Wikipedia talk:Cleanup process/Archive 1

message: We already have a page for copyright violations that seems to be working very well since it was split off from VfD proper. I don't think that needs to be here as well. Angela
::the reason for the Cleanup buffer is as a clearing house for all deletions, for whatever reason-- this way people might get a heads up on whats going on, and certain people will become facile at using it, as a quick way to sort lots more articles. We have to think in ways that are increasingly efficient, because there may be too many articles coming through. (Edit conflicts on Cleanup can be mitigated by copying your own text before you submit it, so you can paste and repost it quickly.) -SV
:::If it ain't broke, don't fix it. I still think copyvio and foreign should be left alone. Angela
I also disagree with the suggestion that copyvios should be "fixed". To avoid the legal issues, it is a lot easier simply to delete them and start from scratch. If people want to write the article during the 7 days, this can be done on talk:page name/temp. Angela 21:40, Sep 30, 2003 (UTC)
:We still deal with the fact that articles in history, as Alex said onlist, are under the "famous 108" (?) notice, thats an exemption from liability. So the copyvio, if is not in current text-- is still not a liablity.
See:
* Alex's NALO
* Jim question --SV
Re: SV's edit summary of Does this make sense to anyone but my cat?-Ang - No. 
::It comes via Martin and Cimon Avaro's "Dead letter office proposal." Ironically after Cimon wrote me a heads-up about it, I barely read it before I understood the gist-- I was surprised to find later that what I wrote was almost identical point by point to their proposal, with the exception of Martin's separate (and apparently active) "No offensive comments" policy-- which I think belongs elsewhere.-SV
*What is it?-Ang -A clearing house-SV
*Who is it for?-Ang -To clear house-SV - I said who. Ang
*Why make things more complicated?-Ang -Its simpler! -SV - Having to constantly move things from here to VfD is not simpler. Ang
*Why does it have to be anonymous?-Ang -It doesnt (thats Martins notion which I disagree with)-SV
Angela 01:36, Oct 4, 2003 (UTC), & 03:08, 戴眩sv 02:59, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

message: Why not re-name this page "VfD Lite", and be done with it?  Better still, why not abandon the whole VfD system altogether, before it collapses under its own centralised bureaucratic weight, and change to something better.  GrahamN 17:30, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Well its on the right track. Look-- instead of having people get used to just chucking stuff in VFD, which we all agree has gotten out of hand-- this is just a buffer before it. Not to replace it, just a buffer. BUF-FER. These things take time, and of course it will be a while before people get the hang... but all in all, it seems to be getting enough attention, and I like the fact that people are molding it according to their thinking. The only niggles I have are Cimon's silly notion about anonymity, and the poor, unstaggered formatting. This simply should be able to handle a lot of problem pages, and as such be limited in terms of comment to a few words max. This is the important thing.戴眩sv 22:53, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Your remark, and pretty much everything else on this page, is just plausible-looking gibberish, designed to make people think that it realy does make sense, but that they are just too dim to understand it.  Especially since so many other Wikipedians, whom they think they know and trust, appparently understand and approve of it.  Marvellous.  Are you doing this just for the glory, or are you being paid?  I'm not sure which I find the more despicable.  GrahamN 00:39, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I really dont know you from Adam, Graham, but judging by your comments and behaviour on these pages the last couple days, I can tell that "despicable" coming from you, is in fact the highest honor.  You should look forward to plenty more "despicable" things from me.  Again, I invite you to show some constructive criticism or just leave-- go edit some Gaia theory articles if you like. Nobody is going to enforce the use of this page, so you can just do what you want...戴眩sv 21:32, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Accountability Lite

message: This new system, which seems plausible on the surface, but actually makes no sense at all, was suddenly sprung on us fully formed and "operating". The people who sprang it on us, and their friends, are the only ones who claim fully to understand it. GrahamN
:Actually, Cimon avaro's 100 word summary just above finally explained to me what the idea was. As you will note, I have never participated in this discussion until now, so I'm not one of "the people who sprang it on us". (Who's "us"? And who's the implicit "them"? That sort of false dichotomy is nothing but trouble.) And I'm not sure anyone claims to fully understand it, since it is a consensus-built initiative, and therefore means different things to different people. -- Cyan 18:20, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Through the use of this page, articles are being deleted without a lengthy, multi-user process. This is WRONG. This must STOP. The deletion process IS MEANT to be cumbersome. Do not delete pages unless they have gone through the established process at VfD! Kingturtle 15:21, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)

text: My understanding is that the pages go from here to VfD, and are not deleted directly off this page. That said, I personally have deleted at least one sub-stub, Consultant, (see speedy deletion exception #4 of Wikipedia:Deletion policy), only to discover that it had been listed here for "Cleanup". Unless there's some notice on the article, marginal cases may very well be deleted by sysops who don't follow this page closely, such as myself. -- Cyan 16:52, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Then, Cleanup is a list of items that were once on VfD, and rather than be deleted, they are cleaned up by users who frequent the cleanup page? Is that how it works? If so, then the instructions and description of this page have to be made more clear. For over a week, I have been trying to figure out the procedure with this page. Kingturtle 17:06, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)

text: What it is supposed to do, apparently, is keep people from bogging down VfD with listings like this one for "Educational behaviorism". How well it actually works is another question. -- Cyan 17:56, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: This page is a fraud

message: The Wikipedia:Cleanup page is a buffer designed by Cimon Avaro, Stevertigo and others to take the load off of Wikipedia:Votes for deletion, which gets overused (up to 90k this week!). Descriptions and each listing's "life" on WP:CU are to be kept very short, allowing for rapid 'first handling' of a large number of articles, like Special:Recentchanges but with a solicitation for immediate community assistance in determinig/validating the article's path.
::Needs to replace or coexist with VfD link on the top of the recent changes page.Ark30inf
::::I would just replace "Pages needing attention". That one is pretty much deadweight anyway. (IMO) -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 08:22, Oct 7, 2003 (UTC)
:Apparently the problem is that there are too much editorial discussions. We should discuss if there is any reason to delete an article, not the article is if worth, useful or well-written. -- Taku
::Yes, theres a lot of stuff that needs taking care of--sysops will just go ahead and delete or otherwise do. Newbies need a place to start action, though they may be unsure of the action - ie copyvio, deletion, etc. etc. We sysops tend to think of simply deleting nonsense, or making a fast change, we forget we need to harness newbie power.戴眩sv
:::Exactly, there are too much nonsenses listed on VfD, which sysop just go ahead deleting. And there are a number of articles whose existence is controversial, which VfD is not suitable to discuss. -- Taku
::::Awesome-- thats one convert to the Cleanup buffer idea-- its in use now, Taku san. -Ohayho gozaimasu- me sleep now.戴眩sv
*What exactly is the process of deleting a page through Cleanup? And how is Cleanup different from Wikipedia:Pages needing attention? And what formal process occured to remove Wikipedia:Pages needing attention from the utilities listed on Recent Changes? I feel Wikipedia:Pages needing attention should be re-added to the utilities list. Kingturtle 22:49, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia:Cleanup is open for business