User talk:AFLawyer

Welcome!

Hello, AFLawyer, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! JohnCD (talk) 20:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

K1 fund[edit]

I have declined your speedy deletion nomination of this article: it is not an attack page within the meaning of WP:CSD#G10: "Pages that disparage or threaten their subject or some other entity, and serve no other purpose", and the passage you deleted, and those which an IP attempted to delete on 20 January, seem to be properly sourced. If you are not happy with the article, please describe your concerns, and the changes you would like to see, on the article talk page. If you are, or are representing, one of the persons named in the article, there is advice for you at WP:Biographies of living persons/Help, and you can ask for assistance at the BLP Notice-board, WP:BLP/N. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 20:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article written doesn't maintain a neutral point of view with Mr. Frerichs, who has never been formaly acussed and who will never have the right to defend himself in front of a judge. In this article you are inferring that he was a friend of Mr. Kiener and basically you are assuming that they were partners. Let me point out that the only person who has been accussed so far and is currently on a trial process is Mr. Kiener.

The fact that the editor of this article is sourcing economic newspapers doesn't mean that the information needs to be true, at least the people who wrote the news can be identified and asked for their responsability about the information published...

John, I have tried twice to modify at least part of the information of the article without success, I am doing my best to explaining to you the reasons to change this article, or that at least to keep a neutral point of view. If you still think that this should remain this way, I kindly ask you for your advise in order to know how to proceed.

Thank you for your cooperation, — Preceding unsigned comment added by AFLawyer (talk • contribs) 21:17, 25 January 2011

I declined the speedy deletion because the page does not come within the definition of WP:CSD#G10: "Pages that disparage or threaten their subject or some other entity, and serve no other purpose," and I reverted your removal of material because you gave no reason for removing it and because at first sight what it says is properly sourced.

The way Wikipedia works is summed up in WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle: if you see a change which will improve the encyclopedia, be BOLD and make it; but if it is then reverted, do not re-revert and start an WP:Edit war; discuss your proposed change on the article talk page and try to reach WP:Consensus with other editors. (The term "editor" means no more than "user" - there is no separate class of editors, and there is no particular editor in charge of any page). If you cannot reach consensus, there are WP:Dispute resolution processes.

Please explain on the article talk page at Talk:K1 fund your problems with the article and what changes you would like to see. You will understand that properly sourced information will not be removed just because someone dislikes it, but Wikipedia is anxious to be both accurate and balanced. Since there are living persons involved, I will post a message at WP:BLP/N, the noticeboard for problems to do with biographies of living persons, which will alert users with experience in this area.

You told me that you are a lawyer involved in the case; that means that from Wikipedia's point of view you have a WP:Conflict of interest. That is not a problem, provided that you declare your interest, as you have, but you should read our code of WP:Best practices for editors with conflicts of interest. In summary, rather than make changes yourself in areas of your COI, suggest them and let others decide. It would also be worth your while to read WP:BLP, the policy on biographies of living persons, and WP:BLP/H, the associated help page for people with concerns in that area. (I am sorry to give you so much to read, but I think you will find it helpful).

One final word of warning: please be careful not to make anything which might be interpreted as a legal threat. Wikipedia has a strong WP:No legal threats policy: the account of any user who makes one is automatically blocked until the threat is withdrawn.

Please make any reply on this page: I will watch it, and that will keep the conversation in one place.

Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:BLP/N#K1 fund. You do not need to comment there unless you wish to: the article talk page will be the best place to have the discussion, or here if you have any comments or questions about what I have written above. JohnCD (talk) 22:00, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response John. When I said that I was familiar with the case I meant that I am very well documented because I have had access to almost all the pretrail documentation, which is a real reliable source. What I can tell is that the information of Mr. Frerichs is not properly sourced just because a newspaper decided so. Please reconsider the fact that the article is not being neutral, this article is saying that Mr. Frerichs went on the run (this is a very severe acusation that shouldn't be made without the proper information to support it), another example is that the article is saying that Mr. Frerichs killed himself and right before he shouted "I rather die than going to jail." Let me explain to you that the death of Mr. Frerichs is still under investigation by the police in Palma (in order to determine wether he killed himself or if he was killed by someoneelse). The investigation has not even finish and the editor of this article is stating that he 1) killed himself and 2) he shouted "I rather die than going to jail" (which might not be even true, as at the moment of the incident only one witness confirmed this, when there were at least 5 people around). Secondly, there is the issue of the accusations of the K1 Fund issues. As Mr. Frerichs died before his right to a pretrail hearing, he will never been accussed in front of a judge for all the commented issues, as he will never be able to defend himself. However, the author of this article is not acting neutral and is inferring that Mr. Fererichs was a friend of Mr. Kiener. Let me point out that Mr. kiener was arrested and accussed by the banks way before all this occurred, as he was the Investment Manager of the funds, and so far (together with the administrator of the fund) are been accused of misleading the information to the banks. Anyway, the trial is currently taking place, so he cannot been accused formally until the judge determines his implications on the case. Finally, is the reference of the last paragraph to someone who has has nothing to do with all the matter discussed here and the only reason because she was named is because her name has certain media impact, and which information is irrelevant and is not related to this case, and above all, is not true that is the stepdaughter... John, with all this I just would like you to intervine as administrator in order to make this information neutral — Preceding unsigned comment added by AFLawyer (talk • contribs) 22:39, 25 January 2011

I am out of time tonight, and administrators have no more say in content matters than any other editor - we hold the ring in case of disagreement and see that policies are adhered to. I have notified Trident13 (talk), who has been most involved with this article, and I expect that my post at BLP/N will bring other eyes. I will also copy the points you make above to the article talk page, which is where this needs to be thrashed out. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 23:00, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]