Talk:Brian Krzanich

pronunciation?
Can we get a pronunciation guide for the surname? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:13, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Undue weight
The "Controversies" section is too much. First, it's singular -- controversy; only one event is referred to. Second, what is being discussed is the kind of mundane goings on every big-firm CEO deals with all the time. But third, and most important, we don't get to decide that what is being referred to constitutes a Controversy. So that in itself -- the assertion that it is controversial, to the extent that it be named "a controversy" -- would need a WP:RS. What might work is reducing the current section to a single statement, but adding a new one about the recent announcement about Fab 42?

Also, that last sentence in the lead, about attending hackathons and Best Buys. Really? I mean, who cares? That can go, surely?

I've tagged Controversies for WP:WEIGHT. Any thoughts before I hack it a bit? 2605:6000:F369:D000:6C98:6814:8DD1:FD (talk) 21:20, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

New draft for this article
✅ - I saw your note on ANI, which brought me here. I merged your proposed content, with two exceptions. I found a better source for his executive compensation and included that in the infobox, since that is noteworthy, and also put the controversies in a political activity section, per WP:CRIT, since the canceled fundraiser was actually a big deal. I remember reading about it last year. Also, FWIW, the IP user below seems to be violating WP:LEGAL by threatening you with EU legal repercussions. Others following me here can decide where to go with this. TimTempleton (talk) (cont)  23:17, 12 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I have reverted your BOLD edits done on behalf of WWB_Too. Let us discuss this and cooperate to improve this article. EU residents are also Wikipedia users so please also comply with our legal requirements so that we can edit this article in the same way we comply with your requirements (I presume you are an American). 101.57.250.211 (talk) 01:56, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello, all. On behalf of Mr. Krzanich, I have drafted an expanded and updated article for consideration, which I've saved here: User:WWB Too/Brian Krzanich. The current article is just over 3 paragraphs long, and includes some inappropriate sourcing, including a press release, a company website, and Salary.com. With my new draft, I have developed an article that fits in line with other biographical Wikipedia articles about corporate executives. The draft provides overviews of Mr. Krzanich's early life and education, career at Intel, board service, and personal life. Mr. Krzanich has confirmed the accuracy of this draft, and I've worked to make content neutral and given due weight according to reliable secondary sourcing.

An important disclosure: As I stated above, I am working on behalf of Mr. Krzanich through my work with Beutler Ink. I will not edit this article directly and am seeking other editors' input and assistance in updating this article. I am willing to go through this draft section-by-section or in its entirety, depending on what others prefer. I'm also open to any feedback about article content or my process here. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 16:13, 11 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I am very interested in co-editing this article since it overlaps my personal interests, but first let me understand the situation correctly for its legal and jurisdictional issues considering that Intel is a global MNC. Intel has hired Nine Communications who have hired Beutler Inc who have hired WWB_Too to alter this article in specific ways different from the present volunteer written one. Why ? Considering this is Intel what are the payments and instructions involved at each stage ? Since you have graciously accepted disclosing your process, can you share the relevant contracts (especially those between Intel and Nine Comm.) so that we can understand them before acting for you. 101.60.253.221 (talk) 05:31, 12 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello IP 101, I see you've decided to follow me from Talk:Robert A. Mandell. I have made the required disclosures according to WP:PAID, as always. Why this project: the current article is a very poor biography, with nearly half its content devoted to a single controversy of no lasting relevance. I look forward to working with established editors to improve this article. WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 13:49, 12 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Since WP:PAID is not a community approved alternative paid editing policy under ToU, it only supplements the Terms of use and WMF legal's clarifications. Mr.Krzanich is a hugely controversial individual so I disagree with much of your version and oppose its inclusion to replace the existing volunteer written content. I am again asking you to disclose all contracts in the chain between Mr. Krzanich and you as required under EU law where I ordinarily reside. I also notice that your own computer servers are in the Netherlands. Or do you suggest that only US residents edit this article to insert Mr. Krzanich's preferred version ? 101.60.149.250 (talk) 14:24, 12 October 2017 (UTC)


 * WP:PAID is a policy that incorporates the ToU, and I'm in full compliance with both. I also have no servers in the Netherlends, not that you would know if I did. Meanwhile, for anyone else coming across this thread: it's been brought to my attention that someone has posted about this request to Reddit's WikiInAction board (which includes other falsehoods directed my way) and so it seems there is an attempt under way to disrupt this process. WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 14:47, 12 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Oh, but I can assure you that I have impeccable evidence your computer servers are in the Netherlands. WP:PAID is irrelevant because it is not an alternative paid editing policy to replace the ToU. How have you complied with the ToU's requirements for full paid editing disclosure to EU residents like myself about Intel's CEO ? I use several Intel products, I am an Intel shareholder and I have consumer rights to be fully informed. Frankly, I doubt very much that you have been engaged by Intel, directly or indirectly. So either you disclose your alleged contracts or stop making such claims ie. WP:PROVEIT. 101.56.56.69 (talk) 16:58, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey, can you tell me where my server is? I haven't seen it in years. I reverted you since I don't rightly understand your objection--sorry, I never went to law school. See my edit summaries. WWB Too, do I get a cut now? or at least a week in the condo on the Gulf Coast? Drmies (talk) 02:18, 13 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Alas,, I only pay in barnstars. But after this mess, a few editors are certainly up for some commendations. :) 14:20, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you both again for copying over the proposed draft. Just one more request, if possible: Can we change "The fundraiser was widely seen..." to "The event was widely seen...", since Krzanich has said that it was not intended to be a fundraiser? Also, I don't think the line break after "semiconductor industry", in the same section, is necessary, since the content is directly related to the above paragraph. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 18:58, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You don't need us to make copy edits--or, really, other edits. Drmies (talk) 20:02, 13 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your position,, though I really do avoid making any direct edits to live articles. I follow Jimmy's "bright line" advice to avoid editing as a COI contributor strictly... not that it is a 100% guarantee against getting yelled at, as the last 48 hours has shown. But I realize the annoyance these tiny follow-up questions can be; no problem if you'd prefer not, I just felt I should ask. WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 21:49, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

WP:COITALK
Before being drawn into long exchanges with paid editors, volunteers should be aware that paid editors may be submitting evidence of their talk-page posts to justify their salaries or fees. No editor should be expected to engage in long or repetitive discussions with someone who is being paid to argue with them.
 * I'm not sure who you are, which makes it hard to get into a discussion with you... Drmies (talk) 17:06, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Continued IP reverts
Over the weekend, this article was reverted by a different IP address (albeit one also located in India). Would one of you restore the longer draft, and is it time to consider semi-protection? 14:07, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Just saw the reversion - for some reason didn't get your ping. I changed it back. I'll put this on my watch list and monitor for vandalism. I'm not sure that we're at the point yet where semi-protection would be approved. TimTempleton (talk) (cont)  21:55, 17 October 2017 (UTC)


 * OK, and, this might interest you too. I have reverted back: this IP nonsense is too much, and I am going to throw around blocks and semi-protection. Regardless of the current quality of the article, this amount of disruption is ridiculous. In addition, that Lawyer account, newly created for this discussion, is NOT HERE to improve the project, and don't be surprised if you'll find a CU block template on their user page soon. Any editor of good faith is welcome to discuss and edit and revert, but not these trolls. Drmies (talk) 21:38, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm not sure what I did wrong: my intent was to remove the 4 edits make by the IP, but clearly I did something untoward - I bow to your judgment on this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:42, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Basically the reverts went back to this one--check the history, and you'll see these IP trolls take issue with the version that Templeton and I looked at. You'll see also that I pruned it some, taking out a few things that weren't neutral enough for my taste. Now, I will be more than happy to let you have a go at the article: you I have faith in. Thanks BMK, Drmies (talk) 21:53, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Proposing new infobox image
On behalf of Intel and Mr. Krzanich, I have uploaded an image to Wikimedia Commons and suggest it replace the existing photo in this article's infobox: File:Brian_Krzanich.jpg (currently in the OTRS permissions queue). It's a more recent image, and doesn't cast a partial shadow over his face. As noted before, I prefer not to edit the article directly given my financial COI, but I'm hoping another editor can add the image on my behalf. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 17:36, 23 October 2017 (UTC) ✅****** File permissions have been approved by OTRS. One of you willing to replace the photo? I would, but I follow Jimbo's "don't edit articles if you have a financial COI" strictly. Sorry for the bother. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 18:46, 27 October 2017 (UTC) TimTempleton (talk) (cont)  18:53, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * courtesy pings before I review this ER.   Dr Strauss   talk   21:56, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * User:DrStrauss, I haven't gotten paid yet for those first edits, so I'll be happy to let you decide. (Reddit: this was an attempt at humor.) WWB, as much as I enjoyed working ("working") on the article the first time, I am not so involved or interested that I am going to have an opinion about an image. Maybe does. Drmies (talk) 22:00, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That's a better photo - if you've got permission then add away. TimTempleton (talk) (cont)  23:03, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's a better photo. Add with permission - as long as Intel understands that the image can now be used by anyone under the proper license.  Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:39, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree with above. So long as permissions check out, this new image should be the infobox picture. The current one makes him look sleepy. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:46, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected
I’ve semi-protected the talk page as the IP from India is IP hopping and evading blocks to post his comments here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:37, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Need it again. Raymond3023 (talk) 11:12, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-accurate
Regarding this reversion the source (SemiAccurate) seems ok to me for that info. The article quoted is a viewpoint interpreting observed facts about BK's departure, i.e. expressing opinions rather than making factual allegations about BK that haven't been reported elsewhere, and it's from a widely read industry publication. Also, the article was written by the site's founder (it wasn't something that came in over the transom), if that matters.

It seems to me that the interpretation is significant under NPOV and should be included, in the article about Intel if not here. It also (as I see it) doesn't say anything bad about Krzanich: if anything, it makes him look better. It was already very widely known that Intel's 10nm process was delayed multiple times and that yields were bad. That's a logical reason to change CEO's. The reason they gave (BK's involvement with another Intel staffer) makes it sound like something seriously ugly (even if consensual) was going on. If it was a reasonably normal relationship then well, that's how Bill and Melinda Gates met, and not something to flip out about. BK comes off better being fired for normal business reasons than over some lurking potential scandal left to the imagination.

So I support restoring the edit. Comments? 173.228.123.166 (talk) 09:13, 18 July 2018 (UTC)