Wikipedia:How many Wikipedians does it take to change a lightbulb?
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
![]() | 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: 508. |
Small cabal of lightbulbs convinced that they do the real work providing the light, and all they get in return is admins screwing them
Long version[edit]
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
- 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 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.
- 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 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.
- 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 a 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 and to be never seen again
- And a partridge in a pear tree.
So, by my count, 508.
Short version[edit]
- One.[dubious ][citation needed]
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 more than just 80 users.