Talk:PCKeeper

User Reception

Added section on User Reception with references Tonyjkent (talk) 06:25, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Removal of User Reception Section by User:HughClark

User:HughClark - You deleted the entire section that has information that is critical of the product. Leaving only positive information makes this page an advertisement for the product. Please help improve this article by adhering to Wikipedia:NPOV. If you don't like what I wrote, please discuss it on the talk page Wikipedia:TP or improve the quality of the section with additional references. If you haven't done so already please read Wikipedia:PANDAS before deleting someone's section in its entirety. If there is not concenus on somethinng in an article, the correct practice is to ensure proper citations and discuss it on the talk page rather than deleting someone elses edit. Please consider the following sections from WP:NPOV which show the correct way (as opposed to deleting some else's edit) to deal with POV issues:

As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process. Remove material only where you have a good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage.'

Biased statements of opinion can be presented only with attribution. For instance, "John Doe is the best baseball player" expresses an opinion and cannot be asserted in Wikipedia as if it were a fact. It can be included as a factual statement about the opinion: "John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by baseball insiders such as Al Kaline and Joe Torre." Opinions must still be verifiable and appropriately cited.

Another approach is to specify or substantiate the statement, by giving those details that actually are factual. For example: "John Doe had the highest batting average in the major leagues from 2003 through 2006." People may still argue over whether he was the best baseball player. But they will not argue over this.

Avoid the temptation to rephrase biased or opinion statements with weasel words, for example, "Many people think John Doe is the best baseball player." But "Who?" and "How many?" are natural objections. An exception is a situation where a phrase such as "Most people think" can be supported by a reliable source, such as in the reporting of a survey of opinions within the group.

Here are my specific comments about your deletions.

• You deleted the citation http://www.bleepingcomputer.com/forums/t/497260/infected-pckeeper-googleyahoo-etc-redirecting/ [[diff]- I disagree with deleting it for the reason "untrusted forum" - that's just an assertion. Untrusted by which authority? I feel the trustworthiness of sources should be discussed before you delete something out of hand. However, I agree its not really about PCKeeper so I think the citation should be removed. I will see if I can find some additional references.

Havedn't heard back from Hugh. Rolled back deletion. Tonyjkent (talk) 03:59, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

• You deleted the information about lawsuit on the Mac version of PCKeeper >[[edit]] saying its not relevent. Deleteing the section is not the correct say to revolve a disagreeent about whether its relevent. Please see Wikipedia:DR. I feel it is relevant because this is highly relevant to the malware allegations, abiet the Mac version of the product. This section should be restored while it is being discussed. I suggest changing "maker of PCKeeper" to "prior owner of PCKeepr, Zeobit" . What do you think?.

Haven't heard anything so I reverted the section. I did add that PCKeeper users complain of the same issue as the MacKeeper complaint so this makes the MacKeeper litigation more relevent. Tonyjkent (talk) 03:59, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

• You deleted the external link on how to remove PC Keeper >[[edit]] The reason given was "removed the link, promoting third-party software SpyHunter at the expense of PCKeeper"There is nothing wrong in mentioning competing products in an article about a product (unless you want the article to be an advertisement). The name of the other product was only mentioned in the citation, let alone the body of the article. This content should be reinstated. The citation supports the content. Wikipedia articles should not be able getting one product promoted better than another. The purpose of this article is to not to "promote" PC Keeper. User:HughClark You are not the owner of this page WP:OWN and you should not use it to promote the PC Keeper product WP:PROMOTE

Haven't heard any from Hugh. Rolled back the deletion. Tonyjkent (talk) 03:59, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

• You deleted the reference to Rogue Security Software. " style="text-decoration: none; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 19.7119998931885px; white-space: pre-wrap; background: none rgb(255, 255, 255);">[[edit]] Just search the internet for PC Keeper Virus or PCKeeper Malware. There's plenty of references. YOur reason was "Removed the link, promoting third-party software" This isnt about promoting one product more or less than PC Keeper. This is about providing references for the claim that people find the software has a negative affect on thier computer and they can't get rid of it. See my comment about the previous edit. The purpose of this page is not to promote . I feel you have infringed on [WP:NPOV] with this edit and the previous one. Since this page is not a promotation for PCKeeper, there's no problem with mentioning competing products if they are in the context of how to remove PCKeeper. This content should be reinstated. The citation supports the content.

Haven't heard anything so I rolled back the deletion and added added additional references.

• > [[edit]] - You deleted the block because "Removed the block, promoting third-party software SpyHunter." Citation to content that mentions another product is not promoting that product. THe goal of this article is not to promote PCKeeper above other products. Again, you deletion infringes on WP:NPOV This content should be reinstated. The citation supports the content.

Haven't heard back from Hugh. Rolled back deletion. This block would benefit from additional clarity as to the specific problems users encounter. eg. It was installed unintentionally by the user, or without the user knowing, browser redirects to adds to PCKeeper, popup adds for PC Keeper that the user can't get rid of. . these can be found by searching for pckeeper popup, pckeeper remove etcTonyjkent (talk) 03:59, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Overall it seems you deleted this entire section mostly because the citations include mentions of other products. In one of the edit reasons You mentioned "PCKeeper can be uninstalled with internal Uninstall service or general "Uninstall a Program" Windows utility." Clearly this is not everyone's experience. It you want to add that information to the article, with independent sources - (not just assertions from Kromtech) . User:HughClark can I politely ask if you have any association with Kromtech? I ask because I think there are a lot of WP:NPOV issues with your deletions of any critical information about the product. I disagree with all but the first of the above deletions. I'll wait for your input on the talk page before rolling back your deletions.

Tonyjkent (talk) 01:16, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Here's a good youtube video that summarizes the malware problem with PCKeeper and steps for removing it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4sDztgdHkU Tonyjkent (talk) 01:45, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

User:HughClark - the citation link to the 4.5 goldstar is invalid. On another citation it shows zero stars so the body of the article probably needs correction. Tonyjkent (talk) 05:22, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Moved the User Reception section above Social campaignes. User perceptions of this product as malware or adware is more important than Social Campaign / Partnerships. (Partnerships be moved to Krometech page, not PCKeeper anyway - the software doesn't have these partnerships, the companies do).

Adrian Cohea (talk) 19:09, 15 March 2015 (UTC) I got the following redirect this morning:

http://app.pckeeper.com/land/9.201/index.php?affid=mzb_199.34286595.1426438475.2.mzb&userDefiner=mzb_2358&trt=33_1089037&tid_ext=wV6QN3KRUC62MOQIGITHSODS

The web page served by this link looks illegitimate. First, there is a EULA box with no real EULA in it. Second, if I follow the links to the corporate website instead of downloading their binary (for example Privacy Policy), I get to a page that has glaring grammar errors stereotypical of malware writers for whom English is a second language. This language comes directly from the Privacy Policy: "We, Kromtech Alliance Corp. (the "Company"), are aware about privacy issues that occur during the usage of products, services and websites. Therefore we strictly follow the all data protection procedures regarding the full security of your personal information." In English, we're aware OF, not ABOUT issues. We also don't follow "the all...procedures" of anything. Third, their privacy policy states things that are suspect, like asserting that you accept the privacy policy merely by visiting the PCKeeper website, rather than by downloading and installing their software.

"Malware" in the infobox

Without a reliable source that classifies PCKeeper specifically as "malware", we can't put that in the infobox. The only reliable source in the article claims that the software "identifies problems that don't exist and fails to live up to its promises", which doesn't make it malware. The other sites added by User:Tonyjkent are the very definition of unreliable sources, ranging from random youtube videos and web forums to what I call "copy and paste sites" that contain pages on how to remove just about any program with the same generic instructions. Before we make potentially libelous claims, we're going to need to cite an acknowledged authority on malware (mcafee, Symantec, Kaspersky, malwarebytes, AVG, Microsoft, etc.), not a random spammy-looking website. The fact that a reliable source like ZDNet calls it "anti-malware" software[1] carries significant weight. Controversial statements must be backed up with reliable sources, not just sources "specifically chosen to support the assertion". --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree some of these references are not high quality. AhechtI don't know what you mean when you say the reference is 'random'. Take the source: http://www.2-viruses.com/remove-pckeeper#comment-1970577 . WHat is spammy and random about this? I installed PC Keeper on a VM and verified http://www.2-viruses.com/remove-pckeeper#comment-1970577 claims that "Its scan does not show enough easy accessible details about items detection. It detects errors on clean Windows installations and shows exaggerated warnings about their severity". What is spammy and random about http://www.2-spyware.com/remove-pckeeper.html ?  : If you feel strongly about the referneces for http://www.safebro.com/pckeeper-virus-remove , http://removirus.com/2014/06/how-to-remove-pckeeper-uninstall-instructions/, http://www.repair-errors.com/pckeeper-removal-the-easy-way-to-remove-pckeeper-from-your-pc/ they could be removed as they are lower quality than the others. Tonyjkent (talk) 19:26, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

It's not clear to me what is objectively "random" or spammy about some of the references Ahecht tagged as unreliable. What I propose is to remove the unreliable tag from http://www.2-viruses.com/remove-pckeeper#comment-1970577 , http://www.2-spyware.com/remove-pckeeper.html and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4sDztgdHkU and leave the unrealiable tag on the others. IMO the other sources have some truth mixed in with hyperpole. Tonyjkent (talk) 20:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Tonyjkent I guess "content farm" might've been more accurate than spammy, but those sites have no editorial policy posted or do not have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" as specified in Reliable sources. By random, I was referring to the video by a random youtuber, meaning random in the sense of an everyday person who does not have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (it might not have been the best choice of words). As I said before, reliable sources for malware are sites like McAffee, Symantec, Kaspersky, AVG, or any site considered reliable for computer topics in general such as ZDNet, Engadget, TomsHardware, CultofMac, etc. (and speaking of which, here is an article about the related "MacKeeper" program that could be considered reliable: http://www.cultofmac.com/170522/is-mackeeper-really-a-scam/ ). --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:48, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I could make a you tube video of a installing PC Keeper on a clean version of windows 7 to provide a primary source to provide better verification of the claims "It's scan does not show enough easy accessible details about items detection. It detects errors on clean Windows installations and shows exaggerated warnings about their severity". I did my own research on this. What is is right way to present it on Wikipedia? Tonyjkent (talk) 19:26, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

But the point is that you are not a reliable source, you are a self published source and Wikipedia should not be hosting how-to guides. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:48, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree ZNet article carries some weight. It get a little confusing here because there are two PCKeeper products (PC Keeper Antivirus and PC Keeper Live) collectively called PCKeeper. The Znet article refers to the PC Keeper Antivirus software which gets good ratings from a number of sources and I think it could be classified as anti virus software. The other product "PC Keeper Live", is the one I think that has the reported problems. It's hard to tell sometimes because either program is sometimes just called "PC Keeper" . I think the best thing is to leave out the the software type item in the infobox like you did. Tonyjkent (talk) 17:16, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Advertisement, NPOV, Reliable Sources

I like the addition of the unreliable sources tag. I think the Advert and POV issues can now be removed. We now have now havee balanced article, albeit with some unreliable sources. What do you think Ahecht?

-- Tonyjkent (talk) 17:16, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and remove the advert tag. That was back from an old revision of this page that was much more promotional than it now reads. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:25, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I found some better sources so I'll try to improve the user and critical reception section. Also, to improve clarity, some information can be placed under the respective product. Tonyjkent (talk) 01:10, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I think this is like an advert too much, also i question their claims on microsoft certified partner etc. I suggest an independent source is used, or else i will edit this out.

This program seems to be very much like scamware, i work in IT and am removing it off a computer as i speak --Nzoomed (talk) 22:59, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

@NZoomed: The claims on Microsoft certified partner were moved to another article a while back. There was a RS for the claim (Microsoft Partner Network) but the claim belonged on the Kromteh / Essentware article. Which specific statements are you proposing to remove? Tonyjkent (talk) 01:34, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Partnerships

The partnerships with Intel, Microsoft and Google are partnerships between Krometech and these companies. They are not specifically about the PCKeeper product. I think these should be moved to the Kromtech page. Tonyjkent (talk) 20:56, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

PC Keeper editing this article again to remove critical information

PC Keeper is at it again. They are using deleted accounts to promote disinformation about their product e.g. user Oneseeking vandalized the article by stating 'MacKeeper products are in no way related to the PCKeeper products' This is false. They are both developed in Latvia by Kromtech. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonyjkent (talk • contribs) 16:22, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

hoax

This is known scareware and this article is essentially a hoax with references that are invalid or paid reviews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.205.170.51 (talk) 16:48, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

AV claims

I propose removing the sentence " It scored a 99.2% total detection rate and was listed among the top antivirus software packages by AV Comparatives.[16][not in citation given]" since this claim is not supported by the citation. Tonyjkent (talk) 05:13, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

where is the company based?

@OliveLake: I question whether the real location of Essentware is in Bratislava. Previously that said their office was in Germany but there was no evidence of any presence in Germany. Same with Bratislava - the only source is the company's website but all the people appear to work in Ukraine and the registered office is in Panama. I think secondary sources are needed here. Tonyjkent (talk) 22:05, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

is it really utility software

@OliveLake: There is some controversy over whether this product is truly usefull and/or designed to scare you into paying money to fix problems. For example, when you install this product on a fresh & clean installation of Windows 8, it says you have critical issues. When I got live help, they told me I would have to pay to fix these problems. Hence I question whether its appropriate to remove "advertised as" from the opening sentence - "PCKeeper is advertised as an optimization services package featuring a set of software utilities for Windows OS owned by Essentware S.A ".Tonyjkent (talk) 22:05, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

@OliveLake: also the claim you added "PCKeeper technicians are Microsoft Certified specialists." seems like just promotional statements from their website. Are there any non-primary sources for claim? Otherwise I think it should be removed as not a reliable source.