Topic: Appeal of Ban Appeal: “hacker1001101001” spammer-sockpuppet menagerie (Read 2581 times)

Since this thread deserved a bump I think the post I have replied to happens to be of some significance.

Going back the OP, it is an excellent layout by nullius of the argument against ("Mr Pay Me and I will Bump Your Threads") hacker1001101001

It was an excellent touch to recognise the efforts of marlboroza and Lauda too. They have been very vocal about the impact scammers, serial scammers, ban evaders, sock-puppet operators, fake trust circle members, merit abusers and those cheating their way to DT are having on this forum. They deserve credit for speaking out continuously and consistently against the users that want to turn this forum in to a magnet for scammers.

Lol at this " theymos is colluding with moderators " that's a brilliant theory moronbozo.

He owns the forum didn't you hear? He does not need to collude with anyone.

Maybe theymos is suddenly waking up

He suddenly realizes the forum is being milked dry by proven scammers and their supporters that dont give one shit about this forum at all.  They just want to grab as much for themselves as possible. They only want to punish others,  why? Because many of these competing "scammers " and untrustworthy projects are or would eat into their share or their sponsors share

I think you have pulled the wool over theymos eyes for too long.
Good to hear you crying malboroza.

Any sensible objective person can see what's happening here.
The merit cycling self elected DT started to think they owned the place entirely.
Perhaps he sees now that is gross to see scammers and their supporters demanding punishment of other members for lesser evils as they greedily milk sigs avatars escrowing lending at gross levels of interest..anything to squeeze some extra btc out of this forum and the other members.

Hacker0101000101 is simply not in the league of ruthless scammers and trust abusers like lauda, nutildah and tman
I don't even really like hacker0101000101 all that much, since I have noticed he made some very critical remarks about far superior members than himself. However I still feel he should have fair and consistent punishment and scammers in DT milking the forum with highest paying sigs and other schemes must be deleted way before we start looking at hacker0101000101 again.

Hacker seems to support objective standards. That is a huge difference to marlboroza and lauda and the other scammer supporters here. He will willingly be measuresd against these and be judged fairly.


Hacker is less of a threat and has been punished more already that is where we are now.

Rumor has it that theymos is moderating meta and that he is colluding with moderators so report will probably remain unhandled.
I am pretty sure they can read...
Yeah, he won't be unbanned, he got second chance and that's it.
Lets just agree to disagree.

That was kinda funny. Report his post for being off topic

I get that moderators can't please everyone but by trying to link two unrelated cases you're not really helping. Just PM hilarious or theymos or both about RegulusHr and see what they say. And I'm quite certain that hacker1001101001 won't be re-banned.

You mean, they didn't read it like when I asked why accusation topic was removed and I didn't get any answer and then I created topic to ask why user Neopotism is nuked and somehow I got response to my previous topic?

That was off topic reply btw!

---

Report for hacker's copy/paste post https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/should-i-buy-bitcoin-now-2316855 is marked as good  

This post https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/buying-drugs-with-bitcoin-1184641
And this one https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/buying-drugs-with-bitcoin-1184641

As I can see, they don't exist any more, picture: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.54248760.

Seeing a thread and looking into the details of the case is not the same thing. Unless a mod commented in the thread itself I wouldn't assume they looked into it or made any decisions one way or another.

So did hacker https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.54233470 (I didn't look for more), unless we are looking for +2 c/p now? New rule? 
Cmon, use logic, topic is in meta for last 15 months, it is bumped on daily basis lately and it has +4000 views, there is no fucking chance moderators/admins missed it! Even one post was deleted by moderators few days ago.

I'm just saying that spilling it over into other threads probably won't help. IIRC RegulusHr had more than one plagiarized post so that might have been a factor.

Do we know for a fact that admins/globals looked into the case, e.g. did someone PM hilariousandco and what was his response?

+5
I did, I reported hacker's second c/p, reports is handled as "good" and nothing happened, on the other hand:
But why https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/ban-appeal-regulushr-and-discussion-on-topic-good-for-the-forum-as-a-whole-5097792 ?

This user has more support than hacker's spam service, spam service is unnbanned and regulushr is still banned. What makes hacker so special and regulus not? Regulushr got lots support. Final line is, both c/p / plagiarism cases happened at the same time, or, "long time ago", in 2017, if you want me to put it in this way,..., if you want me to compare it like this...

Why obvious double standards? FFS everyone who commented in that or any other "regulushr related" topic  see double standards...

It only takes 2 minutes from admin to post comment. 15-16 months? well, that is lots of time!

Global mods can unban and they can issue signature bans now too. Hacker1010010101010101010101010101 was one of the first users to get this leniency after globals got the tools to do signature bans.  It's very likely that admins were not involved nor aware.

---

Discussing some other cases here and whether they're better or worse is quite pointless. I don't think admins or globals will read this dumpster fire of a thread. We don't know how many instances of plagiarism and/or post reports and/or prior offenses or any other circumstances are involved in each case. I really doubt that ALL admins and globals (6-7 people?) are involved in some conspiracy to support one ICO spammer and/or to attack some other user. Keep reporting posts that break the rules and if the user keeps breaking the rules they will get banned. Even game-protect eventually got banned.

I was referring yo you referring to others, not me! I am nobody's friend truly, as it costs 22mil BTC to be granted my friend status.

I have changed my mind when I have seen what kind of evil they are willing to unban and let roam around here. There is no reason that somebody as RegulusHr then should not be granted an unban too. Transparency would help, but it does not seem that theymos or Cyrus are interested in transparency or accountability (interestingly enough).

I was actually referring to the stance presented by tmfp
I was also not referring to you as being his friend considering
and other posts you made in the thread RegulusHr opened. Maybe you changed your mind about RegulusHr.

I think more transparency around why hacker for example was unbanned while others are not.

It is not the same function.

People who agree that he is beneficial =/= friends. You are sounding like Quickseller with the above paragraph.

Funny, isn't it? I would expect theymos to be pro transparency at least with some things. No problem to conclude: Bitcointalk.org condones ICO bumping I presume? Otherwise, the first step is to unban RegulusHr or ban hacker1001101001.

I would consider a permaban getting reduced to a 60 day ban to being unbanned.

I would not consider unbanning someone to equivalent to supporting everything the person has ever done. I don't know why RegulusHr has not been unbanned. Unfortunately, the admins rarely comment publicly on reasons for denials on those types of things. He appears to have a lot of friends in his local community, but I would not base a decision to urban, ban or not unban someone based on how many people are friends with the person.

He did not get unbanned, his ban got reduced. There are only two options here: 1) Admin was unaware. 2) Admin was aware, and is a supported of ICO bumping, in other words the admin in question supports fraud. Pick your lesser evil.

Either ban him forever, or unban actually contributing people too. Stop the forum double-standards, and stop indirect or direct support of them. Arguing for mr. hacker to remain unbanned is support of double standards. I can mathematically QED it if you need a drawing.

I may be mistaken, but I believe an administrator needs to unban someone if they will be unbanned. If this was not the case, I would think an admin would be aware of anyone unbanned.

I mentioned in my first post in this thread that I am against the actions that hacker did that harmed the forum and the community. I would not go as far as to say he is evil, but I would also say what he did in the past is evidence of, and leads me to believe he is not a good guy.

My opposition to banishing hacker from participating in the forum is not a reflection of my opinion of him, it is my opinion of the circumstances.

Quote from: nullius on April 23, 2020, 02:31:50 AM

Quote from: PrimeNumber7 on April 22, 2020, 10:13:44 PM

given the amount of time that has elapsed

The code-illiterate “hacker” was banned less than one year ago, which is a long time only to children; and there is evidence that he was involved in ICO bumping as recently as five months ago, which is a long time only to infants.  If you want to argue a legal analogy, legal statutes of limitations are much longer; and in some jurisdictions, in some types of cases, if there is substantial evidence of a fraud upon the court, then a judgment can be set aside long on motion even long after appeals are out of time.

Note also “hacker’s” total lack of remorse—actually, the opposite of remorse:  A self-righteous belligerence toward anybody who questions his spam business.

If you have evidence hacker was involved in bump spamming 5 months ago (after he was unbanned), my opinion would change. This evidence would need to extend beyond an account he was previously associated with being involved in spamming; you would need to rule out the account transferring ownership/control via a review of historical password changes and/or an admin chiming in his opinion on if hacker.today == the account involved in the bump spam.

---

I guess my question to you, and to anyone else who supports hacker being banned is, what harm do you think hacker is causing the community today that is so dire that he must be prevented from ever posting again? I inquired above for evidence that hacker is currently (or very recently) engaged in continuing bump spam, and this might be a valid reason if shown to be true.

We disagree then.



Yes.  We agree in regards to your last sentence, above.


That is your erroneous opinion.


I am not pretending.


I would not want to see a bunch of scammers.  I also would not like members to be on witch hunts.


That is your erroneous opinion.


I am not pretending, and if I appear to be untrustworthy, then that is your opinion too, which also seems to be erroneous because I have tried to work with you quite a lot on these topics.  Of course, you continue to suggest that I have not worked with you enough because you want me to do homework, and I continue to assert that I have done enough homework in terms of the various ways that I have participated in this thread and the other thread about hacker.  So we do not agree.  I don't know where else we need to go with the topic, because it is seeming that we are getting quite repetitious at this point.

To jayjuangee

Your entire post boils down to this.

You believe the thread is simply about hacker0101000101.

No.

It is about the appropriate fair and consistent punishment for hacker.

You keep repeating that anything to do with the histories of DT and other friends of yours are irrelevant and off topic.

I keep repeating that your friends scamming histories are fundamental to the process of providing context to hackers purported evils.  Only with this context can we determine fair and consistent punishment for hacker0101000101

We must simply disagree.
It is clear that I am correct. You are either unable to understand the concept that you need full context for fair and consistent treatment or you are pretending not to understand.

If you just want to see a bunch of scammers that should be banned here witch hunt someone that spoke against them for lesser evils than their own. That is fine.

My arguement is solid.  Full context should be considered.
Stop pretending you are unaware of any clear wrongdoing by these scammers. Just makes you look untrustworthy.

Stop annoying me.  I told you, I am busy.

---

I, for one, will take that risk. ;-)

Since you liked that image, and Bitcoin is always on topic here, that got me thinking about how to get her wrapped up in the blockchain.  Let us start at the beginning:




I say the foregoing in my capacity as the official Phantom:  If I could make her sing for me, then surely I can make of her a Bitcoin maximalist!  On the other hand, I don’t actually know much about Sarah Brightman except that she sings, and she has an interest in space.  Perhaps she does Bitcoin already?  I am oftentimes pleasantly surprised at where Bitcoin shows up.




Too bad I can’t approach this from the musical angle—beyond noting what will surprise nobody:  I am a high-culture élitist; and naturally, I do enjoy the (actual) opera.  When I read up on it, I realized that being tagged as the “Phantom of the Opera” is exquisitely appropriate for me on so very many levels.  Otherwise:  Anonymity.

---

Just to be clear, for the record, Mr “Bones Jones’” interest in my penis size is unrequited.  I do not care to speculate on his...

...except to observe that as a rule of thumb, those who brag about theirs on the Internet usually have pathologically small ones.

I do agree with this:

---

Modlog says nothing about 1021758, and he seems to have been online recently, but not posting.  Is there anywhere else to check?

https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/hacker1001101001-1021758


That leaves me wondering if my dear Christine will continue to be disappointed.  It reminds me of that time when a (former) critic gave her a negative review—lulz.  Let forum spam not disturb her equanimity!

---

Of course, there will be a special graphic if/when it is confirmed that spammers get banned.