User talk:BDBJack

Archives

Editing restrictions

Hello Jack, I'd looked for a standard topic ban template to leave for both yourself and HistorianofRecenttimes but I couldn't find anything. But it's probably better that I leave some plain language advice anyway.

The policy that covers your restrictions is at WP:BAN. That page covers a lot of different circumstances in which a person may be banned, and different kinds of bans, so I'll point out what is relevant in your situation. You are subject to a topic ban. If you read that section, and read the example there but substitute "Banc De Binary" for "weather" then you'll get the idea. Please note that in your case, you are not restricted from discussing the topic, so you aren't prohibited from talking about Banc De Binary at article talk pages, user talk pages, or any other place. You're only restricted from editing main article space.

Also, the kind of ban you are subject to is a community ban. That doesn't make any difference as far as your restrictions go, but it doesn't affect how your ban can be appealed. In your case, for the ban to be lifted another discussion would take place, similar to the one that occurred at WP:ANI, and there would need to be a consensus of editors who agree to lift your ban. I will say that if you do want the ban lifted, my suggestion is to give it some time (at least wait a few months) and don't be too aggressive about having it lifted (this is just my personal advice).

Essentially, you should not edit the Banc De Binary article directly, doing so is a violation of your ban and can lead to warnings, or if you make an obvious violation it could lead directly to a block (usually the first block is a short one, and subsequent violations would lead to longer blocks and eventually you may be indefinitely blocked). Furthermore, you should avoid editing articles related to Banc De Binary (such as Nadex, or Binary option). You also shouldn't change the content of articles if your changes are related to Banc De Binary, such as inserting a link related to BDB, or removing information about a competitor, or correcting information about BDB. I believe that your role on Wikipedia is to represent BDB and act in its interests, so in your case just about any edit you make to main article space is going to be related to BDB in some fashion. So to be safe, you probably shouldn't edit any articles directly from this point forward. You can always report what you consider to be vandalism to the proper places (WP:ANI, WP:AIV, and so on) or ask other editors to fix problems, and you can make edit requests on article talk pages.

If you have any other questions feel free to ask me, thank you. -- Atama頭 15:36, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Atama: Are there any restrictions outside of the topic ban? I.E. if I would like to contribute to an article about programming or other fields which I have interest in which do not interfere with my COI, am I able to do so? BDBJack (talk) 18:51, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. That's the purpose of topic bans, they are implemented when the community (or the arbitration committee) decides that disruption from an editor is tied to a particular topic (whether it's due to a COI, or some general bias, or other misbehavior that only manifests in one part of the project). But an editor is only restricted from that topic, because it is believed that the editor has the potential for positive contributions elsewhere. If you want to edit the article space in such a way that has no relation to BDB (broadly construed) your ban doesn't prevent you from doing so. -- Atama頭 19:01, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Binary option

Regards, BDBJack. I appreciate your patience dealing with the administrative thread and the topic ban; as being under voluntary topic ban myself, I don't see any need for you to change anything in your editing style, and I respect how you are upholding the internal social marketing protocols we have established in respect to your Wikipedia account. I had a collateral content question in passing that it seems appropriate to ask you here, rather than anywhere else, for consideration at your convenience. In re of your edit [1], where you deleted unsourced content that to me seemed informative, would your eventual intent be to restore the section with sources, to edit it significantly based on sources, or to continue not having such a section at all? BDBIsrael (talk) 17:02, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@BDBIsrael: I would like to see the information sourced correctly, and made relevant to the subject of the article. While speaking about my ban, I would suggest that instead of directly editing the article that you make a COI Edit Request so as to follow Wikipedia's COI editing policies (and as a good-faith gesture).BDBJack (talk) 17:44, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, BDBJack. This is good information for improving the article. I also discovered from the administrative thread that you wish to improve the encyclopedia in other ways, and I respect your continuing to use your independent judgment on this point. (I too would like more leisure to find other areas to edit once the BDB article has been brought into compliance or we are able to resolve our concerns about noncompliance in other ways.) As a jocular suggestion, when one is tired of editing articles about politics, as you have expressed, one might find religion to be a less stressful topic area. Of course, the reverse is also true. BDBIsrael (talk) 22:33, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@BDBIsrael: I'll keep that in mind. Thanks. BDBJack (talk) 22:35, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Email

Hello, BDBJack. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Mike V • Talk 15:43, 17 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]

I think it may be somewhat unfortunate that you've been caught up in the issues around BDBIsrael and the latest sock farm. Pinkbeast (talk) 12:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Pinkbeast: Thanks for the understanding. I too understand that representatives of our company have not acted in what the community has seen as good faith. I am tired of arguing, and I was hoping before the ban to step away from the topic of Banc De Binary. I had started other editing projects, where my interests are non-controversial. But if the community wishes me to stay away, then I will. Thanks for all of the help in guiding me. BDBJack (talk) 12:53, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Site Ban 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).

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

Request reason:

I believe that a complete site-ban is unwarranted as I have already accepted a topic ban and I have been trying to contribute to articles which are not in the topic space of my COI. The request to "completely" block all "BDB COI" accounts is a blanket ban which does not address the core issues of individuality. I may be related to the organization, however I am neither the official representative, nor the company's account. I am an individual with bias (which i have explained and declared). I also have declared that I am giving some space to the topic from which I already had editing restrictions placed (see https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Ducking_Out). BDBJack (talk) 09:24, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

After reviewing the discussion that led to the block and your unblock request, I see no compelling reason to overturn the decision at ANI so soon after it was put into place. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 18:00, 22 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.

MfD nomination of User:BDBJack/sandbox

User:BDBJack/sandbox, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:BDBJack/sandbox and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:BDBJack/sandbox during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Calton | Talk 15:39, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]