UniversalMonk, PapaSkwat, DonaldJMusk, TheSilentNickel, QuantumTickler, his communities are full of Astro turfing sock puppets.
EDIT: My list of sock puppets. I doubt it’s perfect and I may have picked up a few that weren’t him
Area15@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz
DonaldJMusk@lemmy.today
EndlessApollo@hilariouschaos.com
EndlessApollo@lemmy.libertarianfellowship.org
KaratinBandit@feddit.uk
PapaSkwat@lemmings.world
PapaSkwat@lemmy.today
PhilipsHurtFeelings@crazypeople.online
QuantumTickle@maga.place
Rhoerii@lemy.lol
Snatchdaddy@hilariouschaos.com
TheSilentNickel@feddit.org
barrygoldwater@lemmy.wtf
donaldjmusk@maga.place
thesilentnickel@lemmy.today
thesilentnickel@lemmyusa.com
donaldjmusk@lemmyusa.com
quantumtickler@hilariouschaos.com
quantumtickler@feddit.org
quantumtickler@lemmy.myserv.one
To the mods of this comm, I understand this isn’t a post complaining about a mod action taken against me. It’s hardly even a complaint against a mod, although he does mod a handful of communities. I know it’s a hard-to-prove personal message that the accused will deny sending or say was a joke he told a troll, his word vs mine. But this is beyond the usual actions mods take. This is abuse of the fediverse, harrassment, ban evasion, and vote manipulation.
I believe the situation to be self evident even without this message that the users who frequent DonaldJMusk’s comms are primarily him with a new username on a new server and they’re leaking out into other communities with ill intent.
If action is to be taken against this post, I ask that it be locked and not deleted.
I have a more effective way of confirming things like this if interested…
Out with it then. If there’s 300, and they’re run by other people, we’ll need more than subjectivity.
I’ll dm you a link when I’m at my machine.
Remind Human reminding you (I am not OP).
Here you go: https://codeberg.org/sillyhonu/lemmy-vote-analyzer
@[email protected]
I needed a bit to pull it from the various scripts where I built up parts of it and organize it into a repo. But now its done.
I built it in part to do what I think you are looking for here, which is to detect “upvote” or “downvote” networks, and eventually plan to do a sentiment analysis project based on these networks.
However, I would strongly suggest not projecting onto these results that things are “absolutely” bots or brigaders, or whatever. Reality is that actually, many people upvoting or downvoting is just a part of social media. Many times people have accused Monk of sockpuppeting, but I haven’t seen concrete evidence of this beyond some cursory looks into the matter. I’m mostly interested in the more traditional organic networks of coordinated behavior (relative to the content of the post). But you should be able to use this to look for more malicious stuff.
Results of this thread:
spoiler
================================================================================ Community 5: 9 members Edges: 24, Density: 0.667 Avg down weight: 0.005994 Down/Up ratio: 0.06 Suspicion score: 39.96 Members: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
================================================================================ Community 3: 6 members Edges: 9, Density: 0.600 Avg down weight: 0.006017 Down/Up ratio: 0.92 Suspicion score: 36.10 Members: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
================================================================================ Community 1: 22 members Edges: 75, Density: 0.325 Avg down weight: 0.001563 Down/Up ratio: 0.08 Suspicion score: 5.07 Members: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
================================================================================ Community 4: 49 members Edges: 234, Density: 0.199 Avg down weight: 0.001628 Down/Up ratio: 0.17 Suspicion score: 3.24 Sample (first 25): [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
================================================================================ Community 2: 28 members Edges: 82, Density: 0.217 Avg down weight: 0.001291 Down/Up ratio: 0.10 Suspicion score: 2.80 Sample (first 25): [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Formatted
spoiler
================================================================================ Community 5: 9 members Edges: 24, Density: 0.667 Avg down weight: 0.005994 Down/Up ratio: 0.06 Suspicion score: 39.96 Members: Bubberpillar@lemmy.ca, Chromebby@lemmy.world, DearMoogle@lemmy.today, DearMoogle@piefed.social, MelonYellow@lemmy.ca, MelonYellow@piefed.ca, MutantTailThing@lemmy.world, WhiteRabbit@lemmy.today, moodymellodrone@sopuli.xyz ================================================================================ Community 3: 6 members Edges: 9, Density: 0.600 Avg down weight: 0.006017 Down/Up ratio: 0.92 Suspicion score: 36.10 Members: AtHeartEngineer@lemmy.world, DarkDecay@lemmy.world, NewPerspective@lemmy.world, Node@lemmy.wtf, QuantumTickle@lemmy.zip, Zombiepirate@lemmy.world ================================================================================ Community 1: 22 members Edges: 75, Density: 0.325 Avg down weight: 0.001563 Down/Up ratio: 0.08 Suspicion score: 5.07 Members: 5too@lemmy.world, Albbi@lemmy.ca, AtariDump@lemmy.world, BCsven@lemmy.ca, Bassman1805@lemmy.world, ChrisPI@lemmy.world, MelodiousFunk@slrpnk.net, Pogogunner@sopuli.xyz, Pyotr@lemmy.world, Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world, SpiderShoeCult@sopuli.xyz, TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world, Waggles@lemmy.world, eugenevdebs@lemmy.dbzer0.com, gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world, grue@lemmy.world, njm1314@lemmy.world, nokturne213@sopuli.xyz, raoul@lemmy.sdf.org, reseller_pledge609@lemmy.dbzer0.com, sirxdaemon@lemmy.ca, zero_spelled_with_an_ecks@programming.dev ================================================================================ Community 4: 49 members Edges: 234, Density: 0.199 Avg down weight: 0.001628 Down/Up ratio: 0.17 Suspicion score: 3.24 Sample (first 25): 2fm@lemmy.world, 2xar@lemmy.world, 3nigma@lemmy.world, 87Six@lemmy.zip, AGD4@lemmy.world, A_Very_Big_Fan@lemmy.world, Aaron@lemmy.nz, Addv4@lemmy.world, AlexCory21@lemmy.world, AmbiguousProps@lemmy.today, Archangel1313@lemmy.ca, Assassassin@lemmy.dbzer0.com, AuroraZzz@lemmy.world, Bael422@lemmy.world, BakerBagel@midwest.social, Bdtrngl@lemmy.world, BeardedBlaze@lemmy.world, BedSharkPal@lemmy.ca, BeepTheJeep@lemmy.world, BigDaddySlim@lemmy.world, Buelldozer@lemmy.today, ChicoSuave@lemmy.world, DashboTreeFrog@discuss.online, DemBoSain@midwest.social, EbenezerScrew@lemmy.world ================================================================================ Community 2: 28 members Edges: 82, Density: 0.217 Avg down weight: 0.001291 Down/Up ratio: 0.10 Suspicion score: 2.80 Sample (first 25): 0xCalamity@feddit.org, 9bananas@feddit.org, AceTKen@lemmy.ca, AllHailTheSheep@sh.itjust.works, ArmchairAce1944@discuss.online, Deceptichum@quokk.au, Demdaru@lemmy.world, Goretantath@lemmy.world, JakenVeina@midwest.social, Nima@leminal.space, Odo@lemmy.world, OnfireNFS@lemmy.world, Rose_Thorne@lemmy.zip, Tryenjer@lemmy.world, Tyrq@lemmy.dbzer0.com, Zombie@feddit.uk, curbstickle@anarchist.nexus, devdoggy@lemmy.world, dil@lemmy.zip, frongt@lemmy.zip, hibernative_naptosis@feddit.uk, leftzero@lemmy.dbzer0.com, moakley@lemmy.world, simulacra_procession@lemmy.today, snooggums@piefed.worldMuch nice, thanks.
Some explanation. Density is effectively a measure of how “compact” a given community within the system is. Its the average rate of “agreement” for any given vote direction (weighted or unweighted). You could think of it as being how “concerted” a group of voters are.
You have some options with how you build the networks. You can use just upvotes, just downvotes, or you can 'weight" the upvotes or downvotes. Weighting is important because some users just vote, way way more than others. In fact, there are users you can find in the wild who have practically never commented or posted, but vote on practically everything they see. Its not a safe assumption to make to suggest that everyone votes in the same manner or that voting as a tool is used the same way by all users.
In this network, we did “weighted” downvotes, so the weights are proportioned by the users total down-votes cast.
So the “Avg down weight” can be considered the “total average shared percent of user downvotes”. So in that first community, about half a percent of the communities total average downvotes are in concert.
You can of course use upvotes, or unweighted down or upvotes, and I’m just pushing a version now to do a k-partite version of the same thing with individual weights, so just… go nuts if you like.
Suspicion score is finally:
density* average_down_scaled* 10000
This means groups with high density and high downvote coordination have higher suspicion socres. The 10000 is just to make the number something easier on the eyes.
Hmmm, I’m not really showing up as suspicious in those stats, yet many of the accounts that routinely accuse me of shit, do show up under the suspicious label in that data. Hmmmm…very very interesting…
I’m sure it’s just coincidence that they accuse you of doing it while they do it. The certainly doesn’t have a word for it in their language they use on you.
Funny how people will just overlook or ignore this part of your post. lol
You seem like a straight up guy, because you have a pretty long history of jumping into these threads saying you had ways to find out, even tho you have no love for me. So I appreciate ya being neutral about the whole thing. I looked at your stats, but I have no idea what they were saying. Still, good on ya for posting some original data.
Hey look it’s proof of innocence (because it’s always guilty until proven innocent for such people) and they’re ignoring it. Wild how that happens.
Probably not more effective than my method - but you need to be an instance admin to be able to use my method.
No my approach is assuredly much more effective.
And because if that, it’s all ignored. Math is a lie.
Edit: Rhoeri if you can downvote me, you can at least read the mathematical proof that says you could be wrong. Oh well, sorry for giving more proof you don’t like.