Talk:Derwick Associates/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about Derwick Associates. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

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)

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?--FergusM1970^{Let'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)

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 Wikipedia: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)

References

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 Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Primicias 24 to dispute other sources 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)

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)