Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/April Fools' 2

Towards another April Fools' RfC

Moved from Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)

– Mz7 (talk) 19:44, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Gamaliel and others arbitration case will be closing with a remedy that encourages the community to hold an RfC regarding whether the leniency for April Fools Day jokes should be continued and if so, what should be allowed. Now might be a good time to start thinking about how the RfC should be set up, i.e. what questions should be asked? We could have the following basic options that we would vote support/oppose on for each:

Continue April Fools' Day jokes without changing current practice
Abolish April Fools' Day jokes entirely
After these two starting options, we could have a section that allows users to propose modifications to current practice, as a middle ground between continuing and abolishing.

I'm not sure if we should include the second option without adding some exceptions – banning all jokes would be difficult to enforce, especially when many jokes (e.g. fake block notices) are localized on user talk pages and otherwise do no harm to the encyclopedia. There was an RfC about April Fools' a couple years ago – see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/April Fools' – that had many proposals ranging from banning all April Fools' Day jokes to collaborating with the Wikimedia Foundation to make them better. Should we structure the RfC in a similar way? Mz7 (talk) 18:20, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well just because they asked the community to consider, does not actually mean one is needed or a good idea. No it won't be abolished, entirely (as much as that might be a good or bad idea) so unless there is a specific strong idea for how to improve it, perhaps we should just move on. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:41, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

True. Another reason I started this was to ask if we should even have such an RfC. Moving on might be prudent, although I feel that a good portion of the community wants to revisit the general issue of April Fools Day jokes this year. Mz7 (talk) 19:04, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to note that the issue in the Arbcom case mentioned above existed well beyond April 1st, and included what I, and many consider to be BLP vios. The options above don't seem to take that into account. Though, I'm personally in favor of not having any "made up" things on Wikipedia being passed off as real in even the loosest sense. Arkon (talk) 18:43, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The scope of this RfC would solely be to review the state of April Fools' Day jokes on Wikipedia in general, not to discuss the details of the arbitration case. I think it's pretty well-established by the case that under current policy, April Fools' Day jokes must adhere to the BLP policy just as any other edit. There was another remedy in the case calling for a separate RfC to discuss the WP:BLPTALK policy – this scope of this idea lab thread is just the April Fools' Day jokes RfC idea. Mz7 (talk) 19:04, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, but the umbrella of "April Fools' Day jokes", is awfully large, and if such a thing were to actually get comments in support, would like to have the policy limitations front and center. Arkon (talk) 19:06, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean. If we do hold an RfC, we could include a introduction that makes very clear the current restrictions on April Fools' jokes: 1) they must adhere to WP:BLP, 2) they must be kept out of mainspace, 3) they must be tagged with {{humor}} or similar template. See Wikipedia:Rules for Fools. Anything that does not fall under these criteria is currently considered disruptive and thus may lead to sanctions if they are repeated. Mz7 (talk) 19:12, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, if all 3 criteria are met, I could see myself supporting. Arkon (talk) 19:25, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think an RfC is a good idea. On the most recent April's Fool's Day, an active ANI case was closed with an incomprehensible closing message as an unfunny "joke." Nobody thought it was a joke as it wasn't funny. That sort of stupidity needs to be curbed, if there is such a thing as passing a rule against stupidity. Coretheapple (talk) 20:06, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very, very minor point, but in anything going forward, it's a good idea to refer to "an RfC about April Fools" instead of "an April Fools RfC", because the latter sound like the RfC itself is intended as a joke. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:36, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this RfC should not be used to continue the ArbCom case, but I do think we have to address specific guidelines on what is/is not acceptable on April Fools. I think a proposal such as the following would gain support and prevent this type of thing from getting blown our of proportion in the future.

April Fools jokes are generally acceptable.
Keep it in the User, User talk, Wikipedia, and Wikipedia talk namespaces. (Current guidelines say nothing in the mainspace, so this extends the no-go zone to namespaces such as Category, Template, etc, all of which generally effect the appearance of mainspace articles)
All jokes must be tagged with {{Humor}} or {{April fools}}. (No change vs. current guidelines)
Jokes must not create work for other editors. Ideally, jokes should be contained on a single page. (New addition to the guidelines. This makes it explicit that you shouldn't make "joke" edits to a whole bunch of pages and leave other editors to clean up your mess. This is a perennial problem, from what I understand. I know it was a problem this year.)
Living persons not associated with Wikipedia should not be the primary subject of an April Fools joke. For example, nominating a biography of a living person for deletion with a rationale that pokes fun at our processes is fine, but using a rationale that pokes fun at the person is not fine. April Fools jokes that contain blatantly false or possibly negative information about living persons may be subject to speedy deletion as a blatant hoax. (New addition that is mostly a representation of existing policy, although this is probably the most likely to meet resistance.)

I'd much rather see an RfC that gauges support/oppose on a series of guidelines like the above rather than an RfC that more broadly asks "Is this ok?". Of course, if "April Fools jokes are generally acceptable" is opposed, we have our answer for that question anyway. ~ Rob^Talk 21:28, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the above are good princples, but I do think that the RfC needs to address "pranks" like joke ANI closes like the one I mentioned. That might have been a one-off or perhaps not. Coretheapple (talk) 22:50, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Coretheapple: I really didn't read that as a prank. Did the closer claim that was a prank at some point? It would probably be a good idea to explicitly forbid jokes at the administrator noticeboards, as many of them are important to the day-to-day operation of the project. For instance, imagine if people decided to spam "joke" AIV reports. That would be horrendous. ~ Rob^Talk 00:20, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Coretheapple:, @BU Rob13: Yes. Maybe add to the specific guidelines above

Jokes at noticeboards, village pumps, or Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors are strictly forbidden.

Chickadee46 (talk) 02:48, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He closed it with a kind of doubletalk closing message. He never said it was a prank, but just did it and quietly chortled while he watched everyone try to figure out what happened. One of the participants posted a message saying "I don't understand your closing message." Then he said, "oh it was a joke I see." Then an admin reopened the discussion with an edit summary saying something like "not the place for a joke." I can try to track down the diff if that would help. Coretheapple (talk) 00:36, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nah. I shouldn't have even asked the question; this is exactly what this RfC shouldn't be. The ArbCom case is closed, and we have to move on. In any event, I agree that we should float a proposal similar to what Chickadee46 proposed above. I'm not a fan of "strictly prohibited" (sounds too "legal"). Something like "Don't make April Fools jokes at noticeboards and other project pages which are vital to the day-to-day operation of the project." Specific pages should not be linked or listed as per WP:BEANS and WP:CREEP. We don't want to lay out a road map to where joke-based vandalism is most disruptive. ~ Rob^Talk 03:02, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@BU Rob13: as you wish but just to be clear, the "joke ANI close" I'm referring to was not an issue in the ANI case. I did raise it in my submission, but as an example of the lengths to which April Fool's Day has become a pain in the butt. Coretheapple (talk) 22:34, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if there should also be an explicit deadline for removal or archiving of AFJs, perhaps April 2 at 12:00 UTC (when April 1 has ended practically everywhere in the world); most of the controversy that led to the recent case seems to have erupted only after the material had been up for about a week. Not to make it mandatory for the jokers to ‘clean up after themselves‘ by the deadline, but to underline that a return to ‘business as usual’ is expected from that point on.—Odysseus 1479 23:21, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Odysseus1479: I agree. Maybe a template could be placed on AFJs which would be invisible to readers, but which would prompt a bot to remove the jokes after the deadline? (Or it could be visible, something similar to the {{humor}} template) Chickadee46 (talk) 23:57, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this would be a good guideline to be included in the RfC. Not sure if it would receive consensus, but worth a shot. ~ Rob^Talk 00:20, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One other major issue: We need to have a complete ban on April Fools' Day Jokes that mess up policy and guideline pages, like this. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:10, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Od Mishehu: Very true. That could probably be added to Rob's guideline above on "Don't make April Fools jokes at noticeboards and other project pages which are vital to the day-to-day operation of the project.". Chickadee46 (talk) 18:30, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can't realistically abolish it, but you can make it clear that no allowances are made for "April Fools". In short, "Being April 1 is not a defense to any violation of policy, including (but not limited to) creating hoaxes, edit warring and making any edit that potentially breaches WP:BLP. Person who dabble with foolish activities on "April Fools" do so at the risk of being blocked for disruption." If someone makes a hoax page and it is clearly marked, or does something that genuinely does not cause disruption, then so be it, but if they think it is funny to monkey around where it interferes with others who want no part of April Fools, then they shouldn't be shocked if it draws sanctions, no differently than it would on April 2nd. Sadly, this needs to be codified, to make it clear that you can't justify disruption based on the calendar. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:00, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dennis Brown: That's a very good idea. That can be our general rule for April Fools jokes: April Fool's Day is not a free pass for disruption. Unmarked hoaxes, jokes in article space, BLP violations, etc., are no more acceptable on April 1 than on April 2 or any other time. Chickadee46 (talk) 19:47, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the overarching idea that April Fools Day is not an excuse for breaching the specific policies you listed is a good idea, but I fear that there is some vagueness in your proposal that could cause a lot of drama down the road. Under the suggestion, people could be sanctioned for even the most mundane April Fools day joke such as a prank AfD (since making frivolous AfD nominations violates policy). Additionally, the word "disruption" needs to be more clearly defined, since it does not differentiate between jokes that inconvenience editors for a second or two at most, and jokes that cause a profound interference in the functioning of Wikipedia. Given these two points, I believe that different people will interpret the proposal in profoundly different ways ranging from a near total ban on APril Fools Jokes outside of user space to a re-affirming of Wikipedia:Rules for Fools. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 20:51, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We admin aren't so bad once you get to know us, and most (like myself) will try to get someone to simply back down by pointing to the policy, so we don't have to block. We don't LIKE blocking. This would give us a TOOL, and the vagueness allows for community consensus to interpret, the same as most policies. I think you have to be vague because the more specific you are, the more you get wikilawyered and drawn into long ANI debates, which is exactly what we want to avoid with this change in policy. I assume this RFC could apply to or might be asking for a change to WP:DE itself. Besides, admin are held accountable for our actions, if an admin goes too far, other admin and non-admin alike will fix it. Keep in mind, we do NOT want to encourage April Fools pranks, we are just saying they will only be tolerated if there is no collateral damage. If there is collateral damage, we already have policies to deal with those problems, ie: WP:DE and others. I think you have to have a little bit of trust that admin are listening to consensus when applying it and using sanction as the last resort. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:14, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two things: first, some of my later statements came off a lot harsher than I intended (sorry about that). Second, I can support your proposal being implemented the way you proposed it. I had interpreted it as being something that would be strictly enforced across the board, but your proposal seems more about giving admins the power, but not necessarily the requirement, to step in on all April Fools jokes (which would allow admin inaction on more harmless jokes, but empower them to step in on more disruptive or just plain obnoxious jokes). I’ve personally seen several instances of editors spamming jokes that were technically in compliance with Wikipedia:Rules for Fools, so I think it’s probably for the best to have specific April Fool’s day language stating admins can intervene in all jokes. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:33, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abolishing April Fool's jokes is a bad idea. just be a bit more strict on the warnings, making sure to not let things get out of hand. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 18:08, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In general terms, it will be a losing battle to try to legislate users' sense of humor, and there are risks of WP:CREEP. For example, if we make a rule about needing to clean up a joke by a particular deadline, we will face a dilemma enforcing it: it's more work to take an offender to dispute resolution than to just clean it up oneself. For me, it boils down to not disrupting what our readers read in mainspace and not getting a free pass to violate existing policies. There should be no joke content in article mainspace, and no violations in any space of BLP, NPA, and so forth, nor out-of-hand mass spamming. But we need not take ourselves too seriously. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:36, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also suggest a {{Uw-april1}} template, for warning users who are joking disruptively. Chickadee46 (talk) 19:49, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE - This might be a little cleaner, but is similar to what I said above. It is softened just a bit and allows for some humor pages and the like, but still draws a clear line between what is tolerated and what isn't, with enough flexibility to not be wikilawyered. I tend to think WP:DE is the right destination because it is "disruption" in the most general sense. I think we need the "potentially" in front of BLP because if it gets reverted, they need to understand that WP:BRD still applies as we always err on the side of caution with real human beings. It would be Shortcut: WP:FOOLSDAY -> new subsection of WP:DE

April 1st or "April Fools Day" is a tradition in some western cultures. While the community is tolerant of harmless jokes, the day is not a defense for violating any policy or guideline. This includes (but is not limited to) creating improperly labeled hoaxes and/or humor pages, edit warring and making edits that potentially breach WP:BLP. Editors should understand that actions which negatively affect others will be handled no differently than disruption on any other day of the year.

I really think this is all you need; no templates or special sanctions. It makes the simple statement that you can't use the day as an excuse to actually violate policy, and does so using common sense instead of exhaustive lists of dos and don'ts. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:01, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That general concept works. The longer the list of rules gets, the easier it becomes to game them. Montanabw ^(talk) 03:01, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would instead suggest:

April 1st and some other days in various places and cultures have traditionally been days for "pranks" and "hoaxes." Wikipedia, however, is not a site for "pranks" or "hoaxes" at any time which might adversely affect any person, religion, culture, group or place in any way, on any page. This does not preclude pages clearly marked as "humor" in areas specifically allowed by policy to have such pages. Edits which negatively affect others will be handled as disruption.

As being shorter, and quite easily understood, and making the section not just applicable to 1 April, nor susceptible to any variant interpretations. Collect (talk) 12:45, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a fan of short and general policies/rules, but would this rule have solved the issue that has led to this need for clarification? I don't think it would have. It depends what we're trying to accomplish, I guess. Do we want a guideline that we can point to as justification for sanctions or do we want a guideline that will prevent the activity that would require sanctions? This general statement would be fine for the former. I don't think it would achieve the latter any better than the current unofficial rules. ~ Rob^Talk 13:24, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It would have made it clear the BLP applied, even for April 1, and that edit warring isn't excused, and that any hoax has to be tagged properly, and that it was ok to block him as he can't use April 1 as an excuse. It would simply give clear authority to admin, so when someone says "Come on, it's April 1" the admin can say "policy says it doesn't matter when you do those things". Speaking for my version, I think it does so without being overly harsh or granting any new powers, yet giving clear authority, which was part of the problem at Arb. I wouldn't want to base my policy purely on this Arb case anyway. This isn't my first stab at creating an April 1 policy, this has been a problem for years, this Arb case just brought it to the attention of more people, and frankly, admin aren't sure how tolerant they should be on April 1. Now they will know: a little more, but not infinitely so. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:42, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Simpler the better—April Fool's page requirements

no real people may be mentioned, by name or position
only in article space, with article name in form Foo (joke)
'noindex' placed on the page
a bot deletes the article after 48 hours (to account for various time zones)
all policies apply (other than hoax because of (joke) required in article name)

If the joke would be ruined by having (joke) in the article name, then the joke was not good enough in the first place. The purpose of these specific restrictions is to eliminate, as much as possible, judgement calls. The 'noindex' is an attempt to limit, as much as possible, the joke to Wikipedia. The restriction to article space to keep the jokes to an easily identified space to help eliminate disruption. — Neonorange (talk) 23:45, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I generally like the idea of updating Rules for Fools, but I think Dennis Brown is on the right track that a more general approach is superior to a list. it also has to be noted that the point of April Fools' Day is to have people led astray for a moment in thinking a hoax is real. Thus, requiring "joke" in an article name misses the point, though on April 2, I agree that adding {{humor}} is entirely appropriate. I also think that abolishing any reference to a living person is overkill, though as part of a general discussion of how BLP works outside of article space, clarification is probably wise, and that clarification can be linked to within the Rules for Fools page. Montanabw ^(talk) 03:01, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is one reason I specifically used the phrase "potentially" breaching BLP, to stay well outside the lines of poor taste, but still allow mentioning persons. The simpler it is, the more likely it will be followed, and the less likely it will be a problem. WP:COMMONSENSE. I didn't mention article space specifically, but a reading makes it obvious that article space isn't the best place for lots of jokes, as editors (should) know that article space has tighter rules on April 2 than meta space, so tread carefully. Basically, we are flipping it: April 1 jokes aren't a Right or free pass, they are simply tolerated if they don't hurt anything or violate any policy. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:12, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right, and if something is in article space, we still expect the content to meet the core content policies of WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR – clearly not the right place for a joke. WP:DE is a good place to put guidelines about disruption in general, but aren't "April Fools' Day jokes" a specific kind of disruption? If administrators want an unambiguous tool to use to combat April 1 disruption, perhaps it would be better to update WP:FOOLS and elevate it to guideline status. Mz7 (talk) 15:28, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That could take years and never happen. Look at the battle to get WP:BRD to guideline status, and it still failed even though everyone treats it as policy. I think that what we are saying is that "disruption is disruption, even if it happens on April 1". The simplest and most direct way is to add to WP:DE. While WP:DE isn't the only place you could put the section, it is a reasonable place and fits since many of these activities are simple disruption. This would only take a single RFC, and WP:FOOLS can be updated via the normal editing process since it is just an essay and not related to the RFC. To treat disruption on April 1 the same as April 2 means treating it the same in policy (but adding a section to clarify), not giving it a special policy. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:03, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds reasonable if it's just the general rule, but do you think we could be more specific? I liked Rob's idea earlier of restricting April Fools' jokes only to the User, User talk, Wikipedia, and Wikipedia talk namespaces, so that categories and templates aren't affected as well. I understand the concern that too many rules may lead to WP:CREEP, but I think it helps to explicitly label jokes that affect the mainspace as disruptive. Mz7 (talk) 20:02, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could we? Yes, but the more specific we are, the more it can be picked to death or more likely people will oppose it. It only needs to set the general tone and empower the community to act. Once you start listing dos and don't, everything starts looking like an exception. We are better off, again, just setting the tone and relying on common sense to guide us as to what is and isn't acceptable. Often it will just go to ANI and the community will decide, based on this new section. This is where the general principle will either be understood, or the unnecessary detail will get wikilawyered to death. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:07, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support/Oppose/Discussion headers

Generally it's bad practice to have multiple headers with the same title, since a link to any one of them will only go to the first. Would it be a good idea to number these, so that the first proposal's headers are "Support 1/Oppose 1/Discussion 1" and so on, or something similar? ansh 666 18:47, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I noticed this too. We could also try it the way Wikipedia:Requests for comment/April Fools' did it, by repeating the proposal name in the section headers (e.g. "Support independent XfD log/Oppose independent XfD log/Discussion about independent XfD log"). Mz7 (talk) 04:08, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

not this again

The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:52, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Like. --Jayron 32 02:53, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hope it's ok that I moved this to the talk page. It seems to be a comment about the discussions rather than actual discussion of the proposals, and the page is long as it is. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:10, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Final proposal template

There is a proposal template at the end of the list of proposals that doesn't contain any of the below:

Title
Proposer
Content (what the rule or modification would be).

Should it remain in the RfC page? Alfa-ketosav (talk) 12:11, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]