User talk:BDBJack/Archive 1

Archive 1

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:

My user is not part of the sock-puppet network which operated from this office, and I will be working within the Wikipedia guidelines to ensure that employees in my company do not abuse Wikipedia for any reason.

Decline reason:

Per below. — Daniel Case (talk) 19:20, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

---

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.

Your account is not, and has never been, blocked. If you are prevented from editing by an autoblock, we will need to know the IP that is affected, or the message that you see when you try to edit. Yunshui ^雲_水 14:34, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

The blocked IP is 31.168.98.14 BDBJack (talk) 14:35, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

@Ponyo:, your thoughts? Yunshui ^雲_水 14:38, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: Can you please elaborate on "per-below"? User @Ponyo: has not yet weighed in to my knowledge.

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:

Requesting an IP address block exemption, because (User @Ponyo: has not yet weighed in on my particular case. While the block on IP 31.168.98.14 makes sense, I am able to post from other locations. I would like to be able to post where I have access to all the resources and knowledge bases available to me, as well as a computer which is comfortable for me to use.) BDBJack (talk) 00:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I don't think so. In fact, I'm blocking this account directly; it is indistinguishable from the other sockpuppets in Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Notsosoros. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Notsosoros. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 01:11, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

---

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.

@Daniel Case, Ponyo, and Jpgordon: I'm aware of the massive issues that have been going on re: the Banc De Binary page, so I understand your hesitence to unblock. That said, looking at the contributions of this user, it would appear that he is operating within our COI guidelines. He has clearly declared his affiliation with the company, both in his username and on his userpage. His edits (of which there are only two) regarding the Banc De Binary page have both been to the talk page, and he also stated his COI clearly there. The suggestions he made were cited, and don't appear to be promotional in nature. I'm confused as to how this is indistinguishable. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

@Daniel Case, Ponyo, Jpgordon, and GorillaWarfare: While i'm sure that you don't need to be reminded of this page: Single-purpose account, I believe that I fall under this category. I am one of the founding employees of Banc De Binary, and thus have an interest in it. I have declared so, and I wish to continue to contribute in this capacity. I have and will continue to use the talk page to voice my concerns about the facts regarding my company, but I have not and will not make any edits myself as they it will seem too self-serving. Additionally, I have stopped all other activity on behalf of Banc De Binary relating to Wikipedia. To this purpose I am even willing to submit IP ranges of our offices in order to ensure that users are not able to abuse our networks for the purpose of sock-puppeting. (While I realize that this will not stop a determined user, I am also available to internally investigate any suspected instances of abuse as well) BDBJack (talk) 04:04, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay in replying, I've had (and will likely continue to have through the weekend) very limited access to Wikipedia.If GorillaWarfare has reviewed the CU data and believes that this account is collateral in the IP block, and that BDBJack is a separate entity than the group of socks on that IP, then I trust her judgement. Unfortunately I don't know when I'll have time to review the data myself, so I have no concerns with any CU evaluating the situation and acting accordingly without further input from me.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:20, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

BDBJack pretty clearly stated that he is editing from the same office that has been blocked; I'm not sure that the CU data is particularly valuable here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

@Daniel Case, Ponyo, Jpgordon, and GorillaWarfare: No need for apologies from your side. Its me and my staff that need to apologize for how we've acted. As I stated, I will be more than happy to provide any information needed to keep the sockpuppet block UP on our IP range. BDBJack (talk) 17:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Unblock

I have heard back from Jpgordon and performed the unblock. As I've noted there, any inappropriate editing will be handled severely. If you have not had the chance to read through WP:COI in detail, now would be a great time. Good luck with your return to editing. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, BDBJack. You have new messages at GeorgeBarnick's talk page.
Message added 18:02, 19 April 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

George Barnick – Talk/Contribs 18:02, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Peluchon

I can't help but notice we have another new Wikipedia user keen to whitewash the BdB page. Nothing to do with you? Pinkbeast (talk) 12:18, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

@Pinkbeast: Nothing that i'm aware of. I'll ask around, but if you can tell me the IP I can give you direct confirmation. Last time I checked, our office IP's are blocked due to our previous activities, but depending on the country I might be able to confirm. BDBJack (talk) 12:36, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't have access to Checkuser, so I'm afraid I can't. Pinkbeast (talk) 13:14, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Please let me know if there's anything I can do to help. If you do open a CheckUser investigation, please inform the admin that I am happy to cooperate against BDB IP's and other sources that we have.

TIME for the article to move

Hi BDBJack. I like how you've managed your conflict of interest and kept your nose what Wikipedia calls "clean". I was going to comment on your comments at BDB, but first: Since you work there and since I've disclosed that I got some info from Mr Oren Laurent once in response to a request, I thought I should just let you know that I'm here and I don't want to create any appearance of collusion between us in anyone else's mind. I don't think I'd say back off from the subject completely (although it's good you've been silent), but my concern is that if someone thought that both of us were unduly influenced the same way then accusations might fly again. At any rate if you have a comment here about why you've been silent, that would be helpful to establish. Otherwise I hope to see you around here sooner or later. Okteriel (talk) 13:43, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

@Okteriel: Hi There, In actuality I've been anything but silent, but I realize that making edit request and posting to the COI noticeboard ( see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_73#Banc_De_Binary and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_75#Banc_De_Binary ) seem to be falling on deaf ears. I've been trying to appeal to users with more knowledge, experience, and a vested interest in improving the quality of articles on Wikipedia through the IRC channels, however I have found the community to be increasingly hostile to any "positive" changes to the page. (For example see Black Kite's comment on the talk page: "This article is the poster child as to why paid editing fails horribly sometimes. Whitewashed article is created, then is fixed by other editors. When it is realised that the article is going to be negative towards the company (because that's what the majority of reliable sources say), said paid editors and their paymasters try to delete it. Unlucky.").

In summary, it seems that the Wikipedia community has made up its mind that Banc De Binary is not worth its time to clean up, and the one user who actually seems to have an interest in the article is an SPA who is obviously biased against the company.

Great summary of an awful situation. Then stalkers are free to correct me, but, I think, if we both exercise our best individual judgment separately and are extra careful about disclosures for questioners we should be OK. If either of us are up in the same discussion, I would hope our disclosures are sufficient that people recognize that any possibility of distant or tenuous relationship should be judged by the disclosures, and the propriety of the edits. Okteriel (talk) 18:19, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm tagging the article talk page for violations and questionable statements. Just to be fair I tagged one of yours as well. If you can provide a source for your offhand talk statement I tagged, or just state that it's your own opinion, feel free to remove that tag. Thanks for tolerating having me around. Okteriel (talk) 19:22, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

IP vandalism of user page

Hi BDBJack. I saw your post on AN/I about the vandalism - at the time I assumed that you wanted to point it out, so I left it in place, but as that discussion has run its course I've removed the edit from the page history. No one should need to put up with that sort of vandalism, and generally I prefer to remove it completely rather than allow it to stand in the history of the user page. I hope that is ok. If not, just let me know. - Bilby (talk) 09:00, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

@Bilby: no problem. I thought that I had already reverted the post. Thanks! 46.120.20.45 (talk) 10:30, 13 June 2014 (UTC) (Yea, that was me) BDBJack (talk) 10:31, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

You had reverted - I just went a little further and removed it from the history as well. That way there is no advantage to the vandal at all, as it is removed completely and can't be linked to in any way. - Bilby (talk) 10:39, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I was not aware that you could edit the history... I was kinda hoping to keep it for prosperity (at the time), but in retrospect I doubt that anything useful will come of it. Thanks again. BDBJack (talk) 10:43, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, if you want me to change it, I can do that too. We don't do it much - the main two reasons are particularly nasty attacks, and blatant copyright violations. - Bilby (talk) 11:02, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

It's not worth your time to restore it, nor is it worth my time to dwell on it. It's really a shame that someone felt so threatened that they felt the need to vandalise my page. It would be interesting to analyse the vandalism to see who was really behind it. But at the same time, it really doesn't matter. Whoever was behind this either got their way or got fed up and left. BDBJack (talk) 11:13, 13 June 2014 (UTC)