Jump to content

User talk:Carol Kalish Fanclub

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia!

I hope not to seem unfriendly or make you feel unwelcome, but I noticed your username, and I am concerned that it might not meet Wikipedia's username policy. After you look over that policy, could we discuss that concern here?

I'd appreciate learning your own views, for instance your reasons for wanting this particular name, and what alternative username you might accept that avoids raising this concern.

You have several options freely available to you:

Thank you.

This username seems to be promotional. I recommend change your username. Thank you. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 06:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carol Kalish

[edit]

Just letting you know, going through and putting brackets around Carol Kalish's name in other articles only makes a dead redlink, since she currently doesn't have a page on wikipedia. If you'd like to create one, I'd suggest going to WP:FIRST to see how to make (and properly source) a wikipedia page. Good luck! Dayewalker (talk) 06:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Carol Kalish Fanclub (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have been caught in a collateral range block. I would like to continue to work on the Carol Kalish article. Carol Kalish Fanclub (talk) 06:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

No, you were blocked for abusing multiple accounts. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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).

Carol Kalish Fanclub (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

No, I was not blocked for multiple accounts. I am collateral damage from a long term range block, so was my daughter. She got her account unblocked, can I do it too? I'd like to improve the Carol Kalish article I started. She was an old dear friend. Carol Kalish Fanclub (talk) 10:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The following line is present in your block log:

Since there is no subsequent unblock, you were obviously blocked directly. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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).

Carol Kalish Fanclub (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

No I was not blocked directly, everyone on my range was blocked (!!) Please can you ask Tiptoey to verify that the whole account on this range was blocked, and not my account directly. I want to fix the article on my late friend that I started. Carol Kalish Fanclub (talk) 11:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are directly blocked for the abuse of multiple accounts. You can verify that for yourself by clicking on the 'block log' link at the top of this unblock request. — FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 would also like to point out to you that per the conflict of interests guideline, you probably shouldn't be working on any article about your own friend. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's cool, I can be neutral. Plus I have clippings which would help me improve the article. Carol Kalish Fanclub (talk) 11:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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).

Carol Kalish Fanclub (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

What happened was, they blocked all the accounts on this range in one go. There were over 60 or something. It wasn't me directly at all, even though the log says it. Can someone please add the reference for Carol's Inkpot award [1], it's been asked for on the talk page. I really want to expand and fix. Carol Kalish Fanclub (talk) 11:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

When Tiptoety, as a clerk for Requests for Checkuser, performs a whole lot of blocks like that (and I only see 15, not 60), it's because technical evidence, aparently going beyond the IP address/range, would seem to indicate that these accounts are run by a single person. I doubt that there is any clerk, or checkuser, who doesn't understand that the same range could hold both an innocent user and a major sockpuppeteer. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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).

Carol Kalish Fanclub (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Yes well, I'm an innocent user. My daughter already got unblocked from this same problem. Please can you direct me to this case for Checkuser that Tiptoey blocked me under. There seems to be no case page existing at Requests for Checkuser Carol Kalish Fanclub (talk) 12:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Per the discussion below, it seems clear that there is much more than simply sharing an IP address. The name of this account substantially matches other accounts that abused Wikipedia, and the narrow focus of this account's interest in certain areas of comics seem to indicate, with high probability, that these accounts are being operated by the same person. — Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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'll go and poke Tiptoey, and we'll try to get this sorted one way or the other. Please be patient - your block is under review. Fritzpoll (talk) 12:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is something odd here; this user's editing pattern doesn't seem consistent with that of the user she's been blocked for sockpuppeting. However, this user also appears to want to edit only to write about a friend of hers, despite having been warned several times about the conflict of interest guideline, which is a separate issue. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think we need to sort out the block for sockpuppetry first, then we can deal with any potential COI problems. User has indicated their aware of the need to be neutral, so probably no need to take action at this stage. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, I made this block a while ago and to be honest I am a bit foggy about the whole thing. If I recall correctly, this block was made after a CheckUser (off-wiki) confirmed this was a sock of WrathofGod. Tiptoety talk 14:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there nothing on-wiki that confirms this? Fritzpoll (talk) 14:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I can recall. Someone might consider dropping a note for a CheckUser. Tiptoety talk 14:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The block that is catching this account relates to the Alan Light/Wroth of Groth sock-farm case. I have not checked whether or not this is a sock of that user, or a different user in the same /16 range. FT2 (Talk | email) 15:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I notice that this user does have the same comic-book focus that was the hallmark of that user. This account created the article about her which was subsequently vandalized by User:Wroth of Kalish, a clear part of the sock farm. She has also posted opinions at two AfD discussions of interest to that sockfarmer, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Catron and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chair throwing. It seems improbable that this is pure coincidence. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was asked to vote in those Deletion debates, so I did. But I'm mainly interested in fixing up the Carol Kalish and related articles. She was a friend of the family and I knew a few people from those days. Michael, Gary, and of course my ex boyfriend, Alan Carol Kalish Fanclub (talk) 11:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(undent) In any event, the username would imply a role account, which we don't permit anyway. As for the sockfarming, though, is this a good hand/bad hand sort of situation here? Hersfold (t/a/c) 16:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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).

Carol Kalish Fanclub (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

There are family issues here, and someone else did vandalisms related to a long ago ex of mine. But this is my account and I would like it unblocked because I haven't done anything wrong Carol Kalish Fanclub (talk) 11:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

All evidence, technical and contribution based, indicates that this account is a sock of a blocked user. — Fritzpoll (talk) 11:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Carol_Kalish_Fanclub&oldid=282477788"