User:Gloss/April Fools Day

Abolish RfA?
I'd like to propose that we abolish the RfA system, and begin going by "Pedro's law" - all candidates must now go to User:Pedro's talk page and ask for permission, where he may then use his powerful ways to grant the tools. The only main criteria: The candidate must have a tail. Opinions? iMatthew : Chat  00:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC) *Oppose, such a bad idea on so many levels. The Cool Kat (talk) 00:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Sounds good. Jake Wartenberg :  Chat  00:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Bow to Pedro - per my sig. the_ed17 : Chat  00:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. Of course. NocturneNoir : Chat  00:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * All hail Pedro. Useight (talk) 00:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 3XEC - Oppose - How do we tell who doesn't have a tail? On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog. X! : Chat  00:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - yes. J.delanoy : Chat  00:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * HAGGER??? I mean...yes, of course Acalamari : Chat  00:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure Let's try it. :D-- Res2216firestar : Chat  00:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Support per common sense. Wizardman : Chat  00:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose - I do not have a tail. Plus, why would we want to put poor Pedro through a hellish RfB?! Dylan620 : Chat  00:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong coffee Is "Pedro's law" related to the Peter Principle? Bencherlite : Chat  00:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Pedro is my hero Hermione1980 : Chat  00:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Support best proposal for 12 months, would a tale also do? WereSpielChequers : Chat  00:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course it all makes sense now. Camw :  Chat  00:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose per User:Bibliomaniac15/Superiority.  bibliomaniac 1  5  00:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Strike obvious valued community member's noncabal member's troll vote. NuclearWarfare :  Chat  01:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Pedro!! Until It Sleeps : Chat  00:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete; non-notable. Coren : Chat  00:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Too many RfAs currently. Juliancolton : Chat  00:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree sort of, but I'd prefer permission to be in either my own hands or those of my delegates. As much as I trust Pedro, I "trust" myself much more. Plus, I need the money I'd raise by selling off adminships to Microsoft and the Russian government. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 00:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Shappy : Chat  00:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, on second thought, not such a bad idea. You rule Pedro!!!! The Pink Phink : Text me!  00:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Support I've been brainwashed too. Giants27 : Chat
 * Endorse, Overturn and Relist Support only on condition that Pedro refuses all requests on principle. Noroton : Chat
 * Speedy merge WP:RFA with User talk:Pedro. NuclearWarfare''' : Chat  01:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose unless all existing admins are required to go through the process. With luck, we can get rid of the whole gang and start clean.  Did I mention I'm an admin?-- Wehwalt :  Chat  01:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * ! Vote for Pedro  Nihiltres : Chat
 * Are you a liger?-- Giants27 : Chat  01:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Do not delete Forum on adminz rulz, should stay for on wiki --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC) — Ron Ritzman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * BALLEEEEETTTEEEE PLZ We should AGF and give everyone admin tools Lets  drink  Tea  01:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Vote to XfD User:Pedro .. since I lost my tail in a lawnmower accident and am no longer eligible. Just kidding of course, you're the best Pedro. Ched :  Chat  01:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 *  Cabal  I mean ZOMG SuPP0rTz!!11!oneone!!. nn123645 : Chat  01:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. BTW, why is everyone using Pedro's signature? MathCool10 : Chat
 * IDK my BFF JILL?-- Giants27 : Chat  01:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete User Pedro lacks political experience. Wadester16 : Chat  01:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Conditional Support: As long as Pedro has a tail. Chamal : Chat  02:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Cyclonenim : Chat  07:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

A side note
I did think that this edit summary was the funniest one I've seen for ages...  Majorly  talk  01:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No kidding.-- Giants27 T/  C  01:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Section break
I thought I'd put this here, just in case.  Majorly  talk  00:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Is it arbitrary?-- Giants27 T/  C  01:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Not only that, it is capricious.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

*Strong Delete - The arbitraryness of this section is clearly not established in any reliable sources. J.delanoy : Chat  01:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Struck probable sockpuppet of J.delanoy Camw : Chat 01:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Struck Underlined probable sockpuppet of Camw  NuclearWarfare :  Chat  01:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Another strike, I smell feet, oh wait that's my feet, I should put socks on.-- Giants27 : Chat  01:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Abolish Wikipedia?
I'd like to propose that we abolish Wikipedia, and begin going by "Pedro's law" - all people wanting information must now go to User:Pedro's talk page (Pedropedia) and ask for the information to be provided to them, where he may then use his powerful knowledge to grant the information. The only main criteria: The request must include a vote for Pedro. Opinions? Camw : Chat  02:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I think I've heard this joke before... --Tango (talk) 02:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Struck comment with incorrect signature format. Camw : Chat 02:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)