- Bruce Flatt (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Bruce Flatt is a well-known Canadian businessman and, apparently, one of the richest people in Canada, according to Canadian Business. He appeared on the cover of Forbes May 16. 2017 issue. That cover was accompanied by a long article about Flatt. The Globe & Mail did a long piece on him in 2000 and lists him 7th on their 2017 list of "the 50 most powerful people in Canadian business". That's probably enough to show that he easily passes WP:GNG.
User:Kudpung deleted Bruce Flatt on July 30 as "G5: Created by a banned or blocked user in violation of ban or block". It was apparently created by an editor associated with a paid editing sockfarm. Although WP:G5 clearly states " the edit must be a violation of the user's specific block or ban", no banned or blocked user has been identified as being the puppetmaster. When I questioned Kudpung about the deletion of Bruce Flatt (just one of a number of articles deleted as WP:G5), he responded that "there are things on Wikipedia that in order to preserve its integrity sometimes mean that blocks and deletions due to sockpuppetry and paid editing are more important than the assumed notability of something or someone whose actual presence on Wikipedia is not really important in the grand scheme of things". I believe these out of process deletions are not helpful to our readers.
For the record, I am not a paid editor and I have no connection to Bruce Flatt. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 21:10, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Then you can create the article. The fact that a previous version has been G5'ed is no obstacle to a fresh creation by a good faith user.—S Marshall T/C 21:39, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Bruce Flatt had all the common hallmarks of a commissioned work. BTW, why do you specifically need to claim here that you are not a paid editor? Nobody here, AFAICS World's Lamest Critic, suggested you are. I don't believe the statement to be helpful to this issue.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:14, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse this was a sock farm of 28 CU confirmed socks engaged in a paid editing enterprise in violation of the terms of use. The odds of such a group of socks not having a previously banned or blocked account are practically zilch. This wasn't just one account that got another account to try to sneak an article in, in which case I would agree that G5 would be a stretch. This sock farm also had the nasty habit of adding BLP violations to promotional articles. I don't believe that was an issue with this particular subject, but it certainly further pushes this deletion to within admin discretion in the circumstances in order to prevent potential abuse or blackmail of the article subject, as is common in some of these cases. WLC is free to recreate the article from scratch in a neutral tone. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:47, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- You have claimed that editors in this particular sockfarm inserted BLP violations into articles, but no one seems to have provided evidence of this. In any case, you admit that that didn't happen in this particular article, so it's a red herring. All biographies on Wikipedia are equally likely to have people use them to "abuse or blackmail the article subject", as you say. So that's another red herring. Unless you have read the article, you don't know whether it was neutral in tne or not, so that suggestion seems misplaced as well. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 22:57, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- No objection to a new article being created by a bona fidae editor. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:49, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- In my view it -- and other articles created by the blocked sock farm, should be salted. Jytdog (talk) 00:34, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse--WLC has been told many times in the course of disc. that there exists different viewpoints among admins and even arbs--- as to the applicability of G5.No prejudice against recreation.Winged Blades Godric 04:43, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse strictly the OP is right and we ought to have some evidence that one of the socks in this farm has been blocked or banned at some point, however I agree that is pretty likely and I don't see any reason to be nice to someone operating a paid sockfarm. There were a few edits from IPs which added significant content to the article, however they all came from open proxies identified in the SPI as associated with the sockmaster, so I think it's very likely they came from the same person. Hut 8.5 09:53, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse, given the paid editing connection. The fact that anyone (who isn't an undisclosed paid editor) may recreate the article makes this request pointless process wonkery. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:40, 6 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]
- Endorse. Copy the references for possible use, but do not let banned editors get attribution rights. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:31, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse and salt. Also, I observe that World's Lamest Critic has an interesting contribution history. Their very first edits included Jimbo's talk page, a sockpuppet investigation, and an AfD. These are not the sorts of edits one would expect from a new user.
 Looks like a duck to me. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:05, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I should start keeping track of the number of people who have accused me of being a sockpuppet of a paid editor simply because I disagree with deleting properly referenced articles about notable topics. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 23:24, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse and WP:TROUT to RoySmith and others inclined to salt. WP:BEANS be damned, people just aren't getting it: If I wanted to hurt someone's publicity, all I have to do is create an obviously promotional article enough times with an obvious sock farm, and we obligingly salt the article. Paid promotional editing can also be paid anti-promotional editing--that is, using a false flag operation to hurt someone's chances of being covered in an impartial manner. Jclemens (talk) 19:54, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Jclemens: Thank you for brightening my day (see WP:OGTW, #10). -- RoySmith (talk) 20:20, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have any examples of that ever actually happening? It does not seem a reliable avenue of attack to me because Wikipedia is very hit-and-miss when it comes to dealing with promotion. Yes, some get deleted and salted, but more just get deleted without salting, and even more simply escape by no-consensus, or simply slip through the cracks without ever getting acted on. Why would anyone try a false flag tactic like this when there's a better than even chance that the article will remain as free publicity for the target, indefinitely? Reyk YO! 07:36, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- None whatsoever, but finding problems before they're exploited is part of my professional portfolio; I used to get paid quite a lot of money to poke holes in things before anyone else could. You're correct that how we have previously dealt with promotion and socks is hit or miss, but to the extent that we standardize a response, we risk someone intentionally provoking that (well intentioned) response. Many, many computer security attacks deal with exception handling, error response, and the like, and this would introduce an 'error handling' routine that could trivially be exploited. And to point out further finessing on this attack, there's absolutely nothing to stop a skilled attacker from reporting the 'bad' content he just created and increasing the chance that it will be so addressed. Jclemens (talk) 04:31, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Except that contrary to common belief and practice, Wikipedia is not supposed to be a publicity tool. So I don't see why it should matter. By the way, I am against salting; deleted BLPs make good honeypots. Rentier (talk) 17:45, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse as per SmokeyJoe, but copy both the references and the categories, and copy them to Draft:Bruce Flatt. Unscintillating (talk) 21:05, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- What does our license say about that? If the intent, per SmokeyJoe, is to, not let banned editors get attribution rights, can we grab the references and categories without attribution? -- RoySmith (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no creative content in either a reference list or a list of categories. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:07, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Categories you are definitely good on. References I could see a possible argument (annotated bibliographies, etc.) but a simple listing would probably be fine in terms of lack of copyright. There was no creative determination in the ordering of the listing, which leans to it not generating a copyright in the United States. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:21, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The body text of the article would have to be written differently than the first version, but there's no rule that the original article's references can't be reused in the new version — the wording of how our article summarizes what the references say has to be different, but the references themselves are allowed to be reused. Bearcat (talk) 16:14, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. The original deletion does not mean that an article will never be allowed to exist, but merely that the particular version wasn't compliant with our rules. If you can do better, then go right ahead and do it — absolutely nothing about the process requires the original article to be restored before a neutral non-COI editor is permitted to try again. Bearcat (talk) 16:12, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:BOGOF for the problem with this. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:19, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that there's been paid/COI editing in the past cannot create a permanent ban on an article ever being allowed to exist. If he can be properly shown and properly referenced as notable enough for a Wikipedia article, then the fact that there's been a paid editing issue in the past cannot prevent a new, more neutral non-COI version from ever being allowed to exist. Bearcat (talk) 18:11, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
|
