Talk:Enom

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Verifiability 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Unsorted talk 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Cybersquatting

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Original Research in criticism of eNom 

message: 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)
thread_title:  TeerGrub/KillAllSpammers 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: (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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  SpamSurgeon/KillAllSpammers sockpuppetry 

message: 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)
replies: text:  Thanks, C.Fred. Thirdbeach (talk) 18:12, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV tag revisited 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: There's a third opinion open for this page, but I think it's pretty well justified that the latest handful of edits by  are WP:OR. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 16:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illegal hijacking of Customers' Websites 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Accreditations 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Origins of name "eNom" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Enom 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Hosted by ENom Inc? 

message: Ripoff Reports shows approximately 56,153 Reports Found as far as complaints against Enom.
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. Knox490 (talk) 19:13, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consumer complaints