User talk:Seemoreevil

Reply to block
, You know I can keep you busy for quite a while right. I could create hundreds of accounts from different IP's, then while blocking me and my frenzy of accounts you would also block others that had absolutely nothing to do with me just because they are associated to the IP series. They would all be labelled as socks of Kumioko. This could be fun!. I wonder how many I could get banned before I completely derail the trustworthiness of the checkuser app or cause so many editors and IP's to be blocked that everyone in America is associated to me. Seemoreevil (talk) 20:07, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * You have an odd way of repaying people who try to be kind to you. Jehochman Talk 21:09, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * New username idea: User: Seymour E. Ville. Jehochman Talk 21:10, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Your not a bad guy but I am generally not impressed with the admin culture on this site and I am progressively thinking that this site is doomed. Here;s the thing. It really surprised me when you jumped straight to an indefinite ban for basically being an annoyance to Arbcom. I month would have been more than sufficient. Secondly, the Arbcom is drafting a bad policy in secret that will only allow admins to be more abusive to editors and make it easier for them to abuse the already overly abused Discretionary sanction system. They added some language in it referencing admins and their conduct the problem is, that was only done 'after me and nina pressured them into it. I also have absolutely no confidence that they will follow up on it. So admins will be able to abuse the system unfettered. Just to clarify this doesn't pertain to all admins, just a few, but they are already essentially immune from repercussions. This new DS will do nothing but continue to drive a wedge between the editing community and the power hungry group of admins.


 * No one said anything to the admin that blocked my IP for "abusing multiple accounts", no one said anything about the editors that continue to attack me or follow me around harrassing me. You all complain about my comments and tell me how you are trying to help, but you are doing nothing to prevent these troublesome admins and editors. I like both of you, I really do, but you are both (and a lot of others as well) just allowing the problems to continue to get worse in this site through complacency. I know people are sick of me and frankly I am sick of fighting about bsaic common courtesySeemoreevil (talk) 21:49, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * It's a very light block. You see, I told her exactly what to do to get unblocked. If she says the right thing, and means it, she can get unblocked in an hour.  If she needs more time to think it over, she can take a day or a week or however long she needs.  That's why it's indefinite length.  The problem needs to be addressed.  She can't just ignore it and keep going on the same bad trajectory; she has to see the problem and make a change.  As soon as she does, the block can be lifted, by any admin.  Jehochman Talk 22:44, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

What?
What are you talking about ? What's to stop Nina Green editing her own talkpage? Nothing. Surely you know what semiprotection is. Nina is an autoconfirmed user, right? She's blocked, but she can post on her talkpage. That's the normal situation during a block. Please don't run around talking silly. I've been batting for you, but if you carry on like this, I'm beginning to see where the irritated admins are coming from. And please stop telling me you understand the Nina situation, because it's obvious you don't.  Bishonen &#124; talk 20:16, 12 February 2014 (UTC).
 * I don't really know if Nina is autoconfirmed but I also had a problem with him calling it spam when its clearly not and blocking her indefinitely. For that action it shouldn't have been more than a month at the longest. Probably a week would have been sufficient. infefinite is just being abusive frankly. Also, see my comments above. Actually I do understand how she feels at least generally speaking I have been the target myself as youhave seen. No one cared that admins forced me into a situation where I could either let the discussion go on and not defend myself or create an account. Then they had more "evidence" to support I was socking. These are the types of abusive situations I see admins putting people into all the time. They don't like what I am saying, so they block me but then they let others like BeyondMyKen and some of those other clowns do whatever they want and say whatever they want and I am supposed to just sit there and take it with a smile. If the admins would do their damn job, then I wouldn't respond at all and let the system work. But the system doesn't work, because the admins don't do what they are supposed to be doing. They either jump in and try and help their wikipals or they just sit there and do nothing even though they know whats going down is wrong. You have seen it just as I have, abuse by admins and no one does anything. Seemoreevil (talk) 21:49, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I see, you're disgruntled and therefore the facts of the situation you're interfering in are too petty to consider — only the situation "generally speaking", i. e. if it's a block it's abusive by definition. And you don't really know if a user who has been editing prolifically since 2010 is autoconfirmed? All except really, really new accounts and IPs are autoconfirmed and can edit through semi. Anybody half experienced in this place knows that, except you, apparently. I'm sorry to say this, but you're becoming a pretty poor advertisement for your cause. Please take a break and wait for common sense to trickle back. Bishonen &#124; talk 22:35, 12 February 2014 (UTC).

No, it looks to me like she can edit her own talk page. Here's the block log, and here's what a block log looks like with changes to talk page settings. —Neotarf (talk) 15:09, 18 February 2014 (UTC)