Jump to content

Talk:Derwick Associates/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. SandyGeorgia (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:

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)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Derwick_Associates/Archive_4&oldid=1265037596"