User:Xenocidic/Aprilfools

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page contains material which is kept because it is considered humorous. It is not intended, nor should it be used, for any remotely serious purpose.

April Fools' pranks result in temporary blocks for six admins

By WBOSITG and Ral315, 7 April 2008

Six administrators were briefly blocked on April Fools' Day, after various joke edits that were considered unconstructive or vandalous by some.

• AzaToth: Changed the "Go" and "Search" buttons on the search box to "I'm Feeling lucky" and "Wacky Search". MZMcBride blocked; Coren unblocked, with the caveat that AzaToth refrain from making further disruptive edits.
• Kwsn: Changed MediaWiki:Delete, the administrators' delete tab, to "nuke this page". Drini blocked Kwsn, but unblocked about an hour later.
• Omegatron: Was blocked for making changes to MediaWiki:Tagline (the text that says "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"), calling Wikipedia "the free Pokémon encyclopedia" and "the free encyclopedia that triples in population every six months". David Levy blocked Omegatron; the block was undone by John Reaves, but he noted in the block log afterward that he "wasn't fully aware of the situation", and "would endorse a reblock were the behavior to continue".
• Random832: Made changes to MediaWiki:Ipboptions, a page that contains the standard block lengths available when blocking users. While this page is not visible to non-administrators, Random832 was blocked by Drini; AuburnPilot unblocked, calling the block "unwarranted" and punitive.
• Scientizzle: Changed MediaWiki:Edit, which controls the "edit this page" message, to say "edit this page, pretty please". Scientizzle was blocked by Drini, and AuburnPilot unblocked, calling the block "unwarranted and punitive".
• Viridae: Made three different edits to MediaWiki:Tagline; perhaps the most controversial change was "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia administer^[sic] by people with a stick up their lavender passageway". Viridae was blocked by David Levy; Riana unblocked, saying that Viridae was not warned.

Eventually, cooler heads prevailed in the various issues. Discussion on what to do for April Fools' Day 2009 is underway at Wikipedia talk:Pranking, and while no clear policy has been worked out, Newyorkbrad suggested a series of guidelines for next year:

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

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

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)

This page contains material which is kept because it is considered humorous. It is not intended, nor should it be used, for any remotely serious purpose.