Talk:Derwick Associates

Prod
I have proposed this page for deletion, based on three facts: 1. Notability: This page fails to meet wikipedia notability guidelines. The organization in question is not encyclopedically relevant, and the article reads like a news story, which is also encyclopedic. The sourcing for the article is almost entirely spanish language advocacy blogs that read suspiciously similarly in their charges. 2. NPOV: The vast preponderance of the article is biased against the subject of the article. In fact, the article was constructed by one person only, and only for purposes of establishing his POV. 3. Thus, the article is promotional in nature. FinanceReferee (talk) 22:23, 29 November 2012 (UTC)FinanceReferee
 * ✅ It seems its main contributor is obsessed with posting information against the company, so no NPOV at all. --Maor X (talk) 13:39, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose for the reasons I have laid out below. It doesn't appear that the template was inserted correctly, so the users who participate in Article for Deletion discussions wouldn't have been notified in the first place. I have given FinanceReferee some guidance on their talk page, and if they review the WP:BEGIN criteria and still want to nominate the article then we can open the discussion again. Justiciero1811 (talk) 00:42, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, my deletion proposal is properly framed, and it is disingenuous and inaccurate to suggest it is not. Further, Justiciero1811 appears to be a sockpuppet identity with no purpose on wikipedia other than this article, which is a violation as well. Justiciero1811 fails to address the substantial point in the deletion proposal, including below, which is simply obfuscation of the fact that his claims fail the wikipedia test of notability, either in the topic of the article (which is news oriented rather than encyclopedic) or claims, which are improperly sourced. The rest of his lengthy monologue is simply not on topic at all. FinanceReferee (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:36, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Whoa, calm down there buddy, I meant no offense. I only suggested a different way of proposing something for deletion because that's how I've always seen it done.


 * Accusing me of being a sockpuppet is uncalled for. I'm doing my best to remain civil and I will continue to do so. I hope you will grant me the same respect in return.


 * You also say that I "fail[ed] to address the substantial point in the deletion proposal." I am confused by this statement. I wrote my response to directly respond to each of the three reasons you propsed the article for deletion in the first place.


 * I am going to remove the removal template, and if you wish to continue with the deletion procedure feel free to add the necessary template to the article. Justiciero1811 (talk) 18:51, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Your removal is inappropriate and improper, and I have restored it. If you continue, I will summon moderation help. FinanceReferee (talk) 19:34, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that you think my change was improper, but I removed the proposal in accordance with the WP:PROD policies that I mentioned earlier:

"PROD must only be used if no opposition is to be expected. The article is marked for seven days; if nobody objects, it is deleted. The first objection kills the PROD. Even after these seven days, a PRODed article can be restored by anybody through an automatized request for undeletion. By the same logic, PROD is one-shot only: It must not be used for articles PRODed before or discussed on AfD...If anyone, including the article creator, removes a [proposed deletion template] from an article, do not replace it..."
 * The next suggested step is taking it up with the WP:Articles for Deletion, where the community can become involved in the discussion. Justiciero1811 (talk) 21:54, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Notablity
It has been mentioned that my writing style is not encyclopedic, and that it reads like a news story. If that is the case, I must apologize for my shortcomings. Perhaps I am not as acquainted with the policies as I should be. I assure you I will work on it. In the interim, I would be most appreciative if someone else could change the writing style into something with a more encyclopedic tone.

As far as relevance, Derwick is a multi-national, multi-billion dollar corporation comparable to Quanta Services, Fluor Corporation, or Jacobs Engineering Group, except it is Venezuelan.

Notability Guidelines require that it have significant coverage that directly address the subject. The current draft of the page meets that requirement.

I'm not sure why it's a problem that one person made the whole thing. Finding sources takes a lot of time. Wouldn't it qualify under WP:Bold? Justiciero1811 (talk) 16:13, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This article seems to clearly fail on notability. If it wasn't for the constant stream of attack pieces generated by Batiz and Boyd (who're probably the same person anyway) coverage of Derwick would amount to virtually zero. English-language coverage already does amount to zero. I know that it's fine to use non-English sources on WP-EN, but what does it say if that's all we have?--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 17:22, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello all, I have begun taking more of an interest in this page when I recently began making edits on a related page. I've noticed that there seems to be a lot of dispute here. Fergus, as much as I see your point of view and it does need addressing, I believe this page does meet Wiki requirements for notability as Justiciero has stated. With that being the case, I think we should work to find more coverage anyways. Hope we can get this page to a point we all agree on.Righteousskills (talk) 20:55, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Reversions
The content on the page is constantly being reverted, so I am bringing it here.

The lead falls in line with WP:LEAD, which says that it "should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." These are very clear points and the lead currently provides an overview of what Derwick Associates is most notable for.

Some other statements have been disputed, suggesting there are multiple sources that prove otherwise; unfortunately, no such sources have been provided. If there are other WP:RS that dispute any facts, then a discussion here will be appropriate. Justiciero1811 (talk) 19:06, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

In fact, this page is being reverted because user justiciero1811 is using it solely as a personal soapbox, and violating multiple WP rules, which have been noted by several users. He continues to ignore WP rules on notability and NPOV. This page will be edited, including reversions, until it is either deleted or accurate and fair. FinanceReferee (talk) 00:17, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

NPOV and Undue Weight discussion
This article has received an Undue Weight Tag. This is the discussion for that and it's NPOV problems.

User justiciero1811 is the original author of this article, and posted substantially all of the content. This article, ostensibly on a company, is instead heavily biased towards an active legal dispute, in which multiple issues are contested, and presents only his POV. Every time another user attempts to restore balance to this article, he reverts it to his version. This is a blatant NPOV violation. Specifically: 1. His content about Derwick is heavily biased towards a contested legal dispute, and he actively takes one side in the dispute. 2. His sources are almost entirely Spanish language articles, and he imposes his interpretation of them, one often inconsistent with the main thrust of the articles when translated (see 18:55, 5 December 2012‎ Justiciero1811). 3. He reverts almost every change back to his chosen POV, and shows little or no respect for the opposition point of view on contested matters. 4. He ignores Notability Guidelines in his choice of sources, and heavily biases his selection to only those that support his point of view.

Others have noted the NPOV issues and Undue weight issues. If this article even survives deletion, which it probably should not, these issues need to be addressed. FinanceReferee (talk) 05:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem that I'm coming across is that if the points are contested, then there should be sources contesting them. They are contested by whom? I mentioned this on my Talk page, but will bring some of the discussion here for the community as a whole. Jimbo Wales suggested that "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents." (This is a papraphrase posted to the WP:UNDUE section.) As of now, I haven't seen any Reliable Sources contesting any of the facts presented.
 * I laid out descriptions of each source and the reasoning behind them being WP:RS, but havent received any comments yet. Maybe we can bring something up on a Reliable sources/Noticeboard if there is anything that stands out in particular?
 * I am working to not push any POV of my own; rather, I am trying to fairly represent the content from the various WP:RS available and to avoid WP:OR. For instance, contesting a statement from a Reliable Source should require more than the person in question's Linkedin page. Justiciero1811 (talk) 21:15, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I recently took notice of this page when I began making edits on a related article. After reviewing it, I have to agree with Justiciero. I'm not saying FinanceReferee's concerns should be completely dismissed, however. But at first glance the sources are RS and they are notable. The question up for debate then is if it is NPOV. The inclusion of the lawsuits, although controversial topics, is certainly acceptable to Wikipedia guidelines. I believe we should look for other reliable sources that present all points of view and positions as possible, but removing details because the RS only support one position would not be fair. Let's keep working to make this page acceptable to everyone. Righteousskills (talk) 21:13, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments

 * This section is well-sourced, so it seemed like a good place to open a thread for a constructive discussion. Justiciero1811 (talk) 22:04, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The simple existence of a reference does not insure that the material is accurate, or that taken in total it represents an encyclopedic entry for the subject of the article.

Each of the removed references above were discredited by other articles or web content. As has been the pattern of Justiciero1811 since he originally wrote this article, when his content is challenged with other refuting material, he simply says that his source is more accurate or more neutral, which is simply untrue. He also uses spanish language sources, and imposes his own interpretive translation upon what these articles say, and his interpretation is biased in the direction of the point of view he wishes to project. The lack of English language sources on this material goes right to the heart of why this article violates the WP:N notability rules of wikipedia. The percentage of material he devoted to discussion of negative allegations about Derwick in an article purportedly about Derwick as a whole goes to violation of undue weight guidelines.

Now, in his latest gambit, he uses the talk page to restore his original and discredited material, under the guise of discussion about it, so that he can keep it in the record. The material is easily accessible through the edit history. It need not be repeated here.

In point of fact, the sources justiciero1811 uses are not neutral, and the charges he makes have not been validated in any courtroom, or even in any indictment. And other sources discredit the claims he makes Wikipedia is not a news service, and is not a site for news updates. If justiciero1811's allegations were settled fact, there could be an argument to their presentation in a balanced way. But since they are charges and allegations with are refuted elsewhere, they do not belong on wikipedia. FinanceReferee (talk) 16:22, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Please WP:Assume good faith on the part of other editors. Can you please explain why the sources used are not neutral?  Also note that WP:Reliable sources in any language can be used on English Wikipedia, so Spanish-language references are fine. If you think the source is being misinterpreted, then let's fix the interpretation rather than remove the sourced content, if the source is reliable. Thanks, Altered Walter (talk) 16:27, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You said they were discredited but didn't provide any examples. Maybe we can bring some specifics here so it's easier to follow? Or maybe the ones that look like they might not be solved here should be taken to a noticeboard? Justiciero1811 (talk) 19:37, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I do assume good faith, although I assume one's actions to be more relevant than one's words. To that point, I observe that virtually every edit you make has been to continue (since your writing of the original article) to hold the subject of this article in a negative light. I also observe that every edit I have made which included revisions or reversions of your material did, in fact, include such supporting links as necessary. I'd appreciate your arguing the merits of why you believe this article should be heavily slanted in one direction only. FinanceReferee (talk) 19:46, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I would be happy to discuss the multiple sources you speak of, but you haven't provided any. It would be very helpful if you could bring up specific examples so we can discuss them together. Throughout your editing I have only noticed you adding one source, but maybe I missed some? And given that this is an encyclopedia, I think the words matter a lot. Justiciero1811 (talk) 21:14, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I also started a thread at Reliable sources/Noticeboard to get some other views on the sources. Justiciero1811 (talk) 22:16, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I have today added information about an amended complaint filed by Derwick on December 7th in the referenced Defamation lawsuit. The amended complaint names this Wikipedia page as the work of defendants and their proxies. The entire complaint, which is available through the reference link on the article page, conclusively illustrates that many of the items you post as assumptive facts are in contention, and subject to litigation. Therefore, they do require neutral presentation as disputed, or withdrawn altogether. Perhaps this will qualify as adequate sourcing you request. FinanceReferee (talk) 19:36, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * WOW! Well, this just took an interesting turn. So does that make you their lawyer?
 * I'm going open an RfC and take a step back. Justiciero1811 (talk) 00:47, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Content to be included
There have been some concerns expressed over some content on the page and any attempt to add information from Reliable Sources is met with reversions, and it has been made clear that this type of action wont stop. Here is a version that can be compared to the page in its current state. Does the content of the page reflect the sources that are available? I suggest that we change the content back to more closely reflect the previous version of the page and actively discuss any particular problems. I am also unsure of how to proceed within the guidelines for user conduct, so any guidance on that would be appreciated as well. Justiciero1811 (talk) 01:13, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I'd be hesitant to touch this before any other users chime in, but the sources given above look acceptable and it appears that there are no particular complaints about them. (It should probably be noted that I am not fluent in Spanish, so I'm looking at the translations.) I'd say the page should be based off of something like that prior revision and tweaked from there. What is added now is pretty ridiculous, and the defamation lawsuit section from "On December 7" onwards just isn't notable, and is the biggest case of undue weight I see. It's a puff piece now, which I guess isn't shocking because there seems to be an obvious agenda that is being pushed. Also take a look at this policy regarding legal threats. Dreambeaver  (talk) 19:22, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Clearly we are in severe COI land here if nothing else.  I have spent to much of Christmas Day on Wikipedia already, so I am going to refer this to AN/I, with a suggestion that top consideration bee given to COI and UNDUE.  Rich Farmbrough, 02:45, 25 December 2012 (UTC).


 * Comment I'm not fluent in Spanish, but neither really fan of Google Translate either, because its accuracy can be contested. Generally we shouldn't avoid sources close to government if there is no other alternatives, but we shouldn't post them as straight facts either. All information, especially information that can't be backed up by other sources than ones close to government, should be carefully weighed and removed if not seem fit for encyclopedia. Monni (talk) 16:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Reverted per this discussion. I understand the above comments as supporting the linked diff, but if I made a mistake, let me know at my talk page.  Nyttend (talk) 16:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

RSN and BLP
I do speak Spanish, but don't have the time to sort out the substantial issues in this article. I was pinged to respond at the RSN-- no primicias24.com does not meet even the basics of WP:RS, but I am more concerned that this article needs to be looked at for WP:BLP vios because numerous marginal sources are used. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 02:32, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * BLP Noticeboard
 * Reliable sources noticeboard (which I had to bring back from archives to respond to the query on my talk page).

Restoration
I restored content that I had added which was removed by FergusM1970. It was there in the hopes that we would be able to discuss specific concerns on the Talk page instead of constantly reverting on the mainspace. If we don't want to discuss that content then maybe it would be best for other pieces to be added here. Justiciero1811 (talk) 21:58, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * And I'm going to remove it again. The talk page is not the place to reproduce huge chunks of the article.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 17:09, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Talk page guidelines suggest that the Talk page is " is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page." The piece was included to open up a discussion if any users deemed this necessary and doesn't need to be taken out. Justiciero1811 (talk) 23:40, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes - the talk page is to provide a place to discuss changes to the article, not to reproduce deleted sections of it. By all means discuss what you think should be in there and why, but please don't use this page to keep disputed material on Wikipedia. That's not what talk pages are for, so stop it. --FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 23:50, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That is an attempt to start a discussion. Instead of reverting it, it should be left to (at minimum) show others the progression of the talk page. Talk pages allow users to park material that can be discussed, and although we have moved on, it does show important pieces of the background of the page. Modifying other users' comments should only be done in exceptional cases. Justiciero1811 (talk) 23:45, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. If you want to start a discussion try raising some points. Please do NOT repeatedly copy chunks of the article on here. It is not necessary and it is not desirable.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 20:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Blanket reverts
I have made a considerable number of edits to this article; I have taken care to explain each one and to point out why I think they improve the article and move it closer to the goal of being NPOV (even though I don't actually think it's notable.) Justiciero1811 has now twice carried out a blanket revert with no explanation whatsoever; his aim appears to be to preserve the original hideously POV version he created. Please let's try to achieve concensus here rather than edit warring and slinging accusations of sockpuppetry around. --FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 23:55, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Excellent, I'm glad you are willing to discuss any big problems on the talk page going forward. I have addressed the problems that I noticed and hope you can voice your concerns here if there is anything that stands out. Justiciero1811 (talk) 23:49, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I have one concern, and that is your insistence on maintaining this article as an attack piece. Many of your justifications for edits are absurd. "Reinstating references to illustrate relevance and to avoid losing them for other uses" What's that supposed to mean? If you want to use refs for other purposes bookmark them; Wikipedia is not your notebook. As for the rest of it you have reinstated dubious translations of sources and a pile of irrelevant material. Your only objective is to slander the company and that is NOT what Wikipedia is for, Alek.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 00:13, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I wanted to note that this discussion has been continued on FergusM1970's talk page. Justiciero1811 (talk) 00:33, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Content
I'll start another thread to go over the content – that way we don't need to continually revert each other. Each piece will have its own section; when applicable, the information in question will be italicized.

First contract
The firm was awarded 12 contracts for such installations in Venezuela during a 2009-2010 energy crisis in that country – their first contract of that kind.

Comments
I think this one goes without saying, but this piece is reliable and interesting because it is the first of the kind.Justiciero1811 (talk) 21:31, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * In fact, of course, every company that builds power stations has had a first contract of that kind. It seems to me that by stressing the fact you're trying to raise questions about why this contract was awarded to Derwick. --FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 18:14, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Just because every contractor has a first contract doesn't mean that this shouldn't be included. It is an interesting piece of information and relevant to the situation. We aren't adding any extra information, so I don't see the problem.Justiciero1811 (talk) 01:08, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything interesting about it at all, frankly, but it can certainly be mentioned if you feel it's important. How about "Derwick's first project was the award of 12 power station contracts in Venezuela during a 2009-2010 energy crisis in that country."? That gives the information but isn't open to misinterpretation like the original wording was. Are you happy with that?--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 01:45, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, that seems to be a fair way to include the information. Justiciero1811 (talk) 22:11, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Other activities
It was reported in August 2012 that Derwick Associates had paid $24 million for El Alamin, a 1,600-acre hunting estate in Toledo, Spain, for the personal use of Betancourt Lopez.

In January 2012, Derwick donated funds for the construction of a football field in Sucre.

Comments
These are activities outside the realm of typical business projects. They are stated as facts and are well-sourced.Justiciero1811 (talk) 21:31, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well-sourced?? WTF?? The hunting estate allegation is based on a spew of crackpot ravings about criminal conspiracies, which Entorno Inteligente published along witha letter strongly denying them. That is not an RS by any stretch of the imagination. The same "source" which mentions the hunting estate also says Derwick bought a billion tons of "iron and slabs" before swerving off into conspiracy theories about diesel smuggling, coltan, US intelligence agencies and iguanas. It's not a reliable source; it's demented. --FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 02:31, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see any reason to doubt Etorno Inteligente, but we can start a conversation about that being an RS. The letter was from a Derwick official and Etorno Inteligente didn't retract the report or suggest that it was wrong in any way, only that Derwick had a problem with it (it isn't shocking that they would have such a problem). Justiciero1811 (talk) 22:11, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Sidor
Derwick also contracted to supply a power plant for Sidor, Venezuela's largest steel corporation, for over $700 million, which included a surcharge of $280 million. Although the plant was supposed to begin operation in May 2010, it was reported that construction had not yet gotten underway as of August 2012, quoting technicians close to the project saying that it “consists of reconstructed turbines and used equipment.” A Derwick official responded with a letter denying the charges in the report.

Comments
This was reported and a Derwick official denied it – it was not proven as false. By mentioning the report and that it was denied by Derwick Associates, it maintains balance.Justiciero1811 (talk) 21:31, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Derwick were contracted to supply the plant, which they did. By my reading of the sources they weren't contracted to install it, so the fact that it isn't installed has nothing to do with them and by stressing this point they seem to be getting the blame for not doing something they weren't hired to do. --FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 18:18, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Madrid address
A journalist working for Venezuela's Últimas Noticias presented herself at Derwick's official address in Madrid, Spain in 201 and spoke over the intercom with a man who she reported had a Venezuelan accent and who, in answer to her question, told her that the building was not the headquarters of Derwick but was his residence.

Comments
This is reputable, concise, and fairly summarizes the Últimas Noticias article.Justiciero1811 (talk) 21:31, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes but, uh, so what? Journalist goes to house and gets told it's a house. And the notability is...? --FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 18:08, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * A journalist arrived at their listed address and found that it was someone's personal residence. This is at least significant enough to be picked up in a nationally circulated newspaper. Again, we are just stating the facts of the RS and not adding extra commentary, so this should be alright.Justiciero1811 (talk) 01:08, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I run a business. Arrive at the listed address and guess what you're going to find? However the source listed for that is Soberania and while its reliability hasn't been discussed it doesn't smell of RS to me. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, it's a site belonging to a political/pressure group and Batiz is a major player there. I'm very concerned about how much of this information comes from Cesar Batiz because, quite frankly, he looks like a nut on the subject. --FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 01:54, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The source is Ultimas Noticias and there have been no evidence of any RS doubting Ultimas Noticias or Batiz, which should be present for us to doubt Venezuela's most-circulated news source.Justiciero1811 (talk) 22:11, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Payments
In November 2011, Derwick was accused of breaching payments to workers.

Comments
They were, in fact, accused of this. It is directly stated in the source. Please reference the paragraph beginning with "Johan Romero".Justiciero1811 (talk) 21:31, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Who accused them? Batiz? --FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 18:23, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The source says that they are accused of breaching payments – it seems pretty clear. Is there some sort of confusion about the link? Justiciero1811 (talk) 01:08, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * and the source is (yet again) Cesar Batiz, correct? --FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 01:57, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it actually looks like it is a small report. Again, it is posted by Ultimas Noticias, which is an RS.Justiciero1811 (talk) 22:11, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Scrutiny
During an energy crisis in Venezuela in 2009-2010, Derwick won several contracts to construct and provide supplies for a number of power plants in that country and has been the subject of scrutiny.

Comments
The company has, in fact, been the subject of much scrutiny. As I said in my earlier edit, "[j]ust because some other unnamed companies are as well doesn't take away from the relevance here."Justiciero1811 (talk) 21:31, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The company has been the subject of "scrutiny" by Batiz and Boyd. Batiz is, in fact, the source of almost all the coverage of the company's alleged misdeeds. To me it looks like a personal vendetta of some kind. --FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 18:11, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You are questioning a number of reliable sources here. Batiz is a very reputable writer and has apparently received a number of awards. I don't see any Boyd sources listed so am unsure about what you mean in this situation. If you have questions with the RSs, maybe the better place to discuss this is WP:RS/N so we avoid WP:OR.Justiciero1811 (talk) 01:08, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I am questioning one source, and that is Cesar Batiz. Almost all the coverage of Derwick has been generated by him, spread across a number of publications. That makes it look like there are multiple RS for this, but in fact there aren't; there is only Batiz. The reason I mentioned Boyd is that you, Boyd and Batiz seem to be the only three people in the world who have an interest in Derwick. --FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 02:00, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, Ultimas Noticias and Batiz are very reputable and have not been questioned by any RS that I can find. Justiciero1811 (talk) 22:11, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Officers
The following individuals are listed as directors of the firm: Pedro Trebbau López, Leopoldo Alejandro Betancourt López, Gonzalo X. Guzman López (listed as Domingo X. Guzman De Frutos López as a director of the Barbados firm), Edgar Romero Lazo, and Iker Candida. Betancourt, Trebbau, and Hernández are the officers of the United States-based firm.

Comments
This is a simple list of the Directors of the firm so should be fine.Justiciero1811 (talk) 21:31, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Completion dates
Bariven awarded contracts in 2010 amounting to more than $760 million for power plants to Derwick and two other intermediaries. Of that sum, the contracts awarded to Derwick amounted to $209 million. The $760 million sum included surcharges of over $403 million, of which just under $87 million were surcharges paid to Derwick. There were allegations of double billing by Derwick for the same parts. In five of the contracts, Derwick was said to have failed to meet completion dates.

Comments
The allegations are reported in the article and are presented without excess commentary.Justiciero1811 (talk) 21:31, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The allegations don't seem to be reported anywhere except in that article and no evidence was provided to support them. The article was, of course, written by Batiz. I'm rather worried about giving undue weight to his views, as he seems to have views about Derwick that are at the very least bordering on obsession. --FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 18:16, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This was reported in Venezuela's number one circulated newspaper – one that was historically very Chavez-friendly. Reports in here should be considered incredibly reputable. Again, questioning a very reliable source should be taken up on the appropriate noticeboard if you think there's a problem. Justiciero1811 (talk) 01:08, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem is, again, the almost total reliance on a single source, especially when he's just making claims with no evidence to back them up. --FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 02:10, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no additional analysis presented - just reports. Justiciero1811 (talk) 22:11, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Legal activity
César Batiz sued the Venezuelan Minister of Minerals and Petroleum in March 2012 for information about Derwick.

On September 13, 2012, Derwick Associates Corp. and its co-founders, Leopoldo Betancourt López and Pedro Trebbau López, filed a lawsuit in Miami-Dade Circuit Court, charging that it had suffered severe damage to its reputation as a result of actions by the Caracas-based bank Venezolano de Credito SA Banco Universal, by the bank's president and chairman, Oscar García Mendoza, and by Rafael Alfonzo Hernandez, a member of the bank's board. The suit, according to one account, “alleged defamation of Derwick, Betancourt and Trebbau; tortious interference with contract and with business relationships; deceptive and unfair trade practices; and civil conspiracy. The company is seeking preliminary and permanent injunctions as well as monetary damages.”

The amount of damages specified in the lawsuit was $300 million. The premise of the lawsuit was that García Mendoza and Alfonzo Hernandez were connected with the anonymous Spanish-language website www.wikianticorrupcion.org, which had accused Derwick of criminal corruption. Betancourt López said: “This legal action is not against freedom of expression, but against the practice of anonymous defamation. We have been the object of a campaign based on absolutely false charges.” García Mendoza denied that he, the bank, or Alfonzo Hernandez had done any of the things they were charged with.

Comments
There is a very significant amount of information on legal activity pertaining to Derwick Associates. The section doesn't make any allegations of its own and presents the information in a plain manner.Justiciero1811 (talk) 21:31, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Services
Derwick Associates is a primarily Venezuelan company that “provides engineering, procurement and power-plant construction services".

Comments
These are the services that Derwick Associates say the provide. The majority of their actions seem to be related power-plant construction.Justiciero1811 (talk) 21:31, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know how familiar you are with power stations, but their construction requires large amounts of both procurement and engineering. --FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 18:12, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Right, but that doesn't mean that we wouldn't include a more clear description – one that they themselves provided. Justiciero1811 (talk) 01:08, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no objections to that wording; I just think it's unnecessarily wordy when "engineering company" conveys the same information. By all means put it back in if you think it would be an improvement. --FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 02:12, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Inception
In a lawsuit filed in 2012, Derwick directors maintained that the firm was founded in 2007.

Comments
Unique information that was brought up by the directors. This helps construct the history.Justiciero1811 (talk) 21:31, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Pointless information that adds nothing. The only suggestion that Derwick wasn't founded in 2007 comes from a video embedded in an article by (who else?) Cesar Batiz, claiming that Derwick was founded in Panama in 2003. However a quick search was enough to show that this Panamanian company, registration number 431880, had nothing to do with the personalities involved in the Venezuelan firm Derwick. Batiz couldn't spare 2 minutes to check his facts, but luckily I've done it for him. --FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 02:18, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you please provide links or elaborate on what you see? Justiciero1811 (talk) 22:11, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep. Here's the record summary: Derwick Associates S.A.. --FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 11:06, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * And this is why Wikipedia editors aren't supposed to do Original Research. If you take 5 more seconds and click on the link for the director of the company, Luis A. David you will find that he is the director of nearly 1,000 companies. This is because Davis is a proxy director. These arrangements are common for companies that want to hide who the real directors are; these types of arrangements are present in the United States as well. Please leave the investigating to the investigative reporters.
 * Also, how did you come across ohuiginn.net? I wasn't aware that anyone outside of South America knew about it since it's basically a private blog of Dan O'Huiginn. And how did you come to suspect that Derwick was not registered in Panama? Perhaps if I understood how you came to suspect this fact, I could better assist in resolving this issue. Justiciero1811 (talk) 18:22, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * lmgtfy.com/?q=panama+company+register --FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 02:14, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Ultimas Noticias
I opened up an RS/N discussion on Ultimas Noticias to help put all the back-and-forth to rest. Hopefully we can move forward now that we know it is highly reliable. Justiciero1811 (talk) 21:25, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter if it's reliable or not when it doesn't support what it's being cited for. Where are surcharges mentioned? Where does it say the accusations of double billing were aimed at Derwick and not one of the other companies?--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 21:30, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * This is all from the digital print version of Últimas Noticias (another). "Bariven compro con sobreprecio" translates to "Bariven bought (contracted) with overprice" (sobreprecio means overpriced in any dictionary).
 * All the companies, Derwick included, are mentioned with respect to overpricing;
 * Spanish: "Últimas Noticias publicó un reportaje en el que se evidencia que las compañías Derwick Associates, KCT Cumana II y Ovarb Industrial ofertaron las 17 unidades con un sobreprecio de $403 millones de dólares."
 * English: "Ultimas Noticias published an article in which it exposed Derwick Associates, KCT Cumana II y Ovarb Industrial offered 17 units overpriced by $403 million."
 * Just out of curiosity, do you speak Spanish fluently? Justiciero1811 (talk) 21:47, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "Overpriced" is a subjective opinion and does not mean "surcharge." And no, I don't speak Spanish at all. However my sister in law does; she's from Salamanca, and seems fairly fluent. --FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 10:50, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Ahh, I see the issue. This is a simple translation problem. There are many more words in English than (to my knowledge) in any other language on the planet. Because of this huge vocabulary, some words don't necessarily translate verbatim. For example, in Dutch, they don't have a word that directly translates into "glove": they use the word "hand shoe" instead. If we were to take your line of reasoning, it would make translations all but impossible... Not to mention the fact that the word "sobreprecio" directly translates into "surcharge" in English...:
 * "sobreprecio SM (=recargo) surcharge; (=aumento de precio) increase in price"
 * Why you insist on challenging me on these minor semantic issues is beyond me, but I guess some people just like to argue.Justiciero1811 (talk) 18:29, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * A surcharge is an extra charge applied on top of the price. It's not the same as overpricing. This is indeed a simple translation problem, but it's not me that's making it. There is a reason I have things translated by a native Spanish speaker who's also fluent in English, which is to avoid problems.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 19:35, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I didn't make myself clear above: "sobreprecio" means "surcharge". There is no distinction between the two words. The issue might be that your sister is from Salamanca where they speak a different dialect of Spanish from the Spanish of South America. This article was published in South America, not Spain.
 * I do speak Spanish, as does my entire family. I can assure you that they are the same thing. But since there is a snowball's chance in hell that you're going to take my word for it, I'm going to ask someone else who knows Spanish to comment on this post. Justiciero1811 (talk) 22:46, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * This is English Wikipedia, and in English "surcharge" does not mean "increase in price."--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 02:09, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that we will need to accept Justiciero1811 version and agree that "sobreprecio" means "surcharge" but in this situation I see the inconvenience of this word's usage as it means "fee" and we deal here with the increase in price.-- Folklorin (talk) 19:32, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That's exactly my issue with it. On a strict interpretation of the word it's possible to insist on "surcharge," despite that not being what "surcharge" means in English at all. It's just a shame this subject is so totally lacking in notability there are no English-language sources, isn't it? As for accepting Justiciero's version, I would say not. The source is talking about excessively high fees (a subjective opinion, of course,) not surcharges, and I don't think we should let "surcharges" get pushed in for technical reasons. There were no surcharges applied and using the word will just confuse the English speakers this article is intended for. This is English Wikipedia and the article should be written to make sense in English, not to match the words of some Venezuelan hack.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 12:20, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Manuel Diaz
It's mentioned that Manuel Diaz made allegations against Derwick then subsequently retracted them. I think we need some indication of who Manuel Diaz is and why his allegations matter; otherwise we might as well say "Someone said stuff then admitted he made it up." At the moment it adds nothing to the article other than to smear the company.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 10:55, 18 April 2013 (UTC)


 * This is all very confusing to me. Above you make the argument that Entorno Inteligente is not a reliable source, then you intend to use it as a source when it serves your purposes. You wrote:
 * "Well-sourced?? WTF?? The hunting estate allegation is based on a spew of crackpot ravings about criminal conspiracies, which Entorno Inteligente published along witha letter strongly denying them. That is not an RS by any stretch of the imagination. The same 'source' which mentions the hunting estate also says Derwick bought a billion tons of 'iron and slabs' before swerving off into conspiracy theories about diesel smuggling, coltan, US intelligence agencies and iguanas. It's not a reliable source; it's demented."


 * Can you please point out where, specifically, the source mentions Manuel Diaz retracting his claim? The source for this claim was placed by the lawyer of Derwick Associates and says nothing about Diaz retracting his claim. In fact, it says quite the opposite. Here is what the article says:


 * "Manuel Díaz que hay información de que estos se encuentran en el Banco del Tesoro por un total de US$700 millones 'y aquí están las pruebas de las transferencias entre Gazprombank del Líbano al Banco del Tesoro que se realizaron en dos partes: la primera transferencia fue de US$206 millones el 10 de marzo y la segunda se realizó el 18 de marzo por un monto de 500 millones de dólares; por eso le exigimos al Presidente; le reintegre ese dinero al pueblo de Guayana y a sus trabajadores y estamos enviando una comunicación al Ministro de Planificación Jorge Giordani solicitando el reintegro del dinero para adecuaciones tecnológicas, pagos a proveedores, materia prima y algunos pasivos que se les adeudan a los trabajadores."


 * In short, it says that a $700 million was transferred into Gazprombank and Manuel Díaz is calling for the money to be returned. There is nothing in the article about a retraction. Justiciero1811 (talk) 19:12, 18 April 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, it's possible that my translation was wrong on this point. I don't see any mention of Derwick either though... --FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 19:41, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * What did your translation say?
 * I'm not going to defend this source. It was added by Derwick's lawyers and is totally misleading. Derwick is mentioned in the Ultimas Noticias article linked to in the same paragraph. Justiciero1811 (talk) 22:54, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution
Hi, I've been away from Wikipedia for a few days. Would you still like assistance on this? The bot archived the discussion because it had been a couple of weeks since it was opened. I thought we were making some progress; I'm happy to unarchive the discussion (or continue it here) if you think it would be helpful. --Merlinme (talk) 10:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, your assistance would be much appreciated.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 16:35, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, we might as well continue it here where it's not going to get archived.
 * Looking at the article currently, references: 5 (law.com), 7 (soberania.org), 8 (elvenezolanonews.com), and 10 (entornointeligente.com) have had their reliability questioned. Should these references be deleted, or is anyone prepared to argue that they are in fact Reliable Sources? Can alternative references be found? If those references are deleted and no alternatives can be found, is there any material which needs to be deleted from the article because it is controversial and no longer supported?
 * Once we've finished sorting out the sorting we can look at any further issues. Thanks, --Merlinme (talk) 17:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * My feeling is that they're not reliable, as they appear to be small and potentially biased operations. I'd really, really like to see more RSs being used that didn't involve Cesar Batiz. He may very well be a reliable journalist, but the impression I'm getting is that he's not too objective on this subject and some independent corroboration of his claims would make the article look a lot less like a hatchet piece.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 03:45, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * As nobody has stepped up to defend the reliability of these sources, I'm going to wait another day or two then remove the claims based on them.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 18:47, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I've returned the "Legal activity" section that was removed as being from unreliable sources. The sources were ok - Law.com is part of ALM, and in this case they were republishing an article from Daily Business News, which is reliable. Law360 is part of LexisNexis, and is a reliable source, and El Mundo is also fine, although the content it covers is also backed up by one of the Law60 articles, and shouldn't be controversial in itself. The last source was Analítica.com, which looks reliable, but the only thing it was being used to source was the $300m figure, and that was in the Daily Business News article, so I replaced the ref for an English one to make it a bit easier for some readers to verify. - Bilby (talk) 23:04, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, that sounds fair enough.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 04:52, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Balanced presentation
If the neutral point of viewis violated, one must keep in mind that Wikipedia should reflect the most relevant opinions based on verifiable information (books, newspapers, etc.). Personal opinions cannot be put in the articles. For this reason we don’t understand why certain information is removed, for example Derwick received the award for "Best Entrepreneurship in Latin America." Would be ideal to reach a neutral point. Still it has not gone out a firm judgment, about the allegations that are being launched.,for what we see well that is appointed but always clarifying that has not gone out a firm judgment. This article has received also an Undue Weight Tag, this means that someelse also considers the last changes of an public IP not to be NPOV. The vast preponderance of the article is biased against the subject of the article. In fact, the article was reconstructed by one person only, and only for purposes of establishing his POV.--Tony3485 (talk) 16:15, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * It is important that there are a neutral point of view. Currently they are just trying to attack from a public IP, without to be a registered user. Until there isn't a final judgment, there should be nothing in this article.

That said, I proceed to add the award for "Best Entrepreneurship in Latin America."--Majogomezsz (talk) 10:35, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

According to this, I am going to restore information regarding the TCC. This piece of information was deleted just for the sake of attacking this company.--Tony3485 (talk) 14:52, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I realize you are both single-purpose users and more than likely are working for some PR company on behalf of this multinational company. That's fine. Your contributions, in terms of adding perspective, can be very valuable. But only if the sources you use are RS. The material you are posting about some award and other things that are coming from astrotufing news sites listed in references 11-15 aren't RS. As such they are not reliable. I am going to remove them. You can't just edit the page and remove sourced RS material because you think it is an "attack" on this company. Similarly, you can't add things you think are "balance" because they are public relations articles on paid websites. The fact is that there are dozens of newspaper articles in RS that indicate a growing scandal and from what I can see on google news, it has been reported in half a dozen countries. Please study WP:RS closely before removing anything further. I will delete the information that is sourced from non-RS materials. Thank you for choosing to come to talk page instead of just editing directly. This is the way to improve this article, through civil interaction and following WP. 27.122.12.72 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:20, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

The same I can say about your single-purpose and your interest in only adding defamatory information. Regarding the sources you claim that they are not RS, please have a look at them again and you may see that these are completely RS. For Example, you claim El Economista as a non RS, have a look in its page, in alexa and also here https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Economista_(España). so you can see that it is the second financial newspaper in Spain. I can do the same with El Nacional and so on if you wish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony3485 (talk • contribs) 09:27, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I've noticed that the data grid has been deleted. This information is referenced in Analitica.com. According with the information in this talk page, this source has been considered RS. You can see above. For this, I proceed to restore it.--Tony3485 (talk) 10:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC) I've deleted old information claiming that the company has failed to complete five plants, because above it is said that 11 termoelectric plant has been finished already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony3485 (talk • contribs) 09:37, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I've deleted a paragraph which made an accusation but was not referenced. This references does not regard Derwick, it is an article about a journalist. --Tony3485 (talk) 09:42, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Bad faith editing
Sorry, Tony, you can't just delete a paragraph with RSs which does indeed "regard Derwick". Let's see what it said:

"The first published allegation of wrongdoing by Derwick Associates occurred in 2011 when Venezuelan newspaper Ultimas Noticias's César Batiz published an investigative series alleging overbilling and odd transactions between BARIVEN and Derwick Associates. The investigation uncovered that the son of the government official awarding a power plant contract to Derwick had shipped a 1959 Porsche automobile using Derwick Associates office address on the shipment and importation paperwork. Days later an elected deputy to the country's National Assembly called for an investigation of how the Derwick contracts were awarded."

How is that paragraph either "not referenced" when it had two RSs or "an article about a journalist."

You are engaging in bad faith editing. I must ask you, for the record: do you have any connection to the company or to a PR entity involved with them? Why are you so eager, and have such a history, of repeatedly removing any sourced information about this company which covers matters that are in news outlets such as the Wall Street Journal, Associated Press, or RSs in Venezuela such as Ultimas Noticias or El Universal newspaper? I am putting the paragraph back in. I'm also subjecting the article to further review. If you continue to engage in this sort of editing I will flag the piece and seek moderation 27.122.12.72 (talk) 15:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Adding Wikianticorrupcion; the "anonymous' website
I'm adding a paragraph about this website inasmuch as the entire crux of the legal activity surrounding this company had to do with Wikianticorruption. Those who wish to calmly and civilly discuss are welcome to do so at talk.27.122.12.72 (talk) 16:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Nope. And the mélange of sources, many of which do not support the claims made, coupled with anonymous "allegations" about living persons does not comport with Wikipedia policies such as WP:BLP.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:29, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Allegations of corruption
The sources in the "allegations of corruption" section is about a company, this is not a biography of living persons. The sources include 1) Semana, an RS, which is Colombia's leading investigation magazine--the equivalent of Newseeek 2) Ultimas Noticias, which is an RS 3) Reporters Without Borders, which is an RS and a highly respected NGO about the rights of journalists, 4) Nelson Bocaranda (to anyone who follows Venezuela it doesn't even require to read his wiki page to know who he is and how credible he is.

Calling several independent sources from three different countries (Colombia, France, Venezuela) a "melange" is disingenuous. There are PR people trolling this page and removing sourced information. Please stop.15cpw (talk) 01:08, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Table in middle of article
There is a box in the middle of the article with a table that doesn't seem to add much. Whatever it is the source is http://www.analitica.com/noti-tips/8921474.asp which states as the byline: "Departamento de Asuntos Corporativo" That means "corporate Affairs Department.  This is a press release.  Further, Analitica.com is not an RS.  I am removing the table.  If someone can find the information table elsewhere then it's fine to include but, as is, this is coming out15cpw (talk)

undue weight tag
I'm leaving this tag on so that the PR folks working the page can make their case about where the undue weight is. Anyone who watches Venezuelan news knows the impact and importance of the Derwick scandal, news-wise, in that country's history. My hope is that we can remove it at the end of this week.

Review of Talk Page Discussion and comment to anyone stopping by
This article, about a Venezuelan/Panamanian/Barbados/US company by the name Derwick Associates has gone through a fascinating development since it was originated. It went from describing a civil case brought by Derwick Associates against an anonymous website accusing them of Defamation to become an article that was all puffery and public relations.

Then history took a turn and a former U.S. Ambassador to Venezuela and senior State Dept. official sued Derwick in a NY Federal Court accusing them of paying bribes in Venezuela and engaging in all sorts of criminal activity including surveillance of journalists, conspiracy, malicious prosecution, and he filed the case under the RICO statute, which is what prosecutors use when dealing with a "criminal enterprise" (usually the mob).

About six months later (if my nexis chronology isn't missing anything) another lawsuit was filed, this time by a human rights lawyer in New York (who apparently is also a columnist for the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, The Atlantic and other sources used as RS on wikipedia). That particular lawsuit accuses Derwick Associates and its founders and investors of engaging in bribery in Venezuela at the highest level as well as maliciously defaming journalists engaged in investigative reporting about their alleged crimes. That lawsuit was filed in Florida State court. Anyone who has access to nexis or who can search for the information about Derwick and its legal troubles will find that it has been reported extensively in Spain, Ecuador, Colombia, Venezuela, Mexico, Peru, Argentina, the U.S., and so on in RSs and in dozens of blogs and nonRS media to list.

In a fascinating (for me) turn, Reporters Without Borders, a highly reputable NGO based in Paris has published research indicating that Derwick (or someone who sympathizes with them) has successfully banned certain websites that talk about the allegations against them--on ALL cable and ISP companies inside Venezuela.

I also note, for the benefit of anyone actually searching about the company, that there also appears to be a massive effort to protect Derwick and its executives from anyone seeking information about them via google... someone has engaged in an ungodly amount of "astroturfing" on behalf of Derwick by creating multiple accounts for the company on heavily trafficked platforms including: Twitter, Spotify, Facebook, TwitPic, Reverbnation, Slideshare, PRweb, Newsvine, Jigsy, and lots of blogspot. They've even got a bizarre page on change.org with two bogus "petitions"

None of these pages appear to be used for corporate purposes and the entries (if any) are from months or years ago and appear to be SEO work. It's filler to clog up my google search engine so that any actual news coverage from reliable sources like the Dow Jones Newswire, Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg, the Associated Press, or even the Miami Herald do not show up in a search engine. See for yourself:

http://www.slideshare.net/derwickassociates https://twitter.com/derwickcorp http://derwick-associates.blogspot.com/ http://derwickassociates.jigsy.com/ http://derwick.newsvine.com/ http://www.reverbnation.com/derwickassociates http://derwickassociate hubpages com/ https://www.change.org/organizations/derwick_associates http://www.prweb.com/releases/Derwick-Associates/Spain-Expansion/prweb11297809.htm https://www.facebook.com/pages/Derwick-Associates-Venezuela/148888455271875 http://twitpic.com/photos/derwickcorp

There is obviously nothing illegal about creating the internet equivalent of "white noise" or astroturfing but it can lead someone like me to be extraordinarily skeptical, especially when I read from an RS that the company has persecuted journalists and had them offered bribes and when that didn't work, had the journalists harassed by the Venezuelan secret police: Here's one NGO

http://ipys.org.ve/alerta/autor-de-investigaciones-periodisticas-sobre-sector-electrico-es-citado-por-presunto-funcionario-de-policia-de-inteligencia-e-intimidado-por-empresa-contratista-2/

And here's a reporter for Monocle on the same subject: http://settysoutham.wordpress.com/2012/12/21/venezuelan-intelligence-defends-derwick-associates-from-the-deadly-peril-of-journalism/

Consequently, those I suspect are from Derwick's PR company (users Tony3485 and Majogomezsz) be on polite notice: you will be treated fairly here, you will be interacted with on good faith, you will be addressed with civility, but you will not be allowed (by me, at least, when I can get time off work) to do here, in an encyclopedia, what possibly you (or others) have been able to accomplish elsewhere on the internet. Obviously, the two single-purpose users that have been reverting my edits (and others they bring in) are going to continue. However, I ask anyone visiting or concerned about edit-warring, or balance, or NPOV that take these discussions with a very large grain of salt given the voluminous information that exists, the bad faith of the company with regard to covering up negative information rather than responding to it, the Reporters Without Borders involvement (https://wefightcensorship.org/censored/corruption-limits-venezuelan-internethtml.html), and the persecution of legitimate, independent, Award-winning journalists who have dared to write about what they believe are the illegal actions of this company and its principals. The two lawsuits against them are surely going to continue to get some coverage in RS media in the U.S. and I will update the information accordingly--including the responses and denials by the company and its executives.

Thank you for your patience and happy administrating/or editing 27.122.12.78 (talk) 17:27, 17 April 2014 (UTC)


 * How you can see, my user is quite old and I have made hundreds of edits, I can not say anything about your ip, since not even have you a user. Just trying to create neutral content in this article, because in no time I have denied the accusations against Derwick but it has not gone any judgment yet.--Majogomezsz (talk) 14:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

More PR agents at work
Once again it appears that a single-purpose user is adding thousands of characters with this sort of puffery:

"Engineering, Procurement & Construction (EPC) Division Our approach involves looking at every detail. Derwick offers a team with over 20 years of experience in the energy business, ready to provide cost-effective solutions for Engineering, Procurement and Construction of turbines and generators."

and "Parts Service Division We know our business thoroughly and understand the needs for immediate response required by the client. In Derwick we have a parts delivery service with immediate availability through a secure and re- liable network of suppliers and manufacturers."

and

"At this stage we consider the provision of the following services: Repair of components – Hot Section: repair and work on nozzles, vanes, combustors and transition pieces. Recovery - Fuel Nozzles: repair and calibration of nozzles systems for combustion with low gas and liquid emissions (DLN systems)."

Wikipedia is not a corporate advertising website.

User Venezolano2014 has been told to cease adding unreferences material. if it comes from an RS and is germain there is no problem in having it there, but seeking to make the page 20 pages long, in order to, I suspect, dilute the legal activities section, just won't fly. And those of us who are watching this page have to go to extreme lengths so that we don't end up like journalist Cesar Batiz, whose story about what happened when he reported on Derwick Associates is a chillign reminder of the lack of press freedom in Venezuela.27.122.12.69 (talk) 19:52, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I have asked user venezolano2014 to cease reverting edits. He doesn't seem to understand http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources and believes the company website is a valid RS. Can someone please help out here. i don't want to seem like some dogged radical, just trying to protect the integrity of these policies vis-a-vis who I suspect are a PR team....


 * Yea, as I've reviewed this page more and more I am discovering more concerns that need to be addressed. A lot of these one time users are not familiar with Wikipedia guideline. I will do my best to assume their good faith, but it is disconcerting. I will patrol this page when I can and do my best to maintain it. Righteousskills (talk) 21:40, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

reorganizing data
I am going to move "defamation campaign" beneath "allegations of corruption" in order to have it be chronological. After that I will put the Legal Activity. And at the end I will put the technical data that has been added27.122.12.73 (talk) 00:45, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

ongoing reversions and single-purpose user PR work
Now the page has a new user, reverting changes made. It seems the strategy is to add massive amounts of information to dilute any of the issues surrounding the company's media profile. The ENTIRE notability of this company, from its inception, has to do with allegations of corruption, bribery, legal activity. It had virtually no news notability. Ever. Prior to the many, varied, and sourced articles that have appeared in places ranging from the Wall Street Journal, Associated Press, New York Times, El Pais, Semana, ABC, El Nacional, El Universal, and dozens of other newspapers. The idea that the lede in this entry should have no reference to what has made this company notable is absurd and gives undue weight to the PR puffery. Anyone wondering about this should read above. Meanwhile, I feel like a one-armed paper-hanger dealing with sock puppets and PR personnel who are reverting willy-nilly and never once making a single argument here on the talk page. I am leaving a record here for any bystander or moderator who comes by. (Help!). 27.122.12.79 (talk) 03:13, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * As I believe we should still do our best to assume good faith (although I am becoming more suspicious of some of these users) I think if their edits that add information about the company's awards and other exploits are well sourced, we can leave them in. However, you are correct about the article's lead and the removal of information on its lawsuits and allegations. This is all well-sourced and cannot simply be removed. I will begin patrolling this page more actively and helping out as best I can. Righteousskills (talk) 21:46, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism edits
User 27.122.12.* is trying to give an absurd notability to the legal issue of the company. Yes there are legal actions taken by the company and against the company, but which corporation doesn´t have legal battles? Please stop reverting my edits and leave the information in the respective sections. It doesn´t make sense that the vast majority of this article is about legal disputes. Also, I don´t think there´s a PR campaign, just people trying to shed some objective light in the subject, which obviously conflicts with your interests. And no, I´m not a "Sock Puppet" like you called me in my User talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naruto2839 (talk • contribs) 03:45, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

You cannot call sourced, notable information "vandalism" and you have made no case whatsoever to have this removed. The issue here isn't a "legal battle" involving a contract dispute but accusations of bribery, surveillance of journalists, overbilling of a company with scant experience described as a "fly-by-night." And, for your information, legal battles involving such accusations do make it on wikipedia pages of company entries. I'm going to edit things back to where they are and I will seek moderation. Please let's not edit further till others step in27.122.12.79 (talk) 04:16, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not calling notable information vandalism; vandalism is the way you are editing this article without allowing any new content. I'm not suggesting to remove the legal and accusations, only to put them in their proper spaces and to respect new content as long as it's justified. You seem to be interested only in the negative press and completely reluctant to accept any new changes to the article. This goes completely against WP rules. I will also seek moderation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naruto2839 (talk • contribs)

My edits to this article belie any assumption that I am not allowing new content. if you read above you will see that my objections or to puffery that has been lifted from the Derwick homepage. That's hardly vandalism but sticking to WP. While we are at it please do *not* remove the RSd paragraph from the Diosdado Cabello page. Now *that's* vandalism. Let's agree that you can keep all the new stuff you have added but the contention that the entry shouldn't have an opening mention of the multiple corruption allegations and lawsuits is absurd. Also, I have just ordered a book about Derwick's corruption. It is published with an intro by Spanish superjudge Baltasar Garzón. In the reviews it says it covers the allegations of corruption against this company. It will be added in due time once I get the copy27.122.12.73 (talk) 05:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

You kept reverting all changes I did while all of them where valid, please take a look at the revision history as I will not waste more time explaining something which is obvious. You say the entry should have a mention of the corruption allegations and lawsuits and I think it shouldn't; this WP article is about Derwick Associates as a company and not Derwick's legal battles. I'm glad you just stated that you bought a book about "Derwick's corruption" and that you take the time to constantly monitor and review all articles that include references to "Derwick's corruption"; this and the fact that you only promote and publish negative content about Derwick shows that you are completely biased against the company and therefore in violation of several WP rules such as Neutral Point of View (NPV) and Conflict of Interest (COI). And before you state that the same applies to me, let me remind you that I haven't published anything positive about the company, just informative and factual material. By the way, it seems to me that all negative press against Derwick is based on reckless accusations without any solid proof or evidence (just my opinion, please don't go now and make this the center point of the discussion). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naruto2839 (talk • contribs) 16:04, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Naruto2839, Looking at the discussion thread as well as the edit histories something is clear: this company is at the center of a number of legal battles and major corruption allegations. Your statement: "By the way, it seems to me that all negative press against Derwick is based on reckless accusations without any solid proof or evidence" is not relevant here. The links from reliable sources reveal lawsuits in U.S. Federal courts. How do you know they have no solid proof or evidence? Further, there's a journalist referred to here that won awards for covering Derwick Associates overbilling scandals. I think you should take a break from editing this subject (which appears to be your only purpose on wikipedia, given your edit history) and allow some consensus to build and some more editors to participate in the discussion. I've been watching this matter and haven't chimed in but what you publish above is both not in line with WP policies nor is it in line with the spirit of community and consensus.12.130.117.24 (talk) 16:16, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Gents, I am new to the discussion but I want to add some ideas for your consideration. it is important to remember that in the US you do not need a solid legal base to introduce a lawsuit. Just the believe in good faith that you have a base is enough to file the lawsuit. We all know this. Courts do not take information contained in lawsuits at face value and neither should we.

I saw that User 27.122.12.* is very focused on the narrative of the lawsuits and I wanted to have an informed view on the issue, so I read both lawsuits.

Lets put the facts clear to everyone. There are 2 defamation lawsuits against Derwick Associates ie 2 people that want Derwick to pay money to them. In one lawsuit a person that had a verbal agreement with a Derwick litigation counterparty and he is suing for payment for the contract that he did not signed.

The second lawsuit is about a journalist that received 2 letter from Derwick lawyers at 2 news outlets that this journalist is affiliated with. According to the lawsuit, the 2 news outlet terminated the relationship with the journalist after the letters were received and that is why he is suing Derwick for payment. What this means is that the lawsuit is based solely in legal letters sent by New York law firms.

The 2 lawsuits are civil actions introduced by civil persons. This is the equivalent of you suing your neighbor whose car hit your fence and who happens to be an investment banker and in the lawsuit you blame your neighbor (with substance or not) about the subprime crisis, include criminal accusations of wrongdoing during the subprime, including predatory lending, misrepresentations to investors, etc and then you ask for some money to pay for your fence. Putting it in another way, you could have sued your neighbor for the damage that his car caused to your fence skipping the negative and legally not relevant information.

Is all the colorful information in both lawsuits necessary to make a legal case?. I think the answer is no. Do plaintiffs really needed to include all the negative information in the lawsuits to demand payment for defamation cases?.

Could simpler and less colorful lawsuits have sufficed to start litigations or to seek settlement negotiations?. I think that the answer is yes.

I happen to think that the idea to include all this negative information is to inflict PR damage to any defendant. I think that a safe and unbiased course of action is not to take the information in any lawsuit at face value until a judge, a court, or an authority says otherwise. Lets focus in fact and not make these allegations the center of the article 190.199.160.75 (talk) 23:21, 27 April 2014 (UTC)


 * It's great that you have offered us your perspective and perception on both lawsuits. Unfortunately, original research isn't really what we need to determine whether something will or won't stay on the page.  Reading the discussion thread it's clear (and I perceive) that this is something slightly larger than someone "suing for payment for the contract that he did not signed."  Further, you state that "it is important to remember that in the US you do not need a solid legal base to introduce a lawsuit."  Well, you're clearly not a lawyer. Perhaps you should read up on what Rule11 is. If a lawsuit is not filed with a solid legal basis it will lead to sanctions.  But you continue: "We all know this. Courts do not take information contained in lawsuits at face value and neither should we."  No,  "190.199.160.75" "we" all don't know this because it simply isn't true and I perceive you are not an attorney. Courts DO take information contained in a civil complaint at face value and it is precisely for that reason that Rule 11 exists.


 * You state: "The 2 lawsuits are civil actions introduced by civil persons."  Yes, because in the United States, from where I write, civil courts is where civilians go to redress their grievances and most of the time, cases involving either breach of contract or defamation might well be historic cases of enormous importance.  Such as  New York Times Co. v. Sullivan or Falwell v. Hustler or  Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co.  Let me assure you that just because something is perceived as being "just a civil case" and is not a criminal matter doesn't mean that it either won't become one or that it won't have any transcendence in the courts. And reviewing the Wall Street Journal article about the legal situation here it's clear this is a RICO case, and not a case about the subprime crisis or predatory lending. In the eyes of a lawyer a RICO case is a pretty big deal.


 * The editor writes even more: "Do plaintiffs really needed to include all the negative information in the lawsuits to demand payment for defamation cases?" This is a fascinating question that I hope gets answered by the reporters covering these trial.


 * At issue here is whether or not the introductory paragraph should include the following statement:


 * "The company has been dogged by ongoing allegations of corruption and lawsuits in United States federal and state courts. The company denies all wrongdoing and has stated that it is the target of a defamation campaign." Include:

http://www.ultimasnoticias.com.ve/noticias/ciudad/parroquias/ipys-reconoce-investigacion-de-periodista-de-un.aspx

http://www.eluniversal.com/2011/08/15/oposicion-exige-revisar-plan-de-inversion-electrica

http://www.semana.com/mundo/articulo/las-razones-los-robos-que-hicieron-fallar-el-sistema-electrico-en-venezuela/356401-3

http://www.ultimasnoticias.com.ve/noticias/ciudad/videos--serie--trampas-electricas--de-un-premiada.aspx

http://ipys.org.ve/alerta/autor-de-investigaciones-periodisticas-sobre-sector-electrico-es-citado-por-presunto-funcionario-de-policia-de-inteligencia-e-intimidado-por-empresa-contratista-2/

https://www.wefightcensorship.org/tr/node/203html.html

http://www.el-nacional.com/economia/Calculan-sobreprecio-plantas-supera-millardos_0_245375679.html

http://internacional.elpais.com/internacional/2013/09/05/actualidad/1378389465_768430.html

http://www.americasquarterly.org/content/venezuelas-electricity-deficit


 * There's three newspaper from Venezuela that are RS withh separate articles about different topics relating to accusations of surcharges and corruption
 * There's one international NGO, Reporters Without Borders, that is an RS, claiming there is a campaign of online censorship to cover up the corruption of this company
 * There's Spain's most important newspaper (or second most important if you like ABC better), that is an RS, with a pretty categorical take on overbilling and corruption by Derwick
 * There's the publication of NY NGO America's Society echoing the above by yet a different writer
 * There's a report in Colombia's premier investigative magazine
 * And there's a Peruvian NGO (an RS on journalism) on the intimidation campaign against those who report about this company.


 * And this is just a set of the references in the first paragraph.


 * I think it's safe to say that there is plenty of interest to maintain this issue in the entry.


 * Lovely to stop by. Let me know what you think ClearPerception (talk) 14:58, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

User 12.130.117.24, I'm not saying that the lawsuits contain no real proof of corruption, I'm just saying I haven't seen any. Derwick has been the target of these accusations for several years now and nobody has publicly presented the first piece of evidence. All I'm saying is that it's irresponsible and unfair to make this the central subject of the article. Obviously we need to include it, but not let it become the most important matter when it clearly isn't. And no, I won't take a break from editing this subject just because you say so; the fact that I have only contributed to this article doesn't mean I'm biased or that my opinion doesn't count. Please be respectful to others.Naruto2839 (talk) 17:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Folks, this is my point of view on the subject: What do we know with certainty? That Derwick has been the target of several corruption accusations and two lawsuits; we don't know yet if they are properly justified or just part of a defamation campaign. No court has given any verdict in regards of these lawsuits. No proof has been presented publicly. I truly don't believe we can't reach an objective verdict here when not even a court has, this is why I agree with Naruto and others and think we have to respect the "innocent until proven guilty" principle and include all this legal information in the respective sections without letting it take over all the WP article. It seems to me that most edits of this article are part of a campaign against this company and moderators should pay close attention to this.185.5.175.209 (talk) 18:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I completely agree with 185.5.175.209Naruto2839 (talk) 18:44, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Naruto2839, you say: "Derwick has been the target of these accusations for several years now and nobody has publicly presented the first piece of evidence." Really? Are you actually reading the article references? The comments by the powerplant experts?  The ABC story? The Batiz articles?  You either haven't read the articles or you are being disingenuous.  As for your sock puppet's comments, a court doesn't need to give a verdict to have relevant material included.  The article mentions how the Derwick company denies the accusations and says they are the victims of a defamation campaign.  That addresses the matter of balance.  But let's not start peddling halftruths here.  They're accused of RICO violations in a federal court. This isn't some traffic ticket.  It's the law used to nail members of the mafia.  I don't think we are going to come to an agreement given that you are both ignoring the RSs so let's just agree to not make any radical changes to this article without discussion and consensus.  Cheers!  ClearPerception (talk) 22:40, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Dear Clear perception, I want to you thank for sparking my curiosity in this case and in the players involved. I loved my debate classes in college!. So I will kindly rebuff your points in search for unbiased opinions and in the search of what should be the standard that Wikipedia community should follow.

The 2 lawsuits are in the internet for everyone to review. You do not need to take my word for it. The lawsuits are very colorful but at the end, these are 2 people asking for money. No one is asking for justice here, just for checks. If Derwick writes 2 checks, both plaintiffs will be happy and may even be speakers in pro of the company. This is not US versus Standard Oil ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil_Company_of_New_Jersey_v._United_States). There is no higher purpose here. This is just business for everyone. I even reviewed the opinions that bloggers very opposed to Derwick. This gentleman apparently even received a threatening letter from Derwick lawyers. So it is fair to assume that this is not a friend of Derwick. I got this opinion about one of the lawsuits “There are a lot of unsupported assertions in this lawsuit, and a lot of political grandstanding. If the Plaintiff finds evidence to support the assertions, any one of them could be very revealing. But so far, not much there”. …” Just on a cursory reading and googling, I can see the case includes factually inaccurate assertions. Nothing huge, but it looks like sloppy work. For example, he quotes Batiz, Boyd and yours truly in his lawsuit. He calls me “Steve” and says I am a Bloomberg correspondent. I may have to start calling him “Ott.”    If you want the complete link here you have it ((http://settysoutham.wordpress.com/2013/07/31/reich-vs-the-derwick-guys-a-huge-wait-and-see/) This nasty review of one of the lawsuits coming from a Derwick hater should be sobering for all the viewers of Wikipedia.

This reporter even goes further and says there is no RICO here because the supposed activities are outside the US. Again, I go back to my original point, these are 2 people asking for money making incendiary accusations with no facts that any reader can see. In my opinion companies that have a lot hide do not fight in US courts. They settle quickly and swiftly. This does not seem to be the case. As far as I understand, the defendant is fighting the allegations. Take a quick look at the letter that the same blogger (not a fan of derwick) posted.

https://settysoutham.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/131015-derwick-defense-letter.pdf.

Rule 11: “If a lawsuit is not filed with a solid legal basis it will lead to sanctions”. It is clear that you do not have a lot experience with Rule 11 and litigation. I even dare to guess that you are some kind of blogger that has a very superficial knowledge of the US court system works. I see that you even have a lot free time in your hands during the day, which is envy giving my demanding schedule but I happy for you.!

In reality, only a handful of lawyers/ counterparties go after frivolous lawsuits pursuant to Rule 11. There was even a proposal for congress to include mandatory sanctions for rule 11 letters for frivolous lawsuits. (Http://civilprocedure.dbllaw.com/2011/03/congress-considers-making-rule-11-sanctions-mandatory/). Sadly the proposal did not fly. Of course, when cases get too personal a handful of people invoke rule 11 and even go after people that filed malicious lawsuit. Most of the times these Rule 11 satellite litigations occur when the sued party takes matter personally and decides to go after the original plaintiffs. Sadly, many people make a living of bogus lawsuits in search for a quick settlement instead of working for money. We all have encountered this kind of people, so I go back to my original point do not take at face value information in a lawsuit.

My Clear Perception friend, do you happen to know how many times Goldman Sachs has been sued for RICO during the last 10 yeras ??? below noted you have a few examples. Do you happen to know how many of these questionable lawsuits are included in Goldman Wikipedia page ? The answer is none. http://www.alan.com/2013/10/19/romney-bain-capital-hit-with-rico-suit/ http://www.overstock.com/50257/static.html

The silver lining is simple. A lawsuit should be included in your Wikipedia page when a court says so or when a settlement is reached if the case has some relevance to the public. When a company is fighting vigorously the lawsuits, there is not much to say just that 2 people sued the company in exchange for money.

Have a great night!!. 03:47, 29 April 2014 (UTC)190.199.160.75 (talk)


 * Dear 190.199.160.75, what a delightful and civil message. Thank you.  It is so thoughtful of you to have read the lawsuits (original research is admirable--but of no real value here in this community). I think we can disagree on how to interpret what the lawsuits say.  You talked about one of them but failed to mention the second lawsuit.  Two things strike me, friend, you continue to reveal you are not altogether very informed on the ways of the American court system.  In civil litigation plaintiffs seek monetary damages.  They cannot sue so that someone goes to jail or, as you say, for "justice."  I have a feeling you are conflating the legal system here with the one in your country.


 * You appear to believe that "if someone writes a check" civil litigation comes to an end. You are mistaken.  On numerous occasions trials take place despite settlement offers.  You should read a little more legal history before making such categorical statements.  I have not bothered to look at the blog postings you cite because blogs are not considered RS here in Wikipedia. You determine that the legal actions: "There is no higher purpose here.  This is just business for everyone."  Again, your opinions are not what determines that an RS like the WSJ and dozens of others in numerous countries have reported about the allegations of fraud and bribery and they aren't even writing about the lawsuits most of the time.  I have a feeling you have chosen a side.  I have not.  But I am rather sensitive to censorship and it appears, to anyone reading the postings above by others, that some people are willing to employ rather unsavoury measures to attack people who disagree or criticize them.


 * For instance, you state: "these are 2 people asking for money making incendiary accusations with no facts that any reader can see." Do you know what happens after a lawsuit is filed in an American court? it is either dismissed or it is allowed to proceed.  If it is dismissed (as most of the Lawsuits against Goldman Sachs were) then it's old hat.  But if it is not dismissed it goes to trial.  And that's where the facts come out.  This isn't Venezuela, friend, a filing doesn't need to include the facts but, rather, points of law supported by factual allegations that attorneys forswear they have a good faith basis to believe.


 * But as much as you may enjoy a debate, this isn't a debate, it's a talk page on wikipedia so either cite the Wikiepdia Policy in question or go back to astro turfing.


 * Your declaration that "A lawsuit should be included in your Wikipedia page when a court says so or when a settlement is reached if the case has some relevance to the public. When a company is fighting vigorously the lawsuits, there is not much to say just that 2 people sued the company in exchange for money." you tip your hand.  Would you like me to, once again, summarize why this is notable?  Let me quote a different user on this page, writing above "a former U.S. Ambassador to Venezuela and senior State Dept. official sued Derwick in a NY Federal Court accusing them of paying bribes in Venezuela and engaging in all sorts of criminal activity including surveillance of journalists, conspiracy, malicious prosecution, and he filed the case under the RICO statute, which is what prosecutors use when dealing with a "criminal enterprise" (usually the mob). [...] six months later another lawsuit was filed, this time by a human rights lawyer in New York (who apparently is also a columnist for the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, The Atlantic and other sources used as RS on wikipedia). That particular lawsuit accuses Derwick Associates and its founders and investors of engaging in bribery in Venezuela at the highest level as well as maliciously defaming journalists engaged in investigative reporting about their alleged crimes. That lawsuit was filed in Florida State court. Anyone who has access to nexis or who can search for the information about Derwick and its legal troubles will find that it has been reported extensively in Spain, Ecuador, Colombia, Venezuela, Mexico, Peru, Argentina, the U.S., and so on in RSs and in dozens of blogs and nonRS media to list.


 * but there's more: "Reporters Without Borders, a highly reputable NGO based in Paris has published research indicating that Derwick (or someone who sympathizes with them) has successfully banned certain websites that talk about the allegations against them--on ALL cable and ISP companies inside Venezuela.[...] there also appears to be a massive effort to protect Derwick and its executives from anyone seeking information about them via google... someone has engaged in an ungodly amount of "astroturfing" on behalf of Derwick by creating multiple accounts for the company on heavily trafficked platforms including: Twitter, Spotify, Facebook, TwitPic, Reverbnation, Slideshare, PRweb, Newsvine, Jigsy, and lots of blogspot. They've even got a bizarre page on change.org with two bogus "petitions" [...] There is obviously nothing illegal about creating the internet equivalent of "white noise" or astroturfing but it can lead someone like me to be extraordinarily skeptical, especially when I read from an RS that the company has persecuted journalists and had them offered bribes and when that didn't work, had the journalists harassed by the Venezuelan secret police: Here's one NGO: http://ipys.org.ve/alerta/autor-de-investigaciones-periodisticas-sobre-sector-electrico-es-citado-por-presunto-funcionario-de-policia-de-inteligencia-e-intimidado-por-empresa-contratista-2/


 * consequently, 190.199.160.75, it's fair to say that this is not resolved. Not in the least.ClearPerception (talk) 19:00, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

My Dear Clear Perception, I was so looking forward to getting a response from you. This discussion is very helpful to analyze better this issue for everyone. In search of unbiased information, I think that you and me friend are really nailing this case down. Or at least, you are motivating me to dig further. Let me start with administrative issues first. Regarding your “ your original research is admirable--but of no real value here in this community”. I can only tell you that research is always of real value to this and any community. It does not matter if you are in US, Venezuela, Africa, education and information always matter. As Kofi Annan said “Education is the premise of progress, in every society, in every family”. Do not get bothered by someone who reads more than you do, embrace him and try to challenge him as we are doing now. Lets not discuss technicalities or your interpretation of technicalities. We need to continue engaging ourselves in search for what is relevant and what is not.

Regarding your “Two things strike me, friend, you continue to reveal you are not altogether very informed on the ways of the American court system”. I have (well Wikipedia has) 2 words for you. Criminal accusation. “A criminal accusation is the process of declaring one's belief in another's liability for that other's criminal action(s). A criminal accusation may be informally made through a declaration made to the public at large (generally through news media) or by the filing of a formal accusation in a court of law by a person legally entitled to do so, generally on behalf of the state by a criminal prosecutor.”

In order words, the plaintiffs could have gone to a criminal prosecutor if they were searching for a higher purpose. No District attorney or authority filed any complaint against anyone here. I think you know that a US former official has the same authority that you or me have ie a regular joe that is trying to make a living. Do not confuse yourself. Me crying RICO is not similar to any authority bringing charges. That is why I go back to my original and very simple argument ie you have 2 people suing a company for money claiming damages. One of the plaintiff received 2 letters from the Company’s law firm. I am not kidding. This is in the lawsuit. This plaintiff did not sue his employer for wrongful termination, right?. At least to my knowledge. This plaintiff did not sue the law firm that sent the letters, right?. At least to my knowledge. This person only sued Derwick, making incendiary comments in the litigation. Friend, now that you forced me to read even more, I can tell you something. Letters sent from a law firms to newspaper or news outlet (which is the cornerstone of one litigation) are not actionable. I even read the text of the letter. It did not call the reporter names or anything. It was just an standard legal letter from a litigation firm. Yeap, imagine the money that we all could make if we would be able to sue counterparties for sending us legal letter.

I am trying to be impartial here. I see that you are very moved by this subject and I frankly do not want to hurt your feelings or touch any sensible area. In searching for the true, we may have to read some information and reach conclusions about the relevance or not of the lawsuits.

To the question is Derwick a bunch of bad people that did unspeakable things?, I frankly do not know. Maybe they did but I wont reach that conclusion until the facts or a court says otherwise.

I see a lot of accusations without evidence. Rico is the favorite word of the contingency lawyers ie those kind of lawyers that take a piece of action after they sued and a quick settlement is reached. RICO cases are very hard to prove in courts and just do not apply to anyone doing business outside of US.

Finally, you are admitting what I told you since day one. There are no facts here. “This isn't Venezuela, friend, a filing doesn't need to include the facts but, rather, points of law supported by factual allegations that attorneys forswear they have a good faith basis to believe”. Your admission is something is worth noticing and shows that you are hearing what I am saying. Btw, this is wrong. For Rico case to stick, you need to describe in granular detail the criminal actions. Otherwise, the RICO will dismissed. Or let me translate a bit your idea. You have 2 plaintiffs in good faith asking for money making incendiary comments without facts and doing so loudly. No one in wikipedia or in your “astroturfing”world believes that the plaintiffs do not want money here and that they are suing for a higher purpose. This is another fact that you will land sooner or later will land on like you landed in the fact that there are no facts in the allegations.

You picked my curiosity with the censorship part and I, as I always do, researched. I located the accusation of censorship was raised by a blogger or a gentlemen called Alek Boyd who provided no information to support the claim. The Company even posted a letter rebuffing mr. Boyd. (Updated on 8 April 2014: Derwick Associates, the firm targeted in Alek Boyd’s blog post, sent Reporters Without Borders a formal response five days after we posted our article. We are posting the response here. Derwick Associates says it has nothing to do with the blocking of Boyd’s blog and that none of its shareholders has any links with the ISP Inter. When contacted by Reporters Without Borders, Boyd stood by his information, according to which members of Derwick Associates have investment links with Inter. His blog continues to be blocked within Venezuela.)

I digged further and I got the information that Mr. Boyd was actually blocked by a local court because a difamation/ extorsion case. Here attached in this link, a local newspaper published the lawsuit http://www.primicias24.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Portadas..jpg My research located this article “Also in 2008, Halvorssen’s Human Rights Foundation hired Aleksander Boyd, a Venezuelan opposition representative based in London. Boyd was a notorious promoter of terrorism against Venezuela’s elected government, having written the following on his website” ( http://electronicintifada.net/content/oslo-freedom-forum-founders-ties-islamophobes-who-inspired-mass-killer-anders-breivik/12451)/ The summary of my research is that one of the plaintiffs against the company and the blogger who cries censorship worked together in one foundation (one based in NYC and other in London). Let me use your words “why this is notable?”. Maybe the litigations and accusations of censorship (all in good faith I am sure) were notable to the public because they were designed by people to make them notable. At least 2 of the people that accused the company sit down together for coffee and tea once in a while. The lack of an arm length relationship between the 2 most important actors in your writing should make you/me everyone skeptical about this topic. Sooner or later you will agree with me that this link is very strange.

The more time I look this plot, the more I think that the players are related.

I agree that this issue is far from resolved but we both need to admit that your narrative is growing closer to my original arguments of 2 people suing for money making incendiary comments. We can add a friend of one of the 2 plaintiff making censorship accusations.!

Good night my friend. Do not sweat it, we are making good progress here. Lets focus on the facts!! Your truly. 02:29, 30 April 2014 (UTC)190.199.160.75 (talk)


 * 190.199.160.75, thanks for the response. This is WP talk discussion of the article for Derwick Associates.  This isn't the place for your original research, your hard-to-follow narrative about who sued who, why, for what, when, and whether or not these lawsuits are valid in your mind.  Here's the rub: the news made it into reliable sources.  Sources that are deemed worthy, verified, and solid.  As such, the events are notable and the information passes.  Your non-expert legal analysis, your links to websites that are not RSs and your theories about plots, conspiracies, and the "players" aren't relevant. The "players" you mention are, themselves, individuals with BLPs and as such it makes all the more sense that information that enriches wikipedia remain.  So, unless you have an actual RS to contribute, with new information, that enriches the material, I'm afraid this issue is pretty much at a standstill and the matter of the introduction having to be altered is the only thing left to resolve.  Cheers to you, friend!  ClearPerception (talk) 04:50, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I see that the edits performed by wikipedia editors have not been respected. I have taken out any mention to the lawsuit by this human right Halvorrsen as to conform with 1) the edit done wikipedia and 2) wikipedia policies regarding biografy for living persons. 88.128.80.14 (talk) 09:26, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

You can't just remove sourced material or add material to other definitions because you feel like it. i have reversed all of your edits. Discuss them BEFORE you make them and provide reasons why. Thanks 148.122.14.46 (talk) 08:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLP and other violations emended
With any luck, this will yield a stable and WP policy compliant article finally. Claims about living persons must comport with WP:BLP and articles should never be filled with either puff not vitriol. Collect (talk) 12:33, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

August edits
I took an interest in this page due to the long history of dispute. After going back over it I believe the EPC projects section is unnecessary and constitutes puffery and is not notable. I may have more edits to follow soon and I will explain each of them here.

I made a few more. I believe the consensus as per the discussions above is that there is too much info relying on non-RS sources and info on non-notable puffery. I will do my best to condense the page down into something acceptable to everyone.

I also apologize for making these edits without discussing them with other editors first. But to be fair, I had been active on the talk pages for a while before these edits with no responses from anyone. Righteousskills (talk) 02:55, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

The edits you have done in the article are against Wikipedia policy, you have removed properly sourced information (like the section on the power plants the company has built) without reaching any consensus. Posting a paragraph in the talk page that you consider that the powerplants that a powerplant company has built are puffery does not seem like the non-bias editing that the article needs. I will try to add some more references to the article. And I hope we can work together to improve it and protect it and ensure its neutrality.--46.25.106.207 (talk) 07:54, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

To restore the article I had to undue all the editions, I did manually restore the ones in which you improved the wording for the execution of the projects.

As far as other edits I think it would be useful to discuss them first since this has been a controversial article, and had to be protected in the past.

Suggestions to improve the article:


 * Merge the Venezuelan EPC projects and the TTC sections into one section named Projects.
 * Change the section title of "The Best Latin-American Initiative" Award to just Awards (in the same format as the rest without the bold text).
 * Merge defamation suits and legal activity into one section.--46.25.106.207 (talk) 14:41, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Ok sounds good. Lets discuss. Wikipedia guidelines specifically call for notability requirements in the information provided on pages. Why is Derwick notable? The Latin American Innovation award, and the lawsuits. The EPC projects list is 1. not notable and 2. is not fully covered by an RS. There's the argument that it is an RS, but its cetainly questionable. And when you couple that with the fact that it is not in any way notable, I think we have to agree we've gotta strike that section. I'd love to hear more from you on this. Righteousskills (talk) 18:12, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I respectfully beg to differ, as can be found in many sources, those power stations were built as a response to 2009 - 2010 Venezuelan energy crisis. both the crisis and its solution have been extensively covered by media. The currently listed RS are from newspapers from Venezuela and Spain, but there are a few more. I also found more than one RS about how 5 of those listed power plants helped Caracas recover in record time from a national power outage due to an accident in a power line. All of that makes it, in my view, very notable. Finally, Derwick is mainly a power plant company, to me it makes sense than an encyclopedic article about a power plant company would include the power plants it built. I personally, consider that information even more "encyclopedic" than its awards or legal issues. I believe it adds value to the article, and there are not strong enough reasons to remove it.

What are your thoughts on my other suggestions?:


 * Merge the Venezuelan EPC projects and the TTC sections into one section named Projects.
 * Change the section title of "The Best Latin-American Initiative" Award to just Awards (in the same format as the rest without the bold text).
 * Merge defamation suits and legal activity into one section.--46.25.106.207 (talk) 00:22, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I partly can agree with you, but this needs major addressing. This page was using several non-RS sources for its info. On earlier versions, sources that were questionable resulted in info being removed, such as using the WeFightCensorship source. Not to mention issues of notability. Yes, it is an energy and EPC company.. but how many energy and EPC company pages list all the projects they undertake that are of little to no context to the general public? The only context that matters is that these projects generated significant power increases for Venezuela.


 * Besides, I think the status quo of the page should be LESS information until we can agree here on the talk page to add something in after we are ALL convinced its sources are RS. We shouldnt add potentially non-RS material and then debate. The sourcing is a reall big issue for me right now and I can't rightfully pass on the page as is with so many questionable sources. Lets talk more. Righteousskills (talk) 07:59, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I am sorry but I have to disagree again, power plants built by a power plant company as a response to an energy crisis that was covered extensively by media should be in an encyclopedic article about a company that builds power plants. The information is very relevant for the page and sourced from 2 RS.


 * The actual status quo is the current state of the page, I think removing sourced information about the company only makes the page less balanced. Please lets discuss changes to the article in the talk page first, and implement them if a consensus can be reached.--46.24.172.71 (talk) 17:08, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with 46.24.172.71, I can not understand the point regarding deletions of the company's activity. Please, restore. Thanks!--Gilwellian (talk) 17:52, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Look, I understand your concern here, and I am going to continue working with you. But there are some concerns I still have. 1. you must understand that it is YOUR task to prove that sources are reliable and that the information is truly notable; it is not my task to disprove them to the greater Wikipedia community. As of now no such consensus has been reached. 2. Several of these Spanish language sources may not qualify as RS and are certainly questionable (hence, me questioning them). If they are opinion pieces, or press releases for the companies image, or have any type of bias they are not RS.

46.24.172.71, you are a new user and therefore likely less familiar with Wiki policies. Gilwelian, you've been around for a while I see. Why cant you understand the removal of this info? Its notability and reliable sourcing is in question. That's reason enough to remove it.

Please review these Wikipedia policies before continuing. Righteousskills (talk) 20:44, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Verifiability
 * Verifiability
 * Identifying reliable sources
 * Notability

Hello Righteousskills, welcome back to Wikipedia. Since you stop contributing in march 2013, I am concerned that you may have forgotten some of the policies you are citing above. I am surprised to see how most of the edits you have done since your return less than a month ago have been centered on this page, and the page of its CEO. In both cases you have tried to remove relevant well sourced information leaving the articles clearly unbalaced and centered on open civil suits in which there are economical interests at play.

Its even more surprising that you have created pages in which you included the civil suits information for two other people Francisco D'Agostino and  Pedro Trebbau López.

You just argued that the project section of Derwick should be removed even though it had two strong RS, you ignored my arguments and tried to remove it a second time. It really surprised me to see that you also created a page, just two weeks ago, for ProEnergy Services and that you added a projects section for that company with some of the same power plants you removed from Derwick's page. Amaizingly all your sources for the projects section and for the rest of the ProEnergy Services page you created are six references pointing to the website of the company itself! 46.24.172.71 (talk) 17:06, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Ha! Isnt THIS the pot calling the kettle black! I will throw this right back at you: I find it VERY interesting that you, an unregistered user, have been so interested in this page since you began editing a day ago. Unless you happen to be bouncing around with multiple IP addresses, nonetheless on all of them there is clearly a heavy involvement on these pages.


 * It is of no concern to you why I edit the pages that I do, but for the record (and because I dont appreciate your tone) it is because I was drawn by the clear disputes going on in the talk pages and have a history of dispute resolution. I have not been able to do as much editing as I have in the past since I am working more now, but I like the time spent on Wikipedia to be worthwhile. And I edit these pages so much because they are the only ones im currently involved in that have major disputes; the others have simply required reformatting and copy editing.


 * And yes, I did create those pages, D'Agostino and Trebbau, using Reliable Sources. I created them because they were notable pages that had not yet existed. What concern is it? At FIRST I had details similar to those on this page using similar sources and then, by my own judgement, decided those sources were not RS, so I removed them myself, as I believe should happen on this page. You are correct about ProEnergy Services; I had forgotten about that page and I will fix it up now. It is NOT using many reliable sources. I created this page BEFORE I began determining if sources were RS or not...my own mistake that I will fix.


 * I can remain civil if you can. I appreciate Gilwelian and Eleanora who can argue their point without throwing out accusations.


 * Let's face facts: the sourcing is in question. I understand your concern with removing this info. But the details about the legal activity are excellently sourced, reliable, and notable. The other details are all in question. Some because their sources are potentially non RS. Others because they are also not notable (like listing out the projects the company has undertaken), this CERTAINLY has to go. I will continue this discussion and do my best to explain to you that 1. these sources are non-RS, and that 2. non-RS info on a page like this needs to go. Righteousskills (talk) 01:27, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Dear Righteousskills, do not take this personally. If I looked at your recent contributions was because I was trying to understand the motivations behind your mayor and sudden deletion of proper content and sources, keeping in mind this page had quite a history of edits...


 * As far as one of the many things you are trying to delete from this page, the projects page, that acording to you "CERTAINLY has to go", looks exactly like the one you created for ProEnergy Services 20 days ago (17th of July). You did not leave the information unsourced, you inserted two references that pointed to the company's website. You have now erased it because, if I understood you correctly, you made a mistake and you had forgotten about it. You are the creator and only contributor to the page, you have just erased four of the links pointing to the company's web that you were using as sources and left the article with a lot of other information similar to the one you are triying to delete on this page, and all your current sources (which I guess you must consider RS?)for your article are 2 links pointing to the company's website.


 * Yet you insist in removing properly sourced non controversial and relevant content in this article. It does not make sense to me. Given all the recent related pages you created and the unbalanced way you edited those BLP's your created, I need to understand your motivations, but to avoid extending myself in this talk page, I will continue our conversation on your talk page--46.24.172.71 (talk) 17:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

As Ive already stated; you are correct about ProEnergy. And I have fixed that as well. I made those edits before I had become concerned with RS quality. And the info on this page is 1. not RS, 2. not notable. If better sources can be found, then by all means, this info should not be in quesiton. But as of now, these sources are in question. Righteousskills (talk) 21:12, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Two reliable sources just came out. I have placed them into the article where relevant. More to come. Righteousskills (talk) 04:48, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Once again you have removed relevant RS information from this article. I have reverted your actions for the third time.

Without the two new references (which are really only one) you just added to all the articles you created or edited, The Proenergy remaining reference you consider RS is still pointing to the company's webpage. It is hard to explain, but It looks like if all your recent edits and page creations were aimed at promoting the suit information and give coverage to this article the moment it was published.

I have added the latest informatión as it is RS with NPOV even though i personally think it is not notable and should not be in this article: "people familiar with the matter" claim that preliminaray investigations have been open and repeat previous alegations. And the company denies it. To me if charges are filed or at least there is real proof that an investigation is taking place (straight from the source, and not claims by people familiar with the matter) that would be notable enough to be inserted. Please I would like to get input from more experienced and unbiased editors on this before removing it.--46.24.172.71 (talk) 16:21, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Ha! You can't seriously be saying that the info covered in the Wall Street Journal is not notable!!! Im going to begin a new section for simplicity. Righteousskills (talk) 21:33, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Wall Street Journal August 2014
You attempted to whitewash the additions I had made by only covering that Derwick's attorney's denied any charges. And then you accused me of having a bias. Yea, I do have a bias, a bias in favor of Wikipedia Policy! The article is NOT about how the charges are unlikely and that Derwick's attorneys deny them... The article is about how the US Justice Department and New York Banking Regulators have begun an official investigation into Derwick's activities, believing there is potential that said activities may result in criminal charges. THIS IS BIG! You cant deny that. Please stop reverting these edits or I will be forced to appeal to mediation or arbitration boards. As a token of good faith, I will concede to allow some of the information I removed for now, should you desire to add it back. Stop reverting though please. Righteousskills (talk) 21:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I am sorry, but you forced me to revert your last edition. In it, you blanked a section of the article along with its RS for the 5th time after been asked not to do so repeatedly in the previous section. You also turned content from WP:NPOV into biased And you claim to have done all of this in the name of Wikipedia policy.
 * In your talk page I had to explain to you some of the policies you mysteriously forgot. Let me try to explain why I think your last edition was biased.


 * If an editor added just the following information taken for the WSJ article to the Legal Section would you think its NPOV?


 * These lawsuits are part of a "smear campaign" against Derwick motivated by politics and family squabbles, and their allegations are wholly without evidentiary foundation.


 * They could write in the talk: This is BIG, you can't deny that. And it is properly RS... but something is missing right?
 * Primary sources; The primary sources used in this article are: 1- anonymous "people familiar with the matter" and 2- Mr. Adam Kaufmann. To make content comply with WP:NPOV it should be added as:


 * According to Lawyer Adam Kaufmann, these lawsuits are part of a "smear campaign" against Derwick motivated by politics and family squabbles, and their allegations are wholly without evidentiary foundation.


 * You have written the opinions of only one of the primary sources of the article and presented it as fact, and not happy with that, you made your version more biased by changing the wording in the article "have opened preliminary investigations" into "under preliminary criminal investigations" and in a latter edition you decided it was not biased enough and removed the word preliminary to leave just "under criminal investigation" Click here to see.
 * In ProEnergy, the page you created without any RS other than links pointing to their corporate page, previous to this article, you wrote this same information as:
 * "ProEnergy is currently under investigation by the US Department of Justice and Manhattan District authorities for its involvement in developing plants with Derwick Associates in Venezuela.[2] The investigations are probing for possible violations of New York banking laws and possible violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices". Still wrong, primary source is not cited, and no counterbalance, but for that company you chose to write less and use less biased language.


 * To recap
 * You erased a properly source section.
 * you changed NPOV content into a biased content by 1- not mention the primary sources and 2-using clearly biased wording.


 * According to WP:NPOV the opinions of the primary sources must be written as such and not as fact. In this case you were not citing and changed the words of one of the primary sources of the article "people familiar with the matter". I am still trying to find out what your motivations are behind your pattern of edits which I summarized in your talk page and I have a reasonable doubt I would appreciate if you could answer?
 * Are you one of those "people familiar with the matter"? do you have any relationship or are you editing in their behalf?--46.24.172.71 (talk) 16:28, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

REALITY CHECK
It is astonishing to read the level of fantasy employed by the anonymous editor from Spain (a single-purpose user that appeared overnight to edit this article). This isn't some bathroom wall that says your paymasters are under criminal investigation in the United States. This is the Wall Street Journal. An article like this, based on just defamatory allegations or slander would lead to an immediate lawsuit by Derwick for irreparable harm to their reputation. if the WSJ publishes something this devastating it is because they have some kind of off the record confirmation from the U.S. government about it. I marvel at how this Venezuelan company has so many seemingly disinterested editors. I'll bet an SPI would reveal some fascinating things, especially given that Derwick has been repeatedly accused of manipulating wikipedia, paying hackers, and certainly has the money to do so. The number of corruption allegations now extends from journalists in Venezuela, plaintiffs in lawsuits against them, to a number of American agencies.

Are some of you really going to continue to this charade that everyone who adds sourced information on here is part of a family smear campaign? And when YOU add non-WP approved articles and a bunch of nonRS links, you are just "wikifying? Please, give it a rest, you are going to end up attracting a lot more attention that you ever wished for 27.122.12.77 (talk) 17:00, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Dear Righteousskills, we speak a different language, I talk to you about policy NPOV and citing primary sources. and your answer is to throw unsubstantiated accusations. The relevant new information has been included, I am sorry if you don't want for it to be presented with NPOV. All the claims in the WSJ about the alleged preliminary investigation were followed by "people familiar with the matter said" or "those people said" If the journalist would have made any contact with any government agency he would have cited it instead of the anonymous sources. But you must already know this.
 * By the way, you forgot to log in before making your latest edits. It seems you have done disruptive edits in the past from 27.122.12.77. Since your edits still do not follow Wikipedia policy again, I had to revert them. 46.24.172.71 (talk) 19:55, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Dear 46.24.172.71,

I am not Righteousskills and it's telling you assume that I am. I think you need to read up on wikipedia and read up on nPOV as well as what constitutes an RS. "If the journalist would have made any contact with any government agency he would have cited it instead of the anonymous sources." Right! This is why a newspaper of that stature would go ahead and publish a story based on just a few hunches. Look, I think we should get mediation. I'm reverting your edits. I also suspect that you, this Jimmy guy below, and the other editors working for Derwick are mostly sock puppets. 27.122.12.78 (talk) 04:21, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you serious? All editors who DO NOT agree with you, anonymous, are sock puppets? PROVE IT! Please, avoid making childish statements on this. Current editors on Alejandro Betancourt López as well as here, have been trying to reconduct the contributions to a reasonable neutral viewpoints but you, AND ONLY YOU, insist on prioritzing almost exclusivelly about the defamation suits instead of the informative and encyclopedical global details. Both articles were already well balanced before Righteousskills started again with 'tit for tat' issues so wonder if you are virtually such sock puppets from the other side. This is not your peculiar battlefield but wikipedia so take it easy. For your information, I already asked for administrators support in order to put an end to this. --Gilwellian (talk) 10:13, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Dear Sirs, Let me give you my views here.

The First Amendment of the US constitution sadly allows for the kind of abuses of that we are seeing in the WSJ take down piece. The reporter just abused the term “people familiar with the matter said" because, in my opinion, he is just hiding the fact that he does not have the sources. Let me point out some facts for everyone. FINRA is noted as the regulator looking into Jp Morgan and Derwick activities. FINRA does not have jurisdiction over Derwick only over Jp Morgan and its registered representatives.  In this article I see or “malice” of the WSJ to put together a piece that mentions the words investigation by regulators or lack of care of the WSJ to even verify that FINRA has nothing to do with this case ie no  FINRA can not be investigating this company because they do not have jurisdiction over it. 22:29, 10 August 2014 (UTC)The power of jimmy (talk)


 * Dear Jimmy, try reading the article. It says FINRA is investigating Travieso, not Derwick.  And who is Travieso?  Derwick's banker, according to the story.  And, according to the WSJ, Travieso is a target of the investigation.  And if the WSJ is indeed engaged in malice well I am sure the Derwick people will sue them.  They happen to like to do that a lot.  From what I read, everytime they do they end up getting sued by others.  This has been an interesting page to watch.  The amount of bias and puffery, use of non-RS and obfuscation is fascinating.  I'm restoring the edits made by others. 27.122.12.78 (talk) 04:21, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Ha! I appreciate that you assume I was 27.122.12.78. I am not, but I welcome his contributions. Here is my take on the issue, the information presented in the Wall Street Journal is irrefutable as an RS. Even though it does not directly states its sources, the fact that it is a WSJ means that these are very reliable and important contacts for the newspaper. So this is not an issue. Your claims about it not being NPOV, although understood, are not correct. If it makes the WSJ it is based in fact. Righteousskills (talk) 18:27, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Righteouskill, My mistake, it must be yet another interesting coincidence. Nobody is arguing the validity of the RS. The way the information from that source is now written complies with NPOV. It cites the two primary sources of the article with opposing points of view in a neutral and concise way.
 * The recent edit I had to revert for the second time was spamming that information from the article by inserting for a second time without quoting the expecified primary sources at the top of the article, also created a new section with a misleading name, when there are already too many sections and the content belongs where it is, in the existing "Legal Activity"section. The edits also added extra information already mentioned in the article. Please stop your edits until you have reviewd WP:NPOV I feel I am wasting my time as my arguments are repeatedly ignored.
 * Given the latest developments, and so that my contributions can be traced, I have decided to stop editing anonymously (recent edits here (46.24.172.71)).
 * Dear Jimmy I erased your edit just because it caused an error in the page, please see your talk page. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:40, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Citing the primary source is not necessary. What is important to take away from the WSJ article is that US authorities are investigating the company and its executives. It is not violating WP:NPOV for stating this forwardly. We dont need to dance around this. If the WSJ is stating the investigation is underway, why do we need to be so concerned about how they are presented? Its not defamatory to say a company under investigation is under investigation! Righteousskills (talk) 03:07, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Full protection
I have fully protected this article. It is a mess, and you all need to take this up at WP:DRN or some other venue. Drmies (talk) 00:32, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Sock Puppet Investigation
Hello all. I just wanted to bring to light to anyone still active on these pages that there is an ongoing sock puppet investigation into a number of users and it has already caught some who have been active on this page. Although it is possible that those involved had good intentions, it is nonetheless a circumventing of WP Policy. I am unsure of what the implications for the content of the page are, but all active users should be made aware of this. I am sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but it is troubling that users would use means such as this to accomplish a goal no matter the consequences. Let's all try to learn something as the SPI is furthered and be vigilant of any further activity on these pages.Righteousskills (talk) 04:45, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

COI
Discussion of paid editing from now banned editor. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:36, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * This is very interesting. Can we justify re-opening an SPI? FergusM1970 admitted he was a paid advocate for this company. This is pretty concrete evidence that the company has taken steps to protect itself. Righteousskills (talk) 03:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


 * They hired several editors, but I have no reason to suspect that FergusM1970 used multiple accounts. - 04:44, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

True, but we now know for a fact they hired editors nonetheless. This is enough evidence to consider reopening an SPI. On the previous ones, the admins were completely ineffectual and ended the investigation stating reasons along the lines of "come on, you can't assume that anyone who has a differing view is being paid to make these changes..." But now we know they were paid!!!!

These need to be linked in a new investigation:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Majogomezsz
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/FergusM1970

Derwick is in trouble. Derwick paid people to protect their image (which no one can deny now). There are so many single purpose accounts and generally suspicious users active in this page's history. It is no longer a far-fetched idea that some of them are socks of a PR firm hired by Derwick. Righteousskills (talk) 00:52, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

For reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive867#Full_disclosure


 * To open a sockpuppet investigation we need to be able to show that there is strong evidence that particular users have been using multiple accounts. There's no evidence that FergusM1970 used socks, so we can't open an SPI. If we have evidence about other editors we can open one, but we'd need strong evidence to proceed. - Bilby (talk) 01:07, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, on his talk page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:FergusM1970) Fergus admitted he was hired by a Spanish PR firm for this project. If you look at the history, there was a history of Single purpose accounts (SPAs) making, from their perspective, unsuccessful changes to the page and then Fergus showed up. Derwick hired a PR firm to clean up this page, who then hired Fergus. Isn't this at least enough to get the ball rolling?

"Its beginning to look a lot like DUCKmas!" Righteousskills (talk) 01:16, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * As far as I'm aware, Fergus only ever used one account, and I haven't seen anything to suggest he used socks. If there is evidence that he did you might have a chance of getting an SPI opened. Otherwise, a simple suspicion won't be enough to get it started - the rules for SPIs are pretty strict. - Bilby (talk) 01:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * What I mean is, at this point no one can deny that Derwick has paid for edits. I am not saying we re-open the SPI into Fergus. I believe you; Fergus probly did not have other socks. BUT, Fergus admitted he was hired by a PR firm which was hired by Derwick. I am saying this is cause to suspect that OTHER users who edited on this page are likely socks of this PR firm. Therefore, users named in the previous investigations, at least some, are probably linked and a more thorough investigation should be undertaken. Righteousskills (talk) 02:00, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Paid edits
Ok no one has engaged in the talk for a while or addressed my concerns. We know beyond a shadow of a doubt that Derwick has paid for edits on Wikipedia. No one can deny this. A now-banned user willfully admitted to accepting payment to protect the online reputation of Derwick and its CEO on Wikipedia. Its not far-fetched, then, to have suspicion of other users active on this page also being paid for similar edits. It has been quite some time since any edits were made, but considering the efforts of some users to remove negative details from the page and add puffery, I believe a new investigation is justified. Since last I participated in this several suspected users have already been found to be sock puppets in separate investigations. What will it take to perk up other users' ears here? Righteousskills (talk) 02:35, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Is it worth mentioning in the article that the company paid for edits? In the past, when companies are discovered to have done this, it has been deemed appropriate to put it in the page. Righteousskills (talk) 02:49, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If it hasn't been covered in reliable sources, we can't use it here. A blog post and our own research won't be sufficient. - Bilby (talk) 03:04, 14 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Ok, but then is this enough to re-open an SPI? Or where can we take this to get to the bottom of it? I will reiterate: we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that Derwick has paid for editing in the past. I believe that is sufficient evidence to at least arouse suspicion. There is some administrators noticeboard or task force that can look into this better. Righteousskills (talk) 03:17, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

December 2016; Bloomberg
Hello, it has been some time. Just wanted to stop by and point out that reliable sources now confirm U.S. Authorities are investigating Derwick, though no criminal charges are filed and Derwick's attorney stated he had not known of the probe. Does this merit changing the final sentence of the last paragraph to mention the active nature, rather than the uncertainty of the case? Righteousskills (talk) 23:32, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-10/derwick-founders-face-appeal-in-suit-alleging-venezuelan-bribes
 * https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-03-24/swiss-banks-land-in-middle-of-money-laundering-probe-again


 * What you propose does not make sense as both articles from Bloomberg make reference to the inquiry made to Swiss banks back in March (already in the article). The last sentence is sourced from a Wall street journal article published in April in which the attorney claimed that as a result of the inquiry the investigation was suspended. Neither one of the Bloomberg articles refute that claim. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:58, 30 December 2016 (UTC)