User:Spongefrog/Ramblings

Hello and welcome. This page is going to be filled up with genius observations, startling truths, my opinions of a few policies etc, and examples of commonplace Wikipedian behaviour which is strange. And some other stuff. It's probably all wrong, flawed, or offensive, but what the hell. It's an essay.

Speedy Deletion

“ I think that WP:SPEEDY needs to be used more often than it is, particularly when there's no reasonable doubt that an article is improper. ” — User:Mandsford

Let's say, for example, that a schoolchild is given a school assignment to write a book report. For reasons unknown to mortal ken, he or she decides it would be a good idea to upload this onto Wikipedia. Obviously, this is blatantly inappropriate (violating WP:OR and WP:NOT#ESSAY) and hasn't a snowball's chance in hell of staying on Wikipedia. However, it can't be speedied. It meets none of the WP:CSD. Wikipedia has to endure at least a week of this, while it is PRODded or AfDed. It'll probably then be discovered by some sort of watchdog site, and we'll be the laughing stock of the internet.

And the moral of the story is...

...why can't we just bend the CSD a little? Or make a few more? Why not? CSD could be used a lot more often than it is, and make the deletion process of useless articles run that bit more efficiently.

Adminship

Adminship comes with several tools. These tools can be used on Wikipedia to perform actions such as the ability to delete pages, or block disruptive users. A lot of other stuff too. The thing is, all of these tools coming together in a "package deal" of sorts creates an of aura of authority around the position, which we're constantly reminded shouldn't exist. You get many, many users who excel in, say, vandal fighting, or new page patrolling. These users could do a world of good with specific tools, but as they have little or insufficient experience elsewhere, they can't pass RfA.

And the moral of the story is...

To resolve this, (some of) the tools could be split up (asssuming this is techically possible), and given out individually to specific users in some cases. It's been done with WP:Rollback, and that's been a success. Admins can still be "promoted" through WP:RfA, to the users who are trusted with all the tools, but individual tools will also be given out independent of this process. This would create user groups like "deleters" or "blockers", similar to "checkusers", "oversighters" or "rollbackers". Is this a good idea? Or is it bad. I don't know...what do you think?

Redirects

Redirects take up minimal disc space, usually far less than an WP:RfD entry does. See WP:CHEAP. Many will, if they come across a slightly implausible typo, such as, say, Tree(data structure), will take it straight to RfD. "Implausible typo", they say. "We can't have redirects for every possible spacing error, this is no more likely that Tree (datastructure)." But is the redirect doing any harm? It's not misleading, it couldn't refer to anything else, it's not vandalism. It's a possible typo. It isn't "Tere (daat sturcuter)" But thanks to our over-zealous nominator, more space has been used up by the RfD entry.

And the moral of the story is...

If you see a redirect that does no harm, has at least a measure of plausibility, and couldn't be retargeted, leave it alone! RfDing it than anything else. If it's ridiculously implausible, WP:CSD it. Avoid RfD at all cost (unless you really have to use it).