View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Fri Oct 18, 2019 2:17 pm




Reply to topic  [ 8 posts ] 
Fucking shitty troll bots in general 
Author Message
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 8:20 am
Posts: 3483
Reply with quote
Look here, I I found this. Uploaded by this WIR.

And what is written on it? A project of the UVA of automatic detection of on line abuse, in cooperation with T&S.

What is here going on. First fucking trolling Detox bot is switched off and now this. What is this of kind of fucking troll bot. One thing is for sure, Jan Eißfeldt is holding something back. Maybe they don't have used fucking trolling Dextor bot, but for sure they have used A fucking trolling bot.... Or was fucking trolling Dextor bot a part of this project? And that the reason Jan ordered to switch it off?

_________________
Mijn blog. (In Dutch) of kom eens gezellig bij de Kolonel langs in Eerbeek.
En kijk eens hier, het "Verboden" lijstje van door mij aangemaakte artiklen.

. Image
.Winner of
The SanBan


Last edited by Graaf Statler on Sat Jun 29, 2019 3:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Sat Jun 29, 2019 12:36 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 8:20 am
Posts: 3483
Reply with quote
Quote:
I can clarify -- nobody at the WMF is using the Detox tool. Our Research team collaborated with Jigsaw on training Detox in 2016-2017, and found some promising-looking initial results. In 2017, the Anti-Harassment Tools team tried out using Detox to detect harassment on Wikipedia, and we found the same kinds of flaws that you have. The tool is inaccurate and doesn't take context into account, leading to false positives (flagging the word "gay" as aggressive even in a neutral or positive context) and false negatives (missing more nuanced uses of language, like sarcasm). As far as we know, the model hasn't really improved. I believe there's a team at Jigsaw who are still investigating how to use Detox to study conversations at Wikipedia, but nobody at the WMF is using Detox to identify harassers on Wikimedia projects. I'm glad that you brought it up; I just edited that page to remove the outdated passages that mention Detox. Other surveys, studies and reports are sufficient to establish that harassment is a serious problem on our platform. DannyH (WMF) 19:10, 29 June 2019 (UTC)


https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php? ... d=19172700

User:Graaf Statler
Revision as of 21:57, 19 April 2017
WMFOffice (WMF Globally Banned)

Fucking lying shitheads with your fucking shit bots.

_________________
Mijn blog. (In Dutch) of kom eens gezellig bij de Kolonel langs in Eerbeek.
En kijk eens hier, het "Verboden" lijstje van door mij aangemaakte artiklen.

. Image
.Winner of
The SanBan


Sat Jun 29, 2019 3:25 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 8:20 am
Posts: 3483
Reply with quote
Quote:
From what I understand they are not using that tool, nor is anyone using that tool, as it is still in development. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:59, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Come on doc, you nose is growing. WMF has two smoking pistols in it's hands and the dead body's are laying everywhere around. Docter's are supposed not to lie.

Quote:
I don't understand how you're concluding that the WMF is using some sort of sentiment analysis tool just because they cited that particular diff. I could spin around and point at printouts of Fram's edits on the wall and land on that one, but that doesn't mean that T&S spun around and pointed to choose a diff over which to ban him. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:34, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Under the wiki glas bell it seems still very safe, but there is also a world outside who doesn't believe a single word of you and the rest there is not experimented with fucking shitty troll bots by Trolling&Shitheads
We are going in the direction of the Boeing 737 MAX story what had in the beginning also not any problem, isn't it?

Just a question, did Alexander take his "expertise" with fucking troll bots with him to Twitter? Well, in that case don't be surprised if your twitter account is out the air after you have posted a picture of your cat, Molly.

Pussy determined! Alarm! Account on black and a life time ban!

_________________
Mijn blog. (In Dutch) of kom eens gezellig bij de Kolonel langs in Eerbeek.
En kijk eens hier, het "Verboden" lijstje van door mij aangemaakte artiklen.

. Image
.Winner of
The SanBan


Sun Jun 30, 2019 1:02 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 8:20 am
Posts: 3483
Reply with quote
Quote:
About the Hearse Song

A surprising number of people have privately asked me about the version of The Hearse Song that I posted on my userpage. For some reason, several of them interpreted that posting to mean that I thought the project was dead, so I think I'd better clarify. My grandmother taught me that song to help me to understand some pretty advanced concepts for a pre-schooler, which I've mentioned in the "attribution" line. None of them relate to death itself; they're about not taking pleasure in the downfall of others and of understanding that the bad thing that happened to someone else could just as easily happen to me. I could have added a John Donne quote as well, but I got lazy.

I was right there as the process for using OFFICE to globally ban users was codified, and I was an advocate of it then and continue to be an advocate of the process and principles that were designed at that time. It was not intended to be some sort of back-door user behaviour management system. It was meant to remove users from any kind of participation in any Wikimedia-related activities if they had demonstrated certain behaviours that were extremely problematic for both the community and the WMF: people who triggered big red flags that were outside of the ability of local communities to address, or that needed to be addressed on a system-wide basis. I'm pretty sure that most of the people involved in the original development (most if not all of them no longer work at WMF) did not foresee that within a few years, others would use the same process and same tools to address user behaviour issues that local communities regularly address through their internal processes. I am personally devastated that the work I did to remove paedophile advocates and actual stalkers (i.e., people who showed up at the homes or workplaces of editors/staff) from this project has now been used in this way.

The WMF, simply put, doesn't have the staffing, the knowledge, the experience, or the credibility to modify the behaviour of individual users in a way that is likely to lead to a good outcome for the projects involved or the users involved. The process Trust & Safety describes, where a person can file a complaint with them and gets told of the progress of the case but the subject of the complaint (I'll call that person User X) is given almost no information about what behaviours triggered the complaint or support on how to modify behaviour, is designed in such a way that it is almost guaranteed to result in User X no longer participating (i.e. User X is likely to quit entirely or be banned). There is no system of regular joint review of actions/edits to identify problems, of positive feedback, of involving the community to help in providing reinforcement or progressive discipline. There's nothing that prevents the complainant from telling all their friends to file complaints with T&S about User X. And I can speak from my years of experience on Arbcom that tracking and reviewing the edits/actions of a busy User X and putting them into context can take almost as much time as it took User X to make them in the first place; even if that was all that T&S staff did, they'd have a hard time doing it effectively.

There is an argument for Trust & Safety or another Community Engagement program's involvement when there is evidence that a particular community is blatantly biased in handling certain types of issues (for example, if a community systematically took steps to support a certain political party, or if there was a systematic effort to prevent gay contributors or women from editing at all or becoming administrators or checkusers), but that wouldn't involve secret private emails to individual users saying that they were misbehaving in ways that wouldn't be discussed for privacy reasons. It would involve publicly and visibly discussing these problems with the broad community, a process that is much more likely to achieve the desired outcome.

Editors who applaud the year-long, single-project ban of a proliferate editor for pretty non-specific reasons through this means should be cautious about their celebrations. This type of secretive investigation with non-specific descriptions of wrongdoing that the accused can't effectively address is well-known. In this case, it's been used to control someone perceived to be "popular" or "part of the in-set". But these same tools could just as easily be turned on anyone; in fact, outside of this project this type of process has frequently been used to subjugate underrepresented and disenfranchised people far more often than it has been used against people who are considered mainstream. I'm not celebrating this, and I hope anyone who is thinks twice about it. Risker (talk) 03:00, 30 June 2019 (UTC)


Thank you for your explanation, Risker, but what have I to do with this if I may ask? I only said the pirate approch on WP-NL was the wrong one and wrote some articles about forgotten Dutch professors, Dutch wind mills and Greece. They where always without any comment accepted.

And for the rest I have not the slightest idea what I should have to do with this. And in my opnion is the probelm not red flags, but pirate flags. Something what is systematical ignored in Gendergate till now. Just like my blunder ban. We just don't talk about the blunder bans out of the past of Brainless&Idiots, and every day is a new one.

The Framban is not a new incident, it has a long story and history with all kind of substory's, but we just ignore that.
Well, mark my words, nothing will be solved in this way. The house will burn down till the ground at the end in this way. And I will be pleased to add as much benzine as I can if they want to handle it in this way. From the best Dutch quality.

It will absolute my pleasure.

_________________
Mijn blog. (In Dutch) of kom eens gezellig bij de Kolonel langs in Eerbeek.
En kijk eens hier, het "Verboden" lijstje van door mij aangemaakte artiklen.

. Image
.Winner of
The SanBan


Sun Jun 30, 2019 4:58 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 8:20 am
Posts: 3483
Reply with quote
A new posting of TDA on Breitbart about the fucking Detox WMF troll bot.

https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2019/07/ ... e-hostile/

_________________
Mijn blog. (In Dutch) of kom eens gezellig bij de Kolonel langs in Eerbeek.
En kijk eens hier, het "Verboden" lijstje van door mij aangemaakte artiklen.

. Image
.Winner of
The SanBan


Wed Jul 03, 2019 3:38 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 4171
Reply with quote
People who pretend that these tools have bee developed without human oversight (or would be used without it), are merely showing their ignorance, and their unsuitability for the critic cause. I looked into the study that revealed the 9% figure at the time, and the methodology is as robust as you would expect of actual research.

Of course journalists are going to report such finding uncritically if there's no reason to doubt it - they're journalists, not researchers. It's their job. Anyone who doubts the research, can publish their own study using whatever methodologies they think are better - all the underlying data that study used is freely available, as is their methodology. To date, nobody has, as far as I have seen.

Anyone who doubts the findings of the research, needs to be honest - do they even understand it? If these people can't even demonstrate that, why should they even be listened to? The bias to women for example - it either comes a bias in the training set, or more likely the humans asked to rate the seriousness of personal attacks to train the model. AI is not a traditional algorithm, you can't just add a line that says 'if woman add 10%' (well, you can, but it would be an obvious add-on).

People who think they are proving something by rick-rolling the tool, these retards clearly can't even read.....
Quote:
The limits of this research include that it only looked at egregious and easily identifiable personal attacks. ..... The model does little for other forms of harassment on Wikipedia; for example, it is not very good at identifying threats.
Wikipediocracy is full of absolute steamers like that. Pointing out their deficiencies, perfectly politely, is why I was banned. I'm still waiting for Cas Liber to find the balls to actually demonstrate I somehow don't know what I'm talking about. He said it. The forum management spared him his blushes, as is their apparent job - protecting shitheel Wikipedians, whose anus is often their mouth hole.

When the worst you can say about the tool is it might under-estimate the number of outright personal attacks, and can't detect all the other things that account for why the apparent level of harassment on Wikipedia is so high based on user surveys, then you need to have a serious word with yourself. Are you a serious critic, or merely a reflexive defender of scum like Eric Corbett and their inalienable rights to be an ashole? We know what Cas is, because he is shameless and readily admits it (and even if he didn't, there is enough evidence to prove that is what he is).

No serious critic with a ton of experience watching the Wikipedians and their failed system of governance, doubts the conclusion of that study....
Quote:
the majority of personal attacks on Wikipedia are not the result of a few malicious users, nor primarily the consequence of allowing anonymous contributions from unregistered users.
The toxic culture is embedded in the regular user base. People like Fram, and the hundreds prepared to try and deny he has done anything wrong, or at least nothing serious.

If you're gonna do deep dive journalism of Wikipedia, you need to demonstrate you can actually deep dive. Take this......
Quote:
Criticism of the Detox tool had emerged after it was brought up in connection with the recent banning of a veteran administrator by the Wikimedia Foundation. Users suggested some form of automated system may have been used to examine the conduct of the administrator, though the Foundation has denied the allegation.
Sounds spooky, right? So what happened. Well, FeydHuxtable made a very long post at 12:55, 22 June 2019 where he basically just speculated based on nothing but the fact research like this has been done, to build a narrative where T&S has supposedly expended thousands of dollars and millions of computing cycles to identify the the top ten most likely victims of Fram's harassment, contacted them and built their case on their testimony. This is a markedly different allegation to what is implied by Breitbart on that paragraph, or their linking to the rick-rolling of Detox by Seraphimblade at 15:51, 22 June 2019.

Now, maybe people are stupid and might assume FeydHuxtable and Seraphimblade were just concerned citizens, people whose concerns the Foundation should quite rightly be answering. But of, course this is Wikipedia. In reality, in the pantheon of thories as to why Fram might have been banned, these two are on the extreme fringe. These people genuinely believe Fram did nothing wrong, that literally all he is guilty of, is enforcing policy. They are explicit, what Fram did is covered by what harassment is not.

Now, I'm not suggesting the WMF hasn't used serious technology to study Fram, but if they have, the denial is difficult to explain. Perhaps it is significant that they only appear to have denied using this tool? Everything we know about these sort of tools, tells us that they can assist such investigations, and for all their limitations, they simply wouldn't be identifying any victims of Fram's harassment if all he was doing was tracking their contributions to enforce policy, and those who say they do not, are saying it from a position of ignorance.

The Fram controversy has revealed what all these researchers probably realize pretty quickly - the Wikipedians in general are a very unethical bunch, not remotely geared to dispassionate analysis of anything, least of all their own culture. Harassment is a nuanced issue, it requires the ability to see things from multiple perspectives. Just as Fram's victims feelings can't simply be used to convict him, his absolute certainty in his own mind that what he was doing was a good faith attempt to enforce policy, cannot also be taken as read. Policy says don't ignore the concerns of others. That is just one example of how you can quite easily find Fram guilty, his victim's experience having been closer to the truth.


Thu Jul 04, 2019 3:25 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 8:20 am
Posts: 3483
Reply with quote
You know Crow, bot technology and social engineering is the field of real professionals.
Bots need integer managers, and not bot fuckers like Ymnes and Bart legal or Edo free beer. I mean, the last PM's of Bart on Discord where shocking, Bart was begging here, here I made all ready a sock, you must do this edit for me. It was a article what was complete out of my field of interest. And now for years they are sending me bot fuck mails to bring me in discredit.

Bot fucking leads nowhere and as long WMF has the approch every idiot his one bot wikipedia will never, never be a success.

_________________
Mijn blog. (In Dutch) of kom eens gezellig bij de Kolonel langs in Eerbeek.
En kijk eens hier, het "Verboden" lijstje van door mij aangemaakte artiklen.

. Image
.Winner of
The SanBan


Thu Jul 04, 2019 10:54 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm
Posts: 4171
Reply with quote
Sure, only as good as their coders and all that, but nobody can tell me Wikipedia isn't crying out for some form of automated help.

Take this scenario. Even a not very complex AI live feed monitor would have detected the first "fuck off", at 05:04, 4 July 2019. A little bit smarter and it can tell people it is in connection with an edit war. A bit smarter still, it catches whiff of the brewing storm while it is still at the "Don't be silly." stage, at 18:24 the previous day.

But no. With no automation, current participation levels are such that it wasn't until 16:41 on the 4th that an Administrator responded, and only then to a report to a noticeboard by the person being abused, by which time multiple abusive comments had been made. The report itself was filed at 05:23, and that at least seemed to be enough to temporarily stop the abuse.

Given the eventual arrival of an Administrator resulted in no sanctions of any kind, even though they were entirely warranted, and indeed the abusive user hurled even more insults, his way of showing gratitude for being given a free pass, is a good argument for turning over the whole system to bots, and leave the human intervention to whether or not they want to take personal responsibility for letting angry dogs back into the peaceful village overseen by the CustodianBots.


Thu Jul 04, 2019 10:59 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 8 posts ] 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group ColorizeIt.
Designed by ST Software.