SlimVirgin complaining about COI activity at BP article

[The Devil's Advocate]

SlimVirgin noticed that an employee from BP has been getting a lot of content into the article with approval from other editors and has begun raising holy hell over the matter at the talk page. Of course, the employee is actually doing everything as suggested by the conflict of interest guideline, bringing proposals based on reliable sources to the talk page and getting approval from non-COI editors after revisions. Yet Slim is insistent that this is not enough and claims they should just create some page to get their view out there so that Wikipedia can cite it.

On the talk page, she seems to be calling out a few editors as "collaborators", especially Rangoon11 (T-C-L), for adding the final drafts to the article. She has even been forum-shopping the matter to the Village Pump and "WikiProject Integrity", and her crowing at the talk page has gotten the attention of Smallbones (T-C-L), who subsequently shopped it to the COI talk page and the SignPost.

Naturally, no comment is made on the anti-BP editors who want to make sure BP is only ever known as the company that spills oil all over the place and kills fluffy little animals.

[Hersch]

Slim knows that content disputes are often not decided on the merits of the proposed text and the cited sources, but rather by demonizing the opposing editors.

[Cla68]

Naturally, no comment is made on the anti-BP editors who want to make sure BP is only ever known as the company that spills oil all over the place and kills fluffy little animals.

One of WP's dichotomies is that it's ok to assume bad faith on participants supposedly editing on behalf of their organizations, but it's taboo to do so to editors who may be involved just because they are part-time activists or advocates on related issues.

[Sweet Revenge]

Does this:

His user page had 8 watchers as of 19 March 2013.

not convict her of using the tools as an involved admin? Is there some way I'm not aware of to count the number of watchers if it's fewer than 30 without using the tools?

[EricBarbour]

Does this:

His user page had 8 watchers as of 19 March 2013.

not convict her of using the tools as an involved admin? Is there some way I'm not aware of to count the number of watchers if it's fewer than 30 without using the tools?

Good luck with that. Remember all the RFCs that were filed against her? Gone.

[Kumioko]

After looking this over, to me the user seems to be doing exactly what they are supposed to do and is editing within the rules. There really is no requirement that an editor provide a comprehensive writeup of the article and frankly most editors who are interested in an article are going to spin it the way they want positive or negative. My suggestion to Slim Virgin if she is reading this, either let it go (else you could end up banished to the blogging pits like us) or take the time to writeup the uneven areas.

Its really not about the editor anyway, its about the article so as long as the article gets built, and the editing is within the rules, its really not a huge issue.

[rhindle]

I wonder if she'll pull off her infamous "SlimVirgin Maneuver" by making a massive "clean up" edit that disguises her true editing purpose.

[Eclipsed]

Oh noes! A rep from a Large Company is following the Bright Line and suggesting changes via talk pages, noticeboards, and userspace drafts.

Plus the usual handwringing/not-threats about the media finding out. My fav is:

User talk:SlimVirgin#Paid_editors

... There are news organizations that would have a field day with it, and both BP and Wikipedia would end up looking terrible. I'm reluctant to stress this too much on the talk page in case anyone interprets it as a threat to go to the media, but it does make me wonder who within BP knows that this is going on. ... SlimVirgin (talk) 23:09, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I'd enjoy reading an intelligent article from an independent news organization about this situation. Is that possible?

[Vigilant]

Oh noes! A rep from a Large Company is following the Bright Line and suggesting changes via talk pages, noticeboards, and userspace drafts.

Plus the usual handwringing/not-threats about the media finding out. My fav is:

User talk:SlimVirgin#Paid_editors

... There are news organizations that would have a field day with it, and both BP and Wikipedia would end up looking terrible. I'm reluctant to stress this too much on the talk page in case anyone interprets it as a threat to go to the media, but it does make me wonder who within BP knows that this is going on. ... SlimVirgin (talk) 23:09, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I'd enjoy reading an intelligent article from an independent news organization about this situation. Is that possible?

Sounds to me like she's threatening to DOX him and HARASS him at his work place.

Edit:
FREAK FIGHT!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_ ... in_general

I say this with as much reluctance as I can, but SilverSeren.. *cough* *cough* is... *cough* right here...

Your WP:PRIMARY suggestion is an utter mockery of the sourcing policy.

[Zoloft]

I say this with as much reluctance as I can, but SilverSeren.. *cough* *cough* is... *cough* right here...

Your WP:PRIMARY suggestion is an utter mockery of the sourcing policy.

So is IRWolfie-

I don't see the issue. Arturo at BP is proposing material, and other editors are using their judgement. As long as editors are using their judgement, and fix accordingly, the system works, IRWolfie- (talk) 21:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

[Vigilant]

I say this with as much reluctance as I can, but SilverSeren.. *cough* *cough* is... *cough* right here...

Your WP:PRIMARY suggestion is an utter mockery of the sourcing policy.

So is IRWolfie-

I don't see the issue. Arturo at BP is proposing material, and other editors are using their judgement. As long as editors are using their judgement, and fix accordingly, the system works, IRWolfie- (talk) 21:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Must be some kind of singular astronomical event today.
I bet if I pour myself of bowl of fruit loops right now, they'd all line up coaxially.

[thekohser]

I like how Smallbones is coming up with reams and reams of new rules and policies, all of which will just make life more difficult for the corporate editor who tries to follow these new and ever-changing guidelines to their behavior. Which simply makes the option of "Oh, hell, I'll just make a sockpuppet and do what I need to do" all the more attractive.

[Vigilant]

I like how Smallbones is coming up with reams and reams of new rules and policies, all of which will just make life more difficult for the corporate editor who tries to follow these new and ever-changing guidelines to their behavior. Which simply makes the option of "Oh, hell, I'll just make a sockpuppet and do what I need to do" all the more attractive.

FYI, small bones is a euphemism for tiny penis.

As in, "Suck my dick" ... "No thanks, I choke on small bones"

Makes the conversation even more surreal when read that way.

[EricBarbour]

I don't see the issue. Arturo at BP is proposing material, and other editors are using their judgement. As long as editors are using their judgement, and fix accordingly, the system works, IRWolfie- (talk) 21:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

[Zoloft]

I don't see the issue. Arturo at BP is proposing material, and other editors are using their judgement. As long as editors are using their judgement, and fix accordingly, the system works, IRWolfie- (talk) 21:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, I didn't say the system was correct, just that in the context of Wikipedia's rules, IRWolfie- was/is.

[EricBarbour]

Ahem.....

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1914

[The Devil's Advocate]

An editor has "retired" from Wikipedia at SV's talk page. The individual "petrarchan" is singing good ole Binkie's praises and decrying the horrible mistreatment by Rangoon. A few problems with petrar's narrative, though. He claimed that his first edit was in May of 2012 to simply update the article with info about BP's solar operations and that he was reverted "seconds later" as a POV-pusher out of the blue. Never. Fucking. Happened.

His first edit was indeed to update the article with info about BP's solar operations, in April of 2012. No one reverted him. In fact, one of the editors that is being painted as part of some sort of pro-BP cabal made some further updates in the same vein hours later and only removed the unnecessary statement that BP closed it for not being profitable. Rangoon did comment on an edit in May about a change relating to BP Solar (removal of an image of solar panels), to approve of it, before reminding the editor that past activities are still relevant to the company's article.

It is not entirely wrong though, Rangoon did accuse petrar of POV-pushing, for inserting this material clearly geared at minimizing BP's positive environmental activities and then separating the material about positive environmental activities from the material about environmental incidents as "unrelated" issues. When Rangoon reverted this, petrar was more than happy to throw the same label back.

Naturally, this editor is a blindingly obvious POV-pusher despite his protests.

[Eclipsed]

Actually, I'd enjoy reading an intelligent article from an independent news organization about this situation. Is that possible?

Well so far, only the Der Speigel article comes (kinda) close to meeting the above criteria.

Now awaiting the second round of drama. The Bright Line is under attack. What will Jimbo do?

[The Devil's Advocate]

There is a HuffPo article now and Sterling is down there in the comments section.

[Cla68]

There is a HuffPo article now and Sterling is down there in the comments section.

SlimVirgin must be really upset if she's providing quotes to the media about it. I don't think I've seen her allow herself to be quoted before. I think that HuppPo article is actually written fairly neutrally, by the way. I suspect, however, that the editors objecting to BPs involvement with the WP article are hoping that the publicity brings more environmentalists or anti-BP people in to help ensure the article is "fixed" the way they want it.

[DanMurphy]

Actually, I'd enjoy reading an intelligent article from an independent news organization about this situation. Is that possible?

Well so far, only the Der Speigel article comes (kinda) close to meeting the above criteria.

Now awaiting the second round of drama. The Bright Line is under attack. What will Jimbo do?

Duh.

[EricBarbour]

Spreading like crazy. Madame Blue did her job well.

http://www.salon.com/2013/03/21/bp_edit ... wikipedia/
http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill ... bp_of.html
http://betabeat.com/2013/03/bp-has-noth ... dia-entry/
http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/for-ov ... edia-pages

They make a good point: this has been going on since last May, and even sooner. Only now does anyone notice.

[The Devil's Advocate]

Spreading like crazy. Madame Blue did her job well.

http://www.salon.com/2013/03/21/bp_edit ... wikipedia/
http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill ... bp_of.html
http://betabeat.com/2013/03/bp-has-noth ... dia-entry/
http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/for-ov ... edia-pages

They make a good point: this has been going on since last May, and even sooner. Only now does anyone notice.

As I said, Slim and Small spammed it all over the place. It is certainly possible one of them contacted the media, but they could have just spread it wide enough that Blue noticed or someone alerted her to it.

[mac]

Spreading like crazy. Madame Blue did her job well.

http://www.salon.com/2013/03/21/bp_edit ... wikipedia/
http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill ... bp_of.html
http://betabeat.com/2013/03/bp-has-noth ... dia-entry/
http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/for-ov ... edia-pages

They make a good point: this has been going on since last May, and even sooner. Only now does anyone notice.

Each of those sites has a comments section. Looks like Seren has a busy night ahead of him.

[Vigilant]

It would be beyond hilarious if the mainstream news decided to figure out who SlimVirgin actually is as a result of this series of exposes.

[Cla68]

It would be beyond hilarious if the mainstream news decided to figure out who SlimVirgin actually is as a result of this series of exposes.

Whenever journalists contacted me, they always asked if they could use my real name.

[The Adversary]

It would be beyond hilarious if the mainstream news decided to figure out who SlimVirgin actually is as a result of this series of exposes.

Whenever journalists contacted me, they always asked if they could use my real name.

I have only had a journalist contact me once, but he accepted using only my wp-name.

And seriously, in the story between "big, bad, oil-company" , and any wp-editor, who do you think will win the attention of the public -and by implication: the mainstream news?

I think that for anyone outside the WO (or old WR) world: this is a story about BP. (Not SV)

[Vigilant]

Someone should take this BP mess to ARBCOM...

[Vigilant]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =546098919

The Witch Queen of Angmar writes:

The sentence that alerted me to this situation was Arturo's [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =545264115 most recent draft], which Silver seren was about to insert. It began: "In the 1990s and 2000s, BP has had a mixed environmental record, according to government regulators, journalists, activist groups and environmental monitors." The source used [http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... refer=home] doesn't really support that sentence, and it's not the best source to use. Lots of high-quality sources, including the New York Times and PBS, indicate that BP's poor record goes back certainly to the 2000s, at least. Other sentences are red flags too, e.g. that even after the Prudhoe Bay spill in 2006, "the company continued to receive praise in the media for its investment in alternative energy and its focus on greenhouse gas emissions." Did it?

The whole thing is problematic: (a) have the right sources been used; (b) do they say exactly what BP has used them for; (c) is anything missing; (d) is anything carefully worded; (e) has the correct weight been given to all the issues? And so on. Checking this thoroughly – making it policy-compliant – would involve a lot of research. It would be faster, easier and more ethical to write it from scratch. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <small>^{[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]}</small> 22:25, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

To which Mr. Tumnus replies:

"which Silver seren was about to insert"

That's an outright lie. As you very well know, I was actually in the middle of pointing out other sources (covering negative information, mind you) that I felt should be included in the draft.

As for BP's history, the sources are quite clear on that. While they have been criticized for the oil spills and other incidents, BP has still be ranked year after year in a number of lists just within the past five years, as the top oil company in respect to its attention to environmentalism and renewable energy and climate change. <font color="silver">[[User:Silver seren|Silver]]</font><font color="blue">[[User talk:Silver seren|seren]]</font>^{[[Special:Contributions/Silver seren|C]]} 22:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

[The Devil's Advocate]

Now it's in PRWeek with a comment from Jay Walsh.

[Eclipsed]

BP (T-H-L) had 2012 revenue of US$388 billion, so says their Wikipedia page. So understandable that anything BP does is going to get attention. It's a Big Company on Wikipedia, after all. Easy to get people interested.

But where's the line on what's a Big Company on Wikipedia? US$1 billion revenue? This recent COI draft proposal for the Guthy Renker article says 2012 revenue of US$1.8 billion. Does that count? Plus, the draft is a big rewrite, probably more then the BP 44% level SlimVirgin (T-C-L) "noted".

And, Kudos to CorporateM (T-C-L) for landing the client.

[thekohser]

I like how Smallbones is coming up with reams and reams of new rules and policies, all of which will just make life more difficult for the corporate editor who tries to follow these new and ever-changing guidelines to their behavior. Which simply makes the option of "Oh, hell, I'll just make a sockpuppet and do what I need to do" all the more attractive.

Smallbones has outdone himself now, raising hypocrisy to grand new levels.

First, he whines to Sue Gardner about the "garbage" of articles that read like advertisements on Wikipedia.

But, less than half a day later, there he is inserting a YouTube link into the non-notable biography of Wikimedia Foundation chair, Kat Walsh (T-H-L). The video was produced by the Wikimedia Foundation's own staffing firm, mOppenheimAssociates.

A few hours after that, he removes a tag from Kat's PR article, because apparently he thinks that the references do not need improvement. For the record, the three references are:

1^ "WMF Board Election July bigb2012" (sic). Wikimedia Foundation Press. 12 July 2012. Retrieved 19 August 2012. A press release, which is discouraged on Wikipedia and does not confer notability.
2^ "Wikimedia Foundation announces 2013-14 Board of Trustees and elected officers at Wikimania in Hong Kong". Wikimedia Foundation. 8 August 2013. Retrieved 14 August 2013. Another press release.
3^ "Staff". Creative Commons. Retrieved 2012-08-19. An employee listing published by her employer.

Some of you pro-Wikipedians need to step up right now and explain to me how Wikipedia's guidelines and policies are being properly executed here, because I'm having a lot of difficulty seeing it.

[enwikibadscience]

Slim knows that content disputes are often not decided on the merits of the proposed text and the cited sources, but rather by demonizing the opposing editors.

Exactly, and smart PR firms need to befriend a child editor to win. CrossFit (T-H-L) knew exactly how to game Wikipedia, as do many firms, community support of a content clueless administrator being a good method that I would recommend to Wiki-PR.

BP is going to lose by attempting to play by the rules, because it seems SlimVirgin (T-C-L) as no intention of doing so. Smart of her.