User talk:Patrick Haseldine

Welcome back

I note that you've created a new account upon your return to Wikipedia after an absence. I don't have any issue with you starting with a clean slate, but I suggest that you request your old account is disabled before you are santioned for acting against policy. Socrates2008 (Talk) 22:43, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion. In accordance with WP:REALNAME, I have confirmed that my Wikipedia username User:Patrick Haseldine is my real name.

Patrick Haseldine (talk) 14:49, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Cool, however you may still have an issue with WP:SOCK if user:PJHaseldine is not disabled. Socrates2008 (Talk) 01:52, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

September 2012

• This is a procedural block, since you are the same person as PJHaseldine, who was indef blocked. That said, that was two years ago and I am not opposed to your possibly returning to edit, but just starting a new account isn't the proper way to do it. The list of sockpuppets is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PJHaseldine/Archive and it would be helpful if you explained here how you expect to not sockpuppet any more. I'm trying to take your return in the best of possible faith, and fully authorize any admin to modify my block if a consensus is that this is ok, but in the short term, there is no choice but to block, per policy. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Patrick Haseldine (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I opened my User:Patrick Haseldine account on 3 September 2012 with the specific (and limited) purpose of improving my Wikipedia biography by correcting some important factual errors, by including a number of omissions and by referencing all changes, as explained in Talk:Patrick Haseldine#Correcting my biography, Talk:Patrick Haseldine#Comments on proposed corrections/amendments, Talk:Patrick Haseldine#Reason for my dismissal and User:Patrick Haseldine/Patrick Haseldine. Thank you. Patrick Haseldine (talk) 14:11, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Per the discussion at ANI and your rejection of the unblock conditions, I see no evidence that the community supports your editing of your own biography, and I see no compelling reason from you to override that agreement. Kinu ^t/_c 15:51, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I've mentioned this unblock request in the current thread at WP:ANI#Old user, new username. I am concened about letting Patrick Haseldine return to Wikipedia with the intention of editing his own article. This has been the occasion of discord in the past, though most of the debates are from 2009. If he is allowed to return to Wikipedia editing using the new account, Patrick Haseldine would inherit the editing restriction at User:PJHaseldine/Community sanction. EdJohnston (talk) 18:20, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

As a matter of normal procedure, I can't see how we could unblock here. Likely, the editor needs to contact ArbCom to be considered, since they are under community restrictions and have been blocked twice for sockpuppeting and once for violating the terms of their editing restriction before this particular instance. As the blocking admin, I would be opposed to unilaterally unblocking at this point. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't unilaterally unblock either, but I am not opposed to Mr. Haseldine continuing to edit if he discloses all other accounts he has created and agrees to edit under one account only. His cited use of the talk page in his biography shows he understands and is trying to abide by the WP:COI guideline. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

There was a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive767#Old user, new username which has now ended. The continuing discussion is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive239#Patrick Haseldine. EdJohnston (talk) 13:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Patrick Haseldine: it seems there is some support for unblocking you subject to some conditions on your editing. Do you agree to those restrictions currently being discussed at the link given above? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:53, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I can agree to the first two conditions currently being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive239#Patrick Haseldine, and to the third condition (but amended to restricting my edits exclusively to my Wikipedia biography) since those conditions can be determined objectively:

"A probationary period of 6 months, subject to him accepting his existing community restriction being updated as follows:

• The previous topic ban relating to Pan Am 103 related articles remains in place;
• He uses a single account, and does not engage in any further sock behaviour; and,
• He restricts his edits exclusively to his Wikipedia biography."

I regard the remaining conditions as subjective, unnecessarily restrictive and open to misinterpretation by editors who may not be well disposed towards me. Patrick Haseldine (talk) 11:35, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Those conditions are necessarily restrictive because of your past behaviour here, but nonetheless probationary. It's a shame that you don't recognise that - I was hoping things had moved on from where you previously left off. In light of your above response, I regretfully urge other others to oppose unblocking at this time. Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:10, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

In the 1990s, Nelson Mandela prescribed that the Lockerbie case ought to be conducted in a neutral country by independent judges, insisting "No one nation should be complainant, prosecutor and judge." Adapting Mr Mandela's prescription to my case, "No one Wikipedia editor should be complainant-in-chief, set subjective and unnecessarily restrictive conditions, and sit in judgment as to whether those conditions are met." Just to repeat, my sole concern is to improve my Wikipedia biography by correcting some important factual errors, by including a number of omissions and by referencing all changes, as explained in Talk:Patrick Haseldine#Correcting my biography, Talk:Patrick Haseldine#Comments on proposed corrections/amendments, Talk:Patrick Haseldine#Reason for my dismissal and User:Patrick Haseldine/Patrick Haseldine. Thank you. Patrick Haseldine (talk) 16:25, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

To clarify the situation for any admin reviewers, here is the full list of the unblocking conditions recently proposed by Socrates2008 in the discussion at WP:AN#Patrick Haseldine:

Agreed. Based on past patterns of behaviour, this is what I proposed at AN/I before being sent here: A probationary period of 6 months, subject to him accepting his existing community restriction being updated as follows: The previous topic ban relating to Pan Am 103 related articles remains in place He uses a single account, and does not engage in any further sock behaviour He restricts his edits exclusively to talk pages (no direct article edits) He uses talk pages exclusively for discussing article content improvements, not for making ad-hominem attacks against other editors. He does not use Wikipedia as a platform for any form of promotion, campaigning or activism He does not link from external sites to any edit he makes anywhere on Wikipedia, specifically, but not exclusively limited to Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Wikipedia Review or any online petitioning site. Any transgression of the above should result in a reinstatement of the indefinite ban without further warning. At the end of the 6 month period, he can request that the community review his restrictions to determine if it's appropriate for them to remain in place "as is" or be amended. Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:34, 12 September 2012 (UTC)}}

I have added numbers to the proposal by Socrates2008 (in the box above) to facilitate discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 20:02, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

To further clarify the situation for any admin reviewers, User:Socrates2008 may well be an admirable WP editor but he is not (and does not want to be) an admin. I have agreed to the first two unblocking conditions imposed by Socrates2008 and have amended the third to read "He restricts his edits exclusively to his Wikipedia biography." As previously explained, I have rejected Socrates2008's remaining unblocking conditions as being subjective and unnecessarily restrictive. Kindly accept my agreement to those three agreed unblocking conditions or (as suggested by User:Dennis Brown) put the matter to a vote at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive239#Patrick Haseldine. Thank you. Patrick Haseldine (talk) 21:45, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I see you as agreeing to numbers 1 and 2 and rejecting 3 through 7. #3 says you won't edit any articles directly. Your 'agreement' to #3 is nothing of the kind. Based on your non-acceptance of the proposed conditions, I don't see an unblock as being very likely. EdJohnston (talk) 19:44, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Question Time section

Would like to understand the relevance and noteworthyness of this section. From my understanding, an anonymous person in a tv audience asked the panel a question - this happens every day on tv shows all around the world. I don't see how this was noteworthy in the show itself (e.g. the previous question evoked more debate), or at anytime for anyone thereafter. Looks like nothing more than someone's 1 min of fame in the limelight, unless I'm missing something here...? Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:06, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

As is clear from the two Question Time clips (Patrick Haseldine - BBC Question Time - 25th February 1988 - Part 2 and Patrick Haseldine - BBC Question Time - 25th February 1988 - Part 3), it's the same highly controversial question that is under discussion: whether economic sanctions should be imposed on apartheid South Africa, in spite of Mrs Thatcher's known vehement opposition to the very idea. The VCR sequence starts at 22:16:26:00 when a student, Riaz Bashir, raised a topical and controversial question about the apartheid regime's outlawing of 17 anti-apartheid organisations on 25 February 1988, asking whether the British government was justified in its opposition of economic sanctions against South Africa in the face of calls for sanctions by Nelson Mandela, Bishop Tutu and by most of the EEC. At 22:25:06:12, after an inconclusive discussion by the panel, Sir Robin Day asked if anyone in the audience had anything to add.

I was able to intervene anonymously at that point and asked: "Now that peaceful opposition has been outlawed in South Africa what active measures should Britain take to avoid the seemingly inevitable violent upheaval which will ensue in South Africa?" If I had suggested any sanctions, as Sir Robin asked me to, there was the possibility that I would have to give my name and reveal that I was a British diplomat (entailing detrimental effects on my career). The panel came up with a number of positive measures that could be taken including the cutting of airlinks with South Africa. The sequence ended at 22:29:32:00 with a show of hands and I was on camera when 60% of the audience voted in favour of sanctions against the apartheid regime. The current Question Time section of my biography is therefore wrong to limit my involvement simply to "Haseldine was the first member of the audience to vote on that question of sanctions."

In the days following my appearing on Question Time of 25 February 1988, quite a number of friends and work colleagues at the FCO in London remarked that they had seen me. Former colleagues at posts overseas would also have seen the programme since VCRs of Question Time were sent to each embassy by the COI. On 12 April 1988, I was suspended from my job in Defence Dept of the FCO. The "official" reason given (that I had disobeyed an instruction by issuing an internal departmental memo, and copying it to FCO Finance Dept and to the Ministry of Defence) was frankly laughable. I am certain that my contribution to the sanctions debate on Question Time of 25 February 1988 was the "real" reason for my suspension, which ended on 3 September 1988 when I was invited back to join FCO Information Dept. Patrick Haseldine (talk) 12:15, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

So you added this section to your biography article because you have a belief that when you were suspended from your job 2 months later, the displinary offence cited was an excuse to punish you for asking an anonymous question on a tv show? I don't see any reference for that nor anything in the ECHR ruling that would support this:

"On 22 February 1988 the applicant contributed to a debate on South Africa on a popular television programme, "Question Time". He did not identify himself or make any controversial statements, but was the first member of the audience to vote on the question of economic sanctions."

"In March 1988 a disagreement arose between the applicant and his Head of Department over budget matters, following which the applicant was instructed not to send out documents in his own name. On 11 April the applicant sent out such a document without the approval of his Head of Department and he also sent copies of it to the Finance Department and the Ministry of Defence. The following day, he was instructed to leave the Defence Department, and was put on standby leave until September 1988. He received a letter of admonishment from the Head of the Personnel Policy Department, and while he was on standby leave his Head of Section prepared another confidential report giving a Box 5 marking."

Perhaps you could explain why the cause and effect that you infer in this paragraph is not original research? Socrates2008 (Talk) 23:06, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

The following is a repetition of the two proposed revised sections (without any original research) that I would like to have added to improve my Wikipedia biography:

"==Question Time==

On 22 February 1988, Haseldine was a member of the invited studio audience of Question Time. Fifteen minutes into the programme, a student asked whether the British government was justified in its opposition of economic sanctions against South Africa in the face of calls for sanctions by Nelson Mandela, Bishop Tutu and by most of the European Community. Without identifying himself or making any controversial comments, Haseldine contributed to the sanctions debate. Question Time chairman Sir Robin Day concluded the discussion by asking the audience to raise their hands if they were in favour of sanctions against South Africa. Haseldine was the first member of the audience to vote on that question.

==Suspension==

In March 1988 a disagreement arose between Patrick Haseldine and the Head of Defence Department over budget matters, following which Haseldine was instructed not to send out documents in his own name. However, on 11 April 1988 Haseldine disobeyed the instruction by issuing an internal memo within Defence Department and copying it, without approval, to FCO Finance Department and to the Ministry of Defence. On 12 April 1988, Haseldine was instructed to leave FCO Defence Department, was put on standby leave (suspended) and was sent a letter of admonishment by the Head of the Personnel Policy Department. While Haseldine was on standby leave his Head of Section in Defence Department prepared another confidential report giving him a Box 5 performance marking (indicating that the officer has "some serious weaknesses, not good enough to get by").

On 5 September 1988, Haseldine restarted work in the Information Department of the FCO. On 22 September 1988 he received a minute from a superior dealing with the proposed new Official Secrets Act."

Thank you. Patrick Haseldine (talk) 22:41, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Neither the ECHR nor your proposed text above establishes any link between your appearance in the audience of this show in Feb 1988 and your subsequent suspension in April 1988. Do you have a source that establishes any notability or relevance to your audience participation in this show? Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:09, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

As I understand it, notability is a guideline which relates to complete articles, rather than to sections of articles. My contribution to the sanctions against South Africa debate on Question Time of 25 February 1988 is relevant for inclusion in my Wikipedia biography for I would have thought fairly obvious topical, chronological and contextual reasons. I don't know of a source which establishes a link between that intervention and my subsequent suspension in April 1988, and that is why my proposed text above doesn't seek to make any link.

This extract from my Facebook community page biography [1] explains that the FCO Disciplinary Board which met on 28 February 1989 said its task was focused on the Guardian letter and excluded consideration of the Question Time issue:

"FCO INQUIRY AND APPEAL

Upon publication of the Guardian letter Personnel Department again suspended Haseldine, sent him a letter of complaint in accordance with DSR number 20 and scheduled an internal FCO disciplinary hearing to take place on 28 February 1989. In advance of this hearing, Haseldine wrote on 23 January 1989 to Sir Robin Day asking for a video recording of the programme in which he had appeared. The editor of 'Question Time', Barbara Maxwell, sent him Sir Robin's own VHS copy together with a covering letter sympathising with his predicament.

Haseldine attended the FCO hearing with his solicitor, Pamela Walsh of L Bingham & Co, and brought along the video – extracts of which were screened there. The disciplinary board's questioning was largely focused on the Guardian letter and Haseldine was repeatedly asked to divulge the source of the information in the letter. However, because he had been led to believe he was under an Official Secrets Act, 1911 criminal investigation, he refused to be drawn on the matter lest he incriminate himself in advance of the trial.

The disclipinary board reported on 7 March 1989 to the Permanent Under-Secretary (PUS) at the FCO. In the unpublished report, the board said its task was defined solely by DSR 20 and the letter of complaint, which excluded consideration of the Question Time issue, and it agreed unanimously that the only appropriate penalty in Haseldine's case was enforced resignation or dismissal. On 21 March 1989 the PUS wrote to Haseldine saying he should resign by – or be dismissed on – 4 April 1989, when payment of his salary would cease.

Haseldine appealed against this decision in a letter dated 22 March 1989 to the Foreign Secretary, Sir Geoffrey Howe. He also wrote on 5 April 1989 to his MP, Robert McCrindle, firstly complaining that the FCO had just ceased paying his salary and secondly accusing South Africa of responsibility for the Lockerbie bombing.

The No 2 Diplomatic Service Appeal Board (comprising Dame Gillian Brown, Mr N H Young, Mr W Jones and Mr J P R Oliver) met on 5 May 1989. Accompanied this time by his wife, Haseldine attended the meeting still expecting to be charged under the Official Secrets Act, and therefore again constrained in what he could say about the source of the information in his Guardian letter. The Appeal Board had before it the correspondence with Mr McCrindle and stated in its unpublished written record (paragraph 67): "Mr Jones said Mr Haseldine had raised the point of South Africa being the cause of his problems. He often referred to South Africa eg he had himself linked South Africa to the Lockerbie disaster."

SACKED BY FOREIGN SECRETARY JOHN MAJOR

At the start of the summer parliamentary recess on 19 July 1989, Sir Geoffrey Howe's private secretary, Stephen Wall, wrote informing Haseldine that his appeal had been rejected and that he should submit his resignation by 2 August 1989 or be dismissed on that date. He did not resign and the private secretary wrote again on 4 August 1989 (four days after Sir Geoffrey Howe had been demoted and replaced as Foreign Secretary by John Major) confirming that Haseldine had in fact been dismissed from the Diplomatic Service on 2 August 1989 [2]

ECHR APPLICATION

The Guardian of 3 August 1989 in an editorial with the title "Just out of court" argued that Haseldine's dismissal could well have been a breach of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights. Encouraged by this editorial, he and his solicitor Pamela Walsh began preparing an application to the European Commission of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg. The Haseldine v United Kingdom application – which on his solicitor's advice made no reference to the Lockerbie bombing – was eventually submitted in 1991. The ECHR application claimed damages of £534,703 for successive breaches of contract by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office between 1984 and 1988 and for wrongful dismissal on 2 August 1989, in breach of Article 10 of the Convention. The application was declared inadmissible by the ECHR in 1992. [3]" Patrick Haseldine (talk) 15:14, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, so putting this all together, you state that "I am certain that my contribution to the sanctions debate on Question Time of 25 February 1988 was the 'real' reason for my suspension", but that you "don't know of a source which establishes a link between that intervention and my subsequent suspension in April 1988, and that is why my proposed text above doesn't seek to make any link." That sounds like classic original research to me. Without such a link, contrary to your assertion, there are not any "fairly obvious topical, chronological and contextual reasons" that would help us understand why the inclusion this section is not a deliberate attempt to infer a connection that can't be verified. So unless there's any objection from another editor, I propose to delete the Question Time section from the article. Socrates2008 (Talk) 22:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

No objection from me. If Mr. Haseldine has published or stated his belief about this linkage in any reliable source (not this talk page), we could mention that he personally believes that the chronology and context associated with his participation on Question Time is linked to his suspension, but otherwise the event itself is not notable or unique enough to warrant inclusion in the article. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

My participation in the Question Time programme warrants inclusion in my Wikipedia biography because the reliably sourced ECHR report states: "On 22 February 1988 the applicant contributed to a debate on South Africa on a popular television programme, Question Time. He did not identify himself or make any controversial statements, but was the first member of the audience to vote on the question of economic sanctions."

On 2 June 2008, the Question Time section was misleadingly edited [4] which limited my participation to simply voting in favour of sanctions against South Africa. To date, this mistake has not been remedied which is why my proposed revision to the Question Time section seeks to correct it.

Furthermore, the Question Time section ought to remain in place for these "fairly obvious topical, chronological and contextual reasons" (all extracts from the current version of Patrick Haseldine):

• In July 1983 he was appointed on assistant on the South Africa desk in the FCO's Southern African Department (SAfD) in London where his responsibilities included monitoring the voluntary cultural and sports boycott of South Africa, and enforcing the mandatory UN arms embargo against South Africa.
• He contrasted the case to that of the Coventry Four, four South African businessmen charged in 1984 with evading the United Nations Security Council Resolution 418 ban on military exports, who were subsequently released by the Thatcher government.[5]
• In February 1988, Haseldine was a member of the invited studio audience of Question Time. Fifteen minutes into the programme, a student asked whether the British government was justified in its opposition to economic sanctions against South Africa in the face of calls for sanctions by Nelson Mandela, Bishop Tutu and by most of the European Community. Sir Robin Day asked the audience to raise their hands if they were in favour of economic sanctions against South Africa. Haseldine was the first member of the audience to vote on that question of sanctions.
• In March 1988, after a disagreement with his manager in the Defence Department, Haseldine was instructed not to publish any further documents in his own name. The following month, after circulating material within the civil service without authorisation, he was suspended from his job for six months.
• He was invited back to join the FCO's Information Department on 3 September 1988.
• On 7 December 1988, Haseldine labelled the four South Africans "terrorists", a term deriving from Michael Dukakis and from some anti-apartheid activists calling apartheid South Africa a "terrorist state" in order to trigger automatic sanctions.[6]
• He was immediately suspended from work on full pay.
• On 21 March 1989, following a disciplinary proceeding, he was asked to resign or be dismissed.
• He appealed to the Foreign Secretary against this decision, but Geoffrey Howe rejected the appeal; he was dismissed on 3 August 1989.
• Haseldine submitted an application to the European Court of Human Rights in 1991, claiming that his dismissal for writing the letter to The Guardian contravened his right to freedom of expression, but the ECHR declared his application inadmissible the following year.[7]

Thank you. Patrick Haseldine (talk) 13:22, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

The section has been removed - you're welcome to come back once you have a reliable source that establishes that the Quesion Time appearance led to your suspension.

PS: Quite a few hands started moving at the same time as yours, and at 22:29:32:17, the person sitting three rows directly behind you appears to get their hand completely up first, so not clear what this emphasis on being "first" is all about. Socrates2008 (Talk) 22:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you JamesBWatson

Thank you JamesBWatson for making this correction [8] to the intro of my Wikipedia biography. I should be grateful if you would use these proposed revisions Career, Question Time, Suspension, Guardian letter and Later activity to further improve the relevant sections of the biography. Patrick Haseldine (talk) 23:41, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of Question Time section

I strongly object to Socrates2008's deletion of the Question Time section [9] from my Wikipedia biography, which was done at 22:22 hrs on 19 September 2012 with this edit summary "Question Time: rm section per [10]". In making the deletion, Socrates completely ignored the edit that I made at 13:23 hrs on 19 September 2012 [11] which not only refuted the basis of the case he was making for deletion of the Question Time section but called for a misleading edit dating from 2 June 2008 to be corrected.

Reiterating the request made above,[12] I should be grateful if an independent editor such as JamesBWatson could restore a corrected Question Time section (along the lines of this proposed revision) to my Wikipedia biography without delay. Thank you. Patrick Haseldine (talk) 13:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

You've had ample opportunity above to put your points across; these have been considered, and the policy requirement for a verifiable source has also been made clear to you. You've chosen to ignore the input of Amatulic, who has already provided an independent third opinion. If I drop a note for JamesBWatson, do you undertake to accept and respect his viewpoint as final? Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:25, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

This is the text of my proposed revision to the Question Time section: "On 22 February 1988, Haseldine was a member of the invited studio audience of Question Time. Fifteen minutes into the programme, a student asked whether the British government was justified in its opposition of economic sanctions against South Africa in the face of calls for sanctions by Nelson Mandela, Bishop Tutu and by most of the European Community. Without identifying himself or making any controversial comments, Haseldine contributed to the sanctions debate. Question Time chairman Sir Robin Day concluded the discussion by asking the audience to raise their hands if they were in favour of sanctions against South Africa. Haseldine was the first member of the audience to vote on that question." The ECHR is the verifiable source for this text. I cannot understand your and Amatulic's citing of notability to determine whether or not the Question Time section should be included in my Wikipedia biography since that guideline clearly states: "Notability does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article." Please relay the whole of this edit to JamesBWatson, who may wish to comment on your deletion of the Question Time section. Thank you. Patrick Haseldine (talk) 15:18, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Could you answer my last question above please? Thanks Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:06, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

If you were to relay the verbatim text of my last edit to JamesBWatson, I would accept and respect his viewpoint as final.

• This is the text of my proposed revision to the Question Time section: "On 22 February 1988, Haseldine was a member of the invited studio audience of Question Time. Fifteen minutes into the programme, a student asked whether the British government was justified in its opposition of economic sanctions against South Africa in the face of calls for sanctions by Nelson Mandela, Bishop Tutu and by most of the European Community. Without identifying himself or making any controversial comments, Haseldine contributed to the sanctions debate. Question Time chairman Sir Robin Day concluded the discussion by asking the audience to raise their hands if they were in favour of sanctions against South Africa. Haseldine was the first member of the audience to vote on that question." The ECHR is the verifiable source for this text. I cannot understand your and Amatulic's citing of notability to determine whether or not the Question Time section should be included in my Wikipedia biography since that guideline clearly states: "Notability does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article." Please relay the whole of this edit to JamesBWatson, who may wish to comment on your deletion of the Question Time section.

Thank you. Patrick Haseldine (talk) 10:14, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

• I have now read much of the relevant editing history, and the relevant report in the 1992 Yearbook of the European Convention on Human Rights. I have formed an impression of the situation. However, I do not have time at present to write a full response, and I think a brief one or two sentence response would run the risk of giving a misleading impression of my opinions. I am therefore not going to post a comment on this case now, but I hope to do so within 24 hours. If after 24 hours I have not done so, I hope someone will remind me. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:53, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
• Patrick Haseldine, I've reverted this edit in which you refer to yourself in the third person and attempt to impersonate another user (namely, Socrates2008) in the signature. Can you explain your motivation behind this? Please note that were you not already blocked, this would likely be another reason to do so. Quite frankly, actions like this undermine your cause, which, given some of the comments from other users both here and the recent ANI thread, is already on thin ice. --Kinu ^t/_c 12:30, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
• Baffled by Kinu´s revert of my perfectly straightforward edit but keen to have JamesBWatson´s full response. Patrick Haseldine (talk) 16:38, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, apologies for the fact that I didn't get back onto this within 24 hours, as I said I hoped to.

Next, it looks to me as though the edit that Kinu reverted was not an attempt to "impersonate another user", but rather a perfectly good-faith attempt to give context to my comment above, by quoting the message on my talk page which led me to make that comment. It is unfortunate, Patrick, that you didn't say that was what you were doing, as it evidently looked to Kinu as though you were trying to be underhanded, which I am sure you weren't.

I have considerable sympathy with you. It is clear that you think that the treatment you have received in the article Patrick Haseldine has not been entirely fair. What is more, it seems clear to me that, at least to some extent, there is justification for that view. I don't remember now how I came to see the dispute about the article, but when I looked into it I saw that there was very misleading information given. The wording "various disciplinary offences" would clearly convey to any normal person with a competent understanding of English the impression that you were accused of several separate unacceptable actions, not with one action which was considered unacceptable under several separate headings. It seems to me that, even if the exact wording did not make any factually incorrect statement, to give such a misleading impression amounts to defamation, and you were fully justified in objecting to it, so I changed the wording to make the situation clearer.

It is clear that you think that other aspects of the article are also unfair to you. You may be right: I have not examined every aspect of the article. Perhaps, when I have time, I will look at the article in more detail. However, for now I will deal only with the issue of your participation in "Question Time". You wrote "As I understand it, notability is a guideline which relates to complete articles, rather than to sections of articles", and quoted "Notability does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article". (Wording from the box "This page in a nutshell" in the notability guideline.) However, that quotation is, I think, misleading. If you read the actual content of the guideline, you will see that it says "These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article or list." (My emphasis.) The statement that the concept of notability does not apply to the content of articles was added, without discussion, by an editor who said "nutshell doesn't really reflect the guideline properly". However, the version that that editor made still does not "reflect the guideline properly". Saying that the concept of notability does not affect content of articles goes well beyond what the guideline actually says, which is merely that that guideline does not deal with the issue of content of articles, not that no concept of notability/importance/significance/call-it-what-you will has bearing on what content may be included. It is a misunderstanding to think that, provided the subject of an article can be shown to be notable, any verifiable fact at all about that subject can be included, no matter how insignificant. Following discussion, the wording of the "nutshell" has now been changed to avoid the risk of giving that impression.

Is the fact that you were once in the audience of a television programme, contributed to the discussion, and were the first to vote on a question significant enough to be included in an encyclopaedia article? We do not list every single person who is in the audience in such a situation. Nor do we list everybody who has ever been the first to vote in such a situation. Your claim of significance seems to rest on your claim that your employers were lying, and that the Question Time incident was secretly the reason for the action taken against you. However, there seems to be no source, apart from what you have written here, that indicates any reason for taking that view. Your appeal to "fairly obvious topical, chronological and contextual reasons" seems to amount to suggesting that the content should be included so that readers can infer a connection which is not supported by any reliable source. However, that is not an acceptable reason for inclusion. The fact that a particular editor thinks that there is a connection, but cannot provide any verifiable source to show such a connection, is emphatically not a reason for inclusion, and even more emphatically so when the editor in question is closely involved in the issue in question, and so has a conflict of interest. The other point about the article on which I took action was a case where you had, in my judgement, a valid reason to ask for rewording to avoid an unfair and misleading impression being given. This case, though, is quite different. As far as I can see, you are trying to use Wikipedia to publicise your own view of the case. Wikipedia is not a medium for promotion of your own preferred view of a case. Your belief that the Question Time incident was related to the action taken against you may or may not be justified, but the fact that you are personally "certain that [your] contribution to the sanctions debate on Question Time of 25 February 1988 was the real reason for [your] suspension" is not a reliable source. Including content becasue an involved party personally holds a particular view as to its relevance and wishes to publicise it, but cannot produce objective evidence to support that view, is contrary to several Wikipedia's poicies and guidelines, including Wikipedia not being a medium for promotion, the need for reliable sources, and the need for articles being written from a neutral point of view. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:45, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• James, thank you for those wise words. On the subject of the intro that you updated, I have no objections to your edit, however I'd like to point out that the former wording was in the intro for over four years (and prior to PJH being blocked). If you're interested to know why I didn't change it when I made some of the other updates that PJH requested, the version proposed by him removed the ECHR reference; I therefore raised this point in discussion with him. When he responded with a personal attack I declined to help him further, and instead posted a note on the BLP page for someone else to take a look.
• PJH, do you understand and accept why the Question Time section can't be included? Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:22, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you JamesBWatson for your very full response to the questions raised, especially for your explanation as to why you acted to correct the misleading information that had been in the intro to my Wikipedia biography for the past four years. On which specific point, I note that User:Socrates2008 says: "If you're interested to know why I didn't change it when I made some of the other updates that PJH requested, the version proposed by him removed the ECHR reference." Socrates is wrong on this issue since my proposed correction to the intro clearly retains the ECHR reference: "Patrick John Haseldine (born 11 July 1942) is a former British diplomat who was dismissed on 2 August 1989 by the then Foreign Secretary, John Major, for writing a letter that was published in The Guardian newspaper on 7 December 1988 in which he publicly accused then Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher of "self-righteous invective" over her handling of an extradition request."
• Following an AFD process, my Wikipedia biography was undeleted in September 2005. The Question Time section was considered notable enough then for inclusion in the biography. Apart from my requesting this small (but reliably referenced) amendment in September 2012: "On 22 February 1988, Haseldine was a member of the invited studio audience of Question Time. Fifteen minutes into the programme, a student asked whether the British government was justified in its opposition of economic sanctions against South Africa in the face of calls for sanctions by Nelson Mandela, Bishop Tutu and by most of the European Community. Without identifying himself or making any controversial comments, Haseldine contributed to the sanctions debate. Question Time chairman Sir Robin Day concluded the discussion by asking the audience to raise their hands if they were in favour of sanctions against South Africa. Haseldine was the first member of the audience to vote on that question.", what has changed over the past seven years to warrant deletion of the Question Time section now?

• Several very experienced editors have weighed into this discussion to explain the issue with the Question Time section to you. So suggest that you "accept and respect his viewpoint as final", as you indicated you would. Socrates2008 (Talk) 22:33, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

• The Question Time section should be included in my Wikipedia biography because of this article entitled Sacked Thatcher critic sues ministry by Rosie Waterhouse in The Independent on Sunday of 9 June 1991 which states: "A former diplomat is suing the Foreign Office for breaches of contract and wrongful dismissal. Patrick Haseldine was sacked in August 1989 after he publicly claimed that Margaret Thatcher had helped ensure that four South Africans who were arrested in Coventry and charged with arms smuggling were repatriated to evade trial in Britain. Mr Haseldine, 48, was involved in a review of British policy towards South Africa and in making recommendations about sanctions and the dismantling of apartheid. He was working in Foreign Office defence department in 1988 when he was suspended for six months for asking a question on the BBC's Question Time about continuing sanctions against South Africa. On 7 December 1988, Mr Haseldine was labelled a "whistleblower" after he wrote a letter to The Guardian contrasting Mrs Thatcher's "self-righteous invective" against the Belgian and Irish governments for not extraditing suspected IRA terrorists with her attitude to the case of the four white South Africans. Known as the Coventry Four, they were arrested by Customs officers and remanded in custody by Coventry magistrates on arms embargo charges in March 1984. Mr Haseldine wrote: "Rumour has it that Mrs Thatcher was rather annoyed with the over-zealous officials who caused the four military personnel to be arrested in Britain. Rightly, she refused to accede to the South African embassy's demand for the case to be dropped, but she was keen for the embassy to know precisely how the legal hurdles governing their release and the return of their passports could be swiftly overcome. Clearly Mrs Thatcher wanted the four high-profile detainees safely out of UK jurisdiction, back in South Africa and off the agenda well before her June 1984 talks at Chequers with the two visiting Bothas." The four were allowed bail by a judge in chambers and immediately returned to South Africa, where Pik Botha, then foreign minister, refused to allow them to return to Britain to stand trial. It was later claimed that Mrs Thatcher requested a daily report from Customs officials about how the case was proceeding and that senior Whitehall officials ordered the release of a fifth South African suspected of arms smuggling. Mr Haseldine, who now runs a café in Essex, claims that the Foreign Office took several disciplinary actions against him, including his suspension and dismissal, which were in breach of Diplomatic Service procedures. A writ against the Foreign Office was issued 12 months ago but only served on the eve of the expiry date, because Mr Haseldine did not know if he would qualify for legal aid, and he was unable to finance the potential costs himself if he lost. On Friday legal aid was refused. His solicitor has advised him that he has a strong case and so he is appealing for funds. A Foreign Office press officer confirmed that the writ had been served and said legal advisers were considering what action to take. "Patrick Haseldine was dismissed in line with normal disciplinary procedures for writing a letter to The Guardian. The disciplinary board considered that in the light of the letter he had committed a serious disciplinary offence and inevitably had lost the confidence of ministers and colleagues." Patrick Haseldine (talk) 15:27, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The newspaper's archive goes back only as far as 1992 - is this article available somewhere else? Socrates2008 (Talk) 23:14, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Rosie Waterhouse's article is currently shared on a number of Facebook pages including this one which is reprinted in the section below. Please update my Wikipedia biography accordingly. Patrick Haseldine (talk) 16:07, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I've re-added the section, along with some information about its relevance to your subsequent suspension, as asserted in the Independent article. Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks for re-adding what turns out to be a much-truncated Question Time section!

Please bear in mind that the Independent on Sunday article was written 30 months after the event (viz. my suspension on 7 December 1988 for publishing The Guardian letter), and might contain inaccuracies. A contemporaneous - and more accurate (though I don't have "twin" daughters) account - is given in The Guardian of 8 December 1988. Please continue updating my Wikipedia biography with this previously inaccessible but reliable information. Patrick Haseldine (talk) 20:26, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Two more reliable sources for updating my Wikipedia biography are these newspaper articles from September 1991: Trader's Human Rights Row and Free speech plea by sacked bureaucrat. Thank you. Patrick Haseldine (talk) 21:27, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Your talk page

I'm not sure what you are trying to achieve by posting these essays on your talk page, but it is not the appropriate use of user talk pages on Wikipedia, so I have removed some of it. As your account is blocked, this page is only for discussing that issue and not for anything else. Further misuse of the talk page may result in your access being revoked. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:18, 28 November 2012 (UTC)