Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:April Fools/April Fools' Day 2019/The Great April Fools' Day Edit War of 2019

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was:  no consensus. (non-admin closure) Train of Knowledge (Talk) 05:10, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:April Fools/April Fools' Day 2019/The Great April Fools' Day Edit War of 2019

 * – (View MfD)

Speaking as someone who's still relatively new to Wikipedia, having this page led me to believe that vandalizing the April Fools' day page was acceptable. I think having this page up will encourage similar levels of chaos on future April Fools' Days, which seems to be something we want to prevent. Most Horizontal Primate (talk) 23:32, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Neutral - the level-bodied user has a point, but there is a banner at the top of the page that says "not to be taken seriously". Editors who can be convinced by a page like this that edit warring is acceptable are probably individuals we want to weed out. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 23:41, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe put a big disclaimer at the top of the page saying "PLEASE DO NOT DO THIS AGAIN"? — python coder (talk &#124; contribs) 01:17, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete This is effectively a recreation of BJADON. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:36, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Future April Fools edit wars are almost certainly | going to be banned by an ongoing RFC. This page provides documentation for why such a ban is necessary. (This logic is consistent with WP:HISPAGES, and is similar to what we did with controversial pages like Valued pictures and Esperanza.) Further, this is a part of our community's history whether we like it or not. We should absolutely make a note that this type of conduct is not permitted (assuming the RFC passes), but deleting this type of stuff would be a tragic loss to our community's culture and history. If we want to avoid vandalism, there are plenty of good alternatives like placing a warning on top of the page, removing the links to the page from highly visible locations, or even leaving the edit history intact but replacing the text with a quick summary of the events and why they aren't permitted (again, like what we did with Valued Pictures). Also, I really think deleting this page would cause needless hostility. If anyone wants to stop future edit wars, then they should absolutely say so in the RFC. However, deleting this page in addition to banning future edit wars comes off a little like spiking the football; keeping this page up in some sort is the outcome most compliant with the spirit of WP:CIVILITY. Additionally, there is a long-standing community consensus to preserve April Fools Day jokes and the documentation thereof; there is no reason why this page should be deleted and the main April Fools' Day kept or vice versa. If we are really going after such a wide swath of content, then we should have a community wide-RFC rather than an individualized miscellany for deletion discussion likely to be missed by the vast majority of the editors interested in April Fools Day. On a related note, I would also like to address the BJAODN argument: it is true that there was |consensus against such pages on 23 August 2007, but this consensus collapsed less than two weeks later. Further, we currently have tons of BJAODN stuff up meaning in practice the August 2007 consensus is no longer recognized (see for example Best of BJAODN, Yet more Best of BJAODN and Still more Best of BJAODN). Consensus can change, and it has very clearly done so in the case of BJAODN.Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:39, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge - Admittedly I mulled over MFDing this a few days ago, Personally I think it should be deleted and a shorter version added to April Fools/April Fools' Day 2019. – Davey 2010 Talk 10:49, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Your argument appears to be self-contradictory. You're saying Keep ... I think it should be deleted. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:28, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Whoops sorry forgot to change the !vote, Thanks, – Davey 2010 Talk 14:36, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - while I agree with that it is BJAODN, I also agree with  on the fact that deleting it could cause needless hostility, and that deletion would be a loss to the culture of Wikipedia. Deletion seems like it would just be more of a pain than it's worth, honestly. Also, the issues caused by the page would also be solved by simply applying semi- or extended confirmed protection to April Fools' pages in the future, as was done with the 2020 page.  Invalid OS talk  13:23, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * So, you're admitting that this page is in violation of past consensus, and yet still arguing it should be kept? * Pppery * it has begun... 14:06, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That consensus against BJAODN was overruled by the end of 2007. Besides, this is a part of the April Fools Day documentation page, and was split off solely for reasons of space. It’s different from BJAODN because this conduct was not considered vandalism at the time it occurred. There is no consensus to delete April Fools Day pranks, and by practice there is consensus against doing so. By the way, it looks like these types of edit wars will be banned; this page is a good demonstration of the necessity of such a rule. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 15:00, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * By the way, I’m willing to address you concerns about vandalism: we can lock the page, put a huge disclaimer at the top, change the title to something like “prohibited conduct” and even remove some of the more prominent links to the page. My objection is solely to the outright elimination of the page. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 15:19, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The "Best of BJAODN" pages are akin to Davey2010's proposal, not this page as written. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:39, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I’m not really seeing any content-based difference between the two since they both document joke content. The one difference that I do see is that edits documented on this page were (and technically still are) permitted conduct that is governed by Rules for Fools rather than the more general policy on vandalism, so the comparison to BJAODN seems inaccurate. To reiterate, I recognize the concern regarding vandalism and think that the page should be squirreled away and have a massive disclaimer put at the top. However, for the reasons I’ve previously stated, I think deletion goes too far and will do more harm than good. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 20:30, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep The notion that this led you to vandalize the main April Fool's page is user error and due to an incomplete reading of the rules; that's not the page's fault. This nom and some of the comments just feel like WP:IDONTLIKEIT Sulfurboy (talk) 06:11, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.