Wikipedia:How many Wikipedians does it take to change a lightbulb? Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_many_Wikipedians_does_it_take_to_change_a_lightbulb?

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

This page in a nutshell: 691.

Shortcuts

Small cabal of lightbulbs convinced that they do the real work providing the light, and all they get in return is admins screwing them

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 accidentally 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.
One uninvolved editor to open a dispute resolution case over the switch to an LED bulb.
Two to mediate the dispute.
One to close the thread due to excessive personal attacks.
One to open an articles for deletion discussion about the bulb.
Five to comment delete, Six to comment redirect to Light and 3 to comment keep.
One admin to close as delete.
One to open a deletion review.
The same admin who closed the AfD to close the deletion review.
One to open an ArbCom case about the admin.
Thirty-three to comment on the ArbCom case.
Twelve ArbCom members to deliberate the case and request the admin be desysopped.
One WMF employee to office action full protect the page and finally fix the lightbulb.

So, by my count, 691.

Short version

One.^{[dubious – discuss]}^{[citation needed]}^{[further explanation needed]}^{[according to whom?]}^{[clarification needed]}^{[failed verification]}^[how?]^[verify]^[vague]^{[needs update]}^[when?]^[where?]^[which?]^[who?]^[why?]^{[who said this?]}^{[compared to?]}^[specify]^[misquoted]^{[example needed]}

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 109,638 other users to edit war with each other over changing it...

Evil version

7 Nefarious Wizards...