User talk:Arturo at BP

BP

Hi and thanks for your message. Yes happy to help out. Rangoon11 (talk) 02:05, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

BP stock

Hi there Arturo, you may have noticed on the BP talk page that we are working on a "stock history" section as per the "company articles" guideline you shared with us in the DRN. You certainly don't need to, but if you feel to help construct that section, we would most welcome any input. Thanks, petrarchan47tc 20:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Petrarchan, I would like to be able to help with this section to provide sources and additional information. I do think there should be a section that addresses BP's corporate governance including its long-term stock history, on both the LSE and NYSE. Is that what you have in mind? Will you be working on this in your userspace? If so, please provide the link then I can take a look at what you have and see where I can help. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 16:41, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Arturo at BP. You have new messages at Talk:BP Biofuels Highlands.
Message added 18:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

DES ^(talk) 18:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Information please

Hi there Arturo. I've tried to unravel the BP 2004 DoJ finding as stated below:

A criminal penalty of $100 million, a payment of $25 million to the U.S. Postal Inspection Consumer Fraud Fund, and restitution of approximately $53 million, plus a civil penalty of $125 million to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, as part of an agreement to defer the prosecution of a one-count criminal information filed in the Northern District of Illinois charging BP America Inc. with conspiring to violate the Commodity Exchange Act and to commit mail fraud and wire fraud.

Then they go on to say:

In addition, a 20-count indictment returned by a federal grand jury in Chicago today charges four former employees of a subsidiary of BP America, Inc. with conspiring to manipulate and corner the TET propane market in February 2004, and to sell TET propane at an artificially inflated index price in violation of federal mail and wire fraud statutes, along with substantive violations of the Commodity Exchange Act and wire fraud.

However, in 2011 it was decided:

[1]

This court decision has been used as a reason to remove mention of the 2004 information from the article by both Connolly and Beagle. I've read the same information but come away with the idea that the 2004 court finding was not at all nullified by the 2011 court decision as that was a separate matter. More info here:

[2]

Hopefully you can clear this up. Thanks! Gandydancer (talk) 11:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Gandydancer, I have heard back from others within BP who are more knowledgeable about this and can confirm that the information in the article now is correct, but perhaps needs a few small changes to make it completely clear.

What I was told is that there was no case brought in 2004, the charges against the company and traders were brought in 2006, related to activity in 2003 and 2004. This is supported by the sources used at the end of the first sentence in the section: the complaint and the NBC News article. In 2007, BP entered into a deferred prosecution agreement, settling these charges. This is also supported by the existing source in the section, the Reuters article and also the Red Orbit article you shared. As the Red Orbit source mentions, also in 2007, a federal grand jury indicted four more employees. The charges against these traders were later dismissed in 2009 and the dismissal upheld in 2011. The dismissal of these charges is verified by the Houston Chronicle article cited and also by the 2011 court ruling, which found that the trader's activities in 2004 "fell within a statutory exemption for off-exchange commodities transactions".

The current wording is as follows:

The US Justice Department and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission accused BP Products North America Inc. (subsidiary of BP plc) and several BP traders with conspiring to raise the price of propane by seeking to corner the propane market in 2004. In 2006, one former trader pleaded guilty. In 2007, BP paid approximately $303 million in restitution and fines as part of an agreement to defer prosecution. That same year, four other former traders were charged; however, charges were dismissed by a U.S. District Court in 2009 and upheld by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2011.

I think just a few changes here can make the chain of events clearer here. Here is my suggestion:

In 2006, the US Justice Department and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission accused BP Products North America Inc. (subsidiary of BP plc) and several BP traders with conspiring to raise the price of propane by seeking to corner the propane market in 2003 and 2004. That year, one former trader pleaded guilty. In 2007, BP paid approximately $303 million in restitution and fines as part of an agreement to defer prosecution. Also in 2007, four other former traders were charged; however, charges were dismissed by a U.S. District Court in 2009 and this dismissal was upheld by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2011.

Does that make things clearer? Arturo at BP (talk) 13:24, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Re Request

Hi Arturo, I appreciate the request, but I am away for awhile with some health issues. Hopefully someone at BP talk can take care of the editing needs soon. The removal of outdated information is simple enough, and I'm sure in time we can get the alternative energy section worked out. Sorry I can't be of immediate help. petrarchan47tc 06:29, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Special Barnstar
		For making constructive contributions to Wikipedia while respecting conflict of interest guidelines. Drm310 (talk) 04:21, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, well done Arturo. I copied the above to your user page. Also, I posted a reply to your COIN post here. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:19, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Article talk pages

RE: "As that request has not received a response."[3] When an article talk page request is posted, it may go unanswered because the page does not receive enough traffic. To address this, If you post a request on Talk:BP, select the history tab, select External tools: Contributors, and then consider posting a note on the talk page of the listed top two to five contributors letting them know that you posted on the Talk:BP page. Then, look at the list of contributors to the article page itself,[4] and consider posting a note on the talk page of the listed top two to five contributors. By looking at the contributors list for both the BP article and BP talk page, looks like Rangoon11, Beagel, Petrarchan47, Gandydancer, Binksternet, and BozMo are the most active in the topic and likely would be interested in responding to a talk page request at Talk:BP. You also can use {{request edit}} for conflict-of-interest edits. Generally see Wikipedia:Edit requests. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:39, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Uzma, I appreciate your suggestions, which are very much in line with my interactions on Wikipedia so far. Sometimes these editors get busy with other projects, so from time to time I've reached out to others too. Arturo at BP (talk) 17:43, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Contact Tim from Atos

Hi Arturo. Congrats with you Barnstar. It shows that you are a very good expert in Wikipedia by contributing good content and balancing the BP page. Would you mind having a look at the Atos page? How can we ge in contact with you? Thanks in advance. (tim362729|t ) —Preceding undated comment added 14:32, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Help requests

Hi there. I saw you left some requests for assistance at my talk page and WP:COIN but I have been a bit busy. How do things stand now? Are you still in need of help? --Drm310 (talk) 18:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Drm310, thanks for dropping me a note. I would still like to get your opinion on a couple of discussions on the BP talk page, particularly regarding some wording I think might be POV in the section on the Caspian Sea gas leak. If you have time available, can you review my request here and offer your opinion. Also, if you are able, please take a look at the New Structure talk page discussion. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 23:48, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback from PAIDHELP

Hello, Arturo at BP. You have new messages at Talk:BP#Caspian_Sea.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Silverseren^C 05:21, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Arturo at BP. You have new messages at Talk:BP#Environmental_record_overview.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Silverseren^C 20:47, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion

I would suggest you just focus on answering my questions and ignore them. I'll also make sure to get some outside editors to review the sections before implementation so there isn't a problem. Silverseren^C 07:25, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Silverseren. I will be posting a response at the BP Talk page that answers your questions and otherwise focuses on the content of the section shortly. Arturo at BP (talk) 21:23, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Question

Hi, Arturo. Could you please clarify little further your involvement with BP? Does your editing in Wikipedia is related to your paid job with BP, that mean you are dealing BP's PR, information, etc in the broad sense? Thank you. Beagel (talk) 22:01, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Beagel. I work for BP. I apologize if you were under a different impression. The information I present from news sources is verified by the various subject matter experts within the company. I am not an expert myself on all of the topics and I want to make sure that any proposed language from news sources used is actually accurate. Arturo at BP (talk)

Please see

Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest#BP_and_large_company_editing_in_general Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:12, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Question

Has Bell Pottinger ever issued a statement coming clean on its former wikipedia sanitation efforts? Geo Swan (talk) 13:22, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello Geo Swan, I'm not able to answer your question as I do not know anything about Bell Pottinger beyond what I have seen in the media. The BP in my username refers to the energy company, BP, where I am an employee. As my user page explains, the goal of my activity on Wikipedia is to help improve articles related to BP and I have not been involved with any other topic areas. Arturo at BP (talk) 15:10, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For the total integrity which you have shown in your declaration of a connection to BP, and the respect which you have demonstrated for Wikipedia policies and the Wikipedia community. And for providing draft text of the highest quality. I hope that you will continue to be involved in this project. Rangoon11 (talk) 20:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

		The Purple Barnstar
		For the undue and ill-informed criticism you'll have to endure for your policy-guided contributions towards improving BP.Smallman12q (talk) 00:25, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Quick question

Hi Arturo, I just want to quickly clarify something. Was it I who connected you to Rangoon or did that happen independently? I checked my records and I don't see anything about it on or off-wiki, but I've been asked to clear up that point. Best, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 00:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

You did not. Almost 100% sure first contact with Rangoon was on BP Talk Page after she responded to a request I put up there. Arturo at BP (talk) 01:01, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar of Integrity

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		For correctly following our WP:COI. Thanks for helping us improve our coverage. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:57, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

and another...

		The Olive Branch Barn Star
		Because there is no conflict and you have done nothing wrong. Keep up the good work and thank you for your contributions. Amadscientist (talk) 01:32, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to CREWE

Arturo,

By way of introduction, my name is Phil Gomes and I am a co-founder of Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement (CREWE). A Facebook group serves as our base of operations. We are (mostly) PR folk and interested Wikipedians who see value in dialogue rather than the well-worn tactic of public shaming.

Our mission statement:

CREWE comprises Wikipedians, corporate communications, academics, students and other interested parties who are exploring the ways that PR and Wikipedia can work together for mutual benefit, defined narrowly as cooperation toward more accurate and balanced entries.

This case has been a topic of active discussion and we'd love to have you join us and participate.

--Philgomes (talk) 02:02, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	For your impressive work, above and beyond the COI policies, even in the face of frequent challenges and criticism -- Aunva6talk - contribs 03:07, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Optional question

Hi. I am trying to find out more about COI etc on wikipedia. I was wondering if your job description (duties etc) is publicly available somewhere? Perhaps the job was publicly advertised for example. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Here's the first part of a statement we gave to the press that addresses my role:

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.Arturo at BP (talk) 23:21, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Thank you for being completely transparent about what you do here. We hope to see more editors like you! Please know that the Wikipedia community is openly with you!! :) [Would it be possible to run a news story that revealed the hoax of the previous one? Mal-informed articles like those damages both BP's and Wikipedia's credibility] TheOriginalSoni (talk) 23:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

TNK-BP

Hi Arturo, as the BP rep could you please read my new section re TNK-BP environmental concerns and give feedback. Does this pipeline remain in disrepair or has it been repaired or replaced as needed? Also, could you provide information re the recent changes in the ownership of TNK-BK? Who is now responsible to do the repairs and pipeline replacement that the Minister of Natural Resources said need to be done? Thanks! Gandydancer (talk) 22:19, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I will have to look into it. Thanks for the request. Arturo at BP (talk) 22:32, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Also please see the new questions at the Prudhoe Bay section. Gandydancer (talk) 23:31, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok, by the way, if there was any question, I confirmed that TNK-BP exists no longer after the completion of the sale which we confirmed by press release last week. It's on our website. I am just checking on the facts regarding the pipelines.Arturo at BP (talk) 14:38, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, are you just asking me to verify that the information by Beagel in his last post is correct and clarify anything else discussed there? Arturo at BP (talk) 14:45, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I am asking if you will take a look at the further questions that I asked at the end of the thread that you started when you presented your rewrite of the Prudhoe Bay entry. Let me know if you can't find it and I'll just copy it here. Gandydancer (talk) 15:05, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The No Spam Barnstar
	Your work in ensuring neutral, uniquely-accurate coverage of BP-related articles is admirable. You've shown that entities with a "COI" can still contribute neutrally and effectively to Wikipedia. Keep up the good work. dci | TALK 01:36, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

COI notice question

I had a question. Would you object to insertion, at the top of the BP article, the Wikipedia notice that says "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page." Wikipedia rules do not appear to require that this template be placed on the article. However, this appears to be the only way to inform readers that BP had and has a role in the formulation of this continually evolving article. In light of your active participation in the article, would you object to this notice, so that readers of the article would be duly informed of BP's involvement? I think that would be an enormously helpful gesture of good faith and I urge you, as BP's representative to Wikipedia, to consent to it as a voluntary gesture of disclosure to Wikipedia readers. I think that agreeing to it would go a long way toward diffusing the situation. Thanks in advance, Coretheapple (talk) 13:39, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

By the way, if you agree to a disclosure notice for the article but feel that the wording should be different than above, I'd be very interested to hear your thoughts on alternate wording that can be placed at the top of the BP article. Thanks again, Coretheapple (talk) 13:56, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not Arturo but I for one would object very strongly to this, and I know many others would too. We have never done this before and I don't anticipate it happening in the future. This is not an option. Prioryman (talk) 14:12, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

[EDIT CONFLICT] While I appreciate your concerns re paid editing, wouldn't it be better to bring this matter up with the several Wikipedia groups that continue to work with our paid editor policies? As you know, many articles have paid editors and it would seem only fair that they should all be tagged as well if your line of thinking is correct. Gandydancer (talk) 14:17, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Coretheapple, I agree with Prioryman: the problem is that it would be a misuse of the template, which I understand is supposed to be used only when direct edits by a COI contributor have made the page promotional. So, to use it on the BP article would not be correct. Arturo at BP (talk) 15:25, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I anticipated that, which is why I placed in boldface that disclosure is not required. What I am asking is if BP would agree with, or oppose, a voluntary disclosure that would put this matter behind us? What about some other wording? Coretheapple (talk) 15:50, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Something like this[5] perhaps? Coretheapple (talk) 20:26, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

My understanding is that deciding something like this is not within my authority according to Wikipedia guidelines, and is a matter for the community to decide which is why it was suggested that you bring the matter up with several Wikipedia groups. Thanks. Arturo at BP (talk) 20:38, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I understand, but I wanted to know how you felt about it, and if you had any objections to it or some similar wording. If you have no objection in principle to that kind of notice, I think it would alleviate the situation. Whatever your view on this, I'd really like to hear your view on the subject of disclosure to Wikipedia readers of your role in the article. Let's put aside Wikipedia policies and bureaucracies and talk about the issue. Coretheapple (talk) 20:42, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Nil illegitemi carborundum

The storm will die. I am an admin here and also an email response volunteer. What you've done is exactly what I'd have advised, and had I advised it then I would have gone to bat for you and taken any opprobrium myself. You have played a straight bat. Guy (Help!) 16:39, 28 March 2013 (UTC)