Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/autonoc.com


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was keep, as there seems to be no point in deleting these pages anyways, according to the consensus. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 07:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/autonoc.com
Delete. Delete and/or courtesy blank ALL pages relevant to the original deleted article. These issue was resolved long time ago with coredesat and Wikipedia is prohibited from using any of our trademarks. All such trademarks need to be removed from Wikipedia. We wish no involvement of any kind with Wikipedia beyond the cleaning up and termination of this unrelentingly ridiculous issue. We will never again submit any content to Wikipedia whatsoever and have ended all support for the Wikipedia project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Popperian (talk • contribs)

Note Nomination also includes WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/community.autonoc.com. I've formated this MfD for the nominator, though I do not endorse it. &#10154; Hi DrNick ! 21:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Nomination should include all pages related to this issue, not just these two pages. The purpose of this deletion request is to remove ALL Wiki-edictator "Replication-Trash" related to a long-ago resolved dispute that had result DELETE and courtesy blank.  Use of the related trademarks in any shape or form by Wikipedia is strictly prohibited.  We have terminated involvement with Wikipedia, will not support the project further, and all such references should be removed.  It is our assertion that Astral, SnoWolf, and DrNick, by intentionally restoring pages with trademark violations, and given tone and demeanor of responses to this, indicates they are misusing our trademarks maliciously with deliberate intent to harm.  This issue had already been resolved.  These pages and all related should be deleted and/or blanked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Popperian (talk • contribs)
 * The above does not constitute a legal threat. Wikipedia and it's editors are taking actions that violate our trademarks, we believe this is being done maliciously.  We are working to have them removed within the realm of Wikipedia (even though I have long since lost any faith in Wikipedia's processes) and editors reverting trademark violation blanks.  We will work within the process of Wikipedia and take no off-wikipedia action until this issue is resolved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Popperian (talk • contribs)


 * I'm really confused... what trademarks? What is this about? WaltonOne 21:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Short summary: We, the vendor, added our product to a list of 100 or so NMS that every other NMS vendor had listed ... and afterwards, I have now spent one year defending and fighting accusations of hacking, spoofing, conflict of interest, ethics violations, harassment, legal threats, yadda, yadda, yadda.  Despite never having lied about anything!  Wiki-edictators spawning 100 pages of harassing pages while exempting the other NMS vendors of the same scrutiny (none of the issues of which any of have been cleaned up).  We never lied about anything, and we have been accused of everything short of child rape.  The ultimate decision was a deleting and courtesy blank of the relevant pages.  These two pages, in our view, are covered by this and clearly violate our trademarks, and, as usual, Wiki-edictators come along, don't read anything, declare "I don't have to investigate this issue I can just undo it" and so they go ... and here we are again ... a year later.  I think the web page submissionw as maybe 200 words and this may be the 100th such Wiki-Edictator page spawned from it.  These two pages and any related pages need to be removed and deleted.  They violate our trademarks and this issue was long-ago resolved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Popperian (talk • contribs)


 * Keep. Appears to be a legitimate administrative information page for WikiProject Spam. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 22:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * One Page Added to a List of Similar Products by the Vendor Is Not "Spam". As per Wiki policies, we added a single page to the NMS list, as the vendor of the project. This page was reviewed.  This page was summarily deleted.  It was more notable than many other listings.  We requested review of the other pages on the NMS list and most of those were also deleted.  We never resubmitted the article and never will.  Wiki guidelines given us at the time by the SysOp who did the original courtesy blanking told us that it is not a direct spamming or conflict of interest if a vendor submits a page to a list of similar products.  That is what we did.  The page was never attempted to be restored, and never will be.  We were actually invited by many editors to resubmit the page, we chose NOT to because we don't want any further involvement with this website.  If you wish to keep the page for spam research, that is fine by me, but remove our trademarks and personally identifiable information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Popperian (talk • contribs)


 * This page is a conflict of intrest external link addition log. There is no claim of trademark. the company has zero grounds to request a take down. keep per counter spam/COI work. βcommand 22:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * We may end up making a claim of trademark misuse against Wikipedia and the relevant editors, but only after we follow the Wikipedia process to it's resolution. It most certainly has bearing relevant to trademark law.  You can't use our trademarks maliciously against us, and it is our opinion that Wiki's editors are biased and this is being done in this way.  We blanked this page and it has been intentionally restored multiple times by multiple editors while accusing us of conflict of interest and spamming.  The CoI and spamming claims are falsified because it was one article, well within Wikipedia guidelines, we were upfront about everything, we followed the posted policies, and after review we never resubmitted it.  We were also told after the fact that editors were probably too hasty and we should resubmit the ONE article.  How can this be CoI and Spamming if we are being invited by independent editors to resubmit?  We are making a claim of trademark misuse here because we believe you want to maintain this information purely for the purposes of harming us.  If you want to keep CoI and Spam related records, I support that, but remove personally identifiable information ... because this is NOT a legitimate case of mass-spamming, nor CoI, we were upfront about everything, and followed the processes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Popperian (talk • contribs)
 * Please note that legal threats are not allowed. You need to review trademark law, Per United States Revised Code the use of a company name is not trademark violation. Also per the GDFL, what ever you add to this site you license under the GDFL. βcommand 22:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep unless this domain is added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist, in which case we no longer need them. -- A. B. (talk) 22:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If you want to delete all these pages and put us on the Spam-blacklist, that would be a solution we are happy with. We aren't spammers and we really want nothing more to do with Wikipedia, like ... ever again.  We just want all this "Wiki-Edictator-Trash" removed, all the accusations of CoI, spamming, child molestation, bombing of cities ... whatever else the wiki-edictators invent about us for submitting a SINGLE page.  Remove this stuff, permanently ... blacklist us ... we are happy! Contrary to the slander, we aren't spammers or interested in CoI.  We saw the list of the NMS there, we added our product to it, relentless misery for all involved followed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Popperian (talk • contribs)


 * please note that a BlackList is even more harmful than us just keeping these records. βcommand 22:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. The page seems factual, and it is hard to see how it might be considered defamatory. The outside company asking for its removal has not claimed that there were any factual errors. They just believe that some Wikipedia editors might have misread their motives, which they claim to be good faith. The word 'harm' is being thrown around above, and if it continues, I suggest that WP:NLT should be kept in mind. We can't control every possible interpretation that someone might put on what happened, since it's up to them what they wish to think, but so long as we stick with the facts on this page, I don't see a problem. EdJohnston (talk) 01:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. The nominator has already been blocked for legal threats.  &#10154; Hi DrNick ! 02:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep unless this domain is added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist--Hu12 (talk) 10:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. The page contains factual information, and is nothing more than a direct record of something which is available from the wikimedia servers anyway. We can delete this page, but this diff and this diff are still available to anyone to see and find.  I would request you to forget your legal threats (you agreed to add this link to a page on wikipedia, where you submitted your information to GDFL, see the notes at the bottom of this page), and try communicating with wikimedia directly, when they agree to remove your edits from the wikimedia servers (you need someone from oversight for that), then they will also help you remove this report.  Before you call this again something like Wikipedia-EDictator-Trash, you might want to reconsider that all this is decided per our policies and guidelines, which are agreed upon by a lot (most, otherwise they would not be a policy or a guideline) of editors here.  You may disagree with them, but then I invite you to discuss that on the talkpages of the guidelines and/or policies you are in conflict with.  We are writing an encyclopedia here, we are NOT an advertising service.  You were informed that creating pages and adding external links are subject to rules when you created the page Autonoc (you were pointed to the policies and guidelines then), and when you added the first external link to that page (adding external links requires an extra conformation).  Both were ignored by you.
 * By the way, there seems to be a clear conflict of interest, as you apparently are the same as user:66.23.224.223, who created the now deleted page Autonoc. Are you still saying that you did not intend your company to be known via wikipedia?  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Harmless log entries. This discussion is about deletion of a log entry, and doing that will do absolutely nothing to resolve the issues behind the log entry. Basically, this is the wrong venue. And heck, what next, may I ask? Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/autonoc.com? Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/autonoc.com? --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It's turtles all the way down! &#10154; Hi DrNick ! 14:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep unless this domain is added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist, as per various others above. — Gavia immer (talk) 15:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Courtesy blank all related pages (including this MfD after its conclusion) and add the website to the local Spam-blacklist. I believe this action satisfies all of our interests in the matter, keeping Wikipedia free of inappropriate external links and COI articles, while satisfying the petitioner's desire to not have his previous actions exposed in a cursory google search of the name of the company.  Despite the petitioner's charming demeanor and encyclopedic knowledge of trademark and copyright law, the regress that he seeks is simple for us to grant and does us no harm.  Why not do it and be done with it?  &#10154; Hi DrNick ! 18:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and block user for legal threats First, process pages are not usually subject to deletion this way. Second, support blocking user for legal threats.  Third, potential trademark use is a foundation issue, not for MfD to decide, but based on what *I* know one can talk about a company's actions without violating their trademark, otherwise how could the Wall Street Journal ever print anything bad?  They did it, they don't want people to know about it, but there is no in-policy reason for a potential deletion of a sub-page generated by a process of Wikipedia.  Allowing MfD to decide policy issues in this way (and Foundation issues no less) is a bad precedent.  Strongly oppose blanking and strongly oppose deletion. Wintermut3 (talk) 19:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per above, we don't delete log entries like this. Hut 8.5 20:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: User:Popperian has gone the wrong way about disengaging from WP, but I'm now engaged in offline negotiations with him to settle matters. Could people in the know tell me here what function the pages in question would have, assuming I can resolve the discussion more amicably? As far as I can see, the pages in question have served their purpose for the Spam WikiProject, and were automatically generated. In other words, the adversarial tone of this discussion is not really helping anyone. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply to Charles Matthews: The pages are fairly harmless and making a big deal out of deleting them seems like overkill. Even if these pages are deleted, COIBot is still monitoring the domain. As long as COIBot is running, if anyone adds a link to the domain again (on any WMF project), COIBot will generate a new report which will contain all of the currently existing information, plus any new additions. These new reports from COIBot will include a rather long explanatory header which the current pages lack. -- Versa  geek  07:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.