Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Rules for Fools

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

RfC: Ban joke Requests for adminship/bureaucratship

[edit]

The vast majority of the joke Wikipedia:Requests for adminship and Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship so far have been nominations of known trolls and vandals such as User:Bloomfield and User:Willy on Wheels~enwiki (vandalism on the German Wikipedia got Willy on Wheels banned). This is counterproductive to Wikipedia as it only encourages such people to continue with their disruptive behavior on Wikipedia. Thus, both joke Wikipedia:Requests for adminship and joke Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship should be banned on April Fools' Day. B2TF (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:38, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose Opps, sorry a lot to become today's conflict starting point of my rfa to WOW.
In short, jokes are just for humour, don't take them so serious. Pavlov2 (talk) 10:05, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support keeping 1A out of project space entirely, and confining it to User space. Also Support B2TF signing on under their original account per WP:NOSHIT. SN54129 10:21, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Lizards per discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:25, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decidedly undecided per being undecided, but at the same time being undecided about being undecided, although I'm also undecided about being undecided about being undecided. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 12:07, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest possible support and extend it to overdone AFD nominations too. These aren't funny jokes, they're tired, obnoxious and disruptive. Wikipedia is a global site, encompassing lots of cultures and April Fool's day is very much a "western" thing not to mention half the readers and users are in different time zones where it's well past April 1 and probably confusing. Moreover, nominating BANNED editors for joke RFAs is the opposite of WP:DENY and WP:DFTT regardless of whether they are active or not. Tl;dr 4/1 is always an obnoxious time on WP and needs to end now. CUPIDICAE💕 12:44, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Praxidicae. Having over 30 "joke" deletion discussions is way too much. We are here to build an encyclopedia, keep these jokes on the social networks. -- LuK3 (Talk) 13:03, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This is the same thing every April 1st where 99% of the jokes are not disruptive to anyone while that 1% is the reason why April Fools Day must end forever on Wikipedia. There doesn't need to be a full ban on them and would agree on placing a ban on on making request for banned or blocked users. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:22, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose A new editor has no business expressing an opinion concerning community culture which does not concern them. (If you are a clean start, try keeping your effort to writing the encyclopedia first, as drama is probably what got you in trouble the first time.) Also, what sort of culture will editors have when you eliminate traditions like this? Chris Troutman (talk) 13:24, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose No evidence that joke RfAs are a problem. If you want to start a separate discussion to ban joke XfDs, I would support it (and I did two years ago), but it's inappropriate to make that case by hijacking this discussion. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:13, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose, but not encourage LTAs. Thingofme (talk) 14:20, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - in general a waste of time and energy. firefly ( t · c ) 14:40, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I agree that this has gone out of hand, but no need to just try to shut it all down because of a few people causing a ruckus. Shutting down the whole thing will do nothing good and just makes no sense as it basically just restricts everything because of a few disrupters. CutlassCiera 15:34, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close I feel like this RfC is completely unneeded. The rules for fools makes it clear to use common sense and to not cause problems to mainstream Wikipedia processes on April fools day. This is akin to having an RfC to ban vandalism or an RfC to ban copyright violations. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis 15:43, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: The offending RfAs have already been removed from the April Fools' page, and the rest of the joke RfAs are harmless enough. 96.63.208.28 (talk) 15:54, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Willy on Wheels RFAs have a pretty long history, so that wouldn't be an example of something recent or pushing the envelope here. –JJP ‐Talk‐☖ 22:10, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above, however, I feel that joke RfA/B's relating to users who have been banned, should be disallowed (Unless the account that is the subject of the RfA/B is a doppelganger account of the user making the joke RfA/B that is owned by them and wasn't originally made by someone trying to impersonate them, as I don't think that would be feeding the trolls) since it's just giving them attention they shouldn't get. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:55, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: I can understand the concerns regarding nominations of Wikipedia's prolific trolls (e.g. User:Willy on Wheels~enwiki); these "joke" requests should be deleted. However, not all joke requests are that inappropriate (e.g. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Panini!); in fact, banning future requests regardless of their appropriateness is too overreaching. --AlphaBeta135 talk 01:01, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, this discussion is open for two months that even my signature changed. Anyway, making jokes about prolific vandals might raise red flags to some concerned admins. Some of the admins who might not understand much of the nature of April Fools would probably use these select requests like WoW to justify calling for this very RfC. This last part is of concern because it would not only disincentivize people from making joke RfAs and RfBs (due to a lack of supply of RfA/B jokes to poke fun of), but also outright banning them without considerations of actually clean jokes. AlphaBeta135(talk) 00:20, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Same above. 205.155.225.253 (talk) 16:19, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia:AFDAY" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Wikipedia:AFDAY and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 18#Wikipedia:AFDAY until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. NotReallySoroka (talk) 06:51, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia:0104" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Wikipedia:0104 and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 27#Wikipedia:0104 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. NotReallySoroka (talk) 02:38, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Title change to "Rules for April Fools"

[edit]

Recently an undiscussed page move to Wikipedia:Rules for April Fools was carried out.

I don't have strong feelings about the title, but I do think it's had the concise rhyming title "Rules for Fools" for a long time, so I reverted the recent page move attempt. Discussion on re-titling, if necessary, can commence. Retro (talk | contribs) 04:54, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add more the year 2025

[edit]

Alongside the year 2013, 2016 and 2020, the prank continues to abrupt the consistency in this nowadays. 14.185.202.37 (talk) 01:34, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:36, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Pppery in rules established in 2013, 2016 and 2020, there is a 2025 fools' prank that needs to be added too. Scroll down a bit and you see that. No need to explain what to change because what I described is correct, just please scroll down a bit and see the year missing. Wikipedia page has been nominated for deletion already in April 1st, 2025. As a result, I would you like to take a look! 14.185.202.37 (talk) 02:09, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You seem confused. Whatever it is you're trying to say, it's not obvious. Anomie⚔ 12:33, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you're trying to claim that we need to mention Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia (13th nomination) on this page somehow: no, we don't. There's nothing special about that that's worth noting here. Anomie⚔ 12:37, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Rules_for_Fools&oldid=1291979521"