Appeal of Ban Appeal: “hacker1001101001” spammer-sockpuppet menagerie

[nullius]

On or about 15 May 2019, #1021758 “hacker1001101001” was issued a 60-day temp ban and 2-year signature ban for plagiarism, as discussed below.  I presume that the reason for avoiding a permaban was the user’s purported history of forum contributions, including allegedly fighting against scams (!).

Well, as it turns out, the user’s biggest contribution to the forum was either personally to wield a fraudulent spam sockpuppet army—or by his own admission, to be involved with others in ICO-bumping, i.e. fraudulent paid spamming.

Can we get a summary list of all accounts involved? Will make it easier to make something like this: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5238497.msg54219192#msg54219192.

I might do it on weekend, but if anyone has time and will, please do.

[...]

There are at least 40 accounts mentioned here.

Unedited quote:  A general denial of having a multitude of sockpuppets bumping ICOs, coupled with an admission to having been “involved in bumping business”, i.e. involved in paid spamming—and not only a total lack of remorse, but a defiant, self-righteous assertion of a purported ethical duty to protect his allegedly existing ICO-bumping fraudulent spam accomplices:

Why the fuck are all these ICO bump accounts connected to hacker?

I am repeating my clear explanation to this here. ( Could be my last time )

Yes, I was involved in bumping business and I even had many other users working around me. I am obligate to not reveal anything insider from it and it is even unethical for me to comment about others accounts and there address transactions with one of my address regarding such type of service. But I am not involved in any such type of further activities from this accounts as I don't control any of them. I would also like to assure everyone here that I am not involved in bumping now and not willing to facilitate it in future.

Sorry, but I am out of this attacks and repeating my answers again so, I feel I had enough of your dump Questions/Answer sessions.

Whereupon I am hereby acting independently, and separately from marlboroza’s Reputation thread.  I have not requested any other person’s support prior to creating this thread.  Although I am relying on marlboroza’s thread as to fact, that thread discusses trust issues, and this thread appeals to the administration to review the “hacker1001101001” case for the following reasons:

• Separate Argument A for a ban:  I presume that the leniency granted to the user for his blatant violation of the forum’s strict anti-plagiarism rule was based on the false premise that the user was allegedly a good contributor who perhaps made a naïve mistake.  Whereas the user’s actual major contribution was spamming—and the user was obviously not naïve as to his plagiarism offence, given that he was deeply involved in other wrongdoing.
  
  (N.b., I do not buy the general argument that a newbie user may naïvely plagiarize without realizing that it is against the rules.  Plagiarism is wrong.  Schoolchildren who get busted for plagiarism are punished for cheating.  Nobody has any excuse for not knowing that it is wrong to rip off somebody else’s words, and pretend they are one’s own.  It is akin to an argument that newbies may not know that theft is wrong.  However, since an ICO-bumping paid spammer was obviously never naïve or innocent, this argument need not be reached here.)
  
  Since the leniency for plagiarism was based on a false premise, it should be reviewed and reversed, resulting in a permaban on the user including all of his past, present, and future accounts.  It is a well-established principle that bans apply to the person, not merely the account.
• Separate Argument B for a ban:  ICO-bumping is spamming per se.  Spamming itself is supposed to be a bannable offence.  I have been quietly asking around with a n00b question:  “ELI5, why are ICO-bumpers not banned out of hand?  (‘ELI5’, in the sense that it is the innocent child who says that the Emperor has no clothes.)”  The only response that I have thus far received is, “I don’t know.”
  
  I respectfully request that the forum’s administration set a strict, explicit policy banning ICO-bumpers just as any other spammers.  As marlboroza recently pointed out, ICO-bumping is a significant problem; and it is spam.
  
  Meanwhile, I urge that the ban-hammer be dropped here on grounds that spammers get banned, period.  ICO-bumping has always violated the forum’s anti-spam rule on its face, by the definition of the word “spam”; and anybody who may potentially allege a failure to understand that `ICO-bumping == spamming` would be either lying, or mentally retarded.
• Investigative suggestion:  The forum’s administrators (and global mods?) have access to IP evidence.  If the self-styled “hacker” who fails basic coding shibboleths is so careless with leaving around blockchain evidence, then it is probable that he did not properly hide his IPs when sockpuppet-spamming.
  
  N.b. that unconnected IPs for different accounts would not prove a negative, since it would be trivial for anyone smart to [deleted so as to not give an instruction manual on how to evade IP checks]; however, positive linkage of accounts by login and/or access IP addresses would be strong evidence that the accounts are all sockpuppets.  Morever, it would probably be more efficient for admins/staff to review the IP logs than to wait for marlboroza to continue painstakingly sifting through blockchain evidence.
  
  This evidence is only relevant to including the user’s alts under the same ban.  It is irrelevant to the matter of banning the user, who is an admitted spammer previously temp-banned/sig-banned for plagiarism.

Prior discussion of the “hacker1001101001” ban appeal:

You are English-speaking people so hate plagiarism, and here you cover the offender.

This user is an ordinary poster of ICO and BOUNTY in 2017-2018. I do not understand why you give him so many privileges in front of thousands of other users?

You do not find it funny when a man accuses others of plagiarism, but is he himself a plagiarist?

I have no complaints about punishment, it is really cruel but fair.

QFT.  Well, I speak English, and I do not excuse the offender!

Although to my knowledge, forum admins and staff did not publicly state the reason for granting leniency to the user, the opinion of many people supporting such leniency was that the user had allegedly made good contributions.  I don’t want to pick on iasenko here, although I disagree with him; I will simply quote his post as representative of this line of thinking, because he stated his opinion clearly and concisely:

He has many scam investigations and accusation against shady projects with plagiarized whitepaper or fake team. So he was doing quite good for the forum. Just see his last started topics and you will see what I'm talking about.

It's difficult to compare him with the regular posters "discussing useless subjects" just to reach their sig. campaign limit and get some stakes.
I thinks it's fair punishment.

The reason for the 2019 ban of “hacker1001101001”:

Snip

I think the solution will be to limit the number of participants and bring about stringent measures on how bounty stakeholders (both campaign managers and bounty hunters) are supposed to conduct their campaigns. With Blockchain enterprise entering the full limelight, it is imperative for the system to adopt a more standardized approach towards advertising and campaigning activities. This way, bounter hunters can earn real value for jobs well done.

I think the solution will be to limit the number of participants and bring about stringent measures on how bounty stakeholders (both campaign managers and bounty hunters) are supposed to conduct their campaigns. With Blockchain enterprise entering the full limelight, it is imperative for the system to adopt a more standardized approach towards advertising and campaigning activities. This way, bounter hunters can earn real value for jobs well done.

The user’s excuse for plagiarism:

Thank You Mr. Big for letting me know.

I just don't remember when I did this shit!

Dagnabbit.  Plagiarist’s Bingo (forum thread) needs support for, “I just don’t remember when I did this shit!”

In the thread about his ICO-bumping, the user’s evasiveness and excuses for his spamming evoke the Rules of Spam.

In the real world, people can be fired from their jobs, blacklisted from their careers, and retroactively stripped of their academic degrees for plagiarism.

Surely, an enormous forum spammer and his whole sockpuppet-spammer army do not deserve mercy—not for plagiarism, and not for spamming.


Acknowledgments

This thread would not have been possible without the tireless investigative work done by marlboroza, the investigation by Lauda which brought marlboroza’s investigation to my attention, and support and contributions from too many people to list succinctly without risk of inadvertently missing somebody.  I must thank everybody who performs such investigative chores in the interest of protecting the forum community against the type of implosion when net.abusers take over.

[1713515341]

1713515341

[1713515341]

1713515341

[1713515341]

1713515341

[nullius]

Reserved for thread metadata (cross-references, forward-references, etc.).

[nullius]

Reserved for list of connected accounts.


N.b.:

There are at least 40 accounts mentioned here.

(Text decoration is added by me.)

[nullius]

Reserved for summary of evidence.


At present, I think this is the best capsule summary that I have seen thus far:

What do you mean it is not your reddit account and you have nothing to do with ICO bumping service?

I was not involved in any type of paid posting promotion rather was just filling my signature campaigns post requirements.

As I said, that was the only level of contents I could produce on the forum back then to reach my atlcoin signature bountys post requirements weekly

OK, I agree it looks like bumping but I had no incentive from that posts more than increasing my weekly post counts back then.

Ok, yes they were targeted reviews but as I said I use to follow many ICOs back then on telegram

Again funny for you, I already agreed I was involved in posting for ICOs and following them even on telegram, which I left when I got to know it is forbidden on the forum.

I agreed being paid, please read the above info.

I agreed about my involvement in the service and me not been engaged in it from long time, as soon as I was aware of the rules around it and I even discouraged such practices thereafter.

They are not alts connections as you try to frame it here, they are just simple one side ETH transactions, and it doesn't prove I own those accounts or have anything solid to do with them.

none of the account listed out by marlboroza are my alts. I already posted about me being in that business some time back, same indicates and defines those ETH transactions. The accounts are not connected to me or I am not much aware about the info of the owners of those addresses.

Yes there are transactions between me and those accounts. Marking it red and violate doesn't indicate anything other than me being in business with them around 600 days ago. I worked with this type of services back then, which I have accepted many times in this exact thread.

I have done business with them and I am not obligate to explain each and every transaction from my wallet ( most of them I don't even remember ) also, that doesn't prove anything more than me paying or receiving funds from them and you repeating the same question again and again like a dump.

Yes, I was involved in bumping business and I even had many other users working around me. I am obligate to not reveal anything insider from it and it is even unethical for me to comment about others accounts and there address transactions with one of my address regarding such type of service

Let me see if I got all this right :

"I was not involved in any kind of paid promotion"
"I agree it looks like bump but I was filling my signature post count"
"Ok, they were targeted reviews"
"I agreed being payed"
"I don't have anything with those accounts, those are one side transactions"
"I have no idea who are owners of those accounts"
"Yes, those are transactions between me and those accounts, I did some business with them"
"Yes, I was involved in bumping business and many users worked AROUND me"

 
 
Ok, hacker, you claim you are not in this business for years. Not only that "600 days ago" become "300 days ago", can you explain bumps which happened in November 2019., a month prior to creation of this topic?

(Textual decoration in that last paragraph is added by me.)

[bonesjonesreturns]

Clearly the double standards bogus kind of flowery fluff we are used to from nullius the hypocrite and scammer supporter.

Hacker0101000101 does not deserve a ban if you are to be consistent and fair. This is even if we accept all they claim about hacker is true.

This is clearly evident if you employ common sense and are not a scammer supporter like nullius.

There are 4 clear reasons why hacker0101000101 should not be banned  


1. We have not banned those that are far more dangerous and have engaged in more ruthless and serious wrong doing. These are on DT and can leverage that position for greater damage.
2. He has admitted his wrongdoing and said he will not do it again
3. Has red tags and not on DT
4. Has not abused red tags to silence those whistle blowing on him.


Those reasons set him at a far lower priority for a ban than other members here.

Punishment or rather behaviors requiring punishment aka a ban. Must be given context so that those giving out the punishment are seen as consistent and fair.

To ban hacker0101000101 now would be totally unfair if you consider the forums best interests and the prior ruthless and much more sinister wrong doings of lauda the scammer and nutildah the willing scam facilitator for pay, even tmans deliberate auction scamming or chibitcity (Who they all begged theymos not to ban) deliberate and totally financially motivated plagiarism  

It is wrong to advocate punishment with no context.  Only context and a full and complete review of a persons entire history can provide you with a sensible objective consistent and fair course of action.

If we compare hacker0101000101 to... for example lauda who nullius praises and supports on DT and basically eats laudas ass daily like a slobbering old perv probably because he believes lauda is female.

If you really investigate lauda who has nullius as his old bitch

1. Lauda undeniable is a liar and scammer.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5231720.0
2. We know lauda was removed from mod because he was strongly implicated in serious extortion with his friend tman.
3. Lauda uses red tags to silence whistleblowers who say they will encourage others to review his history
4. Lauda is in cahoots with another proven auction scammer tman
5. Lauda is also supportive of and is supported by a proven willing scam facilitator for pay nutildah who when busted tries to delete the evidence
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5190369.0
6. Lauda is caught merit abusing with atriz ( many believe an alt)
7. Atriz and nullius embroiled in a scam with alia. Lauda is there claiming atriz must be left out of this when it is quite plausible it was huge scam involving them all.
8. They never admit any wrong doing at all and trust abuse other who bring it up.
9. Nullius appears to have awoken from a deep sleep for months to suddenly awaken to given red trust to laudas whistleblower and prime critic for " showing empathy"
10. Nullius reviewing the evidence of laudas scamming and nutildahs willing scam facilitating for pay makes up ridiculous excuses and is afraid to discuss them in public.


In summary.

Hacker0101000101 poses a far less openly dangerous and ruthless threat than

Lauda - fortunejack
Tman - fortunejack
Nutildah - fortunejack
Nullius
Marlboroza

These members collude together ( many cycling merits and trust includes) to be in positions of trust.
They then use those trust positions to red tag whistleblowing, trade red tag removal with other members to mutually expunge documented wrong doing.

With regard hacker0101000101

He has red tags, he is excluded, he has a 2 year sig ban already?
He has admitted his wrongdoing

Before any further punishment is considered ( at the behest of scammers and scammer supporters)
Then fair and consistent action or punishment must be taken against them.

Clearly gobshite old perv scammer supporter nullius has an agenda.
Let's  not be peruaded into biased and unfair action by the likes of this sneaky peace of filth.


This calling for other members to be banned by scammer and their bitches is nauseating.
What hacker has done with paid ico bumping teams is wrong especially if they are not credible projects and he knew this and knowingly promulgated false information about them.

Let's start focusing on eliminating the most potent and dangerous scammers and their supporters from positions of trust before we worry about moving less dangerous members from their red rusted. non DT, sig banned accounts all together.

Hacker0101000101 should be treated fairly and consistently.

Remove the more dangerous and less remorseful scammers who are in positions of trust here first. Then you can worry about fine tuning hacker0101000101 current punishment levels.

I would not argue the ban of hacker0101000101 if the more serious threats here are banned first.

I would suggest banning the others and giving hacker a mandatory sig that generates money directly for the forum for 10yrs
A real enthusiast would not object. But only if fair and consistent punishment was given to the others first.

Without context this is an unfair witch hunt by proven scammers and their supporters to crush a member that stood up against them

Do the right thing theymos.  It does not take much investigation to see that most here only wish to milk this forum for all the sig spam, escrow fees, campaign management and protection racket fees they can dominate.

Wakey wakey time to kick off these parasites and let the real enthusiasts for this place flourish. Those that believe in being fair.

I'm not whitewashing hacker. I am painting him his correct shade of gray, not the black to laudas white nullius wants to con people into believing. Nullius is nearer to black than hacker. Willful disgusting scammer protector. Nobody fetches scammer ass like this moron nullius, unless they hope lauda will eventually stand in where alia bailed out or it's an alt of that scammer.

Pushing double standards is as damaging long term here as scamming.

Also jayjuangee is clearly dishonest. Told me he is not advocating punishment for hacker now here he is giving merit to a call for a ban.
You simply can not trust these people.

Unless he want to explain?

[hacker1001101001]

One can't become more naive, workless and mentally effected due to effects of Lockdown and Quarantine more than the OP. Seek doctor's help.

[dkbit98]

I would like to see a bit more evidence and proof but one more temp-ban will do him good and forum in general.
Let him spend some quality thinking time

[suchmoon]

Use "Report to moderator" and report the posts that break the rules. I doubt there was only one plagiarized post.

A wall of text is unlikely to convince moderators to just ban him again for a previously reported issue.

[TECSHARE]

This coordinated effort to go after hacker1001101001 only began once he started being openly critical of Lauda. Since then it has been a nonstop procession of all the same clowns that come after anyone who ever says anything that is not glowing praise for Lauda, working overtime to find or manufacture any justification whatsoever to exercise their retribution against this user. None of this is new, nor is it a threat to the user base even if it was. This is just more of the same abuse of any system they can get their hands on to punish people who openly disagree with them.

[andulolika]

This war between groups that want to control DT and do a big repertory of services is so fun to watch.
Ofcourse I mean services like growing trust or defamation.
Edit:I mean this towards Lauda's group obviously, I don't like/trust TS's either but he never showed untrustworthy behaviour just precipitated thinking/actions and poor admision on his wrong claims/actions and in my case alone since never investigated hi.

[Lauda]

Use "Report to moderator" and report the posts that break the rules. I doubt there was only one plagiarized post.

A wall of text is unlikely to convince moderators to just ban him again for a previously reported issue.

Funny, moderator deletes more on topic posts from genuine people and leaves the ones from trolls from this very thread too. I wonder how effective the report on plagiarism would be. Seems there is on going moderation bias by somebody.

[hacker1001101001]

Use "Report to moderator" and report the posts that break the rules. I doubt there was only one plagiarized post.

A wall of text is unlikely to convince moderators to just ban him again for a previously reported issue.

Funny, moderator deletes more on topic posts from genuine people and leaves the ones from trolls from this very thread too. I wonder how effective the report on plagiarism would be. Seems there is on going moderation bias by somebody.

Sounds about right from your habbit of being biased even in this thread too by ignoring the fact that the OP is full of shit.

[marlboroza]

This war between groups that want to control DT

Exposing ICO bump service or how some people call it, spam service, is not "war between groups that want to control DT"! You will never say that all these users are in war https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4720640.0 you are selectively choosing where to post and what to post.

Account TECSHARE should go to that topic and start shilling for other spambies, especially the ones payed to post fake reviews for ICO's, like he is shilling for this fraudulent service for last 4 months.

coordinated
critical
clowns
retribution
abuse
system
punish
disagree
them.

For more details check:

PUBLIC WARNING:

Account TECSHARE is shilling hard for fraudulent payed positive ICO reviews and interfering with investigation of such fraudulent service

 >>> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5213922.0;all <<<

"ICO bump service" is highly deceptive and malicious service which highly misleads potential investors and leads to money loss

It is beyond my knowledge how this plagiarist, fraudulent bump account and spam service got the second chance.

Use "Report to moderator" and report the posts that break the rules. I doubt there was only one plagiarized post.

A wall of text is unlikely to convince moderators to just ban him again for a previously reported issue.

That is correct. I just remembered something 

[philipma1957]

 So as I read the op.  Hacker was caught and punished admitted he was guilty served his time.

Are there new infractions?

OP could you list the end date of hacker's 60 ban.
Op could you list new sins after hacker's 60 day ban.

Something like his ban ended on  July 18 2019

on aug 2019 he did this post
on sept 2019 he did this post
on oct 2019 he did this post

OR ALL THE SINS YOU HAVE PREDATE THE BAN HAMMER

[marlboroza]

~

What 60 days ban?
Oh, I just realized that hacker was banned somewhere in May, 2019. and transactions to some fake buzz review accounts came in June 2019. while some accounts continued to spam until November 2019. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5213922.msg54221633#msg54221633 , https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5213922.msg54221706#msg54221706 etc). Somewhere in that period Theymos introduced new bump system, which likely kicked many fraud services out of business. Hacker claim he stop doing this business, well, that could be truth, yet again, hacker is proven lying cunt so I wouldn't take anything he says seriously.

[Rizzrack]

~

What 60 days ban?

This one...

I cannot reply in the other threads here, as it will be a like breaking the forum rules from my side.

So, I am replying and clearing the thing's here.

I already got an temp ban, even before creating this thread.

It is for 2 years signature and 60 days for posting and send PM.

Hope this clears the issue. It was not due to my ban, appeal here. I just created this Post to know the exact post which was Plagraized so that I could atleast take care of it once I get unbanned.

[marlboroza]

~

I missed that one 

[suchmoon]

I missed that one 

That's alright, hacker doesn't remember it, so I guess that means it never happened.

I just don't remember when I did this shit!

OR ALL THE SINS YOU HAVE PREDATE THE BAN HAMMER

I don't think the ban hammer absolves all preceding "sins". E.g. if a solid link can be established between the sockpuppets and it can be shown that he spam-bumped threads with multiple accounts, that should be viewed as a separate issue. However it would likely be a temporary ban anyway so the point of the OP is kinda moot.

[TECSHARE]

This war between groups that want to control DT

Exposing ICO bump service or how some people call it, spam service, is not "war between groups that want to control DT"! You will never say that all these users are in war https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4720640.0 you are selectively choosing where to post and what to post.

Account TECSHARE should go to that topic and start shilling for other spambies, especially the ones payed to post fake reviews for ICO's, like he is shilling for this fraudulent service for last 4 months.

coordinated
critical
clowns
retribution
abuse
system
punish
disagree
them.

For more details check:

PUBLIC WARNING:

Account TECSHARE is shilling hard for fraudulent payed positive ICO reviews and interfering with investigation of such fraudulent service

 >>> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5213922.0;all <<<

"ICO bump service" is highly deceptive and malicious service which highly misleads potential investors and leads to money loss

It is beyond my knowledge how this plagiarist, fraudulent bump account and spam service got the second chance.

Use "Report to moderator" and report the posts that break the rules. I doubt there was only one plagiarized post.

A wall of text is unlikely to convince moderators to just ban him again for a previously reported issue.

That is correct. I just remembered something 

I don't call it a war between groups either. I call it a bunch of clowns trying to punish people for criticizing them. Well, you got me! We both use words. That is all the proof needed by the clown car to determine guilt. Tell me, exactly how am I "interfering"?

I don't think the ban hammer absolves all preceding "sins". E.g. if a solid link can be established between the sockpuppets and it can be shown that he spam-bumped threads with multiple accounts, that should be viewed as a separate issue. However it would likely be a temporary ban anyway so the point of the OP is kinda moot.

They get their retribution for speaking a little too freely, and they get to send a message that anyone who is critical of them pays consequences for their actions. It is not moot at all!

[marlboroza]

coordinated
critical
clowns
retribution
abuse
system
punish
disagree
them.

clowns
punish
criticizing
clown

retribution
speaking [...] freely
critical

I have already told you, if you want to discuss anything with me, post something new. You are repeating yourself like a parrot. You must post something without using your usual keywords, otherwise only thing I see are keywords.

I missed that one  

That's alright, hacker doesn't remember it, so I guess that means it never happened.

I just don't remember when I did this shit!

Seems hacker remembers everything now:

Yes, I was involved in bumping business and I even had many other users working around me.