User talk:Dewanifacts

Welcome

Hello, Dewanifacts, and welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Robert McClenon (talk) 23:48, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Introduction Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
Finding your way around
Table of contents Department directory Help directory
Editing articles
How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style

Getting help
Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
How you can help
Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 16:18, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Robert McClenon (talk) 06:03, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

.. for ruining an entire week of dispute resolution by starting mass-changes of the Murder of Anni Dewani article. And edit warring. So the dispute resolution discussion ended in nothing because you had to start making drastic edits. Thanks alot.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BabbaQ,

I am sorry. Robert has already made me aware that I should not have made the edits without discussing on the Talk page first. I had read the Wiki: Be Bold policy and I thought it was encouraged to make edits if they were fact based and non controversial. I'm not sure why you think that I ruined the dispute resolution. I was in agreement with you on almost every point and backed you up. I have a very good grasp of the facts of this case and the way I have structured the page is of benefit to everyone. It really was a mess before with facts, speculation, and disjointed incoherent lay out of key issues that made it very hard to follow, and it also failed to mention some of the crucial issues to the case - such as the plea bargains, the many lies told by the criminals who made up the "murder for hire" story and the fact that the court dismissed that story as a fabrication.

I won't make mass edits like that again, but I think you will find that the Article will benefit from the time and effort I put in. I only posted factual material, almost all of it straight from court documents so it should not really be controversial.

Oh and I did not edit war at all. I made one change which Lane99 reverted. Nick Cooper has since reverted it 3 times because Lane99 refused to accept that it was grossly misleading. Had nothing to do with me.

Best wishes

Dewanifacts (talk) 17:31, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioning a user

If you wish to refer to an editor on a talk page, precede their user ID by User in brackets. For instance, you are User:Dewanifacts, and I am User:Robert McClenon. That will avoid you leaving red links, because if you don't precede the user IDs with User, it is looking in article space for their biographies (and only rarely do Wikipedia editors have BLPs). (Well, the reference to you is in red, but that is because you haven't created a user page, not because you aren't a user, which you are.) Robert McClenon (talk) 17:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Robert. Appreciate the help! Dewanifacts (talk) 17:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

September 2015

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Murder of Anni Dewani. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. — MusikAnimal ^talk 00:06, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked from editing

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one day for edit warring, as you did at Murder of Anni Dewani. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

I do not believe this block is warranted. I simply reverted a false misleading libelous edit that Lane99 had added for the 7th time despite it being a clear violation of WP:BLP and clear violation of repeated requests by other editors to wait until consensus had been achieved. It should be noted that I specifically requested page protection on 7th September to avoid an edit war because Lane99 made it clear that he intended to flout the guidelines, ignore the Talk page and make his libelous edits regardless of what other editors said. I was advised to assume good faith, which I did. My revert was simply a reaction to Lane99's flagrant violation of the rules and the procedure. Please see my 7th September request for page protection - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Murder_of_Anni_Dewani#Request_for_Page_Protection. I would also point out that such flagrant violation of procedure by Lane99 may be indicative of an attempt to provoke me into an edit war, with the primary intent of getting me blocked so that he and other associates with the same pro-guilt agenda can continue editing in violation of Wikipedia policy unimpeded. I would ask that senior Wikipedia editor Robert McClenon be consulted as he has borne witness to the way in which this process has played out. Thanks. Dewanifacts (talk) 08:52, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is a content dispute, with you removing reliable sources that provide relevant information to suppress some aspects of the murder's legal fallout. While the specific wording of that section may indeed be debatable, removing information based on reliable published sources outright is not the answer. I'll also note that, if anything, your side seems to be the one that tried to employ "other associates" which share your agenda. All participants have been blocked. If the issue is unresolved when your respective blocks run out, you should either work towards a compromise that addresses both of your concerns or employ dispute resolution via WP:DR. Huon (talk) 10:49, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

With all due respect Huon,you do not appear to have understood the situation at all. This is not a content dispute. I have not removed any information from a "reliable source". I have removed information posted by a pro-guilt fringe lobbyist (Lane99) who on his own admission has an agenda and is seeking to use Wikipedia as a pro-guilt trojan horse to push the false theory that the exonerated person (Shrien Dewani) is actually guilty of ordering the murder. This is a flagrant violation of WP:BLP. This is not a mere content dispute. It is a dispute about whether or not the "murder for hire" theory should be stated as fact in the lede paragraph. The "murder for hire" theory was used as the basis for convictions between 2010-2012 however it was thoroughly discredited in the trial of S v Dewani in 2014 meaning it is grossly deceptive to imply otherwise or to give the impression that the murder was indeed a contract killing when it was not. Your reference to "reliable sources" seems to be an allusion to the fact that Lane99 cited reputable media sources for his false claims. I am not disputing that at the time those articles (and the Mngeni judgement) were published the "murder for hire" theory may have been regarded as factual, particularly in regard to the convictions of 3 of the actual perpetrators but the theory ceased to be factual when the "murder for hire" theory was later exposed as being a fabrication and a lie during the 2014 trial of Shrien Dewani. It is illogical to continue to stand by disproven claims simply because they were once printed by reputable newspapers, when the information contained within has been superceded and over-ruled by subsequent court proceedings. We are trying to discuss and work toward a consensus on the Talk page of the article but this user (Lane99) insists on making the same false additions to the article over and over again, with no regard for the views and facts expressed in the Talk page discussion and in outright violation of repeated requests from senior wikipedia editors to utilise the Talk page to discuss the issue and not to make edits to the Article until consensus is reached. I am content to abide the block, but in 20 hours time we are going to be in the same situation. Lane99 will in all likelihood add (for the 8th time) the same erroneous information that violates WP:BLP. How would you propose that the situation be dealt with if/when that occurs? Shall I sit idly by and let the libelous content sit on the Article page? Shall I ask someone else to remove it? Dewanifacts (talk) 11:24, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Dewanifacts, for the record, I appreciate your civility in your responses. I am not reviewing this unblock request on the basis of overturning the original block. I haven't reviewed the entire conflict to be able to advise you on what could have been done nor to make a comment on whether you were justified in your actions or not. Our policy on edit warring is a very technical policy and does not weight the merits of the actions unlike you might expect in a judicial environment. In looking over your unblock request, you state that you're willing to abide by the block and that you may need to resort to the same actions once it has expired. If so, that bridge will be crossed when it does, but in the meantime, there isn't anything in this unblock request that I could use as a rationale under our unblock policy. Essentially I would need to see in the unblock request some sort of plan from you that outlines how you would avoid getting into a similar situation. Therefore, I have little choice to but to decline the request. I hope you're able to form a consensus about the issue and use that as your basis for ensuring the correct information is portrayed in the article, and not pursue technical means (reverts and so forth). Mkdw ^talk 18:29, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I unfortunately have to disagree, the block is warranted in this case. The user has been informed of his soon-to-come block if he did not stop edit warring. And even though I understand that the user might have been provoked into it. To continue edit warring after several warnings justifies a block. Take these 24hrs and think through how you can deal with this situation instead of "taking the bait". --BabbaQ (talk) 09:38, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How else could I have dealt with the situation BabbaQ? I specifically pointed out on numerous occasions that I wanted to avoid an edit war, I requested page protection, I asked what action could be taken against editors such as Lane99 re-adding the same false information over and over again. What else could I have done? Leaving false misleading information on the Article does not seem like an appropriate way to "deal" with the situation, so I acted to remove that information because concensus was still not reached on Talk page. Should I have asked someone else to reverse Lane99's libelous edits? The issue at the heart of this is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of fact that Lane99's edits contravene WP:BLP and are a transparent attempt to ascribe guilt to a person who has been exonerated of a crime. Wikipedia has no tolerance for this type of editing behaviour, so why am I being punished simply for reverting such edits?

With all due respect, BabbaQ it appears you are very unfamiliar with the facts of the case which makes it difficult for you to adequately guide the discussion on the murder of Anni Dewani. To help you gain a better understanding of how fully discredited the "murder fore hire" theory was, you should have a read of the information I posted on 13th September in the "threaded discussion" section. These quotes from the judgement should make it very clear that the "murder for hire" story was simply a fabrication by three criminals. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Murder_of_Anni_Dewani#Threaded_Discussion

Dewanifacts (talk) 10:06, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, it's a fact that those who were convicted for the murder confessed (rightly or wrongly) to having been part of a "murder for hire" plot. That fact was reported by the likes of Fox News, which can be considered reliable enough to not distort such basic facts. You removed that fact from the lead. It's also a fact that when the husband was prosecuted for having instigated that plot he was found innocent because the prosecution could not provide enough evidence linking him to the convicted men. That fact was also prominently mentioned in the version you didn't like, so it's not as if the version you didn't like portrayed the husband as guilty. As I said above the precise wording was debatable, but the basic facts, including that the parties to the case made statements and confessions about the case that were widely reported but are of dubious veracity, should not be removed just because they don't fit with the story you want to tell.

Secondly, saying "I really don't want to edit war" is not enough to make edit-warring okay. There is WP:BLPN, the noticeboard for BLP issues. There are relevant WikiProjects that can be asked for third opinions and help in assuring that an article stays neutral. There are multiple venues available to deal with such issues without edit-warring.

Thirdly, "... who on his own admission has an agenda and is seeking to use Wikipedia as a pro-guilt trojan horse to push the false theory ..." - I hope you can back up that accusation with evidence, preferably a diff to the edit where Lane99 made that admission. If you can do so, I'll gladly take a look at Lane99's conduct (beyond the edit-warring that saw Lane99, too, blocked). If you cannot support that claim with evidence, it will be considered a personal attack and held against you. See WP:NPA. Huon (talk) 17:35, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Huon You continue to miss the point. I am not disputing the fact that Fox News (and most other media outlets) initially reported it to be a "murder for hire" for 4 years right up until the end of 2014 when the "murder for hire" story was finally tested in a court room. That is all fine. At any time up to Dewani's 2014 trial I had no issue with it being referred to as a "murder for hire". However since the testimony in the Dewani trial proved the "murder for hire" story to be a pack of lies, it is no longer factual to refer to the crime as a "murder for hire" unless you qualify the statement by saying "the theory was discredited". Lane99 had no such qualification in his wording; his intent and the meaning of what he posted was to imply that the murder was indeed a contract killing, the only inference being that Shrien Dewani (who was exonerated) was actually guilty. Senior wikipedia editors have pointed out on the Talk page that this is a flagrant violation of WP:BLP.

I am not sure how familiar you are with this case, but what I have said above is all spelled out in plain simple English in the Dewani trial judgement. I have collated a selection of the most poignant paragraphs and placed them in the "threaded discussion" section on the Talk page of the Article.

Lane99 has been warned numerous times on this article's Talk page and on his own Talk page by senior wikipedia editors not to violate WP:BLP. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Murder_of_Anni_Dewani#My_remaining_limited_role_here

I don't know how to use the diff thing that you refer to but Lane99 was forced (by other senior editors) to remove libelous talk from the talk page. He was trying to claim that free speech allowed him to continue to insinuate that Dewani was guilty and he was told in no uncertain terms that Wikipedia is not a haven for free speech. If you look at Lane99's edit made at 16:14, 25 August 2015 you will see that he changed his wording to say "the best explanation points to only one person" which is his "wink wink nudge nudge" way of continuing to infer guilt on Shrien Dewani. He is unashamedly a "pro guilt" lobbyist. He uses the same name (Lane99) on discussion forums all over the internet and he doesn't even contest this assertion so I'm not sure why you are doubting it or implying that I am making it up. A simple google search will show you that I am correct. If you read his other edits and comments on the talk page you will see that it is patently obvious. He does not try to hide it. Despite the court's findings and overwhelming evidence to the contrary, he believes that Shrien Dewani got away with murder and is trying to edit the article in such as way as to imply and infer exactly that. This even goes to the wording used to describe why Dewani was acquitted. To suggest that he was acquitted merely "because the prosecution couldn't provide enough evidence linking him to the crime" is a way of trying to insinuate that he got away on a technicality. The reality is that the case was thrown out of court without him even needing to mount a defence because the judge found that there was NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE whatsoever linking him to the crime and ample evidence showing that the "murder for hire" story had been fabricated to falsely implicate him - and that is why the judge did not allow the trial to continue. Dewanifacts (talk) 18:31, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't find the article's talk page particularly enlightening. It appears the "self-admitted agenda" is "to edit it to reflect neutral, reliably sources facts". If that's the best evidence for an agenda, the problem is with you, not with others. Note that I'm not saying Lane99's conduct isn't problematic, but that you are insinuating more than really is there.

Regarding the grounds for dismissal, that can certainly be reworded, but that's something to be discussed on the article's talk page. It's not why your conduct is problematic. Let me summarize it for you.

The people convicted of the murder confessed to having been part of a "murder-for-hire" plot.
Those confessions were widely reported in the media.
Those confessions were central to the legal history of the murder, being the primary pieces of evidence suggesting the husband's involvement and thus directly leading to the trial against Devani that saw that evidence discredited.
You excised mention of those confessions from the lead and edit-warred to keep them out instead of ascertaining that they were mentioned neutrally, based on how reliable secondary sources (which excludes court documents) report on them.

If you don't see a problem with that, you may want to re-think your priorities. Huon (talk) 08:56, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Huon If you read the RFC on this very issue (on the article Talk page) you will see that I have basically agreed with everything you have just said. Here is a direct quote of my comments on the RFC on September 1 2015:

"The inclusion of the reference to the 3 South African men being convicted on the basis of a "murder for hire" plot would in theory be alright, however it needs to reflect reality by simultaneously informing a reader that the "murder for hire" story was proven to be a pack of lies and that each one of those 3 South African men were found to have perjured themselves in one or more trials pertaining to those very convictions"

The way the article is currently worded is completely neutral. It also represents a compromise because it mentions the "murder for hire" (since it was part of the history of the case as you correctly state) and also makes it clear that the theory was discredited, thereby ensuring that a reader does not get the false impression that the crime was in fact a contract killing. Lane99's wording is clearly misleading and I am one of numerous people who have taken issue with it on the Talk page of this article. These repeated persistent attempts to state the "murder for hire" theory as fact is a central component of the vociferous pro guilt fringe groups' internet-wide strategy and they are attempting to use Wikipedia as a tool to further this agenda. Aside from that, the real issue here is that Lane99 keeps re-adding the misleading wording without discussing it on the Talk page and for some reason you are choosing to ignore that central part of the dispute. Dewanifacts (talk) 10:04, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to Lane99's claim ""to edit it to reflect neutral, reliably sourced facts", these words only hold value if they reflect the actions to which they pertain. I could tell you that I am the president of the USA, but that does not make my statement true. The "facts" to which Lane99 refer may be from neutral and reliable sources but they are outdated and disproven which renders them no longer factual. Its a very simple premise that has been explained to him (and ignored by him) numerous times on that Talk page and also on the DRN. Lane99 struggles to accept that information that is viewed as factual at one point in time, can cease to be factual in light of new evidence that emerges at a later point in time. Do a CTRL/F search for "Dewani" on the DRN archive below and you will see how that discussion went - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_121 Dewanifacts (talk) 12:57, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are mistaking about my intentions Dewanifacts. My point is that you can not keep an edit war going and not expect a block, especially after several warnings. I do not think your intentions were to cause problems, so in the future please contact another user to mediate instead of simply reverting. Lane99 is the kind of user that doesnt read and take in what other users want him/her to read. It is tiresome absolutely but please do not get caught into that disruptive editing. You talk a lot of facts and "that is the way it is", well actually if you read my comments overall correctly you would see that I in most instances am on your side in this discussion. But I think the main issue here is that both you and Lane99 write comments and edits the article like "you are the only true voice". Sometimes it is better to discuss at the talk page get your consensus and THEN edit the article. If you have that consensus no one can accuse you of edit warring etc. Both you are Lane99 does do edits without consensus. I think you both should, if possible, walk away from the article for a while. Or else there is a risk that the article could be fully protected for a long time, or both you and Lane99 would risk being blocked not for 24 hr but for weeks/months of forever. Think about it. --BabbaQ (talk) 18:46, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And just for the record, I do not agree with Huons assessment of you. It seems to be biased, I am not saying that either you or Lane99 are 100% correct. But you try to reach consensus at the talk page while Lane99 writes his opinion and then edits the article to be correct to his liking. Do not take his words to much too heart as often users overreacts, like in this case to a unblock request. You become the bad guy no matter what... However Dewanifacts, I think you need to realize that Wikipedia is much like the the real world. Nothing in the real world is often 100% fair and justice. I am warning you again (and would to Lane99 as well if he had any kind of decency) as to your behaviour and that it could lead to you being blocked for a very long time if the edit warring continues. I hope this warning and my overall commments will bring some clarity in to the severity of this situation. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 18:52, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks BabbaQ. I appreciate and respect your advice and input. I will definitely not involve myself in edit warring again. I accept that the block was fair and that is why I haven't attempted to argue against it after my first appeal, but have rather sought to clarify how I could deal with editing like Lane99's in future. So you are saying that if/when the same situation arises again (for example if Lane99 adds the same erroneous information for the 8th time to the article) , then what should I do? Who do I ask to mediate? I just put a comment on the Talk page? How do I ask for the false wording to be removed?

When I was a brand new member I did not know the process and I made edits without discussion. You will notice that since that first incidence I have only made edits once the issues have been on the Talk forum and no opposition raised (for example I made a few such edits today although one wasn't discussed on Talk forum but it was completely non controversial). Dewanifacts (talk) 19:04, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked from editing again

You have been blocked from editing for a period of three days for edit warring at Murder of Anni Dewani following your previous block, as has been explained you need to discuss the issue on the talk page not revert. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:16, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request reason:

Oh you are not serious are you? How is that "edit warring"? Giant relevant swathes of the article were excised without any discussion on the Talk page. The section on the trial of Shrien Dewani (the most compelling and high profile aspect of the entire case) was inexplicably deleted in its entirety along with other equally relevant information. Why am I being singled out here? I have resolved not to be provoked into edit warring and to discuss changes on the Talk page and I sincerely meant what I said with that resolve but does that mean I cannot make a single edit on the Article page whilst others can with impunity? I do not think it is fair that other people can remove great swathes of information (with no penalty whatsoever) and then I get a block for restoring that information. There seems to be one set of rules for some people and another set of rules for others. There was a revert just prior to mine and that user is fine to do that but for some reason mine was contentious? Something is not right here..... Robert McClenon can you advise? Dewanifacts (talk) 14:30, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Fair enough, I accept that reasoning. I've protected the page instead so that discussion has to occur on the talk page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:37, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for being reasonable Callanecc. Might I suggest that a month is an excessively long time for protection especially when this article has spent much of the last couple of months in that same state? The common denominator in the disruptive editing should be pretty obvious to all. I have logged a case on the WP:BLP noticeboard to slightly escalate the stature of those issues but aside from that one editor contravening WP:BLP, I think the rest of the participants are in the main conducting themselves in a civil and decent manner and I don't think that excessively long protection periods benefit the article or any of the editors. Dewanifacts (talk) 15:00, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The long protection is to get people onto the talk page talking (rather than thinking they can wait it out). Once there is consensus the full protection will be removed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:35, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AN

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#SPA_violating_BLP NE Ent 15:53, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please

.. move on from the Lane99 discussion. He is blocked from editing the article. And it is time for you to drop the stick and move on. I find it weird that you continue to wanting to have interaction with Lane99 after I told you to cease writing to and about the user. I hope you realize that this kind of behaviour can lead to a block in the near future. So please for your own sake, move on and do not interact with Lane99 anymore. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 16:25, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BabbaQ I don't see why it concerns you or bothers you. You can ignore it if you don't find it interesting. I am not breaking any rules and I am not contravening any policy so I don't see why I would be blocked or banned. I have a right to respond to silly allegations, regardless of whether he is topic banned or not. He continues to falsely imply that I am a defacto PR man acting for Dewani. Clearly that is false and if he makes that type of comment, I will respond to it. If he takes his appeal to one of the other Wiki appeal mechanisms then I will keep an eye on it and ensure that anything he says is accurate. If it isn't, then I will respond and make the facts known. Dewanifacts (talk) 16:58, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop

Regardless of the status of the people you're reverting, you need to stop edit warring on Murder of Anni Dewani. Thank you. Bishonen | talk 23:29, 30 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Bishonen Ok. Can you please advise me on what a better process would be? If an editor makes an edit that is a gross WP:BLP violation that needs removing, what should I do? Request that someone else removes it? Report it to an admin? or what? I appreciate your guidance and help on this. Thanks. Dewanifacts (talk) 09:08, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can always remove very obvious BLP violations and/or vandalism. I've looked again and I do agree with you that this could properly be removed, every time it was inserted, so you did nothing wrong, and I spoke too hastily. Be careful, though — it's not always easy to tell, and another admin might not agree. Thank you for defending the article. It has been semiprotected for three months now, which should help a lot. Bishonen | talk 12:08, 1 December 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks Bishonen. Understood. If I wanted to err on the side of caution and not make edits myself that may be perceived as edit warring, can you suggest what a better alternative might be? Would I go to the DRN? It would seem a bit futile since this "murder for hire" nonsense has been the subject of numerous RFC's, a DRN discussion, and no less than 12 separate sections on the talk page of the article. Clearly those who keep inserting it are hellbent on including it. Bit of a conundrum. Perhaps a directive on the talk page that outright prohibits the addition of the "murder for hire" claim (positioned as fact) to the article and a "remove on sight" directive to other editors? Dewanifacts (talk) 12:22, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arghh, not DRN… that's been run into the ground. And I think it's too complicated for a specific note on the talkpage. But you understand what semiprotection means: only WP:autoconfirmed accounts with at least ten edits and four days' tenure can edit the article. No IPs, no brand new accounts. And any disruptive BLP-violating autoconfirmed accounts can be topic-banned or blocked. I really think that will work for the article. Possibly not for the talkpage… please let me know if there's disruption on that. Bishonen | talk 13:14, 1 December 2015 (UTC).[reply]

User talk:AHindocha

Hi, Dewanifacts. Please let me know if you would like me to remove the attacks on User talk:AHindocha. (I've just revoked their talkpage access.) For myself, I always prefer to leave attacks up, on the argument that they reflect more badly on the attacker than the target — but that's easy for me to say, and you may easily not agree. Let me know. Bishonen | talk 23:07, 1 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Hi Bishonen, I concur wholly with you. Fine to leave Lane99's sock puppetry on display. Preserves the record. No need to delete. I think Article semi protection needs to be extended past the March 1 expiry date. Best, Dewanifacts (talk) 07:31, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, good. Well, I won't extend semi right away on March 1 — then NeilN might as well have semi'd it for six months or a year, right? — but if there's further non-auto-confirmed disruption after the semi expires, I will. I'm watching the article, but I watch a lot of stuff, so please alert me if I should miss it. Bishonen | talk 11:25, 4 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]