Talk:Dan Wagner/Archive 3

Request Edits April 2022
As the Help page and WP:COI page instruct, I am submitting proposals for updates for review by independent editors. I have a conflict of interest as a paid consultant for WhiteHatWiki, which was hired by Dan Wagner, the subject of this article.

1. In the “Venda Limited” subsection, please replace the first paragraph:

“​​In April 2001, Wagner founded Venda as one of the first cloud based, enterprise class commerce platforms using the technology assets from Boo.com as the foundation for the offering. He bought the Boo.com assets for just £250,000 after they had invested over £70 million in the platform and operations. ”

WITH:

In May 2000, Wagner’s technology company Bright Station bought Boo.com’s e-commerce technology assets for £250,000. Using the technology assets from Boo.com as a foundation, Wagner and James Cronin launched the e-commerce services company Venda in April 2001, creating one of the UK’s first cloud-based businesses. < Under Wagner, Venda’s web, mobile and social-commerce technology was used by companies such as Universal Music Group and Tesco. RATIONALE: First sentence’s source doesn’t support “first cloud based” - corrected with supporting source from the Telegraph. Adds specification that Wagner’s technology company purchased Boo.com, then used its technology assets to launch Venda. Here is the supporting sentence from the Financial Times article by Kadhim Shubber, which is behind a paywall: When shares in that venture plummeted 95 per cent in the dotcom crash, he sold it to the then Thomson Corporation in 2000 for $275m and came back with a new business in 2001 -- Venda, an ecommerce services company built on the remains of the dotcom flop Boo.com. This statement is also supported by the Independent source, which isn’t behind a paywall. Removes reference about Boo.com investing £70 million into itself, as it’s an irrelevant detail. Reorders sentences to be in chronological order. Expanded section to include more details about companies that used Venda’s software. 2. In the Career section, after the “Venda Limited” subsection, please add a new subsection called “Attraqt”.

In the new “Attraqt” subsection, please add the following:

In 2003, Wagner co-founded Attraqt - an e-commerce software company that gave retailers control of website product display - with CEO Andre Brown. Wagner served as the company’s chairman. He took Attraqt public on AIM in August 2014, and stepped down as chairman in 2016.

RATIONALE: Following current article structure, adds a firm founded by Wagner – where he worked for 13 years -- and strong reliable supporting sources that show relevance. Attraqt is already in the lead and needs support and sources in the body to justify. Since the Financial Times article by Kadhim Shubber is behind a paywall, here’s the text of the relevant section: Yesterday, he retired from his position as chairman of AIM-listed Attraqt, an ecommerce company he co-founded in the early 2000s and floated in 2014 at 50p a share, in order to focus on his new "technology start up".

3. In the “Powa Technologies” subsection, please replace the first paragraph:

“In 2007 he also founded Powa Technologies, an e-commerce business based on Venda Inc's small business solution, but with additional services for in-store and mobile point of sale and software for mobile payments.

WITH:

In 2007, Wagner founded Powa Technologies, a company that sold e-commerce services, point-of-sale terminals and mobile technology. Powa Technologies’ key product was the PowaTag app, which Wagner created to be a marketing and purchasing platform that used image recognition technology, allowing users to buy products by scanning print and TV ads with their phones. In 2014 his company raised $80 million from investment from Wellington Management, which Wagner said would be used to make it a ubiquitous platform for mobile commerce and payments.

RATIONALE: Rewrites paragraphs to include well-sourced details, chronological order, proper structure and grammar. Only included statements with very prominent sourcing. This paragraph also rectifies a WP:PROPORTION issue for this subsection, which right now consists of just one sentence about the company’s rise, despite extensive high quality press coverage, versus several paragraphs about its collapse.

Excerpts:

For the first and second sentence describing the company, the relevant section from the Financial Times article (behind paywall) is Powa sold ecommerce services and point-of-sale terminals, but its key product was PowaTag, an app that scanned QR codes and detected other triggers to enable easier mobile purchases.

For the second sentence on Wagner’s description of PowaTag the relevant sentence from the Financial Times is By bundling together various technologies and getting a large number of retailers to access them through a single app, he is hoping to create a ubiquitous purchasing and marketing platform that will become second nature for shoppers.

For the third sentence on Wellington Management, the relevant sentence from the Wall Street Journal is ''In another large late-stage play from a public-markets investor, Wellington Management has put $80 million into Powa Technologies Group PLC., Venture Capital Dispatch has learned...For Wellington, which has made more than a dozen such private investments so far this year, Powa represents its first such foray into the mobile payments space. Wellington didn't respond to a request for comment.''

 'It's a huge injection of capital and vote of confidence,' said Powa founder and Chief Executive Dan Wagner, who confirmed the round. 'We want to become the ubiquitous platform for mobile commerce and payments.' Powa will use the money to power its U.S. launch during the holiday season and better compete against Square Inc., Shopify Inc., Big Commerce Inc. and others in wooing merchants to adopt its platform for selling.

4. In the Career section, after the “Powa Technologies” subsection, please add a new subsection called “Rezolve”. In the new “Rezolve” subsection, please add the following paragraph:

In 2017, Wagner founded mobile commerce platform Rezolve. Under Wagner, Rezolve developed an “instant engagement tool” that allows smartphone users to scan items in print and TV ads and purchase them, or request more information. The Financial Times noted Rezolve’s function was similar to PowaTag, but Wagner told Business Insider he wouldn’t use IP that didn’t belong to him. In 2021, Wagner took Rezolve public in a merger with Armada Acquisition Corporation, a financial technology  SPAC in a $2 billion deal.

RATIONALE: Expands article to include one of Wagner’s global ventures that was covered extensively in leading mainstream press. Incorporates specifics about partnerships under Wagner’s tenure, and adds reliable sourcing. Excerpts: For the second and fourth sentences, the WSJ states: ''Rezolve Ltd. is combining with a special-purpose acquisition company to go public in a merger that values the mobile commerce platform at about $2 billion, the companies said. A software platform that can turn physical advertisements and products into shoppable merchandise, Rezolve is merging with the SPAC Armada Acquisition Corp. I, a blank-check firm focused on the financial-technology industry. The deal is set to be unveiled Friday. London-based Rezolve says its platform offers businesses direct access to consumers, who point their phone at physical objects to generate actionable or shoppable items. The software can also improve a company's marketing by using location-based technology and other targeted techniques, Rezolve says. The company hopes its software will eventually be embedded in a number of businesses so everyone from retailers to sports teams can easily interact with customers, Rezolve founder and Chief Executive Dan Wagner said in an interview. ‘The ambition is to be a standard in mobile engagement,’ he said. ‘We're simply saying, 'Here is an infrastructure that anyone can put in their apps.’ Mr. Wagner has previously launched several companies, including smartphone-payment firm Powa Technologies, which collapsed in 2016. The British tech entrepreneur said in some ways Rezolve picked up where Powa left off and that its existing revenue and business-focused strategy will make his latest venture successful.'' The third sentence source references the Financial Times, which states: ''Mr Wagner is back with a venture called Rezolve that appears to be based on a similar proposition to PowaTag. He did not return a request for comment, but told Business Insider last month: ‘I have created something entirely new with Rezolve and wouldn't dream of using IP [intellectual property] that didn't belong to me.''

Thank you.W12SW77 (talk) 19:59, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * This was exactly the content that was taken out in 2017 by consensus with some uptodate content. It is the same content that he gave to his previous agency. Its against consensus, is promo and won't be going back in. You can be guaranteed of that.  scope_creep Talk  21:27, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * There is no overlap at all between the above four proposals and the binding consensus decisions from 2017. There were seven questions in consensus 2017 RfC Talk:Dan Wagner. These very specific items do not come up in these new proposals. For example, there was no decision to remove the sections on Attracts and Rezolve.
 * Please WP:AGF. I researched these proposals myself, using only high-quality reliable sources. It is not true that I was given any content by the subject of the article, and he has asked for no changes to my proposals. I am trying to think about this article with the same frame of mind as a neutral editor. I am not mired in the previous years of personal fights. None of these updates should be controversial – they are well-sourced and are merely descriptive of basic facts, not touching any controversies. If anyone disagrees, there should be discussion, of course.
 * will you allow an uninvolved editor from the Request Edit queue to review these new proposals on the merits (and for others to participate, as they see fit) or are you saying that each one needs to become a binding RfC vote because you oppose any updates? W12SW77 (talk) 18:57, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Any editor can look at it and the edit request will be answered. But there is page consensus that was agreed in 2017 and is still active. What you have brought, about Venda and Powa and so on, for example, is more of less same. Slightly shorter sure, but it seems to be puff. You need to make a proper edit request so its added to the queue.   scope_creep Talk  19:39, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * OK. I added the code for Request Edit. FYI, thought it would be a good idea to add a description of what Powa actually did to attract all that investment before what follows, the collapse. Just seems something readers would want to know. There were plenty of good sources.W12SW77 (talk) 21:41, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it will take a several weeks to months before its answered.   scope_creep Talk  07:59, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ,, , , , . Since this has been on the Request Edit queue for five months, I have left a notification at the WikiProject for the UK and am pinging a few randomly selected recent members of this project to see if they might wish to participate in a review. I think this comports with WP:APPNOTE. W12SW77 (talk) 19:52, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The article was a giant WP:PUFF piece the last time around in 2017, before consensus agreed that most of this had to taken out because it was promo junk. You as Dan Wagner obviously want to turn back the clock and put the puff back in, as it was before. That is not going to happen.  scope_creep Talk  20:40, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello, thank you for approaching and I would normally be happy to help, however am unfortunately rather preoccupied with an ongoing project. UnknownBrick22 (talk) 17:39, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: This edit request may be overly long and with a context of years-long disputes. Try seeking advice on the talk page of the Neutral point of view/Noticeboard if it would be the right venue to address this dispute, given the allegations of promo and others that may indicate issues with the NPOV  policy.
 * Also, ask how to present in said noticeboard these edits you are seeking to implement. Because they request to "concisely state the problem perceived with the text in question." Cheers! Thinker78  (talk) 03:15, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: This edit request may be overly long and with a context of years-long disputes. Try seeking advice on the talk page of the Neutral point of view/Noticeboard if it would be the right venue to address this dispute, given the allegations of promo and others that may indicate issues with the NPOV  policy.
 * Also, ask how to present in said noticeboard these edits you are seeking to implement. Because they request to "concisely state the problem perceived with the text in question." Cheers! Thinker78  (talk) 03:15, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, ask how to present in said noticeboard these edits you are seeking to implement. Because they request to "concisely state the problem perceived with the text in question." Cheers! Thinker78  (talk) 03:15, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, ask how to present in said noticeboard these edits you are seeking to implement. Because they request to "concisely state the problem perceived with the text in question." Cheers! Thinker78  (talk) 03:15, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Controversial closing of rfc
I spent some time examining the edit request, the history of the dispute, and the rfc. I think this latter should not have been closed so soon. There is no guidance that states rfcs cannot be used after unsuccessful edit requests. I think that after 5 months of wait for an edit request that may never come, it was reasonable to start an rfc.

Also, one of the basis to decline an edit request is to inform the requesting editor to seek consensus. And given the lack of participation in the discussion of the edit request, one of the steps to seek more participation and a more clear consensus was an rfc. The editor tried seeking a third opinion without success. Therefore, I think it was not appropriate to close the rfc with the stated closing summary.

In my opinion the creation of the rfc may not have been gaming the system, if I assume good faith. At least two of the items of the rfc were not addressed in the 2017 rfc that I could find. Maybe there is a history of edit warring, past rfcs, and dispute resolutions. But that's why an rfc is there for, to provide comment.

Bring such histories with links and how relevant they are to the present editor that made the edit request, who may not have an idea of what happened 5 years ago. Other editors reading the issue may not have an idea either. And if you are familiar with the issue, links could provide helpful documentation.

Finally,, sometimes there is simply not enough interest in a topic to attract many editors' attention. I would suggest you try making shorter edit requests, one item at a time, that way maybe more editors would be willing to address them. Thinker78 (talk) 01:48, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi If the editor comes back with a request with only the facts without the puff, I wouldn't be hostile to it. I really don't want to back to the 2017 article that took so long to fix and this is an attempt to do it, directed by Wagner himself. Simple statements with only the facts and nothing else. The stuff the coi editor wants added is in part the stuff that was removed per consensus in 2017, so to relist the stuff is problematic. So simple statements with proper refs.    scope_creep Talk  23:37, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It is impossible to have a productive discussion until you acknowledge that your assertion is false that the facts covered by these proposed edits were previously decided by a RfC. You’ve repeated this assertion in a Request Edit, a a new RfC and again here, even after being specifically corrected by an independent editor. In effect, you have repeatedly accused me of improper behavior by re-opening resolved matters. Please acknowledge that this is untrue, and that you'll stick to the merits, or we can talk about it further at WP:ANI. W12SW77 (talk) 17:26, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I haven't accused you of improper behaviour. Your just a paid editor who has been paid to push the Dan Wagner line. You could be any one of a whole host of people, in any number of agencies who could be here talking. It's not your fault that Wagner is getting you to push this trash content. Your free to submit new edits requests any time with new information that is both valid and factual, free of puff.  scope_creep Talk  14:40, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * There are three statements at issue. Let’s take them one at a time. The first fact to be added into the article was that Wagner was the CEO and founder of Attraqt. You have asserted that there was consensus to remove this from the article in 2017. I believe this is false but feel free to provide the diff to show otherwise. Assuming you cannot, please address the text and citations I already suggested for this new subsection.
 * Attraqt
 * In 2003, Wagner co-founded Attraqt - an e-commerce software company - with CEO Andre Brown. Wagner served as the company’s chairman until June 2016. He took Attraqt public on AIM in August 2014. and left as chairman in 2016.


 * W12SW77 (talk) 17:22, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * As you haven't replied, I would assume you have no issue with the previous item. Let me know if I’m wrong. Let's move to the second request, please. Again, please provide a diff if there's been consensus to not include the following topic, as you said (none exists that I can find). Assuming there is none, please identify any promo you see and I’ll fix it up  – this item is about his founding and serving as a CEO of a company that went public in 2021 with a valuation of $2 billion.
 * Rezolve
 * In 2017, Wagner founded mobile commerce platform Rezolve. Under Wagner, Rezolve developed a tool that allowed smartphone users to scan items in print and TV ads and purchase them, or request more information. The Financial Times noted Rezolve’s function was similar to PowaTag, but Wagner told Business Insider he didn't use IP that didn’t belong to him. In 2021, Wagner took Rezolve public in a merger with Armada Acquisition Corporation, a financial technology  SPAC, in a $2 billion deal.
 * W12SW77 (talk) 21:11, 16 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment These are fine. I've checked the references and they are free of puff. If you want to create and edit request to request their addition, please go ahead.  scope_creep Talk  14:01, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * There is a third request from the previous Request Edit and RfC that you might like to weigh in on. (Shortened below.) It involves background information about Powa currently in the first sentence of the Powa section.  But that sentence has no citation, is inaccurate and vague. I don’t see how there could have been consensus in the past to include an unsourced statement.  I found three  highly reliable sources and tried to write a neutral summary of the description of what the company did based on what sources say, as well as  the major financial raise of $80 million. Currently, the article only says Powa raised “substantial sums”, which is almost meaningless, also unsourced and therefore brings little context to the ensuing investor losses. If you have objections or think it can be improved, could we discuss it now?

In 2007, Wagner founded Powa Technologies, a company that sold e-commerce services and mobile technology. Powa Technologies’ main product was the PowaTag mobile app, which allowed users to buy products by taking photos of embedded codes on print and TV ads. In 2014 his company raised $80 million from investment firm Wellington Management. W12SW77 (talk) 00:15, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

As you can see from the comments above, User: scope creep has now reviewed two of the three requested updates and found no problem with them; and has had the opportunity of several weeks to review the third and has not weighed in. Scope creep was the sole editor who opposed the substance of Request Edits from April 2022 and the RfC from October 2022. As there is no longer any opposition, and this has been dragging on for 11 months, I hoped you might do one final review and if everything is OK, approve/implement these requests. It doesn’t seem quite fair to have to wait another 6 months on the RE queue since the reasons given in opposition - that these matters had previously been rejected by consensus - turns out not to be accurate.

The first is to add a new section for Attraqt  under the “Venda limited” section; the second is to add a new section for Rezolve under the “Powa Technologies” section; the third is to replace the unsourced first sentence of Powa Technologies” with two sourced sentences. All of the text, as reviewed by scope creep, is above. Thanks for considering this. W12SW77 (talk) 19:10, 26 February 2023 (UTC)


 * @W12SW77 I understand your frustration but try being more diplomatic and mindful that Scope Creep is an unpaid volunteer that took their personal time to help in these requests. WP:NEGOTIATE.
 * Also, for more chances of getting your requests solved in shorter order, I suggest following the advice at WP:MAKINGEREQ. Cheers! Thinker78  (talk) 04:32, 27 February 2023 (UTC)