User:Arturo at BP

Hello editors, this is the retired account of Arturo at BP. I will no longer be using this account to make requests or edits, but wanted to preserve the remainder of the page as it was due to my long history on Wikipedia. What follows is how the page was on the day of my retirement:

I have established this account to help improve BP-related articles in line with Wikipedia standards and guidelines. In the interest of full transparency, I chose “Arturo at BP” as my username so that my affiliation with BP is abundantly clear to all parties I may interact with on Wikipedia. Per WP:ORGNAME, I believe that this username is appropriate, and I should point out that I will be the only person to use this account.

Out of respect for guidelines on conflict of interest and the importance of a neutral point of view, and in recognition of the ongoing debate regarding companies’ involvement on Wikipedia, I will only be editing Talk pages and will not make any edits to encyclopedia articles. My primary goal in being active on Wikipedia through this account is to improve the overall quality of BP-related articles in line with Wikipedia guidelines.

Any delays in responding to inquiries are due to my other roles and responsibilities at BP which take up a significant amount of my time, so I appreciate your patience with me. I do look forward to working with other editors, and welcome any questions you may have on my Talk page.

Work on BP article
In May 2012, I first introduced myself on the BP Talk page. The article at this point particularly needed updates to its operational information: there were out of date details in the introduction and infobox, the "Operations" section had very little detail on the company's activities. I began offering new drafts to expand, create or improve article sections, and since that time I've offered help to volunteer editors to correct and update other details.

I became familiar with COI guidelines before I began, and knowing that company representatives are often viewed skeptically, I have not edited the article directly once.

In March 2013 a discussion began about whether I, as a representative for BP, should be involved in presenting drafts or other requests on the BP talk page, and I think at times my focus and the events of the BP article were misunderstood. For this reason, I am offering this rundown of my work on the BP article so far.

In particular, some editors have misinterpreted the list of drafts on my page here to mean that all this information was added into the BP article and without any changes, which is not the case. To present an accessible summary of my work to date, I have provided the detail below regarding the major requests and drafts that I have presented, including the before and after of sections in the BP article and provided a few notes on what was added.

First involvement
My first two requests were to correct and update information in the introduction and infobox. Rangoon11 replied to these requests and suggested that I help improve the "Operations" section.

For the "Operations" section
In May 2012, the "Operations" section was almost empty: there was only one sentence under "Exploration and production" and one under "Refining and marketing", despite these being BP's main areas of operation. The most information in the section was under the headings "Service stations" and "Renewable energy". The first draft I offered was an overview of all BP's operations:

Draft: /Overview of operations
 * Discussion
 * State of existing section when draft posted for review on July 3, 2012
 * Information added to article: July 5, 2012
 * Current section

The overview was reviewed and added to the article by Rangoon, and some edits were made by Beagel and Petrarchan once it was in place, in particular updating the caption of an image that was already in the article.

Draft: /BP UK
 * Discussion
 * State of existing section when draft posted for review on July 25, 2012
 * Information added to article: August 15, 2012
 * Current section

The UK section was reviewed and added to the article by Rangoon a few weeks after I proposed it. No other editors commented.

Draft: /US operations
 * Discussion
 * State of existing section when draft posted for review on August 24, 2012
 * Information added to article: August 30, 2012
 * Current section

After UK operations, I offered a draft for the US operations in August. Beagel reviewed and asked for some changes in the draft, including adding details of the US operations' history as Amoco and details of oil fields in which the company holds a stake. I made the changes as requested and Rangoon11 reviewed after that and added the draft into the article, with Beagel's approval.

After this section was moved into place the whole "Operations" section was rearranged: the overview was cut down into a one-paragraph introduction, details from the overview about US or UK were cut (as these were now covered in the newly added sections) and other information from overview was split under three headings, "Other countries", "Upstream" and "Downstream".

Draft: /Alternative Energy
 * Discussion
 * State of existing section when draft posted for review on October 23, 2012
 * Information added to article: November 3, 2012
 * Current section

In October 2012, I offered a new draft for what was at that point called the "BP Alternative Energy" section. The section duplicated some information that was detailed under the UK and US operations section and did not include some top level information about BP's level of investment into alternative energy, additionally one third of the section focused on BP Solar, which had closed in 2011. The draft I presented reduced the detail on BP Solar to a mention of its closure in 2011, removed duplicated information and noted BP's investment commitment. Beagel and Rangoon reviewed the draft, and Beagel added it to the article.

Draft: /Worldwide operations
 * Discussion
 * State of existing section when draft posted for review on November 5, 2012
 * Information added to article: November 17, 2012
 * Current section

The last operations section I offered was for BP's operations outside the US and UK. At the time, there was a single paragraph under the heading "Other countries", based on the summarized details I had included in the overview. The new draft I proposed extended this to three paragraphs, providing greater detail on BP's global operations, organized by activity. Beagel reviewed and made suggestions including grouping country information together rather than splitting by activity, and adding more information about operations in a few of the countries. I updated the draft with most of his suggestions, but suggested that additional information about countries could be added once live. Beagel agreed and added the section into the article, in place of the existing paragraph, then made a few changes to add information on some recently announced acquisitions.

For "Corporate affairs" section
Draft: /Stock history
 * Discussion
 * State of existing section when draft posted for review on September 18, 2012
 * Information added to article: September 20, 2012
 * Current section

When I had offered the US operations draft for review, Petrarchan asked if I could assist with putting together information on the company's stock and stock history. On his request, I prepared the section and offered for review. It was reviewed by BozMo, Beagel and Petrarchan. The only query was regarding the use of dollars as the share price. All three editors approved the text and it was added to the article by Rangoon.

For "Environmental record" section
Draft: /Canadian oil sands
 * Discussion
 * State of existing section when draft posted for review on November 19, 2012
 * Information added to article: November 28, 2012
 * Current section

Following the "Operations" section, this was the first section I looked at. The existing section was just two sentences long, one of which included a claim about the amount of CO2 that oil sands extraction produces and the other was a statement from the Cree Nation, describing oil sands extraction as "the biggest environmental crime on the planet". The sentences did not explain if these were criticisms leveled specifically at BP or referred to oil sands in general. I provided a much longer draft that explained in detail BP's involvement in oil sands and the specific criticisms of these operations, including adding criticism about the amount of water used in the operations.

The proposed section was reviewed by an IP address editor, Beagel and Martin Hogbin. The IP address editor pointed out that the estimated amount of CO2 emissions from oil sands that was currently in the article might not be correct, and suggested using a different estimate that considered overall impact. Beagel and Martin Hogbin both commented that while the existing material needed rewriting, they did not think a longer section was appropriate. Additionally, Beagel's feedback stated that the section should not include a comparison of CO2 emissions between oil sands and conventional petroleum production. Based on their comments I suggested a summarized, 3 sentence version of my draft. The editors approved the draft and Beagel added it into the article.

Mist Mountain project discussion
 * State of existing section when request posted on December 3, 2012
 * Section removed from article: December 5, 2012

The Mist Mountain project section included in the article as of December 2012, was a two sentence section noting that there had been calls to halt BP's coalbed methane project on this site. The sentence described the site in the present tense, along with the criticism, as though this was ongoing, however the site had been sold to Apache Corporation in 2010. I made a request on the talk page to either remove the section, or offer other thoughts as to how it should be dealt with. Editors reviewing the request discussed where the criticism of the coalbed methane project should be included, since BP had not developed the site but had received criticism for plans to do so. Suggestions included creating a new article or adding some detail to the "History". As editors agreed the section did not belong in the "Environmental record" section, BozMo removed it. Draft: /Prudhoe Bay
 * Discussion
 * State of existing section when draft posted for review on February 25, 2013
 * Information added to article: March 1, 2013
 * Current section

In early 2013 the section focusing on Prudhoe Bay was confusingly written, mixing up minor leaks with the major oil spill in March 2006 and focused mainly on the oil field having shut down in August 2006. When I compared it with the main Prudhoe Bay article, the section was missing details about the March 2006 spill and impacts, in particular the misdemeanor violation of the Clean Water Act and $20 million fine, and the replacement of the pipeline. Gandydancer reviewed the section and her initial comments were positive. She asked about the ownership of the pipeline and whether the complete replacement had been made, I checked on this and confirmed back to her that it had. At the same time, I asked at Paid Editor Help for other editors to take a look, following which Silverseren moved the section into the article.

Once in the article, editors made some changes to the wording, adding information and summarizing other parts. Some editors were concerned about how much was needed about the "smart pigging" and criticism of BP for cost cutting, and further edits were made after discussion of this.

Around a month later, Gandydancer returned with information about a consent order BP had entered into and was very concerned that I had not included this in my draft (more explanation on this is given on my user talk here and the full discussion is here in the BP talk page archives). I looked into this and provided links to sources and further information about the criminal and civil charges. I agreed with Gandydancer that information about the criminal and civil charges should be added to the section and noted that I had not been aware of this information before. Gandydancer raised concerns about my conflict of interest having impacted the rewrite of the section, and these concerns were shared by a couple of other editors who commented (Coretheapple and Buster Seven). These editors, plus Beagel, discussed what information exactly should be added and where, in particular whether it should be added in the BP article or Prudhoe Bay article. Details of the consent decree were added into the article later in April by Gandydancer.

Reviewed but not accepted
Draft: /Allegations of greenwashing
 * State of existing section when draft posted for review on December 7, 2012
 * Discussion
 * Information from the original "Allegations of greenwashing" section has been merged into two different sections as of June 2013: "Alternative and low carbon energy" and "Branding and public relations"

In December 2012, the "Accusations of greenwashing" section was just three sentences long and mentioned criticisms from Antonia Juhasz and Greenpeace, but not any wider discussion of how BP's marketing and operations were perceived. I proposed a draft that provided some context to the claims, noting that criticism had occurred since the early 2000s and was linked in part to BP's rebranding efforts. Petrarchan commented that the section should note BP's involvement in the Olympics and also oil sands development, while BozMo commented that some work on specific wording was needed. I responded to say that I was open to their suggestions on wording to add or change, and noted that the sources should be clear that the criticisms are related to greenwashing in order to be included in the section. Petrarchan provided a few more links to source but the discussion did not continue any further and the section was not added to the article.

Draft: /Environmental record
 * State of existing section when draft posted for review on March 7, 2012
 * Discussion
 * Current section

Intending to provide an introduction to the "Environmental record" section, I proposed the above draft to summarize reporting and rankings of BP's environmental record compared with other oil and gas companies. At the time I proposed this, the section began with a few sentences noting rankings and data for different years, but that did not provide an overview of BP's environmental record as a whole.

After proposing the draft, there was no comment for almost 10 days so I went to some editors to ask for them to review my suggestion. A discussion began on March 16th about whether the section should be added, due to it having been written by a corporate representative. After I replied to questions specifically about the draft on March 18, discussion ended and the section was not added into the article.