Talk:Chris Benoit mystery editor confesses: claims "terrible coincidence"

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search


This article has been delisted as a featured article. Computerjoe's talk 15:15, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Attention niels epting.svg
This page and its corresponding article fall under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License. Taking material from this page requires attribution to Wikinews.


You do realise that this is a scam? Some wannabe journalist came up with this scheme to write up a good story. I'd point the finger at the original author of this news clip.

The slim chances that this article is actually plausible and did happen (...) it is fairly must to say, that what a ridicilous story you've got on your front page.

Do wannabe-journalists writing to wiki want to write news for themselves? This is certainly a nice hobby, and I endorse supporting people who have journalistic aspirations. However, there is always "however", I occasionally wonder what kind of people this wiki gathers around it.

Maybe it's just me, but majority of the contributors I've talked and seen here seem to be a bit wacky, obsessed being a real journalist (might have failed in 'real life' aspirations) and then they come here and begin earning wiki-reputation.

Seems like a big game to me. Although this is a good study subject for someone who has interest to human social behaviour and internet communities.

Please don't take this casual drive-by comment too harshly. I think I wrote a couple of good observations reasonable people can agree on.

Please do not insult anyone here. This is not constructive. Please use this page to better the article, not to insult it. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 17:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Discuss.(preceding unsigned comment by 16:39, 29 June 2007)

I don't even know anyone in Connecticut, but your conspiracy theory is intriguing. Bubbaprog 12:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to say that he/she should have nothing to apologize for if they reported on rumors. Why they go on and on how they reported something that turned out to be true, and they are sorry. So it was OK to post something that was false, but once it became true, it was bad? Should there be an apology? They reported the truth, except that she was murdered by Chris. Also, there was early reports of wrestlers getting texts from Chris, so it is conceivable that they got a message that Chris would not be able to make it because of a family emergency because of the death of his wife, hence the fact they got in another wrestler. They may of even announced or word got around that there was a replacement, so, why is it hard to see someone, a fan, then want to be the first to report on the news? Now they are apologizing for reporting the truth, only because they feel like they are in trouble, so they are compounding the problem. Kind of like most scandals, it is not the act, it is the lies that get you in trouble. 17:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)Kevin Wooster, Oh

or notes[edit]

OR notes (All content of this article is based on the following talk pages):


Why? DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 09:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Stupid edit dragonfire. -Edbrown05 10:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I sense frustration...Honestly, this and the media frenzy is getting us all worked up in one form or antoher. :) DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 10:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm in no frenzy, and never have been regarding this topic. -Edbrown05 10:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
As a simple user, I am unable to "undo" your retraction of what I thought were "worthy" edits to "your" article mr. "bistro". So please undo them before we get into an arument. -Edbrown05 10:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually I should have did an undo as opposed to a rollback. So sorry that I did argument here and never intended to be one. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 10:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
gads, i like this guy... oops, fat mouth of mine () -Edbrown05 11:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I can't make changes to this article in its current protected state. I really don't like the changes made to it, particularly the "freakishly," phrase which is really poor journalistic style. It'd be my preference that the changes to that graf be reverted; at the very least, that the "Freakishly" nonsense is deleted.Bubbaprog 14:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

It's great to hear a user at the suspicious IP address coming forward. However, it still makes me think. I believe I read an article yesterday that stated that after the mysterious posting and then the mainstream media began picking up the story that the IP address was down/non-responsive/not online.

I have in the past before with my cable modem and router manually picked the IP address I wanted from my ISP even though the IP address are assigned dynamically. For example, you can just set a Linksys cable modem router to use a IP address you define as long as it is valid for your ISP and is not in use by someone else.

I am not sure of this, but POSSIBLY someone got wind of this story, changed their IP address to the one in question, and then posted this statement about how they were the one who made the original suspicious edit. That would be feasible if for example someone didn't like the news story and wanted to dismiss it as a big coincidence.

Please discuss.

The length of the apology, combined with its familiarity with and similarity to previous destructive edits by the user, strongly suggests it's the same user. I've never heard of anyone being able to manually change their cable modem IP distribution pool to that of another user. As for the comment below this... *facepalm* Bubbaprog 14:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The IP address probably wasn't released by the police so only the true poster could have known what the IP address was.

The IP address was publicly available on the original talk page edit.

The person who admitted to making the edit says he was repeating rumors he read online. It would be nice if they pointed to their source of the rumor so that can be investigated also.

Why would someone go through the process of writing a fake appoligy? I think most people close to this story are more interested in the truth than media attention. -Wikipedia User Sephiroth storm

Headline is braindead[edit]

Imho, the headline's wording is pretty misleading just to sounding shocking and "newsy".

Headline: Chris Benoit mystery editor confesses: claims "terrible coincidence"

That's two bloopers:

  • Confess is the wrong word. A confession would be "yes, it's true, I killed them". But he says quite the opposite, he is contesting that he killed them, saying it's all a coincidence.
  • Claims is also wrong. What claims are those, precisely? They are not mentioned in the text.

Would be great if you could fix that. The nonsense even shows up on the front page. -- 16:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

You do realize "claim" is also a verb, right?Bubbaprog 16:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Nobody ever accused the "editor" to have killed anyone. --SVTCobra 17:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

CNN has noticed this[edit]

here. Unlike FOX they report that it is from Wikinews. JoshuaZ 18:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

FOX News credits us here BUT they still take credit for the story WE broke. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 18:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Color me impressed a direct link (see "Click here for the entry-modifier's "confession."") from Fox News to Wikinews. --SVTCobra 00:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, that's real nice "the confession said the changes to Chris Benoit's page — first reported Thursday by — was coincidental, and were based on rumors and speculation". Is the foundation talking to these putzs? JoshuaZ 18:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Jimmy is and knows what they are doing. He is aware that they still claim the exclusive...but I don't know what to do beyond this?? DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 18:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Well he said he was going to try, but in an official manner there is not much he can do, as he doesn't own the copyright. Bawolff

I am a bit sceptical of the individual who "says the posting about the Pro Wrestlers Wife was just a fluke". There is something really strange about the posting. I hope the authorities take a real close look into this individual and prosecute.

Prosecute for what? Although vandalizing wikipedia isn't nice, its not illegal. There is no evidence he has done anything wrong. Bawolff 00:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
That question has already been asked and answered, while you, Bawol, have been busy harassing the person who answered the question. The potential criminal charge, depending on the particular constructs of the relevant jurisdiction, could be accessory after the fact. If a person has knowledge of a crime but does not give that knowledge to law enforcement authorities, they become an accessory to that crime by helping to cover it up. As JW said, investigators WILL figure out if it was a very unlikely coincidence, or whether Occam's Razor cuts to the simpler solution -- that the person knew the facts about which they demonstrated knowledge.
Anyone, including any corporate entity, who gets in the way of investigators' efforts to figure this out may be charged with interfering with an investigation. Andevere 02:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
I still think prosecuting the guy is friggin retarded. What if Kane was to go kill his wife, and before anyone knew, I was to speculate he killed his wife. I'd just be making a random speculation, which I simply pulled out of my ass. It doesn't mean I'm an accessory to the crime or whatever, it means I'm making a random speculation which has no grounds or sources. The guy took a random guess, leave him alone. 23:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikinews censors reader feedback[edit]

It might be interesting to CNN, the Atlanta Journal Constitution, the NY Times and others that Wikinews closed a user comment page to prevent discussion of the Wikimedia Foundation's handling of this story about its own projects. When a news organization writes about its parent company in a matter involving multiple homicides, and then censors user comments solicited in response to the reporting, that organization needs to seriously review its ethics, while other news organizations need to reveal the censoring news organization as less than forthcoming. Let's see how quickly amature, secret "news" writers censor this comment and lock this page to prevent further critical discussion related to what a Wikipedia writer knew about these deaths before investigators arrived at the crime scene. Andevere 02:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Funny, you're editing now - couldn't have done that great a job censoring. Anyways, that page is not for user comments, we have a policy saying we delete user comments on that page. We have a specific page for comments which was not protected. The page you're talking about is only for collaboration on writing the story. We had to protect it as it was repetitivly being blanked, and there was information on it we wanted to keep there. The article was done, so there wasn't anymore collaboration needed anyway. If you insist there is a giant conspiracy, may i suggest a blog for your ravings? Bawolff 02:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Your explanation seems reasonable, but does not explain why the main source in the story about a person with apparent knowledge of a murder was allowed to delete comments that fathom the source's potential criminal culpability, and the potential culpability of the media company, and then why the news organization participated in assuring those comments remained hidden in an archive instead of presented in a context where they could be weighed with all other comments that came in before and after they were offered. Maybe I didn't get the memo -- are you saying your secret amature writers already know all they need to know about potential criminal culpability of those who demonstrate knowledge of a crime or who otherwise inject themselves into an investigation by repeating information not known to investigators? You obviously didn't care enough to respect the person who donated the analysis, nor to preserve the analysis when you decided to close the page.
You seem to be telling me that Wikinews has no method of receiving user feedback specific to particular articles created by anonymous writers protected by an organization that considers itself exempt from libel law and which protects the identity of writers so as to shield them from civil culpability for the work nobody will pay for but which the foundation distributes? Otherwise, I have the marketing my valuable insights quite well in hand, thank you. I'll leave the "blogs" for those who are more interested in marketing their opinion than in advancing understanding of facts. Andevere 02:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Honestly you stopped making sense now. I have no clue what you're saying. But you're obvious not into advanced understanding of facts, as you've already said several things which are close, but not quite true (especially relating to mediawiki). Sort of as if you overheard them from other people gossiping, without taking the time to verify their accuracy or truley understand what those people were talking about. Bawolff 02:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Again, you fail to correctly attribute agency. You might make no sense of my contributions, but that is a failure of your cognition, i.e. your failure as a cognitive agent. I am quite confident that most of my prose is intelligible to a broad audience. Sharing with a group my understanding of facts is a method of advancing my understanding. That is why you read statements even you recognize as "close" to what you consider true. I am moving my understanding closer to a position that most rational people would consider true. I suspect you are struggling with your ambitions to have a public voice, and the excitement that has arisen from some sudden recognition of a collective voice to which you contribute. Excitement often clouds the ability to reason. Andevere 02:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Andevere, please know that Wikipedia administrators contacted authorities to let them know about the edit and the IP address that made the edit, even before the Wikinews article was written. There are no efforts to hinder the investigation. --SVTCobra 02:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
There has been no such accusation. What has been deleted from the discussion page associated with another article, similar to the page we are using to discuss this article, was among other things a narrative explaining why the Foundation and anyone involved must cooperate fully. I discussed the crime of obstructing an investigation and the crime of accessory after the fact. I did not say anyone had committed those crimes. I invited readers to consider such laws in the context of their own activities. Andevere 02:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


This one defintinly needs to go through WORTNET. Thunderhead 04:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)