|
|||
Humor disclosure requirement
Hi Levivich—your edit here goes against the humor disclosure requirement. In your summary, you advise having an RfC, but the requirement is already the result of large-scale RfCs, and per WP:CONLEVEL, they take precedence over any discussions hosted at a local level. If you want to challenge the disclosure requirement, the place for that would be the next large-scale discussion, but until that is changed, the existing consensus stands. I'm going to revert back to the status quo, and I hope that can be the end of it—this is a silly thing to argue over. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 17:29, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
- Sdkb, I like you, but sometimes you need to cool it with the sheriff bit. Among other things, it's not clear that essay's a joke. EEng 17:58, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
- @EEng: So your stance is that it's not clear that a page titled Wikipedia:No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man is humorous? Every other humor page on Wikipedia where this has come up has agreed to play by the rules and properly disclose. It's disappointing that a group of editors at this page is wielding their clout to demand immunity—enforcing the requirement inconsistently shows disrespect for consensus and opens the door for chaos on April Fools' Day. But if editors here insist on behaving irresponsibly, so be it; it's not worth the effort to fight. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 18:21, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, actually, I am saying that it's not clear that it's humorous, any more than the page titled WP:Lies Miss Snodgrass told you is humorous; it's frequently cited in ANI threads. And the context of that RfC was explicitly April Fools. Clearly not all project-space humor is labeled as such, nor should it be. EEng 19:02, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
- I kind of like the thrill of walking right up to the edge of what has to be and what doesn't have to be marked as humor and spitting out my lame-ass jokes untemplated. Knowing your target and audience, taking the risk...kinda fun. Also in so many cases pointing out that it's humor flattens the joke. —valereee (talk) 18:29, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
- @EEng: So your stance is that it's not clear that a page titled Wikipedia:No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man is humorous? Every other humor page on Wikipedia where this has come up has agreed to play by the rules and properly disclose. It's disappointing that a group of editors at this page is wielding their clout to demand immunity—enforcing the requirement inconsistently shows disrespect for consensus and opens the door for chaos on April Fools' Day. But if editors here insist on behaving irresponsibly, so be it; it's not worth the effort to fight. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 18:21, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Between 2006 when WP:SPIDER was written and today, a humor template and/or category has been added, removed, added, removed, added, removed, added, removed, added, removed, added, removed, added, removed, added, removed, added, removed, added, removed, added, removed ...we're only up to 2008 here, but after that, there was almost ten years of calm, then... added, removed, added, removed, added, removed, added (x2), removed, and removed ... which brings us to Feb 6, 2020 (I probably missed some additions/removals along the way).
Then, on April 1, 2020, WP:AF2020 began. The next day, Sdkb added a proposal (WP:AF2020#Require disclosure of jokes on the Main Page, which ultimately did not gain consensus) that the {{humor}} template be required on the main page, citing WP:AF2013#Require all jokes other than the main page to be tagged, which, as E points out above, was an RFC about April Fools day, and did not in any way create any kind of requirement that all jokes be tagged across the website, every day.
On April 25, 2020 Sdkb added the {{humor essay}} template to WP:SPIDER. It was removed. At the ensuing talk page discussion, at which JzG, Johnuniq, and Fish and karate participated, nobody seemed to agree with adding the {{humor}} tag.
On April 27, 2020 (while both AF2020 and the WP:SPIDER discussions were underway) Sdkb made this change to WP:HUMOR: Humor that is counter to the truth or verifiability of an article used in Wikipedia requires clear and concise indicators
. Many editor and administrator hours have been spent resolving disputes where humor has been used intentionally, or used as an excuse (backpaddle) to circumvent the complaint against the editor making the text edit, as decided by the community in a 2013 RfC.
The {{humor}} template did not appear on WP:SPIDER for over a year after that. But on April 13, 2021, Waylon111 asked at the WP:SPIDER talk page if the essay can be moved from the humor category to the civility category (a good idea, IMO). Sdkb then created the redirects WP:Humor disclosure requirement and WP:HREQ and added it as a shortcut to WP:HUMOR, then responded to Waylon that It's clearly a humorous essay, so yes, it needs to stay in the humorous essay group. It's also in clear violation of the WP:Humor disclosure requirement, so per community consensus that cannot be overridden at a local level, it needs to have {{Humor}} or another indicator added.
On June 27, 2021, Sdkb added the humor template to WP:SPIDER again, with the edit summary "Adding mandatory humor disclosure template" (with "mandatory" linked to WP:HREQ), and then changed the above-quoted WP:HUMOR language (the target of WP:HREQ) from an article
to a page
, thereby purporting to create a requirement that every page be tagged with {{humor}}.
And that, ladies and gentle-editors, is how one accomplishes a WP:FAITACCOMPLI.
Today, I was reading WP:SPIDER and was surprised to see on its talk page the reference to a mandatory requirement that joke pages be tagged with {{humor}}. How could such a rule have existed, and I, of all people, not know about it? So I investigated the history. Then I removed the {{humor}} tag. And Sdkb added it again linking to HREQ, and E removed it, and Jr8825 added it again. I don't know about you, but I think this is all quite humorous, and so we should probably tag my talk page, as I wouldn't want to run afoul of any requirements... @Sdkb: please clean all this up and put things back the way they should be. Thanks. Levivich 22:23, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
- I'd self-revert, but then that would indicate that I'd read any of the above information on this talk page, which would be a clear violation the page's official policy, which clearly states that I should
"ignore the talk page and just keep reverting"
. Would someone be so kind as to revert me so that the integrity of the WP:LEW is preserved? Thanks, Jr8825 • Talk 22:50, 29 July 2021 (UTC) - I guess we should thank Sdkb for reminding us that the world is a big place full of different people. I look forward to the continuing quest to label every page as required by policy. Johnuniq (talk) 23:42, 29 July 2021 (UTC)