Talk:Appin (company)

If something is wrong with the article let's discuss here
I have taken the initiative of reverting the recent edit by @stacy_tembo which undid a number of edits that have been made to the article over the past weeks. The claim was that: "the publishers of many of the sources cited have either taken down their news articles or redacted some portions of the article pertaining to the company based on the prevailing circumstances. This is verifiable by a careful review of the sources. Going over the edit history, it showed that those taken down or redacted were removed on case-by-case review. The article is now being returned to its clean status before the sock revert that brought the non-existent sources and links"

I have not assessed every link which was added, but this claim does not account for a lot of what was deleted. For example, the New Yorker article has not been taken down. An archive.org article has not been taken down (how could it?). If any of the sources and links are "non-existent" then I suggest they be edited individually rather than through a mass reversion.

If there is sockpuppetry being perpetrated on the page, the place to bring that is WP:SPI.

This article was the subject of an unsuccessful AfD. It was then greatly cut-down based on the same kinds of arguments brought at the AfD. And then, it seems to me, it was steadily rebuilt. I'm not saying that everything on the page is fine, but anything that's wrong can be changed rather than mass-reversion and blanking of content.

If I'm missing something, which I very well may be, I'm open to hearing about it on this talk page. Oblivy (talk) 13:49, 8 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Note that a number of the accounts that were editing the article over December-January have been blocked for sock-puppeting. Stacy's edit left the article in a state very similar to what those accounts created. James (talk) 08:50, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I think the proper frame here is to look at the article at the time of the keep vote, vs. where it ended up 2 weeks later at the hands of sock-blocked user @NoWarNoPeace. Perhaps other sock users came in later and made changes which I'm treating as constructive but if you look at the diff I think you'll see that what Stacy (a newly created account with few edits) did was to reinstate what the prior sock-blocked user had done.. I don't know how to compare the two diffs but I think this is accurate.Unless there are policy-based reasons we can't keep the current text I think we should edit from here. As I said above, a quick check suggests what I reinstated are actually good cites irather than "taken down" or "redacted" cites. Oblivy (talk) 11:26, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I was going by the description of the block, which lists the three accounts as related. When a new user's first substantial edit is to make similar changes as those sock puppets, it looks suspicious:
 * I agree that your revert was the right first step, since a lot of the information that was blanked is highly unlikely to be defamatory (e.g. the names of the founders). James (talk) 05:50, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * No problems. It seems edits since the revert have been productive, maybe a lull before another sock-driven storm but that can be addressed if it happens. Oblivy (talk) 23:39, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Good revert. No outlet has retracted their reporting; like Reuters, they've made clear they stand by what they wrote. And coverage now goes far beyond Reuters, we have many more sources we can use. Some of these newer sources are linked here, which is itself a source we could cite. DFlhb (talk) 10:34, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The article now updates the legal threats/compliance situation. Thanks @DFlhb for pointing me to the Techdirt article. The Wired, New Yorker and Techdirt articles are very in-depth. I also had a look through the article and the state of references. Every link works, although I didn't read all the material. So I can't say fact by fact that every statement is supported. The claim that the two brothers started the business might (might) be sourced to the Reuters article - I see a lot of cached articles that came out around that time so it might be; I'd be happy to see it go unless someone has a better source. Oblivy (talk) 11:49, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I've made some changes. The powerpoint slides look dodgy to me, and there's the issue of the founding brothers. Otherwise I think it's in good shape. Oblivy (talk) 04:04, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Oblivy for the work on this page but I think that you need to take a second and careful look at the references again because there are some references that are not accurate or relevant to the information they purport to support. It is a controversial subject and it is important to ensure that everything in the page is accurate and verifiable. In my opinion, there should be a thorough cleanup and I’m leaving that to you since you have already started working on it.
 * Below are my comments on some of the sources reviewed
 * Reference No.2 Shadowserver Foundation report from 2013 clearly mentioned Appin several times in the report but it clarified or disclaimed that its report was not intended to implicate any entity or individual. Shadowserver stated in the report that though the word “Appin” showed up multiple times, its report is not “implicating or suggesting inappropriate activity by Appin”. I think with this, the reference can’t support the claim: “In 2013, a report by Shadowserver Foundation publicly attributed several hacks of high-profile organizations to Appin.” This claim is quite authoritative and attributed to Shadowserver Foundation report that already clarified that it is not implicating Appin. The Shadowserver Foundation reference should be removed and a different reference that supports the claim should be used in its place. And if none exist then the claim may have to be removed.
 * Reference No. 4 from Lawfare though discusses Reuters reporting that was taken down to comply with a preliminary court order but there is no single mention of Appin in the article. If the reference No. 4 doesn’t mention Appin, why cite it to support this claim this claim: “The company offered what its founders termed ‘ethical hacking services”. What is the need for that reference since there is another one supporting the claim?
 * What is reference No. 6 from Wired supporting? It does not mention Appin or anything related to the subject throughout its reporting.
 * Reference No.12 from Politico have a single paragraph about Appin planted in the middle of their long article discussing multiple unrelated issues or subjects. I think a better source should be used to support the claim in that paragraph and if different source can’t be found to support the entire paragraph then that paragraph may have to go. This is important considering Freedom of the Press Foundation (reference No.11) reporting that several news outlets in India, America and around the world have taken down their reporting about Appin.
 * Reference No.15 from LawFare Media is a duplicate of reference No.4 which does not mention Appin its reporting. I don’t think it’s appropriate to keep the source in the article. Lagdo22 (talk) 15:23, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Which PR firm did Rajat hire you from? 170.55.154.123 (talk) 14:11, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Please edit under a username not on a bare IP address, so I can respond to your comment appropriately. Rather than comment on the merit of the concerns raised about some sources in the article you choose to attack my personality with vile allegation. I challenge you to prove otherwise the concerns raised about some of those sources in the article. Oblivy stated here that any further changes to the article be discussed here first and that was the reason I drew attentions to some of the references. This is a collaborative work and everyone is welcomed to edit or air their opinions on issues. I urge anyone willing to take a moment to do a thorough review of the sources and issues raised about them and present their own opinion. Lagdo22 (talk) 09:11, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Taking seriously your complaints about some of the sources:
 * Ref 2 mentions Appin repeatedly. Since you are upset about the word attributed (disclaimers aside, surely that's the whole thrust of the report) I've changed it.
 * Ref 12 is completely accurate - there was a description of the Reuters article in the Politico article and the words of Politico are quoted in the article. If you would prefer to substitute a cached copy of the Reuters article itself that might be more authoritative, otherwise we have to live with second-hand reports.
 * Refs 4 and 15 - the reason Lawfare doesn't mention Appin is almost certainly because of the legal threats. That's substantiated by other reporting such as Techdirt and that's now clearly reflected in the article, by creating a duplicate inline citation to the Techdirt article
 * As to your suggestion an IP editor needs to create an account (so you can respond appropriately??) the ability to edit anonymously is a founding principle of Wikipedia. Oblivy (talk) 02:06, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I just came to see the status of my request, and it looks like someone is maliciously editing this page and doing a PR cleanup.
 * Their edits show their intention: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ciudatul

EDIT: I don't have time to report a sockpuppet with diffs, but it should be obvious what this person is doing. Furthermore, their comment links to a bunch of worthless Indian court orders and indirectly threatens legal action against editors, which, as far as I know, is a bannable offense. HARRISONSST (talk) 23:23, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comment. I agree this seems like a continuation of prior efforts to cut the article back and suppress information on the back of the court order.  Are we at the stage of bring an SPI?  Sometimes it looks like a WP:DUCK and walks like a duck but it's just a Loon and without more information we have to assume this is good faith editing.Nor do I see indirect legal threats - perhaps the invocation of the order and the takedown of the Reuters article is an implicit threat but we seem to be short of the line.With respect to the DDoS copy of the article you mention below, I'm not sure it's right to be providing roadmaps to access "grey-market" copies of articles that have been taken down by their authors. On the other hand, it's a stretch to say we can't cite any article that mentions or quotes Reusters (but isn't subject to a court order) or that it's not a reliable source because the Reuter's article has been memory-holed. Oblivy (talk) 02:16, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I just want to mention that I have nothing to do with the past contributions to this article, I am also a bona good faith and I make wikipedia better and complete it with correct information. As for the editor HARRISONSST, I will not stoop to your level of discussion nor will I attack the person! I just want to add that for the history of your contributions you are too experienced in how wikipedia works, which raises a number of questions for me. This case will be dealt with by the people responsible. And in case I got something wrong I am always open for discussion! As for the DDoS copy, I totally agree with Oblivy that it has no value for wikipedia. Ciudatul (talk) 09:43, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That's a beautiful PR write-up. It reminds me of the users who previously commented on this talk page and made similar redactions to important information from the article with convoluted and obtuse logic, only to be banned for sock puppetry (just click on their usernames, like Lagdo22). HARRISONSST (talk) 15:37, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Ciudatul you mention @HARRISONSST being "too experienced" but you too had barely a handful of edits before coming to this page (and many of those related to Mr. Khare). Can you please say:
 * whether you have ever edited Wikipedia under another username; and
 * whether you have any connection to Appin, Mr. Khare, or any related person or company?
 * For what it's worth, my answer to both of those is "no". Oblivy (talk) 01:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree that I don't have many contributions, but before I started contributing to wikipedia and published my first wikipedia article, I studied all wikipedia policies and practices.
 * I say this with great confidence because I am of good faith and have no relation to the articles I have ever contributed to!
 * Thank you for your message! Ciudatul (talk) 11:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Removal of Sources
I have reverted an edit which removed a piece by the Columbia Journalism Review (not a deprecated source) with the message "The source does not quote the text and supports the information in the Daily Mail, which is a deprecated source". I'm afraid I don't understand that - this RS is removed because it agrees with a non-RS? If you think there's policy-based justification for this, please do explain. Oblivy (talk) 00:46, 7 June 2024 (UTC)


 * The source at CJR mentions the company, but does not mention the information to which it is referred. Besides all the CJR source focuses on information from the Daily Mail, which is ranked as a deprecated source, see . Ciudatul (talk) 12:17, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * HandThatFeeds I noticed that you have canceled two past changes, one of which was discussed on the page. Please check it, because that source has nothing to do with the paragraph that mentions it. Thanks! Ciudatul (talk) 09:57, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I've looked at the source. The second paragraph seems pretty spot on? Oblivy (talk) 23:54, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Reuters article is available on the Distributed Denial of Secrets page.
I don't know if it's okay to add an external link, so I didn't add it.

This is what I wanted to add: The Reuters article is available on the Distributed Denial of Secrets page (https://ddosecrets.com/wiki/Appin_Uncensored).

If it's okay, you can add it yourself, or let me know and I'll add it to the page. HARRISONSST (talk) 12:26, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * My perfectly valid edit about APPIN censoring Google with a court order was wiped out by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ciudatul for BS reasons. Here is the diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Appin_(company)&diff=prev&oldid=1232325479
 * I don't want to get into an edit war, and this person is making editing Wikipedia very unpleasant. This person has done this repeatedly and his motivation should be clear: They have no intention of building an encyclopedia and they are a net negative effect on Wikipedia. Can some admin please do something about this? HARRISONSST (talk) 08:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * For the future, please add the messages at the end of the discussions, but not in the middle, as it creates total confusion. Thanks!
 * You are free to make edits to wikipedia, as long as the edits are constructive and in accordance with wikipedia policies! I will never be friendly to editors who can afford to attack other editors. I removed your last edit because there was no notable information or source presented, and the New Yorker source is already available in the article and it makes no sense to add it again. It is clear that you have a less than neutral slant to this article, so I would recommend you to think about who needs an administrator to do something about it. Ciudatul (talk) 12:37, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Reuters and New Yorker
The Reuters source being temporarily removed, by the following documents, , it is established that they have already been requested to be deindexed from Google, the New Yorker source insofar as it is based on the content of the Reuters articles mentioned, cannot be considered solid either. Ciudatul (talk) 09:48, 18 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I have reverted your removals. The request to deindex is not sufficient to change their status as reliable sources per Wikipedia policy. An Indian court's dislike of the reporting has nothing to do with our assessment of whether a source is reliable. —  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 13:38, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @HandThatFeeds Can you take a look at the most recent removal by and see if that should also be reverted? It looks like it's on a different point. —C.Fred (talk) 14:11, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I posted about that in this talk page, but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ciudatul deliberately moved my comment to the wrong section of this page. HARRISONSST (talk) 15:29, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @HARRISONSST Trying to criticize again for no reason, please see where you included your comment (it was added in the middle of the discussion, we do not add paragraphs chaotically because you create total confusion on the discussion page), and I took your paragraph and changed it below as it was arranged chronologically.
 * @C.Fred Please check the talk page history, as this editor clearly makes some less constructive changes. Thanks! Ciudatul (talk) 16:06, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I've reverted the removal. It wasn't just cited to the Lumen database (which would merely show the existence of the court documents, not an RS on its own), but also to the appropriate New Yorker article. Again, you don't get to ignore the New Yorker article just because of the Indian court decision. —  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 17:30, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I am just trying to explain that the changes by this editor are disruptive and have no neutrality. And you are trying to support an edit that is not in line with wikipedia policies. This paragraph is not supported by any notable source Lumen is not generally used in wikipedia (this link is not available), and the New Yorker source is already available in the article (source number 3), which does not mention the paragraph added by that editor.
 * One interesting thing is that the editor has changed the headline of the New Yorker source, which originally reads as follows: "A Confession Exposes India's Secret Hacking Industry", then changed it to: "A Confession Exposes India's Secret Hacking Industry, Reuters To Fight Court Order". Which again totally confuses and has a disruptive purpose. Ciudatul (talk) 11:59, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing wilful disruption here. I'll go over the edit again, but saying it's "disruptive" seems to be an overreaction. —  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 12:24, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I've reconsidered, and removed the paragraph. I misunderstood how the New Yorker article was being used in that paragraph, and agree it's not relevant, which leaves the Lumen copies of the court filings & that's not a secondary source. It just shows the filings exist. So that's not enough to sustain the paragraph per WP:DUE. I still do not believe its introduction was disruptive, but it's not appropriately cited to be included here, and I'm not seeing reporting on the filing. —  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 12:41, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Malicious edits on the Article
I accidentally clicked on a link on the article, and it looks like someone has deliberately messed up the paragraphs and links.

Check out -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appin_(company)#cite_note-11

Looks like "Biden vs. Haley on abortion" was introduced by the guy below, along with a number of bad edits: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Samuelanderson90 HARRISONSST (talk) 23:41, 6 July 2024 (UTC)


 * @HARRISONSST I'm not going to call it malicious. The reference is to an article that mentions the Reuters article that has been pulled while litigation is pending. It looks like a workaround to preserve a quotation. Ugly? Kinda. Malicious? No. —C.Fred (talk) 01:53, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I was in a hurry and made a mistake in my post about who added the bad edit. This is what it should have read:
 * The "Biden vs. Haley on abortion" issue was added by:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Zkidwiki
 * ... and here is the diff.
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Appin_(company)&diff=prev&oldid=1206380499
 * The original edit has better references.
 * This is only a correction. HARRISONSST (talk) 11:29, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It was added because, as far as has been presented here, it's one of the few currently-live links on the web that mention the article, so it helps comply with WP:Verifiability. —C.Fred (talk) 13:07, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This edit does not strike me as malicious, and in fact workaround is a good term for it once the original article was taken down. The title of the Politico article is misleading but it mentions Appin down below.It would be helpful if we could avoid words like malicious when describing other editors actions. Oblivy (talk) 13:10, 8 July 2024 (UTC)