User talk:PJHaseldine

---

Welcome!

Hello, PJHaseldine, 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
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Just H 18:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Emails to Professor Black

Two recent emails to Professor Robert Black are recorded here and here.PJHaseldine (talk) 10:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Amendments/edits to Civil Cooperation Bureau page.

Patrick,

Thanks for completing the suggested edits to the above page so well. We were trying to framework (somehow) the right words, which you then introduced - well.

A question might be - if Magnus Malan, in Para 15 said his orders to the SADF were to "destroy the terrorists, destroy their bases etc" then followed up by "./.....and I never authorised any member of the SADF to kill political opponents...etc ...."...is this not contradictory - or in your interpretation, would a political opponent who chose to associate with activies and actions that could be termed "terrorist/terrorism" then fall into the category mentioned first.

I am busy with a comparative analysis of justifications, activities, actions and morals between several past Government initiated covert groups. Primarily the CCB, SOS and the SOE. I have also been provided with almost unlimited access to the historical archives and information on the SOE.

Thanks again for a good edit on the above page.

BSRCR 20:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Responded on CCB talk page.PJHaseldine (talk) 12:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories and your namesake

If you can provide a WP:RS that someone other than PJH or his solicitor has stated that he was dismissed because of the letter to the The Guardian, then it might be appropropriate in the article. (If there were a reliable source that he was dismissed for that reason, it would clearly be appropriate.) So far, it hasn't been done. I admit that I haven't searched, but your insistence in including unsourced information about PJH is disturbing, in terms of WP:BLP and WP:COI. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you will agree that the following extract from Decision №18957/92 by the European Commission on Human Rights is the required reliable source:

"On 5 December 1988 the applicant wrote a letter to The Guardian newspaper. It was published on 7 December 1988.In the letter the applicant accused the British Prime Minister of "self-righteous invective" in criticising the Belgian and Irish handling of a request by the United Kingdom for the extradition of an Irish citizen. The applicant referred to a decision made in 1984 to allow four South Africans remanded in custody on arms embargo charges to leave the United Kingdom after a South African Embassy official agreed to waive his diplomatic immunity and to stand surety for them. The four did not return to the United Kingdom. The applicant stated, inter alia, that "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....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 applicant supplied his work address (Information Department, Foreign and Commonwealth Office). From 7 December 1988 until 4 April 1989 the applicant was suspended on full pay. On 20 December 1988 the Head of the Personnel Policy Department submitted a formal complaint against the applicant in respect of the publication of the letter. On 21 March 1989, acting on the advice of the Disciplinary Board, whose view was that the applicant by publishing the letter had committed various disciplinary offences constituting breaches of the Diplomatic Service Regulations, the Secretary of State decided that the applicant should be called upon to resign or, failing that, be dismissed on 4 April 1989. During the course of the proceedings before the Board, the applicant had submitted, inter alia, that he had written the letter because he wanted his grievances to be known and did not wish to be dismissed quietly. He had refused to answer questions concerning the source of his information for the letter. On 22 March 1989 the applicant asked the Secretary of State to reconsider his decision. On 4 April 1989 the Secretary of State referred the matter to the No. 2 Diplomatic Service Appeal Board. On 5 May 1989 the Appeal Board met. The applicant presented his case before the Board. He was accompanied by his wife. He stated, inter alia, that he had written the letter in order to air his grievances and because of his fear of what might happen when the Official Secrets Act became law. He maintained his refusal to answer questions concerning the source of his information for the letter. He also stated that he did not think the letter breached any specific regulations. By letter dated 19 July 1989 the applicant was informed that the Appeal Board had concluded, inter alia, that in writing to The Guardian he had committed a serious disciplinary offence and that if he maintained his refusal to resign the Secretary of State would confirm his dismissal. On 2 August 1989 the applicant was dismissed."

I suggest that my Conspiracy theory entry should be revised as follows:

"* Patrick Haseldine (born 1942) - is a former British diplomat who was dismissed by the Thatcher government for writing a letter to The Guardian newspaper on 7 December 1988, and who subsequently assembled a dossier of evidence to incriminate apartheid South Africa for the 21 December 1988 Lockerbie bombing."

If you agree, please revise the entry accordingly.PJHaseldine (talk) 11:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

It still doesn't seem quite to cover the issue. It appears the ECHR agreed with HMG that someone in his position, with access to sensitive information, shouldn't be criticising the government. The source didn't say he was dismissed because of tjat criticism or the letter; the previous "box 5" report seemed adequate justification (to the ECHR) for that. There still seems no reference for the "dossier" statement, although I'm sure we can find one somewhere. (Again, it should be noted there are no references to the "dossier" section of Patrick Haseldine, either. It seems, at least a marginal application of WP:BLP, that it might be deleted.) I think the first sentence could be written:

"* Patrick Haseldine (born 1942) - is a former British diplomat who, having had a previous unsatisfactory performance review, was dismissed by the Thatcher government for writing a letter to The Guardian newspaper on 7 December 1988.

It would have been more helpful if you had noted this on Talk:Patrick Haseldine or the talk page of the article in question, as is proper under WP:COI. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for these comments.

In 1991, I applied to the ECHR for a ruling that my dismissal for writing to The Guardian constituted a breach of my Article 10 right to freedom of expression. In 1992, as the above Decision №18957/92 makes clear:

"The Commission notes that the applicant was dismissed as a result of the publication in a newspaper of a letter in which he expressed certain opinions on the then Prime Minister's attitude to South Africa. The Commission considers that the applicant's dismissal constituted an interference in the exercise of his freedom of expression."

However, the ECHR Decision went on to say:

"In the circumstances of the present case, the Commission considers that, in view of the particular professional responsibilities incumbent on the applicant and the specific nature of his work, the United Kingdom authorities were reasonably justified in dismissing him. The interference with the applicant's exercise of his freedom of expression could therefore be regarded as necessary in a democratic society for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, within the meaning of Article 10 para. 2 (Art. 10-2) of the Convention."

The ECHR was not required to deal with the matter of my job appraisal and performance box markings at the FCO, and did not comment on them. Thus, I think you should remove "having had a previous unsatisfactory performance review" from your proposed first sentence.

I shall look for a suitable source for the "dossier" statement: this might take some time.

Meanwhile, would it be a good idea to transfer this whole section to my talk page, as you have suggested?PJHaseldine (talk) 17:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Content of Guardian letters

Have you considered moving the contents of User talk:PJHaseldine/Archive 3 to an internet page or blog site? That way, you can say what you like without anyone on Wikipedia getting after you for POV/self-publishing/soapboxing, yet the content will still be available online for any Wiki editor that's interested. Most ISP's offer free web space - failing that, there are many sites available offering a free service... Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for this suggestion. I have no plans to move User talk:PJHaseldine/Archive 3 which I regard as a valuable resource to be used by Wikipedia editors in improving a whole range of articles — not just the Patrick Haseldine article. I hope you will find it useful for that purpose.PJHaseldine (talk) 15:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Follow policies

See closing of MFD debate. Please follow wiki polices. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:PatrickHaseldine3.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:PatrickHaseldine3.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Rather than fighting about fair use violation, copyright violation, or improper use in BLP articles, I've requested IFD discussion. Please comment there, rather than on the image talk page. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC) .

On the IfD page, you agreed that the licence for the image should revert to "PD-self" with the proviso that Richard Norton-Taylor's piece is blanked. This has been done, so would appreciate your bringing the IfD discussion to an appropriate end.PJHaseldine (talk) 14:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The result of the IfD discussion was keep.PJHaseldine (talk) 15:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Referencing

You have added bare external references to a number of articles recently. Please take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources/example style for examples of how to add a citation using the citation template. Socrates2008 (Talk) 13:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for these pointers. If other editors have used citation templates in the article I'm editing, I usually follow suit.PJHaseldine (talk) 10:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

'See also' link on Patrick Haseldine article

Hi there. Thanks for pointing this out to me - actually, I really should have looked at the article's history and talk page before removing the link, as it's clear from those that the article used to contain much more information about the Lockerbie investigation before it was removed. However, even after a mention of the Lockerbie investigation has been re-added, I'm still not convinced the link to Hans Köchler's Lockerbie trial observer mission is entirely relevant here - at least, its relevance isn't immediately obvious from reading the article. But as a compromise, I have added a link to Hans Köchler to the article, and any reader who clicks on that can easily find the article about Köchler's UN observer mission. I hope that helps. Terraxos (talk) 13:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

You're right: the 'See also' link to Hans Köchler's Lockerbie trial observer mission used to be relevant when the article contained a lot more Lockerbie information. But the wikilink you have just added is fine. Thank you.PJHaseldine (talk) 15:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Tisdall

Thanks. Sorry about the typo in the DEFAULTSORT. - Jmabel | Talk 06:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

No probs! - PJHaseldine (talk) 08:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice

Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 07:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Another COI edit

This is another COI edit - you agreed before to stay clear of edits about yourself. Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

For many months, I have waited in vain for Socrates2008, Deon Steyn or Arthur Rubin to correct my entry on the Conspiracy theory article. For example, what did you mean by describing me as an "FSO" official? I was therefore entitled to correct this mistake. Patience may well be a virtue, but there has to be a limit! Socrates2008 seems to have been somewhat premature in adding an inappropriate template to the article's talk page.--PJHaseldine (talk) 21:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The process for making changes when there is a conflict of interest, as you well know from our previous discussions, is raise your changes on the talk page of the article. I don't see that you've done this, indicating that you have violated the agreement reached with the administrators. Socrates2008 (Talk) 01:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Correcting an obvious error in my entry as a conspiracy theorist and adding a reference do not amount to a conflict of interest. Your premature edit which added an inappropriate template to the article's talk page has been reverted by Arthur Rubin.--PJHaseldine (talk) 09:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

"Obvious error" is subjective - this is exactly why there are COI rules. Arthur Rubin doe does not have a COI over that article, so he's free to edit it as he chooses. Kindly refrain from editing articles about yourself, no matter how trivial, as no-one wants to drag the admins into this again. Socrates2008 (Talk) 22:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Administrator Arthur Rubin reverted the premature edit by Socrates2008 here. Obviously, this has put Socrates' nose out of joint!--PJHaseldine (talk) 21:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Hugh Miles

Several links now point to the dab page - I trust you're going to tidy them up to point to the right articles (looks like 5:1 in favour of the journalist). PamD (talk) 16:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know: I've fixed the loose links.---PJHaseldine (talk) 19:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!

Dear Mr. Haseldine, Thank you for your reformatting of Oliver and Hugh's pages. I assume you were alerted to my tinkering with the pages (just had to add reference to the incomparable Julia who is responsible for so much of their success). cheers, A small Canadian.---99.246.156.155 (talk) 14:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Il n'y a pas de quoi.---PJHaseldine (talk) 16:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Question re:the Dossier of Evidence

Dear Mr. Haseldine,

I do have a question re:the "Dossier of Evidence" allegedly implicating SA in the Lockerbie bombing. What did this comprise of? I have read your letters to the Guardian and they don't, IMHO implicate SA. I accept that certain SA politicians may have had something to gain and that one cheated death but this is not really evidence? Was there more? Whatever there was I would be interested to read it.

I accept this needs to be read in the context of the time (1989). I can also accept that maybe the British government did not cover all their leads. Since then there has been a Lockerbie trial and people have been convicted? So has Mr Haseldine changed his views since then?

Thank you D Baker --Biscuit1018 (talk) 07:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Dear Mr Baker,

My initial "Dossier of Evidence" was compiled in the mid-1990s, and was submitted to UK authorities and the US embassy in London. It was updated and e-mailed in March 2000 to the prosecution and defence in advance of the Pan Am Flight 103 bombing trial. You can read all about it here.

Following Megrahi's conviction at the trial in January 2001, the first appeal in February 2002 and the SCCRC reference in June 2007 for a second appeal, a lot more information about the apartheid South Africa connection has become available on the Internet. You will find the latest, lengthy and detailed evidence implicating SA in the Lockerbie bombing here ("Lockerbie Propositions"). My views are unchanged.---PJHaseldine (talk) 12:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello Patrick, I'm glad to see that you've taken the advice to publish your alternate theory on a blog, rather than here at Wikipedia. Socrates2008 (Talk) 08:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I too am glad that you (and, presumably, your tag partner, Deon Steyn), have had to accept it as an "alternate theory" rather than as one of your "conspiracy theory" obsessions.---PJHaseldine (talk) 21:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your note. The appreciation is appreciated! South Africa under apartheid still needs a lot of cleanup. Regards, Zaian (talk) 20:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Yvonne Bradley

I have nominated Yvonne Bradley, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yvonne Bradley. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. THF (talk) 15:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

THF must be joking! I had no hesitation in voting to Keep the Yvonne Bradley article.---PJHaseldine (talk) 21:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I would have weighed in if I had seen this nomination. Are you considering requesting a deletion review? I would encourage you to do so.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 00:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

A contributor can request a deleted article to be userified, to examine and work on. Were you considering this? I gathered some references. User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/rescue/Yvonne Bradley. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 01:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The closing admin has agreed to userify the article to User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/review/Yvonne Bradley. I am going to update it using some of the references I found. And you should feel free to join in. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 20:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

This is what I've just added to the closing admin's talk page: "As the originator of the Yvonne Bradley article, I fail to see how Fritzpoll's close "reflected the consensus" of the debate. The close was clearly premature, to say the least. And there was no consensus: 2 3 x Keep vs 2 x Delete! Better get nodding it into Geo Swan's userspace before I take the matter up with the powers that be".---PJHaseldine (talk) 21:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and given that I'd already agreed to userfy, I felt that your last sentence was somewhat pointless. Also, the "count" was 3 vs. 3 (don't forget the nominator), the correct venue for complaint is WP:DRV, and we don't count heads for consensus - we weigh arguments. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

hi

Hello, PJHaseldine. You have new messages at Anne Teedham's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, PJHaseldine. You have new messages at Fritzpoll's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Yvonne Bradley

Please do not misuse redirects to point mainspace pages to userspace. Thank you. THF (talk) 15:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/review/Yvonne Bradley

User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/review/Yvonne Bradley, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/review/Yvonne Bradley and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/review/Yvonne Bradley during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. THF (talk) 15:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I voted to keep.---PJHaseldine (talk) 16:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

A notice has been filed at WP:AN

Hello Patrick. I have requested comments at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Topic ban on PJHaseldine, asking for additional views on the topic ban that I proposed at WP:COIN. EdJohnston (talk) 16:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Topic-banned

This message is to notify you that per the consensus expressed at the COI noticeboard, you are prohibited from editing articles relating to Pan Am Flight 103, broadly construed. You may still contribute to related discussions and talk pages. Further details can be found at User:PJHaseldine/Community_sanction. To be clear, should you violate this restriction and edit in areas you are topic-banned from, you will be blocked. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

PJH, please respect this ban, strictly, until and unless it is lifted. It does not completely prevent you from editing articles, and, quite possibly, is little more than what you might have been expected to do in the first place. For reference, this is a permanent link to the subsection where your ban was decided.

If you come across a harmless edit you could make to these articles, the standard procedure would be to propose it in Talk. You may also propose more controversial edits there; however, be aware that tendentious argument on Talk will sometimes result in an extension of the ban to Talk pages as well. However, if you see some clearly harmless edit you can make to an article, my strong recommendation is that you make the edit with a summary that includes the phrase "will self-revert per ban," and then revert your edit immediately with a summary, "self-revert per ban." This is far more efficient, overall, than proposing a harmless edit in Talk, and further demonstrates cooperation with the ban, and it is even possible that an editor who has been in conflict with you will cooperate with you by reverting it back in, thus beginning to open the channels of cooperation.

With anything related to the articles topic banned, exercise extreme caution. I recommend you immediately cease efforts to draw widespread community attention to these events, because this will be seen as disruptive, even if you are totally right. Instead, go back to the very first steps in WP:DR, being very specific as to what the dispute is; given the existence of the topic ban, and unless an editor consents to direct negotiation, proceed by requesting the assistance of one neutral editor whom you trust and whom you see as being respected in the community, if possible. Let that editor investigate for you and handle any mediation or further process. Read WP:DGAF and meditate on it. SPAs often run into difficulty because they may be naturally attached to the topic and some particular presentation of it. You will be far more effective if you come to mistrust your own attachments (without giving up what you know, this is about mistrusting our human propensity for bias based on our personal histories). With detachment, you will become more patient and, again, more effective in what is right about what you want to do, and you will naturally abandon what is questionable.

If you have time, during this ban, I highly recommend, as well, doing some general editing. Do some Recent changes patrol, it's fun, kind of like Whack-a-Mole. If you install Twinkle, it becomes very easy, and it demonstrates cooperation with the community toward improving the project. Reviewing your recent contributions, I'd also suggest avoiding contentious edits to WP space, such as AfD. These will be used against you in any further process, until and unless you have established a strong edit basis in mainspace. This would go doubly against voting Strong anything, which shows attachment. Let go. Stop arguing, let yourself "lose." It's good practice, if you are patient with it, you will start to "win," because your opinions will come closer to the Wikipedia mainstream. This edit is an example of what you should not touch with a ten-foot pole in your position. I can predict what will be said about this if you face the possibility of further sanctions.

Meanwhile, please consider Ncmvocalist to be the "custodian" of your ban. Before doing anything that pushes the limits of your ban, make sure that you have the consent of this administrator, or of another if this one is not available. If you think that you have reason for your ban to be lifted, this would be the go-to person, but I strongly advise, at this point, not even questioning it. To emphasize the reason, you probably should have acted in a way close to what the ban requires, from the beginning. It's a moderate ban, because it allows Talk participation. I will continue looking into this affair, but the most important issue initially is to secure your full cooperation with the ban; if that isn't demonstrated, or at least if there is no more disruption -- whether or not it is your "fault" -- there is little hope for the ban to not turn into a deeper ban or blocks or total site-ban. Do not push for sanctions against other editors.

As to your concern about articles of interest, simply make sure that evidence regarding problem text in the articles is presented as clearly as possible in Talk. Avoid any kind of attack on editors, focus entirely on content. Make your suggestions as if you were a COI expert who is advising editors of the article, but who is not the one who makes the decisions; that's normal for experts unless they are elected to office! Good luck. Abd (talk)--16:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Excellent advice, Abd, much appreciated!---PJHaseldine (talk) 17:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, PJH. I did just look over the DRV you created. Bad idea, as long as the action by Fritzpoll was even close to proper. The reason is as he stated: the page has been userfied for further work. Helping with that page is the most efficient way that you can get it restored. There are complications in all this that I haven't had time to investigate, and, once again, my point isn't that you are right or wrong, in theory, but DRV is a potentially disruptive process and should be avoided if possible. Fritzpoll's closure was one which would lead fairly efficiently to a restoration if that is appropriate. As long as he was neutral, it's a reasonable closure; consider the long-term effect! The article will presumably come back a better and stronger article. Until then, the most important points in it will be found in the section of the article he redirected to. It will not require DRV, because, let me assure you, Fritzpoll will fairly consider the article for restoration, if the reasons for deletion have been addressed, and, as closing admin, he has the power to change his decision unilaterally. This is how Wikipedia works, when it works. When you think it is ready, and, even better, when two editors think it is ready, show that in the attached Talk page, and go back to Fritzpoll and request he restore it.

Start thinking in terms of how to accomplish things with the minimum fuss. It requires being patient. Suppose it turned out that Fritzpoll were totally biased and unreasonable. I know him, pretty well (I was actually blocked last year for supposedly attacking him). He's reasonable, and listens. However, if he makes a bad decision, there are then simple and nondisruptive ways to move on. Essentially, you ask a neutral editor to mediate as a next step. If you can't find anyone neutral to agree to negotiate some different outcome, you've got your answer! Without endangering your editing status.

If you ask one person after another, this could be considered disruptive, and a form of harassment, so make a good pick for whom to ask, and usually that will be enough, you'll rarely need to find another, unless you are unwilling to accept consensus. One device I've used is to ask the editor or administrator with whom I have a dispute to suggest a mediator. If you can agree with this choice (look over the editor's contributions), then you will almost certainly come to some satisfactory solution. If not, you can always suggest someone else. You don't have to get an editor's consent to invite intervention, but you are more likely to be successful if you really do try to find someone who can actually resolve the issue, rather than simply make it necessary to escalate.

There are some weak arguments being made in the DRV, on both sides. I was thinking about it today as I waited for my daughters to finish with ballet practice, and it seemed that every few minutes I came up with a different conclusion, were I to !vote or, perhaps, close. I'm actually neutral, I think it makes almost no difference, in the long run, whichever way that DRV closes. If I !vote, I can't close, so I might not !vote, though I'm considering making some comment that is neutral on the question of which way the DRV should close (in which case I might then argue that I can properly close). I'm not an admin, but I know some, and when I make obviously proper requests for the use of admin tools, it's almost always quickly granted. I could try an innovation in process (non-admin closure requiring admin tools, if I were to decide on that -- and, because Fritzpoll elected to userfy rather than Merge, it will take an admin to get the redirect that he also placed there gone. Or not, depends on what response I'd anticipate.)

Always remember, Rule Number One on Wikipedia is ignore all rules. That is one tricky rule, though, often misunderstood, often abused, yet, in fact, still the most important rule. What action will best benefit the project as a whole, all things considered? That's the action to take; what some improperly do is to ignore WP:CONSENSUS in favor of their own opinion about IAR, but consensus is not a rule to be ignored, but rather an operating foundation. Doing the "right thing," if it is disruptive, probably isn't the right thing. Disruption damages the project, requiring the attention (our most precious resource!) of many editors, sometimes to decide some point that is practically moot. There is probably a better way. And I have one in mind, and I'm going to ask Fritzpoll to do it. --Abd (talk) 21:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm intrigued by what you describe as "probably a better way". Let's hope it works!---PJHaseldine (talk) 21:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Lt-Col Yvonne Bradley

It's obnoxious to post a tag saying that there is a deletion review when there isn't. Make your deletion review case, and then tag articles. THF (talk) 21:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/11 March 2009 for Yvonne Bradley deletion review.---PJHaseldine (talk) 22:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

It was in the wrong place - noone would have seen it. I have moved it to Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_March_11. Please note that it is normally a courtesy to inform the closing admin when it's ben done - I only found out about this from my watchlist Fritzpoll (talk) 23:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Both comments are correct, PJH, as I'm sure that you will agree on reflection. Ignore possible implied incivility from others, assume that it wasn't intended, and move on. You get to make mistakes, though it's trickier when you make them in setting up a possibly contentious process. DRV is contentious, practically by definition; there has already been, usually, a marginal AfD, if there is anything at all worth going to DRV for, so it can be expected that a DRV, unless a close is blatantly in error, will likewise be no consensus. No consensus is the worst outcome for an AfD, because it is quite likely to lead to further disruption later. Fritzpoll's close may or may not have been perfect, but it clearly was designed to pave the way for a return of the article to mainspace, assuming the problems are fixed. If that's the goal, don't make it harder! Look at the contentious debate in the DRV! If this kind of thing can be avoided, it is far better. I am not blaming you, i.e., separating you out, but ... you are the one who asked me to intervene, so you will be the first one to get my advice. Hence I suggest that you review your recent edits, and particularly your comments in the DRV, and consider if they could be improved as to the promotion of civility and cooperation. If you made an unwise comment, and nobody responded to it, go back and delete it. If someone responded, strike it. Use <s>(text to strike)</s>. If it contained something important, restate it to point to the substance and get rid of any improper implications or bad attitude.

Basically, there is an important rule: if you make a mistake, first of all, find it out as quickly as possible, which requires listening carefully to all criticism even from people who'd like you to disappear, and then fix it. It's a wiki, just about everything can be undone. "I must have been temporarily insane, or maybe even I'm permanently insane, I'm sorry for calling you a <expletive deleted>, it was grossly inappropriate and I will sincerely endeavor to avoid lapses like this in the future." And then back it up by actually making that effort. There is no loss of face in this, in fact, the effect is the reverse. People will give you more respect. Some of our most respected editors were blocked for grossly inappropriate edits, early in their wikicareer.

Think about this. The ones most likely to notice and complain about your mistakes are those who are opposed to you. You will often get your best guidance from them, if you learn how to listen to it. You don't have to accept the character assassination, but let other people deal with that. Just respond to any substance that might be there. (And the best wikiadvice is to ignore personal attacks against yourself. Defend others, not yourself. Consider yourself COI on the topic! Aren't we all?)--Abd (talk) 21:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

A number of interesting points, Abd. In my four-year WP career, I've inaugurated quite a number of articles — mainly biographies. If memory serves me well, only one of my progeny has ever previously failed to reach maturity: that is Alan Feraday whose page was deleted, as follows: "11:11, 24 March 2008 JzG (talk | contribs) deleted 'Alan Feraday' (G10: Pure attack page or negative unsourced BLP: WP:OTRS ticket 2008032410008052 - article created by a conspiracy theorist to promote his conspiracy theory, utterly unacceptable.)"

Yvonne Bradley is another biography — absolutely unrelated to the Lockerbie bombing — that I recently started (and, as you know, I object to being labelled a conspiracy theorist). And I just cannot accept THF's (the AfD nominator) idiosyncratic view that Yvonne Bradley can possibly be non-notable. So, I'm afraid that DRV needs to be pursued to its (hopefully successful) conclusion.---PJHaseldine (talk) 22:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. Whatever you were called is irrelevant to content. You've misunderstood a whole series of things here. Your article was speedy deleted by an administrator about whom I'll point you to User:Abd/Notices and, if you like, you might watch that page. Note, however, that that admin is popular, and he didn't get that way by making tons of mistakes in substance, and if he's attacked, editors will come out in droves to support him, so someone doing it should be prepared to go all the way to ArbComm if needed. If you think the speedy is incorrect, you could go to DRV over it, but he's also connected with OTRS, and decisions there are binding, because they deal with material that is a legal risk to the project. JzG's comment strikes me as gratuitously offensive, but, as you may come to realize, that's nothing new. No, to the point here:

What's your goal? If it's to get the article back, you have some very simple actions to take that are not disruptive. Filing the DRV was an error, a waste of time. Doing nothing, the article will almost certainly come back. Editors get to have views -- don't you? -- but the purpose of DRV is, in fact, to move beyond a recalcitrant closer of an XfD, not to bypass negotiating with one. A Merge closure is actually a form of Keep, and, normally, there would be no userification. Fritzpoll did that to facilitate editing of the article before return to mainspace, which I'm sure he will assist as soon as he thinks it is ready, and if the lawyer is notable -- I'm carefully avoiding forming an opinion on that yet -- it will happen. You will get things done much more easily if you realize that cooperation is much more effective. Fritzpoll was neutral and was seeking a solution that maximized consensus, and that normally results in minimal disruption unless some editor doesn't understand and runs to DRV. I would never go to DRV to undo a merge decision, unless I wanted the article deleted!

I suggest that you withdraw your nomination at DRV, and request closure "without prejudice," based on your understanding that ongoing process is likely to return the article to mainspace soon. And if you are going to go back to DRV later, find an experienced editor to support it, you are (so far) too easily attached to results, which can damage the prospects of good results. Some closers will react against tendentious argument. They shouldn't, but this is human politics. If you can't find such support, your chances of success are slim, anyway. --Abd (talk) 22:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Ad hominem comments

Consider this to be a friendly, but final reminder to remain civil, to assume good faith and to avoid attacking or harassing other editors on the grounds that you feel aggrieved about them pointing out your socket puppetry and COI. Should you continue to direct comments at editors rather than content, I shall not hesitate to seek administrator intervention. Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

As a token of your good faith, would you be kind enough to revert my self-revert per ban on the Pan Am Flight 103 article?---PJHaseldine (talk) 14:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I got to that before he could have, apparently. Meanwhile, PJH, tone it down. this edit went too far, and my impression is that other edits involved did similarly. I highly recommend hands off controversy for a while. Consider yourself an expert on the topic, and, as an expert, your duty is to advise, not to control or advocate. If you have information to provide, provide it, but watch out for gratuitous assertions of what you cannot prove. It's a bit remarkable that you have not been blocked yet. Some editors would have been before this, so I highly recommend that you acknowledge the problem and state that you are stopping. Otherwise, all it will take is a trigger-happy admin. Or maybe just an attentive one. You will do much better as an expert giving advice on Talk pages, and rigorously abstaining from trying to control conclusions, than as an editor asserting a POV. Consider how *you* would respond to, say, a doctor, who uncivilly argues with you with regard to a medical decision you need to make. How much more so would you respond if the doctor grabbed you and started to treat you without your permission? Insulted other advisors? Etc.

By the way, you may also consider yourself a pioneer. You are the first banned editor to try the self-reversion method of dealing with how to make harmless edits to articles covered by a topic ban while risking no judgment of ban violation. I did clear this with an member of ArbComm, in another case, but that editor was not interested in helping with articles, he was simply testing the limits of his ban with ever-more provocative edits, knowing that he'd create disruption as his supporters, if he were blocked, would claim that this was all just more ArbComm stupidity.

Socrates2008, if you do see one of these self-reverted edits by PJH, by all means, revert it back in, if you think it useful, it will indeed establish good faith and perhaps begin to open the door to cooperation between you. I'm trying to rescue PJH as a contributor; with his specialized knowledge and insight (whether he's biased or not, or a conspiracy theorist or not), he can be invaluable, he will know things off the top of his head, and some of them will find reliable source. --Abd (talk) 21:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Immediately after my request above, Mr Haseldine again tried to label me as an apartheid supporter (a very serious and defamatory accusation). Unless an apologly is forthcoming, I shall not be assisting him in any way to make any edits to articles covered by his ban. Socrates2008 (Talk) 22:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

That's unfortunate, Socrates2008. You would not be assisting him, you would be assisting the project. Mr. Haseldine's incivility is also unfortunate, and if he keeps it up, he will not be merely topic-banned, he will be just plain banned. Now, if he comes in as an IP editor and makes a spelling correction to an article, and then reverts himself like this, what will you do? Socrates, this, I'm afraid, tests your own commitment to the project. I have not investigated your behavior, only his, since he asked me to look at the situation. However, as a general situation, incivility on one side usually doesn't take place in a vacuum. So please be careful, and reconsider what you wrote. --Abd (talk) 22:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Technically, PJH did not accuse you of "being an apartheid supporter," but I won't belabor that. What he did write was gratuitously uncivil and unnecessary, and he should stop. By the way, I saw that edit before making my comment above, it is what I had in mind with "other edits involved." --Abd (talk) 22:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Closure of the Yvonne Bradley DRV as endorsed without prejudice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_March_11#Yvonne_Bradley

You are encouraged to work on the article as it sits in user space. I'm fairly confident that, unless it's neglected, it will be returnable to mainspace in short order. You asked about the redirect. I think it's there because that redirect is to a section that mentions Bradley, as clearly as she is mentioned in the next. I wikified the name to make it stand out a little more. It's too bad that the article is currently in user space, but that probably doesn't make any difference to ordinary readers. Maybe I can do something about it. --Abd (talk) 21:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)