Talk:Ross Video

Why the removals from IPs and the unexplained COI tags?
This article has been tagged as COI since 2019 in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ross_Video&diff=914438432&oldid=910980988&diffmode=source. The tag mentions "may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments", "contains content that is written like an advertisement", and "discuss these issues on the talk page", but there is no discussion here. I could not find any detailed explanation (only accusations) in the article's history or this talk page's history, and I don't see why it's COI. What are the specific paragraphs and edits that are problematic?

I am not associated with Ross Video. I saw many of their job postings but did not apply to any of them. I came to Wikipedia to find information about this company, only to be greeted with that orange box and a lack of information in the article body. I only gained some understanding after reading https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ross_Video&oldid=769761919. Most of the removals come from IP editors that don't discuss things on this talk page. Without any explanation or discussion, we can't tell if those IP editors are competitors removing content for their own COI. Daniel.z.tg (talk) 03:00, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * If you click on the WHOIS link for the IP address that edited the page between October and December of last year, you'll see that it's in a block of Rogers Communications IP addresses that are assigned to Ross Video itself. Assuming that's correct, things are probably the exact opposite of what they seem.
 * As for the COI tag, I would note that User:Timetrials was blocked a few weeks after editing the page on grounds of COI editing, along with User:Emma060401, as well as both being said to be sockpuppets of each other. It seems like the main focus of their COI edits was another company, though Timetrials said on their talk page that they had worked for Ross Video in the past. There's something at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 149 that refers to them. As a checkuser elsewhere I have no access that you don't have to anything here, but I'm acutely aware that there are strict rules governing how much can be said about the information that led to the blocks. Suffice it to say that it normally takes a checkuser investigation to uncover sockpuppetry, and disclosure of information obtained by checkusers is tightly regulated by the privacy policy.
 * As you mentioned, there are edit summaries from a couple of years before that noting that the article read like the product of COI, but the actual tagging was at the same time as the blocks referred to above. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:54, 12 February 2023 (UTC)