for you is that you are a prominent member of a group who are propagating the aforementioned Wikipedia violations via libellous social media accounts. You are also that group's primary voice here on Wikipedia. Therefore your views are unavoidably coloured by that association. You don't deny your association with that group, do you? Do you have any thoughts or comments on the meat/sock puppetry and vote stacking attempts being employed by that group in their attempts to disrupt the editing of this Wikipedia article? To your credit, I am of the view that you are the most tempered spokesperson for that group and your style contrasts with their normal hysterical tone. With best regards. Dewanifacts (talk) 11:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Dewanifacts My contributions (such as they are) to Wikipedia are my own. I am not a voice for or representative of justice4anni, or any group for that matter. Would you please simply stick to the issues under discussion here, rather than repeatedly (as in stuck record) making irrelevant and incorrect assertions about my relationship to other groups and users outside Wikipedia. Thankyou. afd (talk) 16:15, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments and Suggested Restriction

I would like to thank admins User:Bishonen and User:NeilN for taking action to deal with this mess. I became aware of this article and its controversy in August 2015, when it came to the dispute resolution noticeboard, and I tried to mediate it, but had to fail the mediation, because editors continued editing the article while I was trying to conduct moderated discussion. It doesn't appear to have improved in the past months. The conduct of the pro-guilt faction (trying to imply that the Shrien Dewani needs to be retried, or whatever) is appalling. They aren't the only editors behaving badly, just the worst ones. The appearance of new recruited anti-Dewani editors is suggestive of sockpuppetry. I would suggest that it may be appropriate to impose a 30-day/500-edit restriction on the article and this talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:55, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks also to you Robert McClenon for your valiant efforts to assist. I think you should give yourself more credit. You didn't fail. I don't think the article is a mess at all. To the contrary, the article is in significantly better shape than it was in August. It has been pared down to be an informative, neutral, factual and well sourced record of the tragic event to which it pertains. In my view, the current level of semi protection should be given a chance before resorting to more draconian restrictions that may impede the progress of the article, given the fact that this story is not yet concluded and many unknowns remain. Dewanifacts (talk) 18:24, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps I should explain what I meant about failure. I did not mean that my effort at mediation was a failure in the usual sense. I failed the mediation in that I declared it to be a failure. If an instructor writes "F" on a paper, the instructor did not fail; the instructor failed the paper. (You can also say that the student failed.) I figuratively put an "F" on the record of the mediation. That is what I meant. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:04, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, Robert McClenon. Understood. The mediations in question were doomed to fail. How could they have succeeded? An editor who will re-insert the same BLP violation nine times despite being asked not to do so, is unlikely to suddenly turn around and admit that the facts don't support their stated position. Mediation is to some extent reliant on the parties behaving rationally. Dewanifacts (talk) 22:21, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Unfortunately, mediation sometimes fails because one of the editors is stubborn. We still have to try. Sometimes mediation works.Robert McClenon (talk) 23:16, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

As to semi-protection, which is a 4-day/10-edit restriction, I agree that it is worth giving it a chance first, as long as the semi-protection is for months rather than the usual week or two weeks, and as long as the monitoring admins, including Bishonen and NeilN continue to impose topic-bans on BLP-violating editors, and as long as constructive editors continue to template BLP-violating editors, and as long as sockpuppetry is dealt with by blocks. However, in other cases where there has been problematic off-wiki coordination, it has been necessary to go to 30-day/500-edit restrictions, and this case is subject to problematic off-wiki coordination. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:04, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

In the case of a 30 days/500 edit restriction, does a qualifying editor need to fulfil both the 30 day and 500 edit requirements? Or just one of them? Dewanifacts (talk) 22:21, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Both of them. The same as for 4/10. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:16, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Quantifying Consensus: Do you agree the Anni Hindocha article is biased and should be corrected?

Collapsing RfC opened by blocked sockpuppet. Please don't add anything more to this section. Bishonen | talk 11:23, 4 February 2016 (UTC).
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"It is clear to me the "Murder of Anni Dewani" article (as it appears on December 5, 2015) omits or downplays important facts about the murder, and is written from a non-neutral and partisan point of view." Two questions: (1) Yes or no, do you agree with the above statement? (2) If you answered yes to question 1: yes or no, do you further agree the current (as of December 5) lede section is particularly biased and should be replaced by the lede section written by Advocate BG (as seen here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Murder_of_Anni_Dewani&oldid=693109604)?Noanon (talk) 04:15, 6 December 2015 (UTC) See above: "New editors are reminded that BLP applies everywhere, even on talk pages, and taking up the positions of topic-banned editors may result in blocks." Another BLP-violating "new" user refusing to drop the same old stick. Blocked. Bishonen | talk 04:22, 6 December 2015 (UTC). Think you meant "same old shtick". Which, in this case, translates from the Yiddish to: insisting that Wikipedia report on the murder without bias or spin. Something that Bishonen continues to flout Wikipedia's stated standards in disallowing.AHindocha (talk) 23:59, 8 January 2016 (UTC) (1) Yes, I agree with that statement. (2) The referenced section by "Advocate BG" is better than the current entry. It should be clear to anyone who actually bothers to read the court judgment, that "acquitted" is a more accurate description of the outcome than "exonerated". The court found there was insufficient evidence to convict, but the judgment record falls short of declaring Shrien Dewani to be totally innocent. Judge Traverso commented: "Regrettably, there are many unanswered questions about what exactly happened on the fateful night". A balanced article should reflect the fact that Shrien Dewani has provided differing and conflicting accounts of what happened, and his version of events as presented in his "plea explanation" was never tested under cross examination. It is a very difficult article to get right. There are WP:BLP issues concerning both Shrien Dewani and the murder victim Anni Hindocha (aka Dewani), so there are constraints on what can be reasonably included. It is also problematic, that the mainstream media coverage has been influenced to an unknown degree by media consultants hired by the Dewanis, such as Max Clifford. A full frank and fearless discussion would include the possibility of dishonesty and corruption involving parties on both sides of the case, but that is obviously not going to happen in the usual reliable sources. afd (talk) 04:06, 15 December 2015 (UTC) Your primary problem here, alas, is that you quite appear to be a "single purpose account" from the get-go on this article and at the mediation, with only one single edit in 2011 not relating to this article, and every other of your 54 total edits being Dewani-related. With warm regards, I fear that your post here is not going to alter the clear consensus on this article. Collect (talk) 04:29, 15 December 2015 (UTC) Thankyou Collect. Do I have a "problem"? Why? I express my views and give reasons in support. I really do appreciate people who address what is said, rather than who said it. afd (talk) 08:15, 15 December 2015 (UTC) Hi afd, unfortunately your analysis is disingenuous. Your comment that the judgement in the Dewani matter "falls short of declaring Shrien Dewani totally innocent" seems to ignore the fact that South African courts (like most adverserial courts) cannot ever declare a defendant "innocent". The only verdicts available are "guilty" and "not guilty". Notwithstanding, the labyrinth of lies told by the criminals in this case made it abundantly clear that their contract killing story was fabricated to falsely implicate Mr Dewani. The judgement reflects this and is as close to a pronouncement of innocence as one can see in a court judgement. Dewani's version of events was never tested because the court found that he had no case to answer. Nothing to defend. No credible evidence whatsoever linking him to the crime. Given those circumstances, why would the Wikipedia article suggest or imply otherwise? The judge's comments regarding unanswered questions imply that the real perpetrators know significantly more than the incoherent lies they told in court. It is disingenuous in the extreme to claim the judge's comment to be an indication that the exonerated person still has questions to answer. Your comment on mainstream media coverage attempts to imply that said coverage was somehow in favour of the exonerated husband. A startling implication, given the media's role in persecuting him for four years with relentless biased coverage. The reality is that whatever PR damage control the Dewani family may have attempted to effect via the notorious Max Clifford, was short lived over a matter of weeks, wholly unsuccessful and backfired spectacularly. You imply that there are WP:BLP issues with Anni Dewani. What are they? This article as it currently stands, treats Anni Dewani with the utmost respect. It is well known that the exonerated person had bisexual dalliances that were not previously known to his wife and family and that he understandably sought to keep private, albeit unsuccessfully. He was not on trial for being "dishonest". Nor was he on trial for his sexuality or his failings as a husband. He was on trial for murder and that trial was halted because no credible evidence whatsoever linked him to that crime. That being the case, why would the Wikipedia article delve into salacious details of his private life when he had no case to answer? Wikipedia is not the place for a full, frank and fearless discussion. If it was, such a discussion would focus not on the handful of minor inconsistencies in the exonerated person's statements, but rather on the corruption and complicity of the South African Police Service and the National Prosecuting Authority in framing a crime victim, whilst allowing the real perpetrators to be rewarded for their perjury and their roles in this crime. Dewanifacts (talk) 10:45, 15 December 2015 (UTC) Dewanifacts - Let me clarify - I mentioned WP:BLP issues intending only to emphasise that the article should respect sensitivities of both the Hindocha and Dewani families. afd (talk) 03:07, 19 December 2015 (UTC) afd I may be wrong on this, but my understanding is that Wikipedia is not a place that panders to sensitivities. Take the instance of Zola Tongo's family or Xolile Mgneni's family. Neither family is likely be particularly happy that their family members are convicted murderers. Be that as it may, the facts are the facts and those innocent families need to live with said facts, whether or not they strike a sensitive chord. The Dewani and Hindocha families are no different. In an article that discusses the tragic murder of Anni Dewani (Hindocha), the facts pertaining to that murder are reasonable inclusions in the article. Conversely, speculation, unproven allegations and libellous insinuations that cast unfounded aspersions over either the living or dead members of those families, are not reasonable inclusions. If I may be so bold as to stop beating around the bush, the Hindocha family justifiably harbour a huge degree of resentment towards their son-in-law, whom it transpires led a clandestine bisexual lifestyle. It is undeniable that were it not for that son-in-law's existence, their daughter would likely still be alive today since the wedding and the honeymoon in South Africa would never have occurred. If by "respecting sensitivities", you contend that the Hindocha family's personal grievances toward their son-in-law warrant inclusion in the article, then I do not think you will find much support or consensus for that stance. Nor, I suspect, will you find consensus for amendments to the content that serve to create doubt as to the innocence of the son-in-law. This article was shortened and copy edited within the last couple of months and that process relied upon consensus every step of the way. Many editors have contributed. You were and are welcome to suggest amendments. Perhaps instead of speaking in general terms, you might want to suggest specific instances where you feel the article is not respectful and can be improved. Suggest amended wording. If consensus exists for your suggestions, then changes will inevitably follow. Forgive me for being sceptical. This "bias" claim has a very familiar ring to it. A few months ago, a great deal of fuss was being made about the inclusion of the Panorama section. One or two editors made a lot of noise about how ready they were to make arguments to show how unfair and biased it was. When push came to shove, no editor came forward with an argument and the disagreement eventually fizzled out.Dewanifacts (talk) 16:29, 19 December 2015 (UTC) >>The answer to both questions is "Yes". The article is absurdly biased. Anyone familiar with the murder of Anni Dewani will recognize the opening paragraphs of this article as a whitewash. It is a matter of record that Anni Hindocha was murdered by a hired hit man, and that there were multiple people involved in planning the killing. Wikipedia should stop covering this up and tell the truth about what happened to her.207.34.76.164 (talk) 23:59, 24 December 2015 (UTC) Um -- another "one edit" IP heard from. Clue: editors who have edited on a substantial number of articles often are regarded as being more authoritative in their opinions than editors who have few actual article edits at all. I think you would benefit from editing a substantial number of unrelated articles at this point, frankly. Cheers. Collect (talk) 03:12, 25 December 2015 (UTC) I think that we need to request an editor who is a lawyer in a common-law country (and most Anglophone countries are common-law) to comment on the statement: "It is a matter of record that Anni Hindocha was murdered by a hired hit man." I am not a lawyer, but that statement seems to me to show an ignorance of how common law works. Common law is adversarial. Any real judicial findings of fact occur only in an adversarial proceeding. The confessions by the murderers that stated that it was a contract murder were not adversarial and so have no validity. The trial of Shrien Dewani was an adversarial proceeding, and resulted in valid judicial findings of fact, such as that the confessions included lies, and such as that there was no material case against Dewani. (In civil law, the court may conduct its own investigation. In common law, the court acts as a referee between the prosecution and the defendant, so that there is no real court proceeding if the defendant confesses.) I think that we need to request a common-law lawyer to comment on the persistent statement that there was a judicial finding of fact. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:59, 27 January 2016 (UTC) To address the substance of the comment being made by the one-edit-IP. Can this person substantiate their claim of "bias"? To whom or what is the article "biased" toward? Can this person provide a citation and sources to back the claim that "it is a matter of record that Anni Hindocha was murdered by a hired hitman"? Even if another few meat puppets come along and echo the allegations of "bias", such claims are meaningless without substantiation. The claims of "bias" are an excursion down a proverbial rabbit hole, unless substantive detail is provided. From the viewpoint of the many editors who have contributed toward the established consensus, the only conceivable "bias" on display in this article is a bias in favour of fact as opposed to fiction. Merry Christmas to all. Dewanifacts (talk) 22:15, 27 December 2015 (UTC) Going back to the top of this section, the answer to both questions is yes. Everyone who knows about the murder conspiracy can see that, and increasingly have voiced their opinion in this section. Wikipedia should be ashamed of using their trusted platform as a Trojan Horse for a insidious PR campaign for the man who was charged with being the brains behind the murder conspiracy.ForbesHighland (talk) 02:03, 6 January 2016 (UTC) ForbesHighland is clearly yet another sock puppet of banned editor, Lane99. Only three edits - all today - each on pet murder trial obsessions of Lane99. Bishonen may want to investigate and sort. Happy New Year. Dewanifacts (talk) 07:26, 6 January 2016 (UTC) I wouldn't say the account is necessarily a sock. (I have asked a checkuser, though, and may have more info later.) But having been canvassed from an outside site to come here really comes to the same thing, see WP:MEAT. Blocked. Bishonen | talk 11:56, 6 January 2016 (UTC). Yes/Yes. Anni Hindocha's murder was conclusively proven to be a planned contract killing. With a robbery staged to obscure that the actual motive of the conspiracy was actually to murder the woman in the taxicab with Shrien Dewani. The court rulings which confirm this have been provided to Wikipedia, and they are deliberately covering them up in favor of encouraging a press agent for Shrien Dewani to fill the article with self-serving lies. The press agent's enabler, Bishonen(who has admitted he doesn't care if the Wikipedia article is biased), is currently in the process of banning people from all corners of the world who have dared to insist the article adhere to Wikipedia standards for neutrality and accuracy.AHindocha (talk) 22:12, 8 January 2016 (UTC) It's funny how those people from all corners of the world all turn out to edit from the same geographic location when I inquire of a CheckUser. Excuse me while I just see what they have to say about this latest account. Bishonen | talk 00:14, 9 January 2016 (UTC). Who is this "press agent" to whom the sock puppeteer refers? Is there any evidence to support a claim that such an agent even exists? This unsupported claim comes across as more sour grapes from the pro guilt lobby whose modus operandi regularly includes labeling those who don't share their extreme views as either Dewani family members or agents acting on behalf of the Dewani family. Editors should either provide sources to back their claims or desist from stating them as fact. Dewanifacts (talk) 06:15, 9 January 2016 (UTC) Yes I fully agree with both questions. 86.185.240.77 (talk) 06:52, 24 January 2016 (UTC) I agree that the answer to both questions is yes; this article is biased. Oh what a surprise. More anonymous IP addresses crying "bias" without elaborating or substantiating. Is Lane99 really going to be permitted to continue this charade conversation between himself and his own string of sock puppet identities? It is clear that this editor is now using an IP anonymiser to make it appear as though these views are being presented by different people in different geographic locations. Is anybody fooled by this ploy? At the very least it is blatant meat puppetry. All of this is inconsequential on the Talk page, however the article's semi protection is due to expire in five weeks. It seems clear that the disruptive editor(s) have no intention of modifying or curbing their disruptive behaviour. I would suggest extending the temporary protection indefinitely. It seems to be working well and is not retarding the article's progress in any way. It is a mature article and any amendments can and should be discussed on the talk page before being enacted. Dewanifacts (talk) 10:33, 24 January 2016 (UTC) I haven't counted exact numbers, but it appears virtually everyone (save for an apparent publicist not interested in printed the facts as much as he/she is interested in deleting the facts) agrees that AdvocateBG's edit should be restored. Not surprising, really, as ABG's edit simply lays out the documented record.AHindocha (talk) 20:03, 26 January 2016 (UTC) Bishonen Samsara Robert McClenon Lane99 has now defied his topic ban yet again and edited the Article to reinstate the false information that is totally against consensus and constitutes a flagrant BLP violation. There is no doubt whatsoever that "AHindocha" is actually a sock of Lane99's. AHindocha has made a flurry of edits to get past the 10-edit semi protection filter, and surprise surprise - those edits just so happen to have been made to articles that relate to pet murder obsessions of Lane99's - Darlie Routier, Ryan Fergusen and the Dewani matter. This can be verified by taking a look at Lane99's twitter account - @perugiamurderfi. Amazingly - these are also the exact same articles edited by "Forbeshighland" - yet another of Lane99's socks who was born a few week ago and swiftly banned. This article needs to be protected and Lane99 and his socks need to be blocked from editing indefinitely. Dewanifacts (talk) 08:25, 27 January 2016 (UTC) Someone may also want to take some type of action due to the sockpuppet's username "AHindocha". Clearly this is a distasteful attempt to impersonate or pretend to be a family member of the deceased person Anni Dewani (nee Hindocha), whose brother's name happens to be Anish. It would seem that it violates Wiki username policy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Username_policy Dewanifacts (talk) 08:48, 27 January 2016 (UTC) (edit conflict)I have inquired of a checkuser, who tells me AHindocha is "possible bordering likely" to be Lane99. That's not quite enough for me to indef the Lane99 account; probably wouldn't make much difference anyway. But together with behavioral evidence, it's ample to block AHindocha per WP:DUCK, as either a sock- or meatpuppet. Done. There's not enough disruptive activity on the article itself to justify protection — not by a long shot, actually. Also, semiprotection| would only keep out very young socks (less than four days old), while full protection would stop everybody from editing the article. Feel free to post on my page if the situation should change. Bishonen | talk 08:54, 27 January 2016 (UTC). I agree this Wiki article is extremely biased and non-neutral. And the edit written by Advocate BG should be restored. I am surprised Wikipedia is permitting it's pages to be used by a PR agent with an agenda."tildes" "tildes" "tildes"Qween1991 (talk) 20:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC) Lo and behold. Another brand new meat-puppet/user (see WP:MEAT) who has just joined Wikipedia and taken an interest in this article. I wonder if it might be the same @queen1991 who tweeted less than 24 hours ago "Anyways shriens grey hair is enough proof to me he did it"? Do you have any evidence to support the allegation that a PR agent is operating? If so, please present it. If not, please desist from making such baseless allegations. Are you going to explain what, in your view, is biased about the article? Are you going to suggest any amendments? You do realise, I assume, that the current article is the result of a collaborative editing process involving many editors who disected each and every contentious point to arrive at a consensus. If you wish to contribute you are more than welcome to do so. You would be well advised to put forward suggestions that are backed by reputable sources and are not simply parroting unsubstantiated claims made by another editor - particularly when that editor has been banned due to disruptive behaviour. Dewanifacts (talk) 21:20, 29 January 2016 (UTC) Lo and Behold. Shrien Dewani's sock puppet makes another misogynistic attack on a female named editor. Would you be the same Dewanifacts who tweeted that Shrien Dewani's limpid eyes could never hide a soul so dark as to have murdered Anni Dewani? Be that as it may, back to the point: the landslide continues. By a ratio of perhaps 5 or 10 to 1, everyone who has contributed to the call for consensus has confirmed what is obvious: that the article is dishonest advocacy. And should be corrected according to Advocate's suggested revision.207.34.76.164 (talk) 23:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC) Lane99 - the landslide of your sock/meat puppet votes is meaningless. Your strategy of canvassing meat puppets on social media has been a dismal failure anyway. You are wasting your time. AdvocateBG's version of the lede paragraph will not be reinstated as it constitutes a flagrant violation of BLP protocol. It erroneously stated that this crime was a murder for hire, when in fact it wasn't. Taxi driver Zola Tongo gained the trust of the Dewani couple and set then up to be robbed, kidnapped and possibly more. The kidnapping turned bad when Qwabe accidentally shot Anni during a struggle. In the aftermath, faced with life imprisonment, 3 of the 4 known perpetrators concocted a fanciful story implicating the husband, in exchange for lenient sentences. Caught in a web of their own lies, the "murder for hire" story was proven beyond any doubt to be fabricated, which is why the judge halted Shrien Dewani's trial and dismissed the charges, exonerating him. Those are the facts, whether you choose to accept them or not. Best. Dewanifacts (talk) 07:43, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Legal Opinion

I have requested a legal commentary at WP:WikiProject Law from a common-law lawyer as to whether there really was a judicial finding that the murder of Anni Dewani was a murder for hire. It is true that a court accepted a confession that the murder was a murder for hire, but the subsequent trial found that the confession contained lies. It is my understanding that common-law courts, unlike civil-law courts, do not make findings of fact sua sponte, because common law is adversarial, and a confession is not an adversary proceeding, so gives rise to no findings. (Civil law courts may conduct investigations, but a common law court acts as a referee between the prosecution and the defendant.) The only adversarial proceeding, and therefore the only proceeding that found facts, was the trial of Shrien Dewani, which found that the criminals lied. (Most of the editors at that project who are lawyers are probably common-law lawyers, since most Anglophone countries are common-law countries, although it is true that there could be English-fluent European civil lawyers at that project.) In any case, I have requested a legal analysis, which, if it is as I think it will be, will further establish that the sockpuppets are posting nonsense. Once again, thanks to User:Bishonen. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:33, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Semiprotection

Some statistics: I have to go back to 19 October 2015 to see an IP editing this talkpage without being an obvious sock. Ever since Lane99 was topic banned on 11 November, there has been an influx of disruptive IPs and brand new SPAs; there were none before that point in time. Conclusion: I'm going to semiprotect this talkpage. Bishonen | talk 23:44, 4 February 2016 (UTC).

What led to the arrests?

The article does not seem to say what led the police to arrest the suspects – i.e., what led them to arrest and interrogate Mngeni, Qwabe, and Mbolombo. Is that known? That seems like a pretty significant gap in the content of the article. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:59, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

If memory serves, it was Mngeni's fingerprint or handprint left on the vehicle that led police to the gang. Mngeni's prints were on file from previous offences. From there I think it was phone records that showed communication between Mngeni and Mbolombo, and then the phone calls between Mbolombo and Tongo which made it clear that Tongo was not an innocent victim as he had been claiming. Dewanifacts (talk) 14:09, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

If we can find reliable sources of information about that, it would be highly desirable to add it into the article. At the moment, this seems like a pretty significant gap in the content of the article. Readers would want to know about this. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:30, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Here are a couple of sources, one of which is the judgement in the matter of S v Mngeni. Both sources refer to the fingerprints of Mngeni being found on the vehicle. After a quick search I cannot find a source that describes how Mngeni's arrest led to the other arrests. Memory fails me now. I recall reading somewhere that it was the cellphone calls between the men that led police from Mngeni to the others. It is a fairly obvious conclusion to draw even if a source cannot be found but it probably cannot be included here on Wikipedia without a reliable source to confirm.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dewanifacts (talk • contribs) 19:04, 12 March 2016‎ (UTC)

References

Bromley86 You have added a number of "where" tags to the Murder_of_Anni_Dewani#Investigation:_sequence_of_arrests_and_confessions section. What information are you looking for? If you provide some specifics I would be happy to try to help. At this stage I'm not sure what the "where" tags mean. Dewanifacts (talk) 11:58, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi DF. I'm referring to page/section references, so those wishing to confirm don't have to read the entire document/book (e.g. Bitter Dawn) or watch the entire video (e.g. Panorama). Useful fields are page for books, and at for things like legals docs with section/para numbers, and time or minutes for cite av media. There are a couple of ways of handling multiple page cites from the same source, but the neatest is usually just to create a new ref for each different page referred to (so refnames bit137 for references to page 137, bit145 for references to pages 145-6, etc). I try to specifically target the references, rather than referring to pages 137-150. All made-up examples, of course. Bromley86 (talk) 01:40, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Just found a different way of doing it, like here. Not saying it's better than proper inline (|at= etc.), but (a) I didn't know it could be done that way and (b) it's better than adding page templates to all the references. Bromley86 (talk) 06:07, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Bromley86, I am not having much luck in trying to follow your instructions for adding the page citations. I am a little pressed for time at the present so I have pasted the whole section below and have added the required citation details in CAPITALS. I have also added the explanations for what led to the arrests in bolded text. Perhaps you or someone else can make the changes to the article with the citations properly marked in the fashion you suggested.

Collapsed WORKING DRAFT TO IMPROVE CITATIONS IN SECTION: Investigation: sequence of arrests and confessions

As a result of a palm print found on the abandoned taxi, Xolile Mngeni was arrested on Tuesday 16 November 2010, and made a videotaped confession in the presence of Captain Jonker of the South African Police Service. In his confession, Mngeni admitted involvement in a hijack, armed robbery and kidnapping operation . He described Shrien and Anni Dewani as victims and said Qwabe shot Anni Dewani during a struggle for her handbag. Mziwamadoda Qwabe was arrested at around 01:00 on Thursday 18 November 2010 as a result of a tip-off from a trusted township informant in his local area. After initial denials, Qwabe was allowed to consult with arrested co-conspirators Mbolombo and Mngeni, and subsequently admitted involvement in the hijack, armed robbery and kidnapping operation. He described Shrien and Anni Dewani as victims . He changed his story during an interview recorded at 17:21 that day, saying the operation was a planned murder at the behest of Shrien Dewani. Monde Mbolombo was arrested in the early hours of Thursday 18 November 2010 as a result of Qwabe providing his name to the police. After initially denying involvement, Mbolombo made a recorded confession at 16:30, admitting arranging a hijacking and armed robbery operation. The confession did not mention a planned murder or Shrien Dewani's involvement.. The following day, Mbolombo changed his story, saying the operation was a planned murder at the behest of Shrien Dewani. Zola Tongo reported the hijacking to a police station in Gugulethu after he was ejected from the vehicle, and made a statement saying he was an unknowing victim. On 17 November, Tongo gave a statement to Officer Hendrikse of the SAPS again saying he was an innocent victim. The following day, Tongo appointed attorney William De Grass. On Saturday 20 November, Tongo surrendered to police and said the operation was a planned murder staged to look like a random hijack, at the behest of Shrien Dewani. Dewanifacts (talk) 19:57, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Added citation to above working refinement of section Dewanifacts (talk) 07:31, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Collapsed working refinement of section, in interest of tidyness. Dewanifacts (talk) 14:10, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks DF, I'll work it. I can't put through any of the Bitter Dawn refs, as I don't have access to it myself to confirm. Also, does the eBook not have page numbers? Finally, I'm having trouble sourcing the handprint, am I right in thinking that is in Bitter Dawn, as it doesn't appear to be reported elsewhere? Bromley86 (talk) 19:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I see all the refs after that first one are to do with Bitter Dawn :) . Bromley86 (talk) 19:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I've made a cheeky request over on Resource Exchange for the entire book. They can work wonders there, but an entire book might be a bit much!

I had a quick look at the preview of the eBook,[1] so I see that there aren't page numbers. In this case, I'd use chapter and section numbers (you'll have to manually count the sections (***), as they're not numbered). In this case, you'd use "|at=", perhaps like this:

They saw the Lion King in London. Bromley86 (talk) 20:15, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Bromley86 Mngeni handprint citation - this article

I have done the legwork and counted the section numbers and inserted that information after each of the citations above. I am hoping that someone else can format it properly as I am a little bit technically challenged when it comes to this wikipedia markup. Thanks Dewanifacts (talk) 20:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks again DF. I'm of the opinion, and I'm not certain that this is WP's policy, but I assume it is, that editors should only add references or material that thye have had sight of themselves. So, IMO, it would be wrong for anyone who did not have access to the book to add the refs. I'm getting around that by using primary sources that I can access.

If you are interested in doing it yourself, I included an example of how to format an "|at" element above. I'll reproduce it below in full form, using nowikis, so you can see. Just replace A Romance with the chapter name, and the ch. and sec. with the relevant chapter and sections:

<ref>{{cite book |last1=Newling |first1=Dan |title=Bitter Dawn |date=2014 |publisher=[[Oneworld Publications|Jonathan Ball Publishers]] |isbn=978-1-86842-624-9 |at=A Romance (ch.2, sec.3)}}</ref>

Bromley86 (talk) 21:30, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok, Bromley86. Understood. Thanks for that nowiki version of the code. Made it relatively easy for me. Appreciated. I have added the citations to the collapsed working draft above. Ideally we would get a little bit of further input from other editors so that this is a genuinely collaborative effort. Once other editors are happy with the changes then we can replace the current section with the refined version. Dewanifacts (talk) 13:47, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Since there were no objections, I added the new version with improved citations to the article. If anyone has any issue they can revert my edit and/or discuss here on the talk page

Maintenance tags and issues

I would like to address the issues of the combined multiple tags on the article so they may be dealt with or dismissed.

• 1)- Wikipedia:Neutral point of view: This tag presumably was the result of conflicts surrounding the inclusion or exclusion of the "murder-for-hire" scenario. As far as my understanding this was resolved. Trying to explain such a scenario would be almost impossible as the initial arrests were not made on those grounds, were brought up in what could be seen as a ploy for leniency by the conspirators, and was dismissed. It is not biased to leave out trying to cover something that would violate WP:BLP, was not substantiated, and would not help the article anyway. It would be biased to try to include such content from a single point of view. If the above issue is the reason for the tag it should be removed. If there is another reason it should be address.

• 2)- Wikipedia:Conflict of interest: Will this be a career tag or is there some resolution? I have read the article and looked at references (see below) and if an involved editors contributions are a concern this should be addressed. After reading the article the first time I read it a second time specifically looking for biased content that might be attributed to COI. Someone needs to point out any concerns because I must have overlooked it (or them) twice.

• 3)- Wikipedia:Citing sources for verification: There is a tag on an article that is not very long with many sentences referenced (some multiple times), all paragraphs (unless I missed one) referenced for a total of 62 references, and I think issues should be discussed towards resolution.

Sometimes an article receives tags because of editors conflicts or other issue and the tags seem to find a home at the top. As an editor I can not address blanket tags that are not clear as to what the problem concerns. I would state that referenced content regarding what led to the arrest of the initial suspects would be warranted. I also think Gugulethu and Strand should be linked. Otr500 (talk) 12:58, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Otr500 I have abstained from commenting until prompted by you in the other section, because I have been embroiled in the controversy surrounding those tags and it would not be proper for me to be the one to suggest or second their removal. For the record, I completely concur with your view that the disputed neutrality and COI tags have been rendered obsolete. I do not understand what your third issue means. Perhaps a clarification would be helpful. Dewanifacts (talk) 13:53, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, I'll remove the tags; IIRC they're remnants of the bitter content dispute from last year. Some of the references need pointing and there's a less-than-ideal level of use of court docs, but it's a complex subject that the papers often don't go into to the level of detail required. If someone wants to add them back, fair enough and then we can discuss/address their concerns. Bromley86 (talk) 18:33, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Bromley86. @ Dewanifacts 1)- You are still an editor on Wikipedia and I did not find you part of the sanctions. You can point this out to me if I am mistaken. If I am not then solving problems with the help of other unbiased editors is not improper, especially just adding your opinion. The clarification on Number 3 is not important now unless someone reinserts any tags removed, which should be accompanied by reasoning in the edit summary and possibly on the talk page. The point was that they were "pointless" and unnecessary, from my point of view, so I was seeking comments. I thought they should be removed or reasoning for retention supplied for discussion. Otr500 (talk) 02:59, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism and disruption by sock/meat puppets: summary of situation

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 the cases of Tongo (the taxi driver) and Qwabe (the hijacker who shot Anni Dewani), no findings were made by the courts. No trials were held. No witnesses were heard. No evidence was presented. No verifying of the confessions took place. These court proceedings were merely plea hearings rubber stamping pre agreed sentences for guilty pleas. The convicts' confessions were accepted at face value. The confessions later turned out to be filled with lies. They carry little weight.

• In the trial of Mngeni (second hijacker) the court accepted the evidence of co-conspirators Qwabe and Mbolombo (robbery coordinator) at face value and did make the finding that they participated in a contract killing. It later transpired during the 2014 S v Dewani trial that the testimony of Qwabe and Mbolombo had been perjured and filled with lies. Mbolombo even admitted to his perjury. Therefore it would be completely misleading if Wikipedia were to state the Mngeni court's findings as fact, although they are mentioned in the article's section on the trial of Mngeni.

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)

Thank you for your comments about a "sock puppeteer. I will point out that asserting that you are some PR agent, without some proof, is not only against WP:ASSUME it is a personal attack. A reverse is true for allegations (repeated many times) of being a sock puppeteer. There are venues for dealing with these types of editors it there is substance to such allegations.

I have not looked at sources to see if any make some form of reputable claim but "if" there are references then it would not smear anyone's name for some mention in a possibly a controversy section but this would have to be treated with care.

If you are interested in article improvements then why not look at my comments on the tags to explore a resolution? Otr500 (talk) 11:01, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello Otr500, the sock puppeteer has been caught out and blocked many times. Its not a mere allegation. It is reality. This will be confirmed when you read the talk pages of Lane99/Al_Trainer/ahindocha/Factsnotlies/Noanon/Forbeshighland/Kesadilla22. Dewanifacts (talk) 13:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello again and thanks for the info. I can understand your frustration and I see that the husband was exonerated. One of the references "Why Shrien Dewani can go free - Judge Jeanette Traverso" is numbered and can be used multiple times to address inline tags. The lead needs cleaning up as the second paragraph, "South African prosecutors formulated charges based..." begs a {who} tag. A new paragraph must not start out dropping a reader in the middle so it must reintroduce lead-in material. In this case there is no previous lead-in material so I will reword this. I am not going to delve too deep at this time but that may change. IF you see more sock puppetry then report it. As far as I know we do not need to ask for a sock puppet to stop but just get the person blocked/banned. As for the tags, my second attempt, input is obviously being sought so "IF" you find the time please feel free to comment under that section. Otr500 (talk) 15:53, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Sequence of events.

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)

Otr500 I think I know what you mean. Does the rearranging of paragraphs below, help to resolve the issue? I have also added a few words for clarity. Dewanifacts (talk) 09:18, 4 April 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. 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.. 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. 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. 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.

Works for me. I do think we need a single sentence introducing Monde Mbolombo at the end of the second para. (A) he's important, and (b) he's one of the "three of the crime's perpetrators" referred to in the third para. Perhaps Monde Mbolombo admitted involvement, but was granted immunity in return for testifying against Mngeni. Which, BTW, is just mad, but there you go.

On the subject of which, I don't know if we can refer to him as a "perpetrator" in the Lead. Perhaps change to based on the later discredited confessions of three of those arrested? Bromley86 (talk) 10:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Bromley86 I would agree with you that Mbolombo cannot be labeled a "criminal" since no prosecution and conviction took place. In my view, the term "perpetrator" being applied to him is fine. No-one disputes it. Mbolombo himself admits to being involved. However I think that this issue can be sidestepped altogether by rewording the section as I've done in the collapsed draft above - naming the 3 perpetrators. This solves the issue you've raised and also tidies another potential source of confusion - the 3 people convicted (Tongo, Qwabe, Mngeni) were not the same 3 people who were found to be perjurers (Tongo, Qwabe, Mbolombo) and the lede in its current form doesn't make this clear to the uninitiated. I believe that the rewording above solves this issue. What do you think? Dewanifacts (talk) 11:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Looks good. Only (minor) issue is that Mbolombo wasn't,[2] in the end, actually given immunity by Traverso for testifying against Dewani. Best to avoid going into detail in the Lead, so just mention the immunity for the Mngeni trial. We can go into the detail in the Body. Bromley86 (talk) 22:44, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

In relation to the immunity, I would suggest changing the word "granted" to "offered" (as I have now done in the collapsed draft). I think that in the context of the entire drama, it is confusing and misleading to imply that Mbolombo's immunity was granted because of his help in prosecuting Mngeni. He was only offered that extraordinary immunity deal because the authorities were determined to prosecute the husband and were desperate for "evidence". Mngeni's trial was incidental to that overriding reason. Dewanifacts (talk) 07:14, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm sure you're right. I'll have a look, but do you have a source (or, better, a number of sources) that makes it clear that he was offered the immunity primarily because of Shrien? What we know from that enca.com ref (assuming that it's correct) is that, ultimately, he only received it for Mngeni. We need something solid (i.e. rather than the usual casual reporting) to trump that, IMO. This'd be a correct time to use primary sources, in the absence of detailed secondary. Bromley86 (talk) 09:28, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

In order to locate and check sources, I would need to dig when I have time. However I'm not convinced that its necessary. As you have admitted, the lede doesn't need detail. It can remain broad. Surely reverting to "offered immunity" resolves the issue?

Mbolombo, along with the other 3 conspirators were all offered immunity in exchange for future testimony in any criminal proceedings relating to the crime. Mngeni was the only one to refuse the immunity offer. The terminology is tricky due to the mess that has been created by the South African authorities. Pre the 2014 Dewani trial, it was understood by all that the immunity was offered to the conspirators on condition that they testified against Shrien Dewani. Mngeni wasn't even mentioned. Its only in the aftermath that South Africa's NPA tried to disingenuously explain the decision not to prosecute Mbolombo. They claimed that he had already earned his immunity in the 2012 Mngeni trial and that even if he was revealed as a serial perjurer in the 2014 Dewani trial that his immunity deal was untouchable. The reality is that Mbolombo didn't "receive" immunity for his 2012 Mngeni testimony. All that occured in 2012 was that the judge in the Mngeni trial chose to believe Mbolombo's story and didn't remove the immunity that he had already been granted. It was always the understanding that the immunity deal's continuation depended upon Mbolombo's continued cooperation with authorities until all criminal proceedings related to the crime were resolved. Clearly this meant that he would be required to testify when the husband was finally extradited and faced trial. As we now know, it was in this 2014 trial that Mbolombo's story unraveled and it transpired that not only had he perjured himself in the 2012 Mngeni trial, but had done so again in the 2014 Dewani trial - which led to the judge rescinding his immunity. Dewanifacts (talk) 09:51, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I'd suggest that the Lead needs to accurately and succinctly described the current situation; the story of how we got there belongs in the Body. So, if he only received immunity for A, we don't need to mention any offers of immunity for B. That said, when I'm a little less impaired and have time, I'll try to look at it. For the record, I'm certain that you're correct; we just need to be able to reference it without dipping too far into WP:OR. 10:22, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

That is a fair point regarding lede representing current situation. It would seem that the simplest solution is to simply remove the names of those he was providing testimony against, so as to remove potential ambiguity. I have done that in the collapsed draft above. Your views? Dewanifacts (talk) 12:34, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

With hindsight, an obviously sensible thing to do! Job done. Bromley86 (talk) 22:29, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

@ Dewanifacts: I was going to reply below but glad you apparently figured out the answer. I will state that your comment "it would be best if you do what all other editors have been asked to do; propose and discuss changes on the talk page and add them to the article only once consensus has been gained.", threw me because #1)- I did not see such a request, or who requested it, #2)- contentions and editing requests could only be considered "requests" and should NEVER mean to restrict article contributions, as good faith edits resulting in improvements, especially if in line with policies and guidelines or in this case including possible sanctions. I have found no reason to believe that you have no intentions other than good but please remember that other editors must be allowed the same good faith, as provided by policy and guidelines, to even include WP:BRD. Sanctions are not meant to stop editors from improving an article and "suggestions to discuss" should really only be used concerning content where clear consensus has reflected a certain direction to prevent contention. To prevent you, or any other editors, from exhibiting an air of ownership (certainly not intended) someone should add sections to this page concerning previous discussions. This will prevent good faith (especially referenced) edits from being reverted simply because someone didn't "discuss" them first.

Concerning your proposed edits, they are an improvement. A fourth paragraph should be inserted (new 2nd paragraph) after the opening. This could provide information of the kidnapping, including some timeline content, and summary information introducing the alleged perpetrators. This would set the stage for the chronological order) of events that is covered in the article. This would be in line with Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Introductory text that states, "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article.". The present proposal, by excluding this information, still tips the balance because there will be more content on the husbands possible involvement. In other words: We should be fair, while not trying to "prove" a point, that the husband was not guilty, by including more information on him and less on those that admitted guilt. I will look at some of the inline tags later. Otr500 (talk) 04:26, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Otr500. I think it might have been Robert McClenon who suggested it last year.[3] Things have calmed down since then, but that's probably more to do with protection than because there's been a change of heart or loss of interest by those advocating a murder for hire position.

Regarding your suggested change. I had a look at the Lead in Murder of Meredith Kercher and, although the formatting isn't great, I see what you're trying to achieve. Makes sense to me. Regarding Shrien's involvement (or lack thereof), frankly it's that aspect that accounts for the murder reaching notability. I also suspect that the desire to make clear that he's been exonerated is because of BLP concerns (Collect even argued that his name should be removed entirely, which would have been interesting[4]). Bromley86 (talk) 05:28, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Otr500 and Bromley86. Good points made by both. I have used the same collapsed working draft above to add in a second paragraph along the lines of Otr500's suggestion that the lede was not yet able to stand alone and tell the concise story. Would be interested to hear your thoughts on the suggested additional paragraph. I've also tidied a couple of other things that were cluttering the lede. Mngeni's "not guilty" plea isn't necessary in the lede. I have also shifted the protagonist's occupations (hotel receptionist et al) to the new second paragraph as it makes sense to state those occupations at first mention rather than the later mentions of their names. Dewanifacts (talk) 07:48, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

On the subject of discussing changes on talk page first, you are of course correct Otr500. Good faith should be assumed at all times. Apologies if my comments came across adversely. It is a shame that the talk page discussions are archived without any trace being left on the page. In an ideal wiki world, it would be preferable if the content was archived but the section headings remained for posterity. Between August and December 2015, there were roughly 15 separate lengthy and heated sections of the talk page discussing the lede paragraph and what content it should and should not include. Senior editors and administrators repeatedly asked that editors discuss changes to that lede on the talk page because it had proven so contentious. One rogue editor (and his army of sock puppets) was the main source of the disruption. He attempted on over 10 separate occasions to insert his own rhetoric into the lede without discussing it, and against the prevailing consensus Dewanifacts (talk) 07:48, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Dewnifacts, I think it gives substance. See what collaboration, in the face of sanctions, can achieve? We can see what Bromley86 thinks or has to offer.

And yes, I too agree that initial notability, that became international over "just another tourist killed" (I do not mean that lightly as it was a horrible tragedy), was the possible involvement of the husband, and eventual fringe theories etc.. Those all became moot with the exoneration, less with the admitted lies and plea bargains , and even less when further prosecution was not sought against the husband. It would not be fair to the readers to attempt to squash the husband from the article and certainly the lead. I think I read where Dewnifacts argued for inclusion. However, as the events unfolded it should be presented in a way to minimize any possible drama of the husbands supposed involvement, especially after the turns of events twisted things back on the perpetrators. When I first read the references I was amazed that the co-conspirators were allowed to meet. That was a slap in the face of justice in and of itself, and I think the courts saw through this. Maybe some mention of this would be in order (the conspirators collaboration to add the husband in) as this happened only after they met right?

BLP issues should always be a concern just as facts should be included, that are supported by reliable sources, and then we start gaining a better article. Thank you both for input and ideas. I would rather not even make an edit to an article (as I don't have a certain edit count quota) if improvements can be achieved. Otr500 (talk) 11:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Otr500 The fact that the conspirators were allowed to meet, is already mentioned in the second paragraph of the [arrest sequence section]. However I would point out that it gets very murky and the details of how many times they were permitted to meet have never become public knowledge so we really cannot go into any more detail and theorise about when/where the framing plot was hatched since we don't have any source material to reference. What is known is that in the early hours of Thursday 18th November 2010, after being allowed to meet with Mngeni and Mbolombo, Qwabe confessed to a robbery gone wrong (NB: they colluded but at this stage their collusion didn't extend to implicating Dewani or alleging "murder for hire"). At 17:21 on that same day Qwabe made a second confession where he changed his story to implicate Dewani. 17:21 was the turning point. Mbolombo and Tongo followed suit in quick succession. It is not known what exactly occurred to make Qwabe change his mind and make up a story at 17:21 on that day. That is the million dollar question. Did the police dangle a carrot and suggest that he would benefit from blaming the foreigner? Was he tortured? Was he promised a softer prison? Did he make it up of his own accord? Was he allowed to again meet with Mbolombo and/or Mngeni and did he and Mbolombo hatch the contract killing story at that stage? What involvement did the police have in the conspiracy to frame Dewani? The events of Thursday 18th November 2010 had significant implications for the course of the case and the evidence suggests that the South African authorities are none too keen for the truth to ever become known about what took place on that day. That is clearly why they chose not to prosecute Mbolombo. If the circumstances under which he and Qwabe changed their stories were to be put under scrutiny, Mbolombo would blow the lid right off the whole thing Dewanifacts (talk) 13:36, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Editing intentions

I suppose I am considered somewhat of a seasoned editor and ran across this article by chance. I aware of BLP discretionary sanctions, and I am fully aware of BLP "rules", as evidenced by previous comments here. I have no motive other than article improvements and generally do not delve into contentious articles involving possible sanctions. With that stated: I intend to address the maintenance tags and add a paragraph to the lead (mentioned above) because content on the subjects in the current last paragraph, not being previously introduced, can be improved, as well as organizing the lead according to prominence and sequence of events. Otr500 (talk) 15:30, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Otr500Considering this article (and its lede in particular) has proved contentious, it would be best if you do what all other editors have been asked to do; propose and discuss changes on the talk page and add them to the article only once consensus has been gained. Your comments regarding sequence of events and prominence are quite difficult to follow. Would you be so kind as to clarify what you mean so others can understand what you mean? Thanks Dewanifacts (talk) 23:11, 3 April 2016 (UTC)