Comments:Death of Nancy Benoit rumour posted on Wikipedia hours prior to body being found

Yeah, seeing as this guy was a vandal, i doubt that were serious, and my guess is that it was just a coincidence. Unless someone changed their ip address to that of a vandal in order to reveal that they knew about nancy's death, but why would they do that. That makes just as much sense...as Chris Benoit killing his wife and child.

-

That address resolves to Hicksville, NY, NOT Stamford, CT

http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/4619/picture1tz9.png
 * It is possible this is a dynamic IP address. Bawolff ☺☻ 21:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that all Optimum Online IP addresses will show Hicksville, NY. That is the company address. I am an Optimum Online user, and nowhere near Hicksville and I just ran my IP and it came back as Hicksville, as well. Obviously, IP's can be resolved further than the corporate address of the provider, but I do not know how to do that. --SVTCobra 21:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

My big big take...
To the first who posted a comment, please sign your comment...

I would also argue that if it's a coincidence, then go get a lotto ticket. I surely don't think you would make a good investigator, coincidence or not, they will follow this, they have to.

I also confirm that many service providers aren't around the town were the IP is located. Many people will confirm this also. The IP definately is located in Stamford, CT. As for the IP being the source of vandalism on Wikipedia, we can look at the user contributions to Wikipedia made from that IP... many vandalism indeed, but one or two contributions that weren't, possibly showing us that different person used that computer, or that IP.

My belief is that this IP belongs to a place like an internet cafe, some public library, hotel offering the internet, school or a computer network either accessible by the public, or a big company with many many computers shared between the employees.

However, I don't know if the service provider mentionned (Optimum Online) has some sort of privacy rules where they won't give the real physical adress of an IP... and even if it is dynamic, they surely must have a log of all their IPs and were and when it was located...

My big guess would be that Benoit actually informed somebody in Stamford that his wife was dead, and this somebody got online and at one point added the line to Wikipedia... This, for now is the only guess I have, and yes it is far fetched.

However, even if it is my personnal guess, I still find it quite dumb that one of the first things you do is go online and edit Wikipedia instead of calling the authorities... unless that is what Benoit asked you to do... in which case it would follow the pattern of Benoit, sending those text messages with his address, I find those to be that were calls for help, a way of saying: "Please come and help me"

I somehow believe someone (or many) inside WWE has been informed about Nancy's death before the police went to Benoit's house.

I urge the authorities to contact the service provider and have copy of the log of this IP to know were it physically came from at the time of the WP edit.

I think in parallel to that, every computer in internet cafe, school, librairy, etc shoud be IP-checked, and while checking this, they should also take a look at the browser's history. They should also ask about the presence of anyone at those places around the time the edit was made to WP, regardless of the IP at curent time.--Smumdax 04:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Not a coincidence
My take is that this is not a coincidence. How probable is it that the same user posts about a death and is from Connecticut (where the WWE headquarter's located)? Not 1 in 10,000. 1 in a million would be the chance for it being just a coincidence. --Pratyush 

Wow, while fact is sometimes stranger than fiction, I think this just being a coincidence is unlikely. It seems pretty logical to me that Chris Benoit wanted people to know. He seemed to text message numerous people, and possibly emailed others as well. I think it is generally accepted that rumors are simply the fastest method of communication (faster than light?), and so it would come as no surprise to me that someone found out (mixed with possible suspicions) and hoped on wikipedia to be the first to report. MR.R 14:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

A news organization's obligations when reporting about its parent company
Since this conversation was squelched on the page created for collaborative discussion of news production related to this article, and since a Wikimedia Foundation appointee has threatened to further censor my contributions, I am responding on this page to comments made to me or about my contributions elsewhere. First I shall replay to allegations that I did not locate the appropriate page for discussion of this article. Then, because of the threat by someone who insists I adopt his definition of "constructive" to censor my contributions from this registered account, I am logging further comments here on systematic censorship in Wikimedia Foundation projects. These comments will be better entered elsewhere, but I place them here now so they will be attached to this account history before that particular scared administrator or another has a chance to act on his fears. Will Heimerman claim that responding to a news organization's request for opinions about a news product with opinions about a news product is not "constructive" by his dictate? Will he claim that questioning his dictates in the context of opinion about a news organization and its product is not "constructive" according to his dictate?

In re: Bewol's claim that checkuser has no probative value in a law enforcement investigation because Mediawiki programmers created that function for something else --- "The wmf can get its hands on any server records it likes as it owns the servers," Bwol wrote.

Server records might have some value in such an investigation but would still need to be sorted. Checkuser is a software function that lets operators easily review logs of what user edited what article. Server logs would not present this information nearly as readily, and probably not as specifically. I suggested police may use checkuser to establish what other information was contributed from a certain IP, but behind the secrecy of a user name. The server logs only point to where the user has been. They don't log every keystroke a user contributed. Checkuser can tell us what information was contributed from a particular IP behind a user account. Bwol would probably not make a very good detective without a few years on patrol first. If checkuser has probative value for wikipedia admins' investigations, it quite possibly has probabtive value for a murder investigation. Guess what-- exploring investigative possibilities is part of reporting, unless you aren't the most ethical reporter and your company is a subject in the investigation. Bwol's response in no way contributes to the development of a narrative about how information relevant to this situation can be refined, but instead obfuscates information constructed by another contributor as Bwol attempts to use the confusion created by obfuscation to slander or otherwise undermine trust in the contributor.

Then a user who goes by a pen name "Cobra" constructed a fallacious straw horse around my concerns, claiming I had hinted Wikimedia Foundation is not cooperating with authorities, and that I had discussed anyone other than the one person who demonstrated in a writing to Wikipedia apparent knowledge of a murder might be guilty of acting as an accessory after the fact of murder. I said law enforcement approaches this matter with the authority to charge non-cooperating witnesses with obstruction. That is a simple fact. It does not hint anyone is doing anything. The fact is relevant because it establishes that people will cooperate. Of course the in-house promotional news release writers want to focus on the voluntary aspect of some potential witnesses' cooperation.

The choice of how to tailor statements about cooperation with authorities is subjective. The question becomes ‘why are we telling readers about who cooperates in an investigation’? For my purposes, in the contribution I constructed, I recognized a need to advise news readers of the conflict between promises of privacy offered by the Wikimedia Foundation and the necessities of murder investigations or criminal trials that can make public records of information people contributed under an expectation of privacy. That is a legitimate and important aspect of representing this situation in news reports -- if not in the context of the articles already finished on this topic then perhaps in future related articles. If does not become an element of a story, it is still something a responsible editor will want reporters to consider as they continue to explore the subject in days after a story breaks. Especially when the parent company is a subject in the story, an responsible editor wants reporters to consider how policies of the parent company might have affected circumstances reported in the story.

Instead of recognizing my concern, as any credible and attentive reporter might, "cobra" demonstrated no understanding of the structure of my contribution, and instead fabricated false allegations to effect an expression of his reaction to my contribution, misinforming readers about the credibility of a contribution someone else offered in response to the Wikimedia Foundation's request for contributions.

Finally, as promised, I leave here some comments about systematic censorship in Foundation projects. The allegation is often refuted by those who cite the presence of criticisms within wikipedia and wikinews. in this circumstance, I was told that the "collaboration" page related to this article was locked for two reasons: one, that it was being frequently blanked, and two that the collaboration pages are for something other than what I used it for and they are for nothing once an article has been "published".

This is about censorship in general in Wikipedia projects and about "Thunderhead's" reasoning for locking the page. Bwol's second reason falls flat. The pages are routinely used for ongoing discussion related to treatment of a subject after the article about the subject has been published. There is no widely recognized reason for closing such discussion -- it sometimes leads to updates, maybe an occassional correction and sometimes serves socialization purposes. I'm not saying that's what it should be used for, I'm saying that's how they are used by those claiming in this case that is an incorrect use.

"Thunderhead's" reason was that the page is "... not (for) giving "advice" or trying to persuade the user to come out publically (sic)"

Now, Thunderhead did lock the page while restoring “blanking” which is wikipedia’s word for edits left unattended by the MediaWiki software and removed by someone behind an IP contrary to the general wishes of Wikinews users. I say left unattended, because PHP oftware such as mediawiki can be written so that edits could be preserved in ready view but safe from tampering while new comments can still be appended. Wikimedia Foundation has systematically decided not to attend to edits in such a manner and it's volunteer agents often removes discussion of the advantages of revising the software in such a manner. Here we entertain a view of systematic censorship as I explore how discussion has been managed by agents of the news organization (wikinews) to advocate their ideological and practical interests, along with the parallel interests of the foundation and the mob it has gathered. As we are seeing in this dialogue, discussion of how anonymity harms wikipedia is treated as "trollish" (the word has been tossed at me in the few hours I've donated here) instead of as legitimate community concerns to be considered by responsible news reporters. DQuestions about the potentially negative role of anonymity in Wikimedia Foundation projects are discouraged in the Wikinews investigations. Wikinews does not explore potentially negative ramifications of publishing anonymous encylopedia writers, much less the negative social and civil implications of publishing anonymous news writers, as would an outside news organization. "Thunderhead" claimed that a news room is not the appropriate place to encourage sources to identify themselves after they have revealed apparent knowledge of a multiple homicide. Well, Thunderhead probably does not belong in the news business.

Where then, is the systematic censorship in a project laden with gripes, whining and complaints about the project? Much of it is too complex to offer in a single comment. Ideological censorship by administrators who have gained ownership over particular articles masks much of the censorship intended to squelching dialogue that could steer the project away from core principles of keeping author's identities, or from developing regulated communities where topical authority outside Wikipedia translates to editorial authority within a collaborative community. I will not in a single comment leave footnotes of diffs to seal a conviction  on the widely discussed allegations of censorship. Rather, I offer Thunderhead's example here -- when discussion approaches topics that relate to how core ideals conflict with other stated purposes of the project, contributors are often told, as Thunderhead told me, this is not the place to discuss that. While discussion of improvements to the software often originate in the context of article development that leads to systematic changes, when those potential improvements would infringe on core principles, such as almost always leaving all pages open to being edited by anyone, contributors are told such discussion is inappropriate.

The same type of development-oriented discussion that is otherwise frequently conducted in the context of a particular article to explore how a software improvement might improve a particular article is in such instances treated as ignorance of Wikipedia procedure. In this case, the place I posted and which Thunderhead used his Wikimedia Foundation authority to block further discussion was obviously the best place to discuss the role of anonymous editing when an anonymous person uses such an anonymous system to reveal exclusive information about a multiple homicide, though Thunderhead claims on his own authority such consideration was inappropriate newsroom discussion Anonymity was a part of the news story. Open discussion of implications of elements of a story are an essential part of newsroom dialogue. We shall now see just how open the discussion remains at this nexus. Andevere 05:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a comment from someone who was a huge fan of Chris Benoit
I personally think the comment that was posted SHOULD be investigated,and the person who posted it SHOULD be prosecuted.The comment was wrong and hurtful,it was also MALICIOUS,INSENSITIVE,AND COMPLETELY IGNORANT.I as a fan have been very saddened by this tragedy,very disgusted by the comments,and feel a great loss in the wrestling world.Chris was a very tactical,talented,and very professional person and athlete.He was a hero to some,friend to others,and most definitly an icon in the wrestling world as well as the sports world.Whether he was suffering from "roid rage"or whatever he was still a human being and deserves to be treated as one.He may have made a very bad decision that led to an extremely bad thing, but he was still a human.My personal opinion is exactly as follows.The EXTREMELY LOW CLASS AND LOW INTELLIGENCE PERSON THAT POSTED THE COMMENT IN QUESTION SHOULD (1.NEVER BE ALLOWED TO POST ANY COMMENTS ON ANY SITE EVER AGAIN (2.BE THOUROUGHLY INVESTIGATED BY THE F.B.I. AND ANY OTHER JUDICIAL OR LAW ENFORCMENT AGENCY THAT MAY BE ABLE TO TIE THEM IN ANY WAY TO THIS HORRIBLE EVENT,(3. BE PERMENANTLY BANNED BY FEDERAL AUTHORITIES FROM OWNING A COMPUTER OR USING A COMPUTER FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIFE UNDER THE THREAT OF FEDERAL PROSECUTION.That is what to me seems to be a true and just punishment for the person who would write such inflammatory remarks with no thought for anyone other than themselves.--66.156.178.59 05:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC) WI£ÐTH|NG6FT6
 * He/she didn't break any laws. Bubbaprog 00:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Murderers on Wikipedia, and Zordrac said on WR this was one of many examples. I agree. I do not know if that user was actually a murderer or Chris Benoit, but the case needs to be investigated along with the many other cases that Zordrac made mention of. 68.224.239.145 20:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Comments from feedback form - "HE WAS THE GREATESTS WRESTLERS..."
HE WAS THE GREATESTS WRESTLERS IVE EVER SEEN BUT I LIKE WHEB THE ROCK BEAT HIM UP THE RPCK WAS THE GREATES &mdash;64.139.226.200 (talk) 15:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments from feedback form - "I think no one should judge ch..."
I think no one should judge chris benoit for what has happened tp his family yes its a tragic thing but he did everything 4 his little boy and he worked hard for the wwe company its a awful whats happened but think of his other 2 children and his parents chris doesnt deserve to have people saying bad things about him yeah it was wrong but before the tradgedy he was a gud man &mdash;92.16.124.239 (talk) 12:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments from feedback form - "sad"
sad &mdash;74.72.56.44 (talk) 04:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments from feedback form - "Wow, I can't believe this. Nascar 1996 ..."
Wow, I can't believe this.  Nascar 1996  04:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments from feedback form - "ok i guess"
ok i guess &mdash;86.130.7.220 (talk) 16:59, 21 May 2011 (UTC)