Wikipedia talk:Pranking

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Why not? And it'd be more of a guideline if anything. Majorly (talk) 23:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

They won't be allowed under this new proposal. Majorly (talk) 23:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the do not do any real harm? Tiptoety ^talk 23:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

So there is no room for fun within all those facts? Tiptoety ^talk 23:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Or to WP:TROUT. Tiptoety ^talk 00:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I hope I will, I really hope this could be enforced. -- m:drini 23:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

But do we need a policy/guidline or just common sense? Tiptoety ^talk 00:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Oh, and just FYU here is a nice list of all the pranks pulled. Tiptoety ^talk 01:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

And seem just what we ought to lose.

We all have different lengths of fuse

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 references to holes 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

And within the confines we 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