User talk:Wjs of edmonton

March 2016

Hello, I'm Chrisw80. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Nik Richie seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Chrisw80 (talk) 01:30, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Nik Richie. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Chrisw80 (talk) 02:08, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Nik Richie, you may be blocked from editing.
Your edits have been automatically marked as vandalism and have been automatically reverted. The following is the log entry regarding this vandalism: Nik Richie was changed by Wjs of edmonton (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.85367 on 2016-03-26T02:12:39+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 02:12, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Chris. With all the legal on his description, I would hardly have to quote why I corrected it as a defamatory site. We want the truth posted, right? I understand your previous concerns. All his quotes a defamatory in nature. I could put a link to his website? Can you please insert my new edits? Unless you believe his site is not defamatory in nature and he is constantly getting sued because of it.

And please, don't talk to me about vandalizing Nik Richie. Your free to phone the FBI and confirm about him being investigated. I hope that came across okay?

Hello there Wjs of edmonton. All facts on Wikipedia need to be sourced from Reliable Sources. The Daily Mail is NOT considered a reliable source. Wikipedia articles also must be written in a neutral point of view, your edits do not fit within this criteria. Also, you are marking your edits as "minor" when they most definitely are not. Please do not continue making these edits. Chrisw80 (talk) 02:43, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Nik Richie shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Also, WP:BLP requires us to err on the side of caution, especially with terms like defamatory in the description of people. So, you really should get some widespread support, via the talk page, before changing that. —C.Fred (talk) 02:43, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I sent this to CNN

I recently contacted wikipedia to change the following at this address. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nik_Richie

Existing first paragraph content Nik Richie (born Hooman Karamian,[1] February 12, 1979),[2] previously known as Corbin Grimes,[2] is an American blogger, author,[3] and Internet personality.[2] Richie is best known for his gossip website TheDirty.com which he began in 2007 as DirtyScottsdale.com.

To this

Nik Richie (born Hooman Karamian,[1] February 12, 1979),[2] previously known as Corbin Grimes,[2] is an American blogger, author,[3] and Internet personality.[2] Richie is best known for his defamatory site TheDirty.com which he began in 2007 as DirtyScottsdale.com. Richie quotes third party content to enforce his defamatory comments against private individuals.

Their responce Also, WP:BLP requires us to err on the side of caution, especially with terms like defamatory in the description of people. So, you really should get some widespread support, via the talk page, before changing that. —C.Fred (talk) 02:43, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't need widespread support. Your calling a defamatory site a gossip site. Now you can explain to the public why you are doing so.

CNN does not govern Wikipedia's editing policies. —C.Fred (talk) 02:59, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Or, if you're alleging that CNN has called the website "defamatory", please provide link to the articles, plural, where they have done so. —C.Fred (talk) 03:01, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Wjs of edmonton (talk) 03:29, 26 March 2016 (UTC) A federal court ruled the site was defamatory and that NIk posts defamatory comments.

http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=d06d199d-3999-490d-b543-acbfcd81f872

In an unusual ruling, a Kentucky federal court judge held that a Web site operator could be liable for defamation under the Communications Decency Act for comments posted about a former schoolteacher’s promiscuity.

Kentucky resident Sarah Jones, who taught high school and was a cheerleader for the Cincinnati Bengals, sued TheDirty.com and its founder, Hooman Karamian (also known as Nik Richie) over two allegedly defamatory posts and related comments. In October 2009, a picture of Jones was posted with a former Bengals kicker accompanied by a caption stating that she had sex with every member of the football team. Two months later, beneath another picture of Jones, a poster wrote about locations at the school where she and her ex-boyfriend had sex and suggested that she had various STDs. Richie then added his own tagline: “Why are all high school teachers freaks in the sack? – nik.”

Jones filed suit under the CDA. Richie moved to dismiss, arguing that he was immune under Section 230 of the Act. U.S. District Court Judge William O. Bertelsman denied the motion and sent the case to trial. The first jury hung but the second jury found for Jones, awarding $38,000 in compensatory damages and $300,000 in punitive damages.

After the verdict, Judge Bertelsman released a written opinion “to explain further” his reasons for denying the defendant’s motion. Reviewing case law from federal appellate courts across the country, the judge found support in landmark CDA decisions like the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.com and the 7th Circuit’s Chicago Lawyers’ Comm. For Civil Rights Under Law, Inc. v. Craigslist, as well as cases from the 8th and 10th Circuits. Although the panels in each of the cases cited ruled for defendants, finding Section 230 immunity, Judge Bertelsman found language in those cases on which to hang his hat. In Craigslist, for example, the court said that “[n]othing in the service craigslist offers induces anyone to post any particular listing or express a preference for discrimination.”

“Thus, although courts have stated generally that CDA immunity is broad, the weight of the authority teaches that such immunity may be lost,” the court wrote. “That is, a website owner who intentionally encourages illegal or actionable third-party postings to which he adds his own comments ratifying or adopting the posts becomes a ‘creator’ or ‘developer’ of that content and is not entitled to immunity.”

The evidence presented showed Richie did just that, the judge said. Postings like those made about Jones “were invited and encouraged by the defendants by using the name ‘Dirty.com’ for the website and inciting the viewers of the site to form a loose organization dubbed ‘the Dirty Army,’ which was urged to have ‘a war mentality’ against anyone who dared to object to having their character assassinated.”

Richie himself added his own defamatory comments concerning the plaintiff, Judge Bertelsman wrote. “Thus, Richie’s conduct cannot be said to have been ‘neutral with respect to the offensiveness of the content,’ such that he is not ‘responsible’ for it within the meaning of [the CDA],” the court said. While Richie’s post itself did not form the basis for the action, “it effectively ratified and adopted the defamatory third-party post.”

“It is clear, therefore, that Richie did far more than just allow postings by others or engage in editorial or self-regulatory functions,” the court concluded, affirming the jury verdict and damage award. “Rather, he played a significant role in ‘developing’ the offensive content such that he has no immunity under the CDA.”

To read the opinion in Jones v. Dirty World Entertainment, click here.

Why it matters: Although Judge Bertelsman cited to several of the leading CDA §230 decisions, his conclusion makes the case an outlier as very few courts have similarly found that immunity did not apply to a Web site operator under the statute. An opinion filed after a jury verdict addressing a ruling prior to trial is also unusual, as Santa Clara University law professor Eric Goldman noted. “It’s clear that the judge is advocating,” he told MediaPost. “The judge isn’t trying to call balls and strikes. He’s trying to persuade the appeals court that there’s a 230 exception that applies to this case.” Whether or not the appeals court will agree remains to be seen – the defendants have already filed their appeal to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.