AndyTheGrump is (still) a very typical Wikipediocracy grade moron
Posted: Tue Jan 18, 2022 4:20 am
How embarrassing. 
What an absolute tit. I mean, honestly.
But of course, the ridiculousness of this man's critical thinking ability is never too far away....
You actually advise people to lie to the media as a means of discrediting Wikipedia. And then get a lawyer to act on .... an incorrect Wikipedia biography? And all while you ingore Wikipedia editors completely too.
Yeah, genius plan that. Can't see any downsides.
What an absolute fool this man is.
And yet Jake protects him like he is his own flesh and blood.
It's no mystery I guess. If you yourself are a weak and uninspiring King of a very small hill, then it is better to surround yourself with loyal but stupid footsoodiers, than smart and principled Knights of independent means.
04:06, 15 January 2022 AndyTheGrump talk contribs 16,812 bytes −997 rv sock of banned User:Brian K Horton
04:10, 15 January 2022 AndyTheGrump talk contribs 16,812 bytes −997 Undid revision 1065754780 by AcademicPerspective (talk) rv sad little low-life attention seeker
For the benefit of anyone who hasn't figured it out yet, this is self-evidently yet another User:Brian K Horton sockpuppet. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:08, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm not an admin - just someone all too familiar with 'Brian K Horton' and his many other aliases, both here on Wikipedia and elsewhere. His style is almost unmistakable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:30, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
He is soooo certain. But....Anyone at all familiar with 'Brian K Horton' either on Wikipedia or elsewhere will recognise the style immediately. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:21, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Unrelated as far as I can see. Account locates to a completely different country. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 04:59, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
What an absolute tit. I mean, honestly.
But of course, the ridiculousness of this man's critical thinking ability is never too far away....
Lolwut?My personal advice to anyone wishing to have a Wikipedia article about them is to think again, and to anyone already having one is to use what media contacts they have to state that it is full of misinformation (even if it isn't - though given the appalling standards of many BLPs I've seen, that might be quite rare), and not to engage directly with contributors at all, if it can be avoided. With seriously-problematic biographical content, the best option may actually be to consult a lawyer. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:25, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
You actually advise people to lie to the media as a means of discrediting Wikipedia. And then get a lawyer to act on .... an incorrect Wikipedia biography? And all while you ingore Wikipedia editors completely too.
Yeah, genius plan that. Can't see any downsides.
What an absolute fool this man is.
And yet Jake protects him like he is his own flesh and blood.
It's no mystery I guess. If you yourself are a weak and uninspiring King of a very small hill, then it is better to surround yourself with loyal but stupid footsoodiers, than smart and principled Knights of independent means.