Talk:.eco

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the .eco article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Environment Mid‑importance This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Computing Low‑importance 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.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Internet Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE. Edits made by the below user(s) were last checked for neutrality on 2021-02-11 by Davidwr. TheDotECO (talk · contribs) has been paid by unknown. Their editing has included contributions to this article. JWatTheDotECO (talk · contribs) has been paid by unknown. Their editing has included contributions to this article. Declaration Jacobmalthouse (talk · contribs) has been paid by go.eco. Their editing has included contributions to this article.

An editor has repeatedly added material which I consider irrelevant. I have repeatedly removed it. Someone has to hit "pause" on this slow-moving edit war, so I will.

In his most recent edit, the editor used an edit summary of re-Inserted the "only" truth - .ECO® registration 3716170, 5851826, 5813887 and 6220615 are federally registered trademarks of planet .ECO LLC. Can someone please provide any evidence supporting the claim Big Room won the rights through a community application and has been delegated the registry operator of .ECO? If this can not be done, why is it being reported?

I think this is best resolved by deciding what is the purpose of this page?

Is the purpose of this page to describe the top-level internet domain listed on List of Internet top-level domains or something else?

If it is "something else" then is that "something else" notable? If it is the top-level internet domain, is the top-level internet domain notable? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:54, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Someone once said people are entitled to their own opinions but not their own facts.

To the extent that this page contradicts information from ICANN, currently available at https://www.icann.org/resources/agreement/eco-2016-07-08-en linked to from https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/registries/registries-agreements-en, it should be changed.

The ICANN page was last checked a few minutes ago and should be considered authoritative as of that date. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:11, 28 January 2021 (UTC) (fixed spelling. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:25, 28 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]

@Davidwr: Agree that text on this page should NOT contradict ICANN info. If you visit the IANA page for .ECO you can see that the current and active delegation of .ECO is to Big Room, Inc. They are the ones currently operating the .ECO domain. This is additionally confirmed by the IANA delegation report from 2016. There have been no further changes listed in IANA's reports. If there was any reassignment or "change of control", it would be found there. - Dyork (talk) 02:51, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidwr: - In further research, I now understand that Planet.ECO LLC was one of the other unsuccessful bidders for .ECO. During the expansion of "new generic TLDs (newgTLDs)" over the past years, ICANN had multiple proposed TLDs where several different organizations applied to operate the domain. ICANN went through an extensive process that resulted in the TLD being awarded to one entity to operate. Perhaps to reflect this situation, a History section could be added as was done on the .amazon page (also a disputed TLD). That would allow some text about the dispute from Planet.ECO LLC to be added to the page. It would of course need to have text from reliable sources. - Dyork (talk) 03:06, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree

JWatTheDotECO (talk) 04:17, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit summary to this edit says Dear David – Our Wikipedia contributions are guided by US Law, rules and regulations. It is interesting Big Room has no legal basis nor trademark right, yet you perceive they have superior rights. You are incorrect, bias and arbitrarily removing properly cited facts regarding “.eco”. Can you please guide me to any law, rule or regulation that supports your belief that a non-government entity delegated “.eco” rights to foreign company, Big Room? cc: Rachel Stallman, Paralegal, Wikimedia

First, I'm not sure what you meant by "cc: Rachel Stallman, Paralegal, Wikimedia" - she probably didn't see that edit unless you brought it to her attention. Second, the fact that the registrar of the .eco domain is in fact Big Room, and that as far as I know, no currently-in-force US law or court order has ordered ISPs in the United States to recognize any other entity as the registrar speaks volumes.

Also, the fact that you clearly have a "stake in the game" means you should not be editing this page directly. This is per Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Paid-contributions disclosure. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:46, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear David

Since 15 August 2012,‎ Jacobmalthouse has contributed at least 13 post to this wikipedia page, without interference. The posted propaganda remained on Wikipedia for years without any interference from you or any other editor. For the past 4 years the information posted is incorrect, has no supporting legal basis or verifiably supporting citation yet you believe their rights are superior to ours. On several occasions, after correcting the information, no less than 1 week, you and other remove my information as if we are wrong about the properly cited information we are posting.

Sir, you are treating us differently.

Again - Can you please guide me to any law, rule or regulation that supports your belief that a non-government entity delegated “.eco” rights to foreign company, Big Room?

Thank you, TheDotECO (talk) 04:06, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TheDotECO: [1] and the real-world recognition of this by ISPs and presumably any governments and courts in the United States that have been asked to rule on the validity of it is the basis for my belief. As for Jacobmalthouse, that was ignorance on our part, if he were to resume editing now, I would be telling him the same thing: Use {{Requested edit}} on this talk page. Also, another editor, JWatTheDotECO, replaced your signature, so I reverted it back. JWatTheDotECO - if you control both accounts, please pick one and ask an administrator to block the other. If you do not control both accounts, please don't over-write TheDotECO's messages to make them seem like your own. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:24, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidwr: Sir:

Back to my question - Can you please guide me to any law, rule or regulation that supports your belief that a non-government entity delegated “.eco” rights to foreign company, Big Room?

You may explain how allowing Jacobmalthouse to have unfettered priveledge, since 2012, as “ignorance” on your part. I DISAGREE. I also DISAGREE with the .ECO Wikipedia updated content, starting in 2017, that essentially gave the privileged Big Room a 4 year head start, as the page promoted, advertised and propagating .eco related propaganda. Despite not having any legal basis there was no interference from Wikipedia, since 2012.

You continue indicating - Big Room won the rights through a community application and has been delegated the registry operator of .ECO but offer no evidence. The delegation report you cited does not provided any verifiable evidence.

Worst, you now suggest, when it comes to “.ECO”, determinations made by the United States Patent and Trademark Office, The Global Gold Standard for Intellectual Property, will not be recognized by “the real-world … any governments and courts in the United States. You are entitled to your own very interesting presumptions.

Might you also be so kind to revert back the determinations you recently made in blocking my ability to post on the .ECO Wikipedia page? I presume their disappearance may have also been ignorance on your part.

p.s. – As you may be aware, the new administration has officially declared Climate Change as a ‘National Security Issue.’ Your actions are inappropriate and interfering with .ECO’s effort to help its Country mitigate the heightened issue. Please understand the urgency and stop unjustly interfering.

JWatTheDotECO (talk) 12:56, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First, let's keep the discussion on this talk page confined to the topic of the top-level internet domain .eco. Other issues, including trademarks/intellectual property, and the environment as a topic, are better covered elsewhere. As far as US law goes, the fact that ICANN exists and has managed top-level domains for years without being ordered by the government or a court to stop is very strong, I would say compelling, evidence that it has the authority under US law to do what it does. As far as which law or which executive action or which court cases give or affirm this authority, I don't have the time, interest, or money to do that research. In the presence of such compelling evidence (that is, years of doing what it does without being successfully challenged), the WP:BURDEN to show that its decision regarding the .eco top-level domain has been ruled illegal by a competent legal authority AND that this ruling is the currently controlling legal authority on the matter (that is, it hasn't been stayed, overturned, vacated, delayed, etc.) is no longer on me to do so. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 13:46, 28 January 2021 (UTC) (fix spelling) davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:26, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On another matter: You may explain how allowing Jacobmalthouse to have unfettered priveledge, since 2012, as “ignorance” on your part. I DISAGREE. On this I do have to backtrack: I should have said that I was personally ignorant of the matter until recently. Another editor added this user's name to the list of connected contributors a few months ago. As far as whether the other editors of this page were ignorant of his status or not, you are right, I should not have made that statement on their behalf. As for what to do about it: The most important thing, identifying him as being a "connected contributor," has been done (I will be changing all 3 names to "paid" shortly). I will be adding a "COI" template to the article itself shortly as well. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 13:53, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidwr:

Sir:

Hence the repeated question below –

Can you please guide me to any law, rule or regulation that supports your belief that a non-government entity delegated “.eco” rights to foreign company, Big Room?

Might you also be so kind to revert back the determinations you recently made in blocking my ability to post on the .ECO Wikipedia page? I presume their disappearance may have also been ignorance on your part.

JWatTheDotECO (talk) 14:30, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please guide me to any law, rule or regulation I've said what needs to be said on this topic. Might you also be so kind to revert back the determinations you recently made in blocking my ability to post on the .ECO Wikipedia page? Wikipedia's long-standing guidelines and policies restrict the ability of editors who have a "conflict of interest," particularly those who are or expect to financially benefit from their edits, from directly editing an article. That you have a conflict of interest is obvious. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 15:05, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidwr:

Sir:

You still are not answering the question, regarding your representation and transparency or lack thereof, in regards to the removed talk items.

Nonetheless, you are incorrect again, not following Wikipedia Policy and now misspelling ICANN, confusing registrars and registries & claiming I stated something I did not.

Your description, shown below, of your recent changes made at 17:12, 28 January 2021 has not been verified, with footnote 11.

“provide reference that Big Room is the domain registrar per ICAAN, remove unsourced contradictory claim that a different company is the official registrar for the domain.”

The change in part read:

“Big Room is the registry for the domain.[11]”, where footnote #11 directs to “ "Registry Agreements". ICAAN. Retrieved 2021-01-28”

A review of the agreement you provided disproves your theory and here is why:

Article 1.1 of the Registry Agreement reads:

1.1 ICANN designates Registry Operator as the registry operator for the TLD, subject to the requirements and necessary approvals for delegation of the TLD and entry into the root-zone.

Therefore, your link is conclusionary and does not serve as verifiable evidence of the approval you are attempting to claim. If you still believe you are right, great – submit a link that can verify your claim. I mean - you are so good at making sure we verify all claim, so why not be neutral?

Finally I never claimed the following stated by you “a different company is official registrar for the domain”. In fact I never mentioned the term “registrar”, which has nothing to do with this page.

Wikipedia should be neutral. It is important to not mislead the public nor environmental supporter as they have been for the past 4 years.

Moreover - Instead of guessing about “.eco”, the following link will provide you the information to understand and dispute gTLD issues and claims: sf_26_pg_1-2-final_award_and_sacs.pdf (doc.gov).

Sir – I can not express how time is really of the essence. I welcome your guidance to properly post information on Wikipedia but ask that you please stop interfering with the precious time we all have to work together and attempt to mitigate our planet's peril.

JWatTheDotECO (talk) 19:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will look into what you have said, but this talk page is not the place to discuss the planet's peril. The Wikipedia article is about the top-level domain, not the ecology. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:40, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the top-level domain ".eco" not the trademark ".ECO®" or the company behind that trademark, planet .ECO LLC.

Several authoritative sources, including ICANN[2] and IANA[3] clearly state that the top-level domain is under the sponsorship of a company called Big Room. Multiple domain registrars, in including Google, offer registration services for domains ending in .eco. It is unclear if planet .ECO LLC offers domain registration for domains ending in ".eco" but as far as ICANN and IANA are concerned, if any company has any status as "the official" anything related to the registration of these domains, it is Big Room, not planet .ECO. The fact that registered domains successfully resolve indicates that the top-level domain is active and currently registered domains are considered valid.

Now, as far as what company is "the official .ECO® registry" - that's irrelevant, since this page is about the .eco top-level domain, not ".ECO®". For what it's worth, it looks like planet .ECO sells domains ending in .earth, .green, .solar, .bio, as well as other endings like .com. However, I tried entering several random domain names ending in ".eco" and the result was the my choice of domain was not available. It could be just a temporary glitch, or maybe by some chance those very random names were actually already taken, but it is very unlikely that they would all be unavailable.

@JWatTheDotECO: Personally, your "rush" is giving me a bad feeling about your motives for editing this article. If your goal is to make this article a better article about the topic that it is about, namely, the .eco top-level domain, your input is welcome, but if your purpose is to use the page to publicize other things, including .ECO®, you are in the wrong place and should stop immediately. Dyork's idea of having a history section is probably the right place for information about unsuccessful bidders. However, your conflict of interest still applies. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Davidwr: Agree with you that THIS Wikipedia page is about the ICANN-designated .eco top-level domain. It is specifically linked from List_of_Internet_top-level_domains for THAT reason. This page is to be *ONLY* about that .eco top-level domain. That is its purpose. The page needs be about the current status of the ICANN-designated TLD. The page needs to be reverted to the version it was at last night before further edits were made about "Planet .ECO LLC". - Dyork (talk) 20:51, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I see that in the last 24 hours, JWatTheDotECO went in and made a further tweak today after having been told repeatedly that he has WP:COI for this article and should not be editing it. I do believe it needs to be reverted to a WP:NPOV version that is about the current state of the ICANN-designated .eco domain. - Dyork (talk) 01:12, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Noting that the revision to revert to seems to be this one: [4] - Dyork (talk) 01:27, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Dyork: That one-character tweak was "harmless" enough that it's not worth fighting over. As for the full roll-back to the version you recommend, I personally agree with you. However, with only 3 participants in the conversation - you, me, and JWatTheDotECO - I want to give it another couple of days to see if anyone else has any input.

For what it's worth, I think JWatTheDotECO is trying to edit in good faith. I can't read his mind and can't tell if he is frustrated by all of this, but I can say that if I were in his shoes, I'd be frustrated. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:39, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JWatTheDotECO: This article is about the current state of the .eco TLD as designated by ICANN. As shown on List_of_Internet_top-level_domains, there is an effort to document the current state of many of the current, active, ICANN-designated TLDs. This page therefore needs to returned to having text about the current, ICANN-designated operator of the .eco TLD. It is linked from the list of TLDs for this reason. As noted above on this Talk page, a History section can be created that can mention your unsuccessful bid to be the operator of the .eco domain. However, the main part of this page needs to be about the current operator. That is how these pages work. You are more than welcome to go and create a new Wikipedia article about the company Planet .ECO LLC through the Articles for Creation process. Please understand that articles need to be created using reliable sources and the people creating or editing articles need to NOT have any conflict of interest. You may find "What Wikipedia is not" to be useful in understanding the types of articles that we are seeking. Thank you for your interest in improving Wikipedia. - Dyork (talk) 20:54, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JWatTheDotECO: I respectfully disagree with Dyork - as you have a clear conflict of interest, you should not be editing any articles about planet .ECO, much less creating them. However, in accordance with WP:COI and WP:PAID (if applicable to you), you are welcome to create a draft article about that company, but realize the effort will be wasted unless you can demonstrate that the company meets Wikipedia's notability criteria for inclusion. Most "non-major" (e.g. Google, GoDaddy, and a few others) registration companies would not meet this criteria. I don't see any reason to think either planet .ECO or, for that matter, Big Room, would. But if you can prove otherwise, a well-written, neutrally-worded draft of planet .ECO will likely be accepted. If and when a draft is accepted into the main encyclopedia through the WP:Articles for creation process, you should not edit it directly, but instead use {{requested edit}} on the talk page. Pro-tip: Use {{lowercase title}} in Draft:Planet .ECO to make the first letter lowercase. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:05, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JWatTheDotECO: Per the weak consensus in the discussions above, I am going to revert this back to the last stable version that talked about the top-level domain.

Because you have a clear conflict of interest, I am going to remind you NOT to directly edit the article in the future.

If you have suggested edits that will NOT change the focus of the article, please use {{requested edit}}. For example, if you want to draft a "history" section, draft it here on this talk page and when there is some agreement about what should be in it, make a {{requested edit}}.

If you think the purpose of the article should be changed, please read Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Before starting the process and try one of the items listed there to get more input. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:23, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JWatTheDotECO: As a courtesy to you, I added {{disputed}} to the page after reverting back to the February 2020 page. I personally don't see any factual inaccuracies, but I know you do, so out of respect, I added that template.

Again, please do not edit the page directly, suggest your changes on this talk page.

That goes for other editors with a "conflict of interest" as well, including TheDotECO and Jacobmalthouse. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:33, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

{{ping|davidwr|davidwr]}

So you took down .ECO page and went back to advertising for Big Room Inc again. Last I recall, you did not notice the advertisement. I suppose different rules for different people. No verification needed and advertisement allowed for Big Room huh? In the case of the ".eco" delegation, you do understand ICANN "designates" and the government authorizes "delegation". Thus, you have not met Wikipedia rules, yet reverted back to what appears to still be merely conclusionary statement an ad.

You have not resolved the issue violating Wikipedia terms. My company is the trademark holder of .ECO for years Wikipedia has allowed Jacob Malthouse to refer to .eco as something that it is not. Worst, as a Wikipedia editor that has not obtained verification, you revert back to verbiage that is causing harm to our trademark. All I ask is for verifiable evidence that the claims you revert and post back onto Wikipedia are real.

Why are you advertising for Big Room Inc., is there a conflict I am unaware of?

As for your statement that I have a conflict, I disagree. While I do have an interest in protecting my trademark, I will not financially benefit by asking for Wikipedia to verify the statements, nor protecting the public and my trademark by providing information that is sourced back to the government, so that our trademark is protected.

In my opinion, this Big Room Fiasco is nothing but - Chicanery... — Preceding unsigned comment added by JWatTheDotECO (talk • contribs) 19:23, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For the time being, I removed all mentions of any internet registry from the article. This leaves the article deficient, but my hope is that by removing it for now it will prevent edit-warring. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:40, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the ongoing dispute about the page, I would like to add the following edit notice that will appear each time someone edits the page:

As of early 2021 there is an ongoing dispute regarding what, if any, information about domain registries should be included in the article. Please obtain WP:Consensus on the talk page before adding potentially controversial material.

I'll wait at least 3 days before adding any "edit notice" to allow time for discussion.

An example edit notice can be found at User talk:Davidwr/Editnotice. It appears above the wiki-text when you edit or add to my talk page, User talk:Davidwr. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:47, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jacobmalthouse: Based on your most recent reversion, I assume you object to the "bare-bones" version I made.

Earlier this year, I asked for input from people at WikiProject Internet (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Internet#.eco). That didn't get much of a response.

I see three possible solutions:

• Go back to the bare-bones version then discuss possible additions.
• Nominating the article for deletion with a recommendation that it be redirected and merged into List of Internet top-level domains. However, this would probably "fail" as the domain seems to pass WP:Notability.
• Asking for a third opinion. The input from WikiProject Internet served that purpose already - the one editor who participated basically agreed with me, but that is just one editor's voice. I was hoping for larger participation.
• Opening a dispute resolution request as provided for at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard.
• Opening an RFC as outlined in Wikipedia:Requests for comment.

Are you willing to do the first one? If not, I will likely go to one of the last two, since the 2nd probably will fail and the 3rd has essentially already been done. If you are not willing to do the first one, do you think an RFC or asking for dispute resolution will be more successful in getting an article that is useful to Wikipedia and its readers?

Another option is to revert to the bare-bones version THEN call for dispute resolution or open a request for comment. If you prefer one of these options, that works too. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidwr:

I think I have a really good idea.

Let’s keep things simple and just follow Wikipedia rules and verify claims that we post on this page.

Or is that not how it's done? JWatTheDotECO (talk) 00:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JWatTheDotECO: Wikipedia is more than verifiability, it's also about what is appropriate where.

I think our major difference boils down to "what is the topic of the article titled .eco" or, perhaps instead of "what is...", "what should be...".

From where I stand, it's pretty clear that the page is about the top-level domain, not about other topics. However, I am only human and what I see "pretty clearly" just might be wrong.

That said, I haven't seen anything in the discussions on this page that would lead me to see the topic of this page as anything more than the gTLD known as ".eco".

I've been trying to "see things through your eyes" without much success. As best I can tell, you consider the article to be about more than just the top-level domain.

Inviting in outsiders, either through dispute resolution or a request for comment, will hopefully draw out things that I have not considered before. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:33, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @JWatTheDotECO: - Please stop further revisions of this page. You have demonstrated clearly that you have a conflict of interst. Per Wikipedia guidelines, editors with conflict of interest are not to edit pages with which they have a conflict. As noted above, THIS page is about the ICANN-delegated .ECO top-level domain (TLD), not about your trademark. As noted earlier, you are welcome to propose a draft page about your trademark. However, THIS page is about the ICANN-delegated TLD. Please keep it focused on that topic. Thank you. - Dyork (talk) 01:50, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Going forward I will wait until JWatTheDotECO edits again or until 24 hours after his most recent edit before acting. If he edits again and reverts back to a version that does not have disputed content - which includes content he added but also some existing content - then there won't be any need to go to dispute resolution or RFC unless he wants to. If he does not edit at all for 24 hours, I will make the reversion myself but wait until he edits before seeking additional outside help.

If he edits but does not revert, I will go to whichever of the two forums he expresses a preference for, or, if he does not express a preference, I will pick one. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 13:58, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your suggestions are of ways to resolve disputes between editors that can edit a given article. Due to the COI, this editor should not be editing this article directly; I suggest that WP:COIN is more appropriate. MB 14:49, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MB: I put a note on the editor's talk page insisting that he acknowledge reading WP:COI and WP:PAID and insisting he comply with WP:PAID or stipulate that it does not apply to him. Even if he is not a paid editor, WP:COI clearly applies. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 15:40, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They said "causing confusion with the public and harm to my company" in an edit summary; so I think they have admitted to being PAID and COI. MB 15:52, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at least that much is there. WP:Paid-contributions disclosure requires more than just saying so on one edit summary though. Also, theoretically "my company" could mean he's a low-level employee who has nothing to do with public relations and receives no compensation other than a fixed per-hour, per-piece ("piece rate" pay), or per-year wages. But I'm getting the sense that he's a lot higher on the totem pole than a bottom-rung-of-the-org-chart employee. I think your hunch is probably right, "my company" very likely means financial ownership or executive-level control. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:07, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted back to stable version which does not mention any company by name outside of references and navigation templates except ICANN. Hopefully all editors will leave this alone until ongoing disputes are resolved. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:30, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JWatTheDotECO: As you are new to Wikipedia, I realized from your previous comments that you were equating "conflict of interest" with potential financial gain. That is NOT what "conflict of interest" means within Wikipedia's context. Wikipedia is different. Here, all articles must have a neutral point of view. They are to be factual and based on reliable sources.

One of the single biggest and most frustrating things for newcomers to Wikipedia to understand is that a page about 'your' company or topic is actually NOT 'your' page. It is instead a page about your company that is written by OTHER people about what you are doing. This is strange and bizarre to most newcomers because you would think you should be able to just go in and edit "your" page. Except that it is NOT "your" page. And even more frustrating, you are NOT supposed to edit ANY page with which you have an affiliation. Because you are associated with the topic or company, the Wikipedia community does not want you to edit those pages because of concern that you might not be able to truly have a "neutral point of view".

This is frustrating! I know. There are errors on pages with which I have COI that I would like to just go in and fix. But... Wikipedia does not work that way. You have to have other people do the work for you. I would encourage you to read:

• Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide
• Wikipedia:Conflict of interest
• Wikipedia FAQ about editing by organizations and companies
• Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not

Because you clearly have WP:COI in the eyes of the Wikipedia editor community, the path you have to get this page updated is to post your requests here on this Talk page and ask other editors to make those updates. This is what davidwr has been trying to help with - to make sure that the page incorporates your point-of-view, while also remaining accurate to the original purpose of the page.

The Wikipedia editor community created THIS page about .eco to be about the ICANN-designated top-level domain. It is linked from the List of Internet top-level domains. That is the purpose of this page. It is part of a broad set of pages that have been created for various top-level domains. We need this page to serve that purpose of talking about the .eco TLD. That's what it is here for.

Other examples include .bible, .coop, .club, and many, many more. All of them include information about the current ICANN-designated operator of the domain, and other info from ICANN. This is how these TLD pages are all set up.

As I noted earlier on this Talk page what we as editors could do is add a History section that mentions your unsuccessful bid to operate the TLD and also your ownership of the trademark. We can do this so that your company gets a mention here. Would that work for you?

Thank you for understanding. Wikipedia is a different place and its guidelines and conventions are not always clear to people new here. - Dyork (talk) 02:29, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JWatTheDotECO: In your last edit summary where you reverted the text to again be about your company, you asked:

Please do provide verification of the “delegation” of the .eco gTLD, all in accordance with SA1301-12-CN-0035.

I would point you please to the IANA Delegation Report for .eco, dated 2016-08-25, where it states:

This report is produced in accordance with Section C.2.9.2.d of Contract Number SA130112CN0035 for the performance of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority functions. Under the contract, ICANN verifies that all requests relating to the delegation and redelegation of gTLDs are consistent with the procedures developed by ICANN. Documentation is provided verifying that ICANN followed its own policy framework including specific documentation demonstrating how the process provided the opportunity for input from relevant stakeholders and was supportive of the global public interest.

This is the execution of the ICANN delegation by IANA after ICANN finalized the registry agreement with Big Room, Inc, and published the .eco Registry Agreement on 2016-07-08.

This is the current status of the .eco top-level domain. ICANN delegated the TLD operation to Big Room, Inc, after that company prevailed in a community evaluation (see also this article from 2014). From what I can see, there were three or four other unsuccessful applicants, including your company, PlanetDotEco. However, at this time in 2021 the ICANN-designated operator of .ECO is Big Room, Inc, as verified in those documents above. That is what we as Wikipedia editors need to use in the creation of these Wikipedia pages - and that is why this page needs to return to having the correct current information about the ICANN-delegated .eco TLD. Thank you for understanding. - Dyork (talk) 03:07, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dyork and Dyork:

I appreciate your effort but you are misconstruing the clause. This is not proof of Delegation and Designation certainly does not have the same meaning. This clause is used to submit a delegation request to the CO via the COR. It certainly does prove Designation, which is used to obtain authorization.

Again - this is certainly not verification. JWatTheDotECO (talk) 03:31, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dyork and Dyork:

For the record,

I notice Wikipedia has made its decision to continue referring to articles that do not verify but promote Big Room Inc.

What you all keep referring to as the .eco Delegation Report is actually a "transmitted for authorisation and implementation" request, noted in the last paragraph you linked to which reads:

Other requirements — The request must pass a number of procedural checks conducted for all root zone changes in order to be transmitted for authorisation and implementation.

Being that you are from ISOC I am sure you already knew this and don't have a conflict of interest.

So back to my question - Can someone provide citation, verifying the delegation, which is not to be confused with the .eco Delegation Report?

This page continues to cause irreparable harm to our mark:

.ECO® registration 3716170, 5851826, 5813887 and 6220615 are federally registered trademarks of planet .ECO LLC for Advertising and Marketing; Advertisement Agency; Database Management; Design, creation, hosting and maintenance of internet sites for third parties; Hosting of digital content on the Internet; Providing specific information as requested by customers via the Internet (Domain Name related Services).

JWatTheDotECO (talk) 19:00, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JWatTheDotECO It falls under the logic of "You can put away the tricorder Mr. Spock, I'm breathing and not fainting, therefore the air must have oxygen." In other words, it's as plain as my hand in front of my face. The .eco domain is up and running and has been for years, therefore it's safe to assume that some entity is running it and, barring compelling evidence to the contrary, that the entity running it is either actually authorized to be responsible for that domain or they are de facto responsible for it. I and I think others have already pointed out that the entity that has been acting as if they have the authority to run the .eco domain for the past few years is Big Room. As far as I know, ICANN hasn't said otherwise. Given the years of actual real-world use and the apparent lack of objections by ICANN, the burden on anyone claiming that Big Room is not operating .eco under the authority or at least with the tacit approval of ICANN is very high. It would take something on the order of ICANN issuing a statement saying "Big Room lacks the authority to operate the domain" - a very high bar. TL;DR version: In the face of "what is happening in the real world," your claims regarding the .eco gTLD are extraordinary. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Ordinary evidence, such as the specific wording of a contract or paperwork, won't cut it. What WOULD count, should it ever come to pass, is if ICANN came out with an official statement making it clear that Big Room lacks the authority to be "official" caretaker (for lack of a a better word) of the .eco domain. This hasn't happened yet and I don't see it happening any time soon short of outside pressure from nation-states. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Davidwr

I actually tried to understood your baffling then remembered you do not know how to read the Federal Contracts, have no clue about intellectual property and constantly deflect due to your shortcoming.

Sorry

JWatTheDotECO (talk) 19:58, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:JWatTheDotECO - Insulting another editor is likely to result in another block. I will be making another proposal at WP:AN. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:13, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@JWatTheDotECO: I don't know what to say at this point. We have tried to explain, at great length, how Wikipedia works and to answer your questions. This text above *IS* "delegation" of the .ECO top-level domain by ICANN. This is how ICANN and IANA handle the delegation of all the generic TLDs. This is what THIS article about .ECO is supposed to be about. We in the Wikipedia editor community are seeking to chronicle the existing and current ICANN-delegated top-level domains. That's what this page is for. It is not to promote your company and your trademark. It is to write about the ICANN-delegated gTLD. Period. We as editors need to revert this page back to an earlier version that serves the purpose of writing about the existing TLD. However, your actions have shown us that if we revert the page to the intended purpose of this page, you will then simply revert the page back to your version promoting your company. At this point davidwr probably needs to follow one of the paths he suggested earlier, but was hoping to avoid:

• Opening a dispute resolution request as provided for at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard.
• Opening an RFC as outlined in Wikipedia:Requests for comment

Again, the simplest path here is to:

1. Revert the page to a previous version about the current state of the .eco TLD

2. Add a "History" section that mentions your claims and your trademarks.

Are you open to doing that? If not, we will need to use these other mechanisms mentioned above. - Dyork (talk) 01:23, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dyork: and @JWatTheDotECO: Regarding 2. Add a "History" section: Because at least one editor with valuable input is not supposed to edit the article (save for the usual exceptions: non-substantive edits and reverting copyright- and other policy-violations), I recommend that any "history" section or for that matter any new content that discusses companies, products, or services by name be proposed and discussed here, on this talk page, first, so as not to give any one editor any advantage over any other. Also, as I said in an earlier edit today, I reverted the page back to a "no companies" version, where the only mention of companies are in references or the mention of ICANN in the infobox. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:57, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that any proposed "History" section should be developed first on this Talk page. - Dyork (talk) 12:49, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update I see I've been reverted. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:58, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update 2 - I will revert the latest change by JWatTheDotECO to davidwr's last version. @JWatTheDotECO: Please read WP:3RR and understand that if you continue to persist in reverting to your promotional version of this page, the consequence may be being banned from making updates for 24 hours or more. None of us want to invoke that, so please just let the page be as Davidwr has left it. - Dyork (talk) 12:40, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update 3 - Unfortunately JWatTheDotECO has chosen to revert the page once again. I have reverted to Davidwr's version and also indicated to JWatTheDotECO in my edit summary that if the page is reverted again, JWatTheDotECO will be in violation of WP:3RR and can potentially have the account suspended for 24 hours. I do NOT want to report someone for 3RR and so I do hope that JWatTheDotECO will understand that the path is to engage in discussions here on this Talk page. - Dyork (talk) 15:32, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update 4 - I have now warned JWatTheDotECO about 3RR and asked the editor to please engage with us here before making any further edits.

If JwatTheDotECO does revert the page again, I think we should leave the page as is (i.e. no more reverts) and enter into the dispute resolution process at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. - Dyork (talk) 15:41, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dyork: and courtesy ping to JWatTheDotECO: I would concur. I'm thinking dispute resolution may be better than an RFC at this point. I would also recommend adding {{noindex}} to the page if it is changed to anything but the bare-bones version without discussion first. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:11, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update 5 - Noting for the record that JWatTheDotECO has reverted the page to his/her/their version promoting their company with the following edit summary:

After 4 years of non-interrupted, unverified, misleading information regarding .ECO on this Wikipedia page to the public, you now submit what you find to be a “neutral” page that citates more misleading information. It has been more than 2 weeks of back and forth yet you are unable to verify claims that Big Room is the domain registry of .eco? We have a national emergency to deal with, regarding Climate Change. The last thing the public needs is a fake environmental narrative.

@JWatTheDotECO: We are not concerned about the past 4 years. We are concerned about documenting the current state. We have already provided verification of the delegation of .eco to Big Room, Inc, by ICANN. Realizing you are new to Wikipedia, we have tried very hard to help you understand how Wikipedia works. As I wrote previously, this page is about the ICANN-delegated top-level domain, not about your company or your trademark. Yet still you persist in reverting this page to a page about your company. At this point I don't see anything else that a regular editor such as myself can do and so I guess that unfortunately we will need to pursue the dispute resolution process. I do wish you could work with us on this talk page to create a page that adheres to the WP:NPOV principal of Wikipedia. (The starting point would be to revert back to the basic version that Davidwr created as a compromise.) - Dyork (talk) 18:40, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update 6 per the consensus reached at WP:AN, I have indeffed TheDotECO and JWatTheDotECO from editing the article. Both editors are able to edit this talk page. Mjroots (talk) 07:51, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The following message was left on the talk pages of editors who are mentioned in the dispute. Other editors with an interest in this article are invited to participate as well. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding reason. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is ".eco".The discussion is about the topic .eco.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

--davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:41, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the ongoing dispute over branding, I am taking the "let's not throw gasoline on the fire" approach and removed the recently-restored logo.

If the logo IS restored, personally I think it should be the one used to identify this top-level domain, which was File:.eco top-level domain logo.png as of 2017.[5] As of a few minutes ago, this is substantially identical to the logos shown at the main web page at the site where that logo came from.

The logo File:PlanetECOLogo.png[6] is similar but it varies in 3 features: The color is "redder", the font is "skinnier," and the "C" is more "open." File:ECO Registered Logo.png[7] is the same as File:PlanetECOLogo.png but with the addition of ®.

Again, in the interest of keeping things civil, I recommend that branding of any sort be left off of the page until the dispute is finally settled, and that, for the next few months at least, branding-related additions be suggested here on the talk page for at least a week to see if there are objections. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:05, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The current version of the article does not have any "conflict of interest" issues.

With 1 of the 3 "connected contributors" seemingly retired from editing this page and the other two blocked from editing the page itself, I marked the {{connected contributor (paid)}} template as "checked" and removed {{COI}} from the article page.

Should new COI editors edit the page, "COI" can be re-added, names can be added to "connected contributor (paid)" or, for unpaid COI edits, {{connected contributor}} can be added.

All 3 names in the "connected contributor (paid)" are welcome to use this talk page. Please use Template:Requested edit to request specific changes. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:34, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]