This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Organizations 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.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
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.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles
@
Legoktm: Hi! Thanks for the message, gladly! I added the title mostly because
WP:CRITS states that sections focused only in negative criticism are discouraged; moreover, the second paragraph appears to consist mostly in a dispute over one of NetBlocks' report and not criticism towards the organization per se. I also believe that the section could use further positive feedback. --
NoonIcarus (
talk) 10:31, 19 July 2021 (UTC)reply
@
Legoktm The Reception section appears to be based entirely anonymous claims and hearsay and doesn't add much value to the article. In general, I tend to agree with @
NoonIcarus that the article needs more positive treatment to reflect the organization's work using reliable sources. The sections about a mailing list are unclear, and it's not obvious what significance is attributed to these discussions, or why that mailing list is relevant.
OliverHargreaves (
talk) 08:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)reply
I agree that the level of detail in the (now deleted) reception/criticism section was inappropriate relative to the subject, but a one-liner summarizing the fact that there has been conflict might not be amiss.
Bill Woodcock (
talk) 08:36, 10 May 2022 (UTC)reply
Thank you for the comment Bill. A one liner could work but there’s little information about the person who squatted the five internet domains. The WIPO judgement implies that person is a U.S. federal government employee and per D2020-2240 the case revolved around anti-competitive conduct targeting NetBlocks, with the domains squatted in bad faith for use as bargaining chips. In any case, coverage of legal proceedings should follow
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Legal. From a quick search I can see that the case has been cited as a benchmark for "bad faith" in two later tribunals, which would make it notable per the guideline.
OliverHargreaves (
talk) 09:59, 10 May 2022 (UTC)reply
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Organizations 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.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
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.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles
@
Legoktm: Hi! Thanks for the message, gladly! I added the title mostly because
WP:CRITS states that sections focused only in negative criticism are discouraged; moreover, the second paragraph appears to consist mostly in a dispute over one of NetBlocks' report and not criticism towards the organization per se. I also believe that the section could use further positive feedback. --
NoonIcarus (
talk) 10:31, 19 July 2021 (UTC)reply
@
Legoktm The Reception section appears to be based entirely anonymous claims and hearsay and doesn't add much value to the article. In general, I tend to agree with @
NoonIcarus that the article needs more positive treatment to reflect the organization's work using reliable sources. The sections about a mailing list are unclear, and it's not obvious what significance is attributed to these discussions, or why that mailing list is relevant.
OliverHargreaves (
talk) 08:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)reply
I agree that the level of detail in the (now deleted) reception/criticism section was inappropriate relative to the subject, but a one-liner summarizing the fact that there has been conflict might not be amiss.
Bill Woodcock (
talk) 08:36, 10 May 2022 (UTC)reply
Thank you for the comment Bill. A one liner could work but there’s little information about the person who squatted the five internet domains. The WIPO judgement implies that person is a U.S. federal government employee and per D2020-2240 the case revolved around anti-competitive conduct targeting NetBlocks, with the domains squatted in bad faith for use as bargaining chips. In any case, coverage of legal proceedings should follow
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Legal. From a quick search I can see that the case has been cited as a benchmark for "bad faith" in two later tribunals, which would make it notable per the guideline.
OliverHargreaves (
talk) 09:59, 10 May 2022 (UTC)reply