Channel
@webamoozir
On this record: Topic · Growth · Engagement · What this channel posts · Reactions · Stars · Posts · Posts edited after publishing · Citations · Handles named that no longer answer · Telegram's recommendations · Cross-platform identity · Referenced elsewhere · Cite this entry
116,272subscribers
+923 since we began measuring on 5 August 2026
Risers and fallers across the register · movement among entries of 100,000–316,228.
| Telegram ID | -1001014833787 |
|---|---|
| Type | Channel |
| Username | @webamoozir |
| Description | وب آموز خبر مطالب این کانال توسط کارشناسان جرایم سایبری تایید شده اند. اگر در رابطه با هر مطلب توضیح و یا شکایتی دارید آن را برای ما ایمیل کنید. webamooz.com iici.io ارتباط: [email protected] کانال اسناد و حذفیات @webamz |
| Created | 29 January 2016 — measured — cross-checked against a third-party dataset (ext.tg_channel) |
| First recorded | 5 August 2026 |
| Last confirmed live | 17 September 2026 |
| Measurements held | 34 |
| Confirmed unchanged | 1 time, most recently 17 September 2026 |
| On Telegram | t.me/webamoozir |
Hacking & security — a classification, not a measurement. An on-box language model (Qwen3.6-35B-A3B-UD-Q6_K_XL, prompt version 1) read this channel’s own recent posts on 9 August 2026 and assigned it the closest of 31 fixed categories, at 85% confidence. This is a model’s judgement about what the channel is likely to be about, not a fact this register measured the way a subscriber count or a view count is measured — it can be revised on a later pass, and it carries no weight anywhere else on this page. How this classification works, and why it has no browse page of its own yet.
| Measured (UTC) | Subscribers | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 17 Sept 2026, 20:39 | 116,272 | -37 |
| 15 Sept 2026, 15:19 | 116,309 | -50 |
| 13 Sept 2026, 23:36 | 116,359 | -34 |
| 12 Sept 2026, 07:14 | 116,393 | -55 |
| 9 Sept 2026, 23:19 | 116,448 | -56 |
| 6 Sept 2026, 14:19 | 116,504 | -33 |
| 4 Sept 2026, 01:55 | 116,537 | +15 |
| 2 Sept 2026, 18:38 | 116,522 | -9 |
| 1 Sept 2026, 14:13 | 116,531 | -18 |
| 31 Aug 2026, 16:27 | 116,549 | -23 |
| 30 Aug 2026, 19:57 | 116,572 | -7 |
| 29 Aug 2026, 22:03 | 116,579 | +18 |
| 28 Aug 2026, 22:04 | 116,561 | +53 |
| 28 Aug 2026, 00:47 | 116,508 | +167 |
| 26 Aug 2026, 22:45 | 116,341 | +106 |
| 26 Aug 2026, 01:41 | 116,235 | +14 |
| 25 Aug 2026, 04:25 | 116,221 | -5 |
| 24 Aug 2026, 02:44 | 116,226 | +28 |
| 22 Aug 2026, 09:06 | 116,198 | +12 |
| 20 Aug 2026, 21:16 | 116,186 | first reading |
13,762 posts held, back to 9 September 2016 — the reader has reached the start of this channel’s public history, so this is the full archive Telegram still exposes. Read across 1,001 pages of Telegram’s post history, 20 posts per page.
ERR is average views per post over the last 30 days divided by subscribers, the definition TGStat uses, so this figure is comparable with the one you will see elsewhere. It falls structurally as a channel grows: a high ERR on a small channel and a low one on a large channel describe reach mathematics, not quality. We publish the figure and the sample it came from and pass no verdict on it.
ER is defined industry-wide as (forwards + reactions + comments) ÷ views — note the denominator is views, not subscribers. Telegram’s public web preview carries views and reactions but not forward or comment counts, so the reaction rate above is the reactions term only and is therefore a floor: the true ER for this channel is higher by an amount we have not measured and will not estimate.
| Window | Rolling 30 days · latest post in window 26 September 2026 |
|---|---|
| Posts held | 13,762 (9 September 2016 – 26 September 2026) |
| Views total | 816,200 |
| Reactions total | 13,124 |
| Forwards / comments | not exposed by the public surface — not measured, not estimated |
| Readings taken | 28 Sept 2026, 10:19 UTC |
Views are a single reading per post, taken at the time above. A post published in the last day or two is still accumulating views, which pulls the 30-day average down slightly. That is a property of the standard definition rather than a fault in it, so we keep the definition rather than “correcting” the number into something nobody can reproduce.
Precision. Telegram publishes view counts on its public widget in short form — 8.12K, 3.7M — so any reading at or above 1,000 reaches us rounded to three significant figures, and only counts below 1,000 are exact. Averages and rates derived from them are shown to the same precision rather than to the unit: a figure like 3,701,250 would assert digits nobody measured.
Reaction counts are published per emoji and rounded the same way, so a total below 1,000 is exact and a larger one is a sum that may carry a rounded component from each emoji above 1,000. Because it is a sum, it does not look rounded — read a large reaction total as three significant figures per contributing emoji rather than as the figure it prints.
Lifetime counters from Telegram’s own channel header, read 28 September 2026 — not the date at the top of this page, which is when the subscriber count was last read. A count marked ≈ was rounded by Telegram before we ever saw it — t.me prints these counters in full below 1,000 and to three significant figures above, so ≈142,000 means somewhere between 141,500 and 142,499.
Measured directly from 10 videos with a duration reading, out of the posts we hold for this channel — not this channel’s whole posting history, only the sample this register has actually read. An exact reading to the second, taken from the post itself rather than from Telegram’s own rounded chrome, so it carries no ≈ mark.
42,443 reactions across 73 posts, in 5 distinct kinds. The most used accounts for 38.4% of them.
| Reaction | Count | Share | Share, drawn |
|---|---|---|---|
| 🤣 | 16,298 | 38.4% | |
| ❤ | 12,340 | 29.1% | |
| 👍 | 10,419 | 24.5% | |
| 🤬 | 3,009 | 7.09% | |
| 👎 | 377 | 0.888% |
No sentiment is inferred, and none should be read in. This table is ordered by count and by nothing else. Emoji do not carry stable meaning across languages or communities — 🙏 is thanks in one channel and mourning in another — so we publish which ones were pressed and how often, and pass no judgement on what an audience meant by them.
Precision. Telegram publishes reaction counts per emoji and short-forms each one — 4.34K, 1.2M — so any single kind at or above 1,000 reaches us at three significant figures, and only counts below 1,000 are exact. The shares above are ratios of those figures and carry the same error. This is also why the total here can differ slightly from a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page: both are sums of the same rounded parts, taken over samples with different edges.
Coverage. Reactions were read on 999 of the 1,000 sampled posts in this sample. Summed by Telegram’s own count on each post — not by adding up the per-emoji breakdown above — those same posts carry 1,055,619 reactions in total: the kind of figure the paragraph above means by “a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page”.
Measured over the 1,000 most recent posts we hold (the sample is capped at 1,000), published 4 June 2025 to 26 September 2026, using the newest reading held for each. Telegram Stars are excluded: they are a payment, not a reaction, and they have their own section.
A paid reaction is a reader spending Telegram Stars — bought with money — on a post by @webamoozir. Telegram publishes the count on the public post preview alongside ordinary reactions, and this register reads it there. It is the only figure on this site that measures money moving rather than attention.
Stars are not reactions, and the two are never added. They are rendered in the same strip on Telegram and counted in the same shape, but one is a tap and the other is a purchase. The reaction totals and the engagement rate elsewhere on this page exclude every figure in this section, and no rate here is computed against a reaction count.
This is not revenue, and we publish no currency figure. What a Star costs a reader and what it pays a channel are different numbers, Telegram takes a share we cannot observe, and the terms have changed. Converting a Star count into money would be an estimate dressed as a measurement, so the count is where we stop.
Counted over the 1,000 most recent posts we hold for this entry (the sample is capped at 1,000), published 4 June 2025 to 26 September 2026. Star counts above 1,000 reach us in Telegram’s short form and carry the same three-significant-figure rounding as everything else on this page.
⭕️ این چه مسخره بازیه با آبروی برند بازی میکنن؟! اگر این داستان روایتی باشه که میلی گلد میگه، تصمیمات مسئولین نتیجه ای جز ناراضی کردن بیشتر مردم نداشته! کار به جایی رسیده میلی گلد به شعام نامه زده! قدم بعدی اینه که مدیرعامل میلی گلد در صحن عمومی سازمان ملل موضوع رو مطرح کنه:) واقعا عجیبه! امیدواریم مشکلشون برطرف شه. #میلی_گلد 🆔 @Webamoozir
🤣343👍63❤33🤬13👎4
Signed m J
⭕️ در پی گزارشهای کاربران درباره مشکلات تسویه در پلتفرم میلیگُلد، این شرکت توضیحاتی منتشر کرد. #میلی_گلد 🆔 @Webamoozir
🤣261❤44👍34🤬13👎3
Signed m J
بهش بگم یا زوده؟
🤣1,160❤19👍12👎4
Signed m J
شروع شد: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlJfjwlIIOk
❤135👍26🤣15👎3
Signed m J
⭕️ امشب ساعت 8 به وقت تهران میریم لایواستریم - موضوع بررسی راه های برون رفت از انسداد تنگه هرمز و فروش نفت به کره جنوبی. 📺 #لایواستریم رو از یوتیوب ببنید. YouTube.com/jorjandi 🆔 @Webamoozir
🤣492❤98👍26👎9
Signed m J
نامه قضایی رو هم گذاشتم شاید یادش رفته، تجدید خاطره بشه. پیشنهاد میکنم همون فرمون رو برو گیربکس نشکونی خلبان.
🤣404👍53❤36👎6
Signed m J
🔹 دنیای عجیبی شده #میثم_شکری_ساز از کانادا پهلوی استوری میکنه و درخواست دادگاه عادل داره:) انگار طی 8 سال گذشته ما فیلترش کردیم و نامه قضایی زدیم که اغتشاشگر بوده و دلویی و کمالی رفیق ما بودن خبر نداشتیم:) چقدر تو وقیحی، دادگاه عادل میخواستی 7 روز مونده به دادگاه ویرجینیا در نمیرفتی خلبان:) 🔹 #میثم_شکری_ساز سالهاست که به نمایندگان و مسئولین کشور مدارک جعلی فروخته است! https://webamooz.com/?p=21691 https://macanlea…
🤣526❤63👍60🤬15👎4
Signed m J
⭕️ آقای #میثم_شکری_ساز، خلبان، فوق دکترا، پروفسور، کارآفرین، وقت خودت و مارو نگیر ویدیوهات از یوتیوب حذف نمیشه:) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4uxf2OM64E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbjfAt_I2j4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVxfEmxNjpc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxr37yahJOo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QYXcRaRN2g 🆔 @Webamoozir
🤣731❤96👍52🤬1
Signed m J
دوستان مهمه که نصب کنید و تست کنید و نظرتون، رو بهم اینجا بگید @wmfacts هر باگ ای دیدی یا پیشنهادی داشتید لطف میکنید بفرستید
❤211👍39🤣5👎4🤬1
Signed m J
PowerSEC؛ مراقبت از سایت وردپرسی، سادهتر از همیشه برای سایتتان وقت گذاشتهاید، محتوا ساختهاید و اعتماد مشتری جمع کردهاید. مراقبت از این زحمتها را به بعد از هکشدن موکول نکنید. PowerSEC؛ ابزارهای کاربردی امنیت وردپرس را یکجا در اختیارتان میگذارد؛ از مقابله با درخواستهای مخرب و محافظت از ورود مدیران تا بررسی فایلهای مشکوک و تهیهٔ نسخهٔ پشتیبان. PowerSEC؛ چه کمکی به شما میکند؟ 🛡 مقابله با حملات رایج فایر…
❤262👍46🤣6🤬1
Signed m J
⭕️ از اطلاعات جمع آوری شده در Scamminder گزارش جالبی از شبکه های کلاهبرداری جمع شده اینجا بخونید: https://scamminder.com/blog/scam-networks-reused-contacts-wallets-templates 🆔 @Webamoozir
❤211👍37🤬1
Signed m J
⭕️ بهنام جان ممنون که ایمیل زدی، اکانت اینستاگرام شخصی من این روزها فقط برای تبلیغ کسب و کارهای اینستاگرامی مردم ایران است و این تنها کاری است که از دستم برمیاد، نه پولی گرفتم نه میشناسمشون ولی افتخار میکنم افرادی دارن زحمت میکشن که پول سالم و حلال دربیارن و افتخار میکنم به اینها و تنها کاری است که از دستم برمیاد استوری کردن این کسب و کارهاست، به اندازه توانم. خدا مردم ایران رو از هر بلایی حفظ کنه. 🆔 @Webamoozir
❤556🤣45👍34👎4🤬3
Signed m J
Showing the 12 most recent of 13,762 posts we hold for @webamoozir. View and reaction counts are the latest single reading for each post, not a live figure, and a recent post is still accumulating both. A view count marked ≈ was rounded by Telegram before we ever saw it — t.me prints views in full below 1,000 and to three significant figures above, so ≈1,200,000 means somewhere between 1,150,000 and 1,249,999. Unmarked counts are exact. Text is reproduced from the public post preview and truncated for length.
Stars beside a post are paid reactions — Telegram Stars, bought with money and spent on that post. They are a different unit from reactions and are never added to them, here or anywhere else on this page.
@webamoozir edited 2 posts after it first published — the same permalink now carries different wording than the one this register originally read, caught because our own crawl held a copy of the earlier text.
An edit is not deception. Typo fixes, price updates and corrections look exactly like this too — this register can tell you the wording changed and when, not why. How this is measured.
Republished by
Channels on the register that have forwarded this channel's posts into their own feed.
Republished by 64 registered channels. The 48 listed are the ones that have forwarded the most posts; the rest are counted here but not each listed.
Republishes
Channels on the register whose posts this channel has forwarded.
Built only from forwarded posts we have actually read, on both sides. Coverage is early and deliberately incomplete: a missing link means we have not read the post that would prove it, never that the relationship does not exist. Counts are distinct forwarded posts observed, so they only ever go up as we read more.
Named by 88 registered channels — every channel on the register whose own posts have named this one, by its current username or any other username it currently holds, merged from two separately captured readings of the same fact so a namer caught by only one of them is not missed and a namer both caught is not counted twice. A username this channel has since dropped is not matched — that handle may belong to someone else now, and crediting today’s namer to yesterday’s owner would misattribute it. The 24 listed below are the most frequent namers; the rest are counted above but not each listed.
Named by
Channels on the register whose posts name this channel's handle.
Names
Channels on the register whose handles appear in this channel's posts.
A mention is a weaker signal than a forward and is counted separately for that reason — naming a channel is not republishing it, and a handle in a post body is easy to place deliberately. The post counts beside each row below are distinct posts in which the handle appeared, from posts we have read on both sides — the “Named by N registered channels” figure above is a different count, of distinct NAMING CHANNELS rather than posts, and is not the sum of the rows under it.
@webamoozir named 143 handles that resolve to nothing today. That is a fact about the reference, not necessarily a fact about the handle’s history — see the two groups below.
Most of these may never have existed as a live channel at all. A handle a channel names can be a typo, an aspirational name nobody registered, or a channel that was already gone before this one ever mentioned it. Unless a row below is marked evidenced, all we know is that it references a handle that is not a live channel today — not that anything “died”. How this is measured.
We ourselves saw each of these resolve to a real page at some point before it went vacant — a genuine, evidenced change, not an inference from absence.
References a handle that is not a live channel — we have no record it ever was one.
93 more handles are in this same list but not shown individually here — capped at 50.
Telegram’s own answer, not this register’s. When this register asks Telegram’s API what is similar to this channel, this is the list it returns, in the exact order Telegram returns it — never re-sorted by subscribers or by anything else this register measures. The relationship, and the order, are Telegram’s; we record them and date them, and make no claim of our own about which of these channels actually resemble this one.
Read from Telegram’s recommendation API, most recently 14 August 2026. Telegram holds a list like this for a small and growing share of the register — how this is measured, and why most channel pages show nothing here.
The reverse of the list above, and a different kind of signal. This does not require this channel to have ever been asked about directly — each row below is a channel we DID ask Telegram about, whose Telegram-generated list happened to include this one. A channel can appear here with an empty list above it, because being named by someone else’s query is independent of having been queried itself.
This channel appears in 89 seed channels' Telegram-generated recommendation lists in total, of which the 24 where it ranks highest are shown above. Each is Telegram’s list for THAT channel, not this one — see how this is measured.
A Wikidata item names this Telegram handle as belonging to the entity it describes. This is Wikidata’s claim, not a verification made by this register — nobody here confirmed that the account is genuinely operated by the entity named. Wikidata content is CC0; every fact below is dated to when it was read from Wikidata, not to when the association was first made there.
| Label | Mohammad Jorjandi |
|---|---|
| Description | Cybercrime Expert |
| X / Twitter | @jorjandii |
| YouTube | UCUgRXyPBQ2-HhsTlO_ryC6A |
This handle named by sources this register does not control and did not measure — each shown exactly as found, attributed by name, dated to when it was read.
Wikipedia
2 Wikipedia articles name this handle in its article text, found by searching for a t.me link inside the article source. A citation is a notability signal, not a verification: nobody here confirmed the cited post is genuine or still says what the article quotes. Article text is CC BY-SA 4.0, Wikipedia contributors; snippets below are short excerpts.
A live page changes as we take new readings, so a citation should name the measurement it is based on, not just the URL. The line below cites the subscriber count as measured 17 September 2026 — this entry's latest reading, not the date you are reading this.
“وب آموز” (@webamoozir), 116,272 subscribers as measured 17 September 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/webamoozir.
Full measurement history, CC BY 4.0. Every reading this register holds for this entry, not just the latest one, as a dated, downloadable record: CSV · JSON. Free to use with attribution to tgregister.com. Each file carries its own generation timestamp, which is the figure to cite for exactly when the data was retrieved.