User talk:SlimVirgin

Paid editors It is good to have you at the BP article. I have been concerned about paid editors ever since my experience with Silverseren at the Cracker Barrel article. Also, please see topic #24 at the Chevron Corporation article where I say, I have spent several hours to familiarize myself with this environmental disaster. I've never worked on an article where it was acceptable for a controversial section of a corporation article to be completely rewritten as the corporate rep has done in this case. I think that it should go without saying that this is completely unacceptable for Wikipedia. I find the rewrite a brazen attempt to bias our readers to the Chevron viewpoint rather than an unbiased telling of this unfolding incident. This paid editor has gotten rid of the Independent, the BBC, Reuters, and CBS and replaced them with court documents and Forbes." All it would take would be for a person such as Silverseren to round up a crew to get this paid version into the article. Gandydancer (talk) 23:44, 17 March 2013 (UTC) I agree that it's unacceptable, and I'm thinking about raising it somewhere. I'm not yet sure where, or what information to include. Apparently the BP rep went through OTRS and someone there (Ocaasi) referred the rep to Rangoon, even though both Ocaasi and Rangoon had worked together on the article before, and Rangoon's edits there and elsewhere are somewhat contentious. So that referral seems problematic to me, but I haven't read all the archives, and I feel I should do that before I can comment further. But anyway, bottom line: these companies should not be writing their own articles (directly or by proxy), and if they are, we should signal that to the reader with a box at the top of the article. (I'm not suggesting anyone should create such a box; I'm just thinking out loud that for some articles it might be the only ethical way forward.) SlimVirgin (talk) 23:57, 17 March 2013 (UTC) Just to clarify a point, Arturo at BP posted on the article talk page and the COI noticeboard asking for help; as far as I know it did not go through OTRS. I have worked with Rangoon before; it was in the midst of the Deepwater Horizon spill and we significantly reorganized a pretty messy article amidst a lot of incoming media coverage. I believe the coverage was very fair, perhaps even overemphasizing the recent disaster. The only changes we made together involved how to structure the litany of such incidents in the company's past. I think we improved that structure. I haven't been following Arturo's work with Rangoon, I just know that he's doing it as transparently as one could and going through the talk pages as we've suggested such editors should. Slim we do have a Template:Connected_contributor if you think that's appropriate. (I haven't had a chance to look at your idea yet but am glad you posted it.) Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 01:12, 18 March 2013 (UTC) Okay, thanks. I understood from one of your posts that, via OTRS, you had referred BP to Rangoon11. You wrote: "Typically for OTRS requests I first investigate the claims myself and see if it's something minor I can handle. If it involves anything complex or controversial I'll look for an active, non-POV pushing editor at the article's talk page/history whom I respect to put the person in touch with. At BP that person was Rangoon11 ..." [1] As for the box, it's worse than a connected contributor. It's BP writing the article on BP. That should never happen, but it's being facilitated by editors who are posting BP's drafts word-for-word into the article (e.g. [2]). Silver seren has now advised the BP rep to "ignore them," apparently referring to Wikipedians who are objecting, and to answer only Silver seren's questions. [3] So really it could not be more problematic. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:48, 18 March 2013 (UTC) Embarassingly, Slim, for my error and how unbelieveable it may sound to correct it, the Arturo to Rangoon handoff I alluded to didn't happen through OTRS, on Wiki, or off it. I admit I was under a bit of pressure with your questioning and mixed up the particulars. While I have led representatives to active talk page editors in the past, and would have thought to do the same in this case, it's not what happened. Looking through the history, to my knowledge, Arturo contacted Rangoon directly here and used the COI noticeboard here. Rangoon replied here. I checked my talk page and email history and see I hadn't spoken with Arturo until this past month when I asked him through email for an interview about his experiencing working on the BP article. That said, I likely would have trusted Rangoon's judgement and hadn't seen any behavior from him before that was concerning, so in this case I mistook the spirit of your question for the details. Checking the OTRS archives could probably confirm we hadn't heard from Arturo (at least I hadn't). My apologies for that weird confusion; it might have made the situation sound worse than it was. Although, regardless of how Arturo found Rangoon, he did, and the article draft that came out of that process is still concerning to you, so I don't think these details ultimately have any effect on the current discussion. Also note that this has gone through Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, so it's hand a good run of back and forth. We also have Template:COI. "Use this tag to indicate that an article is biased or has other serious problems as a direct result of the editing done by the subject of the article or a person with a close connection to the subject (e.g., professional public relations staff). Do not use this tag unless there are significant or substantial problems with the article's neutrality as a result of the contributor's involvement. Like the other pov tags, this tag is not meant to be a badge of shame. Do not use this tag if you can quickly solve the problem, e.g., by removing peacocking and puffery or by reverting the blanking of well-sourced criticism. Like the other neutrality-related tags, this tag may be removed by any editor after the problem is resolved, if the problem is not explained on the article's talk page, and/or if no current attempts to resolve the problem can be found." I think "ignore them" is never wise advice. We're all accountable to critics and it's part of consensus to address those concerns. I still think we're going to have to figure out when it's appropriate to object merely for a process violation rather than for a content objection. "The company wrote it" is a persuasive but not sufficient criticism if the draft is neutral and well-sourced and has been through review from any editors at the talk page who want to comment. This strikes me as a typical dispute...the article should be more or less frozen while discussion continues and editors bring more thoughts, sources, and suggestions to the talk page. I suppose there's a related WP:BURDEN question one could ask. Is the burden on the corporate representative to prove their draft is neutral, or on the talk page critics who question its bias to counter with opposing sources? I don't think we have clear guidance on that, but it might be useful. Ocaasi t | c 02:18, 18 March 2013 (UTC) Okay, thanks for explaining that, and no worries if you made a mistake. I'm glad it was a mistake; I was starting to get concerned about OTRS being used in that way. I can't agree with you about Rangoon11, though; his editing at these articles is problematic. I won't say more, because I don't like to see editors being criticized on user talk pages without being invited to take part, but I don't particularly want that discussion here. As for BURDEN, articles have to reflect the body of literature that's out there. For an article like BP, that involves a ton of reading. Very few of these editors are in a position to say whether BP's drafts reflect that body of literature, because they're not familiar with it themselves; there are some knowledgeable people on the talk page, but they're not the ones adding BP's drafts (that I have seen). To say "we should add BP's text unless we find mistakes in it," is to completely misunderstand what neutrality means on Wikipedia. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:40, 18 March 2013 (UTC) (Yes, to be fair, I notified Rangoon on his talk page of our discussion last week). I always interpreted his approach as lacking an agenda to either criticize or promote corporations; I appreciated how he wanted to give controversies attention but not at the exclusion of other aspects of the company. I still think that's a fair approach, but of course disagreements about WP:WEIGHT are challenging and easy to interpret differently, even moreso when a COI editor is involved. If this was not a COI editor situation, we would demand that someone demonstrate proper weight by citing more and better sources. You're saying that's not feasible here, so it's not going to be simple to resolve. I think I understand why you want to exclude corporate representatives from the drafting process as such, but what mechanism would you suggest that would still allow one to give input? Are you saying they shouldn't participate on talk pages either, or yes but not with full drafts? What's the process look like instead? And if we're very strongly discouraging direct editing, then is not responding to talk page suggestions defensible or reasonable? If we don't respond to talk pages are we going to nudge folks back underground to edit in secret? I'm not sure I see the alternative yet, except for the kind of robust debate that's going on right now out in the open. (Oh yes, you posted an idea on my talk page. I'll get to that this week when I can give it some time. Win-win would be great if you have found one). Ocaasi t | c 03:16, 18 March 2013 (UTC) EDIT CONFLICT  ::::::Thanks so much SlimVirgin, it is good to see that somebody understands the situation. When I read Ocassi's post I almost could've wept. Why on earth should the paid editor's rewrite be held superior to what we've been able to put together, imperfect though it may be, to the point that we need to spend endless hours picking his version apart? Furthermore, there is a lot more than just the facts of what is written, it is how the facts are presented when just one word or lack of it can completely change the tone of what is being presented. Ect. Gandydancer (talk) 03:27, 18 March 2013 (UTC) Occasi's more recent post leaves me at a loss for words... And of course the great trust that s/he puts in Rangoon is just mind boggling. Gandydancer (talk) 03:27, 18 March 2013 (UTC) Sorry to disappoint you Gandydancer, I can only speak from the direct interaction I've had with an editor, which in this case was quite positive. I'm not Rangoon's minder and haven't followed his every move; for example, I missed the entire DRN thread which was not exactly inspiring on any front). I think it's sufficient to say that this article would be controversial regardless of Arturo's involvement and editors working on it will just have to continue to slog through sources and drafts. I don't see an easy way through it. I also don't believe Rangoon has any affiliation with BP, so Arturo's presence there appears to just be aggravating an issue that was already present. Slim, if we can use BP as a case study I'd like to continue to try and draw out best practices (or practices to avoid) for these kinds of situations. I don't know what they are, frankly, I just know I generally prefer corporate representatives acting transparently rather than in secret. Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 04:21, 18 March 2013 (UTC) Slim Virgin, I did go back and look at BPs edit/talk record and I found that Ocaasi did work extensively with Rangoon on the BP article. It does concern me that at Ocaasi's final edit on Jan 6, 2011, the lead included this info on the BP spill incident, or more accurately did not include any information on the spill, the worst environmental disaster on record in the US other than the Dust Bowl: BP's track record of corporate social responsibility has been mixed. The company has been involved in a number of major environmental and safety incidents and received criticism for its political influence. It is my opinion that Osaasi is either intentionally biased or easily misled and naive. I believe the latter. Generally one should never go into a discussion of other editor's motives, etc., but I did note that editor Ocaasi has suggested that your view fringes on "conspiracy", so it seems to me to be appropriate. Gandydancer (talk) 14:02, 18 March 2013 (UTC) Please keep in mind the context of that period. We had an article on BP, the hundred year old company, which was being absolutely deluged with information about Deepwater Horizon. Keeping that incident treated with appropriate scale and not becoming a news article on the single (enormous) disaster was an intentional attempt to remain balanced and neutral. The article was also a mess, and I simply organized the history of controversies into Safety, Political, and Environmental categories for more easy reading. I think you're excluding the possibility that I may just have a different informed opinion on the matter... I may be naive or misled here, I accept that's a possibility, but the more likely explanation is that I stopped working at the BP article once the Deep Water Horizon incident had slowed from the news and have not followed the day to day debates at the article over the past year. My renewed interest in the BP article came about because we have a transparent corporate representative working on it through talk page suggestions; that's a model I'm interested in and want to see how it's working. Ocaasi t | c 17:15, 18 March 2013 (UTC) Also, for reference, when I started editing this article in 2010, I was still using an IP. Here is the major reorganization I made. You can see at this time the lead had only two paragraphs, one of which was on Deepwater Horizon. This edit summarized the political, environmental and safety record. By the time of my last edit, the version mentioned the mixed safety/environmental/political record [4] but also noted BP's pro-environment efforts. I think that version could use more detail on the scale of the disasters that have happened. I haven't been involved at BP since then, almost 2 years ago. Ocaasi t | c 17:34, 18 March 2013 (UTC) Gandydancer, maybe I can shift this conversation towards more productive territory, noting that the battleground mentality percolating around this article isn't very productive. It's clear that you don't like or trust the work of corporate representatives, which is a reasonable and defensible position. However we're basically prohibiting such folks from directly editing and best practice at this point is direct them to talk pages to make suggestions, propose sources, and offer drafts, advising they do so with full disclosure. Arturo did disclose his COI in his username, at the article talk page, and at the COI noticeboard. How else do you think we can make this process useful and effective? It seems to me that the added scrutiny and discussion going on at the article is a good thing, despite its contentiousness. Do you have suggestions on how it could be made/done better? Ocaasi t | c 19:11, 18 March 2013 (UTC) Ocaasi, you talk about "full disclosure," but that BP is writing the article is being hidden from the readers, arguably the only people who matter. Editors are inserting BP's words into the text (extensively) without quotation marks and without in-text attribution. BP is choosing what to highlight, choosing the sources, and choosing the words and tone. That really has to stop. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:38, 18 March 2013 (UTC) Ocaasi, yes you are correct, I have great concerns regarding paid editors. They are professional writers and they know very well how to spin information. I am dealing with that right now in the section that deals with the 2006 North Slope Alaskan spill. Arturo and BP supporters want to say "BP admitted..." while I want to phrase it "The U.S. Department of Justice disclosed that BP...". You see the difference? As for Arturo, I have nothing negative to say about him. He was only doing his job and as far as I know was open and honest in his work. My problem is a concern that more recently he has gone to WP:COIN and asked for assist which seems to have brought a new sheriff to town, if you will, and and the new sheriff has given a promise to Arturo that he can round up a posse to post his drafts if need be, so not to worry. Ocassi, you seem to think that there are plenty of editors at the BP article to have a "robust discussion", I think were your words, but that is not the case. A corporate article is not any fun at all. Who would really want to spend hour after hour attempting to keep a corporate article from becoming nothing more that a corporate webpage filled with glowing praise? Right now at BP there is only Binksternet and I. Editor Petrarchan was with us and she did a lot of work--we both worked at the BP spill article as well and one day she just got totally fed up and left. If you happened to look at the Chevron article that I mentioned above, only two of us--I am not familiar with the other editor--objected to what I called a blatant attempt to spin the information re that company's ongoing lawsuit. He threw out all of the secondary sources and substituted a legal document that would make sense to no one. I had been watching Chevron and he had been posting his drafts but no one had responded so he went ahead and posted them in the article--they were all corporate stuff and I had no objections. But in the case of the law suit, if I and one other editor had not shown up, he would have done the same with that draft as well. In the case of that paid editor, I don't think I should be forced to work with him because I consider him to be nothing more than a goddamn crook. Ocassi, I read some of your posts on your talk page--I'm not done yet--and it is my impression that you mean well but you really are out of touch with the reality of this situation. That's why I was so grateful when someone (Slim Virgin) came along that finally seemed to understand how perilous and urgent this situation really is. Over the years I have complained but my experience has pretty much been a you can like it or lump it--it's here to stay. As for improving the situation, it seems that paid editing has started a whole cottage industry to spring up out there. That can't be good. And then when they arrive at our doors it seems that we all but have ambassadors of good will in place to greet them and show them around and help them out and so on... When Arturo posted at COIN editors responded with good cheer, and "let me know if you need anything!", etc. One even gave him a wikilove message. Even still, paid editors may have a place--if I were a corporation I'd want a fair shake too. But now that they are rewriting whole sections of their articles and Wikipedia has formed a group of editors that jump from one article to another to insert their copy into articles, that is not the way to keep our 'pedia from, as I think Slim Virgin said, nothing more than a free advertisement for their wares. Gandydancer (talk) 21:25, 18 March 2013 (UTC) I'm sure most of you already know that I have the greatest sympathy for the position of Slim and Gandydancer here. I'm afraid that this might just be a case where the letter of the rules are being followed but not the spirit. BP obviously needs to back off on inserting its interpretations and addressing matters of weight, which require independent judgement. But BP should also know that this type of editing just cannot possibly work, either for them or Wikipedia. Say PBS and other national news organizations find out what they are trying to do here - they will be vilified in the press and get no PR benefit at all from this, and Wikipedia will be viewed as just another corporate spam mirror. In short, if this is not a matter of rules being broken, then we need to change the rules. The discussion should likely be at WT:COI, where I'll take it (in a few hours from now) unless somebody has a better place for the discussion. Smallbones(smalltalk) 23:02, 18 March 2013 (UTC) I agree, and it has left me wondering about BP's position in all this. 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. Smallbones, I would be very grateful if you would raise it at COI. I've been thinking about where and when to raise it myself, and how to phrase it because it has several arms and legs. If you would get the ball rolling, that would be great. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:09, 18 March 2013 (UTC) The same thing was done, as I have said, at Chevron and nobody seems at all concerned. Cracker Barrel was a total rewrite by a paid editor as well and they have not been mentioned--only BP. I also know of one other article that was a total rewrite by a paid editor. Silverseren is well aware of this and yet I note that he is apparently one of those that others go to for advice and opinions about paid editing. OrangeMike is aware of it too. [5] Frankly it is hard for me to understand why this has been going on for so long if there is a problem. To then have Slim Virgin speak out at the BP article as though those of us that approved of Arturo's drafts are to be forgiven because we "haven't thought it through" seems a bit condesending...and irritating. Gandydancer (talk) 23:58, 18 March 2013 (UTC) My apologies, Gandydancer, if I expressed that badly, and I wasn't thinking of you, but of the people who've been helping BP, and BP itself. I wonder whether senior people in its corporate communications department have agreed to insert company material into independent publications in a way that hides the company's involvement from the readers. That's what I mean by people not thinking it through, i.e. not realizing how bad it makes BP and Wikipedia look. I know it has gone on elsewhere, and it's often or always the same small group involved, some of whom seem to be connected to CREWE, though that may be incidental. Hopefully if we start a discussion about it somewhere, we can try to set some limits on it. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:16, 19 March 2013 (UTC) Please see Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest#BP_and_large_company_editing_in_general Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:11, 19 March 2013 (UTC) Slim Virgin, I wonder if you saw the conversation at the top of the present talk page of the BP article. Gandydancer (talk) 12:57, 20 March 2013 (UTC) Re: BP <Retired> Hello SlimVirgin, Thank you so much for your message. I have retired from editing Wikipedia in protest over what happened at Deepwater Horizon oil spill article beginning on 23 December 2012. My issues with Wikipedia are multifaceted and involve primarily the oil spill and BP pages, but extend to all pages which are being edited and/or controlled by special interest reps, which from my experience is no small number. For instance, although it's been big news that more American troops are committing suicide every day (19) than are dying in combat, and that there is a huge problem with rape in the military, (keeping in mind "American Troops" redirects to United States Armed Forces), you will not find this information at that article. There are retired military guys there to argue why it doesn't belong. There is no space to even place any negative or non-official information at the article or any similar military articles, which all look more like a shiny brochure than an encyclopedia page. This type of thing is repeated throughout Wikipedia and there is no simple, effective recourse for independent editors to fix or blow a whistle, that I have found. For the BP article, I filed my first of 3 different types of noticeboards - I used every avenue I could find and even asked a few Admins to come help, all to no avail (or very little). I spent all of June 2012 in a DRN with Rangoon11 and spent an entire week of research to provide a proposal for the Intro, requested by Rangoon in the DRN, only to have my work slammed and used as further excuse to call me a POV pusher. later edit: I realized I should clarify: when I refer to people responding to help out, I am talking about truly NPOV editors who were new to the page, who learned about it only through the noticeboards. There were editors helping out who had already been active on the BP talk page, like Gandydancer, and I'm sorry I didn't make this more clear earlier.) From the DRN only Binksternet responded to help out, and he has been slammed for it as well. At the AN/I, only one person responded - an Admin who put much effort and time into helping us but without prior knowledge of BP, it was too much and s/he ended leaving Wikipedia right in the midst of our discussions. So of the 3 noticeboards, 3 (novel) individuals responded, 2 came to help, 1 stayed. After nine months the Intro is much improved, and most of my suggestions/issues have been resolved but not without many tears, much abuse and a label placed on me as a POV-pusher. My point is that even using the avenues Wikipedia offers to help with the problems I saw at BP, there is barely any response from independent editors. I am wondering frankly what the ratio is these days of seriously NPOV-loving editors to special interest reps. It's not good. In my understanding, COI editors were initially invited to participate in talk if they ran across an article about them or their company that contained falsities or obvious spin/bias. They were invited to alert independent editors. That is completely understandable - none of us want falsities or spin of any kind on Wikipedia. But authoring content or even arguing about how information is presented, whether directly or through an editor like Rangoon11 (appointed by Ocassi to help BP - without ever making this fact known - indeed this association was covered up and when asked directly, obfuscation and personal attacks ensued) seems like a grotesque stretch of this allowance, and frankly an abuse of Wikipedia's remaining indies. I don't think anyone could look through my work at the BP talk page and related noticeboards and claim that the BP-supporting editors had not been abusive of me and of my time. My main work at Wikipedia by far has been on the BP oil spill page and specifically with the health and environmental aspects of it. This is fun and easy for me because it's my passion - I'm reading about it anyway, so it's simple to keep the article updated. One could assume that my work at the BP article is related to some hatred for the company that caused the spill. That was indeed a meme that began at my first BP edit and continues. In actuality I don't blame BP any more than I blame our bought government. In fact, after a few years of editing the oil spill page (in 2010 I was an IP - see edit summary of the spill article, the top IP contributor was me) I had never even looked at the BP page. In May 2012, I ran across an article stating that BP had ended its solar programme, and I went to update the Wiki article. That was my first edit at the BP page. Even though editors were active on the page, the article still had a big section about its solar programme three months after it had ended. Seconds after updating it, Rangoon11 stepped in and reverted my work, calling me a POV-pusher right off the bat. Her edits made no sense, removing BP's own statement sourced from their website that "It wasn't profitable enough". later edit: correction It was not Rangoon11 who reverted BP's stated reason for leaving its solar programme, it was Beagle who deleted it. It was not 'immediately', but about 5 hours later. I should also like to take this opportunity, since I am retired, to once again let you know that the BP oil spill article is being scrubbed and that it began just prior to the court case which started Feb 25. Now Beagle, with help from Martin Hogbin, have removed any mention that people are dying from the oil spill as well as these references Al Jazeera 1 and Al Jazeera 2. These are the editors running the show on Wikipedia and I find it a slap in the face to truth and to the victims of the oil spill. See my comments about this here, where I point out that this edit is about revenge rather than helping grow an encyclopedia. Please, someone, take a look at this issue. petrarchan47tc 19:28, 29 March 2013 (UTC) I next noticed the Intro that was literally the most profound example of greenwashing I had even seen - it was the day I learned the term "greenwashing" in fact. I've covered the details of this extensively elsewhere, but my point is, if something so obvious can't be fixed in a reasonable amount of time, Wikipedia is broken. The problem I pointed out should have been resolved in weeks at most. The reason it took nine months was because of the editors permanently working to 'help' Arturo/BP. Their help mostly consists of arguing until they are the last one standing. "Should paid BP reps be writing content for their Wikipedia article?" - if this is our starting point, it is an extremely low bar and highlights just how bad the problem is. This should be a no-brainer. In my opinion, we should be far past this and actively banning people who have edit histories like Rangoon11 from editing Wikipedia altogether. Because I am a bit emotional about all of this, I won't be engaging much with the BP talk; emo-editing is a bad idea. BUT I am willing to respond to questions about what happened and can easily and happily give diffs for everything - and that is a big deal because if you aren't familiar with this whole thing, finding individual pertinent diffs is prohibitively time consuming. The idea of summarizing my entire history at the BP page and the related catastrophe at the spill page seems challenging at this time. I think to begin with, I would rather answer specific questions simply because of time constraints and the fact that I'm pretty angry about this. I don't enjoy reading the words of an angry editor, and out of respect I wouldn't want to put you all through it. When I'm calm and rational I would love to post something helpful. But as you say, the time is now. Do you think you have enough of a grasp on the situation to have specific questions for me, and would this be a helpful compromise for now? petrarchan47tc 22:43, 20 March 2013 (UTC) Just a note, while I had previously worked with Rangoon in 2011, I checked my contribs and email and as far as I can see did not introduce him to Arturo at BP or interact with him through OTRS. I stopped working at the BP article after the Deepwater Horizon incident escaped constant press coverage and did not follow the controversy at the article since, until I learned that Arturo was engaging with disclosure there, which interested me as a general approach. Petrarchan, I hope you come back, perhaps after a break. Your perspective is needed. Controversial articles only work when there is robust and fair discussion. Ocaasi t | c 23:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC) You stated: "Typically for OTRS requests I first investigate the claims myself and see if it's something minor I can handle. If it involves anything complex or controversial I'll look for an active, non-POV pushing editor at the article's talk page/history whom I respect to put the person in touch with. At BP that person was Rangoon11" If Rangoon is your idea of a respectable non-POV pusher, whoa. I did ask for your help at BP and you never responded. I am concerned that you are putting editors to 'help', like with the NDAA 2012 article, where you placed someone to help the US Congress, but no one on the talk page is being told this is taking place. Editors can sense when an interest group is being represented even when the editor has not declared a POV, or that they are specifically there to help the subject of the article. And they loose faith in the system when it's so apparent on so many pages that this is taking place, yet blowing a whistle yields only headaches. Wikipedia doesn't even have a rule about transparency regarding editors asked to 'help' the US Congress or BP? That's crazy! From what I've experienced, it seems the cards are massively stacked against the indie editor on Wikipedia and massively stacked in favor of the paid, or otherwise compensated, editors who have endless time, energy, contacts and knowledge of how to *use* this system. (And by use, I mean game.) petrarchan47tc 01:07, 21 March 2013 (UTC) Hi Petra, I' m sorry to hear what you've been through. It sounds horrific, and exactly the kind of situation that's burning out volunteers. It's really hard to know how to deal with it all, or rather it's easy to know how to deal with it, but for reasons I'll never understand hard to get it done. Sometimes I think what we need to organize is a poll of our readers, not our editors: do you want Wikipedia to allow paid advocacy? I'm just leaving this note to tell you that I have to go offline shortly, and I want to think some more about what you said. I don't have specific questions at the moment, because I don't know enough to know what to ask. But I want to read your note again and get back to you when I have more time. Thank you for replying so promptly. Best, SlimVirgin (talk) 00:06, 21 March 2013 (UTC) Well truthfully I did come up with an idea. I talked about it with Binksternet on his talk page during the June 2012 DRN. I seriously think that pages which are subject to be targets for special interests or POV pushers should have an easy-to-use, very visible button at the top of the talk page - so that when an editor, even a first-time IP (reader), stumbles upon obvious advertising (I am using that as a placeholder word - it could be in the form of: spin, bias, glaring omissions, wording (like at BP it was "(BP did something bad). However, (they are actually great)" - which was right in the Intro in March 2012. According to Rangoon11 in the DRN, this section was penned by Rangoon and Ocaasi - though there are no talk page entries supporting this. The wording sounds identical to BP/Arturo drafts.). There would be levels of checks, and the valid submissions would find their way to a group of editors who would HELP fix the problem. Because most truly independent readers or editors can easily spot advertising/problems, but how many know how to use the Wikipedia system to fix it, or have time after work, between dinner and bed, to go learn how to do a noticeboard, after arguing with some BP 'helper' for an hour? There could be a team ready - since we KNOW these things are taking place - YES there are interest groups actively trying to spin these articles - let's have a team ready to respond! As for the questions, I am not sure if you were interested in help with BP article content, BP talk page content/history, my opinion about paid and hidden advocacy, all of these or other. Anyway, feel free to ask me anything. petrarchan47tc 01:07, 21 March 2013 (UTC) One thing that would help – could you link to the worst version of the article and/or the worst lead, in terms of the whitewashing you identified (such as the May 2012 version you mentioned above)? I like your idea of a button for readers to alert editors. I wonder if that's something the Foundation would be interested in. The obvious problem would be how to prevent its overuse. We'd want it for glaring commercial-type issues, not just that someone didn't like something. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:25, 21 March 2013 (UTC) That's why a series of checks could ensure only the valid complaints make it to the team. A large group of trusted volunteers could monitor incoming complaints just like we do vandalism, and send them up and to more (specialized?) groups of volunteers. Sure it won't be easy, but something like this could potentially save Wikipedia. Here is the Intro to which I've been referring. Here is the DRN about the Intro. petrarchan47tc 02:23, 21 March 2013 (UTC) Petrarchan, I checked my 4 email accounts and my OTRS tickets... While I indeed worked with Rangoon during 2011 it wasn't me who connected Arturo and Rangoon. Under a good bit of pressure from Slim's questioning I simply got mixed up--25,000 edits, hundreds of OTRS tickets, and hundreds of conversations with people about Wikipedia, it happened. When I worked with Rangoon the world was piling on BP and it struck me that editors needed to maintain balance while that was going on. I did the same at Julian Assange, WikiLeaks and Aaron Swartz and Egyptian Revolution of 2011. There are causes I support in private, but I go out of my way to make sure that Wikipedia doesn't take a side on them beyond following WP:DUE. In 2011, Rangoon was helpful and clearheaded, I appreciated his background in this area and his feedback. I can't make up the fact that I had a really positive experience working with him, it's just how I felt. Then Deepwater Horizon left the constant news cycle and I left the BP article. I didn't follow the DRN threads, or the talk pages, except to note that Arturo had joined in the conversation. I'm sorry you had such a contentious time at the article and am disappointed you couldn't come to consensus with Rangoon. I've been there, at other articles. I'm also sorry I didn't reply to you earlier, I have been quite busy with meetups and wikipedia related travel and events. As for the U.S. Congress article, there very much was a COI disclosure, as I encouraged, and the conversations continued on the talk page with editors who had much more knowledge and expertise than I did. When I talk to someone from one of the largest Oil Companies (Occidental Petroleum), or a global consulting organization (Monitor Group) or the a superpower (NDAA 2012), I don't welcome them with bear hugs. I tell them the best practices I think will ensure both their and our integrity, which is to stick to the talk page, state up front that they have a COI, and propose neutral well-sourced drafts or other suggestions that editors can review. That's always been my practice, despite the policy conversations I've been involved with that taken out of context suggest I'd prefer otherwise. I talk to these people because I think it's important that Wikipedia be responsive to critics, and I can't think of a better way to do that than to let them share their input on a talk page where it's out in the open. That said, not all of the conversations I have can be public. Some people will only talk to me in private. Some policies, such as OTRS' privacy policy, prohibit me from making information public unless given permission...there are also things that happen behind the scenes in private consulting firms, or within PR companies that I'm also only privy to rare glimpses of. And that's with trying to find out what I can--much of the world of public relations is still hidden behind confidentiality agreements that even my attempt to research this issue can't penetrate. This is frustrating, perhaps even moreso for you, but it is reality, and neither of us can control much of it. All I can say is that at any opportunity I get, I encourage people to be transparent about their COI and to go through the talk page. What Arturo has been doing may not be anyone's dream of neutrality, but I consider it better than the alternative of hundreds of edits clumsily or sneakily slipped into an article while no one is watching. I've seen worse than Arturo, though I understand why he's under such serious scrutiny, the BP article warrants that scrutiny. This situation has raised a lot of emotions and been generally divisive, as contentious issues are. We still have to make practical choices about what to do when a company representative approaches us next month (or doesn't approach us and hires someone else to do the work in secret). Plenty of folks would love to tell them, go the fuck away, but I think that just creates an illusion of security where one doesn't actually exist. So I'll just say it again, I hope you take a break, and I hope you come back. Ocaasi t | c 02:29, 21 March 2013 (UTC) Why not advise them to post helpful material on a company website, so that we can cite it as a source? That solves the problem right there. BP's words can go into the article on BP, attributed to the company, and in quotation marks as appropriate. This gives them access to express their perspective, and it tells the reader which bits of the article come from the company. Our polices allow published primary sources to be used, so no policy change would be needed. Instead of organizing paid-editor helpers standing by to add company drafts to articles, you could be advising them to use that source material, as they would any other. Everyone wins. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:42, 21 March 2013 (UTC) Quick question for Ocaasi: where is the editor told that Darouet was placed to help the US Congress? I have been editing the NDAA 2012 page and did not know that a representative was working on the page, and do not see it stated anywhere. The most recent edit Darouet made was to remove mention of which Congress people voted for the NDAA 2012, saying it didn't belong in the intro, but deleting it altogether rather than moving it to a better place. Do you ever check up on how your editors are doing? Rangoon11's first ever edits to Wikipedia landed her (and if you'd studied her AN/I history you would know her gender) in big trouble as the edits were all advocating for some big, private school. I do think you could spend more time investigating the editors you choose to trust and make their association extremely evident. petrarchan47tc 02:54, 21 March 2013 (UTC) Slim, from what I've seen Arturo's work appears to be a summary of published reliable sources, so don't think it's against our policy if it's offered and reviewed through the talk page; that said, concerns about whitewashing and reflecting the full literature with proper balance are totally reasonable. We can discourage such drafts, or we can seek a better review process: I've explained my views on why I prefer the latter option, but I'm waiting to see how this plays out. For your suggestion, if BP posted statements on their website that we could quote, it could be useful. I think though that I'd frankly prefer the information comes from third-party sources. This might seem ironic to say if one points out that Arturo is far from independent (I agree he's not independent), but the sources he cites in his draft would be (and should be). Petrarchan, "Talk:National_Defense_Authorization_Act_for_Fiscal_Year_2012/Archive_1#Upcoming work to address criticisms of the article.2C COI declaration". It was in the archive. I also did a massive amount of research for that article (probably bordering on copyvio). And I keep tabs at least at first until discussion picks up at the article, but as it progresses I often don't have time nor expertise to follow all of the details. I'm sure this isn't an ideal or maybe even satisfactory response, and if you think it's inadequate then I'm open to suggestions. I'm not sure what a better alternative is that's realistic to implement. Ocaasi t | c 04:29, 21 March 2013 (UTC) A Wikipedia Administrator placed an editor on the NDAA2012 page to help the represent the US Congress, and is satisfied that the only declaration of this is in the archives, and does not check to see if said editor is following NPOV, is not accountable for that editor's actions -- this is actually a bigger story than "BP wrote it's own article", in my mind.174.71.84.85 (talk) 05:07, 21 March 2013 (UTC) I would like to note that Petrar's claims about his editing history at BP are mistaken on numerous fronts. Basically everything he has said about his history of editing that article has been distorted. Maybe he just forgot exactly how things went and it all blended together, but it definitely didn't happen the way he claimed.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 05:33, 21 March 2013 (UTC) Without concrete examples, what purpose does your comment serve other than to try and discredit me? (Also known as trolling, which a recent study found to be very influential). Diffs or it didn't happen. petrarchan47tc 06:13, 21 March 2013 (UTC) Maybe you should provide diffs since you are the one making such specific allegations.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 06:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC) TDA is correct, I did have (at least) one detail wrong. It was not Rangoon11 who reverted BP's stated reason for leaving its solar programme, it was Beagle who deleted it. It was not 'immediately', but about 5 hours later. Any other discrepancies, please point them out. Thanks to all for their sleuthing. petrarchan47tc 16:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC) Thank you, SlimVirgin, what you have done by pulling back the curtains has had a profound effect already. I am one small person, but for me your actions have been quite earth-shattering. The experience I described above, and my reasons for retiring, well... it all seems to have been healed. I no longer have the scars, and today editing Wikipedia was pure bliss. For the larger picture, though, according to (non-troll) chatter online, not one person was surprised by either BP or Wikipedia's involvement in this. You were right indeed - arguably the most controversial section on the BP page, tar sands ("Canadian oil sands"), was written by a BP PR team and sits, as we speak, on the Wiki page without a BP copyright tag. The other reaction that was unanimous, from what I have observed, was a collective sadness. People were saddened to acknowledge that 'our' Wikipedia is not ours. The sadness comes from the fact that we want to believe this is a sacred place of truth, where spin is the enemy. We want to believe we can trust this online collection of knowledge - which is really us (or so we thought). People are left with a sickly feeling knowing that with enough money, corporate tentacles know absolutely no bounds. But sunlight is the best disinfectant. I want to predict that something very good will come of this. I believe it. I think it already has. At least, for this one small person. Thank you. petrarchan47tc 23:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC) Thanks for your note, Petra, and I'm really glad to hear that you're reconsidering your retirement. We need people who know all the details, but it does takes its toll on those individuals. Just make sure you put yourself first. All the best, SlimVirgin (talk) 02:10, 26 March 2013 (UTC) Sage advice, I'll take it. Best to you. petrarchan47tc 08:26, 27 March 2013 (UTC) BP lead in 2011 Ocaasi, the lead that Petra highlighted above does require explanation. Just to be clear: this was when you and Rangoon11 were writing the article in 2010 and 2011, before Arturo at BP arrived in 2012. The three key sentences are: BP's track record of corporate social responsibility has been mixed. The company has been involved in a number of major environmental and safety incidents and received criticism for its political influence. However in 1997 it was the first major oil company to publicly acknowledge the need to take steps against climate change, and in that year established a company-wide target to reduce its emissions of greenhouse gases. This is a pretty clear violation of WP:LEAD, which says that "prominent controversies" must be included. The reason for that rule is that a lot of readers only read the lead, so it's meant to be a stand-alone summary of the article. Anyone reading the lead alone should come away with a clear idea of the article's main issues. But this lead failed to mention, for example, the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill, the largest environmental disaster in the United States, and the criminal proceedings BP was facing as a consequence; the earlier Prudhoe Bay oil spill in 2006, for which BP was fined US$20 million; and the Texas City Refinery explosion in 2005, which killed 15 workers, injured 170 others, over which BP faced criminal charges. The sentence saying that BP's track record has been "mixed" was added by you in January 2011. [6] I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a source that says its record is mixed. For overviews, see for example: The New York Times, "For BP, a History of Spills and Safety Lapses", May 8, 2010. The New York Times, "In BP’s Record, a History of Boldness and Costly Blunders", July 12, 2010. Martin Smith and Abrahm Lustgarten for PBS/Pro Publica, The Spill, October 2012, which catalogues the allegedly poor safety and environmental record and the reasons for it. The second sentence, "The company has been involved in a number of major environmental and safety incidents .." was added by you in the same diff. The third sentence – "However in 1997 ..." – was added by Rangoon in February 2011. [7] These edits meant there were more words in the lead about BP acknowledging climate change, than about the environmental disasters for which it faced criminal charges. Petra tried to challenge this, and was forced to go through this discussion on the dispute-resolution board (scroll up to BP; the link is jumping for some reason), though anyone adhering to LEAD would have known that the prominent controversies needed to be added, with links to the relevant sub-articles. Editors wanting the policies and guidelines to be adhered to shouldn't have to jump through hoops the way Petra was forced to. I'd appreciate hearing your perspective on this. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:10, 21 March 2013 (UTC) My perspective that this edit I made got closer to what WP:LEAD suggests. Editing is an iterative process and not every edit ends on the right solution. I have no doubt that Deepwater Horizon should be mentioned in the lead, but crafting a lead was a second priority to organizing the article itself, which is necessary to do so that the lead reflects the body. My primary work on the BP article, as I said before, was that reorganization. It's also taken thousands of edits to get a better conception of how WP:DUE impacts WP:NPOV, and I accept that my 2011 work was probably a less sophisticated reflection of that. I think a more constructive activity than digging through old diffs would be to go and evaluate, criticize, improve the content at the current article. I get the feeling there's a bit of a prosecution going on, and I think it's going down the wrong path. Better to acknowledge the controversy, and work to improve the article as well as our processes around these situations... I don't claim to have acted perfectly, but my work on BP in 2011 was soundly with the intent of keeping balance at an extremely contentious article. In short, if you think it could be done better, please, go make that suggestion. The article is very much a work in progress, as am I. Ocaasi t | c 21:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC) What you say about your 2011 edits not necessarily being the edits you would make today is a very fair point. Learning how the polices interact with the realities of actual editing involves a steep learning curve, and I find I'm learning myself all the time even though I've been doing it for years. So I completely accept what you say about that. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:00, 21 March 2013 (UTC) Did you realize that ... About 40% of Wikipedia's article on BP (British Petroleum) was written by a BP employee, and the the source of this text is not disclosed to our readers? BP was also the source of the horrific Deepwater Horizon oil spill. It recently pleaded guilty to lying to Congress and to lying to its own investors, but those facts are not included in the article, nor is there anything in the article about BP misleading our readers. If you'd like to know why independent editors are leaving Wikipedia, please read User talk:Slim Virgin#Re: BP <Retired> (hope you don't mind a little extra trafic on your user page) Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:20, 21 March 2013 (UTC) Well, I just read the article and found this text: "On 14 November 2012, BP and the Department of Justice reached a $4.5 billion settlement, the largest of its kind in U.S. history. BP also agreed to plead guilty to 11 felony counts related to the deaths of the 11 workers. Beyond the 11 counts of manslaughter, the government charged several individuals as well. David Rainey, who worked for BP during the spill response, was indicted on charges of obstruction of Congress and false statements. He alledegedly cherry-picked pages from some documents and withheld others "to make the spill appear less catastrophic than it was.” Two other BP supervisors on board the rig when it exploded were charged with manslaughter and other counts[16][17] The settlement has not resolved the fines under the Clean Water Act, which could be as much as $21 billion.[17] Speaking at a news conference, a U.S. federal official said, “The explosion of the rig was a disaster that resulted from BP’s culture of privileging profit over prudence.” The total amount paid out by BP by November 2012 was $42 billion.[287][18] In November 2012, the U.S. Government temporarily banned BP from bidding any new federal contracts.[288][18] Estimates of the total amount of penalties that BP may be required to pay have reached as high as $90 billion.[289]" So, I am not sure what Smallbones is saying is lacking in the article. It also links to four additional articles about the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, including the one Smallbones linked. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:31, 21 March 2013 (UTC) The above quote says that one BP employee was indicted for lying to Congress. It doesn't say that BP itself pleaded guilty to lying to Congress (that's part of the $4 billion fine). It doesn't say that separately BP pleaded guilty to lying to its investors in the SEC case ($525 million fine). Smallbones(smalltalk) 13:12, 21 March 2013 (UTC) Thanks Thanks for your advocacy on the issue of conflict of interest in the BP article. The attitude that Wikipedians hold toward conflicts of interest always amazes me. I can't imagine any serious, reputable reference work or encyclopedia that would be comfortable with a BP public-relations employee having a role in drafting its coverage of the subject - a role undisclosed to the casual reader. That should be an immediate non-starter. People seem to feel that the conflict is a non-issue because the edits are filtered through a handful of pseudonymous Wikipedians - an approach which hardly inspires any sort of confidence. I think that part of the problem is that very few Wikipedians have any exposure to or understanding of how reputable publishing works, and how seriously and carefully reputable publishers approach editorial conflicts of interest. I also think that many Wikipedians view themselves as incorruptible arbiters, smarter than the PR people trying to manipulate our coverage. Of course, that just makes them easier marks, like physicians who don't think that free lunches and basketball tickets affect their prescribing habits. The central asset of any published work is its credibility, and I think we're really squandering our credibility in a very short-sighted way here. I appreciate you standing up for a serious, mature, and sensible approach to conflicts of interest, but (as I'm sure you know better than I) it's going to be a lonely and probably unsuccessful road. Wikipedia's approach to conflicts of interest is stuck where the scholarly literature was 20 years ago - we pretend that our existing editorial process is sufficient to handle COIs, just as the journals assumed that their peer-review mechanisms were sufficient to catch out biased or unsound submissions. Those journals learned a hard lesson, largely at the hands of the tobacco industry, and now any reputable publisher requires an honest disclosure of conflicts of interest in addition to the standard editorial/peer-review process. I don't see Wikipedia getting there anytime soon - our community and editorial standards seem to be mired in a race to the bottom at present - but I do appreciate your efforts to articulate that this is a real problem and a real threat to this site's credibility, even if people inside the bubble here are never going to understand why. MastCell Talk 22:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC) Thank you, MastCell, your comment means a lot to me. I've been feeling like Alice in Through the Looking Glass for the last 24 hours. I've just posted this to the BP talk page, to try to show how absurd it would be for any reputable publication to do what we're doing. But some Wikipedians genuinely believe that we can handle COI better than the most reputable academic journals and newspapers are able to. It will destroy our credibility, and I couldn't honestly argue that we deserve any if this is the attitude. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:59, 21 March 2013 (UTC) Yeah, I did try to articulate my concerns here, but without much success. I don't come to Wikipedia expecting much in the way of serious discussion, but the thoughtless, knee-jerk quality of many of the responses was particularly depressing. I don't want to romanticize the old days, because there were a lot of problems... but at least it seemed like there was a shared goal of a serious, respectable reference work. These days, if you try to discuss what we need to do to create a credible, reputable reference work, people treat you like you have three heads or something. I've come to feel increasingly out of step with the dominant ethos here, which means it's probably time to shuffle off into the sunset. Anyhow, I appreciate your efforts, and rest assured that you're on the right side of the looking glass. MastCell Talk 03:47, 22 March 2013 (UTC) Yes thanks for taking this up SlimVirgin. If there's anyone who can get any traction on this it's you. Yes the response is frustrating and puzzling. I guess one factor is that there are a lot libertarians here, probably. This is kind of a crisis for the idea of an encyclopedia written and run by volunteers. Herostratus (talk) 05:47, 22 March 2013 (UTC) Let's hope that the current situation represents one position of the pendulum, which will swing towards sanity in due course. I have been too busy to follow BP, but I noticed a spectacularly uninformed comment directed at SV on Talk:BP and couldn't resist getting slightly drawn in. One complicating factor is that it appears (from a very quick look) that some of those opposing the COI have been inappropriately pushing a "BP is bad" line, or have been too vociferous in their approach with some of their complaints being found to have flaws when inspected. An unlikely group of editors has gathered to resist the flawed complaints, but they can't hear anything from outside the echo chamber. Johnuniq (talk) 07:33, 22 March 2013 (UTC) Our article on transcendental meditation is now written more or less exclusively by members of this small religious movement as arbcom indefinately banned User:Will Beback one of the few independent editors in this topic area as he spoke out about COI. They have refused to allow him to return to editing for reasons discussed behind closed doors. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC) John: you are right; the current complainants aren't making a compelling case. Anyone whose argument involves demonizing the BP editor are unlikely to succeed - he has done a fine job of following existing policy. We have many severe instances of COI that go unrecognized; this one is quite minor in contrast, in part thanks to all of the transparent self-identification, but has a spotlight on it. We do need a better process for reviewing & handling long-form suggestions / proposed edits. James: Bonus points for using Will's case in context. It can be hard to quantify or grapple with the relevance of COI for specific contributions, or recognize long-term impacts of shifts in process towards enabling / discouraging COI. Some of the larger questions are "how can we move towards having great balanced articles in this topic" (whether it's TM or supermajor oil firms), and "what behavior are we encouraging / preventing / hiding" and "what sort of community of practice are we building". Since many of the people involved with the BP article are easy to work with, better solutions can be easily tested out - a luxury we rarely have with flame wars. – SJ + 05:05, 23 March 2013 (UTC) Ghostwriting I think you nailed it. I've added some suggestions to the talk page of the essay, as you requested. Coretheapple (talk) 22:00, 31 March 2013 (UTC) Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest This is perhaps the most important issue facing WP. But...there is just tooo much chatter. and cross-talk. It can't be helped, I know, and its what we editors do to move forward, but active participation is difficult and time-consuming. Somewhere, an editor questions your comment that involvement with this issue and the many many many articles is burdensome. His request for you to prove your statement is at an example of the problem. From what I see at BP and Chevron, delaying tactics are the rule of the day...unless it comes from corporate. I"m not sure where to "plug in". I'm only willing to give a certain portion of my "sweat and tears" to this "battle". My focus in this and related matters is "Our reader". From what I have read, yours is the same. Thanks for all you do. ```Buster Seven Talk 15:57, 2 April 2013 (UTC) (talk page stalker)Hey guys. Maybe it is inappropriate for me to comment (well so what), but here is what I would suggest. There are some cases where a PR person's self-written controversy is obviously better: If the current content is so awful, almost anything would be more neutral than the current If the controversy is not currently covered and the PR person is adding it If a subject-matter expert volunteer is involved that has enough knowledge to judge it If the current controversy is "ok" and the PR person is just micro-managing language and such, something like this would be appropriate: "Thank you for disclosing and using the Talk page, but the truth is it makes me uncomfortable to post content written by big oil regarding a major oil spill and it's impossible for me to assess whether any content is neutral without doing enough research such that I might as well write it myself. The current article content looks "ok." What I would suggest is that you point out specific errors, problems, or missing facts, etc. to help us improve the page." Focus on telling the PR person what you want them to do, rather than what they are asking for. CorporateM (Talk) 17:16, 6 April 2013 (UTC) Hi Buster, just a note to say sorry for taking so long to reply. I saw your post and decided to reply the next day – I find the COI discussions so discouraging that I have to limit how much time I spend on them – then I just forgot about it. Anyway, thank you for your post and I agree completely about the focus needing to be the reader. CM, I've tried doing what you suggest, but the corporate person will simply ignore questions that might divert them. They arrive saying "I'm here because the article is full of errors," but when asked for examples they don't respond – because the aim is to remove criticism or have their words added to the article, not to correct errors (or not only). If there is anyone else on the page willing to help them, that editor becomes the focus of the corporate person's attention – accompanied by personal notes on user talk ("Thank you so much for your help at ... Would you mind adding my suggestion now?") – while the editor asking for a list of the mistakes is left talking to himself. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:12, 9 April 2013 (UTC) I'll second your comment that COI discussions are discouraging and not worth a lot of time. I had to take a short wikibreak and not dealing with that issue, and with COI articles like BP, was pleasant. Wikipedia opens its gates to the PR industry and it doesn't seem that anything can be done about it. Coretheapple (talk) 16:53, 11 April 2013 (UTC) I'm a bit of a Harvestor (even in real life). Ive gathered a bunch of this and that related to Paid Operatives (Political Paid Editors during the last two POTUS campaigns). Its like a closest full of stuff that may have some use for someone. If you know of the whereabouts of some great composite stimulating statement related to any of the Paid To Edit Problems, feel free to add it anywhere. Its here: Wikipedia:Paid operatives. ```Buster Seven Talk 16:49, 28 April 2013 (UTC) Sponsored editing Hey Slim. A while back you mentioned an idea along the lines of what I call "sponsored editing" and we had a discussion on my Talk page. For some reason it bubbled up today and I was wondering if your ever posted it on the Idea Lab or anything. CorporateM (Talk) 18:15, 24 April 2013 (UTC) Hi CM, no I didn't pursue it, but I'm still interested in it. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:34, 24 April 2013 (UTC) I still think most companies wouldn't go for it, but I feel the option should exist and it should be something available through official channels. I think it would need to be a little more middled though. Provide the client with an up-front consultation and an after-the-fact opportunity to request corrections or challenge content. Why not Idea Lab it and see what comes out? CorporateM (Talk) 17:16, 25 April 2013 (UTC) I may consider doing that, though it couldn't be a Wikipedia thing as such. It would have to be run either by the Foundation or by an external, neutral body. But yes, maybe it's worth opening it up for general input. For anyone reading this, this is the outline of the idea. Basically that, if there has to be paid editing, there be an independent body that the companies would pay, then that body would pay a Wikipedian from a maintained list of editors with a proven track record of good editing. The independent body would require the Wikipedian to edit in accordance with the content policies, not in accordance with the company's wishes (which would not be ignored, but would also not hold sway). What the company would get out of it would be a well-written article. It wouldn't work for companies that only want a whitewash, but there are other companies/groups that it might work for. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:12, 26 April 2013 (UTC) I don't see WMF being able to broker it, as it would create controversy for them and COI problems. An independent organization might work. But then it's basically just a community-endorsed Wikipedia consulting vendor that outsources to individual editors. It would probably have to be independent, as it would need to be selective about which editors to hire for the work and this is too counter to how Wikipedia works to be on-Wiki. But the other side of that is the whole point of it would be to have an official channel and I would just see this creating problems down the road. CorporateM (Talk) 02:39, 26 April 2013 (UTC) I can see some problems cropping up with this proposed approach. Companies with existing articles are going to want to deal with negative content in 99% of cases. Let's say I'm Company X and I don't like the slant of my article. So I go through this intermediary to resolve the issue. The intermediary approaches a fine, upstanding editor who tackles it. OK. But what if there isn't a problem? What if the article is all right as is, and the requested changes would tilt the POV int he company's favor? Now, let's say I'm an independent editor who thinks the article is OK as is. Now I have a fine, upstanding editor being paid to slant the article in the company's favor. A POV problem is created where none previously exists. The fact that the editor is experienced will just mean that it is harder to deal with that editor, and he is more likely to prevail if there is some conflict and I go to a noticeboard or RfC. Other editors will say, "Pristine Editor Z edited this article so obviously he or she did a great job." I don't see this helping the situation but actually making it worse. As for new articles being created, having an arrangement like this slants Wikipedia by giving the edge to companies that pay for content. What about their competitors that don't pay for content? Is that fair to them, their customers, employees and above all the public? They may be more worthy of inclusion in wikipedia. It would give Wikipedia an institutional bias in favor of companies that are image-oriented enough to pay for inclusion. Coretheapple (talk) 14:26, 26 April 2013 (UTC) Yes, that is the problem. Wherever you have paid editors creating extra work for volunteers, it's unfair, even if the paid editor has been paid independently, is observing NPOV, etc. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:23, 27 April 2013 (UTC) This argument has come up a few times that it's unfair that companies that pay for Wikipedia services have higher quality articles. I would suggest the opposite - it's unfair that some must pay while others get articles for free ;-) But there is the other problem that exists no matter what. I turn down 75% of new business inquiries because the desired outcome is too out-of-step with what Wikipedia wants. This means to do Wikipedia consulting well/ethically, one must accept a 75 percent pay-cut. This financial temptation would be even stronger among volunteers that are often desperate for cash. This is really what it comes down to is in order to do it well, you must not care about money, which is not a common trait... CorporateM (Talk) 16:52, 26 April 2013 (UTC) I would rather see articles on companies than on the umpteenth permutation of a video game, so I sympathize. I think that the long-term solution is to bring in more adults, more retired people perhaps. No disrespect intended to the teeny-boppers, but there are too many of them. Coretheapple (talk) 17:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC) ...and there's no question that was coverage of companies out there is not very good. I just wandered by Swingline, as that is a company I am familiar with, as is anybody who has ever used a stapler. I was curious to see what kind of article there is on that. To my horror, I found that over half of the article consists of an "in popular culture" section consisting of absurdly unimportant trivia. That is what happens when you have an encyclopedia written by anonymous teenagers. But is the solution for Swingline to hire somebody to improve the article? No, I think that people like me have that burden. Coretheapple (talk) 17:31, 26 April 2013 (UTC) I see it as not enough editors from the business world, which often turns Wikipedia into a sort of consumer advocacy and popular culture site. At Wikimania there were several discussions on needing editors with more diverse genders, cultures, interests, etc. but the need to better cover business topics was neglected. I do what I can in this area. I've been neglecting the article on public relations, which I'm slowly but surely progressing on through its history. CorporateM (Talk) 18:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC) That would be the advantage of aiming for older editors. Many, even most have some business background. Coretheapple (talk) 18:21, 26 April 2013 (UTC) I would rather have shitty stapler articles filled with fluff than what we have now: BP writing their own Tar Sands section while the loudest and topmost Wikipediacs defend this practice as if its existence means an end to world hunger. petrarchan47tc 19:54, 26 April 2013 (UTC) Re SlimVirgin's proposal, it looks like the only way to counter paid editing is with paid editors. There is not enough support in the already stressed and dwindling independent, volunteer editing community. petrarchan47tc 21:15, 27 April 2013 (UTC) The more paid editors we have, the fewer volunteers we will attract, because people are not going to work for free to monitor and fix the work of people who are paid. Volunteers will sometimes do it (for example, when something really absurd has happened, as at BP), but for the most part volunteers will drift away as paid editors arrive. That just seems so obvious I'm amazed that the Wikimedia Foundation doesn't consider paid editing to be an emergency. So one of two things has to happen: either we ban paid editing in all its forms, or we try to introduce a system of payment for established Wikipedians (not fly-by-nights, not company reps) via an independent body, who will act as a firebreak between the payer and the payee, and who will ensure that the payee acts in the interests of Wikipedia. I envisage a process where Wikipedians can apply for "paid editor status," just as they do for adminship. They would need to show, say, 10,000 non-minor article edits, familiarity with the content policies, at least six GAs or three FAs, etc. Then, when a company wants an article, they apply to the independent body, that body posts on a noticeboard that company X wants 2,000 words; the payment is Y; then people with "paid editor status" would apply openly for the job. The independent body would choose which editor to give the assignment to. I think this could work well, except for two major issues: (a) it would not suit companies that wanted a whitewash, and that might be a large percentage of potential clients; and (b) it would give the editor with "paid editor status" a degree of ownership over the article in question, whereby volunteers either felt they should not intervene, or would feel resentful if forced to, and that takes us back to square one: the problem of the paid and the unpaid having to work together. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:33, 27 April 2013 (UTC) I agree with SlimVirgin. There are so many pitfalls to establishing a neutral paid editing system that really there is no alternative but to rethink the COI guidelines and to ban all paid editing. Coretheapple (talk) 21:55, 27 April 2013 (UTC) Ban paid editing: not an option or a solution, imo. Declared COI/paid editing is not actually the problem - it's their undeclared 'helpers' (the ones we, by law, aren't allowed to discuss) that are the issue. People have said, "If we ban COI editing, it will not disappear but be forced underground". Anyone who's been around knows there is already a well-established underground system in place, existing to support PR. It is this we need to address ASAP. As you can see, the 2011 BP Intro sounds exactly like the writing from current BP drafts, yet it was done a year before an admitted presence. (There is also the fact that BP had used the OTRS ticket system to get help with the page in 2011, but editors were not informed of this, to my knowledge.) petrarchan47tc 22:36, 27 April 2013 (UTC) My suspicion is that the support of PR is ideological/behavioral in nature, and has less to do with remuneration than with immaturity, lack of experience, cluelessness, and in some cases with a political belief system. Given the limitations of the Wikipedia system, I think that we can go nuts if we try to deal with all the undeclared issues amongst editors. However, I do think that more can and should be done to see to it that the BP article's editing practices are exposed to public scrutiny. Coretheapple (talk) 22:50, 27 April 2013 (UTC) It's obvious that there are some paid editors helping the company reps, though I think with others it's just a misguided sense of fairness, or a certain political ideology. But what can be done? We don't really want a situation where editors are running around "investigating" each other. It does make for a toxic editing environment, and it's often unfair. On the other hand, it's absurd that we have to pretend not to notice when all someone's contribs are pro-company edits. People have grappled with this for years, the tension between the outing policy and the COI guideline. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:49, 27 April 2013 (UTC) One thing, it is already a toxic situation. And the avenues (noticeboards, etc) I was given to deal with the unfair editing practices at the BP page required me to "investigate" editors. I had to bring diffs; it was almost like a court case in terms of the effort I put out, but there was no judge and no outcome. Just a wasted summer. petrarchan47tc 23:04, 27 April 2013 (UTC) I just wanted to interject a quick request. Are there any "diffs" you can give me of some of your past efforts? I'm just curious to know what has happened in the past, as a guide for what, if anything, can be done in the future. Coretheapple (talk) 14:40, 28 April 2013 (UTC) Start here petrarchan47tc 18:44, 28 April 2013 (UTC) Another thing, when I said only paid editors can combat the PR pros, I was referring to editors who went through the process you described: elected and paid specifically to help COI needs whilst maintaining a balanced article. Do we have a word for the overall issue at hand that includes PR, paid editors, ghostwriting, CREWE, etc? It would help if we clearly established what exactly we're addressing and to give it a name. petrarchan47tc 00:38, 28 April 2013 (UTC) Break 1 Could we address bite-sized pieces of this issue while simultaneously looking at the overall problem? For instance, I think the BP article, with a full-time professional presence, requires someone full-time to represent balance. It's falling on the shoulders of 3-5 (very part-time) indies and we are overwhelmed. In the past week, I have been encouraged to make Arturo's requested changes, and have done so three times. But the independent requests are either ignored or turn into a big argument with no editing taking place. And the indies (except Core) seem to agree that Arturo's requests come first and should be dealt with promptly. No one complains when the "Florida becomes fourth state to sue BP" update request sits on the talk page. I think there is a Pavlovian response that stops me in my tracks when faced with the idea of adding something BP wouldn't like to 'their' article. I'm probably not alone, even though we have articles like this and this coming out, no one is touching the BP oil spill section, which has only one sentence about environmental or human health damage (three paras about court cases, though) and though I requested help weeks ago, it has garnered only arguments and then crickets. Given the fact that BP is really still in recovery mode, struggling to bring their stock value back up, in court as we speak, being sued left and right, and using their unlimited resources for PR - Wikipedia really should have a full-time helper on that page, even if it doesn't have one anywhere else (yet). This could be argued based on common sense expectations that the company might want to make their Wiki article sweeter than it should be, as well as the history and problems we've been revealing here. Is it possible to consider this case by itself and not wait until we've solved the entire problem and implemented system-wide change? petrarchan47tc 02:29, 28 April 2013 (UTC) That point you make about the Pavlovian response is really crucial. A lot of people feel that way (out of politeness, a sense of having to heed authority, etc), so that the company effectively takes control of the page simply by arriving there. I wonder whether a queue system could be introduced on the BP page, so that requests and concerns (from anyone) are dealt with in order and the BP rep's concerns aren't prioritized. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:59, 28 April 2013 (UTC) There is a very palpable feeling when making an edit to that page approved or requested by the BP team - it feels good. The same is true when making one that assuredly causes suits to grumble and moan - it feels wretched. So does the debate that follows. // The idea of list is quite sensible. People will argue we must rate the requests by importance, they shouldn't be treated equally, but I think we can aim for progress over perfection just to get things moving. petrarchan47tc 19:08, 28 April 2013 (UTC) It's funny you should mention it, but I react in precisely the opposite way. Seeing requests from BP's corporate editor gets my hackles up unless they involve outright inaccuracies. Of all the posts on the talk page that I have seen from that editor, only his most recent one deals with something that isn't inaccurate. The remainder, for the most part, are either routine numbers that need updating but are not inaccurate, and efforts to spin. Coretheapple (talk) 19:40, 28 April 2013 (UTC) The truth is, I have Stockholm syndrome at this point. Just one read of the noticeboard i pointed you to earlier should give you a hint as to how that could come about. You are new and fresh, but I am changed after a year of hassle at that page. I don't even have the guts to update related pages with info BP wouldn't like, because the same editors follow me and bring friends to erase my work. Gandy has retreated to his/her garden; it wears us down after a period of time. I am very grateful to SlimVirgin for the work she has done to 'out' this situation, and I'm very grateful her work brought you and Buster to help! We couldn't do it without new, fresh peeps like you. petrarchan47tc 04:28, 29 April 2013 (UTC) How about this: an ongoing "BP documentation project." A user subpage somewhere in which editing of the page, and obstruction of edits that don't show BP in a favorable light, are chronicled on an ongoing basis? Having that in one place, along with a to-do list for the article and other BP articles, might help keep us volunteers, with our disjointed schedules and limited time, on track. Of course, being independent, not everyone is going to agree with edits that are and are not "constructive." But at least we have a central place, other than the talk page and article history, to track the progress of the BP articles. Coretheapple (talk) 14:45, 28 April 2013 (UTC) The Case Study - indeed! But I still am convinced this particular page needs a full time paid balance-advocate. Just look at all of this energy on our part to counteract the work of folks making possibly 100K$ for this? petrarchan47tc 18:44, 28 April 2013 (UTC) Would it make sense to contact whichever real-life groups monitor BP (Greenpeace?) and explain what is happening. They might be willing to allow one of their knowledgeable people to monitor the article and talk-page, and to check anything the BP rep has suggested adding or removing. We could ask that they don't edit the article, but stick to helping out on talk. That would take some of the pressure off volunteers. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:51, 28 April 2013 (UTC) Yes, that is the other option. It would require though, an organized effort on the part of Wiki to provide these supports when they OK a paid editor to a page, imo. For BP, I think it would require an independent environmental group that is well-funded (but, for instance, Sierra Club takes millions from BP, so 'independent' can't be assumed) and knowledgeable about all aspects of BP's record, or willing to pay someone to spend the time investigating. But what would that group have to gain? They're using donations to fight against corporate spin on Wikipedia? It doesn't seem like it would be a priority for any group I can think of. Also, the BP page would require someone like Greg Palast. This help would require incentive and I don't see what that would be. Let's keep thinking on this. As for any groups or people monitoring on BP, I'm unaware of any we could expect to help us. petrarchan47tc 19:04, 28 April 2013 (UTC) I think contacting Greenpeace is a very good idea. So is the idea of a paid editor counteracting BP and other corporate spin efforts over the long term, but reaching out to Greenpeace is something that can be done right away. I'm interested in getting your opinion of the "BP Documentation Project," which Buster has created and which I have recently added the first entries. See User:Buster7/Sandbox -BPDP. SlimVirgin, does creating such a page fall afoul of any of the numerous rules that govern Wikipedia? I thought it would be nice to have a kind of ongoing "journal" that editors can use to record the editing drama on that page and on the other BP-related pages. Coretheapple (talk) 19:26, 28 April 2013 (UTC) What I often do when I'm stumbling over something on WP is write to academics who've taken an interest in the subject. They're invariably helpful, though I've only ever asked for sources, rather than active input. But if people were to write to the top journalists who've followed BP, and any academics and lawyers who are monitoring the company, and ask who might be willing to act as a counterbalance on that page, they might suggest some names. I can't see how Buster7's page would break any rules. It makes sense to have a central location like that. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:55, 28 April 2013 (UTC) Great, and that's a good idea about experts. The Buster page is really a kind of interim solution, as is the idea of having a to-do list. There needs to be more communication among editors whose sole goal in life isn't to make BP look good. I think people tend to focus on very specific things in dealing with a complex subject. I was focusing totally on the alternate energy section, and was really shocked by how it read like a BP press release, how its sourcing consisted of BP press releases, and how it omitted references to the "greenwashing" concerns. I was so focused on that, I didn't notice the real elephant in the room, the real issue on the BP page, which P pointed out to me: the fact that the section on the Gulf oil spill is shockingly skimpy. So I put an "expansion needed" tag on that section and you can see the comedy that followed, which I just delineated in the BP documentation project. Coretheapple (talk) 20:06, 28 April 2013 (UTC) I can suggest some names, give me a bit of time (Greenpeace is focused on the Arctic and was never really interested in the Gulf or BP, to my knowledge). Once we did get help, we still need the full-time editors for support, like the helpers BP finds itself lucky enough to have. Buster, Core, Gandy, Bink and I together are still only worth a part-time helper of that caliber. The editors I'm speaking of don't take days off and fight dirty (ie, they don't necessarily play by the rules, play cheap attack games and are very well connected). petrarchan47tc 21:25, 28 April 2013 (UTC) That's for sure. That's why keeping a written record of game-playing and hewing strictly to the rules on our part is very important. Coretheapple (talk) 23:53, 28 April 2013 (UTC) How about this for a laugh: BP is guarded by an employee who is supposedly on the hunt for factual errors. Yet the article said there are three "main business segments" when there are actually two, and that error was allowed to exist even though it was contradicted by the annual report, because it put BP in a favorable light. The article said that alternative energy is a "main business segment." It is not. [8] Coretheapple (talk) 15:04, 29 April 2013 (UTC) It's a great example of how badly the article needs to be combed-through after a couple years' worth of corporate editing. Does Wikipedia have a program setup to help with such an analysis, or do we do this with our free time? Oh never mind, I know. petrarchan47tc 19:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC) A tiny section on "accusations of market manipulation" should really have been a substantial section on the ongoing regulatory proceedings (some of which have resulted in acknowledgments of guilt) that BP has been found in. The whole article is a mess. I think some of the damage may have been wrought by a certain editor who materialized recently and held himself out as a "mediator" even as he decapitated the sections of the article less friendly to BP. I'm in a flurry of activity now but I have let work slide and probably will be absenting myself soon. I hope you guys can keep it from being re-decapitated. Coretheapple (talk) 19:58, 29 April 2013 (UTC) We need you full time! I am also about to be called back to work. This is why indies cannot be expected to maintain balance on corporate controlled articles. Even if we found willing helpers from advocacy groups, they would still need the type of editing help you are doing now - and that help needs to be as full-time as Beagle and Arturo. Otherwise, the article will remain a mess. And yes, that last editor did a number on the page, and deserved the "shill" remark. So, we need an Arturo-from-Greenpeace, and we need a CREWE team, all organized and well-connected within Wikipedia just like the corporate side has, in order to maintain a proper encyclopedic article. But I don't see enough energy behind this idea to get it started. Only a few of us seem to acknowledge a problem. That's a problem. petrarchan47tc 20:16, 29 April 2013 (UTC) And, it turns out, all of your work was reverted for being "crude attack content" - the exact claims made against me in the very beginning by this same editor. petrarchan47tc 20:47, 29 April 2013 (UTC) That's correct, and in the process restored a major inaccuracy, proving that he either didn't read the talk page or didn't care. Lamentably I am not going to be able to edit this article for a few days, and also, re this latest vandalism, I am unclear if I at this point would run into the anti-reversion rule. This was expected, and will demonstrate whether it possible to have a meaningful page or one that is essentially dictated by BP and by people with a clear involvement in the petroleum industry. Coretheapple (talk) 20:50, 29 April 2013 (UTC) So, once we have shown that clearly (I'm not sure how much clear it could be), actions need to be taken against tendentious editing/editors. I hear there are processes, once a solid case is made, to deal with this. Maybe SlimVirgin can guide us in this respect? petrarchan47tc 21:01, 29 April 2013 (UTC) The edits by that editor are tantamount to vandalism, but I am out of reverts for the day on that article. He has a lengthy block record, I see. Coretheapple (talk) 21:11, 29 April 2013 (UTC) Break 2 The way to address these issues is by attracting fresh eyes, and the best way to do that is with RfCs. I've posted one about the template. Cut the remaining issues into bite-sized chunks, where you can ask a clear question ("Should the article say X, should it include Y?") and post a series of RfCs. But try not to do too many at once or people may get fed up. It's better to take the attitude that there's no deadline, and be willing to work on this more slowly over a longer period. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:21, 29 April 2013 (UTC) Yes, that's a good idea. I had actually considered starting one on that navbox myself. Well, now you can see for yourself what the editors on that page have had to put up with over a period of many months. That's the kind of behavior that has driven them away. Coretheapple (talk) 21:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC) That may be a main point behind the behaviour: to drive those seeking balance away from the page and even from Wikipedia. petrarchan47tc 21:41, 29 April 2013 (UTC) Rangoon is often a very determined editor in this regard. I added the book Bad Pharma to Template:Pharmaceutical and biotechnology industry in the United Kingdom. He removed it, so I started an RfC, during which he argued that the book had nothing to do with the pharmaceutical industry in the UK (though it clearly does), but also acknowledged that he hadn't read it; I suggested that even a quick flick through one in a book store would show him that a lot of it was about the UK. In the end the consensus was to add it. I found out months later that he had then hidden the template on some of the articles it was being used on, by adding another template that had a show/hide parameter for the templates embedded within it. Also, he almost always engages in wholesale reverting, no matter how much text ends up being lost. I experienced similar issues with him at GlaxoSmithKline. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:46, 29 April 2013 (UTC) He appears to be in breach of the three-revert rule with his latest flurry of edits. Coretheapple (talk) 21:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC) She (gender was revealed in ANI records) has been called out for tendentious editing since day 1, which was for some large, UK-based private school. From a quick glance at the GSK article talk page a while back, it appeared her editing behaviour is exactly the same there and on the BP page. SlimVirgin, are there ways in which Wikipedia can deal with this so that future editors don't have to waste a whole afternoon dealing with what's already been proven to be a POV editor? petrarchan47tc 21:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC) Yes, he has violated 3RR. Best way forward is to let him know on his talk page, invite him to revert himself, and then (assuming he doesn't and that you want to pursue it) file a report at WP:AN/3RR. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC) Someone beat me to it. Coretheapple (talk) 21:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC) Is there a diff for that? I'm unaware of this. petrarchan47tc 22:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC) Yes, see [9]. I actually am not at three reverts myself, so I could undue him, but I hesitate to heat up the situation more. He or she really should revert him or herself. If not, I guess then someone can blow the whistle. I went to the edit warring board and frankly was dizzied by the procedures involved. Coretheapple (talk) 22:20, 29 April 2013 (UTC) Exactly, and a point I brought up earlier, those noticeboards are geared for folks who already know how to play Wiki. Luckily, beloved Binksternet , does. petrarchan47tc 22:22, 29 April 2013 (UTC) He has been reported to AN/3RR; see here. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:21, 29 April 2013 (UTC) He is apparently back as a very obvious sock, here. petrarchan47tc 20:12, 11 May 2013 (UTC) And here petrarchan47tc 18:52, 12 May 2013 (UTC) She sure is. She really does operate in her own world where she believes that others are totally clueless to what she is up to, doesn't she? Actually it's one of the odd things I actually like about her--you'll never hear her whine or snivel. I really had a good laugh when she so easily and quickly said, "I'm sorry and I'll never do it again" to show that she understood her block, because you know that she has never in her entire (Wikipedia) life believed that anything that she ever did or said around here was anything less than 100% right and correct and thus nothing to ever apologize for. Which is not to say that she didn't say "sorry" in a New York minute and without a whim of conscience. Gandydancer (talk) 21:19, 11 May 2013 (UTC) What's not cute at all is that this is an obnoxious abuse of this encyclopedia, and of the editors, like Snow, who is trying to make reasonable improvements to the article, using the talk page, and is now being wrapped up in Rangoon's endless circular arguments (see IP). There is only one explanation for person who has an editing history such as this. The block should be permanent. petrarchan47tc 21:32, 11 May 2013 (UTC) The discussion with the BP corporate editor at [10] is interesting, as the BP editor essentially takes responsibility for drafting grossly misleading text that gave disproportionate emphasis to BP Alternative Energy, but then has the chutzpah to say to me, "I would appreciate it if you could be less quick to criticize other editors in this manner." Coretheapple (talk) 14:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC) Yes, it is. I would like to call attention to another example of the unfair dynamics when editing alongside a PR team. What to the naked eye might look like simple, uncontested additions suggested today, is actually missing a great deal of context. I happened to have all of the references listed elsewhere, so it wasn't too time-consuming, but this work would otherwise require immense research, really good connections or - more than likely - would not take place. It didn't take place with the tar sands section, that's for sure. That is hands-down BP's most hotly debated venture. The tar sands are the whole reason the Keystone XL is causing such an uproar, and the reason a top NASA researcher in charge of climate has just retired in order to protest this form of 'oil' extraction, saying that it is literally "game over for the climate". So to have BP writing their own assessment (the submitted draft covered the controversy with something like "The Cree nation doesn't like it") is heinous. The draft was submitted by Beagle, after arguing that Arturo had added too much information in his draft, and he then cut it in half, and it was added. (The original, longer version didn't have more content, just fluff.) These examples show the amount of work required to deal with a full-time PR presence, and the result there being no review. BP PR requests are coming in at an alarming rate these days and the whole dynamic is just wrong - it is the result of failed policy whose origins I wonder about daily. petrarchan47tc 23:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC) That's right, and the context you provided was extremely helpful, especially since it was placed in proximity to his sourcing suggestions. Note that when I initially came up with a couple of rather lame alternative suggestions, the BP p.r. man said they should be placed in a different discussion thread. BP has absolutely no right to make such a stricture in a discussion it starts on the talk page, and neither does any user. BP acts as if the company's sourcing recommendations are of a special class that need to be discussed separately. They are not. BP is quite forceful in pressing its agenda, I note. I think that editors need to be mindful of the fact that just because BP doesn't like a particularly aspect of the article doesn't mean that its feelings need to be assuaged. One thing I had forgotten myself in addressing BP's latest missive is that the company is involved in litigation concerning all of the sourcing provided. That is a special note of caution for editors on the page. Coretheapple (talk) 11:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC) Break 3 This needs a proper match. It is time to talk seriously about calling in a pro. I have names. What would you say, Slim Virgin? How did you envision this? Would they be asked to create an account perhaps, and then comment on the talk page in a similar way to the BP pr team? I think EPA whistleblower Hugh Kaufman and some enviro groups are needed asap. petrarchan47tc 01:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC) It depends on who you're thinking of approaching. If it's someone who is simply knowledgeable about these issues, they can create an account and edit like anyone else. If it's someone who has had real-life involvement or a dispute with BP, or who works for an organization that has, then it would be better if they were to stick to the talk page like the BP rep, per WP:COI. I don't see that they would need to give their real name, if that's what you're thinking, so long as they don't edit the article if they have a COI. What's important is that it be someone who could bring good sources to the table, rather than someone who would simply argue the issues. It wouldn't be good if the talk page were to turn into a battleground (more than it is already), with nothing but arguments back and forth. What is needed is someone who can say: "This is wrong, and here is a good source," or "this is not wrong, but it's slanted, so here is a better source." SlimVirgin (talk) 01:43, 7 May 2013 (UTC) Essentially what is needed is an Arturo for the 'other side'. Arturo brings not only arguments, but useable sources. If only arguments are brought forth, then it's WP:OR, in my understanding. (Beyond this single case, could we also be thinking of how to adopt this response for other articles with similar issues? So that we don't have to reinvent the wheel... ) No one I'm thinking of would need to hide their identity, nor do they have a COI issue like suing BP, to my knowledge. petrarchan47tc 23:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC) And by "Arturo", I mean team. petrarchan47tc 20:06, 8 May 2013 (UTC) The reaction on the BP talk page to mention of bringing in scientists or others to help counter the BP team was immediate and intense. Brand new people and old familiars (from the Jimbo talk page fiasco) showed up to 'vote' on how much to include about the BP oil spill. Some are now saying not to mention it AT ALL. Most are suggesting to mention just a little but nothing about the environmental effects, as 'that isn't about BP'. We didn't hear anyone suggest no environmental effects be mentioned until I announced help was on the way. In general, Wikipedia is very amenable to paid and pro-corporate editing, but our first attempt to respond in kind is met with suspicion and an onslaught of CREWE. petrarchan47tc 08:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC) I was away for a few days, and when I returned I noticed that a bunch of new faces were commenting in the "don't be dare be mean to dat wunnerful little company" vein. The situation has deteriorated to the point that one editor said that BP intervening to spring the Lockerbie bomber "has nothing to do with BP." That's the level of discourse we're dealing with there. Coretheapple (talk) 18:19, 14 May 2013 (UTC) If you at the first Violet Blue article, the same handle used to defend the release of the Lockerbie bomber is all over the comment section defending BP's involvement in writing its own encyclopedia entry. More importantly, how does CREWE pass the NPOV test when those editors have declared a POV: to support the paid editors and corporate spin, no matter what? Why doesn't that disqualify them as editors right off the bat? petrarchan47tc 18:48, 14 May 2013 (UTC) I have made it no secret that I believe that Silverseren's style of editing of corporate articles needs to be addressed. Given the fact that he inserted Arturo's Prudhoe Bay section into the article when only one editor had vetted it (and was still in the process of it at that!) and his later comment to Arturo to say not to worry, he would furnish any needed editors to push any further rewrites into the article, shouldn't the higher-ups be very concerned and taking measures to put an end to this sort of editing? How on earth can Wikipedia go on as though this was just a minor bump in the road and that all-in-all there is no cause for concern. If the BP article has not shown what dangerous waters we are now in I don't know what would. I remember that when this incident hit the national news one of the editors that hangs out on Jimbo's page called the BP editors "asleep at the wheel". Actually if anyone is asleep at the wheel it is Jimbo and his buddies. Gandydancer (talk) 19:25, 14 May 2013 (UTC) If that editor or any editor makes comments that are not constructive, that do little more than scold, then they are not worthy of anyone's time and should be ignored. I made roughly that point on the BP talk page. As for rewrites, I suspect that that era is over, and that now the resistance that we're seeing is to efforts to make the article neutral. The opposition to same seems to be based on the fallacious view that if an article is neutral it will read like a BP press release. That was the problem with the discussion of alternative energy: it was lifted from a misleading BP web page. Coretheapple (talk) 19:33, 14 May 2013 (UTC) The opposition... seems to be based on the fallacious view that if an article is neutral it will read like a BP press release. Golden. petrarchan47tc 20:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC) In reading through those comments in what is humorously referred to as the "talk" page, I came to the realization that the Deepwater Horizon oil spill really had no direct connection to BP after all. The oil dropped down from the sky one fine morning, and it didn't go into the Gulf of Mexico but bounced up and flew into outer space where it didn't hurt anybody. All that tar on the beaches was really molasses, and the darn fools in Louisiana could have used it to flavor their milk. Coretheapple (talk) 23:02, 14 May 2013 (UTC) 'What do you mean!??? It's HALLIBURTON'S oil spill. Go pick on someone else!' petrarchan47tc 21:07, 15 May 2013 (UTC) Two editors have made comments similar to the above recently. Slim, I've replied at my talk to your recent note. petrarchan47tc 00:55, 16 May 2013 (UTC) Break 4 Touching base... So here we are, trying to figure out how to best deal with the Wiki policies in place, and how to attain a neutral, informative article in the midst of a PR dept and its supporters. From my read of this page, the best idea was to play 'catch up', and attempt to match BP's resources by reaching out to independent experts for input. A look at the BP talk edit history shows that once this was mentioned (while not yet implemented), there was a panic which resulted immediately in an influx of brand-new editors on the page, including one who started an RfC about whether to include mention of the Gulf spill at all. People are treating these RfC's as if they are voting. This is not how RfC's or Wiki works from everything I have learned. Wikipedia doesn't mind and indeed celebrates PR input, claiming a more accurate article is the inevitable result. Jimbo assumed that editors would have the wherewithal to handle this imbalance without a problem. I mention Jimbo only because this issue was most actively discussed on his talk page. I believe his supportive response, not for the NPOV editors but for the PR supporters, has made this issue even more problematic as they have been given a green light. My interest isn't so much in what the BP page says ultimately, but rather that Wikipedia has an appropriate response ready for volunteer editors with limited time that can be used to deal with paid editors and their possible attempts to sway articles. At this point, I would say that Wikipedia cannot expect volunteer editors go out and find experts to match a PR dept on any given article. This is much more than contacting one expert for help with an article, it requires quite a few experts from various fields, a lot of time, work and organization. Also, the (supposedly) NPOV editors working on the article have to be just as happy to receive input from independent sources as from PR departments, but that is not the case by a long shot. I'm back to square one on this - if Wiki is going to leave the door open for paid editors, there must be an equal support system for independents - not only out of concern for those editors but also for the good of the encyclopedia. In my recent experience, I've learned that if there is the kind of involvement we see at BP, it requires an equal amount of involvement by volunteers. This doesn't make sense on its face: why would an indie want to dedicate the equivalent of a full-time job to one article, to counteract and bring into balance the work of someone being paid handsomely? This is a recipe for failure and that should have been obvious at the outset. It is certainly obvious at this point. (I still think something based on the OTRS ticket system is preferable to what is and has been taking place.) Essentially, we need help from Wikipedia itself. I am at a loss, Slim. petrarchan47tc 02:25, 16 May 2013 (UTC) If you want to pursue this with the Foundation, you could raise it on the central mailing list (see here; you would have to subscribe). There's also Dirk Franke's research, which the Foundation gave him a grant for; see here. That page is in German but you could contact him to find out what's in English. I agree that it's hard to see what can be done at the level of the English Wikipedia alone, given the lack of consensus or lack of volunteers willing to pursue it. Perhaps you could contact Dirk and find out how best to get involved, given that some of the issues you're wrestling with are being looked into by others. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC) I was under the impression that the Foundation was just an alter ego for Wales, and his reaction to the BP publicity was to try to get Violet Blue fired from CNet. Given his attitude, and that the PR industry is so well organized and the resistance to it is not, and is weak, I wonder if there is any point to pursuing this at a high level. Coretheapple (talk) 21:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC) No consensus Hi SlimVirgin, I wonder why you have moved Timeline of the Turks (500–1300) to Timeline of the Turkic peoples (500–1300) . There was a discussion yes, but no consensus has been reached on moving the article. Cheers.Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 10:51, 25 April 2013 (UTC) I've replied on your talk page. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:20, 27 April 2013 (UTC) Fixed overwide talk-page I have fixed your talk-page, to fit within margins. The problem is wide wikilinks by People#who_put_underscores_between_every_word. In general, I try to remove half the underbars and just "put quotation marks around all words" for the whole wikilink. -Wikid77 11:18, 26 April 2013 (UTC) Thanks. :) SlimVirgin (talk) 01:20, 27 April 2013 (UTC) Future with Lua speed With the current MediaWiki software release, now Lua script is running almost 50% faster for small operations, such as the wp:CS1 {cite_web} and such. I cannot emphasize enough how Lua can be lightning-fast, when processing text. For example, it will be possible to write ultra-smart Lua scripts to scan text for hundreds of trigger phrases which might signal violations of policies, such as wp:PEACOCK terms "best product" or "greatest" whatever, or unprovable phrases such as "all people" or "the author believes" or "the person thought" or other wp:Mindreader text which should likely be removed from articles, as too difficult to verify what a person thinks, only what they said. Although the CS1 cite templates have been somewhat mostly excessively complex, they have revealed how Lua can process and spellcheck hundreds of possible options, at the rate of 180 templates per second (rather than 14/sec). We originally worried that having Lua spellcheck the 240 parameter names such as "author=" to reject "arthor=" would be slow, but instead the spellcheck caused no delays, and now we know that Lua could even quickly auto-correct the parameters to treat misspelled "pulbisher=" as being "publisher=" (with small warning "[fix cite] ") to show common-sense citations for people who do not have time to fiddle with every tiny spelling error in template parameters. Lua could even auto-correct a parameter in every citation, and log the misspellings in tracking categories, with no delay in processing. The biggest delay, now, is to get more people to stop issuing "red-error messages" for every slight error, and instead, just have Lua auto-correct each template for trivial problems, and let editors focus more on writing the text which readers need to see. The prior markup-based templates were too slow to check for spellings, but Lua-based templates are so fast, they can even auto-correct simple "splling erors" and focus more on looking for trigger phrases which indicate dubious text in articles. -Wikid77 11:18, 26 April 2013 (UTC) Thanks for letting me know, Wikid. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:20, 27 April 2013 (UTC) A fresh approach I can see you don't enjoy this antagonism any more than I do, and I can actually appreciate how you feel because this was how I felt last year. If we both want to work on these articles I don't see why either editor should feel "driven away". The simple fact is they are in a better state than they were a couple of years ago; wheatever differences there were they have improved, and we both played our part in that! It occurred to me this morning we were actually in agreement with many things up until we fell out last Spring. I think if we could reach some common ground on at least something we can get over this impasse. There will be other areas we will never agree on but perhaps we could devise a system for resolving our issues. This is what I am willing to bring to the peace table, at least to start with: I would like you to accept the single-table with sortable columns. I have added a couple of section divides to List of vegetarians so you can see the effect. I think any objective person would agree that it's better if a reader can search/sort the table as they would like, and a section divided table seems best able to provide that functionality. You are free to add as many section divides as you wish. Removal of entries due to RS concerns. Obviously you can't expect me to leave stuff in the list if I disagree that the sourcing is insufficient. On the other hand I will not make the right call every single time, no-one does. My suggestion is that any sourced entries I remove, I will transfer to the talk page. If you agree then delete, if not we can get an opinion at the RS board, and in the spirit of collegiate editing we simply accept the outcome. The images. Your response to this concerns me and I did not intend to make you feel uncomfortable. Nor do I wish to "objectify" the women. The point I was making in the discussion is that there is a perception that vegetarianism can have health repercussions, by causing muscle mass to decrease, breasts to shrink etc, and I do think images have a place in tackling that perception by showing sportsmen, Playboy models etc. Again I think we can reach a compromise on this: if you are uncomfortable with a particular image of a person, then feel free to swap it for another image of the same person. I won't oppose any image changes where the replacement is of the same person. Demographic representation. Women are under-represented in the article (16 images to 25 men), and I think you are focusing on the wrong aspect of representation here. I don't agree that a porn star should be removed simply because she is a porn star because it is not our job to provide vegetarian role-models, but to try and represent vegetarians in a general sense. I do think we can tackle representation through the removal of redundancy though, but I think this needs to apply across the whole range of images: one Playboy Playmate is sufficient, one female pop star is sufficient etc. You are free to accept all or none of this, but if you can go along with some of it then it at least gives a common direction. Betty Logan (talk) 14:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC) Thanks for the suggestions, I've replied on the talk page. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:20, 27 April 2013 (UTC) Category:American women novelists You made a comment on Category:American women novelists. We currently have a much-less developed category Category:American men novelists. I was wondering if you felt that having this other category changed your view on the issues, and if you might want to add additional comments.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:38, 27 April 2013 (UTC) Hi John, thanks. I'm not sure what else there is to say. It just seems so obvious that whatever we do for men, we have to do for women. So either two categories (male novelists, female novelists), or ignore gender entirely and have one category. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:44, 27 April 2013 (UTC) Articles You asked on the AN board which articles I had written to Featured and Good standard. I have never written an article from "scratch", but the last one I personally led through a review was Gone with the Wind (film), and it is mostly sourced to academic sources, books and contemporary newspaper articles. Betty Logan (talk) 00:39, 28 April 2013 (UTC) Thanks, it's a very good article about one of my favourite films. I was pretty stunned, though, to learn from the article that the political club was the Ku Klux Klan. It has made me look at all the characters very differently! SlimVirgin (talk) 18:15, 28 April 2013 (UTC) Have you not seen this? His COI is well-documented [11]. Qworty (talk) 05:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC) Thanks for the close Hi and thanks for closing Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#RfC: Proposal for RfA conduct clarification (amendments to editnotice and addition to Template:RfA). Even though such discussions may amount to Much Ado About Nothing, I think that RfCs deserve to be formally closed and would've therefore closed it myself with the same result if no one else had done so. Cheers. -- Trevj (talk) 08:53, 29 April 2013 (UTC) You're welcome, Trev. It's fine for the people involved in an RfC to close it if the outcome is obvious. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC) Good. I'll remember that sensible and pragmatic approach for the future. Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 08:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC) Clarification request I have filed a request for clarification of ArbCom's decline of Will Beback's ban appeal. The clarification request is here. You are being notified as you recently participated in discussion of this ban appeal. MastCell Talk 18:30, 29 April 2013 (UTC) Done [12] Qworty (talk) 20:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC) That's excellent, thank you. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC) No hurry, an unrelated question SlimVirgin, Apologies for asking so much of you lately. I don't know where else to ask this simple question. I am seeing this same excuse to delete good RS in another contentious article as well (Cannabis (drug)), but I would like your take on this particular revert (of my work), and on the sources and content I had provided if you get an extra moment. Many thanks, petrarchan47tc 23:56, 29 April 2013 (UTC) I would say this is a public-interest issue, not strictly a MEDRS one, so I would allow it, though I might write it differently. Having said that, I don't know the topic or the context. In your shoes, I would ask for an opinion on WT:MEDRS, and perhaps also post an RfC on article talk. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC) Great, thank you. petrarchan47tc 00:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC) What is amazing is that there was no mention of GMOs in the article. Binksternet (talk) 00:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC) What??? petrarchan47tc 01:15, 1 May 2013 (UTC) My friend Micha Peled shot, directed, edited and produced the documentary called Bitter Seeds about farmers in India growing GMO cotton and committing suicide because they cannot afford the seeds and the pesticides. I was part of what you might call the beta testers of the documentary because Micha said it needed to be shortened in length for public television but he did not know what to cut; he gathered his friends to watch it and suggest cuts. I bet you would be interested in seeing the film: "Brilliant Documentary Bitter Seeds Illuminates Plight of the Indian Farmer", "‘Bitter Seeds’ documentary reveals tragic toll of GMOs in India ", "Bitter Seeds: Monsanto's Legacy—Debt and Mass Suicides", "The 'Bitter Seeds' of Indian Cotton". Binksternet (talk) 00:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC) Thank you much, Binkster. I've heard a lot about this (Democracy Now covers these things). And now, in case you're interested, fantastic documentary about the BP oil spill. petrarchan47tc 01:15, 1 May 2013 (UTC) (talk page stalker) Binks, regarding "there was no mention of GMOs in the article": There is no mention of the term "GMO" but: The second sentence of the lead mentions "genetically engineered (GE) seed" with a Wikilink, the first sentence of the second paragraph states "Monsanto was among the first to genetically modify a plant cell" with a Wikilink to genetic modification, and also mentions genetically modified crops with a Wikilink. Also the Seeds section has links at the top to Genetically modified crops, Genetically modified food, and Genetically modified food controversies. These are all specific subtypes of GMO, don't these links and the content they're embedded in cover it? Zad68 01:26, 1 May 2013 (UTC) I saw all of those links, but I did not consider them an adequate replacement for a wikilink to GMO, which the reader expects. Binksternet (talk) 01:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC) I get it, a quick Google Scholar search on "Monsanto GMO" (and variants) shows tens of thousands of results, so you're reducing WP:ASTONISH by including the term in the article. Makes sense to me, thanks for the explanation. Zad68 03:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC) Good advice I definitely appreciate your advice, and if you ever feel I'm stepped over a line don't hesitate to let me know. One thing I can definitely tell you is that I wouldn't dream of exposing anybody's identity or engaging in a witch hunt over COI. Never have, never will. I made mention of one user's petroleum industry background, but that's because he talked about it on Wikipedia. Coretheapple (talk) 00:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC) Hi, you're welcome, and I know you wouldn't do that. I just think extra caution is a good idea when feelings are running high, so that everyone survives unscathed. :) SlimVirgin (talk) 01:15, 1 May 2013 (UTC) @ Core. He talked about it on Wikipedia. Was that the mention by someone, I don't remember who, that had worked for Shell? I remember thinking, at the time, that it was a surprising revelation. Was the reveletion at the BP page or elsewhere? I like to keep my ducks in a row. ```Buster Seven Talk 13:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC) Yes, that's right. I forget offhand where I read that. I believe it was in one of the archives. Coretheapple (talk) 13:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC) I haven't looked yet but I think it was "Corporate M'. (Just cheecking my memory). ```Buster Seven Talk 13:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC) No, it wasn't. It was someone else, a longtime contributor. Coretheapple (talk) 14:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC) Lines of text Someone is having another go at removing "A citation is a line of text" from the beginning of WP:CITE; if memory serves (and it may not, of course), you originally wrote that sentence, so you might like to comment at WT:CITE. (not watching this page) WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:04, 1 May 2013 (UTC) Suggest WP:COO/Conflict of Objectives (rather than COI/Conflict of Interest) If I may let me just plant some seeds of thought and see if they take root here..... I think The focus of WP:COI looks for the solution in the wrong place. It focusses on the "Interest' of the various editors involved at an article. But 'Interest' is hard to discern, and even harder to prove. I'm a liberal Democrat. Admittedly, while I keep it in check, my hidden 'Interest' is to promote my political philosophy wherever I can. An Environmentalist does the same. A Christian, a Muslim, an American Indian...does the same. We are all a bundle of personal 'Interests' that we unknowingly promote as we wander around WP and do what we do. I think trying to wrestle with "What is this editors 'Interest'" misses the point. When we observe fellow editors over time we get a feeling for what their 'Objective' is. "Why are they editing this article and what is their 'Objective'?" At each point of editing the question can be asked, "What is the 'Objective' of THIS edit? What is the 'Objective', the intention, of this editor making this edit at this time? Is it to hide, or to inform? Is it to broaden the readers knowledge on the subject or to restrict and hide verifyable facts which may change a readers mind. What is the 'Objective'? Over time, the 'Objective' becomes more obvious. On the other hand, 'Interest' can be concealed forever. The editors and the readers may have differing 'Objectives'. The reader comes to Wikipedia for information. The influenced-by-pay operative, comes to Wikipedia to mold the article by providing limited information (Pro) or, by implementing negative, unverifyable subject matter (Con). Strict scutiny by all volunteers is required. Professional editors are paid to be diligent, to be on-guard. Wikipedia editors are not. It is my opinion that if we WP editors that are concerned about the rising number of Paid-to-Edit situations can shift from "That is a Conflict of Interest (COI)" to "That is a Conflict of Objective (COO), we will be on more stable ground. An editors footprint precedes him. An editors interests are too many to really matter. but an editors objective, over time becomes apparent. I would appreciate any comments. Hopefully the good ones will come first. It's always nice to get some support for an idea before the naysayers descend and pick at whatever life an idea might have. But...that is another issue. ```Buster Seven Talk 13:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC) That's a thoughtful piece, Buster, I think you're on to something. You know, one can have a COI as well as a COO. They're not mutually exclusive. Coretheapple (talk) I like your take. On a possibly related note, I realized yesterday that my edits of late make me appear to have a fixation on toxicity - I could be pegged as having a clear POV. But from my point of view, I'm noticing missing information that slants articles by the omission, and being a good Wiki editor, I add it. But we all say that! So rather than to judge my motives, which can't be accurately done, judging whether my edits "hide or inform" is a wonderful guide-stick, for me and those observing my contribs. Of course, to judge this, one has to have a grasp on the subject matter as it is reflected in RS. For example, if I add to the BP page that oil spill clean up workers and gulf residents are bleeding from various orifices, someone unfamiliar with the story may see red flags. (A recent similar addition to the BP page didn't over very well.) However, those familiar with Al Jazeera's reporting on the spill know that people have already died from chemical poisoning, and to mention only "bleeding from their breasts, nose and anus" (an oft-cited quotation from the recent Newsweek article) is actually whitewashing the story. petrarchan47tc 20:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC) violation detected Someone made the page Waking the Cadaver (band) with the dab "(band)" just to get around naming the page Waking the Cadaver because that title is salted from being made due to them being a non notable band. Can you delete and salt the Waking the Cadaver (band) page so this sort of childish fandom can be put to rest, please? Not to mention the user that made this page was banned for socking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.225.135.97 (talk • contribs) Hi, just glancing at it, there seem to be a few sources that might be reliable from WP's perspective. Your best bet, if you disagree (and please check the sources carefully first) is to nominate the article for deletion. See WP:AFDHOW2 for how to do this. It's easier than it looks; just clunk through the instructions and you'll get there. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC) Book review (and excerpt) I think you will enjoy Cosmic Apprentice. Viriditas (talk) 11:34, 2 May 2013 (UTC) Talkback Hello, SlimVirgin. You have new messages at Talk:List_of_vegetarians#RfC:_Images_of_women. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. NickCT (talk) 15:58, 3 May 2013 (UTC) And again.... NickCT (talk) 02:46, 6 May 2013 (UTC) Tabulation of arbcom positions I am working to outline arbcom positions here [13] with difs. If you wish to add to it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:22, 4 May 2013 (UTC) What article does this make you think of? (The difference between a "Complaint Dept." and "Customer Service") - The difference is much like the difference between the old U.S. War Department and the newer U.S. Department of Defense. By pretending that customers don't have complaints and countries don't make war, they make it sound like we live in a fairy land filled with care bears who give strangers flowers all the time. ```Buster Seven Talk 15:31, 6 May 2013 (UTC) Sorry, Buster, I missed this post. I'm not seeing posts with this new notification system, because it doesn't offer diffs. A note may be overdue to the Non-Paying Customers Are Ignored Dept. :) SlimVirgin (talk) 18:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC) Re:A request Hi Middayexpress, I'm currently in the process of trying to bring FGM to good article (GA) status, with a view to possibly bringing it to featured article (FA) status. This means everything in it has to be very accurate, the content has to be fully policy compliant, the reference/citation formats have to be consistent, and there can't be any plagiarism, too-close paraphrasing, or too-far straying from the source material. FGM is a subject that crosses many scholarly boundaries: medicine, law, sociology, human rights, political science, anthropology, ancient history, current affairs. For each of these subjects, we have to use appropriate sources, which makes it a harder article to work on than most. We have to use ancient historians for the ancient history section; medical sources (per WP:MEDRS) for the medical section; political scientists and human rights experts for other sections; journalists for current affairs, and so on. Sometimes there are FGM specialists we can trust who have written about all these areas in the scholarly literature. But we have to be careful that they're using their sources properly, and often they're not. For example, several of the sources have misinterpreted the classical sources, so when that happens, we have to return to the best sources available (the sources' sources, and if necessary the sources' sources' sources). When I start tentatively trying to fix these things, you revert, including reverting to inconsistent reference formats and misdescribed source material. This has made article development almost come to a halt. Can I ask that, instead of the current situation, you let me fix the article to GA standard, then you bring your sources, and we work together to weave them into the narrative? That's easily done, and in fact it's a lot easier to do that once a good structure is in place. The current situation is that we have an article that isn't good, improvements are reverted, but then some good material is added to the bad version, which means we end up with a mish-mash that is very hard to fix. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:27, 8 May 2013 (UTC) Hi SlimVirgin. As I already explained to you on that article's talk page, if the number of reverts between us were to be compared, you'd have exponentially more; so it's a moot point. That said, I've explained in some detail there what exactly is the issue. That includes your complete removal of virtually all information on FGM being practiced outside of Africa. The article cannot possibly reach good article status unless this issue, among many others, is first addressed. Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 22:53, 8 May 2013 (UTC) The issue is not the number of reverts; it's the misuse of sources and reverting when they're removed. It's writing things like "according to the WHO," the practice is rooted in a desire to control female sexuality, when every source says this, not only the WHO. It's ignoring what the sources says and adding your own views; adding material that's already in the article; or using tertiary sources (A reporting B reporting C reporting D), instead of C or D directly. I'm willing to work with you on this, so I suggest we start with a clean slate. It would help a lot if you post your sources and edits on talk first, so that problems with them are spotted in advance, then we can find better sources for the same material, if necessary. As for the plagiarized material (added by one of the students), you've alluded several times to it being restored, but it can't be; the plagiarism was too extensive, and quite a bit of it was repetitive anyway. It was written as a student assignment. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:23, 9 May 2013 (UTC) This is really pointless. You're basically repeating the same arguments you made on the article's talk page and which were already addressed there, as well as in the earlier discussions you archived. Kindly direct any future responses there as well, as I have it on my watchlist. Thanks, Middayexpress (talk) 00:30, 9 May 2013 (UTC) FGM Type I This reference: Who.int under Procedures: states that (Type I) in very rare cases, only the prepuce is removed. The way that FGM is written, to me, suggests the reverse. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 08:48, 9 May 2013 (UTC) Thanks for pointing this out. I've changed it to what it said before the recent change. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC) May 2013 Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Female genital mutilation may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:30, 9 May 2013 (UTC) Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Disappearance of Madeleine McCann may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "[]"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:25, 17 May 2013 (UTC) Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Disappearance of Madeleine McCann may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:26, 18 May 2013 (UTC) Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Disappearance of Madeleine McCann may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:17, 19 May 2013 (UTC) test test 20:11, 9 May 2013 (UTC) test Yo, SV, was just following up on the script thing, as some other people have had issues installing scripts. It doesn't notify you when you edit your own talk page, only when other people do. As an aside, I'm not really sure what happens if you have it in both User:SlimVirgin/common.js and User:SlimVirgin/monobook.js (if I had to guess, you might get two bars at once), but you really only need it in one of the two. Which one of the two doesn't really matter, unless you want the bar to be available in skins other than Monobook (in which case, leave it in the common.js and take out the one in monobook.js). Let me know if you have any issues with it. Cheers! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:09, 9 May 2013 (UTC) Thank you, I saw your message and it's back! You have new messages, last change! (Never thought I'd be so pleased to see it.) I only need it in Monobook, so I'll remove the other one. Thank you so much for writing this, and for your help with it. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:13, 9 May 2013 (UTC) Of course, no problem. :) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:15, 9 May 2013 (UTC) Yes, thanks Writ Keeper. Strange to be so happy to about such a small thing, but I was absolutely thrilled to see it work! Oh, SV, glad you found it. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:27, 9 May 2013 (UTC) Now, how to get rid of that red thing. :) SlimVirgin (talk) 20:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC) You have to click it & it disappears. I guess it's the click through they want do gather data. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC) To hide the notifications entirely (whether it's red or not); just copy and paste the following line: li#pt-notifications{display:none !important;} into your monobook.css page. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:45, 9 May 2013 (UTC) The message I had there already didn't disappear, so I've clicked on it, but can still see the little zero. We'll see if it turns red with this post. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:06, 9 May 2013 (UTC) vegetarians Hi - comment welcome here Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_May_8#Category:Buddhist_vegetarians, and it has been requested to add to the list of vegetarians, I think they're not all there - would you mind adding them? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:04, 12 May 2013 (UTC) I don't mind if they're added, if that's what you meant to ask. Or did you mean you were having difficulty editing the page? I know the addition of the subsections within a single table has caused problems elsewhere, so I keep meaning to remove them from that page. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:53, 12 May 2013 (UTC) Yeah, that page kinda scares me... was hoping to outsource it :) cheers - --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:05, 12 May 2013 (UTC) I've added regular subsections. The subheads within the table meant that preview wasn't working, according to a discussion on WP:PUMP. It should be a little easier to edit now, though the table format is still fiddly. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:15, 12 May 2013 (UTC) Email mentioning you I have got an email from an unknown editor (I don't know him and I don't know why he sent me email) which had a line Sites like wikipediareview (as well as Wikipedia talkpages) are full of detailed criticisms of prominent wikipedians like Slim Virgin and Jzg. I have sent a copy of the email to Wikimedia team. --Tito Dutta (contact) 16:38, 12 May 2013 (UTC) Hi, thanks for letting me know. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:05, 12 May 2013 (UTC) User:Jalexander is handing it! --Tito Dutta (contact) 17:10, 12 May 2013 (UTC) Orphaned non-free media (File:Madeleine McCann age-progression poster.jpg) Thanks for uploading File:Madeleine McCann age-progression poster.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media). If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:11, 14 May 2013 (UTC) New article... supported by sources? Hi SV, recently an editor created the article Baby genital mutilation now renamed Child genital mutilation. You've been doing a lot of work on Female genital mutilation so I thought you might have some domain expertise here. In doing your research, have you found that the sources would support Child genital mutilation as a separate subarticle from Genital modification and mutilation? My impression is that the academic sources that talk about genital mutilation of minors are talking about female genital mutilation. If you get a minute could you stop by, appreciate it. Zad68 20:50, 14 May 2013 (UTC) Question about possible POV forking Hi Slim Virgin, I wanted to see if you have ever come across this, or whether you have any thoughts on the matter. An editor asked me to check out the Adderall page yesterday, saying it was a mess. Hours later it was changed to a redirect using the chemical component of Adderall as the title instead. It turns out this is normal on wiki, however this seems like a potential POV issue, as now there is a convenient way to get around mentioning some serious controversy surrounding Adderall. I checked out the Prozac page which is also a redirect, and it seemed to read OK, it was generally about the chemical but had a section specifically about Prozac (the brand) called "In popular culture". I figure it's fine for these redirects as long as they aren't being used to hide or obfuscate information, and I added "Prozac in popular culture" to make the contents of the section and article more clear for the reader and more encyclopedic. My concerns were somewhat realized in this edit so I figured it was time to just check in and see what you thought. I don't really know any other Admins to bother, but if you're aware of someone who might be interested in giving feedback, do let me know. Thanks as always, petrarchan47tc 01:46, 21 May 2013 (UTC) Just to be clear, this isn't about any editor or edit, but a general question... petrarchan47tc 05:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC) Hi, it's standard to use the generic name, though whether that applies to the way Adderall has been handled, I don't know. You could ask for advice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine, and depending on what they say you could start a requested-move discussion. Hope this helps. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:38, 21 May 2013 (UTC) That really does help, thank you SlimVirgin :) petrarchan47tc 03:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC) Focus on auto-correcting edit-conflicts Wikid77 here. This is just FYI, no action needed. My next major focus (now that wp:CS1 Lua cites run 13x faster) is to fix most edit-conflicts, which seems to be a decision needed by community consensus. At first I thought there was a technology limit (as if "some conflicts" impossible to solve, but no), and instead all edit-conflicts could be auto-corrected according to set rules; however, we need to set some "policy" rules for how multiple edits will be applied at the same lines in a page, so the developers can make the software resolve the edit-conflicts, by default, following those rules. For example, when 2 editors try to post a reply at the same line in a talk-page, or add after the same line in a list article, then "edit-conflict" leaves the decision to the 2nd editor, rather than auto-correct and insert the 2nd reply after the 1st reply from the prior edit. I think the developers could auto-correct all edit-conflicts, if we get consensus on the rules of order. Background: Extensive auto-correction for many edit-conflicts has existed since 2004, when re-combining separate parts of a page, such as the 1st editor changes the infobox parameters, then meanwhile 2nd editor changes a later paragraph, and the 2nd editor's paragraph is inserted with the 1st editor's infobox (conflict resolved). The next fix would be for 2 replies added after the same line, in a talk-page, or a list (etc.). However, the editor community needs to reach a consensus, so the developers would have a specific rule, to append a 2nd reply, after the 1st reply, at the same line number, which is currently treated as "edit-conflict" and extremely common in fast-moving talk-pages. I suggest to use FIFO order (first-in, first-out), so the 1st reply takes precedence over the 2nd reply, to be inserted after the 1st. The developers have already finished "90%" of the bigger, complex Edit-merge operations, and what is left is to decide the community's choice as to which order to append two replies at the same line number, such as FIFO order. Perhaps we need an RfC to decide that issue. More later. -Wikid77 (talk) 14:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC) Possibly unfree File:Bertrand Russell in 1893.jpg A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Bertrand Russell in 1893.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 12:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC) Heads up Anti-semites are no longer anti-semites on WP - see here. It will move from there to Pound, but truthfully I get much too frustrated and have to keep bailing because I don't have the temperament for these things, but thought I'd let you know. Though I'm sure you'll see it. Btw - I really like the pic on your user page. Best, Truthkeeper (talk) 19:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC) Thanks for letting me know, TK. Like you I get too frustrated by all this, and almost always ignore these things nowadays, but I'll take a look. Hope all is well with you. Best, SlimVirgin (talk) 19:10, 22 May 2013 (UTC)