Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Rules for Fools

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

Added note about time of April Fools Day

I added a note explaining when April Fools Day starts and ends, and warned fools not to pull April Fools Day pranks when it is not in fact April Fools Day. This has been a minor problem in past April Fools Day celebrations, so I thought it appropriate to add this tip since it reflects long-standing community practices.Spirit of Eagle (talk) 18:08, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But, April Fools Day happens in different times for people in different time zones. April fools day for you and me could be twelve hours different. The time is relative to location. Shrekxy64. 18:58, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The note addresses this. April Fools day goes by Coordinated Universal Time (aka Greenwich Mean time/ Wikipedia time/ the time listed after your signature). UTC is always the same regardless of location, so we won't have the issue of April Fools Day lasting longer than 24 hours. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 20:36, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Preventing April Fools 2020 from getting out of hand.

The result of the discussion was no consensus. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 22:35, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


The WP:GAFDEW was fun and all, but I doubt it happening twice would be a good thing (Could result in sanctions or restrictions, as it wouldn't be unlikely for it to get way out of hand very quickly). Maybe a fixed name for that section should be decided? --MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 17:12, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paging @InvalidOS, Spirit of Eagle, 7 qz, and One Blue Hat: as major participants. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 17:14, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I agree. It was fun and all, but seeing as how quickly that spiraled out of hand, I think a fixed title would be a good idea. It was also quite distracting for me. April Fools' shouldn't go that far. I'd suggest "Miscellaneous Jokes" as a section title. (With a very noticeable notice from the cabal saying "DON'T EDIT WAR OVER THIS SECTION'S TITLE AGAIN OR FACE SEVERE PUNISHMENT AND POSSIBLE ERASURE FROM EXISTANCE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.") InvalidOS (talk) 17:20, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
InvalidOS, Waiting on input from the others I paged, but I will probably elevate this to a RfC. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 17:29, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with that. InvalidOS (talk) 17:30, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Who dare summon me? But seriously, I feel like there should be a rule during the event that each person can only edit the header once per hour. A Dolphin (squeek?)
Initial comments by Spirit of Eagle and responses to those comments

Was it really that bad? I remember some of the admins commenting that 2019 was pretty mild compared to past years, and I suspect the was because a lot of the chaos was concentrated on the Great Edit War. Yes, the 2019 page was pretty chaotic, but it was quite literally a page for documenting pranks played on the community; I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect protection from chaos on a page dedicated to stirring up chaos (especially when that chaos would have been directed against the wider community but for the Great Edit War). Spirit of Eagle (talk) 17:41, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spirit of Eagle, I'm talking about some of the more unwelcome chaos that arose from it, like repeated page moves (resulting in the page having to be move protected) MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 17:46, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn’t actually aware of the page move issue. Let me get back to this after class. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 17:49, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, here’s the diff for when the page was locked. In 2019, there was no foreknowledge of the edit war or oppertunity to plan, yet it still required administrative intervention; in 2020 there will have been a year of notice and I imagine the “Great Edit War II: the Electric SCPikachu” will kick off at full chaos at midnight if not earlier. We could try just banning page moves, but such a narrow approach completely underestimates the potential of a feedback loop of chaos. To be clear, I really enjoyed the edit war, but there is a massive risk of things getting completely out of control next year. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 19:41, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Spirit of Eagle, I liked the edit war as well, it was very much enjoyable, but you are correct, the chaos could very easily get out of control. A possible extreme solution would be to put sanctions on the page, like a 1 edit per 5 min per person limitation, or similar. But that'd be desirable only in a worst case scenario. (And this is why I brought this up) MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 19:51, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, my biggest concern is avoiding another general April Fools Day RFC: the celebration has survived two of them, I’m not sure if it can survive a third. Having a five minute cool-down will almost certainly interfere with “productive” editing on the page to document April Fools jokes. On the other hand, I am a bit worried about trying to lock the subsection title to prevent another edit war. There is a chance that this will cause all of the concentrated chaos from last year to dissipate. However, there is also a chance that a bunch of editors will come looking for a repeat of 2019 and try to create it elsewhere if they can’t do it in the misc. joke section title. If the latter happens, then he 2020 edit war will be a lot more outward facing than 2019 (which largely focused on pranking the pranksters, the page moves notwithstanding). I’m going to have to mull this one over. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 20:10, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Spirit of Eagle, There's also another thing to consider: It's possible another edit war may not happen at all. But that's highly unlikely. Judging by the edit history of the other two I paged, I probably won't see a response from them soon, so i'm going to elevate this to a RfC now that I got the input I was after. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 20:26, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The 2019 edit war got out of hand and required intervention by an admin; I predict 2020 will be even more chaotic. While I enjoy April Fools Day on Wikipedia, we do need to respect the rights of editors not to participate and avoid creating needless work for others. To this end, I believe it is appropriate to lock down the section title. Edit of Nov. 9: I'm honestly starting to waver a bit on restricting the section title. As Knowledgekid points out, most of the participants followed Rules for Fools and this is feeling more and more like punishing the many for the actions of the few. I support trying out less drastic measures (specifically the things I suggest in the paragraph below); move locking the page would prevent the bad stuff seen in 2019 while the clean-up day and notice would hammer in the need to respect the wider community. I understand that this position is riskier than just outright banning follow up edit-wars. However, at the end of the day I have faith in my fellow Wikipedians and firmly believe that we are capable of making good decisions even on our day of fun (particularly when provided with good information and a proper nudge or two). We can always revisit this if this faith turns out to be misplaced, but until then I am not prepared to outright ban the edit war.
I do have some other suggestions. First, we should probably prohibit moving the "Wikipedia:April Fools/April Fools' Day 20XX" page since ever move creates a new page that has to be deleted by an admin. Second, we should place a notice at the top of the Wikipedia:April Fools/April Fools' Day 2020 page explaining that the miscellaneous joke section is locked. The note should also advise editors to respect the rights of non-participants, avoid being a nuisance, and to clean up after themselves and others once April Fools Day is over. The third idea is one I have been toying with for some time: April Fools days celebrations are divisive, and it does cause annoyance to non-participants. To address this, we could make April 2nd a maintenance day: participants in the April 1st festivities are encouraged to fix spelling errors, add wikilinks to articles, , and do all of the other minor tasks needed to keep Wikipedia functional. The third suggestion won't prevent chaos, but it will build up some good will with the rest of the community. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 21:33, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Meh After thinking this over some more, I'm editing my comment some more. I do not support blocking future edit wars; things were relatively under control and I have no desire to restrict the many for the acts of the few. I do support locking down the page title. If we see an edit war over the page title like we saw over the section title, we would end up with dozens of redirects an admin would have to delete. It would also be incredibly difficult to find where exactly the April Fools Day page was located. Granted, I expect an admin would lock the page down before this becomes an issue, so perhaps this rule isn't even encessary. The one thing I do still strongly support is the APril 2nd CLean Up Day. Someone could basically create a page that direct editors to areas suffering from backlog and that also allows them to log their contributions in a causal setting. Basically, we could channel the fun of April Fools Day into something very productive. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 23:14, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://discordia.fandom.com/wiki/Zarathud
  • Mildly Oppose I don't think that this was a problem. People were staying within the rules, nobody got hurt. I feel like this edit war was out of pure jest. It sort of went from "this is what this section title needs to be called," to "how many silly things can we name this section?" People were following all the rules for the most part, excluding the time someone blanked the entire page (I plead guilty). As long as there is cleanup and people don't absolute lose their minds, I'm fine with letting the Great April Fools Day Edit War of 2020. I'm relatively new to Wikipedia, so I don't know how the server internals work. If a massive edit war would put too much strain on the technical side of things, then we probably should block or at least slow down the edits. One Blue Hat❯❯❯ (talk) 20:46, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It's good fun. There's nothing wrong with editors doing this on April Fools. Although it should end at midnight on April Fools.HAL333 00:55, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Post at AN

Liz mentioned that some people might not the thread I started, so notifying here as I think more people who care about this may see this on their watchlist :) TonyBallioni (talk) 03:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: April Fools' Day

I am consolidating all of the RfCs on this page into one. They all relate to April Fools' Day. Mz7 (talk) 23:50, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring and vandalism on individual years' April Fools page

It was funny when 'General Tomfoolery' got changed to 'General Jerryfoolery'. But when users are edit warring over section titles as happened in the past four years, moving the page randomly to other titles, as happened in 2017, unnecessarily duplicating the page as happened in 2020, blanking entire sections as happened in 2019 and 2020, messing with the text font, orientation, or size, or the css as happened in 2018, 2019, and 2020, linking to random external links, and performing other such examples of vandalism on the yearly April Fools documentation page, it becomes too excessive and out of hand, and the Wikipedia administrators should crack down upon these violations of Wikipedia policy. 107.77.173.61 (talk) 10:00, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment On Wikipedia:April Fools/April Fools' Day 2020/The Great April Fools' Day Edit War of 2020 there is a statement that says 'Please do not play pranks here; this is meant to be an archive.' This statement should be on the main Wikipedia:April Fools/April Fools' Day 2020 page and that page shouldn't exist in the first place. 107.77.173.61 (talk) 10:59, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I actually with this person. They have a good point. I couldn't even understand what was happening during April Fools because of the vandalism happening. Koridas (Speak) 15:10, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I also agree with the above. Vandalism humour is cheap and unfunny. @InvalidOS: We discussed this in private, so you might want to weigh in on it. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:29, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Minor things, such as adding a {{troutme}} onto the page, a COVID-19 infection banner, or a non-article category addition are fine, but redirections, article copies, blanking, song lyrics, 135° rotations of the entire page, and 10K+ byte additions should be prohibited. HotdogPi 16:38, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) I agree with this, except that we should be socially distancing ourselves from all coronavirus-related humor coronavirus jokes should be avoided at all costs. To add to the okay/not okay lists, I would say adding tasteful external links or reasonably sized images is fine; reversing the text, adding overly large images, or adding fair use images in violation of WP:NFCC are not. The standard should probably be, is it possible to constructively add pranks per the page's original purpose? —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 17:21, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed I believe we can play pranks, but there is a limit. The main problem with vandalism and edit warring is (1) it stops consensus from occurring, (2) it unnecessarily fills up the page history and (3) it becomes difficult to patrol in recent changes patrol. Other users can play pranks on user pages, but only if they have a notice that says that they are willing to be subject to April Fool's pranks. In the future, we need to make sure that emphasis on policies are all over the place. Maybe at Template:Editnotices/Group/Wikipedia:April Fools. Aasim 16:42, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - (edit conflict) Yes, I agree, vandalism isn't funny. Even if it is, it's usually disruptive. Though it might be able to be allowed to a limited extent, for example, the bird section on the 2020 page that was present earlier, as that wasn't disruptive since it didn't effect any other parts of the page. Though, I think a total stopping of vandalism of the page would be an easy solution, and it would mean that admins wouldn't have to use more resources on managing April Fools. Admin resources should be directed towards more serious activities, but fun on Wikipedia is still great for just winding down and taking a break. We need to keep April Fools. Maybe we could do something like having an event involving comedy articles as well. So we all don't go too crazy. InvalidOStalk 16:45, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as someone who absolutely lost their mind today, I can say that it is a bit too much. I understand why vandalism and other things is not good for the site. And though I thought last year's edit war was funny, this one really isn't funny from a logical standpoint. I think InvalidOS' idea of creating comedy pages rather than just edit warring over a section title or cluttering XFD with jokes. This would mean that rules would need to be changed. Those pages could then be archived in the April Fools day page. I also agree that we need to let GAFDEWII fade into obscurity so we don't encourage vandalism. One Blue Hat❯❯❯ (talk) 20:38, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This became excessive long ago. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:22, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This year, there was a serious issue of people posting copyrighted images to the April Fools page, a clear violation of policy and copyright law. The edits were coming in so fast it was nearly impossible to remove the images or even to find out who was posting them. I'm still undecided about whether we should continue the great edit war tradition, but this is a serious concern. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:44, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A review of the page history is...illuminating. The easy fix is to prohibit all hijinks on the main documentation page, create an empty /editwar subpage (move protect it) where anything but outright policy violations is allowed, and let people blow off steam there. Even if copyvio/non-free image use slipped through enforcement the entire thing could be harmlessly deleted at the end of the day. It would be nice to word future guidance in a way so that little jokes a la jerry foolery are allowed within reason on the main April Fools page for the year. However that's easier said than done as bright lines are difficult to write in a way that avoids being both under and over inclusive. Fuzzier guidance is not really a prefferred option in this case since circumstance would make it an enforcement nightmare. Spectrum {{UV}} 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 03:07, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Seems silly to have to !vote on this. Wikipedia isn't a safe space for obnoxious and childish behavior. -FASTILY 03:45, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rules regarding joke AfDs should apply to Requested moves, mergers, splits, and RfDs as well

I've noticed some joke Wikipedia:Requested moves like the ones on Milton Keynes Dons F.C., Nine Inch Nails, and Wikipedia:April Fools have templates on the main article placed there by the User:RMCD bot. So I would suggest to create similar rules for requested moves, mergers, splits, and redirects for discussion as is current for articles for deletion to prevent disruption on the article itself. 107.77.173.61 (talk) 10:49, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No pranks on mainspace and help talk pages or Wikiproject pages

This is for @Interstellarity: who suggested that pranks should be banned from mainspace talk and help talk pages. I would propose even further that pranks be banned from WikiProject pages. 107.77.173.1 (talk) 17:35, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blanket ban on joke XfD

Some users at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Classic All Fools, outrageously poor taste, or somewhere in between? suggested a blanket ban on joke Articles for Deletion and Miscellany for Deletion because it was disruptive to actual efforts to conduct real AfD/MfD. They didn't mention redirects for discussion but the same should apply for consistency sakes. 107.77.173.1 (talk) 20:14, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The same should apply to all XFD pages. Catgirllover4ever (talk) 01:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would it work to create a separate page that handles the joke nominations? One Blue Hat❯❯❯ (talk) 20:30, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Its one day out of a 365 day year that this happens. We have rules in place and admin can and will block those who do not follow them. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:07, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • strongly support a blanket ban now and in the feature. For starters, it's not funny and if it were ever funny, 50 stupid "joke" noms on the same day is disruptive. This is an encyclopedia, not a school playground. Praxidicae (talk) 21:08, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • These are not real nominations though, and are for inside use purposes only. No real AfD/MfD or RfD should be visible in mainspace. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:11, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Except several dozen were tagged improperly and it's still disruptive. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, keep the unfunny jokes confined to the appropriate places. Not venues where people are legitimately trying to work. If you want to play around on April Fools, get a blog. Praxidicae (talk) 21:14, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree with you... this is a job for admin to enforce though just like any normal vandalism would be. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:18, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      No, we shouldn't be throwing out blocks because of a bunch of impulsive editors who think the Wikipedia equivalent of fart jokes are funny as a method of prevention. Mass fake nominations are disruptive, period and it clogs up AFDs and people's watchlists. Praxidicae (talk) 21:31, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Nah - Nah, not need and needless bureaucracy for something that is not actually a problem. PackMecEng (talk) 21:21, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support as per Prax - The same shit gets nominated each and every year and it becomes boring and obviously disruptive and as Prax says we're not a playground either, Maybe I've lost my sense of humour but I genuinely don't find these funny anymore,
Sorry to be a killjoy but given the amount of disruption and mess this causes each and every year I see no reason why this should be allowed to continue,
Knowledgekid87 Christmas happens once a year .... does that give me a free pass to disrupt the entire project for the day ? .... No it doesn't ..... so I don't see why April Fools should be any different. –Davey2010Talk 21:30, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you are being a little bit of a drama queen here. Where is there a free pass to disrupt the entire project for the day? That is not what happens nor is there much disruptions over all as you know. So why can't you stand other people being happy or enjoying themselves? PackMecEng (talk) 21:38, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well in case it's escaped your notice ..... there's a free pass today ... like there is this day of every year. I never said I cannot stand people being happy I simply stated I'm fed up with the disruption and mess that is caused every year but thanks for your valued reply!. –Davey2010Talk 21:47, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well since you seem to value my input, how about a little more? You never said you cannot stand people being happy, that is true, yet never seem to put up with people being happy. Some things are better left unsaid I suppose. PackMecEng (talk) 21:49, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • The fuck are you even going on about ? ..... Not that it's even relevant but I've had a good laugh with tons of people here .... so the whole "You never seem to put up with people being happy" is absolute bollox, Perhaps you should stop replying now. –Davey2010Talk 22:01, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This has gotten completely out of hand. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:42, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict × 2) Support – It really is time this ended. Scrolling through the dozens upon dozens of 5th and 6th nominations of the same topics that we had last year, they are just not funny anymore, and they do negatively impact the flow of our normal editorial processes. Praxidicae was complaining to me on IRC earlier today about how people kept tripping the edit filter with their joke edits, and that was affecting legitimate counter-spam and counter-vandalism work by flooding the log with false positives. Every year, several overenthusiastic editors are threatened with blocks and at least one thread is started at WP:ANI. Even if the jokes occur for only one day, discussions like this one, RfCs, and even ArbCom cases remain contentious for weeks and even months after April 1. It really is a much bigger timesink and disruption than it might seem at first, and it really does feel like a child's playground. It's just not worth it. If we have to do a joke, let's instead devote our energies into a more intelligent one, perhaps like Wikivoyage did. Mz7 (talk) 21:42, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Having this in place will mean admins can just delete the offending pages on sight, and no more time need be wasted on it than that. The joke noms ceased being funny many years ago.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:25, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support. I like the DYKs on April 1st, but not the XFDs. Catgirllover4ever (talk) 00:07, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support I have no strong feelings one way or the other, but I feel that the joke XfDs might be a nightmare logistically that could outweigh teh totally epick lulzz :P (I was being facetious with that last part). – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:23, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support they stopped being funny when 14 year olds with no sense of humour became 90% of the people who did them. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:45, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support These stopped being funny a long time ago and there is serious concern that they are clogging up the relevant listings. I'm also motivated to vote this way as a gesture of good will to people who may not enjoy April Fools Day on Wikipedia. This seems to be one of the most complained about type of pranks; I'm perfectly willing to get rid of these types of pranks to reduce friction between the two sides. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:53, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support at least for WP:BLPs. We had a joke about presidential assassination live on one of these pages for two years before it was finally removed. Regardless of how someone feels about President Trump, hosting something like that on an encyclopedia website is not funny at all and could even lead to law enforcement issues. Someone said I have no sense of humor for suggesting that we delete joke AfDs for living politicians, ironically I make jokes about politicians all the time in real life, but not on Wikipedia because WP:AC/DS exists for a reason, let alone WP:BLP. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Have a blessed day. 01:52, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The most apparent problems seem to be nth nominations of the same articles (reusing old jokes, which then become not funny), perhaps only a handful of users crossing a line, and clogging the log page of serious XfDs (as described at AfD, and I must note that April Fools RfDs were not kept in a separate section). I think a better place to start would be to tackle these two problems by blacklisting or salting titles that would lead to such repetition, and perhaps create an April Fools XfD page completely separate from the main venues (e.g. Wikipedia:April Fools/April Fools' 2020/XfD). With all due respect, everyone's sense of humor is different (even among 14-year-olds, and we can't assume the age of everyone on here), and it would be unfair to some (even esteemed editors) who simply have differing opinions (I might laugh and you might frown, or vice versa) than to oblige everyone into complete, bureaucratic seriousness. If they stopped being funny "a long time ago", why has this discussion or a substantial policy change not occurred a long time ago? And if there is a general pattern among the users making "unfunny" jokes–many of whom I'd suspect are relatively new—could that not be adapted to separately? I personally have no problem as long as there is no disruption, breach of policies such as WP:BLP, and still a sense of originality (so no more than 2nd or 3rd nominations), and I too might like to see something along the lines of Wikivoyage next April in addition to DYK. ComplexRational (talk) 02:29, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are some people who think that vandalising Wikipedia mainspace articles or sockpuppeting on Wikipedia is funny, but we do not accept such behaviour in Wikipedia. Personally for me these are all examples of WP:BJADON that should have been eliminated thirteen years ago with the rest of WP:BJADON for being disruptive to Wikipedia but wasn't. 107.77.173.1 (talk) 02:45, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, I should have been clearer in referring to types of comedy, wordplay, irony, satire, etc. in XfDs—those different senses of humor—that may appeal differently to different people (while doing no harm to the encyclopedia). Of course vandalism and sockpuppetry aren't funny (it beats me why it would be) or acceptable, hence they breach policy and result in blocks if not bans. ComplexRational (talk) 02:54, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, but there are many users who disagree with you that the joke XfDs are good comedy; instead, they see the joke XfDs as the lowbrow vulgur humour of an immature teenager, equivalent to poop jokes or sexual innuendos. 107.77.173.1 (talk) 03:20, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      In my opinion, only a few clever ones were; many were not. They can sometimes be to some users if done right (which varies, also per 2604:2000 below), that's all I'm getting at. But if the generally-thought-to-be-bad comprise a supermajority, I won't hesitate to support at least tightened policies. ComplexRational (talk) 03:36, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I should add that I disagree with you about the most apparent problem. The most apparent problem is the fact that there are about 70-80 joke AfDs that clog up the AfD system and makes it incredibly disruptive for administrators and other users who aren't participating in the April Fools shenanigans and who are trying to resolve AfD discussions. As well as sometimes the joke AfD template would actually appear on the article itself making this act disruptive to casual users of Wikipedia. 107.77.173.1 (talk) 03:06, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, that is a problem. So if they are to be kept, they ought to be kept separately from good-faith noms. And tags on articles only come about from recklessness, that is already explicitly prohibited yet it clearly still happens. ComplexRational (talk) 03:36, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • An issue with that proposal is that if it's a recognizable joke to have an XfD on a page (for example, the Main Page, the quintessence of joke XfDs), then it will be joke-nommed to death. If you create-protect "obvious" joke-nom targets such as the Main Page, Trump, etc., then there's really no point in nominally allowing joke noms for stuff people aren't going to joke-nom. No one's going to jokingly nominate random articles because then it wouldn't be seen as a joke and, while perhaps Kaufmanesque, would be an arguably even worse scenario when people mistake joke-noms for good-faith noms and consequently waste more time. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:10, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (edit conflict × 2) – thinking about it after my participation, it's a net negative to the encyclopedia. Very few experienced editors actually participate in them nowadays and it is just crap now. There are now editors which have 70% of their edits on April 1 and honestly there are many better forums to do this in. It would be a net positive if it had experienced editors and good jokes, but I don't think that's going to happen anytime soon. — J947 (user | cont | ess), at 03:13, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's Complicated It's not hugely disruptive if done right, though that has been an issue, maybe it could be solved with a specialized joke nomination tool option. Agree there are too many. However lame some of them may be, in a lot of cases it's just people trying to blow off a little steam or trying to feel less isolated. One option is to accept the loss of spontaneity and decide on a restricted number of joke nominations in advance by community consensus. At a minimum there should be a change to set a max of 1 nom per editor. Spectrum {{UV}} 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 03:21, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    What is the frequency distribution of joke AfDs per Wikipedia user for the past few years? Depending on the distribution a max 1 per user rule may not resolve the issue. 107.77.173.1 (talk) 03:35, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Not funny, and irritating to people who are actually trying to do work. -FASTILY 03:45, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blanket ban on joke adminship/de-adminship/bureaucratship requests

Future proofing, because most likely the disruption would migrate from AfD nominations to adminship requests if the former gets banned as per above section. 107.77.173.1 (talk) 22:15, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Restrict all April Fools activities apart from WP:AFMP to subpages of Wikipedia:April Fools

Keeping April Fools activities in a special contained place on Wikipedia, namely in subpages of Wikipedia:April Fools, would minimise disruption of the rest of Wikipedia and allows those who wish to partake in the activities to do so. 107.77.173.1 (talk) 03:50, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Rules for Fools" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Rules for Fools. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 20:07, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Rules_for_Fools&oldid=948635523"