Wikipedia:How many Wikipedians does it take to change a lightbulb?
Appearance
(Redirected from Wikipedia:How many Wikipedians does it take to screw in a lightbulb?)
![]() | This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous. Such material is not meant to be taken seriously. |
![]() | This page in a nutshell: 623. |
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3a/Gluehlampe_01_KMJ.jpg/200px-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
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d4/WM2006_0018.jpg/250px-WM2006_0018.jpg)
How many Wikipedians does it take to change a lightbulb? – a full accounting
[edit]- One to notice it went out, and slap a {{Lightbulb is burned out}} tag on it.
- Two to research about how to replace a lightbulb.
- 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 redirect 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.
- One extended-confirmed user to request to be an admin so they can change the light bulb despite the full protection on it.
- 300 users to demand that the user be made an admin.
- One bureaucrat to make the hapless user an admin. (why doesn't he just change the lightbulb himself)
- One vandal to vandalize the lightbulb after the new admin accidentally un-protected the lightbulb.
- One vandalism-reverting bot to revert the vandalism.
- Ten sockpuppets belonging to the vandal to vandalize the lightbulb after the vandal got blocked by the new admin.
- One admin to block the sockpuppets and forget to restore the lightbulb.
- One admin to protect the light bulb.
- One person to comment that the light bulb still isn't fixed.
- One admin standing in good faith to change the light bulb.
- Five people to comment on completely unrelated misbehaviour by said admin.
- One person to escalate said misbehaviour to AN after the admin fails to answer satisfactorily.
- One arb to notice that the admin speedily closed the AN thread on themselves, and open an ArbCom case on the matter.
- Twelve people to comment on the ArbCom case.
- The aforementioned admin, seeing people pile on them, decides to hand in their bits and reveal that they are a long-hidden sock of a banned user.
- Two uninvolved admins to revert everything aforementioned admin has done per WP:BRV, including restoring the lightbulb.
- Another five admins to carefully review the reverted actions, and revert the revert that reverted the restoration of the light bulb.
- One person to notice that the lightbulb is a 75 Watt bulb rather than a 110 Watt bulb and request that it be moved to 110 Watts.
- Fifty-three users to support the move, another fifty-three to oppose, one to suggest a candle as an alternative, and one to suggest an LED light bulb.
- One to ask why it's necessary to move when the lightbulb is fine.
- One to whack them with a wet trout, and another to sizzle the trout.
- One to delete this page, never to be seen again.
- The old EC user to hack up this page, tired of this mess.
- And a partridge in a pear tree.
- One to replace the partridge with a light bulb because it ain't Christmas.
- One to notice the lack of a source, and add one.
- Twenty new Wikipedians, who accidently delete the lightbulb whist attempting to cite their Youtube videos as inspiring the creation of the lightbulb.
- Another admin to restore what is left of the lightbulb.
- One "witty" Uncyclopedian moonlighting as a Wikipedian to steal the lightbulb and write jokes on it in permanent marker.
- Six, one to write the cover, one to write the story, and the other four to screw the bulb in.
- Fifty-two to just play a game of Solitaire under the lightbulb, because they have time. One for each card that is played.
- One new Wikipedian to wrongly remove the source, as it is dead.
- One to add their own source, with the only review being from themselves, calling it reliable. It explodes shortly afterwards.
- One from the previous RM to replace the former lightbulb with an LED light bulb, despite rejection from 107 users.
So, by my count, 623.
Short version
[edit]- One.[dubious – discuss][citation needed][further explanation needed][according to whom?][clarification needed][failed verification][how?][verify][vague][needs update][when?][where?][which?][who?][why?][who said this?][compared to?][specify][misquoted][example needed]
Technical version
[edit]- Zero
Reason
[edit]- You just need a human who isn't a Wikipedian to contact a professional to change the lightbulb, or a professional to notice the lightbulb to go out.
Wikipedia version
[edit]- One - One Wikipedian to say that the lightbulb should not be changed - And 113,251 other users to edit war with each other over changing it...
See also
[edit]- Lightbulb joke
- List of jokes about Wikipedia
- Parkinson's law
- Underpants Gnome
- User:Eumat114/How many Wikipedians does it take to finally change a lightbulb?, stating that it's less than 515 users.