Talk:enom

Verifiability

I understand C. Fred's concern about the citation to eNom's 2002-2005 Name Intelligence awards, especially in the context of edit warring, but point out a couple things:

• Cited reference is a press release by Name Intelligence, about awards bestowed by Name Intelligence.
• Similar awards in the Go Daddy article cite GoDaddy.com as their source, and are not contested.

In terms of verifiability, I'd propose that the first point brings the content "above the threshold" for verifiability. The second point I raise only to document that eNom's competitor is being subjected to a far lower standard of scrutiny, which raises WP:POV concerns about contributors who are attempting to remove positive eNom content and insert negative content which does not meet WP:V policies. Thirdbeach (talk) 16:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Second call for discussion of whether Name Intelligence press release for Name Intelligence award meets WP:V. Thirdbeach (talk) 22:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Last call for discussion of whether Name Intelligence press release for Name Intelligence award meets WP:V. Precedent on Wikipedia is that although citing a press release by the awarding organization is "less than ideal" it is sufficient. Please be advised that a skeleton objection is not satisfactory. You'll need to articulate an argument that shows some rational train of thought, and understanding of and respect for Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Thirdbeach (talk) 23:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Following "last call" above, removing "verify credibility"/"unreliable source?" tag on emediawire citation. Wikipedia precedent is as cited above. Thirdbeach (talk) 16:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

emediawire publishes press releases, they are not an independent fact researched publication. Does not conform with WP:V guidelines. 70.176.235.154 (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

70.176.235.154/204.62.193.69/TeerGrub/Galf (all same person): As documented above, a press release about industry awards by the organization that bestows the award *does* conform with WP:V policy. If you disagree, it would be helpful if you back it up in a way that demonstrates a genuine understanding of the policy. Be aware that due to your activity on other sites (http://groups.google.com/group/news.admin.net-abuse.email/browse_thread/thread/de72d8d57db0da17/ea032d836db105b3#ea032d836db105b3) you should expect an increased level of scrutiny in terms of WP:POV. KillAllSpammers : I'm dubious about removing the reference to awarding organization's press release, because it is the only cited reference that covers 2002-2005 and, as discussed above, it does satisfy Wikipedia precedent for WP:V. Can you go into more detail about your reasoning? Thirdbeach (talk) 23:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

To quote from WP:V directly "...Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions." A PR release is a form of self-promotion. Furthermore, the website itself is not a reliable source itself, being that it is not a fact-checking peer-reviewed publication. Incidentally, my "activity" on a public newsgroup is hardly worthy of being described as worthy of "scrutiny" since it is done in the open (newsgroups are PUBLIC and are tagged with my IP address). Futhermore, quoting it doesn't help your case much since you'll see I am asking for contributions that adhere to the Wikipedia guildelines. Anyone can read this public posting themselves and make their own minds up. It would be interesting to know what your involvement with eNom is since you've been doing such a great job scrubbing it nice and clean, worth of a public relations professional. 70.176.235.154 (talk) 17:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

POV

POV - current criticisms are correct but context, even that in cited sources, suggests that eNom is not as negligent as current portrayal. Thirdbeach (talk) 23:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I added numbers pulled from the spam newsgroup for eNom and its competitors to show that, in context, eNom is not as nefarious as former statement suggests. Also moved entire "spam" discussion to a separate section. To be clear, I think the whole newsgroup citation is a good candidate for removal because a *number* doesn't tell enough about their *content*, especially when we have the URIBL and SURBL data. Thirdbeach (talk) 19:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Luke AFB contributor (70.176.235.154): I've corrected your incorrect representations of eNom's BBB accreditation (eNom is a BBB "Accredited Business", not just a "member"; and if you'll read the BBB page carefully you'll notice that all consumer complaints were resolved to BBB's satisfaction. If BBB judged eNom's efforts to be satisfactory, but consumers didn't, that speaks to the consumers' character, not eNom's). Likewise, I've removed the Wikileaks content because it is self-published and has not been posted in any source that meets Wikipedia's requirements for verifiability (fact-checking, etc.). Neutral point of view and verifiability are core tenets on Wikipedia. If you have an axe to grind you need find a different forum than Wikipedia. There are many forums for opinions, rumor, and unverified "facts" that may be a better fit for what you have tried to post here. Thirdbeach (talk) 20:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

As stated before, 70.176.235.154, Wikipedia has verifiability standards that are not met by citing forums. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:V Thirdbeach (talk) 21:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

67.150.252.180 (Pac-West Telecomm): The actual WP:NPOV statement is, in part, "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors." It is supplemented by WP:V, which says in part, "All articles must adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policy, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view." In other words, content isn't self-promoting just because it's positive. Indeed, it's inaccurate to characterize third-party publications as self-promotion on the part of the article's subject (which is the case with the info you've tried to remove). Please read the entire WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:RS policies for a more complete picture of neutrality. Thirdbeach (talk) 21:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC), revised Thirdbeach (talk) 19:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Thirdbeach: Actually that's a bizarre interpretation of the WP:V -- your own words "content isn't self-promoting just because it's positive" is not contained within the language of WP:V and rather it seems to raise the bar on material requiring neutrality "in proportion to the prominence of the content". Furthermore, one should also consider the language of Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest policy WP:COI which describes a conflict of interest as "Adding material that appears to promote the interests or visibility of an article's author, its author's family members, employer, associates, or their business". Further stated self-promotional material is a COI if it is "material that appears to promote the private or commercial interests of the editor, or their associates". Lastly, a {{POV}} tag was recently added (which interestingly I noticed you removed) which I believe makes the redaction of promotional material even more tenable. KillAllSpammers (talk) 00:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

KillAllSpammers, I honestly don't think there's any confusion. I quoted from WP:NPOV, then said, "In other words", then made a statement that was not in quotation marks. I think any reasonable reader is going to understand that what followed "In other words" was a paraphrase of the preceding quote.

So, getting back to the substance of the discussion, I stand by my paraphrase: "content isn't self-promoting just because it's positive." I also have to disagree that my edits violate WP:NPOV and WP:COI. If you'll kindly read the whole discussion page, you'll notice many comments that the article was biased against eNom. Those comments, and just a little bit of research, convinced me that the overwhelmingly negative tone of the article did not accurately represent eNom's overall record and was not encyclopedic.

Over the history of my edits, I've preserved all content from reliable sources (I did remove one of your edits/citations that, as several editors pointed out, did not meet WP:RS). I have added the other viewpoints, in most cases from the same outside sources where the original Wikipedia editor presented one viewpoint and failed to include other viewpoints that were presented in the same source. The article now expresses a representative collection of viewpoints. This stands in contrast to your edits which formerly expressed a single viewpoint, but have now crossed the line into removing reliable information that differs from your opinion. In other words, please consider the possibility that if you perceive someone is not meeting WP:NPOV and/or WP:COI standards, a little introspection might be in order.

Request for specifics: Would you say more about your citations request? It looks like every sentence in the article cites or refers to a reliable source. What do you perceive is missing? Thirdbeach (talk) 18:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC) Revised Thirdbeach (talk) 21:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

KillAllSpammers, you are distorting Wikipedia policy in order to achieve the non-neutral point of view you have consistently worked toward in this article. WP:NPOV "In a nutshell" reads, "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing significant views fairly, proportionately and without bias." I'm skipping over your other accusations as attempts to distract from the real question, which is whether the disputed content is the type of encyclopedic, reliably sourced, balanced information that general readers want. I think there's no question that the answer is, "yes". Thirdbeach (talk) 01:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not against Wikipedia's policy to list honours and awards. Many articles do it. GreenJoe 02:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

4.224.39.29, Wikipedia's WP:RS policy is "This page in a nutshell: Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." For general readers, the section of the page that you have removed cites the best sources of information on the history of the company and its standing with consumer organizations and its industry. Thirdbeach (talk) 17:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Unsorted talk

eNom has made several edits to this article, each time redacting ICANN maintained statistics with data maintained on an eNom owned domain name (registrarstats.com). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.100.249.75 (talk) 04:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• I think eNOM has proven itself to be in bed with spammers and other sketchy sites. Look up the complaints people have with them, and it will show you that they dont care wether people are getting scammed by sites hosted on their servers, as long as they make money. Anyone wanting a genuine website should look past enom for anyone else. if you are hosted on enom, you are flagged as a scammer.

This latest edit looks rather like it's a copy-paste from eNom's site or similar - certainly seems rather too commercial for Wikipedia, anyway. Any objections to reverting to the previous edit, or similar?

 – orudge 00:45, 01 January 2006 (UTC)

• It doesn't look like that to me, in fact I would say the article is highly biased against ENOM, the information is not encyclopedic, more of a rant. --Jackaranga 14:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I added POV, I am fairly new to wikipedia and can't decide whether the kind of comment about unavailable customer support, is useful information. --Jackaranga 21:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• Looks like they are into this "domain tasting".. Bastards.. They should be DDos'ed of the earth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unixwolf (talk • contribs) 21:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought spammers and related scum weren't allowed to use WikiPedia as an advertisement? Has the policy changed now? 82.181.201.82 (talk) 18:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

 ssl2895.com

elevennetwork11.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:5CA:4000:E601:95AA:72A5:D92D:302F (talk) 11:29, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

DPRK web hosting

I think it DOES matter if the last hardcore socialist country, North Korea, depends on the services of an american ISP to host its official web presence. I moved it to a trivia section, for lack of a better context. It matters, however. It matters greatly. See North Korea and the news footage of the last two years about the DPR Korea for details. --85.181.8.27 05:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

eNom, like all large domain registrars hosts the registration for hundreds of thousands of domains. In most cases it's nearly impractical for a registrar to have any knowledge what a domain will be used for, whether for political purposes or not. Foregoing obvious arguments of the First Amendment (and even more important than than this) is the issue as to whether the registrar is conducting business lawfully and following ICANN guidelines properly (e.g., prohibiting domains from being registered en-masse with ficticious contact data for the purpose of sending UCE/UBE, etc). One last point worth mentioning: In your example, the domain in question isn't hosted by eNom, only their domain registration. The actual hosting of the website itself is performed by a non U.S. business entity in Spain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.62.193.68 (talk • contribs)

Cybersquatting

My webhost recently made a mistake, and failed to re-register my domain name for me in time. This resulted in it being snapped up by a cybersquatter, who has replaced my site with a fake site full of spam links. At the bottom of the site there is an e-mail link which is obviously directed at me, so I can enter into ransom negotiations to get my site back. The e-mail address is info@whois-help.info. I went to www.whois-help.info and found myself automatically redirected to www.enom.com. Presumably, this means that eNom is behind all this.

Are they well-known for this sort of extortion? — Chameleon 05:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

• Reportedly. If you can find verifiable sources for such, please add to the article if it's relevant. If it's not, you could start a new article. Beware, though, for cop-outs such as "it's only business", and so on and so forth. According to such logic (favoured by these very same groups) selling drugs to 7-year-old kids is simply "a business transaction", and stabbing people to steal their corneas for 1st world clients is just a "lucrative market". These Untermensch go to any lengths to satisfy their fetishes and psychopatologies. You have been warned. 82.181.201.82 (talk) 18:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The cybersquatting is simply a demonstrable fact, which you can find by googling "enom cybersquatting." They have used this tactic to shut down unpopular political ideas, as well as to attack civil rights groups. Here is a fifty page article on it, in which the authors include every single contact between Enom and themselves. It is, in fact, the first page to come up when googling, but not a single word of it is mentioned here. http://wikileaks.org/wiki/WIKILEAKS.INFO_censored_by_eNom_and_Demand_Media —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.213.84.10 (talk) 13:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, these acts are completely illegal, and district attorneys have refused multiple times to prosecute this host for theft. When someone registers a domain name, they own it (see the related wikipedia article on domain names). A registrar is legally required to transfer it. This has happened to many websites, as I'm a site administrator and I have untold stories. Either way, Enom has illegally seized the domains of its user, and then used them to put up ads on the page. Law enforcement, like in rape cases or lynching, has been small to non-existent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.213.84.10 (talk) 13:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Original Research in criticism of eNom

The current article appears to contain some content which, to my eyes, is clearly original research. Namely, the part of about a newsgroup search of NANAE. Wikipedia policies don't allow us to go and make that kind of analysis ourselves. Now, I myself suspect eNom is likely a somewhat sketchy, if not outright nefarious organization, but that doesn't mean Wikipedia policies no longer apply. Someone else has already tagged the content in question. If someone cannot come up with some reliable sources, that part is going to have to be removed. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 15:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, as it turns out there is some actual academic research and data that I hope satisfies Wikipedia's original research standards. If not perhaps the section about Google groups could be redacted itself -- 204.62.193.69 (talk) 23:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I added a POV flag and a new POV topic at top of this page -- just noticed this section is current discussion that addresses some parallel concerns. I know it's a kludgy way to gauge eNom's nefariousness, but a search in the Google newsgroup on eNom, and one on Go Daddy, yields more than four times the number of spam posts for Go Daddy as for eNom but Go Daddy has less than three times as many domains. Does that mean Go Daddy, normalized for size, is about 1.4 times as nefarious as eNom? Thirdbeach (talk) 23:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I added numbers pulled from the spam newsgroup for eNom and its competitors to show that, in context, eNom is not as nefarious as former statement suggests. Also moved entire "spam" discussion to a separate section. To be clear, I think the whole newsgroup citation is a good candidate for removal because a *number* doesn't tell enough about their *content*, especially when we have the URIBL and SURBL data. Thirdbeach (talk) 19:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Simple solution to the policy conflict mentioned above - change the policies... 84.9.125.170 (talk) 17:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I've re-added the Original Research tag to the Google groups content. I put numbers of posts in a table to try to quantify the number of eNom posts compared to other big registrars, but since they're opinion posts and I didn't look at a single one to check out the content of posts it's the epitome of junk science. If nobody comes up with a logical reason to keep the newsgroup content in, I'm going to appeal to W:OR and the good sense of the Wikipedia community at large, and remove this content in a couple days. Thirdbeach (talk) 20:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems that ThirdBeach, probably an eNom or Demand Media employee has been softening up some of the harsher facts about eNom in an attempt to clean up their wikipedia page. The wikileaks boycott was published on slashdot, and isn't original research. It was published in several other news publications, it's historically correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.62.193.69 (talk) 21:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

AMUG contributor (204.62.193.69): Wikileaks is certainly "historically correct" but is not "verifiable" to Wikipedia standards. Forums, which state opinions but don't go through fact-checking and Wikipedia's other verifiability requirements, don't meet the criteria -- even if dozens of them participate in the "echo chamber". Thirdbeach (talk) 21:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Sources were cited in a verifiable news publication, it fits Wikipedia standards

If you'll take the trouble to actually read Wikipedia's policies you'll fine that forums do not meet Wikipedia's standards and in fact are routinely thrown out of articles throughout Wikipedia. For example, WP:V requires "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" and "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used in articles about themselves. (See below.) Articles about such sources should not repeat any contentious claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources." Repeating a claim made by an aggrieved party does not constitute verifiability. Third party, yes, and historically accurate, yes, but WP:V? No. Thirdbeach (talk) 21:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

In the case of above, the user cites a news publication (theinquirer), which does not appear to be an aggrivated third party. I do believe the article also appeared on slashdot, which is a fairly credible news source. TeerGrub (talk) 22:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Nope, sorry. Both theinquirer and slashdot, though third parties, do not fact-check the content that almost anybody can post. They're more "echo chamber" than WP:V. Please refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:V and the pages it links to. Other content in the eNom article has remained in place because it appeared, for example, in the New York Times or organizations that simply compile and publish data. Thirdbeach (talk) 22:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Last call -- anybody object if I remove the Google newsgroup content? Again, the reasoning is that:

• It doesn't meet WP:V standards
• The table I created only counts (basically) posts of opinions, not any sort of evaluation what those opinions are. Junk science that I regret.
• The subject is better documented by the paragraphs on URIBL and SURBL.

Please be advised that a skeleton objection is not satisfactory. You'll need to articulate an argument that shows some rational train of thought and compliance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Thirdbeach (talk) 22:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Following "last call" above, I have removed the newsgroup content to bring article into compliance with WP:V and WP:OR. URIBL and SURBL content remains because it appears to be credible sources. Thirdbeach (talk) 23:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

http://www.circleid.com/posts/20090225_domaining_registrar_defeats_cybersquatting_lawsuit/ Oh, what's that? Googling "enom cybersquatting" produces hundreds of examples of Enom censoring websites? Yeah, that's what I thought. Bunch of *BOTS* on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnarchistAssassin (talk • contribs) 12:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

There, I re-added the Wikileaks link and at least ten other resources to demonstrate the COMPLETELY ILLEGAL nature of this company. You can thank me whenever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnarchistAssassin (talk • contribs) 12:49, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

TeerGrub/KillAllSpammers

For future reference in case there are more edit wars, you should check out this request for checkuser. GreenJoe 16:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Remove flags?

Seems like it might be time to remove some or all of the flags on this page. Please post flag-specific comments on removing:

• "Neutrality" flag was placed 25 April by Scosco62. He didn't specify what content led to placing the flag, and requests for clarification on his user page in May and June have gone unanswered. All edits citing this flag have been overturned by experienced editors, and the editor (TeerGrub/KillAllSpammers/legion of sockpuppets) has been permanently blocked for sockpuppetry as a direct result of these edits. So, it looks like four months of other editors' eyes may not corroborate Scosco62's concerns.
• "Wikify" flag was placed by Enric Naval on 1 June. He then actually did the wikifying but did not remove the Wikify flag. I helped get the verbiage on the flag cleaned up to make it easier to figure out what "wikifying" is, and that you're supposed to remove the flag when you're done. But, as a courtesy to the Wikipedia community, I'm coming to the talk page before removing the flag myself.
• "Citations" flag was placed by TeerGrub/KillAllSpammers/legion of sockpuppets on 26 May, apparently capriciously, as part of the dispute that ended with this editor being permanently blocked on 30 May. All content and citations in the article were vetted pretty thoroughly earlier this year, with the benefit of the doubt going to TG/KAS/legion, before GreenJoe figured out the sockpuppetry.

Would appreciate comments that are specific to each flag (I.e., please be more specific than "Remove". Remove which flags, and why?). Thanks, Thirdbeach (talk) 00:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Revised Thirdbeach (talk) 20:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Following more than a month of posting this RfC on this page, cross-posted on business RfC listing, I deleted the flags. Thirdbeach (talk) 21:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• I've restored the "Wikify" flag as a result of the excessive external links peppering the article. I have no objections to removal of the POV-check flag, though. —C.Fred (talk) 05:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, C. Fred. I had pretty long discussions with Wikify and Verifiability specialists and personally think all the external links are necessary for verifiability. However, I don't mind the Wikify flag as long as it doesn't replace external with internal. Any thoughts on the verifiability tag partway down? Also, looks like the blocked editor is probably back under another nom de guerre. I'll figure out how to take care of it. Good to hear from you! Thirdbeach (talk) 00:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Entered the renewed checkuser. Thirdbeach (talk) 20:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

External links needed for verifiability are one thing; they should be preserved, but placed in ref tags like is done in part of the article. I'm talking about, as a specific example, the company description, where the word eNom is linked to the company's website. —C.Fred (talk) 21:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Or, see the edits I made in this diff. The external link that provided a source for verification was preserved but moved into a footnote (although I should take it the next step and embed it into the {{cite web}} template). The external links to eNom, BulkRegister, etc. were discarded. That's the nature of cleanup I refer to. —C.Fred (talk) 21:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, C.Fred. I'm not inclined to do that cleanup because both methods are designated as "correct" in the MoS and the non-footnote method gets the reader to the citation in one click instead of two. So I don't consider it wikifying (both are proper wiki style); I look on it as a matter of taste. See "How to link" section in Wikipedia:External links and "External links" section of WP:MOS). However, I don't mind leaving the flag.

Would still appreciate your input on the "Citations needed" flag partway down the page. Absent your input, and given that I did the monthlong RfC, I'll make my own, possibly incorrect, interpretations of silence. :-) Best, Thirdbeach (talk) 23:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi C.Fred, since you've been active the past few days but haven't responded, I'm removing the "citations" flag. Assuming this won't be objectionable because you haven't objected, and indeed found fault earlier with "excessive" external links. As described earlier, these are necessary for WP:V and conform with Wikipedia:External links style standards. See "References and citation" section -- it's possibly more illuminating about best practices for in-body citations than previous sections I pointed out. Hmmm, seems like the wikification and external links are getting more intertwined than they should be, doesn't it? "External links" flag is about verifiability; "Wikify" flag is about style standards. Thanks, Thirdbeach (talk) 17:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

SpamSurgeon/KillAllSpammers sockpuppetry

Hi SpamSurgeon/KillAllSpammers/legion of sockpuppets. I see you're back. Frankly, it's time for you to find another hobby. For other readers, please note the extensive conversations above regarding POV. eNom has been thoroughly reviewed and passes POV muster, and it was a very experienced editor who removed SpamSurgeon's last attempt at replacing neutrality flag. Thanks, Thirdbeach (talk) 23:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Thirdbeach, I don't know who you are or what your problem is -- I'm not KillAllSpammers, nor am I a "sockpuppet" for anyone. I just felt the current article "as is" sounds like marketing material from Demand Media's website. I've read some of the comments left here by KillAllSpammers though and some of it sounds applicable to what I was thinking when I first read this article. SpamSurgeon (talk) 05:37, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Given your contribution history, your claim of not being KAS is certainly in doubt. And if you have read KillAllSpammer's comments you will have noticed that that user (and his/her NPOV flag) have not only been overruled by experienced editors, but that he/she has been banned temporarily for edit-warring, and then banned indefinitely for sockpuppetry. Thirdbeach (talk) 23:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

(BTW, given your edit summary, I'd recommend you familiarize yourself with WP:CIV) Thirdbeach (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 23:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC).

Thirdbeach, how can you in good faith accuse someone of not being civil when you yourself are being exactly the opposite of civil? Accusing someone who has never owned a Wikipedia account (me actually) before of being a sockpuppet is pretty ridiculous. Why don't you state your bias, admit you are an employee of Demand Media who is obviously responsible for "cleaning up" this article? You can't remove everything from this article just because you don't like it. If people feel this article lacks objectivity you can't make it objective by playing "clean up" and removing or redacting others' opinions. I suggest you yourself read the same links you offer to others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SpamSurgeon (talk • contribs) 02:02, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

POV tag revisited

SpamSurgeon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continues to tag the article for a POV check. I don't see the issue. Other editors don't see the issue. SpamSurgeon, what specifically do you see in the article that calls into question its neutrality? —C.Fred (talk) 03:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• There has been no discussion here; there has been a succession of IP addresses tagging the article. Until there is discussion, I have semi-protected the article. —C.Fred (talk) 16:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, C.Fred. Thirdbeach (talk) 18:12, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Illegal hijacking of Customers' Websites

I would hope that anyone who has even taken a look at WP:NPOV would know that a section by that title is highly inappropriate here, and the whole section is filled with WP:OR and WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. DreamGuy (talk) 22:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

There was one claim of a successful suit for hijacking. That was not borne out by the source. Accordingly, I've changed the section title to "Allegations of domain name hijacking." I've also demoted it belong the company history—but, since it's arguably a bigger issue than eNom's spam policy, above that section. I also struck the most egregious OR. —C.Fred (talk) 22:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

There's a third opinion open for this page, but I think it's pretty well justified that the latest handful of edits by AnarchistAssassin (talk · contribs) are WP:OR. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Oddly, the person who has been adding this OR and pushing the POV put it all back witht he claim that it was discussed on talk and nopt to remove it unless it was further discussed here. The discussion here clearly shows that everyone (other than the person adding it) is strongly opposed to the material. The edit comment thus seems highly deceptive, as he knows there is no support for his edits. DreamGuy (talk) 13:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

They are spamers, take a look at this mail header which I got after a misdirect on Paint.NET's plugin forum:(I have made it a bit private)
X-Apparently-To: stalinvlad@ via 87.xx.xx.xx; Sun, 26 Sep 2010 14:51:20 +0000

Return-Path: <stalinvlad@>

X-YMailISG: UXj<SNIP>Q--

X-Originating-IP: [69.64.153.133]

Authentication-Results: mta1089.mail.ird.yahoo.com from=yahoo.co.uk; domainkeys=neutral (no sig); from=yahoo.co.uk; dkim=neutral (no sig)

Received: from 127.0.0.1 (EHLO mail-02.notify-customer.com) (69.64.153.133) by mta1089.mail.ird.yahoo.com with SMTP; Sun, 26 Sep 2010 14:51:19 +0000

Received: from combox3 ([69.64.157.20]) by mail-02.notify-customer.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Sun, 26 Sep 2010 07:51:20 -0700

MIME-Version: 1.0

From: - <stalinvlad@> Add sender to Contacts Here they put my address as the sender

To: stalinvlad@

Cc: stalinvlad@

Reply-To: stalinvlad@

Date: 26 Sep 2010 07:51:19 -0700

Subject: Important Notice: Please Verify Contact Data for your Domain Name(s)

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Return-Path: stalinvlad@ Here the return path is myself

Message-ID: <SJL01WSVCMAIL02bUAM004c696c@mail-02.notify-customer.com>

X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Sep 2010 14:51:20.0269 (UTC) FILETIME=[47DC6FD0:01CB5D8A]

Content-Length: 1525
The message part trys to make out they are something to do with ICANN and need my details & provide link to a site who's whois reveals enom own it
81.101.109.99 (talk) 06:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Front company/shell company

I removed the section on front company/shell company. It lacked verifiable/notable citations. Thirdbeach (talk) 01:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

False objectivity

eNom is an online ad company: spam, pop-ups, domain brokerage, shell companies. they're spammers. they make money by being dublicitious, like spies or gangsters or Enron executives, none of whom Wikipedia editors spend much time defending. so why are there so many friends of eNom?

there is a strong risk of misinformation by the over-cautious omission of certain information in articles, specifically negative stuff about eNom and similar companies. Wikipedia should always err on the side of the little guy, since the whole purpose of the website is to help the little guy stay informed.

the views of libertarian extremists and eNom's potted plants should not determine the tone of this article. certainly controversial content should be properly labeled. a few "some say" qualifiers would go a long way towards meeting the nominal standards of objectivity. after all, the anecdotal evidence is legion. Anthony717 (talk) 13:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that the source in the information you added, Knujon, is a provider of anti-spam services. As such, their neutrality as a source can be called in to question.

While Wikipedia should always strive to present a neutral, full-spectrum picture, if it has to err on the side of caution, it will be to omit information that is not sourced to a source that is independent and with a good editorial review policy (accurate). —C.Fred (talk) 03:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Inferring from C.Fred's comments that he perceives this content doesn't meet Wikipedia's threshold for reliability (apologies if I've assumed too much, C.Fred) I've re-removed the "Front companies" section on several grounds: WP:POV, WP:V, and WP:NOR. If this info can be backed up by a reliable source, written up in an objective tone, and presented in a manner that doesn't constitute conclusions based on original research, there would be nothing to object to. However, the removed content did not meet those criteria.

Please note the rest of this talk page and the history of article. The article has gone through multiple reviews and clean-ups that have modified non-neutral phrasing, and removed content from sources that do not meet Wikipedia's verifiability policies. Regards, Thirdbeach (talk) 01:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC) Revised Thirdbeach (talk) 01:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• • • Edit, 6/2012

This comment is absolutely correct. enom is a mass registrar and facilitator for spam and phishing emails. And that simple, absolutely true statement should be the first sentence in the Wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrankBlank (talk • contribs) 19:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Accreditations

An anonymous editor has repeatedly removed the Accreditations and awards section, calling it self-promotional. While the notability of the BBB award might be debatable, making the Inc. list is hardly self-promotional: that's a ranking from an independent magazine.

What reasons are there to either remove this section outright or pare it down, when on the surface, it appears to be independently sourced? —C.Fred (talk) 15:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Origins of name "eNom"

Anyone ever notice that the name "eNom" essentially reads as "money" backwards? I wonder if this has any connection...? Curious 21:59, 23 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.135.66.111 (talk)

Enom

My site is being spammed for links to non-sites which turn out by 'whois' to be owned by:

Registrar: ENOM, INC.

Whois Server: whois.enom.com

Referral URL: http://www.enom.com

Name Server: NS2435.HOSTGATOR.COM

Name Server: NS2436.HOSTGATOR.COM

Status: clientTransferProhibited

Updated Date: 09-aug-2011

Creation Date: 09-aug-2011

Expiration Date: 09-aug-2012

Sorry if I prefer to keep my site anon, as well as my Wiki ID. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.187.150.88 (talk) 22:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Hosted by ENom Inc?

There is some maleware or something on websites that tries to redirect to this site at ENom. What's the deal with ENom? Have they fixed their spammer problem? Site redirect to : eclampsialemontree.net It's blocked by my antivrisus/firewall. Why is Enow listed on whois for this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.180.142.136 (talk) 05:01, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Consumer complaints

Ripoff Reports shows approximately 56,153 Reports Found as far as complaints against Enom.[1]

I realize RipOff Reports is not the best consumer complaint website, however. But that is still a very significant amount of complaints. I have never seen a company with so many complaints at Ripoff Reports.

What consumer complaint or consumer review websites/organizations would be best to list in this article. I do know that Enom is not accredited with the Better Business Bureau.[2] Knox490 (talk) 19:13, 3 October 2017 (UTC)