Talk:Fortinet/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Fortinet. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Should something be done about the links to the Myamar government site because it's down...oh yeah, they cut off internet access to everyone.

There are presumably blogs that have reproduced the info, if you want to look them up. Sdedeo (tips) 19:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Question for Sdedeo: Why do you continue to remove information and external links that are a) not marketing materials b) have third-party verification or c) provide the same background as companies similar to Fortinet in the security industry (i.e. Cisco, etc.). Would appreciate some guidance, if you're open to such. Thank you. Mediaphyter 00:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)mediaphyter

The point of wikipedia is not to catalog every business venture that Fortinet has gone into. It is not a place to reproduce marketing materials (this is why I removed the massive list of press releases at the end of the article.) Finally, everything in wikipedia needs to be written in a neutral tone, and much of the language that I have removed is highly promotional in nature.

An important question to ask in a wikipedia article is "is it notable?" That means finding outside, significant, neutral, third-party coverage of some aspect of the company. Simply because Fortinet does a press release that is reprinted or summarized in a trade journal does not mean we should cover it. Ideally, we would source information in this article to major journals and newspapers.

I am happy to provide guidance. My suggestion is that you (and the anonymous IP who also shows up to delete material) work on other areas of the wiki for a while; whatever your connection to Fortinet, you will learn a great deal by working on something other than this single article. Sdedeo (tips) 15:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. I cannot speak for the anonymous editor, but I've personally added information rather than deleted information, nor have I ever tried to omit any of Fortinet's more perceivably "controversial" information. Rather, try to add third-party verified information to round out the story (as I have done with other wiki pages, under an old username -- the password for which I've lost and no longer use the email addres son file). So, if I'm to understand correctly: third-party articles -- ok. Third-party articles, however, summarizing a press release, or a press release itself summarizing third-party verification of a company's achievement -- not OK. Correct? I also understand the deletion of the product "catalog" as it was previously called in some notes, however there is information that was omitted (and not marketing focused) that would be educational and informative to experts on network security. And those are the people that would likely be researching Fortinet and its competitors. So in order for Wikipedia to truly provide third-party, non-marketing information that truly helps its readership, that type of educational material should be allowed, correct? Otherwise there'd be very little reason for a senior technologist to turn to Wikipedia for background. Just trying to determine the right divide. Thanks.

Mediaphyter 21:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)mediaphyter

Please note that the above contributor is Director, Strategic Communications at Fortinet. Her LinkedIn public profile demonstrates this:

http://www.linkedin.com/in/mediaphyter

It appears that the purpose of mediaphyter AKA Jennifer Leggio's posts is to use Wikipedia as a marketing platform under the guise of third party information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.54.213.202 (talk) 17:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

As a former Fortinet employee, we received emails from the Fortinet marketing department instructing us that they were using Wikipedia as a vehicle for their marketing campaign and that we should under no circumstances edit it. When I attempted to correct the inaccuracy that Ken Xie was the CTO and *not* the CEO of Netscreen as documented in numerous articles on the Internet, such as http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_1998_Nov_17/ai_53230275 it was promptly removed by Fortinet corporate marketing (mediaphyter). Wikipedia will be a lot more useful for researchers if it is not viewed as an additional marketing vehicle by the vendors to advance their skewed and often untrue mythologizing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fw rulez (talk • contribs) 14:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

There's indeed no need to reproduce the list of company's products here. Nor the list of certifications. The reason being is that the notable fact about either is that they exist, and not their details. Details tend to change frequently, so the natural place to look for them is not the Wikipedia, but the vendor's website. Alex Pankratov 22:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm just one editor, and I recognize that the content here needs to reflect consensus and not just my POV. But: I take a hard link about extlinks on articles about companies. I struck the ICSA and NSS "certifications" from the extlink list. An extlink is a consensus endorsement that an external site adds significant value to the article. These links don't qualify.

Generally, anything valuable in an extlink (short of a link to Fortinet's home page) is better off summarized in the article and then referenced (extlinks are not references). So I don't object to a short graf saying that Fortigate has obtained ICSA and NSS certification (although I'll probably snipe a bit at the wording).

--- tqbf 22:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

they also have a internet filter used to block off "bad" internet sites and gaming sites. 204.10.222.30 (talk) 14:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

On 28 December user 'Rodney Mock' added what read as a copy & pasted press release, full of corporate hyperbole, not in Wikipedia style, which I removed. On 2 January he added it back but in a Wikipedia style, which I applaud, it shows he 'gets it', that the corporate hyperbole has no place in an encycopedia, that it is about the bare facts of the matter. (Though I'm not yet convinced the list of products is relevant, as others on this page have said at other times). There are posts on http://blog.fortinet.com by a Rodney Mock and http://www.lead411.com/Rodney_Mock_11244086.html claims "Rodney Mock is the Product Marketing Manager of Fortinet". I added the 'Connected contributor' tag to this Talk page, not to say that what was added was suspicious, but so that people were aware Fortinet appeared to be editing their own article. I marked his new section as requiring refs, then shortly after someone using 76.126.209.255 added the refs (albeit not third-party sources). 76.126.209.255 relates to Sunnyvale, California, where Fortinet are based. I am providing this information here for background information, not to call Rodney Mock out specifically - it appeared he was improving in his editing of Wikipedia, which I commend, but then if the later edits from a user not logged in do indeed come from within Fortinet then this appears to be a retrograde step in that attitude, unless of-course it is just a result of inadvertantly logging out of Wikipedia before editing. Lopifalko (talk) 10:12, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Below are discussions about the "History" section of the main article.

I am actively working on this section and will periodically post updates here for initial feedback ForrestLyle (talk) 23:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I am making significant edits to the Products so that it reflects a logical structure with verifiable references. If you wish to discuss any of these changes please do so in threat. Thank you ForrestLyle (talk) 22:46, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi All,

Can we discuss a structure for this page? There has been very little work here for a long time beyond some minor edits. Comparative companies such as Cisco Systems or Juniper Networks have pretty standard page structures. Lets bring one over. I suggest:

History

Acquisitions

Awards

Products and Services

XYZ

Criticism and Controversy

XYZ

etc.

Can we agree on a structure and start filling in the appropriate gaps? ForrestLyle (talk) 23:56, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good to me - go for it Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:23, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Just an FYI, I am a newbie, using this page and others to get a foothold on editing. Your (nearly) harshest criticism is welcomed. ForrestLyle (talk) 15:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Version 4.x to 5.0.7 http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2016/Jan/26

Hi Wikipedians,

I have been researching and collecting material for the history section.I think we should discuss what belongs in the intro and what is better suited for the history section. I think the intro should be relatively short. Maybe just having a one liner about business from the 10-K, date founded, Ken and Michael Xie cofounders, date of ipo, end. Thoughts?

I agree. I tried to rework the existing material into something at least encyclopedic. Honestly, there's not much to say beyond that, and half the stuff I left in can honestly be cut. By all means, prune away :) As for the history, I don't know much beyond what's in the header already. If you have some good sources and want to list them here, I can help you sift through them to get to the main points. Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:26, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

===History Sources===

I found the following. They are not all about history but have major historical components to them.

http://goldsea.com/Text/index.php?id=10973

http://www.weforum.org/pdf/techpioneers/apax2006.pdf

http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/77840-2#

ForrestLyle (talk) 15:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Everyone. I Have placed a clean up tag here to attract other users to come and edit, fill in missing information, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ForrestLyle (talk • contribs) 16:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

This article reads like adware. Massive re-write or delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.234.42.162 (talk) 00:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I am affiliated with the article-subject. In compliance with WP:COI, I would like to request a disinterested editor consider a draft I put together at Talk:Fortinet/draft that I think would substantially improve the article and bring it up to GA standards. The proposed would expand the article, eliminate the indiscriminate list of products and merge the "Criticism and controversy" section into the Corporate History section in compliance with WP:CRITICISM. From a conflict of interest perspective, that section is probably most relevant in terms of reviewing my work for fairness and COI.

Appreciate any help in advance! Also pinging @Beleg Tâl: and @ForrestLyle:, who have shown an interest in this page in the past. CorporateM (Talk) 20:18, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I read both versions of the article, and while the newer one that you proposed is better, with more detail and more sources, in my opinion it is weaker than the current version from a high level product perspective. By removing the products from the infobox and reducing the four product sections into two - firewalls and others - it's harder to get a sense of the company's full product offerings. Perhaps this signifies that they prefer to focus on their firewall, but you could have subsections under "other", for threat protection, wireless LAN, ADC, etc. Also, by replacing the current product sections with three new sections: an overview, reception and history, the latter two with a section each for firewall and other, it's a bit jumbled, and hard for readers to find the product they are looking for using the table of contents. Also, by not having a comprehensive section showing all products, specifically spelling them out by type if not also by name, you risk missing some. For example, the ADC, FortiDirector and FortiDDoS are mentioned in the history section but nowhere else. Anyone not reading all the way down to the history section will not see them or know they exist. So I recommend a single products section, broken down into Firewalls, Software and Other, with "Other" having sections for everything else. I'd include the product reception in that product's section, not in a separate reception section, to minimize jumping around.

A secondary quibble - I don't know that I've ever seen a separate product history section within a company article that already has a main history section. Notwithstanding the multitude of sources you provide, it's also unclear to me that these products are significant enough to warrant the thorough historical treatment you give them. I would recommend you add all the significant product history to the main history section, but consider limiting it to the first appearance of the product line, unless a later version is an industry first or otherwise so significant that it warrants a mention. Who knows - you might then even consider giving that product its own article. You can list the current versions/model numbers of each in the product section, and use your "introduction" citations there.Timtempleton (talk) 21:43, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look @Timtempleton:! It will take some time for me to cull through this and incorporate all of your notes, but I will work on it and ping you when I've incorporated all of your feedback. CorporateM (Talk) 16:00, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

• "By removing the products from the infobox" -->  Done Restored CorporateM (Talk) 20:20, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
• "Also, by not... specifically spelling them out by type if not also by name, you risk missing some" -->  Done Comprehensive list of product categories added CorporateM (Talk) 20:20, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
• "I recommend a single products section, broken down into Firewalls, Software and Other" -->  Done CorporateM (Talk) 20:20, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
• "it's also unclear to me that these products are significant enough to warrant the thorough historical treatment you give them." -->  Done Trimmed substantially. CorporateM (Talk) 21:19, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for merging the draft Tim! FYI for any readers here, there is more discussion about this page here. Per my usual, I've gone ahead and nominated the page for Good Article review. I think a few things, like the long list of products in the infobox, are a bit promotional, but I'm happy to roll with whatever the GA reviewer feels is most sensible whenever they get around to it. Minor quips aside, the article is obviously better than the prior version by leaps and bounds, even more so thanks to Tim's feedback and effort. CorporateM (Talk) 20:27, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Fortinet/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Falcon Kirtaran (talk · contribs) 09:13, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   The only sticking point I have with this article on this criterion is the bullet list after "Fortinet products include the following categories". It doesn't seem to be a covered case under Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Embedded lists exactly, but I think this article would be stronger if the list were replaced per WP:USEPROSE. Many of the items in the list subsume later headings, and of course this could guide the development of prose. The list contents might actually be completely superfluous; consider selecting just the major product lines.

Agreed. I might be misrepresenting or forgetting something, but I ?think? @Timtempleton:'s influence was the reason for a "comprehensive" list of product categories? (Timtempleton please correct me if I'm wrong) Whereas I tend to think any long list is usually an indiscriminate collection of information and a complete list of products is too much like a product brochure. The list could probably be replaced with "IT security, networking hardware, and other technology products"? I also got the impression Timtempleton may have some subject-matter expertise and their input could be invaluable, so I'd like to see if they chime in. CorporateM (Talk) 19:02, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

In reading the proposed article again, I think prose would be better than a list also. I'm not that familiar with Fortinet and which lines are more successful/relevant for them, but I do understand the product categories and their functions. Typically if I write a product section I open with a concise summary overview of all the product categories, and add sections below to go into more detail for the more notable products and services. That saves the casual reader from having to read the entire product section to see if the info they want is there. The rest of the products - those that are maybe not as thoroughly sourced - would go into an "Other" category, similar to how you have it now, except the "Other" section would be the last item. The way you have it now "Security" and "Networking and wireless" come after "Other" - maybe if the security and networking/wireless products are notable enough they should come before? There's also a little repetition when you say twice they are best known for FortiGate. I don't want to clutter up this review with a lot of info, so I'll write something and put it on the talk page as a suggestion.Timtempleton (talk) 20:08, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I drafted a suggestion for the product section and put it in the talk page.]Timtempleton (talk) 20:37, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Both drafts of the products section resolve the MoS issues; I'll change this to a yes once changes are merged into article space. FalconK (talk) 04:51, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

1. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   If anything, there are a few too many references. I appreciate that, unlike so many articles on companies lately, this article stays clear of reliance on press releases and about-us pages. The vast majority of the citations are to high-quality reliable sources and it succeeds in establishing notability. There is no overreliance on primary sources. Almost every non-obvious statement of fact is referenced at least once.

There are two sentences with excessive citations:

• "The operating system has been continually updated throughout the years."
• "Fortinet continued to release new controllers, features, and FortiGate firewalls for business of different sizes."

These are both the result of substantial trimming from an earlier version, where each citation covered a separate sentence originally and the result of summarizing all of those sources is essentially Original Synthesis and an immense list of sources. My instinct is not to delete so many good sources, but I'm open to just deleting the sentences too. CorporateM (Talk) 19:08, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I see that your new draft removes them, which is fine - it's not a blocking issue either way. FalconK (talk) 04:51, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

1. C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

2. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   The article is very detailed! I can tell exactly who they are, where they came from, and what they are doing, in what context.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   The products section is very, very detailed, and conveys marketing tenor by using terms like "flagship" and "helps" a lot; this makes it feel a little more like sales literature than I'm entirely comfortable with, though it isn't so terrible as to eclipse the usefulness of the article. I'm also concerned that the level of detail on reviews of products (number of stars and specific comments for nearly each one) is too high. I don't think the table of products is strictly appropriate. Other sections are free from unnecessary detail.

Good point - the amount of press coverage on individual product releases and reviews is overwhelming. I think what I was going for is just when a new product family/category was introduced and one review for each family, so we were summarizing product families, but not individual products (I believe this is established best practices to summarize product families, but not individual products). I removed "flagship" and "help" and will give it a fresh lookover to see what I can trim. CorporateM (Talk) 19:15, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I have put some proposed trims here. I kept the star-counts on reviews as that's the highest level summary of the review, but trimmed detailed pro/con accounts, trimmed reviews from publication for a specific industry or market (like Federal Computer Week) and focused more on competitive reviews, which are generally more authoritative, reviews by SC Magazine (I believe the most authoritative source in the IT security industry) and so on. That draft also indicates trimming the products table. Overall that would reduce the Products section a good 20-30% at least. Naturally, those trims would reduce both positive and negative material and as a conflicted editor I am not authorized to make them directly per WP:COI, so hopefully either the GA reviewer or Timtempleton might take the initiative to take a look? CorporateM (Talk) 19:50, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

At first blush it does look like the removals remove slightly more negative information than positive, but I think all the removed information is indeed superfluous. Since both @CorporateM: and @Timtempleton: have proposed drafts, it would be great if the two of you could merge them together (they largely remove and condense different things). CorporateM, I really appreciate your efforts to comply with WP:COI - in light of this, perhaps Timtempleton could be the one to accept the revisions as reconciled? Once they get into article space I think we can resolve this criterion. FalconK (talk) 04:51, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Just made some changes and commented on the talk page about COI.Timtempleton (talk) 01:01, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

1. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   With the exception of the aforementioned review issue, I don't see a lot of trouble here. Negative information is presented equally and not minimised, though the article does have a distinctly positive slant overall.

2. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

3. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

4. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   On the whole, this is very close to GA status. There are only a couple points to address, but they are significant. If the product language is changed to be somewhat less laden, and the list is fixed, I think this would make a GA.

   • Good job, both of you! This article is even better than I'd hoped it would be now - you've taken it from well-formed but mainly promotional and financial content to an equally well-formed and informative article. Thanks! FalconK (talk) 09:33, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

This must be a joke. Is Wikipedia an encyclopedia or an advertising platform? Wikipedia is regarded as a source of impartial information, and our volunteer contributions contribute to that reputation. But this case tells me that we tolerate paid editing, which is disclosed on the talk page but not to the average reader. Totally unethical and I don't particularly want to help build a project that is surreptitiously used by advertisers as a vehicle for promotion. User:CorporateM should be indefinitely banned per WP:NOT. Citobun (talk) 10:02, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

• I feel conflicted about WP:COI editors too, but CorporateM followed the procedures laid out at WP:COIPAYDISCLOSE. Have you found significant or substantial problems with the article's neutrality as a result of the contributor's involvement? FalconK (talk) 10:51, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I've been super busy with school and today is the first time I've had a chance to re-check-in. If I'm following this correctly, @Timtempleton: incorporated their draft products section (discussed above) here? I haven't compared his/her version to the prior one, or the trimmed draft I produced, but did notice that the Products section now has about 15 sections and is dominating the table of contents. I think it would be more appropriate as 3-5 sections. Usually it's seen as promotional to have a lot of dedicated sections for individual products or families, much like the opposite of people that make dedicated controversy sections. CorporateM (Talk) 20:39, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

• I think I agree; unless there is more than a sentence or two to say about a given product, it probably doesn't need its own section. FalconK (talk) 23:29, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
• We edited on top of each other. I think it's easier to consolidate info once it's been flushed out than the other way around. The thing I didn't like about your version was one had to read the whole product section to find info on a specific product. Perhaps there's a middle ground. Please note that I put fortigate first, and then I alphabetized the other products, but left the products that you had in the security and networking categories. I also deleted all of the content that you deleted in your version. I guess another way of looking at it is – are these products significant enough to be mentioned on the menu. If not, should they even be mentioned at all? I'm not an expert on their products and I'm just trying to help with the article.Timtempleton (talk) 23:42, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

One way of evaluating which products are worth mentioning might be those with in-depth reviews. The rest could be just mentioned, not by name, but in a manner like "also has products for wireless network security, data center security..." That could trim it down quite a bit more and make you more comfortable with fewer sections. CorporateM (Talk) 21:57, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

@Timtempleton: and @CorporateM:, any chance of getting this resolved sometime this week? I'd hate to have this pending forever. FalconK (talk) 10:27, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I can take a look later this week and see what can be done to decrease the number of products. I will need to look up all the coverage for each product to see which ones are more notable, which will take some time.Timtempleton (talk) 00:03, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I took a first shot at shortening the products section below, just before getting an edit conflict. The below would trim it substantially and bring it down from 15 to 2 sub-sections, through a mix of eliminating blurb reviews, trimming less significant products, general trims, etc. Not sure if this is what you were looking for though, or if a different direction was expected. CorporateM (Talk) 00:12, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Good start - thanks - you saved me some time. After taking a few weeks off and rereading with a fresh eye, I think all the detailed product reviews are out of place here. There's so much product info for so many different products, the reviews make it too cluttered. The sources certainly are reliable but none is earthshattering in importance enough to justify the clutter. I kept a few of the links as citations, in case interested readers want to learn more, but I removed all the review text. This will also reassure anyone trying to flag the article for COI. I moved the FortiOS to its own section, since that controls FortiGate also. I added the name FortiSwitch to the switching platform section. I fixed a typo in the first sentence of the FortiDDOS line. I clarified that the 2013 firewall ASIC functionality introduction was a feature added to FortiGate, not a standalone product, based on the source you used. I almost started trying to separate this into hardware versus software, which is probably a more intuitive grouping, but don't want perfect to get in the way of better.

Nice work! That does look much better at-a-glance length-wise. Wanna throw it into article-space? I just consolidated some of the paragraphs. CorporateM (Talk) 21:35, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

DoneI also removed the slogan parameter from the infobox - there was a recent motion to remove it from the template.Timtempleton (talk) 18:01, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Timtempleton (talk) 19:13, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I just removed the COI tag on top of the article. Per Template:COI, "Do not use this tag unless there are significant or substantial problems with the article's neutrality as a result of the contributor's involvement. Like the other {{POV}} tags, this tag is not meant to be a badge of shame or to "warn the reader" about the identities of the editors." Since I'm helping User:CorporateM, who has disclosed a COI, I don't want to be accused myself of having a COI. Also, the COI tag requires that the specific edits that are problematic be highlighted - that wasn't done here.Timtempleton (talk) 00:58, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, I agree, the Template:COI tag was not appropriate. I'm going to keep the GA review on hold for another day or two in order to give @Citobun: a chance to elaborate on specific problems with the article. FalconK (talk) 01:41, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

The specific problem is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an advertising platform, and it is unethical to serve an advertisement to readers unaware that the authors have WP:COI. I don't want to contribute to Wikipedia anymore if this is tolerated. Citobun (talk) 13:32, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm definitely not arguing with you on this, but what specific words or passages constitute an advertisement? FalconK (talk) 07:15, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I work for Fortinet, and I’d like to request some updates to this article: * Revise "revenue, income, assets, equity, and employees sections" of infobox, replacing current list with: Revenue US $1.49 billion (2017); Operating income US$ 109.8 million (2017); Net income US $31.4 million (2017); Total assets US $2.26 billion (2017); Total equity US $589.38 million (2017); Employees 5,066 (2017). url=http://investor.fortinet.com/node/12901/html

I won’t edit directly due to my COI. Thank you for your help! Johnwikiwelton (talk) 12:35, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Part of an edit requested by an editor with a conflict of interest has been implemented. Changes to the Products parameter in the Infobox following "FortiGate UTM" were unclear, ended with the term "sandbox" which appeared to be an error. Changes requested to a FortiGate section and an Other product section were not done because neither of these sections currently exist on this page

Hi, I work for Fortinet, and I’d like to request some updates to this article:

• Revise "Products" parameter of infobox, replacing currently list with Fortinet Security Fabric; FortiGate UTM, enterprise, and carrier firewalls; internal segmentation firewalls; endpoint security; WiFi applications; SIEM; Web application firewalls; email security; DDoS; identity access management; WAN; VPN; sandbox. I tried to reduce the use of jargon and combine related products to make this more intelligible to lay readers. partially done, but did you mean to end with the term "sandbox"? And should the comma after UTM be removed? Please clarify so this can be answered Jaking01 (talk) 12:36, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

@Jaking01: Hi! Apologies for my delayed response. To clarify, yes "sandbox" is part of the product name. And no, the comment after UTM should stay; there are multiple types of firewalls for different market segments, e.g. FortiGate UTM, FortiGate enterprise, and FortiGate carrier firewalls. Thanks again for your help! Johnwikiwelton (talk) 04:32, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

• Add to end of "Recent history" section: In 2017, Fortinet created a standalone subsidiary, Fortinet Federal, focused on cybersecurity products for government agencies. Former National Security Agency director Mike McConnell is on Fortinet Federal’s board, and 12 of the 15 U.S. Cabinet departments use Fortinet products. That same year, Fortinet researchers discovered a spyware that scams victims by impersonating the IRS and MacRansom, a ransomware program specifically targeting Mac computers. done Jaking01 (talk) 12:36, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
• Add to end of "FortiGate" section: FortiGate UTM appliances provide threat protection, content filtering, data loss prevention and other features for organizations of various sizes. section no longer exists Jaking01 (talk) 12:36, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
• Add to end of "Other products" section:
  • In April 2016, Fortinet launched a unified security platform called Fortinet Security Fabric. Fortinet Security Fabric includes protections for the cloud, the Internet of Things, core infrastructure like servers and storage, and remote devices. A collection of partner companies, including Cisco and Nokia, validate technology integration with the Security Fabric.

FortiSIEM, released in 2017, provides Security Information and Event Management capabilities in addition to some UTM and analytic features. section no longer exists Jaking01 (talk) 12:36, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I won’t edit directly due to my COI. Thank you for your help! Johnwikiwelton (talk) 16:46, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fortinet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160919203527/http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS25907015 to http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS25907015

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:20, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Hi, posting a new request for clarity's sake.

• Revise "Products" parameter of infobox, replacing currently list with Fortinet Security Fabric; FortiGate UTM, enterprise, and carrier firewalls; internal segmentation firewalls; endpoint security; WiFi applications; SIEM; Web application firewalls; email security; DDoS; identity access management; WAN; VPN; sandbox. To confirm, "sandbox" is part of the product name. And the comma after UTM is intentional; there are multiple types of firewalls for different market segments, e.g. FortiGate UTM, FortiGate enterprise, and FortiGate carrier firewalls.
• Update infobox with latest financial figures:

| revenue = US $1.49 billion (2017) | operating_income = US $109.8 million (2017) | net_income = US $31.4 million (2017) | assets = US $2.26 billion (2017) | equity = US $589.38 million (2017) | num_employees = 5,066 (2017)

As mentioned above, I work for Fortinet, so I won't edit directly. Thanks for your help! Johnwikiwelton (talk) 20:32, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Below you will see where text from your request has been quoted with individual advisory messages placed underneath, either accepting, declining or otherwise commenting upon your proposal(s). Please see the enclosed notes for additional information about each request. Also note areas where additional clarification was required, or where implementation could not be achieved. When the necessary changes to the wiki markup found within the edit request are completed and all information requested is ready to be provided to the reviewer, please change the edit request template to read from ans=yes to ans=no. The portions of your edit request which were not completed will then be implemented at that time. Thank you!   SPINTENDO          07:22, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Fortinet Security Fabric
FortiGate UTM firewalls
FortiGate enterprise firewalls
FortiGate carrier firewalls
Internal segmentation firewalls
Endpoint security
Secure Access WiFi applications
SIEM
FortiWeb Web application firewalls
Email security
DDoS
Identity access management
WAN
VPN
FortiSandbox

• Information on the sandbox product offering is here.

Thanks, Spintendo! 96.45.36.182 (talk) 15:51, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

 Implemented   spintendo          22:34, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. Request moved into new request as of

Please replace the 1st 2 paragraphs in the "History, Early History" section with these 2 paragraphs or similar wording.

• Specific text to be added or removed:

Ken and Michael Xie founded Appligation, Inc. in Sunnyvale, Ca in 2000. Previously, Ken Xie co-founded and led NetScreen which was acquired by Juniper Networks. Michael Xie had served as Vice President of Engineering for ServGate Technologies. Appligation, Inc. was renamed to ApSecure, Inc., then FortiNet, Inc., and finally to Fortinet, Inc. in 2003, based on the phrase “Fortified Networks”. The company’s early focus was on the unified threat management market ].

Fortinet introduced its first product, FortiGate, in 2002. The company acquired database security and auditing company IPLocks in 2008 and the intellectual property and assets of Ethernet switching company Woven Systems in 2009. The company went public with an IPO in November 2009. Media reports show 12.6 million new and existing shares were sold, and the company raised $156 million in new capital on the first day of trading.

• Reason for the change:

We are aware of the concerns raised for Fortinet’s “tagged” page and are interested in helping make and suggest adjustments to address the concerns and respect Wikipedia best practices. Although we welcome helpful contributions from the Wikpedia community, we will make suggestions for changes to remove any hint of bias we hope will be acceptable. JasmineLozanoFortinet (talk) 19:56, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. Request moved into new request as of

Please add the following text and reference to Recent History:

• Specific text to be added or removed:

In September 2021, Fortinet pledged to train 1 million people in support of President Joe Biden's call to action to American technology companies to address the talent shortage in cybersecurity Barth, Bradley (10 September 2021). "Answering Biden's call, tech and cyber companies commit to more career training". SC Media. Retrieved 2021-10-04.

• Reason for the change:

On August 25, 2021 President Joe Biden asked American technology companies to help train more cybersecurity people, "FACT SHEET: Biden Administration and Private Sector Leaders Announce Ambitious Initiatives to Bolster the Nation's Cybersecurity". The White House. Joe Biden. 25 August 2021. Retrieved October 1, 2021. Companies responding to the call include Google, IBM, and Microsoft. Per the article cited above, Fortinet pledged to train 1 million people over the next 5 years. JasmineLozanoFortinet (talk) 19:53, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I have a conflict of interest with this article. I work for the Fortinet Communications Team.

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. Template added due to an SPI investigation as noted in the edit summary. Starting a talk page discussion is recommended but not required. It also does not help that since the tag was added in December, there have been additional single purpose accounts editing the article

• Specific text to be added or removed: Removal of the Undisclosed Paid Editing tag
• Reason for the change: Per the guideline cited below, this Talk page was not updated with any supporting comments or justication. A previous paid editing relationship is disclosed above per Wikipedia guidelines. Previous edit requests also disclosed conflicts of interest. We believe appopropriate notification was already in place.
• References supporting change: guideline

Fortinet is not currently paying anyone to edit the article, and has not requested or authorized any employees to edit the article on behalf of the company. In accordance with the Wikipedia guidelines against outing editors, we have made no attempt to contact any recent contributors to determine their relationship or motives in editing the article. JasmineLozanoFortinet (talk) 22:09, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I have discussed the SPI investigation with my team. We understand that 2 accounts were blocked as a result of the investigation, and those accounts made contributions to the Fortinet article. In the interest of moving forward transparently and maintaining compliance with Wikipedia policy, I will leave some COI requests for changes to the paragraphs those accounts changed. I will make 1 request at a time so the task seems manageable to any interested editors. We’re seeking proactive help from the Wikipedia community in improving the article’s neutral point of view. I’ll appreciate any suggestions people leave below this comment for specific changes. Thank you.JasmineLozanoFortinet (talk) 23:25, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Two accounts? Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/VentureKit/Archive lists over a dozen, likely associated with a PR firm hired by Fortinet.

Furthermore, there are other accounts that were not blocked (because the edits were a long time ago), such as edits from your Director of Media Communications in 2011. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:13, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined.

We have been studying other COI edit requests on Wikipedia and found the COI edit request on Talk: Annual_Reviews_(publisher) offers a model we’d like to try to improve this article. Fortinet acknowledges that a sock puppet investigation led to the warning being placed on the Wikipedia article about our company because 2 accounts that made contributions to the article were flagged by that investigation. When we requested that the warning be lifted, the request reviewer indicated there were still too many recent suspicious edits. Company management has asked employees not to modify this page even though they may have the best of intentions. But we have no way of identifying who the flagged contributors or others may be.

In the interest of moving forward, we hope editors will review and comment on a proposed rewrite I have shared in my sandbox page here.

We reviewed Wikipedia’s policy pages for Conflict of Interest editing to write this draft. We’re inviting comments from other editors with the hope they’ll assist in improving the article to ensure that it complies with Wikipedia’s standards and eliminate any doubt about self-promotion.

The proposed draft is based on the text of the existing article but reorganizes the information in a better structure we feel is neutral in POV. We made no attempt to remove any controversial or negative information. The proposed draft is well-sourced from reliable, neutral sources.

I will not edit the article directly, but am seeking consensus on a new rewrite that ensures the article meets Wikipedia guidelines and standards.

JasmineLozanoFortinet (talk) 21:52, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, no. That edit request you reference is a mess and the wrong way to go about doing it. Taking an article that has had some contributions from employees, and instead of suggesting improvements, replacing it with a complete rewrite by a company employee makes no sense. The entire edit request has an underlying presumption of the company wanting editorial control of a Wikipedia article. That is not going to happen. What is so hard about requesting incremental improvements? ~Anachronist (talk) 01:00, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi Anachronist,

Thank you for answering our request for help, and I understand your point.

The goal with these COI edit requests has been to attract unbiased editors to help clean up the article, per the undisclosed paid warning. Had we known about the sock puppet edits when they were made in December 2018 - January 2019, we could have made or proposed Uncontroversial reversals of their contributions. But as so many contributions have been made since then, the article has become much more complicated. Asking our employees not to edit the article was an additional good faith step. We didn’t realize the editing would drop off so quickly.

Of the 3 COI Edit requests I’ve posted prior to this one, 2 were passed over for several months. The backlog has now grown to over 200 requests. That's why we thought an alternative approach would be more productive for the article.

Would you be open to helping clean up the article as the “Undisclosed Paid Editing” warning recommends? Do you know of any other editors who would be open to helping clean up the article?

Thank you for any advice. JasmineLozanoFortinet (talk) 18:20, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined.

Please change the following data in the Infobox:

• Specific text to be updated:

Number of employees: 9700

• Reason for the change:

The company has experienced substantial growth since December 31, 2020. JasmineLozanoFortinet (talk) 21:05, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done reference has not been provided. Please provide a reference that can verify this information. Z1720 (talk) 15:37, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

@Z1720: Thank you for reviewing our COI Edit request. The source for the employee count remains the same as in the article, the Fortinet About page. We apologize for the oversight. JasmineLozanoFortinet (talk) 21:09, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

@Z1720: I am taking over COI edit requests from Jasmine. Was the link she provided adequate for completing this request?Johnwikiwelton (talk) 21:52, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Please add the following text and reference to Recent History:

• Specific text to be added or removed:

In September 2021, Fortinet pledged to train 1 million people in support of President Joe Biden's call to action to American technology companies to address the talent shortage in cybersecurity Barth, Bradley (10 September 2021). "Answering Biden's call, tech and cyber companies commit to more career training". SC Media. Retrieved 2021-12-08.

• Reason for the change:

On August 25, 2021 President Joe Biden asked American technology companies to help train more cybersecurity people, "FACT SHEET: Biden Administration and Private Sector Leaders Announce Ambitious Initiatives to Bolster the Nation's Cybersecurity". The White House. Joe Biden. 25 August 2021. Retrieved December 8, 2021. Companies responding to the call include Google, IBM, and Microsoft. Per the article cited above, Fortinet pledged to train 1 million people over the next 5 years. JasmineLozanoFortinet (talk) 21:44, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done with edits. Heartmusic678 (talk) 16:53, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

@Heartmusic678: Thank you for reviewing our COI Edit request. Johnwikiwelton (talk) 22:06, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

@Johnwikiwelton: You're welcome :D. Heartmusic678 (talk) 11:22, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

In the “Recent History” section, please include the following text.

• Specific text to be added or removed: Fortinet acquired application security company Sken.Ai in 2021 to offer continuous application security testing . Fortinet acquired automated incident management company Panopta in 2022 .
• Reason for the change: To document a corporate acquisition.
• References supporting change: and

Johnwikiwelton (talk) 20:09, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Small request in line with the rest of the article. Accepted. WilsonP NYC (talk) 19:55, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! @WilsonP NYC Johnwikiwelton (talk) 01:48, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Closing request as answered, per above. Z1720 (talk) 00:51, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Please add the following text and reference to Accomplishments in cybersecurity:

• Specific text to be added or removed:

In March 2022 Fortinet was one of several security vendors participating in the MITRE Corporation's Attack Flow project which created "a data format describing adversary behavior sequences to help identify cyberthreat choke points" Liu, Nancy (March 25, 2022). "MITRE, Fortinet Map Cyberattack Flows to Identify 'Choke Point'". SDXCentral. SDXCentral, LLC. Retrieved 2022-04-27.

• Reason for the change:

SDXCentral interviewed Ingrid Skoog of MITRE Engenuity’s Center for Threat-Informed Defense and Derek Manky of Fortinet's FortiGuard Labs about the project's scope. Johnwikiwelton (talk) 14:51, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

*   Done with minor copyedit. Rray (talk) 14:06, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Who deleted my stuff? It is real that fortiguard/fortinet blocks games 113.254.69.211 (talk) 15:42, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Fortinet, the company, has nothing to do with your being blocked. That decision is made by whatever organization whose network you're trying to use. It would happen with any firewall product. In any event, such uses are not appropriate for inclusion in articles about the companies that manufacture these products.Michael Martinez (talk) 16:58, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

You got a message on your talk page explaining why your content was removed. You might want to review that. Rray (talk) 17:15, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Please add the following text and reference to Recent History:

• Specific text to be added or removed:

NetworkWorld reported that Fortinet introduced new AI and ML-based security services utilizing telemetry from its global network Cooney, Michael (4 April 2022). "Fortinet tightens integration of enterprise security, networking controls". Network World. Retrieved 2022-04-21..

• Reason for the change:

Network World senior editor Michael Cooney reviewed Fortinet's FortiOS 7.2 release, calling out the addition of AI and ML capabilities. Johnwikiwelton (talk) 00:59, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

•  Done Rray (talk) 04:16, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

• Specific text to be added or removed: Change number of employees in Info Box to 11,508
• Reason for the change: Current number is out-of-date
• References supporting change: https://www.fortinet.com/corporate/about-us/about-us

Johnwikiwelton (talk) 00:02, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Done. Updated the number to current (as of November 2022) number reported on the About Us page.Michael Martinez (talk) 15:43, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

I looked here to find information on Fortinet since my school has it and blocks all game (I mainly played sudoku and minesweeper and they're blocked) but then I saw that stuff that would probably go into a controversy section aren't in one. And that there also isn't even a controversy category. I looked through the edits and noticed that the category was added in 2019 but later was removed on April 27th, 2020.‎ Only one section of the category got moved (this being the lawsuit) while the other was deleted. I see no reason for there not to be a controversy category. GunnerZ818 ApplesAreYummy818 17:50, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

The fact schools are using Fortinet's and other companies' products to block access to games isn't controversial. And the firewall vendors don't have any say in what the end-users do with their products. Do you have something else in mind? Michael Martinez (talk) 18:04, 20 January 2023 (UTC)