Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Cleanup process/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

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:

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&#30505sv 02:59, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

asdfjkl

Does "asdfjkl" mean anything? -SV

See http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=asdfjkl%3B. Angela 01:06, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)
It's the output from the middle row of a standard typewriter (or computer if you must) keyboard with the G and H keys broken. Is this question some sort of linguistic Rorschach test? --Camembert
Or a better explanation -- it's just the keys underneath the "home position" of hands when typing. Probably the fastest "word" one can type. Fuzheado


Well, in the context of Wikipedia:Cleanup--see box of terms.--戴&#30505sv 01:28, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I think it means that the article consists of just nonsense like "asdfjkl".

More comments

I understand your reasoning behind this proposal but it seems like a heavyweight and unwieldy mechanism. It doesn't seem like it's worth it. What if we just renamed "Votes for Deletion" to "Cleanup Buffer" instead? Axlrosen 17:21, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Hmm. If you are suggesting that we just replace Votes for Deletion with a system based on anonymity, quick terse comments, and eschew arguments altogether; or at least relegate the argument-fostering cases to individual /delete pages,... Well, my first question would be: "We and whose army?"
My second question would be: "What, and have nothing in between?, no central point where to follow the arguments going on? Wouldn't that just be a worse form of the "separate VFD by days" concept?
If on the other hand you are suggesting that the salient features of my proposal, such as a requirement for terseness be (gradually or otherwise) introduced into Votes for Deletion, making it a much more lightweight instrument in the process; my first question would be: "We and whose army?"
My second question in that circumstance would be: "If it is meant to be a determinative instrument, why muzzle discord by putting hurdles to self expression?" In my conception the terseness and rapid fire functionality is meant to foster light, fast and impulsive expression, but not expression which is meant to be final or determinative, except as determining the suggested avenues for improving an article, or providing very rough guidance as to whether it is worth putting on the Votes for Deletion pages... If the comments have too much of a finality about them, such as dissallowing further discussion about deletion, that would just make people too self-conscious about the whole thing. We (eventually will) need speed, not final decisions by a kangaroo court, is the main idea about the whole suggestion in my mind. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 18:22, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Cimon-- you write too much stuff. I cant read all those big words. I want to simpulify the process. Step 1, step 2, step 3, step 4. And so on and stuff. This way people can read it easier and more understand it betterer. ;-)--戴&#30505sv 23:28, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Software will never supplant human minds and eyes for weeding new entries into wikipedia.
The brains behind those eyes need to communicate between other brains about what to do, finally, to an article.
Once wikipedia scales up, and I think it can (with modifications), there will be a huge stream of submissions coming our way "drinking out of a water hose". Such a stream can not be handled by think-machines (brains) alone.
So, the first step should be something that comes from the gut, not the brain. Or in other words, letting ones reflexes do the talking first up. The brain (Votes for Deletion) should pick up later, and assess where things really are. I don't know if this is more understandable, but atleast it has shorter paragraphs :) Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 03:04, 5 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Why why why?

I still don't get it. What is the benefit? What does it solve? Who is going to do this? I also think you should advertise it a bit more before going ahead. Judging by the lack of comments here, either everyone accepts it (mad) or they don't realise the impact it is going to have on them. Angela 23:40, Oct 4, 2003 (UTC)

Well thats what were here to talk about eh? Cimon and I among others had been thinking along these lines for a while -- for 1:WP:VFD is too damn busy these days. I would argue that the WP:PUMP work in this way as well-- which is just a way to emulate the way a chat style threaded category listing works-- find what interests you, and click on it. For example on the VP someone (I assume it was you) simply made a link to here, instead of having the talk on the pump. There should be far more proactive threading like that going on - on the pages that get way too much attention for a wiki.
Reason 2, is to get oldbies and newbies into the habit of finding consensus for action on a change. Maybe the "must go through here" rule is a bit far fetched-- but at least the buffer takes the pressure off of VFD-- which should allow for MORE weeding of crap, and faster action on things that should be done. Think of it like an edited version of WP:RC. Wikilove, 戴&#30505sv 02:51, 5 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I hope some of the whys are answered above. And, despite what I wrote to Steve (Stewart?) on his/her talkpage, I will not put the page live unilaterally just yet. Frustration spoke there, not me. I think this page will probably best serve as something that will only be put live when it becomes clear there is no alternative, i.e. we really do have to drink from a waterhose of new articles, and really will have a huge bunch of newcomers just itching to find themselves useful and appreciated and have their contribution to the community effort have immediate and positive effects, without having to ponder the finality of deletion too deeply. To paraphrase Stevertigo: Does this make any sense to anybody but my lice? -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 03:04, 5 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Well, I agree that we should have some enthusiasm (not to mention a clear understanding of) for an idea-- before we push it to people. Count me as enthusiastic-- so much so that I went and stepped on Cimon's toes! (Sorry, Señor Avaro) I would like this implemented no later or sooner than when enough people are interested (after the New logo, Nazipedia and other scandals' burnout has worn off.) We could also make a Wikipedia:Policy in formation page, and a Wikipedia:Civility page that deal with some protocol involving harmful comments in general (it seems MyRedDice is doing such a thing already--is this "policy" already? I thought I only missed the whole WikiMoney thing while I was gone. With a cleanup Buffer we can redirect pages in any number of appropriate directions, and maybe organize a cleanup of the [[Wikipedia:]] pages themselves-- wouldnt that be a kick? :) 戴&#30505sv 03:17, 5 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I think I understand more now - it's basically for all the rubbish, not just for the rubbish that should be deleted? At first I was rather worried this was just going to suddenly be introduced to replace VfD and lead to a Jtdirl v. Eloquence style edit war. However, despite that, perhaps the only way to convince people is to start it off. I'm still not sure I completely understand what is going to happen, so seeing it in action would help. You won't know 'till you try it. By the way, Steve, you do realise that as soon as those scandals are over there will be more to replace them? :) Angela 03:47, Oct 5, 2003 (UTC)
Let us hope so. ;>)-SV
I can't get past the first paragraph. Could someone who understands the purpose of this page please rewrite the first paragraph into English? RickK 04:33, 5 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Ill du my best. Thanks for the input.-SV

I just noticed this bit: "The submitting editor only, must remove the listing from the page upon determination of a course of action."

That's a really bad idea. You're expecting people to retain a committment to their listing which many people won't want to do. You'll just end up with loads of things remaining on the page because the originator of the comment hasn't come back. Perhaps it would be better if anyone involved the Wikipedia:Cleaning department could look after this aspect of the process. Angela 05:15, Oct 5, 2003 (UTC)
(Cough, Cough...) My original idea was that nothing should be removed from the page, except to keep it at a manageable size. If you look at my original example listing at the bottom of the page, you will note that there are lots of of articles still on it, which have already been subjected to final action. The idea was that the original submitter enclose his initial comment in parentheses and the one doing the last act for an article, do the same, as also someone frex undeleting a deleted article. Maybe that should be spelt out... -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 07:27, Oct 6, 2003 (UTC)

Can someone in one sentence describe what this page is? BL 05:11, 5 Oct 2003 (UTC)

It's a place for rubbish. Lots of people will comment on whether they think it is rubbish and then it will go to VfD if three people say it is. (I think). Angela
This is entirely too much overhead and bureaucratese. We're adding layers and layers of burdensome nonsense. RickK 05:17, 5 Oct 2003 (UTC)
In one sentence: it's a way to make it more difficult to delete nonsense. RickK

Rick, youre one of those guys who thinks strongly the way you do until facts or reality change your mind, so I'll take your comments simply as a challenge to 'make it work.' In any case--Angela has the idea now, and if we can agree to stop squabbling we can answer some of the outstanding questions-- how do we merge this into the existing process?-- Is'nt this "just too hard? Verily verily-- I say unto thee, that before these days are done, ye shall agree with me. 戴&#30505sv 11:48, 5 Oct 2003 (UTC) (Ive seen it happen b'fore ;)

You still haven't explained why we need this process. What's wrong with the way we're doing things now? RickK 00:21, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)~

IMHO the fact that it will not scale nicely when our servers get the much vaunted huge database-server, and we get a humongous flood of new articles with our growing popularity, visibility and our general dominance of the web. VFD would simply break down. It is just that simple. This is intended as a lifeline for VFD, so that it might serve for as long as possible, until we get a technological fix. I can't help as a developer, since I know nothing about programming this sort of stuff, but this should remove some of the urgency for the adoption of software fixes; ghod knows the developers have enough on their plate right now. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 06:29, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)

VfD practically has broken down now. Things frequently need to be moved to the talk pages, which is far from ideal. Despite me cutting down the waiting time on non-contentious articles to six days, VfD is still 55kb. It was recently 92kb, which is problematic. I think any attempt at a solution ought to be tried out. It isn't permanent. If this doesn't work, we simply revert to the traditional VfD. Despite my earlier comments of this being more complicated, I am now sufficiently convinced that this has potential and ought to be tried. Angela 07:04, Oct 6, 2003 (UTC)
OK- Im here to help.:D Ill remove the contruction materiale from the metapage and you can start using it after-- Ill be 'sleep then tho. Youll need a boilerplate for VFD and copyvio. Maybe if this works we can figure out a fix for the pump-- but I agree the VFD is the bigger isshew. :) -戴&#30505sv 08:50, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I won't guarantee i will not tweak the page to make it in conformance with my ideas ;-) But one thing tho. The hourstamp, that has to be clarified... -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 09:18, Oct 6, 2003 (UTC)

Or, we could be rational and make the stay on VfD 3 days, then delete. -- Minus 09:05, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Please don't try to include copyvios in all this. The VfD/copyvio page works perfectly as it is. It really doesn't need changing and isn't likely to in the near future. The difference in procedure between VfD proper and VfD/copyvio is very different and I don't want people getting the two confused. Copyvios need a lot more following up. You can't just list it on VfD and forget about it. You need to check the rest of the author's contributions as there's a high chance they've done this more than once. You need to leave them a message explaining the situation with the GFDL and maybe block them if they don't stop. (And possibly unblock them when it turns out not to be copyvio and deal with the dozens of e-mails complaining about the fact you blanked their precious work.) You need to add the boilerplate, along with the website, and provide a link to a temp page where rewrites can occur. After a few days, you need to check the article's talk page to see if the author is declaring it is not copyvio and if the copyvio is only suspected, then maybe follow it up by e-mailing the author or the website concerned. People just listing things here or at VfD are likely not to want to do all that, and for those who are prepared to do it, it makes it a lot harder to do when the copyvios are all mixed in with the rest of the rubbish. In summary - please leave copyvios out of this. Thank you. Angela 18:21, Oct 6, 2003 (UTC)

Well, its for "possible copyvio" -- again this is an optionality -- experienced editors of course can go straight to the VFD and the CV pages-- but if they are courteous, or if they are unsure-- this may be better to throw out there--they will go here. 戴&#30505sv 18:57, 6 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Everything at VfD/copyvio now is only potential copyvio. That's why it waits a week for follow ups and isn't deleted straight away. Angela 19:02, Oct 6, 2003 (UTC)

IMAO the rule should be, if unsure, list it here. Maybe a newcomer doesn't know about all the pages we have different purposes. Seeing how the old hands sort them out here can be valuable training. This page shoud be one where no one should be afraid of posting anything. -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 08:10, Oct 7, 2003 (UTC)

If this page is to be used, it needs to replace VFD on the link header at the top of Recent changes.Ark30inf

Let's please not automatically assume that we're going to be enforcing this without more discussion and a vote. RickK 05:35, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I am opposed to the 48 hour limit here. There are reasons why VfD asks for a week; those same reasons apply here. Kingturtle 06:55, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Me too, just let it fill up, and clear out stuff when it gets too big... -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 08:10, Oct 7, 2003 (UTC)


My gut dislikes the idea of this page, but I'm willing to give it a try. I'll probably obsolete wikipedia:deleted test, as there's only room for so many deletion methods. Some concerns:

  • Once someone's fixed an article, they should just remove it. It's easy enough to re-add in the unlikely event the fix is insufficient. I say some stuff here with "wikify", fixed with "wikified", might make sense to just remove stuff when you're confident it's fixed.
    • Yes if you yourself check that the person who declared it wikified actually did so. -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
  • Not having a stub deletion notice means that deletion takes author more by surprise. Maybe use what I once suggested at wikipedia:deleted test, but make it more generally wikipedia:deleted page. Otherwise, the additional burden of "bug" reports on developers and confused newbies on the pump and elsewhere might outweight the benefits. One to watch.
    • So add the stub notice, already. Listing here does not prevent any usual action, but merely gives some indication that action is needed. -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
  • I don't think "unwikified", "bad spelling", etc should be a reason to list pages here. See Wikipedia:Why Aren't These Pages Copyedited? Anyone can fix these things, so it's IMO inefficient to list such pages at a central location: rather than being helpful, that kind of approach actually creates work, in my experience.
    • That is how it looks to us, who are the masters of wikipedia. Not the same view at all for those just joining us. Newcomers need to have a soft landing into the community process of wikipedia. I couldn't think of a better one than this. -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
  • Anyway, best of luck :) Martin 14:08, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Thanks, but we don't need luck. Just dogged perseverence. -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 14:33, Oct 7, 2003 (UTC)

I think the hour stamp is not needed at this point, as long as we are all clear that we will be top posting new entries. Without objection, I will be removing the hour-stamps in a couple more hours... -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 16:46, Oct 7, 2003 (UTC)

Without the timestamps how does an article get removed from the process? Audin 18:14, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Well, FIFO in general (First In First Out). Nothing needs to be removed until the page grows too large. And as we are not signing our names, we can edit all comments to the shortest possible which conveys the necessary info. But my idea is that even old stuff should stay as long as possible, and remove teh old and deleted or articles which have been given a similarly final treatment... -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 18:24, Oct 7, 2003 (UTC)

What about articles that are deemed to not need deletion? Essentially an article on this page is marked for extermination. There should be some definite mechanism to remove that mark if the community decides the article has merit. Audin 21:35, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I don't know where you get that. If I had my druthers, every article should have a stop here, just to get a reaction from someone. I personally listed one article on the page with the comment (Brilliant prose), and I wasn't kidding. -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 06:24, Oct 8, 2003 (UTC)

Format for WP:CU

Cimon-- the minus/plus sign format thing sucks. I dont know how its supposed to look on your browser but it was better with the bullets. Thanks.戴&#30505sv 05:24, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Ditto. It looked much better compacted. Also, I hate to keep harping, but if this is going to get popular then it has to replace VfD on the recent changes header. At least for a while make VfD go through here and put this on the recent changes header. If thats too drastic then at least get a link to this page up there.Ark30inf 06:27, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Relax, let it grow on ya. -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 06:35, Oct 8, 2003 (UTC)
I guess I can quit harping since its up there now eh?Ark30inf 06:29, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Sorry, Steve. Maybe you are right, maybe you aren't. Let's try it this way first, if people squeal, or you still think that in a few days more, I'll take it on the chin. (well, maybe) -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 06:24, Oct 8, 2003 (UTC)

Well, Im glad its taking off, and that people are trying things out to see what works best. In reality, we cant be using an inconsistent theme, and compacted/threaded is far easier to read than this. Still, it goes well. Now we need to be bold in cutting down comment lengths.., Explaining it to people more, and removing material that is redundant on VFD/Vio, etc. After that, we can talk about making people go through here, and to sign comments. 戴&#30505sv

Sorry again Steve, but I will be editing out signatures and compacting comments. If you have a problem with that, maybe we can change taht later. Lets just try to make this a going concern. Then we can finetune it, maybe. -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 06:58, Oct 8, 2003 (UTC)

Deletion direct from this page?

You should feel confident to Act on a listing when a majority agreement seems to be reached.

So I can delete stuff where most people say delete? Or does this mean I can list it at VfD and then wait another week before I can delete it? Angela 17:32, Oct 8, 2003 (UTC)

I would suggest listing on VfD where a majority agreement seems to be reached, and just deleting where a unanimous agreement seems to be reached. Martin 11:43, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Deletion policy makes no mention of this page. Unless something falls under one of the exceptions given there, current practice would be to always list the page at VfD. --Camembert 12:32, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Yup. My thinking is that this page should not trump the usual guidelines we have for deletion. If it is abundantly clear that a page will not be fixed, or cannot be fixed in such a way to not escape deletion, it should go through Votes for Deletion, just like any other page. And if someone deletes a page listed here outright, they should do so on their own authority, in the cases where such action has been permitted before. This page should not slide into a position of replacing Votes for Deletion. See also my comment on anonymity below. -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 12:48, Oct 9, 2003 (UTC)

If this "unanimity" policy was adopted, what would happen if some hypothetical user ststed that they disagreed with all such deletions? GrahamN 16:21, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The hypothetical devil's advocate would have to think of a genuine (+) for all articles on cleanup: +(funny), +(well written), etc. Such articles would have to go through VfD prior to deletion, except where they are candidates for speedy deletion. On the other hand, someone trying to game the system with +(the sky is blue) and the like can be ignored. But that's only an idea, of course. Martin 16:41, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)
This Cleanup page is a buffer designed to increase the efficiency of integrating problematic articles into wikipedia, and supplementing the deletion process by formalizing a more general cleanup process, of which deletion is one possible path an article may take.

What on earth does this mean? Can somebody who understands what this page is for please add a clear and simple explanation of its purpose to the page. --Camembert 17:37, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The concept seems to be very similar to programming via IRC. Unfortunately it will likely suffer from the same problem of exclusion based on time availability (if you don't happen to check in every day, a major decision is likely to me bade without your input). Speed is a double edged sword. Audin 20:48, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)

This page works on anonymity.

Need to explain: Does the process require anonymity? Why? What about the usernames in the page history - should I logout before voting? Axlrosen 20:49, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)


In my view, the page should work best if personalities don't impinge on it in any shape or form. -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 12:48, Oct 9, 2003 (UTC)


Should the Deletion guidelines concept of "As a general rule, don't delete pages you nominate for deletion. Let someone else do it." apply here? Audin 21:27, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)

No, that can't apply. If you aren't signing it, you can't be expected to remember whether it was you that listed it. Angela 21:39, Oct 8, 2003 (UTC)
Hmm. I think I'd remember if I had originally posted something. But I can see how it would be difficult to enforce through the anonymity. Audin 22:34, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)


Again, deletions should be approached on the basis of Using Votes for Deletion, or if not, deleting only on ones personal authority, not on the authority of this page. Hopefully most of the articles here are kept, because someone fixes them. -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 12:48, Oct 9, 2003 (UTC)

Anonymity does not FLY when involving DELETIONS. The deletion process is MEANT to be lengthy and arduous and PUBLIC. The process is meant to disarm trigger-fingers and to thwart abuse of power. Those discussing deletion of an article *must* have their names known. And it mustn't be a chore to find those names. The anonymity aspect of this system must be removed.Kingturtle 05:59, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Respectfully disagree on the anonymity aspect. I think your opinion may be based on a misunderstanding of the pages purpose.
The aim of this page is not to delete pages, but to rescue them from deletion by improving them. When pages listed here are deleted, they should either pass through WP:VFD as usual, or the person doing the deletion must take responsibility for the deletion being in accordance with our policy of deleting patent nonsense and other similar stuff. -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 12:48, Oct 9, 2003 (UTC)
Ah, you are correct. I completely misunderstood the purpose of this page. I thought it was meant to speed up the deletion process. The opening sentence is written like a law document or a chemistry textbook: ...increase the efficiency of integrating problematic articles into wikipedia...formalizing a more general cleanup process... And what in the word is a CB? Cleanup board?
Can someone rewrite it so that it makes sense in everyday language?
Also, how is this different from Wikipedia:Pages needing attention? And why was Wikipedia:Pages needing attention removed from the utilities list on recent changes? AND why is there NO mention on Wikipedia:Pages needing attention of this cleanup page? Kingturtle 18:56, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Again: will somebody who understands what this page is for please add a simple and clear explanation of its purpose and way of working to the page. I'm stil not entirely clear what the idea behind it is myself - a new user surely stands no chance. --Camembert 12:32, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Thank you, I'm still lost as to why we need this page. RickK 15:40, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)
While I think useful things have already happened because of this page, it should really only come into its own once we get the upgrades working OK, and we get the projected unending slash-dot effect from our press-releases and general visibility on the Internet... -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 16:25, Oct 9, 2003 (UTC)

Maybe I'm not being clear enough. I'm not saying that this page doesn't seem to be "working", I'm saying that it isn't clear from the page what "work" it is supposed to do. In particular, I don't understand how this page differs from Wikipedia:Votes for deletion and Wikipedia:Pages needing attention. The introductory paragraph, the "Process rules" and the "Terms to use" are unclear and do not answer the questions which a user unfamiliar with the page is likely to ask, namely "under what circumstances should I list pages here", "under what circumstances should I remove pages listed here" and "what should I do when a page is listed here". Sorry, perhaps I'm just being thick, but surely somebody can rewrite this intro to the page so that even thick people can understand it. --Camembert

I agree - this page should not be used until it has a clear explanation at the top. I can't figure it out, how am I supposed to participate?
Besides just a short explantion of how this thing is supposed to work, here's what I find currently unclear: Is a vote to delete is really a vote to delete, or is it just a vote to move it to VfD? I.e. what does is mean to act on based on the majority of votes? What are all the "break" sections for? Why are some comments in parens? Why do some start with + and some start with - ? Which part is the reason given by the submitter? (That part needs to be set off more from the other comments if it's supposed to be clear what's what.) What's "frex" mean?
Also: The current format seems backward to me - I keep thinking that the comment is the article name (because it's to the left) and the article name is the comment (because it's indented).
Axlrosen 18:10, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  • and what's the timestamp on some of them for? Angela 18:43, Oct 9, 2003 (UTC)
Dagummit--Im thick myself, but this is ridiculous. ;) My best way to describe this: think of it like WP:PNA only with some fire underneath it. When was the last time you saw PNA on the S:RC, eh? I nave never seen it active. This should be active, and as such it needs a better name, tighter comments, operation by hour rather than by day--etc. Stuff goes through here, gets sorted out to the various spots - the lower intestine the pancreas, etc, etc. Things can go straigt to, but it will take pressure off of VFD to do stuff here first. 戴&#30505sv 16:59, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)
That's helpful in figuring out what this is for, but not for figuring out how it works. How can I convince you that the process is not well-described right now? See my questions above. Axlrosen 19:14, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Right. Well, sorry for being so thick but that really doesn't answer the question of what is the timestamp for? I know the most recent stuff is at the top so why would I care whether something was added at some particular hour of some obscure time zone anyway? Angela 17:19, Oct 10, 2003 (UTC)

1) Complete the sentence "the point of the timestamp is..." in less than 100 words.

Cough, Cough... Remove any timestamp remaining, please! -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 17:27, Oct 10, 2003 (UTC)
THis is right--remove timestamps to save space. Use hour headers instead. how can it be more simpler?
Hour headers==timestamps ->those are what I meant. What is the point? Angela

I've rewritten the intro to the page to fit in with my understanding of how it is meant to work. I don't really know the answer to all Axlrosen's questions, but hopefully it's at least a little better now. It makes more sense to me, anyway.

Or, for those of you who liked the way the page was written before, it would, perhaps, be preferable to your sensibilities if I were to state that I have paraphrased the, in my view, contorted verbiage on this page with a view to making more efficient the familiarization process for individuals who are lacking prior experience with the procedure. --Camembert 19:34, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)

- :D 戴&#30505sv
Alright! Much better, thank you. I made a few tweaks myself, based on my current understanding of things. Axlrosen 21:07, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Well its too damn long. I tried to use condensed language, and perhaps it was too much so-- but this is unclear by its sheer unnecessary length and passive voice. Maybe somewhere inbetween. 戴&#30505sv 22:53, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Yeah, maybe it is a bit wordy. Feel free to prune it, everyone (I'll have a go myself in a couple of days if nobody else does). --Camembert

Accountability Lite

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)

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&#30505sv 22:53, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)
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)
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&#30505sv 21:32, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

100 words.

Can someone explain, in 100 words or less, what this page is supposed to do, and how to do it? RickK 06:42, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Well the following is under 100 words, but I have to admit it only adressses what its purposes are, not the methodology:

This page is a little bit like a combined human edited recent changes, new pages and pages needing attention.

Its purposes are to speed the rythm of responses to articles needing attention, when the hardware upgrades make that possible; help newcomers understand our work methods and the institutions we have to aid community editing; and finally, and fundamentally its purpose is to allow us to produce more articles and better articles, at a faster speed.

It is meant to help people improve doubtful articles so they never need be listed on Votes for Deletion, taking some pressure off it.

-- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 11:57, Oct 11, 2003 (UTC)

This is just gibberish GrahamN

This page is a fraud

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

Wikipedia:Cleanup is open for business

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&#30505sv
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&#30505sv
  • 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)
    • The precise process of deleting a page through Cleanup is that it should not be done. Cleanup differs from PNA in that substubs, pages containing "asdfjkl falkjfaso iehfahjas dkja sdhfka kjhaf hjkaf soea flsjkfas" are welcome to be posted there (so they can be treated as per normal procedures by those who have the mojo) and any number of pages puzzling to any user, new or old can be posted there to get a second opinion. The formal process followed to put Cleanup up on Recent Changes is called the Wikiway, also called "be bold", which you too should follow, instead of whining, if it irks you. I posdef will not get into a edit war over Recent Changes, you can count on that. Nuff said. -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 21:59, Oct 14, 2003 (UTC)
  • Made some changes -- the - + things seem to be working. 戴&#30505sv 19:31, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)


Boilerplate?

Perhaps a VfD-like boilerplate (to be added to a page listed here) might be in order? Something like This page has been listed for Cleanup. You can help wikipedia by fixing it -- Finlay McWalter 01:15, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I think that's a bad idea. If people see a bad page, they should know to fix it anyway. There was enough of a hassle when mav tried to get people to put VfD notes on pages, and although people seem to have accepted that now, cleanup is supposed to be easier. Also, I think cleanup notes all over the place will just look messy, especially as many of the articles here will already have stub notices on them. Angela 01:25, Nov 7, 2003 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Cleanup

I read the intro by Stevertigo about Wikipedia:Cleanup and I'm still not quite sure how it exactly differ from Wikipedia:Pages needing attention and VfD. It seems to, judging from the items listed there, be a mixture of both. But leaning more toward Wikipedia:Pages needing attention (need-NPOV, need-Wikifcation), with also some new VfD-type items (delete-this-nonsense) and ancient VfD-items (no-concensus-reached). But it seems Cleanup is not redundant, because people do use it. Its use frequency is between Wikipedia:Pages needing attention and VfD, but seems to be used by least of amount of people (i.e., the same people repeatedly use Cleanup religiously). Please clarify, thanks. --Menchi 04:05, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Wellll I use it to put stuff that maybe need a bit of work to become decent but can't do it myself or don't feel up to doing, or if there's something I don't know about or can't decipher and needs work I put it there. Its quite useful to see if there's anything that needs work that slips past RC. Dysprosia 05:58, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
But isn't that the already-established Wikipedia:Pages needing attention's job? --Menchi 06:31, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Cleanup seems to be more a dynamic sort of system, sort of like a Recent Changes of Not-so-good Articles...
It seems to be also a method of averting people who will go straight to VfD with things that could be patched up, or people listing things on VfD for the intention of having them patched up, to a specialized place, taking some of the stress of VfD
Of course, that's only my interpretation of it :) Dysprosia 07:27, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
One of the tasks of cleanup is to let those would otehrwise list a new page from a newbie somewhere where it'll get taken care of instead of using VfD and its 5 day process to bite the newbie just becuase it's the only place with a monitored turnaround time. Using a less resource-intensive placelike pages needing attention is good if you don't really want a deadline and lots of attention. JamesDay 12:10, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Cleanup_process/Archive_1&oldid=215058665"