User talk:Harmakheru/Archive 2

Catholic Church
Hi Harmakheru. I used a quote from you in my filing statement at Arbitration/Requests/Case. Please let me know if you feel I've misrepresented your intent, or if you are otherwise uncomfortable with my using your words. I'll be happy to fix it/remove if you feel it is necessary. Sorry to drag you into this in any way.... Karanacs (talk) 20:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

You commented on the recent sweeping changes to the article. My critique of them and an alternate suggestion is linked at Talk:Catholic_Church  Xan  dar   14:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

On Sabbatical
I am taking a long (possibly permanent) vacation from Wikipedia. You are welcome to post here if you wish, but I may not see it for a long time, if ever.  Ha rm ak he ru   &#x270D; 18:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Alternative/Sockpuppet Account
Please can you confirm whether or not you are an alternative account for user:Kelvin_Case. You have both edit an article in the same topic area. JPBHarris (talk) 12:59, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Your sabbatical seems to be short lived, as you have made numerous edits since March 22 . But you have yet to answer my question below, even though you would have been alerted to its presents when you logged in and made your edit here .  —Preceding unsigned comment added by JPBHarris (talk • contribs) 20:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * See my response below, as well as the follow-up by Hesperian, all originally posted at the Catholic Church RFC.

Who is JPBHarris?
Some of you may have noticed a strange comment by "JPBHarris" at the end of the "View of Esoglou" section of the RFC. In this comment (a threaded response which by rights should have been put on this talk page, not on the RFC page itself), JPBHarris takes it upon itself to "out" Esoglou as a user formerly known as Lima. JPBHarris justifies this on the grounds that "Esoglou's identity does make a difference in that he is an old user i.e. in the sense that he has been involved in previous CC RfCs and was named in the one against Nancy. The clarification is so nobody is under the elusion that he is another new account that has suddenly popped up ..."

This is actually pretty funny, since JPBHarris also appears to be a new account but has its own history with the Catholic Church page ... specifically, a history of stalking and harassing people who are on the "wrong" side of the CC debates. In fact, judging from its contribution history, JPBHarris seems to be a single-purpose account whose sole reason for existence is to harass its enemies with accusations of sockpuppetry. This obsession with other people's alleged misbehavior is at best disingenuous, since JPBHarris has itself been formally warned for using at least one sock of its own. And despite its recent origin, the account has shown itself to be highly adept at the sort of wikilawyering that only a long-time editor would likely know how to do, which strongly suggests that it is itself some sort of puppet, of either the sock or the meat variety.

JPBHarris' first attack--made only three edits into its existence--was directed against me with an accusation that I was a sockpuppet of Lima. That accusation was quickly determined to be entirely without foundation but JPBHarris then went on to make similar accusations against others before, most recently, turning its guns on me again. It is now badgering me on my own talk page, demanding to know whether or not I am the same person as User:Kelvin_Case, whom I have never even heard of before. Without any prompting from me, Huon has very nicely intervened, pointing out that there is no overlap in the interests of myself and the other party, and suggesting to JPBHarris that it might be barking up the wrong tree, but this has only garnered a terse response from JPBHarris that there has been no mistake.

Well, how about this: If JPBHarris really believes that I am Kelvin_Case, or vice versa, or that both of us are the sockpuppets of some third party, then I invite it to file a formal complaint just as it did the first time around--and I will happily dance on its head when the results once again come back negative, as they inevitably will.

And if it's not willing to take that risk, then I invite it to get the hell off my talk page and stop bothering me.  Ha rm ak he ru   &#x270D; 02:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yep, blocked indefinitely. If your only purpose in being on Wikipedia is to make speculative accusations of sockpuppetry against good-faith users, whilst socking yourself, then you're not wanted. Hesperian 02:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

This time for sure
I tried this once before, but allowed false hopes to lure me back into that dark and stormy night. Big mistake. Try again.

I am taking a long (possibly permanent) vacation from Wikipedia. You are welcome to post here if you wish, but I may not see it for a long time, if ever.  Ha rm ak he ru   &#x270D; 16:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You are being precipitate. We have already gotten to the point where the infallibilists do not revert war; by late April, they will probably be off the talk page, one way or another.


 * Take a breather by all means; but the mills of Wikipedia do grind fine, even if exceedingly slow. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The comments you posted yesterday were intelligent and incisive. Your knowledge of the subject is astounding. You are the type of editor Wikipedia needs. Please don't go away forever. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It appears I'm duplicating work you've done last year which seems such a waste. You're clearly very knowledgeable on the subject, so please check in occasionally. Thanks and take care. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Now that the RFC has been concluded without the new version being overturned, and there is some hope again for civility and constructive engagement, I am willing to entertain the possibility that it is safe to venture back into the water. We shall see.    Ha rm ak he ru   &#x270D; 02:35, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to see you back. Had to read your most recent post three times. Agreed, it's difficult to rewrite. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Karanacs (talk) 17:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Request help at Talk:Catholic sex abuse cases
Please take a look at the following entry at Talk:Catholic sex abuse cases and help with any information you might have about this. Thanx.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Catholic_sex_abuse_cases#Canon_law_prevented_laicization_of_abusive_priests.3F --Richard S (talk) 16:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)