Wikipedia talk:Pranking

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] My thoughts

I'm okay with developing policy on this provided that it's brief and general. I'm thinking something like "Pulling pranks in the article and mediawiki spaces on April Fool's day is a blockable offense and may, in extreme cases, be grounds for de-sysopping". I trust it's obvious to all why regulating April Fool's Day jokes with page after page of policy is a bad idea, but I do think it would be nice to have a general guideline that we can point to. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. The many threads started today prompted me to start this proposal. We need some clear guidelines of what is and what isn't acceptable, and how to deal with problematic pranks. Majorly (talk) 23:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
This is the best idea I've heard in a long time. Waaaay too much nonsense today from people who supposedly know better. Having fun is all well and good, but there is a limit. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I strongly agree with all of the above, and various comments from David Levy elsewhere. I was disappointed to see admins not only vandalizing the Wikipedia interface, but editwarring over it too. Humor is extremely subjective, and these pranks are about as funny to me as a flaming paper bag of dog poo. Frat boy humor. At least the people who worked on the main page put some effort in. -- Quiddity (talk) 00:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Also vandalism warnings to contributors as an April Fools Day prank. I agree with those above that there should be clear guidelines as to what is out before setting down any negative consequences. Orderinchaos 00:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] April Fools

Do we really need a policy that is only applicable for 1/365 of a year?--Uga Man (talk) UGA MAN FOR PRESIDENT 2008 23:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Why not? And it'd be more of a guideline if anything. Majorly (talk) 23:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
After reading Sarcasticidealist's post I now understand the need for this guideline.--Uga Man (talk) UGA MAN FOR PRESIDENT 2008 23:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

By the way, is April Fool's known/celebrated around the world? There's got to be some country in the world where the average people do not know about it? Or is this the case where 95% of Wikipedians or so have it where they live? *shrug* Neal (talk) 22:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC).

If, instead, we worked on a policy that only applies to February 29, we would have more time to perfect it before it was needed. Edison (talk) 18:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

If on april fools sysops are allowed to vandalize system pages (against our rules) just becuase of the date? Why should other rules not be broken as well? -- drini [meta:] [commons:] 23:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

They won't be allowed under this new proposal. Majorly (talk) 23:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Even if the do not do any real harm? Tiptoety talk 23:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Ones that only sysops can see would probably be harmless I suppose. Vandalising the tag line and other widely shown site messages is what I'm really referring to. Majorly (talk) 23:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
So why are we so different from any other web site? Google did something for April Fools, along with Yahoo (though their was more discreet). I am pretty sure that when people (readers) see that (a silly message in the tag line) they are going to know it is for April Fools, and probably think it was planned. Tiptoety talk 23:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
We have interesting articles on our front page. That's our contribution. We're supposed to be a factual reference site. Majorly (talk) 23:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
So there is no room for fun within all those facts? Tiptoety talk 23:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
So i can go change Giraffe to piglatin? that'd be fun, and no *real* harm is done. Should I be allowed? -- m:drini 23:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
(ec) It's only for a 24-hour period. Everyone agrees that once that period ends all the jokes end. So I don't really see the necessity, as it's all temporary. Hate to go this route but if what happens in that 24-hour period bothers you that much, just take a 24-hour wikibreak during that time. 1 day out of 365 won't kill you. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:46, 1 Apr 2008 (UTC)
Possibly because people, say, print Wikipedia articles more often than Google's homepage? Mess with the interface and anyone who prints the page will have that messy interface. Wikipedia is still an encyclopedia and I think any pranks, if at all, should be limited to anything in the project namespace, and especially not the mainspace. x42bn6 Talk Mess 23:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Additionally, Google may scraped a "vandalised" version of an article. That wouldn't be good would it? Majorly (talk) 23:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Except that wikipedia is read in countries all over the world, and not everybody follows or is aware of usa culture. -- m:drini 23:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Then blue link some text in the silly message, and direct the to a page in relations to April Fools, maybe they will learn something. That is why we are here right? Tiptoety talk 23:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

@Equazcion: it isn't bothering me at all. It has bothered a lot of other people though, and maybe some of our readers. We need some kind of clear guideline here on what is acceptable jokes and what is blatant vandalism. Do you agree? Majorly (talk) 23:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The critical distinction between Wikipedia and Google is that Google doesn't damage its usefulness by including April Fool's Day pranks. If Wikipedia includes pranks in the article space, then its usefulness is damaged. I'm all about pranks in user and project spaces, but not in the mainspace. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
(ec)No, not really. I don't see this as any kind of real concern. Lots of sites do crazy things on April Fools Day; deceptive things that people with no sense of humor undoubtedly complain about. But there's no lasting effect, and the people who complain are seen for what they are: humorless people who can't accept that even serious websites can relax for a day. This is not an issue, IMO. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:54, 1 Apr 2008 (UTC)
I proposed this as someone who has taken part and made some pranks today, and last year. I'm the last person to say "ban all jokes". I do, however, believe that some jokes today went too far. There are also issues with things like: should we block admins who vandalise the MediaWiki space? Or not? If so, how long for? Etc etc. Majorly (talk) 23:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Well there becomes a point when enough is enough, but the user/admin in question really needs to be properly warned first and let know that maybe they need to lay off for a bit. But blocking for one joke? Tiptoety talk 23:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

We warn newcomers who don't know the rules. Admins should know better. -- m:drini 00:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I think common sense is enough to deal with those who go too far. Yes things should be done in those cases, but no I don't think a guideline is necessary. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:01, 2 Apr 2008 (UTC)
Agree, redirect this page to WP:RRULE instead. Tiptoety talk 00:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Or to WP:TROUT. Tiptoety talk 00:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
We should think twice before smiting with the banhammer admins or other dedicated contributors. A prank or attempt at humor which did no real harm and seemed like a good idea at the moment deserves a scolding or a short block. One should take into consideration their contributions which keep the project going, often with donations of hundreds (thousands in extreme cases) of hours spent vandal fighting, removing inappropriate vanispamcruftisement hoaxalicious articles, and in countless other gnomish ways. Rules are rules, but overreaction is overreaction. Edison (talk) 18:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Systemic bias and Racism

I demand then the right to vandalize on DEcember 29, the equivalent of "april fool's" for all latinamerican countries and spain. This reeks of racism and USA-centrism -- m:drini 23:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Then go right on ahead, but according to this new policy you will be blocked and (possibly temp. de-syoped) like everyone else. Tiptoety talk 23:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I hope I will, I really hope this could be enforced. -- m:drini 23:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Yes, Drini. You have foiled my sekrit plan of putting Teddy Drini on Spanish Wiki's main page for one day. :-) miranda 00:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
No, because 29 December is my birthday & I'll ban you. Unless someone makes Thomas Becket a featured article first. -- llywrch (talk) 00:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

That would be December 28, at least in the Latinamerican countries I've lived in. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Main Page

The Main Page was great: strange-sounding facts that turned out to be true, e.g. a DYK that the Wiener sausage is named after the mathematician Norbert Wiener. The policy should IMO be worded carefully so as not to be seen as prohibiting that type of April Fools' Main Page. (By the way, did we send out a press release about the April Fools' Main Page, e.g. towards the end of the day or in time to get on the news? I think it would be a good idea. Maybe next year if we didn't.) --Coppertwig (talk) 23:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't think we did, but the press noticed, see the talk page of the Main Page FA: Talk:Ima Hogg. -MBK004 00:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Relevant differences between Wikipedia and other sites

Some of this is rehashed from my comments above, so sorry for that, but here we are:

  • When Google has an April Fool's joke, Google's primary service (web searching) isn't affected by it. When ESPN has an April Fool's joke, its primary service (sports reporting) isn't really affected by it, because even though there is a fake article on the site, the article is obviously fake, and the joke is confined to the one article. If there are pranks in Wikipedia's mainspace, Wikipedia's usability as a reference source is harmed.
  • Other websites are centrally-managed, meaning that somebody decides "Okay, this will be our April Fool's prank, and we'll put it in this section of our front page, and that will be that." I would have no objection to a similar thing for Wikipedia's mainpage (although I think what's there now is actually much cleverer) decided by consensus in advance. However, that doesn't happen, and we get a mix of the truly funny (somebody nominating Human for deletion for WP:COI reasons, Kurt Weber self-nomming for RFA, and even - I would say - changing the tagline to "the free Pokemon encyclopedia") and the disruptive and inane (changing the tagline to "the encyclopedia administered by people with sticks up their lavender passages", etc.). Because we have no centralized authority to sort out which is which, I think a guideline isn't a bad idea. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


There's a huge difference between making a joke in the tagline and making changes to articles, yet both would be considered part of the "mainspace". The articles are the part that's off-limits (though they're going to get heavily vandalized no matter what we say). But the Main Page, other meta-pages, tagline, user interfaces, and so on can be changed without affecting the mission of the site or getting in the readers' way. Highly-visible things like this should all be done with consensus in advance, though, like the Main Page. — Omegatron 03:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Slight correction: the tagline et al aren't in the mainspace, they're in the mediawiki space. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

So, how many managers and news presenters did the BBC fire when they ran a story about spaghetti being harvested from trees in Switzerland those long years ago? Surely it destroyed their credibility and confused their worldwide audience? In fact it was reported on US TV with amazement, that the BBC wasn't as stuffy as it was thought to be.Edison (talk) 18:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Probably the same number fired by French tv news when they ran a whole half hour of poissons, including a great story about a farmer suing the French government because his cows were so fascinated with the TGV they stood all day waiting for the train going by and wouldn't give any milk.--Fabrictramp (talk) 18:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Did you read my ESPN point? It's comparable. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
The director general of the BBC decided to look up in Britannica whether spaghetti grew on trees, but found there was no entry for "spaghetti." (And no "free online encyclopedia anyone can edit to create such an article" existed in 1957). The presenter, Richard Dimbleby was given the CBE 2 years after the hoax. He was apparently not punished appreciably. Edison (talk) 18:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Nor should he have been. Isolated, self-contained hoaxes as part of media's April Fool's day coverage is a noble tradition. The trouble with Wikipedia mainspace hoaxes is that they're neither isolated nor self-contained. Besides that, the hurt the reader's ability to get information from the encyclopaedia, which is why the encyclopaedia exists. I'm all about getting stupid on April 1, and this can actually include some mainspace stuff, like the AFD nomination of human. But it has to stay away from the article content. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My own thoughts

Dumping my own thoughts here.

  • While "From Wikipedia, the free Pokémon encyclopedia" may be funny at first, it may not be so funny on a BLP article (can anyone see why?).
  • Not everyone celebrates April Fool's Day...
  • ... But it's no excuse not to be funny. The featured article is tasteful and funny yet "correct". Having connotations to my various body parts put near the title of every article is not tasteful, isn't necessarily funny and is nowhere near correct.

Which is why I think:

  • Keep pranks out of the mainspace (I think this should be obvious), except perhaps the featured article. If someone wants to do something in the mainspace like this, discuss beforehand, rather than spontaneously sticking random words in.
  • Keep pranks out of MediaWiki space which affect the mainspace - such as the sidebar and the title bar. If anyone wants to mess around with Administrator-related stuff, then sure, "in-jokes" are fine by me. Obviously, there are people that might disagree.
  • Consequently, keep pranks out of template-space, portal-space, etc. too, or at least those that directly affect the mainspace.
  • If someone doesn't find it funny, don't wheel-war over it.

x42bn6 Talk Mess 00:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

This about mirrors my views on things. I don't mind a good chuckle, and I got a few from some of the pranks yesterday - though I didn't see any of the MediaWiki changes. Some of those I think I'd have had no problem with - like the changes to admin tabs (being easily amused, I've used a bit of javascript so I now have a permanent "nuke from orbit" tab), but others that affect the entire project sound like they were kind of iffy. It's supposed to be fun, not frustrating, so anything that causes frustration to users should really be set aside next year. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Looks good to me

Keep it out of articles, keep it out of the public parts of the user interface, and if you're going to do anything on the main page, get consensus first. Other than that, anything goes. --Carnildo (talk) 00:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

But do we need a policy/guidline or just common sense? Tiptoety talk 00:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't be opposed to an essay. It might not be obvious that having references to my ass on every single Wikipedia article is common sense funniness. I put a BLP example up above. x42bn6 Talk Mess 00:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
The problem is common sense isn't used. Every year, we have a handful of sysops playing with the interface, and an equal number sitting there reverting them. It's silly, it doesn't accomplish anything, and on any other day of the year, would be vandalism. Why should this one day be any different? ^demon[omg plz] 00:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Exactly, why should we block on this one day, when we would normally just apply WP:TROUT (unless it was after a few warnings of course, or was clear vandalism and not a prank). Tiptoety talk 00:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I never said block those who do it. You do like we would on any other day, we'd revert it and apply WP:TROUT. If they keep insisting, it's blatant vandalism then. Just like any other day. ^demon[omg plz] 00:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I think we agree on that. But I do not think that is what happened today, multiple admins got blocked without even receiving a warning, or for not continuing their disruptive behavior after the warning. I guess I just do not see a need for a guideline for something that can be handled like we do all the time. Tiptoety talk 00:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, it seems common sense should apply, but doesn't. People need to be reminded that vandalism is vandalism, even if it is the first of April. ^demon[omg plz] 01:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
But it's not. Our definition of the word "vandalism" only applies to bad faith edits meant to degrade the quality of the project. There are other types of bad editing, but they are not vandalism. Since April Fools' jokes are made in good faith, in an attempt to improve the enjoyability of the project, they are also not vandalism. — Omegatron 03:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Why is it in good faith to improve the enjoyability of the project? In that case, why is it not in good faith to stick Chuck Norris jokes on every single article? x42bn6 Talk Mess 07:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Can't support this

Before reading the shitstorm that was/is April Fools day 2008, I was actually thinking that it would be a great idea to propose a pre-planned method of finding acceptable AF jokes that would be in visible areas of the site. We could decide what was acceptable and what wasn't, and all have a good time. Believe it or not, some visible humor is not only okay, but is something a very large part of the community supports and desires. -- Ned Scott 01:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, like said above about Google, they have planned April Fools jokes that do not hurt the actual the actual site. Per-planned jokes would lead to much less stress and would still be in the spirit of fun. Tiptoety talk 01:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and just FYU here is a nice list of all the pranks pulled. Tiptoety talk 01:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Google crawler and the tagline

Someone commented above about the possibility of search engine crawlers having fetched Wikipedia pages while the tagline was vandalised. Here is a survey using a popular search engine.

Tagline Duration Ghits
From Wikipedia, the free Pokémon encyclopedia 6:45 248
From Britannica, the encyclopaedia that is slightly more accurate than Wikipedia according to a paper in the eminent journal Nature... 1:06 48
From Whippetpedia, the free encyclopedia for dogs 0:12 5
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia administer by people with a stick up their lavender passageway 0:17 12
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that triples in population every six months 5:02 199
Total 13:22 512

We could probably estimate page reads from the logs, but we can't tell how many printouts. Bovlb (talk) 03:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

As of now, I see 8 ghits for the top one, 4 ghits for the bottom one, and none for the rest. --Pixelface (talk) 06:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
The numbers jump around a little, but I'm still seeing roughly the same. Maybe you're hitting a different datacentre. Are you using the links I provided? Bovlb (talk) 06:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Mine are much different. I see 930/78/10/25/407. I guess the Pacific time zone still hasn't been updated. Man, what a mess. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Now it's jumped up for me too. Now I see 1180 / 98 / 11 / 28 / 538. I don't really see it as a big deal though, because most of those pages still exist on Wikipedia and have been fixed. People probably won't be viewing the Google cache version. If the article is deleted before Google caches it again, it would show up in a search result though. If someone searches for one of the topics displayed in those results, those altered lines don't appear to show up in the results. --Pixelface (talk) 18:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Inevitable?

I don't see why we must "accept" that people will pull pranks on April Fool's Day. We can just block anyone pulling pranks. The rule of thumb should be: would it be acceptable on any other day? If not, what would be the customary penalty on any other day? I see no need for anything beyond that. Everyking (talk) 05:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the penalty for pulling pranks on April Fool's should be even more severe than any other day so as provide a real disincentive? I'm thinking death penalty, but maybe reporting those within US borders to Homeland Security might be more appropriate treatment? – ClockworkSoul 06:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia has a death penalty? Boy, hate to be presented that to WP:ANI, and let them decide a consensus for the victims. Neal (talk) 22:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC).
I don't think this goes far enough. Perhaps we could put the April 1 vandal's family in a gulag doing hard labour as well, just to drive home how serious Wikipedia is, and to emphasise how we do not tolerate humour here of any sort. 203.56.182.50 (talk) 06:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC).
Perhaps tear off they're fingernails? Or pull out their hair one strand at a time? Or even rip their arms off and hit them with them. Be serious. If a ban were to be enforced in excess due to a specific holiday then many other points could be put into place such as during lent anybody that vandalizes a page relating to religion be skinned alive. There isn't too much we can do and if the damage is only on the main page by one person just as an April Fools joke for the public then there is no harm there. Any other vandalism can and should be blocked as mandated by the Wikipedia guidelines. Php Jesse (talk) 17:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Some thoughts

There is, I fear, a common rumor
That this group has no sense of humor
We test this out each April first
Which some think the best day, and others, the worst
For Wikipedians of all ranks
On this day launch their jokes and pranks
On the main page, through RfA's,
And in all sorts of other ways
But here is something that's not news:
Editors differ in their views--
The jest that cheers one user's muse
May leave another with a bruise
We all have different lengths of fuse
And thoughts what to allow or lose
And so it seems we have to choose
An attitude toward this. But whose?
The joke that makes User A smile
User B finds puerile and vile
And then Admin C throws a block
Which come to A as quite a shock
And then A goes unblock-imploring
Result: a conflict and wheel warring
From every side a big outpouring--
After awhile, it all gets boring
Now one might tend to draw the moral
From this year's April Fools' Day quarrel
That we need written policies
In which the readership agrees
Which types of jokes are deemed as kosher
And to which others we say "no, sir"
(Or "madam," as the case may be)
You can't do that or I'll say "Ni!"
There's way too much red tape on wiki
Sometimes that tape is rather sticky
You wouldn't be wrong, not by a particle,
To say we each should write an article
Instead of having to engage
In drafting one more policy page
Which (we lose sight of this) is very
Clearly something ancillary
Can't we all straddle this wide fence
With just a bit of common sense?
For if we can, then we can sideline
This earnest, well-meant, wiki guideline
It spoils the fun if April Fools
Must be enforced with lots of rules
Instead, can all (yes, admins too)
Resolve to use a bit more Clue?
So let me cut here to the chase:
Please bear in mind the time and place
If you'd like to be judged an ace,
Your humor shouldn't be too base
Make others laugh, but don't replace
The wording of the interface
To be most cautious, just in case,
Avoid the Mediawiki space
It's also best to firmly nix
All talk of passageways and sticks
In the site notice where (all heed)
A million folks an hour will read.
Just bear in mind that it is reckoned
New people come here every second
So please to use some wise discretion
With what they'll see in their first session
And then, upon the other hand,
If someone breaches the command
To keep the joking slightly bland
Within the confines all can stand
When somebody exceeds what's planned
Be merciful at first, please, and
Try out a talkpage reprimand
Before a user's blocked or banned
So next year, on 4/1 (1/4?)
I'd like to see a little more
Restraint and tact from every side
Of the great April Fools divide
The day's a time for sport and fun
So let's remember, every one,
This day should leave us glad, not sad.
Yours very truly, Newyorkbrad
*speechless* Daniel (talk) 05:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. If we do want a policy, can it just be a nutshell, followed by the stellar verses above? --Bfigura (talk) 05:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Things like this are why Newyorkbrad is our little godking of everything. *huggles* east.718 at 06:51, April 2, 2008
(ec)
Thank you for the points you raise,
Your counsel's valid for all days
(Although given the cost of a lawyer's time
That seems some very pricey rhyme)
But having made your argument, please hear mine
In favour of a new guideline
What's worth a block and what's worth a lol
Will always be kind of a judgment call
And given that opinions differ
Wouldn't it make judgment swifter
If there were some standards base
Such as (to quote you) "Avoid the Mediawiki space"?
If we know an activity's problematic
It seems that we should be emphatic
That said behaviour should be avoided
Lest your account privileges be voided
We can all enjoy wit and hilarity
Once we've established boundaries of severity
You raise the specter of red tape
But it seems to me that every jape
Is best made with the confidence afforded
By the knowledge that consensus has been recorded
And so I fear you've missed the mark
On this one Brad - sincerely, Sarc
I think you've missed the mark on this one, Sarc. If blocks are preventative and not punitive, there's no reason to block someone for fiddling once with the interface. I'm still trying to grasp how the "preventative not punitive" principle was upheld this April 1st. 7 admins were blocked? Why not just revert and warn? A block is for a situation where someone does something continuously and refuses to stop despite warnings. This wasn't that. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:28, 2 Apr 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the blocking was unecessary, and that reversions and warnings would have been preferable. But that's partly because we have zero agreed upon standards. I think if we had some agreement in advance about what absolutely wasn't acceptable, then it would be (1) much less likely to happen, and (2) wouldn't require warnings, at least where experienced users like admins were involved. I'd just rather say in advance "No editing Mediawiki stuff that's visible to everybody" than have somebody do it and then spend all of April 1 arguing on ANI about whether or not a given edit was acceptable, whether the involved editor should be banned, etc. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Wouldn't require warnings to do what, exactly? To block? See, that's exactly the point. If an admin makes a bad edit, that should never warrant an immediate block -- whether a guideline exists or not. Just revert and warn. A guideline existing doesn't give anyone the right to use blocks as punishments cause "we have a guideline so they should've known better". A block should still only be used if the user is warned and refuses to stop. Equazcion •✗/C • 19:08, 2 Apr 2008 (UTC)
Majorly, I don't mean to sound rhetorical,
but with a proposal so categorical
are you playing us for a fool?
Why, that would be quite cruel
for Rules for Fools was already marked historical!
I hope I don't come off too strong
but this idea is almost certainly wrong!
If this proposal is quite serious,
it would be most deleterious!
Or was this proposal simply a gag all along?
Are you wearing a little smirk
while all of our chains you jerk?
Just admit you're a jester,
don't let this joke fester
and we can all then get back to work.
I don't want to make anyone mad
for sounding a tad like Brad
this yearly fad makes some ache,
"Our reputation's at stake!
Such nonsense make Wikipedia look bad!"
Our reputation comes from one simple fact:
ANYONE can edit Gastrointestinal tract
Rochambeau or Van Gogh, Big toe or Thoreau
Taekwondo or Rambo, or Jimbo's bio.
We say to John Doe, "Here! Give it a go!"
Although you certainly know, the pay is quite low.
Who last hit SAVE on the article Ewe?
A boy home with the flu with chewing gum on his shoe?
He may write POO on Gnu or Peru.
Add something untrue to Goo, Glue, or Canoe.
Write something few knew on Blink 182.
Create a how-to he felt long overdue
about a blue kangaroo from Katmandu.
So remember to take with a grain of salt
the articles malt, John Galt, and pole vault.
What's with this silliness one day a year?
Who wrote this article? A volunteer?
Tell you what. I'll make you deal.
364 days of free labor's a steal.
--Pixelface (talk) 12:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
To Newyorkbrad:
My jaw dropped. Transfixed as if hexed
By your multi-syllabic-rhyme-iferous text
I read every word, then danced a jig
Of total agreement. --Coppertwig. (22:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC))
I really think we need to be wary
Of making new policies that are unnecessary.
Setting up Rules, Committees and Processes?
Much time spent on these is already a loss, as is.
The usual rules apply through the day.
We need not add stricter. (or laxer – oy, vey!)
We're here to build an encyclopedia.
Any jokes should not that goal impede, yeah?
More rules give the mischievous more lines to cross,
And blocking admins entails a loss.
If you listen carefully you'll tune in to the rumour:
This has to be handled with a sense of humour.
Saying when you may or may not make a pun out of it
Would really take almost all the fun out of it.
But an essay, comprised of Brad's on-the-mark rhymes
Would help us through all cultures' "Prank day" times.
--Coppertwig (talk) 11:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


  • A Haiku!...


We ought to agree.

all the pranks fill us with glee.

do you see, believe.

NonvocalScream (talk) 03:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Once was an admin from Enwik's,
with friends in the most powerful cliques.
'till first April he smiled;
the site notice defiled.
Blocked! Proves the point about sticks.
Dream Academy (talk) 20:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] MediaWiki pages

Ok, I'm of the guilty "seven" (as labeled on ANI, but anyway), so I'm going to try to make a solution to the MW pages.

  • Option 1: All MW pages are off limits except for rational edits (meaning no jokes).
  • Option 2: All high visibility MW pages (meaning the side bar, tagline, and similar) are off limits. However, MW pages that are only able to be seen by admins, or in limited situations are fair game.
  • Option 3: All MW pages are fair game.

Personally, I think #2 is the best, but if anyone has any other ideas, just shout them out. Kwsn (Ni!) 15:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

#2 seems great. C'mon, it's like an office joke where the consumer isn't even aware. :) - Mtmelendez (Talk) 15:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with #2. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It should be #1. Even restricting pranks to restricted pages can do some damage. I tried to block a vandal on April Fools' Day and spent some time trying to work out how long 86400 seconds was, which could certainly have allowed the vandal to vandalise again. We shouldn't allow people to pull pranks in a way that would impede site functionality (though project space, user space and talk pages should be acceptable). Hut 8.5 17:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
You know, you don't _have_ to pick one from the list, you could have typed in "24 hours" in the box. --Random832 (contribs) 19:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
One potential additional option:
  • Option #4: Any intention to modify MW pages should be proposed to a group of self-appointed, self-important admins who will go through the proposals and randomly post those which aren't found to be objectionable on a random basis during April 1? This group could determine how long each option was allowed to stay, and potentially create a number of "running gags" which might collectively run for at least a minute or two? Selection would clearly be the one potential question, but I think that it wouldn't be too hard to find a few people who would be trusted to fulfill the role, probably from as wide a group as possible. John Carter (talk) 17:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
That seems a bit overly bureaucratic. I'd oppose based on that alone. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 12:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Option 1 is our standard procedure. Is there some strong argument why we need to muck around with these pages on April 1? — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Option #5, a modification of John's Option #4, where the group can be made up of non-admins. If we can approve the jokes before hand we will likely resolve the main issues about MW pages being edited. -- Ned Scott 06:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Anything which affects the mainspace or is viewable on it should not be pranked. Except perhaps the Main Page pranks which do tickle ribs, I suppose. x42bn6 Talk Mess 06:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Nothing that impedes site functionality should be done, but there's no reason to avoid publicly-visible stuff. — Werdna talk 05:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


Did these edits:

really harm the project? Did they cause server hiccups, bad deletions, bad blocks, etc.? Did they really harm the public's perception of the project? No. These were clearly not visible to the general public or 99% of our editors, and I assume that our admins are smart enough to identify a joke when they see one, and most agree it was quite amusing.

There were several other edits done to MediaWiki which were potentially harmful (as Hut 8.5 says above), and some were visible to regular editors and the general public. As a middle ground to these issues, I still support Kwsn's #2 proposal, but with the addition that this page include a warning as to which type of MediaWiki pages are off limits, and that even for other MW pages the editor must know what he/she's doing, how that MW namespace works, and how it affects many other project pages (the wording should still consider WP:BEANS though). It should also state that if you're reverted, please do not re-revert, since it may lead to immediate blocking. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 12:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be simpler just to declare MW namespace off limits? As only admins (and I'm one of them) can edit this namespace, it feels a bit cliquish to allow people to use their extra tools to do "really great jokes". Sure, only admins see the results, but every admin should remember what it was like to be a non-admin, and seeing admins joking and laughing about something you can't see or take part in, is, well, not ideal. Carcharoth (talk) 12:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, we're not proposing to limit jokes only to MW-space here, just limit jokes which may potentially scare off the casual reader, or those which affect processes or functions. In light of your suggestion, we may also advise on this page what not to change or include on highly-visible MW pages (changing process or function information, giving out fake block notices to casual readers or new users, etc.), instead of restricting them completely. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 13:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
No offence, but did you get the point of what I was saying? I'm not proposing to limit jokes only to MW-space. By "off-limits" I mean allow jokes elsewhere, but not in MW namespace. My reasoning is partly that drawing a line between acceptable and unacceptable carries too many risks in this namespace, and that non-admins can't edit MW namespace. Allowing only a subset of the site's users (the admins) to carry out some jokes, reinforces the differences and could breed resentment. Far simpler to just declare MW namespace off-limits for jokes. Carcharoth (talk) 13:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for capturing that important concept, Carcharoth. You are absolutely on the money. Risker (talk) 21:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
None taken :), and maybe I misread, but I understood your original comment as limiting jokes in MW only because it would seem elitist, while I said that we're not limiting jokes to MW-space only, so where's the loss of fun? It's like telling Checkusers not to make jokes on their restricted mailing list because we can't see them. Your second comment addressed the real issue though, a very good point. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 13:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think we have to go out of our way to declare it off limits - enough admins were blocked for editing there to make it clear that it is already off limits. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I strongly support option #2. I really don't see the harm in changing a MediaWiki page to say "nuke this page" if only admins see it. Grandmasterka 21:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My Thoughts

I think we as a community should collaborate and reach a consensus on what jokes are appropriate, and go with them. Kind of like google gomes up with its pranks each year, i think there should be some level of centralized discussion prior the day and reach an agreement as to what is ok and what is not ok (mostly for what outside reader would see.) I think if we put our heads together, we could come up with some funny ways to modify the mediawiki interface that would be tasteful and appropriate, but still funny. It just becomes a problem with everybody out there is independantly trying to play there own prank in the mainspace/mediawikispace. I think it should be appropriate but a consensus should be reached on what should be done before hand. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 18:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought we had a consensus that we devote the main page (primarily FA and DYK) to items that sounds untrue but are really true. That's well-defined, self-contained, and consistent with being an encyclopedia. All planned well in advance, none of it involves highly-visible edit-wars or global incivility, and it doesn't risk tarnishing our reputation (further). Bovlb (talk) 19:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I hate the idea of "centralised discussion" plus such a page spoils the idea of a prank. In a perfect world, I'd like to think that such things are obvious but clearly isn't. x42bn6 Talk Mess 07:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More thoughts

How unfortunate that this has caused so much strife. As one of the April Fools Seven, I won't pretend I didn't do anything worth criticism (though I feel my single, self-reverted-in-under-a-minute, non-offensive edit was hardly worth a block). Some of the April Fools shenanigans were certainly of questionable taste, but the vast majority of the stuff I witnessed (and participated) was simply not meant to be disruptive in a damaging sense. Of course, not everyone celebrates the nonsensical pseudo-holiday, humor often does not translate well online, and one's "sense of humor" is a wildly variable and context-dependent construct in which two distinct individuals may never share a laugh...but I've seen a few good users, on both sides of this dispute, get very upset (some to the point of leaving) over this sequence of events.

I ask that those who may be branded as troublemakers (like me, I guess), please recognize that your joking around may have legitimately annoyed or offended your fellow editors whom you would not normally actively wish to antagonize. Branding these antagonized editors as killjoys almost certainly does not help. (Who gains a sense of humor when told that they're lacking one?) I apologize to anyone who found my contributions disruptive enough to affect their willingness or desire to work on this project; such was not my intent.

I also ask that those on the other side please be somewhat lenient: this is a volunteer project in which a dose of levity can have a profoundly positive impact in the willingness of editors to donate their time and efforts. There is a long (sometimes ignoble) history of April 1 fun, here and across the internet. Rather than think of April 1 as a day on which people disruptively think the rules don't or shouldn't apply (as some have expressed, with irritation), the day can serve as a release valve for curiosity, build collegiality, and provide an ingredient to the enjoyment of many editors. That it is centralized on one day in particular has the built-in advantage of possibly leaving 364 other days untouched by some mischief and a greater likelihood of such mischief being more readily accepted by readers worldwide than on any other day.

In conclusion, some of what was done should not have occurred. Some of the responses probably made things worse. I think April Fools nonsense has some benefits, but more judicious application of any such frivolity would benefit all. I hope that those soured from recent events can overcome this and be welcomed by everyone. — Scientizzle 20:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My Thoughts

I am completely flabbergasted by the amount of overreaction which has been generated by some of the community this year. April Fools is a day when people in many western nations traditionally let down their guard and have some good fun. Anyone who takes a look at this stuff on April Fools Day and takes it seriously is as naive as the guy who took an Onion article seriously, believing it to be true a woman was looking forward to her abortion. NewYorkBrad has it right above: we need to lighten up on both sides. Everyone knew this was coming. There have been April Fools Pranks since 2004. Is it disruptive? Maybe a little. Is it good to be able to lighten up and laugh at ourselves? Absolutely. If we are going to react this way yearly to April Fools Day, we are proving our detractors right: we really have become a site which has lost all its humour.

P.S. One of the most fun times I had was when I was doing support work for LiveJournal back in 2005 and some of the admins conspired to release a fake press release stating they had been purchased by AOL. We all got a good laugh about it and I think that's the spirit of April Fools. If you really think it's terribly harmful, I suggest you turn off your computer a while and take a Wikibreak. Redfarmer (talk) 02:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The main concern is the edits to MediaWiki pages, not humor in general. If some editors want to choose funny articles for the main page, I won't oppose them; same with fake RFAs and MFDs.
Anyway, if someone claims we've lost our sense of humor, I don't see that that is such a serious criticism. Just because other sites do silly things doesn't mean we have any obligation to play along. Many April 1 jokes, such as fake press releases, are simply a betrayal of trust. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Or they could indicate the level of trust you have for those in charge of the project. For example, I don't think any one of us distrusted any of the admins on LiveJournal so we were able to take the joke with great stride, i.e. there was little to no drama generated over the joke. I wonder if the amount of drama generated is proportional to the amount of trust some have for those in charge? Redfarmer (talk) 09:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't know how it works on LiveJournal. It would depend whether they are paid employees or volunteers. If they were paid employees, then I'm surprised nothing more came of it. If they were volunteers, it's like Wikipedia, except some people think that Wikipedia admins have more power or responsibility than they do, and are official positions - and if anyone knows how to disabuse people of that notion, please say so. Carcharoth (talk) 10:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm rather flabbergasted by the failure of some people to have a sense of perspective for their jokes. Joking and enjoying yourself is not the be all and end all. It's OK up to a point, but you have to respect others when they point out that maybe things went too far. As Carl says, it was the 'jokes' that clearly crossed the line into being unacceptable that were the problem. And so what if people are saying that we have lost all our humour - Wikipedia has far more pressing problems than whether or not people think its community has a "sense of humour". And releasing fake press releases about being purchased by a company in which you can buy shares is not really that great an idea. Carcharoth (talk) 02:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sigh

I thought I had a pretty clever idea that would brighten others' day, but the ensuing wikidrama pretty much ruined mine. I'm so frustrated with the constant ever-present antagonism throughout the project, but my attempt at lightening it up for a day just brought on even more. I proposed my idea beforehand, since it's a highly-visible area of the site, but receiving no responses, I just went with it. It's disappointing that some people were offended (though I think that says more about them than it does about my edits). I'm glad some others liked it. I made a Pokemon joke and a Colbert joke. Criticize them for their lack of cleverness or comedic value if you want, but of the few ideas I had, I specifically chose these as the least likely to offend.

Viridae's "sticks up their asses" edit was stupid and inappropriate, but is it really that big a deal? It's not any more offensive than the real vandalism that shows up in our articles (and Google caches, and printouts, and classrooms) dozens? hundreds? of times every day. It's certainly not any more offensive than our informative pictures of sex acts or dead bodies. Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. Scold him and move on.

But calling for editors' heads on pikes in the public square? Just because they had the audacity to make a joke? On April Fools' Day? Some people need to relax a notch or two.

No, there isn't a policy that designates the first of April as the one day we get to have some fun. But Wikipedia policy is made by the Wikipedia community, and the community has demonstrated that they want to joke around, just like all the other popular kids. We need to plan things out ahead of time, not prohibit them. And we need a lot less anger and bloodthirst.

Can we at least all agree that the Main Page tradition is a fun and creative success? — Omegatron 02:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe there are BLP problems with putting, say, "Wikipedia, the free Pokémon encyclopedia" on the header when I am viewing a BLP page, for example. And I think it's a big deal. Two wrongs don't make a right and as above there are 20 pages with "Wikipedia, the free Pokémon encyclopedia" in their Wikipedia results on Google, including BLPs.
I disagree with your sentiments that Wikipedia is not censored therefore "sticks up their asses" is not as bad as vandalism. It's not the cussing that is the problem (after all, "sticks up their rectums" is arguably not any better), but it is just inappropriate. Add to the fact that everyone sees it and not everyone is as content with words like "ass" as you are (see Talk:Muhammad on why people have different viewpoints on things that not everyone on both "sides" finds offensive). Indeed, Wikipedia is not censored, but censorship is not the problem with "sticks up their asses". x42bn6 Talk Mess 07:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually it was neither stick up their ass or stick up their rectum. Though either way it was a bit too far even though it got reverted in five seconds flat as expected. ViridaeTalk 12:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
How does it make sense to save an edit that you expect will be reverted immediately? Perhaps that could be the criterion we use here — if any reasonable person would suspect that the prank edit will get reverted immediately, then it shouldn't be made. That standard would still allow the main page stuff, the fake RFAs, etc., but would discourage the edit warring and MediaWiki edits that were problematic this year. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't get how having "Wikipedia, the free Pokemon encyclopedia" show up on a BLP makes it a BLP issue. How does association with a Pokemon encyclopedia violate BLP policy? --C S (talk) 15:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
It is saying that (say) George W. Bush is a Pokemon. Hang on... Carcharoth (talk) 16:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Strategery does kinda sound like a Pokemon name... — Scientizzle 16:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think anyone has complained about editors who select funny articles to put on the main page. If that is what you mean by the Main Page tradition, everyone seems to be fine with it. The concern is not that tradition (for TFA and DYK), it's the changes to the site interface.
The community may have demonstrated that it likes jokes, but it has also demonstrated that editors who make jokes in the MediaWiki namespace on April 1 are likely to get blocked. If we can record that advice on this page, it might help discourage people from crossing the line. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed nutshell

...or entire policy. "If your April Fool's Day prank affects the reader, don't do it". John Reaves 04:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I quite like that, although I think the Main Page pranks are quite funny. I also would add that if someone doesn't find it funny, it should be reverted, and definitely no wheel-warring about such reverts. x42bn6 Talk Mess 07:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I quite like that. For example, I created an AfD request in project space (without tagging the article) for George W. Bush. Only admins and others who do admin-related work saw that, not the average reader. Reading over some of the media-wiki edits, I do think they went a bit too far. The one exception I would make is for the annual featured article, such as Ima Hog. Redfarmer (talk) 09:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I like it, and it opens up the idea people said before, of coordinating our activities for April Fools Day. If we confine our jokes to one organized thing (personally, I think the tasteful joking-but-true stuff on the main page is great), it becomes:
  1. Easier to distinguish between real vandalism and jokes,
  2. Easier to form consensus on what is acceptable and what is not, and
  3. Keeps us from mucking about with things that can have /honest/ consequences for the uninformed reader (ie: interface changes)
I think this is a proposal that allows us plenty of room to have tasteful, honest fun, and still hold ourselves to our normal standards. Thoughts? ^demon[omg plz] 22:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
    • you are right . but this nomination of georgebush doesnt seem to have been reached public nor hurted them since it wasn't tagged . i would say until it harms public it is not an offense .. so its time for us to know how to play safe like Redfarmer made it to AFD without tagging the article .--@ the $un$hine . (talk) 01:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
What does your argument have to do with his proposed quote quote? You seem to be making up an argument and then arguing against that. Neal (talk) 01:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC).
      • yup i made an argument when i saw the pranks so i was bit worried so i came with such comments but when i read Redfarmer reply that he hasn't tagged it i felt that they haven't done anything wrong nor hurted any so i went against my previous comment and wrote in favor of them . my argument is though a new clause is needed it should not make the admin feel uneasy & it should not make this a tough place , until the jokes and pranks stay's within us and without hurting any its nothing wrong to be performed , after all we need some fun indeed , this makes our work interesting .( i always appreciate comments for or against me , i never get offended with these , after all i can change my opinion if im wrong )--@ the $un$hine . (talk) 10:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
    • well yup me too saw it later , it was a fun indeed , but it would have been not nice if tagged though nothing of such had happened , me a regular visitor of AFD noticed it while my friends who are normal users failed too . me not an admin is notable . --@ the $un$hine . (talk) 01:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I went ahead and reworded the page. I took John Reave's wording (if he doesn't mind), and went a bit into what I really think we can all agree with. I look forward to input (or reversion, if I'm way off here!) ^demon[omg plz] 22:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Conditional support: I don't think it's appropriate to do things such as nominating human for deletion and reporting Jimbo as a vandal. However, it's good to have things that appear to be jokes that are really true, such as having Ima Hogg and George Washington (inventor) as featured articles, or putting funny things in DYK. Nyttend (talk) 23:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the organized effort of the main page and the use of our internal processes is okay. John Reaves 02:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
      • i dont find anything wrong other than altering the main page , i would support if the main page is protected against pranks but let the people live their life else where where users have no idea . nominating human for deletion and reporting Jimbo as a vandal is a fun within selected group and not a big offense until the articles are tagged and i dont think any one got hurt by this . --@ the $un$hine . (talk) 11:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

We don't want people messing with the interface for admins any more than we want them messing with the interface for readers. For example, I don't want to see "Nuke it!" replace the delete button. But I don't think the "readers" language will work on its own, because people who want to play pranks will read any restriction as narrowly as possible, and then complain when they are "blocked without warning" for making a joke that "doesn't affect readers". I added a second sentence reminding people not to play pranks with MediaWiki pages; that seems to be a good line in the sand. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed move

I propose renaming this page to "Prank day", in order to be inclusive of Other prank days in the world. Also, making it an essay or guideline rather than a policy. It's not good for the number of policies to be too large. --Coppertwig (talk) 00:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] good work "wiki"

this tough stand is indeed necessary , 1/365 or even a half day to confuse users isnt good to hear , me a medico thinking from my side , if medical practitioners fools patients for a single day or he fakes surgery ...will any world accept it ?? likewise faking may be a fun to a few or a many but sure a big trouble to some and sometimes to many , and what i saw as jokes weren't jokes at all.. nominating humans as AFD since some third party reference is needed sounds like an alien must fix it ...and nominating USA for AFD and georgebush too , though i enjoyed them a bit i felt we went a bit more....but imposing rules wont be nice since wikipedians are wise enough to agree by soft words than by hard rules...--@ the $un$hine . (talk) 01:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: if medical practitioners fools patients for a single day or he fakes surgery ...will any world accept it ??
That's a bad comparison. Neal (talk) 01:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC).
    • yup i agree it was i know i went quite much . any way thanks for ur comment's .--@ the $un$hine . (talk) 01:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Yes

Move this to something like Wikipedia:Pranking or Wikipedia:Prank day (with a redirect, of course). I do love a lovely pun or bit of joshing in comments, and the occasional arch comment in an article even (though many times people include "ironic" facts in the sense of the Morrisette song, which is more in the realm of dramatic irony than anything really interesting or funny). But as for joke edits, joke AFDs, joke interface changes, I've had it. Hey, I've been on the internets since kremvax, and I've seen some lovely geek jokes like RFC 1149. But when you have a day online where practically every click leads to new levels of unexplored lameness, sometimes you just want to self-defenestrate. Particularly here, where the point is being informational.

Now, do I want this tied directly into blocking policy? Maybe. I really think the quirky-but-true angle is what we should focus on as an outlet, because it's win-win-win-win. Win for our reputation, win for the reader, win for the editors, and ultimately, win because it gets us featured articles like Ima Hogg. (Although I think the On this date feature is sort of stuck with the same small pool of articles.) It's a way of channeling this impulse into something constructive and limiting the tiresome what-will-I-find-next angle. But there ought to be some limits and some enforcement will be necessary. Still, I don't think we need be draconian except in breadth. Block liberally, but briefly, I say.

No, I don't know what the level of infraction should be, and yes, I'm volunteering people to go be rentacops who would rather do other useful things. --Dhartung | Talk 08:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] sorting

Very useful April 1 just past, in identifying editors without a sense of humour. DGG (talk) 15:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. To the people who want to ban April Fools jokes completely, all I can say is "Lighten up!". As long as April Fools jokes are clearly labeled, don't harm living people, and the prankster cleans up his or her "mess" afterwards, I'm all for it. --Fabrictramp (talk) 16:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think there are many people arguing for ending jokes completely. I don't think anyone is arguing against putting funny articles on the main page, for example. On the other hand, it's clear enough after this year that editors can be blocked temporarily for taking things too far. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
The proposal doesn't seek to ban pranks completely. But there are some pranks, not just those on Wikipedia, which are inappropriate. Consequently, there are pranks on Wikipedia that are inappropriate too. I don't believe some users know the scope of the damage changing the interface can do. There are some people who don't know about April Fools and there are some people that, quite frankly, don't care and just want to continue to use Wikipedia as a serious resource. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and its readers matter more than its editors, and anything that impedes the readers' ability to learn may well be the result of poor judgement by its editors. x42bn6 Talk Mess 22:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
The general disclaimer states Wikipedia cannot guarantee the validity of the information found here — and that applies all year round. At least on April 1st you know what you're getting. --Pixelface (talk) 17:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I know that disclaimer but it doesn't justify deliberately introducing "misinformation" because "it's April Fools". After all, we delete hoaxes, do we not? x42bn6 Talk Mess 19:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
As far as I'm concerned, a disclaimer like that means that Wikipedia, as a group of people, wishes there to be no misinformation, but we may fall behind on finding and removing it. It doesn't mean that we purposely place misinformation here. If that detail is a bit unclear, the next sentence seems to mae it more clear - The content of any given article may recently have been changed, vandalized or altered by someone whose opinion does not correspond with the state of knowledge in the relevant fields. We must guarantee that all misinformation is covered by that sentence - and purposely placing misinformation in an article, under that sentence, could be nothing but vandalism. A clearly marked April Fools' Day stunt is clearly not expected to be serious, but anything else is. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
As the person who started this proposal I'm offended by DGG in saying I have no sense of humour. Quite the opposite in fact. Some jokes just simply aren't funny and we need some sort of limit, to avoid drama on the day. Majorly (talk) 23:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I think this is a valid point to address. The issue with April Fool's is that in my lifetime it has gone from something one might encounter half-a-dozen times in the day. Somebody unscrews the saltshaker. There's a silly season story in the newspaper. Maybe there's even a fake broadcast on the radio. At school some mild prankery might be organized such as a test with funny answers. I can imagine fun-loving workplaces where everyone understood that mild pranks like linking paper clips together were OK, but switching the signs on the bathrooms for visitors were not. And yes, undoubtedly there were places where mean-spirited pranks, including such unmourned practices as sexual harassment and open humiliation of disabilities, took place and went without sanction. But for the most part, one only encountered such pranks within a social circle that was aware of others tolerance.
With the internet, however, this has changed. The social websites are full of controlled mirth within the programmed limits. Fine, you can avoid those. The forums have threads that are obvious jokes from the subject line. You can avoid those too. But the threads you want to read have jokes ranging from rickrolls to "I'm pregnant" to faked-up flamewars. Your e-mail will probably have anywhere from 6 to 60 links to the BBC penguins to Ima Hogg to whatever. It really becomes absolutely relentless. And really, [b]so few of them are any good[/b]. It's a matter of sheer volume. Either you resolve to stay off the internet all day long, or you have to develop steel armor.
What we see on Wikipedia is spontaneous and surely almost all editors only have a small LOL in mind, but again, there are so many of them and most aren't that good. In fact, some articles will get identical or functionally identical joke edits over and over again. And then we have the people with the means and the intent to modify things like the MediaWiki interface -- approaching an equivalent of switching the names on the bathrooms. I'm pretty disturbed by the Wikipedia taglines that are turning up in Google searches long after April 1.
I don't know that we need to have a police state lockdown on April 1, but some appreciation of the problems caused and some channelling into more appropriate directions is a good thing overall. I like not having penises on the main page anymore, April 1 or not, thank you very much. --Dhartung | Talk 07:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is, after all, being looked at by a very large proportion of the Internet. x42bn6 Talk Mess 12:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Get a sense of humour :(

Seriously folks, it's for one day, everyone knows that it's customary, this is a solution looking for a problem. Stifle (talk) 17:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

One day is still a long time in some peoples' eyes. x42bn6 Talk Mess 22:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I would recommend closing this as {{rejected}} given the consensus against it here and listing it on WP:VRPP. Stifle (talk) 20:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Could you give a link to the VRPP discussion? — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
There's hardly consensus against it. Quite the opposite. Of course this shouldn't be a policy, but a guideline... possibly. Majorly (talk) 23:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What would the BBC do?

Frankly, there seem to be some goddawful sideways opinions about what is funny for WP on this particular day, so I propose the simple guideline: 'If the prank you pulled wouldn't be done by the BBC (or insert your own favoured but equaly respected contemporary internet content provider) then it shouldn't be done here, and hence will be RBI'd. Seriously, can you see the BBC doing any of the stupid crap detailed above to their interface, or publicly announcing the head of programming is to be disciplined? It basically makes WP editors look like a bunch of juvenile pricks imo. Let's stick to putting articles about flying penguins on the main page, just like the good old BBC, and be done with it. MickMacNee (talk) 01:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

A clear and simple view. I could go with this one roughly ... maybe slightly more since the BBC isn't a volunteer website, but broadly speaking, this one is not badly judged. I could go with it both as a "rule of thumb" and also with the rough sentiment expressed. Maybe slightly more quirks are okay, but not "annoying/juvenile" ones. FT2 (Talk | email) 08:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My thoughts

I would completely support this guideline/policy. There are places that jokes are OK on April Fools. And there are places where jokes should be avoided. Vandalising the MediaWiki interface, making joke reports on AIV, UAA, or blocking people as a joke, are unacceptable in my opinion, and should be considered. Steve Crossin (talk) (anon talk) 07:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

A block, other than a self-block or a very short block, are completely unacceptable as a joke. However, a very short block or a report to AIV or UAA should be acceptable as a joke, provided that any Wikipedian who is likely to look at such things will clearly understand, after reading the block/reason or the report in full, will clearly understand it's a joke. In addition, to block the same user too many times is also disruptive - even if the user didn't notice the block - since if the block log gets to be too long, a lot of users won't notice that there's no serious block there. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My main concern about pranks

The issue I have is that April Fool's pranks could be "forgotten" and remain in legitimate article space after the 1st. There should be some aspect of policy that requires editors who add joke posts to register them with some central page, which can then be used to program a bot to make sure all joke changes are reverted once the day is over. What makes this tricky is the fact that many legitimate edits might well occur after the joke posting. I would also strongly suggest that Wikipedia management restrict the entire project to only registered users on April 1, as one wouldn't expect anonymous IPs to know - or care - about any AFJ policies. 23skidoo (talk) 14:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

One way to avoid the problem of forgotten pranks is to require (as much as that is ever possible here) that April Fools pranks have some kind of identifying template, which would also alert readers that the page involved shouldn't be taken too seriously. It would then be a simple matter to find all the pranks on April 2 and clean them up (and remind the originator that they should have done so themselves.)--Fabrictramp (talk) 16:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
What about jokes on existing pages? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
People should still be responsible for clearly identifying them and cleaning them up. Part of the difference between being silly for a day and being an immature jerk. :) --Fabrictramp (talk) 14:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Effect of caching on pranks

A user reported to the wikitech-l list that he got one of the April 1 prank pages on April 7, due to caching. These changes are not as short-lived as one might think. [1] — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Ew, nasty. x42bn6 Talk Mess 23:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Do it the Uncyclopedia Way

A common prank on Uncyclopedia is to blank the front page --82.26.176.130 (talk) 11:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Um no, that is never funny. 2 things that are simply never funny (even for an April Fool's joke) are page blanking, and making death rumors. Any policy or guideline to mitigate penalty for April Fool's jokes should not include page blanking and false death rumors. Neal (talk) 18:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC).

I agree with Neal. There's a reason Uncyclopedia is Uncyclopedia. KillTheToy (talk) 02:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Seriously?

I completely agree with those who mentioned this April Fool's Day has succeeded in identifying those whose senses of humor left the building. Seriously. It's April Fool's Day. For years, high-profile Internet sites have done pranks. It's good PR. It inserts humanity into a company's image. If this dramastorm keeps up, it might just do the opposite.

I also think that anyone who has BLP issues with "Wikipedia, the free Pokemon enyclopedia" - on April Fool's Day! - has long since left the realm of overreacting.

The "lavender passage" comment was over the line for being potentially offensive, but I don't see a problem with any of the other stuff. Crystallina (talk) 12:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia hardly needs "PR" - Wikipedia doesn't "win" by being "funny" or "stupid" but its reputation as an encyclopedia can be dented by a couple of "stupid" pranks. To some, "Wikipedia, the free Pokémon enyclopedia" on a BLP is no big deal but some people take humour and reputation a lot more serious than your average Wikipedia editor. Arguably, if I vandalise a BLP insinuating they are a Pokémon then it's just as bad as implying they are Pokémon via a well-placed notice at the top. Wikipedia is in the real world and we are dealing with real people. x42bn6 Talk Mess 19:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I'd argue that Wikipedia desperately needs PR. What harms the enyclopedia more: a couple admins making amusing changes to some of the templates on a day known for popular Internet sites making amusing changes, or the stream of scandals that have been reported as of late? One of the most common accusations in the wake of said scandals is that Wikipedians lack a sense of humor. This debacle isn't doing much to dislodge that image.

Wikipedia is in the real world, yes, but astronomically few real people would be at all distressed by someone claiming they are a Pokemon - and those cases would be overreacting. Besides, claiming that a notice reading "the free Pokemon encyclopedia" implies claiming an article subject is a Pokemon is a big stretch. Crystallina (talk) 13:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I've read cases on WP:AN/I where some OTRS tickets also push the limits of sensibility. And Wikipedia's encyclopedic quality should be the limit of its "positive PR". There should be no need to resort to well-publicised pranks for the sake of making the encyclopedia more well-known. x42bn6 Talk Mess 22:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
If we want encyclopedic quality to serve as positive PR, we've got a long way to go. As many of us well know, most comments about Wikipedia's quality are quite negative.
Furthermore, the point of a prank isn't to make the encyclopedia more well-known. We're nearing the point where we're as well-known as we're going to get. The point is to make the encyclopedia better-liked. This dramastorm only reinforces the idea a lot of people have that Wikipedia takes itself far too seriously and has no sense of humor. I mean, even the BBC does April Fool's pranks! Crystallina (talk) 14:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Instruction creep

Do we really need a policy just for April Fool's Day? I agree that pranking can occur at other times, but this seems really to be a classic example of WP:CREEP. Administrators and others are bound by the rules we already have, and this is a serious site - it is not a game; it is not MySpace; all of which is contained within WP:NOT, and we should avoid adding unnecessary rules to complicate things excessively. I would oppose this proposal simply because it's redundant to the ones we already have.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 12:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It's more of a "things to avoid" rather than "things to do when someone does A"-guideline, perhaps closer to an essay. I don't think it's worth putting up specific things to do and not to do, just a little notice to potential pranksters that what they do can have large implications that they might not see. x42bn6 Talk Mess 19:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This proposal is already covered under existing policies & guidelines

I’m going to say “oppose” to this proposal. I don’t think we need specific rules for April 1 – everything relevant has already been covered by WP:VANDAL and WP:AGF, and that is sufficient. I support those who want to pull April Fool’s jokes, and I support those who want to quickly revert them. Let people have their fun, let them enjoy the consequences too. To my non-American friends: feel free to prank on your country’s national prank day, and you’ll get the same slap on the wrist that the April fools got. And if some admin reacts too strongly and bans someone without even a warning (you’re supposed to start with {{test1}} and progress to blocking), they will have to face the consequences too (Oh no! A warning on my talk page!).

Here’s the aftermath of April 1, 2008: some people pulled pranks, some were “good” some were “bad”, some got warned or blocked, the world didn’t end. I don’t believe any permanent damage was done. If any prank material still remains, go revert it. – jaksmata 19:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

See #Effect of caching on pranks - some things cannot be reverted quickly, especially when we aren't in control of them. x42bn6 Talk Mess 19:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I understand, which is why I support enforcing the no-vandalism policy as-is, without the need for this one. That includes prohibiting “the addition of [...] crude humor [...] or the insertion of nonsense into articles.” (partial quote from WP:VANDAL). It won't be long before Google re-reads Wikipedia. – jaksmata 21:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More thoughts from another editor

I think the April Fool's Edits are quite funny, especially to the MediaWiki: namespace. I suggest that MediaWiki:Tagline be changed to the following, and then left alone.

“ From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, which you shouldn't be trusting as reliable on April Fool's Day ”

And then left untouched

Then any other MediaWiki: things can be edited; MediaWiki:Edit, :Go, :Search &c. as long as the joke is tasteful.

The Main Page should be left to be torn apart to implement what is already implemented on April 1.

Perhaps all edits made on April 1 can be reverted at the end, if that is plausible. Everyone should be prewarned not to make constructive edits to Wikipedia on April 1.

Jake the Editor Man (talk) 21:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I rather thing that goes a bit far. I do, however, think the tagline might be a useful tool for pointing out our April 1 activities (despite the caching issues), though perhaps it would be better along the lines of:
“ From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, which does embrace April Fool's Day ”
Best to avoid anything that may call into question "trust" or "reliability", even on this day. As for the caching, is it possible to set a site-wide "nofollow,nocache" on April 1 to help avoid some of these issues? — Huntster (t • @ • c) 00:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Idea

How about any semi major things the admins are going to do they have to have some of vote in their own area and they choose what is appriate for them to do (kinda self censorship i would call it) and that way other admins know what they are doing and they can oppose it if they want. and they would could still be banned from doing "major" panks. Peachey88 (Talk Page | Contribs) 13:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I'll just beat everyone to the punch & ban myself next April first. Assuming that I'm still a member in good standing & an Admin at the time, of course. Anyone care to join me? -- llywrch (talk) 22:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] timezones (also, lack of lulz)

People keep saying "It's just one day". But with people making "jokes" from different timezones it's often not 1st April when many editors see the edits. (plus already mentioned caching) Also, I agree with Dhartung - many of the "jokes" just weren't funny. Dan Beale-Cocks 02:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Idea

I am not an administrator and my message will probably get deleted due to that, but I wonder if anyone saw the Wookieepedia main page on april fools day? The entire main page was written in the fictional star wars alphabet. For those who wanted to see the page in english, a link was included to an english version. So, if admins have a bit of fun with the main page they can include a disclaimer at the bottom, along with a link to a "non-april fools" version of the page. Also, I see nothing wrong with changing the "Go" and "Search" buttons to something humorous. And, corrosponding to the comment above, we could just use UTC time. T.Neo (talk) 12:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

An April fool's disclaimer? Intresting. I sort of like it. But that almost defeats the purpose of having 1. ;/ Neal (talk) 16:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC).

[edit] Some people take themselves far too seriously

[edit] Why the need for pranks?

I don't understand why editors, but especially admins, feel the need to use WP for their personal pranks. Unless you're Jimbo, it seems to me that this is not your web site, and you've agreed to abide by the policies which specifically prohibit edits designed to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia.[1] And I can't see how any prank could be construed as meant to improve WP. As someone whose primary use for WP is actually using WP as a starting point for almost everything I research, I am not heartened by the display of "humanity" some have attributed to how some admins have broadcast their sense of humor. I WOULD have a greater confidence in the professionalism (yes, I know they're not paid for their efforts, and I DO admire them for it) expected from the stewards of the project if the consensus of these discussions was: "All editors are told the rules, admins have accepted a greater responsibility and are defacto warned against such transgressions without first committing them. Therefor, upon the first transgression, admins will receive a more harsh reaction."

If editors want to showcase their sense of humor, it seems to me that the only reasonable WP venue is their user page and talk pages. Other than that, they should do what everyone else does, get a blog. Comparing WP pranks to Google's is pointless. Google is run by a tiny number of top people who may have been presented with a dozen or so prank ideas and then ONE person has taken responsibility for the consequences. At WP, no one is responsible for consequences. Maybe that's where some of the respect is lost, no Editor in Chief. No ONE can say, "you knew better, so you get 2 weeks leave without pay." No ONE can say, "This isn't your personal bulletin board that you can decorate because it's April 1, so for the next 6 months you're going to be only fact checking articles about rodent feces and goldfish." Maybe I'm wrong. But even though the rules were the same, I got in more trouble than my little brother for the exact same violation. --JJLatWiki (talk) 00:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Communities have always seen a need for a day set aside to blow off steam. Yes, I think some of the pranks went a bit too far, but some also gave me such a big smile that it was much easier to wade back into "work" here. (Kurt Weber's admin nom was one such, and nominating Human for deletion because no sources independent of the subject exist is another.)
Ultimately, what it comes down to is stopping and thinking before a prank is pulled. How is it going to affect readers, especially those from cultures who may not celebrate April Fool's Day? How is it going to affect people with different political or social views? And is the prankster willing to clean up their mess afterwards? We all need to be responsible editors, 365 days a year.--Fabrictramp (talk) 15:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I understand that communities need to relieve pressure. But I think there is some confusion here between the "community" and the "product". There is "community space" where pranks have almost no ability to cause harm, and there is "product space" where pranks have a much greater ability to cause harm. If one editor wants to prank another editor on either editor's user page, then a simple warning might do. It's an entirely different issue if an admin entirely on his own pulls a prank on the entire userbase, not just the Wikipedia community. And now it seems clear that there are a few people who will not stop and think before pulling a prank, so their questionable timing or questionable taste has ruined it for everyone. They've exposed a basic weakness that should be addressed. If the desire is a high quality encyclopedia, pranks by admins in mainspace should have consequences as if repeatedly warned. --JJLatWiki (talk) 17:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
It sounds like we are basically in agreement here. Part of being responsible is considering consequences for others of our actions. Pranks in mainspace have more impact on others than, say, a joke RFA nom. Pranks that aren't clearly labeled have more impact than pranks which are.--Fabrictramp (talk) 14:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My thoughts

My view towards "pranking" has become such that I see it as divisive, as while some find it funny and harmless, others do not. Technically most of what pass as "pranks" would be blockable and desysopable offenses any other day of the week, so what I think Wikipedia should do is make it clear that policy will be enforced on April 1 just like it would any other day. If Wikipedia, just makes it clear that this will happen, we will be able to put an end to the disruptive and divisive behavior without actually having to block or desysop anyone. There are ways to have fun without dividing the wiki community. Having a humorous featured article is one of them. And there's always Uncyclopedia.--Urban Rose 16:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea of a prank article, but there should be a consensus as with everything else. Let anyone create a prank article in their userspace and submit it to the community for consideration. Then use a process like what I assume goes on for featured articles today. I can imagine that as a good way to blow off steam and it might actually be managable. --JJLatWiki (talk) 17:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Looking at the deletion logs, it seems that we get a new prank article about every 30 seconds, day and night. I don't see why we need more. What's wrong with being humourous yet factual? We don't need an (article-space) exception to WP:HOAX. Bovlb (talk) 00:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
If admins insist on ignoring the rules with pranks on April 1 because they need to blow off steam, then perhaps a mechanism can be created for them to channel that steam so that it doesn't harm the project. I'm not sure though what you mean by "humourous yet factual". Can you give an example? In my opinion, humor is highly subjective and I think, by definition, would run into a POV brickwall. I agree that it would be a waste of disk space and processing power to have thousands of then authorized unencyclopedic articles in everyone's user space. But then admins are probably the biggest offenders of that already. --JJLatWiki (talk) 15:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
By "humourous yet factual", I'm referring to the planned activity of presenting a featured article and "Did You Know?"s that are actually true, but appear false. See Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 1, 2008 and Did you know. That seems to be to be an entirely appropriate celebration of the first of April: it demonstrates that we don't take ourselves too seriously, but it doesn't compromise our mission. Bovlb (talk) 15:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. And things like the Kmweber RfA are completely harmless as well. Orderinchaos 13:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My thoughts: Limits on pranking

I think the following limits should apply to pranks:

  1. Should not mislead users to mistake fiction as fact. (It's all right, if not encouraged, to make users mistake an unbelievable fact as fiction.)
  2. Should be acceptable to community standards, as ordained by consensus.
  3. Limited to the following areas:
    Planned April Fool's pranks on the Main Page
    Unimportant places (e.g. own userpage)
    MediaWiki messages that only admins can see (e.g. deletion page, blocking page, etc.)
    Wikipedia namespace pages designed to be humorous

King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Getting somewhere with this

Sorry to add another section for another two cents, but this discussion needs to get somewhere. So far we've had a lot of ideas and a lot of opinions (which are good) but even Newyorkbrad's absolute gem hasn't got us very far in getting any further past this being another failed essay.

The problem is of course that there's too much to read, and that's half the point. Pranks are no fun after you have to get through all this bumph (and what's here is just the cream of what's out there).

Seeing as most of the opinions are now going the same way, I want to distil this to a bunch of points which we're agreed on, so that reaching a consensus doesn't have to be a reading contest. So here goes:

  • Rules about pranking spoil the fun. This means to be acceptable, the page must:
    • be concise.
    • acknowledge the spirit of pranking.
  • Affecting large portions of the encyclopedia is bad
    • for caching performance,
    • for search engine indexing
    • and for Wikipedia's reputation in general
  • Affecting the encyclopedia's reliability or usefulness is bad
  • Jokes which newcomers don't get but still get exposed to are bad

Please register your agreement—or disagreement—how you see fit. This is not a vote.

There are some who hold stronger views than this—i.e. that it is not professional, or is a waste of time, to carry out any other sort of prank. Can we all at least agree that some guidelines on what is definitely not funny will save people time next year?

The way I envisage the page is this:

  • One sentence reminding us that April Fools' Day is fun.
  • One sentence reminding us that pranks must not disrupt Wikipedia's main purpose
  • A list (based on what I think I've summarised above, give or take other points) of things which make a prank not worth doing
  • No BEANS like rambling about past years' antics (this just degrades the fun behind the original prank as well as inspiring decidedly unfunny imitations)
  • A warning to be prepared for the humour-handicapped to spoil the fun—and a suggestion to back down graciously

This seems, at least to me, a very acceptable starting point which would already save a lot of time next year bickering about what's acceptable, particularly repeating the reasoning behind some of the things which are not. If we need to get even more specific then that's great too, but what do people think about this for starters? BigBlueFish (talk) 22:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Good start. But what is the point? Just to streamline the discussion next year? --JJLatWiki (talk) 01:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, and to eliminate the necessity for some of the discussions altogether, and to avoid a whole genre of inappropriate pranks in the first place. The whole point of guideline pages is so people don't have to reinvent common sense each time they encounter a situation. When you have less than a day to agree to a response it's even more helpful to be able to refer to a guideline page based on past consensus. BigBlueFish (talk) 07:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

While I don't think there's any need for a policy, here, a page listing prior jokes that generated considerable controversy might be handy as a guide for what to avoid. Pranks causing real problems or damaging mainspace content in any way have historically just been treated as vandalism; most of the latitude is in project space, primarily in areas where newcomers and readers will be out of harm's way. Anything which harms normal operation of the site is bad, I think that's generally agreed upon even without a new page saying so -- "do no harm" is a great mantra, there. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Straw poll

Seeing as discussion seems to have faded, this is a non-binding straw poll to gauge whether a consensus exists to implement this policy, or any part of it. Please sign under one or more (hopefully non-contradictory) headings. Add a new one if your point isn't covered. Any comments longer than a sentence or two should be made under Discussion. Stifle (talk) 22:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Status quo

The status quo (i.e. no pranks are explicitly prohibited, people are expected to use common sense), and troublesome edits are reverted.

  1. Stifle (talk) 22:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  2. Php Jesse (talk) 00:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  3. Use in conjunction with no-public space. x42bn6 Talk Mess 00:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  4. I expect that most editors will use their common sense in making sure that their jokes will be neither disruptive nor insulting. Apart from that, jokes are welcome in my opinion. Waltham, The Duke of 18:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  5. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 14:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  6. Skomorokh 23:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  7. This seems like a good middle ground in the spirit of building community. Matchups 22:50, 1 April 2008 (AFT)
  8. Nothing wrong w/ s.q. now. Protonk (talk) 21:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
  9. Look, this is an encyclopedia, and this is a serious source of information for a lot of users. And that is a valid argument. But the core contributors of this great body of knowledge are working every day of the year, for hours at a time, defending their articles and carrying out various tasks. In fact, I am still not sure what really drives everybody (including myself) to do it. Personally, taking away the right to have the slightest bit of fun on only one day out of the year (especially on the day that everybody takes as a day of jokes) is not right. It is like taking away vacation days as well as weekends from a factory worker. As for those who do not find the jokes funny: lighten up. Can you really be taking this so seriously that you have lost your sense of humor. Everybody has to laugh once in a while. — Parent5446 (t n c k e l) 23:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  10. I think, we need at least a guideline to avoid bad blocks without warning and using common sense seems to be the best option. The blocks occurred on April 1, 2008 lacked of common sense. Carlosguitar (Yes Executor?) 23:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  11. I would hope this also means that if people are unsure if something is appropriate or not to discuss it first, rather than have a general ban on this or that. Not all pranks are created equal, after all. -- Ned Scott 06:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  12. - Just don't make it too insane, most good faith pranks are harmless anyways. ScarianCall me Pat! 18:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  13. The norm was ok, bar a couple of stupid ideas, this year. I wouldn't mind that again. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  14. We don't need to change a thing. If someone makes a seriously harmful prank, then block them. Malinaccier (talk) 21:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] No pranks on the main page

Joke Today's Featured Article summaries are not permitted on the Main Page.

[edit] No pranks on public interfaces

Text visible to all users (like MediaWiki:Tagline) and so on should not be changed for pranks.

  1. Use in conjunction with the status quo. x42bn6 Talk Mess 00:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  2. I would go for this option - something like putting George Washington (inventor) on the front page seems innocent enough. Moreover, if there were no signs of April Foolery on the front page, then people wouldn't really realise that anything had happened. It Is Me Here (talk) 16:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] No pranks on any non-admin page

The only pranks that are allowed are those which only admins can see, like changing MediaWiki:Delete or the like.

  1. Clearcut and harmless to non-admins. If any non-admin is curious about it, we should be willing to provide screenshots so they can partake in the fun. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 17:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New page pranks

Joke policies (like Wikipedia:Requests for process) are permitted.

  1. By all means, as long as it's clear they're jokes. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 17:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  2. Per above, I'd be fine with a policy requiring {{foolicon}} or something similar be added upon creation. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 14:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] No pranks at all

  1. This is an encyclopedia—for 365 days a year, not 364. Activities which don't directly benefit the encyclopedia can often be permitted, provided they are not harmful, but activities which directly undermine the content of the encyclopedia and/or disrupt the functioning of the site must be strictly prohibited. Everyking (talk) 17:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  2. I agree with Everyking. Sadly, even though pranks are generally well intended, many users do not find them funny and all that pranking results in is users' getting blocked, then ublocked, then reblocked ad infinitum. But more important then just some users getting blocked and unblocked, it creates division. Users who wish to pull pranks could just take their sense of humor to Uncyclopedia or another comedy-oriented site where no one would be hurt by them and no one would be at loss - Those who enjoy pranks would have an outlet for their since of humor, and those who don't enjoy them wouldn't be affected by them. For that matter, even the humorous featured article and "did you know" section could just be taken elsewere as they create division and sentiment as well. Let's just face it - this is an encyclopedia, not a comedy site. Users looking for comedy have plenty of other sites that they can go to where their behavior won't be offensive to anyone, so why do they choose this site were their behavior is offensive to more than a few people? And please note that this is coming from someone who has pulled a prank herself. My view on pranking was that it was harmless fun prior to having decided to pull on myself, when I came to realize that it actually hurt a certain user. Since then I've regretted strongly what I did, and have come to realize the division that pranks on Wikipedia cause. If it weren't for the fact that they offend other users, I wouldn't mind pranks that aren't likely to affect newcomers, but sadly they do offend other users, and technically they are generally policy violations.--Urban Rose 16:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
  3. Treat vandalism as such, regardless of being December 12, May 7, or whatever date. - Nabla (talk) 21:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  4. What Everyking said. At best, this year's April 1st DYK?s and FA would represent the extent of what WP ought to be doing for April Fool's, where the only joke is on the people who expect there to be joke articles in the first place. And that's it. If we're going to actively encourage vandalism, confusion, and deception, why limit it to one arbitrary day of the year? WP:BJAODN died for a reason. -Sean Curtin (talk) 09:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
    Although, I wouldn't mind seeing some kind of opt-in feature for meta-level pranks. "Nuke from orbit" made me chuckle, but in general, altering fundamental admin tools without warning doesn't strike me as an especially good idea. -Sean Curtin (talk) 09:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
    And the reason BJAODN died was because it created a huge GFDL compliance issue. Not related to this matter at all. Stifle (talk) 11:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  5. The thing with pranks on most sites, is that there are Powers That Be that get to decide what is a good balance between funny and restrained. Unless we have a big discussion beforehand on what this year's pranks will be, the only way to do it would be to say "these users are allowed to get away with it, because they're the in crowd, but you plebs aren't to have a go at humour". I don't want to be the one explaining that exposing Wikipedia to one's (perceived) sense of humour is an undocumented perk of adminship, or long service, or knowing the right people. Pseudomonas(talk) 16:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  6. Pranks are vandalism. Repairing vandalism takes a lot of every one's time, and should be discouraged at all times. If a good edit has been done after vandalism (e.g. link to another language WP), repairing becomes even harder. I believe the time has come to prohibit editing by those not logged in (who are responsible for a large proportion of it) and to discipline registered users responsbible for vandalism. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Voting is evil

[edit] Discussion

One issue with straw polls is they are vulnerable to framing, and that has happened here. The status quo, after this year, is that admins who play around in the mediawiki namespace are likely to be blocked, and the pranks in other places need to be done with some amount of clue. That status quo is fine with me. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Can we have an option for the actual "Status quo", please? The FA/DYK can be humourous but factual, and pranks are prohibited and can lead to blocks. Bovlb (talk) 00:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Not at all sure that that's the status quo. Very few, if any, pranks led to blocks this year, and those that did found most blocks quickly reversed. Stifle (talk) 08:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - Discussion should always occur before blocking. Dream Academy (talk) 08:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - my idea of a good prank would be to insert "except WP:PRANK which should be expanded" in WP:CREEP. However, I think we should make it explicit that blocks without discussion are going too far in response to jokes, and making this a guideline might make people happier instead of being frustrated, an important thing to keep in mind with pranks. Plus, any admin who wants to block could edit this page first on April 1 and use it as permission as a counter-prank -- then it would be okay, as long as they unblocked. Now adding that would be instruction creep. But as the proposal is now, it's not so bad. Dream Academy (talk) 09:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punitive. If it's wrong to do a prank, it does not necessarily follow that there should be a block after it. I think April Fools' Day pranks should be treated the same, or about the same, as jokes or vandalism on any other day: probably beginning with a message to the user that it was inappropriate, if one decides to take any action at all. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 15:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Going to throw my support in here for having the april fools' day guidelines set such that the only actions that are permitted are those which: 1/ do not interfere with the ability of editors or administrators to go about their business comfortably; 2/ do not interfere with the reading of Wikipedia. These two general criterion are very much common sense; if we try and list every example of what does and does not fit into either category (as we've been attempting to do, eg. "No mediawiki space edits"; "joke processes are fine, but don't disrupt the existing xfd pages"; etc.), we'd be here all day. Any final version of the new "guidelines" on april fools' day would, I hope, be based mainly on these two criterion; although specific mentions to 'close call' areas (such as editing the mediawiki namespace for joke purposes, an area still subject to some ambiguous consensus) would be fine, by-and-large, screeds of examples in the guidelines of what to do and not to do, and by extension polls on each individual example, should be left alone. Anthøny 18:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why does the page say that Wikipedia doesn't disallow pranks?

I know there is no section of Wikipedia that says "no pranks", but most of the behavior that falls into the category of "pranks" is explicitly prohibited. Bogus afds, false reports to AIV, and unconstructive edits to MediaWiki namespace would fall into the category of disruptive behavior that is not allowed any other day of the year, so in reality Wikipedia DOES officially disallow most of what falls into the category of "pranks", but on April Fools day, it's just overlooked. If we're going to say that Wikipedia doesn't disallow pranks then our policy is meaningless because a person could just violate policy as he or she chooses and excuse himself or herself for it by calling it a "prank". Wikipedia:Use common sense isn't policy.--Urban Rose 16:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a prank if established users do it. It's vandalism if a redname or an IP does it. -Sean Curtin (talk) 09:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Not quite that simple, I think. The key question for me is whether it damages normal operation of the site. A user who replaces the content of George W. Bush with a dancing monkey is still just vandalizing, regardless of who they are or when they do it, while the ingenious Wikipedia:Requests for process seems about as harmless as we can get. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)