User talk:Sam at Megaputer

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Hi Sam. I've noticed that you've deleted some comments that were left here by Praxidicae. We allow editors great latitude in determining how they manage their own talk pages, so there's no real problem with this. However, please take a look at WP:BLANKING. Best practice for complete transparency is that you archive everything, reserving blanking of comments for items that are offensive, harassment, vandalism, or the like. Especially given the commercial aspects of your account, and the fact that you have declined to identify your other account, I think you'll find that the more transparent you are, the more other editors will be inclined to work with you. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:37, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. And I see that I also deleted my archive by accident. Thank you for being polite. Sam at Megaputer (talk) 23:45, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sam at Megaputer, You might also want to look at User:Lowercase sigmabot III/Archive HowTo to set up automated archiving. It's much easier than trying to manage it manually. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:52, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sam, I noticed that your userpage says that This is an alternate account that has been created for privacy reasons per WP:ALTACCN. However, WP:PAID states that If the paid editor has used or controlled more than one Wikipedia account, each account must be disclosed (see also this RfC). Could you please disclose your other Wikipedia account(s)? Thanks and best, Blablubbs|talk 21:46, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Blablubbs: Thank you for making me aware of this RFC, which I was not aware of previously. Looking at that RFC, it appears that it was only intended to apply to freelance payed editors. The RFC states 'This new requirement is intended only to apply to those who "advertise, solicit or obtain paid Wikipedia-editing services"; it does not apply to employees editing Wikipedia in the normal course of their duties, or to GLAM editors'. Sam at Megaputer (talk) 21:56, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's not my read of it, given that it's is in a separate sentence. Either way, you'll have to disclose: you're reporting people to COIN, nominating pages for deletion and editing VPP using this account. Per WP:PROJSOCK, Undisclosed alternative accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project – that applies regardless of paid or unpaid status. Blablubbs|talk 22:04, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this is a disclosed alternative account. I just haven't linked it to my main. So I have to disagree on your interpretation of guidelines here. Since this is my work account, I would like for my right to privacy to be respected. Sam at Megaputer (talk) 22:10, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is not a disclosed alternative account; you're disclosing that you're somebody's alt, you're not saying whose, which is as good as not saying anything and still a violation of PROJSOCK. It's your right and your decision to edit projectspace with this account, but if you do, you have to disclose. WP:PUBSOCK states Although a privacy-based alternative account is not publicly connected to your main account, it should not be used in ways outlined in the inappropriate uses section of this page, and if it is, the account may be publicly linked to your main account for sanctions. The prohibition on editing projectspace is one of those inappropriate uses. Blablubbs|talk 22:15, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. I did email a checkuser when I made this account, as recommended per WP:ALTACCN. Since the guidelines appear pretty complex in this case, I'm going to get a consultation from that checkuser by email. I'll avoid participating in community discussions until then. Sam at Megaputer (talk) 22:22, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please consult this checkuser on-wiki for the sake of transparency since a policy clarification doesn't involve private information? Or would you at least be willing to disclose the identity of said checkuser? Blablubbs|talk 22:25, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The checkuser was DGG. My account was just called Megaputer then. I was forced to change it later for compliance with the username policy. Sam at Megaputer (talk) 22:37, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Blablubbs: I have emailed DGG. I will inform you when he responds. Sam at Megaputer (talk) 00:08, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking at it, and, as is our practice, I will ask my colleague checkusers for assistance if I have trouble figuring it out. It will take a few days. DGG ( talk ) 05:49, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Got this response from DGG. He reports that this account has been disclosed to him (a checkuser), and that I have not violated the sock policy. Sam at Megaputer (talk) 18:03, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violating WP:PROJSOCK.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  GeneralNotability (talk) 01:01, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GeneralNotability: Could you unblock me if I promise not to edit project space? Also, could you please define "project space"? Sam at Megaputer (talk) 01:07, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Project space is any page that starts with Wikipedia:. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:09, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To expand on this, WP:PROJSOCK says Undisclosed alternative accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project. You have edited extensively in projectspace, including at AfD - no question about that part. The question, of course, is whether this constitutes an "undisclosed alternative account." You have disclosed the fact that this is a privacy alt, yes, and have apparently disclosed its existence to a checkuser. I believe, however, that the spirit of the policy is that alternative accounts must be publicly disclosed in order to be allowed to edit in projectspace - not just acknowledging their existence, and not just emailing a checkuser/the checkuser list/the Arbitration Committee. This is a matter of accountability to the body of editors as a whole, and we cannot expect that small group of people who are aware of your identity (or the identities of other editors in the same position -- this is not specific to you) to be watching your edits to verify that you haven't edited the same discussion using multiple accounts. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:09, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(watching) Well, SPI isn't my thing and I suppose CUs and SPI clerks are looking into this? But having seen/commented on the VPT section about the spam tool some day(s) ago I do have concerns on policy interpretation. Most of the WP:ILLEGIT examples are, well, illegitimate. In the sense that it's very intuitively obvious why they're disallowed. For example: using multiple accounts to avoid passing WP:3RR, using "good hand bad hand accounts", supporting your own proposal with a second account, etc. But it's not immediately obvious what WP:PROJSOCK is looking to prohibit. Looking back to see when it was added for some context: It seems its existence is 'cited' to a 2007 ArbCom decision. Not sure how tight the wordsmithing was, but skimming over the evidence of that case suggests that an editor used multiple accounts to influence policy debates in a manner that avoided scrutiny and split their history between their more controversial edits. The before text of Special:Diff/622482650 indicates the original interpretation was to limit this to consensus discussions? Which of course makes sense. But looking over this editor's editing history, I don't think their non-consensus-discussions contribs to (eg) WP:VPT are harmful (though the AfD ones are obviously a problem). And I think the difficulty in confirming an editor using undisclosed alternate accounts isn't violating policy also applies to (supposedly) 'legitimate' uses like non-projectspace editing (on talk pages). Still, unless I'm mistaken in policy or reasoning here, I think their contributions to non-consensus discussions don't violate the spirit of the policy and for this editor the ability to discuss as they work on their tool might be helpful. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:25, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ProcrastinatingReader, see here. To add to what I've said there, Sam's alt has repeatedly been the subject of rather intense community scrutiny. There's more than just the technicality of a refusal to completely disclose here. I support this block. Blablubbs|talk 08:28, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PROJSOCK says discussions internal to the project. AFD is about specific content and about as internal as requested moves or other discussions on an article's talk page; it's only in project space so it doesn't get deleted if an article being discussed there is deleted. The only page with non-minor edits by both accounts since the start of 2020 is a noticeboards and there the discussions were related to the edits from that account so switching to a "main" account would have been an improper use of multiple accounts. It also looks like this is the main account. Was there any discussion about the purpose of the two accounts before blocking? Peter James (talk) 13:20, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peter James, the bullet point says Editing project space, and Wikipedia:Project_namespace says Project pages or Wikipedia pages are pages in the Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk namespaces. Both Sam and his main account (as well as the IP that he fairly routinely edits from while logged out) have edited pages in the Wikipedia: namespace. That seems pretty straightforward to me. I'm not getting my knickers in a twist over asking questions at the Teahouse here, my concerns are over his presence in AfD and COIN and him pushing his company's project in projectspace. I note as an aside that we have definitely blocked people who created privacy alts to start AfDs as PROJSOCKs. Again, to me this is a matter of accountability - the problem is not that Sam and his main account have been active in the same discussions, it is that the average editor has no way of knowing whether or not they have. The only safeguard is the handful of people who "officially" know Sam's main account keeping an eye on the interactions of the two accounts, and that's not fair to anybody. ^{SubjectiveNotability} _{a GN franchise} (talk to the boss) 14:17, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have made the mistake of failing to check if I was logged in before making an edit. It is an easy mistake to make. I also went through a period about where edited from IP, rather than my regular account for reasons I have made clear on wiki. Does everybody here know the name of my main account? And honestly, do you want the people here to know where you work? Please take your concerns strait to arbcom rather than continuing this discussion on-wiki. Sam at Megaputer (talk) 14:28, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did, and got rather ambiguous guidance, but chose to act on my own accord due to some confusion on my part (detailed in my response to Barkeep below). (and no, I don't want people here to know where I work...that's why I don't edit on topics at all related to my employer) ^{SubjectiveNotability} _{a GN franchise} (talk to the boss) 14:35, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't lose all of my right as soon as I declare a payed connection. I would prefer that you stop acting on your own and take your concerns to arbcom. Sam at Megaputer (talk) 14:39, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest GeneralNotability you never got any guidance. You got an acknowledgement of the report from me which included the information that we were already talking about it. There was advice offered by an individual arb (and labeled as such), which was immediately retracted because there was already a separate report/discussion going on. You were then included in a reply all by a different arb noting they disagreed with Arb 1. Our discussion was active and ongoing when this block was placed. I'm not suggesting there was anything improper with this block but I would instead suggest that you got no guidance from ArbCom, mainly because we hadn't reached a point where we were ready to offer it, rather than ambiguous guidance. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:12, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Barkeep49, it was quite confusing from an outsider's perspective: you acknowledging receipt, one arb giving an opinion explicitly marked as their personal thoughts, then that getting retracted, then getting CC'd on the other reply-all. The latter in particular made me believe that I was going to be CC'd on further discussion (rather than an accidental click of the reply-all button), so I assumed that the lack of followup email meant that no further discussion had happened. Regardless, "ambiguous" was the wrong choice of word, and I'll just strike the comment. ^{SubjectiveNotability} _{a GN franchise} (talk to the boss) 17:20, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So what happened to WP:AGF? It's very clear that the purpose of WP:PROJSOCK is to prevent one person appearing to be more than one person, not to prevent all editing in one namespace - the only alternative is to force editors to out their privacy alts if an article they worked on is nominated at AfD, they want to nominate another article for deletion, there is a discussion about their behaviour at a noticeboard, they are the victim of harassment or something similar. Policies absolutely must be interpreted with common sense, otherwise we will end up with some very bad results. I have not looked to see whether Sam has been (attempting to) appear as more than one person in discussions, but if they have not then I see no justification for blocking them for that reason. Thryduulf (talk) 14:50, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thryduulf, I blocked Sam according to my read of PROJSOCK, which apparently does not agree with yours - I do not see any exceptions in it, and while I am willing to give some leeway for things like "reported to a noticeboard" or "asking a question at the teahouse/VPT", Sam's activity goes beyond that. If you want to unblock Sam, then do it. ^{SubjectiveNotability} _{a GN franchise} (talk to the boss) 15:13, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GeneralNotability: You are using an alternate account to edit this page, which you have also edited with your main. You have made not disclosed your alternate on this page, but that is OK because you have disclosed it somewhere, and you are not attempting to trick others into thinking that you are multiple people. This is my best understanding of the guidelines, and these are the standards that I would like to have applied to me. Sam at Megaputer (talk) 15:18, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It says "a GN franchise" (with "GN" linking to GeneralNotability's userpage) in the signature, the talk page links to GN's and the userpage has a big "alternative account" on it. That's hardly the same thing as disclosing the connection to a single individual. Blablubbs|talk 15:23, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Sam at Megaputer, the relationship between my accounts is clearly disclosed both on the userpage of the alternate account and on the "alternate accounts" subpage clearly linked from my main account's userpage. My signature includes a link to my main account and to the talk page of my main account. The username is a pun on the main account's username. It is trivial for somebody to see that we are the same person. Your alternate account is (officially) disclosed to one person, and if somebody saw both of your accounts they would have no way of knowing they're the same person. That is the difference here. ^{SubjectiveNotability} _{a GN franchise} (talk to the boss) 15:25, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference, but guidelines do not make the line clear. I do not appreciate that you have forced your personal interpretation of guidelines on me, especially when it involves the handling of my private information. Let's avoid outing, and leave this to arbcom. Sam at Megaputer (talk) 15:31, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to post details beyond this but the fact that you were also blocked on Wikidata for editing about Megaputer under your undisclosed, disclosed accounts and IPs is more than just "I forgot to login". And even if so, that's on you. You don't get a free pass for evading scrutiny just because you've disclosed, further, alt accounts in this respect should avoid any overlapping edits, so that's also on you. TAXIDICAE💰 15:35, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Am I not allowed to make honest mistakes? And one more time please do not keep posting material that may allow people to connect my accounts. Please do take this up with arbcom. The rules against outing trump all others. Please do not post any more information in a public forum which may allow others to connect my accounts. Please take this up with arbcom'!

"Although a privacy-based alternative account is not publicly connected to your main account, it should not be used in ways outlined in the inappropriate uses section of this page, and if it is, the account may be publicly linked to your main account for sanctions." I'm not connecting anything. However, I wanted to note that there is a difference between making a mistake and continually making the same mistake. Competency is still required, if you can't remember to login/login to the correct account a dozen times in compliance with our policies, that's also on you. It's not outing because no one is tying anything together, I'm making a point - that should be clear to any admin who wishes to review your unblock that there is more than meets the eye and a pattern of disregard, whether intentional or due to carelessness of sitewide policies. TAXIDICAE💰 16:03, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PROJSOCK aside (good block by GN imo), If this block prevents this user from attempting to flaunt the intent of WP:PROMO / WP:COI by oh so benevolently offering their employer's software to the enwiki community (to combat promotional editing, no less!) but allows them to contribute constructively on other topics from their main account, I think that's a block working as intended. -- a ^{they/them | argue | contribs} 16:22, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see no evidence in any of the discussions that Sam is attempting to flaunt the intent of either WP:PROMO or WP:COI. I see lots of allegations that he is but no actual evidence. It might be that what he is offering is not wanted, either generally or on the terms offered (that's still up for discussion) but that is very different to attempting to violate policy. It may also be that what they are doing is contrary to policy, but there has undisputably been a lot of confusion and disagreement about what the policy actually means in this area, but I see only attempts to comply with it (not always completely successfully, but again mistakes in complying are not evidence of intent to avoid complying). Thryduulf (talk) 17:54, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is evidence but everytime it's brought up, Sam cries WP:OUTING. However, as to your last comment, mistakes do happen. But we do require a level of competence that requires not continually making the same mistake over and over again. Such competence is expected from all editors and you do not get a free pass for making them just because there is no malice, particularly in areas where our policy and terms of use are very strict and clear. TAXIDICAE💰 18:02, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Send any evidence you have to arbcom. Sam at Megaputer (talk) 18:08, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are not doing yourself any favors by repeating this. Arbcom is already aware of the evidence as far as I know but what I am discussing is absolutely permitted by English Wikipedia's policies. TAXIDICAE💰 18:11, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking only for myself and not for the committee or anyone else on it, I don't understand what you want ArbCom to deal with Sam. As I noted above to GN, ArbCom is aware of this issue but I'm not sure what in our remit there is to be done at this point. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:17, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: I think Sam is saying that if someone has any evidence that they have broken the COI and/or PROMO but which would out them to actually send it to arbcom rather than just complain that they can't share it. If everything has been shared and you can say that it is not evidence of what is claimed then you need to be reminding those making the claim that they must either stop making it or submit new evidence that actually does show what they claim. What I see is someone who has tried to comply with policy (successfully or otherwise) and is getting mighty pissed off at being harassed with accusations of bad intent. Thryduulf (talk) 19:18, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Praxidicae: If you want to block someone for lack of competence, then do so but don't claim that you are blocking them for PROMO or COI. If you want to block them for PROMO or COI then you need to provide some evidence they have violated those policies and nobody has yet done. Incompetently attempting to comply with a policy (any policy) is not evidence of intent to avoid complying with that policy. Misunderstanding a policy is not evidence of intent to avoid complying with that policy - doubly so when many experienced editors do not agree with what complying with that policy means. If you can't share your evidence because it would out someone, then send it privately but you must send it. If, having presented your evidence (publicly or privately), you get told that no, it is not proof of your claims then you must stop making that claim. Thryduulf (talk) 19:11, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like you have a problem with GN's block. I didn't say the evidence would out someone, I said that any time someone attempts to bring up fair evidence of account abuse, Sam cries that he's being outed and demands it goes to arbcom. This is a massive time sink already, having spent several hours of all our time on a barely competent paid editor who does not understand that you cannot use two accounts and multiple IPs to avoid scrutiny of their edits. If I fuck up a template 10 times in a row because I didn't know what I was doing - after being told I was doing something wrong, I'd be blocked, not given a pat on the back and told "aw, it's okay, do better next time!" Our socking policy is also very clear, the fact that Sam chose to, not on one, but two projects edit about his company/his company's products without disclosure on at least one account is on him, not any of us. TAXIDICAE💰 19:16, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My problem is with people claiming a block for being incompetent is a block for violating a different policy. I have seen many claims that there is private evidence of account abuse, but everybody who has actually seen the private evidence is saying it does not show that. So either submit evidence that does show that or stop making the claim. And absolutely stop conflating competence issues with PAID issues they are not the same thing - especially when Sam has disclosed who his employer is. Thryduulf (talk) 19:24, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really care what your issue is, Thryduulf. I was making a point about an editor who I have interacted with, about their competence and general activity. I am not the blocking administrator and have no control over what they do. I am free to note, however, that the issues from this account go beyond a simple WP:PROJSOCK, which is fair to bring up when discussing their behavior and an unblock. This isn't a court of law, other actions do matter and are relevant when discussing blocks/unblocks. It is also completely reasonable to also expect a paid editor to be sufficiently competent to not violate policies. TAXIDICAE💰 19:28, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't care what my issue is then please refrain from making statements about what you think it is. It is indeed not unreasonable to expect a paid editor to be sufficiently competent to not violate policies, however if you want to claim they are violating policies (intentionally or otherwise) you need to show evidence of that and still nobody has. You must also not claim that any failures to comply with policy due to incompetently trying to comply are evidence of intentionally trying to avoid complying with policy. It's also important to remember that there is no exemption to WP:AGF because someone is a paid editor. Thryduulf (talk) 19:47, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thryduulf I'm not going to keep repeating myself, I'm not violating any policies and WP:AGF isn't a suicide pact. If you feel that I've somehow violated this, you're more than welcome to block me yourself and sort it out there. But this is a massive time sink to expect volunteer editors to go through the process of back and forth Wikilawyering for someone who can't be bothered to abide by community norms, so I'm done here. TAXIDICAE💰 20:00, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see "someone who can't be bothered to abide by community norms" I'm seeing somebody who is actively trying to abide by community norms, and failing in part because they keep getting told different things about what those community norms actually are and then getting harassed with accusations of bad faith because their attempts have not been perfect (even though nobody can agree what perfect actually is). This is not my wikilawyering, it's my attempting to get established editors to understand that conflating very different policies is not acceptable behaviour. Thryduulf (talk) 20:49, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf: Perhaps, then, we need new policies, in order to protect the project from editors attempting to use Wikipedia as cheap advertising by editing on company time - I absolutely feel like that's an abuse of community goodwill. Even if the editor is making an effort to comply with policy and is just repeatedly making the same mistake over and over again, the fact that they are recieving compensation for wasting community time should be taken into account and they should be held to a higher standard as a result. Ignorant or malicious, their presence here as an operative of their employer is disruptive to the community, and they should be restricted to non-COI edits. -- a ^{they/them | argue | contribs} 18:34, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What COI edits have they actually made though? How much time would actually have been "wasted" if established editors hadn't spent so long accusing them of various things and refusing to drop the stick when it is pointed out that they haven't actually done that? I've seen absolutely no evidence that they are attempting to do anything other than help the community, nor do I see much evidence of any goodwill from the community being extended towards them. Thryduulf (talk) 20:54, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure we're looking at the same editor? I see a PAID disclosure from this user WRT PolyAnalyst, where they've made a significant number of edits. I don't think it's unreasonable to hold people who're taking home a paycheque for their edits to a higher standard than the rest of us who do this in our spare time. This current nonsense all began with weirdly evasive answers about very reasonable concerns such as "What personal data does your tool collect?", etc. -- a ^{they/them | argue | contribs} 21:10, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thryduulf My company let me work on this because they are hoping to make the news. is a direct quote from Sam in this thread (so no WP:OUTING). That's clear flaunting of WP:COI/PROMO in my book. Good block by the way too. I was advocating for it in that thread as well because the behavior is not above board even if folks decide the alt account is OK and all of this is a massive time sink. Oddly enough if he'd stick to the alternate (which I do not know and do not wish to know), it is probably more anonymous than this account, so the OUTing concerns are odd as he has outed himself. StarM 18:22, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, some people keep repeating that quote as if there's something damning about it. Yet none of what Sam has done in relation to that tool violates any community or WMF policy. When I pressed someone to tell me which policy is being violated at VPT the answer I got was the WMF's mission statement, specifically a portion about the licensing of article content... All this flies in the face of precedent, and (just as an example) the tools most used to detect copyright issues (meta:CopyPatrol & CVDetector) are powered by Wikipedia:Turnitin/iThenticate, proprietary APIs where the former page explicitly details Turnitin's commercial interests. What a company does or doesn't promote itself as outside of Wikipedia is totally irrelevant. If it's a useful tool and given to Wikipedians for free, great. If it's a crappy tool, nobody will use it. If people dislike that, WP:RFC a policy to ban it and such tools (though I don't see what good that does for the project). The COI/PROMO charges just don't make sense, unless the editor has been adding "Megaputer has partnered with Wikipedia to powers its promotional content detection" to some article and I've just missed it? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:53, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ProcrastinatingReader it seems based on This page is mostly outdated: the proposal and planned RFC were in 2012... that those happened in ancient Wikipedia history. Does that mean we should encourage someone who isn't an engaged member of the community to repeatedly post (there were at least three) to VP about their company's tool? Doesn't seem good practice to me. Maybe an RFC is needed, I'm not sure. Note, I see this as very different too to Cyberpower/IABot. Sam seems to be doing this for his company's benefit, not Wikipedia's, which is where it irks me and if the allegations of socking are legit, that concerns me even more. But I guess we'll see where it goes. Thanks for the background. StarM 20:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CopyPatrol and CVDetector are both active in use, AFAIK those two tools pretty much power the English Wikipedia's copyright detection efforts, and their operation depends on Turnitin's proprietary APIs. My understanding is that Turnitin has granted some free usage limits to the projects. I'm not intimately familiar with how that partnership came to be, but it doesn't appear to be altruistic, or relevant tbh. The point is a highly useful offwiki tool has benefitted this encyclopaedia greatly, yet it is proprietary and the company is benefitting from that relationship. I think what some editors are missing is the idea that both parties can benefit from a collaboration; it isn't some kind of mutually exclusive thing. (Besides, Sam only said why his company is letting him working on this, he doesn't appear to say what his own motivations are, and it appears he does contribute as an unpaid volunteer on another account.) AI tools like these are not cheap to develop, and it's not unexpected that their underlying tech is proprietary and the company may look to monetise that in the future with other customers. That has nothing to do with us, though. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:11, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]