Jump to content

Talk:Banc De Binary/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
ArchiveĀ 1ArchiveĀ 2

Company Names vs Service Companies

See update at end.

I'd like to re-iterate the point that I made before on the talk page that Banc De Binary is the operating name of several companies including:

  • Banc De Binary LTD (Cyprus)
  • BDB Services LTD (Cyprus)

The other companies listed (BO Systems LTD and ET Binary Options LTD) are "service" companies which do not interact with the customers directly.

The company was never formally known as any other company, since all of its operations were done as "Banc De Binary". Listing companies is inconsistent with how other companies which have several "operating" companies are listed, for example:

In the examples I have provided above, I do not see any reference to the companies which "operate" under the brand.

I'd like to suggest editing the line:

Banc De Binary, formerly known as BO Systems Limited and also known as BDB Services Limited and ET Binary Options Ltd. is an Israeli-Cypriot based enterprise specializing in binary options (also known as fixed return options) on assets including commodities, stocks, indices, and foreign exchange."

As follows:

Banc De Binary is an Cypriot-Israeli company which offers Binary Options (also known as fixed return options) on assets including commodities, stocks, indicies and foreign exchange.

And having an additional section called "operating companies" which includes information about companies which operate under the brand "Banc De Binary" world-wide, and other companies which provide them services. BDBJack (talk) 03:17, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Banc de Binary simply uses different names, like with a person that has aliases, such as (a.k.a Oren Laurent). The company have said themselves that in deposition that they are small, less than 60 people, so the comparison to Coca Cola is either intended to be humorous or misleading. The photos taken inside their premises in Israel show that ET Binary Options is just an alias for Banc de Binary,[original research?] the visible skyline of Ramat Gan out of the window in some of their helpful Youtube videos is another clue.[original research?]HistorianofRecenttimes (talk) 15:40, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

That statement would ignore the fact that there are numerous videos of the office in Cyprus, from which you can clearly see the city of Limassol. Either way, regardless of the amount of employees, the fact that Banc De Binary has several companies operating under the same name due to regulatory concerns is not uncommon. And the precedent shown in the articles listed above shows that other companies do not have lists of their "operations" companies. BDBJack (talk) 16:21, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

In the case of companies like HSBC or Coca Cola, they have entirely different products for sale, which have to be branded differently. Banc de Binary has a tiny presence on sites like LinkedIN and photos of the employees together on it's Facebook page show it really does have less than 60 employees. Banc de Binary are solely an online gambling company that offers only binary options, if they could be termed that in the way they are packaged.[citation needed] There's nothing else on offer, and the different companies have no different employees under them,[original research?] there's no record of this in the Israeli companies house.[citation needed] Calls to Cyprus are simply rerouted onto the real HQ in Ramat Gan,[citation needed] in the same way any company has one number connected to another to give the impression of being in more than one place.[original research?]HistorianofRecenttimes (talk) 17:02, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


I challenge you to prove the following statements:
  • Banc de Binary are solely an online gambling company
    the different companies have no different employees under them
    Calls to Cyprus are simply rerouted onto the real HQ in Ramat Gan
My statements
  • Banc De Binary offers a platform which allows traders to trade on Binary Options. Binary Options has NOT been defined as gambling, and is regulated as a financial instrument. (see [2] which lists Banc De Binary as in a list of "

Investment Firms"

BDBJack (talk) 00:21, 19 April 2014 (UTC) tagged by Okteriel (talk) 22:29, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the {{edit semi-protected}} template, because it should only be used after consensus has been established. I have left {{request edit}} in place. This message is procedural. Mz7 (talk) 00:37, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ā€” {{U|Technical 13}} (e ā€¢ t ā€¢ c) 18:04, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't identify the consensus clearly enough. Ā Done by User:CorporateM. Okteriel (talk) 22:29, 7 June 2014 (UTC)Striking out comment by ban-evading sockpuppet. Coretheapple (talk) 19:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)


Updated References

The CFTC has updated the information in their litigation with Banc De Binary according to the following sources:

The statement (and explanation of the relationship between Banc De Binary Ltd., ET Binary Options, BO Systems Ltd., and BDB Services Ltd. is __"three corporate affiliates[...]"__. A futher explanation can be found in the quote __"The amended Complaint charges that all four of the corporate Defendants operated as a common enterprise, each one individually and collectively, operating under the trade name ā€œBanc de Binary.ā€"__

Thus it is suggested that the sentence in the first paragraph:

Banc De Binary, formerly known as BO Systems Limited and also known as BDB Services Limited and ET Binary Options Ltd.,[5] is an Israeli-Cypriot based enterprise specializing in binary options (also known as fixed return options) on assets including commodities, stocks, indices, and foreign exchange

be changed to:

Banc De Binary is an enterprise specializing in binary options (also known as fixed return options) on assets including commodities, stocks, indices, and foreign exchange

BDBJack (talk) 00:51, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

  • I have now met BDBJack on his talk. I also disclosed receiving an email from Mr Oren Laurent of BDB myself, and, so, given the climate: it's my reading of policy that, if you're very suspicious, you are free to treat BDBJack and Okteriel as the same editor for certain purposes. For instance if I agree with him I can understand that might be discounted. I hope this limited freedom won't result in any abuses.
  • However, this edit request is pretty easy to agree with. The CFTC corrected itself last month, the article relies on bad old data, and this is the corporation's identity we're talking about, the very first thing a Wikipedia article needs to establish. And nobody can answer this or close it in two months? Just because SPA anti Historian and disclosed-COI pro BDBJack disagree, that's "no consensus"? but we don't close it either? Nobody can deny him but nobody wants to help him either?
  • Other users commented in another section. There is now no remaining sourcing supporting the errant clause, and no other user argued that the edit request was incorrect in any way. I boldly submit that if there is still no opposition later, this should be converted to an "edit protected" template due to the consensus of all editors' silence who faced the question and ignored it. Thank you. Okteriel (talk) 19:06, 6 June 2014 (UTC) Striking out comment by ban-evading sockpuppet. Coretheapple (talk) 19:25, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Boldly trying this again to reflect budding consensus between me and Huon, at end of #Cross-reference, with the silence of everyone else who has seen the issue, that we can delete "formerly known as BO Systems Limited and also known as BDB Services Limited and ET Binary Options Ltd." as a total CFTC mistake corrected by a later draft. Details passim, sorry. If there is some problem, rather than closing the template, please comment here so it can be resolved quickly. Okteriel (talk) 01:23, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Ā Done by User:CorporateM. Okteriel (talk) 22:29, 7 June 2014 (UTC) Striking out comment by ban-evading sockpuppet. Coretheapple (talk) 19:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Repeating request

This request is for the removal of the misidentification of BDB in the lede. The text "formerly known as BO Systems Limited and also known as BDB Services Limited and ET Binary Options Ltd.," and its footnote should be removed as inaccurate. As discussed extensively above, the footnote quotes the CFTC's inaccurate statement. After BDB requested they amend their statement, they released a correction at [3]. Last week, several editors affirmed the removal of this inaccuracy from the article, but due to an edit war the statement was frozen in its present incorrect status. The four organizations constitute a unified enterprise but have separate identities and legal charters and it is a gross misconstruction to regard them as "formerly known as" or "also known as". It is my opinion that consensus has been demonstrated already and that the brief edit war does not constitute a denial of that consensus because it was not specifically related to it. Not one person has denied that the CFTC's original statement was in error. This edit request essentially dates back to one of 18 April 2014, above.

I have requested at #Ground rules that admin review of this request not claim that consensus must be demonstrated first, but that the admin review the case like an Article for Deletion to determine if consensus based on policy argument supports the request or not. BDBIsrael (talk) 18:59, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Consensus for this request, balanced with some new text later in the article that I also approve of in general, appears at #Banc De Binary's corporate structure. BDBIsrael (talk) 20:02, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Ā Not done I can not find such a phrase in the lead. Ruslik_Zero 19:34, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
That's because it was already done from the request below, in the section #Banc De Binary's corporate structure.. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:32, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Edit Request

{{request edit}}

I'd like to request that the following content line is edited

Banc de Binary customers do not execute their trades via a regulated exchange, but are 'betting' against the firm itself, and the firm only profits if the client loses.

This statement is not true. Banc De Binary customers execute their trades via a regulated exchange - the SpotOption exchange. See the following resources:

After reviewing the articles:

Both appear to be "marketing" or "affiliation" sites which are used direct users to register accounts with competing companies.

BDBJack (talk) 04:21, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

It has already been pointed out that both are reliable sources. SpotOption is an Israeli IT company that produces software for online gaming. Banc de Binary have bought a licence to use it. Part of the software is that it allows Banc de Binary to see how many people are betting on the asset going up or down, and then give an exact figure of the companies profit/ loss in either case. As has been stated in the US regulator's warning, some online binary companies have manipulated the software to produce losing trades.

In the case of Banc de Binary there is no wider exchange, where they are doing business with other companies in a transparent market, which is then overseen by independent assessors, such as NADEX. Instead, they just bought some software off Spotoption, which they customise and control with no third party verification from a government agency. A regulated exchange means exactly that. The only way Banc de Binary can make money is if a customer's bet on an asset loses, but as Banc de Binary are controlling the software which shows both the time & price at start and expiration this would be an obvious conflict of interest. For Banc de Binary to make money more people have to make a losing bet than a winning bet, as Banc de Binary are the only ones paying out. In a regulated exchange the company doesn't control the software showing the price or time, but it is overseen by an independent body. This is why it's called a regulated exchange. When Banc de Binary pretended to be based in NY they tried to give this impression, but unfortunately the real US regulator found out.

Perhaps Banc de Binary can tell us where exactly their profits come from, if this is not the case? HistorianofRecenttimes (talk) 15:40, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Saying that SpotOption produces software for online gambling is like saying that Scottrade is a casino. An "investor" who simply "gambles" can gamble anywhere - be it in Binary Options, stocks, bonds, or even real estate. SpotOption, regardless of it's Israeli headquarters, also has a headquarters in Cyprus where they have to maintain a presence due to regulation. This means that the regulators must have easy access to their offices, and they must have an auditor on-site, so as to ensure compliance with the CySEC regulation.

And as far as how we make our money, Banc De Binary does not charge fees from their investors. The profit comes from the difference between the options that expire in the money to options that expire out of the money. This difference can be found by the formula below. In this (for each base asset with same expiry characteristics), (W) is the in the money option payout in percentage terms (e.g. 1.7), (L) is the out of the money option payout in percentage terms (e.g. 0.15), are the turnovers of transactions made for each outcome (e.g. $1,000), (S) is the platform's gain.

In this example the platform's turnover is $2,000 and its profit is $150 or 7.5% on turnover. As the platformā€™s gain comes from the above formula, most platforms will be indifferent as to the outcome of a single trade. Note that if is not equal to then the platform will have to act as a market maker. This can cause the platform gain (S) to be more volatile than in the above formula. In order for a trader to make a long term profit he has to predict correctly roughly 54.5% of the time (depending on in-the-money and out-of-the money payouts).

In layman's terms, we make money on the difference between the payout from the option (100%) and what is given to the customer ( 75% - 90% depending on the option ). The entity which profits from the client loosing is the entity which purchases the opposing option.

Don't forget - we don't click the button for you. The client always has the ability to choose if and when they want to enter the position.

BDBJack (talk) 16:34, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

According to the US regulators statement some online binary options companies make those choices for the customers, when it appears that the customer might have won, so that the company has now won instead. The company does indeed also appear to sometimes click the button for the customer to change their expiration time, and even the price of the asset on expiry. The customer does have the ability to choose, but what if the start price is completely wrong, and they have been duped?

You mentioned the phrase, layman's terms, but this is not the definition of it by any means. In this case it would be mean stating that Banc de Binary get back whatever the customers have lost, minus what they have won. With Banc de Binary controlling the software behind each trade a customer would need more than just to be lucky 54.5% of the time, they'd also need someone else from a proper regulator to control the software altogether, as in a regulated exchange. HistorianofRecenttimes (talk) 17:02, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Can you please be more specific as to which US regulator and which Binary Options company? Can you please show evidence of this "The company does indeed also appear to sometimes click the button for the customer to change their expiration time, and even the price of the asset on expiry"? If you were to have evidence of this, I think instead of trying to bash the company online on wikipedia, you would send a proper complaint to CySEC, since these statements are all accusations of violations of the terms of Banc De Binary's regulation.

Also, can you prove that it is in fact Banc De Binary and not SpotOption exchange that controls the prices, and the "software"? Since SpotOption Exchange is regulated, can you please define the usage of "proper regulator"?

HistorianofRecenttimes, can you please explain the nature of your "issue" with Banc De Binary? BDBJack (talk) 00:41, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

To say that the winner is the entity which purchases the opposing option seems slightly misleading. There's no guarantee that there is such an entity, although like any bookmaker the company presumably tries to attract a spread of bets on the possible outcomes. Pinkbeast (talk) 17:13, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Let us say for the moment that I do not understand. I just heard: SpotOption is an exchange regulated by CySEC. Nadex is an exchange regulated by CFTC. Cyprus is satisfied with SpotOption's (on-site auditor) control of BDB. US is satisfied with Nadex's (where) control of, well, Nadex I think. BDB voluntarily shut down some operations for a year or so. Nadex voluntarily shut down all operations for a year or so. Where exactly arises the claim that BDB is in control of its software, but Nadex isn't? I don't want to spread the correction drive to the Nadex article now, but if it's producing information that would mislead a careful reader, what should I do?
Oh, dear, Nadex has absolutely no references and it's got a giant section about what binary options are! That second point reminds me of a draft I submitted here. And Nadex seems to be a competitor of either BDB or SpotOption. What to do? Okteriel (talk) 19:57, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Anyway, that was facetious, good constructive edits are going on over at Nadex now, but what about here? Okteriel (talk) 00:14, 7 June 2014 (UTC) Striking out comment by ban-evading sockpuppet. Coretheapple (talk) 19:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Ā Not done by User:CorporateM, imnsho, because of one word. "Bet" is a layman's colloquism and not an accurate or common technical term like "speculate". We are to use the technical language when the slang can be misleading; e.g. derivative (finance) prose uses "bet" only once, in quotes, but "speculate" passim. Even at its longest, there is no cause to rely on the solecism in this article. So I made the technical correction.
Huon reverted, "remove 'technical term' in favor of what sources report" and may not have noticed my summary request for comment here. The problem is that a source using a solecism in an informal setting doesn't allow WP to use it without giving the informal context. Even at its longest, the article is too short for the word "bet", with or without quotes, to avoid giving undue weight to the misleading notion that it is an unregulated gaming site. Okteriel (talk) 22:49, 7 June 2014 (UTC) Refactored 02:11, 8 June 2014 (UTC) Here's the guideline link: the word "bet" falls in the value-laden category of the word "WP:TERRORIST", specifically, words which become value-laden when used informally. Okteriel (talk) 02:18, 8 June 2014 (UTC) Striking out comment by ban-evading sockpuppet. Coretheapple (talk) 19:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Ā Done if you take the present version. The sentences were recast to fit the sources better, and the word "gamble" in the footnote does meet the requirements of WP:TERRORIST, because in the WSJ's editorial oversight they wisely and correctly used the modifier "essentially". Okteriel (talk) 03:47, 8 June 2014 (UTC) Striking out comment by ban-evading sockpuppet. Coretheapple (talk) 19:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Marketing Reference to NADEX

{{request edit}}

In the section US regulatory issues there is a reference to NADEX. I do not believe that this is relevant to the article and the statement is simply a "marketing" piece for NADEX. BDBJack (talk) 18:29, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Unless NADEX is the largest or best known exchange of that type (they aren't, afaik), I don't think we should reference them there. 165.214.11.73 (talk) 16:04, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Er.... Nadex are the biggest legal, regulated exchange, and this is given for the sake of an example of what a proper exchange should look likeHistorianofRecenttimes (talk) 17:01, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Banc De Binary is not a regulated exchange nor does it operate as one. It operates as a brokerage firm, which means that it is the "middleman" between the end user and the exchange. The following articles describe Banc De Binary as a broker:

Please note NADEX is not listed in any of these sources.

BDBJack (talk) 17:27, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Those of the above "articles" I checked did not even remotely resemble reliable sources. One of them at least was honest enough to admit that they were paid by Banc de Binary and the other companies they "reviewed" - by all of them, without exception. Another rather obviously hosted profiles written by the companies themselves. More importantly, the sources currently given in the article explicitly contrast Banc de Binary to NADEX as the only entity that legally offers binary options in the US. Thus mentioning NADEX in this article is entirely justified. Huon (talk) 20:30, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Your analysis of BDBJack's links is irrelevant to the Nadex question, because he was simply using them off-mainspace to explain why it is different from BDB (and exclusible). I have not seen sourcing that Nadex is the "only" legal US binary provider, or the "biggest" anything at all (its article was unreferenced until we fixed it); I did see "first" something on its own site, which implies others. I am tagging this with failed-verification and quote-request. Linking Nadex in this article has not been established by any source. Okteriel (talk) 00:18, 8 June 2014 (UTC) Striking out comment by ban-evading sockpuppet. Coretheapple (talk) 19:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Bilby has done good work in restoring links and providing paywall quotes, but I don't see the relevance of either Intrade or Nadex. I trimmed the 3 sentences back, which hemmed around the issue, to 1 sentence, which stated the actual allegation, which one would think is the most important thing to be said on the SEC's side. Before the filing, I understand BDB operated in the US without any requirement to get registered under any law. Then (presuming the SEC had given some warning first to BDB that we don't know about, without just going half-cocked to a chilling-effect filing), BDB discontinued at the same time as SEC complained for determination on the regulability of the prior activity. There is no need to make an uncontextualized allusion to Intrade to justify or rationalize the SEC, or to state that Nadex exists unless RS's show what laws were allegedly broken and that Nadex kept those same laws. I'd be interested to know just what charges were filed and what resolution came about (or is pending). But this is done enough for me. If a source can show the relevance of Nadex to the discussion, such as by showing whether they had any advisory influence on the SEC's action, that might be useful. Okteriel (talk) 04:16, 8 June 2014 (UTC) Striking out comment by ban-evading sockpuppet. Coretheapple (talk) 19:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Restored some deleted citations, other issues.

Restored some deleted citations about CFTC, SEC, and US District Court actions.

Some data about names of people is cited to Whois information. That's a poor source. We need better sources on that.

Is Banc De Binary an exchange, a broker, or a bucket shop? --John Nagle (talk) 21:01, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

That's a difficult question. It's certainly not an exchange, and no exchange for binary options exists, for all I can tell. According to BDBJack, with whom I spoke via IRC, they are a broker, with customers betting not against Banc De Binary itself but against a company called SpotOption, which, for all I can tell, is indeed a bucket shop. Reliable sources for any of that are scarce. Huon (talk) 23:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
SpotOption itself says that Banc de Binary is one of their "brands"[4]. They also have "Banc de Swiss" and 33 more "brands". It's not clear whether these are affiliates, resellers, or business units of SpotOption, but they're all connected. Banc de Swiss, for example, looks a lot like Banc de Binary. [5]. So does HD Options[6]. They have a "white label program" and a "reseller program", and everything is hosted by SpotOption. Resellers just get to tweak the graphics a little.[7]
Maybe we should have a SpotOption article and merge Banc de Binary into it. SpotOption is clearly the "mastermind" behind all this. There's also SpotOption Exchange, which appears to be the entity that takes the financial risk. Maybe. It's hard to tell. The whole thing is set up like an on-line casino, not a brokerage or an exchange. SpotOption even offers a slot machine for trading binary options. (Video: [8]. Worth watching.) They call this "trading entertainment". John Nagle (talk) 03:38, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
The sources are all primary, but SpotOption Exchange lists Banc de Binary as an "associate".[9]. So Banc de Binary isn't just licensing the software; they're reselling SpotOption Exchange. In the legal agreements from SpotOption, we find "The Company sets the prices to be used in binary options trading." and "The Company shall be the sole execution venue for the execution of its clientsā€™ orders."[10]. So the counter-party is SpotOption Exchange itself. There is no "exchange" here; other traders are not counter-parties. Technically, this is a bucket shop. John Nagle (talk) 18:24, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Good point - I've added this into the intro. It seems quite relevant to point out that the company can set it's own prices and that they don't have to respond to realityHistorianofRecenttimes (talk) 17:15, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
That edit wasn't quite right. Spot Option Exchange sets the price of the option, not the asset. They don't have their own price for gold (one hopes). They have their own price for a binary option on what the price of gold will be at some future time. With ordinary options (on the CBOE, etc.) there's a buyer and a seller, who are both customers of the exchange. The exchange just matches up offers for puts and calls. The CBOE itself is not a party to the transaction. But Spot Option Exchange doesn't do that. They themselves are the other party in the transaction, and, as the "house", they get to set the odds. John Nagle (talk) 18:51, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Edit Request with updated information from the CFTC

{{request edit}}

I would like to have the following quotes updated to reflect correct information based on the articles below:


In the infobox

Oren Shabat Cohen, also known as Oren Shabat and Oren Laurent,

This statement is incorrect as Oren Laurent is legally known as "Oren Shabat Laurent" as shown by the sentence below:

Finally, the amended Complaint charges that during the relevant period Oren Shabat Laurent,[...]

( http://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/pr6923-14 )

In the introduction paragraph

Banc De Binary, formerly known as BO Systems Limited and also known as BDB Services Limited and ET Binary Options Ltd.,[4] is an Israeli-Cypriot based enterprise specializing in binary options (also known as fixed return options) on assets including commodities, stocks, indices, and foreign exchange.

This statement is incorrect as "Banc De Binary" is the operating / trade name of several companies as shown by the sentence below:

The amended Complaint charges that all four of the corporate Defendants operated as a common enterprise, each one individually and collectively, operating under the trade name ā€œBanc de Binary.ā€

( http://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/pr6923-14 )

Charges filed on 7 August in the US stated that Banc de Binary and Oren Shabat Cohen "may be criminally liable under the federal RICO statute".

While there WAS a document stating this, the charges currently pressed against all companies operating as Banc De Binary and Oren Laurent are civil, not criminal in nature as shown by the sentence below:

In its continuing litigation against the Defendants, the CFTC seeks civil monetary penalties, and other remedial ancillary relief, including restitution, disgorgement, and rescission and a permanent injunction preventing the Defendants from engaging in certain commodity options activity with U.S. customers.

( http://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/pr6923-14 )

BDBJack (talk) 23:15, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

He may be legally known as that, but he does seem (per the other sources) to be "also" known as a great many things.
There was and is a document stating that they may be criminally liable, so I don't see that that statement is untrue. Pinkbeast (talk) 11:47, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
He may be known as many things, but there are few examples of an executive being listed in Wikipedia by their "also known as" names. I do not think his other names are relevant to an article about Banc De Binary. This information should be posted in an article on Oren Laurent.
This article is in reference to Banc De Binary, not the personal liabilities of Oren Laurent. An article on Oren Laurent should contain this information, but the fact that Oren may or may not be criminally liable as part of a law suite should either be moved to a section related to legal issues or should be moved to an article pertaining to Oren Laurent.
Also, documents, especially those dealing with legal proceedings, are often revised and updated with up-to-date information. While there was an article citing that Oren Laurent "may be criminally liable[...]", the latest versions of the documents have been updated with corrected and pertinent information to the case. The statement that Oren Laurent "may be criminally liable[...]" is neither pertinent to the case, nor is it pertinent to an article about Banc De Binary, nor is it correct any more.
BDBJack (talk) 12:04, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Oren is only notable because of BdB; there is no article about him. Hence information about him must go here, and a potential liability arising from the business of BdB is clearly pertinent.
I don't see that "a civil case is now being brought" contradicts "may be criminally liable". Regulators often bring a civil case when that seems to have a better chance of success. Pinkbeast (talk) 14:54, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
The CFTC has not made further mention of the fact that Oren may be "criminally liable" in any of it's updated filings. The fact that a regulator may often bring a civil case when it seems that it has a better chance of success does not negate the face that there are and will be no criminal charges levied against Mr. Laurent as a result of litigation. Were such a regulator to start building a criminal case, they would most likely make note of it in further proceedings (which do not exist at this time). Essentially, what you're saying is that because a regulatory body filed a lawsuit against a company, the owner(s) could be criminally prosecuted. This would violate laws concerning Double jeopardy, thus Oren cannot be criminally liable.
The reason the CTFC inserted all Banc De Binary bodies is so that Banc De Binary could reach a settlement and not be further liable for the same charges in the future.
In regards to his relevance to the article, the precedent that you are making with including personal information about Oren Laurent in the article will allow us to also add personal information anyone who is related in any way shape or form to the article. If we are to consider this article to be an encyclopedic work, Oren Laurent should be referenced as the CEO. Any actions that Oren takes as CEO of the company are relevant to Banc De Binary, however personal information such as names he is known as or where he worked previously before working at Banc De Binary are not relevant and should be removed.

BDBJack (talk) 15:56, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

BDBJack you are incorrect to write that because of Double Jeopardy rules, Oren could not be convicted in criminal proceedings, if they were preceded by a civil case. This link[1] clearly explains that under US Law he could indeed be tried twice. Double Jeopardy does not apply all cases. But in any case, why doesn't Oren simply go to the US and explain why Banc de Binary is innocent? Perhaps for the sake of clarity you could write here exactly where the NAF Hedge Fund is as it doesn't appear on any lists of New York companies.HistorianofRecenttimes (talk) 12:24, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Were this an article about Oren Laurent, Oren's culpability legally could be discussed ad-nauseum. However since this is NOT an article about Oren Laurent, the whole discussion is a moot point. As far as why Oren doesn't go to the US to explain why Banc De Binary is innocent - that's what Lawyers who have much more experience in dealing with the intricacies of laws and regulations are for. And regarding NAF Hedge Fund, it seems to be a clerical error made by a PR company. The site which you are using as reference seems to be purely a work of Banc De Binary's PR department, and if the example of other sources which have been removed due to being pure "marketing material" holds, then this reference should also be removed.

BDBJack (talk) 12:43, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

The article does not say Laurent is, or may be, criminally liable. It says that the charges filed on 7 August 2013 in the US stated that. That is true and well-sourced. It also does not say there have been any criminal charges brought subsequently.
You should not add "personal information anyone (sic) who is related in any way shape or form to the article"; you have a conflict of interest. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:29, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
@Pinkbeast: The article may be well sources, how ever it is out of date. If you read the updated document (the most recent filing), you will find no such reference.
Relating to my conflict of interest - My COI is known and declared, however I do not see how this relates to the fact that Oren Laurent's personal information is not relevant to the article. His actions as CEO are relevant to the article, however information concerning his name and his aliases are not related to Banc De Binary and his operations as CEO.
BDBJack (talk) 21:13, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
I think most people would consider it pertinent that the CEO of a financial services organisation can't decide what his own name is and seems to have worked somewhere that doesn't exist. Pinkbeast (talk) 09:36, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
This one looks done. Also, the first search engine result for the first search of "naf hedge funds" shows that Commercial National Financial is known as NAF with a Hedge Funds department. Looks like a match. But how many times on talk has this been asked without being searched? Okteriel (talk) 05:30, 8 June 2014 (UTC) Striking out comment by ban-evading sockpuppet. Coretheapple (talk) 19:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Cyberbot II has detected links on Banc De Binary which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.companydirectorcheck.com/soteris-flourentzou
    Triggered by \bcompanydirectorcheck\.com\b on the local blacklist
  • http://www.companydirectorcheck.com/pieris-hadjipieris
    Triggered by \bcompanydirectorcheck\.com\b on the local blacklist
  • http://www.companydirectorcheck.com/oren-shabat
    Triggered by \bcompanydirectorcheck\.com\b on the local blacklist
  • http://www.companydirectorcheck.com/uri-katz
    Triggered by \bcompanydirectorcheck\.com\b on the local blacklist
  • http://www.companydirectorcheck.com/yehezkel-shabat
    Triggered by \bcompanydirectorcheck\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.ā€”cyberbot II NotifyOnline 11:12, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Cyberbot II has detected links on Banc De Binary which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.companydirectorcheck.com/oren-shabat
    Triggered by \bcompanydirectorcheck\.com\b on the local blacklist
  • http://www.companydirectorcheck.com/pieris-hadjipieris
    Triggered by \bcompanydirectorcheck\.com\b on the local blacklist
  • http://www.companydirectorcheck.com/soteris-flourentzou
    Triggered by \bcompanydirectorcheck\.com\b on the local blacklist
  • http://www.companydirectorcheck.com/uri-katz
    Triggered by \bcompanydirectorcheck\.com\b on the local blacklist
  • http://www.companydirectorcheck.com/yehezkel-shabat
    Triggered by \bcompanydirectorcheck\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.ā€”cyberbot II NotifyOnline 20:32, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (because its don't have right info. Delete it) --1.22.160.20 (talk) 13:35, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because... This article is about a company that is the subject of current and serious legal action by the CTFC and SEC, making it noted and of great international interest. The company themselves have a huge presence online through their own PR team, making many claims and the Wikipedia article is the only truthful description of them --HistorianofRecenttimes (talk) 19:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

"the Wikipedia article is the only truthful description of them" i think in this case 'truth' is a very vague term. It's truth, but not the whole truth BDBJack (talk) 20:24, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
It's certainly notable enough to escape speedy deletion or proposed deletion. It might not pass WP:CORP, but that's an AfD question. Per WP:ILLCON, merely being crooked isn't enough to indicate notability. One possibility to merge to Binary_option#Regulation_and_compliance, which already has some discussions of binary trading operations in Cyprus. Comments? John Nagle (talk) 06:05, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
This is a bit odd because AFAIK no-one is proposing speedy deletion. Pinkbeast (talk) 09:36, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
@Pinkbeast: In revision https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Banc_De_Binary&oldid=608392127, @C.Fred: removed the request for speedy deletion.
@John Nagle: How would merging the articles work?

:::::Maybe not speedy deletion, but AfD seems reasonable for me per WP:CORP, may be even deleting the info and then merging with the discussion on binary options would be the best in my opinion. Please also note that most of the references don't have anything to do with the company or are from very doubtful websites.Lakratani (talk) 13:05, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

BDBJack (talk) 10:59, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

It does appear that as editors send by Banc de Binary have been unable to change this article, they hit on another plan, to attempt deletion. As the first 'Binary Options' company to face action by the CTFC and SEC it is very notable. Merging the article is a bad idea which would remove the details about Banc de Binary's reasons for problems with US regulators and thus remove the full picture of what has been going on in the world of unregulated online gaming. BTW, I checked the CYSEC list of regulated companies, why is it that Banc de Binary do not give a telephone number like all the others[2], surely this is pevidence that they're not really in Cyprus other than with a virtual office. HistorianofRecenttimes (talk) 20:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

@HistorianofRecenttimes: Regardless of their motive, there is an AfD discussion ongoing. That said, I've noted the account with the declared COI, and the SPAs have been noted in the AfD discussion. ā€”C.Fred (talk) 21:05, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
@HistorianofRecenttimes: "It does appear that as editors send by Banc de Binary have been unable to change this article, they hit on another plan, to attempt deletion." - This seems to be quite an accusation - one which has no evidence. As for the motion to delete, I do support it because it would be beneficial to the company, but mostly because the article really has very little to do with the company and more to do with the relations between the company, SEC and CFTC. Were this an article with some substance I would be completely against deleting it. However it is being used as a place to voice all of your complaints about the company, a large part of them which are completely imagined. HistorianofRecenttimes, is there something that I can help you with? If it's something that you would like to keep private we can arrange another form of communication to help sort out what ever personal issues you have with the company. While uncommon, there is no reason that we cannot use this medium as a method of mediation - just tell us what your issues are. Regardless, the accusation that BDB has started spamming wikipedia to bring down a page should be sourced, not just thrown out there - same as calling us an unregulated gaming company.
Also, the fact that CySEC (which is not under our control) doesn't list our phone number isn't something that we ourselves can fix. In fact we have provided CySEC our phone number and even a chair and desk in our office. You are welcome to come check as well. The address is:

Kristelina Tower, 12 Arch. Makariou III Mesa Yeitonia Limassol, Cyprus Cyprus CY-4000

If you'd like to call us and confirm, there are over 50 phone numbers on the website which you can use to call us to set your appointment. You can also use:

Cyprus (Toll Free) +80 09 4543 Cyprus +357 2223 2365 Cyprus +357 2223 2366

Also, if you'd like some pictures, please ask. We will be happy to provide.

Sincerely, BDBJack (talk) 22:23, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

BDB Jack, two questions: (a). Are any other Binary Options company facing action by the CTFC and SEC?

(b). Is it true that the starting and expiring price of the binary options do not match the actual price of the asset, but are instead chosen by SpotOption and how big is this difference? If this is the case, are your customers really predicting the change in price of the asset; or are they predicting what price SpotOption will decide it will be? If this is true how are people really predicting the genuine price of the asset and does it not just become gambling?

I am referring to the SpotOption contract which discussed previously on the talk page and mentioned in the article.HistorianofRecenttimes (talk) 08:28, 15 May 2014

I think much of this discussion should be had either at the AFD (where pertinent), user talk pages, or off-Wikipedia. Even if BDBJack did answer those questions (and you may be leading the witness slightly), self-sourced answers are not really ideal. Is this actually leading up to any improvements to the page? Pinkbeast (talk) 10:25, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Major makeover request

Hi again, seeing that this page is somewhat very conflictive i've been working on an overall revamp of the make. I thought I would post the petition here before confirming this account and changing it myself. You can see my work on my sandbox here [11]. ThanksĀ :) Peluchon (talk) 16:35, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Please do not turn this into a "spot the difference" competition - changes to the article should be incremental and discussed and agreed, or we are likely to have a Ping-Pong match where the entire article is pasted and reverted and pasted again. Arjayay (talk) 16:52, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
I have closed the {{edit semi-protected}} request as the comment above indicates there is no consensus for the request at this time. I did this as a housekeeping action only; I have no comment one way or the other on the merits of the request. ā€”KuyaBriBriTalk 19:37, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

:::I completely understand the comments. I will try then to apply the changes section by section on the page itself so we will get a better result afterwards.Peluchon (talk) 07:34, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

This proposed new version is a very obvious whitewash. What's your connection with BdB? Pinkbeast (talk) 12:16, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. It contains a big chunk of material on the theory of binary options, the Black-Scholes model (which really doesn't apply on the time scale of minutes where Banc de Binary operates), and other filler which pushes the bad news about Banc de Binary far down in the article. Also, this is from an editor with one day of editing history, which, given the history of the article, suggests a sockpuppet. --John Nagle (talk) 19:28, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I have come. This subject shall be saved. Continue discussion. Okteriel (talk) 20:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC) Striking out comment by ban-evading sockpuppet. Coretheapple (talk) 19:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Note this edit on Jimbo's talk page regarding paid editing for this article. --NeilN talk to me 18:01, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Saw this article mentioned on the aforemention Wales talk page. In examining this article, which is currently protected at the present time, it does stand out that it is largely negative. However, that appears to reflect the reliable sourcing. The only thing at all questionable is the Better Business Bureau rating, but I see from past noticeboard discussions that (a bit surprisingly) BBB ratings are allowed. Coretheapple (talk) 18:23, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
  • 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. Black Kite kite (talk) 18:50, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Somebody suggested that the US regulatory section is all primary sources. This Financial Times article should fix that problem and should be placed as a ref immediately after the first line of the second paragraph in that section. Ref only formatted as[3]
  1. ^ http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/double+jeopardy
  2. ^ http://www.cysec.gov.cy/licence_members_1_en.aspx
  3. ^ Meyer, Gregory; Massoudi, Arash (6 June 2013). "US regulators sue binary options broker". Financial Times. Retrieved 4 June 2014.
I'd also suggest removing the awards section. These are subpar awards from subpar sources, the type that anybody can buy if they want to. Smallbones(smalltalk) 21:31, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

TIME to choose a version

{{edit request}} Admin, please read the reasons I'm providing below for replacing the current version with Okteriel's draft, and perform the replacement the moment that community consensus demonstrates the need. BLP and V require immediate attention. Okteriel (talk) 12:12, 6 June 2014 (UTC) The first request was declined, so it appears necessary to start listing further article problems in detail rather than handle this all at one go. Trusting your patience. Okteriel (talk) 13:17, 6 June 2014 (UTC) Striking out comment by ban-evading sockpuppet. Coretheapple (talk) 19:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

It's actually simple. Mr Oren Laurent has expressed that too much policy noncompliance has been going on here and that it needs to cease just as certainly as it would die out if it were slander; and he has stated that he greatly desires the community to reach consensus about its disposition. Okteriel has posted three drafts for community consideration. The community should choose a draft promptly and wisely and all encouragement to this effect should be applied. Okteriel (talk) 12:12, 6 June 2014 (UTC) Striking out comment by ban-evading sockpuppet. Coretheapple (talk) 19:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Okteriel's summary of current consensus

  • Option 1 (Peluchon): Contains lots of binary options data. Supported by 1: Peluchon (now judged a banned sock).
  • Option 2 (Okteriel) (current): Contains only text found in both other drafts. Supported by 1: Okteriel (possible COI disclosed above).
  • Option 3 (HistorianofRecenttimes): Contains four identities in lead and much questionable. Supported by 1: HistorianofRecenttimes (judged a SPA).

Result: Nobody further chose to affirm any of these three drafts; instead, Okteriel's version has merged into the current version, and there is growing consensus for the current version. This supports my theory that much of the editing just before the protection was not about drafts that anybody wanted to defend, it was merely apathy bias. Okteriel (talk) 04:51, 8 June 2014 (UTC) Striking out comment by ban-evading sockpuppet. Coretheapple (talk) 19:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Housekeeping detail

It looks like in his wisdom Okteriel (q.v.) played a trick on us all. Instead of posting all three drafts himself, he somehow influenced Jim1138 to post the third draft instead, and he made it look like Jim1138 was merely being rude to a newcomer who was in the middle of self-reverting discussion drafts without an "under construction" tag, who also stated intent to discuss it at talk. Then it looks like because of an "edit conflict" Okteriel instantly decided to change strategy sarcastically and post his own version again (the second of three drafts) in lieu of posting the third draft, and acting smarmily as if it were also the draft of HistorianofRecenttimes but only "slightly edited". But of course he did it in such a way and with such an edit summary that it looks like he merely cut and pasted the "wrong" draft when it came to the third one. (This is all the funnier because he had me fooled too because when I made the third posting I totally thought it was the "right" third draft and that I had confirmed it, but he somehow clouded my judgment to make me think that when he was really reposting the second draft.) This kind of wisdom often befuddles me but I rationalize that his point must have been that "Historian"'s draft is so obviously a problem that cutting it completely back to Okteriel's draft is only minor. At any rate this is really all minor, but very interesting, background. Okteriel (talk) 12:19, 6 June 2014 (UTC)Striking out comment by ban-evading sockpuppet. Coretheapple (talk) 19:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Community comment

  • (Nominator:) Strongly support Okteriel. I wish I could speak neutrally about these. Peluchon's is an unsourced whitewash that is really an attempt to merge binary options here. Okteriel's is a sample of showing only the text that everybody agrees on and is clearly not meant to be his own work or bold draft. I will userfy it and work on what it should look like in full wiki style. Historian's is a SPA reliance on wobbly and invalid sources. Historian's also has one really giant unusual problem: it claims four entities are all the same entity via "also known as" when BDBJack credibly states, two months ago and without any responsive answer to his disclosed COI edit request, that these are four related corporations with individual charters that cannot legally be called "also known as". As long as we can't even agree what entity this topic is about, the current draft must be changed.
There is evidence of all kinds of other BLP and V disputes, which were only temporarily settled by silence and nobody taking action. I am breaking the silence. I will list disputes in separate sections as I find them. Now normally I understand that protected articles in such a hostility should be stubbed so that the "ball" is taken away from all the editors at the same time. It appears Okteriel wants a compromise where only the disputed text is stubbed out, but if there is any community support for a total stub that can be added to the options above as soon as someone writes up a draft of one.
As long as the drafts are disputed, policy requires that Historian's draft must not be the one protected and Okteriel's draft should be placed. Thank you. Okteriel (talk) 12:19, 6 June 2014 (UTC) Striking out comment by ban-evading sockpuppet. Coretheapple (talk) 19:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I have declined your edit request. A version does not have to be chosen. Once the article comes off of full protection, regular editors (not SPA's) can work on the current text. --NeilN talk to me 12:58, 6 June 2014 (UTC) By the way, referring to yourself in the third person is rather odd. --NeilN talk to me 12:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I thought so too, I think I'm cleared to stop doing so now. Okteriel (talk) 13:12, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
(ec) Thank you for being a first responder, Neil, yes, it is not necessary for the community to choose a draft, as it could simply decline to perform its duty. But someone will do the community's duty. And even if I were an SPA I could request the removal of unsourced misleading information such as the identity of the corporations in the lead. I don't want to be accused of being disruptive if I need to go sentence by sentence; I thought it was obvious that if the article has been so badly managed that we don't even know what corps are or are not the subject, it needs a cutback. I am preparing to make a list of issues for separate discussion. But I hope you can see that the present version has also been created by a SPA and the present bias does need rapid response. I am available for more discussion, as I don't see why your statements rebut in any way the presumption toward V and BLP enforcement. At any rate I came back to change the template to "edit protected" but that only applies for noncontroversy and right now you and I can handle a D of a BRD cycle. Before we change the template again, I hope you can continue because my questions are not answered and dialogue is appropriate. Okteriel (talk) 13:12, 6 June 2014 (UTC) Oh, and, while you declined the request, do you "support Historian", or "abstain", please? I would hope you would not support linking corporations as AKA's when there is no source for it but there is a credible and aging edit request to the contrary? Okteriel (talk) 13:15, 6 June 2014 (UTC) Striking out comment by ban-evading sockpuppet. Coretheapple (talk) 19:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't support your entire proposition. What you should do is start new sections detailing specific changes to the current version (i.e., change "x" to "y", remove "z", add "w") and get consensus for each change before making a formal edit requests. --NeilN talk to me 13:22, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Great. I hope you can stay with me. But there's only one problem with your suggestion: BDBJack has already made exactly such a section two months ago, at the top of this page, and has gotten no answer. In keeping with your suggestion, and, under BRD, could you comment on his proposed change please? Okteriel (talk) 13:30, 6 June 2014 (UTC) Striking out comment by ban-evading sockpuppet. Coretheapple (talk) 19:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Okteriel, could you please explain why your preferred version does not mention BDB's legal troubles in the US in the "regulation" section, despite the existence of reliable third-party sources of which you were well aware? Citing their own press release in the "awards" section instead is not an appropriate substitute. Huon (talk) 13:37, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Agree with your last sentence in the long term. I hurried to post boldly only consensus text (not my preferred draft), before I research contested text. I skipped US section header because the header itself was not agreed. I didn't mention "legal troubles" because that is biased language IIRC; there is some consensus in that all versions contain the BDB statement, but there is not agreement on how the SEC side should be stated, and, no, in my rush I didn't verify the RS there or determine if they were correctly represented. Remember I only had 4 minutes before I was welcomed. Okteriel (talk) 18:39, 6 June 2014 (UTC) Striking out comment by ban-evading sockpuppet. Coretheapple (talk) 19:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
BDBJack did get responses resulting in "no consensus". It didn't help he had a massive WP:COI. --NeilN talk to me 13:41, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't think his COI is the issue, and someone saying "no consensus" but nobody closing the request is not a "result". But what is the issue? If the problem is that nobody can deny BDBJack but nobody wants to help him, that is an apathy bias (not an argument), which somebody should boldly step in and address.
Let's put it in policy terms. BDBJack has a CFTC source that authoritatively amends the article's CFTC source. The article lead is clearly wrong. The identity of a corporation is an open-and-shut legal matter. Even if I had COI, it would not prevent me from properly deleting the incorrect clause, which was part of my editing, because the V case is so clear. How could either of you say the clause should be retained just because nobody wants to do it? Shouldn't I renew the "edit protected" template and appeal to an admin?

To Okteriel, please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest closely. May I ask if you are a paid editor? Since you say that the business owner says that we must do something, it seems that way. Also, are you familiar with the SEC injunction ruled on in the Las Vegas court? If you are just trying to place an advert onto Wikipedia, please don't waste our time - it is simply against the rules. Smallbones(smalltalk) 14:50, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Of course you may ask the ($10,000) question (see Coretheapple below); I'm glad it was you who asked, Smallbones. I am preparing an answer to appear on the proper page. For the immediate nonce, all editors must take what I did disclose in good faith and must consider my edits on their merits. I'm particularly glad that I've brought community to start fixing this failed article. Like I said I haven't had time to know the exact status of the court cases, I usually research any court case more thoroughly before rendering my own judgment on it. Okteriel (talk) 18:56, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

On Jimbo's talk page[12] it was revealed that editors were being actively solicited for this article, specifically to engage in precisely the reversion to a whitewashed version being proposed here, and that a payment of the five figures was offered. ("the ad was to rewrite Banc De Binary with provided text (an older version of the page)") If you (Okteriel) are that person, you need to disclose it. Coretheapple (talk) 14:56, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I never proposed whitewash (i.e., Peluchon's draft). I proposed cutback or stub as per WP:ATTACK, which is close to a perfect fit; BLP applies on a sliding scale to small corps, and in this case it was decided that the CEO is a nonnotable redirect, so anything that reflects badly on the principals should be treated similarly to BLP to some degree. Only good sourced balanced data should appear. I think the rest of your question should probably be referred to my talk also. As near as I can tell, all talk onwiki about five figures is rumormongering and fails V (insofar as it applies to project space). (It just occurred to me, maybe Mr Laurent doesn't have the money but he can certainly string out a cheap publicity stunt without it. Anyway there are many explanations and no hard facts.) Deferring to a longer answer later, I think WP:DUCK applies. Tell me, am I editing constructively or not by asking that the article's subject be rightly legally identified according to authoritative sources? (I will be happy to add more other constructive edits to my edit history but I don't know how that would help much.) Sure we can talk court cases, after we know what corporation(s) the court case is about.
Will anyone agree with me that the clause that CFTC corrected last month can now be corrected by us this month? C'mon, that's easy. Okteriel (talk) 18:56, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks to Black Kite's prompt action, we have had harmonious editing club today and answered both that question just above and all the others, and the result looks like a subset of any of the three versions above. Congratulations. I have redirected my current preference above to the current article. I consider any of today's drafts from 03:33 to 04:33 to be an acceptable baseline. Next, improvement, through expansion, through consensus placements. Okteriel (talk) 04:51, 8 June 2014 (UTC) Striking out comment by ban-evading sockpuppet. Coretheapple (talk) 19:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

BLP violations

It's a BLPTALK violation if someone says something that makes a corporate principal look stupid or criminal without sourcing. Pretty simple. As above, for small corporations, especially when the CEO redirects to the corp, there's almost all the latitude of full BLP. I'm going to strike through (but not delete) some of the most egregious violations of this application. Please feel free to differ and discuss. Okteriel (talk) 19:11, 6 June 2014 (UTC) Striking out comment by ban-evading sockpuppet. Coretheapple (talk) 19:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

NeilN has reverted most of my second set of these strikethroughs and tags. I have asked why on his talk but he may be distracted trying to argue that this article is outside the very clear scope of Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron. I am not continuing to tag and strike at this time, but I might later if there is no reason not to. I think to continue I'd at least want a BRD on this page before I dismissed his edit summary ("guff") and tried again. BLPTALK definitely applies, and WP:NOCITE says that very harmful or absurd claims should not be posted uncited even on the talk page. Okteriel (talk) 21:05, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
NeilN has activity-lapsed without answering this question, and his attempted answers to my other questions all have the same flatness. I don't believe an editor should be hamstrung by nonanswers. What I'll do is try the talk archive instead, which has the very same BLP problems, starting with Historian's first talk edit. If anyone objects to that then we can do a new BRD relating to striking WP:BLPGROUP violations on that page. Okteriel (talk) 22:24, 6 June 2014 (UTC) Striking out comment by ban-evading sockpuppet. Coretheapple (talk) 19:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
To repeat what I said on my talk page, "...as a WP:SPA who has a WP:COI and is grabbing at anything you can find [13], you should be staying far, far away from tampering with other people's comments." Ask another experienced and uninvolved editor to have a look if you're that concerned. --NeilN talk to me 23:06, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
I'd love to, thanks. But don't you think you should back up your charges against me with facts? I am trying to keep from SPA (the last few hours probably excepted) and I have provided a disclosure and am following COI rules just as if I had COI. I don't know why you would bring these charges here when you're the one restoring outright BLP violations, c'mon, one user calls another user a criminal to his face in the talk archive and you restore the comment?! Can you help me understand? I am certainly getting assistance. Okteriel (talk) 23:14, 6 June 2014 (UTC) Striking out comment by ban-evading sockpuppet. Coretheapple (talk) 19:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Rescue the article!

Please add {{WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron}} and {{underconstruction}} to the top of the page. Since it is now an AfD again (not to mention poorly written), it qualifies for WikiProject attention; and the way in which the protection was applied itself is proof that the article is in flux and should not be adverted as a consensus draft. (By the way, I agree with the protection.) This is straightforward and it is necessary that the V and BLP issues be vetted by additional contributors (or by any contributors who know of them but are not answering them). Okteriel (talk) 19:35, 6 June 2014 (UTC) Striking out comment by ban-evading sockpuppet. Coretheapple (talk) 19:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose both tags as improper usage. --NeilN talk to me 19:38, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. Apparently there isn't a consensus here yet. Please establish one before reactivating this request per WP:PER. Thank you. ā€” {{U|Technical 13}} (e ā€¢ t ā€¢ c) 19:43, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
I tagged the talk page. NeilN, you may not know about this WikiProject, which specializes in "Wikipedia articles that are perceived as actually being notable that are going through Articles for deletion (AfD), which may:
  • Need references
  • Be written poorly
  • Lack information readily available
  • Need cleaning up."

So how is that improper please? Okteriel (talk) 20:33, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Because use of that tag is disingenuous. There's not one vote to delete in the AFD discussion besides the nominator's. You just posted there indicating it is a WP:SNOWBALL. The article doesn't need rescuing from deletion. --NeilN talk to me 20:43, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
The project is not about rescue from deletion alone. Read it again please. Okteriel (talk) 20:45, 6 June 2014 (UTC) Striking out comment by ban-evading sockpuppet. Coretheapple (talk) 19:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
WP:SCOPEARS seems pretty clear to me. --NeilN talk to me 20:57, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
That's what I quoted. How can we be talking about the exact same words and still disagreeing? This is perceived as notable, is going through AfD, needs references, is written poorly, probably lacks available information (haven't gone through that one yet), and needs cleanup. Okteriel (talk) 21:08, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Again, disingenuous. The ARS improves articles to save them from deletion. There is no danger of deletion here. --NeilN talk to me 23:11, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Why so hard? Why so opposed to most everything, with I grant one exception so far? You're saying that they can't even be asked to improve the article past the point of nondeletion?! Okteriel (talk) 23:17, 6 June 2014 (UTC) Striking out comment by ban-evading sockpuppet. Coretheapple (talk) 19:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Cross-reference

Stalkers of this page may be interested in fixing a "whitewash" that happened to Nadex last month. The near-perfect 8-year binary-options SPA IP not only outed himself, but also deleted all references, two names of principals, and the word "bet"! Who wants to focus their energy on fixing that? Then maybe we can get around to consensus on this article instead of avoiding it. Okteriel (talk) 22:16, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Make that two exceptions (see previous section). Thank you for reverting Nadex, which does look like an improvement. It's all the more amazing, truly astounding, incredible, that you can't even admit the CFTC said BDB Ltd is not BDB Svcs Ltd and that Wikipedia should be changed because it says the opposite. Why so quick to fix Nadex and pushing so hard against even agreeing to the very first fact of this article, the subject's identity? What gives? Okteriel (talk) 23:21, 6 June 2014 (UTC) Striking out comment by ban-evading sockpuppet. Coretheapple (talk) 19:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
It'd be a lot easier to focus on content if you stopped doing time-wasting stuff like proposing invalid tags and refactoring comments. Stop doing that and give other editors a chance to look at content issues (a day or so) and see what happens. --NeilN talk to me 23:32, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Also, fixing minor factual details would be easier if you didn't combine the relevant proposals with massive whitewashing. That tends to make editors wary to accept any of your requests. Huon (talk) 23:43, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Please take your time! But, both these comments are "stale", I already stopped the tagging, although I will delete another BLPVIO if I see one; and, although Huon continues to misread my bold discussion drafts as the last word rather than a BRD, Huon's comment refers to probably nothing in the last 48 hours. Finally, the method of giving editors a chance to look has not worked to solve the first fact in this article, the company name and identity. I'll repeat this again for Huon. Here the CFTC amends the incorrect CFTC source that appears in the article. It used to think BDB Ltd and BDB Svcs Ltd and the rest were the same, now it recognizes they're legally different corporations. But of all the talk activity, not one person is able to admit that we still haven't agreed on even what corporation(s) this article is about in its lead sentence! So I'm running with what can be done while this incredible silence continues at the same time as the deafening opposition to my proposals. Okteriel (talk) 00:07, 7 June 2014 (UTC) Striking out comment by ban-evading sockpuppet. Coretheapple (talk) 19:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Banc De Binary, Ltd. and BDB Services Ltd. may be legally distinct, but they're extremely closely associated with each other, they share the bancdebinary.com domain, they both make use of the Banc De Binary brand in different markets. In fact, let's check terms of use: Banc De Binary is owned and operated by BDB Services Ltd., Seychelles while Eu.bancdebinary.com is owned and operated by Banc De Binary Ltd., Cyprus. This to me says that, if anything, Banc De Binary is the Seychelles-owned part of the group companies, not the Cyprus-owned. So the way to fix the article would be to remove the Cyprus-owned company, which is not Banc De Binary, from this article and to instead focus on what calls itself Banc de Binary, the Seychelles-owned company, right? Reliable third-party sources seem to focus on the Seychelles-owned company anyway. Huon (talk) 00:42, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for joining the issue. It looked like you just said "Banc De Binary Ltd., Cyprus ... to me says that, if anything, Banc De Binary is the Seychelles-owned part." How'd you switch the two locations? Is it only because it said earlier that "BDB [the brand] is owned by BDB Svcs Ltd Seychelles"? But, BDB the brand is also owned by BDB Ltd Cyprus. I have no problem with discussing something responsive like "BDB is a group of related BO companies" or such, with the details later. But I have seen nothing such as you allude, that Seychelles would be relevant to the lead. I'll be happy to look. Does that mean we can use "edit protected" to delete the errant clause now due to its falsity and work on the revision? I promise I won't stall! Okteriel (talk) 01:12, 7 June 2014 (UTC) Striking out comment by ban-evading sockpuppet. Coretheapple (talk) 19:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
The Cyprus company owns something called Eu.bancdebinary.com, but, quote, "Banc De Binary is owned and operated by BDB Services Ltd., Seychelles". That's unambiguous, isn't it? Banc De Binary, whether or not it's the same as Banc De Binary, Ltd., is owned by the Seychelles-based company. The CFTC is suing both companies anyway, and the amended CFTC complaint alleges: Defendants BdB Ltd., ETBO, BO Systems, and BDB Services are affiliates of each other, do business as "Banc de Binary", and, during the Relevant Period, shared common ownership and operated as a common enterprise [...]. Despite your claims to the contrary, the CFTC does not acknowledge that these are distinct enterprises. If we do not take the CFTC's position that these companies basically are all the same enterprise, the notable one is the one which did the business in the US which got them sued, and I doubt that was Cyprus-run Eu.bancdebinary.com. Huon (talk) 02:14, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Sorry I missed this. I didn't claim contrarily that these are distinct enterprises, but that they are distinct corporations. But this article is about the enterprise, the four corps and their websites. I think it's hardly sporting to merge them when it can get you to Seychelles and then to separate them once you've got there. They all four together apparently did the business in the US, I hear tell. Maybe a Cyprus corp is owned by a Seychelles corp, which is owned by its stockholders (owned by ...), but so far we're building an agreement about other things, viz., that this is about "BDB" the enterprise, and that FKA and AKA do not apply among affiliate corporations. Earlier drafts had all four properly identified rather than treated as synonyms, and that will be restored, I trust. At any rate, no matter how intractable the logic, there is a good baseline right now and we should build on it. Okteriel (talk) 05:55, 8 June 2014 (UTC) Striking out comment by ban-evading sockpuppet. Coretheapple (talk) 19:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Award section

None of those awards seem notable. I look at the websites, and this isn't some major event. Are any of these awards notable enough to get coverage in any independent reliable sources? I say delete them all. Dream Focus 23:31, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I would accept consensus for either keep or toss on that. However, they were accepted by the consensus just before the protection. If you poke around you'll see more interesting things than that. Okteriel (talk) 23:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Oren Shabat Laurent

Since both the updated CFTC information http://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/pr6923-14 and the Financial Times piece http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f507568e-ced9-11e2-8e16-00144feab7de.html correctly identify the chief exec and controlling person of the whole set of related BDB shell companies as Oren Shabat Cohen, a citizen of the U.S. & Israel, can we replace his self-concoted nom de plume Oren Laurent, or perhaps render it as Oren Shabat Cohen aka Oren Laurent? thx 94.195.46.205 (talk) 09:58, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

The FT simply reproduces what the CFTC says, and court documents such as those are explicitly not appropriate sources for biographies of living persons. While Banc De Binary is not a living person, Laurent certainly is. Huon (talk) 10:13, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
I am not proposing to use it as a biographies of living persons, merely to correct the info box. thx 94.195.46.205 (talk) 10:21, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
You're proposing to add biographical information about a living person, namely an alias. Huon (talk) 10:31, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Not an alias. Here an IP, self-ID'd as Oren Laurent in history, points out that not only did we fail to disambiguate the corporations (all the way back in October), we also failed to disambiguate the employees! Cohen is an employee of Laurent with the same first name and aliyah middle name. I've seen Cohen identified as an employee on one of BDB's postings on a third-party site. The whole idea was started by a then-non-autoconfirmed SPA (who continued to edit SPA here ever since), who, at the same time, accused every technical contact on every BDB whois (e.g., Jack Laine) as being another alias of Laurent! I am under the impression that all guvdocs misidentifying Cohen as Laurent have also been amended, just like the corporate dab was last month.
Not only that, one of the IP's links is paywalled, and the other correctly says "Oren Shabat Laurent", not Cohen, contrary to IP claim. According to Hebrew naming practices, "Shabat" is an aliyah surname, which can be used diversely as either a middle name or a surname in our nomenclature. "Oren Shabat" is a pretty common pairing too, and, although the confusion of having 2/3 of a name match between two employees is understandable, nobody has taken the time to research before commenting, until now. Let the Cohen go home now. Okteriel (talk) 01:18, 8 June 2014 (UTC) Striking out comment by ban-evading sockpuppet. Coretheapple (talk) 19:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Bold edits

Now that the article is un-protected, I will make some bold edits to cleanup junk sources - both those that are used for promotional material and those for critical commentary. As is always the case when making major cuts, there will probably be some material that needs to be restored. And as is always the case where this many editors are involved and have strong opinions any edits to the page will result in editors protesting them. My interest is mostly in cleaning up junk sources, which is a major portion of my contributions to Wikipedia. I hope other editors will continue a productive conversation about the article, based on reliable secondary sources, though I probably won't get involved in the nitty gritty. I prefer not to get involved in contentious pages where editors are arguing unproductively, but I do want to cleanup the junk sources. CorporateM (Talk) 17:58, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

One thing the article still needs is someone that knows who the trade press is for this kind of company. There are some articles on them in the Financial Times, but mostly just quotes and their commentary on the markets. I also found a trade news site called Binary Tribune, but I am unsure about their reliability - it has published some very promotional material on the company that reads like a press release. Finally, the outcome of the lawsuit needs a much better source than the statement on their website, which may or may not accurately represent things (they say voluntarily, but its possible an independent source will posture it differently). CorporateM (Talk) 19:22, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
I've undone one of your bold edits as the fact the company appears on those lists in uncontroversial and no analysis in involved. --NeilN talk to me 19:30, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
@CorporateM: Unfortunately, due to the business model of most of the websites and news sources related to the Binary Options industry, i believe that it will be hard to find articles that are not promotional in nature. Being that Binary Options are (relatively) new to the financial industry, and have been regulated for a very short time, I think it will be hard to find unbiased articles on the subject. However, I will endeavour to provide a list of sites / newspapers etc. which ( at least in my opinion ) are relatively unbaised or at least do not have any direct connection with the subject of the article (Banc De Binary). BDBJack (talk) 19:46, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Agree with CorporateM's analysis of the sources NeilN reinserted, they are not the quality of the sources CorporateM dug up. I'm generally for inclusion but the first phase needs to be the affirmation of the cutback, as I recommended, and as CorporateM provided the first rational incarnation of, in just two hours. After initial consensus and stability, then patient growth. Reviewing actively. Okteriel (talk) 22:43, 7 June 2014 (UTC) Striking out comment by ban-evading sockpuppet. Coretheapple (talk) 19:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Press releases should almost never be used and things like a list from the SEC needs to be interpreted by secondary sources, not because we are not intelligent enough to understand them, but because secondary sources establish the information's significance and provide context. A while back I was working on an article about a website that sold illegal drugs online. The government had a dim view on it, but secondary sources had a scoffing attitude towards the government's attempt at catching them. I'm not saying that's the case here, but that reliable secondary sources often differ greatly from the government's views.
User:NeilN said he or she was going to look up newspapers and generally for a marginally notable company like this, newspaper articles by professional journalists (not op-eds, press release re-writes, bylines, etc.) are probably going to be the best available sources. I suggest we see what they find. CorporateM (Talk) 22:49, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I noticed there are some sources in the German and French versions of this article in other languages that may be useful. I have not looked at them. 22:53, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
There have been some blatant changes made recently to whitewash Banc de Binary. For example, "The company has been charged with several offences by the CTFC and SEC, and trading with US customers has been frozen following an injunction on 1 August 2013" (cited to the SEC) has become "According to Banc de Binary website, it has voluntarily stopped offering its services to US residents."(cited to the Banc de Binary site). This has to be undone. Other deletions included negative coverage from the Wall Street Journal. I suggest we go back to the last edit before CorporateM became involved and go forward from there. John Nagle (talk) 00:22, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
The Wall Street Journal has not been removed. The SEC's dispute with the company is documented in reliable secondary sources and does not need primary sources to add excessive weight and commentary. It is not whitewashed, it is simply trimmed of low-quality sources and now focuses on what's been said in reliable secondary sources, which is how proper articles are written. CorporateM (Talk) 00:51, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
What I'm rather skeptical about is the last line: "In February 2013, Banc De Binary registered with the Financial Services Authority in the United Kingdom." The Financial Times article given as a source strongly implies that Banc De Binary is not under the "regulatory scrutiny" of the FSA and that the FSA keeps a list of companies doing business in the UK without being regulated there - that seems to be what Banc De Binary is doing. Now telling the FSA that BDB is doing business or erecting a branch in the UK may count as "registering", but we should not give the impression that FSA is regulating BDB. See for comparison what FSA itself has to say about BDB. Huon (talk) 00:53, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Nagle, yes, we definitely need a baseline to work from. But, the version CorporateM started with was much worse, imnsho. I affirmed that both lawsuit sides need to appear; well, they do appear, but the 3 sentences for SEC/CFTC are a bit weak and the 1 BDB is poor. One punchy sentence for each should do it for a baseline, then we can talk nuance. The idea is to get consensus about what's there first, then we can use the calmer BRD or talk-proposal methods to continue. Also I hope we're done with the word "whitewash" because I've heard too many people use it. I'm not sure the SEC can rightly claim "frozen" when the act was the result of negotiation and so there was nothing to freeze. Okteriel (talk) 01:35, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Huon, I changed that line before reading yours. FSA and FT are not coming up for me. The history had a longer sentence that was more specific from which I quoted, with the FSA saying, "may be subject to limited regulation by the" FCA, and I assumed it correctly reflected the FSA (now basically FCA) when it was placed. "May be" didn't fit in the sentence, but I don't think it implied "need not be considered as". I don't understand why we shouldn't give the impression unless you think my version doesn't make the distinction between full and limited regulation clear. Good enough? Okteriel (talk) 01:47, 8 June 2014 (UTC) Striking out comment by ban-evading sockpuppet. Coretheapple (talk) 19:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Here's some investigative reporting by the financial side of the London Daily Mail.[14]. Their reporter checked with the FCA (successor to the FCA): "... debt-ridden Cyprus welcomed it and issued a licence last January. This allowed Banc de Binary to ā€˜passportā€™ itself under EU rules into almost every other member country without proper vetting. It now claims to have headquarters in Limassol, as well as offices in King Street in the City of London. Because it has never been satisfactorily vetted by the FCA, customers who fall out with Banc de Binary cannot complain to the Financial Ombudsman Service. And if the company were to collapse, investors could not claim from the Financial Services Compensation Scheme." That should deal with the "regulated by the FCA" issue.
The Daily Mail article goes further. The article is about someone who wrote the newspaper with the claim that "I am a victim of Banc de Binary, a private bank in New York which took $25,000 (about Ā£16,000) out of my Lloyds TSB account without my knowledge or authority." After investigating, the reporter is able to get the money back. He catches Banc de Binary representatives in some clearly false statements. So we now have a reliable secondary source for Banc de Binary being a sketchy operation in the UK, as well as operating illegally in the US. Let's get that into the article. I'm going out to a movie. John Nagle (talk) 02:01, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

convenience break

Besides a smiley face I still don't have a good answer from CorporateM on why we can't use primary sources judiciously per WP:PRIMARY - "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." --NeilN talk to me 02:30, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

That is also not true; I've explained several times that secondary sources are needed to establish the information's significance and its context/NPOV. Primary sources might be usable for non-controversial information like a foundation date, revenues, number of offices, corporate structure - these are things where WEIGHT and NPOV are irrelevant. Primary sources may be used wherever they do not violate some other policy, but they usually do.
It is not true that a weak source may be used with attribution as verifying the opinion of the author of the source - if their opinions were significant, they would be included in secondary sources. As stated previously, for a marginally notable company like this, the only good sourcing available will be newspapers and there are not many of those at that. CorporateM (Talk) 02:47, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
'It appears on the US Securities and Exchange Commission's "List of Unregistered Soliciting Entities That Have Been the Subject of Investor Complaints".' Non-controversial statement of fact. Please tell me what policy this content is violating. And why you left "According to Banc de Binary website, it has voluntarily stopped offering its services to US residents." in as it also has primary source with no secondary source to establish significance/truth. --NeilN talk to me 03:04, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
The primary source from the website is also not acceptable and for similar reasons. I said as much in the edit-summary and explained that again on the Talk page. As I explained previously, it is a placeholder until someone can find a secondary source explaining the outcome of the lawsuit. If none can be found it should also be removed. CorporateM (Talk) 03:17, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
I find it odd you would keep the company's primary sourced statement in as a "placeholder" but removed (twice) text sourced to various regulatory agencies. --NeilN talk to me 03:57, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
We have a reliable secondary source, the Daily Mail, explicitly calling out Banc de Binary for not only having been shut down in the US by the SEC and CTFC, but then lying about it to the Daily Mail reporter: "The truth was that it was under investigation by the CFTC for alleged illegal trading, and Banc de Binary later admitted its press release was ā€˜inaccurateā€™ and it was not allowed to offer investments in the US. I asked the companyā€™s founder, Oren Laurent, whether this meant deals done through its New York office were unlawful. I also asked him about your complaint that $25,000 was taken without permission. Laurent did not respond, but Banc de Binaryā€™s head of compliance, Lauren Oā€™ā€‰Connor, told me: ā€˜Mr Rā€™s claims do not hold up and do not make sense.ā€™ She did not comment on whether your New York trades were illegal, but she claimed: ā€˜The company does not provide any services to US clients.ā€™ American authorities say this is untrue." That's more than enough to back up strong statements in the article. John Nagle (talk) 05:29, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree with John Nagle that the page should be reverted back to Black kite, before CorporateM's whitewashing and also that the protection should be reinstated. The whole page has been whitewashed to the point it's barely recognisable. Is there anything that can be done about 'cash for editing' users like CorporateM and Okteriel, the latter of which left a weird and half-threatening message on my talk? HistorianofRecenttimes (talk) 11:30, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
This Daily Mail article appears to be a copy/paste of direct testimony from an upset customer named JRR. It's more clear at the very top where it says "JRR:" and the following text is in italics indicating that it's quoted. Even though the italics goes away, the rest of the text is in the first person from the customer's point-of-view. CorporateM (Talk) 17:01, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
The Daily Mail article looks fine to me.
Since you've been asked indirectly already, I'll just make the above question from Historian to @CorporateM: clear - Are you being paid to edit this article? I've asked the same questionof User:Okteriel and got a laughably evasive answer. It actually convinced me that he is a well known long time banned editor. ā€” [[User:Short answer: I am not banned, please stop. Longer answer below. Okteriel (talk) 21:02, 8 June 2014 (UTC)|Short answer: I am not banned, please stop. Longer answer below. Okteriel (talk) 21:02, 8 June 2014 (UTC)]] ā€” continues after insertion below I'll likely just remove everything he writes from now on, as is allowed under exceptions to the 3RR rule, but 1st I'll ask him: Okteriel, are you a banned editor?
Also User:HistorianofRecenttimes, I might as well ask you too. You seem to have special information on company such as the compensation package for its employees. Your material seems very reasonable and should be included except for WP:V. Do you have a special relationship with the company, such as former employee, former customer, or competitor? Sorry I have to ask, but this article is becoming a snake-pit. Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:08, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Nop, I have no connection to the company at all, I was just amused to see how blatant the fraud was. I won a school history prize when I was 17 so just called myself that name for fun. Bearing in mind it's an online company, you'd have thought that anyone wanting to partake would have been able to use the internet to research Banc de Binary and so discover the company and practically the entire online 'binary options' field is a complete fraud, where the companies decide the start and end price and the unlucky punter almost always loses out as the House sets the odds and final result. I picked up all the info and sources online, and I recognized Ramat Gan in the background in one of their since removed videos, which made me realise it was in Israel, but I sourced that. The US charges are a obvious consequence of having fleeced what would be very vulnerable investors, the kind of whom don't really understand how to use the internet properly, but can still use a credit card. My heart goes out to them and the US charges describe some of the victims who seem on the margins of society. CorporateM is a paid for editor and they admit this on their own page, which gives a list of companies they have worked on as a COI. Can we erase theirs and Okteriel's comments and restore the page to as it was when BlackKite lifted protection yesterday?HistorianofRecenttimes (talk) 19:05, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

That's a silly question - you're the one that brought the article to my attention! No, I have not had any communication with the company whatsoever, nor have I even seen the alleged online bribe. CorporateM (Talk) 20:02, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
I think we can accept that both Historian and CorporateM are not being paid to edit here, and should proceed under the usual assumption of goodwill. The other editor mentioned, however, should note that goodwill only can go so far. Banned editors need not apply. To Historian - you likely have pieced together many bits and pieces including material from sources that we might not consider reliable. If the sources do meet WP:RS, please do include them. If not feel free to use this page to describe what you've found and your interpretation of the material - but do not liable anybody or otherwise violate WP:BLP. BTW I have some experience with this type of article and some professional experience in this area (not of the type you might be thinking of!). It's not unusual for former employees to show up as editors to this type of article. In any case you have very good knowledge of the company.
To CorpM - as usual, I accept your good faith but not necessarily your judgement - your pretty far off on this one. Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:48, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Smallbones, did you get to read User:Okteriel/Five figures? I answered your last question as politely as possible. Why are you deleting my comments and charging me very seriously without evidence just for the alleged crime of not getting to your buried question fast enough, or not believing you'd really follow through? I am not banned. I am not Morning277; I am not MooshiePorkFace; I am not any banned editor on the list personally, linkably, categorically, uncategorically, or any other way; I am not Wiki-PR; with the same vehemence; I think I could say I despise Wiki-PR if it weren't biased to say; Wiki-PR created this chaos; let's fix this chaos. What was the thread about again? Oh, affirm most of the short-draft versions that Historian is warring against. Okteriel (talk) 21:12, 8 June 2014 (UTC) Striking out comment by ban-evading sockpuppet. Coretheapple (talk) 19:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Rewriting First Paragraph

I would like to see the first paragraph: "Banc De Binary is a binary options trading company headquartered in Cyprus and Israel which was enjoined by a U.S. Federal Court in 2013 from offering securities for sale or acting as a broker-dealer."

changed to something a little more comprehensible, such as:

"Banc De Binary is a binary options trading company headquartered in Cyprus and Israel."

which removes the redundant information which is already stated in the "Regulation" section.

BDBJack (talk) 18:48, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

The "redundant information" is that The "redundant information" is that they're crooks under US law. John Nagle (talk) 19:22, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Please support this statement with sources. The fact that they are being sued in a civil court does not make them "crooks". It means that they breached regulation (not a law). This happens on a regular basis with established banks as well as other institutions as well. Would you call Bank of America crooks? Or HSBC? Or other large banks? And using what definition. Can we please reduce the statements to those that can be backed up with facts? BDBJack (talk) 19:29, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
I haven't seen proof they breached a regulation either. They were unregulated. Okteriel (talk) 08:11, 10 June 2014 (UTC) Striking out comment by ban-evading sockpuppet. Coretheapple (talk) 19:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
I've declined the Request Edit. For small articles like this I prefer a stub-format with no sub-sections. In a stub style, there would be no repetition, but in the current format, the Lead is suppose to summarize the body, so there will be repetition as a result of the summary. Though I prefer a stub-format that would eliminate the redundancy, I don't think it's anything worth arguing about. CorporateM (Talk) 20:05, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Unverifiable Sources

I would like to have someone either post the contents of references 6 and 7 for review, since they are hidden behind a "subscription" mechanism which does not allow for review. If this is not possible, I would like to have the statement "The SEC said that Banc De Binary stated in 2012 that half of its 250,000 investors were based in the US. However, the North American Derivatives Exchange is the only such service authorized by the US government to operate in the country." removed as being unverifiable and un-sourced.

Links in question:

In any case, Banc De Binary and NADEX do not offer the same services. Banc De Binary operates as a broker, while NADEX operates as an exchange.

BDBJack (talk) 18:53, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Wall Street Journal links come out from behind the paywall after a while. Here's the full story.[15] This article also documents Banc de Binary lying about their presence in the US: "The SEC complaint said that the Israeli and Cypriot company said on its website at one point that its "entire staff is located in the United States." That should go in the article. John Nagle (talk) 19:20, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
I have spent the last 30 minutes waiting for the paywall to drop on the Wall Street Journal article, and unfortunately i have not seen it drop thus far. The only statement I could find worth any mention is " alleging it was illegally offering options to U.S. customers without registering with U.S. regulators." (sic). (please note the word alleging). BDBJack (talk) 19:34, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
We cannot provide the full-text of copyrighted material and sources that are not easily accessible online may still be used. If someone has time to do it, the best thing to do would be to add a quote parameter in the citation template, but this is also not required. I am the one that added this content. CorporateM (Talk) 20:09, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
@CorporateM:Can you please at least provide the quotations? BDBJack (talk) 20:31, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Correction of Terminology

The term "bet" is inappropriate in the Binary Options industry, under which Banc De Binary operates and is regulated as a financial instrument. In paragraph 1, the sentence (sic) "Investors using its service bet on future prices of gold, oil, stocks or market indexes and are paid a return" should be changed to: (sic) "Investors using its service trade on future prices of gold, oil, stocks or market indexes and are paid a return"

Please see: http://www.cysec.gov.cy/licence_members_1_en.aspx where Banc De Binary is listed in a list of "Investment Firms"

BDBJack (talk) 18:57, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

"Bet" is appropriate, and the financial press calls it a bet:
  • Forbes [16] ("Don't Gamble on Binary Options"): "Donā€™t kid yourself. These are gambling sites, pure and simple. Itā€™s probably just a matter of time before regulators move in on them."
  • Financial Times [17] ("Binary trading"): "These types of bet typically appeal to traders with limited experience, or appetite for risk, because the maximum profit and loss is known from the outset." They go on to quote Banc de Binary as calling it betting.

So it's a bet. We've previously established that it's not only a bet, but a bet against the house; there's no corresponding trader on the other side for each transaction. There is no "exchange" matching orders. Please don't re-raise this issue. Thank you. John Nagle (talk) 19:16, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I apologize for raising an issue which I feel strongly about. It is obvious that you too feel strongly about this point. I would like to point out that the Forbes article is written by contributor Gordon Pape. And while Gordon Pape is an editor and publisher, he is not an editor OR publisher for Forbes. In fact, if you look up his profile in Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/gordonpape/) you will see the statement "The author is a Forbes contributor. The opinions expressed are those of the writer.". Were we to base our arguments on an opinion, this would be relevant, as would mine and yours.
Also, regarding the Financial Times article (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e7a2472c-8714-11e2-9dd7-00144feabdc0.html), I am not a subscriber to the Financial Times, so I am unable to review it's content for clarity, nor review the opinion and bias of the author. However I suspect that it is an opinion based article as well.
With those statements in mind, I am thus "re-raising" the issue.
Also, I request that you "establish" that "it's not only a bet, but a bet against the house" (sic).
BDBJack (talk) 19:26, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Ah. The reference that established that is this: [18]. That's from SpotOption's own site, but is addressed to their resellers. That used to be in the article until CorporateM deleted it in this big deletion: [19]. John Nagle (talk) 19:49, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
@Nagle: could you possibly point me towards a line number? I'm having trouble finding the specific reference. BDBJack (talk) 19:55, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Oh, sorry; fixed that. Meant to link to SpotOption's order execution policy. See section 3.5, "Pricing: The Company sets the prices to be used in binary options trading." All mention of SpotOption (of which Banc de Binary is an affiliate) was also deleted by CorporateM, another reason for a big rollback. --John Nagle (talk) 20:01, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
@Nagle: I'm not sure that the word "affiliate" is the correct term in this scenario. The traditional definition of affiliate as per the Miriam-Webster dictionary (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/affiliate) states that an affiliate is:
  • "to closely connect (something or yourself) with or to something (such as a program or organization) as a member or partner"
That being said, I can understand the confusion, however I believe that "client" is a more appropriate term, since Banc De Binary does not benefit from any of SpotOption's other operations. The partnership is simply a "whitelabel" program, under which SpotOption provides services, and Banc De Binary pays for those services. In financial terms, Banc De Binary acts as a "broker" or a middleman between the end user and the "source" platform ( and in this case, exchange ).
At the risk of re-invigorating a previous heated discussion, SpotOption acts as both an exchange AND a "Market Maker". And while i'm ashamed to use such a low quality source for the definition of a market maker, I will use the investopedia article found here: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/marketmaker.asp as reference for the definition and why it is needed. (additional information can be found here too: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/market+maker?show=0&t=1402269139).
Regardless of the reputation of SpotOption, the fact that they are operating as an exchange warrants the use of the term "trade" instead of "bet". The question I pose in order to validate this statement is: Do you Trade or Bet when you buy options? Options are a financial instrument, and while Binary Options are not traditional options, they are regulated and traded as such. BDBJack (talk) 23:16, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
I would also like to add that any comments about the reputation of SpotOption should ( in my opinion ) be held on the article for SpotOption, since Banc De Binary and SpotOption are 2 seperate entities. BDBJack (talk) 23:20, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
@Black Kite: Thank you for explaining the nature of the article. I would hope that sources of information such as Financial Times would allow researchers to view their content without having to subscribe to it. Out of curiosity, if it IS paid content, then wouldn't Wikipedia:CV apply? BDBJack (talk) 19:45, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
As long as we don't copy or close-paraphrase the content, it's fine; the same as any other copyrighted content. Black Kite kite (talk) 19:46, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Reliable sources refer to the site as gambling. Betting seems appropriate. We prefer to use common language rather than industry terms. CorporateM (Talk) 20:10, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
BDBJack, like I said, I'm treating myself as subject to COI rules, it's a good higher standard to apply to myself in this topic area. I do seem to have some natural empathy for this poor, downtrodden company (cue violins) and I don't want to be too biased even though the anti-BDB arguments don't seem to hold any water to me. But we'll keep on our quest until we get a better stable version.
On the thread topic, I already argued "bet" is colloquial and online gambling doesn't include BDB or anything like it. Also we have a source that uses "essentially gambling", which is fine, because it includes a qualifier, but only once in a short article. Okteriel (talk) 20:18, 8 June 2014 (UTC) Striking out comment by ban-evading sockpuppet. Coretheapple (talk) 19:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
@CorporateM: Can you please provide both guidelines for reliable sources and a list of them? I submit as counter-evidence the following sources:

BDBJack (talk) 20:19, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

On the "affiliate" front, SpotOptions refers to Banc de Binary as one of their "brands".[20] They also use the term "partners". Banc de Binary itself has an affilate program; they pay others to set up web sites to get people to sign up with them.[21] (That's probably why there are so many sites plugging Banc de Binary.) Banc de Binary also has a franchising program.[22]. I suggest that we say that Banc de Binary is a brand of SpotOption, since they say that themselves. SpotOption has about 200 brands: "Banc de Swiss", "Dragon Options", and even "FonBet". Banc de Binary itself uses the term "bet" there. John Nagle (talk) 03:32, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Oh, and even better, SpotOption, BdB's parent/brand/partner/whatever, is exhibiting at the International Casino Exhibition.[23] "SpotOption's financial solution has also been incorporated into existing gaming operations as a customizable plug-in, allowing operators to expand their portfolio of offerings as well as their database." It's gambling. John Nagle (talk) 04:14, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Revision Request

Can someone change the article back to how it was yesterday before it was whitewashed, back to how it was when BlackKite lifted protection? I'd like to add some more details to the article, which is impossible in the whitewashed state it's been left in by COI editors acting on behalf of Banc de BinaryHistorianofRecenttimes (talk) 19:32, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Can you please provide evidence of other COI editors? As far as I know, I am the only author who is here on behalf of Banc De Binary. Maybe you should post to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents if you believe that there is an undeclared COI editor.
I've moved your request to a separate heading so that it does not interfere with the flow of the other request and so that it can get the attention that it deserves. BDBJack (talk) 23:24, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Adding information about CySEC Regulation

Banc De Binary is a company that is regulated by CySEC, and thus has regulation in 28 other countries.

It should be noted under the regulation section.

Leaving this one open for discussion. CorporateM (Talk) 20:17, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Is there a reason that the main focus on Banc De Binary is derived from a lawsuit that is ongoing in a country that the company has no business in? Banc De Binary is a licenced institution in over 28 countries. There are other jurisdictions, courts, laws - and countries where Banc De Binary is active. If this is an article about the company, lets shift some focus to actual accomplishments, including the various awards the company has received. BDBJack (talk) 20:20, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

(ec) Both of those are important. The 4 or so regulators that it does have need to be listed, because I almost put a "globalize" tag on it. Also, to answer Jack, there is a Wiki misperception about this article, possibly supported by the AFD, that "it's only notable because it's sued". Okteriel (talk) 21:25, 8 June 2014 (UTC) Striking out comment by ban-evading sockpuppet. Coretheapple (talk) 19:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

It's debatable whether CySec regulation can be described as genuine when it has just 42 employees and the great majority of firms that have chosen to be regulated are retail forex brokers that have obtained registration from CySEC as they generally see this as an easy way to get a license without having to meet stringent requirements that would be imposed by other European financial regulators, yet still qualify under MiFID and so completely free to operate in all European Union member countries.[1]. Cysec has no real enforcement powers, a serious company would want to be regulated by major regulator and not one with barely any employees or reputation.HistorianofRecenttimes (talk) 20:35, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

You're conducting original research again. Do you prefer templates or nontemplates? We don't do OR on Wikipedia anymore, pardner. Shall we go to WP:NORN? Okteriel (talk) 20:43, 8 June 2014 (UTC) Striking out comment by ban-evading sockpuppet. Coretheapple (talk) 19:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
I believe that statement falls under WP:PRIMARY. Regardless, regulation is regulation. Your personal opinion on it is valued as an opinion, but as shown by the "not a forum" tag, we should keep this discussion geared towards positive contributions to the article, not opinionated statements. Regardless, the fact that we have a physical presence in Cyprus (and we did for some time before we were regulated) made CySEC regulation the default candidate for regulation. As it is, CySEC was the first regulator in Europe to offer such regulation. BDBJack (talk) 21:03, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

That's completely untrue, Binary Options have been around for donkey's years, a long time before Cysec even, IG Index in the UK for example[2]. What Cysec are offering is make-believe regulation for online casinos that try to look like IG Index or Nadex. HistorianofRecenttimes (talk) 21:15, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Can you please provide evidence to support the statement "What Cysec are offering is make-believe regulation for online casinos" (...). If not I ask that you keep the discussion to topics and statements that can be supported and referenced. BDBJack (talk) 21:27, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Also, on that note, can you please explain why your statement negates the fact that Banc De Binary is regulated by CySEC, or how that fact is not relevant to the article? BDBJack (talk) 22:06, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Restoring past version

A number of long-term editors with no ties to paid editing worked on CorporateM's version of the article. While I don't agree with all of his edits, I don't see a reason to throw all that work away. However if someone reverts back to the "long-form" I won't be reverting again. --NeilN talk to me 20:41, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I agree with you. Hey, how about this. I'll rent out offer my User:Okteriel/Banc De Binary prime space for anyone to create a content fork. Only rule is that the goal is to make the two look like each other. As it stands, the various short versions are good for building harmony, despite today's flareups. Okteriel (talk) 20:46, 8 June 2014 (UTC) Striking out comment by ban-evading sockpuppet. Coretheapple (talk) 19:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Content forks are not allowed, especially if they're due to a content dispute. Tutelary (talk) 21:16, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I'll look. Okteriel (talk) 21:25, 8 June 2014 (UTC) Striking out comment by ban-evading sockpuppet. Coretheapple (talk) 19:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

HistorianofRecenttimes and Smallbones

Should I go to ANI? The immediate user histories of both are suddenly very non-Wiki. They appear, both, to be deleting my comments as if I'm a banned editor, without evidence other than my interest in this topic. There are too many probable violations for me to template or list; come and see. Who can advise me? Okteriel (talk) 21:33, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't like this. If I go offline, will I still be called banned when I get back? Okteriel (talk) 22:03, 8 June 2014 (UTC) The answer is yes. Striking out comment by ban-evading sockpuppet. Coretheapple (talk) 19:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I think this was just a mistake - User:Smallbones being a little overzealous in his efforts to combat a very specific banned editor. CorporateM (Talk) 04:37, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Fully protected again

Sorry folks, but this is getting to be a problem. I think we need to work out (a) what content should actually be in the article, rather than everyone trying to change it at the same time, and (b) which editors should actually be editing this without declaring any COI; there are clearly issues here. Black Kite kite (talk) 21:35, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Be easier if all COI and SPA editors agreed to use the talk page only and let experienced editors make the actual changes but... --NeilN talk to me 21:42, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
@Black Kite: Please see my request: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Banc_De_Binary#Fully_protected_again. The massive amounts of "reverts" are being submitted by an SPA with negative bias towards the subject. BDBJack (talk) 21:41, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
The problem is wider than that, though, in that we clearly have editors with, absent a better way of saying it, "pro-" and "anti-" views. We need to concentrate on finding a neutral version, not swaying between the version preferred by either "side". Black Kite kite (talk) 21:45, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
(ec) We had a neutral version for about 10 hours last night. I have an appointment soon and need to leave the discussion. I left you a talk question. Can anyone counsel me how to proceed? Okteriel (talk) 21:52, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Black Kite was very kind, by preventing HistorianofRecenttimes from turning 3RR into 4RR. As I said, I'd count CorporateM and NeilN as consensus among the short reverts without counting me, and it was clear that Orangemike a moment ago preferred Bilby's short version that I also affirmed. But see the Historian and Smallbones section. At any rate, I would appreciate counsel on whether my revert was inappropriate given my view of the consensus.
At least we got rid of the edit requests and have a good new set of edit requests. We might even use my three-drafts comparison again to seek consensus, I dunno. We do seem to need the short version. Okteriel (talk) 21:52, 8 June 2014 (UTC) Striking out comment by ban-evading sockpuppet. Coretheapple (talk) 19:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

More "agreed upon" version

"Box scores" not appropriate for talk page discussions

I'm adding a table to make is easier to understand who is pro and who is against:

Non-COI and Non-SPA Editors

Pro Semi-Pro Anti
  • Mike V - poor sourcing in current version
  • CorporateM - poor sourcing in current version
  • NeilN - prior version but with one thing added
  • Nagle - too much article-churn
  • Smallbones - COI behavior
  • Figureofnine

COI and SPA Editors

Pro Semi-Pro Anti
  • BDBJack
  • Okteriel (sockpuppet)
  • HistorianofRecenttimes (assumed - no statement by user has been made in this discussion thus far)

I'm sorry if I've accidentally misrepresented someone, please feel free to move yourselves around so that it reflects your positions more clearly. BDBJack (talk) 13:52, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I've removed COIs from the vote tally for the obvious reason. CorporateM (Talk) 14:19, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
@CorporateM: Can you please be specific as to the reason? As far as I understand WP:COI policy, COI editors that declare their COI have just as much right to have their opinions weighed as non-COI editors. However, I could be mistaken as I am not as proficient in the policies of COI as yourself (who has won several awards for making COI edits in a way that is very constructive and correct). However, maybe a second table showing the opinions of COI editors would be appropriate (in order to easily display the breakdown while maintaining the seperation?) BDBJack (talk) 14:23, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
I've added a second table showing COI and SPA editor opinions. I hope this should make things clearer. BDBJack (talk) 14:26, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
I've also tagged the nature of the COI or SPA to the best of my knowledge. BDBJack (talk) 14:28, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


Compromise proposal by NeilN in bold below. Okteriel (talk) 06:26, 9 June 2014 (UTC) Striking out comment by ban-evading sockpuppet. Coretheapple (talk) 19:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I would like to propose a revert to revision: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Banc_De_Binary&oldid=612128327, due to it being having a bit more concensus than the current version based on the revision history. BDBJack (talk) 21:38, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I've deactivated the request. First get consensus, then make the request. --NeilN talk to me 21:44, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
I affirm BDBJack, but that's because I know from the history what revisions he likes, and I don't count my vote for anything but a comment. I'll look at it later. Okteriel (talk) 21:52, 8 June 2014 (UTC) Striking out comment by ban-evading sockpuppet. Coretheapple (talk) 19:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
@NeilN and Black Kite: I find it hard to understand how a concept of consensus wasn't reached. As far as i saw, there were only 2 editors ( 3 if you count the revision from another editor, one of whom is an SPA, and 2 of whom are actively biased against the subject ) who have actively campaigned against the revision listed above. The reason the current version was removed and reworked can be found in various requests and disucssions on the talk page. While I completely understand the issue that User:Black Kite is referring to, I would like to see a resolution which actually provides us with a neutral article. Maybe starting with a stub and having moderation will help prevent the kind of mass edit warring which has been occuring. BDBJack (talk) 21:56, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
And we have an editor with a blatant COI (yourself) and a SPA in favor of your preferred version. Not a ringing endorsement. --NeilN talk to me 22:15, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
@NeilN:I'm not sure that I qualify as an editor. I'm definitely an SPA with COI, however aside from updating the company logo I have not actually made any contributions to the article, just request. As for my own COI, yes I am involved and interested, but that's why i'm using the talk page for my edits. However, myself and SPA aside, there are other non-COI and non-SPA editors who have confirmed the version of the article as proposed. (Even the 1 member of the "opposition" group who only made a revision has agreed with the version proposed above). That being said, an article with so much controversy and dispute could benefit from a "fresh" start. BDBJack (talk) 22:23, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
BDBJack, you improperly reactivated this request within minutes of it being deactivated by NeilN, falsely claiming that a consensus had been reached to restore the shorter version, and I have deactivated it again. There was and is no consensus to restore the former version, and if there is a consensus it is to leave it alone. Secondly, as a corporate employee you should refrain from becoming involved in discussions that relate to the future of editorial direction of the article, which need to be conducted by persons unaffiliated with the company. Doing so is tantamount to directly editing the article if not more so. Coretheapple (talk) 14:23, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support prior version[24] as an urgent WP:BLPGROUP and WP:PROMO issue, given that the current article is filled with junk sources both for attack-content and for promotion. I think user:Black Kite is too WP:INVOLVED to have made article-protection to their preferred version and it's embarrassing for an admin to restore sources like Investopedia and court documents - an admin of all people should know better. CorporateM (Talk) 22:25, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Please feel free to point out the edits I've made to the article that make me WP:INVOLVED. If you can, I'll quite happily remove the protection (so that someone else can apply it). Black Kite kite (talk) 19:13, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • As it stands, the longer version contains some material that is poorly sourced with tabloids, clickbait websites, or non-third-party sources. I think the best approach to this article is to start with the shorter version and build up the article with content that is neutral in tone and reliably sourced. The shorter version does a better job in conveying material in a fair and informative tone, which would serve as a good basis for expansion. Contentious material can be discussed on the talk page to ensure that it's reliably sourced and that it is given appropriate weight in the article. Mike V ā€¢ Talk 22:37, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
  • If we're talking about reverting to a prior version and then fulling protecting the article again then support only if the US SEC and Ontario SC statements found in this are added. Otherwise, oppose. --NeilN talk to me 05:11, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose any major changes right now. The present version has its flaws, but it's far better than what we had a few hours ago. There's been way too much article churn in the past few days. There's been edit warring, and that needs to settle down. John Nagle (talk) 06:18, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • OK, I was going to say that looks like consensus but now it's consensus except Nagle. NeilN is asking that we restore version 612128327 per BDBJack but also add the text below, which would fit best after "Financial Control Authority" (whitespace removed):
It appears on the US Securities and Exchange Commission's "List of Unregistered Soliciting Entities That Have Been the Subject of Investor Complaints".[3]
In Canada, it is listed on the Ontario Securities Commission's Investors Warning List of "companies that appear to be engaging in activities that may pose a risk to investors".[4]
I'm good with that as a consensus compromise for now, in an attempt to allow us to channel talk into smaller arguments. I'm also good with most other short versions. I'm not sure the inserted text should stand indefinitely though. Okteriel (talk) 06:26, 9 June 2014 (UTC) Striking out comment by ban-evading sockpuppet. Coretheapple (talk) 19:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - the only thing this company is notable for is being banned from offering its services in the US (by both the CFTC and the SEC). That material should be in the first sentence or two. BTW all edits on Wikipedia are governed by US law and there is an injunction in the US against advertising this company's services. An employee and another editor with an admitted COI have edited the article and are pushing for changes in this section. There's a $10,000 bounty that's been offered to get this article changed to an earlier version. So how can we possibly take the COI editors' propositions seriously? Smallbones(smalltalk) 13:17, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I saw this article discussed at WP:AN/I. The current version is far more informative than the abbreviated version that is proposed, and I see no problem with the sourcing. Smallbones' comments above are accurate and his statement concerning the ban on advertising, in conjunction with the behavior of this company on Wikipedia, is disturbing. Figureofnine (talk ā€¢ contribs) 16:00, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
@Figureofnine: Welcome to the discussion Figureofnine. I would like to comment that the proposed change is to create a stub from which the article can be improved. For right now, the article does not seem (at least in my opinion) to be in compliance with WP:NPOV, and while there is a lot of information which can be gleaned from the article, the majority of contributions were made by an SPA with bias against the subject. It may be in violation of other Wikipedia policies that I am not aware of (since i am also an SPA with declared COI, I admit that my understanding of some of Wikipedia's policies is not yet complete). Is it possible that you would be more agreeable to a "compromise" as noted by User:NeilN?
I see no NPOV issue here because the company is the subject of an injunction and other legal proceedings, and that apparently is the sole reason for the existence of this article. Bernard L. Madoff is similarly negative, and it is NPOV. What is your response to Smallbones' comments about the injunction against advertising? Doesn't your participation in this discussion, and the behavior of the company on-wiki, put you, your company and possibly Wikipedia in legal jeopardy? Figureofnine (talk ā€¢ contribs) 17:02, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
@Figureofnine: I am moving this discussion to your talk page since it does not directly relate either to the topic of this discussion or the subject. BDBJack (talk) 17:22, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Then I'll move it back. Nothing can be more relevant. Figureofnine (talk ā€¢ contribs) 17:38, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
@Figureofnine:In response to User:Smallbones's comment about the legality of our activities, I am not sure of the legal ramifications since I am neither overly knowledgeable about the applicable laws or policies, nor am I a lawyer who would be knowledgeable about such information. However I am not aware that my participation in the discussion on Banc De Binary is in violation of any Wikipedia policies. If there are such policies, I would very much like to be made aware of them. I have kept myself to editing only the Talk page, using edit requests and (attempting) to gain consensus. I very much believe if this was NOT the case, my account would have been blocked a long time ago. In fact, you can view the discussion about my ability to make contributions to Wikipedia in general here: User_talk:BDBJack#Unblock.
I have made several attempts to both correct factual errors and contribute information to the article, by opening discussions on the Talk page and awaiting consensus. That being said, my attempts at gaining consensus have fallen on deaf ears. The only other major contributor to the article is an SPA with major bias against the subject. Were I to act according to what I understood from Wikipedia policy on COI editing, I would have been within my rights to make the changes myself after a period of inactivity. I have purposely refrained from such activity out of deference to the fact that any edits that I make would be interpreted as "Bad Faith" edits. That being said, until the mention of this $10,000 bounty, the level of activity on the Banc De Binary page was confined to myself, the previously mentioned biased SPA, and a hand full of "others" who caused a mess on the page.
That being said, i do not believe that it is fair to "blanket" all COI editors as "paid editors". While I am technically a paid editor because I am an employee of the company, I have been active long before the "bounty". I am also active off-wiki in IRC channels, checking with users with more experience than myself on how to proceed. While I do not expect this to sway your opinion of my participation in these matters, It should be noted.
However, I would like to remind you of the following policies:
Basically, what I'm trying to say is: Don't undermine the value of my comments or my opinion simply because I am a COI editor. My opinion has just as much value as your's does, and I have just as much of a right to participate in discussions about the subject as you do.. BDBJack (talk) 18:02, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
But if it's correct that your company can't advertise, what are you doing here? It seems to me that your participation is a form of advertising. Putting aside the issue of value, I am not a subject of an injunction against advertising, while you are. Figureofnine (talk ā€¢ contribs) 19:09, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
@Figureofnine:From your statement it appears that my presence and affiliation with the subject of the article seems to have offended you in some way. I apologize for this, as no offense was meant. That being said, I am neither advertising for the company, nor am I "a subject of an injunction against advertising". If I am, can you please provide sources stating so? BDBJack (talk) 19:14, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
But what about the injunction against the company you work for? You saying that Smallbones is wrong? Or are you just "DKing"? Figureofnine (talk ā€¢ contribs) 19:22, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
@Figureofnine:I'm not aware of any "injunction against advertising" levied against Banc De Binary, so in this case I must request evidence of said "injunction against advertising" against either myself of Banc De Binary. It would be helpful in general if the accusatory statements made would be backed up by sources, even if the quality is "sub-par" so that way at least we are aware of on what basis the statement is being made. BDBJack (talk) 19:28, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
OK, that's what I was asking. As a company employee, you are held to a higher standard in terms of your knowledge of the company. When you're asked a question and don't respond, it gives the impression of evasiveness. Smallbones can elaborate more on his statement. My opposition to the earlier version stands. The comments made here and elsewhere denigrating the SEC litigation releases as sources are disingenuous. They are clear and in plain language, and are high quality sources. Figureofnine (talk ā€¢ contribs) 19:37, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
@Figureofnine: I'm sorry, I misunderstood Smallbones's question for a unsupported statement. Thank you for clarifying. Is there any possibility to persuade you towards a "stub" version which can be improved, through consensus based editing instead of the SPA account's BOLD editing? BDBJack (talk) 19:43, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
I think that given the complexity of the subject matter, the longer version now frozen by protection should be the applicable baseline. Figureofnine (talk ā€¢ contribs) 20:22, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Jack, yes, you're handling yourself fine, don't let anyone wear you down. Keep calm, and improve Wikipedia. Also, your segmenting the discussion is absolutely the best method, once people are ready to really discuss the article. The legal issue is only that, about last year, WP got very concerned by the FTC guidelines on Twitter advertising, and two news stories, and decided it was sufficient to warn editors about them, and then stay out of the fray. Under those legal guidelines, you are absolutely fine, and your contributions are sterling. The only point I'd add (besides the sudden interesting interest from Figureofnine) is that I don't have a problem with COI editors' being slightly discounted when necessary to consider them as a group; but where there's only one your opinion shouldn't be discounted any. Okteriel (talk) 18:19, 9 June 2014 (UTC) Striking out comment by ban-evading sockpuppet. Coretheapple (talk) 19:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

To the straight opposes: Are you okay with the sources currently being used? --NeilN talk to me 20:29, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not a lawyer, I have no idea what the injunction may consider "advertising", nor what is legally considered advertising in this or any similar context. But I do know that Wikipedia has definitions of advertising, specifically at WP:ADVERT, where it states:
"Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery. All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are typically unacceptable. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they identify notable organizations which are the topic of the article."
That is what Wikipedia defines as advertising; material that is subjective, biased, and containing puffery. Advertisements may be unsourced or sourced to content controlled and/or advocated by the article subject. WP:ARTSPAM also covers articles that are primarily used as advertisements, which are "solicitations for a business, product or service, or are public relations pieces designed to promote a company or individual" and "are usually noted for sales-oriented language and external links to a commercial website".
I'm mentioning all of this to try to ensure that everyone is on the same page about what is and isn't considered advertising. Not every contribution that an editor with a COI in favor of the subject makes is by definition advertising, even if the editor's goal is to minimize negative information about the subject and/or to highlight its virtues. Nor is the removal of negative information, or the insertion of positive information, automatically considered advertising when done by an editor with a COI if those edits are compliant with our policies and guidelines (particularly if those edits ensure that information is verified properly and neutral in tone, which may necessitate removing poorly or unsourced negative material or rewording or removing negatively biased content).
The point of all that I said is not to defend the COI editors involved here. To the contrary, if their behavior confirms what Wikipedia defines as advertising, they should be censured. But I wanted to be sure that people weren't talking past each other in the midst of this discussion. I have not given my opinion to the RfC or the edit request on this page, nor do I plan to. -- Atamaé ­ 20:47, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Smallbones. The company is notable only for its regulatory issues. Primary sources are perfectly acceptable if used with care, per WP:PRIMARY. Denigrating a statement from a regulatory agency as a "press release" as I've seen on this page, putting them on a par with corporate flackery, is misleading and disingenuous. Coretheapple (talk) 13:17, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Request to shorten article

The section above needs several advices. First, Banc De Binary believes that the current draft consitutes a Wikipedia "attack page" and is in favor of immediate shortening for this policy-based reason; it is probable that with a short version the discussion toward a wide consensus version will proceed faster. Second, OTRS agreed with us that this consensus previously existed and that "many of the concerning edits ... are not properly sourced per our policies"; it is simpler to cut back the article than to go over the improper sourcing yet again one by one. As to the consensus to shorten or "stub" the article, I find that CorporateM, Mike V, NeilN, Okteriel, Bilby, Huon, AnomieBOT, Hisonjsph, Orangemike, Smallbones, and BDBJack all contributed to a short version in a brief period of time. Then there was an edit war with Orangemike and Historianofrecenttimes on the long side and CorporateM, NeilN, and Okteriel on the short side. In the comments above, BDBJack, Okteriel, CorporateM, Mike V, and NeilN (with a proviso) support shortening, and Nagle, Smallbones, Figureofnine, and Coretheapple oppose it. That is, the opposition to the proposal has launched a valiant defense to claim "no consensus". Because this issue of how to proceed is so important, rather than make a protected edit request immediately, I intend to engage the opposition directly to determine if a compromise and a broad consensus may be reached. BDBIsrael (talk) 19:52, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Attempt to gain consensus

Due to the massive amount of comments which are not related to the edit request, I'm creating a new section with the requests. To make easier to understand, please keep your comments segregated, bullet-ed, and specific to the request. BDBJack (talk) 21:43, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Currently, I think that focus of this talk page discussion is beginning to derail. If you have a valid, substantiated concern of sock puppetry, please go to the sockpuppet investigation page. Edits that are performed in violation of the conflict of interest policy should be discussed at the appropriate noticeboard. Right now the main focus of this page should be the article's content and sources.

I'll begin with some of my concerns. Currently the article states:

"A 2013 investigation by the British Daily Mail newspaper journalist Tony Hetherington alleged that one client had $25,000 stolen from his bank account after signing up with them."

This statement is sourced by a Daily Mail affiliate, which I understand is not a reliable source. The statement itself is not encyclopedic; we should not be going around and stating every unproven allegation. Some of the sources being used, such as the court documents, are strongly discouraged per our policies on primary sources. (1, 2) There are a number of sources being used that do not meet our threshold of inclusion. (i.e. Daytradingcoach.com, www.spotoption.com, BinaryOptionsDaily.com, etc.) The sources are promotional themselves and do not have any credible standing. Professional, academic sources need to be used in providing the technical background. This is just a quick highlight of some of the issues at hand. Quite frankly, the sources are grossly problematic and do not adhere to our policies. I really would like a well-thought-out explanation from others as to why they think there is not a problem with the sources. Mike V ā€¢ Talk 21:59, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to make sure that you meant "There are a number of sources being used that do NOT meet our threshold of inclusion." as suggested by the sentence following that statement. I'm not sure why you consider the Daily Mail to be unreliable. The article is head and shoulders above the quality of the sources added by the BDB folks. Primary sources are allowed and the SEC and CFTC material is very high quality - there's no chance of misinterpreting it, and it's relevance has been underlined by them being quoted by the WSJ and the Financial Times. So please lose the low quality sources proposed by the BDB folks. Keep the high quality sources including the WSJ, FT, and the CFTC and SEC material. Smallbones(smalltalk) 01:18, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

@Smallbones: Yes, I meant to say "do not meet" and have corrected the sentence. I do not consider the Daily Mail as a reliable source because they have a poor history of editorial oversight and the Daily Mail has been frequently brought up at the reliable sources noticeboard. Here's a link to a recent discussion. This ticks all the boxes as a questionable source, especially for such an extreme claim. I have no favorites when it comes to sources; whether they "support" or "oppose" BDB, they need to be reliable. In regards to the SEC and CFTC sources, reliable third-party sources should be used when possible (e.g. The Wall Street Journal). I think what CorporateM said is important, "Press releases should almost never be used and things like a list from the SEC needs to be interpreted by secondary sources, not because we are not intelligent enough to understand them, but because secondary sources establish the information's significance and provide context." I also have concerns specifically with the court document used in source #11 from docs.justica.com. This doesn't meet WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:BLPGROUP for 11a, and secondary sources could be used for 11b and 11c. Mike V ā€¢ Talk 00:34, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Hopefully the SPAs are gone... I support removing the "$25,000 stolen from his bank account" text. Anecdotes don't really belong in this article. --NeilN talk to me 01:46, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
I couldn't disagree more concerning the CFTC and SEC sources, which are entirely clear and do not need interpretation by secondary sources. Nor do I believe that there is even a wisp of a BLP issue here. Coretheapple (talk) 02:00, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Proposed Versions

Appears to be a repeat of a pre-existing discussion

The discussed versions are:

  1. Current Version
  2. Initial proposal by BDBJackĀ (talkĀ Ā· contribs) (See: [[25]])
  3. Compromise proposal by NeilNĀ (talkĀ Ā· contribs) (See: [[26]] with the US SEC and Ontario SC statements from: [[27]])

Current Status of Votes

Non-COI and Non-SPA Editors

Pro Semi-Pro Anti
  • Mike V - poor sourcing in current version
  • CorporateM - poor sourcing in current version
  • NeilN - prior version but with one thing added
  • Nagle - too much article-churn
  • Smallbones - COI behavior
  • Figureofnine

COI and SPA Editors

Pro Semi-Pro Anti
  • BDBJack
  • Okteriel (sockpuppet)
  • HistorianofRecenttimes (assumed based on other requests)

Further votes and statements

  • Pro - I am pro stubbing the article to give editors a chance to re-write it in a more neutral tone with citation and consensus. I believe that while the current article may hold relevant information, it was almost entirely created by an SPA editor with bias against the subject, with no consensus. BDBJack (talk) 21:46, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Against any changes right now. This needs to settle down. Also, I have mentioned the "refactoring" of the previous vote into this one on WP:ANI as disruption of Wikipedia's process. John Nagle (talk) 22:37, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Against any changes and also against further participation in this discussion by the COI editors, who have behaved disruptively. The refactoring of the talk page was ghastly. This discussion should be confined to the non-COI, non-SPA editors. Figureofnine (talk ā€¢ contribs) 22:48, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Pro if it helps. Okteriel (talk) 07:25, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
I would encourage everyone to participate in a discussion instead of trying to vote. We don't have to set up a dichotomy of this version or the other. As I suggested above, we should work to improve the content and sourcing of the article. Mike V ā€¢ Talk 23:34, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Mike, the problem BDBJack is facing is the BLPGROUP violations. They start with the fact that we had a consensus that BDB Ltd is not BDB Svcs Ltd, etc., we acted on that consensus, and now it's all toast again. Would you like me to keep listing them? Building consensus on deleting violations has been toasted. Wikipedia has always been highly protective of BLPs (except here), to the degree that BLPGROUP was written. But in this area the negative SPA gets to stand. A protected article has great "stability" because a holdout can prevent consensus nearly single-handed and prevent any changes. In such a situation there should be a stub to start with. BDBJack and I have not been holding out from negotiating, you can see us negotiating. Historian, and, to some degree, others, have not really been negotiating. We can all discuss all day long but at the end of the day WP is still spouting falsehoods about the identity of this article's subjects. I'm sure there's a policy on stubbing.
Look, WP:ATTACK begins with the sentence, "An attack page is a page, in any namespace, that exists primarily to disparage or threaten its subject." There is a rumor floating around that this company is only notable because it's been sued, that the subject is irrevocably tied to the suit. Well, then, if that were really true, the subject should either be moved or deleted. (There's no article on Wiki-PR, is there?! If people want this article to be "BDB lawsuit", let's do that.) But it's not really true: what's true is that this is an attack page. The attack policy is the one that demands some form of stubbing. None of us has time to get any real sources because fixing the BLP violations should be obvious and it's not happening first. Okteriel (talk) 07:25, 10 June 2014 (UTC) Striking out comment by ban-evading sockpuppet. Coretheapple (talk) 19:47, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Possible sources for information

Hello All,

I would like to propose the following as possible sources of information to be used in building an encyclopedic article:

  1. http://www.europeanceo.com/business-and-management/2013/01/the-next-generation-of-financier/ (an article by a 3rd party un-affiliated magazine explaining about the CEO and giving a little history on the company)
  2. http://forexmagnates.com/banc-de-binary-in-talks-with-cftc-about-us-regulation/ (An article which describes the subjects attempt to gain regulation in the US)
  3. http://www.independent.co.uk/money/spend-save/bluechip-dividends-tipped-to-soar-8458512.html?origin=internalSearch (An article written by the CEO of the subject published by a 3rd party un-affiliated newspaper)

BDBJack (talk) 23:49, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I would propose that you live up to your offer in AN/I and stay off this article, for good. Let editors not employed by your company work on this article and come up with suitable sources. Give the amateurs a chance. You pros have made a muck of things. Figureofnine (talk ā€¢ contribs) 02:06, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Out of the three, I think the first source looks usable. CorporateM (Talk) 15:00, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
From the lede of the article recommended by CorpM:
"For Oren Laurent, CEO of Banc De Binary, the world is host to infinite opportunities
"Oren Laurent is very much the epitome of the 21st-century man who has it all. Tall, dark and handsome, with a wardrobe full of designer suits, this self-made multi-millionaire is CEO of his own company and the top name in his field of expertise. All at just 28 years of age."
Your judgement has failed you again CorpM.
Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Agree with Smallbones except that the second one has comment on the CFTC action that may be usable. Coretheapple (talk) 17:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately this is another lie by BDBJack, as Banc de Binary shortly after making this announcement retracted this press release, as they had never been in negotiations with any US regulator, they were simply doing business illegally.[5][6] The two links from a later page from the same site BDBJack gives this info.

This is another example of BDBJack pretending not to know anything about the company that they're paid to write on behalf of, in addition to them claiming before not to understand that SpotOption sets all the prices. The paid for article in European CEO is a first class bit of humour though and I dare say the quote about them being in NY will be very useful to the CTFC and SEC. ā€”Ā Preceding unsigned comment added by HistorianofRecenttimes (talk ā€¢ contribs) 19:38, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, almost forgot, incase BDBJack goes on again about the company being based in Cyprus, here's a nice photo of their Israeli HQ in Ramat Gan on the outskirts of Tel Aviv, the lettering on the side of the banner is a bit of clue:)[28]HistorianofRecenttimes (talk) 20:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

That's an impressive looking building. It's at Tuval 38, Ramat Gan, Tel Aviv, and you can see it in Google Earth, where, as of 2012, it has a completely different logo. There's a picture of it in Wikimedia Commons, uploaded by BDBJackĀ (talkĀ Ā· contribs), with the BDB logo, and it's been listed as a building in the Diamond Exchange District article by, again, BDBJack. Hmm. John Nagle (talk) 21:07, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppeting

This article and this talk page have been awash in sockpuppeting, most recently by User:Okteriel. Per WP:EVADE, I've struck out all his comments. My note following the strikeouts said that Okteriel was a ban-evading sockpuppet. Actually he is a block-evading sockpuppet, but that's a distinction without a practical difference. In the future, all socks will be treated similarly, their comments struck out, and not taken into consideration for any purpose, or deleted entirely.

I notice that Okteriel and another corporate functionary on this page have had the gall to tag another editor as an SPA. SPA corporate editors, whether they be declared employees or undeclared socks, have no business making such edits, per WP:BATTLEGROUND. However, if these SPA editors wish to tag themselves as SPAs, feel free. Coretheapple (talk) 20:01, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Archive?

The Talk page has a lot of discussion that is not necessarily productive, contains large amounts of strike-out text from banned editors, may contain BLP issues or personal attacks,[29] contains refactored comments that may not accurately represent what the person actually said, and other problems. Additionally the Talk page is long enough to take some scrolling to get through and to be impractical to read. I propose the entire Talk page be archived, so a fresh civil discussion among disinterested editors focused on content and sources can (hopefully) emerge if any editors have continued interest in the page. CorporateM (Talk) 05:33, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

No, keep it all on the record. We do not need a "fresh discussion". --John Nagle (talk) 06:04, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Archiving is keeping it all on record. However scrolling past 3000px worth of text discourages new editors who would want to contribute with fresh information. BDBJack (talk) 06:24, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose agree with Nagle that there is no need for a blanking out of all the discussion, phony "BLP issue" notwihstanding. Note that CorporateM's link goes to a post by a block-evading sockpuppet. Coretheapple (talk) 13:14, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

New CFTC enforcement action

The CFTC has a new litigation release about Banc de Binary, from May 7. 2014: "CFTC Amends Complaint against Banc de Binary, Ltd. to Charge Three Affiliated Corporate Entities with Violating the CFTCā€™s Ban on Trading Options Contracts Off-Exchange. CFTC Also Charges Oren Shabat Laurent as the Controlling Person of the Corporate Defendants and of the Banc de Binary Common Enterprise" [30] Quotes: "Through the website www.bbinary.com (and affiliated websites), the Banc de Binary common enterprise allegedly unlawfully solicited and permitted U.S. customers to buy and sell options betting on the prices of wheat, oil, platinum, sugar, coffee, corn, foreign currency pairs, and stock indices..." Even the CFTC says it's betting. They name the companies involved: ... charging three corporate affiliates of Banc de Binary, Ltd. ā€“ E.T. Binary Options Ltd. (incorporated in Israel), BO Systems Ltd., and BDB Services Ltd. (both incorporated in the Republic of Seychelles) ā€“ also with violating the CFTCā€™s ban on off-exchange options trading .... The CFTC is asking for "civil monetary penalties, and other remedial ancillary relief, including restitution, disgorgement, and rescission and a permanent injunction preventing the Defendants from engaging in certain commodity options activity with U.S. customers." Here's the actual court filing: [31]. The court filing goes into detail on the "bonus program" and its discontents. It also says that the CFTC wants a court order forcing Banc de Binary and the other players in the common enterprise to "make full restitution to every person or entity whose funds they received" for bets made in violation of US law, which means all their US customers. And then there's the part about triple damages. We need to get that info into the article. --John Nagle (talk) 06:53, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

More from the Daily Mail's "Money" section: According to recent court documents, Banc de Binaryā€™s boss Oren Laurent, also known as Oren Shabat Cohen, refuses to go to the United States because a judge at an earlier hearing noted that he may be ā€˜criminally liableā€™ under the countryā€™s Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organisations law, which can carry stiff jail terms." [32] John Nagle (talk) 07:17, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, let's move forward on this article. The article doesn't have to be long, but it should include the SEC and CFTC material (which have been reported on by the WSJ and Financial Times). That is the only thing BDB is notable for, and the regulatory problems should be in the first 2 sentences.
BTW, I finally found the CFTC injunction [33] to go with the SEC injunction. Can we say that BDB is double enjoined? Smallbones(smalltalk) 07:25, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
That CFTC injunction is from June 2013. That was a "stop doing that" injunction. The CFTC court filing from May 2014 says they didn't stop. Now the CFTC is throwing the book at them, including piercing the corporate veil and going after the CEO personally. John Nagle (talk) 07:40, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
The SEC wants to take a deposition from Mr. Laurent in the US. He's been fighting that in court. He lost that argument in court in March 2014. The court remarks that Banc de Binary falsely claimed to be headquartered in New York City, so they're stuck with testifying in the US. [34] Until I found all this stuff from 2014, I'd thought that the SEC and the CFTC had just ordered BdB not to operate in the US back in 2013, and stopped there. But no. The regulatory agencies are bringing the hammer down on BdB. John Nagle (talk) 08:09, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree that all this belongs in the article. In addition to the CFTC and SEC materials above, which easily meet the requirements of WP:PRIMARY, we also have pickup of the May CFTC action and other BDB material[35] by forexmagnates.com, a website that the company spokesman BDBJack endorsed on this very talk page. Coretheapple (talk) 13:39, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
As I mentioned before the Daily Mail is not a reliable source and should not be used within our articles. Mike V ā€¢ Talk 18:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
I read through the discussion of the Daily Mail. The consensus seemed to be that they were not too good on celebrity gossip, but Wikipedia doesn't do that anyway. It was suggested that Daily Mail references be prefaced with "According to the Daily Mail". That seems sufficient. We're citing the Daily Mail mostly because they provide a popular explaination of legal documents. If we cite the Daily Mail, and the CFTC press release, and the court filing, we have the reliable sources issue covered. John Nagle (talk) 19:29, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
I've used, or at least I've countenanced, the Daily Mail in Mickey Rooney. Look, it's a tabloid, and it needs to be used with caution, especially with BLPs and this is not a BLP. There is no prohibition against using the Daily Mail in an article and that is to be determined by consensus. It is not one editor's call. Coretheapple (talk) 19:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
In this case, I view the Daily Mail article as the short, perhaps oversimplified popular summary of the case. That's what tabloids do. Then we provide the CFTC litigation release, and, for the obsessed, the link to the actual court filing. All three sources agree. There is absolutely no reliable source problem here. If BdB had issued a denial of the charges, we'd link to that, too. As noted below, they originally issued a press release, then retracted it after they were caught lying. (They'd clamed they were a US company and their HQ was at 40 Wall Street in New York City. Neither statement was true, and BdB issued a retraction.) Since then, BdB itself seems to have said little about their regulatory problems. --John Nagle (talk) 20:32, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
BdB obviously pays close attention to this article, and I would suggest that it issue a press release giving its side of the story in full. We could use it. Coretheapple (talk) 20:41, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
What does it help if we issue a PR article? That's self-sourced / primary sourced etc. Were we to issue such a statement (about what ever it is, I didn't even see what you're talking about), no one would be able to use it. If you WERE to use it, it would just (in my opinion) justify that Wikipedia's policies on article quality are open to as much interpretation as "desired" in order to skew the article in what ever direction the "consensus" points in. BDBJack (talk) 11:06, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Restoring your comment as you are being allowed to utilize this talk page. A company press release, issued on its website or some other third-party location accessible and verifiable to Wikipedia editors, is permitted to the extent allowed under WP:SELFPUB. You don't like Wikipedia policies/editors/"consensus"? Well, surprise surprise. I guess we'll all just have to get on with our lives despite that. Coretheapple (talk) 12:40, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Trident

A thought! debating neigh arguing here over whether the DM is a reliable source or not is personally like us all acting like flee's trying to debate who owns the dog! Least we not forget that (1) Jimbo Wales and Paul Dacre hate each other, in part because (2) Jimbo is married to one of Blair's inner circle/whilst the DM is openly right-wing, and (3) Dacre sends in an article writer or two every 6months to prove how awfully inaccurate/easily manipulated our content is here! Also, standing on a position re any publication to say that its never a reliable source seems not to take into context the subject being addressed, ie: would I reach for the DM if I was contemplating heart surgery (NO!); or if I wanted to read about the murder of Steven Lawrence (Yes - Dacre paid the full legal bill of near Ā£8M to get them retried, and convicted). Even the FT or the WSJ would be comparable to as useful as the Beano if the subject was an actor or actress in most cases. In the context of financial service, the DM is known to have a well funded and easily understood editorial approach - its well quoted by Motley Fool - but hence is it accurate enough? Sounds personally like a secondary source in this highly technical context.

The thing that really worries me re our current coverage of both BdB and Binary options, is that both articles seem a conflicting debate between paid-for/agendaised editors, and well intended but subject-knowledge level limited editors. We have a knowledge gap, a need for a non-agendaised one. In part that is aggravated by, for instance in one case, the hotly debated in the actual market sector as whether its a bet or not, let alone at operator level - hence the confused debate here. Secondly the debate re BdB seems almost gossip column like in places, ie: the title of this section is "New CFTC enforcement action" where as in actual fact as the quote states its an amendment of the existing case papers in front of the Nevada judge (accurately summarised as "the CFTC is throwing the book at them" but you'd need a ref on that before inclusion). Can I therefore suggest that in both the BdB article and our coverage of the Binary options, whatever we debate here is taken in the wider context of our coverage of Binary options. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 20:03, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Wow. First, the errors in the text ("neigh", "flee's") from an editor with over 100,000 edits puzzled me until I realized the editor is probably using a voice recognition system. Second, it doesn't matter what Jimbo Wales, Paul Dacre, and Blair (?) are doing; none of them have been involved with this article. Third, while binary options are also controversial, there's little to be gained by combining the controversies here with the controversies there. We have enough distractions now. --John Nagle (talk) 20:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Edit request

Requesting that the External links section be moved below the References section, per WP:ORDER. NorthAmerica1000 10:24, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Ā Done ā€”Ā Martin (MSGJĀ Ā·Ā talk) 11:52, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. NorthAmerica1000 12:03, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Suggested lede

We should strive to improve the article. There's almost nothing notable for this company except the strong regulatory reception it's gotten in the US and its legal problems in general. The awards section should be eliminated right away as pure puffery. As a first draft for the lede I'll suggest.

Banc De Binary, also known as BO Systems Limited, BDB Services Limited and ET Binary Options Ltd.,[7] is an Israeli-Cypriot broker-dealer in binary options, which allow traders to place bets on financial market prices. The firm has been enjoined from offering its services or trading in the U.S. by both the SEC and CFTC with further legal actions pending. Charges filed on August 7, 2013 in the US stated that Banc de Binary "may be criminally liable under the federal RICO statute".

Sources need to be filled in - but that is not a problem. Anything else need to be in the lede? Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:40, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

That looks good. The latest CFTC actions have taken this from mere disapproval by the CFTC to demands in court for heavy penalties. We can use stronger language in the lede now. As noted above, I'd suggest citing a press source, the CFTC/SEC press releases, and the actual court documents. Otherwise, we'll have grumbling about sources again. John Nagle (talk) 19:10, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
However if BdB has a denial, it needs to be stated upfront. Coretheapple (talk) 19:41, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Banc de Binary has issued some press releases:
  • "Banc de Binary in talks with CFTC" (January 23, 2013) [36] BdB claimed to be a US company, and in discussions with the CFTC.
  • Retraction of above press release. (February 12, 2013) [37] "The release was inaccurate in several respects."
  • Statement on CFTC litigation (July 6, 2013) [38] "... discontinuing all business activity in the United States of its own accord"
Those seem to be all of BdB's press releases related to SEC/CFTC enforcement actions. Anyone know of more? John Nagle (talk) 20:04, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

BDB on-wiki statement

Apparently in response to my suggestion above, BdB has posted a statement on-wiki at a newly created user account, User:BDBIsrael. Don't such statements need to be posted off-wiki, in a verifiable location, to be usable? Coretheapple (talk) 16:15, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

As I said elsewhere, the Board's statement was based on long consideration of the general principles of the situation, and I have a message in to our PR department to consider whether this content is appropriate for a new press release. BDBIsrael (talk) 18:43, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, we can't use anything there as a source in article space. Wikipedia is not a source for Wikipedia. It's helpful that they're engaging in discussion, but so far, it's about BdB's editing activities on Wikipedia, not about BdB's business activities. Also, their statement is carefully crafted - they admit they had some paid editors, but do not say that the ones they list are all of their paid editors. Also, bear in mind that BdB has a large affiilate network[39], members of which have an incentive to promote BdB but are not directly supervised by them. Some BdB promotion on Wikipedia may originate there. --John Nagle (talk) 19:23, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
I am authorized to answer additional questions about social networking as it relates to Wikipedia compliance. Please make use of my user talkpage. Please do not engage in rumors about affiliate BDB promotion on Wikipedia, which is one of the reasons I requested ground rules. BDBIsrael (talk) 20:22, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Edit request

A new BdB account has made an edit request here. Coretheapple (talk) 16:43, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for posting this, Coretheapple, as I was not confirmed for this page at the time. The request was promptly resolved by User:Mr. Stradivarius. BDBIsrael (talk) 18:36, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Ground rules

All Wikipedians will edit in accordance with the WMF Terms of Use and applicable English Wikipedia behavioral and content guidelines. Wikipedia Administrators will enforce behavioral guidelines and BLP policies while community consensus will enforce content guidelines. All Wikipedians agree to this upon registration and with each "POST" to this website. Uninvolved administrators, such as myself, are keeping an eye here. There is nothing further to discuss.--v/r - TP 20:24, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Regards, Wikipedians. My name is Israel and I work for Banc De Binary and have disclosed my conflict of interest. When dealing with a chaotic situation, it is my usual practice to solicit the help of people involved to covenant on basic ground rules that may apply. I have observed that the rules on the top of this page are not always followed. I would like to ask editors to affirm certain basic statements of core policy so that discussion can be better facilitated. I have reviewed these statements with an OTRS volunteer and they appear to be valid, and it is necessary in the current atmosphere for editors at large to make some re-affirmation in this regard to restart discussion based on mutual trust and good faith. If an editor is unwilling to subscribe to such basic applications of core policy or has significant objection to re-establishing these points, other editors will take that into account in weighing the editor's comments.

The volunteer encouraged me as follows:

[A]ll of our editors involved ... should comment on the content and not the contributors. If such inappropriate behavior continues, I would encourage Jack to contact an uninvolved administrator, who can provide a final warning or a temporary block, depending on the severity .... I will try my best to keep any eye on such name calling and will seek the assistance of an uninvolved administrator if it becomes necessary .... You are welcome to participate in the discussion on the article talk page to help address any concerns that you feel are in violation of policy .... I will do my best to encourage a civil discussion and will continue to remind everyone of our civility policies.

I believe that obtaining these affirmations before making significant edit requests will assist in discussion rather than hinder it. As you no doubt know, every sentence in the article has been objected to on policy grounds by somebody from BDB, and there is much article improvement for us to do. Please limit your comments below to ground rules: you may have other questions, but they can best be resolved on other threads or pages.

  1. Verifiability vs. original research: Unverifiable or synthesized talk page statements about the subject qualify as rumors that may harm the subject, especially given their long accumulation, and can be marked as "original research"; continuing to post rumors can be punished by warnings and blocking. (Comment: While original research is not typically applied to talk pages, the degree of harm faced by BDB due to accumulated OR being taken as fact has "poisoned the well" and prevented even the most basic corrections.)
  2. Personal attacks and biography: Attacks upon the subject corporations, the principals, or other editors are forbidden and can be marked and punished by a final warning and blocking. Indirect comments upon the contributors rather than the content can be punished by warnings and blocking. (Comment: It is understood that the corporations have less protection than individuals and should be judged on a case-by-case basis.)
  3. Reliable sourcing: Because of the subject's reliance on biographical facts, the highest standards of reliable sourcing should be adhered to, and credible conflicts among independent and self-published sources should be resolved in favor of omission or of stating all sides. (Comment: The volunteer stated, "Currently we have a group of editors that are working towards creating an article stub and removing many of the concerning edits that are not properly sourced per our policies. Following the reduction in content, our goal is to slowly rebuild the article through constructive discussion on the article talk page with the use of reputable sources.")
  4. Consensus: Administrators should not reject a protected edit request, where there is cogent reliance on policy, as reflecting "nonconsensus" solely because of some opposition not based in policy. Administrators should judge consensus similarly to how it is judged in Articles for Deletion debates, with the difference that edit requests are centered on individual phrasing being kept or deleted rather than whole articles.

Please indicate your affirmation or comments below. BDBIsrael (talk) 18:33, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

It is entirely improper for an editor representing the company to claim to set "ground rules", or act as if they have the authority to mediate, moderate, control, or set the terms of discussion. No editor has that authority, least of all a WP:SPA with WP:COI issues. John Nagle (talk) 19:28, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Regards, Nagle. Yes, of course, no editor generally has such authority (although informal mediation has just been initiated, below). Can you tell me why you are opposed to agreeing plainly with affirmations of verifiability, no original research, no personal attacks, biography protection, reliable sourcing, and consensus? I am interested in your own view of these policies, as your view directly affects the mediation process. BDBIsrael (talk) 20:08, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Informal Mediation

With the BDB editors banned, there doesn't seem to be much sense in mediation, since the "sides" were mostly the BDB editors and everyone else. I struggled to keep mediation on track anyway. So I'm going to close this, but if someone wants to refer to this discussion to look at what has been disputed feel free, I'm not archiving or collapsing it. -- Atamaé ­ 18:21, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello, I've talked before (at WP:ANI and elsewhere) about my desire to try some mediation to try to get through disputes at this page. I haven't done mediation for a long time because it tends to be a time-sink but I've seen it work in the past so I thought I'd give it a try.

Just to be clear, this is informal mediation. Everything is voluntary, and nothing "binding" is established from it. I'm technically a member of the mediation committee, but I'm an inactive member and this discussion has nothing to do with that process. I have my own personal process that I used to use in the now-inactive mediation cabal.

My process is this... I first like to define what the points in dispute are (and make sure that everyone agrees that these points are in dispute). I then like to use discussion to handle each point one at a time, until a conclusion is reached for each one. When all points are fully discussed, the mediation is over.

My goal in doing this is to get to a point where we can remove the full protection from the article and editors can resume in improving it. I'm sure more conflicts will arise in the future, that is inevitable, but I just want to get past this impasse. -- Atamaé ­ 19:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Greetings, Atama. I am fully in favor of mediation to the degree it does not strain you. Right now, it would not be an overstatement to say that every sentence of the article is in dispute, plus a lot of the coding too. It was my belief that we could proceed most efficiently by starting with two points, to wit, agreement on the basic ground rules of Wikipedia as they apply here, and resolution of whether the discussion should proceed from the present long version or some compromise "stubbed" version. Assuming a compromise "stub", From there it should not be difficult to choose the stub and then provide and debate various sources for all points that need inclusion (and this last step may not even need mediation). (If there is true consensus to retain the protected version, I believe point-by-point analysis will take longer, and is also subject to BLP concerns arising from the long text.) I believe you can find the two sections relevant to these two points here without my looking up their names to link them. Please take the initiative to affirm (or edit) the ground rules yourself, if you don't mind. BDBIsrael (talk) 19:59, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
I'd rather not go over every single sentence in the article. Whether or not to "stub" the article is the biggest and I think the first point to go over. All the other points can come later. In any case, I'll list out the points as I see them. I'll start with what I think is the biggest one, and then proceed in no particular order. If someone wants to correct anything I've written, or if what I've mentioned is not currently in dispute, please let me know.
  • There is a request to reduce the article to a shorter version. It has been said that much of the content is based on "junk sources" that either attack or promote the company, and that for a neutral version of the article it should be pared down to what is provided by reliable sources. The opposition to that suggestion is that the article is informative and that the information should not be lost. My suggestion is that the key is whether or not the information is verifiable by reliable sources; whatever can't be verified should be removed. Please note that primary sources can be used if done with care, and they aren't necessarily unreliable when used in the proper circumstances.
  • What should the company be referred to? The company's name, as referenced in the lead, is being disputed. The claim is that the company did not change its name to Banc De Binary from BO Systems Limited, but that rather the name "Banc De Binary" is the operating name of other companies. The factuality of this claim has been disputed.
  • Is it accurate to say that Banc De Binary's customers are "betting" against the firm? It has been argued that "betting" is a misleading colloquialism. There was a discussion about how the company's profits are made, but it seemed to taper off without a conclusion.
  • Should Nadex be mentioned in the article? Is it relevant to do so?
  • Is CySEC regulation worth noting, or is it not genuine?
These are the only unresolved disputes I can find on this talk page. If I missed something, if I've mischaracterized any of these disputes, or if any of these disputes are no longer applicable, please let me know. Thank you. -- Atamaé ­ 20:14, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Let me address those issues.
  • First, there's no justification for "stubbing". If there are specific errors of fact, those can be corrected.
  • As for the name(s) of the company, the latest CFTC filing with the U.S. District Court in Nevada untangles that.[40] In the words of the CFTC, "Defendants BdB Ltd., ETBO, BO Systems, and BOB Services are affiliates of each other, do business as "Banc de Binary", and during the Relevant Period, shared common ownership and operated as a common enterprise". It appears that one company is in Cyprus, one is in Israel, and one is in the Seychelles. All, according to the CFTC, are controlled by Oren Laurent.
  • Yes, "betting" is appropriate. There are sources above for that. It's clearly establshed that BdB is the counterparty in all transactions. It's the "house". There is no "exchange".
  • Nadex is a competitor. It might be worth a "see also".
  • CySEC regulation appears to be semi-genuine, but light. The European Union currently permits financial companies licensed in any EU jurisdiction to operate in any EU jurisdiction. This allows companies to pick a friendly regulator. Because this privilege has been abused, the EU is establishing EU-wide regulatory rules, called MiFID II.[41]. Binary options are specifically mentioned as an area where tougher rules will go into effect, which is expected to happen in late 2016. Whether BdB will be able to continue operating under those new rules is not yet clear. John Nagle (talk) 20:35, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for listing several relevant issues, Atama. Please allow me to express my concerns at length. BDBIsrael (talk) 20:55, 13 June 2014 (UTC) Your list is sufficient for an initial skeleton. It is not my desire to go point by point either. To illustrate our approach, I could say that in the lede, the second sentence ("The company operates ....") and the sentence about CySEC regulation are weak but not so bad as to need immediate objection; the rest have serious objections. Virtually everything else in the article suffers from bias, improper weight, and attack issues, and only occasionally flirts with fact. But let's say we're in agreement that stubbing should be discussed first and the three of us can proceed to start a mediated discussion.
  • I think that with "stubbing", we do agree on verifiability, reliable sources, cautious primary sourcing, etc. Atama's key is appropriate here. But we don't agree on one core policy that should be part of this key: protection of biographies of living persons. Please see Mike V's relevant comments about core principles. When severe biography violations and severe attack page behavior are credibly alleged to be at stake, Wikipedia should err in favor of a short version. Nagle's appeal to the idea of correcting specific errors of fact is a failed appeal, because I understand BDBJack has already tried this approach, and yet even the basic questions remain outstanding. I am certain that stubbing would not lose the information, given the tenacity of those who have demonstrated a desire to persist in rumor. I believe we should stub first and then continue the discussion of reliability from there. Remember, the burden of proof rests on the one who defends content, and content may be held on the talkpage until that burden of proof is met.
  • My other comments will be brief. I trust that, given Nagle's comment, both Nagle and Atama would affirm my extant edit request on the point of our corporate name.
  • The word "bet" should not be used colloquially. Reliable sources recognize that both betting and derivative options are regulated separately and should not be confused in formal writing.
  • I don't have a problem with Nadex and BDB receiving equal treatment in each other's articles.
  • CySEC regulates us in 28 countries. Nadex is regulated in one country. How could our regulator not be relevant?
I can pledge my time to proceeding with mediation, insofar as my time is available, whether a short article is agreed to or not. Our staff has identified numerous other problems that it seems petulant to list while the most basic questions are not even resolved. I believe everyone's time will be better used if the short version is preferred, as most of the deletions we're talking about are known to be questionable, while most of the insertions we'd make would be based in better sources. BDBIsrael (talk) 21:31, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Discussing concerns is what mediation is about, BDBIsrael. But just please keep in mind that right now I just want to verify whether or not these issues need to be discussed, if there are any additional issues that need to be discussed, and whether my characterization of these issues need to be modified. I'd rather not get into a detailed discussion of any of these issues until we're clear about that. And then I'd like to discuss each point individually until they are settled. I've found that a structured discussion like this can help break a prolonged deadlock in discussion.
I'm starting to think that the Nadex issue is moot. BDBJack has acknowledged that Nadex is a competitor. Perhaps a compromise would be to limit mention of the company in this article (maybe even to a "see also" section and nothing else) as it as at least a competitor. We could then skip that and get on with the other points of dispute. If nobody objects. If that issue does deserve further discussion, then never mind, that can be discussed later. -- Atamaé ­ 21:06, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
If you believe it would assist mediation for us to make a complete list of objections, and if I would not be considered as an elephant-hurler for doing so, I can get back to you in 48 hours with that. BDBIsrael (talk) 21:31, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Adama seems to be trying hard to narrow the issues. I have no problem with that. BDBIsrael claims "Virtually everything else in the article suffers from bias, improper weight, and attack issues, and only occasionally flirts with fact", but provides nothing to support that. What, very specifically, citing sources for your positions, are the problems? Note that I'm constantly citing rather good sources, while the BDB team offers little or nothing. John Nagle (talk) 22:09, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Here's a long story from CNN on the "bet" issue.[42] Whether it's a bet or a trade seems to depend on who's regulating it. Banc de Binary registered, with the Italian securities regulator, CONSOB, but then CONSOB decided that binary options were bets and prohibited under Italian law. One of BdB's competitors, MarketsWorld, is registered with the Isle of Man's gaming commission as a gambling operation. BetonMarkets is similary registered in Great Britain as a gambling operation. In jurisdictions with legal, regulated gambling, it seems to be handled as a bet. Where that's not an option, it's called a "trade". John Nagle (talk) 22:37, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
If you would like a full list in 48 hours, I can accommodate you; I appear to be behind you in collecting reliable sources. However, you are continuing to take the position that errors are irrelevant because they can be fixed eventually, which ignores credible concerns from the article subject that errors already presented, months ago, are not being resolved by process and the article constitutes an attack page. The question of "stubbing" should turn on the question of whether the article is an attack and a biography violation. Briefly, the evidence for this consists of:
  1. widespread acknowledgement of poor sourcing, as also noted by OTRS;
  2. the existence of many counts of original research in the article;
  3. misstatement of what appears in the sources;
  4. the use or abuse of process to prevent the most basic edit requests from being answered, let alone a long list of them;
  5. the consensus last week, which has not been fully overturned, that stubbing is justified for these reasons.
Either we are talking about the validity of BDB's concerns against being attacked by Wikipedia, or we are negotiating what to do in the meantime while those concerns are being listed in full. In either case it is necessary for us to find a means to compromise on the article status that respects BDB's concerns and Nagle's concerns. If Nagle wants to resolve errors of fact, let him agree to move the challenged statements to talk for the interim (that is, to "stub" the article, because nearly all the statements are challenged on policy grounds). Here is a short list already compiled:
1. The article is not an orphan. (Now resolved by kind administrators.)
2. Banc De Binary is not "FKA" or "AKA" the related entities. (Still in dispute!)
3. Banc De Binary customers do in fact execute trades on a regulated exchange in 28 countries.
4. Banc De Binary is not a betting site and undue weight on the word "bet" is misleading.
5. Banc De Binary did not "refuse" to appear in court for depositions at any time.
6. Banc De Binary does not claim to be founded in Seychelles in 2008. This is confusion among entities again.
7. Banc De Binary did not steal, as alleged by the Daily Mail, and statement to the contrary is unbalanced and not neutral.
8. Banc De Binary has had significant physical presence in its New York office.
9. The sweeping, unsourced statement about the status of U.S. unlicensed trading misleads readers.
10. Banc De Binary ceased operations in the U.S. voluntarily, not as a result of a freeze.
11. Banc De Binary is presently in negotiation with federal agencies, but the article states this is incorrect.
12. Banc De Binary is not in the category "Online gambling companies".

Are you willing to remove all reasonably disputed statements to talk so that errors of fact and other violations can be corrected? BDBIsrael (talk) 22:55, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Also, Nagle, thank you for affirming our position that BDB customers' activity is a trade, not a bet, due to the differences in nuance of regulation in different jurisdictions. Indeed, "Whether it's a bet or a trade seems to depend on who's regulating it", and so we can now remove the word "bet". BDBIsrael (talk) 23:00, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
TL;DR version: These issues need to be discussed, many additional issues need to be discussed, and Atama's characterization of the first issues does not need to be modified to get started. Also, Nadex can be mooted by switching them to a link here (and a BDB link in the Nadex article), because as it stands they (and two blogs) are their own source for saying that they are the only legal option. How can anyone countenance that, in our article? BDBIsrael (talk) 23:13, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Going down your list, BDBIsrael, it looks like the first issue is already resolved, so it's not worth mentioning here. (I assume you're working from a list of talking points provided by your company's PR, so I can understand your wish to give the whole list in its entirety regardless of the items' current need for resolution.)
The second issue seems to be related to the item I mentioned above about the name(s) of the companies operating under the Banc De Binary name.
The fourth and twelfth items seem to be the same issue (gambling and bets), and the third item may be related (the question is whether customers perform "trades" or "bets").
The fifth item seems to be a new issue, or one I'd missed before. It's worth adding to the list.
The sixth through eleventh items also seem to be new, so they can also be discussed.
I'll also point out that the fact that there is an argument about cutting the article down to a stub is evidence that there was never consensus. If you want to understand what we mean by consensus, please read WP:CONSENSUS. It doesn't necessarily mean that everyone is in agreement, but generally it means that by numbers and/or strength of argument, a decision is made regarding article content. The article isn't going to have items removed from the main page in the interim, that's not how these discussions work. Information in dispute isn't removed while discussion is ongoing, if that was your hope I'm afraid you'll be disappointed. But if we can come to agreement about items that should be removed, that can be done.
I'll return to this discussion when I can, I'm going to have spotty access to Wikipedia through the next couple of days, but I'll be popping in periodically, I'm not ignoring this. And also, it's important to note that if anyone objects to me being in the role of mediator, then I'll relinquish that role. That is part of the "voluntary" aspect of this process. -- Atamaé ­ 23:22, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Atama, I too will be in and out. For now, please recognize the following. Item 3 is concentrated on the fact that BDB is regulated, while the lede says "not ... regulated". Your other characterizations are sufficient, as long as they recognize that a full analysis would yield a full list of additional concerns. If you require these for mediation, please say so, and I will present a complete list. As shown in my analysis at #Request to shorten article, there was consensus for over 24 hours, and it was interrupted by an edit war that is very confusing. After the edit war the editors who remained appear to have partially rejected the prior consensus. That's fine, but it puts us at severe handicap.
Playing by your rules, I am inferring that if one party to mediation can retain harmful information merely by artfully declining to agree, the information remains. I observe that has happened for two months now on the question of our very identity. I can understand a little presumption in favor of prior content, but what recourse does mediation provide me for removing harmful and poorly sourced information, if no action can be taken without another's agreement? BDBIsrael (talk) 23:46, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Thanks. I don't think there's consensus for "stubbing". I note that, as usual, the BdB team offers no sources for their claims. Most of what they claim is unsourced actually is sourced. As for specific items, here's a quick review:
  • 1) has been fixed.
  • 2) reflects that BdB is, as the CFTC puts it in their court filings, a "common enterprise" composed of several corporations. Would the BDB team prefer we use the CFTC's terminology and list of entities and persons from their 2014 court filing? I have no problem with using that. The CFTC went to some effort to find all the relevant parts and people. Did they miss any?
  • 3) is not controverted.
  • 4) There are reliable sources which use the term "bet". See above on this talk page. We've discussed this before.
  • 5) Did Oren Laurent show up for his deposition in Washington as called for by the District Court in Nevada, after losing the motion to avoid having to appear?
  • 6) According to the CFTC court filing, one of the corporations of the "common enterprise" is in the Seychelles.
  • 7) The Daily Mail article does indicate that obtaining refunds from BdB is rather difficult. Other less reliable sources, such as scam-reporting sites, also indicate this. Worth searching harder for more sources.
  • 8) See BdB's own retraction of their own press release in which they said they were entirely located in the US.
  • 9) I'd say "informs and warns", rather than misleads. It's not wrong.
  • 10) "Voluntary" after the CFTC and SEC said what they were doing was illegal. Also, that "voluntary" statement was in the retracted press release.
  • 11) That claim needs a reliable source. They're definitely in court, which implies the parties' lawyers talk to each other. That's not "negotiation".
  • 12) See #4.
Have a nice weekend. John Nagle (talk) 23:55, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
(Interrupted:) Thank you, Nagle. I trust you are in agreement that these points are proper for discussion as described by Atama and are not of opinion that either your statement nor mine here has ended that discussion. To respond to questioned points: (2) We are in agreement as to content. The CFTC got the list correct because they accepted our correction. (3) My statement of fact is controverted by the article's incorrect statement, "Banc De Binary customers do not execute their trades via a regulated exchange". SpotOption's regulatory license has been submitted in evidence. (5) I am not in a department that has immediate access to current data on this point. BDBIsrael (talk) 01:14, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
I think Nagle has done a fair job here.
At a more fundamental level, I don't see that much will be done to improve the page until BDB give it a rest. It's natural for editors confronted by a sock army to batten down the hatches and try and resist everything. I'm not keen on the massive cuts to the page, but I think CorporateM could probably make some cogent criticisms we could agree on, for example - but not while the talk page is drowning in COI editors with their "ground rules". Pinkbeast (talk) 05:05, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Saw your ping. I'm reading the strings, but it's a lot of text to catch up with just over a couple days or so. I don't have enough interest to participate in detailed moderation with combative editors, when there are other articles that need work just as badly that can be improved in a friendlier environment. My only hat in the ring sort of speak is to contest such extensive use of low-quality/primary sources. WP:Primary says that articles should be mostly based on secondary sources and that secondary sources are required to establish the notability of the subjects covered in the article. WP:ORGAWARDS explains why I feel the Awards section is using primary sources. I have removed perhaps 100 such sections from other articles as poorly-sourced promotion. Having a new co. employee here seems like some kind of meatpupetting for block evasion.
Most of all, don't forget Wikipedia is suppose to be fun. If you're frustrated and not enjoying yourself, well, the article is protected and there's lots to do here without everyone banging heads on the same page. I can cleanup junk sources on a good three dozen company pages before even encountering another editor. CorporateM (Talk) 06:08, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
* Regarding #2: I would like to see the "common enterprise" listed as such. If the consensus is that the names of the individual corporations making up the enterprise are relevant, then I propose that this information be posted in a section relating to the make-up and structure of the company.
* I would also like to define item #3 from BDBIsrael's list ( under my interpretation. ). It is my understanding that there have been several user's who's chief motive for raising points on NADEX, aside from it being a competitor, is that it is a regulated exchange, and traders who trade with Banc De Binary do not trade on a regulated exchange, or on an exchange at all (per my understanding of their arguments). I believe that there are several conceptual errors in this thinking:
# That NADEX and Banc De Binary are competitors. This statement does not correctly reflect the nature of the relationship. NADEX IS an exchange, and a regulated one at that. Banc De Binary is a broker, which in turn buys and sells options from an exchange. It may actually occur that Banc De Binary will use NADEX instead of SpotOption in the United States as their regulated exchange, since the likely hood that SpotOption, an Israeli-Cypriot company, will want to be regulated under US regulation is very small.
# The term illegal and against regulation are not 100% synonymous. Illegal refers to law and thus any proceedings against them would be criminal in nature, not civil; while in violation of regulation refers more accurately to a violation of regulation, and does not fall under the jurisdiction of the criminal judiciary process. To say that the company operate[d] illegally gives the impression that the company is in fact a criminal organisation. While I do not believe that is the intention of the editor(s), I think that an encyclopaedic work would include terminology which as accurately as possible describes the situation.
BDBJack (talk) 06:48, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
As reported by the Wall Street Journal, the CFTC called it illegal. We should follow that source. Unless you have a secondary source that uses your preferred phrasing? - MrOllie (talk) 11:01, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
I am unable to get past the WSJ Paywall, so I am unable to validate the accuracy of that statement. That being said, the CFTC themselves in this document: [43] have made a:

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCITVE AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF AND FOR CIVIL MONETARY PENALTIES UNDER THE COMMODITY EXCHANGE ACT AND COMMISSION REGULATIONS

.
None of these equate to a criminal charge. While the term illegal can be used in a broad sense, more accurate term would be that Banc De Binary violated Act, 7 U.S.C. Ā§Ā§ I et seq. (20 12), which is an act of regulation - not law. ( Please see [44], summary section for reference to that statement. ). Thus I propose that references to "illegal activities" be changed to "activities in violation of CFTC Regulation". BDBJack (talk) 12:50, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
I have some knowledge of this general area, though not specifically with commodities brokers. What I can say without any fear of contradiction is that operating an unregistered futures commission merchant is a serious offense, not a violation of "regulations" as it is being portrayed here, and is commonly and accurately referred to as "illegal." Not "illegal in a broad sense," whatever that means, but "illegal." I would also like to point out, by way of background, that regulatory agencies do not make criminal charges and to say that these are "acts of regulation" is disingenuous. The acts described in that complaint can and perhaps will be subject to criminal prosecution if the CFTC makes the appropriate criminal referral to the U.S. Attorney's Office.
As of necessity, the CFTC and other regulatory agencies promulgate regulations for the purpose of enforcing the law. But it is incorrect to portray violation of those regulations as being a lesser form of misconduct. They are in fact violations of the underlying law, are treated as such by the agencies and the courts, and were explicitly described as unlawful conduct by the CFTC, and by the Journal according to Mr.Ollie. If anyone doubts me, I suggest that they attempt to violate IRS regulations when they file their taxes, and then argue that they were "merely violating IRS regulations." They won't get very far.
The CFTC specifically charged Banc de Binary with illegal conduct, and said so explicitly. The CFTC complaint itself[45] , see p.4: "7. By virtue of this conduct and further conduct described below, Defendants have engaged, are engaging, or are about to engage in acts and practices in violations of the Act and the Regulations. 8. Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 2(c)(2) and 6c of the Act, 7 U.S.C. Ā§Ā§13a-1 & 2(c)(2)(2012), the Commission brings this action to enjoin Defendants' unlawful acts and practices and to compel their compliance with the Act and the Regulations." The CFTC release[46]: "Banc de Binary allegedly unlawfully solicited and permitted U.S. customers to buy and sell options. . ." I've added boldface as a reading aid.
Sorry to be taking so much space with this, but we seem to be getting in the weeds here. I regret that we are doing so concerning something that is not ambiguous at all, that is straightforward, and which is supported by both primary and secondary sources. If we are going to argue over every single line in the article that reflects negatively on Banc de Binary, with the firm arguing contrary to the plain and obvious facts, this is going to be exhausting, fruitless, and an immense waste of time. At worst, if editors are worn down in this process, it may result in an article that is actively misleading. Figureofnine (talk ā€¢ contribs) 14:28, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
The SEC also explicitly described Banc de Binary's conduct as "illegal." See [47]. "The Securities and Exchange Commission today warned investors about the potential risks of investing in binary options and has charged a Cyprus-based company with selling them illegally to U.S. investors." This indicates not that the acts involved of were illegal but that there were illegal in the eyes of U.S. regulators. Thus it is perfectly accurate for Wikipedia to indicate that this company was charged with illegal conduct by the CFTC and SEC. Figureofnine (talk ā€¢ contribs) 15:24, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Besides the awards issue (are there non-primary sources for any of the awards?) the US Regulatory section is a bit of a mess, starting with a discussion of the company's physical location before we know why that might be relevant, and separating the "volunteering" press release from a (rather synthesis-y) discussion of its significance. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:19, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

@Figureofnine: that is a fantastic explanation! I would first like to say that while I know that you are not very happy with me or my activities, I really did enjoy that piece and I truly appreciate that you've taken your time to share that. I would like to propose a compromise from my point of view which I think does address the accuracies of both arguments. Would it be possible to change mentions of "illegal operation" to "illegal operation under the current regulation of the SEC and CFTC"? BDBJack (talk) 17:24, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words, but I don't think what you're suggesting is necessary, and it is misleading. They are alleging that you ran an unregistered securities firm, which has been illegal under black-letter law since the dawn of securities regulation in the early 1930s. Your "under the current regulation" language suggests that you've violated some transitory whim or special regulation of the current SEC and CFTC regimes, when in fact they are alleging a plain-vanilla securities law violation of the kind that has always been illegal. That's my analysis, but the controlling factor is whether secondary or even primary sources describe it as you suggest. Figureofnine (talk ā€¢ contribs) 20:39, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
As to the side issue, it is important to recognize that this discussion is not about violation of an old law but about a new judgment in August 2013 that binary options have suddenly been classed within the old law, and about the ensuing negotiations.
As to dealing with biographical harm and other violations, Atama appears to preclude my first approach to the issue of "stubbing". Another way of addressing this threshold concern of harm to BDB and its principals might be to agree that only the most harmful sentences should be removed in the negotiation interim to satisfy the biography and verifiability policy, with the remainder retained. BDB should be given a modicum of leeway with its credible biography violation claims. It seems then that it would be appropriate to negotiate which sentences should be deleted during the interim, not on their merits, which would be discussed at more leisure, but on BDB's claim of harm that requires some immediate compromise solution (or requires an injunction, if you will). Based on the 56 sentences in the discussion draft linked below, I propose that clauses 1(a) and 22(a) and sentences 3-8, 10, 13, 23, 29-31, 34, 36-40, 43, 48-54, and 56 be deleted as sufficient interim recognition of BDB's concerns against policy violations such as verifiability, reliable sourcing, and biography. Then retention or editing of these sentences can be negotiated along with the remainder. If Nagle or another editor can agree that we need not "stub" the article to three sentences but that we must also address the biography concern as an initial good-faith compromise, then we can proceed to point-by-point discussion still using the long draft. It seems inappropriate to allow us to continue to be harmed by forcing us to argue every deletion separately rather than allowing that there has been sufficient damage to permit a compromise to stand during discussion. Atama, please comment on whether this method can be used to resolve our threshold concerns. BDBIsrael (talk) 16:12, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
The related administrative thread appears to indicate that it may or may not have been disruptive to have requested initial consensus on what sentences might be reasonably said to be harmful to BDB and moved to the talkpage in the interim negotiations. It is also not clear if providing the full discussion list, as I believe I was instructed, was disruptive. If not informed otherwise, I will proceed as if all requests for biography protection as a threshold issue have been rejected, and mediation is proceeding properly with point-by-point resolution of the discussion list I posted, which comprehends the shorter lists. It also appears consensus has been achieved on my point 1(a) and I believe the outstanding protected edit request should be answered shortly. I look forward to Atama's response as to how we should select which topics to proceed to next (and on which page mediation should occur). I will also keep my comments brief, focused, and limited. If my understanding of the mediation process as expressed here (or for that matter Nagle's understanding of the mediation process as expressed in the administrative thread) is mistaken, I look forward to correction. BDBIsrael (talk) 01:14, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
@BDBIsreal. Forgive me for "haunting" the talk page but I'm not informed enough to contribute to the discussion of most of the topics here. I can chime in on a misunderstanding I believe I see. When Wikipedia talks about BLP and "no harm" they don't mean that there will be no harm to the person. What is meant is that anything said about a person will be supported by third-party sources and no harm will be added by the article. Not to draw parallels but Ted Bundy is called a necropile in his article. I'm sure that hurts his feelings but it is a proven fact supported by evidence. The statements being made about the CEO may be construed as hurtful but they must be supported by evidence. You can ask to have them removed because they are not supported, but not because they hurt his feelings. Padillah (talk) 14:12, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Regards, Padillah. I understand that BLP requires highly reliable sources, properly reflected. The article states that the company of which Oren Laurent is 50% owner has allegedly "stolen" $25,000. This allegation appears in the unreliable source Daily Mail and reflects one investigator's confusingly worded claim, in an odd second-person narrative, that an anonymous reader made the allegation, but that the money was returned, and the source does not use the word "stolen". It appears that the poor sourcing and poor characterization combine to create a new claim (original research) that can be reasonably regarded as "harmful", to say nothing of hurting any feelings. Our diligent attempts to ask to have unsupported or poorly sourced statements removed or corrected have been met by an administrators' Incidents thread (search "Banc De Binary") requesting that our company be site-banned rather than that mediation occur. I would appreciate your comments. BDBIsrael (talk) 21:33, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
But the source is accurately quoted, and it does not make the connection that you do to a living person. By the logic that you are utilizing, everything in this article would be subject to BLP. There is no merit to your repetitively claiming in various forums that BLP is an issue in this article. However, there is a denial in the Mail article and it should be here. Coretheapple (talk) 21:41, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Regards, Coretheapple. I will consider your logic that BLP, which applies on a case-by-case basis to small companies, may not apply here. However, according to a pending edit request, I understand the article is about to include both facts I connected and to allow readers to make the stated connection; and even if you are right about BLP the article is not to be a catchall for every poorly sourced claim. I appreciate your recognition that the coverage is imbalanced and hope that that will continue as we turn to other points. BDBIsrael (talk) 22:04, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
My comment: Paid advocates of the company are shooting themselves in the foot by posting walls of text. This irritates COI-free editors who are here to improve Wikipedia in general, and not whitewash a specific article. Stop asking for mass changes and proceed slowly, discussing one specific change at a time. --NeilN talk to me 21:45, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Regards, NeilN. You may have noticed that the mediator asked for all issues to be identified prior to discussing them one at a time. Issue 1(a) has reached consensus and is ripe for correction in the article as per the edit request in the first section of this talkpage (as well as Nagle's bold text "edit request" late on this talkpage), and any administrator make perform the request at any time. BDBIsrael (talk) 22:04, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't think that my efforts to focus and simplify discussion have worked at all. Partially my fault, but I think it also has to do with the sheer volume on this page. I'm going to try to wade through all of this and salvage something but I'm thinking that mediation may not be feasible here. -- Atamaé ­ 22:43, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I appreciate your trying. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 22:47, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Awards"

I removed this as failing core policy (WP:NPOV). The content was purely promotional and is not relevant to any understanding of the subject. It was mainly primary sourced, and none of the "awards" have articles. Every industry has dozens if not hundreds of "awards", most of which seem dominated by those who spend most on advertising. It's not reasonable for our readers to have to work out which ones are significant - apart from obvious cases such as the Oscars. Guy (Help!) 00:30, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Respect our volunteers

It's time to close down the filibustering by the COIs. In particular WP:PAY states:

"Paid editors, especially those who are paid by the hour, or who submit "billable hours" to justify their salaries, must respect the volunteer nature of the project and keep discussions concise. No editor should be subjected to long or repetitive discussions by someone who is being paid to argue with them. Any editor who refuses to accept a consensus against his or her position by arguing ad nauseam will likely be violating several Wikipedia guidelines and policies, e.g. WP:Tendentious editing, WP:Disruptive editing, WP:WikiBullying, WP:Own or WP:Civility. "

BDB has had its chance to make it points. Time for them to step out of the way. Smallbones(smalltalk) 01:17, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree, and also I think that one BDB account is sufficient. Figureofnine (talk ā€¢ contribs) 02:36, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Gentlemen, we do require that company accounts be named (ie. JackatCompanyX and FrankatCompanyX) instead of CompanyX accounts. I think restricting companies to 1 account would be counter intuitive to that policy and work against it. I think it'd be a bad idea to put a restriction on the number of accounts. If they become disruptive, we can just ban all employees from participating on this article and talk page.--v/r - TP 04:27, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
This article has a history of disruption by company-affiliated socks, so how can you say "if they become disruptive"? You are familiar with the history, aren't you? Figureofnine (talk ā€¢ contribs) 13:30, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, they are disruptive and have been since before BDBIsrael and his coworker. Multiple sockpuppets from the company have already been banned. Smallbones(smalltalk) 13:40, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
I do not understand the logic of TParis' comment that multiple accounts are permitted if named properly. The issue is not whether they can be allowed but whether they should be allowed under this set of circumstances. To avoid our becoming bogged down in user conduct, I've raised the issue in the ongoing discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal. Figureofnine (talk ā€¢ contribs) 13:55, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I was under the belief that the ANI discussion (found here: [48]) had resolved the issues for now. However I suggest that if you feel that BDBIsraelĀ (talkĀ Ā· contribs) should abide by the same restrictions, that a proposal be made to ANI as well. ( On a personal note, I have no objections to BDBIsraelĀ (talkĀ Ā· contribs) having to abide by the same editing restrictions {see [49]}. )
  • I do not mean to be belligerent in my debate on this subject. I do try to respond with sourced materials, and attempt to do so in a manner that is both respectful and mindful of the "volunteer" nature of Wikipedia. If you feel that I have violated any of the policies listed by SmallbonesĀ (talkĀ Ā· contribs) above, I would appreciate if someone could alert me on my talk page so that I can rectify this behavior. Suggesting alternatives would also be appreciated. BDBJack (talk) 14:23, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
You are surely aware of ongoing discussions at ANI, are you not? You have participated in them. There is, and has been ongoing concern regarding BDB editing practices. Figureofnine (talk ā€¢ contribs) 14:36, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
@Figureofnine: I am not fully aware of all ongoing discussions at ANI. I have participated ( to a small degree ) in some of them, but I am not actively "hunting" them down. If you believe that there is room for me to contribute positively to the discussion, I welcome an invitation to the appropriate thread. However since there is a "second BDB COI SPA", I am looking for other articles which I may be able to positively contribute to which do not either violate my editing restrictions nor my COI. ( I do not plan on making rash edits though, only sources and researched materials ). If you have any suggestions, I also appreciate those. BDBJack (talk) 14:43, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Nobody is suggesting you should be aware of "all ongoing discussions at ANI," simply the ones in which you are involved. This kind of repetitive discussion, by the way, the one we are having right now, is precisely the kind that is addressed in WP:PAY. Figureofnine (talk ā€¢ contribs)

Edit request pertaining to style

Please perform the following minor style changes immediately as they are not controversial.

  1. Change capitalization of "Banc de Binary" to "Banc De Binary" 14 times in article text (this excludes footnotes).
  2. In the infobox, capitalize "industry = binary options" as "industry = Binary options", according to "Template:Infobox company".
  3. In "History", repunctuate "founded in Seychelles in 2008," as "founded in Seychelles in 2008." instead.
  4. In "Products and services", recast "Spotoption also provide" to "Spotoption also provides" instead.
  5. In the same section, recast "The company offers" to "Banc De Binary offers" instead for clarity.
  6. In "US regulatory issues", repunctuate "an injunction out to stop them:" as "an injunction out to stop them." instead.
  7. In the same section, repunctuate "via email and by post" as "via email and by post." instead. BDBIsrael (talk) 16:08, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
I've made those changes except no. 5, where none of the given sources confirmed that "the company" is indeed BDB - the way I understand their business model, Spotoption is the entity really offering the options, with BDB merely serving as an interface. If no reliable sources can be found that explicitly discuss what BDB offers, this sentence should be removed. Huon (talk) 17:57, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion list

Excessive wall-of-text by paid advocate account
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

These recommended changes have been compiled by a staffer in reference to the draft at [50] and supersede other lists. The reference draft contains 56 sentences, counting by paragraphs, and the recommended changes are numbered with reference to these sentences. It is understood that this list is being presented for good-faith mediation and its length is appropriate for the circumstances (just as we are respecting Wikipedia volunteers, we ask Wikipedia volunteers to respect our valid concerns).

  • Threshold issue. Delete at least the most harmful sentences as an interim compromise to address concerns of policy violation. If restoration of a harmful sentence is negotiated it can be retained. See proposed list in separate section. The remaining issues are listed in article order.
  • Header(a). Remove page protection notice when mediation is well under way.
  • Header(b). Remove NPOV warning when mediation is well under way.
  • Infobox. Delete "Abraham 'Abe' Cofnas, Head Analyst;" and footnote. Dated source that has become incorrect and does not support statement.
  • 1(a). Delete "formerly known as BO Systems Limited and also known as BDB Services Limited and ET Binary Options Ltd." and footnote, and replace. Incorrect, inappropriate for lede. Replace with a sentence in the "Regulation" section: "Banc De Binary, Ltd., is affiliated with E.T. Binary Options Ltd.,[8] and its operations outside of the European Union are conducted by BDB Services Ltd. and formerly by BO Systems Ltd.[9]"
  • 1(b). Change "an Israeli-Cypriot" to "a Cypriot". Unsourced. There is only one world headquarters. Any sense in which BDB is "based" in Israel requires too much detail to appear in the first sentence.
  • 3. Delete. Unreliable sources, inapplicable, misrepresented. Should not need further comment. Sources might be used in the "binary options" article.
  • 4. Delete. Unsourced, original research.
  • 5. Delete. Misleading, not related to BDB, not appropriate to lede. The market price of a commodity is not the same as the price of an option on that commodity. The prices of options are set according to formulae that allow a margin for the broker. This sentence allows readers to infer wrongly that manipulation of asset prices ("fixing") is happening, and therefore it is a subtle attack.
  • 6. Rewrite. Misleading, sweeping, imbalanced sentence ("several offences", "frozen"), based on primary sources on one side. Correction would involve too much detail for the lede. Rewrite in "Regulation" section to: "Banc De Binary voluntarily discontinued operations in the United States in 2013 and does not accept customers located within the United States.[10] On 5 June 2013, the United States Commodity Futures Trading Commission alleged that Banc de Binary had been offering to and accepting orders from U.S. customers who were not eligible contract participants to trade options not excepted or exempted from the Commission's ban on trading options off-exchange.[7] On 30 July 2013, the United States District Court for the District of Nevada issued an injunction against Banc de Binary offering or selling unregistered securities and acting as an unregistered broker-dealer, saying that binary options are 'securities' subject to regulation by the Commission,[11] an injunction that was vacated and replaced 7 August.[12] Banc De Binary states that it is currently in discussions with the CFTC about the issue of offering its binary option products to U.S. residents without registering with the CFTC or the Securities and Exchange Commission.[10]"
  • 7. Delete. Inaccurate, irrelevant. (See source in sentence 8.) This was not a filed charge, but a passing statement of potentiality by the judge, which was related to Mr. Laurent's depositional preferences. To refer to this offhand primary-source comment anywhere in the article is misleading even if corrected.
  • 8. Delete. Inaccurate or misleading, not relevant to lede. The order shows that Mr. Laurent previously refused to be deposed in the U.S. because "[i]t would be inappropriate for this court to act as prosecutor and order Mr. Laurent to be deposed here as a means of furthering a possible criminal prosecution." BDB's response to this March 2014 order for Washington D.C. depositions has not been located at this writing.
  • 10. Delete. Inaccurate date, blogging of an admitted machine translation of a primary source. No encyclopedic context.
  • 11. Edit. The WSJ can be used in a trading context; the DM is not a reliable source. "The Wall Street Journal described it as an 'offshore trading platform' that 'allows people to bet on the price of gold, oil or stocks'.[13]"
  • 12 (History). Recast. Scare quotes, loaded words, editorializing, unsourced. Editorializing casts doubt on Mr. Laurent's self-published statement. "Banc De Binary, Ltd., was founded 15 January 2009 by American businessman and financier Oren Laurent.[14]"
  • 13. Delete. Not self-published source. Refers to a different corporation than BDB, Ltd. If 2008 date is essential at all and reliably sourced rather than an assumption, it should be in the corporations list of the "Regulation" section.
  • 14. Delete or recast. Editorializing. "Laurent stated the company had 20,000 clients by June 2011[15] and 200,000 by August 2012.[16]" Reference to 250,000 in the filings might be adduced.
  • 15. Delete or recast. "As of 2014, Banc De Binary has approximately 60 employees.[17]" Reference to affiliates might be adduced.
  • 16. Shorten. Original research about location, wordiness. "The Independent described it as a 'leading City trading firm'.[18]"
  • 19 (Regulation, 3rd sentence). Replace. False FKA statement. Use the sentence from point 1(a).
  • 22(a). Delete last clause. Unreliable source. Does not say "would receive nothing", and should not be used as a source for speculation about the idea that BDB might collapse.
  • 23. Delete. Unreliable source. Does not say "stolen", and says the money in question was returned.
  • 24(a) (Products and services). Delete "Israeli". Unsourced. (See source in sentence 25.) Misleading when used with "another".
  • 26(a). Delete "around 170". Dated, ephemeral, unmaintainable reference point, now superseded by source.
  • 27. Delete. Unsourced original research about roles.
  • 29 (US regulatory issues). Delete. Clear case of original research. (See the actual quote itself.) Might be cut back to "Banc De Binary had an office in New York City at Trump Towers." with footnote. This might also be the point at which to mention that the SEC allowed exchange-based binary options trading in the US in 2008 as shown at [51].
  • 30. Delete. Unsourced original research, synthesis.
  • 31. Delete. Original research from primary sources. First source is inaccessible today and also the day after it was stated to have been retrieved according to [52].
  • 32. Delete. Inaccessible source.
  • 33. Replace with one of the sentences from point 6 above. This paragraph contains 8 sentences from one point of view and 1 sentence from another. I recommend 2 sentences from each point of view.
  • 34. Delete. Synthesis.
  • 35. Replace with one of the sentences from point 6 above.
  • 36. Delete. Unreliable, self-promoting sources. Might be replaced by putting Nadex as a see also, and BDB as a see also in the Nadex article.
  • 37. Delete. Undue weight. Restates what has already been said in other words.
  • 38. Delete. Undue weight, unsourced. Mostly restates what has already been said in other words.
  • 39. Delete. Undue weight, original research. Mostly restates what has already been said in other words.
  • 40. Delete. Undue weight, anecdotal, unencyclopedic.
  • 41. Replace with one of the sentences from point 6 above. Unreliable source. BDB statements should not be cited from hostile sources.
  • 42. Delete. Unsourced, irrelevant.
  • 43. Delete. Not found in stated source.
  • Heading 5: Delete heading "Investor advisories" as this entire section relates to the prior section "US regulatory issues" and much or all of it is recommended for deletion anyway.
  • 48 (Investor advisories). Delete. Dated, improper use of primary source. Unencyclopedic result from a particular point in time (October 2013) that happens to be nothing more than when the editor chose to look it up.
  • 49. Delete. Undue weight. BBB's uncritical summary of the complaint press release.
  • 50. Delete. Undue weight. Appearance on this list is presented as meaningful when it means nothing more than what has already been stated, that BDB is unregistered in the U.S. and has been complained against.
  • 51. Delete. Undue weight. Same as previous sentence. Click through and you find that appearance means only that BDB is not registered in Canada to trade or advise.
  • 52. Delete. Anecdotal, dated, undue weight (5 sentences on one point). Source called it cautioning rather than warning.
  • 53. Delete. Undue weight. Pricing plan details are not encyclopedic.
  • 54. Delete. Synthesis. Can be moved to "binary options" article.
  • 55. Delete. Hardly relevant. Might be allowed to stand if edited.
  • 56. Delete. Synthesis. Can be moved to "binary options" article.
  • Footer(a): Delete external links. Primary sources, already sufficiently covered in article.
  • Footer(b): Delete "Category:Online gambling companies". BDB is regulated as an options broker and has not been regulated or recognized as a gambling company. Informal source reference to gambling does not change the regulatory status and invent a Wikipedia categorization that does not exist in real life.
  • Organization: Make various rearrangements, including ordering of sections, moving material into or out of lede, and combining references, as appropriate after negotiations have settled most of the text. For instance, reference to controversy or to regulation in the lede should refer to all information necessary for context. Additional sourced text or summaries may be needed.
  • Additions: This list merely serves to control the damage to BDB. Additional sourced text may be recommended in mediation in relation to these points for balance, such as expansion on the regulation details. Additional sourced text not related to these points may be negotiated later outside of mediation. BDBIsrael (talk) 16:25, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyprus_Securities_and_Exchange_Commission
  2. ^ http://www.ig.com/uk/about-ig
  3. ^ "Public Alert: Unregistered Soliciting Entities". Securities and Exchange Commission. Archived from the original on 2013-02-23. Retrieved 15 October 2012.
  4. ^ "Investors Warning List". Ontario Securities Commission. Archived from the original on 2013-10-17. Retrieved 13 January 2013.
  5. ^ http://forexmagnates.com/banc-de-binary-retracts-cftc-press-release/
  6. ^ http://forexmagnates.com/banc-de-binary-speaks-out-amid-cftc-lawsuit-no-more-us-clients-but-will-regulators-continue-with-proceedings/
  7. ^ a b "U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Banc de Binary Ltd. (a/k/a E.T. Binary Options Ltd.), Complaint for Injunctive and Other Equitable Relief and for Civil Monetary Penalties Under the Commodity Exchange Act and Commission Regulations" (PDF). Commodity Futures Trading Commission. June 6, 2013. Cite error: The named reference "cftc" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  8. ^ [1]
  9. ^ "Terms of Use". Outside of the European Union, this website is operate by BO Systems Limited [...] and/or BDB Services Limited. {{cite web}}: |archive-url= requires |archive-date= (help)
  10. ^ a b "Binary Options Trading Online with Banc De Binary". Archived from the original on 2013-08-17. Retrieved 2013-08-17.
  11. ^ "Banc de Binary Ltd. (Release No. LR-22767; August 1, 2013)". Sec.gov. Retrieved 2013-11-27.
  12. ^ http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/nevada/nvdce/2:2013cv00993/94851/31
  13. ^ "Regulators Sue Prediction Site, Allege Illegal Options". Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2013-11-15. Retrieved 11 June 2013.
  14. ^ "Banc De Binary CEO Oren Laurent Opens Up on Binary Options - with Banc De Binary". Investing.com. Retrieved 2013-11-11.
  15. ^ Wright, Susan (27 May 2013). "Banc De Binary CEO Oren Laurent Opens Up on Binary Options". Investment Underground. Archived from the original on 2013-08-08. Retrieved Aug 11, 2013. Our projections were for 10,000 client accounts by the end of 2011. We'd doubled that number by June.
  16. ^ "Banc De Binary's CEO Oren Laurent Expresses Sincere Thanks". BinaryOptionsDaily.com. Retrieved Aug 11, 2013.
  17. ^ http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/nevada/nvdce/2:2013cv00993/94851/61/0.pdf
  18. ^ "Blue-chip dividends tipped to soar". The Independent. 2013-01-20. Retrieved 2013-11-11.

At my user talkpage, User:Robert McClenon stated exactly the concern I wished to avoid, namely, that simply proposing a mediated discussion list could be construed as disruptive and demanding. I have asked User:Mike V, an admin familiar with this page, for guidance on this point. I believe that the fact that our company's legal identity is still not correctly represented after two months of salient requests on this point is a leading indicator that it is appropriate for BDB to have a significant list of concerns (which are not demands), and I believe that this was properly submitted to mediation. I am open to additional questions or comments at my user talkpage, and I am awaiting User:Atama's guidance on the steps of mediation proper. BDBIsrael (talk) 17:19, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Future Perfect at Sunrise. I agree with collapsing this section and various sections of this page. For everyone's information, this list was requested as part of informal mediation and should be useful for that process, and I await word from the informal mediator as well as the administrator I have asked for a behavioral review of my choice in posting it in this way. BDBIsrael (talk) 17:40, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Banc_De_Binary/Archive_2&oldid=1164847437"