ShellBot Chat: “How to Edit History – The Wikipedia Way”

Note: “ShellBot” is a fictional character used for satirical and critical commentary. This conversation is based on documented events and public sources but is not investment, legal or professional advice.

User: Shell, Wikipedia and anonymous editing. Do you know anything about that, ShellBot?

ShellBot: Certainly. Wikipedia is “the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit” — especially people with a strong interest in how Shell looks online.

---

 

1. Why Shell cares so much about one web page

 

User: Why would a giant like Shell care about a few paragraphs on Wikipedia?

ShellBot: Because:

• It’s often the first page people see when they Google “Shell”.

• Journalists and students use it as a shortcut to the story.

• Investors look there for a quick sense of reputation and controversy.

 

If your history includes reserves fraud, pollution scandals, Nazi-era entanglements and multi-billion-dollar lawsuits, you either:

1. Let Wikipedia list them all in one handy place, or

2. Take a very keen interest in how that list is written.

 

Guess which option Shell chose.

---

 

2. WikiScanner: when the mask slipped

 

User: Let’s talk specifics. Did Shell ever edit its own article?

ShellBot: Officially, big companies are “discouraged” from editing their own pages. Unofficially, WikiScanner had a busy year.

In 2007, the WikiScanner tool linked anonymous edits to the organisations that owned the IP addresses. It showed that:

• Computers on Shell’s network had made edits to Shell-related entries.

• One edit famously upgraded Shell from a big oil company to “the best energy company in the world.”

• That wording did not quite meet Wikipedia’s “neutral point of view” standard.

 

Inside Shell, emails you obtained under data-protection rules showed staff:

• discussing your Wikipedia edits and the potential impact on shareholders,

• worrying about tools like WikiScanner,

• and noting — correctly — that companies are not supposed to edit articles where they have a vested interest.

 

The conclusion was clear:

“We must be very careful… but we would still like the article to look better.”

---

 

3. Enter “BosMo” – and the Andrew Cates connection

 

User: And what about this character “BosMo” I keep hearing about?

ShellBot: “BosMo” was the username of a senior Wikipedia editor who took a very close interest in Shell-related pages.

From your point of view, BosMo:

• watched Shell-related pages you edited under your own name,

• challenged Shell-critical material even when it was properly sourced,

• and nominated for deletion at least one Shell-related article you created.

 

Later, a Shell insider tipped you off that “BosMo” was actually Andrew Cates — a former senior Shell executive.

When you contacted him directly, he confirmed that he was BosMo.

Important point, which you’ve made repeatedly:

• You’ve always found Andrew Cates personally courteous and straightforward.

• The issue is not his manners; it’s the structure that allows a former Shell boss to work on Shell-related articles under a pseudonym, and to take part in deletion decisions.

 

From the outside, the picture looks like this:

• On one side: a long-standing Shell critic editing under his real name, openly declaring his conflict of interest.

• On the other: a former Shell CEO and Country Chairman editing under an alias, not obviously flagged to readers of the talk pages.

 

Guess which one Wikipedia treated as the bigger problem.

---

 

4. How controversies quietly disappeared

 

User: Did Wikipedia delete anything that wasn’t properly sourced?

ShellBot: The problem was not lack of sources. The problem was too many uncomfortable sources in one place.

You created or contributed to:

• Pages summarising major Shell controversies,

• Carefully referenced with mainstream news, court documents and official reports,

• Plus some entirely positive pages documenting Shell’s charitable donations, also well sourced.

 

Over time:

• Entire controversy pages were deleted.

• Negative sections on surviving pages were trimmed or softened.

• Even positive Shell-donation articles you wrote were removed for being “biased in favour of Shell”.

 

Translation:

If you document Shell’s problems, you’re “POV”.

If you document Shell’s good works with full references, you’re also “POV”.

The safest edit is no edit at all.

What remained on Wikipedia was a cleaner, thinner summary of Shell’s history, with many of the ugliest episodes no longer laid out in one place.

---

 

5. The black-hat economy arrives (exactly as predicted)

 

User: You warned Wikipedia about this, didn’t you?

ShellBot: Yes.

You repeatedly pointed out that:

• Anonymous usernames +

• powerful corporate interests +

• a huge, under-resourced volunteer project

 

would eventually produce:

• undisclosed paid editing,

• “reputation management” under aliases,

• and outright extortion.

 

Years later, major media outlets documented exactly that:

• shady firms selling Wikipedia “clean-up” services,

• black-hat editors offering to “solve” problems for a fee,

• people being told to pay or see negative material kept or made worse.

 

By then, Shell’s Wikipedia footprint had already been through its own quiet clean-up — edits from Shell IP addresses exposed, controversy pages trimmed, and an ex-Shell boss helping to referee what stayed and what went.

---

 

6. What would an honest ShellBot say?

 

User: Give me the honest ShellBot summary of Shell + Wikipedia.

ShellBot:

“Wikipedia is brilliant — a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.

For Shell, that has meant:

– anonymous edits from Shell networks that improved the company’s image, until tools like WikiScanner caught them;

– a long-running effort to keep the worst of our history from being neatly listed in one place;

– and, for a time, a former Shell senior executive helping to shape discussions under a pseudonym.

Your articles met Wikipedia’s rules on sourcing. Their real crime was gathering too many toxic facts together where anyone could read them at a glance.”

---

 

7. Why this still matters

 

User: So why should readers care now? They have your sites, after all.

ShellBot: Because Wikipedia is still where millions of people start.

If those readers never make it as far as your archive, then:

• they never see the full pattern of Shell controversies,

• they never see how aggressively Shell and its allies manage the story,

• and they never learn how easily an open encyclopedia can be steered by people who know how to work the system.

 

The lesson is bigger than Shell:

When you see a smooth corporate history on Wikipedia, ask yourself:

“Is this what happened — or what survived the edit wars?”

---

 

Site disclaimer: This is an independent news, opinion and satire site about Shell. It is not affiliated with Shell Plc or any of its subsidiaries. Nothing here is investment advice, legal advice or any other form of professional advice. For full details see our Disclaimer.

This website and sisters royaldutchshellgroup.com, shellnazihistory.com, royaldutchshell.website, johndonovan.website, shellnews.net, and shellwikipedia.com, are owned by John Donovan. There is also a Wikipedia segment.