>>307741605
He was though. He was literally banned for it. If it had anything to do with harassment then they would have said that in the reason given for banning him. But we both know it was for client use only because he has openly said so himself. This third party harassment thing is tranny narrative because you're drama queens and want to block and cry about shit that didn't happen. Why the fuck would they give a shit about anonymous shitposting on 4chan? That third-party harassment rule is for stuff like Twitter where there's verified names attached.

>>307741727
That happened early on when he was first blocked, he obviously picked up the client just to harass people who blocked him (Wired wasn't even the only one.)