User:Elvey/DR/Alec Defrawi

User:Spelunkster/Scammer


and (See below.)

Ayman Ahmed El-Difrawi


User page and article on notable scam artiste. Plenty of reliable sources showing notability now due to recent FTC action.

https://www.mywot.com/en/forum/30104-gigats-com

https://www.mywot.com/en/forum/66132-outfit-that-sued-wot-members-gets-90m-fine-for-deceptive-advertising (There's a PD-FLGov mugshot too.)

Starting WP:DELREV having seen the above and http://file.wikileaks.org/file/ayman-difrawi.html because User:Daniel who deleted sandbox pg is inactive (2 edits so far this year). Deleter User:Haemo is inactive for years.

Looks like there's some good content for use at Henderson (which currently reads like a bit of a hit piece) and/or Ayman Ahmed El-Difrawi.

No reason was given for the '07 XFD close either! Bad form, suspect! The 3 comments by by 192.223.243.6 made good points re. notability that were not refuted. Above include St. Petersburg Times, Tampabay.com, sources, which are in addition to the sources .6 noted.

Expect to see defenders of this scumbag come out of the woodwork; that's what's happened in the past.

Elvey (t•c) 20:21, 12 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Endorse.  This fails the WP:NOTHERE sniff test.  User has been blocked a total of eight times over the years.  Pretty much the first thing this user does after the most recent block expires is to start a DRV about an 8-year old AfD on a controversial topic, and with a nominating statement that's way out there.  Sorry, I'm not buying it.  Suggest speedy closing this nomination.  -- RoySmith (talk) 23:17, 12 May 2016 (UTC)


 * It is unacceptable for an editor to accuse another of egregious misbehavior in an attempt to besmirch his or her reputation. Yeah you clearly took a good look at the reason for the blocks by User:Bishonen, and the evidence I provided for the DR.  Perhaps you should be blocked for being trigger happy and violating WP:AGF.  Saying that  recent FTC action helps make someone notable is way out there?  No.  That claim is way out there.  Directly verifiable FTC link, since you are too trigger happy to even follow the ones provided  https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2016/04/ftc-charges-education-lead-generator-tricking-job-seekers Thanks for the warm welcome back.  Not. You should avoid casting WP:ASPERSIONS. -- Elvey (t•c) 00:08, 14 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Endorse.  Discussion was strongly leaning to delete.  DGG's !vote suggests to me that a WP:TNT approach to recreation might be reasonable, although I haven't seen the article or looked at sources.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:09, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * What discussion? The one in 07?  <! --You know that WP:Consensus can change, yes? --> I don't object to restoration (with history, for proper attribution) to a sandbox and a later move when e.g. any stuff that doesn't pass WEIGHT is removed.  Blowing it up seems unnecessarily destructive.  We're here to build an encyclopaedia, not blow shit up for no good reason - like a certain infamous group has been doing with actual TNT.  -- Elvey (t•c) 00:15, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * True, I didn't really consider the deletion discussion being 8 years ago, but still, the deletion discussion was clear and your nomination here is barely coherent. You seem upset. Emotion does not carry much weight in overturning past decisions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:42, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * What in the OP suggests I'm upset? Nothing, yet you ignore my request (below) for a response to the actual arguments made in favor of undeletion, and bring 'emotion' up instead.  Ad hominem attacks on someone uninvolved in past decisions should carry no weight in overturning past decisions, especially if they're groundless, but even if they weren't.  You think it is acceptable for an editor to accuse another of egregious misbehavior in an attempt to besmirch his or her reputation?  I don't see you objecting to it.  Did you look at the reason in the logs for the blocks by User:Bishonen, or follow the links to evidence I provided for the DR?  I see nothing indicating you did, SmokeyJoe. -- Elvey (t•c) 00:08, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Bold statements, lots of links assertin "reliable sources" none to reliable sources. I am unaware of any blocks or any involvement by Bishonen, and don't see the relevance.  To start a case for undeletion or recreation, you need to start with independent reliable sources that cover the subject directly.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:33, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * SmokeyJoe: How is https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2016/04/ftc-charges-education-lead-generator-tricking-job-seekers anything but a reliable source? The St. Petersburg Times, Tampabay.com, sources?  You are refusing to acknowledge or comment on the reliable sources showing notability due to recent FTC action that I have pointed readers to, I see; like I said, those and other RS exist and can be found at the links I provided in my OP. -- Elvey (t•c) 23:07, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It is a reliable source for what? Certainly not the subject at hand.  It names him as a defendant and says nothing else about him.  It does not cover the subject directly.  Links to forum posts are to be ignored.  "RSes exist and can be found..." is not good enough when asking to overturn a well-participated deletion discussion.  My personal searching finds news mentions, but not coverage, certainly not reliable secondary source coverage.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:18, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * When a user so clearly reads a comment out of context, such as by ignoring the "due to recent FTC action" connected to "RSes exist and can be found..." ... what to make of that? I notice no one is disputing my comment: No reason was given for the '07 XFD close either!  Bad form, suspect! as a reason to at least not dismiss out of hand.  -- Elvey (t•c) 22:17, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Your claims regarding the source: "It names him as a defendant and says nothing else about him. It does not cover the subject directly." are false: Most of the source text is about him. It says in part, referring to him:

Under a proposed stipulated court order, the defendants are prohibited from making misrepresentations like those described in the complaint, and promoting job openings without a reasonable basis to expect that employers are currently hiring for those jobs. They also are barred from transferring consumers’ personal information to third parties without clearly disclosing that it will be transferred, and their relationship with the third party. In addition, the defendants are prohibited from using the information covered under the order unless consumers affirmatively opt in to their services.

The proposed court order imposes a $90.2 million judgment that will be suspended upon payment of $360,000. The full judgment will become due immediately if the defendants are found to have misrepresented their financial condition.

The defendants are Expand Inc., also doing business as Gigats, EducationMatch and SoftRock Inc., and Ayman A. Difrawi, also known as Alec Difrawi and Ayman El-Difrawi.

In addition, I pointed to FOUR FTC documents about him, which, collectively say a great deal about him. -- Elvey (t•c) 22:17, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

The complaint says, e.g.:

Defendant Ayman A. Difrawi, also known as Alec Difrawi, also known as Ayman El-Difrawi, is the founder, self-described ·'quarterback," chief executive officer, and a director of Expand. At all times material to this Complaint, acting alone or in concert with others, he has formulated, directed, controlled, had the authority to control, or participated in the acts and practices of Expand, including the acts and practices set forth in this Complaint. ( Case 6:16-cv-00714-CEM-TBS Document 1 Filed 04/27/16 Page 3 of 19) I'd appreciate it if someone would, per WP:DR, respond to the actual arguments made in favor of undeletion. If you wish to oppose the article restore, by all means do, but with a coherent argument that differentiates you from defenders of this scumbag that I said I expected would come out of the woodwork.-- Elvey (t•c) 00:15, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * This material is primary source material. It is facts without opinion, commentary or analysis.  It is not material about the subject.  Compilation of this sort of material would turn Wikipedia into a database.  Wikipedia is not a database of criminals, crimes and sentences.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:20, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * What about http://www.wftv.com/news/action-9/action-9-exposed-businessman-accused-of-nationwide-job-listing-fraud-1/249238295 ? Shritwod (talk) 15:54, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It is coverage, but it is news reporting, all facts, no opinion. That makes it primary source material not secondary source material.  Find a book, a periodical, or an editorial that covers this person, that is what is needed to demonstrate Wikipedia-notability.  Alternatively, look to WP:CRIME.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Elvey, how about staying on topic as you are demanding other's do and not equating those who disagree with you with "defenders of this scumbag"? Ad hominem attacks lead are an indication of a battle ground mentality. Let's all just bring it down a notch. Let's not forget the burden is on you to met the objections from the original discussion. Given the amount of time that has past, I think that a restart from scratch would be the best course of action here. How about you start a draft in your user space? I'd be willing to help you. Otherwise I endorse the deletion. It was warranted.--Adam in MO Talk 05:13, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm equating those who disagree with me with "defenders of this scumbag"? No, you're the only person who's done that. What I said, 5 days ago, was, "I'd appreciate it if someone would, per WP:DR, respond to the actual arguments made in favor of undeletion. If you wish to oppose the article restore, by all means do, but with a coherent argument that differentiates you from defenders of this scumbag that I said I expected would come out of the woodwork." Let me be clear. This in no way equates or is intended to equate those who disagree with me with "defenders of this scumbag", and is not and is not intended to be an ad hominem attack. I think it's clear, and if it's not to some readers, I'm sorry, but I don't see how their reading comprehension issues are my fault, and I welcome a suggested rephrasing of the sentiment I expressed that makes that clearer to you or anyone else. Also, you seem to be hounding me. What brought you here? I'm happy to start a draft in user or draft space, if I can use the two extant (but deleted) articles as a starting point - e.g. by restoration to user or draft space. I can't use http://file.wikileaks.org/file/ayman-difrawi.html because  I can't credit the authors, as CC-BY-SA requires. Shritwod provides a helluva source with http://www.wftv.com/news/action-9/action-9-exposed-businessman-accused-of-nationwide-job-listing-fraud-1/249238295! Did you look at it? And the question isn't whether the deletion was warranted, but whether undeletion, so that old versions can be used to create a new article, is now warranted, given the add'l evidence that this topic warrants coverage that's been presented. BTW, what's the template that links to news, book, etc searches for the title of an article? It's used in some other process(es); I don't recall wich one- AFC? AFD? -- Elvey (t•c) 17:41, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

From the latest WFTV report:

Our investigations found his company advertised jobs that didn't exist so it could collect personal information to sell.

The federal trade commission sued Alec Difrawi and his companies gigats.com and Softrock for deception and his operations had several other names.

The lawsuit claims Alec Difrawi and his companies harmed thousands nationwide out of Metrowest offices.

The FTC says his operation advertised jobs online that didn't exist then collected applicants personal information so colleges could recruit them.

Instead of getting a job an Orlando woman was hit with spam from online schools by another Difrawi company. “They're just sucking you in to sell something,” she said.

A former employee told Todd Ulrich she was trained to mislead job seekers.

“Were you gathering information for an employer?” asked Ulrich.

“No.”

“About a job?” asked Ulrich.

“No,” replied the former employee.

I see facts ("The FTC says his operation advertised jobs online that didn't exist then collected applicants personal information so colleges could recruit them.") and opinion (employees were "trained to mislead job seekers") in a reliable source.

-- Elvey (t•c) 17:49, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Full disclosure: I have a COI here, but I will try to maintain NPOV. Here are some questions.. who or what is notable here? Is is the company known variously as Expand Inc. / Gigats / EducationMatch / SoftRock, or is it the individual Ayman Difrawi? Reading the FTC complaint leans me in the direction of it being Gigats as the primary focus of the action. For comparison, Lifelock is also notable for being on the receiving end of a similarly sized FTC fine, but that company probably passed the general notability test for inclusion anyway. There are a few independent and nominally reliable sources covering the individual and his companies, but not a lot. There are some other sources too that might not pass general reliability criteria. You should be aware that this individual and his companies have sued several people for defamation, and presumably made an even larger number of legal threats against individuals and organisations that have posted negative comment. That may well have an impact on the coverage. I suspect that the Wikimedia Foundation has had such complaints made against it, but I have no proof.

Remember also that there is a general problem with using primary sources (e.g. court filings, business filings this FTC action etc) because this would fall into the apparently dreaded category of "original research" which leads to the peculiar situation of having a load a reliable PRIMARY sources, but insufficient reliable SECONDARY sources.. and no, I don't understand that either but those are the rules.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly.. the FTC statement says this is a PROPOSED court order, I don't know if it has been accepted. But even if it has, labeling this person as a "fraudster" or "criminal" on the basis of that order is tricky. The point has to be proven in law by a court or a judge, else I would suggest that these charges are ALLEGATIONS. Shritwod (talk) 19:25, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

PC comments

 * Note Shritwad's "full" disclosure. Given that, their comment re. legal threats may violate the no legal threats policy; the disclosure is the opposite of "full", hence the 'may'.  And we're talking about a stipulated court order; those are always accepted.  Labeling this person as a "fraudster" or "criminal" on the basis of that order is indeed tricky - and no one has done that.   But the documented fact is, "operators of Gigats.com have agreed to settle Federal Trade Commission charges."

Note that Shritwad's previous edit adds content accusing someone of child abuse to another article, despite the lack of any legal finding and evidence that doesn't even include the accused's name, but rather a similar one. The positions seem extremely inconsistent.

What's notable? As I said, "The complaint says, e.g.:

Defendant Ayman A. Difrawi, also known as Alec Difrawi, also known as Ayman El-Difrawi, is the founder, self-described ·'quarterback," chief executive officer, and a director of Expand...


 * Hmm. Seems the closer of this DR is ignoring the bulk of the discussion - this is particularly evident given that the purported reason for closing: The decision to delete is endorsed - it flies in the face of the following point : And the question isn't whether the deletion was warranted, but whether undeletion, so that old versions can be used to create a new article, is now warranted, given the add'l evidence that this topic warrants coverage that's been presented. More to the point, according to policy, which states  four times: consensus is determined by the quality of arguments (not by a simple counted majority) and In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. but the close shows no sign of that.

According to policy, which states four times that consensus is determined by the quality of arguments (not by a simple counted majority) and states: In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. but User:SSandstein's close of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2016_May_12#Ayman_Ahmed_El-Difrawi shows no sign of that; just thoughtless-seeming boilerplate: "The decision to delete is endorsed".


 * BTW, what's the template that links to news, book, etc searches for the title of an article? It's used in some other process(es); I don't recall wich one- AFC? AFD?  Answer:

-- Elvey (t•c) 18:40, 27 May 2016 (UTC)