User talk:BDBIsrael

Notice from BDBIsrael: I work for Banc De Binary, an enterprise which with its agents was site-banned by the community at 11:40, 21 June 2014 [1]. As a compliance officer who seeks to uphold Wikipedia policy as well as to accept responsibility for past noncompliance by editors that had a prior relationship with us, I believe it is appropriate to ask the community to consider evidence as to the ongoing utility of such a ban, in addition to the regular unblock request channels.

Evidence that edits requested by me and BDBJack are valid and that our discussion list [2] of numbered items was appropriate:

Request for correct statement of corporate legal identity 9 April [3] was implemented 19 June [4].
Request for correct statement of corporate national identity 15 June [1(b) in list] was implemented 20 June [5].
Request for correct version of founder's name 9 May [6] was implemented 12 May [7].
Request for removal of the misnomer "BDB Trading" 9 April [8] was implemented 9 April [9].
Request for removal of unverifiable statements about the SEC and Nadex 8 June [10] was implemented 8 June [11].
Request for removal of allegations of stealing 13 June [12] was implemented 2 July [13].
Request for removal of misclassification as "betting firm" contrary to regulation 15 June [11(b) in list] was implemented 9 July [14].
Request for removal of mischaracterization tied to correcting corporate national identity 15 June [24(a) in list] was implemented 8 July [15].
Request for removal of orphan tag 13 June [16] was implemented 13 June [17].
Request for removal of protection tag 15 June [Header(a) in list] was implemented 2 July [18].
Request for removal of neutrality tag 15 June [Header(b) in list] was implemented 9 July [19].
Request for grammar, punctuation, and capitalization corrections 15 June [20] was implemented 15 June [21].
Request for correcting "CTFC" to "CFTC" 2 July [22] was implemented 2 July [23].

This list may be extended. We are thankful to various Wikipedians for accomplishing these corrections. My intent is to invite the conclusion that the remaining concerns in our discussion list of 15 June should be initially considered at least as reasonable as the edits already stated. BDBIsrael (talk) 23:10, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Hello, BDBIsrael, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 17:04, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
Finding your way around
Table of contents Department directory
Editing articles
How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style

Getting help
Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
How you can help
Contributing to Wikipedia Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Regards, Mr. Stradivarius. I appreciate your warm welcome, as it makes a nice complement to that of User:Coretheapple. BDBIsrael (talk) 17:08, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Banc De Binary

Hello! Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for disclosing your conflict of interest so openly. I hope you enjoy editing here. I've made your account confirmed, so you should now be able to edit the talk page at Talk:Banc De Binary. Before you do that, though, I'd appreciate it if you could take a moment to request that your username be changed. Our username policy doesn't allow role accounts - accounts can only be owned by individuals. So you can't have an institution as an account name, as that indicates that it is a role account. If you like, you can change your username to something completely different, or you can keep the institution in the name, but just indicate that it is a personal account, e.g. "Joe at BDBIsrael". Let me know if you have any questions about this, and I'll be happy to answer them. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 17:12, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Mr. Stradivarius. I will attempt to edit the page again. I am familiar with the policy against role accounts, but I did not think of it in this regard, as "Israel" is my first name, and I am not based in our Israel offices. I would personally rather not enter into the complications of username change at this time, as there are urgent policy violations to address, but I would be happy to hear your counsel if you think differently. BDBIsrael (talk) 17:33, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, if Israel is your name then there's no problem. Thanks for clarifying for me. (And it looks like I should have been a bit more careful when I read your userpage...) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 17:57, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --John Nagle (talk) 20:12, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BDBIsrael, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi BDBIsrael! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Ushau97 (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:09, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

June 2014

Please stop your disruptive behaviour. Your behaviour is verging on harassment. Wikipedia prides itself on providing a safe environment for its collaborators, and harassing edits, such as the one you made to Talk: Banc De Binary, potentially compromise that safe environment. If you continue behaving like this, you may be blocked from editing. Posting an absurdly long list of demanded changes amounts to harassment. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:49, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regards, Robert McClenon. I appreciate your quick and candid review of my request. Banc De Binary, Ltd., has sought for several months to obtain basic corrections to its article, including but not limited to such issues as the facts that its name is "Banc De Binary, Ltd.", and its CEO's name is "Oren Shabat Laurent". We discussed how to achieve this with OTRS and the volunteer suggested, "I would encourage you to post the concerns that you have mentioned on to the talk page and provide as much supporting evidence as you can. This may help the community focus on specific issues within the article. Just as important, I would be judicious in the way it is presented, as I would hate for it to be incorrectly construed as a 'list of demands'." I then mentioned our concerns briefly on the article talkpage and agreed to mediation under User:Atama. I stated that it might shorten discussion if the article were "stubbed" first, but this appeared not to be a viable option based on Atama's statements. As a condition of mediation, Atama requested that all issues be identified first: "Discussing concerns is what mediation is about, BDBIsrael. But just please keep in mind that right now I just want to verify ... if there are any additional issues that need to be discussed .... I can understand your wish to give the whole [short] list in its entirety." While I recognize that presenting such a good-faith list might expose me to such charges as you have laid, it is not clear that I could have proceeded in any other way. If it would help, I will take your concern to another administrator who is aware of the article to provide guidance as to whether my edit requests are in compliance with Wikipedia policy. BDBIsrael (talk) 17:09, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since your intimate familiarity with Wikipedia rules are indicative that you are not a new account despite your minute number of edits, it difficult to accept on good faith your assertions that you are blithely unaware of the disruption that you are causing. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 17:26, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regards, Figureofnine. As I have stated, it is my job as a coordinator of social marketing services to be familiar with Wikipedia policy and not to be disruptive. Can you please indicate another means of having our company name corrected, after 58 days of waiting, and of addressing our other concerns of policy violation, other than following the advice of the OTRS volunteer and of the informal mediator? BDBIsrael (talk) 17:32, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is it on the list? Fine. It will be addressed when Wikipedia volunteers get around to it. We have lives and we have limited time that you do not respect, that you have wasted. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 17:38, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad we are in agreement about request submission procedure. BDBIsrael (talk) 17:41, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Figureofnine

Figureofnine raised the following concern in an administrative thread:

You and other accounts associated with BDB have wantonly wasted our time, have socked, and I believe that you are one of those socks because you are a new account that does not behave like one. I also believe that the socking and disruption is not about to end, and that a site ban is amply warranted.

Due to new social marketing initiatives, Banc De Binary has made a public statement on Wikipedia about prior noncompliance and our PR department is considering whether to incorporate this in a site press release as well. We regret that the noncompliance has apparently resulted in the consumption of volunteer time.

All Banc De Binary workers are required to comply with Wikipedia policy as a condition of employment and are required to disclose Wikipedia accounts in certain circumstances. As one responsible for this initiative, I can disclose on behalf of Banc De Binary that no workers are currently in noncompliance, and that former noncompliances were disclosed in the public statement, which appears on my userpage. I have submitted the concerns about my alleged disruption to an administrator familiar with the case, and I will also submit your concern about my alleged abuse of illegitimate alternate accounts to an administrator familiar with the case. In accord with internal protocols, because of the editors' concerns stated, I am also submitting my actions for review by another Banc De Binary manager. If it helps, I can disclose personally that I do have an abandoned alternate account, which has been dormant for over 15 months.

We had previously been persuaded that piecemeal negotiation would resolve our serious concerns, and we allowed BDBJack to continue that process. We recently concluded that, despite our compliance initiatives and our quiet profile, the piecemeal method was not resolving the basic questions. Accordingly, I established a new disclosed account to express our concerns more directly in my own person, and to interact with editors toward a positive resolution. Please express any other concerns here, so that they can be reviewed by administrators and our internal managerial review. BDBIsrael (talk) 18:11, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(see below) Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 19:41, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Nagle

Nagle raised the following concern in an administrative thread:

Support some kind of block/ban. The disruption has gotten out of hand. Atama tried to mediate, and made a list of five issues to be discussed. Those were dealt with. Then the BDB team added a list of 12 issues they were concerned about. Those were dealt with, with a long discussion of whether BdB's activites in the US were illegal, with the consensus that they were. That conclusion was even accepted by BDBjack (who asked for favorable spin, writing "Would it be possible to change mentions of "illegal operation" to "illegal operation under the current regulation of the SEC and CFTC"?") For a moment, it looked like we were done. Then the BDB team added a list of 56 issues they were concerned about, claiming that even where the item was factually correct and sourced, items "harmful" to BdB should be removed. That was, properly, treated as tendentious editing. From the comments above, just about everyone involved is fed up with the BdB team. (All the problems are from the BdB team, which includes their socks and paid editors. BdB has no significant support from experienced editors. This article isn't controversial on Wikipedia.) Given the BDB team's track record of admitted paid editing, sockpuppets, and forum-shopping, it may be difficult to shut them down completely, but it's time to try. I suggest banning/blocking all BdB affiliated accounts, interpreted broadly, for 30 days. (Maybe 90 days?) That's appropriate for disruption. This should include any new accounts which somehow just happen to be drawn to BdB issues. A short-term broad ban is more helpful than editor-specific long term bans and blocks, because of the extensive sock history. Thanks.

It is unclear whether this should be met with a full clarifying response or not. Nagle appeared to be willing to submit to mediation, but asking for one's partner in mediation to be banned or blocked does not seem consistent with being willing to submit to mediation. Please allow me a moment to determine an appropriate response. BDBIsrael (talk) 19:12, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to address this comment and the one above, and hope you listen. I am appealing to you as rational businessmen who are on Wikipedia as professionals, solely for the purpose of working on your article and meting out aggravation to editors who don't agree with you. There are two problems: article issues and BDB editor behavior problems. The article issues may never be addressed to your liking. You have to accept that. But they are not going to be addressedat all until you guys go away.

First you tried hard-nosed. That didn't work. Now you're trying "the soft touch." That's not working either, because you're still socking and are terminally unwilling to behave properly. Editors don't like to work on an article when the subject of the article is harrassing them and lying to them, and generally making pests of themselves. That's only human nature. So what I'm suggesting is that you recognize this and go away.

I do not want to waste any more time with you people by getting involved in debates on your talk page, so this is my first and only time to reason with you. I suggest that you take my advice. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 19:41, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regards, Figureofnine. We are not asking for the article to be to our liking, nor seeking to aggravate. You have given some harsh charges and we will gladly address them any time you care to provide evidence. If community discussion should turn to addressing our concerns about content violations encyclopedically, we need not give further input. BDBIsrael (talk) 20:03, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On review, I believe Nagle's comment can be summarized as charging (1) disruption in mediation, (2) abuse of alternate accounts and paid editing, (3) forum-shopping. I have already requested administrative and internal review of the first two, which is what appears to have led to the third charge. I leave the matter to the administrative threads. I am always available to answer additional questions. BDBIsrael (talk) 20:10, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment by Nagle

Nagle raised the following additional concerns in the same thread:

I agree with Figureofnine above. After a full block for a month or so, then we can consider this. Bear in mind that, until a week ago, the BdB team was still running multiple sockpuppets. (Ref: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive843#Banc De Binary, HistorianofRecenttimes, Smallbones, Okteriel.) When that was forcibly stopped, they tried buying paid edits [...] for $10,000. When that backfired, they created a new account, and tried wikilawyering and endless rehashing of the same arguments. Only when all else had failed did they try acting "legitimate". That phase has only been in progress for less than 48 hours. As for the "fresh start" claim, see Wikipedia:Clean start, esp. "It is expected that the new account will be a true "fresh start", will edit in new areas and avoid old disputes..." That clearly does not apply to BDBJack (talk · contribs) or BDBIsrael (talk · contribs). We routinely block editors for a month or so for disruption. That's appropriate here. This is a gentle sanction for the documented bad behavior. Per WP:SOCK, all BDB accounts could be blocked by any admin as being connected to known sockpuppets.

I hope I may say that the sequence of events is slightly incorrect. Banc De Binary has never countenanced or "run" the abuse of alternate accounts ("sockpuppetry"). Some time ago we began a process of establishing internal protocols that regulate corporate and personal use by all employees and contractors of social marketing websites, among which Wikipedia is included; our severed relationship with Wiki-PR was one reason for this initiative. So what Nagle calls the legitimate phase began some months ago. In April, BDBJack was authorized to interact with other Wikipedians as a compliant account with a disclosed conflict; he began editing, naturally enough, on 9 April with a polite request that our legal identity be properly referenced in the first sentence of the Banc De Binary article. BDBJack, like I, used personal discretion in all his editing and, like mine, his corporate responsibilities were not lessened by, and did not include, his personal choices to edit Wikipedia.

Also during the establishment of these protocols, Notsosoros (a BDB worker who has properly disclosed that account and the legitimate alternate account OrangeHogs) chose to make certain independent edits that were not compliant with policy. When this editing was discovered, BDB acted immediately, the worker in question has been counseled, and we can state definitively that the noncompliance will not recur.

As it became clear that BDBJack's polite requests based on core policy were being ignored, the Board authorized a large number of advertisements for various PR tasks, including an advertisement related to Wikipedia that appeared on 1 June. Here I am permitted to quote my email to OTRS last week: "I also note your statement that the community prohibits certain tactics, by which I believe you mean paid advocacy. I can disclose that a majority of the Board did agree to create a public job posting with a $10,000 budget that did not involve the advocacy component. I did not have a vote in this discussion and was consulted solely for my opinion as to whether the posting could be performed within Wikipedia policy. I answered that it could, as long as it did not reflect advocacy but only consultation and editing services that reflect core Wikipedia values, including, but not limited to, individual editorial judgment, freedom from bias, full disclosure of conflict of interest, respect of consensus, etc. I am only aware of one such posting being placed, although the staffer was authorized to place more than one. As it turned out, although we later posted a job award in favor of one editor, the award was subject to final agreement on terms, and we did not conclude an agreement for a $10,000 contract with that editor or any other. Therefore, we are not at this time soliciting for paid editing or free consultation." The volunteer thanked me for my disclosure: "I appreciate your candid reply in regards to the public job posting and appreciate that you have retracted such offers." Incidentally, we became aware of Wikipedia's new paid editing initiative this week and will absorb that into our current protocols in reasonable time.

We can also make the following disclosures about individual behavior during this period, which I have just added to the Board statement on my userpage.

Pursuant to our internal protocols and Wikipedia policy, Banc De Binary can disclose the following at this time: (1) Wikipedia User:NLZ06 engaged in a pattern of editing in May 2014 that gave the appearance of sockpuppetry. NLZ06 was indefinitely blocked by Wikipedia. NLZ06 has not been disclosed to us as one of our employees or contractors. It is therefore our reasonable belief that NLZ06 has no formal relationship with Banc De Binary. (2) Wikipedia User:Okteriel engaged in a pattern of editing in June 2014 that gave the appearance of sockpuppetry. Okteriel was indefinitely blocked by Wikipedia. Okteriel has not been disclosed to us as one of our employees or contractors. It is therefore our reasonable belief that Okteriel has no formal relationship with Banc De Binary. Banc De Binary regrets the noncompliances independently initiated by our agents and by third parties. All employees and contractors of Banc De Binary are currently in compliance with our social marketing protocols.

The Board was pleased with the results of its various PR job postings but recognized that the job posting relating to Wikipedia, unlike the others, had become counterproductive, and they asked me to assist BDBJack in reaching out to other Wikipedians. I created an account 9 June and have interacted directly since 12 June (about 96 hours), but I have previously edited with an account in good standing that is now dormant for over 15 months; this is a "clean start" in that the prior account did not edit in relation to my professional interest in binary options. However, I understand if "clean start" does not apply to continuing to request that discussion and consensus about BDB move forward on open topics instead of stalling, but I do not believe we have improperly objected to any established consensus. I am not conscious of rehashing old arguments, as the argument I championed in relation to our legal identity has now come to reasonable consensus in agreement with the statement BDBJack made 9 April; and other points are submitted to mediation. If I have unconsciously rehashed an old argument, the former resolution can be brought up in mediation; I can "drop the stick" anytime I am conscious of holding one.

On review, Nagle's new charges amount to (1) sockpuppetry, (2) abusive paid editing, (3) wikilawyering, (4) abuse of clean start. I hope that these details provide sufficient background to make reasonable decisions about these charges. It appears that I am being guided to trust the open administrative thread to provide sufficient review of these charges rather than to have them reviewed individually, so I am not commenting additionally on this matter except to post a link to this comment and to resolve questioned points. BDBIsrael (talk) 00:40, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS

Hello BDBIsrael, in trying to get a handle on the issues at the Banc De Binary discussion page, I notice that multiple times you've mentioned that you contacted an OTRS volunteer. Do you remember who that person was (Wikipedia user name)? I'd like to talk with that person to get their opinion on issues. You've said that person gave acknowledgement of poor sourcing, and evidence that consensus was reached to reduce the article to a stub, and I'd like to get confirmation of that myself. That might help resolve a few of the issues and allow dispute resolution to proceed from a more informed approach. If you don't want to reply on Wikipedia, you can send me an email. Thank you. -- Atama頭 19:06, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, Atama. I have replied by email. I am free to provide additional documentation publicly if desired. BDBIsrael (talk) 19:18, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reading Suggestion

Hi there. I wanted to suggest reading this article that I found: [24]. As a programmer I tend to deal with a lot of "stupid" questions, or question that annoy me etc. I usually send that guide to users who may actually have a valid point, but fail to communicate it in such a way that makes me want to do anything about it. I hope it is good reading for you. BDBJack (talk) 22:45, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why, thank you, BDBJack. I'm looking forward to it. BDBIsrael (talk) 22:47, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Site ban

As a result of this discussion on the ANI noticeboard, you and other BDB accounts are banned from editing Wikipedia. If you feel this is unjustified, use {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} to attract attention. Thanks, Number 5 7 11:48, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Number 57. I respect your commitment to perform your duty as you recognize it. Because of the speed and nonspecificity with which you performed my block among other closure requests, I have in my unblock request responded directly to the administrative thread as briefly as possible without omitting issues, with email copy to you, and to UTRS as instructed at "Appealing a block." BDBIsrael (talk) 23:05, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

BDBIsrael (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

TL;DR version: Evidence shows that we commit to comply with Wikipedia policy in succinctly discussing improvement both in binary options and in other areas; that we have corrected all noncompliances of which we are aware; and that the negative effects of former noncompliance with which we are associated have already been sufficiently addressed and are not usefully addressed by adding a block or ban. In response, I request that any unresolved noncompliance on our part of which you are aware be clearly stated and linked so that it may be addressed. BDBIsrael (talk) 23:05, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Valid community decision. No possibility of unilateral unblock; no indication that the community would be willing to hear an appeal so soon after the ban (and certainly not on the basis of the "tl;dr" wall-of-text below). Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:54, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Full unblock request text for administrator review

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I request ban and block overturn because I and Banc De Binary have committed to Wikipedia compliance, having initiated companywide protocols for social marketing website compliance earlier this year, and have sought to address noncompliance in all reasonable ways. Yet we have not yet succeeded in obtaining a stable forum for discussing correction of text about us, a forum that we believe the Wikimedia Foundation has an interest in providing us. As a compliance officer, I agree not to engage in the behaviors identified in the ban thread [25]; I have also attempted to improve the encyclopedia in areas outside my professional interest, and have requested adoption from User:Lihaas. As to admitting having committed the accused behaviors, (1) we have identified and disavowed the third-party sockpuppetry; (2) we have identified and disavowed a public advertisement we made that was unhelpful to ourselves and Wikipedia; (3) I appear to have failed to be succinct, but User:Mike V recognized in the linked thread my attempt to correct that; (4) in my haste I mistook quoting a criminal allegation for making one, and acknowledged my error User_talk:TParis/Archive_13#Banc_De_Binary_request; (5) I mistakenly applied the term "fresh start" to our new compliance efforts, when it did not apply because Banc De Binary continues to have similar content concerns as before; (6) I requested additional administrator assistance when there was already an administrator thread open; (7) I responded to parties in the administrator thread who appear not to have been speaking to me. These are all the cognizable misbehaviors communicated to us, and I commit that they will not recur. (1)-(2) refer to problems that arose from third parties between two and twelve months ago, as well as certain admitted misjudgment by our Board of Directors two to four weeks ago; (3)-(7) refer to minor errors committed recently by me as a new editor.

As to encyclopedia improvement, BDBJack has already indicated his commitment to voluntary topic ban and to edit technology-related articles instead on his userpage. I do not have an immediate inspiration for a topic area in mind beyond my professional interest in binary options, but I do commit to seek the possibility of and to make substantive improvements in the encyclopedia in areas where I do not have a conflict of interest. This commitment is illustrated in my brief edits to the topic areas of attack and Institute of Mathematics and Applications that came up by chance during my editing.

I also seek the right to discuss politely my list of improvements in the area of my professional interest Talk:Banc_De_Binary#Discussion_list. The credibility of these concerns and the validity of our request for a communication forum is illustrated by the facts that (1) We provided a source indicating our proper legal identity on 9 April [26], and our repeated requests were ignored until 19 June (the 72nd day), when Amatulic acted on the admission, finally provided last week by other editors, that our facts and source were correct all along. (2) Our requests for proper article tagging, punctuation and capitalization corrections, and correction of our national headquarters as being in Cyprus, were also carried out as noncontroversial improvements. (3) In the next item on my list, we believe the article's third sentence incorrectly states essentially that we are unregulated, although we and our exchange are regulated by CySEC, as we first pointed out on 18 April [27], and the offending sentence, which does not properly reflect its sources, relies on two sources that do not describe Banc De Binary's regulatory status but only binary options in general; this suggests that our concern with factual error is credible. Our extended list of concerns is of the same character, and I trust that this illustrative content discussion does not conflict with the requirement for the unblock request to be resolved prior to substantive content discussion.

As to erroneous ban elements, the proximate cause of the ban was my attempt to list, briefly but in full Talk:Banc_De_Binary#Discussion_list, all our credible concerns with the article's current content, in compliance with instructions both by the informal mediator, User:Atama [28], and by the OTRS volunteer (ticket #2014060610010708, where the volunteer stated, "I would encourage you to post the concerns that you have mentioned on to the talk page and provide as much supporting evidence as you can"). My listing of content concerns as instructed was regarded as generic disruption and a "wall of text". It is my opinion that other editors, by objecting to the process given in instructions by both the mediator and the OTRS volunteer, literally rather than generically disrupted the mediation process. I admitted [29] that my discussion list was regarded by others as disruptive, and requested correction if there had been any other way to follow the instructions given, but no alternative was provided me. I am attempting to continue discussing my content concerns via OTRS, but that forum seems to hamper the discourse severely. Other characterizations of noncompliances occurred that amplified upon those I recognize above, but such characterizations generally suffered from exaggeration or misinformation, as generally noted in place.

During the ban discussion, we were supported in various points by Amatulic, Atama, Mike V, and TParis. Amatulic even admitted our concerns about legal identity [30] and national identity [31] were valid, and floated the idea that semiprotection was viable [32], again suggesting that much of our remaining discussion list also consists of credible content concerns that can be resolved by mediation or structured discussion. The only administrator I am aware of supporting the ban, prior to implementation, was Future Perfect at Sunrise. We therefore relied upon the other administrators for guidance, and on the OTRS volunteer's statement that, "[g]iven the depth of discussion that has occurred, I would think it to be unlikely that an administrator would close the discussion without taking a look at the depth, quality, and integrity of all comments into consideration." Our reliance upon these authorities, and upon the Foundation's interest in preserving lines of communication with parties who have concerns with articles about themselves, seems to have been problematic.

We affirm the blocks on the third parties Scubadoofeck and Notsosoros and accounts related to them, and we regret the noncompliances related to our association with them. While the Foundation's interests are served by these blocks, they are not served by banning or blocking myself or BDBJack, as we have contributed productively, such as by finally obtaining consensus about the correct statement of our legal identity, by obtaining several other minor improvements to the article, and by making positive contributions in topic areas not related to our primary interests. The community ban mixed together the pent-up objections to past noncompliances and the transient objections to minor errors relating to new editing. We commit to the changes described that will improve our productive editing in the future if the ban is overturned.

Thank you, Future Perfect at Sunrise. I respect your commitment to perform your duty as you recognize it, even when your prior comments were already referenced in the compressed text. However, your statement seems to contradict that of Amatulic in the next section below, where it seems implied that, for instance, an administrator could perhaps overturn a block if the blocked user reasonably agrees to abide by the ban voluntarily rather than by force. At any rate, we are currently reviewing our remaining options for addressing our content concerns. For most efficient resolution, the next step appears to be to take a momentary break while these options are assessed and then later to test the community mood by requesting unblock for BDBJack, who entered into a voluntary topic ban independently prior to the community ban. It is also necessary for me to state that our options review and our other actions represent "[a] polite, coherent complaint in cases of ... [perceived] attacks" and is therefore not a legal threat. BDBIsrael (talk) 23:32, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that I am also thankful to Future Perfect at Sunrise for agreeing with us that a strongly negative allegation appearing in the Daily Mail but attributed to an anonymous informant is generally inappropriate for Wikipedia. BDBIsrael (talk) 23:17, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ban clarification

In response to questions that have arisen, I have just asked, at the IRC channel "wikipedia-en-unblock", the question, "If a Wikipedia user works for Banc De Binary but has committed no disruption and has performed no editing within the binary options topic, is it correct that they are not subject to this ban?" The answer from IRC account NotASpy was: ""All accounts operated by and on behalf of Banc de Binary" so if the account has not been operated by or on behalf of Banc de Binary, it won't be subject to a ban." Therefore, it is my understanding that BDB employees and contractors with English Wikipedia accounts operated by them personally and not as BDB agents nor on behalf of BDB are not subject to this ban; and I am informing employees and contractors that the ban does not apply to them generally, with the exception of the three accounts listed at Wikipedia:List of banned users and similarly situated accounts. (I have personally verified that all similarly situated accounts can be easily distinguished as such by public inspection of the editing histories in the topic area. Therefore, there are no accounts operated by or on behalf of BDB that have not been identified within the topic area already, and BDB is not authorizing the creation of any new accounts operated by it or on its behalf.) BDBIsrael (talk) 11:48, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your email to me

I will not engage in a private email discussion regarding Wikipedia business that doesn't involve personally identifiable information or other matters that absolutely must be private. If you want to converse with me, or any other administrator regarding the content of the Banc De Binary article, you must do so in public.

Because you are currently site-banned but you still have access to your talk page, you will need to appeal the ban before you or any other representative of Banc De Binary can resume discussion of the article. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:40, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Amatulic. I appreciate your prompt clarification. One point remains unclear; to wit, I infer you believe that, given my situation, the Foundation need not under any circumstances provide a forum for a banned article subject to discuss correcting perceived factual errors, which does not seem to agree with its legal responsibilities to prohibit material error that may be colorable as defamation or the like. I am actively seeking to properly resolve this apparent contradiction. For transparency I have also copied my email below, though it largely repeats points I will make in my unblock request. BDBIsrael (talk) 22:40, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Email from BDBIsrael to Amatulic

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Regards, Amatulic. Thank you for correcting our legal identity at "Banc De Binary", and I also appreciate your correcting our national identity as Cypriot and noting that the article may be ripe to be converted to semiprotection again. Please confirm receipt of this email immediately if you don't mind, as our immediate need is to verify lines of communication (or, if you don't wish to respond, please have the consideration to state on your talk page that you have declined to accept this email as identified by its timestamp).

In the interim, I appear to have put myself in the embarrassing position of being banned for my attempts to obtain the very corrections that you performed, as well as other simple corrections that were performed noncontroversially, and a large number of unresolved corrections that remain in my "Talk:Banc De Binary#Discussion list" and that are often just as noncontroversial as those already performed. For instance, the next correction listed is to the third sentence of the article, which currently incorrectly states essentially that Banc De Binary is not regulated, when we are regulated by CySEC; the sentence relies on two sources that do not relate to Banc De Binary's regulatory status and instead relate to binary options in general. We recommended deletion of this sentence or recasting it for the article on binary options.

Our current problem is determining how the Wikimedia Foundation intends for us to discuss and obtain consensus on these corrections (other than the claim that a consensus exists to ignore them, which is not truly a policy-based claim). I am hopeful that, given your independent initiation of edits that are logical and helpful, you may be able to provide us some guidance on this point. If we are to remain banned from editing Wikipedia, the avenues by which we can negotiate these policy-based corrections are very limited. We have already been in communication with OTRS, but it could be argued that following the OTRS volunteer's instructions was part of our behavior that was objected to in the ban discussion. I also made a request to be "adopted" that has not borne fruit. I believe it clear that the Foundation has significant interests in keeping communication lines open for users who have material, factual objections to content in articles about themselves, but I am not successfully finding out how the Foundation exercises those interests.

My secondary problem is being a social marketing compliance director who is required now to report his own noncompliance. The administrator who performed the action, Number 57, did not list any noncompliance behaviors. The administrator who logged it, De728631, listed "paid editing and blatant sockpuppetry to whitewash the article". However, I understand that disclosed paid editing is not noncompliant in itself; the Board of Directors of Banc De Binary made a public statement dissociating itself from prior third-party accounts that had committed sockpuppetry; and all of the edits that were heard on their merits were performed, indicating that our requested edits were not by and large a whitewash. Am I to report that I was banned based on old sockpuppetry that we acknowledged as related to us and that we disapproved, when there was no ban at the time the sockpuppetry occurred? Or that I was banned based on posting a list of concerns, as asked by both the OTRS volunteer and the informal mediator, the first few of which were accepted and converted into responsive edits, solely because certain other editors continue characterizing them as whitewash? If you can dialogue publicly or privately with either of these administrators as to the propriety of banning an editor who seeks to take responsibility for past noncompliance and who is expressing credible factual concerns with the article about his company, that would also be useful to Wikipedia.

I would appreciate your immediate response indicating whether you have time to review these questions.

Further to your e-mail to me (which you sent after Amatulić advised you to converse with administrators in public), I am not in a position to unban you. The ban was the result of a community discussion. Only a similar discussion can result in you being unbanned. Number 5 7 11:39, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Number 57, technically any admin can remove the block (which merely enforces the ban). However, nothing will happen until an appeal is posted, and such an appeal will likely be declined if posted too soon.

My advice to BDBIsrael is to wait 6 months. While blocked, this talk page should be used only for matters relating to the block, although I doubt anyone would object to requests to remove new appearances of unambiguous libel or vandalism from the article. Otherwise, changes to the article will unfold at whatever pace the community deems appropriate. I'd advise against appealing to OTRS to edit the article or post on the talk page in BDB's behalf, as this may be viewed as an attempt to evade the block by engaging indirectly in Wikipedia activity. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:16, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As an OTRS volunteer, my advice is that taking this to OTRS would not be productive as there is no action for OTRS to take - this is a content and behavioral issue that has been handled appropriately by the community.--ukexpat (talk) 01:01, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Number 57, I emailed you according to the unblock request instructions, and the email merely copied the text of the unblock request.

Amatulic, I respect your advice, although I note that one of the ban advocates quoted on this talkpage stated that a month or so might be acceptable, and it seems this should certainly be the case with BDBJack, who has asked for the right to edit computing topics while remaining under a voluntary topic ban.

Regards, Ukexpat. I respect the advice not to burden OTRS with content questions, and we are following this for the nonce while we review options appropriate to addressing our content concerns.

It appears that there is conflicting guidance about whether or how one's offline attempts to discuss either content or behavior are regulated. I can respond that I am able to publish any offline communication with any other Wikipedian who permits me to do so.

For instance, I was also instructed to use the unblock IRC channel to discuss these matters, and the resultant conversation is available on the public record and can be copied here if necessary. In this conversation I was advised that "the Foundation will act to prevent and remedy issues of defamation. This typically takes the form of an OFFICE action, where the Foundation takes on responsibility for the content from the community. [I]t is a situation that has occurred only a handful of times over the past decade." This seems to answer the apparent contradiction mentioned above. BDBIsrael (talk) 23:13, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling correction

This edit request to Banc De Binary has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please correct the spelling of the misnomer "CTFC" to "CFTC" approximately eight times in the Banc De Binary article. While this may be regarded by a handful of individuals as proxying on behalf of a banned editor, I believe this request is noncontroversial enough to be an exception. BDBIsrael (talk) 23:27, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: this is the talk page for communicating with the user BDBIsrael (talk · contribs). Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 23:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done, actually. Technical 13, the request was made here because the user is blocked and is unable to make the request on the talk page. I happened to notice this myself and corrected the spelling. Oddly, one of the sources spells it wrong, so that one can't be changed. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Legal identity correction

This edit request to Banc De Binary has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please delete one sentence as follows to correct the legal identity of BDB Services, Ltd., which is mistakenly called "formerly known as BO Systems Limited" in the third sentence of Banc De Binary#Regulation. Consensus recognition of this mistake appeared at Talk:Banc De Binary#Banc De Binary's corporate structure. and a responsive correction was made to the lede and to the "History" section [33], but not to the "Regulation" section.

We recommend correction be implemented by deletion of the entire sentence, "According to the company, its operations "outside of the European Union" are conducted by BDB Services Limited (formerly known as BO Systems Limited), which is incorporated in the Seychelles." The sentence is in essence redundant with those added by consensus to the "History" section, providing undue weight to repeated points; it is also false because BDB Services, Ltd., is distinct from (not formerly known as) BO Systems, Ltd., as noted by the CFTC's correction [34]; it also misrepresents the source, which does not refer to BDB's "operations" generally but only to the website bancdebinary.com; it is also partly unsourced, as to Seychelles incorporation; it also makes unnecessary use of scare quotes and the phrase "according to", casting the source (BDB) in a negative light; it also relies solely on a primary source.

Since my previous edit request resulted in conflicting guidance and since this request relies on consensus corrections already made, I continue to believe that such a request is noncontroversial enough to be an exception to proxying rules. BDBIsrael (talk) 09:42, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. https://bancdebinary.com/terms-of-use/ very clearly shows they were indeed "BO Systems Limited (Effective from January 7 2013 until March 5 2013)". As such, you will need a consensus to override this (albeit PRIMARY) source that backs the claim. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 16:51, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Technical 13. Thank you for taking the time to look over these edits, and I hope you and other editors will continue to be able to spare the time. The source does not say the two affiliated corporations are identical; it says that the website was administered first by the one and then by the other. As stated in the CFTC source linked above and in the consensus discussion also linked above, and in the talkpage discussion for over three months, the two corporations are distinct. The term "formerly known as" has been recognized as mistaken by talkpage consensus, and since the consensus correction was made to the lede, it should also be made to the similar sentence in the body. Please review the consensus already linked and see if this application of the discussion is straightforward enough to implement now. BDBIsrael (talk) 23:57, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: I can't seem to find the section "Regulation" to fulfill the edit request. —cyberpower ^Chat_Online 10:57, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

National identity correction

This edit request to Banc De Binary has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please correct the national identity of Banc De Binary by deleting the word "Israeli", which is misleadingly used in the clause "provided by another Israeli company" in the first sentence of Banc De Binary#Products and services. Consensus recognition of this mistake appeared at the end of Talk:Banc De Binary#Banc De Binary's corporate structure. and a responsive correction was made to the lede [35], but not to the "Products and services" section. Banc De Binary is Cyprus-based and should not be regarded as "another Israeli company".

Since my previous edit request resulted in conflicting guidance and since this request relies on consensus corrections already made, I continue to believe that such a request is noncontroversial enough to be an exception to proxying rules. BDBIsrael (talk) 09:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is better to change "another" to "an". That change has been done. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:10, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adoption request

Adoptee information
Subject interests	Broad-based interests
Interest in maintenance tasks	Yes
Preferences for an adopter
July

As also expressed at User_talk:Lihaas/Archive_14#Adoption_request prior to my being community banned as disruptive, I (User:BDBIsrael) desire to discuss the possibility of adoption to assist me in contributing broadly to Wikipedia. The question of adoption would necessarily also involve negotiation in re of whether the ban could be converted to an editing restriction. While I do not have resolution on the content corrections that came up in the ban discussion, it is understood that these corrections are only a small part of the broad picture of contributing to Wikipedia, and this understanding will guide the proposed adoption relationship. This user talkpage request is also being copied by email to potential adopter User:Mark Schierbecker (User:Marcus Qwertyus). BDBIsrael (talk) 12:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing to do this on the condition that you move to have your editing privileges re-instated. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 05:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Mark. You are very considerate. I will make such a motion as an unblock request but I perceive a risk in how it is received. In the meantime, please let me know of the best method of proceeding with learning how to contribute broadly while I remain in the current restriction set. BDBIsrael (talk) 00:04, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Regards, user. As expressed by User:Origamite in User talk:BDBIsrael#Unblock request, it would "look better" in demonstrating additional good faith for me to accumulate additional successful edit requests from my user talkpage while I am community banned (see also the top of this page). Could you please comment on the advisability of making edit requests that pertain to miscellaneous corrections on Wikipedia in other topics, where I have no conflict of interest? How should I go about finding corrections to make? I am anxious not to be perceived as merely performing busy work to curry favor, as my request for adoption and community integration is genuine. Thank you. BDBIsrael (talk) 16:26, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are not just topic-banned, but banned from editing Wikipedia, period. See WP:PROXYING on why having others edit on your behalf is not a good idea. Also of interest: Bans apply to all editing, good or bad. Given BDB's history on that article, I think the community made its desire for you to leave that topic well alone very clear. In short, I disagree with Origamite's assertion. You have wasted far too much community time; the standard offer that has been pointed out to you already speaks of staying away for half a year. That would probably be taken as a more promising sign that frantic activity on your part and an announcement that you want to return to the BDB article as soon as possible. Huon (talk) 18:51, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

BDBIsrael (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

User:Mark Schierbecker has acceded [36] to my request to be adopted and asked me to make this request. *User:Amatulic has stated [37] that any admin can remove this block, implying that I can be given a second chance to demonstrate voluntary compliance. *I am willing to accept any editing restriction that permits me to contribute outside of my professional interest and to have a formal process for resolving the stated dispute within my interest. *Amatulic also implemented two of my edit requests [38] [39], implying that my judgment has been relatively appropriate to date. *In all, ten or more of my and BDBJack's corrections were implemented [40], indicating good faith on our parts. *There is no risk to Wikipedia of noncompliance due to unblock, as I will not edit within my interest except within a contained formal dispute resolution process, when cleared to do so by the community, a process limited only to the disputed points already listed at the article talkpage. *If unblock is not accepted, I request that an administrative thread be started with a proposal to exempt User:BDBJack from community ban. The reasons for passing this proposal should be obvious on review of his and my user talkpages and his participation in the ban thread. I would also appreciate being advised toward efficient resolution methods for my open content concerns.

Decline reason:

{{subst:You are community banned, this ban cannot be overturned by one administrator, revocation of such a community ban requires either the Arbitration Committee, Jimbo Wales or the community to decide to vacate the sanctions against you. Please read through WP:BAN fully to understand the options available to you (as an organisation).}} Nick (talk) 17:45, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Hi. I'd like to say that "any admin can remove the block", as used by Amatulic, means that an admin could in theory remove the block(but it won't happen), but you are still under a community ban. Editing under a community ban is against the WMF Terms of Service(Section 12, see also WP:BAN, WP:CBAN) regardless of whether you are blocked or not.(Non-administrator comment) Thanks, Lixxx235^{Got a complaint?} 00:42, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regards, Lixxx235. Thank you for this observation. I and Banc De Binary have no intent to edit English Wikipedia outside the user talkpage until the community ban is overturned. The unblock request is made at the adopter's direction, and I believe that granting it will demonstrate further good faith for the community and facilitate the rehabilitation process. BDBIsrael (talk) 00:52, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the whole issue is still too fresh in everyone's minds. Why not wait and take the WP:STANDARDOFFER? Community bans aren't overturned in a day, and even more successful requested edits will look better. Disclaimer: I had a very small part in the whole BDB and paid editing debate. Origamite^{is out right now} 03:27, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regards, Origamite. If you mean that Banc De Binary should allow itself and its principals to stand by passively while being materially harmed in the English-speaking world for six months, I hope my formulation of the question answers itself. I am still not certain about the balance between presenting information about how we were treated and holding back on presenting such information. Would you be willing to dialogue about the possibility that some of the information you relied on for your part in the debate could have been misinformation? You charged me with turning the BDB page into an advertisement rather than improving the encyclopedia, and I am interested in the reasons or evidence for your charge, as it is possible you may have been influenced by a mischaracterization. I am hopeful the successful edit requests continue to show our good faith. In your opinion, would it help me to make edit requests for miscellaneous improvements outside of my topic interest, as that seems to be a fast method of increasing successes, and if so how should I choose what improvements to request? I am bringing up this question in another section as well. BDBIsrael (talk) 16:17, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Synthesis correction

Please change "The company has a history of regulatory issues on two continents, and was ...." in the lede to "The company was". The former version was added without consensus 9 July [41] and the only user to comment on the article talkpage immediately objected to it [42]. I also object because the statement is unsourced; it uses the colorful term "history" as if there is a recurring situation; it uses the generalizing and unencyclopedic term "two continents"; it improperly summarizes the article body, in that Banc De Binary merely was assessed a minimal fine in Cyprus for an incomplete filing and voluntarily withdrew from the United States, which is mischaracterized by the subject sentence; and it contradicts the implication of the source in the article body [43], which implies Banc De Binary does not have such a history by mentioning, "[a]s a mitigating factor, the fact that the Company has not committed a similar violation in the past." (However, this is also an unreliable source reporting a machine translation of a primary source.) Because my prior edit requests have been largely accepted, it seems appropriate to make this request based on immediate need to correct a harmful statement made contrary to consensus. I remind editors that Banc De Binary is 50% owned by Oren Laurent and negative and misleading characterizations should not be added hastily but should be considered by editors on a case basis for compliance with policies on biographies of living persons. BDBIsrael (talk) 00:58, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The point of the lead section is to provide a concise overview of the body, and as such, statements in it don't necessarily require sourcing. It seems to me that the sentence to which you are objecting is a fair attempt to summarize the body. It may be an inaccurate summary, but your proposed change appears to be an attempt to omit information contained in the lead. The issue may deserve further discussion on the talk page, but I do not anticipate there would be any consensus for the specific change you propose. Finally,the fact that someone owns 50% of the company is irrelevant to WP:BLP; the article is not about Oren Laurent. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:05, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Amatulic. I appreciate your continued attention. I would like to remind you that biography policy applies to corporate articles as well as personal articles and that it must be judged on a case basis; no editor has made a judgment responsive to the policy as it applies to this business, and I would be encouraged if you could take this side question to the biography noticeboard. However, the concise statement suffers from serious mischaracterization, as no reliable source says Banc De Binary has "a history of issues on two continents", but many people are reading this mischaracterization on Wikipedia and perpetuating such a rumor, which is potentially harmful, injurious, or defamatory to the corporate persons and humans involved. We could address the immediate issue instead by using the change "The company was fined by the Cyprus Securities and Exchange Commission, and was ...." in the lede, as the second clause repeats the specific information that applies to the second continent and is therefore redundant with the summary (which then is not really a summary). Please consider that an improper synthesis in a sensitive case has significant real-word application, for which the biography policy was crafted. BDBIsrael (talk) 01:26, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: In this case, WP:BLP clearly does not apply to the article, as it is not refering to a living person. In response to the edits, the claim is sourced in the article, therefore per WP:LEDE, that is fine. --Mdann52talk to me! 14:34, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request to Banc De Binary has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

To change the thrust of this request, please create a new section at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard called "Alleged harm at Banc De Binary" with text similar to the following:

"This thread was initiated by an uninvolved editor who believes independently that this edit is productive, and who is answering an edit request from a community banned editor. User:BDBIsrael alleges that content at Banc De Binary is subject to biography policy about corporate articles and requests that editors improve the article in agreement with this policy. The article has stated for some time that the four corporations within the BDB enterprise are 50% owned by Oren Laurent, and the policy states, "when the group is very small, it may be impossible to draw a distinction between the group and the individuals that make up the group. When in doubt, make sure you are using high-quality sources." Because reasonable doubt exists and because there should be no doubt that poor source quality and other noncompliances have affected the article and caused ongoing harm to Mr. Laurent and the other principals of BDB, BDBIsrael requests the views of uninvolved editors as to how poor sourcing and noncompliance should be dealt with (e.g., dispute resolution).

BDBIsrael lists as brief examples: The article synthesizes a minimal fine and a civil complaint as becoming "a history of regulatory issues on two continents", creating a new characterization that appears in no source and that is being read worldwide by people seeking reliable, sourced information about Mr. Laurent (this was recently inserted by one editor with no input but the objection of another editor, when a source actually states that BDB has no such history and "has not committed a similar violation in the past"). Next, the phrase "no [significant] physical presence" appears three times in re of virtual offices (constituting undue weight), but is original research not found in any source and is harmful to personal and corporate reputation. As seen at the top of User talk:BDBIsrael, requested removal of unsourced allegations that BDB had "stolen" funds took 20 days, and partial correction of BDB's corporate identity as requested took 72 days (a related correction to our legal identity, the removal of a "formerly known as" claim, should have also been addressed but is now still pending 97 days since the original sourced request). The third sentence of the lede, taken from two individual blogs that discuss binary options generally, creates synthesis by applying this blog discussion to BDB specifically without authority from either poor source; this treats two random negative blog characterizations as applying directly to BDB and thus Laurent.

BDBIsrael supplied a list of requested corrections at the article talkpage as instructed in mediation, but was community banned in part because this list was regarded as a wall of text, whitewashing, and disruption. He believes that the stated data points constitute evidence that biography policy and other core policies are not being followed. He requests affirmation that the situation meets the reasonable doubt criteria of policy and that high-quality sources must be used, and he asks for a path forward to be able to resolve this dispute, such as a community permission to lift the ban for temporary dispute resolution purposes only."

This request was crafted in compliance with Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Proxying. BDBIsrael (talk) 17:10, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done:' WP:BLP does not apply to this section of the article, as I said above. --Mdann52talk to me! 06:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dated corrections

This edit request to Banc De Binary has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please correct "25 May 2014" at the end of the history section to "7 April 2014", as the original source [44] was misread. (This is also an unreliable source relaying a machine translation of a primary source.)
Please correct "around 170" to "over 200" or "many" in the products section, as the original source [45] is dynamic and the reference is dated.
In the advisories section, the entire sentence, "As of October 2013, the company was rated "F" by the United States' Better Business Bureau because 31 complaints had been made against it, including 9 which were unanswered." should be deleted, as the original source [46] is dynamic and the reference is dated. An arbitrary archive.org snippet chosen among a dozen others at whatever point the editor happens to look is not a reliable source of any kind, and the current version of the same source is equally disqualified as being dynamic and unencyclopedic. There is no reliable source noting that any of these versions of the source (including those in which Banc De Binary is NR, not rated) is a significant data point. There may be a way to say that Banc De Binary has been rated NR and F but I do not see how this could be done within content policies.

I have been bold to list these additional dating corrections because they seem straightforward, although the last one might invite fruitful conversation rather than immediate correction, if some editor can explain how this arbitrary dated point is encyclopedic. It appears these requests are proper for consideration at this time. BDBIsrael (talk) 01:16, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See above. Also, the BBB sentence cites an archived copy of the BBB website, which preserves its state as of October 2013 for eternity. Archive.org provides a faithful representation of the website and is considered as reliable as the original website. "Rated not rated" is an oxymoron; as soon as BBB rated Banc De Binary, it gave it an "F". Has that changed since? No, it hasn't. Is it likely to change in the near future? No, and if it changed, we could update the article. Note that you don't have the least qualms about the reliability of www.spotoption.com. Your conflict of interest is showing. Huon (talk) 18:51, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page access removed

In line with the banning policy for site banned users, your talk page access has been revoked. Please review the text of WP:BAN to understand why talk page access has been removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick (talk • contribs) 18:54, 14 July 2014