User talk:SlimVirgin/October 2020

Administrators' newsletter – September 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2020). Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Ajpolino • LuK3
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Jackmcbarn
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Ad Orientem • Harej • Lid • Lomn • Mentoz86 • Oliver Pereira • XJaM
 * Pictogram voting rename.png →

Guideline and policy news
 * A request for comment found consensus that incubation as an alternative to deletion should generally only be recommended when draftification is appropriate, namely 1) if the result of a deletion discussion is to draftify; or 2) if the article is newly created.

Technical news
 * The filter log now provides links to view diffs of deleted revisions (T261630).

Arbitration
 * The 2020 CheckUser and Oversight appointment process has begun. The community consultation period will take place from September 27th to October 7th.
 * Following a request for comment, sitting Committee members may not serve on either the Ombuds Commission or the WMF Case Review Committee. The Arbitration Committee passed a motion implementing those results into their procedures.

Miscellaneous
 * The Universal Code of Conduct draft is open for community review and comment until October 6th, 2020.
 * Office actions may now be appealed to the Interim Trust & Safety Case Review Committee.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:43, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Victoria, thank you so much for this! I'm glad it's not too muddled. At times I've wondered. SarahSV (talk) 01:10, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, it really had deteriorated and needed quite a lot of work. I'm terribly impressed you've had the energy for it. I've not had the energy to look closely but I doubt there's much muddling. Victoria (tk) 01:15, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Comment on Lawler AfD
I don't recall a specific pledge by Wikipedia's resident BP p.r. representative that he would not create articles, but on his talk page he says of himself, referring to himself in the third person, '''Arturo Silva is a full-time BP employee assigned to the Group’s Corporate Communications team in Houston. Among his many responsibilities, Silva has been leading our project to openly engage with Wikipedia editors and offer suggestions to improve the accuracy of the BP Wikipedia article.''' Clearly, creating articles on BP executives, based on content he and his colleagues created at BP, does not fall in the category of "improving the accuracy" of any BP article. This does appear to be his first created article It sets a poor precedent and should be the last. Coretheapple (talk) 15:10, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree. The other issue is that his user page says "I will only be editing Talk pages and will not make any edits to encyclopedia articles." Still strictly speaking true, but not really. Readers looking at the BLP history will see that it was created by a BP employee (in one edit), which makes Wikipedia, BP and the article subject look bad. SarahSV (talk) 18:53, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I see from the project page that it is not unusual for articles created through AfC to be subject to an AfD and deleted, There is a long list of such articles on the AfC project page. It might be a good idea, for uniformity's sale, for COI editors to be discouraged from creating or attempting to create articles through that process. Obviously such a request would not be enforceable, but it would save wasted time for all concerned and help curtail the project from being skewed in favor of public relations departments and other interested parties. Coretheapple (talk) 20:41, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I haven't looked for a long time at the AfC instructions; I recall that it says something about COI. There are forms of COI where it would matter much less. The issue here is paid editing, and in particular paid PR or paid commercial editing. Pinging, who was working on a related proposal. Smallbones, you're busy with Signpost etc, so don't feel the need to comment here, but I know you like to keep an eye on paid issues. In brief, BP's PR rep has created a BP bio via AfC, and one based almost entirely on news sources generated from BP press releases. We're discussing how best to make sure this kind of thing doesn't happen again. SarahSV (talk) 20:52, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * ArturoAtBP did the same thing during the evolution of the most of the various BP/Horizon oil spill articles. Memory fades but as I recall, he used insider info, I called him on it, then he subverted his COI declaration by getting other "fawning" editors to insert his list of facts....always company facts. He was never argumentative or gruff but found ways to accomplish what he wanted. I might have to make a journey back in time to refresh the old memory banks. Nice to see you SV! &#8213; Buster7  &#9742;   05:06, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Turns out I was one of his fawning Pawns at first. An edit by Petra reminds me he would give instructions on talk pages rather that at the BP article. &#8213; Buster7  &#9742;   05:16, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, nice to see you. I don't think you could ever be a fawning pawn. :) I'm going to take another look at those archives. I can't remember what he said, but I do recall that he was asking people to carry over drafts for him, and it seems that it continues. At 16:35, 20 February 2020, Arturo requested that four sentences be added, including: "In February 2020, BP set a goal to cut its greenhouse gas emissions to net-zero by 2050. BP seeks net-zero carbon emissions across its operations and the fuels the company sells, including emissions from cars, homes, and factories." At 17:41, 20 February, Dormskirk added the suggested text word-for-word. I may open a discussion on Talk:BP if I can find the time and if no one beats me to it. SarahSV (talk) 05:39, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I think this situation exemplifies the problem posed by all paid editors, and I would daresay even especially the ones that self declare. They become a kind of permanent "Wikipedia Corporate Public Relations Person in Residence," working well under project rules that sanction COI editors, including paid editors, who declare their conflict. As long as disclosure is made, paid editors have an advantage over non-paid editors. We come and go. We have personal issues that take us away from the project. We have limited energy and time. We get discouraged and leave. But the Wikipedia Corporate Public Relations Person in Residence does this for a living. He never loses interest. He never gets tired. This is his job. While ostensibly discouraged by Wikipedia rules, in fact he can outlast the non-paid editors and, as Buster points out, work the system to overcome any disadvantage. I first encountered Arturo probably EIGHT years ago. He is never going to get discouraged and "retire" as I see Petrarchan has done. He's here until reassigned. Coretheapple (talk) 16:43, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that anything I've done here can compare with what I learned at the BP article, about both myself and so many of you dear folks here. IMO Buster and I are a lot alike in that we tend to take people at their word and in general are the trusting folk sort of people. On the other hand, we are not stupid and when our trust is betrayed we are among the best at fighting for the truth. I looked back at some of those old archives too, especially at the details related to the Prudhoe Bay article because it was there that I realized that Arturo could deceive with the best of them when it came to the truth and an honest picture of BP practice with regards to honesty about their concerns about spills and the effects that they have had on the environment I felt bad...I felt angry.. I felt hurt as though a best friend had betrayed me. It was a good lesson to be learned. I am speaking of talk page archive 11, "Prudhoe Bay" section[]  Gandydancer (talk) 19:03, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * For further emphasis, Petra was a work-horse of a editor; fair but determined. I'm sure what she encountered with Arturo was compounded over and over. It looked different at non-BP articles with a different cast of characters but, as Gandy points out, it always had the taste of dishonest editing. Finally, she had enough. I talked her off the cliff two times over the years but she was determined to leave on the third. Wikipedia is less without her work. &#8213; Buster7  &#9742;   20:11, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Marmoset2.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Marmoset2.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:39, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Manfred Mann's Earth Band&#32; on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 13:30, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

October harvest
thank you --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:03, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Gerda. SarahSV (talk) 03:27, 31 October 2020 (UTC)