Talk:Qnet

Archives (Index)

2012 2013 2014 2015 2018 2019 2020 2021

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

COI Edit Requests

Hello. My contributions are made on behalf and in consultation with QNet. Because of my COI and my understanding of Wikipedia's guidelines, I will not be editing the page directly. Alternatively, I'd like to make some requests via the talk page:

History section

• Move the following paragraph to the top of the History section and replace it with the subsequent paragraph, behind 'Qnet was founded in 1998 in Hong Kong by Malaysian businessman Vijay Eswaran.':

Despite complaints, the company continues to operate in countries including India, and sells its products using a multi-level marketing model, whereby independent representatives refer the products to consumers and receive compensation based on the sales volume of their referrals and the sales volume of other independent representatives in their teams.[12]

The company sells its products using a multi-level marketing model, whereby independent representatives refer the products to consumers and receive compensation based on the sales volume of their referrals and the sales volume of other independent representatives in their teams.[12][37] (Move citation 37 here since it supports the claim)

• In the first sentence of the second paragraph, the timing is unclear in terms of when the company's name was changed from GoldQuest & QuestNet, and no citation is attached. I'd request that we amend the following sentence:

The company was first known as GoldQuest and then QuestNet.

to:

It was first known as GoldQuest and then QuestNet, before the name was shortened to QNet in 2010.

Thank you for the help. QNetLars (talk) 15:36, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

 Partly done: The first suggestion is not clear; why should the first part of the paragraph be removed? I have implemented the second suggestion. Thanks for your request! Actualcpscm (talk) 17:51, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Apologies, the second suggestion has already been implemented. Actualcpscm (talk) 17:53, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2021

The company is legal in india. As per verdict passed in supreme court 2016. 2409:4071:238E:B188:1896:BC42:3338:9BB6 (talk) 09:42, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:46, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

COI Edit Request

• What I think should be changed: In the first sentence of the page, QI Limited is referenced, but isn't actually a former name of Qnet. This should be removed.
• Why it should be changed: The source attached doesn't mention the QI Limited name, and it is not mentioned anywhere else in the article.

QNetLars (talk) 14:46, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

@QNetLars: I made the change, and added a source for the other aliases. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:29, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

COI Edit Request

To whom it may concern: My contributions are made on behalf and in consultation with Qnet. Because of my conflict of interest, I won't be editing the article directly, but I'd like to request that an edit be made to the page:

History

• "In 2000, Qnet was the official distributor of the Sydney Olympic Games commemorative coins and was also a distributor at the 2004 Athens Olympic Games and 2008 Beijing Olympic Games."

• Update this with slightly different wording (in bold):

In 2000, Qnet was the official distributor of the Sydney Olympic Games commemorative coins and would later be named a distributor at the 2004 Athens Olympic Games and 2008 Beijing Olympic Games.

QNetLars (talk) 15:52, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@QNetLars: I made the change since it seems to make more sense chronologically than what was there before, but I also noticed the source was a malicious browser hijacker, so I removed it. I marked the statement with a citation needed template - there are no reliable sources I could find that substantiated the company's history with the Olympic coins. That line could be removed at any time. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:05, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

@Timtempleton Appreciate your attention to this - thank you. QNetLars (talk) 16:49, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Moneylife Reliablity

I am taking some time to review the citations used on this page and I noticed that citation 44 was removed at the request of a 'Cyber Crime Investigation' in India. The citation was originally from a site by the name of 'Moneylife'. I did some additional research around this publisher and there has been extensive coverage around it's toxicity as an organization. Here is an article I found that details a conversation with Moneylife's editor where a neutral platform was offered to discuss QNet and she rejected it. I dug into the reliable sources archive to see if this had been discussed and found this long-winded conversation that ultimately led to stalled conversations. I don't believe this publisher's articles should be used as reliable sources as they are WP: DEPRECATED and there have been conversations around the biases and poor journalism practices within the organization. I propose that we remove this source throughout the article and address the content associated with it. Jmbld (talk) 20:20, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

They are not deprecated, although from reading the article and the RSN convo they probably should be. I agree with removing this source from the article. Pabsoluterince (talk) 09:25, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I am following up on this discussion in the hopes that we garner some more involvement from editors in the community. This is a large issue on the page as a lot of content is sourced from MoneyLife. Myself, and User:Pabsoluterince are in agreement that the source should be removed from the article. In addition, a review should be done on the associated content for replacement sourcing or removal. If anyone is opposed to removing this source from the article, please interject. Jmbld (talk) 20:00, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

It isn't a deprecated source - it shouldn't be removed just for the sake of removal, unless there is some reason (I see none has been brought forward here) to doubt its accuracy in this case. I have no objection to efforts to replace it with other sources with minimal disruptions to article content, though. MrOllie (talk) 20:09, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

@MrOllie There are plenty of editors in this discussion around the reliability of Moneylife that claim it is inaccurate and predatory. They even have a disclaimer that admits to publishing inaccurate content (see here). After reviewing the discussion, let me know your thoughts on using Moneylife as a citation, generally speaking. Given that so much of the page's content was cited with Moneylife as a source, I recommend reviewing the associated content for changes. Jmbld (talk) 03:40, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

There seems to be a strange focus on removing sources rather than adding content to this page. @Jmbld, do you edit Wikipedia for payment, or are you otherwise associated with Qnet in some fashion? MrOllie (talk) 18:16, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

@MrOllie I am not associated with QNet, and you are avoiding my question about the issue. I can look for replacement sourcing, but most of the text cited by MoneyLife isn't found elsewhere. After reading the discussion, I'm curious: What are your thoughts on the use of MoneyLife as a citation? Additionally, is it your understanding that the text on this page meets WP:NPOV? Jmbld (talk) 02:47, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for answering half of my question, I guess. I still haven't seen any credible reason to doubt moneylife brought forward here. The disclaimer you're referencing is standard legal boilerplate - the NY Times has the same thing as part of its Terms of Service, for example. MrOllie (talk) 02:52, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

@MrOllie Other credible reasons are listed out in the discussion I previously referenced, here. To summarize, I've listed the main arguments below:

• After reviewing the coverage around the NSE colocation controversy, Tayi_Arajakate found that Moneylife is generally unreliable and shouldn't be used anywhere.
• Glaring inaccuracies were found in articles.
• The site isn't per se a blog, but is probably worse than blog-quality.
• Poor grammar. FelixFLB
• Most articles are attributed to 'staff' and not an individual author.
• Inadequate editorial oversight and somewhat predatory.

With this information, it's clear that the content these articles are citing should at least be supported by other, more reliable citations. A review should be executed on the content associated with these articles throughout the page to determine if the content is mentioned in reliable sources. Jmbld (talk) 02:51, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, those would be the reasons I don't find to be credible. Hair splitting about terminology is not 'glaring inaccuracies', and I don't really buy the inadequate editorial oversight claims - Moneylife is run by a former financial editor of the Times of India, who has won very major awards for her journalism. - MrOllie (talk) 11:15, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Since I was pinged, I'll just address the arguments made against the discussion at RSN.

The Moneylife disclaimer is anything but boilerplate, the NYT does not disclaim "the accuracy of any the content provided" for one. Why should we trust a site that tells us they bear no responsibility for their own content? There's grammatical errors in the disclaimer itself, which just goes to show how amateur this entire operation is. And something being described as a scam when it is not one isn't some minor issue over terminology, no other source used those terms. The founder's previous work (which was mostly in the 90s) doesn't excuse what the website does at present and The Times of India itself isn't a good source, its more or less a tabloid.

I'd also suggest taking this to RSN if you want to stick to it, since at present there seems to be a consensus against using it, taking into account both this discussion and the RSN one. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 19:51, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

NYT does not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any advice, opinion, statement, or other information displayed, uploaded, or distributed through the Services by any user, information provider or any other person or entity. A poorly attended, inconclusive discussion at RSN is not a consensus to exclude this source anywhere and everywhere. MrOllie (talk) 19:54, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

If you are read that it disclaims information which has come from their users (comments, etc) and third parties (opinion pieces, agencies, interviews, etc) not their own content, which every news provider does. Moneylife disclaims everything which is not something reputable ones do.

The discussion isn't inconclusive, though it's true it didn't have many participants of course so if you think it came to a wrong conclusion you are free to start a new one. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 20:10, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

any other person or entity I'm also free to ignore it, because a poorly attended RSN discussion is not binding on anything. - MrOllie (talk) 20:12, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

"[A]ny other person or entity" falls into the category of third parties, as in anything that's doesn't originate from NYT or its own staff. That is a boilerplate disclaimer that most publications use, Moneylife's is not that.

Even if we consider it to be not binding, in this discussion itself you don't have support for your position, even after ignoring my comments that is. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 20:21, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

You might infer that, but that is not what the NY Times actually wrote. MrOllie (talk) 20:25, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

It's in the wording itself, I don't understand how you come to the conclusion that "other person or entity" can refer to the NYT's own organisation. Newspapers carry a lot of information that originates from third parties, say attributed comments from an expert or activist, attributed statements from a government institution, any interviews they take, any opinion pieces they publish, any news agencies they use, etc so they need that disclaimer but it doesn't disclaim 'everything about any content' like Moneylife does. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 20:37, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Washington post: [1] WE DO NOT WARRANT THAT THE SERVICES WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED OR ERROR-FREE. THERE MAY BE DELAYS, OMISSIONS, INTERRUPTIONS, AND INACCURACIES IN THE NEWS, INFORMATION, OR OTHER MATERIALS AVAILABLE THROUGH THE SERVICES. LA times: [2] While the Site and Los Angeles Times use reasonable efforts to include accurate and up-to-date information, neither the Site nor Los Angeles Times make any warranties or representations as to the accuracy of the Content and assume no liability or responsibility for any error or omission in the Content. I'm sure I could go on, those are the next two that I checked. MrOllie (talk) 20:45, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

You could go on and find more disclaimers with caveats that there may be some errors but none of them will resemble the Moneylife disclaimer which unlike them makes no pretentions of any efforts to include accurate information.

The caveat that reliable news organisations sometimes publish inaccurate information is in our own guideline as well, that doesn't mean they are the same as questionable sources. The disclaimer is not to only thing, it's in addition to the site itself being rife with errors which indicates a lack of editorial oversight, a requirement for something to be RS. Its own disclaimer has copyediting errors, how do you trust that there is any oversight after that?

In any case wouldn't you agree that this discussion is better had on RSN where there would be more input? I don't think we get anywhere in this back and forth. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 21:04, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I generally do not think that local disputes should always be escalated to noticeboards. MrOllie (talk) 21:07, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

@MrOllie If we can't come to a conclusion here, then where should we escalate the discussion? If you think it should remain a local dispute, I'd like to hear some actionable outcomes from this discussion as I agree with @Tayi_Arajakate's points. Jmbld (talk) 23:42, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

That is unsurprising, when you selected someone who already agreed to ping. MrOllie (talk) 23:51, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2022

Industry type is mentioned wrongly. I have visited their official page. Its mentioned as "Direct selling."Gopinathhr (talk) 03:34, 11 May 2022 (UTC) Please check this source and update the same.

(Source: https://www.qnetplus.net/) Gopinathhr (talk) 03:34, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: We'll go with independent descriptions of the company over what they claim about themselves. —C.Fred (talk) 03:38, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

References

COI Edit Request

To whom it may concern: My contributions are made on behalf and in consultation with QNet. Because of my conflict of interest, I won't be editing the article directly, but I'd like to request that an edit be made to the page:

What I think should be changed: Many government entities An observer that worked for French24 described Qnet's business model as a pyramid scheme.: early entrants earn money, and as the number of Independent Representatives (IRs) increases, finding more IRs to join becomes difficult or impossible; IRs that join late do not earn enough to cover their first outlay and the model collapses.[50][51]

Why I think it should be changed: The French24 article from the archive is definitely a questionable source WP:QS. My requested edits are aligned with the sources. No need to include the definition of a pyramid scheme here when the link to the Wikipedia page is right there. The definition is WP:UNDUE. QNetLars (talk) 20:49, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

On first glance, I would be against this change. What exactly makes France 24 a questionable source? Also, I think explaining what part of the QNet model functions as a pyramid scheme is extremely relevant. Pichpich (talk) 21:30, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

@Pichpich: While there may be disagreement on how questionable French24 is, this doesn't change the fact that the content being taken from the article is being spun out of context. The 'opinion' article is from an 'observer,' not 'many government entities' as the page currently suggests. QNetLars (talk) 19:21, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done - France24 is not a questionable source, and the current text is a fair summary of that source. The 'observer' is not the source of most of that article, France24's editorial team is. - MrOllie (talk) 19:39, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

COI Edit Request

To whom it may concern: My contributions are made on behalf and in consultation with QNet. Because of my conflict of interest, I won't be editing the article directly, but I'd like to request that an edit be made to the page:

What I think should be changed: It QuestNet was banned in sued by Egypt, Rwanda, and Sri Lanka in 2009, but the ban was lifted once a mistake in paperwork was rectified.[5] for allegedly operating a product-based pyramid scheme. In 2017, Michael Ferreira and Malckolm Desai, Indian shareholders of a QNet franchise, were under investigation following allegations that QNet was a money circulation scheme; however, the Supreme Court stayed all proceedings and ruled against that, saying that QNet and its franchise are legitimate direct selling platforms[5][6].The company and its franchise Vihaan are under investigation in India.[41] The Bombay High Court denied the anticipatory bail plea of the directors of Vihaan Direct Selling Pvt Ltd., a franchise of Qnet, which included world amateur billiards champion Michael Ferreira after it was earlier rejected by Sessions Court. They were facing charges of cheating and forgery[42] The court observed that "the deceit and fraud is camouflaged under the name of e-marketing and business".[43]

Why I think it should be changed: Per the citation, QuestNet was the entity in question. Egypt didn’t sue anyone, a private religious group issued a decree stating the activities were haram. QNet was able to obtain a decree from a different religious group called ‘Dar illfta’, that stated that QNet activities were in compliance with sharia law, and hence not haram. Source is below. Given the updated legal information, this section is currently WP:UNDUE and does not meet WP:NPOV standards. Requesting edits to reach WP:BALANCE.

Source: https://issuu.com/qnet/docs/qnet-fatwa-halal

QNetLars (talk) 15:16, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I’d be grateful to receive some feedback here from the community. Thank you. ~~~~ QNetLars (talk) 17:51, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Could you please clarify - what are references 5 and 6 in your proposed replacement text? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 19:47, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

QNetLars - As the edit request template states, the COIREQ backlog is extremely high, so please be patient; we're doing our best :)

Regarding the request, see the above reply. I am closing this request pending clarification. Please ping me when you decide to re-open it! Actualcpscm (talk) 17:28, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

@Actualcpscm: I apologize for not responding sooner. Please re-open the request at your discretion. Citations #5 & #6 are based on the following articles, respectively:

QNetLars (talk) 22:10, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

References

COI Edit Request

To whom it may concern: My contributions are made on behalf and in consultation with QNet. Because of my conflict of interest, I won't be editing the article directly, but I'd like to request that an edit be made to the page:

What I think should be changed: Qnet changed its name repeatedly and launched at least 76 companies (as per the Bombay High court order of May 2016), often to sell lesser-known products manufactured by smaller companies using a multi-level marketing/direct sales model.[32](subscription required) Common people (IR in Qnet parlance) were taught to sell these products (often through workshops). Sellers earned commissions for each new seller / buyer brought into the fold.

Why I think it should be changed: I acquired a subscription to Scribd to read through the only source provided in this paragraph, and I noticed the document was uploaded by Moneylife. This organization has been discussed in length on Wikipedia and on this very talk page. The information on this page is not found in the cited document, and the document is uploaded by an organization that multiple Wikipedia contributors agree is unreliable. A clear example of WP:DEPRECATE.

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_350#RfC_-_Moneylife

https://www.forbes.com/sites/donaldfrazier/2012/12/18/followup-on-the-news-internet-spat-breaks-out-over-qnet-and-multi-level-marketing-in-india/?sh=6d66e14b2347

QNetLars (talk) 19:19, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Done. I removed the whole paragraph based on it being original research using a primary source. I haven’t looked into the reliability of Moneylife. The bigger issue is that the primary source in question is just a random document uploaded to Scribd with no verifiable provenance. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 20:06, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, @Barnards.tar.gz: QNetLars (talk) 22:14, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Banned Editor Contributions on this page

A now-banned editor, Jitumoni1995, published more than 50% of this article. They made a total of 222 total edits to the page, or 6.87% of the total edits made. Multiple editors including User:EvergreenFir and User:C.Fred noted this account’s edit warring, and warned them to adjust their editing behavior. The user didn’t change their behavior, and was eventually blocked by User:Drmies in September 2019. No effort was made post-ban to review or assess the validity and reliability of this user’s edits or to recognize how their continued presence on the page sets a baseline for an article that lacks a WP:NPOV.

Many of their edits were sourced from MoneyLife - an organization that has been discussed on this talk page, and on the RSN noticeboard, and has been everything but discredited on Wikipedia.[1][2][3][4] These were all within the editor’s first month of edits to the page.

The content on this page needs to vetted as most of it was added by this editor who clearly didn’t fully understand Wikipedia’s guidelines i.e. [[WP:Disruptive_editing]] [[WP:Single-purpose_account]] among others, and used a publisher with extremely low editorial standards to populate a majority of this page. primarily the controversies section.

I am also including a list of additional examples that highlight Jitumoni’s negative influence on the page, and their heavy reliance on discredited and poor sourcing:

• Example 1 (Use of discredited Source to Negatively Impact QNet)
• Example 2 (Large Reversion of Sourced Content)
• Example 3 (Unreliable Blogs as References)

Given this information, the resistance we’re seeing to editing the page is disappointing. We have seen a lack of engagement to the MoneyLife Reliability conversation (outside of one response from [[User:Pabsoluterince|Pabsoluterince]] – thank you), multiple cases of content being published when it isn’t found in the associated citations to the page(1)(2)(3), and plenty of situations (as noted above) where a Wikipedia editor misunderstood Wikipedia’s guidelines and wrongfully published content to the page. Additionally, there has been an unnecessary amount of resistance against edits that attempt to clarify the content being extracted from associated citations with what is actually written in the articles on the page, and anything remotely positive is met with immediate reversions. Here and here for example.

It’s obvious that this Article has had a fraught history with edits that challenge Wikipedia’s neutrality guidelines in both positive and negative ways for the subject of the article and our purpose in raising this issue is not to turn the page into WP:PROMO. However, taking the above history into account we believe that the article as it currently exists was built on a foundation that clearly violates WP:NPOV and Wikipedia’s standards about reliable sourcing and neutrality.

With all of this context in mind, I ask that editors without a COI participate in conversations around this content and this editor, and make edits to the page that are aligned with reliable sources and Wikipedia’s guidelines. QNetLars (talk) 19:27, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

@Timtempleton, I'd appreciate your feedback on this if you have the time. TIA. QNetLars (talk) 19:06, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Courtesy ping for editor mentioned above @Pabsoluterince:. @QNetLars: There's too much to unpack here for unconnected editors, but when I have time, I'll come back and look at the open COI edit requests. Are they the biggest issues you want addressed? TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:22, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

@Timtempleton, First of all, thank you for participating in the conversations on this page. I realize there is a lot to unpack here, but I assure you the level of concern this draws is warranted. A large portion of this page was drafted by a problematic editor, and that content has never been reviewed and vetted for false information. Do you have an alternative recommendation to attain some feedback from the community on this subject? In terms of the COI Edit Requests, these are the prioritized edits that I believe fit Wikipedia's guidelines but aren't necessarily the biggest issues I'd like addressed. QNetLars (talk) 21:17, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

@Pabsoluterince: Pinging user Pabsoluterince for further feedback.QNetLars (talk) 20:54, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Who is the "we" in whose name you speak, QNetLars? --Orange Mike | Talk 14:20, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

This is a COI-declared account. We’ve established who "we" are. QNetLars (talk) 19:41, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Forbes Contributor Articles

User:MrOllie: I wasn't aware of the fact that this specific article is from the Forbes Asia print edition; I was under the assumption that all Forbes Contributor articles were opinion-based, so I thought they'd be treated as such. Regardless, in this case, the article is WP:BIASED against Qnet and contradicts Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policies. Even though it is a print edition of a Forbes Contributor article, the article's tone and the author itself are not neutral, and I would propose that these citations be replaced with more reliable articles if they exist. Jmbld (talk) 04:35, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

You might want to reread WP:BIASED - it does not support your argument here. Sources are not required to be neutral or unbiased. MrOllie (talk) 15:12, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

@MrOllie I’ve read through the ruleset again and see your point. Regardless, the individual contributor writing these articles certainly has a bias. Because of this bias and so much of the content on the page referencing Forbes Contributor articles, it’s important to distinguish that the opinions are attributed to this individual contributor and not broadened to common sense or Wikipedia’s voice according to WP:VOICE and WP:NPOV. For example, this line: “Qnet has faced controversies since soon after its founding.”

It is stated as a fact in Wikipedia’s voice, when in reality, it is solely the opinion of this individual contributor. These lines should be amended to include the name of the attributing individual. Jmbld (talk) 03:37, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

They're not that individual contributor, though, they're from one of the print editions of Forbes. I understand that Forbes has made that confusing by not clearly marking what has been through their full editorial process and what hasn't when they republish print content on the web, but we should not treat stuff from their print editions as the opinion of some lone blogger. MrOllie (talk) 18:14, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I understand. I agree that we should not treat Forbes contributor articles as blogs, but I do think the associated content needs to be looked at given Forbes editorial process with republishing content on the web as you mentioned. Is it your understanding that all of the content associated with Forbes contributor articles on the page meets WP:NPOV? Jmbld (talk) 15:53, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

You continue to conflate 'Forbes contributor articles' with material from their print editions, so there is no way to meaningfully answer this question. MrOllie (talk) 16:01, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand why that would affect your interpretation of the associated content and its neutrality. A good portion of the page cites 2 Forbes Contributor articles, and I'm curious about your opinion on that associated content (regardless of the reliability of the citations) given the reversions you applied. Jmbld (talk) 02:39, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Request for Comment on Banned Editor Contributions

Should this page's content be reviewed and edited, given more than 50% of the content was published by a banned editor? QNetLars (talk) 20:55, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Article content is good or bad on its own merits, not because it came from any particular user. If there is content that cannot be attributed to a reliable source, or which violates policies and guidelines, then by all means call it out. If you are suggesting that there are multiple issues, maybe start with the one you think is most significant. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 09:00, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

It never hurts to review an article. However: Is there reason to believe the content is not compliant? The time to deal with a banned used is while they are banned, and then we deal with the user. Content is compliant or not irrespective of who the editor is. Littleolive oil (talk) 19:12, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate both of your feedback on this matter. I would like to reference the post (Link to the 'Banned Editor Contribs. talk page post) above that lists out several examples of this editor using a heavily debated source to add information to the article.

• Example 1 (Use of discredited Source to Negatively Impact QNet)
• Example 2 (Large Reversion of Sourced Content)
• Example 3 (Unreliable Blogs as References)

I believe this editor violated WP:Disruptive_editing and was a WP:Single-purpose_account. Their edits violate the nature of WP:NPOV guidelines, and these are just a few examples. QNetLars (talk) 16:43, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I looked at those three edits. They are from several years ago, and the content appears to have since been revised. What are the issues with the article as it currently stands that need to be looked at? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 06:53, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Certainly. I believe the entirety of the Controversies section needs to be reviewed to meet WP:NPOV given the context of how it was published, however, to give you some specific examples of where this exists:

COI Edit Requests:

Unanswered Request #1:

Unanswered Request #2:

Other Instances:

“It has faced litigation in many countries and hundreds of IRs working for it and/or its many subsidiaries have been arrested.” (Written negatively and doesn’t have a citation associated with it)

“India declared both Goldquest and Questnet to be Ponzi scheme companies.” (None of the associated sources ‘declare’ these entities to be Ponzi schemes)

Thank you for your feedback. QNetLars (talk) 19:00, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but that did not need an RfC to figure it out. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:45, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 February 2023

2405:201:400D:D805:255C:B36D:4D7E:C86B (talk) 06:37, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

may be surraund of qnet is not good that does not means that qnet is not good. people not seen the heart of qnet. Qnet is a great company.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 07:20, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

COI Edit Request

To whom it may concern: My contributions are made on behalf and in consultation with QNet. Because of my conflict of interest, I won't be editing the article directly, but I'd like to request that an edit be made to the page.

What I think should be added:

Edit 1 - The Federation of Direct Selling Association rejected Vihaan's application, stating that Vihaan was in the recruitment business rather than retailing. It claimed that recruiting revenues were so large because recruiting rather than selling was the focus. However, in 2017, the Supreme Court in India ruled that Qnet and Vihaan were legitimate direct selling platforms. The court ordered a stay on all further proceedings against the company.

https://www.itechpost.com/articles/105112/20210324/a-misunderstood-mlm-company-but-is-qnet-a-scam.htm

https://www.thehindu.com/business/Industry/sc-order-gives-new-life-to-direct-selling-segment/article17725369.ece

Edit 2 - In Moldova, a once-closed fraud case was reopened based on numerous complaints; however, the source material behind the complaint does not name Qnet as the one who made certain promises but instead individuals who reportedly lied to others.

https://www.publika.md/au-muscat-din-mana-escrocilor-qnet-o-noua-piramida-financiara-care-fura-banii-moldovenilor_2589101.html

Why it should be added: The information about Vihaan is missing important context, specifically the Supreme Court ruling and subsequent stay placed on proceedings. Very clear WP:NPOV, as is the fraud case, which does not name Qnet as the one who made promises, but dishonest individuals.

I would also like to re-request a full review of the Controversies section to be aligned with Wikipedia’s criteria, as discussed in our numerous unanswered requests, including:

Request #1

Request #2 QNetLars (talk) 16:29, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Your 'numerous requests' have been answered - rejecting a request is an answer, even if you do not like that answer. Ignoring those rejections to make the same request over and over is a waste of volunteer time. Kindly stop doing that. MrOllie (talk) 16:49, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, MrOllie. However, you misrepresent the status of my requests. Edit 1 is similar to a request originating on 17 June 2022 that was declined, but never responded to - even after additional citations were provided, and we were given permission to re-open the request upon providing clarification (instead, I chose to make a new request). Edit 2 is not an edit that has been proposed previously.

All of our posts have explicitly followed Wikipedia policies and instruction from numerous volunteer editors, and are in regard to content that is factually inaccurate, providing verifiable information to support our edits. There is other inaccurate information on the page, so how else do you propose we interact with the Wikipedia community in the future, if not through the already-defined parameters? QNetLars (talk) 18:04, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

COI Edit Request

To whom it may concern: My contributions are made on behalf and in consultation with QNet. Because of my conflict of interest, I won't be editing the article directly, but I'd like to request that an edit be made to the page.

What I think should be added: A new 'Impersonations' section containing the following information:

In November 2022, Qnet announced support for the Attorney General in Ghana who was working to dissolve companies that were impersonating Qnet, conducting fraudulent business activities, and misrepresenting the company. The fraudulent companies operate under the name Quest Net or Q-NET Investment Limited.

https://www.myjoyonline.com/qnet-supports-attorney-generals-decision-to-dissolve-fraudulent-entities-impersonating-the-company/

Why it should be added: This information is accurate, important, and notable to Wikipedia readers, as it pertains to a major attempt to defraud people under false pretenses using Qnet's name illegally. QNetLars (talk) 22:54, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Not done for now We need a better reference for this information, preferably a reliable secondary source, especially considering a large portion of this reporting concerns a company issued statement of support. Regards,  Spintendo  01:53, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, @Spintendo. There is not a lot of neutral, secondary coverage about the issue, however we do have a signed memo from the Office of Attorney General in Ghana specifically denoting that QNet is not (and was never) affiliated with these two fake entities in any way. Are we able to provide this document for review?

To be specific, the names "Quest Net", "Q-NET Investment Limited", or "Questnet Limited" are not officially associated with QNet or QI Group in any way. They don't appear on the Wikipedia page either, because they are not names of any affiliated entity.

The only other publicly available information is this article, which also contains statements from the company.

https://www.ghbase.com/qnet-limited-and-quest-net-limited-are-fake-were-not-affiliated-qnet-says/

And this article is about Q-NET, which again, is not Qnet:

https://www.pulse.com.gh/news/filla/police-arrest-60-workers-of-qnet-networking-marketing-company/vmbpp8v

QNetLars (talk) 13:03, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

COI Edit Request

To whom it may concern: My contributions are made on behalf and in consultation with QNet. Because of my conflict of interest, I won't be editing the article directly, but I'd like to request that an edit be made to the page.

What I think should be added:

Extended content

Under the Controversies header: Qnet has faced controversies since soon after its founding but has never been convicted in a court of law. There have been various cases registered against independent representatives (IRs) who, acting on their own, have violated their contractual agreements with Qnet and have been held accountable. It has faced litigation in many countries and hundreds of IRs working for it and/or its many subsidiaries have been arrested. https://gulfnews.com/uae/qnet-fires-over-400-represenatives-in-20-countries-1.70077493 2. Under 2007-2009 section: Rwanda banned QuestNet in 2009 for legal violations, but this ban was lifted in 2012 after The National Bank of Rwanda described the company as a pyramid scheme. The ban was triggered because of an issue with paperwork submitted to the government. The issue was cleared and Qnet resumed operations in the country, following these conditions as requested: registering the company in Rwanda, obtaining a physical address, registering as a taxpayer, making monetary transfers in line with the country’s laws, declaring members of the Questnet chain to tax authorities, and storing the items being sold in a warehouse in Rwanda. In 2013, Qnet launched its first African office in Rwanda. Questnet appealed and was granted relief on condition that it follow the country's laws. https://allafrica.com/stories/201208290368.html https://www.businessforhome.org/2013/09/qnets-african-footprint-starts-with-rwanda/ https://web.archive.org/web/20201128214734/https://techmoran.com/2013/12/17/qnet-new-kid-on-the-block-for-rwandas-e-commerce/ References

Why it should be added: This information is accurate, important, and notable to Wikipedia readers, and provides a more accurate, complete description of controversial events. QNetLars (talk) 11:10, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Reply 8-NOV-2023

  Unable to review  
Your edit request could not be reviewed because the request is not formatted correctly.

1. The citation style predominantly used by the Qnet article appears to be Citation Style 1. The citation style used in the edit request consists of bare URL's. Any requested edit of yours which may be implemented will need to resemble the current style already in use in the article – in this case, CS1. (See WP:CITEVAR.)
2. Citation ref tags have not been placed within the requested text indicating which portions of the text the source is referencing. (See WP:INTEGRITY.)

In the collapsed section below titled Request edit examples, I have illustrated two: The first shows how the edit request was submitted; the second shows how requests should be submitted in the future.

Request edit examples

INCORRECT The Sun's diameter is 864,337.3 miles, while the Moon's diameter is 2,159 miles. The Sun's temperature is 5,778 Kelvin. https://www.booksource.com https://www.journalsource.com https://www.websource.com In the example above there are three URL's provided with the claim statements, but these URL's have not been placed using Citation Style 1, which is the style predominantly used by the Qnet article. Additionally, ref tags have not been placed within the text at the exact positions where the information they reference resides. Using the correct style and the correct positioning of the ref tags, the WikiFormatted text should resemble the following: CORRECT The Sun's diameter is 864,337.3 miles,<ref>{{cite book|last1=Sjöblad|first1=Tristan|title=The Sun|url=http://www.booksource.com|publisher=Academic Press|date=2020|page=1}}</ref> while the Moon's diameter is 2,159 miles.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Harinath|first1=Prisha|title=Size of the Moon|journal=Science|issue=78|volume=51|url=http://www.journalsource.com|date=2020|page=46}}</ref> The Sun's temperature is 5,778 Kelvin.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Uemura|first1=Shu|title=The Sun's Heat|url=http://www.websource.com|publisher=Academic Press|date=2020|page=2}}</ref> Which displays as: The Sun's diameter is 864,337.3 miles, while the Moon's diameter is 2,159 miles. The Sun's temperature is 5,778 Kelvin. References In the example above the references have been formatted according to Citation Style 1, which shows the author, the source's name, date, etc. Also, the ref tags are placed in the exact location where the text which they reference resides. As Wikipedia is a volunteer project, edit requests such yours are generally expected to have this formatting done before the request is submitted for review.

Kindly rewrite your edit request so that it aligns more with the second example shown in the collapsed section above, and feel free to re-submit in a new edit request below this reply post at your earliest convenience. If you have any questions about this formatting please don't hesitate to ask myself or another editor.

Notes

Regards,  Spintendo  19:07, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

COI Edit Re-Request

To whom it may concern: My contributions are made on behalf and in consultation with Qnet. Because of my conflict of interest, I won't be editing the article directly, but I'd like to request edits to be made to the page.

What I think should be added:

1. Under the Controversies header: Qnet has faced controversies since soon after its founding but has never been convicted in a court of law. There have been various cases registered against independent representatives (IRs) who, acting on their own, have violated their contractual agreements with Qnet and have been held accountable. It has faced litigation in many countries and hundreds of IRs working for it and/or its many subsidiaries have been arrested.
2. Rwanda banned QuestNet in 2009 for legal violations, but this ban was lifted in 2012 after The National Bank of Rwanda described the company as a pyramid scheme. The ban was triggered because of an issue with paperwork submitted to the government. The issue was cleared and Qnet resumed operations in the country, following these conditions as requested: registering the company in Rwanda, obtaining a physical address, registering as a taxpayer, making monetary transfers in line with the country’s laws, declaring members of the Questnet chain to tax authorities, and storing the items being sold in a warehouse in Rwanda. In 2013, Qnet launched its first African office in Rwanda. Questnet appealed and was granted relief on condition that it follow the country's laws.

References

QNetLars (talk) 11:58, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I would oppose implementing this, it relies on several unreliable sources, and it fundamentally misrepresents the overall tone of the cited sources, particularly Gulf News. MrOllie (talk) 12:51, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, but you are incorrect.Citation 1 directly notes dozens of IRs being fired for violating their contractual agreements. Citations 3 and 4 clearly note QNET opened an office in Rwanda, and citation 2 explains the mechanism for how the ban was lifted, what conditions were met, and what led to an office being opened, all of which are significant and discussed in these articles. At the very least "... but this ban was lifted in 2012, and in 2013, Qnet launched its first African office in Rwanda" should be added. QNetLars (talk) 12:44, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

COI Edit Request

To whom it may concern: My contributions are made on behalf and in consultation with Qnet. Because of my conflict of interest, I won't be editing the article directly, but I'd like to request edits to be made to the page.

What I think should be added:

Under Business Model section:

As per an official spokesperson, even though sign-up fees are not charged, a purchase might be required. This may be in the form of the sale of a qualifying product to a retail customer or by the new representative making a qualifying purchase. In 2022, Yeoh Soon Hin, a Malaysian state executive councilor for tourism and creative economy, thanked Qnet for bringing entrepreneurs to Malaysia and boosting tourism during the company’s bi-annual convention.The convention is held with support from the Penang Convention & Exhibition Bureau.

References:

QNetLars (talk) 12:51, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Declined, this is blatantly promotional. - MrOllie (talk) 14:05, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

COI Edit Request 12/4/2023

To whom it may concern: My contributions are made on behalf and in consultation with Qnet. Because of my conflict of interest, I won't be editing the article directly, but I'd like to request edits to be made to the page.

What I think should be added under 2019:

The police have written to several investigating agencies including Reserve Bank of India, Enforcement Directorate, Income Tax Department, Serious Fraud Investigation Office, Registrar of Companies, India about how the firm was running Ponzi schemes and have created thousands of investors across the country. After some of the Cyberabad arrests, the Qnet Distributors Welfare Association filed a petition with the Telangana High Court stating that the police were indiscriminately registering criminal cases without following the state’s guidelines.

The Registrar of Companies in Karnataka had inspected the books of Vihaan Direct Selling Pvt Ltd, a franchise of QNet, and based upon the report, it had filed winding up petition before the National Company Law Tribunal. In 2022, the Karnataka high court passed an order directing authorities not to take any coercive measures against Vihaan Direct Selling.

References

QNetLars (talk) 10:42, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

 Declined The proposed text does not go far enough in explaining the Karnataka court's relief order, which also stated, along with the proposed text, that a division bench headed by Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi has said that the investigation regarding the complaints filed against the petitioner company may go ahead and added that Vihaan Direct Selling should co-operate with the probe. Ideally, any mention of the relief order should mention all main points of said order. Regards,  Spintendo  03:46, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

COI Edit Request 4/4/2024

To whom it may concern: My contributions are made on behalf and in consultation with Qnet. Because of my conflict of interest, I won't be editing the article directly, but I'd like to request edits to be made to the page.

What I think should be added under section 2013 - 2015:

In June, 2014, Tajikistan newspaper 'Jumhuriyat attacked Qnet as a dangerous financial pyramid. The company claimed the accusations were false. In September, Qnet sued private radio station and journalist Orzu Isoyev to protect its reputation after the station called the company the next pyramid. Religious leaders stated that the company's activities violated Sharia law by combining two transactions into one: allowing independent representatives to buy a sales kit and simultaneously a representative product. Qnet changed its business practices and continued to operate in the country. This was because the activity involved deceiving people and because the work combined two transactions into one, in that the member must make a purchase and at also agree to find new buyers. In addition, the member can make profits at someone else's expense.

QNetLars (talk) 17:13, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

• Comment I don't think itechpost.com is a reliable source, especially for articles with a footnote reading "* This is a contributed article and this content does not necessarily represent the views of itechpost.com". So basically as reliable as a blog which are generally considered unreliable unless the author is a well-known expert on the subject of the blog post. Pichpich (talk) 18:24, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: The changes are not supported by neutral, independent, reliable sources. Please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  Encoded  Talk 💬 21:38, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2024

Qnet is a Direct Selling Company and not a Multi Level Marketing (MLM) Scheme. 2A02:8086:C88:EE80:202A:B19:A84D:5B60 (talk) 16:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Irltoad (talk) 17:48, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2024

https://www.thehindu.com/business/Industry/sc-order-gives-new-life-to-direct-selling-segment/article17725369.ece

https://www.businessforhome.org/2017/04/supreme-court-of-india-rules-in-favor-of-qnet/ 120.57.66.65 (talk) 08:35, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Charliehdb (talk) 10:17, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Excess cite Removal Suggestions

Following this Teahouse conversation and @David notMD's suggestion, consensus was reached that any attempts to rectify the excess cite template should be done through the Talk page. I've been reviewing my previous citation removals reverted by @MrOllie, and have a few I would propose re-removing:

Citation #91 - This is a dead link to a QI Group website. I believe this is a promotional link left over from previous editors working on the page.

Citation #112 - From everything I can see when searching Google, QNET currently operates in Kazakhstan, so this is either inaccurate, or outdated and should probably be updated.

Citations #152 and #153 appear to be a duplicate, which is why I deleted one of them.

Citation #178 - This is associated with a sentence that already has three citations. This citation does not add any new information, and seems to fall under excess cite guidelines.

Given there are 300+ citations on this page, I will probably have other suggestions over time as I make my way through reviewing each one. If there are any concerns with these citations being removed, please share feedback as I am always looking to improve. Thank you. CiKing101 (talk) 15:37, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Additional suggestions 9/26:

Citation #90 - This news article just contains a bunch of promotional material. Does not seems useful.

Citation #70 - This is based on the opening of an investigation into potential Chit Act violations in 2012 regarding how the company is named. It is not relevant to the sentence "India declared both Goldquest and Questnet to be Ponzi scheme companies." That is not supported by this citation, and thus is not relevant.

Citation #61 - This is just a home link to the Office of Consumer Affairs in South Australia, and a broken one at that. Does not seem to be relevant in any way.

Citation #97 - This article, in relation to a 2010 hearing, is not archived anywhere I can see. Given the sentence it is being used as citation for has four other citations, this seems unnecessary and fits under excess cite guidelines.

Since the first two editors involved in the Teahouse discussion have not responded, tagging @Mike Turnbull in case they would like to review. Thank you. CiKing101 (talk) 12:01, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not really interested in this topic, so I'm not going to get into this in detail. However, I have one bit of advice. The quality of some of the sources is very poor and there is a tool which I have activated for my account which helps identify sources for which there is a consensus of unreliablity. See WP:UPSD. A brief look at the current version of the article colour-codes some sources as bad: notably #4, 9, 10, 12, 16, 41, 42, 43, 44, 51, 52, 57, 121, 134, 136, 138, 150, 163, 193, 194, 205, 276 and 291. Assuming that other sources support the text, I would immediately nuke these ones! Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:40, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Some of those (for example MoneyLife.in) have been discussed before and found to be reliable for this article. MrOllie (talk) 13:47, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 September 2024

Change "An investigation was initiated against Eswaran. 30 thousand members lost money in a 50 million dollar fraud when the Turkey leg of the network collapsed.[94][95]" in page to "Blank (remove from wiki) " due to outdated article from 2011 which is low quality and irrelevant citations.

https://www.hurriyet.com.tr/gundem/30-bin-kisiyi-dolandiran-saadet-zinciri-sebekesi-cokertildi-17879955 CookieMatashiwasta (talk) 04:34, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

 Not done There is no indication that the cited articles are low quality or irrelevant - they appear to be reliable and on point. - MrOllie (talk) 13:04, 17 September 2024 (UTC)