Wikipedia talk:Sheynhertz-Unbayg cleanup/Archive

Removing articles

Once each article in the list is dealt with, should it be removed? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 13:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd say yes, but it is not clear to me if this will interfere with ensuring that this list is complete and we catch everything. Kusma (討論) 13:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

It could be striken Pavel Vozenilek 16:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Deleted articles

I know several of his onomastics articles went through AFD and were deleted (see my comments in the mediation and RFC about Roth). Some were userfied for him and some were not. Assuming that he did the same things with those as with the onomastics pages that still exist (i.e.; taking pre-existing stuff and redirecting, merging, etc. to create the onomastics page), shouldn't someone examine those actions and possibly clean them up also? Would the pages have to be un-deleted for that? Don't edits to deleted pages vanish from a user's contribution list? What should be done about those? ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 16:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think many pages have been deleted. If they have been, the incoming redirects surely have been deleted as well. It is probably not much harder to create new disambiguation pages from scratch where they are needed than to dig up all these pages and do the cleanup work. Kusma (討論) 19:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The list that Interiot made is interesting. Just quickly glancing through it, I see that the first 106 spots on the list are empty; do you think maybe those are articles that were deleted? Or maybe a problem with the script that generated the list? If they are ones that were deleted, 106 articles isn't many when compared to the nearly 5,000 total articles he has edited, but it's still quite a few. Then also positions 3213-3235 on the list are all either AFDs or CFDs he has participated in, usually with comments to the effect that the article or category in question should be kept or moved to his user space.

You are probably right that it'd be easier to create new pages from scratch then to undelete and examine and clean these up... but I'm a worry wort and can't help worrying about it. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 20:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Complete list

Interiot just created a list of all articles Sheynhertz has ever touched until about June 10, 2006. The list can be found here. There are 3300 pages and 2000 redirects that should be checked. Any good ideas how we should organize this other than split it in "packets" of 20-50 pages alphabetically and have someone adopt a packet and then certify that the packet has been checked? Kusma (討論) 19:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe copy the list to the project page and then people just pick one, check it, work on it, and leave notes on the project page as to what they are doing and when they are done they can strike through the listing? ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 21:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Since I have gotten so many already, it might be more efficient for me to do it. The pages that I have already gotten show up as followed links on the list of the pages he edited. Also, I have been using Microsoft Word to sort the list of pages and to add the brackets and asterisks automatically, which saves a ton of time. However, school is starting soon. I guess it depends how long it takes. I went through the "A"s pretty quickly. I stopped to work on a few pages, so it just seems like it took longer. I'll do some more later and try to estimate the time it would take me to do all of them. If I remember correctly, all of the pages that have "onomastics" in them have been added to the list already (I was working on it late at night about a week ago). The list is currently at 222 articles and I think it will get much larger. However, I have included disambiguation pages that obviously need work, as well, so he may not be responsible for all of it. It would not make sense to check the history of each page and make sure that he was the one who messed up the page. I have checked some of the histories, and he is responsible for the vast majority of them if my sample is any indication. -- Kjkolb 10:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Edits made by SU after June 10, like those from August 11 [1]] are not present in the Interiot's list. Pavel Vozenilek 19:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Lists of Jews

He added many names to various lists of Jews and to their talk pages. For example, on List of Jewish historians he added one name, Victor Ehrenberg, who certainly should be there. Probably, he only put them in the lists when he was sure they were Jewish, otherwise into Talk. All these edits seem to be in good faith and sound, so it should be safe to accept them.--20.138.246.89 13:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Explain what we are doing

If somebody could explain to SU what we are doing here and why he is blocked, it would be great. I don't think he understands what I say, and I don't understand what he says, so I have given up talking to him. Maybe someone else could watchlist his talk page and talk to him a bit? Kusma (討論) 08:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• He seems to be completely incapable of communicating normally with other users, even in his native Japanese. This suggests some sort of mental/emotional disorder, although I'm by no means a psychologist. Perhaps a psychiatric professional could review his talk page and archives and make suggestions. Batamtig 20:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Biography stubs

The biography stubs that SU created are not on the list, although I guess most of them are linked to the disambig. pages. The bio's suffer from many of the same issues that the disambig. pages do, and many of them should be deleted because of notability considerations. —Batamtig 15:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Japanese interwiki links

SU's articles often contain non-existent interwiki link. For those pointing into Japanese Wiki something always exist but it may be an error page or just something about Sheynhertz-Unbayg. I do not have proper fonts see how the page looks but the texts do not contain names in Latin script which one would expect them.

An example is Wilhelm Tomaschek (non-existent German and Czech links, suspicious Japanese link). Pavel Vozenilek 22:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

It went to an empty page. You should be able to tell from the red link at the top left (for "article"). Kusma (討論) 15:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

List of Slavic surnames

I recommend to delete this list after all other items by SU get cleaned out (it is good now to spot SU's articles). The content is abitrary: for example the second most frequent Czech surname Novotný is missing or Kovář (6th) more. OTOH Erben is infrequent and unusual and likely of German origin. I have doubt the rest of the list fares better. Pavel Vozenilek 22:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Prod'ed articles

Hi, I prodded a few of SU's onomastics articles earlier this evening before noticing you were working on this project. They'll be listed on [2]. Do you want the prod removed in order to do cleanup, or shall I leave them to be deleted? DWaterson 23:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

Although I have blocked SU's main internet provider (see User:Kusma/Sheynhertz for a list of blocked ranges), he sometimes edits from different IPs and creates sockpuppet accounts there. So it is a good idea to watch pages you have cleaned up. If he reverts you, you can report him at WP:ANI and request the sock to be blocked. Kusma (討論) 16:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Subst'ing signature

At User:Sheynhertz-Unbayg/sig is located the signature of blocked user Sheynhertz-Unbayg. He won't be needing it anymore, can we subst: the template and delete it afterwards? Punkmorten 12:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

That he is banned is irrelevant here, templates should never be used in signatures. Subst and delete. Kusma (討論) 12:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Reincarnation

User:MidreszRabbe.

My heart aches while I was reading all this saga of this poor disoriented man. But unfortunately what he does is out of scope of wikipedia rules—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.18.43.225 (talk • contribs) 04:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

He has been blocked and mostly reverted. Thank you! Kusma (討論) 08:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• I don't want to alarm unnecessarily, but does this Krochman (talk · contribs) look somewhat familiar? Nuss / [3] with multiple redirects into it, Fritz / [4], and more... appreciate another pair of eyes to take a look - Introvert • ~ 05:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Blocked, currently busy reverting. Thanks! Kusma (討論) 07:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

    Thanks to you, and I am sorry that this should be happening - Introvert • ~ 08:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

List cleanup

I began a cleanup of the list: I opened every non-striked-out article and either I stroke it out beacuse it was already cleaned-up, or I tagged it with {{disambig-cleanup}}. Quite many articles had already been cleaned-up but were not striked out, and I also found that Category:Disambiguation pages in need of cleanup is much more effective in moving this project forward. If anyone wants to join in this task, please do. Letters A and B are done.--20:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I have been undoing this psychopath's edits for awhile now without realizing there was a project page. It is true that a very large number of articles on the list have been cleaned up already but are not striked out; I will try to work on this as well. Also, I'm quite sure this is a sockpuppet (see contribs), although it hasn't been used since October. Anyway, this task is far closer to completion than it appears. Keep up the good work! shoeofdeath 00:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Full list of articles created by SU

Can be found here. Punkmorten 21:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Category:Onomastics ?

It seems this cleanup project is still pretty much alive, so I might as well ask about an unclear point: There is Category:Onomastics, which is said to be cleaned up by WP:SU. Now, for the past few weeks, I was under the impression that this category was to be emptied as every dab/surname page got cleaned up ("Articles should be removed from Category:Onomastics once they are converted to regular disambiguation pages."), so I removed this category from all of my cleaned-up SU dab/surname pages. But then I noticed that there are still a dozen or more articles that already got cleaned up/striked out, especially when they are surname (no dab) pages, so I'm not so sure anymore. So: Is it the goal to get rid of this category or not? – sgeureka ^t•c 22:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I would say yes, the category should definitely be eliminated. I have also been looking through some of the striked-out pages and am noticing that not all of them are completely "cleaned up"; in addition to articles still existing in that category, many bogus Japanese interwiki links are still there, etc. Perhaps we need to go back through all of striked-out pages and make sure things like this are taken care of. Also, that list of articles he created frightens me. I am trying to stay optimistic, but this project is far from over. shoeofdeath 22:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, but I suggest that whoever back-checks striked-out entries marks them as double-checked. I don't know, maybe I'll be extremely bored in a few days/weeks and unnecessarilly waste time to recheck pages that you or someone else already checked again. ;-) (Just leave the Baum/Baumstein example intact). – sgeureka ^t•c 00:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Alright, well, I went back and double checked everything on the list through J. I didn't read your suggestion until afterwards, though, so there are no marks. I went through rather quickly and probably didn't catch everything, so when you have a ton of time to waste (like me lately) feel free to check again. It is sort of satisfying to clean up this colossal mess. shoeofdeath 04:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Redirects to cleaned-up SU pages

Hi. Now that I can never tell which SU page you are currently cleaning up, I've decided to work my way backwards from the end of the WP:SU list. ;-) Anyway, I've noticed that you redirect old (useless) redirects to other surname pages (e.g. you linked Lautermann and many more sunames to Laut after you had moved Laut (onomastics) to Laut). WP:SU doesn't exactly say in what way those redirects should be dealt with, but I've found that putting them up for speedy deletion works best when there is no possible way of confusion. They always get deleted if you leave WP:SU in the summary, and this makes it much easier for whoever comes after us. I've got nothing to nitpick otherwise. ;-)– sgeureka ^t•c 14:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, never mind this suggestion. I just noticed that you are using speedy deletions for some SU pages. But I still think all those Laut*** redirects should be speedied, so I'll tag them. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Few things. First, I have stopped striking out pages every time I finish with them - currently I am working my way through L, I will strike out everything later. I think you working backwards is a great idea, that way we won't miss anything (although that list is incomplete).

So, about the deletions. My original plan was to just work through the list on the WP:SU page first and temporarily redirect all useless pages. After we finally got through that list I was going to go through the complete list of pages he created (posted by Punk) and make another huge list of the many articles that need to be speedy deleted or just deleted, etc. Then I noticed you were already marking some useless redirects for speedy deletions, and I realized that this probably made more sense and started doing it myself ; ). I will continue to do this but will still have to go through the complete list later.

I also believe that any page with the word (onomastics) should be deleted and not redirected, but realize that this is going to create a huge number of redlinks on the WP:SU page. Do you think this matters? shoeofdeath 17:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

1. Yes, the project seemed to have died by last December until User:Mafmafmaf started tagging them for {{disambig-cleanup}}. He also contributed to the project in a major way for some time there. I don't know whether he just needs a break and intends to come back, or whether he's had enough. (I can't blame him.) I'm just doing it because I like this kind of cleanup work. Before SU, I cleaned up dozens of disambiguation pages and therefore only stumbled across WP:SU by accident.

2. Deleting onomastics pages is kind of good/bad thing. Yes, after they got cleaned up and the keep-worthy stuff has been moved/merged somewhere else, they become useless. On the other hand, they have a history, and that history should be kept, even if it's just by redirect. User:SU put a lot of effort into those pages, and his work (before he became <bleep> and got banned) should be recognized. That's also why I think sometimes it's better to move a page first, and then start the cleanup. The word "onomastics" is gone then, and the history remains. Also, when I move differently spelled names to their own pages (former redirect), I usually mention that the info comes from "Page xyz (onomastics)" for credit, and a redlink isn't of much help then. My take. – sgeureka ^t•c 20:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that mafmaf made a huge amount of important contributions, and can't blame him for taking a break either. I am not sure I understand the second part. What I meant was that pages which have "onomastics" in the title (which have been mostly redirected) should instead be deleted, just like Wassertrüding (onomastics) which you prodded yesterday.

Ok, I just reread your comment and think I understand a little better. I am still confused about this though:

when I move differently spelled names to their own pages (former redirect), I usually mention that the info comes from "Page xyz (onomastics)" for credit

Really? I have never seen any such mention of credit. Have you done this on many pages? A ton of those pages ("Page xyz (onomastics)") have already been deleted and I really believe that the goal should be do delete them all. I am still a little unsure of what exactly you mean by giving credit; wouldn't those links just redirect to a different unrelated page? shoeofdeath 22:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've been actively editing wikipedia for only a few months now, so the whole SU period was some time before me. (I've read the RfC and other related material with great interest though.) Therefore, I don't have any hard feelings about him as I've never encountered his disruptive work, except for today's Talk:Wahl, LOL.

About "Page xyz (onomastics)": What I meant was that irf there is a page with such a name, I strip off all people with slightly different names to their own pages (jsut like you do) and then leave as an edit summary "Created from list on [[Page xyz (onomastics)]]" (example: my "Wend***" pages from yesterday, see Special:Contributions/Sgeureka). When "Page xyz (onomastics)" is finally cleaned up and redundant, I'll redirect it to "Page xyz", or prod it if there is no such page (example: Ehre (onomastics). But a redirect is usually enough, and the former onomastics page is still listed on WP:SU for others to (re-)check. – sgeureka ^t•c 22:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see, you were talking about linking there in the edit summary. Well, I don't think it is a big deal if redlinks are in some edit summaries. As for this: and the former onomastics page is still listed on WP:SU for others to (re-)check. This is what I was asking about before. As far as I am concerned the only reason to save those pages is so that others will be able to check them on WP:SU. What I am not sure about, however, is if that is really a valid enough reason to save a ton of useless redirects. I am leaning towards No, and already marked redirects like Lieb (onomastics) and Lust (onomastics) for SD (they were quickly deleted). I was thinking that perhaps links to the new pages (made up from the info that was on the deleted pages) should be put on WP:SU but realize that this is a lot more work and don't think it is really needed. If people want to recheck the newly created pages they can easily do this without direct links.

As for giving SU credit: none of his contributions were actually original (as you have seen from the fascinating "saga," his English was quite poor), so there is no reason to give him credit for copying stuff. If you are suggesting he should be given credit for assembling a few links together, I disagree, and besides, much of that was done by others.

SU's contributions were always the same, they did not change before or after the block except that afterwards he was using sockpuppets and undoing other people's edits. I think what is meant by "positive" is that his edits were in good faith; he truly did not understand that what he was doing was wrong. However, not all of his edits need to be undone, in fact, he made a huge number of contributions that will remain a part of Wikipedia forever. Unfortunately these edits are insignificant compared to the damage that he inflicted.shoeofdeath 23:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I cannot believe he is still doing this.

(edit conflict) That's what I wanted to post right now:

Well, half an hour ago, I came across User:Baraban with this contribution page: Special:Contributions/Baraban. It should be fairly obvious who this wikipedian is, so I put up the sockpuppet template and reverted most of his edits. Why I'm mentioning this is: 1. I'm really surprised that he is still pretty much active. 2. He reverted several SU pages with unsuitable edit summaries to his pre-cleaned up version (see the history), some of them now cleaned up by both of us, without us really noticing. Ergo (if you don't already know): If you want to save some time for other SU pages, check if one of his sock puppets reverted a version that already got cleaned up before by someone else. Now I'd even encourage destroying the history of xyz (onomastics) pages as he can't simply revert then. I'll keep an open eye and mind now. :-) – sgeureka ^t•c 23:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

(onomastics) to (surname)

I changed the instructions to suggest moving to (surname) if it's just a descriptive paragraph and a list of people with that surname, and a disambiguation page exists. See WP:MOSDAB and recent discussions on its talk page. Chris the speller 20:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

We were already doing this, I believe. All pages with (onomastics) in the title are being deleted with content moved elsewhere. shoeofdeath 20:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Update

Category:Onomastics has been cleaned out for good and can be deleted. Work on surname pages is almost complete. Next phases of cleanup project coming soon. shoeofdeath 05:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Please don't unilaterally phase out the category, emptying it before attempting to delete it. Place the category on WP:CFD, then if it's deleted there you can remove the category from all articles. Punkmorten 06:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Fine, but there were only a few articles in there that weren't part of this project. Also, it was already agreed that the category was going to be deleted. shoeofdeath 06:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I see this discussion, but still, as the category pertains to other areas than just this project the definite discussion should take place at WP:CFD. Punkmorten 06:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The main category may be cleaned out now, but note that it contains several important sub-categories (including Category:Surnames and Category:Given names). It won't get deleted. – sgeureka ^t•c 06:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I am confused. Why are all those other categories under this one? shoeofdeath 06:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Should those other categories be moved? They certainly do not all apply to onomastics (Brands, Anonymity, etc). I am not dealing with this anymore, if someone wants to add the 5 or so articles that I removed from that category they can. shoeofdeath 06:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

A surprisingly large percentage of articles are miscategorized. Almost no article has the best options for categories, so the five you mention don't matter in the big picture. Onomastics (article) shows some loose connections/correlations between the different categories, and since it isn't broken, I guess we shouldn't fix it beyond anything after our WP:SU cleanup. Except we might remove the explanation sentaence for this category and replace it with a notice like "consider putting articles into the subcats that are more appropriate", like Category:Stubs has. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with all of this, especially the first sentence (cats are useless anyway and most readers of Wikipedia don't even know about them). I would suggest we leave something like "Articles in this category were cleaned up and removed in accordance with the Wikipedia:SU project. Please consider putting articles into more specific subcats that are appropriate."

I'll leave it up to you. shoeofdeath 08:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

About archiving this talk page

By the way, this was another action carried through without any discussion. It could be argued that archiving this talk page was not necessary, and not a particularly good thing, especially since there was a thread opened only two days ago. The talk page was not too large, either (see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page for guidelines). Punkmorten 06:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I archived it because the project is moving into a new phase shortly. There were no active threads. shoeofdeath 06:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The thread "(onomastics) to (surname)" was only two days old, so you can't really consider it inactive. And furthermore, which phase would this be and who decided this? Punkmorten 06:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It was absolutely inactive. He made a suggestion to do something that we were already doing. The next phases will deal with other things besides surnames. shoeofdeath 06:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I am currently going through the list that you posted (if that is what you were worried about). We might need another one that includes redirects as well but it will certainly do for now. shoeofdeath 06:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I was worried about the list - because of the low quality of SU's entries. Furthermore it shows that only a small part of his creations were listed on this project page. Punkmorten 06:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

That is definitely understood; the project so far has only included surname pages. I am sorting through the list currently, it will take me a little while to finish with it. He basically copy-pasted an enormous amount of material here, mostly from the Jewish Encyclopedia (more coming on the rest of the project soon). shoeofdeath 06:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)