He is 100% sure on coke.

From his wiki:

Whoever updated this bravo. And I don't see how it can be removed it has been admitted to by himself

love how people just make up random **** based on nothing more than how furious they are. pretty sure superusing and colluding are a much, much bigger deal than MA'ing, ainec. lolnvg

You personally have a problem with this being on his wiki?

Just curious.

Also if so why?

Couldn't agree more. Outing himself continuously.

He will change it. The new BH has no room for negativity and jealousy in his life.

aaaaaaaand it's gone.

@JakeWalters9 I agree. Applying for a job that has nothing to do with poker. Too much negativity and hypocrisy in poker world.

Just random undeserved negativity directed at Stinger imo. 238 pages and counting of jealousy /s

And PS couldn't give a toss. Like seemingly many HS regs, they clearly condone such cheating once it doesn't affect their bottom line. Today's bottom line, that is, as they are clearly too short sighted to comprehend the long term negatives that can only result from this kind of cowboy behaviour. I mean, it's September. What extra proof or whatever could they possibly still be looking for?

Nobody except some dudes on 2+2 care about this thing bro cant say it clearer.

Yes, no one except the hard core poker grinders who are actually extremely significant, I would have thought. I'm not saying it's your mindset to think this as you were just confirming it, but it clearly is the mindset of so many. "It's just some 2+2 warriors". Well these warriors ARE poker and are not just a few insignificant's ranting.

I think that you are right but do you think that they have the power to change something?If yes,why is he still playing in stars?The people who can deside if Brian can play on stars are doing nothing(the stars people) and neither have the stars pros done something-have you heard something from Jason Mercier about this?
I dont say that the 2+2 warriors are insignificant-I think the total opposite-but the people who MAKE decisions about similar matters dont care/dont want to make any decisions for some reasons.

E

The issue is that these companies take this line when say (and it used to happen all the time) a rec player opens a 2nd account to get rakeback or multiple accounts to get deposit bonuses. All his accounts are shut and he is deemed to be in violation of T&S for a player owning more than one account.

Just because these "warriors" (hahaha) are not using it to take money off the site doesn't matter. This is not the reasoning they have used to ban rec players (cause it would make them sound like contrite *******s).

They have done the same thing as the rec player who is feeding the economy with his deposit and now banned however these ****ing heroes are allowed to because why ?????????

They violated the same rule has nothing to do with them being "warriors" hahah GTFO

Although you might not care for his delivery of the message, but he was absolutely correct.

I'm not sure how it works on Wiki with edits, but if one wants to have a chance for an edit to remain, I'd think the best way would be to stick to the facts and remove all emotion.

If it's the case here that BH can remove whatever he likes no matter how innocuous it is, then I suppose it doesn't matter, but still seems a little pointless to add things that are inaccurate.

my thoughts on the matter are it's pretty much chalk and cheese.

He has done something extremely scummy, I don't think that's in question right?

A simple change from

"Multi accounting is considered the lowest form of cheating in high stakes online poker and he has now rightly been shunned and will forever be known as a cheat."

to

Multi accounting is considered one of the lowest form of cheating in high stakes online poker and he has seemingly been shunned and labelled by many as a cheat."

Would be entirely feasible.

I agree the whole tone is not correct for an "encyclopedia" and too personal but that didn't seem to be his point - it was more that MA'ing wasn't the worst possible way to cheat.

I think it's still the same overall message it's basically arguing semantics over which was worse (I agree superusing is).

I also was seemingly unaware that it could be removed by Brian and adapted as he saw fit. I thought wikipedia worked as in something was added and evidence supplied by way of article / webpage etc to support entered text. I was under the belief that if the text was supported it would stay as its supposed to be a reflection on that topic not their personal autobiography.

Unfortunately it seems I was wrong?

Yes, you are correct.

I didn't get to read the edited wiki including the stuff about the cheating, but if it is pointless to add things that are not accurate then it is even more pointless for some psychotic freak to delete things on his won wiki that are accurate, assuming the vast majority of the edit was actually correct and factual. What about the emotion in that?

Tbh you just sound like you are sticking up for him and it's a pretty crappy angle to be coming from to nit pick on a word or two of someone editing in the truth about this scumbag.

Bobo makes a perfectly valid point.
If you don't want things removed from his wiki, make sure those things are accurate and emotion free. Also add a correctly formatted citation.

If you don't want things removed from his wiki then make damn sure you don't include any truths about him being a known cheat. I could go to his wiki right now and include an accurate, emotion free and correctly formatted citation indicating his shady history and it would be deleted stat. The edit being deleted had nothing to do with accuracy or citation, it was to do with covering up the truth and giving an arrogant two fingers to the hand that feeds him i.e. the poker community.

Take a breath and calm down.

My cerebral equilibrium or perhaps lack thereof is irrelevant as I spoke the truth.

You think Wikipedia are active in a coverup? Lol

What?

Stinger himself will immediately edit out anything said in his wiki about the Noel Hayes multiaccounting/VPN cheating etc

And people think Hastings is doing coke haha. Where exactly did you get that from PeteBlow ?

If you look at the edit history and the history of the user who deleted the updates, it's pretty clear that he didn't delete those things himself.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spec..._(poker_player)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spec...ck_of_Grandeur