Please use this page to report any issue or comment concerning OAbot's activity.
You can also check out our FAQ.
I see that your bot is adding links to copies of articles on CiteSeerX; for example this change to abstract data type. CiteSeerX is very indiscriminate about where it gets copies of papers from; the accuracy of such a copy vis-a-vis the officially published version, and the provenance of the copy, cannot be verified by a bot. In this particular case, the online copy appears to be taken from a class web site unaffiliated by the authors of the original paper. The owner of the course web site is probably safe from copyright violation as course reading lists have powerful fair use exemptions to copyright, but CiteSeerX and Wikipedia do not. Using it here appears to be a copyright violation and a violation of WP:ELNEVER. If your bot cannot make such judgements accurately, it should not be making them at all. — David Eppstein ( talk) 22:46, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
In [1], the bot added a CHS Press doi, thinking it was a biorxiv doi. Please update the behaviour. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:05, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi, a lot of your recent changes such as to Sea urchin were NOT tagged as coming from a bot and so couldn't be filtered out. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 05:22, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi, this account is flagged as bot. Please note, in your bot software you must assert that you are a bot on edits to have the bot flagged applied when using the writeapi. — xaosflux Talk 15:11, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
The bot briefly added links to hal.upmc.fr instead of pmc= identifiers. The error has been corrected. -- Nemo 16:46, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
See
this edit. OAbot added |pmc=2000340
to a {{
cite journal}}
that had this as its title: |title=The coupling of synthesis and partitioning of EBV's [[plasmid]] replicon is revealed in live cells
. Note that the value assigned to |title=
contains a wikilink so the rendered citation had a URL–wikilink conflict error:
{{
cite journal}}
: URL–wikilink conflict (
help)The bot should not be creating errors for editors to cleanup.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 14:22, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
|title=
is not wholly wikilinked:
|title=
is wikilinked or if the template has |title-link=
then:
|pmc=
or|pmc=
with the identifier commented out (|pmc=<!--pmc identifier-->
) or|id={{pmc|pmc identifier}}
Why, if a citation has the parameter PMC, and that field is not empty, is OAbot adding pmc=? Edits such as this and this result in CS1 errors where there were none before. Whilst I've not yet seen the same problem with pmid/PMID, it seems possible. Perhaps you could make parameter names case-insensitive? Cheers, BlackcurrantTea ( talk) 13:43, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Hello, at rheumatic fever, the bot added a PMC link to an article from 1938 to a PMID from a 2012 article with the same title. Graham 87 03:18, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm recreating the link suggestions with the new code and will launch a new bot run today. Nemo 07:51, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
When a citation is of a chapter in a book (|chapter=
or |contribution=
is present), the bot needs to distinguish between a URL for the chapter vs one for the book. For example, in
this edit, the bot found a URL for the cited chapter (not the whole book) and put it in |url=
, when it should have put it in |chapter-url=
. If it had done that, it might have noticed that |chapter-url=
already contained an equivalent URL.
Kanguole 13:00, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
|chapter-url=
, because |url=
is for a URL for the whole book.
Kanguole 16:14, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
{{
citation}}
or {{
cite book}}
with |chapter=
– they both work in the same way but give slightly different formatting. The documentation isn't great, but there are separate parameters |url=
and |chapter-url=
, with the former attaching a link to the book title and the latter attaching it to the chapter name.
Kanguole 17:56, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
|href=
is set by default, not whether bots misunderstand them. If the bot isn't going to be fixed, I guess the exclusion template is the easiest answer.
Kanguole 07:38, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
{{
citation}}
(
citation style 2) is intended as an alternative to the family of cite XXX templates (
citation style 1). If the bot cannot handle a {{
citation}}
containing |chapter=
(or |contribution=
), it should leave it alone.
Kanguole 10:49, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
{{
citation}}
templates, it seems unreasonable to have to change one of them to {{
cite book}}
with |mode=cs2
just because a bot doesn't handle the template correctly.
Kanguole 11:31, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
{{
citation}}
or {{
cite book}}
, it is the presence of |chapter=
that indicates that what is being cited is the chapter, not the whole book. In that situation, the URL found should go in |chapter-url=
, not |url=
. So the Phab task isn't quite right as stated: it's the presence of |chapter=
that triggers the problem, not the presence of |chapter-url=
.
Kanguole 16:13, 3 October 2019 (UTC){{
citation}}
treats whatever it is citing as a book when all of the 'work' parameters are omitted or empty: |journal=
, |magazine=
, |newspaper=
, |periodical=
, |website=
. |work=
. There is oddity when |encyclopedia=
is set but I don't think that is at issue here.|chapter=
has these aliases: |contribution=
, |entry=
, |article=
, and |section=
; each has its own matching |<param>-url=
parameter. For the purposes of semantics, the pairs should match.I have blocked OAbot for adding copyvio links to references, after a previous warning was ignored. Specifically, the bot is adding CiteSeerX links without checking whether the links trace back to an author or publisher (not a copyvio), or to somebody else. Additionally, I don't believe the addition of such links was ever in the bot's remit; my recollection is that when the bot was reviewed, this issue was specifically discussed and removed from the list of approved bot tasks. As an example of a bad edit, see this diff, where the bot adds a citeseer link to a paper by László Székely, but the citeseer provenance of the link is to web pages of Micha Sharir and Bill Gasarch (neither of whom is an author or publisher of the paper). — David Eppstein ( talk) 19:39, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
OAbot ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
After various requests, and having consulted the sole other active bot operator Pintoch, I request unblock of User:OAbot to add doi/hdl/arxiv/pmc parameters. Details below. Nemo 16:14, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Accept reason:
Ok for runs not including the addition of citeseerx, the reason for the block David Eppstein ( talk) 16:41, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
According to consensus and
bot task 3 (and previous),
the bot this run will be launched with the command bot.py (hdl|doi|pmc|arxiv)
, which adds only those identifiers (and corresponding parameters like doi-access=free
) and doesn't add CiteSeerX parameters nor any URL.
For the sake of transparency, some statistics about the edits the bot will attempt to do: after having gone through most of the articles with relevant citations, we have found about 75k articles to work on (each requires a single edit) and the parameters to be touched have the following frequency so far:
145759 doi 7758 hdl 1180 pmc 464 arxiv
So this unblock is 99 % about adding doi-access=free and hdl-access=free to citations where the doi and hdl have been added by others (including recent citation cleanups). The addition of pmc and arxiv parameters has never been controversial but I can do these separately in the future if anyone prefers so.
As a reminder, the operators of User:OAbot are not directly responsible for edits made with the sibling tool by individual users, some of whom remain separately blocked. Nemo 16:14, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Regarding this edit, I am unable to find access to the free full text in any of those links, yet the source is flagged by OABot. I don't speak bot; could someone explain, and help me locate a URL to free full text? @ Nemo bis and Pintoch: SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:13, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
@ SandyGeorgia: Do you not see the green lock? The reason there is a green lock on some, and not others, is that those with a green lock have been identified as open access resources. Like the Migliori doi, which is marked with a green locked. I don't know why you don't see it. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 18:52, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=MNDO&curid=2235160&diff=951504589&oldid=913941897 probably not your problem. Probably upstream data, but no full text. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 11:29, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Can you please fix the generated edit summary to better reflect what the bot is actually doing? In this edit, the bot claimed Open access bot: doi added to citation with #oabot, but the previous version already had a doi, so that's misleading. The correct summary would have been, marked doi-access as free, or some such. Thanks. Mathglot ( talk) 21:18, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar |
Dear OAbot, Thanks for working on the page "Madhu Verma", I appreciate that. Could you please let me know, what is the next steps, before it is made online/visible to public Nehamidha ( talk) 07:35, 4 May 2020 (UTC) |
Hi, in the section above, incorrect addition of PMC links was reported. It was stated there that the issue was resolved in July 2019, however here is an edit from April 2020 where again the bot has picked the PMC for a paper with a similar title but in a different journal, different volume, year etc. Please advise why this is still happening? Rjwilmsi 16:18, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I'm adding content to Wikipedia using material published by Annual Reviews, starting with journals that had paywalls removed. Three journals are now freely-accessible: Annual Review of Political Science, Annual Review of Public Health, and Annual Review of Cancer Biology (read more here). It would be great if those three titles could be added to the OABot workflow, so that it can add doi-access=free where possible. Thanks, Elysia (AR) ( talk) 14:58, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
@ David Eppstein, Nemo bis, and RobertFurber: The problem, or something seemingly closely related, appeared also in September 2019. I found this a few hours ago; and David found this and reported it in Wikipedia talk:OABOT#Old bad url — translation rather than text of English original in 2021. In both instances, as in the two examples David provided supra, the respective bot found another article, published in a Czech mathematical journal, and with the reasonable target present in the reference list. (David, you suggested that the article you found was a translation of the correct one; but I suspect that you know as little Czech as I do, and guessed. Look at the reference list at the end of the article!) Nemo, I strongly suspect that the reason two different users of OAbot made the same blatant mistake within a couple of days rather rested with the bot than with the users; and, if the bot was employing Unpaywall also in 2019, that the blame could be shifted one or two steps further, as in 2020.
However, finding blame for year-old errors is not very interesting. My reason for reactivating this thread is just this: Since I found this error instance to-day, and David one in 2021, and both David and Robert some in 2020, probably, there probably were more of these errors, at at least two occasions; and very likely are further instances as yet undetected. Nemo, I guess that also you did eliminate these errors, when you found them. Did you have the help of any bot (apart from AObot) for this? Could someone fix a list of all still remaining additions of references to such Czech articles from the relevant years, from both OAbot and Citation bot?
The remaining check probably has to be done by hand. (Of course, it would be rather nice if a bot also could check if the given title in the linked item is the article title or just a title of a reference list item; but I do not think that the present level of AI in the WP bots is sufficient for this.) Regards, JoergenB ( talk) 18:22, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
In citations that use |title=none
, adding doi-access=free now causes the citation template to emit an error message; see e.g.
this diff. Unless/until the citation template is changed to re-allow this combination, I consider any additions of doi-access=free to such citations to be damage caused by the bot that must be stopped from happening. So to avoid messier ways of stopping it, please check for title=none and avoid altering these citations. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 22:24, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
September 6, 2-4pm E.S.T: NYC COVID-19 Multilingual Wikipedia Edit-a-thon - ONLINE | |
---|---|
![]() You are invited to join the Sure We Can community for our NYC COVID-19 Multilingual Wikipedia Edit-a-thon - ONLINE - this Sunday, Sept 6th, 2020. The edit-a-thon is part of Sure We Can's work with NYC Health + Hospitals to stop the spread of Covid-19. We plan to work on translating the COVID-19 pandemic in New York City article into other languages; as well as, brainstorm ideas about how we could use wikipedia to slow the spread of Covid-19. Please join us, all skill levels welcome! Is there an idea you'd like to share? A question you'd like answered? Have an idea how we can use wikipedia to slow the spread of Covid-19? Please, let us know by adding it to the agenda.
|
-- Wil540 art ( talk) 20:04, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
In
this recent edit the bot broke one of the citations by adding |doi-access=free
to a {{
cite journal}} template with |title=none
. That combination of parameters does not work and has not worked since the doi autolinking RFC was implemented. Bot edits like this should never cause a valid citation template to become a broken citation template. In the long term, maybe, the cite journal template maintainers can be persuaded to allow that combination of parameters to work. In the short term, the bot must be prevented from making broken citations. That could be done by making the bot recognize that |doi-access=free
and |title=none
are incompatible, and not adding the parameter in those cases. Or it could be done by holding off on making any more bot edits until the bug in the citation templates is fixed (if it ever is). Which would be preferable? —
David Eppstein (
talk) 22:06, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Sorry for the lack of response here, but I was waiting for the template storm to settle down. What's the outcome, do we have an established consensus on how the template parameters are supposed to work? Nemo 11:12, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Based on the current refresh the bot is making several thousands edits now, mostly doi-access=free additions. Nemo 11:10, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
What is the point of this edit at War guilt question? Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 05:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
|url=
parameter can be removed and the title will automatically be linked with the DOI. If the publisher decides to change the format of its URLs, the DOI will remain valid and will point to the article, so that prevents link rot. −
Pintoch (
talk) 07:37, 19 March 2021 (UTC)I'm curious: how did the bot determine in Special:Diff/1020105627 that a preprint with a title beginning "Ideals" was a match for a published paper with a title beginning "Filters"? It is a match, but a bot should not be guessing that things match based on authors and similar but not identical titles, because in many cases the same authors will have different papers with similar titles. — David Eppstein ( talk) 06:20, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
The bot however just added |doi-access=free so the summary is wrong. Matthias M. ( talk) 13:44, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Your edit here is much appreciated. --— Encephalon 21:28, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Well-behaved bots will notice that a parameter has a comment as a value, such as, oh, let's say doi-access=<!-- DO NOT ADD DOI-ACCESS=FREE BECAUSE IT BREAKS THE CITATION TEMPLATE -->, and will leave that comment alone rather than changing it to doi-access=free. In this case the comment was stale because the problem it was intended to work around has apparently been fixed: it is no longer the case that adding doi-access to citation templates that have title=none causes the template to break. Nevertheless, OAbot fails to be well-behaved in this regard: Special:Diff/1023568392. Its failure to respect this kind of comment is a bug, and should be fixed. — David Eppstein ( talk) 05:06, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
See Special:Diff/1025587540, where it added a link to arXiv: 1102.5568, "Counting (3+1) - Avoiding permutations", on a reference to doi: 10.37236/225, "Counting 1324,4231-Avoiding Permutations". They are not the same paper, as a glance at their introductions verifies. They don't even have the same authors (although their author lists overlap). — David Eppstein ( talk) 18:30, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
In
Special:Diff/1027274899 the bot added |doi-access=free
for an article for which only the abstract is available.
Kanguole 09:20, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Here, OAbot marked
doi:
10.1515/9781614511984.1 as |doi-access=free
even though it's paywalled. De Gruyter recently revamped their website so that may have to do with it, but in any case this should be fixed.
Nardog (
talk) 03:20, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
this edit introduces yet another doi-access= parameter to a citation to a paywalled article. Cambial foliage❧ 06:51, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Unpaywall just announced they added 400k newly discovered bronze open access (gratis nonfree open access PDFs) from Elsevier. The next round of the bot run will probably add many to citations. The errors mentioned in the previous three sections have been fixed as soon as they were reported. Nemo 05:48, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
File:Amogus.png | Sussy Baka |
Here's a sussy baka! EzriGamer26 ( talk) 17:40, 20 September 2021 (UTC) |
The bot has been ported to Python3 (at last) and is now processing a backlog of changes, mostly based on suggestions cached from Unpaywall in January 2023. Afterwards I hope to resume a weekly processing schedule. Nemo 16:40, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
I keep getting a "503 Service Temporarily Unavailable" message. Has the bot's address on toolforge changed? 73.44.31.228 ( talk) 01:00, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
this edit incorrectly labels doi: 10.1163/2405478X-00902002 as free. Kanguole 20:54, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
Same here. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 23:20, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
Also this edit here. Access to the doi: 10.1177/014362448600700203 article is not free through SAGE Publishing. Gricharduk ( talk) 03:57, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
Outdated doi-access=free are now slowly being removed ( example). I'll accelerate the process later if all goes well. Nemo 14:40, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
See the above link for a list of open-access DOI registrants. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 21:11, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
If you find
10\.(1100|1155|1186|1371|1629|1989|1999|2147|2196|3285|3389|3390|3410|3748|3814|3847|3897|4061|4089|4103|4172|4175|4236|4239|4240|4251|4252|4253|4254|4291|4292|4329|4330|4331|5194|5306|5312|5313|5314|5315|5316|5317|5318|5319|5320|5321|5334|5402|5409|5410|5411|5412|5492|5493|5494|5495|5496|5497|5498|5499|5500|5501|5527|5528|5662|6064|6219|7167|7217|7287|7482|7490|7554|7717|7766|11131|11569|11647|11648|12688|12703|12715|12998|13105|14293|14303|15215|15412|15560|16995|17645|19080|19173|20944|21037|21468|21767|22261|22459|24105|24196|24966|26775|30845|32545|35711|35712|35713|35995|36648|37126|37532|37871|47128|47622|47959|52437|52975|53288|54081|54947|55667|55914|57009|58647|59081)
in |doi=
add |doi-access=free
.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 09:52, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
I've literally been having edit wars with OAbot at List of Galerucinae genera and List of flea beetle genera, because it's labeling certain article DOIs as open access when they are not, I revert the bot's changes, but then it automatically relabels the same DOIs as OA again some time later.
Relevant edits:
Specifically I am referring to the "BezdekNie2019" reference in both cases (the "Moseyko2010" reference at List of flea beetle genera is fine, that actually is OA). Monster Iestyn ( talk) 01:04, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
free
? Otherwise you can ask the bot to skip the entire page. Please also report to Unpaywall support that the manuscript.elsevier.com is no longer accessible.|doi-access=free
, both to DOIs resolving to Duke University Press. I confirmed they both contain a link titled "Buy this digital article" on the publisher's page.
Folly Mox (
talk) 13:07, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Dear OAbot I have a question. Cologochideilia ( talk) 13:55, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
In Special:diff/1170978048, the bot removed a free access tag from a citation to doi: 10.4153/CJM-1962-042-6 for which a PDF scan is directly available. – jacobolus (t) 14:42, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
The edits to correct overbroad doi-access=free were requested above. Bronze OA papers regularly switch between open and closed status, so inevitably if we add doi-access=free for bronze OA we also need to be ready to remove them. The bot is mostly reverting its own edits from 2020 (many of these papers were temporarily open for COVID-related initiatives, probably).
Re-adding doi-access=free manually is generally pointless (if you find a suitable URL target with an actual PDF you can add it in the url parameter: example), but to avoid edit wars you can exclude the bot from individual pages, as explained in User:OAbot#Scope.
It's true that currently Unpaywall currently detects less bronze OA DOIs than before. This is probably due to changes on the publishers' side which have made PDFs harder to access even when they're nominally gratis access. I've sampled the ongoing edits and I'm pretty sure such cases are a minority, while a majority of the removals are for now completely closed papers. I suggest to let the bot run.
As for the future, I'll look at the cases mentioned above. I was already making a list to be reported to Unpaywall. Most cases I found are about things other than usual article contributions (editorials, news, obituaries etc.). When they're detected as OA again, the bot will add doi-access=free again. I could also stop removing doi-access=free at all, if people prefer to make such edits manually. Nemo 16:47, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
if you find a suitable URL target with an actual PDF you can add it in the url parameter– no this is not good advice. If the URL is redundant with the DOI it is much better to just put the DOI and add doi-access=free (readers benefit by hitting a journal metadata page with a "download PDF" button vs. a direct PDF link). If the bot is incorrectly removing those (like, anything more than a 0.01% error rate), there is something going very wrong, and a human should be regularly spot checking to make sure the bot is staying on target. – jacobolus (t) 21:03, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
I've sampled the latest batch of doi-access=true the bot would remove. It's clear that Unpaywall has been updating large portions of their data. In about half of the cases, the edits are indisputably correct (there's no full text link to be found at least for me); in the other half, I found some full text copy but there are reasons to believe not everyone would be able to access it (due to captchas etc.), so the removal of the doi-access=free link is defensible because we do need to find better OA links. Therefore I'm planning to resume the removals. There are few thousand more doi-access=free parameters to remove, less than the bot added just last week. Nemo 18:29, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
I'm now starting a small and very slow run so we can reassess and discuss more broadly. Nemo 15:01, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
|doi-access=free
.
Kanguole 09:56, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
I reported to OurResearch that the JBC is supposed to be OA and it will show up as such in future updates to the data. I've manually removed the doi-access=free removals which were in the queue for JBC. A future run will revert the previous removals. Nemo 22:47, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
This edit marks doi: 10.1016/0003-2697(83)90314-7 as free to read; it is not.
Further, still the bot continues to break citation templates by adding |doi-access=free
when |title=
has a wikilink. See in the example template: |title=A rapid method for the determination of naringin, prunin, and naringenin applied to the assay of [[naringinase]]
. Please fix the bot so that it does not do that.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 14:43, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
I just want to acknowledge I've seen this and I'll look into it more later. It looks like ostensibly-bronze OA DOIs are on the rise again, partly countering the decrease we discussed previously.
The edit is correct in the sense that the DOI is considered bronze OA by Unpaywall. There is a delay in detecting changes to bronze OA papers, due to the nature of bronze OA. (Legacy publishers are increasingly unreliable, as captchawalls and loginwalls get placed in front of everything, even semi-free or semi-gratis resources.) It will be eventually be removed, thanks to phabricator:T344114. Nemo 16:00, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
The bot has now started its normal weekly scheduled run, which only adds parameters and doesn't remove any. So it may add some more false positives again, if so please report. (I couldn't find any.) Nemo 16:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
This [11] seems pointless as the citations have PMID numbers. What value is the bot adding? Graham Beards ( talk) 09:17, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
As discussed above, the easiest way to handle links for DOIs where the full text status isn't super clear is to "hardcode" a suitable link target, be it open or closed, and mark its status appropriately. While the discussion about the doi-access
parameter is ongoing, we could already get started on using url-access
more. To avoid adding it unnecessarily where there is an OA link, and to avoid unlinking DOIs where a previously open PDF was already archived, it would be best to also add
Internet Archive Scholar and other OA links at the same time. Citation bot has already been adding OA links to the url parameter for years now.
A semi-manual example shows the kind of edit I'd like to see. I could open a new bot approval request soon but I'm open to ideas. Nemo 06:55, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
See [12] [13] [14], etc... Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 00:27, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
See discussion above: these are all either correct edits or temporary errors which will be reversed in short order. In more detail:
Nemo 11:36, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 20:16, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
Diff link: [21]
Citation in question:
I'm not sure if there's a more effective way to report bugs but hopefully whatever caused this won't happen again. Umimmak ( talk) 23:52, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
This edit should have had a better edit summary - https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Paracetamol&diff=prev&oldid=1187943393 - explaining that the removed free tags were incorrect. Can the bot not do better at that with little work? RudolfoMD ( talk) 08:14, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
The book Introduzione a Catullo by Paolo Fedeli in the Myrtia journal has a free HDL access but does not have an HDL value. First, Second, and third edits. Achmad Rachmani ( talk) 06:41, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
In this edit, the bot added a link to a 2005 conference proceedings claiming it to be a free version of this 1966 book review. Title, names of authors, number of authors, and journal are all completely different. I assume this is an error propagated from somewhere else. Did this pass the bot's sanity checks? — Kusma ( talk) 15:53, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
In Special:Diff/1193833171, OAbot added a PMC that points to a brief announcement of a result in PNAS, to a reference to the full publication of the same result in a different journal. That sort of edit is incorrect and bad. It's the sort of thing that leads to mangled citations as the error is then built on with more bot edits that treat the erroneous id as definitive and replace more of the citation with garbage. Do not do that. If the journals do not match, regardless of similarities in authorship and title, do not add metadata. — David Eppstein ( talk) 23:53, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
The bot has also been edit-warring to reinstate this bad edit three times at Blumberg theorem. It can be locked out of this article but does it need to be blocked to prevent more widespread damage? — David Eppstein ( talk) 07:44, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
Paper S | Paper L | |
Diff 1193833171 | ||
Title | Non-Separable and Planar Graphs | |
Author | Hassler Whitney | |
Journal | Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences | Transactions of the American Mathematical Society |
Year | 1931 | 1932 |
DOI | doi: 10.1073/pnas.17.2.125 | doi: 10.1090/S0002-9947-1932-1501641-2 |
Diff 1193815125 | ||
Title | On the Theory of Dynamic Programming | The theory of dynamic programming |
Author | Richard Bellman | |
Journal | Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences | Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society |
Year | 1952 | 1954 |
DOI | doi: 10.1073/pnas.38.8.716 | doi: 10.1090/S0002-9904-1954-09848-8 |
Diff 1193584598 | ||
Title | Dynamical Systems with Two Degrees of Freedom | |
Author | George D. Birkhoff | |
Journal | Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences | Transactions of the American Mathematical Society |
Year | 1917 | |
DOI | doi: 10.1073/pnas.3.4.314 | doi: 10.1090/S0002-9947-1917-1501070-3 |
Diff 1193758371 and others | ||
Title | New properties of all real functions | |
Author | Henry Blumberg | |
Journal | Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences | Transactions of the American Mathematical Society |
Year | 1922 | |
DOI | doi: 10.1073/pnas.8.10.283 | doi: 10.1090/S0002-9947-1922-1501216-9 |
See also § Wrong PMC link from 2019 and § Wrong PMC link - April 2020. It seems that this insidious garbaging of citations has been going on for a long time and that the weak patches applied to fix specific instances of the problem have not actually fixed the problem. The bot needs to be much more careful about checking these matches than it apparently has been. — David Eppstein ( talk) 17:37, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
see https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Woodlark_Basin&diff=1193931371&oldid=1179325953
The hdl generated by the bot which has suddenly got active with new functionality is not recognised being 20.500.12210/63872
The doi still works: 10.1038/s43247-022-00387-9
Suggest hdl functionality be disabled for time being for anything identified by a doi as this is unnecessary duplication as doi is a subset of hdl.
There could be some clean up to do ! Does bot need to be disabled/blocked yet again ChaseKiwi ( talk) 00:52, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Another incorrect hdl link: Special:Diff/1195808135. The reference goes to a journal paper but the hdl goes to a Ph.D. dissertation. (They have the same name and author but that is not a good enough match to make this decision.) — David Eppstein ( talk) 18:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
Article:
Giant pangolin
Referenced page:
Bot's edit:
Special:Diff/1228253952
Reverted:
Special:Diff/1228447858
Re-insertion:
Special:Diff/1229502557
But the access is not free – as I stated in the revert action, doi-access=free not true, the full text available through registration or purchase. -- CiaPan ( talk) 11:37, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Please use this page to report any issue or comment concerning OAbot's activity.
You can also check out our FAQ.
I see that your bot is adding links to copies of articles on CiteSeerX; for example this change to abstract data type. CiteSeerX is very indiscriminate about where it gets copies of papers from; the accuracy of such a copy vis-a-vis the officially published version, and the provenance of the copy, cannot be verified by a bot. In this particular case, the online copy appears to be taken from a class web site unaffiliated by the authors of the original paper. The owner of the course web site is probably safe from copyright violation as course reading lists have powerful fair use exemptions to copyright, but CiteSeerX and Wikipedia do not. Using it here appears to be a copyright violation and a violation of WP:ELNEVER. If your bot cannot make such judgements accurately, it should not be making them at all. — David Eppstein ( talk) 22:46, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
In [1], the bot added a CHS Press doi, thinking it was a biorxiv doi. Please update the behaviour. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:05, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi, a lot of your recent changes such as to Sea urchin were NOT tagged as coming from a bot and so couldn't be filtered out. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 05:22, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi, this account is flagged as bot. Please note, in your bot software you must assert that you are a bot on edits to have the bot flagged applied when using the writeapi. — xaosflux Talk 15:11, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
The bot briefly added links to hal.upmc.fr instead of pmc= identifiers. The error has been corrected. -- Nemo 16:46, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
See
this edit. OAbot added |pmc=2000340
to a {{
cite journal}}
that had this as its title: |title=The coupling of synthesis and partitioning of EBV's [[plasmid]] replicon is revealed in live cells
. Note that the value assigned to |title=
contains a wikilink so the rendered citation had a URL–wikilink conflict error:
{{
cite journal}}
: URL–wikilink conflict (
help)The bot should not be creating errors for editors to cleanup.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 14:22, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
|title=
is not wholly wikilinked:
|title=
is wikilinked or if the template has |title-link=
then:
|pmc=
or|pmc=
with the identifier commented out (|pmc=<!--pmc identifier-->
) or|id={{pmc|pmc identifier}}
Why, if a citation has the parameter PMC, and that field is not empty, is OAbot adding pmc=? Edits such as this and this result in CS1 errors where there were none before. Whilst I've not yet seen the same problem with pmid/PMID, it seems possible. Perhaps you could make parameter names case-insensitive? Cheers, BlackcurrantTea ( talk) 13:43, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Hello, at rheumatic fever, the bot added a PMC link to an article from 1938 to a PMID from a 2012 article with the same title. Graham 87 03:18, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm recreating the link suggestions with the new code and will launch a new bot run today. Nemo 07:51, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
When a citation is of a chapter in a book (|chapter=
or |contribution=
is present), the bot needs to distinguish between a URL for the chapter vs one for the book. For example, in
this edit, the bot found a URL for the cited chapter (not the whole book) and put it in |url=
, when it should have put it in |chapter-url=
. If it had done that, it might have noticed that |chapter-url=
already contained an equivalent URL.
Kanguole 13:00, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
|chapter-url=
, because |url=
is for a URL for the whole book.
Kanguole 16:14, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
{{
citation}}
or {{
cite book}}
with |chapter=
– they both work in the same way but give slightly different formatting. The documentation isn't great, but there are separate parameters |url=
and |chapter-url=
, with the former attaching a link to the book title and the latter attaching it to the chapter name.
Kanguole 17:56, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
|href=
is set by default, not whether bots misunderstand them. If the bot isn't going to be fixed, I guess the exclusion template is the easiest answer.
Kanguole 07:38, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
{{
citation}}
(
citation style 2) is intended as an alternative to the family of cite XXX templates (
citation style 1). If the bot cannot handle a {{
citation}}
containing |chapter=
(or |contribution=
), it should leave it alone.
Kanguole 10:49, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
{{
citation}}
templates, it seems unreasonable to have to change one of them to {{
cite book}}
with |mode=cs2
just because a bot doesn't handle the template correctly.
Kanguole 11:31, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
{{
citation}}
or {{
cite book}}
, it is the presence of |chapter=
that indicates that what is being cited is the chapter, not the whole book. In that situation, the URL found should go in |chapter-url=
, not |url=
. So the Phab task isn't quite right as stated: it's the presence of |chapter=
that triggers the problem, not the presence of |chapter-url=
.
Kanguole 16:13, 3 October 2019 (UTC){{
citation}}
treats whatever it is citing as a book when all of the 'work' parameters are omitted or empty: |journal=
, |magazine=
, |newspaper=
, |periodical=
, |website=
. |work=
. There is oddity when |encyclopedia=
is set but I don't think that is at issue here.|chapter=
has these aliases: |contribution=
, |entry=
, |article=
, and |section=
; each has its own matching |<param>-url=
parameter. For the purposes of semantics, the pairs should match.I have blocked OAbot for adding copyvio links to references, after a previous warning was ignored. Specifically, the bot is adding CiteSeerX links without checking whether the links trace back to an author or publisher (not a copyvio), or to somebody else. Additionally, I don't believe the addition of such links was ever in the bot's remit; my recollection is that when the bot was reviewed, this issue was specifically discussed and removed from the list of approved bot tasks. As an example of a bad edit, see this diff, where the bot adds a citeseer link to a paper by László Székely, but the citeseer provenance of the link is to web pages of Micha Sharir and Bill Gasarch (neither of whom is an author or publisher of the paper). — David Eppstein ( talk) 19:39, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
OAbot ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
After various requests, and having consulted the sole other active bot operator Pintoch, I request unblock of User:OAbot to add doi/hdl/arxiv/pmc parameters. Details below. Nemo 16:14, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Accept reason:
Ok for runs not including the addition of citeseerx, the reason for the block David Eppstein ( talk) 16:41, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
According to consensus and
bot task 3 (and previous),
the bot this run will be launched with the command bot.py (hdl|doi|pmc|arxiv)
, which adds only those identifiers (and corresponding parameters like doi-access=free
) and doesn't add CiteSeerX parameters nor any URL.
For the sake of transparency, some statistics about the edits the bot will attempt to do: after having gone through most of the articles with relevant citations, we have found about 75k articles to work on (each requires a single edit) and the parameters to be touched have the following frequency so far:
145759 doi 7758 hdl 1180 pmc 464 arxiv
So this unblock is 99 % about adding doi-access=free and hdl-access=free to citations where the doi and hdl have been added by others (including recent citation cleanups). The addition of pmc and arxiv parameters has never been controversial but I can do these separately in the future if anyone prefers so.
As a reminder, the operators of User:OAbot are not directly responsible for edits made with the sibling tool by individual users, some of whom remain separately blocked. Nemo 16:14, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Regarding this edit, I am unable to find access to the free full text in any of those links, yet the source is flagged by OABot. I don't speak bot; could someone explain, and help me locate a URL to free full text? @ Nemo bis and Pintoch: SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:13, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
@ SandyGeorgia: Do you not see the green lock? The reason there is a green lock on some, and not others, is that those with a green lock have been identified as open access resources. Like the Migliori doi, which is marked with a green locked. I don't know why you don't see it. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 18:52, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=MNDO&curid=2235160&diff=951504589&oldid=913941897 probably not your problem. Probably upstream data, but no full text. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 11:29, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Can you please fix the generated edit summary to better reflect what the bot is actually doing? In this edit, the bot claimed Open access bot: doi added to citation with #oabot, but the previous version already had a doi, so that's misleading. The correct summary would have been, marked doi-access as free, or some such. Thanks. Mathglot ( talk) 21:18, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar |
Dear OAbot, Thanks for working on the page "Madhu Verma", I appreciate that. Could you please let me know, what is the next steps, before it is made online/visible to public Nehamidha ( talk) 07:35, 4 May 2020 (UTC) |
Hi, in the section above, incorrect addition of PMC links was reported. It was stated there that the issue was resolved in July 2019, however here is an edit from April 2020 where again the bot has picked the PMC for a paper with a similar title but in a different journal, different volume, year etc. Please advise why this is still happening? Rjwilmsi 16:18, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I'm adding content to Wikipedia using material published by Annual Reviews, starting with journals that had paywalls removed. Three journals are now freely-accessible: Annual Review of Political Science, Annual Review of Public Health, and Annual Review of Cancer Biology (read more here). It would be great if those three titles could be added to the OABot workflow, so that it can add doi-access=free where possible. Thanks, Elysia (AR) ( talk) 14:58, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
@ David Eppstein, Nemo bis, and RobertFurber: The problem, or something seemingly closely related, appeared also in September 2019. I found this a few hours ago; and David found this and reported it in Wikipedia talk:OABOT#Old bad url — translation rather than text of English original in 2021. In both instances, as in the two examples David provided supra, the respective bot found another article, published in a Czech mathematical journal, and with the reasonable target present in the reference list. (David, you suggested that the article you found was a translation of the correct one; but I suspect that you know as little Czech as I do, and guessed. Look at the reference list at the end of the article!) Nemo, I strongly suspect that the reason two different users of OAbot made the same blatant mistake within a couple of days rather rested with the bot than with the users; and, if the bot was employing Unpaywall also in 2019, that the blame could be shifted one or two steps further, as in 2020.
However, finding blame for year-old errors is not very interesting. My reason for reactivating this thread is just this: Since I found this error instance to-day, and David one in 2021, and both David and Robert some in 2020, probably, there probably were more of these errors, at at least two occasions; and very likely are further instances as yet undetected. Nemo, I guess that also you did eliminate these errors, when you found them. Did you have the help of any bot (apart from AObot) for this? Could someone fix a list of all still remaining additions of references to such Czech articles from the relevant years, from both OAbot and Citation bot?
The remaining check probably has to be done by hand. (Of course, it would be rather nice if a bot also could check if the given title in the linked item is the article title or just a title of a reference list item; but I do not think that the present level of AI in the WP bots is sufficient for this.) Regards, JoergenB ( talk) 18:22, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
In citations that use |title=none
, adding doi-access=free now causes the citation template to emit an error message; see e.g.
this diff. Unless/until the citation template is changed to re-allow this combination, I consider any additions of doi-access=free to such citations to be damage caused by the bot that must be stopped from happening. So to avoid messier ways of stopping it, please check for title=none and avoid altering these citations. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 22:24, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
September 6, 2-4pm E.S.T: NYC COVID-19 Multilingual Wikipedia Edit-a-thon - ONLINE | |
---|---|
![]() You are invited to join the Sure We Can community for our NYC COVID-19 Multilingual Wikipedia Edit-a-thon - ONLINE - this Sunday, Sept 6th, 2020. The edit-a-thon is part of Sure We Can's work with NYC Health + Hospitals to stop the spread of Covid-19. We plan to work on translating the COVID-19 pandemic in New York City article into other languages; as well as, brainstorm ideas about how we could use wikipedia to slow the spread of Covid-19. Please join us, all skill levels welcome! Is there an idea you'd like to share? A question you'd like answered? Have an idea how we can use wikipedia to slow the spread of Covid-19? Please, let us know by adding it to the agenda.
|
-- Wil540 art ( talk) 20:04, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
In
this recent edit the bot broke one of the citations by adding |doi-access=free
to a {{
cite journal}} template with |title=none
. That combination of parameters does not work and has not worked since the doi autolinking RFC was implemented. Bot edits like this should never cause a valid citation template to become a broken citation template. In the long term, maybe, the cite journal template maintainers can be persuaded to allow that combination of parameters to work. In the short term, the bot must be prevented from making broken citations. That could be done by making the bot recognize that |doi-access=free
and |title=none
are incompatible, and not adding the parameter in those cases. Or it could be done by holding off on making any more bot edits until the bug in the citation templates is fixed (if it ever is). Which would be preferable? —
David Eppstein (
talk) 22:06, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Sorry for the lack of response here, but I was waiting for the template storm to settle down. What's the outcome, do we have an established consensus on how the template parameters are supposed to work? Nemo 11:12, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Based on the current refresh the bot is making several thousands edits now, mostly doi-access=free additions. Nemo 11:10, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
What is the point of this edit at War guilt question? Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 05:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
|url=
parameter can be removed and the title will automatically be linked with the DOI. If the publisher decides to change the format of its URLs, the DOI will remain valid and will point to the article, so that prevents link rot. −
Pintoch (
talk) 07:37, 19 March 2021 (UTC)I'm curious: how did the bot determine in Special:Diff/1020105627 that a preprint with a title beginning "Ideals" was a match for a published paper with a title beginning "Filters"? It is a match, but a bot should not be guessing that things match based on authors and similar but not identical titles, because in many cases the same authors will have different papers with similar titles. — David Eppstein ( talk) 06:20, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
The bot however just added |doi-access=free so the summary is wrong. Matthias M. ( talk) 13:44, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Your edit here is much appreciated. --— Encephalon 21:28, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Well-behaved bots will notice that a parameter has a comment as a value, such as, oh, let's say doi-access=<!-- DO NOT ADD DOI-ACCESS=FREE BECAUSE IT BREAKS THE CITATION TEMPLATE -->, and will leave that comment alone rather than changing it to doi-access=free. In this case the comment was stale because the problem it was intended to work around has apparently been fixed: it is no longer the case that adding doi-access to citation templates that have title=none causes the template to break. Nevertheless, OAbot fails to be well-behaved in this regard: Special:Diff/1023568392. Its failure to respect this kind of comment is a bug, and should be fixed. — David Eppstein ( talk) 05:06, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
See Special:Diff/1025587540, where it added a link to arXiv: 1102.5568, "Counting (3+1) - Avoiding permutations", on a reference to doi: 10.37236/225, "Counting 1324,4231-Avoiding Permutations". They are not the same paper, as a glance at their introductions verifies. They don't even have the same authors (although their author lists overlap). — David Eppstein ( talk) 18:30, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
In
Special:Diff/1027274899 the bot added |doi-access=free
for an article for which only the abstract is available.
Kanguole 09:20, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Here, OAbot marked
doi:
10.1515/9781614511984.1 as |doi-access=free
even though it's paywalled. De Gruyter recently revamped their website so that may have to do with it, but in any case this should be fixed.
Nardog (
talk) 03:20, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
this edit introduces yet another doi-access= parameter to a citation to a paywalled article. Cambial foliage❧ 06:51, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Unpaywall just announced they added 400k newly discovered bronze open access (gratis nonfree open access PDFs) from Elsevier. The next round of the bot run will probably add many to citations. The errors mentioned in the previous three sections have been fixed as soon as they were reported. Nemo 05:48, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
File:Amogus.png | Sussy Baka |
Here's a sussy baka! EzriGamer26 ( talk) 17:40, 20 September 2021 (UTC) |
The bot has been ported to Python3 (at last) and is now processing a backlog of changes, mostly based on suggestions cached from Unpaywall in January 2023. Afterwards I hope to resume a weekly processing schedule. Nemo 16:40, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
I keep getting a "503 Service Temporarily Unavailable" message. Has the bot's address on toolforge changed? 73.44.31.228 ( talk) 01:00, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
this edit incorrectly labels doi: 10.1163/2405478X-00902002 as free. Kanguole 20:54, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
Same here. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 23:20, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
Also this edit here. Access to the doi: 10.1177/014362448600700203 article is not free through SAGE Publishing. Gricharduk ( talk) 03:57, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
Outdated doi-access=free are now slowly being removed ( example). I'll accelerate the process later if all goes well. Nemo 14:40, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
See the above link for a list of open-access DOI registrants. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 21:11, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
If you find
10\.(1100|1155|1186|1371|1629|1989|1999|2147|2196|3285|3389|3390|3410|3748|3814|3847|3897|4061|4089|4103|4172|4175|4236|4239|4240|4251|4252|4253|4254|4291|4292|4329|4330|4331|5194|5306|5312|5313|5314|5315|5316|5317|5318|5319|5320|5321|5334|5402|5409|5410|5411|5412|5492|5493|5494|5495|5496|5497|5498|5499|5500|5501|5527|5528|5662|6064|6219|7167|7217|7287|7482|7490|7554|7717|7766|11131|11569|11647|11648|12688|12703|12715|12998|13105|14293|14303|15215|15412|15560|16995|17645|19080|19173|20944|21037|21468|21767|22261|22459|24105|24196|24966|26775|30845|32545|35711|35712|35713|35995|36648|37126|37532|37871|47128|47622|47959|52437|52975|53288|54081|54947|55667|55914|57009|58647|59081)
in |doi=
add |doi-access=free
.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 09:52, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
I've literally been having edit wars with OAbot at List of Galerucinae genera and List of flea beetle genera, because it's labeling certain article DOIs as open access when they are not, I revert the bot's changes, but then it automatically relabels the same DOIs as OA again some time later.
Relevant edits:
Specifically I am referring to the "BezdekNie2019" reference in both cases (the "Moseyko2010" reference at List of flea beetle genera is fine, that actually is OA). Monster Iestyn ( talk) 01:04, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
free
? Otherwise you can ask the bot to skip the entire page. Please also report to Unpaywall support that the manuscript.elsevier.com is no longer accessible.|doi-access=free
, both to DOIs resolving to Duke University Press. I confirmed they both contain a link titled "Buy this digital article" on the publisher's page.
Folly Mox (
talk) 13:07, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Dear OAbot I have a question. Cologochideilia ( talk) 13:55, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
In Special:diff/1170978048, the bot removed a free access tag from a citation to doi: 10.4153/CJM-1962-042-6 for which a PDF scan is directly available. – jacobolus (t) 14:42, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
The edits to correct overbroad doi-access=free were requested above. Bronze OA papers regularly switch between open and closed status, so inevitably if we add doi-access=free for bronze OA we also need to be ready to remove them. The bot is mostly reverting its own edits from 2020 (many of these papers were temporarily open for COVID-related initiatives, probably).
Re-adding doi-access=free manually is generally pointless (if you find a suitable URL target with an actual PDF you can add it in the url parameter: example), but to avoid edit wars you can exclude the bot from individual pages, as explained in User:OAbot#Scope.
It's true that currently Unpaywall currently detects less bronze OA DOIs than before. This is probably due to changes on the publishers' side which have made PDFs harder to access even when they're nominally gratis access. I've sampled the ongoing edits and I'm pretty sure such cases are a minority, while a majority of the removals are for now completely closed papers. I suggest to let the bot run.
As for the future, I'll look at the cases mentioned above. I was already making a list to be reported to Unpaywall. Most cases I found are about things other than usual article contributions (editorials, news, obituaries etc.). When they're detected as OA again, the bot will add doi-access=free again. I could also stop removing doi-access=free at all, if people prefer to make such edits manually. Nemo 16:47, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
if you find a suitable URL target with an actual PDF you can add it in the url parameter– no this is not good advice. If the URL is redundant with the DOI it is much better to just put the DOI and add doi-access=free (readers benefit by hitting a journal metadata page with a "download PDF" button vs. a direct PDF link). If the bot is incorrectly removing those (like, anything more than a 0.01% error rate), there is something going very wrong, and a human should be regularly spot checking to make sure the bot is staying on target. – jacobolus (t) 21:03, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
I've sampled the latest batch of doi-access=true the bot would remove. It's clear that Unpaywall has been updating large portions of their data. In about half of the cases, the edits are indisputably correct (there's no full text link to be found at least for me); in the other half, I found some full text copy but there are reasons to believe not everyone would be able to access it (due to captchas etc.), so the removal of the doi-access=free link is defensible because we do need to find better OA links. Therefore I'm planning to resume the removals. There are few thousand more doi-access=free parameters to remove, less than the bot added just last week. Nemo 18:29, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
I'm now starting a small and very slow run so we can reassess and discuss more broadly. Nemo 15:01, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
|doi-access=free
.
Kanguole 09:56, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
I reported to OurResearch that the JBC is supposed to be OA and it will show up as such in future updates to the data. I've manually removed the doi-access=free removals which were in the queue for JBC. A future run will revert the previous removals. Nemo 22:47, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
This edit marks doi: 10.1016/0003-2697(83)90314-7 as free to read; it is not.
Further, still the bot continues to break citation templates by adding |doi-access=free
when |title=
has a wikilink. See in the example template: |title=A rapid method for the determination of naringin, prunin, and naringenin applied to the assay of [[naringinase]]
. Please fix the bot so that it does not do that.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 14:43, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
I just want to acknowledge I've seen this and I'll look into it more later. It looks like ostensibly-bronze OA DOIs are on the rise again, partly countering the decrease we discussed previously.
The edit is correct in the sense that the DOI is considered bronze OA by Unpaywall. There is a delay in detecting changes to bronze OA papers, due to the nature of bronze OA. (Legacy publishers are increasingly unreliable, as captchawalls and loginwalls get placed in front of everything, even semi-free or semi-gratis resources.) It will be eventually be removed, thanks to phabricator:T344114. Nemo 16:00, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
The bot has now started its normal weekly scheduled run, which only adds parameters and doesn't remove any. So it may add some more false positives again, if so please report. (I couldn't find any.) Nemo 16:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
This [11] seems pointless as the citations have PMID numbers. What value is the bot adding? Graham Beards ( talk) 09:17, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
As discussed above, the easiest way to handle links for DOIs where the full text status isn't super clear is to "hardcode" a suitable link target, be it open or closed, and mark its status appropriately. While the discussion about the doi-access
parameter is ongoing, we could already get started on using url-access
more. To avoid adding it unnecessarily where there is an OA link, and to avoid unlinking DOIs where a previously open PDF was already archived, it would be best to also add
Internet Archive Scholar and other OA links at the same time. Citation bot has already been adding OA links to the url parameter for years now.
A semi-manual example shows the kind of edit I'd like to see. I could open a new bot approval request soon but I'm open to ideas. Nemo 06:55, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
See [12] [13] [14], etc... Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 00:27, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
See discussion above: these are all either correct edits or temporary errors which will be reversed in short order. In more detail:
Nemo 11:36, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 20:16, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
Diff link: [21]
Citation in question:
I'm not sure if there's a more effective way to report bugs but hopefully whatever caused this won't happen again. Umimmak ( talk) 23:52, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
This edit should have had a better edit summary - https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Paracetamol&diff=prev&oldid=1187943393 - explaining that the removed free tags were incorrect. Can the bot not do better at that with little work? RudolfoMD ( talk) 08:14, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
The book Introduzione a Catullo by Paolo Fedeli in the Myrtia journal has a free HDL access but does not have an HDL value. First, Second, and third edits. Achmad Rachmani ( talk) 06:41, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
In this edit, the bot added a link to a 2005 conference proceedings claiming it to be a free version of this 1966 book review. Title, names of authors, number of authors, and journal are all completely different. I assume this is an error propagated from somewhere else. Did this pass the bot's sanity checks? — Kusma ( talk) 15:53, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
In Special:Diff/1193833171, OAbot added a PMC that points to a brief announcement of a result in PNAS, to a reference to the full publication of the same result in a different journal. That sort of edit is incorrect and bad. It's the sort of thing that leads to mangled citations as the error is then built on with more bot edits that treat the erroneous id as definitive and replace more of the citation with garbage. Do not do that. If the journals do not match, regardless of similarities in authorship and title, do not add metadata. — David Eppstein ( talk) 23:53, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
The bot has also been edit-warring to reinstate this bad edit three times at Blumberg theorem. It can be locked out of this article but does it need to be blocked to prevent more widespread damage? — David Eppstein ( talk) 07:44, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
Paper S | Paper L | |
Diff 1193833171 | ||
Title | Non-Separable and Planar Graphs | |
Author | Hassler Whitney | |
Journal | Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences | Transactions of the American Mathematical Society |
Year | 1931 | 1932 |
DOI | doi: 10.1073/pnas.17.2.125 | doi: 10.1090/S0002-9947-1932-1501641-2 |
Diff 1193815125 | ||
Title | On the Theory of Dynamic Programming | The theory of dynamic programming |
Author | Richard Bellman | |
Journal | Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences | Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society |
Year | 1952 | 1954 |
DOI | doi: 10.1073/pnas.38.8.716 | doi: 10.1090/S0002-9904-1954-09848-8 |
Diff 1193584598 | ||
Title | Dynamical Systems with Two Degrees of Freedom | |
Author | George D. Birkhoff | |
Journal | Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences | Transactions of the American Mathematical Society |
Year | 1917 | |
DOI | doi: 10.1073/pnas.3.4.314 | doi: 10.1090/S0002-9947-1917-1501070-3 |
Diff 1193758371 and others | ||
Title | New properties of all real functions | |
Author | Henry Blumberg | |
Journal | Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences | Transactions of the American Mathematical Society |
Year | 1922 | |
DOI | doi: 10.1073/pnas.8.10.283 | doi: 10.1090/S0002-9947-1922-1501216-9 |
See also § Wrong PMC link from 2019 and § Wrong PMC link - April 2020. It seems that this insidious garbaging of citations has been going on for a long time and that the weak patches applied to fix specific instances of the problem have not actually fixed the problem. The bot needs to be much more careful about checking these matches than it apparently has been. — David Eppstein ( talk) 17:37, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
see https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Woodlark_Basin&diff=1193931371&oldid=1179325953
The hdl generated by the bot which has suddenly got active with new functionality is not recognised being 20.500.12210/63872
The doi still works: 10.1038/s43247-022-00387-9
Suggest hdl functionality be disabled for time being for anything identified by a doi as this is unnecessary duplication as doi is a subset of hdl.
There could be some clean up to do ! Does bot need to be disabled/blocked yet again ChaseKiwi ( talk) 00:52, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Another incorrect hdl link: Special:Diff/1195808135. The reference goes to a journal paper but the hdl goes to a Ph.D. dissertation. (They have the same name and author but that is not a good enough match to make this decision.) — David Eppstein ( talk) 18:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
Article:
Giant pangolin
Referenced page:
Bot's edit:
Special:Diff/1228253952
Reverted:
Special:Diff/1228447858
Re-insertion:
Special:Diff/1229502557
But the access is not free – as I stated in the revert action, doi-access=free not true, the full text available through registration or purchase. -- CiaPan ( talk) 11:37, 18 June 2024 (UTC)