Wikipedia:How many Wikipedians does it take to change a lightbulb?

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Gluehlampe 01 KMJ.jpg
Small cabal of lightbulbs convinced that they do the real work providing the light, and all they get in return is admins screwing them
Recent task force of Wikipedians brainstorming for the definitive answer to the lightbulb problem

How many Wikipedians does it take to change a lightbulb?

  • One to notice it went out, and slap a {{Lightbulb is burned out}} tag on it
  • One to patrol Category:Lightbulbs that are burned out, and remove them all with an automated script
  • One to notice the removed lightbulb, and slap a {{Lightbulb is removed}} tag on it
  • One to patrol Category:Lightbulbs that have been removed, and re-install the burned out lightbulb with an automated script
  • One to notice that the previous editor used an automated script to install a burned out lightbulb, and report them to ANI
  • Fifteen to comment at ANI on whether this is a cause for blocking
  • One to close the ANI thread as "more heat than light"
  • One to propose on the talk page that the lightbulb be replaced
  • One to place a notice with an arrow saying that "there's another light over there" and another to remove the notice because it's too dark to read it.
  • One to finally replace the lightbulb manually
  • One to revert the replacement, with the message "Please gain consensus before removing any lightbulbs"
  • One to edit war the replacement lightbulb back in
  • One to edit war the original lightbulb back in (saying "please don't edit war")
  • Six to continue the edit war, including one to remind them of the 3 revert rule and two others called in to avoid violating 3RR
  • One to request for protection
  • One administrator to protect the page (with the burnt out lightbulb in)
  • One to alert the admin that the page was protected with the light bulb still burned out
  • One to claim "admin abuse" of lightbulb protection privileges
  • One to post the issue to Jimbo Wales' talk page
  • Two talk page stalkers to provide their opinions instead of Jimbo
  • One to demand an RFC on the subject
  • Twelve to participate in the 30-day RFC
  • Four to nominate and ponder the close of the RfC at Discussions for discussion
  • One to close the RFC as "no consensus"
  • One to put in the replacement bulb anyway, with an edit summary "this is the stupidest thing I've ever seen"
  • One to file another report at ANI for "Breach of WP:CIVILity and egregious Personal Attacks"
  • Seven to comment at ANI whether this was uncivil or not
  • Seven more to debate whether one of the comments should be placed above or below a line
  • One to file a request for closure of the ANI thread at Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure
  • One to close the ANI thread with "user warned" several days after everyone else lost interest
  • One to mark the request for closure as done, because the actual closer forgot to do so
  • One to open a Sockpuppet Investigation on the user who changed the lightbulb.
  • One CheckUser to block the user in question as a sock of a site banned user and revert all the user's contributions, including the lightbulb.

So, by my count, 80. And everyone's still in the dark.

See also[edit]