User talk:Beetstra

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Skip to bottom
Welcome to my talk page.

Please leave me a note by starting a new subject here
and please don't forget to sign your post

You may want to have a look at the subjects
in the header of this talkpage before starting a new subject.
The question you may have may already have been answered there

Dirk Beetstra        
I am the main operator of User:COIBot. If you feel that your name is wrongly on the COI reports list because of an unfortunate overlap between your username and a certain link or text, please ask for whitelisting by starting a new subject on my talkpage. For a better answer please include some specific 'diffs' of your edits (you can copy the link from the report page). If you want a quicker response, make your case at WT:WPSPAM or WP:COIN.
COIBot - Talk to COIBot - listings - Link reports - User reports - Page reports

I will respond to talk messages where they started, trying to keep discussions in one place (you may want to watch this page for some time after adding a question). Otherwise I will clearly state where the discussion will be moved/copied to. Though, with the large number of pages I am watching, it may be wise to contact me here as well if you need a swift response. If I forget to answer, poke me.

I preserve the right not to answer to non-civil remarks, or subjects which are covered in this talk-header.


There are several discussions about my link removal here, and in my archives. If you want to contact me about my view of this policy, please read and understand WP:NOT, WP:EL, WP:SPAM and WP:A, and read the discussions on my talkpage or in my archives first.

My view in a nutshell:
External links are not meant to tunnel people away from the wikipedia.

Hence, I will remove external links on pages where I think they do not add to the page (per WP:NOT#REPOSITORY and WP:EL), or when they are added in a way that wikipedia defines as spam (understand that wikipedia defines spam as: '... wide-scale external link spamming ...', even if the link is appropriate; also read this). This may mean that I remove links, while similar links are already there or which are there already for a long time. Still, the question is not whether your link should be there, the question may be whether those other links should be there (again, see the wording of the policies and guidelines).

Please consider the alternatives before re-adding the link:

  • If the link contains information, use the information to add content to the article, and use the link as a reference (content is not 'see here for more information').
  • Add an appropriate linkfarm like {{dmoz}} (you can consider to remove other links covered in the dmoz).
  • Incorporate the information into one of the sister projects.
  • Add the link to other mediawiki projects aimed at advertiseing (see e.g. this)

If the linkspam of a certain link perseveres, I will not hesitate to report it to the wikiproject spam for blacklisting (even if the link would be appropriate for wikipedia). It may be wise to consider the alternatives before things get to that point.

The answer in a nutshell
Please consider if the link you want to add complies with the policies and guidelines.

If you have other questions, or still have questions on my view of the external link policy, disagree with me, or think I made a mistake in removing a link you added, please poke me by starting a new subject on my talk-page. If you absolutely want an answer, you can try to poke the people at WT:EL or WT:WPSPAM on your specific case. Also, regarding link, I can be contacted on IRC, channel [1].

Reliable sources

I convert inline URL's into references and convert referencing styles to a consistent format. My preferred style is the style provided by cite.php (<ref> and <references/>). When other mechanisms are mainly (but not consistently) used (e.g. {{ref}}/{{note}}/{{cite}}-templates) I will assess whether referencing would benefit from the cite.php-style. Feel free to revert these edits when I am wrong.

Converting inline URLs in references may result in data being retrieved from unreliable sources. In these cases, the link may have been removed, and replaced by a {{cn}}. If you feel that the page should be used as a reference (complying with wp:rs!!), please discuss that on the talkpage of the page, or poke me by starting a new subject on my talk-page

Note: I am working with some other developers on mediawiki to expand the possibilities of cite.php, our attempts can be followed here and here. If you like these features and want them enabled, please vote for these bugs.


I am in general against deletion, except when the page really gives misinformation, is clear spam or copyvio. Otherwise, these pages may need to be expanded or rewritten. For very short articles there are the different {{stub}} marks, which clearly state that the article is to be expanded. For articles that do not state why they are notable, I will add either {{importance}} or {{notability}}. In my view there is a distinct difference between these two templates, while articles carrying one of these templates may not be notable, the first template does say the article is probably notable enough, but the contents does not state that (yet). The latter provides a clear concern that the article is not notable, and should probably be {{prod}}ed or {{AfD}}ed. Removing importance-tags does not take away the backlog, it only hides from attention, deleting pages does not make the database smaller. If you contest the notability/importance of an article, please consider adding an {{expert-subject}} tag, or raise the subject on an appropriate wikiproject. Remember, there are many, many pages on the wikipedia, many need attention, so maybe we have to live with a backlog.

Having said this, I generally delete the {{expand}}-template on sight. The template is in most cases superfluous, expansion is intrinsic to the wikipedia (for stubs, expansion is already mentioned in that template).

Vandalproof.png Warning to Vandals: This user is armed with VandalProof.
Warning to Spammers: This user is armed with Spamda
Choco chip cookie.jpg This user knows where IRC hides the cookies, and knows how to feed them to AntiSpamBot.
Nohat-logo-XI-big-text.png This user is one of the 400 most active English Wikipedians of all time.

Email from Kolega2357[edit]

Hello, Beetstra. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.


  1. (UTC): User [[::en:User:]] ([[::en:User talk:|t]] - [[::en:Special:Contribs/|c]]; ) to [[::en:]] (diff  top?) - Link: (R/X/L)


  • Displayed all 227 additions.

The script would replace that with:

I want to remove my site from blacklist of Wikepedia ?[edit]

--Mobeenmunna (talk) 06:25, 4 July 2017 (UTC)I want to remove my site from blacklist list of Wikipedia. My site data is == == Linksearch en (https) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:frMER-C X-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: searchmeta • Domain:

I noticed this link is being added as a reference to several football-related articles (for instance, Supercopa de España, GOL TV, 2015 CONCACAF Gold Cup) by different newly-registered editors. Seems to be a streaming website. What is the best way to approach this? Normally, when I see an editor adding spam links, I revert and report to AIV, but since the links are being added by different editors in this case, I don't know if there is an easier way to revert. Thank you! –FlyingAce✈hello 19:32, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

@FlyingAce: This is plain spamming

I don't know that my this activity will be added in spamming. so please remove my site from spam blacklist list. This activity is not for spamming purpose. this is my first attempt on wikipedia. But now i have read rules and regulation so kindly give me a chance to show a good performance. i want to work with Wekipedia. I will be thankful to you.--Mobeenmunna (talk) 06:25, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

@Mobeenmunma: .. You use, what, 15 accounts that all do one link addition and that is all. Are you here to add links or are you here to build an encyclopedia? --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:32, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
@Beetstra: .. I had already told you that i don't know that my this activity will be count in spamming. i am not a spammer and of course i had to build an enclopedia. Now i have read rules and regulation so now not any kind of mistake can be come from my side. I will be thankful to you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mobeenmunna (talkcontribs)
You can show that by editing and adding information. Your link is not needed/wanted at the moment. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:37, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
@Mobeenmunna: No, you did not read the rules and regulations. Stop your activity. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:44, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Links beginning with double colon no longer work[edit]

A recent change to the MediaWiki software means that links of the form [[::Foo]] have stopped working. There's a thread about this at VPT. I've scanned a recent database dump for links of this form, and have found about 50 of the pages maintained by COIBot (talk · contribs), for example 1, 2, 3. It might be worth adding some code to catch this. -- John of Reading (talk) 09:36, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

@John of Reading: I will see if I can add some code for this, should not be too difficult to do a s/\[\[::/[[:/sig on a page before a safe. I don't think that the bots do this with the recent diffs, but there may be old misparsed links in the db that COIBot is using. Thanks for the heads up. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:47, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Non-registered accounts in poke report[edit]

Hey Dirk, I'm confused about some of the accounts listed in the poke report as they appear unregistered. Why are they there?

As an aside, some of us are now using a new script which shows enhanced information in SPI reports such as account creation date, last edit date, and whether the account is stale for CU purposes. That script very quickly identified the accounts as not registered when I added here so I removed them. If you want to try it, the instructions are at the bottom of this archived thread under my signature. Once installed, you would be able to see what I saw in the link to the case above.

This leads me to wonder whether there are scripts like this for any of the spam reports. I looked at your monobook.js to find out but you don't have any scripts there. My scripts are in my modern.js.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:06, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

@Berean Hunter: Oi. I did not look at that carefully. This is cross-wiki. They are on Wikinews and on Wikisource. The pages I checked are already gone. I'll defer it to meta.
That sounds interesting, I'll have a look at that (though I don't have the checkuser rights - it may give me extra information on spammers as well). Thanks!! --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:46, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
No checkuser rights needed to use the script. I had checked global contibs thinking that must have been the reason for the accounts being listed but the few that I checked didn't have any. I now assume that their pages must have been deleted before I checked. That would explain it. Cheers,
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:53, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

WikiDefender Barnstar Hires.png The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For your tireless efforts against spamming on Wikipedia, and your patient and cooperative attitude during disputes and complaints. Thank you for all your hard work. GermanJoe (talk) 13:36, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
@GermanJoe: Thanks! --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:38, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Case opened[edit]

You were recently listed as a party to or recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Maglioladitis 2. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Maglioladitis 2/Evidence. Please add your evidence by August 6, 2017, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Maglioladitis 2/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 16:54, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

@Miniapolis: Thanks! I already started. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:58, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Arbitration case scope[edit]

Regarding the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Responding to evidence in an arbitration case: nice to be able to resume a conversation from your comments on this proposal long ago :-) isaacl (talk) 19:11, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

@Isaacl: they are issues that keep coming up every so many years. I always hope that when the majority of ArbCom refreshes that things change for the better - they don't. Case naming has been mentioned for long, presumptions in case accepting (with lack of determination of scope - they just assume one as what seems to happen now). And editors have gone down on it - people have been railroaded (some editors simply do not accept that the case is partially accepted before they are allowed to comment), cases keep repeating with the same name until the person goes down .. don't worry, it will bleed to death soon and in 3 years we will be back here. But maybe, if we try? --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:16, 23 July 2017 (UTC)


Hello again Beetstra. I noticed some possibly suspect COI behavior but am not sure, your advice would be appreciated. This is not link spam, but maybe book spam... I noticed the editor Garrapata recently add a DeBuys book to multiple articles (and checking the history shows that this was done on more articles). However, it is not completely unambiguious, as the editor also worked on two seemingly unrelated articles... Maybe I'm wrong. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate - 00:52, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

@PaleoNeonate: This may be COI .. but also maybe not. Maybe you can try to engage in very careful discussion .. or just monitor it a bit. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:00, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

IP edits at ccTLD articles[edit]

I'm looking for an admin with enough knowledge of ccTLD to assess some intense IP activity at related articles. If you like, I'll try WP:ANI but the situation needs some insight and I'm concerned that a general discussion might get sidetracked with observations about how adding {{citation needed}} is great, and so on. I put an outline in my sandbox (permalink). Would you be able to give an opinion on what should happen? Thanks. Johnuniq (talk) 10:49, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

{rto|Johnuniq}} I don't know what to make of this. Note that this is cross-wiki, they are everywhere. Hovering between 'good faith' and 'vandalism' (or even maybe spam). Maybe it is an idea to throw it in the general direction of AN/I .. with a question in the line of 'I don't know what to make of this - does someone know what this is?' --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:58, 24 July 2017 (UTC)