Talk:Sageworks/Archive 1

Website
Hi, I just wanted to change the website address in the top right box on the page. The new web site address for Sageworks is www.sageworks.com. 24.206.46.166 (talk) 21:05, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That was ✅. -- do ncr  am  21:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Article content
The article appears to have been written for purely company promotional purposes. Several edits seek to disguise the fact that Sageworks both offers software services and at the same time repackages and resells for profit customer supplied private company data.

Web based software companies run significant risk of data loss due to security data breach. Sageworks exacerbates this by deliberately reselling the customer data.

No indemnity for data loss is offered to the customers.

This article is about a non-notable private company and should be deleted.--Slowestonian (talk) 20:29, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * These views were expressed by editor Slowestonian in the AFD that Slowestonian opened in January (linked from a box above), and which was closed "No Concensus". There is more to add to the article based on the AFD discussion (including academic paper/appendix about the Sageworks database which I commented about in the AFD), and the article is different now, too.  Slowestonian is free to raise new/continuing issues, including re-raising any of their concerns expressed here, and is doing so in sections below.  But let's consider this one section to be done, though, okay? -- do  ncr  am  21:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * If there are no objections, I may "hat" this or mark it as a closed/finished discussion. Anyhow, please address new/continuing issues below. -- do  ncr  am  21:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

editors associated with the subject?

 * (section split out and titled by me. -- do ncr  am  21:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC))
 * UPDATE: 77 woodmont, Roamingeditor22226, Entrepreneurship58039, and other accounts, including the one that created the article in 2007 and edited again in 2014 and 2015, were shown to be sock-puppets with COI, and have been blocked. -- do ncr  am  09:31, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

The article is persistently manipulated by what appears to be a number of sockpuppet accounts. The following accounts appear to have been created solely to edit this article only:

77 woodmont

Roamingeditor222226

--Slowestonian (talk) 05:16, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * An additional editor whose sole contribution in Wikipedia is to provide distorting contributions to this article is:


 * Entrepreneurship58039


 * These editors appear to be associated with Sageworks and seek to turn Wikipedia into a commercial promotion soapbox.--Physitsky (talk) 07:17, 14 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Those are pretty strong statements!, perhaps over-statements. I was contacted at my Talk by User:77 woodmont and invited to comment here.
 * It is okay for editors who have an association with a firm to edit the article about the firm, although they should be directed to familiarize themselves with wp:COI policy and to abide by it. As I recall, the Conflict of Interest (COI) policy includes that editors should generally disclose their relationship, and they can definitely participate freely in Talk page discussion and make specific suggestions of passages to include in the article.  COI editors are allowed to edit in the article.  But if there are disagreements they should generally back off and discuss issues at the Talk page, only, (except they can continue to make uncontroversial changes like correcting the company's website) and they should allow non-COI editors to make edits where things are controversial.
 * Have these editors all been advised of wp:COI? I'll follow up to them and will comment further soon. -- do  ncr  am  21:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I believe the article is a self-promotional piece that is being pushed with the fervor of someone associated with this insignificant company. The point I was making with my edits is that Sageworks engages in the practice of collecting and reselling private customer data that is typically jealously protected by business owners. Its business model along with its web-facing systems are prone to cyber attacks.


 * This business model and customer data loss risk must be clearly stated in this article. Hiding this from the reader is a disservice to Wikipedia visitors. --Physitsky (talk) 22:04, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Okay, slow down! Let this discussion section be about wp:COI issues and charges of sockpuppeting.  I and others can respond to your concerns in discussion sections below, okay?


 * Specifically I will contact the 3 editors named above: User:77 woodmont, User:Roamingeditor222226, and User:Entrepreneurship58039, whom I roughly understand to have edited on the "positive" or "promotional" side, perhaps, though it may be they are uninvolved, non-COI, and just trying to use sources and follow policy. ✅


 * But, also there has been suggestion of possibility that editors on the "negative" side might have associations with Sageworks' competitors, which I think would also be a wp:COI that should be disclosed. It would be good to clarify.  So can I ask that everyone participating make a note here in this section, disclosing their association with Sageworks or any competitor, if any, or indicating they have no associations?   Including User:Physitsky and User:Slowestonian and User:Harald Forkbeard, please?  Also could anyone please name firms that are possibly considered competitors?  -- do  ncr  am  22:15, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * And, also I will contact any editors who participated in the AFD, who have not already be contacted, to participate in discussion on this page. Editor 77 Woodmont contacted me and two other editors to invite us to participate, but the others should be invited too, so I will do so.✅  77 woodmont is a new editor and doesn't know all our policies yet, of course, please note.  They have so far only participated on this topic, which is fine, you have to start somewhere.  (And it is fine if they are associated with the company, too, but per wp:COI should make some disclosure.)  -- do  ncr  am  22:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Also I asked, at User:77 woodmont, for them to explain how User:77 woodmont, User:Roamingeditor222226, and User:Entrepreneurship58039 all got started at about the same time and have so far edited on Sageworks topic mostly. I assume they are connected, either one person not understanding yet about our policy on using mulitple accounts, or three friends or whatever who have the same interest for some good reason.  Will expect for any discussion about that to be at User talk:77 woodmont. -- do  ncr  am  23:51, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Association(s)?
 * I have no associations with Sageworks or its competitors. -- do ncr  am  22:15, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Nothing to do with this company or competitive firms either. --Physitsky (talk) 23:02, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I had never heard of Sageworks (and don't know who its conpetitors are) until I got involved with the AfD. As far as the on going discussion, I may have little, if any, time to participate. VMS Mosaic (talk) 23:39, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * None. CorporateM (Talk) 15:50, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Competitors - It's worth mentioning that Dunn and Bradstreet owns Hoover's. Also, the Pratt's Stats and BizComps are private business sale databases. The information is either volunteered by business brokers, with express permission of the business owners, or obtained from public sources such as EDGAR database which records private business acquisitions by public companies.
 * Hoover's would be one competitor.--Physitsky (talk) 23:46, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * IRS also publishes corporate financial ratios. This is collected from public filings made by companies that must report such data under the Securities Act of 1933. --Physitsky (talk) 23:55, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Dunn & Bradstreet was mentioned as comparable to Hoover's in the AFD --doncram
 * BizComps, named as a data service with implication it has a private company database, by User:Harald Forkbeard, in the AFD --doncram
 * Pratt's Stats, named as a data servicewith implication it has a private company database, by User:Harald Forkbeard, in the AFD --doncram
 * Done Deals, named as a data service with implication it has a private company database, by User:Harald Forkbeard, in the AFD --doncram

There is no risk of inappropriate data disclosure for customers using these databases as the private businesses usually are wound up and dissolved upon a sale. --Physitsky (talk) 02:09, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

further comments on "editors associated with the subject"

 * With no replies from User:77 woodmont, User:Roamingeditor222226, or User:Entrepreneurship58039, and other hints, I think now that it was one Wikipedia-experienced paid PR consultant editor who created 3 throwaway accounts, selectively canvassed at my Talk page and at 2 other AFD participant pages, and who will not return as they got what they wanted: more attention to this article probably leading to removal of negative stuff.  Feeling a bit used, oh well. -- do  ncr  am  18:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The persistence in suppressing the 'bad press' on their business model and legalese to defend against potential customer claims, makes this an obvious attempt to promote Sageworks while hiding the dirty details from the reader. I can't see how such distorted presentation serves the best interests of Wikipedia readers. --Physitsky (talk) 21:36, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * And Jackochs is another throwaway account used to frustrate one of the previous deletion attempts. And maybe there were more.  Physitsky, i think you go too far about asserting data security problems and that the data sharing arrangement is unethicals, but I am coming around towards thinking this article is not worth the bother, and that maybe it should be deleted after all.  And if so, with a solid record of shenanigans saved permanently in an AFD record.  In the AFD, i was strong on the Keep side, however, how reconcile that?  Hmm, maybe the topic could be notable, but we choose to delete this version anyhow, on grounds there is no substantial content and its promo/advertising.    And plan to watch/delete any new versions under name variations.  (And maybe that would cost the paid editor their commission, in the bargain.)  I dunno. -- do  ncr  am  23:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * And possibly User:Jclemens Mdascola, who User:Cryptic figured out was the one objecting to another deletion, with this diff at Talk:Jclemens. Jclemens has edited in other areas, though, has participated in 2,344 AFDs, per afdstats report. User:Mdascola has just 3 edits, brought in Jclemens, a lot like i was used by 77 woodmont. -- do  ncr  am  23:59, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Sounds about right. --Physitsky (talk) 01:15, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

And from reviewing contributions in the article, this Talk page, and the AFD, I see more sockpuppets, likely all being one paid editor. Their edits include a few edits to other articles, to enable them to claim they are not a sockpuppet, they edit other articles, as one did on this Talk page. Small edits to some India articles, e.g. this edit to an Indian high school article, suggest, or are meant to suggest, some Indian association of the editor. One or more suggest some Bridgton, Maine association, and interest in NCAA bball. The ones identified before are: Now add: I'll open sockpuppet investigation to get these recorded, at Sockpuppet investigations/Sageworksinc, under the Sageworksinc name as that is descriptive. -- do ncr  am  19:27, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) User:77 woodmont
 * 2) User:Roamingeditor222226
 * 3) User:Entrepreneurship58039
 * 4) User:Jackochs13
 * 5) User:Mdascola
 * 1) i.p. 67.244.102.145 is the same as User:Roamingeditor222226, it appears by sequence and timing of edits on this Talk page, and the I.P. only edited this article and talk page.
 * 2) i.p. 24.206.46.166, includes a few other edits to mislead, but is Sageworks sockpuppet too
 * 3) Ronald_M_Creatore_Esq., solely devoted to Sageworks
 * 4) Financepro123, solely devoted to Sageworks, created the Sageworks article
 * 5) 66.108.227.59, solely devoted to Sageworks
 * 6) Sageworksinc, of course, which is blocked.
 * 7) Wulftown, probably too.
 * Hello. I've made a disclosure at Sockpuppet investigations/Sageworksinc, and I wanted to make that known on the talk page as well.  --77 woodmont (talk) 23:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Pinging editors participating in this section:, , . Disclosure of socking given in last edit, but you most likely would have missed it as it was marked minor.  See the SPI. -- do  ncr  am  02:14, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Sock Puppet Investigation completed with result that the suspected current sock puppets are all confirmed and blocked. AND the sockpuppets included the account that created the article in 2007 and edited again in 2014 and 2015. Some of older ones are stale accounts. See Sockpuppet investigations/Sageworksinc/Archive. ✅ -- do ncr  am  09:21, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Editorializing and Evading the Key Issue with the Article

 * UPDATE: Roamingeditor222226 was shown, along with others, to be a sock-puppet with COI, and has been blocked. -- do  ncr  am  09:31, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

An editor "slowestonian" has consistently editorialized and violated both WP:EDITORIAL and WP:WEASEL on this page. Please desist. It's clear from his/her editing history that he/she has run run into this issue with other users and pages before.

Cannot speak for the other account mentioned, but if you'll look at my history you'll see that I've edited several other entries. Thanks. --Roamingeditor222226 (talk) 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * All my edits are referenced using the Sageworks own policies posted online, such as their privacy policy and terms of use. You appear to be attempting to disguise the fundamental issues with this article, namely that it is an attempt at a self-promotion by a non-notable private company. Please refrain from rote quotes of WP:EDITORIAL and WP:WEASEL, as they are clearly subject to interpretation.


 * The article needs to be reviewed by senior Wikipedia editors for possible deletion. --Slowestonian (talk) 01:18, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree that the article could benefit from some senior editor eyes (although if you look at the editing history, you'll see that it has received attention from senior editors). I'm ambivalent about the existence of this article, but as long as it does exist and you continue to editorialize and use misleading language, I will continue to correct it. Thanks for understanding.
 * --Roamingeditor222226 (talk) 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You need to focus on the simple fact that this article is a thinly disguised attempt at self-promotion. It serves no other purpose and should be deleted from Wikipedia. --Slowestonian (talk) 22:06, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Hey, i don't know if I count as a "senior editor" or not, but everyone who participated in the AFD is being invited to participate here. Please, can we cool it down here?  Please try to state your concerns clearly, and try not to over-state anything, okay?  And let's try to focus on the article content issues specifically, and not on the other editors, okay?
 * On the content issues here, hey, could someone please explain what they see as "the Key Issue with the Article"? And/or what is the nature of "editorializing" perceived to be going on?  When i looked at the article, I did't see anything very obviously promotional, but the article has been changing.  And I will say that there is probably too much about the data privacy and disclosure and so on, to leave in the article, but that is a good topic for Talk page.  Please use small words for me. :) -- do  ncr  am  22:35, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The key issue with the article is that it seems to be a thinly veiled attempt to promote this company. The company has nothing of note compared to other, more prominent resources.


 * In addition, Sageworks appears to engage in two profit seeking enterprises at once:
 * Collecting private company data, as part of its web-based service offerings.
 * Repackaging and reselling this same data for an additional profit.


 * Anyone can turn a buck so long as it's legal. Visitors reading an impartial article in Wikipedia should be able to spot the potential conflict of interest (data collection and resale) and the risk of private business data exposure to theft by hackers.


 * Private company data is a high value target for cyber criminals. Sageworks stores such data on web-facing servers. They know the risk, so they demand a hold harmless clause as part of their service agreement. In other words, if Sageworks loses the customer sensitive data, its customers are left holding the proverbial bag. Worse yet, the third party claims their terms of use refer to is to protect them against the irate business owners who realize that their sensitive business data was released to Sageworks by their professional advisers who might be using the services, and may have skipped over the fine print.


 * A group of editors keeps trying to sweep these issues under the rug.--Physitsky (talk) 23:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Okay, to me that sounds like 2 issues:  promotional tone and concerns about data usage/security/Terms-of-use-disclosure/etc.  Seems to me that promotional tone can be addressed easily by editing, later, but what the article is to say about data needs to be decided here, first.
 * Physitsky, you seem to be knowledgeable about general web-based data security stuff and more that I don't happen to know much about, but do you have any specific knowledge about security lapses at Sageworks? It would probably be relevant for the article to report if there have been any reported data losses.  However, even if we know about something, in general we can't write about it in an article unless we have published sources supporting everything said, that we can reference, per, i guess wp:Verifiability.  It's also possible sometimes to explain some general, well-known facts without specific referencing, IF we really believe the assertions are true and well-accepted AND IF there is no disagreement amongst editors about the assertions.  Here there is disagreement, so everything needs to be sourced.


 * Editor 77 woodmont questioned, specifically, the following passage:

"The growing threat is evidenced by the report published by Kaspersky Lab information security company [15] on major customer data security breach suffered by financial institutions who store customer critical data and are under constant threat of cyber attacks of increasing sophistication. Given this level of success demonstrated by cyber criminals against the well funded financial companies, there is doubt that Sageworks, a private firm with limited resources, can successfully defend customer data given its storage on web accessible systems. The growing threat is evidenced by the report published by Kaspersky Lab information security company on major customer data security breach suffered by financial institutions who store customer critical data and are under constant threat of cyber attacks of increasing sophistication. Given this level of success demonstrated by cyber criminals against the well funded financial companies, there is doubt that Sageworks, a private firm with limited resources, can successfully defend customer data given its storage on web accessible systems."


 * Physitsky, am I correct to assume that you wrote/added that? I am not checking.  That passage cites a source that we'd deem reliable (AP news story published in NYTimes), but the source doesn't mention Sageworks at all.  So it's a general concern, and no specific concern for Sageworks, right?  I wonder if Sageworks has in fact had any data thefts, or has any substantial data security risks, or whether it has any statements on its security measures?  But if we don't have any specific sourcing about Sageworks, I have to agree with 77 woodmont that the passage needs to be dropped from this article.  It is relevant, I agree, for the article to talk about Sageworks' protection of data, as it is a potential concern. -- do  ncr  am  00:28, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, I wrote that. This recent report by Kaspersky Lab is yet another reminder of the ever growing cyber threats. Financial institutions affected involve some of the best protected companies on the planet. Needless to say, Sageworks is far more vulnerable.


 * Sageworks has made some statements in their security policy. To my knowledge there is no independent oversight as to their secutity policy and implementation.


 * We are talking about several issues here: vulnerability to customer data loss from outside threats, as well as the malicious data theft risk by insiders. Private company data is a closely guarded secret, so the whole data collection and assignment of responsibility for keeping the data safe must be clearly discussed. --Physitsky (talk) 01:11, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The point is not whether Sageworks is mentioned in Kaspersky Lab report. The point is that they are vulnerable and that their customer data is at risk. Their practice of collecting and storing private company data makes them a high value hacker target. It is a matter of time before a breach occurs. --Physitsky (talk) 01:17, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * One more report on the recent cyber theft affecting a number of banks: . It seems the initial impact has been underestimated. Breaches of companies' data collection servers were the main target. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Physitsky (talk • contribs) 01:31, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Making the entry more readable & avoiding WP:EW

 * UPDATE: Roamingeditor222226 and other accounts, including the one that created the article in 2007 and edited again in 2014 and 2015, were shown to be sock-puppets with COI, and have been blocked. -- do ncr  am  09:31, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

There's clearly some disagreement on this page. Some parties have voiced that this article is too self-promotional (though I believe the majority of those instances have been corrected). Some, like myself, have voiced that there's too much editorializing on the part of an editor (though I believe most of those instances have been corrected as well). As stated above, I think this entry could benefit from attn from senior editors. However, if the entry remains, it needs to be more readable. It currently reads as a product of bickering (see WP:EW) rather than anything informative.

I'd like to slightly rearrange the sections of the piece over the next week, while preserving the content, in order to make the piece actually readable/informative. I'd ask that other editors on the page assume good faith as I rearrange these sections. If the article is deleted (as stated above, I'm ambivalent on that, and would differ to senior editors) that's one thing, but if it remains, it should be readable. Roamingeditor222226 (talk) 20:58, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Excellent idea. It would be appropriate to state what we know about the rather questionable business model. It would be illuminating for Wikipedia readers to realize that Sageworks offers both the software services and then resells customer-provided private company data as a second line of business. Non-disclosure and loss prevention of such critical data entrusted to the software provider is a fundamental element of the contract between itself and its customers. Where a profit incentive clearly exists to disclose such data in some form, a mention of the potential conflict of interest must be made.


 * Without proper explanation, this fact is concealed, thus misleading the reader as to the actual business practices employed by Sageworks.


 * This is important as the practice of offering a service and then mining the contents for additional financial gain is a significant observation that a Wikipedia reader should be able to make after reading this article.--Slowestonian (talk) 05:36, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Editor Roamingeditor222226 continues to try to conceal the facts behind the Sageworks attempts to shield itself against third party claims arising from its use of customer provided data. This begs the question as to what level of responsibility for customer data protection Sageworks assumes. Looks like not much. --Slowestonian (talk) 04:51, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * If you read my edit you'll see my qualm was with the phrasing, after I reviewed the cited clause more carefully. Your rephrasing of the section may more accurate, but I'm planning to review the source/clause once again to ensure that it is, in fact, accurate. I'm not trying to conceal anything, I'm aiming for accuracy.  I'd advise you to review some of the Wiki policies more closely, in this case WP:GF. --Roamingeditor222226 (talk) 08:48, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * As a secondary note, I'm fascinated by your tendency to use misleading language in this entry, as well as your laser focus on what appears to be a fairly standard terms of use clause. Have you ever read a privacy policy or terms of use clause? Do you see direct wording of these kinds of clauses on other company pages? I don't. It all comes across as very strange.  Part of me suspects that you may be working for a competitor of this company, but again, I'd like to assume good faith. Just know that I am planning to watch your edits on this page extremely closely.  Thanks for understanding. --Roamingeditor222226 (talk) 09:02, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * It seems that you continue to miss the point I am making, namely that Sageworks is duty bound to protect the customer data it collects. Instead, it engages in dubious practices of repackaging and profiting from the very data it is expected to protect. Disclosure of such data may cause major harm to its customers, yet Sageworks seeks to shield itself from all responsibility for such harm by legalese. At best, it is a highly disingenuous practice, at worst, a rather brazen attempt to profit from its customers in unethical ways. --Slowestonian (talk) 02:42, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Re-posting a discussion from talk page

 * NOTE: 77 woodmont, who opened this discussion at Physitsky's Talk, and other accounts including the one that created the article in 2007 and edited again in 2014 and 2015, were shown to be sock-puppets with COI, and have been blocked. -- do ncr  am  09:31, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Reposted from talk page of Physitsky, who replied on that page. Reposting here, b/c discussion should probably happen on company page.

---(begin copied passage)--- Hello. I believe you need to brush up on the following policies, as evidenced by your disruptive and unsubstantiated edits to the Sageworks page: WP:NPOV, WP:WORDS, WP:WEASEL to name just a few.

For example: you cite a report that talks about financial institutions being at risk for cyber attack. You then point to the fact that the company has financial institution clients, so therefore they are a high risk target. The source is "reliable," but it has no bearing on the company in question, and it comes across as a very thinly veiled attempt to make a baseless allegation.

We clearly don't see eye to eye on this subject, which is why I've asked several senior editors to review the page. Regardless, I'd advise you to review the policies above before making further edits to the page. --77 woodmont (talk) 21:50, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * For reference, this is the passage in question, that I'm hoping a senior editor can review. I'm holding on reverting. "The growing threat is evidenced by the report published by Kaspersky Lab information security company [15] on major customer data security breach suffered by financial institutions who store customer critical data and are under constant threat of cyber attacks of increasing sophistication. Given this level of success demonstrated by cyber criminals against the well funded financial companies, there is doubt that Sageworks, a private firm with limited resources, can successfully defend customer data given its storage on web accessible systems.The growing threat is evidenced by the report published by Kaspersky Lab information security company [15] on major customer data security breach suffered by financial institutions who store customer critical data and are under constant threat of cyber attacks of increasing sophistication. Given this level of success demonstrated by cyber criminals against the well funded financial companies, there is doubt that Sageworks, a private firm with limited resources, can successfully defend customer data given its storage on web accessible systems." --77 woodmont (talk) 22:09, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

As long as we are reposting from my talk page, let's repost everything, per below:


 * I'd advise you to cease persistent attempts to disguise known risks posed by Sageworks services. As long as you continue to distort the picture, I will continue to rectify it. --Physitsky (talk) 21:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Kaspersky Lab report clearly indicates the danger of storing private customer data on web-facing systems. It stands to reason that Sageworks, which does store such data on web-accessible systems, is a high value target for cyber criminals, posing a known risk for its customers.


 * In addition, Sageworks seeks to evade resposibility for possible data breach by putting up a hold harmless clauses in its Terms of Use. Clear evidence of the confidence level in their ability to safeguard customer data. --Physitsky (talk) 21:55, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Classic 1 + 1 = 14 logic, in my opinion, but we'll see what a few more seasoned editors have to contribute here. --77 woodmont (talk) 22:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * My logic is simple - the article is self-promotional in nature and seeks to hide known risks. I will continue to expose these risks for the benefit of Wikipedia readers. --Physitsky (talk) 22:08, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

---(end copied passage)---


 * Okay, noted. Can we consider this Talk page section done, and discuss these issues in other sections already started?  Thanks for sharing.  If no one objects I may mark this section as done/closed. -- do  ncr  am  00:05, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: I can not see that the security concerns in the last paragraph here are the least bit unusual. Surely they apply to all companies that collect business data.   The NYT ref is not about this company, but the general problem; it mentions few companies as examples, but not this one. I therefore think the effect of the   edits supported by one of the editors above is to turn it into an attack page.  Unless there sources that show any such noteworthy problems at this particular company they should not be restored..

As for the second paragraph, what's unusual about this either? They resell aggregated data. I would think all business concerns do, unless they actually claim otherwise. Unless some evidence here can be provided, I don;t see the encyclopedic relevance,so I have deleted that also.

As you know, I am among those who thought the company insufficiently notable. I'm not sure that I agree with the conclusions of the AfD, but that's another matter. Notable or not, this content is not appropriate. We don't give companies the same protections as we do natural people--if this were about a BLP I'd have protected and warned about blocking. But we do not accept attacks express or implied about anything.  DGG ( talk ) 07:58, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * While I !voted keep, I agree with DGG as far as the appropriate content. VMS Mosaic (talk) 12:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You missed the whole point of the argument here. Sageworks claims to collect data from private companies. But there is a problem casing doubt on their credibility: private company owners do not disclose their financial and operations data to outsiders. Indeed, they guard this info jealously. That information is extremely hard to get and very valuable if resold.


 * At a guess, Sageworks gets this info from the professional advisers who have neglected to secure consent from the business owners.


 * To protect itself against irate business owners wrath, Sageworks puts up a legal agreement whereby they would seek indemnity from their customers (i.e. professional advisers) in the event that business owners go after Sageworks for improper private company information disclosure. This fails the smell test.


 * Sageworks business model suffers from undisclosed conflict of interest: on the one hand, they are expected to protect private company information from disclosure. On the other, they are profiting from its resale.


 * Whether you think this is ethical or not is beside the point. These points are relevant, so Wikipedia readers should be able to see this by reading an informative article.


 * Otherwise, this is merely a self-promotional piece and has no place in Wikipedia in my opinion. --Physitsky (talk) 07:09, 24 February 2015 (UTC)


 * your argument here is what we call  WP:SYNTHESIS and we do not do that.  The Kaparsky report reported on a weakness common to essentially all companies in the IT business. It should therefore be discussed at general subject article. To use this to specifically criticiseone particular company because its data is subject to this problem is absurd. You need to show that either there are specific reports that have involved this company, or that some reliable source has reported that it specifically affects this company more than others.
 * the current article is not an advertisement. It's a straightforward description of what the company does. We permit neither puffery nor unreasonable and nonspecific criticism. There's no need to argue which is worse: both are unacceptable. DGG (at NYPL) -- reply here 21:13, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


 * You seem to have trouble understanding the concerns about Sageworks that I have brought up above. The article must include these concerns to make the readers aware of the risks associated with their business model. If you are unable to comprehend what these risks are, then leave it to the editors who possess the background in financial services and software to make appropriate contributions.


 * You deleted a chunk of discussion that I deem highly relevant to this company and the way it does business. --Physitsky (talk) 07:46, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Physitsky, I think your understanding is imperfect. You say above "But there is a problem casing doubt on their credibility: private company owners do not disclose their financial and operations data to outsiders. Indeed, they guard this info jealously. That information is extremely hard to get and very valuable if resold. / At a guess, Sageworks gets this info from the professional advisers who have neglected to secure consent from the business owners."


 * But business owners WILL share such info, if they get get sufficient benefit. They can get useful information back, perhaps, e.g., report on various financial ratios and operational measures, on average for firms comparable to their own (useful benchmarks for them to consider making changes to own business).  That's why many firms participate in industry association surveys, or salary surveys.  Or they could get a discount on the accounting services that they are buying (or get a cash rebate).  Of course they must evaluate benefit > cost, but it can be reasonable for them to believe their identifiable info will be safeguarded, per contract terms.  Note consumers share info freely all the time, e.g. in order to get discounts when grocery shopping using store cards. -- do  ncr  am  08:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Sageworks does not offer any benefits to business owners in exchange for reselling their private data. Financial ratios by industry are readily available from a number of reputable sources already, such as Troy Almanac of Financial Ratios. I believe Sageworks fails to obtain explicit consent from business owners to resell their company data in any form. That is precisely why they have the highly objectionable indemnity clause trying to shield themselves from potential law suits. --Physitsky (talk) 20:49, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Look, I know this industry pretty well. The point is not whether we agree or not. The point is that Sageworks' data gathering practices do not pass the smell test for me. I think this concern is legitimate and should be clearly stated in the article.--Physitsky (talk) 20:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "do not pass the smell test for me", "highly objectionable", "I believe Sageworks fails", " I know this industry", etc. Total personal opinion, nothing more. Please see WP:NPOV. VMS Mosaic (talk) 00:03, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Every editor, including yourself, has a personal opinion in the matter. I am expressing mine based on experience and understanding of the issues.


 * So far, you have not offered any cogent counter-argument to the points I have made. Indeed, I sense lack of appreciation for the issues I have outlined. What is your level of expertise in the financial analysis and software services to support your opinion here?--Physitsky (talk) 02:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * As an editor, I need zero level of expertise, a point you completely fail to understand. As an editor, I must have a complete lack of appreciation for NON-NEUTRAL POINTS OF VIEW. All that matters is what can be shown by reliable sources. Do you have any reliable THIRD PARTY sources which support what you want to add in regard to this particular company? Your cites from the company website are nothing but pure WP:OR (i.e., original research without any reliable third party support). "I am expressing mine based on experience and understanding of the issues" is exactly what is wrong with your position (i.e., the exact opposite of having a NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW). I think I have stated the Wikipedia position here as clearly as I can, so I'm going to just let WP:NPOV speak for itself from this point. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:19, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * As an editor, you should stay out of discussion on the subject you do not understand. You confuse the issue with endless noise rather than offering substantive arguments to resolve the disagreement.


 * The analogy would be a doctor arguing with a farmer on the subject of nuclear medicine. I can see I am wasting my time on this. --Physitsky (talk) 08:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm going to drawn an analogy. Every food producing company  is inherently from the nature of the business  a possible subject for legal action for product contamination. Notable instances of this are of course suitable content for articles.  Should we therefore in each article about a firm in the business, regardless of specific sources, discuss the problem of food contamination sand the hazards that might possibly be in eating their food?   DGG ( talk ) 06:09, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, you should discuss the risk of food product contamination if the company in question engages in risky practices that raise such risk for the consumers.


 * I am appalled at your dogged persistence here. Again, we don't need to see the issues the same way. But an article to be useful must reflect all aspects.--Physitsky (talk) 08:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know what to think. Physitsky sounds like they know what they're talking about, and did endure sockpuppeting and was accurate about that.  DGG and others also have legitimate point.  It would really be helpful if we could find any coverage of data leaking and/or other security issues applying to Sageworks, in any forum.  Is the issue mentioned in any security-related blog or forum, even?  (Though such might not be wp:RS) -- do  ncr  am  09:31, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Exactly. If Physitsky had even one RS source for his proposed content (or even a bunch of non-RS sources), then his proposed content would be (more) acceptable. That is the point he doggedly refuses to understand. His personal knowledge is meaningless without some properly sourced support. An article can only "reflect" properly sourced "aspects". VMS Mosaic (talk) 10:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

pinged me here. The sources should mention the article-subject to establish relevance in order to be usable. The exception would be something where relevance is already established by other sources about the article-subject. For example: "CompanyX was one of the organizations investigated by the FBI as part of "Operation Clean Turf" (source about the company), a large-scale investigation of more than 25 astroturfing companies (source about operation clean turf)." <- that would be an acceptable use of a source that is not about the article-subject, since relevance is already established by a source that is and readers need context.

Regarding notability, I don't think this is actually an issue and have removed the excessive tagging. CorporateM (Talk) 14:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * There are several issues with the Sageworks article:


 * 1. Sageworks engages in the questionable practice of gathering protected business data and reselling it for a profit. Given their tricky indemnity clause in the Terms of Use, I sense that they know this and seek to shield themselves against potential legal attacks by irate business owners. This needs to be stated in the article.


 * 2. The very sensitive data they resell is offered online. They are thus a high value target for cybercriminals. That needs to be stated to make the reader aware of the risks. If Sageworks systems are broken into, the attack will not be made public as they are a private company. Unless there is a well publicized law suit (unlikely in the private business space). --Physitsky (talk) 20:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Lawsuit
Per WP:UNDUE the lawsuit section I removed should not be restored unless there is a secondary source to establish that this suit is somehow notable. There are a lot of pesky, unimportant lawsuits. This bit of content looks like something added by one of the litigants to make the subject look bad. Jehochman Talk 13:22, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Additionally, I think this article should be deleted. This appears to be a minor, non-notable company.  A few passing mentions in the business press does not establish notability. Jehochman Talk 13:24, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Lawsuits and sources
There's been back-and-forth editing in the article about whether or not to include this passage: "On April 15, 2014; a copyright infringement law suit against Sageworks has been filed in the North Carolina Eastern District Court, with Corporate Web Solutions, Ltd as the plaintiff, and Sageworks as the defendant, under Court Case Number 5:14-cv-00222-FL, which was subsequently settled."

I'd prefer that the article section Sageworks be frozen for now, and please state your issues and discuss here! What is really known about this lawsuit? As is, there's not really enough context to explain it, so I am not sure it benefits the reader. All corporations get sued all the time, IMHO. And are there other lawsuits? are questions I have. -- do ncr  am  11:05, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * It is routine for companies to participate in lawsuits. When I was younger I worked security at Apple Computers and we got served regularly. One time someone just threw the court documents on the sidewalk in front of the building. And many lawsuits just end up being dismissed as baseless legal harassment.


 * When those lawsuits are picked up by secondary sources, they should be included. However, to add lawsuits covered only in court records is not any more acceptable on a company page than on a BLP. CorporateM (Talk) 10:57, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I noticed that the patent has also been reverted. What is this policy that prevents law suits and patents from being cited? Somebody explain this oddity to me, please.--Harald Forkbeard (talk) 18:43, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * On the point made by Doncram: there is a difference between a public company like Apple being sued and a legal challenge to a private company:


 * There will not likely be any second source coverage as Sageworks is an obscure entity of no interest to the media. So the only reference to the legal actions against this type of company is likely to be coming from the courts.


 * Is CorporateM implying that no mention of law suits, however significant, can be made in Wikipedia, unless it attracts the attention of the media? This amounts to suppression of information that is significant to the reader. --Harald Forkbeard (talk) 18:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * If you look at U-Haul you will see mention of a lawsuit, based on reporting in the newspapers. We need to see that the lawsuit is significant enough that it's been written about in newspapers or books. Otherwise, it's original research, which is fine in some places, but not on Wikipedia. Jehochman Talk 19:16, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * No books will be written about this obscure company. The only info will be provided by the courts. --Harald Forkbeard (talk) 19:35, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * That's why the article should probably be deleted. The company is too obscure to have depth of coverage sufficient to write more than a stubby stub. Jehochman Talk 19:35, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I disagree on deletion. This academic paper Harald cited actually looks like a good source to me and Sageworks' data is covered by it in-depth. A quick Google News search shows that their data is highly respected and oft-cited. It sounds like their data is reported anonymously and collected from accounting firms. If there was perceived to be a problem with the lack of permission for anonymous data, it should be reported somewhere, but it's not. But yes, in a nut-shell, we need an independent journalist to report on a lawsuit before it can be covered here. We do not investigate court records ourselves and do original reporting - that is the job of the journalist. The same goes with patent records, which are often frivolous or even fraudulent in nature. We require secondary sources to interpret the information and verify its significance, not original documents. CorporateM (Talk) 19:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * You are only reading part of what the source states. Please read the reference before reverting my comments. The point is Sagework collects data from advisers, without first obtaining permission from business owners. '--Harald Forkbeard (talk) 19:59, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Harold, can you provide the page number and/or excerpt from the source? I read much of it and everything I saw was quite glowing about Sageworks. CorporateM (Talk) 20:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks C and HF and J for discussing here. I'm not sure if this is what HF means, but footnote on page 8 of Asker, Farre-Menser, Ljungqvist (2014, forthcoming in Review of Financial Studies, which HF links above, states "Commercial users of the Sageworks database only have access to data aggregated by industry and region. This alleviates potential disclosure concerns on the part of the private firms. Only a few academic researchers, ourselves included, have had confidential access to an anonymized version of the underlying firm-by-firm data." And on the same page, "Sageworks provides data for private firms.7. Unfortunately, Sageworks masks firm names, though each firm has a unique identifier allowing us to construct a panel.8 The main drawback of anonymity for our purposes is that we cannot observe transitions from private to public status in the Sageworks database. We will later describe how we assemble a dataset of such transitions from other sources. Sageworks obtains data not from the private firms themselves, which could raise selection concerns, but from a large number of accounting firms that feed data for all their unlisted corporate clients into Sageworks’ database. Selection thus operates at the level of the accounting firm and not of their clients. Sageworks co-operates with most of the largest national accounting firms as well as hundreds of regional players, but with proportionately fewer of the many thousand local accountants who service the smallest....[emphasis added by doncram]"


 * I have some knowledge of how this stuff works, and I believe HF is entirely correct if HF's point is about the provision of data to academics, i.e. that the business owners did not anticipate their firm-by-firm data would be made available to academic researchers, with only the company names withheld. It's conceivable that some firms' identities could be figured out from the data given to the researchers.  I doubt that even the accounting firms who passed on the data anticipated that. -- do  ncr  am  20:46, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * HF could also be correct that business owners did not agree to their firm-by-firm data going into Sageworks' database for use in making aggregated reports (e.g. average profit ratios and other averages or high/low numbers for the 10 firms in a certain region in the same industry, perhaps) available to paying customers. It's conceivable that paying customer who is one of the 10 firms would be able to figure out some info about their specific competitors.  The degree of aggregation provides more "security" for firms covered, but less useful info for paying customers;  how Sageworks determines what's "fair" is an issue.  And the accountants might have been aware of how the data would be used (they were probably paid for their giving up the data, i surmise).  But I have doubts that the business owners sign contracts giving permission to their accountants to give up their firm-by-firm data to Sageworks for usage like this, where it might possibly give away valuable info to competitors.  What the facts are, here, do matter in how we write the article, whether or not we have sources to quote from on all the facts that we know.  (Like if somehow we know someone covered in a BLP article is a child molester, it is proper for us to use that info indirectly in our writing the article (perhaps to avoid glowing statements about how wonderful the subject is with children), even if we don't have a source good enough to state the fact explicitly in the article itself.) -- do  ncr  am  20:46, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * By the way, some comments calling for deletion here seem uninformed by the recent AFD. I cited Asker, Farre-Menser, Ljungqvist (2011) "What Do Private Firms Look Like?" working paper/appendix in the AFD, and pointed to there being many more hits in Google scholar.  The academic use of, and coverage of, the Sageworks data is not yet covered in the Wikipedia article, but is relevant for establishing notability. -- do  ncr  am  20:46, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Finally, I can see that one editor, namely doncram, understands the issue. Some key points to be pointed out:


 * 1. Sageworks uses tricky tactics to obtain company data from professional advisers.


 * 2. It fails to obtain explicit consent for data disclosure from the business owners.


 * 3. Sageworks is not notable enough for its business practices and legal disputes to attract the attention of credible secondary sources.


 * 4. The result being that both its questionable data collection and resale practices and its legal challenges fly under the radar screen.


 * Question: What is the purpose of this article? Seems to be to promote the existence of Sageworks and hide the bad press.--Harald Forkbeard (talk) 00:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Based on the bolded text above that is from a secondary source, something like the following could be used: "Sageworks' data is collected from accounting firms of private companies that feed their clients' financial information into Sageworks." or something like that. To specify that this behavior is bad conduct, we need a secondary source that specifically says so. CorporateM (Talk) 22:36, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The article must state the fact, namely that Sageworks collects and resells information without consent from the business data owners. --Harald Forkbeard (talk) 23:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep it simple. Wikipedia readers should be advised of this tricky business practice.--Harald Forkbeard (talk) 23:10, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no reliable source provided for the claim that "Sageworks collects and resells information without consent from the business owners". The word 'resell' is particularly ill-advised because they don't seem to pay for the data in the first place. The business owners confide it to them voluntarily. The privacy policy on the Sageworks web site says:
 * "Sageworks will not publish or sell personally identifiable data (information that identifies a particular client/customer or other individual) without your express permission, and we agree to maintain the confidentiality of your information. Sageworks reserves the right to use any data and information provided by users for internal quality control and product development as necessary for supporting the Products. In addition, Sageworks reserves the right to freely use, sell, and distribute all data provided by users from which Sageworks has removed personally identifiable information. This may include the future development of financial models, indices, or other reports derived from the financial data entered. Do not enter data or other information into our applications if you do not want your or your client data being used in this manner or contributed to our aggregate database."
 * So the business owner is voluntarily releasing their internal data for the kinds of aggregate sharing described in the paper by Asker et al. mentioned above. EdJohnston (talk) 02:46, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * You are wrong. The business data owners are never approached by Sageworks to obtain the consent to collect or resell the data. Instead, Sageworks obtains the data from the professional advisers.


 * Conclusion: Sageworks does not have consent from the business owners to collect or resell the data at all.--Harald Forkbeard (talk) 06:01, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Read the following carefully: Sageworks obtains data not from the private firms themselves, which could raise selection concerns, but from a large number of accounting firms that feed data for all their unlisted corporate clients into Sageworks’ database.--Harald Forkbeard (talk) 06:06, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Read the following extremely carefully over and over again until it sinks in: Where is your reliable source for that? VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:11, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * He's referring to page 8 here, but the quoted text does not say anything about consent or privacy. On the contrary, it praises the validity of the data on the basis of the collection method. Adding this source in a manner that is representative of it would result in praise, not criticism. CorporateM (Talk) 02:26, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * You are missing the point again. It does not matter if the research paper praises Sageworks. What matters is that Sageworks collects and sells the data without obtaining the consent from the business data owners. Instead, it uses the backhanded tactic of procuring the data from the accountants, who don't own it. --Harald Forkbeard (talk) 05:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The discussion now vastly exceeds the size of the article. Many questions raised in this section are frustrating as they seem to be repeated over and over. I would encourage the editors to either review the information and references provided, or desist from repeated questions that suggest lack of reading comprehension.


 * Problem in a nutshell:


 * 1. Sageworks collects and sells private company information without explicit consent from business data owners.


 * 2. Sageworks obtains data from professional advisors who are not the data owners.


 * 3. Sageworks seeks to shield itself from liability by demanding an indemnity clause in its Terms of Use.


 * Conclusion: Sageworks willfully collects and sells private company data without obtaining permission from its owners. This must be clearly stated in the article. If you can't do it, delete the article.--Harald Forkbeard (talk) 05:55, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * CorporateM is right. That source is positive toward the firm. You have shown no source which supports your criticism of the firm. Your repeatedly wilful refusal to understand that is what is "frustrating here". Several editors (e.g. CorporateM, do  ncr  am, etc.) appear ready to work with you to add info from that source, but words like "backhanded",  "wilfully", "resell", "without consent", etc. are not supported by it and do not belong in the article.   VMS Mosaic (talk) 00:01, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The article must clearly state that Sageworks collects and sells company data without getting consent from the business data owners. Just a statement of fact. No ifs or buts.--Harald Forkbeard (talk) 18:57, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The intent is not to criticize but to state the fact about the data collection via the advisers, not business owners.You appear unable to read the bulleted list stating the situation that I provided above. Recommend that you re-read it.--Harald Forkbeard (talk) 19:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Proposed text for the article on data collection:


 * Business owners are under no obligation to disclose private company data. Indeed, such data is typically a closely guarded secret kept from the competitors. Sageworks does not obtain company data from the business owners directly. Instead, it collects the data from professional advisers of these firms. Sageworks Terms of Use include an indemnity clause seeking to shield Sageworks from responsibility in the event of legal action arising of Sageworks use and sale of private business data. --Harald Forkbeard (talk) 19:19, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I believe the above statement is fact based and supported by references such as Sageworks' own Terms of Use and the research article discussed on this page.--Harald Forkbeard (talk) 19:19, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Patent issues
I added the following to the article, and CorporateM took it out: "The firm obtained a patent on "Systems, methods, and computer program products for generating a narrative financial analysis of a financial statement of a business entity" in 2000."

By the way, it does give insight, perhaps, into the nature of "financial analysis" provided by Sageworks to paying customers.

I actually think CorporateM has a fair point that the patent itself does not describe the importance of the patent, so arguably shouldn't be used on its own, if there's not secondary coverage about it, like Jehochman notes there is coverage for a big lawsuit against U-Haul. CorporateM: " We require secondary sources to interpret the information and verify its significance, not original documents." Okay. But I don't understand CorporateM's comment about "patent records, which are often frivolous or even fraudulent in nature." Where does fraud or frivolity come in, about patents? Do you just mean that a firm saying "Patent applied for" or "Patent pending" is not to be given much importance? But if you got a patent, you did, that's a fact.

Posting here mainly to provide one place to discuss the patent, separate from other topics. Also curious to learn from CorporateM. -- do ncr  am  21:49, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Many companies submit patents that are approved, but are later deemed fraudulent when contested in court. For example, they may patent something that is already established common use tactics, then sue people who adopt these common techniques as a patent infringement. They may be patent trolls or they may have patented something already patented by someone else. They may create patents that are not actually enforceable, or just create thousands of petty patents, many of which are trivial or unenforceable, in an effort to protect their IP as much as possible. Patents are very complicated. It's this kind of thing that's why we can't interpret primary documents. CorporateM (Talk) 21:57, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Validity of patents should be challenged by legal experts. This issue is way beyond the scope of most Wikipedia editor contributions. I don't see what this legal aspect has to do with the statement that a patent has been issued by the US PTO.--Harald Forkbeard (talk) 00:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Marketing Consultants Contributions
User CorporateM is by own admission a marketing consultant. The persistence in obfuscating the data collection and sale tactics employed by Sageworks begs the question as to whether CorporateM is acting as a Sageworks agent and has, therefore, bias in this discussion.--Harald Forkbeard (talk) 22:00, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This type of accusation will do nothing but damage your arguments. Unless you have hard evidence, it would be best to retract it and apologize. VMS Mosaic (talk) 22:55, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The suspicion is based on behavior. User CorporateM openly states on his page that they are dividing time between volunteer and marketing efforts here. Read his page.--Harald Forkbeard (talk) 23:02, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Both yourself and CorporateM are persistently trying to subvert the discussion of the data collection and sale practices employed by Sageworks. This appears quite deliberate, given the obvious facts confirmed by credible second source references, as discussed on this page. What other explanation than a bias can be behind this? --Harald Forkbeard (talk) 23:11, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * In WP:FAITH, I assume you are simply ignorant of the various Wikipedia policies including WP:PERSONAL that you are bringing into play here. Continuing down this path is ill-advised. VMS Mosaic (talk) 01:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Direct quote from WP:PERSONAL: Note that it is not a personal attack to question an editor at their talk page about their possible conflict of interest on a specific article or topic.--Harald Forkbeard (talk) 17:07, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You've questioned, it's been answered. Provide some proof or move on. Kuru   (talk)  22:01, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

POV Check
User CorporateM has resumed disruptive editing of the article, without discussing it here on the talk page and without consensus. I will seek to have the article protected until consensus is reached by discussion here.--Harald Forkbeard (talk) 17:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Looking at this now. Kuru   (talk)  00:36, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This is presumably related to the 8 consecutive edits by CorporateM spanning 3/16@17:19 to 3/17@13:50. The first seven edits have the net effect of:
 * 1. Changing the logo to a PNG with a transparent background. This is trivial and non-controversial.
 * 2. Expansion of citations templates. This is trivial and non-controversial.
 * 3. Removal of an external link. This also seems trivial.
 * The last edit has the net effect of:
 * 4. Changing of the section title of "products and services" to "data services". This seems trivial.
 * 5. Removal of the unsourced sentence "Sageworks provides a software subscription..." which was tagged as needing a citation two weeks ago.
 * 6. Addition of a paragraph "Sageworks provides financial performance data..." sourced to some kind of whitepaper/study.
 * The only changes which could possibly cause heartburn are 5 and 6. If 5 is a problem, then a source should be proposed which supports the claim; preferably a 3rd party WP:RS.  If 6 is the problem, then you should clarify what the issue is. Do you not feel the source is WP:RS?  Do you feel that the source does not support the statements?  Do you feel the statements are synthesis/OR?  Do you feel the statements are undue weight or somehow promotional? I can dig into any of the above, but it would be helpful and less time consuming if you were to narrow down my analysis.  Kuru   (talk)  00:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Let me begin by saying that I have no horse in this race. I never heard of this company until a few hours ago. I have reviewed all the edits in the past four weeks, and this is my conclusion: has steadfastly worked to improve and protect the neutrality of the article., on the other hand, has repeatedly tried to skew the article to be negative toward the company, based on edit warring, primary sources about a pending lawsuit (really?), poor quality sources, synthesis and original research. CorporateM has been patient and professional, while Harald Forkbeard has repeatedly attacked CorporateM's ethics without any evidence whatsoever, using the fact that CorporateM is a paid editor on other articles as a cudgel against him. I think that Harald Forkbeard should abandon this campaign immediately. Cullen328   Let's discuss it  01:06, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * User CorporateM has refused to participate in consensus building on this page. He uses the very same reference that I have included initially. In my view, as well as other editors, Sageworks engages in questionable data collection and sale. This matter must be indicated in the article to provide a balanced presentation. --Harald Forkbeard (talk) 01:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * To be clear; you have no problems with the edits I outlined above? Your current concern is what is not in the article? Kuru   (talk)  01:50, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The issue is that change 6 conceals the fact that Sageworks fails to obtain consent from business owners to collect and sell the private company data. Here's why this is a problem:


 * 1. Private business owners protect their company data from disclosure.


 * 2. Sageworks gets around this by collecting this data from accountants. No explicit permission obtained from business owners.


 * 3. To shield itself, Sageworks puts an indemnity clause into their Terms of Use, in case the business owners find out and go after them for unauthorized data disclosure.


 * None of this is explained in the article. The reader is led to believe that data collection and sale is legit. It's not. --Harald Forkbeard (talk) 01:58, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Either furnish significant coverage of this matter in reliable, independent, secondary sources, or drop the matter and move on, . You do not get to decide what is and isn't "legit", and neither does any other Wikipedia editor. We summarize what the range of reliable sources say. No more, no less. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  02:05, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Here is a direct quote from the reference used by CorporateM and myself:


 * Sageworks obtains data not from the private firms themselves, which could raise selection concerns, but from a large number of accounting firms that feed data for all their unlisted corporate clients into Sageworks’ database.


 * See my points (1) - (3) made above. This tactic needs to be clearly stated in the article.--Harald Forkbeard (talk) 02:10, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing whatsoever negative stated or implied in that sentence, so there must be "zero" negative connotations even hinted at in this article, based on that sentence. Zero. Got it? Cullen328  Let's discuss it  02:16, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that Mr. Cullen's analysis is correct. You don't seem to have a factual objection to CorporateM's addition.  You have what appears to be an unrelated issue that you cannot supply reliable sources for, and seem to be your own synthesis or WP:OR. Unless there's some other angle here, I don't see any reason to revert.  Kuru   (talk)  02:17, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * (Edit conflicted 2X, not revised to respond to HF's or C's or K's last comments) Thanks and  and  and  for your attention to the article and this Talk page, including your responding to  (HF).  To K, C, V, and C, i think you should please give some slack to HF (and I don't mean to imply you haven't already), as HF is relatively new in Wikipedia and much of his Wikipedia experience so far is, unfortunately, with this problematic Sageworks article.  There has been a ton of COI and sock-puppet editing in the article and on this Talk page, that HF and Physitsky(sp?) had to deal with, so I am afraid HF's experience contributes to HF seeing problems of this type (reasonably so), and tending to see Wikipedia as a wp:BATTLEGROUND (which is to be avoided, but is understandable).


 * HF, really, this article, hence your experience to date, is pretty unusual and biases you to see nefarious-ness (is that a word? i mean "evil-doing") correctly when it was present but also incorrectly when it is not present. I hope/suggest that you could take a break here for a couple months, and go edit on other topics (business valuation, or completely different topics) where you'll probably have better experiences, and when you come back here you'll get a different perspective about K, C, V, and C's participation.  I've seen good work by, and/or interacted productively with, Cullen328 and CorporateM before (and also and  who I see you've contacted).  And I am quite sure none of these persons, including Kuru and VMS Mosaic, are associated with Sageworks or have any marketing contract to develop its article or anything like that.  In discussion above in some preceding section(s), you seemed to appreciate my "getting" what you were driving at, and I was and am sympathetic to your views about Sageworks' disclosures and use of data.  I think a suggestion in a section above, is reasonable, and all that can be done.  The comment was "Based on the bolded text above that is from a secondary source, something like the following could be used: "Sageworks' data is collected from accounting firms of private companies that feed their clients' financial information into Sageworks." or something like that. To specify that this behavior is bad conduct, we need a secondary source that specifically says so. CorporateM (Talk) 22:36, 5 March 2015 (UTC)"


 * It is neutral and yet significant, to say something like that in the article. Many business owners would be a bit alarmed to see that, as they and you and me would be alarmed... it does suggest there's a process going on that sweeps data to the Sageworks company.  Like we all should be alarmed at our personal data being swept along to the NSA and whomever.  HF, let's get that in, if it is not yet in, and take that as a win!  But further claims are not supported by any reliable sources, and this is an encyclopedia, and we really really cannot be going further than what sources say.


 * HF, I think I also get your concern with CorporateM's and others' editing in the article, and not "getting consensus on Talk page first", which you could see as problematic. I don't see problems that you do, and I am comfortable with CorporateM's edits, because I am familiar with CorporateM making such effort to clean up corporate articles elsewhere, and this is not different, and I am more used to a lot of editing going on this way, without contention, and also often/usually without discussion on the Talk page.  CorporateM has taken a good, strict line against puffery in articles and for deletion of articles about companies that are marginal or not notable.  CorporateM is a good guy in this.  I hope you can trust me enough to accept my trusting CorporateM and these other editors (while I did not trust the previous batch of editors who turned out to be sockpuppets and to have COI, and I reported them, and the socking was confirmed and stopped).  If you let go of this article for a while, and gain some more experience, I am really pretty confident you would come to see the others here as being productive, and not being enemies to fight, and Wikipedia being less of a battleground than it may currently appear. "Can't we all just get along" is  a cliche, but i'd like to call for that.  Chiefly by encouraging HF to back off a bit.  I hope this helps a little.  I'll post also at HF's Talk page. -- do  ncr  am  02:21, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Alright, why don't you write the stuff in, so theres's no clashes.


 * I am convinced that Sageworks are bent on their data collection and should be shown up.--Harald Forkbeard (talk) 02:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Okay, good, I'll take a try at that. But I have been away from this topic for a while and have to review what edits and discussion has gone on, and I want it to be neutral and acceptable, and I am done in, and I'll get to it tomorrow probably, not right now.  -- do  ncr  am  03:06, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Update: In several edits up to this version at 21:38, 19 March 2015, I took a shot at that. For now, I think it gets across, factually, the info that Sageworks collects data from accounting firms, and that those firms apparently give data of all of their clients.  It's left to the reader to infer anything further.


 * Maybe this is now longer and more detailed than was expected. But in these changes I also tried to develop why the Sagework' data is important for academic use (which is largely why I argued for "Keep" in the AFD).  I cited mostly from 2 papers by Asker, Farre-Menser, and Ljungqvist.  It was noted (by me) in the AFD that there are many more hits on Sageworks in Google scholar, but I haven't tried to expand to cover any other papers by these authors or by other authors. -- do  ncr  am  21:49, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Relative to this version of 23:18, 10 March 2015, a version in place after an HF revert, the current version contains all of the previously used sources (plus adds some academic ones), except for the reference to Sageworks' Terms of Use, Looking at that now, I actually see how a reference to it could possibly be useful to suggest how purchasers of data services might be using it in decision-making, and that users might sometimes be firms who give their data in, in order to get reports comparing their firm vs. comparable others in their industry (but probably not, it would involve too much inferring by me).  I don't think it would be justified to use the Terms of Use to emphasize, or even to report on the existence of, Sageworks' indemnity clause, or to report on its terms regarding its rights to re-use any customer's data.  We would need other sources commenting, else any coverage by us along those lines would be over-emphasizing those terms and implying negative views (else why would we be reporting on such low-level detail, in an encyclopedia article).  On the other hand, I feel comfortable reporting in some detail on the data collection, as the academic sources describe them and explain their importance.  So, done for now, open to hear others' comments. -- do  ncr  am  22:13, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks good. The Terms can be used for facts that don't require specialized knowledge per WP:PRIMARY, but you are correct about not being able to infer anything, which would be pure WP:OR. VMS Mosaic (talk) 22:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I looked through the sources to find out where and how the Terms of Use were used, but didn't see it in the references list. CorporateM (Talk) 23:16, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Right, the Terms of Use was previously used as a source, but I note (long-windedly) that it is not now used. Feel free, anyone, to state something useful from it in the text, and add it back in as a source. -- do  ncr  am  05:03, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Improving this article
Hello to anyone watching this page! It has been a couple of years since the last major discussion of the content of this article, and it has largely remained unchanged, with no new sourcing introduced and a few unsourced details creeping back in. On behalf of Sageworks, I'm working on researching to find good sources and see if I can offer some suggestions to improve the page, adding new information and bringing details up-to-date, as needed.

I'm aware individuals from Sageworks edited without disclosure in the past, created multiple accounts, and the accounts were rightly blocked for sockpuppetry; Sageworks understand why they're blocked and they appreciate what a serious transgression it was on their part. They do not intend to appeal the block and I agree with them on that. For my part, I will stick to discussing the article on Talk pages and will not edit this article directly. To my knowledge, and based on the company's assurances, I am the only editor here on Sageworks' behalf. My hope is that editors will be willing to review the suggestions I offer here and make updates to the article, if they are appropriate improvements. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 15:42, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Proposing updates for History
Hi again! This is my first request to update to this article on behalf of Sageworks as part of my work with Beutler Ink. As noted above: I'm aware individuals from Sageworks edited without disclosure in the past, created multiple accounts, and the accounts were rightly blocked for sockpuppetry. For my part, I will stick to discussing the article on Talk pages and will not edit this article directly. To my knowledge, and based on the company's assurances, I am the only editor here on Sageworks' behalf.

I prepared a full draft that updates the existing article in my user space so editors can see exactly what I'm going to be proposing for this article: User:16912_Rhiannon/Sageworks. You can also see the changes vs. the current article, in . To make it easier for reviewing editors to look carefully at what I've put together, I will propose these updates by section.

Starting with the History section: you'll see my draft retains as much from the current article as possible, but proposes several changes that I believe are improvements:
 * Changes section name from Corporate history to History consistent with other articles on Wikipedia
 * Adds detail on the founding of the company
 * Adds citations to currently unsourced details
 * Deletes the following sentence because the article now includes more updated figures from 2014: By 2009, it could share financial statement data from more than 95,000 firms for one or more financial statements dated 2001-2007, including three or more consecutive years of pre-2008 financial statement data for 32,204.
 * Adds detail on product launches
 * Minor tweaks to language throughout

My hope is that editors can review the suggestions I offer here and make updates to the article, if they are appropriate improvements. Again, I understand there were issues with Sageworks' editing of this article in the past, and with my guidance the company understands it should work via the community transparently, and following all relevant guidelines, which is why I'm here. If there's any feedback or questions, please let me know. Thanks in advance! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 20:46, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposing updates for History
Hi again! This is my first request to update to this article on behalf of Sageworks as part of my work with Beutler Ink. As noted in my first post on this Talk page: I'm aware individuals from Sageworks edited without disclosure in the past, created multiple accounts, and the accounts were rightly blocked for sockpuppetry. For my part, I will stick to discussing the article on Talk pages and will not edit this article directly. To my knowledge, and based on the company's assurances, I am the only editor here on Sageworks' behalf.

I prepared a full draft that updates the existing article in my user space so editors can see exactly what I'm going to be proposing for this article: User:16912_Rhiannon/Sageworks. You can also see the changes vs. the current article, in . To make it easier for reviewing editors to look carefully at what I've put together, I will propose these updates by section.

Starting with the History section: you'll see my draft retains as much from the current article as possible, but proposes several changes that I believe are improvements:
 * Changes section name from Corporate history to History consistent with other articles on Wikipedia
 * Adds detail on the founding of the company
 * Adds citations to currently unsourced details
 * Deletes the following sentence because the article now includes more updated figures from 2014: By 2009, it could share financial statement data from more than 95,000 firms for one or more financial statements dated 2001-2007, including three or more consecutive years of pre-2008 financial statement data for 32,204.
 * Adds detail on product launches
 * Minor tweaks to language throughout

My hope is that editors can review the suggestions I offer here and make updates to the article, if they are appropriate improvements. Again, I understand there were issues with Sageworks' editing of this article in the past, and with my guidance the company understands it should work via the community transparently, and following all relevant guidelines, which is why I'm here. If there's any feedback or questions, please let me know. Thanks in advance! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 19:57, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: I'm reposting this request, since the original post was archived after a month with no response. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk &middot; COI) 19:57, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The proposal isn't really an improvement. Stuff like the elaborate footnote citing the appendix of a primary source is not really what we do here. If there is some important change please let me know. Jytdog (talk) 01:20, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Jytdog, thanks for replying here. I'm a bit confused about your note "the elaborate footnote citing the appendix of a primary source". The sourcing for the proposed History update is primarily based on secondary sources and I just retained one instance of footnotes from the current article, since there had been discussion about it in the past. I'd be happy to look at removing. Can you clarify? As to whether the draft is an improvement, as I've noted above, there are several specific changes that this draft makes that I do feel are clear improvements (adding sourcing for unsourced content, making the section title consistent with company articles in general on Wikipedia, adding more detail around the founding of the company and its development over time).
 * As a whole, my full draft focuses on improving sourcing, and removing content without sourcing and that seems intended to push a negative view of Sageworks (ie. the large chunk of the Data section that refers to the company's Terms of Use). I know from reading through the archive that this was discussed on this page at length in the past, but it seems to have snuck in again and remained on the page. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk &middot; COI) 14:37, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * oh you are right i thought that was new. Jytdog (talk) 14:54, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for moving my draft into the live article. I note you made several tweaks to the History section, and everything looks the same as I proposed it in my full draft in user space. Please do let me know if you have any comments or concerns; given that there has been quite a lot of discussion on this page in the past, I'm happy to talk through any questions you may have. I appreciate you taking the time to review this request. Thanks! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk &middot; COI) 21:00, 17 November 2017 (UTC)