Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sparkzilla (talk | contribs) at 06:05, 8 February 2007 (→Removed user talk page discussion: Please do not remove information from the Talk page.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Biography Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

• Talk:Nick Baker (chef)/Archive 1: Archive Page (Nov 2005 - Feb 2006)
• Talk:Nick Baker (chef)/Archive 2: Archive Page (Feb 2006 - Jan 2007)

Baker-Devlin Spat Proposal

Before

In November 2004, after Devlin had emailed a 30-page document entitled "The Nick Baker Deception" to other media and supporters, Iris Baker called him a spammer and claimed he had harvested emails from the support site. Since she claimed Devlin had said she had "suppressed information"; "deceived the media and the public" and made "anti-Japanese statements" she also invited him to make these claims whilst in the UK so that she could proceed with a libel action. Devlin said Iris Baker's claims were "a ludicrous diversion from the inconsistencies in the case". To date no libel suit has been filed.

After?

In November 2004, after Devlin emailed a 30-page document entitled "The Nick Baker Deception" to media following the case, Iris Baker accused him of being a spammer and of harvesting emails from the support site. She also indicated her intention to sue him for libel. Devlin said her claims were "a ludicrous diversion from the inconsistencies in the case". Sparkzilla 10:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Could you move this over to medcab, where there is a space for compromise suggestions, please? David Lyons 10:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not interested in mediation. Please respond here. Sparkzilla 14:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Then why have you responded several times on the mediation page and also tried to accuse me of bad faith on the NPOV talk page? David Lyons 16:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Removal of pages from Internet Archive

Before contemplating the removal of sources from the Internet Archive (notably the appeal defence pdf), it should be considered that the only person authorised to remove pages from the Internet archive is the site owner who, according to the whois record, is Iris Baker

Removing the appeal defence pdf pages from J4NB proves that members of the support group are involved in a cover-up. If the same pages are removed from the Internet archive it will provide clear evidence of Iris Baker's involvement. Sparkzilla 14:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Mediation request

Is this case still active or can I close it? --Ideogram 13:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand that Medcab requires both parties to agree to mediation. Since Sparkzilla refuses, as far as I am concerned, it is closed. David Lyons 13:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Closing. --Ideogram 13:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest

There are several issues with the article as it currently stands. The intro could do with a make-over, and the varying accounts of Baker's movements prior to his trip to Japan, should perhaps be included amongst other things. It requires a bit of leg work, which I will try to address as time allows. Regarding the Baker-Devlin conflict, I agree it might be a little premature to go for a RfC.

I believe the problematic areas are:

i) CoI - If Sparkzilla is, as has been alluded to, close to Metropolis/Crisscross/Japan Today, (S)he should exercise much greater caution in editing this article and I would call upon her/him now to declare their interest.

ii) Reliable sources - I doubt whether the response to the questions Sparkzilla posed at the reliable sources project page would have had the same positive outcome if (S)he "outed" himself at the very start.

iii) Undue weight - I have outlined my opinion on this at length in this talk page archive.

I would like to take another crack at it too on the talk page. David Lyons 15:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Before you even start trying to remove sourced material as conflict of interest, it should be noted by any interested party that you have not edited any page other than that of Nick Baker.

Incorrect. David Lyons 17:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Check your own user page. There are hundreds of edits, only two of which are not about Nick Baker. Those edits are on Omotesando Hills, where you question Devlin's notability. It's an obsession. Sparkzilla 01:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

It is also clear that you are working with someone who, to support your Misplaced Pages edits, has been removing source materials from the Justice for Nick Baker site. It is also obvious from your posting history that you have been placing negative claims on the Metropolis page as "payback" for the edits on Baker's page.

Incorrect. David Lyons 17:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Just after you brought up the Japan Traveler information on Baker's talk page, the same information appeared anonymously on the Metropolis page, with links to a particular Internet archive article -- what a coincidence!! Then links on Iris Baker's spam mail page, which had been dead for a long time, were then changed to point to the same Internet Archive page. What a coincidence!! Sparkzilla 01:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Any discussion of conflict of interest should therefore start with you. You are the one who wants to remove fully-sourced material that has already been deemed acceptable on the Reliable Sources talk page, and that has had an admin go over it.

Read what I said (below). I don't object to some of the material. I just don't think it is 'all' required. In other words undue weight. David Lyons 17:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

However, even though you are deply involved in Baker's support group I am not going to accuse you of a conflict of interest because making such an accusation as a way to force editorial decisions is not acceptable Misplaced Pages policy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Conflict_of_interest_in_point_of_view_disputes

Conflict of interest in point of view disputes

Another case is within disputes relating to non-neutral points of view, where underlying conflicts of interest may aggravate editorial disagreements. In this scenario, it may be easy to make claims about conflict of interest. Don't do it. The existence of conflicts of interest does not mean that assume good faith is forgotten. Quite the opposite. Remember the basic rule: discuss the article, not the editor.

A CoI is sometimes something that is not clearly visible from the start. Looking at your posting history, I have formed an opinion that there may be a conflict here. David Lyons 17:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Look at your own posting history - anyone can see you're obsessed about trying to keep negative information about Baker off the page. Sparkzilla 01:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

While I am working in good faith to source material properly, you are working in bad faith by trying to use narrow definitions of Misplaced Pages rules to exclude content that does not suit your POV. So far you have: Questioned the reliability of the sources, disparaged the source, questioned Devlin's credibility, tried for exceptional claims, undue weight, and now conflict of interest - it's very sad, not just because you have ensured that the sources are defensible, but because it wont help Baker in the slightest. But then I suppose it's not really about Baker is it?

You will see that I have also been working to cite and improve varying aspects of the article. David Lyons 17:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Almost all of your posting history revolves around trying to keep negative information about Baker off the criticism section of the page. You have hardly edited any other part of the page. Sparkzilla 01:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Now about the article...on the mediation page you have accepted the op-ed piece and the negative Metropolis article on Baker. It appears that your only real issue is with the Devlin-Baker spat.

Despite the fact that Metropolis is the only negative article, given the position of the magazine, I believe that it may have some merit and aspects of it can rightly be included in Misplaced Pages. Anyone want to weed-out the most salient points? Devlin-Baker spat: I concur with Gbleem, this public mud-flinging match has little relevance to the piece and really has no place in an encyclopaedic entry. In conclusion, I propose that although the critical op-ed piece is a reliable source, that it's inclusion in this BLP is borderline. Secondly, that Metropolis feature does seem to have more merit and aspects of it might be included. The Devlin-Baker spat doesn't warrant inclusion at all. David Lyons 09:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

See above. David Lyons 17:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

So you're basically arguing for weeks about one sentence? I suggested an alternative for you several weeks ago on the article's talk page -- your lack of reply tells me that you are not really interested in improving the article, but are only interested in supressing information negative to Baker.

Your compromise was didn't appear acceptable. In hindsight, perhaps I should have said that in reply. Sorry. David Lyons 17:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The truth is that you are down to arguing about one sentence. Sparkzilla 01:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I mean really, obsessively trawling the Internet and going to Internet cafes so you can post anonymous negative material about Metropolis? Jesus Christ man, how low can you go? Get a life. Sparkzilla 16:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Please! David Lyons 17:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I know you think that Baker is innocent, and that you feel angry that Metropolis exposed J4NB, but nothing you can do on Misplaced Pages, or in real life, will change the fact that people don;t belive Baker's story anymore. In fact, the opposite is true: the more you protest -- the more the truth comes out. I could suggest that you direct your anger instead to the people who misled you, but you're so far gone that you are now actively trying to mislead others. Having a strong belief or aim is not a bad thing, but holding onto that belief past the point of reason and truth is not healthy.

Removing sources and gaming Misplaced Pages won't help Baker and it won't help your anger. Dragging up old crap and attacking Devlin by proxy is low, and quite sad. Is that really the type of person you have become that you will do anything to prove you are right, even demeaning yourself? Is this really what you want to be doing with your life? It's unhealthy to keep holding on to this issue for so long. You really should move on now. Sparkzilla 01:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Removed user talk page discussion

Removed a CoI discussion originally held on my talk page and wholesale copy & pasted here by Sparkzilla. It gave the impression it was originally discussed here, was out of context and further, contains material not compatible with an article talk page. Removed material. I have added a further explanation to Sparkzilla's talk page. David Lyons 05:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

This information does not belong to you, and you cannot remove it. It is germane to the discussion of your CoI regarding Nick Baker, and to the discussion of Baker in general. Just keep reminding yourself - is this really what I want to be doing with my time? Sparkzilla 06:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• Unassessed biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles