Jump to content

User talk:The Earwig

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user is a member of the Bot Approvals Group.
This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from User talk:EarwigBot II)


Copyvio Detector and Google

[edit]

Hi,

(Sorry if this is the wrong forum for asking, but if so, perhaps you could point me in the right direction?)

I use the Copyvio Detector (great tool, BTW!) in checking new AfC drafts, at least a dozen times most days. I sometimes get an error message saying that the detector has exceeded its maximum allowed Google searches. This issue has always been there, occasionally, but in the last week or two it has occurred daily. When I start reviewing, around 6am or so UK time, the first few reviews always hit this problem. Then, maybe 8am (?) the daily quota probably gets reset, or something else happens, because from then onwards everything is fine until the next morning.

So I was thinking, I don't suppose there's much we can do to increase the quota (?), but would it be possible to add another search engine as a fallback option? Either so that when the user gets that error message, they could manually tick a box to use Bing (say) instead; or maybe the Detector could automatically switch to using the alternative if Google has failed.

I realise this may not be possible, either for technical or policy reasons, but thought I'd ask at least. Cheers, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:35, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DoubleGrazing, using Bing or some other engine as a fallback is definitely something we’ve discussed—I hadn’t realized the issue had gotten this bad recently. The main issue here is these services usually cost money, and while the WMF pays for our Google access right now, I don’t know if I will be able to ask for access to additional search engines. First, I can take a deeper look into whether anyone is overusing their share of the tool’s resources; we might need to block/limit them. (Our plan with Google allows about 1500 articles to be checked per day.) — The Earwig alt (talk) 16:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks for shedding some more light on this; needless to say, I knew nothing about how these things work.
I guess we at AfC are taking up quite a chunk of that quota, given that we see what are by definition new drafts usually by new users. I for one run the check probably at least on ⅓ of the drafts I review (and if you think that makes me an overuser, feel absolutely free to point this out, of course!). Even at NPP we deal with relatively more experienced users, so there's that much less of a need to check for CV.
It may be that I see the problem worse than some others, mind, because of my weird early-morning AfC habit, combined with the time zone I'm in. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:05, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again,
Quick update on this, the problem (of the copyvio detector running out of Google quota) has lately become worse. Unlike before, when it would only manifest in the early morning UK time, and usually be fine after 8am UK / 0700 UTC, it's now happening also in the afternoon. This is relatively new, maybe in the past week or two, so I've not yet have a good feel for what time it happens exactly (in case that matters); I would have said late afternoon, but eg. today it started already around 1pm UK / 1200 UTC.
Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:35, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry taking a while to get back, but I'm actively working on an improvement for this now. — The Earwig (talk) 06:43, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great to hear, thanks. :) DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:35, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do we really still have the same quota we've had for months? (or years?) As in, are we sure it hasn't been reduced? I haven't had a copyvio check go through with the search engine box checked in what seems like weeks. I can't imagine there are suddenly so many new page patrollers that it's making that much of a difference, but... -- asilvering (talk) 22:45, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. But what has really taken off in the last several months is AI. Nevermind. I think I've answered my own question. ugh. -- asilvering (talk) 22:47, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we were discussing this on WP:VPWMF a few weeks ago, and the idea of making everyone log in using OAUTH came up. If bots are indeed the problem, I think this is a good idea to try. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:06, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we're actively working on this. — The Earwig (talk) 00:09, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and good luck! -- asilvering (talk) 00:26, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey DoubleGrazing and asilvering. With substantial help from Chlod, we've released a change to require logging in to use the search engine option in the tool. (It uses OAuth, and it should redirect you automatically when running a new check.) This is still new, but it looks like this has eased our usage enough that the tool should not run out of quota so often. — The Earwig (talk) 15:20, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant, thanks so much. -- asilvering (talk) 17:47, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, thanks! Already tried it and seems to work well. Glad to hear it's taking some of the pressure off the quota. Cheers, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:07, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello, The Earwig,

I regularly used this tool you created, mostly when patrolling drafts or CSD-tagged articles, I'd probably used it 3 or 4 times a day. When I used it too much, I'd get a message that I was over my limit of how often I could use it. At least that's how I thought things worked. Now, I get this message every time I try to see whether a page is a copyright violation, I have not gotten a successful response to a query in many, many weeks now. So, I'm wondering is this "limit" actually for all users on this platform and not tied to individual editors? Because something odd is going on and maybe new page patrollers or AFC reviewers are using it for every article they review if I can not just get one or two reports on suspicious articles or drafts I've come across. I know with AI, there are ways users can get around copyright restrictions but I still found the tool helpful.

Do you have any idea why it is suddenly no longer available to generate reports? Can you tell me the time of the day when it "resets" so that maybe I could make inquries then? Or is there any possibility of raising this limit of reports generated? I mean, I'm glad it's become so popular but it has also become unavailable for use for those of us who just want to make a few queries a day. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 22:31, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz, truly sorry about the ongoing issues. I'm aware and working on it (see some of the threads above you), with the time I have available. I thought things has improved with the overall performance improvement last month, but it has really just made this particular problem of running out of the search quota much worse. Anyway, I am working on it now.
To answer your questions: yes the quota is shared by all users, and we cannot easily raise it. It's a hard limit enforced by Google that I cannot bypass without some special arrangement. It resets I think around midnight Pacific Time, i.e. Google's time zone.
I think the issue is some bots/automated traffic making too many queries. In the past I have been able to block them or ask them to slow down, but that approach has become less effective lately. So, I will be adding authentication to the tool to make sure only logged in users can use it and I can more accurately identify who is overusing it. I expect to finish that work this weekend and I am hopeful that will solve the issue. If it doesn't, there are other things I can try. — The Earwig (talk) 00:43, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I am still working on this, but have made progress. — The Earwig (talk) 05:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, I've also run into this issue the last couple of days. I'm assuming you're still working on it, or that life has gotten in the way of you fixing the issue. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 21:20, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's still my current focus with the free time I have. — The Earwig (talk) 00:21, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just circling back to see how you responded to my query last month. Still have not successfully submitted a query and gotten a report in several months now. I realize that we are all volunteers so I don't have high expectations of when this issue might be "fixed" as we all have outside lives.
But I didn't realize though that regular editors were competing with bots, that's a battle individual editors can never win so please block those bots, if possible! I don't even see how a bot would be able to handle a copyright violation report and interpret it appropriately. Liz Read! Talk! 03:06, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To second what @Liz said above, I just tried to run the copyvio tool on a promotional draft, and got the error again. Any progress to report on?
Also, Liz, I think authentication has been added so we aren't competing against bots, at least not as much, perSo, I will be adding authentication to the tool to make sure only logged in users can use it and I can more accurately identify who is overusing it. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 23:48, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there anything other people can do to help with getting the copyvio tool up, or is this something you're going to need to do on your own? I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 03:09, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Liz and I dream of horses. With substantial help from Chlod, we've released a change to require logging in to use the search engine option in the tool. (It uses OAuth, and it should redirect you automatically when running a new check.) This is still new, but it looks like this has eased our usage enough that the tool should not run out of quota so often. — The Earwig (talk) 15:19, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great! I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 15:32, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It works! I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 15:33, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 26 September 2024

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:12, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – October 2024

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2024).

Administrator changes

added
removed

CheckUser changes

readded
removed

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Error message on Pablo Escobar

[edit]

Hello Ben, I have a weird error to report: when I perform a copyvio search on Pablo Escobar I get an error message "Access to copyvios.toolforge.org was denied, You don't have authorisation to view this page. HTTP ERROR 403". It doesn't matter what source url I try to compate it against. However if I try to compare using a specific revision ID of that article, it works okay. It's only occurred on Pablo Escobar (at least so far). Thought you might like to know. — Diannaa (talk) 20:32, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Diannaa, we had an unusual issue a while back where some bots/crawlers kept running checks against that page so I disabled it. As you noticed, the revision ID should still work. I’ll check if the bots are still hitting it and re-enable if not. — The Earwig alt (talk) 20:37, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok cool, no problem though if you have to leave it, as there's a simple workaround - using the revision ID number. — Diannaa (talk) 20:39, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 19 October 2024

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:16, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to participate in a research

[edit]

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:23, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:AfC submission/onhold/sandbox

[edit]

Template:AfC submission/onhold/sandbox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:37, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – November 2024

[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2024).

Administrator changes

readded
removed

CheckUser changes

removed Maxim

Oversighter changes

removed Maxim

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Mass deletions done with the Nuke tool now have the 'Nuke' tag. This change will make reviewing and analyzing deletions performed with the tool easier. T366068

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Earwig&oldid=1255199782"