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 - the headcount is tilted towards deletion (almost 2:1, if I've counted correctly). That said, the arguments for deletion are among the weakest I've ever seen "There wasn't a consensus to create this" is basically a non-argument for a noticeboard (or really anything, apart from perhaps a formal, binding, mandatory process). The only other real delete argument I see boils down to more or less "I wouldn't find this useful, because I prefer some other forum (or fora)", which isn't much of an argument. There are a lot of things I don't find useful, but I wouldn't suggest we delete all Wikiprojects, say. (Or all categories, for that matter). Conversely, the keep argument "I find this a better way to keep up to date on foundation issues than other possibilities" has a bit of merit, and if there's an argument for why we should be dickish to those editors who find this the best forum for them, I don't see it. Wily D 07:29, 12 February 2013 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia:WMF noticeboard

Wikipedia:WMF noticeboard ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This noticeboard has no consensus for use and all of the items that are proposed to be discussed here are already addressed at village pump pages. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:03, 1 February 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete - no consensus, I think this belongs at a village pump.-- Jasper Deng (talk) 05:05, 1 February 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete Use the village pumps, bugzilla, meta, or the mailing lists. No need to split the discussion even more. Legoktm ( talk) 05:06, 1 February 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep: Let's create the consensus to use it here. I think it's a great idea, and will save editors the trouble of seeking out an individual member of the WMF. It also relieves individual WMF members of being the only point of contact for any given issue.  Ryan  Vesey 05:06, 1 February 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Except that the WMF does have a single point of contact, User:Mdennis (WMF), the Community Liaison for the Wikimedia Foundation. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:08, 1 February 2013 (UTC) reply
    • Oh that's funny, I thought it was User:Okeyes (WMF), the Community Liaison for the Wikimedia Foundation. What sense does it make to pick and choose one member to bring an issue to when you can bring it to all of them?  Ryan  Vesey 05:12, 1 February 2013 (UTC) reply
      • Because that means you're expecting them to be watching it in the first place. Legoktm ( talk) 05:12, 1 February 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete - no consensus, and we already have the village pumps and other stuff, so I don't see a reason for this page... iXavier [ talk| edits| logs 05:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep: (My creation.) It was inspired by the value of the WP:Education noticeboard, where I've had productive centralized discussions about WMF Education Program initatives with WMF folks like User:JMathewson (WMF) and User:Sage Ross (WMF). I thought it was very odd there was no WMF equivalent where discussion can also be focused and centralized. Biosthmors ( talk) 05:15, 1 February 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep: Good idea. We need easier ways to interact with WMF employees. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:22, 1 February 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Is using Wikimedia-l really that hard? Or m:Meta:Babel? Legoktm ( talk) 05:35, 1 February 2013 (UTC) reply
    • I wouldn't say hard. I'd say unnecessary. I think there should be a Wikipedia place to do it to make it easier. Biosthmors ( talk) 05:40, 1 February 2013 (UTC) reply
      • This is more for Wikipedia related issues. IMO we should do more on Wikipedia rather than splitting it off to other locations like lists and private email. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete This shouldn't have been created unilaterally without community discussion, and it should have been done with the knowledge of WMF so that it can actually be effective. wctaiwan ( talk) 05:29, 1 February 2013 (UTC) reply

• Look, I agree with you that it shouldn't have been created unilaterally without discussion; however, that's not a reason to delete it as discussion is occurring now. If members of the WMF come by and say they won't be using it, I'll change my vote to delete, but until then, that's also not a reason to delete it.  Ryan  Vesey 05:31, 1 February 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete - The last thing we need is yet another board that will be virtually ignored, esp for such a narrowly-focused topic such as this. Tarc ( talk) 05:50, 1 February 2013 (UTC) reply

• Because you know what the future will bring? Biosthmors ( talk) 14:58, 1 February 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Per Tarc, I doubt I ever would have found this had it not been nomed for deletion. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 06:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC) reply
• Created in good faith, but I'm sure that WMF are perfectly capable of deciding what on-wiki communication channels they wish to maintain by themselves. We can't oblige them to check a noticeboard we've put up for that reason, and without that mandate it's pointless. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) ( talk) 11:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC) reply

• Because the community is not allowed to choose for itself where a centralized WMF–Wikipedia discussion spot should be? Biosthmors ( talk) 14:58, 1 February 2013 (UTC) reply

• WMF is not obliged to have terms dictated to it by the community, no. That does not preclude either party from opening a channel to discuss implementing such a thing, of course, but that discussion needs to be had first. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) ( talk) 16:30, 1 February 2013 (UTC) reply

• We can discuss it here. Biosthmors ( talk) 18:16, 1 February 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Per others' votes, especially Chris's and Tarc's. Reaper Eternal ( talk) 11:39, 1 February 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep if foundation approves. Ks0stm ^{( T• C• G• E)} 12:58, 1 February 2013 (UTC) reply
• Not sure The principle here is fine, but I'm with Chris - it's a bit strange to create a noticeboard and expect that the people you're targeting it at will start paying attention! Expecting community-WMF interactions to take place here (a place most of the community won't notice even if WMF does) rather than, say, on the VP or on Meta, is a bit odd. I'm also a little concerned by the endorsement of "potentially actionable petitions upon WMF staff", which seems to be an entirely novel way of doing things presented as though it's normal. Andrew Gray ( talk) 13:41, 1 February 2013 (UTC) reply

I removed that petition part because I thought it was unnecessary. Biosthmors ( talk) 00:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC) reply

• Comment - Hi, guys. The Wikimedia Foundation, of course, has no objection whatsoever to your creating a board to discuss its activities amongst yourselves. It can't guarantee direct participation from, staff, however. We'll try, but no guarantees. With hundreds of projects, it is not feasible for staff to watch such boards on all of them; we simply don't have the resources. :/ It would be hard to justify participating in one without extending the same to all of the others, particularly when volunteers from all projects are welcome to use Meta and to reach out to the Foundation through existing channels, including the answers@ email system (see wmf:Answers) or the liaison email address (liaisonwikimedia.org). "Performance issues" and "servers and software issues" are tracked at bugzilla, which is monitored by both staff and volunteer developers. I have no opinion on whether this is deleted or kept, of course, but want to be sure that there is clarity on WMF participation here. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation ( talk) 15:16, 1 February 2013 (UTC) reply

• If someone posts here, should they be asked to send an email to liaisonwikimedia.org to ask for a reply here, so that we work within the existing system, instead of creating a precedent whereby another wiki will feel "left out" if they don't get WMF people to automatically "watch" it? Biosthmors ( talk) 00:39, 9 February 2013 (UTC) reply

• Keep I don't think there are any policy-based arguments to be made here for deleting, or keeping for that matter? This was just created a day ago, why not let it develop and give it a try. If after six months (let's say) it proves to be useless, let's delete it then. I do not pay attention to the mailing lists or really anything other than what's here on en.wp so having this centralized place where I can know to go to for information or discussion or questions is very helpful. This would be very helpful for me to keep in contact with those who have the access to and inclination to use the other off-en.wp channels for communicating with the WMF. Let's give it a try before deleting it. Zad 68 17:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep, with some caveats. I have long felt that there is a great deal of opportunity to improve the functioning of Wikimedia projects via a focus on clear, effective, and transparent communication practices. There are times when WMF/Wiki*edia communication goes fantastically well, and other times when failure to get things off to the right start results in a lot of wasted time and ruffled feathers. So I think an experiment in improving that communication is an excellent idea, and this seems like a reasonable effort. I think this page should carry a header that identifies it as experimental, and notes (per Philippe, above) that it doesn't guarantee much. And there should be some effort to evaluate how well it's working for its intended purpose, and what kinds of adjustments might improve it. All this seems to me like a project that is…well suited to a wiki. - Pete ( talk) 19:01, 1 February 2013 (UTC) reply
• I believe Meta-Wiki should be used for this. There's already m:Wikimedia Forum, for example. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 19:09, 1 February 2013 (UTC) reply

• If Meta-Wiki is where discussion for a particular WMF activity that affects Wikipedia should take place, then there can be a link provided to that discussion here. If it fits better here, it can be discussed here. My vision is that this page can be either the place, or the springboard to WMF–Wikipedia discussions. Currently I think things are too fragmented. I've seen more than one suggestion above that dealt with email or mailing lists. I think that's a sub-standard vision for how communication should happen about Wikipedia related things. It seems like some of the "liaison email address (liaisonwikimedia.org)" questions, etc. should be asked/answered here, in my opinion. We should probably even develop a FAQ to handle the most common questions. Biosthmors ( talk) 19:30, 1 February 2013 (UTC) reply
  • With all due respect, you seem to have a very narrow focus. :-) There isn't one Wikipedia, there are several hundred Wikipedias. Meta-Wiki is a meta-wiki. It was designed for exactly what you're describing: centralizing discussion. I agree that an additional wiki venue (to complement the wikimedia-l mailing list) would be a good idea to explore (though we'd first have to consider what the purpose of m:Wikimedia Forum is). I don't think creating noticeboards on individual Wikipedias (such as the English Wikipedia) or on individual Wiktionaries, Wikiversities, etc. is a sane or sustainable approach, however. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 19:46, 1 February 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Sorry, one additional comment: there's already a robust FAQ section on this site. It's been around for ages. It includes subpages for specific areas (e.g., Wikipedia:FAQ/Technical). -- MZMcBride ( talk) 19:48, 1 February 2013 (UTC) reply
    • (ec)I see what you're saying, but if another language Wikipedia wanted to have this kind of noticeboard, they should. From my experience at Wikimania (yes, it was in Washington D.C., so there's going to be selection bias) it seemed like there were enough people whose main interest was English Wikipedia (like mine) to justify a focused perspective of the following issues: what is the WMF doing that is will impact English Wikipedia; what does the WMF think should happen; what does the community think should happen; and how can the groups collaborate? Biosthmors ( talk) 19:53, 1 February 2013 (UTC) reply
      • Getting the Wikimedia Foundation (formless entity that it is) to focus on a particular page is difficult enough. It's downright impossible to get the Wikimedia Foundation to focus on noticeboards scattered across 700-plus wikis. I agree with the general need here (better communication between active editors and those working for the Wikimedia Foundation), but the way you're going about it (an English Wikipedia-specific noticeboard) doesn't seem sane or sustainable. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 20:01, 1 February 2013 (UTC) reply
        • It might work well here, since a fair amount of WMF staff make edits in this space already. Biosthmors ( talk) 20:06, 1 February 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete, this is what Meta is for. DS ( talk) 23:50, 1 February 2013 (UTC) reply
• Comment. The discussion page for m:Wikimedia Forum, mentioned above, has about 18 threads of discussion since 2007. I think this noticeboard will do better. Biosthmors ( talk) 23:57, 1 February 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Err, m:Wikimedia Forum is the noticeboard. You're looking at the equivalent of Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (which has nine revisions since 2007). -- MZMcBride ( talk) 01:45, 3 February 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete as redundant. Existing channels for communication already exist. We don't need yet another noticeboard that no one pays any attention to. KTC ( talk) 00:05, 2 February 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete, created without consensus to do so. We don't need another noticeboard, especially one as underused and unlinked as this. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{( What did I screw up now?)} 09:04, 4 February 2013 (UTC) reply

  Strange logic. Of course it's barely used or linked, it's only just been created. — Hex (❝?!❞) 11:13, 4 February 2013 (UTC) reply

• Keep per Ryan Vesey. The vast majority of editors here don't know or care about Meta, and it's not practical to expect everyone to subscribe to a mailing list. It makes perfect sense to create an in-project area specifically for WMF communication and discussion on this, the Foundation's largest project. Also keep per Zad68; the deletion votes are jumping the gun. What's the harm in giving this a chance? If it fails, it fails. Delete it then.— Hex (❝?!❞) 11:13, 4 February 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Ryan — if WMF approves, of course. — Theopolisme ( talk) 00:05, 5 February 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete I don't think it is ever appropriate to create an entire new noticeboard on one's own initiative without even trying to establish a consensus or even a need for it first. The issue of whether the WMF approves of it is not particularly relevant, but as noted above they don't seem to really care and it is doubtful staff will actively engage on the board. Assuming this was something the community wanted was a mistake. Being bold is all well and good in article editing, not so great in a case like this. Beeblebrox ( talk) 16:46, 8 February 2013 (UTC) reply

• So you conceed it might live up to its expectations, though this is doubtful, in your opinion? Biosthmors ( talk) 23:20, 8 February 2013 (UTC) reply

Uh, no. I don't know how you got that from my remarks, I said no such thing. Beeblebrox ( talk)

Ah, well I don't understand how breaking an unspoken "rule" about when and where one does things boldly is a rationale for delete, but to your point, saying you doubt "staff will actively engage" implies that you conceed they might, in my opinion. And multiple people above see the need/room for improvement when it comes to WMF–Wikipedian communication/engagement. Why not say "keep" to send a signal you'd like the WMF to try and reply to Wikipedians here and let's try it? What's the harm? Because you think it will just encourage other people to be too bold sometimes? I just don't see a rationale, that's all. Biosthmors ( talk) 00:20, 9 February 2013 (UTC) reply

And http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Answers/Process states "Answers is a potential new system of the Wikimedia Foundation to put communities in touch with staff. It is intended to provide a central point where community members who need assistance from the Wikimedia Foundation or who have questions about the Foundation or its activities can reach out and find answers. This system is being unrolled on a trial basis to test its efficiency and usefulness to communities." There appears to be a WMF desire to help communites in this regard. Why not try this? Biosthmors ( talk) 00:34, 9 February 2013 (UTC) reply

Your premise, that better communication may be needed between this project and the WMF, is fine. Your conclusion, that you should just open yet another noticeboard, is flawed. I doubt staff will engage because they have paid jobs doing other things for the WMF so they would have to use their free time to participate here, or someone's job would have to be expanded and funds made available to pay them for participating here on behalf of the Foundation. I also think, as others have noted above, that although this is by far the largest WMF project it is hardly the only one and runs itself by and large, so it actually needs less attention from the Foundation than some of the other projects that struggle to produce content and manage themselves. There are already numerous other lines of communication between users and the WMF on-wiki, at meta, and by email. In short, this board is ill-conceived, lacking any clear need or consensus, and redundant. I hope that clarifies my position sufficiently for you and you will not feel the need to continue to filibuster this conversation. Beeblebrox ( talk) 00:40, 9 February 2013 (UTC) reply

I'm sorry you feel I am filibustering. I thought this was a productive step, FYI, because it shows we can work within existing WMF channels to support the existence of this noticeboard. Biosthmors ( talk) 00:45, 9 February 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete as extraordinarily redundant, not just to Meta's Forum, but also to the various other noticeboards around the local wiki. –  Philosopher  ^{Let us reason together.} 17:10, 9 February 2013 (UTC) reply

• Did you know the intent of the board is to centralize discussion, so that people can post here if discussions are happening elsewhere? Or instead of emailing in questions, asking here? Biosthmors ( talk) 16:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC) reply

Did you know that trying to argue individually with every person who does not share your viewpoint makes you look desperate and fanatical? Beeblebrox ( talk) 16:57, 10 February 2013 (UTC) reply

Does attacking the messenger help your argument? I was under the impression refuting the central point was how to disagree. Could you address my central point? Biosthmors ( talk) 17:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC) reply

On the contrary, your remark attacks Philosopher, suggesting ignorance is the only reason they could oppose your briliant idea. take off the superhero suit and climb down. We understand your idea, we just don't happen to agree with it. Beeblebrox ( talk) 17:27, 10 February 2013 (UTC) reply

• WBiosthmors: None of that makes it any less redundant. –  Philosopher  ^{Let us reason together.} 17:54, 10 February 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete This is what Meta (and Bugzilla, and Phillipe, and IRC office hours, and the mailing list, etc.) already do a great job covering. MBisanz ^talk 17:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Question. How will the alternative to deletion of a trial period be assessed by the closer? Biosthmors ( talk) 20:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC) reply
    • I don't believe the alternative to deletion is viable in this situation. If the WMF wants another avenue to communicate with people, it will let us know of one, like it did when it said that it preferred we use Bugzilla to notify it of elections instead of emailing a sysadmin on our own. Further, the WMF has limited legal and technological human capital and the current system serves as an effective filtering system to preventing waste of that capital. Most inquires are inappropriate for spending staff time answering, so letting people first ask at a village pump, then get directed to OTRS or Meta if village pump volunteers can't figure it out, and finally get directed to the community liaison staff members if OTRS can't figure it out, serves to protect our developer human capital by setting up gatekeepers (VP/meta, OTRS, CL staff) who ensure that staff time isn't wasted on minor, irrelevant or duplicative inquiries. MBisanz ^talk 01:47, 11 February 2013 (UTC) reply
      • Did you read the comment above from the WMF? Trust me, this board is not meant to waste developer human capital. See also the page, where it says to contact the liaiason if your concerns aren't being adequately addressed. I fully anticipate that many questions here won't need WMF people to answer them. Biosthmors ( talk) 21:30, 11 February 2013 (UTC) reply
        • No, I still think it's an unnecessary fork of meta and is intended to discuss things that aren't a proper topic for enwiki (like the WMF's interpretation of Section 230). MBisanz ^talk 22:48, 11 February 2013 (UTC) reply
          • Until we have universal watch lists than meta is a bit of a pain. Thus here is useful. Which part of meta by the way is a duplication of here? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC) reply
            • 1 Is better for Meta because issues of editor retention impact multiple projects (all english projects, all wikipedias, all large projects, etc.) or are better on Bugzilla (please turn on this feature per VPP);
            • 2 Is better for Bugzilla or MediaWikiWiki or VPT;
            • 3 Is better for Wiki-Tech mailing list or Bugzilla;
            • 4 en.wiki doesn't set any of these and they're discussed at Meta to the extent they're discussed with the community;
            • 5 This isn't a thing for local community discussion and is best discussed at Meta because it impacts the global foundation policy that affects all projects;
            • 6 I don't see how linking all things that in some way relate to the WMF is a useful endeavor because WMF-involvement is generally not a determinative characteristic. MBisanz ^talk 23:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC) reply
• Comment. I plan to contact the Board of Trustees about this board to ask for their comments and as you can see at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard (which I just stumbled upon and I think has yet to have been mentioned) is another place where people could solicit for replies on this noticeboard. Biosthmors ( talk) 21:40, 10 February 2013 (UTC) reply
  • The Board of Trustees eh? Dude, I'm sorry, but you really have no idea how the WMF works. This is way outside of what the Board handles. There is, as I have already said, a community liaison who you can reach out to. That's User:Mdennis (WMF). There are some other staff members that also interact directly with the community in certain cases (Oliver for certain technical projects, for example), however if you don't know who to talk to for what, you can always go to Mdennis and she'll direct you. This board is entirely redundant to her talk page. Whining and attacking people that disagree with you isn't going to change the fact that the WMF does not answer to you personally and is not at your beck and call. We have community liaisons precisely because the vast majority of WMF employees have important things that they should be doing that take place entirely off of this website, and they could not do those things if they constantly had to check this noticeboard to see if, by chance, something in there sphere was brought up here. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:04, 11 February 2013 (UTC) reply
    • Wow. I think there's so much wrong in there I'm not sure it deserves a thoughtful reply. Biosthmors ( talk) 21:02, 11 February 2013 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Beeblebrox and many others. Klein zach 15:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC) reply
• Comment. The noticeboard instructions have been changed since the beginning of this discussion to take into account many of the comments above. Biosthmors ( talk) 22:45, 11 February 2013 (UTC) reply
  • I've reviewed the new instructions and do not find them to have changed in a manner that would cause me to alter my above opinion. MBisanz ^talk 22:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC) reply
    • I can remove "the WMF's interpretation of Section 230"? How far does that go to allay your concerns? Biosthmors ( talk) 23:47, 11 February 2013 (UTC) reply
      • I'm sorry, but no. I've described many other reasons I don't see this forum as a useful place to discuss things. MBisanz ^talk 23:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC) reply
        • I see that now. I'll make more edits to the header then. Biosthmors ( talk) 00:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC) reply

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.