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

[nullius]

~

~

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

   

I like this post but rather than risk bonesjonesreturns getting overtly pulled in to the screen thus risking an electric shock as a result of giving in to the ever so alluring and charming Ms Brightman, I have decided to not repost those images  

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.

Music

Start here: https://imslp.org/
Many good-quality recordings are available for free download, legal in at least some parts of the world.  You may or may not need to use an Unamerican IP address for some of the legal download links; I’m not sure.  Of course, if you are a musician, the scores at IMSLP (which has merged in the Werner Icking archive) and Mutopia will be invaluable.

There are other sources of legal classical music recordings; but the ones I know tend to be of poor quality, in my never-humble opinion.  For illegal classical music, to have some culturally refined Russian friends with private torrents will probably do better than TPB; but the latter is worth a look, too.  Other suggestions will be appreciated.

I will not make any specific recommendations.  Sorry, “what music do you listen to?” is too personally revealing.

Lol at these people.

Like if I said to nullius my cock would make alia squeal with pleasure whilst your old micro penis would be laughed at and ridiculed by her.
Nullius says ..in maximis meis coles lilliputian terminorum. Aka my penis is huge in lilliputian terms.
I flop out the 9inch by 7inch girth flaccid snake
Nullius says .. off topic, irrelevant, my trouser zipper has gone mouldy and I cant compare atm.

Just because you and nullius are exploring these kinds of speculative off topic meanderings does not mean that I should be involved in those kinds of discussions.

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:

As for the bonesjonesreturns, until his real account emerges we should all let him play the court jester here, at least it provides some form of semi-amusement.

Where is hacker1001101001?

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

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1021758

Last Active:    Today at 06:09:44 PM

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.

[1714176866]

1714176866

[1714176866]

1714176866

[1714176866]

1714176866

[1714176866]

1714176866

[1714176866]

1714176866

[1714176866]

1714176866

[bonesjonesreturns]

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.

[JayJuanGee]

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.

We disagree then.

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.

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

It is clear that I am correct.

That is your erroneous opinion.

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.

I am not pretending.

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.

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

My arguement is solid.  Full context should be considered.

That is your erroneous opinion.

Stop pretending you are unaware of any clear wrongdoing by these scammers. Just makes you look untrustworthy.

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.

[PrimeNumber7]

If hacker1001101001's misdeeds were not apparent to the admins this time last year when he was unbanned, I cannot help that. They should have been. His misdeeds were highlighted four months ago, and the admins chose to not take action.

What makes you sure an admin banned him and not a global moderator? How about you stop wasting time defending evil individuals and go help somebody who needs it? You can thank me later.

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.

<the below quote tag appears to be incorrect/have the wrong timestamp>

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.

[Lauda]

If hacker1001101001's misdeeds were not apparent to the admins this time last year when he was unbanned, I cannot help that. They should have been. His misdeeds were highlighted four months ago, and the admins chose to not take action.

What makes you sure an admin banned him and not a global moderator? How about you stop wasting time defending evil individuals and go help somebody who needs it? You can thank me later.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[PrimeNumber7]

If hacker1001101001's misdeeds were not apparent to the admins this time last year when he was unbanned, I cannot help that. They should have been. His misdeeds were highlighted four months ago, and the admins chose to not take action.

What makes you sure an admin banned him and not a global moderator? How about you stop wasting time defending evil individuals and go help somebody who needs it? You can thank me later.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

[Lauda]

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

It is not the same function.

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. 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.

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

Unfortunately, the admins rarely comment publicly on reasons for denials on those types of things.

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.

[PrimeNumber7]

I was actually referring to the stance presented by tmfp

IF it was just that one post
IF he hasn't been ninja editing
IF he has support of the Croatian community
I wouldn't argue with leniency.

I was also not referring to you as being his friend considering

Last time people were asking for an exemption (which included me), it was rejected. Let's see whether the staff will remain consistent or change their stance.

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.

[Lauda]

I was actually referring to the stance presented by tmfp

IF it was just that one post
IF he hasn't been ninja editing
IF he has support of the Croatian community
I wouldn't argue with leniency.

I was also not referring to you as being his friend considering

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.

Last time people were asking for an exemption (which included me), it was rejected. Let's see whether the staff will remain consistent or change their stance.

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.

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).

[suchmoon]

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.

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.

[marlboroza]

Otherwise, the first step is to unban RegulusHr or ban hacker1001101001.

+5

Keep reporting posts that break the rules and if the user keeps breaking the rules they will get banned.

I did, I reported hacker's second c/p, reports is handled as "good" and nothing happened, on the other hand:

Discussing some other cases here and whether they're better or worse is quite pointless.

But why https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5097792.0 ?

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!

[suchmoon]

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

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?

[marlboroza]

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.

So did hacker https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5097792.msg54233470#msg54233470 (I didn't look for more), unless we are looking for +2 c/p now? New rule? 

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

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.

[suchmoon]

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.

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.

[marlboroza]

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.

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.

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://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2316855.msg23533421#msg23533421 is marked as good  

This post https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1184641.msg23532786#msg23532786
And this one https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1184641.msg23532255#msg23532255

As I can see, they don't exist any more, picture: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5097792.msg54248760#msg54248760.

[suchmoon]

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!

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.

[marlboroza]

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

Rumor has it that theymos is moderating meta and that he is colluding with moderators so report will probably remain unhandled.

Just PM hilarious or theymos or both about RegulusHr and see what they say.

I am pretty sure they can read...

And I'm quite certain that hacker1001101001 won't be re-banned.

Yeah, he won't be unbanned, he got second chance and that's it.

I get that moderators can't please everyone but by trying to link two unrelated cases you're not really helping.

Lets just agree to disagree.

[bonesjonesreturns]

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

Rumor has it that theymos is moderating meta and that he is colluding with moderators so report will probably remain unhandled.

Just PM hilarious or theymos or both about RegulusHr and see what they say.

I am pretty sure they can read...

And I'm quite certain that hacker1001101001 won't be re-banned.

Yeah, he won't be unbanned, he got second chance and that's it.

I get that moderators can't please everyone but by trying to link two unrelated cases you're not really helping.

Lets just agree to disagree.

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.

[JollyGood]

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.

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.

~snip~

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.

[JollyGood]

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

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.