Topic: Signature spammers - possible links between accounts? (Read 619 times)
@lovesmayfamilis, maybe none of the global mods have seen your reports yet, or they are checking its connection to the other 3 accounts that have been banned. If he is not banned in the next few days, we can try to draw the attention of the mods in case they miss the case - but something tells me that it is only a matter of time before that account gets a perma-ban.
At first glance, it seemed to me that it could be something like that, because most posts share a lot of similarities, but it will be good if they are caught for ban evasion. When it comes to such spammers we really don’t need to have mercy.
One of your list was blocked yesterday. But the muratsink is still alive as if nothing had happened. Paul forum, dissatisfied with the company 1xBi. But even when providing evidence that the participant violates the rules, in addition to advertising fraud, no sanctions apply to him.
Some are banned for two copied sentences, while others continue to successfully advertise scam.
~
Wow. Good work. I support a struggle against signature spammers.This guy has 1xbit avatar. This is very bad
At first glance, it seemed to me that it could be something like that, because most posts share a lot of similarities, but it will be good if they are caught for ban evasion. When it comes to such spammers we really don’t need to have mercy.
Amazing how persistent these spammers are, but also how stupid they are in their persistence to meet their daily quota of posts. After the mods deleted a few dozen posts in the main thread about El Salvador, new posts from the same members appear almost every day, and if you look at the archived links in the OP they actually plagiarize/paraphrase each other.
@lovesmayfamilis, can you check if there is anything plagiarized/paraphrased in this or similar posts?
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/el-salvador-has-become-the-first-country-to-make-bitcoin-legal-tender-5342087
@lovesmayfamilis, can you check if there is anything plagiarized/paraphrased in this or similar posts?
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/el-salvador-has-become-the-first-country-to-make-bitcoin-legal-tender-5342087
I didn't find the plagiarism.
However, I found a bunch of his alternative accounts, which, fair enough, need to be banned from the distribution of spam in the future. I hope for the moderators. There is a lot of evidence, I think that soon they will all be banned.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.59253129
Amazing how persistent these spammers are, but also how stupid they are in their persistence to meet their daily quota of posts. After the mods deleted a few dozen posts in the main thread about El Salvador, new posts from the same members appear almost every day, and if you look at the archived links in the OP they actually plagiarize/paraphrase each other.
@lovesmayfamilis, can you check if there is anything plagiarized/paraphrased in this or similar posts?
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/el-salvador-has-become-the-first-country-to-make-bitcoin-legal-tender-5342087
@lovesmayfamilis, can you check if there is anything plagiarized/paraphrased in this or similar posts?
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/el-salvador-has-become-the-first-country-to-make-bitcoin-legal-tender-5342087
-snip-
I've told managers that they [users who have been negatively tag] will never again care about post reputation and quality, but ultimately managers can decide for themselves what's best for their campaign. But so far, I have reported some spam posters or low quality posts. It would be helpful if he wanted to identify which spammer. 
I believe the tag given by the DT member, no doubt it at all. but I also believe that one can be better. there's nothing wrong with giving it a chance. but, back to his personality, if he stays greedy, they cheat again. but if he was aware of the one opportunity for him, perhaps he would not cheat it.
even in some campaigns, a lot of red-trusted because of cheater but BM doesn't have a problem with them either. That means this is an opportunity.
Well, this is an important lesson for me, to improve what to do next.
if you mean to give a good chance to accounts with negative trust in your campaign. I think it's a decision and a rule you can make yourself.even in some campaigns, a lot of red-trusted because of cheater but BM doesn't have a problem with them either. That means this is an opportunity.
Well, this is an important lesson for me, to improve what to do next.
I see not only you, but @irfan_pak10 also seems to be accepting participants with negative trust. and it was used as an opportunity for accounts that were linked with negative tags to join. like the example in the Xircus campaign organized by @irfan_pak10. many accounts are caught cheating, even those that have been marked as DT members can also escape.
at first, maybe you can control and be more selective with the accounts that join your campaign. but the more you do it, the more likely you will get tired of managing those accounts.
I believe the tag given by the DT member, no doubt it at all. but I also believe that one can be better. there's nothing wrong with giving it a chance. but, back to his personality, if he stays greedy, they cheat again. but if he was aware of the one opportunity for him, perhaps he would not cheat it.
even in some campaigns, a lot of red-trusted because of cheater but BM doesn't have a problem with them either. That means this is an opportunity.
Well, this is an important lesson for me, to improve what to do next.
if you mean to give a good chance to accounts with negative trust in your campaign. I think it's a decision and a rule you can make yourself.
I see not only you, but @irfan_pak10 also seems to be accepting participants with negative trust. and it was used as an opportunity for accounts that were linked with negative tags to join. like the example in the Xircus campaign organized by @irfan_pak10. many accounts are caught cheating, even those that have been marked as DT members can also escape.
at first, maybe you can control and be more selective with the accounts that join your campaign. but the more you do it, the more likely you will get tired of managing those accounts.
yes, I will more selective, that why I created blacklist member, everyone who already tagged cheating with multiple account, will not getting any chance anymore.
even in some campaigns, a lot of red-trusted because of cheater but BM doesn't have a problem with them either. That means this is an opportunity.
Well, this is an important lesson for me, to improve what to do next.
if you mean to give a good chance to accounts with negative trust in your campaign. I think it's a decision and a rule you can make yourself.
I see not only you, but @irfan_pak10 also seems to be accepting participants with negative trust. and it was used as an opportunity for accounts that were linked with negative tags to join. like the example in the Xircus campaign organized by @irfan_pak10. many accounts are caught cheating, even those that have been marked as DT members can also escape.
at first, maybe you can control and be more selective with the accounts that join your campaign. but the more you do it, the more likely you will get tired of managing those accounts.
As I said, red-trusts may still be welcome, but how they work to keep this forum free of fraud and spammers will be the first. I hope that one day when I handled new campaign, all of you still be there for me.
I offer you a better offer for everyone. If you still do not trust the red reviews left by other members of the DT, and this is exactly what it looks like, then in order not to litter the forum with all sorts of spam, do something else.
You can invite participants with a negative tag to your company, as long as they do not write anything on the forum. And then just pay them. For now, this is the best solution. Who once deceived, and practice shows that having a red trust, accounts have nothing to lose, they will not try to bring useful information.
Are you that naive? Or are you pretending? Do you believe an account marked as a cheater will participate with one account?
In this case, I just keep quiet and shrug.
Because it is important for him to fill the places in the campaign, regardless of the fact that his users are ordinary shitposters who can't all together (and I mean the ones I mentioned) write a meaningful and quality post. For who knows how many times I will publicly say that the biggest responsibility for all this spam lies with the managers who give the opportunity to members who did not deserve it.
I will continue to follow their posts and report anything I think is spam, and if someone manages to link any of the mentioned accounts to ban evading or maybe plagiarism, that would be the best solution to the problem. That garbage deserves only perma-ban and nothing more.
You're right, but I believe every manager has the right to decide how they own management and set the rules for their own campaigns. I believe maintainers have a greater responsibility to check the quality of posts from their participants than other users who have contributed to reporting a certain amount of spam. However, the large number of participants made it difficult for them to do it in a day.I will continue to follow their posts and report anything I think is spam, and if someone manages to link any of the mentioned accounts to ban evading or maybe plagiarism, that would be the best solution to the problem. That garbage deserves only perma-ban and nothing more.
During this time, I have also struggled to help forums reduce the number of spam posts made by campaign participants from various bounty or signature campaigns. I have some history here to show, not much but I hope it helps some managers identify spammers.
However, for the next campaign, I have taken the initiative to make a member blacklist (personally), those who have cheated & spamming in Cybertrade campaign will not get a chance in my next campaign.
Sounds great and works for your campaign management reputation , implement it to prevent them from come back in your next campaign.
true, I need members to participate in the campaign, but I have anticipated that those who cheat will not get stakes and are disqualified. I am aware that no matter how strict the campaign rules I make, there may be participants who continue to do things like this, including spam. However, for the next campaign, I have taken the initiative to make a member blacklist (personally), those who have cheated & spamming in Cybertrade campaign will not get a chance in my next campaign. As I said, red-trusts may still be welcome, but how they work to keep this forum free of fraud and spammers will be the first. I hope that one day when I handled new campaign, all of you still be there for me.
I'm glad that you guys helped keep my campaign and especially for this forum free from spammers.
Once again, I am very grateful to all who have helped pay attention to the quality of participants in my campaigns.
I'm glad that you guys helped keep my campaign and especially for this forum free from spammers.
Once again, I am very grateful to all who have helped pay attention to the quality of participants in my campaigns.
I will continue to follow their posts and report anything I think is spam
In the same case, Please also pay attention to the posts of these 2 Members Velive08 & RondoAnyar. Why is that? Yes, you can see their History. They are also still doing the same thing by violating the project rules.
What really amazes me is why the maintainer is giving the opportunity to proven guilty spammers or cheaters to promote campaign. All accounts tagged with negative [cheaters] no longer care about reputation and they will never care about post quality. Then why did the manager give him a chance?
Because it is important for him to fill the places in the campaign, regardless of the fact that his users are ordinary shitposters who can't all together (and I mean the ones I mentioned) write a meaningful and quality post. For who knows how many times I will publicly say that the biggest responsibility for all this spam lies with the managers who give the opportunity to members who did not deserve it.
I will continue to follow their posts and report anything I think is spam, and if someone manages to link any of the mentioned accounts to ban evading or maybe plagiarism, that would be the best solution to the problem. That garbage deserves only perma-ban and nothing more.
On another note that interests me is that apart from trading accounts, spammers, each of them have had a large number of farm accounts in the past. and my assumption: they come from Indonesia.
I've exposed them before for trying to cheat in the same campaign. I've also flagged some of them but they don't seem to have much effect. Maybe it's true, they come from Indonesia based on the posting history.@masulum is in charge of this case as all accounts seem to be on the same campaign. I haven't checked the spreadsheet whether all of them are accepted in the campaign or not, but based on @masulum's previous statement, he has no problem with neg tagged users unless they join two or more linked accounts.
What really amazes me is why the maintainer is giving the opportunity to proven guilty spammers or cheaters to promote campaign. All accounts tagged with negative [cheaters] no longer care about reputation and they will never care about post quality. Then why did the manager give him a chance?
They are definitely connected, funny how there reports about each of them but not the whole pack:
~
~
Oh shit.I myself Forgot about that
~
New notes:
1. Case on user @S4VV4S : Source
@S4VV4S has connections with @flyer88, @mauriek & @suryana. Also, @Mauriek has been banned. @S4VV4S, @suryana & @flyer88 are still Active.
2. Case on user @randegibran : Source
Accounts Connected:
HanaTenun, andibongkol, kirisakidaichi, randegibran, zucknail, Banned
triangles, billysaputra
HanaTenun, andibongkol, kirisakidaichi, randegibran, zucknail, Banned
triangles, billysaputra
3. Case on user @Muratsink : Source
@Muratsink has a very bad history. I guess @YOSHIE can explain Related @Muratsink can be categorized as Ban Envasion or not?
They are definitely connected, funny how there reports about each of them but not the whole pack:
I see all of the linked accounts have the same signature, might be worth looking at all the participants, I have a feeling they will be easy to spot
tazmantasik & flyer88 are alt account that have scammed many campaigns before by arguing that they used the same ATH address to join different campaign.
Code:
0xB59dD2db3e6d88C5195d723ef4ca79B402F35192
Participated Campaigns: Signature
BSC Wallet Address: 0xB59dD2db3e6d88C5195d723ef4ca79B402F35192
BSC Wallet Address: 0xB59dD2db3e6d88C5195d723ef4ca79B402F35192
Participated Campaigns: Signature Campaign
BSC Wallet Address: 0xB59dD2db3e6d88C5195d723ef4ca79B402F35192
BSC Wallet Address: 0xB59dD2db3e6d88C5195d723ef4ca79B402F35192
User: muratsink erc 20 wallet id: 0xe18e2fe9Df99E89edbCf8C345776Ed351d0a444A archive: http://archive.is/0QUlZ#selection-779.9-819.33
0.003 Ether received from 0x4397Dc426bc734dc500F90c9C7A1d72B2B7fd0B1
User: randegibran erc 20 wallet id: 0xba2cbcf2ef87e02097ecf656ba88513cc3d9067a archive: http://archive.is/heLsJ#selection-1691.9-1725.65
0.003 Ether received from 0x4397Dc426bc734dc500F90c9C7A1d72B2B7fd0B1
So these two accounts are 100% alter.
Note: qory, muratsink and randegibran all are/were active users on Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian).
0.003 Ether received from 0x4397Dc426bc734dc500F90c9C7A1d72B2B7fd0B1
User: randegibran erc 20 wallet id: 0xba2cbcf2ef87e02097ecf656ba88513cc3d9067a archive: http://archive.is/heLsJ#selection-1691.9-1725.65
0.003 Ether received from 0x4397Dc426bc734dc500F90c9C7A1d72B2B7fd0B1
So these two accounts are 100% alter.
Note: qory, muratsink and randegibran all are/were active users on Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian).
I see all of the linked accounts have the same signature, might be worth looking at all the participants, I have a feeling they will be easy to spot
Quote
31/01/2022 13:39:58 S4VV4S
31/01/2022 14:08:42 flyer88
18/01/2022 12:25:39 muratsink
18/01/2022 23:08:53 randegibran
19/01/2022 0:24:42 celot
31/01/2022 14:08:42 flyer88
18/01/2022 12:25:39 muratsink
18/01/2022 23:08:53 randegibran
19/01/2022 0:24:42 celot
Most of them have a bad history. most likely the account has changed hands.
On another note that interests me is that apart from trading accounts, spammers, each of them have had a large number of farm accounts in the past. and my assumption: they come from Indonesia.
On another note that interests me is that apart from trading accounts, spammers, each of them have had a large number of farm accounts in the past. and my assumption: they come from Indonesia.
I have been observing the situation in one thread for some time and I was wondering if anyone would react to what is happening there, but unfortunately that did not happen. It is about this thread in Bitcoin Discussion -> El Salvador has become the first country to make #Bitcoin legal tender!
If you go from the last page backwards you will see how spammers use megathreads like this for signature spamming. The posts are almost identical and are repeated pages backwards, and some even got merits.
Pay attention to users :
S4VV4S - https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/s4vv4s-222038
randegibran - https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/randegibran-975765
flyer88 - https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/flyer88-246683
muratsink - https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/muratsink-897308
I report only post from the last page as a test, but mods reacted quickly and deleted all posts, which is a good sign to report all other posts of these four above. What I would like someone to investigate is whether these 4 profiles have a common connection and maybe some of them are related to ban evading.
I archived the last 3 pages of that thread.
https://archive.vn/9f877
https://archive.ph/03kQc
https://archive.ph/q7R7x
If you go from the last page backwards you will see how spammers use megathreads like this for signature spamming. The posts are almost identical and are repeated pages backwards, and some even got merits.
Pay attention to users :
S4VV4S - https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/s4vv4s-222038
randegibran - https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/randegibran-975765
flyer88 - https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/flyer88-246683
muratsink - https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/muratsink-897308
I report only post from the last page as a test, but mods reacted quickly and deleted all posts, which is a good sign to report all other posts of these four above. What I would like someone to investigate is whether these 4 profiles have a common connection and maybe some of them are related to ban evading.
I archived the last 3 pages of that thread.
https://archive.vn/9f877
https://archive.ph/03kQc
https://archive.ph/q7R7x
Jump to: