Talk:Cloudflare/Archives/2021

How to add search of archives to Talk page?
❌ Nevermind! I didn't see the gray box on the side of the page. How can we get a "search archives" box at the top of the page? Usually when " " is at the top of the page, you get a search box for archives that take the format "/Archive 1". However, there is no search box on this archive page? Is that perhaps because the Cluebot is archiving them to "Talk:Cloudflare/Archives/2020"? Is there another way to add an archive search box? - Dyork (talk) 01:45, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , there's already a smaller gray-colored archive search box on the right-hand side of this page, right underneath all of the talk page banners. Is that what you're looking for? DanCherek (talk) 03:20, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * - Fascinating.. I completely missed that one being there! I was so fixated on looking for the archive search in the main header boxes. Thanks for pointing this out. That is fine. - Dyork (talk) 01:44, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Request Edits February 2021
Hello. I’d like to propose the following changes to help improve the neutrality and sourcing in this article. I’m an employee of Cloudflare and I have a conflict of interest so it would be great if an independent editor could review them. Thanks for your consideration.


 * Thank you for following good WP:COI practices. I don't have time today to make more than one change I did, but I will take a look another day. (And hopefully some other editors look in the meantime, too.) - Dyork (talk) 02:02, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

1.In the lead, please replace the first three sentences: Cloudflare, Inc. is an American web infrastructure and website security company, providing content delivery network services, DDoS mitigation, Internet security, and distributed domain name server services. Cloudflare's services sit between a website's visitor and the Cloudflare user's hosting provider, acting as a reverse proxy for websites. Cloudflare's headquarters are in San Francisco.

WITH:

Cloudflare, Inc. is an American web infrastructure and website security company that provides content delivery network services, DDoS mitigation, Internet security, and distributed domain name server services. Cloudflare's services sit between a website's visitor and the Cloudflare user's hosting provider, acting as a reverse proxy for websites. Cloudflare's headquarters are in San Francisco.


 * Explanation: The language is virtually identical (corrects one grammar mistake), but updates the lead to include missing reliable sources. There are currently no sources in the lead.


 * ✅: Replaced lead with your version. Itsquietuptown   t • c 10:07, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

2. In the History section, please replace the first sentence: Cloudflare was created in 2009 by Matthew Prince, Lee Holloway, and Michelle Zatlyn.

WITH:

Cloudflare was created in 2009 by Matthew Prince, Lee Holloway, and Michelle Zatlyn, all three of whom previously worked on Project Honey Pot, an open-source project that monitored internet fraud and abuse. Cloudflare was launched at the TechCrunch Disrupt conference in September 2010.


 * Explanation: Replaces primary sources with secondary sources, and adds background details about co-founders’ history and company launch date, commensurate with articles about similar, large technology companies in the space such Amazon Web Services (B-Class article). Also in line with Wikipedia Good Article best practices for company articles such as Comverse Technology.
 * ✅: did this. Boredathome101 (talk) 02:23, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

3. In the second paragraph of the History section, after this sentence: “Cloudflare has also reportedly absorbed attacks that have peaked over 400Gbit/s from an NTP Reflection attack. ”

PLEASE ADD:

In June 2020, Cloudflare mitigated a DDoS attack that peaked at 754 million packets per second. As of 2020, Cloudflare provides DNS services to over 100,000 customers, covering more than 25 million internet properties.


 * Explanation: Updates the article with one of the largest DDoS attacks ever handled by the company, and a reliable source to support the sentence. Adds information regarding scope of Cloudflare’s service base with supporting reliable news sources, commensurate with articles about similar, large technology companies such as Amazon Web Services (B-class). Also in line with Wikipedia Good Article best practices for company articles that discuss the size/scope of the business such as Pixar and Yelp.


 * ✅: did this. Boredathome101 (talk) 02:27, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

4. In the History section, please replace the first sentence in the third paragraph: “In 2014, Cloudflare introduced an effort called Project Galileo in response to cyberattacks against vulnerable online targets, such as artists, activists, journalists, and human rights groups. Project Galileo provides such groups with free services to protect their websites. In 2019, Cloudflare announced that 600 users and organizations were participating in the project. ”

WITH:

In 2014, Cloudflare launched Project Galileo, an initiative providing free services to protect artists, activists, journalists, and human rights groups from cyber attacks. More than 1,000 users and organizations were participating in Project Galileo as of 2020.
 * Explanation: Rewrites paragraph for clarity and grammar, and updates participant number for Project Galileo. Adds reliable sourcing to each statement.


 * ✅: did this. Boredathome101 (talk) 04:08, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

5. In the History section, after the third paragraph that starts “In 2014, Cloudflare introduced an effort called Project Galileo…”

PLEASE ADD A NEW FOURTH PARAGRAPH:

Cloudflare created the Athenian Project in 2017 to ensure free protection of online election infrastructures to local and state governments, as well as domestic and foreign political campaigns.
 * Explanation: Updates History section to include a notable event in the company’s history supported by prominent reliable sources such as CNBC and Fast Company.


 * ✅: Added but the location had to be a bit higher up to keep chronological order. Boredathome101 (talk) 04:11, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

6. In the History section, please replace the last paragraph: In 2020, co-founder and COO Michelle Zatlyn was named president, making her one of few women serving as President of a publicly traded technology company in the United States.

WITH:

In 2020, co-founder and COO Michelle Zatlyn was named president of Cloudflare, making her one of few women leading a publicly traded technology company in the United States.


 * Explanation: Slightly rewrites the sentence for clarity, and eliminates repetition of the Fast Company source.


 * ✅ - Adjusted the sentence to remove the redundant source. Did not add "of Cloudflare" as that seems redundant since this is the Cloudflare article. - Dyork (talk) 02:02, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

7. In the History section, as the new last paragraph, please add:


 * In January 2021, the company established the Project Fair Shot initiative, a free tool that enables global health organizations to maintain a digital queue for COVID-19 vaccinations.


 * Explanation:: Updates article with the most recent company news, with supporting reliable source.
 * ✅: did this. Boredathome101 (talk) 04:14, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

8. Move the Acquisitions section to be after the History section:
 * Eager Platform Co. (December 2016)
 * Neumob (November 2017)
 * S2 Systems (January 2020)
 * Linc (December 2020)

AND REPLACE THE CONTENT WITH:

Cloudflare acquired StopTheHacker, an anti-malware firm, in 2014. In December 2016, Cloudflare acquired Eager Platform, a company that created a platform for drag-and-drop installation of apps. The company acquired mobile VPN startup Neumob in 2017. In 2020, Cloudflare acquired S2, a company that develops browser isolation technology, and Linc, an automation platform.
 * Explanation: Detailing major acquisitions in the History section with a separate date and description for each is a standard practice on similar large technology companies such as Juniper Networks. Adds missing StopTheHacker acquisition. Replaces press releases with reliable sourcing such as  San Francisco Business Times, The Wall Street Journal and VentureBeat.


 * ✅: but partially. Moved it up, used teh better sources, but left in bullet point list...much better that way. It would be be issue if the list of acquisitions grows, so it's much easily readable this way. Boredathome101 (talk) 04:22, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your consideration.Ryanknight24 (talk) 18:37, 12 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for beginning the review of my Feb 2021 Requested Edits for Cloudflare at Talk:Cloudflare. As there are still a number of unreviewed requests, I’d like to see if you might have time to take another look.

Thank you! Ryanknight24 (talk) 01:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

The following Request Edits have not yet been reviewed #2, #3, #4, #5, #7, #8, as of April 5, 2021. Thank you. Ryanknight24 (talk) 02:08, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Request Edits May 2021
Hello. I’d like to propose the following changes to help improve the neutrality and sourcing in this article. I’m an employee of Cloudflare and I have a conflict of interest so it would be great if an independent editor could review them, as explained on the Contact Us page for WIkipedia. Thanks for your consideration.

1. At the bottom of the “Products” section, after the “Pages” subsection.

PLEASE ADD A NEW SUB-SECTION.

--- VPNs The company offers a VPN called “WARP” that it says is for non-technical users. But unlike a standard VPN, the user does not get to choose their endpoint region. An ISP can’t monitor traffic that goes through the VPN. The WARP VPN cannot be used to access geo-restricted content.

Explanation: This product has been covered in mainstream media outlets because it’s a popular consumer product.
 * COMMENT Adding a product might be too promotional, unless it has massive news coverage. If you can share maybe 5 more news sources about it, then I may review and reconsider. I will also let others to chime in. Boredathome101 (talk)
 * ❌: Long overdue, but this part is denied because it is not necessary and would only bloat the article. Quetstar (talk) 02:33, 10 August 2021 (UTC)


 * and I’m not sure whether you saw that at the bottom of this section I found seven additional sources in response to Boredathome101’s comment about finding more media. Here are the new one: Techcrunch, Techworm, Slashgear, Cult of Mac . Fossbytes, Fast Company, SunStar  And these were the original two: Wired and TechRadar. This is a major new product for the company.

In light of that, I wanted to see if that changes the analysis here. Thank you. Ryanknight24 (talk) 18:38, 28 September 2021 (UTC)


 * @Ryanknight24 For me, this changes nothing. Quetstar (talk) 20:49, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

--- 2. In the Products section, subsection DDoS, please delete the second paragraph: On September 6, 2019, Wikipedia became the victim of a DDoS attack. European users were unable to access Wikipedia for several hours. The attack was mitigated after Wikimedia network engineers used Cloudflare's network and DDoS protection services to re-route and filter internet traffic. The specific Cloudflare product used was Magic Transit.

AND MOVE TO THE SECOND TO FINAL PARAGRAPH OF THE HISTORY SECTION, WHERE IT BELONGS.

Explanation: This info is not a description of the product so belongs in History, not the Product /DDoS section. It also replaces two primary sources with reliable secondary sources and removes the sentence with only a primary source (Cloudflare blog). --- 3. Under “Products”, in the “Workers” subsection, at the end of the first sentence: In 2017 Cloudflare launched Cloudflare Workers….”.
 * ✅: this part is done. Boredathome101 (talk) 19:48, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

ADD A REFERENCE TO THE SAME SENTENCE:

In 2017 Cloudflare launched Cloudflare Workers, a serverless computing platform that allows one to create entirely new applications or augment existing ones without configuring or maintaining infrastructure. Since then, the product has expanded to include Workers KV, a low-latency key-value data store, Cron Triggers for scheduling cron jobs, and additional tooling for developers to deploy and scale their code across the globe.

Explanation: Sentence is identical but added a reliable source. Currently has no source.

--- 4. Under “Product” in the “Pages” subsection:
 * ✅: However, do you have additional sources that you can provide. We should make sure this is a popular product. Boredathome101 (talk) 19:53, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

ADD

The following reference to the end of the paragraph:

The product is a Jamstack platform for front end developers to collaborate and deploy websites on Cloudflare's infrastructure of 200+ data centers worldwide.

Explanation: The sentences in question didn’t have a reference. Adds reliable source. --- 5. In the Security and Privacy Issues section, please move the entire third paragraph,
 * ✅:  complete.Boredathome101 (talk) 19:56, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Cloudflare is cited in reports by The Spamhaus Project, an international spam tracking organization, due to high numbers of cybercriminal botnet operations 'hosted' on Cloudflare services. An October 2015 report found that Cloudflare provisioned 40% of SSL certificates used by phishing sites with deceptive domain names resembling those of banks and payment processors.

TO THE HISTORY SECTION after the paragraph starting with “Cloudflare is cited in reports…” and ending with “... resembling those of banks and payment processors.” Explanation: This will put the events noted in the Security and privacy issues section in chronological order.

❌. It's quite reasonable to lump the SSL certificate issuance with a section regarding security issues. It seems to be better placed here in that section than in the history section. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:10, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

--- 6. In the Security and Privacy Issues section, in the paragraph starting “In May 2017, ProPublica….”,

AFTER the first sentence, please ADD:

Since early 2015, the disclaimer on Cloudflare’s complaint form stated that they “will notify the site owner”.

THEN, AFTER THIS EXISTING SENTENCE IN THE SAME PARAGRAPH: “Cloudflare's general counsel defended the company's policies by saying it is "base constitutional law that people can face their accusers". ”

Please ADD:

Kramer said some of those “attacking Cloudflare’s customers had their own questionable motives.”

ProPublica itself notes that the disclaimer exists in the same sentence that it says most people didn't know the info would be passed on, so it seems WP:DUE to include the content. The CNET source really doesn't do any original reporting, so it doesn't add much weight on its own, but it also support. I don't think the questionable motives is WP:DUE; it's super vague and it doesn't add much of value here. The syndicated source published in SCMP also contains advice from the CEO that I have added. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:10, 16 June 2021 (UTC) --- ADDITIONALLY, AFTER THIS SENTENCE: “In response to the report, Cloudflare updated their abuse reporting process to provide greater control over who is notified of the complaining party. ”

Please ADD:

Specifically, the complaint form now allows individuals to let Cloudflare know if they do not want their information shared.

Explanation: The additional information, most from the ProPublica article, helps to better explain Cloudflare’s position, as per WP: VALID. It’s a different point of view on what happened documented in the same source. The last sentence provides significant additional information to understand the resolution of this contentious issue.

❌. I don't understand the application of WP:VALID here; there doesn't appear to be a weight concern that the suggested sentence would reasonably fix. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:10, 16 June 2021 (UTC) --- 7. In the Security and Privacy Issues section, fifth paragraph, please DELETE: On March 9, 2021, Tillie Kottmann from the hacking collective "Advanced Persistent Threat 69420" revealed to Bloomberg News that the group had gotten root shell access to Cloudflare headquarters' internal network due to a security failure in the company's camera system.

Explanation: This sentence is a complete misrepresentation of the source. The article is about hackers breaching a video camera access platform for the company Verdaka. Cloudflare was one of the companies affected -- they explained in the article it only involved a handful of cameras in closed offices, which they then disconnected. The root access refers to Verdaka, not Cloudflare. This is a relatively insignificant event in the history of Cloudflare. If the decision is not to delete it, here is an accurate summarization of the source as it applies to Cloudflare:

On March 9, 2021, the hacking collective "Advanced Persistent Threat 69420" said that the group had gain root shell access to security camera data collected by the SIlicon Valley start-up Verdaka. One of the affected companies was Cloudflare. Cloudflare said the cameras were located in a small number of offices that had been closed for months; it turned off and disconnected the cameras. . See request number 8 for details. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:43, 16 June 2021 (UTC) --- 8. In the Security and Privacy Issues section, in the last paragraph, please delete the second sentence to the end of the paragraph: This meant that they had complete access to run any commands on the network. The group also accessed video feeds from company cameras monitoring entry points and thoroughfares. Cloudflare confirmed these claims in a blog post, but disputed that the hackers would have been able to access the company's data centers from the corporate network. They also denied Kottmann's claims that they would have been able to access CEO Matthew Prince's laptop from the compromised network, stating that he was out of the office at the time.

Explanation: This is all sourced to a company blog, not a WP:RS.

. I agree that there was misrepresentation of the Bloomberg source that's WP:SYNTH-y. However, I don't think that this should be deleted wholesale; self-published sources can be used for uncontroversial self-descriptions and there are also a large number of sources about this that aren't self-published. I've made some edits to better reflect a summary of sources in the area. They don't take the form of these edits, but they addressed that the section needed to be reworked. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:43, 16 June 2021 (UTC) --- 9. In the Security and Privacy Issues section, fourth paragraph, please DELETE:

Cloudflare suffered a major outage on July 2, 2019, which rendered more than 12 million websites (80% of all customers) unreachable for 27 minutes. A similar outage occurred on July 17, 2020, causing a similar effect and impacting approximately the same number of sites.

Explanation: This does not relate to security or privacy, so does not belong in this section. Doesn’t seem important enough to move the History Section. If it is moved, then this sentence within the paragraph needs to be DELETED:

“A similar outage occurred on July 17, 2020, causing a similar effect and impacting approximately the same number of sites.” because the first source, The Daily Express, can’t be used on Wikipedia WP: Perennial and the second source does not actually support this sentence - it just says there was an outage.

❌ The Daily Express is not deprecated, and it seems to be fine in this case where its ordinary reporting is being used to support the non-WP:REDFLAG fact that a website experienced an outage (especially where other sources are reporting the same thing). The CIA Triad, which is key to InfoSec, also includes availability. So, I don't think it needs to be deleted. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:49, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your consideration. Ryanknight24 (talk) 20:32, 13 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for beginning the review. I will provide more sources for Requests #1 and #3, as requested in a separate message. Thought I’d ask if you have time to review more of the requests? Many thanks for your independent review. Ryanknight24 (talk) 22:16, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, this review is still incomplete. Requests #1 and 5-9 are not reviewed.

Re: the request of User:Boredathome101 for #1 and #3, I have provided additional sources, as asked. I would just note that each statement in an article does not need to meet the WP: General Notability Guideline. Citing to one high-quality reliable source is generally the best practice. Analogous WP:GA articles include Paxata and Juniper Networks (please see the software sections). Re #1: Here are more media sources for the Warp VPN, in addition to ”:


 * Techcrunch, Techworm, Slashgear, Cult of Mac . Fossbytes, Fast Company, SunStar]

Re #3 Here are more media sources for Workers Unbound: TechCrunch. HelpNetSecurity, DevClass, IT Pro Today, VentureBeat, IT Wire, SD Times, Forbes Thank you Ryanknight24 (talk) 17:50, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Further Discussion for Proposals June 2021

 * User: Mikehawk10 and User:Boredathome101 answered some Request Edit Proposal. above. For a couple, I’d very much appreciate it if there could be a bit of discussion between editors.  The first one has still not yet been evaluated at all.  As disclosed above, I have a COI because I work for Cloudflare. I’ve repeated the requests below.

First Request In my former Request #9, I asked that in the Security and Privacy Issues section, fourth paragraph, be deleted detailing outages. Since then five more outages have been added in the same paragraph. Looking at the history of repeated and frequent outages of all ISPs (not just Cloudflare) across the globe, number and frequency of outages, these appear to be routine events and therefore including every one of them seems to be WP:MILL. These common events are WP:NOTNEWS. Perhaps if any outages were especially notable for its duration or extent, then its inclusion could be warranted. As it is, listing every outage is not encyclopedic -- not every routine news event can appear. And, these sources do not say the outages are related to security and privacy -- that’s an interpretation not present in the sources, so I don’t think these would be in this section in any case. Most of these sources are not allowable in any case: July 2, 2019 blog post from Cloudflare, supporting the second half of the first sentence. WP: Primary July 17, 2020 outage: The Daily Express is listed under WP:RSP as an untrustworthy source. (WP:DAILYEXPRESS), to be considered the same as WP:DailyMail a deprecated source. It should be removed (there are two sources for this outage but the second source has no details, so the whole second sentence should be removed. The reporting, whether straightforward or not, is considered by Wikipedia to be inherently untrustworthy. April 1, 2020: Thousand eyes is a blog from Cisco and not allowable as a commercial vendor primary source.  WP: Primary May 3, 2021  Thousand eyes again. Cloudflare suffered a major outage on July 2, 2019, which rendered more than 12 million websites (80% of all Cloudflare's customers) unreachable for 27 minutes. A similar outage occurred on July 17, 2020, with similar effect and impacting approximately the same number of sites.  Other notable outages occurred on June 24, 2019 (two hours and twenty-seven minutes), April 1, 2020 (five hours and five minutes), August 30, 2020 (four hours and fifty-five minutes), May 3, 2021 (two hours) and June 11, 2021 (one hour and five minutes).
 * I agree that this paragraph on outages is, at a minimum, misplaced and likely unnecessary. There is no coverage from the mainstream press on these routine issues. Outages can be notable; The 8 June Fastly outage is an example. Based on the citations included, I see nothing that rises to that level here. ~Kvng (talk) 14:47, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * @Kvng, isn't reliability, or uptime, central to the business and value proposition of web hosters? If you add these up, you'll find that Cloudflare is failing to maintain three-nines of uptime (8:45:58 of downtime per year), while the industry generally views five nines (0:05:16) as representative of good quality.  I'd say that reliability is actually of principal importance in any coverage of a web hoster, particularly one that claims to "Ensure Application Availability." EVhotrodder (talk) 16:30, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , sure but we need a source that talks about whether the service meets industry standards. Adding up the numbers and drawing a conclusion from that is WP:OR. The raw numbers without context are not particularly helpful. ~Kvng (talk) 21:31, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Coming in after getting pinged—I'm seeing references to the prior Cloudflare outages in reports (1, 2, 3, 4) regarding the Fastly outage, which shows that at least some prior Cloudflare outages have been noteworthy in some way. TechCrunch, in its June 8 newsletter, even wrote I suppose it’s nice to read that story without it being Amazon’s fault for once. Or Cloudflare. Financial Times also seems to have noted Cloudflare's past outages in its opinion section, and the company was picked on by the editorial board of Irish Times in a similar manner. The Daily Telegraph, in a piece of reporting, also lists Cloudflare as among one of three large CDNs and notes that each have suffered catastrophic failures since 2010. It seems WP:DUE to include something about the reliability problems, as there seems to be significant coverage of the topic that has extended over a rather decent chunk of time. Sourcing in the article can be improved, yes, but I think that that maintaining a paragraph similar to the one in the article currently would be appropriate. There's quite a bit of sourcing I was able to find on Cloudflare outages that occurred in 2019 and 2020, and I can provide some links if you would like, — Mikehawk10 (talk) 00:36, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , I accept the position that a paragraph about reliability is warranted (assuming it avoids WP:OR) but I don't accept the suggestion that it should be similar to what we have now. What we have now is something approaching a comprehensive list of Cloudflare outages. Such a list will be forever growing, difficult to maintain and not particularly helpful to readers. ~Kvng (talk) 14:11, 25 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I think there is consensus that noteworthy outages - those that are large enough to be covered by the mainstream press, especially in multiple sources -- should be included in the story, as could a reliable secondary source(s) that describes the nature of Cloudflare outages more broadly. Whereas an ongoing list of all routine outages for one of the world’s largest CDNs is not a best practice, especially when it’s largely original research and primary sources subject to interpretation.  I looked over the list quickly put together by MikeHawk10 and did additional research too. There aren’t any sources that say uptime at Cloudflare is bad or worse than other CDNs -- just that when there are outages at Cloudflare, they affect a large chunk of the internet because Cloudflare is very large. How about this as consensus:

Cloudflare is one of at least three "content delivery networks" (CDN), including Amazon Web Services and Akamai, that are so large that outages can bring down large chunks of the web. There was major outage, lasting about 30 minutes, on July 2, 2019 attributed to bad software deployment. In 2020, a misconfiguration of a router caused a data pileup and outage in major European cities.

This is the excerpt from the Telegraph behind the paywall:

According to the internet mapping firm Intricately, Fastly is merely the fifth biggest "content delivery network" (CDN), a specific type of cloud service that provides digital liquidity to smaller services who cannot easily handle bandwidth spikes on their own. The biggest three - Cloudflare, Amazon Web Services (AWS) and Akamai - command an estimated 89pc of this market, and all three have suffered widespread faults since 2010. What do you think? Ryanknight24 (talk) 16:25, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , I see this as a net improvement over what we currently have so I would be inclined to accept the proposal. ~Kvng (talk) 02:17, 31 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Naw, that's turning "Cloudflare has an unusually high amount of downtime, more than 100x accepted industry levels" into "Cloudflare is one of the three largest CDNs in the world!" That's just puffery, and completely elides the point. Bill Woodcock (talk) 12:46, 10 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I have made the replacement without the one of the three largest CDNs in the world!. Do you have a source for Cloudflare has an unusually high amount of downtime, more than 100x accepted industry levels? That's really the type of general statement we want. Listing individual notable outages is not the best way to approach this. ~Kvng (talk) 16:57, 13 October 2021 (UTC)


 * As no one has objected, and everyone was notified August 30, are you comfortable implementing the proposal yet? Ryanknight24 (talk) 17:51, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Help me request
I am pinging for help because there seems to be Talk page resolution for an issue above, but no editor has implemented it, after I’ve asked, and I can’t because of my disclosed COI. I don’t know what to do next. As an uninvolved editor, are you able to determine consensus and implement?

Two experienced editors have agreed there is a problem with the current sub-section “Service Outages” within “Security & Privacy Issues”: One editor disagreed but based on personal analysis rather than Wikipedia policy. To resolve the problem, I suggest substitute language. There’s been support by one editor and no objection (after all involved editors were pinged) to this as a new paragraph as substitute language the sub-section “Service Outages”:

Cloudflare is one of at least three "content delivery networks" (CDN), including Amazon Web Services and Akamai, that are so large that outages can bring down large chunks of the web. There was major outage, lasting about 30 minutes, on July 2, 2019 attributed to bad software deployment. In 2020, a misconfiguration of a router caused a data pileup and outage in major European cities.

Thanks. Ryanknight24 (talk) 19:47, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * , the help me template is more for technical issues with editing. If you're wishing for a set of edits to be reviewed, just make a new edit request, the same as you originally made your earlier one. Also, keep in mind that edit requests will often take a long time to be reviewed: there are currently 177 other edit requests waiting to be reviewed, so you should expect it to be a while before someone reviews yours. Perryprog (talk) 22:18, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Further edit requests
Second Request In Request 5, I requested the entire third paragraph In the “Security and Privacy” Issues section, be moved to History. MikeHawk101 declined. His reason seems appropriate as to not moving it, but on second review, some of the sources can’t be used because they are blogs for commercial vendors. The second source of the first sentence is a blog from a commercial vendor. The only source for the second sentence is a blog from a commercial vendor. The others are primary, but from a reputable organization (Spamhaus), so can be used with caution and not in a way that requires analysis. In this case, I suggest specifying the exact year and exact language of the most recent referenced report, which is issued every quarter, instead of making a broader interpretive statement across multiple years. I failed to find secondary sources that report on it and Cloudflare specifically, which would be preferable. This would be deleted:

Cloudflare is cited in reports by The Spamhaus Project, an international spam tracking organization, for the high numbers of cybercriminal botnet operations hosted by Cloudflare. An October 2015 report found that Cloudflare provisioned 40% of the SSL certificates used by typosquatting phishing sites, which use deceptive domain names resembling those of banks and payment processors to compromise Internet users' banking and other transactions. And instead, this would be inserted:

Cloudflare is cited in the Q1 2021 report by The Spamhaus Project, an international spam tracking organization, ranking it fourth among networks with the most newly observed Botnet protocols, sometimes used by cybercriminals to control malware-infected machines.

The second sentence needs to be entirely deleted because it only has a commercial blog as a source:

An October 2015 report found that Cloudflare provisioned 40% of SSL certificates used by phishing sites with deceptive domain names resembling those of banks and payment processors. Third Request I proposed a new VPN product be added to the article in the “Products” section. It was added to the “History” section, paragraph five. I still think it properly belongs in the Products section as a new sub-section, with the sub-title “VPN”. I think a tiny description of what this product does will be helpful to less technically savvy readers, so I propose adding one additional sentence whether kept where it is or moved. . The “History “language I propose moving is: On April 1, 2019, Cloudflare announced a new freemium VPN service named WARP. The service would initially be available through the 1.1.1.1 mobile apps with a desktop app available later. On September 25, 2019, Cloudflare released WARP to the public. The beta for macOS and Windows was announced on April 1, 2020. My proposed new language at the bottom of Products is to create the sub-section “VPN” and add this as the last sentence to the complete paragraph moved from History: WARP is for non-technical users and does not allow the user to choose their endpoint region or access geo-restricted content. Note that on4 June 2021, we provided seven additional sources, aside from those above in History and the new sentences, that discuss the new VPN product to show that it is significant. Techcrunch, Techworm, Slashgear, Cult of Mac, Fossbytes, Fast Company,  Sunstar Thank you. Ryanknight24 (talk) 22:54, 21 June 2021 (UTC)


 * This template is for help editing Wikipedia, not for dispute resolution. It's also not intended for calling admins. Please try to build consensus with other editors. Helpers are not going to get involved with your content dispute. --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:12, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Cloudflare Controversy section
Should the "Controversies" section include an introductory paragraph above the separate criticism sub-sections? Ryanknight24 (talk) 20:43, 23 July 2021 (UTC)


 * No. As discussed above, I have COI as an employee of Cloudflare. The first section of the ‘Controversies’ section reads like the introduction to an advocacy essay taking a POV. Someone with a contrary free-speech POV could frame this paragraph in the opposite way e.g. by describing “continuous” defense of free speech in the face of public pressure. The paragraph consists of a synthesis of various separate events to create an original analysis in violation of WP:NOR. Its analysis fails WP:Impartial and WP:NPOV. Likewise, the paragraph has WP:WEASEL violations and extensive WP:COATRACKING in WP:FOOTNOTES to establish a POV rather than a clarification of the sourcing needed to understand the statement for purpose of verification, the test for using quotes in WP:FOOTNOTES. On a practical basis, the paragraph is also made completely redundant by the subsections covering the same subjects immediately below. Having an introduction above specific event subsections within a “Controversy” or “Criticism” section is not something I could find in WP: Featured Articles. See Cracker Barrel and BAE Systems.
 * The analysis is also done poorly. The language “facilitation of terrorism, crime, and hate speech” is an WP:Opinion violation and should not be stated as a fact in the voice of Wikipedia. This is a particularly egregious violation of NPOV as it essentially asserts Cloudflare is committing crimes, which Cloudflare has never been charged with and flatly denies.  The characterization of  “continuous controversy” is also not found in the cited sources.
 * The paragraph has a general lack of precision. One example is what the words “a stance it has defended” refer to. Facing controversy? Alleged ”facilitation” of terrorism? Crime? The cited sources for “stance” of “free speech” do not encompass all these disparate criticisms. Similarly the words “content neutrality” are relevant to speech, but not necessarily crimes. The general lack of precision is found everywhere: e.g. only ISIS and the Taliban are “sanctioned extremist groups” according to the Department of State. The others, such as “mass murders” and “Neo-Nazi” are not “sanctioned extremist groups” Ryanknight24 (talk) 20:43, 23 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes It is not unusual to have a summary of subsections or other contextual information like this. The basic point that Couldflare has faced ongoing criticism for the organizations and content it facilitates is directly supported by the references and saying so in this intro is not synthesis. Certainly there is room for WP:NPOV improvements and elimination of repetition of material covered in subsections but there is no problem providing this context and summary at the beginning of the section. ~Kvng (talk) 14:57, 3 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Assuming for the sake of argument that it’s possible for a Controversy section to have an acceptable introduction (I found no intros to Controversy section on FAs or GAs but I couldn't look at everything) this introduction still doesn’t meet basic acceptability for Wikipedia language. It’s filled with WP:NPOV, WP: Weasel, WP: Coatracking, and WP:NOR, as well as repetition. It should be deleted on these grounds since it so clearly violates a variety of Wikipedia policies. Very bad content shouldn’t be left up because, in theory, someone might be able to do some acceptable version in the future.Ryanknight24 (talk) 16:27, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Since as an RfC this section has only attracted one participant, I have removed the RfC template and I suggest this topic simply be continued as a discussion. User: Kvng has said that he believes it is fine for there to be an introduction to a Controversy section. But they have also said the present introduction has NPOV and repetition issues. So here is a proposed substitute introduction that briefly covers the information below it, while abiding by NPOV, minimizing repetition, synthesis, and eliminating unreliable sourcing. Ryanknight24 (talk) 18:33, 28 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Any feedback? Ryanknight24 (talk) 19:02, 8 October 2021 (UTC)


 * this looks like an improvement in that it is more of a summary than what we currently have. There is a potential false balance issue here in that approximately equal weight is given to the complaints and the counter arguments from Coundflare and supporters. I suspect there's actually more fire than water here. I'm going to try and use WP:3O to attract some more eyes. ~Kvng (talk) 17:24, 16 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment. This whole Controversies section seems like overkill. It's not uncommon for internet software companies to come under scrutiny for the misuses of it by bad actors, so this massive section is WP:UNDUE. I think the section should be heavily trimmed. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 16:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I have adapted 's contribution as a new introduction to the controversies section.
 * I don't think 's assessment, come under scrutiny for the misuses of it by bad actors, accurately summarizes the issue. The amount of reporting on these controversies is enough easily meet notability requirements for a stand-alone article. If the section is trimmed, there would be ample material to create a separate Cloudflare controversies article. ~Kvng (talk) 20:16, 19 October 2021 (UTC)


 * But is that really a goal? To have two one-sided articles, "Cloudflare: Good!" and "Cloudflare: Bad!" neither particularly representing the whole of the situation? Or, at smaller scale, the false balance problem that you cite, within a single article? News about Cloudflare isn't an external calamity befalling Cloudflare that has to be balanced or judged by Wikipedia editors, it's reportage by journalists of Cloudflare's actions, aggregated into a summary article. Ultimately the content of the article is the indirect product of Cloudflare's actions, and no one else's. Wikipedia isn't a mechanism for getting a do-over when you're embarrassed by something you've done. It's just an encyclopedia. EVhotrodder (talk) 01:51, 26 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I think it would be best to keep it all in this article but if a consensus of editors decided to aggressively trim the Security and privacy issues and Controversies sections here, a "Cloudflare: Bad!" article could be created in response. ~Kvng (talk) 03:47, 27 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, and I, for one, don't think either censoring the Security and privacy or Controversies sections, or splitting the article, is warranted. As long as everything is factual and supported by citations, I think this article is fine. Nothing's going to please everyone, particularly if they have a connection to the subject. It's not our job to please people who have connection to their subjects, it's our job to maintain factual articles. RLMcGinley (talk) 06:15, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

July 29 - August 8 2021 anonymous edits
I note that there's an edit-war going on between anonymous editors from IP addresses which are only or primarily only editing this article. (Specifically 39.162.186.176, 47.35.74.72 and 5.91.249.104.) I am specifically not discussing the relative merits of the various edits, but instead addressing the issue of principle, since the article has been acknowledged to be a controversial one, and this isn't improving the quality of the article. Is this something that deserves editorial dampening? EVhotrodder (talk) 17:32, 9 August 2021 (UTC)


 * This article is turning into a smear page. Over half the word count is "controversies" and "Issues". I personally feel like these are motivated edits, not to improve the article, but to slant it towards the editor's beliefs.


 * I've been thinking about writing some more content on their platform and their history, as I just wouldn't know where to start with removing anything from the controversies section. At least then it would be a little more balanced. Trifecta64 (talk) 05:15, 14 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I would argue against trying to achieve "balance" by hiding facts or by trying to achieve some ratio of "pro" and "con" that suits you. There are plenty of Wikipedia articles that deal with difficult subjects, and they don't do so by shying away from the facts, even when the subjects of the articles have, as in this case, full-time public relations and damage-control staff dedicated to arguing that facts should be hidden. Take a look at, for instance Blackwater or Augusto Pinochet or Tonton Macoute or Enron or IG Farben or Lehman Brothers or Monsanto or the Sackler family or Rio Tinto or Deutsche Wirtschaftsbetriebe. If you feel that you can improve the article by only writing about things that you think portray Cloudflare in a flattering light, how does that differ from "trying to slant it toward your beliefs?" I don't think the goal here is to have 50% of the word count be "pro Cloudflare" facts and 50% of the word count be "anti Cloudflare" facts... I think the goal is to have an article that accurately captures the facts as they're reported by independent news sources. In whatever ratio independent news sources deem newsworthy. EVhotrodder (talk) 00:52, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Balancing the article - Controversies & "Issues"
As noted in my last comment, this article has become extremely slanted. The word count ratio for controversies/security issues compared to everything else is way out of hand. This company provides services to many millions of sites every day with almost no issues and occasionally have bad clients make the news, but these issues are not worth 60+% of the word count. If Facebook or another large tech company had every "security issue" or controversy listed on their main page, they would be hundred thousand word articles.

Before I jump in and start making edits, a discussion on appropriate changes would be beneficial. Trifecta64 (talk) 05:23, 14 October 2021 (UTC)


 * WP content is based on reporting in reliable secondary sources. It should not be a surprise that there is little reporting on services to many millions of sites every day with almost no issues and ample reporting on controversies. We can't use WP:UNDUE to create the balance you're looking for if that balance is not representative of the reporting. ~Kvng (talk) 17:13, 16 October 2021 (UTC)


 * If this is the case, then either summarizing/condensing or splitting these issues into their own article should be in order. Trifecta64 (talk) 05:31, 17 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't think there's motivation for a WP:SPLIT. You're flirting with WP:POVFORK with such a proposal. ~Kvng (talk) 15:44, 19 October 2021 (UTC)


 * As I said above in the RfC, the Controversies section is overkill and WP:UNDUE. It's not uncommon for internet software companies to come under scrutiny for the misuses of it by bad actors. I think it needs to be heavily trimmed or split as suggested here. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 16:28, 19 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Indeed, you're very right that it's not uncommon for Internet software companies to come under scrutiny for abuses. And here's an example of how it can be covered. The fact that a company also does routine transactions does not somehow nullify other newsworthy events. Commerce isn't infinite and opaque wallpaper to be spread over things you consider shameful. It's just commerce. EVhotrodder (talk) 01:08, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

As a starter, I took a close look at the current subsection titled “Hate Speech” in the “Controversies” section. I agree that much of the subsection violates WP:DUE. Much of it also violates WP:NPOV, verifiability and WP:COATRACKING. I have already disclosed my COI above.

First, I think the subsection should be moved to the top of this Controversies section, since it is the Controversy issue that has received the most press attention and it the longest.


 * ✅: These controversies seem to get the most press coverage Trifecta64 (talk) 01:06, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Second, I think it should be renamed from “Hate Speech” to “Free Speech Debate”. Cloudflare has been the subject of criticism from both sides - internet activists opposed to blocking any websites and activists calling on the company to revoke services for websites that have hate speech. I think “Free Speech Debate” frames the issue in a more neutral manner than “Hate Speech.”


 * ✅: In light of balancing the article, "Free Speech Debate" is more appropriate than "Hate Speech" Trifecta64 (talk) 01:06, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Third, to abide by WP:Undue, here is an alternate version of the subsection text for discussion. I kept in mind that there is already an introduction to the Controversies subsections that covers some of the same ground as this section so it does not need to be repeated twice in the same section. Also, there is an extended discussion of the 8chan issue in the “Mass Shootings” section, so I did not include that in this subsection, since repetition of the same content twice is WP:Undue. Below the alternate version, I provide detail on the other policy violations with the current version.

Review of individual issues with the existing subsection:

1. Many citations cherry pick very long, out-of-context quotations that are used to attack the company in violation of WP: NPOV; all these citation quotations support the censorship POV rather than “content neutrality” POV; many are also WP:COATRACKING. None are needed to provide excerpts from hard-to-access or read articles as per WP:FQ. Therefore, the alternative version above uses standard citations without quotations.

2. First paragraph of the current subsection, first sentence: None of the sources provided in this sentence discuss LulzSec or 8chan. Lulzsec is a hacking group and the Cloudflare incident was unrelated to hate speech. There are available sources for the 8chan controversy, but it is already discussed at length in “Mass shootings” and should not be repeated in two subsections.


 * ✅: This is now simplified Trifecta64 (talk) 01:04, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

3. First paragraph, second sentence: The sources are about 8chan, which is already covered in the Mass Shootings section. It’s repetition here. If Wikipedia covers it here, Mass Shootings should be deleted as a subsection and integrated into this subsection.


 * ✅: Removed for reasons described Trifecta64 (talk) 01:04, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

4. First paragraph, third sentence: the Ars Technica source which is cited in the third sentence of this paragraph doesn’t say anything about Section 230, or that Cloudflare is granted “broad legal immunity” by that provision.


 * ✅: Removed Section 230 Ref Trifecta64 (talk) 01:04, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

5. Second paragraph of the current subsection, first sentence: This sentence repeats information provided already in the first paragraph.

6. Second paragraph, fourth sentence: This sentence has three citations, one of which is a self-published Cato Institute think tank report; a second is a blogpost from Stanford University, failing WP:RS. Similar content is preserved in the alternate version, supported by secondary sources.

7. Third paragraph of the current subsection: This entire paragraph is based on a single, marginal local news source. The inclusion of a single online petition campaign that received no mainstream media coverage is WP:UNDUE.


 * ✅: Removed entirely as no credible sources could be found Trifecta64 (talk) 01:04, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

8. Final paragraph of the current subsection: This entire paragraph concerns a high-profile case of online bullying that was connected with the suicide of a prominent programmer. While the incident in question is certainly deplorable, it does not really fall under the heading either of “hate speech” or of “free speech debates”. Moreover, since Cloudflare was peripheral to the controversy surrounding the suicide, inclusion of this incident is WP:UNDUE. Other issues with this paragraph include:


 * The second sentence of the final paragraph says Cloudflare hosted Kiwi Farms but the sources do not say this; one says Cloudflare provides security services. The other three do not even mention Cloudflare.


 * The third sentence in the final paragraph is irrelevant to the question of free speech/hate speech controversies concerning Cloudflare, and as such constitutes a WP:COATRACKING violation.


 * The last sentence in the final paragraph is simply an unsubstantiated claim that lacks any citation to support it. Ryanknight24 (talk) 23:47, 4 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't have the time right now to check this work so I'll WP:AGF but I would like to learn more about . Their edit history raises WP:SPA or WP:SOCK concerns for me. ~Kvng (talk) 14:47, 5 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I would like you to check the work. I've made minor revisions on this article as I believe the rest is open for discussion, and better suited for more experienced editors. I have no COI with Cloudflare, and admittedly, am not a very active editor. I have an account to read the talk pages as they provide insights to validity of articles and content, which is useful in my line of work. This article has inspired me to take a more initiative to contribute to Wikipedia, and I will be spending more time working on a more diverse range of articles/edits. Given the controversial nature of this particular article and proposed changes, I will likely be refraining from further edits for the time being. Trifecta64 (talk) 15:09, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This does look awfully suspicious and coordinated. I think the edits are fine, but I suspect further attempts to edit the controversy section might lead to further investigation, so keep that mind. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 15:35, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This is not coordinated. I use Cloudflare services for my website, but otherwise I have no COI. As I said, I will not be making any further edits. There is too much in this section for a single editor and still discussions that need to take place. Trifecta64 (talk) 19:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC)


 * and . I have no idea who User: Trifecta64 is. I have a long-time disclosed COI as an employee of Cloudflare and while this account is mine alone, I am the only person designated by Cloudflare to participate on Talk. The Trifecta account is not connected to me or coordinated by Cloudflare in any way. I'd request that another editor look at the approved requests made by Trifecta64 since their account has only a handful of edits. If this person does work for Cloudflare (which has 2500 employees), I'd ask that they stop participating on this page, since there already is a designated Cloudflare employee (me) making requests, and that they disclose any COI. Ryanknight24 (talk) 20:29, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

,  I wanted to see if either of you would like to address Request Edit #8 above since you have been the two most recent participants on Talk. The Request deals with the final paragraph of what is now the “Free Speech Debate” subsection of the “Controversies” section. The paragraph focuses on an incident involving the suicide of a programmer who had been bullied on a website called Kiwi Farms. As I explained above, it is WP: UNDUE for a controversy in which Cloudflare is only a bit player to be included in the Wikipedia article. Cloudflare services about 10% of all internet requests and is constantly going to be mentioned as a service provider in press coverage that is primarily about their clients. The editor here has tried to make this event seem like a better-sourced, more important event than it really is relative to Cloudflare by including 4 of 7 sources that do not even mention the company.

In addition, there is distortion and inaccuracy throughout: The first sentence, which begins with the claims that “In June 2021, there were calls for Cloudflare to cut off service for the website Kiwi Farms…” is a classic case of WP:WEASEL. Of the two sources cited in support of that claim, one does not mention Cloudflare at all, while the other cites only a single anonymous letter, thought to be written by a friend of the dead programmer,  which pushed for Cloudflare to take action against Kiwi Farms. There were not “calls” (plural), the language used in the current version of the article in an attempt to pump up a controversy. In the second sentence, none of the sources support the statement that the programmer’s suicide is the third one “Kiwi Farms has been tied to “while hosted by Cloudflare” (emphasis mine). The sentence is a WP:SYNTH of several articles, most of which do not even mention Cloudflare. One article from Gizmodo states there have been three suicides tied to Kiwi Farms and then cites an anonymous complaint, said to be written by a friend of “Near”, which places some responsibility for their suicide. on Cloudflare and Dreamhost. But the Gizmodo article does not say all three suicides took place while Cloudflare was a vendor. There’s no source for this. Furthermore, the claim that Cloudflare “hosted” Kiwi Farms has been invented out of whole cloth (Cloudflare does not host websites; it provides network security); none of the sources say this, and several explicitly mention that another company, DreamHost, was the actual host for Kiwi Farms. The third sentence in the paragraph is not about this controversy at all. It’s about a DDoS attack on Kiwi Farms and an attempted extortion of Kiwi. A source mentions Cloudflare but is not specific about its role here, although one can presume it was acting as a network security vendor at the time of the attack. As Cloudflare provides DDoS protection to 10% of the entire internet, it’s routine news WP:NOTNEWS that a few Cloudflare clients are the subjects of temporarily successful DDoS attacks. Absent significant coverage focused on Cloudflare, this fails NOTNEWS.

Finally, many citations in this paragraph cherry pick very long, out-of-context quotations that are used to attack the company in violation of WP: NPOV: For these reasons, the paragraph should be removed. Thanks very much for your consideration. Ryanknight24 (talk) 20:55, 8 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I support removing the paragraph. It is not critical material and it needs work if it is going to stay. I'm not willing to volunteer to do the work required to keep it. ~Kvng (talk) 17:15, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree it can be removed. The issues with it that have been pointed out are valid, in my opinion. I will do that now. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 20:18, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ by ~Kvng (talk) 15:02, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Reverting COI edits
I am a new employee of Cloudflare. I recently made a bunch of edits to this article, which I am now reversing. I was unaware of the conflict of interest policy rules until today, and also did not realize that another person who had already disclosed that they work for Cloudflare was active on the Talk page.

Because I made many edits, I will reverse the page to the state it was in on December 12th, the latest version prior to when I started. I hope that this will resolve my mistake, and if any additional steps are needed to fix things I will be happy to take care of them as directed. I will not edit this page again, and I apologize.