User talk:Beetstra

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to 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.pngWarning 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.
Wikipedia-logo-v2-en.svgThis 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.

Hello Sir,

Whitelisting of CEE[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Beetstra. You have new messages at Lawrencekhoo's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Administrators' newsletter – November 2019[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2019).

Guideline and policy news

  • A related RfC is seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure.


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Editor of the Week[edit]

Editor of the week barnstar.svg Editor of the Week
Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of protecting the integrity of the encyclopedia. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:Newslinger submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

I nominate Beetstra to be Editor of the Week for their herculean efforts to curtail spam and unwanted content on Wikipedia. Beestra's stewardship of the spam blacklist and whitelist over the years has been instrumental to safeguarding Wikipedia against external link spamming. Beetstra also maintains two anti-spam bots: COIBot, which monitors edits that may be affected by conflicts of interest, and XLinkBot, which reverts the addition of links to questionable sources that are frequently abused. On the content side, Beetstra has contributed to the Chemicals, Chemistry, and Pharmacology WikiProjects with CheMoBot, which audits the integrity of data in infoboxes. Overall, Beetstra has made a big difference in Wikipedia's reliability, ensuring that our articles are a trustworthy resource for our readers.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

Project editor retention.svg
Editor of the week.svg
Vitruvian Barnstar Hires.png
A Technician
Editor of the Week
for the week beginning November 10, 2019
Diligently works to curtail spam and other unwanted content. Instrumental in safeguarding Wikipedia against external link spamming. Maintains two anti-spam bots that monitor edits that may be affected by conflicts of interest. On the content side, Beetstra has contributed to the Chemicals, Chemistry, and Pharmacology. Wikipedia's reliability has benefitted from him ensuring the trustworthiness of our resource.
Recognized for
stewardship of the spam blacklist and whitelist, bots and COIBot
Submit a nomination

Thanks again for your efforts! ―Buster7  06:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Goed Gadaan!! ―Buster7  07:32, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Buster7, :-) Dirk Beetstra T C 07:45, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
@Newslinger and Buster7: Thank you!! Much appreciated! --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:12, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. Anti-spam measures tend to attract more criticism than praise, and it's good to have some balance here. Face-smile.svg — Newslinger talk 07:23, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Newslinger, well, that tends to be true for every anti-<whatever> actions that admins are involved in. But you're right, people do tend to complain when their favourite site is blacklisted .. it MUST be admin abuse to blacklist that, there is no way that this site is spam, it is all good content. Dirk Beetstra T C 07:26, 11 November 2019 (UTC)


Just a head's up, as you are probably aware you have been written about in a Wired story here. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:46, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Thanks for the heads up. I wasn't aware that the article was going to be published already, as I was still talking with Noam. In his last email I still had a feeling that he was making relations that were not there, but it now seems to be decent. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:55, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

SBHandler starting Visual Editor[edit]

Hello Beetstra, could you help me with another noob problem please? Clicking the "add BL" link at MediaWiki points me to which opens the Visual Editor instead of a source editor. All other spam-related links on top of the section also generate a "veaction..." link. Afaik I haven't changed anything in my settings since 3 November (when I last used SBHandler and it led me to the source editor as expected). Should the script also work using Visual Editor (I haven't tried this to avoid making a mess) or is there a way to force section editing into source mode in this case (aside from completely disabling VE)? GermanJoe (talk) 13:46, 15 November 2019 (UTC)