[BitList Analytics] Signature banned users and their data (before and after ban)

[dkbit98]

If you have any ideas to improve this dashboard, let me know.

Nice work again.
This looks more a like shame list of sigbanned members in forum
One suggestion I have is to make signature banned members visible directly in forum, with userscript or integrating it with BPIP extension.

[Alpha Marine]

I criticised in the past the mandatory posts in some sections especially when it is +15 posts a week in a specific section especially when the member is not used to post there. It means simply force them to use AI or copy paste other posts with modification to bypass that. It is not permitted of course. Nothing will change in the future in my opinion without regulations.

I don't agree with that. It's not every campaign that requires you to make 10 post in gambling. Some campaign ask for only 5 a week. They are a casino company, so it makes sense that you should advertise their company in the section of the board where gamblers discuss or where gambling discussions take place.
A person who has no idea about gambling and can't discuss genuily in the gambling board shouldn't apply for a signature campaign that requires them to make posts in the gambling section. There are some campaigns that don't require posts in the gambling section, you can apply for those.

There is simply no excuse for using AI generated text in a "discussion". It's a discussion, if you don't know what to say or you're not familiar with a topic, you either ask questions or stay quiet.
I don't post much in mining board even though I visit it often. I just read and learn instead of talking about things I don't fully understand.
In the gambling sections, there is a thread about Motor sports, even though I have an idea about it, I don't post there because I don't know much about the sports. If I even make a post there it will be to reply to something I know or ask a a question. The same goes to the cricket thread.

[TryNinja]

Not sure, it's a bug or a mistake.

I found an account with "Unknown user" and his profile ID; 2692993


At the time checking to make some data on my Local: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5589754.msg66992876#msg66992876.

Search the ID on Bitlish can't find the account; however the search is directing me to a post: https://bitlist.co/post/2692993
In BPIP, can search the account: https://bpip.org/Profile?id=2692993
I also found his account on Bitcointalk: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2692993

BitList doesn't scrape anyone's profile. We take everything from posts and merits that have been scraped through the years.

This user hasn't made any post (ever) because it's a test account made by theymos. No post = nothing in the archive = we can't derivate its username. There are a few solutions, including using Loyce's username list, but idk. I don't see this as a big problem.

Simply stunning work. I'm floored.

One thing you should know is my first sigbans were issued on the morning of July 20th. So you have to give me credit for that full drop, lol.

I can't take credit for actually improving anything yet, because even though the post count in that section dropped, its hardly budged forum-wide. Which means a lot of posters are simply posting elsewhere, and/or more often. This might not be a good thing. We'll all find out together!

You are definitely changing things for the better.

In 9 days:

Since first ban on 21 Jul 2026, 899 potential spam posts were prevented, averaging 99.93 posts per day over 9 days.

100 posts per day is a lot for pretty much one board (gambling discussion). And I reckon you're just getting started.

Would writing long and meaningless posts save you? I don't think it should be the case but this user LUCKMCFLY is still surviving, maybe because he used to write half pages paragraphs before (starting from here
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1153977;sa=showPosts;start=9300) and yet still saved maybe because of this even though his score isn't good too 

User ID: 1153977

Score: Needs Improvement (Lowest 10% of active posters)

I would ban this guy. Just because he hasn't been hit yet, doesn't mean he is saved.

Constantly making 10+ posts per day, 100% in the Gambling discussion board. All meaningless: https://bitlist.co/user/id/1153977?date_min=2026-06-30&date_max=2026-07-30

[nutildah]

A couple big picture things to keep in mind are

1) nobody has to join any campaign (you don't have to join a gambling campaign if gambling's not your thing), and

2) campaign managers can refuse spots to posters who don't care about gambling or know anything about it. Yes, that's an option! Its up to the manager what level of discussion they want to encourage if they are going to enforce board-based quotas.

10 gambling posts a week (or less) seems reasonable, that's slightly over 1.4 posts per day.

A mandatory 15 posts a week in one section is probably too high for anyone's benefit. You might be forcing too many accounts to produce posts on subjects they're not interested in or know nothing about if you didn't appropriately screen your campaign members first.

To the managers who have just a handful or none of the names on this website in their campaigns, I want to personally thank you for setting an example of how to do things the right way.

[examplens]

A couple big picture things to keep in mind are

1) nobody has to join any campaign (you don't have to join a gambling campaign if gambling's not your thing), and

2) campaign managers can refuse spots to posters who don't care about gambling or know anything about it. Yes, that's an option! Its up to the manager what level of discussion they want to encourage if they are going to enforce board-based quotas.

10 gambling posts a week (or less) seems reasonable, that's slightly over 1.4 posts per day.

A mandatory 15 posts a week in one section is probably too high for anyone's benefit. You might be forcing too many accounts to produce posts on subjects they're not interested in or know nothing about if you didn't appropriately screen your campaign members first.

Is it too much if the conclusion is drawn that the campaign managers are largely responsible for the production of spam that is the subject of this action?

To the managers who have just a handful or none of the names on this website in their campaigns, I want to personally thank you for setting an example of how to do things the right way.

Such managers should have a quality badge under their name

[icopress]

If someone could create a visual table based on the available data, that would be wonderful (I think I can award 50 Merit for such a post).

I see the data structured like this:

Code:

Manager's name:
Total number of slots in all campaigns:
Number of banned users
Ban in % of total slots (all campaigns of the selected manager).

Example

Code:

Manager: Carollzinha (Stake)
Total Slots: 52 (1 campaign). 
Banned users: 18 users
Ban in % of total slots: 34.6%

Auxiliary links:

• Overview of Bitcointalk Signature-Ad Campaigns
• Stake spreadsheet (in case you have trouble finding it).
• Signature Ban List
• [BitList Analytics] Signature banned users and their data

There's no point in including banned sig from users who have been inactive for more than a month.

For example, at Rainbet, blocked users were last active on Feb 9.

[nutildah]

You are definitely changing things for the better.

Good to hear. I'm doing it with the help of BitList.

In 9 days:

Since first ban on 21 Jul 2026, 899 potential spam posts were prevented, averaging 99.93 posts per day over 9 days.

The first ban was was fuguebtc which was around 9 am on July 20th, along with 4 others. He is banned until Jan 16, 2027. That date minus 180 days is July 20th. I did 6 sigbans on the 21st and 10 9 on the 22nd, if that helps.

Is it too much if the conclusion is drawn that the campaign managers are largely responsible for the production of spam that is the subject of this action?

Its my opinion that they share a lot of responsibility for the spam situation. Obviously its no longer a viable idea to employ a "pay per post" model as that is responsible for the most annoying kinds of spammy behaviors.

A lot of the problem occurs when, for whatever reason, managers don't perform basic quality checks of their participants. For several campaigns, there seems to be no standards or quality control at all.

Also in my opinion, managers should be asking themselves what qualities do they want to try to instill in others, what behaviors are they currently rewarding, and do they honestly believe these behaviors are a net positive for individual growth or the forum as a whole.

[r_victory]

Bitlist is growing as a tool and offering us more and more possibilities, and this one came at a more than appropriate time; I’ve seen a lot of discussion regarding signature ban.

Thanks to TryNinja and the others who contribute as well.  

[TokenTikas]

If someone could create a visual table based on the available data, that would be wonderful.

If a visual table can be created based on the available information then through this all signature banned users and the data can be seen at a glance. I'm working on making this visual table and I will give an update of the visual table very soon.

After collecting the data, I will try to publish the visual table of signature banned users every week.

[ryzaadit]

If someone could create a visual table based on the available data, that would be wonderful

Total managers: 9
Total campaign slots in the table: 438
Total users banned in the campaigns & active: 45
Overall ban % from total in the table: 10.27%

╭──────────────────┬──────────────────────────┬─────────────┬──────────────┬──────────╮
│ Manager          │ Campaigns                │ Total Slots │ Users Banned │  Ban %   │
├──────────────────┼──────────────────────────┼─────────────┼──────────────┼──────────┤
│ Carollzinha      │ Stake                    │           53│            17│   32.08% │
├──────────────────┼──────────────────────────┼─────────────┼──────────────┼──────────┤
│ Hhampuz          │ Rainbet                  │          174│            10│    5.75% │
│                  │ Rollbit                  │           60│             1│    1.67% │
│                  │ Dustbit                  │           11│             1│    9.09% │
├──────────────────┴──────────────────────────┼─────────────┼──────────────┼──────────┤
│ Total across all campaigns (3)              │          245│            12│    4.90% │
├──────────────────┬──────────────────────────┼─────────────┼──────────────┼──────────┤
│ LittleMouse      │ Bitz.io                  │           12│             3│   25.00% │
│                  │ Degen.com                │           19│             1│    5.26% │
│                  │ Lucky.fun                │           13│             1│    7.69% │
│                  │ Earnbet                  │           19│             2│   10.53% │
├──────────────────┴──────────────────────────┼─────────────┼──────────────┼──────────┤
│ Total across all campaigns (4)              │           63│             7│   11.11% │
├──────────────────┬──────────────────────────┼─────────────┼──────────────┼──────────┤
│ AB de Royse777   │ Vega                     │           13│             1│    7.69% │
│                  │ Omnisee                  │            7│             1│   14.29% │
├──────────────────┴──────────────────────────┼─────────────┼──────────────┼──────────┤
│ Total across all campaigns (2)              │           20│             2│   10.00% │
├──────────────────┬──────────────────────────┼─────────────┼──────────────┼──────────┤
│ TheAndy500       │ Kikabet                  │           24│             6│   25.00% │
├──────────────────┼──────────────────────────┼─────────────┼──────────────┼──────────┤
│ icopress         │ Bitlish                  │           49│             2│    4.08% │
├──────────────────┼──────────────────────────┼─────────────┼──────────────┼──────────┤
│ JackClub         │ JackClub.io              │           11│             1│    9.09% │
├──────────────────┼──────────────────────────┼─────────────┼──────────────┼──────────┤
│ julerz12         │ Vave                     │           10│             4│   40.00% │
├──────────────────┼──────────────────────────┼─────────────┼──────────────┼──────────┤
│ yahoo62278       │ Blockrace                │            4│             1│   25.00% │
╰──────────────────┴──────────────────────────┴─────────────┴──────────────┴──────────╯

Note:
- I only count starting from July 20th based on post nutildah for the week's signature campaign.
- Only users who are in the campaign and actively posting as well.
- Some campaign total slots are counted from the spreadsheet, not from the information in the Thread Signature Campaigns (because some campaigns are sometimes have fewer slot than number in the thread).

[LoyceV]

For example, here are the first 5 bans issued in the recent wave, 7 days after their ban (data is updated in near real time):

That's a nice way of visualizing what was to be expected: they don't post because they're interested in the topic, they're posting to get paid. The fact that so many users post 100% less fits my suspicion that most of those accounts are owned by a small group of account farmers.

When a Sigban expires, or when it gets removed, it would be nice to also visualize the changes in their posting behavior. Even better if you can correlate it to being accepted in a signature campaign.

We've all looked at the Stake campaign as the worst breeding ground for spam, but Rainbet seems to be even worse. Quite dominant on the list, at least judging by the avatars.

The users in the "Rainbet" campaign are doing significantly better than the ones wearing the signature without being accepted.

Technically they are not participating in the campaign which is why there seem to be many accounts that are banned and are wearing the rainbet avatar.

They could still be paid for their "advertising", it's just not published.

I found an account with "Unknown user" and his profile ID; 2692993
I also found his account on Bitcointalk: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2692993

This user hasn't made any post (ever) because it's a test account made by theymos LoyceV.

FTFY
I created TrustTestUser for my Beginners guide to correct use of the Trust system. Theymos' test account is test123.

No post = nothing in the archive = we can't derivate its username. There are a few solutions, including using Loyce's username list, but idk. I don't see this as a big problem.

Just a heads up: my username list probably missed a few username changes over the years.

If someone could create a visual table based on the available data
~

Code:

Manager's name:
Total number of slots in all campaigns:
Number of banned users
Ban in % of total slots (all campaigns of the selected manager).

The closest I've seen is Signature Ban List, but it also lists users who weren't accepted in the campaign. That's going to be a lot of work to (manually) check, and impossible if the campaign spreadsheet isn't public.

Is it too much if the conclusion is drawn that the campaign managers are largely responsible for the production of spam that is the subject of this action?

Its my opinion that they share a lot of responsibility for the spam situation. Obviously its no longer a viable idea to employ a "pay per post" model as that is responsible for the most annoying kinds of spammy behaviors.

In my first signature campaign, I always felt like guitarplinker was watching my posts. Later, I felt like DarkStar_ was watching my posts. Even though I don't think I'm a shitposter, I was always very aware that someone's watching, and I don't want to disappoint them. In my opinion, every campaign manager should give their campaign participants some feeling of "you are being watched".

A lot of the problem occurs when, for whatever reason, managers don't perform basic quality checks of their participants. For several campaigns, there seems to be no standards or quality control at all.

This brings me to my next point: campaign managers should also feel like they're being watched! Running a campaign should be a privilage that can be taken away. The Signature Campaign Guidelines are clear, but not enforced:

As a signature campaign operator you will ultimately be held responsible for the quality of posts of users bearing your signature advertisement and you will need to monitor your users closely or it will be quickly abused. If you are running a campaign and it becomes blatantly obvious to Staff that you are doing little to nothing to stop spam on your campaign you will be issued a PM warning by a Global Moderator that you need to make immediate improvements to curb low-quality posts. You will have 7 days to remove low-quality posters and respond to the message detailing what you are going to do to make changes to your campaign to reduce the amount of spam. If improvements are not noticeable within 21 days of that and Staff do not believe you are doing enough to prevent low quality posts your signatures will be blacklisted from the forum by an Admin and you will no longer be permitted to advertise here in such a way. The Staff and Admins do not want to have to do this but it's a last resort in an attempt to clean up the forum as signature campaigns cannot continue to operate here in such a lazy way as it is not fair that others have to go through pages of drivel to find anything of substance nor should Staff be left to clean up the mess you are paying people to make.

I feel like we're approaching this bottom-up instead of top-down. We've been reporting individual posts for years, and now some users get a signature ban, but it would have been much better to start from the top: if campaign managers who accepted spam got banned, there would be less posts to report and less signatures to ban.
Just imagine an ideal world in which all campaign managers did their job correctly: there'd be less spam, less signature bans, less posts to report and less work for Mods.

Also in my opinion, managers should be asking themselves what qualities do they want to try to instill in others, what behaviors are they currently rewarding, and do they honestly believe these behaviors are a net positive for individual growth or the forum as a whole.

Personal financial interests don't necessarily align with forum interests.

[FinneysTrueVision]

Would writing long and meaningless posts save you? I don't think it should be the case but this user LUCKMCFLY is still surviving, maybe because he used to write half pages paragraphs before

People can manage to fly under the radar when there is still so many accounts that need to be examined. You should not be so anxious to throw someone under the bus for doing worse than what got you banned because it will be handled eventually.

It’s a shame what users become once they join the Stake campaign. LUCKMCFLY was a half decent poster in his local board from what I remember. Now he is a full time gambling shitposter. All 20 of his most recent posts were made in a 24 hour period. He is such a spammer that he bumped a thread from 2024 that was about privacy with an off-topic reply about Italian soccer. https://bitlist.co/post/66426087

[Rikafip]

Not really, the higher ranking staff members that can moderate the whole forum are simply very lazy and passive. 2 global moderators could keep this whole forum clean if they were effective and proactive, instead they barely do anything at all.

The way I see it, quality and proactive moderators should also be active (and by that I mean participating in discussions) in the threads and boards they are moderating, and that's not a job for two people.

How many signature bans were issued in the current year before Nutildah got the ability to do so?

Can't say I noticed any recently.   

Do you think that no staff member had the ability to issue one?

I honestly don't know. Best is to ask them. 

I feel like we're approaching this bottom-up instead of top-down. We've been reporting individual posts for years, and now some users get a signature ban, but it would have been much better to start from the top: if campaign managers who accepted spam got banned, there would be less posts to report and less signatures to ban.

The problem is that there are more campaign spots than there are decent members, and I guess that majority of managers won't say no to a client if they know they won't be able to fill the campaign with quality posters, within the client's budget. Even if they do say no (which some probably do), the client will simply go to the next manager, who won't have an issue doing what's being asked.

[notocactus]

Would writing long and meaningless posts save you?

It won't save all spammers but some of them will be safe. Like how they masked their shitposts by writing it longer while it is still non sense and like politicians or people in the USA named it as "word salad". I learned about this term through the USA 2024 President Election.  

It’s a shame what users become once they join the Stake campaign.

It's normal when people lost motivation to keep up their good works. It's like writing habit that can be changed with time. In this case, it changed from good to bad, or bad to terrible.

I mentioned it here.

Think:
If we force spammers to rank up by posting good, we force them to have a good writing habit, and when they ranked up already, they will more likely post good, or at least better than spammers.

A person who ranked up from posting good will make it a writing and posting habit and will not lose it after ranking up to Hero member or Legendary member rank, whereas the spammers who ranked up by shitposts to Hero/ Legendary member rank will continue his habit (writing shitposts).

In my first signature campaign, I always felt like guitarplinker was watching my posts. Later, I felt like DarkStar_ was watching my posts. Even though I don't think I'm a shitposter, I was always very aware that someone's watching, and I don't want to disappoint them. In my opinion, every campaign manager should give their campaign participants some feeling of "you are being watched".

You're on point too.

Years ago, I still remembered that feeling and motivation like I had to try a lot to get in that campaign. I have never succeeded even one or two times I felt like I was in a very last short list of the manager. Succeed or fail, it actually forced me to improve my post quality, that means a lot and I believe there were many posters like this years ago.

Participants in the campaign had to try to maintain their quality posts too, otherwise they will be kicked out.

I feel like we're approaching this bottom-up instead of top-down.

I agree with your suggestion on managers but in my opinion, there is another top-down solution: demerit.

Let's create a community-led/ reported thread to demerit them in decentralized way.

With this sneak peek from theymos like it's pretty easy.

There is currently no such thing as a "demerit". I'm hoping that the positive merits alone will be fine. I could add demerits pretty easily later on if necessary, though.

Possibly so far only you wanted to be a demerit source, and perhaps now you no longer want to do that task.
Another discussion about that
I want a way to demerit posts.
LoyceV's deMerit source application.

In 2018, it was called abused but now much more massive abuse is no longer considered as abuse.  
Users abusing merit to level up their alts to Junior Member.

They actually took advantage of this post from theymos and did their merit jobs

If they complain about amounts, tell them to complain to me. It's best if sources try to exhaust their source allocations, even if it means giving posts higher amounts than is typical. If you have 150 source merit and you only see 3 merit-worthy posts in a month, then I'd rather you over-give each of them 50 merit than let the merit expire.

By the way, I just saw this post about reasons of this demerit action.

Is stingers still a merit source?

Not anymore. That's clear abuse, awarding merit for political reasons rather than any idea of quality. Only because he was a source, I effectively undid those merit sends. If he had not been a merit source, I still would've blacklisted anyone who got into DT1 through that type of shenanigans.

[LoyceV]

I feel like we're approaching this bottom-up instead of top-down. We've been reporting individual posts for years, and now some users get a signature ban, but it would have been much better to start from the top: if campaign managers who accepted spam got banned, there would be less posts to report and less signatures to ban.

The problem is that there are more campaign spots than there are decent members

Then compete on employment conditions: salary, sick leave, bonuses, dental, company car, the usual

I guess that majority of managers won't say no to a client if they know they won't be able to fill the campaign with quality posters, within the client's budget.

I bet the remaining campaign managers would suddenly change their ways after the first few campaigns are blacklisted and the campaign managers lost their position:

If improvements are not noticeable within 21 days of that and Staff do not believe you are doing enough to prevent low quality posts your signatures will be blacklisted from the forum by an Admin and you will no longer be permitted to advertise here in such a way.

Even if they do say no (which some probably do), the client will simply go to the next manager, who won't have an issue doing what's being asked.

Exactly. Some campaigns and their managers are doing good, while others have created a shitposting collective. That's why I like hilariousandco's guidelines: the company's signature would be banned, the shitposters would be banned, and the campaign manager would be banned from managing campaigns. Get rid of a few bad apples and I bet some others will actually improve their ways.

in my opinion, there is another top-down solution: demerit.

When I suggested that in 2018, I thought a few deMerit per month would be enough:

it could be limited to a maximum of 5 deMerit per user per month. This way it deranks many different users without destroying a large amount of Merit.

By now, many shitposters ranked up on local boards to even Hero or higher Rank. There's no point in deMeriting those amounts if some Merit sources keep rewarding them.

[notocactus]

By now, many shitposters ranked up on local boards to even Hero or higher Rank. There's no point in deMeriting those amounts if some Merit sources keep rewarding them.

Merit nuke  

It's like "merit nuke" and theymos will likely not approve that.

Surely merit can be abused and demerit can be abused. It was discussed there.

I only don't know that with demerit transactions in the past, only merit removed or smerit was removed too. If both merit and smerit were removed, it will cause like a serial effect to not only that user but the other users. I guess only merit was removed to avoid chaos.

[TokenTikas]

Would writing long and meaningless posts save you?

If there is nothing informative in long posts, then there is no point in making those posts. If an informative discussion can be made while keeping the post normal instead of making it long, then there is no need to make the post lengthy. On the other hand, these meaningless and long posts may naturally help increase the number of posts and activity, but there will not be any real benefit from doing them.

It won't save all spammers but some of them will be safe. Like how they masked their shitposts by writing it longer while it is still non sense

By making nonsense posts and long meaningless posts, they may be able to stay out of sight for a short time but they will not be able to hide their real nature for very long, so they will eventually get caught.

[Rikafip]

Then compete on employment conditions: salary, sick leave, bonuses, dental, company car, the usual

If nutildah keeps sig banning at the current rate, we might even see that happen in the near future. 

That why I like hilariousandco's guidelines: the company's signature would be banned, the shitposters would be banned, and the campaign manager would be banned from managing campaigns. Get rid of a few bad apples and I bet some others will actually improve their ways.

The mystery is why it's so rarely enforced (if ever). According to this post, ~1/3 of the Stake sig campaign members have been signature banned. That seems like a logical candidate for some of the measures mentioned in hilariousandco's guidelines. Like for example this one:

If you are running a campaign and it becomes blatantly obvious to Staff that you are doing little to nothing to stop spam on your campaign you will be issued a PM warning by a Global Moderator that you need to make immediate improvements to curb low-quality posts. You will have 7 days to remove low-quality posters and respond to the message detailing what you are going to do to make changes to your campaign to reduce the amount of spam. If improvements are not noticeable within 21 days of that and Staff do not believe you are doing enough to prevent low quality posts your signatures will be blacklisted from the forum by an Admin and you will no longer be permitted to advertise here in such a way

[TryNinja]

The first ban was was fuguebtc which was around 9 am on July 20th, along with 4 others. He is banned until Jan 16, 2027. That date minus 180 days is July 20th. I did 6 sigbans on the 21st and 10 on the 22nd, if that helps.

Right. I'll probably change the date manually for those bans.

I wish theymos added a timestamp to the modlog entries.

[notocactus]

By making nonsense posts and long meaningless posts, they may be able to stay out of sight for a short time but they will not be able to hide their real nature for very long, so they will eventually get caught.

Problems with them are they do many things at the same time.

Writing shitposts, making their posts longer but it's fine, they can hide themselves a long time.
Farming merit with shitposts, this is clearly and easily seen by community.
Farming trust maybe.
It can not be hidden a long time.

It's only when the forum has new policy to deal with these spammers because they will stop spamming if they don't rank up, they will not have chance of participating in campaign, and naturally reduce their spam, even stop posting.

Letting them ranking up will create bigger problems with time because they will use AI for making their jobs easier.

Not sure when

I'm still thinking about ways to resolve this issue, possibly involving rejiggering how merit works.

Then compete on employment conditions: salary, sick leave, bonuses, dental, company car, the usual

Superannuation too.