Talk:Derwick Associates

Editing issue

I'd like to bring to the attention of the editor, Crystallizedcarbon, a pattern of edits across related articles. I've observed your contributions to this page, a company associated with Alejandro Betancourt, the subject of another Wikipedia article you've also edited. You seem to be removing parts based on the same reasoning - that they are unsubstantiated. As I've previously stated on the relevant Talk page, the removed contents are referenced. If you are connected to the subjects, a clear disclosure of any paid advocacy is essential to address potential conflicts of interest. Darwin Naz (talk) 06:12, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Please see my reply at Talk:Alejandro_Betancourt_López#Conflict_of_interest. Regards, Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 11:09, 10 April 2025 (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.

Source

• Halvorssen, Thor, (4 January 2015). "Carta abierta de Thor Halvorssen a Henry Ramos Allup". Noticierodigital.com. Retrieved 5 January 2015.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link).

2025 Concern over edits

To whom it may concern:

I have not been on Wikipedia in a while, but upon revisiting this page there is something quite concerning that needs to be addressed. For those of you who might not know, several years ago it was uncovered that Derwick Associates and its personnel were paying for edits to whitewash their pages on Wikipedia. In the ensuing investigations, several accounts were found to be sock-puppets of the original paid editor. This is well-documented.

Through the years, it appears lots of content about the company's scandals were redacted. What is concerning is that it was done by some of the same editors that had been confirmed in the sock puppet investigations. Upon further scrutiny, it is the case that these users had been "confirmed but not blocked", then with the passage of time removed any mention of the SPI or their paid connections, and then continued to edit these pages, removing any and all controversies.

The merit of including the content in question aside, why were these editors allowed to edit these pages again? Why did no one take notice that not only were they guilty of sock-puppetry, but had admitted to paid edits on behalf of this company and people? Why was there not the least bit of scrutiny by administrators on these pages after it had been confirmed they were paying for edits?

It appears that long after one of the SPIs the administrator that connected some of the accounts later reviewed the case (at the request of the guilty users) and reversed their decision on the flimsiest of evidence (being that he received emails from two different accounts - dubious at best). Instead of acting in any amount of good faith and transparency and addressing the concerns, they instead redacted any mention of the scandal and carried on editing to remove all controversy. I am opening this up because this is all too suspicious and has flown under the radar of all other users and administrators. I will take this to RfC if there is no third-party response.

Hope to resolve this as amicably as possible, despite the POV implications here.Righteousskills (talk) 22:26, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Edits by Righteousskills

I have restored the article removing the edits by Righteousskills. The part on the suits as it is partial, that was only a part of the dismissal The main charges were dismissed for lack of evidence. The part about the Trump administration imposing sanctions on Derwick because it is not sourced by the references: The article said nothing about any sanctions on Derwick and it is clearly false as can be easily checked by doing a search at https://sanctionssearch.ofac.treas.gov/. The part about the alleged meeting with Guaido, Guliani etc Because it uses Wikipedia's voice to present as fact actions denied by all those directly involved. These edits were also been made and removed from Alejandro Betancourt López. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 12:33, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Edit warring to insert false information

@Darwin Naz: I have restored the article for the fifth time. Righteousskills was asked to stop editing this page back in 2014 for edit warring see here and here What you said in your edit summary is wrong. The article already mentions both defamation suits. The edit tries to insert partial and incomplete information and a claim for a bribe. We can discuss it here if you want more information. It also tries to use Wikipedias voice, to stablish as fact, the claim by one individual, that Betancourt bankrolled Juan Guaido's bid to oust Nicolas Maduro when the other parties involved denied it. Contrary to what you said in your edit summary, nowhere in the edit does it mention anything about Derwick's expansion in LatAm. But most importan. The statement in the edit that In 2019, the Trump administration imposed sanctions on Derwick Associates is been proven False. None of the sources claim that any sanctions have been imposed on Derwick or that the company is under any kind of investigation. I asked you to provide sources and gave you the link to the US Treasury sanctions search where you can search for Derwick to certify that what you labeled as "potential inaccuracies" is clearly false information. We already stablished that fact here. You have repeatedly added back this information to the article. On my last edit I already warned you that deliberately adding back falsities to articles is considered WP:Vandalism. I also asked you to please follow WP:BRD and discuss in talk what you think should be added to improve the article. You are a veteran editor, please act accordingly. I don't want to have to report this issue to the noticeboard. Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:54, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Now you are mentioning partial and incomplete information.

See, the issue here is you keep on blanking this particular edit instead of improving it. It prevents me and other editors (supposing you cannot be bothered to improve the edit) from verifying and improving the details. As I said, this probably needs fresh perspectives since you seem bent on blocking this edit by Righteousskills. By the way, you seem to be thoroughly confused about your answers. The LatAm expansion is not here. It is at Betancourt's page I believe. Darwin Naz (talk) 09:50, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

@Darwin Naz: I don't think I am confused. This was your previous edit summary in this article: "You have not established anything. What is evident is that, in this section you are deleting, there are referenced info such as the defamation suits lodged against the company as well as the Derwick's expansion in LatAm. The Talk Page you mentioned does not exactly align with your viewpoints".

I restored the article because I proved that the edit includes false information (see my previous comment) you have not denied it. I already warned you that knowingly restoring falsities in an article is considered vandalism. I explained that there are other issues that should be addressed here first to reach a consensus following Bold Revert Discuss (see my previous comment). Since you have chosen to ignore my request for discussion and have added back the edit in question with false information and other issues after the repeated warnings I restored the article one more time and have taken the issue to the page protection noticeboard (Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Increase#Derwick_Associates). Please respect the status-quo version of the article until an admin addresses the problem. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 10:28, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Please make an effort to understand context. The comment regarding Derwick's LatAm expansion was in response to your previous comment that also mentioned the Betancourt page: "We have already stablished here and in Betancourt's talk page that the edit you added back contains FALSE information". Hence the reference. Again, you have not established anything and only manages to prevent this page from being improved. By the way, the link for your Request for page protection is not working. I hope you create another one. This discussion definitely needs fresh perspectives from other editors. In response to your comment as to what needs to be improved: I want to improve the part you keep on deleting. Darwin Naz (talk) 04:07, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

@Darwin Naz: If you can't provide sources to prove the unsourced statement that in 2019, the Trump administration imposed sanctions on Derwick Associates. And since the US Treasury sanctions search says otherwise, that information that you kept adding back in your edits is not "potential inaccuracies" as you labeled it, it's FALSE. It may be a plausible-sounding misinformation so it is harder to detect, but subtle vandalism is still vandalism.

For the parts that you want to "improve", with the problems I highlighted, I have asked you repeatedly to please follow WP:BRD and make a proposal that follows our policies and guidelines in this talk page, so we can try to reach a consensus.

Here you can see the resolution at the page protection noticeboard: Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Archive/2025/05#Derwick_Associates (Once resolved they are archived)

I have restored again the article for the seventh time.

The closing admin Daniel Case asked me to "Warn the user appropriately then report them to AIV or ANI if they continue. Preferably the latter."

I have added the warning in your talk page. If you add the edit again I will be forced to report you. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 21:21, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

As stated, I am interested in editing the portion you keep on deleting. You keep on cherry picking information, you deem false but this cannot be improved if you are deleting the entire edit. I have previously mentioned, there are details there that are sourced and I have specifically cited those information to you and these are corroborated by my preliminary research. Given the history of whitewashing and paid editing for this article, I can understand your behavior. I maintain that we need a fresh perspective from other editors here and refrain from edit warring. If anything, let the pattern of editing behavior indicate the degree of your investment in this page.

Perhaps there is a reason why your request for page protection was denied. Regardless, an RfC could perhaps solve this problem so both sides have a chance to explain. Regards, Darwin Naz (talk) 11:59, 2 June 2025 (UTC)