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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 11 months ago (21 children)

This admin will state that UM is a bot. And wouldn't ya know it some of the other signup attempts used the alt names. Weird that.

I don't think many admins know infosec practices very well to be frank.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 21 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 11 months ago (20 children)

    So we have 2 admins who have proof he's not and 1 who has no proof (documents, photos, just anecdotal).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 11 months ago (8 children)

    Nooope, I have IP data, email logs, and other things. However, much of the data had fallen off my WAF retention period. Oddly convenient how you just assume I don't have these things rather than keeping them close because I don't want the bots to figure out how I'm catching them.

    When you conveniently leave out that providing proof reduces an admins ability to re-use certain detection methods, it makes me pretty convinced you're complicit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    When you conveniently leave out that providing proof reduces an admins ability to re-use certain detection methods

    How the heck would anyone but you know that your proof would reveal your detection method? That's not a given.

    And what's the point of collecting proof if the only way you have to convince others is "trust me bro, I've got the evidence, but you can't see it, my dog ate it."

    And then when asked for proof you jump to implicate the person asking for proof? That's terrible form. We have an instance rule against bad-jacketing users:

    • Don’t be shitty to each other. i.e. [...] or bad-jacketing is bannable.
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago

    Well, You're more than welcome to reach out on more secure comms, such as matrix to get the proof! It's strange how that's basically standard for most of the other respectable instances, but not here.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago* (4 children)

    Give the documents then? And am I a bot now too?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    Give the documents then? And am I a bot now too?

    Interesting how you continue to leave out the security implications of posting this publicly.

    Odd that.

    I know not if you are a bot, you aren't on my instance, nor would it be likely you could get through my process.

    I do know that you are awfully defensive of sockpuppet like behavior though.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago

    The sock puppet behavior of... One user being harassed by users and defending them? The sock puppet behavior of... Wanting screenshots?

    Hey @Flatworm7591@lemmy.dbzer0.com is it possible to take screenshots that would prove something without being a security leak?

    Like somehow you claim he signed up with the same email. Or same address, or anything. But no proof because it's a security risk.

    Yeah I have Bigfoot in my basement. No you can't see him. No I can't give you photographs. Just take my word for it. Why yes others have said it without proof before but I'm different.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 child)

    Haven't you heard? You and I are the same bot. And we control a top secret government-sanctioned group of bots who create bots who create more bots. Because Lemmy has millions and millions of users and can topple entire governments. Keep up, man! 🤣

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    Hey don't forget the admin that says I'm a bot now. DM me and I'll give ya my phone number so we can chat. I wanna know if my voice sounds like a bot too!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -2 points 11 months ago (8 children)

    You have ZERO admins with proof he’s not.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (7 children)

    lemmy.today and lemmy.db0, but sure.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 11 months ago (6 children)
  • [–] -3 points 11 months ago (5 children)

    It's in the thread but I guess you're blind to anyone who proves you wrong.

    https://lemmy.today/comment/20873694 https://lemmy.today/comment/20873891

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 11 months ago (4 children)

    So you deny that you’re entirely full of shit, and then bring proof that you are?

    You do you, foo!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 11 months ago (3 children)

    So how does that prove me wrong? Where's the evidence form you?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    You claimed they proved it’s not that shitheel UniversalMonk. They didn’t.

    That’s how.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 child)

    And the proof it's UM is?

    EDIT: So no proof. Guilty until proven innocent.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -3 points 11 months ago

    You can’t even admit you’re full of shit when proven to be, do you think I honestly expect you to accept anything said that proves he is?

    Shit don’t work like that in the real world bud.

    Now go on and pretend you won all the internet points and do your “sEe? i’M riGhT b-cUz u WoNt aNsWeR!l

  • source
  • parent