Wikipedia:How many Wikipedians does it take to change a lightbulb?





How many Wikipedians does it take to change a lightbulb? – a full accounting

 * 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 redirect 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 bureaucrat to make the hapless user an admin. (why doesn't he just change the lightbulb himself)
 * 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.
 * Five people to comment on completely unrelated misbehaviour by said admin.
 * One person to escalate said misbehaviour to AN after the admin fails to answer satisfactorily.
 * One arb to notice that the admin speedily closed the AN thread on themselves, and open an ArbCom case on the matter.
 * Twelve people to comment on the ArbCom case.
 * The aforementioned admin, seeing people pile on them, decides to hand in their bits and reveal that they are a long-hidden sock of a banned user.
 * Two uninvolved admins to revert everything aforementioned admin has done per WP:BRV, including restoring the lightbulb.
 * Another five admins to carefully review the reverted actions, and revert the revert that reverted the restoration of 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 an 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, never to be seen again.
 * The old EC user to hack up this page, tired of this mess.
 * And a partridge in a pear tree.
 * One to replace the partridge with a light bulb because it ain't Christmas.
 * One to notice the lack of a source, and add one.
 * Twenty new Wikipedians, who accidently delete the lightbulb whist attempting to cite their Youtube videos as inspiring the creation of the lightbulb.
 * Another admin to restore what is left of the lightbulb.
 * One "witty" Uncyclopedian moonlighting as a Wikipedian to steal the lightbulb and write jokes on it in permanent marker.
 * Six, one to write the cover, one to write the story, and the other four to screw the bulb in.
 * Fifty-two to just play a game of Solitaire under the lightbulb, because they have time. One for each card that is played.
 * One new Wikipedian to wrongly remove the source, as it is dead.
 * One to add their own source, with the only review being from themselves, calling it reliable. It explodes shortly afterwards.
 * One from the previous RM to replace the former lightbulb with an LED light bulb, despite rejection from 107 users.

So, by my count, 623.

Short version

 * One.

Technical version

 * Zero

Reason

 * You just need a human who isn't a Wikipedian to contact a professional to change the lightbulb, or a professional to notice the lightbulb to go out.

Wikipedia version

 * One - One Wikipedian to say that the lightbulb should not be changed - And other users to edit war with each other over changing it...