Talk:Cybersquatting

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Computing (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Law (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon


This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Internet  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Some comments[edit]

This article called "Cybersquatting" is erroneous and misguided. It has hijacked the "Domainer" article, a discussion about legitimate domaining. Article Squatting: taking a topic name and redirecting it to an article designed to shed an incorrect negative view of the hijacked article's topic. In the domain industry it would be easy to file a UDRP and et the article back to it's original contributors. Trotline (talk) 00:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I would think this article could be made better if there were some examples of true cybersquatting. The only one that I am personally aware of was the case of www.ati.com. Back in the '90s if you went to www.ati.com you got "Artificial Turd Industries" instead of the more famous video card maker. The site for video cards was www.atitech.com. The fake turd sellers did not just park the domain but in fact ran an alleged actual site selling fake dog poo. Anyone with half a brain could figure out the actual intent, and a few years later the site www.ati.com would go to the video card maker. I have no idea if ATI sued or if they bought the domain or what, but this, to me at least, is a perfect example of cybersquatting. If someone took IBM.com but in fact that was a site for the Internal Bushing Manufacture corporation, I would not call that cybersquatting as that would be a legit company that sells internal bushings, whatever those are. The case of the fake turd guys is a more blatant example as they had no real intent on creating an empire based on fake dog doo. :-) Rev Sysyphus (talk) 17:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


I'm afraid most of what I've written on this page (I didn't create the page BTW) is not NPV. I really don't care for cybersquatters and have a hard time being neutral about them. I invite anyone who can write objectively to edit my text to make it more NPOV. :-) -Frecklefoot


I know that this has been removed a while ago, but the idea that it was ever on the page in the first place amazes me: "Courts have generally upheld the rights of cybersquatters. For example, in December of 2002, the World Intellectual Property Organisation ruled in favor of Virtual Countries, a tourist corporation, which had registered http://www.newzealand.com ."

That was NOT at all a case of cybersquatting. Anyone can register names of geographical areas because no one person or entity can own a name llike that. Courts have shown this time and time again. Who is the supposed "rightful owner" of a geographical name?

And, basically, courts have almost always sided against cybersquatters. To take one case (and one case not even directly involved) and try to use that as proof was kind of silly.

But oh well, I'm beating a dead horse I guess since it's not even on the page anymore.

Dan Norder -- dannorder@aol.com


Doesn't anyone think there should be some discussion of "....sucks" websites, since cybersquatting laws are so often used to persecute them? or the trick of making a lowball offer for a domain that was not offered for sale, then using the indignant counteroffer as "evidence" that they intended all along to sell it (thus running afoul of most jurisdictions' shiny new cybersquatting-specific laws) --Random832 00:47, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)


Personally, I think the idea is great, but considering the authorised arbiters charge fees of $1500 and upwards, only fairly established companies can make use of this service, even for obviously domain-for-sale domains. Its almost certainly cheaper to just pay off the cybersquatter. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.159.115.253 (talkcontribs) 01:27, October 23, 2004 (UTC)

Domain names "not for the taking"[edit]

I don't understand how any Internet company selling domain names can sell you a domain name that is "not for the taking" the name you buy may be someone's Trademark or Service name. Now you get sued and must turnover the domain to that someone, but the company that sold it to you just keeps on selling these names and never have to take any responsibility. I don't think this so called Cyber squatting is so bad, you didn't buy the name, but if I buy it I am in deep Poo. If you don't buy the name you think is yours or the company selling domain names thinks it is " not for the taking" then you lose the right to take it for nothing. This is America right? If the phone company wants to up your bill because you lost service and want you old number back you pay them, you don't have the right to sue them or make them give it back to you, you lost it and you will pay to try and get it back. You cannot sue the person who now has the phone number you had for 25 years. What is the difference? This could be carried over to all type of business, if a store called JUS store was opened in your town then some guy comes to town and opens a store called JUST a store, he can do this in the good oh USA, but he can't have a JUST.com if JUS.com don't want him to. How can this be right? Some people say you don’t own the domain name you are just leasing it. Well do you own you land? I’m sure you think you do, but don’t pay your taxes and see if you really own the land or are you just leasing it from the state? Maybe it's just me that don't understand.



-Yes but its not nice :-) I have been planing to make this site as a project (not for a company or to make profit) and every way you can put has a cyber squatter asking like 2,000 bucks for it. Its insane. Even if it is legal (wich it shouldent be) its just not very nice and stops the little guy from createing a website.unsigned comment was added by 65.96.113.236 (talk)


Proposal for restructure[edit]

I would like to add more material to this topic, and I would appreciate comments before I begin.

Some of the detail I think is needed includes:

  • Extend the types of domain name disputes & forms of domain name speculation
  • Issues leading to dispute (renewal lapses, name variations, rogue registrars 'stealing' names between interested party querying and registration name, multiple parties with similar claim to generic names etc)
  • Add reference material:
  • Major players
  • Important case history
  • Philosophy vs pragmatism of buying name (back?) from a domain name speculator
  • Statistics, if possible, from dispute outcomes,
  • Strive for a more NPV stance, so that the material has a better chance of surviving ;)

I don't think this material sits well under the title Cybersquatting, because it is somewhat more general and because Cybersquatting is not NPV terminology. So I propose to move the general topic under the title Domain Name Disputes, and keep for the topic Cybersquatting only the current first paragraph definition and some links.

Hbachus


Myspace name squatting[edit]

[[Image:Myspace-ronald-mcdonald-page.PNG|thumb|right|350px| screen shot of myspace page using McDonald's Ronald McDonald character]] Is this considered cybersquatting? If you go to http://www.myspace.com/bigredshoes (accessed today).

Most likely this is not licensed by McDonald's Corporation because you will notice if you go to this site that all of Ronald McDonald's friends are young woman that are mostly wearing string bikinis. I doubt that McDonald's would allow this kind of behavior from any of its franchisees or from someone from the internal PR Department.

Does anyone have any references to this kind of phenomenon or know of any domain name arbitrations that have occurred because of this kind of activity. I am not sure if we should all this to this page or is it a new phenomenon that has a different name? Alex756 01:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

A MySpace page is not using a separate domain name so cybersquatting regulations would not apply. That could very well be standard copyright and/or trademark violation though. DreamGuy 12:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Corrections on the VW Case[edit]

Never edited Wikipedia before, but had to chime in here to remove the reference to the Supreme Court. There is no Supreme Court decision in the VW case as far as I can tell.

Complaintant?[edit]

I see that "complainant" has been changed to "complaintant" -- that can't be right, can it? HMishkoff 00:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Misnomerization using 'squatting' for base[edit]

The propogation of this term represents a grave misunderstanding and application of 'squatting' and the subsequent virtual representation, 'cybersquatting'. Where there are practices that could be considered 'cybersquatting', 'domain warehousing' is not to be included -- regardless of intent, the people who purchase these domains do so, from a registrar, because a company who owns a trademark does not buy a domain, or remember to renew the one they have.

Further, 'cybersquatting' as it is represented a US-centric attitude toward domain ownership where the US does not in fact own or control the Internet or domains.

What cybersquatting could actually be: altering WHOIS information about a domain that legally represents ownership of the domain, without confrontation or dispute by its original and true owner -- this is a much more appropriate reflection of a virtual representation of squatting.

If Microsoft puts for sale 100 Xboxes, ones that Electronics Boutique normally has a monopoly over, and I buy them up in a free market before EB get's the chance, is that 'squatting'? And similarly so cybersquatting should not be. --66.91.243.72 15:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

That's your opinion. Wikipedia does not go by the opinions or original research of contributors, it goes by how the term is used in the real world. Furthermore, ICANN makes the rules about domains, ICANN is controlled by the US government with the oversight of the U.S. Senate, so the claim that the US does not control names is not technically true. Whether they should control the names or not is a POV, but when it comes right down to it US laws and government rules and regulations and ICANN, with the assistance of multinational entities like WIPO, does control domain names. DreamGuy 12:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

incorrct use[edit]

and is often incorrectly used to refer to the sale or purchase of generic domain names

Says who that this is incorrect usage? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.0.101.131 (talk) 05:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

Says the US Anti-Cybersquatting Act and the ICANN name dispute policy, to start with. Furthermore the term "squatting" means that someone is using it without rights. If the domain name is generic squatting is impossible. DreamGuy 12:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

NPOV tag[edit]

User:Kennard2 tagged the article is POV, left an edit comment that said the article was POV, but gave now example of anything that would violate WP:NPOV policy. I gave the article a quick reread (and have read it throughly in the past, most of it seems the same as the old version) and can't see anything offhand that would violate NPOV. If no explanation for the tag is forthcoming I will revert it as baseless. DreamGuy 12:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Lapsed lurker redirect[edit]

Lapsed lurker redirects here.

This (misleading?) neologism should probably be deleted from wikipedia. If it's worth mentioning at all, wiktionary would be a better place.

ReidarM 08:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Australia[edit]

The article is somewhat misleading in regards to Australia. Although an ABN can be easily obtained, domain names can only be registered if they have a direct and credible relationship with the business name or activities. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.29.9.202 (talk) 01:10, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

Pretty negative POV[edit]

Buying, selling and trading domain names is normally not a million dollar business but done by ordinary people as supplemental income. I'm not condoning extortion but I think it is wrong to present domain trading as a criminal enterprise. I realize some people might consider domain name trading controversial (although I don't) but it's just another form of capitalism. Compared to real estate speculators and other investors higher up on the food chain, this is pretty small stuff. JMHO. 68.193.241.248 (talk) 17:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, the article does not characterize domain trading as a criminal enterprise, it characterizes bad-faith domain trading as a criminal enterprise. Whether or not good-faith domain trading is "just another form of capitalism" is beyond the scope of the article. I say this as someone who has had to fight a prolonged court battle after being unjustly accused of cybersquatting, so I'd like to think that I'm pretty sensitive to the issue... :) HMishkoff (talk) 17:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
There's no way cybersquatting is legitimate. All it does is waste the end user's time to view some ads that don't even make sense 99% of the time. Capatalism is nothing near as bad as parked domains. Parked domains are classified as spam by the common user and have no reason what so ever to exist. Cybersquatting should indeed be categorized as an illegitimate business. (Just using common sense here)
Apparently folks who are very angry about not owning a premium domain name like hotels.com and aren't making $50,000 a day are very bitter. The main thing I see in their rant about trademarks and cybersquatters is ignorance. I spent a lot of time editing the "Domainers" article only to return a few months later and find the page had been redirected to Cyber Squatters. Now I know why you can't take Wikipedia seriously. Too many egos, misfounded self importance and time on their hands. Trotline (talk) 23:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

websites engaging cyber squatting[edit]

pls send me a website that engaging cyber squatting —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.104.69.26 (talk) 13:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I too would like to see the url of a web site that violates trademarks. The company that scans the net daily for trademark violations for legitimate trademark holders would be all over them.Trotline (talk) 23:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't know if this is what you mean, but... I was sued over my domain, ShopsAtWillowBend.com, by the holder of the trademark "The Shops at Willow Bend." The company that scans the net daily for trademark violations must have been on vacation when I registered the domain, because I had the domain for something like two years before The Taubman Company (the trademark holder in question) contacted me. I won the case, BTW. According to the decision in my case, registering a domain that is someone else's trademark (or, in my case, a domain that's very close to someone else's trademark) is not in and of itself illegal. HMishkoff (talk) 00:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
The domain name without the "the" is not the trademark if the trademark includes the "the". Close does not count in trademarks. The trademark owner can get the domain name with the "the". If you are advertising for the shops and sending business then what is the problem? Lesson here? Never get a trademark with a "the" or "a" at the front of it. Trotline (talk) 00:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Nothing personal, but you don't have the slightest idea of what you're talking about. I'm pointing this out not to start an argument with you, but because someone might believe what you say and get themselves in trouble. HMishkoff (talk) 12:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
"Nothing personal, but you don't have the slightest idea what you are talking about. I'm pointing this out not to start an argument with you, but because someone might believe what you say and get themselves in trouble." If there is anything in your statement that is not personal please point it out. Trademark law is very gray and is usually decided in court. There are many arguements on the "The" issue and many different decisions. I'll be following this article to see when you post what you mean instead of an attack on me. 16:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trotline (talkcontribs)
Although I don't know this for a fact, I suspect that you made up that bit about "the" being so important in trademark law. All you have to do to prove me wrong is to point me to a few decisions that illustrate your claim. My skepticism is fueled by the fact that my domain name differed from the trademark of the people who sued me only by the omission of the word "the," yet I don't believe this difference was ever raised in the case, not by my attorney, not by the district court judge, not by the three-judge appeals court panel. It surprises me that this issue, which you claim is so significant, was a non-issue in my case -- especially considering that if your claim is accurate, it should have a critical issue in the case. But I'm always interested in learning something new, so I'm looking forward to your response. HMishkoff (talk) 18:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Link to TaubmanSucks site?[edit]

Since I don't want to get into an edit war, I thought I'd informally solicit opinions here.

I put a link to TaubmanSucks.com in this article some time ago, and nobody's had a problem with it until a few days ago, when an editor deleted it saying that it was commercial and a violation of WP:EL. But the site is entirely non-commercial -- and although I was unfamiliar with WP:EL, a quick review suggested to me that the link *is* in compliance.

When I restored the link, the same editor deleted it again, this time saying that it was POV and not notable. The site to which the link points is certainly POV, but the link itself is not, and the link is all that's in Wikipedia, so that's really all we're discussing here. The description attached to the link says something about the site being a detailed description of a cybersquatting lawsuit, which is about as non-POV as you can get -- it doesn't say, for example, that the link is to a site about a greedy company with unscrupulous lawyers, to give an example of what would have been a POV link description.

Of course, I've avoided what is probably the real issue here, which is that the link points to a site that I created -- in other words, TaubmanSucks is not just a detailed example of a lawsuit, it's a detailed example about *my* lawsuit. Although I do recognize that that makes me less than impartial on this topic, I don't see how its relevant to a discussion of whether or not the link belongs in the article. The site is *easily* the most detailed account of a cybersquatting lawsuit on the Web, and it's been covered extensively in news media (online and offline) and blogs (receiving half a million hits in its busiest week), which sounds pretty notable to me.

Again, I understand that I'm not an impartial judge of whether or not the link belongs in the article. However, I don't accept that it doesn't belong in the article simply because it points to a website that I created. I don't want to make this any kind of formal poll, but I'm wondering what the rest of you think. HMishkoff (talk) 15:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

It is inappropriate because it contravanes several of listed reasons in WP:LINKSTOAVOID including (4) link to promote a website, (11) link to a personal webpage, and probably (2) unverifiable research. EECavazos (talk) 17:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I added an external link to Public Citizen's discussion about cybersquatting, which itself includes links to several representative examples, including TaubmanSucks.com. I think this external link satisfies all guidelines, and it provides the reader with a potentially valuable resource on the subject matter. --Art Smart (talk) 18:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
That Public Citizen link is a good one, and removes the issue of HMishkoff's apparent conflict of interest when adding his own link here. --CliffC (talk) 18:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I think EECavazos is wrong, the link doesn't "promote" a website, if so i would like to know how. The Website is not "personal", it's about the persons (note plural), the documents and commentary surrounding a court case, please cite how is the website personal. It is not unverifiable research, since there's no research in it; only legal documents and commentary, please cite the area of research and the conclusion of said research. On the other hand, i think the link would not be good here, but not for the motives EECavazos weakly dangles around, but because there is already an article for Taubman Sucks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luisdanielmesa (talkcontribs) 20:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, I disagree with the conclusions of EECavazos, but I don't see the point of beating a dead horse, so I'll let it pass. Thanks to Art and Cliff, I appreciate you getting involved. HMishkoff (talk) 21:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The Public Citizens website is a pretty good external link for this article. The organization serves as a prophylactic against all the WP:LINKSTOAVOID problems. I also agree that it avoids the basic WP:COI issues that arose from the other website. EECavazos (talk) 21:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

It would probably be helpful to include links to Taubman Sucks, Taubman Centers and three articles in the Dallas Morning News about this and related websites to provide some background to this discussion. The case may be notable, but the links are not, no matter how long they've been around or how many times they're added or discussed. Flowanda | Talk 02:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe link to the six-minute Taubman Sucks documentary on YouTube as well. --CliffC (talk) 03:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I added a wiki link to Taubman Sucks in the see also section. Taubman Sucks already contains a link to the youtube video and so an external link to that video in this article would be somewhat redundant particularly since the video more belongs to the Taubman Sucks article. On another point, I wonder if the articles posted by Flowanda in this talk section could be used as sources for footnotes throughout the article. Someone or myself could check it out and integrate them in the next few days. EECavazos (talk) 03:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

You get that the six-minute YouTube video is the sum total of the Taubman Sucks documentary? And the "fan site" listed at The Shops at Willow Bend is. just. Flowanda | Talk 05:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Pursuant to this discussion I likewise removed the taubman sucks legal rant in Taubman Sucks for the reasons stated in this discussion and in the talk page of Taubman Sucks. EECavazos (talk) 06:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

As I pointed out over on the Taubman Sucks discussion page, I accept that I have a conflict of interest in posting links to my own site. But I should point out that, as far as I can recall, in the hundreds of descriptions I've read of the site, yours is the first that calls it a "rant" -- which leads me to wonder how you, as an attorney, can really claim to be acting with objectivity and impartiality when you remove links to a site that disparages lawyers. HMishkoff (talk) 02:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
A "rant" in this situation is a long complaint about a legal controversy. The external link you provided contains content in a legal controversy and it also directly references legal controversy. it is also several pages long, at least requiring one to click to another page. If you removed the content from the website and then added link to it in the external links sections of Taubman Sucks and this article, then that would add value to both articles. EECavazos (talk) 04:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I think there's a good case for adding the link/case based on the articles above and WP:EL

Domaining is not Cybersquatting[edit]

Domaining should redirect to Domain Name Speculation, not Cybersquatting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.85.186 (talk) 20:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Domaining is not necessarily Domain Name Speculation. Domainers have a common interest as domain name owners and there are all types of business people involved. If the page "Domainers" had not been redirected to Cyber Squatter then you would be able to read all about the legitimate business of domaining. The article also explained Cyber Squatting and how those types of criminal domainers are not allowed in the profession organization for domainers. Try reading about the Internet Commerce Association on their website to learn about legitimate domainers.Trotline (talk) 23:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Domaining is NOT Cybersquatting[edit]

Please forgive my lack of knowledge of the site. I need to speak immediately with an administrator in regard to someone redirecting "Domaining" and "Domainers" to the cybersquatting Wikipedia page. This is not acceptable. Cybersquatting is a federal offense, and it should not be equated with domaining.

Can Wikipedia staff please direct me to the appropriate representative, or assist me in getting this problem corrected? Thank you. Kingwarren (talk) 04:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Per the discussion on your talk page, to have any effect you would need to provide reliable sources that verify your claim regarding the redirects Domaining and Domainers (which currently both redirect to Cybersquatting). Also see WP:Articles for deletion/Domaining. Johnuniq (talk) 05:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

To Johnuniq: John, to the contrary, there is no correlation between domaining and illegal cybersquatting, i.e. some people buy cars and some people steal them (vaguely related, but quite different activities & approaches). A false definition via the wrongful redirect is what is without merit here. I have worked in the internet and domain name industry. I know and interact with numerous successful, ethical domainers from all walks of life, here in the United States and around the globe, the vast majority of which have NEVER registered the trademarked domain of another company or entity. One misguided person here has hijacked a legitimate business phrase, domaining, due to some personal grudge/bias. This will not stand. Kingwarren (talk) 05:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Improper redirect of Domaining to Cybersquatting[edit]

The "AfD" discussion (debate) on this topic appears to have been the conclusion of one or two misinformed people. The resulting decision to redirect "Domaining" to "Cybersquatting" is unacceptable. Cybersquatting is the registration of domain names that specifically infringe on existing trademarks. Cybersquatting is a Federal offense and punishable up to $100,000 per instance. By definition "using a domain name with bad faith intent to profit from the goodwill of a trademark belonging to someone else". "Domaining" is simply the monetization of generic (non-trademarkable) domain names via many strategies. There is nothing illegal about domaining. These are not synonymous terms or activities, and allowing a redirect of Domaining to Cybersquatting is a factual misrepresentation and a deliberate attempt to categorize domaining as a criminal activity. I can easily refute anyone's claim to the contrary, and would like to speak with a Wikipedia administrator at the earliest possible time.

Can an admin please forward me a contact person and phone within Wikipedia, someone who can address this decision? This must be corrected as soon as possible. Thank you for your time and assistance. Kingwarren (talk) 05:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingwarren (talkcontribs) 05:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Please read the links that I left for you above. Your personal ability to refute any argument is not relevant here. What counts are the reliable sources that verify your claim. Once you produce that information, someone will be glad to explain the next step. Johnuniq (talk) 07:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

To Johnuniq: I have explained to you all that you need to know to stop the improper redirecting of "Domaining" and "Domainers" to an illegal activity like "Cybersquatting". Someone here is responsible for choosing to label a legal activity as criminal based on a lack of education on domain name investing or some angry personal bias. I have advised you otherwise and offered sufficient definition of these two distinct activities. This process of overturning an obviously ill-informed decision I find disingenuous. I want full names and phone numbers of the Wikipedia admins involved in this "decision". This is the equivalent of redirecting the word "parents" to something like "molestation" because no one has yet authored a page on "parents". And one needs no proof to demonstrate this is inherently wrong. Kingwarren (talk) 11:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome to set up your own web site and display whatever information you want. However, if you want to influence information displayed on Wikipedia, you will need to spend some time reading a few guidelines. I took the trouble to provide the most relevant links because more than opinions are needed here. User:Themfromspace has already explained what your options are, on your talk page. Johnuniq (talk) 11:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

To Johnuniq: Thanks for your response. I see the links on reliable sources and verifiability. It seems quite hypocritical that these same standards were/are not being applied in the original decision to redirect "Domaining" and "Domainers" to "Cybersquatting" in the first place. There was no defensible basis for that decision. That being said, I will draft a lengthy article on domaining and cite references. What a shame that such is required to correct others' misuse of the Wikipedia resource. I would have expected more integrity and professionalism from Wikipedia staff who one would assume are very concerned with accurate representations. I will play the game. In the meantime, I would appreciate it if you could help direct me to a manager, supervisor, someone to whom admins answer. Thank you. 66.233.125.219 (talk) 12:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

In the sidebar, click "Contact Wikipedia". You will see a lot of confusing information because Wikipedia is a big place. Essentially, you can contact someone in authority if you believe a living person is being defamed or may suffer harm due to information on Wikipedia, and there is also an address for anyone wanting to serve a legal notice. However, for correcting content (which is essentially what you are discussing) you probably won't do much better than following the advice on your talk page. There are lots of people here with all sorts of opinions, so editors learn to not pay much attention to an opinion until it is supported with evidence. Johnuniq (talk) 12:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

To Kingwarren: You can use me as an example of someone who is being defamed by the re-direct. I am a domainer and not a cybersquatter. To have this re-direct in place has the potential to hurt my reputation as a person and an honest domain name investor. Stuart Wood - stuart[at]salientproperties.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.72.151.71 (talk) 16:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment: There appears to be a distinct problem with this challenge to the redirect in that the users who are arguing for the change are a) very clearly facing conflict-of-interest issues that would prevent them from writing such an article, and b) the users appear curiously similar (in that several IPs and single-purpose accounts appeared at the same time, to argue the same cause). --Ckatzchatspy 19:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

To Ckatz: Get one thing straight. There is nothing fishy occurring here. There probably are several single (or new) accounts now posting on this issue, and that is because you have no idea how many business owners, separate companies, and individuals Wikipedia have just offended & defamed. Rest assured that each of these are unique human beings, separate posters, who will become highly invested in this improper redirect. We have no need to fake posts or anything along the lines you are suggesting. But collectively we will soon identify who is calling the shots at Wikipedia and why a few mods here have chosen to insult and disparage a large business constituency who have trade organizations, host international conferences, and who represent many millions of investment capital. And none of this has anything to do with cybersquatting. In fact, the ICA, made up of the very groups you are disparaging, are actively fighting cybersquatting. Kingwarren (talk) 07:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The traffic is coming from this blog post. Kingwarren. please calm down. You can't change things in the blink of an eye. Reasoned and argumented discussion with quotations of journals and newspapers is a much wiser approach. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 20:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

To TheDJ: Absolute rubbish. "Reasoned and argumented discussion" was provided, but yet the domaining page is now up for deletion by the same biased Wikipedia admins who created this whole mess! All this shows is that Wikipedia doesn't care about "Reasoned and argumented discussion", or its own "can't change things in the blink of an eye" policies. It only cares that power-mad admins get their fixes. I know this may seem OTT, but can you argue against this point? Numerous evidence was shown, showing that Domaining is legal whilst Cybersquatting was not. But yet this whole mess has just started again, due to a Wikipedia admin ignoring the evidence and citations provided. What's wrong with Wikipedia?

Domaining/Domainer NOT Cybersquatting--References included[edit]

The terms Domainer and Domaining do not equate to Cybersquatting so please do not forward. Cybersquatting is illegal and properly defined on this page.

Domainer is defined by the New York Times as (Those)"who see buying portfolios of Web sites as a digital form of investing in real estate." [1]

Defined by Forbes as a "domain trader" [2] (Text also includes In addition to flipping, domainers have other ways of making money from their investments. Most domainers post ads on their Web sites, which can generate a decent monthly income. )

Inc Magazine defines domaining as "Domain speculation" and references "Domainers" as well. [3]

PCWeek defines Domainers as "(Those who) build portfolios of ... domain names and profit by reselling the names or selling advertising on those sites. They may generate revenues by posting pay-per-click ads (where the site owner receives payment every time a visitor clicks on an advertising link) and other advertising content."[4]

I hope these credible references will meet your requirement for change. Thank you Flipweed (talk) 17:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

With a somewhat neutral view on the controversy, I have examined the reasons for the, nevertheless astonishing, page edit block of domaining, and simply find no justification for it, since this page (cybersquatting) clearly defines that practice as the illegal one of trademark violations, which in itself maybe rather narrow. Unfortunately the anticybersquatting act has put a legal definition on the term. The admin who blocked the page has stated a willingness to unblock the page if a consensus exists to do so and to write a balanced article, properly supported by citations according to WP notability standards. So, please formulate a consensus about this on the talk:domaining page. CREDIBLE references of the term in the media and industry will establish notability, no matter what anyone's point of view is regarding the motivation of the practitioners of domaining. Kbrose (talk) 19:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

This has become an absurd process & discussion, and devolved into a petty ego play. You claim to have a neutral view on the "controversy". Kbrose, there is no controversy here, only the insistence of one or two misguided individuals to offend and disparage thousands of legitimate people who work in the domain name industry. You are requiring a discussion and consensus around a decision that was incorrect and unjustified from the onset. Simply stop the offensive redirect, and allow the domaining and domainers webpages to exist blank until a thorough article can be drafted. Kingwarren (talk) 06:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

To Johnuniq: You seem to be saying that your opinion is *right* and that everyone else's is wrong unless they can prove otherwise. How is that following Wikipedia's aims and objectives? In-fact *you* are the one who is 100% wrong but then are refusing to actually research the issue. If "domaining" was illegal (as the horrible trade of cybersquatting rightly is), why are some of the largest forums online (DNForum.com, NamePros.com etc), which are hosted in the USA, not shut down? Why are these 100,000s or millions of domainers? What you are doing is breaking Wikipedia policy by forcing your own incorrect views on everyone else. This is why Wikipedia has a bad name sometimes - i.e. due to someone with a personal bias becoming a member and mis-using articles and re-directs for their own incorrect agenda. Be fair, be accurate, back-up your statements - that is the Wikipedia way, and you should learn to follow it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.15.29.29 (talk) 10:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Page temporarily protected[edit]

FYI, the page has been temporarily semi-protected. This is due to the number of recent incidents where the article has been tagged with non-encyclopedic "messages" from IPs and new accounts arriving from "domainer" web sites. Please note that the protection is not because of their desire to change the redirect of Domaining; that matter is being actively discussed here and at Talk:Domaining. It is instead a direct result of the disruption caused by the improper comments and "messages" added to article space. Representatives of the domaining community are asked to communicate to their members that Wikipedia procedure requires editors to contain all discussion and commentary regarding articles to the respective talk pages. Thank you. --Ckatzchatspy 11:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Domaining is Cybersquatting? Wikipedia Throws Its Credibility Out the Window[edit]

In reference to the article at: http://www.dnjournal.com/newsletters/2009/july.htm

A mistaken wiki title such as this would best be corrected by creating a new page under the name Domaining or instead redirect it to Domain name speculation.

--DomainDeveloper (talk) 21:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Read this page, you are late to the party. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 00:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I read the page briefly, I didn't know it was a party, but I see the Domaining page has been created since and so the error has been corrected :-)

--DomainDeveloper (talk) 06:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

--The error is back yet again, with a biased Wikipedia admin aiming to remove the Domaining page and re-direct it back here. Yet again, Wikipedia is proving that it has little credibility and relies on admin bias instead of facts. We, as reputable domainers, have provided numerous links. You (Wikipedia) have then ignored them and/or removed them "to clean up the article". This is beyond a joke. Domaining is a multi-million dollar industry. Cybersquatting is illegal. How you cannot see the difference is beyond me. --82.15.29.29 (talk) 17:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)Tristan Perry

Wrong. If you click your Domaining link, you can see that it redirects to Domain name speculation as a result of the AfD discussion. Johnuniq (talk) 23:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Clear Link to Domaining Sandbox[edit]

To Wiki Administrator: It's been 5 days since I submitted a very thorough Domaining page to Wikipedia. Could Wiki admins post a visible, and easily accessible link to the Sandbox page so that visitors can find the page and offer input/additions? I am concerned that the current domaining page (under review & editing) is difficult for visitors to find. I cannot locate a link to it even from the domaining discussion page.

Also, is there a reason why the redirection of domaining to "cybersquatting" can't be discontinued now ... while the domaining page is developed. This remains highly offensive, and unnecessary. Thanks. 71.76.222.163 (talk) 00:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The redirect is under discussion, that is a 7 day process. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 00:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


Current litigation[edit]

On July 22, 2009, Neeley v. NAMEMEDIA INC, et al, (5:09-cv-05151), [5]was begun due to cybersquatting and defamation by continued publication of original pornography by Mr Neeley after the DMCA agent was asked to delete it. Therefore, Mr Neeley requested the FCC begin regulating communications by wire. The Appellant Brief is at the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals on Interlocutory Appeal of obvious errors. The requested preliminary injunction requires the FCC regulate the Internet exactly like television broadcasts.

  • The litigation will also end "domaining" and domain name speculation both by requiring ICANN Inc to prohibit disclosure of registration expiration dates to anyone but the registrant by all registrars in any circumstance.

Mr Neeley will not add this, due obvious NPOV issues. Wikipedia has been cited repeatedly in this Federal Court case and was disparaged by several Defendants. Will not be added due to personal involvement.CurtisNeeley (talk) 16:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

"Domain troll" article removed, redirected to Cybersquating, please put it back[edit]

I created an article "Domain Troll" which was removed and the link redirected here. Inappropriately: Domain trolling is not the same as cybersquatting because a current trademark is not at issue. It might be more appropriately linked to "domain name speculation", but that page would need to be edited to include the fact that domain trolling is rent-seeking and parasitic on the economy rather than making it seem like a legitimate industry as that page attempts to do (and I can't make that edit). I also supplied references and costs (acquired from the trolls in my exploration of a .org name for my direct democracy project) in my article.

This issue is the same one as with patent trolls: Why are Wikipedia editors providing a fair (or even harsh) description of that practice while allowing domain trolls to attempt to sanitize their equally parasitic practices? At least in my circle, "domain troll" has far more currency than "domain name speculator" and Google turns up similar numbers of hits for the two (counting variations). Perhaps renaming the existing page, linking to/from cybersquatting and allowing edits of it would be another option. Metamerman (talk) 21:52, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

It did look like a lot of original research and opinion rather than a Wikipedia article. The term itself is highly subjective and it ignores the fact that the registrant of the domains actually pay the registration fees. They got there first and later entrants to the market have to either create their own unique domain name or buy domains from the existing registrants. Given that there are over 113 million registered .COM domains and over 154 million have been deleted and not reregistered since they were dropped (since 2000), there is little stopping people from coming up with their own variants. The problem generally arises with generic domain names and these are highly sought after and can command high prices. The blogs quoted as references are not reliable sources in Wikipedia terms (WP:RS). The one that dealt with the 2007 period seemed to be unaware of the practice of Domain tasting which was creating an artificial shortage of domains at the time because the domains that were dropping were being hoovered up on an industrial scale before ordinary registrants could get near them. This practice collapsed after ICANN introduced a fee for registrations. The domain tasters had been exploiting an ICANN loophole where they could register domains for five days, check their potential for PPC advertising traffic and then drop them without having to pay the registration fee is they did not make enough money to justify holding them. What happens now is that the larger registries will use their knowledge of domain traffic to move potentially valuable domains to their own auction website on expiry. Domain Trolling isn't an accurate overview of events. Jmccormac (talk) 14:05, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see now that the problem is that wikipedia has editors who are domain trolls (or are in the employ of domain trolls). I note that the above does not address the issues in my article including the *fact* that domain trolling is an example of rent-seeking behavior nor that it is a parasitic burden on the brains of all human beings because the easy-to-remember names are all taken up by these squatters. It also doesn't address the issue of the distinctions I point out in my article between cybersquatting, domain speculation, and domain trolling. Although it is "individual research" (that I invite anyone to replicate!) the statement above "there is little stopping people from coming up with their own variants" is provably false: I've been trying to come up with a name for a direct democracy project I'm working on and have found that after trying dozens of names, about 80% have already been registered by these squatters, point to a single-page web site and they want 4 figures to sell the name (and this is for .org TLDs!). 10% of those I've tried are parked but not necessarily for sale, and 10% are in active use. My conclusion is that the estimate that 25% of useful names are occupied by squatters is way low and that it's probably actually over 50%. The term domain troll does still have currency, again moreso than the "domain name speculation" as FSOG will tell you, e.g.: [6] [7] [8] Again, I request that my article be restored and that any of the above troll-apologists be excluded from the debate on this matter because it is obvious that they have a financial conflict of interest in the matter.67.176.60.220 (talk) 15:43, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read this: WP:NOR as it deals with your original research issue as it applies to Wikipedia. Just on .ORG, there are approximately 10M .ORG domains currently active but since 2000, at least 14M have been deleted and never reregistered. What people often miss is that businesses using .COM websites will also register the variant of their domain in .NET/ORG etc. The level of development in .ORG is probably around the 25% mark (at least 18.05% is on PPC advertising, 9.51% on holding pages and 21.42% with no websites based on a small 9K website usage and development survey I ran a few weeks ago). The reliable sources WP:RS issue is also important in creating an article on Wikipedia. Blogs and tweets are not typically considered reliable sources as supporting references. And I did not remove/delete your article or create the redirect. Jmccormac (talk) 16:30, 15 May 2014 (UTC)