Wikipedia talk:Autoconfirmed article creation trial

ACTRIAL and Outreach work
Hi, as I understand things, the ACTRIAL is coming to an end and a discussion month is to take place (can someone point me in direction of dates & venue for this discussion please?). Reason I ask is that the ACTRIAL impacts enormously on the work of people working in outreach, like myself and other Wikimedians in Residence. While I understand the reasons for quality control and clearing the backlog, delivering workshops for newbies is the bread & butter of my role and of recruiting more editors more generally. Newbies like the agency they get when they can publish work online they have researched, and been helped to research, in a supportive environment. That we are currently unable to provide them with that magic 'WOW' moment of publishing their scrupulously worked on articles at the end of all their efforts until four days have passed is a real hindrance for them seeing the point of contributing to Wikipedia. In my own situation, we are talking about students and staff at a university where their research skills, ability to contribute and willingness to contribute are second to none. So while I can check over their work and move their work from the sandbox to the livespace on their behalf this is huge anticlimax after the hours they have put in learning about Wikipedia and researching their articles. ACTRIAL has removed the joy of that moment of publishing for the newbies I have encountered. Waiting 4 days or my doing it for them just ain't the same. Consequently, when the discussion takes place I would like to request two things: (1) we ensure people working in outreach are included in the discussion (Wikimedia UK were unaware of the trial until it was too late for their Wikimedians in Residence to meaningfully impact on discussions being made) and (2) if ACPERM is indeed on the table then providing an exemption for WiRs so they can allow workshop attendees to publish directly onto Wikipedia themselves needs to be a credible discussion topic. Otherwise we risk hamstringing the outreach work we do and the number of editors we could potentially recruit as a corollary. All the best, Stinglehammer (talk) 15:49, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * , we tried to make these exemptions for outreach work before ACTRIAL in two distinct RfCs, and the community rejected it twice. You'd need a separate RfC for it, as right now I don't think it should be in the followup RfC as the community has spoken against it twice. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:54, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi TonyBallioni. Thanks for this. I'd be happy to raise it as a new RfC as I feel strongly this needs to be part of the discussion. As I was not involved in previous discussions, and as a member of the community myself, I don't think we should decide what should or should not be included in the discussions in the followup RfC given, as previously mentioned, a whole subsection of people involved in outreach were not involved in discussions last time. If the community speak out against a third time then fine but it at least needs to be part of a more inclusive conversation. Cheers, Stinglehammer (talk) 16:03, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Are there any concrete examples of ACTRIAL causing problems for outreach activities over the last six months? There are several workarounds that I'm aware of: requesting editathon participants' accounts be manually confirmed; asking participants to register and make some test edits in advance; having participants create new articles in draft and having the organiser moving them. Have these not been effective? Beyond being an "anticlimax", I mean; to be blunt that sounds like a bit of a non-issue, and certainly isn't something that outweighs the significant, tangible positive effects ACTRIAL had on the bulk of new page/new editor work.
 * Your complaints about "not being involved" in prior discussions fall a bit flat. ACTRIAL has been mooted for seven years, and as I understand it all the recent discussions were held/advertised in the usual community-wide venues: WP:VP, WP:CENT, etc. If nobody at WMUK is watching those, they can't be surprised that they miss things. You can hardly expect RfC organisers to specifically notify everyone who might be interested. Time aside, there's WP:CANVAS to think of. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 16:32, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Joe Roe. 7 years ago I wasn't involved in Wikipedia editing. And I don't think the hundreds of editors I have trained were either. Visual Editor has made a lot of people sit up and take notice because it is that much easier and it is only a few years old itself; maybe only a year or two as a stable entity. My own role in outreach began 26 months ago. Not everyone registers before an event - you can't force them to. Creating draft articles and moving them yourself robs particpants of the ability to experience publishing their work themselves. Which is a critical 'lightbulb' moment in the training process which often is the catalyst for more editing because they a) see the process from beginning to end and b) get the bug at that point. Your points are made from standpoint of someone that is routinely aware of and monitoring the discussion spaces. You tell me the one discussion space that I should definitely monitor and I will definitely monitor it from now on so that we don't miss out on this again. What I am saying is that a number of people working in outreach today all missed out on these discussions and are all struggling with/ viscerally against ACTRIAL. Plus not sure what you mean by concrete examples. Beyond seeing people's faces falling flat and walking out of a workshop without having published, you mean? Besides which, I'm not arguing tat ACPERM should be off the table. What I'm saying is that we need to be more inclusive in the discussion this time round to make sure people working in outreach are included AND that because of this the exemption for WiRs should definitely be part of the discussion. Indeed, I am not sure why one would ever need to exclude it from the discussion. Stinglehammer (talk) 16:54, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Call me callous but I don't understand the big deal in saying, "Right, you've finished your draft, let me just move it to fully published status for you. In a few days you will be able to do that last step yourself." It's good practice to draft new articles out of mainspace anyway.
 * I would say that anybody seriously interested in this project ought to be watching WP:CENT, at a minimum. As far as I know, all of the discussions 7-9 months ago that decided on the implementation of ACTRIAL were linked there. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 20:02, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Would never call you callous. From a training point of view, you want trainees to be able to replicate what they have seen and learnt during a training session especially if moving from sandbox to livespace, or moving from draft to livespace, is the way they will publish 99.99% of the time after the 4 days have elapsed. However, under the ACTRIAL, my account is completely different from theirs making it very hard to demo and the trainees are still unable to publish online or even practice publishing online. I can offer to 'do it for them'. But what kind of training session doesn't allow them to have a go themselves? What kind of message does it send if we are asking them to be self-sufficient editors and then I have to lean over them in a nannying way at the critical moment of publishing their work? And why should they need me to do this if I have shepherded their efforts all the way through the afternoon? Stinglehammer (talk) 00:26, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Great, will follow that discussion space then from now on. Just wanted clarification as to which of the umpteen discussion threads I should really pay close attention to. Plus where is this information about which discussion threads are the ones to watch to be found for the new initiate? Are they supposed to just know automatically or through some process of osmosis? I'll obviously encourage my trainees and colleagues to monitor WP:CENT too. Stinglehammer (talk) 00:26, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * If it really is necessary, a user right that allows confirming users and only that could be created. But I believe concerns were raised previously about whether workshops really produced quality work.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:59, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * If some new editor at an event wants to publish - just log in as an established user and let them navigate to the draft snd choose move under the watchful eye of the established user. No one should expect to be able to do everything on day one of learning a new skill. Legacypac (talk) 17:04, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Any user account should represent an individual and not a group....Sharing an account...with others is not permitted, and evidence of doing so will result in the user being required to stop the practice and change their password, or in sanctions (up to and including the account being blocked), depending on circumstances. That's technically a contravention of our policy on shared use of accounts Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:08, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty confident Legacypac meant let them watch you move it. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:39, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not talking about shared accounts. I'm saying if I was coordinating the event and I identified a Draft that needs to be promoted and the creator had such a fragile ego they can't wait or let someone else do the move I might consider logging into my own account and having the creator select "Move" etc as I watched and directed each step over their shoulder. I would be taking 100% responsibility for the Move decision and would not be giving out my password etc. If someone wants to freak out about who makes a few clicks in a training session they should get over it. Legacypac (talk) 18:03, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Galobtter. Great point - we definitely need the flexibility that allows a workshop trainer to permit new users to publish. Re: the concerns being raised about workshop quality. Was there anyone from Outreach involved in that conversation to rebut that point? If as I suspect there wasn't, then that is even more reason for having a wider discussion this time round. As to Legacypac's point about learning a new skill. Why on earth should editing Wikipedia be something that takes longer than a day to learn in the broad strokes? Of course, there is a lot to learn and refine as you get further into Wikipedia editing but if you truly want people to be able to contribute you have to make it easier to learn in much less than a day. Again, I'm talking broad strokes here. The intricacies take a lot longer to understand of course. But workshops are a great vehicle for engaging new people in the how and why. Then allowing them to publish at the end of the afternoon gets them to see the process from beginning to end and actively encourages them to learn more. Beginning to think we need more people working in outreach to contribute to this conversation already. Stinglehammer (talk) 17:44, 16 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Did you learn what is an acceptable inclusion criteria for Wikipedia on day one? It's complex and we know at least 80% of new users get it wrong because their creations get deleted. Legacypac (talk) 18:03, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Would love to know where 80% figure comes from as that is not my experience at all. Can count on one hand how many of my trainees' articles have ever been deleted. If they were training themselves then fine, it is difficult to pick up on your own. That's why people struggle initially and give up. That's also why we run supportive training workshops where we distill the main need-to-know information and help them to publish articles that survive and add to Wikipedia so they will be encouraged by seeing the process from beginning to end and want to come back to learn more. You only have a certain amount of time to capture someone's interest - they're not going to bother contributing if you present it as the 12 tasks of Hercules. Give them the how, why and need-to-know basics, support their first stumbling steps and offer support and links for following up and they're much more likely to want to come back.Stinglehammer (talk) 00:26, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The 80% deletion rate is from the ACTRIAL lead up studies (which I can't find the link too). About 80% of non-autoconfirmed account creations get deleted while only about 20% of auto confirmed account creations get deleted. 10 edits/4 days of edits makes a huge difference in new page quality. Your experience with workshop participants will be different obviously as spammers, trolls and total idiots are unlikely to show up. Legacypac (talk) 00:55, 17 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Some thoughts since this is going in a bunch of different directions: this has been discussed frequently, including with a current board member of WMUK and it's lead trainer, before ACTRIAL was rolled out. We also brought in others who have outreach experience to discuss it (one such conversation can be found here.)The original solution proposed was to allow the account creator permission to enable confirming accounts. This was rejected by the community in August 2017, a month before ACTRIAL went live. The next proposal held was to create a new event coordinator group that would be allowed to confirm new editors. The discussion for that was here. It also closed with a consensus against creating the group, largely based on the idea that editathon participants shouldn't be treated any differently than other new users. Both of these discussions were advertised on WP:CENT:, , and the first RfC was advertised as a watchlist notice.One of the concerns I had while we were working with the WMF were the outreach programs. Anyone who knows me knows that while I do have strong views, I always try to craft consensus proposals that takes into account the concerns of everyone when it comes to policy reform, which is why we tried to find ways to address the concerns people helping with outreach had before this went live. The community did not think at the time that those concerns were strong enough to exempt editathon participants from ACTRIAL (and in fact, some explicitly opposed it on the grounds that they should be treated no differently).All that being said, I likely would support creating the event coordinator group personally if there was a new RfC. I don't think it would pass, though, and that is a large part of the reason that I don't think it should be included as a question in the followup RfC. The community should be able to have a discussion about whether or not they want the restrictions of ACTRIAL made permanent without the additional complicating factors of the creation of a new user permission that it explicitly rejected in relation to this topic a little over 6 months ago. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:39, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * TonyBallioni many thanks for this. Have skim-read the discussion from seven months ago and will deep delve soon enough. It seems very mixed discussion in terms of Oppose and Support with a great many people seeing the value in allowing workshop trainers to confer on their trainees the ability to publish. I see Andy Mabbett and Rexx did support this based on their outreach experience. But I don't see the other Wikimedia UK people, the other Wikimedians in Residence or the other people I routinely engage with involved in supported Wikimedia outreach both in Scotland and at universities & schools across the UK. I therefore do not accept that the community has had a final say on this. Because so many voices, who are just as much part of the community, were not represented. I could supply you with another 20-30 voices easily who would support the proposal. Therefore nothing should be off the table. Again, I fail to see why you would seek to exclude it. Why on earth shouldn't the ACTRIAL conversation actually deal with the issues that those in Outreach have experienced? Stinglehammer (talk) 17:56, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Because RfCs that aren’t focused tend to yield no consensus outcomes and leave unclear results. The creation of a new user group would be controversial in itself (as demonstrated in the above discussions), and really should be considered on its own. I’d be more open to including it in the same RfC if it hasn’t already been discussed and rejected twice. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:14, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * As I said in the earlier discussion, it would be handy for all of us running events to have the ability to both create accounts and make editors autoconfirmed. If you think about it, the whole purpose of the 4 days/10 edits requirement is simply to prevent wholescale abuse. It's pretty obvious that in any properly run event, there is not going to be any scope or likelihood of any of the participants making abusive or disruptive edits, as they are under the direct supervision of trusted editors. In fact, in the seven or so years that I've been running events, I can't think of a single case of misuse of the abilities that come with autoconfirmed status. That is a very good reason why participants have some justification in asking to be treated differently from other new editors in that respect. So I'm supportive of what wants to do.
 * Nevertheless, in the absence of the ability to grant confirmed status, I still support ACTRIAL. The observed benefits are simply too great to give up now. Anecdotally, in the handful of events that I've run during ACTRIAL, I've observed a benefit: I'm able to impress very strongly on both the internal organisers and the participants that they must create accounts at least five days before the event in order to be able to do everything that they want to do (they do at least 10 edits with me guiding them during the training part). So far, that has produced a 100% pre-event account registration rate. How long that lasts is another matter, of course. --RexxS (talk) 18:16, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I’d likely support the ability for event coordinators to confirm accounts. My comments above are more along the lines that I think it’d be better to have as a distinct discussion after the discussion as to whether to make this permanent (having seen many RfCs become a mess when multiple large proposals are involved). If ACTRIAL was to be made permensnt, I’d be happy to help with drafting any RfC re: confirming editathon participants. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:30, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * This is something I can get behind. Thank you RexxS! There is a balance to this. obviously prior to ACTRIAL there were issues about quality control and AfC review backlog. Since ACTRIAL that has been ameliorated but there have been clear knock-on effects for outreach work (I can bring in more WiRs to illustrate this point) making it that much more difficult. So the balance is not right, not yet. Respect that you have had 100% pre-event signups RexxS but I would be absolutely amazed if that continued to be the case. In Edinburgh, we stress that attendees should do signup beforehand and have even developed a Wiki Basics site to help them & encourage them to do this. Pre-event signups have increased (great!) but it only needs a few late signups and a few not bothering to read the event blurb/emails we send out and suddenly half your attendees or more can't publish. Worse, you now have a mixed class of learners. Some of whom can publish directly and some of whom can only submit to AfC. Why shouldn't someone who finds out about the event on the day, or 2 days ago, or 3-4 days ago beforehand be able to publish like the person who registered 4-5 days+ ago? Point is they are all supported to publish new articles by the end of the day in a supportive environment so they can go away happy with their efforts. And if their articles aren't quite ready then I show them how to move the articles to Draft space so they can be worked on in peace.Stinglehammer (talk) 00:42, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * So the need for event co-ordinators to confirm accounts is still there. My experience of ACTRIAL has not been the same as yours RexxS, I'm afraid to say. And I know of plenty of others who think this is hamstringing outreach work. I am not familiar with the inner workings of RfC so can't comment on unfocused RfCs leading to no consensus. My view is still that any discussion of ACTRIAL has to include those voices working in outreach who have felt hampered by it. And however we can get the exemption setup so that trainers can allow perfectly good articles to be published at the end of the afternoon by the person who spent all day working on it then that's what we should do. The balance is off at the moment. And wouldn't take much to correct it. NB: On a slightly separate note, I am dismayed this went through without discussion with the WiRs and Wikimedia UK staff. I assume there was board level discussion? I think, in hindsight, this would have been good to have discussed in person at a Wikimedia UK meeting or AGM although am assuming there must have been some discussions? Anyway, I thank you both for your constructive comments. I hope this can move forward now in a balanced way that suits all parties. Cheers, Stinglehammer (talk) 00:56, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Stinglehammer, thanks for your comments, and apologies in advance for the long reply, but there is a lot of history here. ACTRIAL had been a pretty consistent demand from the community to the Wikimedia Foundation since 2011, being more prominent at various times since then. It was initially vetoed in 2012 by the WMF after community consensus supported it, but in June 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation agreed to implement it and Jimmy Wales came out with a personal statement supporting the trial after it was raised on his talk page. I do not know the communication structure between individuals in WMUK, the WMF, and the community, but we were very transparent about this on-wiki with the rest of the English Wikipedia community, with some of the feedback I got being that there were administrators and experienced editors were most shocked to learn that this wasn't already the permanent requirement. For about a three month period (largely thanks to the efforts of ), preparation for this was probably the most visible thing happening on the English Wikipedia. I'm saying this somewhat hinting at 's point: we weren't exactly hiding anything here, and we tried to get diverse voices to comment.To your question about event coordinators: as I said, I personally would support granting them the ability to confirm now because we've gotten more feedback from you and other individuals involved in outreach efforts that it would be helpful. I think if there is a need, it should be met. In terms of how we work with Wikimedians-in-Residence and others doing excellent outreach work, I think it would be easiest to do that after we figure out whether or not we are making this permanent. If you all need help, that need should be met. I just also have a fair amount of experience observing RfCs, drafting them, and providing feedback to others when they are trying to draft them, and I think the process would go a lot smoother if the first question we answered is: Does the community fundamentally want this? If the answer to that first most foundational question is yes, then it make sense to ask the question What needs have we identified that aren't met, and how can we meet them? Asking them both at the same time I think would result in an RfC that is more complicated than it needs to be. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:21, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for this Tony. I've been involved in a few on-wiki conversations of late and I always appreciate (or try to appreciate) when someone is engaging constructively in a discussion as you have done. That said, as a supporter of Scottish independence, I now have some experience of referendum-style questions and how questions are framed. I think your first question is framed so that it achieves a Yes response. The 2nd question reinforces this for me. Indeed, having it as a 2nd question seems very much like bolting the stable door after the horse has escaped. I wonder what the percentage of editors is that work in outreach anyway - we few who do are, no doubt, heavily outweighed in RfCs by the bulk of community who rightly or wrongly feel there is tidying up/tightening up to be done. But question is, regardless of the number of people working in outreach right now, is whether outreach is fundamentally a good thing and needs supporting. Anyway, both questions need to be thought through very carefully - ideally somehow taken together but take your point about avoiding confusion - because right now I am not convinced the effect on Outreach has been given its due and therefore not had the due discussion it needs. My ultimate concern is that once the community have said Yes to going ahead with a move to ACPERM why would they meaningfully engage with the concerns of us in Outreach? Stinglehammer (talk) 01:42, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I have the greatest respect for and because  his feedback in particular, on outreach is always of immense value, his comments were always given the greatest consideration before the trial. I think he would be the first to admit that ACTRIAL has been a resounding success, but also recognises that every good thing in life comes with one or two minor disadvantages. There does not in fact appear to have been any further comments from outreach workers during the trial and I strongly refute any claims that WMUK was not aware of it. We also work actively with the WP:Women in Red project, taking note of their many editathons in order to be online and on hand for any help that is needed. Some editathons have still gone seriously wrong, however, such as the recent one in South Africa.


 * I nevertheless support the idea of giving event coordinators the power to confirm accounts because editathon participants are hardly likely to be vandals or spammers. That however, should be a separate Admin-unbundling RfC and should not compound, hamper, or otherwise delay the permanent roll out of ACTRIAL which is almost certain to happen - we've got used to it during the trial and already take it almost for granted. certainly  means well  and his concerns are valid, but as everything  on  Wikipedia depends on community  consensus, I suggest  starting the RfC for the new event coordinator right as soon as ACTRIAL is rolled out  permanently. I'd even help draft it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:12, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Kudpung กุดผึ้ง great you're willing to help. As much as I appreciate RexxS's comments, I don't think he can speak for all outreach and tbh the fact you haven't heard more from more of us working in outreach in the UK during the trial is because we've been keeping our powder dry to engage in a consolidated effort for the discussion period. A "discussion period" should be exactly that without preconditions on what can/can't be discussed and certainly not a blind rubber-stamping of what has gone before, no matter how much you personally believe it should continue. Else what is a discussion period for? As for the refuting my point, all I can say is the people I personally work with in Scotland and across the UK, including all the Wikimedians in Residence and staff at Wikimedia UK were unaware of the change until it was too late to meaningfully alter the course of discussions. I can't speak for board level because I am not involved at that level but RexxS is someone I've only engaged with on this discussion page today, as far as I can recall. If my fellow Wikimedians in Residence had been involved I can tell you we would have lobbied hard for the confirmed user rights to have been actioned before the trial started. Least you can do now is hear us out and ensure those rights are granted.Stinglehammer (talk) 02:31, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * , I'm not really interested in your  UK politics and I  consider the references to them be inappropriate. All  the talking  about  ACTRIAL has been done, all you  needed was to  have been abreast  of it. The WMUK was fully  aware of everything  and gave their input. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:44, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * While this conversation should be about the movement generally rather than just Wikimedia UK, I would like to point out that the organisation wasn't really involved in discussions. Individuals such as RexxS were, but as a former member of staff I can confirm that the chapter is by no means a monolith and amongst its board, volunteers, and staff you are going to find a lot of different opinions. When the trial went live last year based on a consensus established seven years ago, I contacted tour volunteer trainers to let them know about this significant change. Sadly, the vast majority were not aware of it and I think that's because to organisations weren't really considered when developing this trial. Richard Nevell (talk) 11:28, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * However, I'm still  very  keen on  your  idea for  theaccoungt  creators and I'm  more than willing  to help. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:15, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Great, I welcome this. Stinglehammer (talk) 10:22, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * BTW, I was present at  some of the WMUK meetups, and at  Wikimania at  the Barbican where I  ran the WMUK booth.  and I discussed these issues at  length  while we facilitated an editathon  there, even before I  commenced my  final  drive to  get  ACTRIAL  carried . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:24, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * What comment was inappropriate? What is the actual point of a discussion month if all the talking is done as you say? Talking should just be beginning as we review ACTRIAL now and I find it concerning you are trying to shut this down. Especially as I was not kept abreast of the discussion, nor were many of my other colleagues working in outreach to expand the work of Wikimedia UK with partner institutions at the Wellcome Library, Bodleian Library, National Library of Wales and University of Edinburgh and others who have been seriously hampered by ACTRIAL. These institutions work with Wikimedia UK in partnership on an understanding that the trainers can do their jobs. Changing the rules of engagement like this needed to be something we consulted them about or at least made them aware about. The fact that you discussed this at length with RexxS at length is neither here not there. The discussion needed to include key stakeholders - it didn't. It needs to now. Stinglehammer (talk) 10:22, 17 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Shut it down? I've never heard anything so  odd. I fully appreciate your concerns and I've offered to help, but it's tangential to what has been discussed for 6 years and trialed for the last 6 months. The onus is on everyone to keep abreast of developments, especially minor 'stakeholder' groups. If you would now like to know what  ACTRIAL is all about, you may wish to catch up on all the discussions - it's about 6 hours solid reading. ACTRIAL had one of the largest consensus in Wikipedia history. If people don't turn out to vote or follow what's going on, they have to accept the result, just like Scottish independence, Brexit, or the US presidential elections. The results of the trial will be discussed in a RfC or until a clear consensus emerges earlier, and you're more than welcome to join in. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:48, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks Kudpung กุดผึ้ง but I feel your offer to help is only within certain narrow parameters because of your views on ACTRIAL. I don't accept that the "onus [solely] is on everyone to keep abreast of developments". And I certainly don't accept the work we do in outreach and at Wikimedia UK to be a "minor stakeholder". I think the onus is on the community to be inclusive and to listen seriously to serious concerns being raised. I discovered about ACTRIAL approx. 6-7 months ago which is when myself and other Wikimedia UK colleagues were horrified it looked to be too late to meaningfully impact on the trial. Now that it is over, we want our voices heard in the post-trial review. That is all. Stinglehammer (talk) 12:29, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

For the new editors that don't have an account the facilitator can always direct them to PERM were they can say they are in training with User:Stinglehammer. Some admin will action the request before they are ready to publish. Good idea to learn about PERM anyway for when they want NPP. I hope you tell people about maintenance jobs too in training. Legacypac (talk) 03:37, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That is a very  good idea . A handful  of PERM-regular admins are generally  on duty  there 24/7 -  I'm  one of them. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:57, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It's a well meaning idea, but I suspect it's not really practical. There needs to be a concerted effort to understand the concerns of those doing outreach and address them. A gap between doing something which would disrupt outreach efforts and coming up with a way to fix that is not acceptable. Richard Nevell (talk) 17:44, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It's an interesting idea but I don't think it's practical. We run hundreds of training session so shackling their effectiveness to the availability of an admin each time I don't think would work. Plus we're talking about something really simple that any trainer worth their salt should be able to do themselves anyway.Stinglehammer (talk) 10:22, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it's an excellent idea and it would work perfectly well as anyone who contributes regulsarly to Wikipedia would know. That's not to say it's the only solution though. I would also like to see details of the 'hundreds' of training sessions. If you were not aware of the trial, how can you claim that Outreach has been impacted by it? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:54, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * "As anyone who contributes regularly to Wikipedia would know"??? I find your last remark dismissive and uncalled for. You can read about the Edinburgh residency here but really I shouldn't need to justify myself in this way. I had hoped we were close to agreeing on a way forward but now I find we are poles apart. I believe understands the concerns I am making and you seem to have a good working relationship with him so perhaps myself and others working in outreach can channel our serious concerns through RexxS because I don't think this conversation is getting us anywhere.Stinglehammer (talk) 12:38, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for an interesting discussion above. I'd like to add my couple of cents worth here as I've moved from participating in editathons to leading them over the period of this trail. Firstly, I think there is a large difference between RfCs raised in advance of the trail, which were necessarily theoretical and about the scope and shape of the trail, and future RfCs about better support for outreach activities if ACTRIAL continues, which are in light of the trial and therefore more able to take an informed view about impact. I'm pleased to see that there is support for considering another RfC but I don't agree it should be separate from the larger discussion about continuing with ACTRIAL. I'm not clear why the needs of stakeholders involved in outreach would be consciously excluded from the main RfC about ACTRIAL. Surely impact on outreach as well as article quality has to be one of the key areas of evaluation of the trial? Secondly, the notion that not having special privileges to support outreach events results in a more consistent experience hasn't been borne out in my experience. I've ended up with very mixed crowds - people who've registered in advance and done some prep, people who've edited in the past, and complete newbies on the day. It's actually made for quite a bit more work figuring out who can do what for themselves, and explaining to those who can't that they're not second-class citizens. That's certainly how some have felt. So I'd very much like to see full consideration of the impact of ACTRIAL on outreach as part of the main trial evaluation discussion and RfC. It's never going to be possible to reach everyone or ensure everyone participates in the discussion, but a concerted effort to seek out the views of key stakeholder groups (not individual users) would be go a long way. Ammienoot (talk) 12:10, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * As there has been more than enough discussion on this point I'm just going to come out and say it: I will not be including anything other than the question as to whether this should be made permanent in the final RfC. I think we've been trying to find ways, even in this discussion, to work with outreach people and have presented plenty of ideas. I've also offered to help work to draft the RfCs needed to get an event coordinator permission up and running and would happily advocate for it. I am honestly trying to help meet people where they are, but there also needs to be an effort on the other end, which I do not see. I appreciate the concerns, but I also think there needs to be an appreciation of all the hard work that those of us who have been a part of this discussion from the beginning have put in, and a recognition that individuals who have not been involved might not be in the best place to make demands at the 11th hour for major changes to how a discussion will be formatted. You are not being dismissed, but you are dismissing our concerns, which are just as legitimate as yours. I'll give my word that I will work as hard as possible to help make sure your concerns are met and understood by the community if this is implemented, but I don't think they are a good enough reason to turn this RfC into a complete mess, which is what having a sub-RfC on an event coordinator right would do, especially as they have already been rejected twice before when put to the test. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:32, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, I apologise if my exasperation came off as rude or unappreciative. but it is just that; exasperation. I have worked exclusively, day in day out, in providing training sessions and Train the Trainer sessions for 26 months now in, yes, hundreds of sessions. and I have seen how sessions worked prior to ACTRIAL and how it has negatively affected new trainees and new trainers alike. Beyond this, ACTRIAL effects the core work of Wikimedia UK in reaching & recruiting new audiences and editors and building positive relationships with partner institutions. ACTRIAL represents a shifting of the goalposts in our partnerships with these institutions and so it would have been good to have key stakeholders involved in the discussions as Ammienoot suggests. You can't include every voice but my point is that this aspect of outreach and contractual partnership working is a big omission. So I return to my original request, not demand, that we seek to be more inclusive now in making sure the views of key stakeholders working in outreach are included in any review. Beyond this, we acknowledge there are negatives to ACTRIAL, not just "1 or 2 disadvantages" as Kudpung suggests. I do absolutely appreciate the hard work that has gone into this over 7 years but I cant comment on 7 years ago. I can comment on the last 26 months of providing training day in and day out. Undoubtedly, there are positives to ACTRIAL but any review discussion that does not also consider the negatives too is a flawed one. I don't accept this is an 11th hour intervention either. The Wikimedians in Residence tried to have this conversation 7 months ago but were told it was too late to meaningfully discuss the trial as it was going ahead. Now it is over we are again told it is too late to discuss the trial. So when is it okay to review something that massively impacts our day to day work? Before I fall into despair/exasperation, can we reset things to what can we practically do to mitigate the negative effects of ACTRIAL if it is to become permanent? The suggestion about PERM is not a credible one in my view. Myself and other trainers run hundreds of sessions up and down the United Kingdom and are expanding our work year on year. Relying on an admin every single time similarly hamstrings our work. If separate RfCs has to be the way to go then I disagree but fine. However you have already suggested that any new RfC on granting trainers the ability to confirm new users (ultimately my preferred workaround) is likely doomed to failure as it will likely not be supported by the community. Hence, in terms of working constructively, what can we do that will actually work to address this negative aspect of ACTRIAL now that it has been highlighted. Rebalancing things that are as of now weighted too much in one direction is ultimately my one desire. Cheers, Stinglehammer (talk) 16:01, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No worries, I appreciate your concerns (and am listening to them), but I felt that the things that editors like Kudpung, Joe Roe, and myself have expressed were not being heard. While I appreciate that you've had a lot of experience with outreach and have done a lot of good work there, we've also done a lot of work on this and are trying to achieve a result that is beneficial for everyone (and yes, most of us commenting on this page who are not part of the outreach effort do support making it permanent.)In terms of how we can work with you to make your job easier: I think there are several ways here. I'm more than willing to help draft a potential RfC for an event coordinator position. I have a fair amount of experience with writing policy proposals, and I think I could write a good presentation that lays out the issues while also neutrally laying out the question for the community.I think something that you also should be aware of and be able to respond to is that there is a negative perception of many editathons and outreach efforts by some in the English Wikipedia community: as Kudpung mentioned above, there have been several that didn't turn out as well when creating directly in mainspace, and unfortunately they sometimes get conflated with the education outreach program, where even more tension exists. It would be good to be able to demonstrate the actual impact ACTRIAL had on your efforts with specific high quality articles that were not allowed to be directly created. This will help the community see why an event coordinator user right would benefit the encyclopedia as a whole.Something else that can be worked on regardless of the question of confirming editathon participants is working on guidelines for how to best run an editathon under the new conditions, with draft language and guidelines for how to use and grant the proposed event coordinator position. The former will be useful regardless of whether or not the event coordinator permission is approved, and the latter will help give the community a concrete example of what they would be approving. I doubt "confirm all editathon participants indefinitely upon registration" or the like will ever gain consensus, but guidelines for when to confirm users would probably pass depending on what they are. Working with you on this would also be a good way for those of us who are involved with the new page quality control efforts on-wiki to be made aware of the work you do, and also make you all aware of what some of the things we look for are.I don't by any means think that we you all should be left hopeless to deal with this, and I view the question as how we should meet your needs rather than if we should do anything to meet them. My number one concern at this time, though, is getting an RfC with a clear question and a set format running to consult with the community on how we should move forward here. I think that's easiest when we're talking about one controversial topic, and that is why I don't want to have a bunch of sub-RfCs going on at the same time on one page. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:30, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The event coordinator permission should be a prerequisite before any discussion of permanency not something added after the fact. Richard Nevell (talk) 15:44, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Stinglehammer, "One desire" nails it. You are failing to see your own "framing" as you discussed above. It is you and your trainers who create the expectation in new editors that it is "so great!" to see your work immediately published. Wikipedia is not a blog. It is a widely used reference work, and there is nothing even a little outre about the notion that people need training wheels before they first publish in it. If you "framed" the delay as training wheels (or like driving lessons), that would seem completely normal to people.   It is only "essential" that they see their work published, in your framing.
 * What you are failing to see is the problem that ACTRIAL addresses. There are zillions of people out there (way more than you will ever reach) who view WP as an essential platform for promotion, and who abuse our openness to do exactly that.  Before ACTRIAL we had a torrent of garbage pouring into WP every single day.  Now it is just a steady stream.
 * Putting some delay on instant publishing via ACTRIAL is both sane and essential for Wikipedia, to keep the pollution out. The longer you keep ignoring that and battering with your single POV you are going to get less and less traction. Not more. Jytdog (talk) 16:30, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I see three ways to resolve this: I don't think that abandoning ACTRIAL to preserve a single "wow moment" is a reasonable option here. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 18:37, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit-a-thons request users create accounts a week ahead of time.  They should reach 10 edits during the event and can then create/move pages to mainspace, or can collaborate with one of the editors present who created an account beforehand to move the page.
 * 2) Edit-a-thon coordinators request topics ahead of time, and create one-sentence stubs in mainspace the day beforehand (possibly with a template that it will be used in an event to prevent speedy deletion).  If the coordinator can't find enough information to easily write one sentence on the topic, it may not be a good topic for a Wikipedia article.
 * 3) Some form of IRC room / chat system is used so participants can request page moves and get responses very quickly from established editors.


 * Keep the floodgates open to thousands of spammers, promotors, and vandals to have a WOW moment to avoid some simple work arounds for newbies in training makes no sense. Legacypac (talk) 19:03, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * How can we reliably distinguish new editors attending an event from these spammers, promotors, and vandals? One difference is the presence of a course instructor.  If we can give instructors the ability to quickly mark new accounts as confirmed, that solves one of the main problems caused by ACTRIAL. Certes (talk) 22:05, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

My last paper took about 5 years, a couple of submissions to an ethics review committee, half a dozen flat out rejects once finished, half a dozen revisions following both comments from peer reviewers and editors, and more than a thousand dollars to get published.

I am not seeing "four days" as such an issue. It might in fact increase respect for Wikipedia among those you are introducing to the site. I personally support greater quality control than youtube and blogs. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:04, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this James. Big admirer or your work at WikiProject Medicine but this confused me. yes, we'd like Wiki pages with that level of scrutiny and academic rigour but 5 years per Wiki page would slow down creating the sum of all human knowledge to a crawl. Great if the paper can be published in an open access journal and easily Wikified to become a Wikipedia page but I think you have already intimated in a past article that we need to create a culture change in having doctors, academics, researchesr incentivised to contribute to Wikipedia. That kind of culture change will take a while and is where outreach and comms help. Plus you've already intimated in the past that a well-researched stub/start-class article can be great in medicine topics to get the ball-rolling and share the first 100 words+ in as many languages as possible. 4 days is not long in the grand scheme of things but it is arbitrary and it makes it harder to train people the how and why of Wikipedia in a half day/one day/two day workshop scenario if the attendees can't practice the skills around how to edit and move articles they will need to be aware of for the 99.99% of their Wikipedia editing life. The first four days places limits on what they can do to prevent problem articles but if a trainer is there to oversee their efforts then there is no issue. Like I say, only a couple of articles I have helped support in 26 months have ever been deleted. Users also need to be confirmed to use the Content Translation tool which after 4 semesters supporting we are keen to provide as an option for the proficient bilingual and multilingual speakers attending our editathons. The ability to create, edit & translate articles in a supportive environment where they can learn the ropes in a much more structured way than trying to learn on their own is something I hope you would support? Plus, "youtube and blogs" seems to be conflating the work I do with spammers and vandals. I'm speaking about academic staff and students at the University of Edinburgh who have access to scholarly material and are already well-versed in academic writing and referencing. I provide them with guidance on sources appropriate for Wikipedia at the beginning of the sessions and make them aware of the more stringent requirements for medical articles too. I then vet and check over their efforts too to ensure any problems are addressed. e.g. High-grade serous carcinoma is one such article by way of example. Stinglehammer (talk) 18:49, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes 5 years is a crazy amount of time. And I am not suggesting we put in place these sorts of timelines for Wikipedia.
 * With respect to "Content Translation", what is required before you can use it is language dependent I think. IMO the bar on EN WP is too high and I opposed its addition.
 * If you are vetting their articles could they not create them in their sandboxes and you move them live after vettings? The level of support you provide are the exception rather than the rule.
 * Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:28, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

 * One issue is that of all  the millions of blogs, forums, and other website  comment  sections  out  there, Wikipedia is the least restrictive of who  can edit. IMO  it's an abberation. The problem is that  since humans leaned to write (and compose music, and WP:OR research papers), they  want  to  see thier work  published, and Wikipedia is a cheap, quick, and easy way to do  it. For  some who  can afford it, there are even editors (and, it is claimed by  the agencies, admins) who are making  a paid career out  of doing  it  for  them -  which  IMO  is a disgraceful  abuse of the voluntary  work  that  creates the encyclopedia and maintains it.
 * Despite our  efforts over the last  18 months to  improve WP:NPP  with  the new features and user right I  introduced (and for  AfC), far  too  many  articles of the wrong  kind still escape in-depth scrutiny.  We now have good (totally  overburdened) teams addressing  these issues.  and his managers on  our  side and offering  continued support, and we'll  be collaborating  with  them very  closely, but  it's still an uphill battle. These are points which  I believe  is missing -  and they  are now urgent.  Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:05, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * BTW, the ACTRIAL project  was given additional  impetus following  various  talks (some lasting hours)  I  had with many  people during  Wikimania 2016 in Italy - were you there ? It's not far from Scotland (I'm in Thailand). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:23, 18 March 2018 (UTC)


 * FWIW, the 'recent' on-Wiki discussions  date back  to December 2016 following  the talks I  had during my  participation  win  Wikimania in  Summer 2016, and our widely  notified  roll out  of the new Reviewer right  in  November 2016 implementing the equally widely  publicised RfCs at New pages patrol/RfC for patroller right and New pages patrol/RfC for patroller qualifications in October that year. It  was then addressed by the WMF at New pages patrol/Analysis and proposal on 31 May with  a vigorous discussion  on  its  talk  page. New page patrolling  is so  inextricably  combined with  the creation  of all new pages that  it  would have been almost  impossible for  anyone concerned with  page creation to have missed those and the many  other talks in  various  related venues. Major policies like these don't  get  made without  a lot  of noise - and I  mean a lot. In  addition, a great  many  discussions, which  also  mention  NPP  and ACTRIAL, regularly take place on  the eventual curbing or controlling Paid Editing where the special case of WiR has been frequently mentioned.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:16, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Accountability of Outreach
Just a quick  look  at  WP:COIN, and the vast number of covert paid advertorial that  arrives every day masquerading  as articles, will demonstrate already that the number of inappropriate articles is far greater than the sum of any  new articles realised through Outreach. We have teams of hundreds (proven) of volunteer editors dedicated to the tasks of patrolling new pages, detecting  COI and spam,  deleting  the articles and drafts, and blocking the accounts. Those are truly massive and time consuming operations. Alone the number of admins working in this area is far greater than the number of Outreach facilitators.

The crux of the matter under discussion here is that the outreach people were apparently not  concerned with  staying in touch  with  the day-to-day  workings of Wikipedia (although some of them were, are highly  active editors, and contributed regularly  to  the discussions). They are therefore not aware to  what  extent thier concerns feature in the bigger picture. Outreach is nice, I do some of it  myself, but I do not kid myself that it is ever going  to  make a significant contribution to  the growth of the encyclopedia compared to the number of new registrations and new articles that arrive without going through it. Wikipedia would still do fine and expand without  any  outreach  programmes at all.

Is the work of Outreach monitored and audited? The Outreach people may  be 'exasperated', but  I  am dismayed at  their dismissal  of the importance of the editing  limitations that have been proven to be highly  successful by  the trial, and the massive amount  of research by qualified statisticians  that was done before and during  it. Before ACTRIAL went live, we had to provide many  kinds of sophisticated statistics to  prove over again  what  the community  clearly  wanted 6  years ago, which was a stop  to  to  all  the unmitigated junk and spam that  our hundreds of new page patrollers were no  longer able to  cope with. As awareness of Wikipedia grows exponentially in other regions where English is widely spoken, so today is the situation far worse than it was in 2011.

Subjective, unproven claims that ACTRIAL has impacted the number of new registrations and articles realised through  the efforts of Outreach have no impact on the way Wikipedia users develop their new, organic solutions to address the good and the bad growth of the encyclopedia. Most importantly,  will need to provide some concrete statistics  and most  importantly, spend a few hours  patrolling  new pages from  the coal  face to obtain some first-hand experience. ' Enormous impact' needs backing up by enormous proof; these are the questions which Outreach needs to  answer in the form of audited stats - and this is a fraction of what was required before ACTRIAL  went live, and of what  was carried out  by the WMF during  it:
 * Number of training sessions during the 6 months prior to ACTRIAL
 * Number of training sessions during ACTRIAL
 * Number of students registered during the 6 months prior to ACTRIAL
 * Number of students registered during ACTRIAL
 * Number of new articles created by session students during the 6 months prior to ACTRIAL
 * Number of new articles created by session students during ACTRIAL
 * Number of students registered during the 6 months prior to ACTRIAL who have remained active editors.
 * Number of students registered during ACTRIAL who have remained active editors.

The upcoming RfC the community was promised as part of the bargain for ACTRIAL is not going to  be postponed just  because one Wikimedia project group has suddenly become aware of the greatest  talking  point  on Wikipedia for years. Again, no one is belittling the work  of the Outreach operators, but let's not dismiss the huge problems that brought the trial into action or belittle the efforts of those who launched it and monitored it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:48, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It seems a little unfair to expect six months' pre-trial statistics from someone who wasn't given six months' notice of the process waking up after being dormant since 2011. Also, perhaps the people who are being paid to assess ACTRIAL should be doing this work as part of their analysis of its impact, even if the results don't support the "right" answer. Certes (talk) 02:14, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I believe the brief to  the consultants has now been expended; we asked them what  we needed, and they  offerd and provided much  more. Of course it would be unfair  - I  was really  illustrating  the points in  order to  compare with what  was done and heavily  discussed in  several  venues for  three whole months before the trial  was rolled out -  ACTRIAL  has never really  been 'dormant' during  all these years since it  was first accepted by  its huge  original  RfC. We note  also, that  the Outreach  people  made no  comments during the trial and are now only  coming  up  with  their comments  about  it. I  did however mention  our  collaboration  with  the WP:Women in  Red  project, for  example. We  can't  really  cater for  people  who  prefer to  work on  Wikipedia (or indirectly  for  it) who  choose to  ignore what's going  on. That  said, Wikipedia is a stats-hungry project and no  major policy proposals get  carried without  them (I've worked on quite a few). I'm  surprised therefore, that  the Outreach teams don't appear to maintain  any records which  would demonstrate their impact (or lack of it). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:55, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I have just  discovered that  the UoE does provide some reports on their  editathons, but  I  still  remain astounded that  they  were not  aware of this: which is compelling reading. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:05, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

The RfC will be published in  the usual manner, and there will  be no  excuse for  anyone claiming  they  didn't  know about  it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:26, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I am glad that there are increased efforts to involve people involved in outreach, a valuable aspect of Wikimedia. I appreciate it is an awful lot of work to ensure as many effected parties as possible are involved in the discussion, but it is important to do so. There is an awful lot of haste here given that the trial concluded only four days ago. I wonder if it might be worth letting the dust settle before launching any RfC about the results of this trial. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:56, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * My take on  this is that  our new page reviewers will simply  give up  in  exasperation. And I  wouldn't  blame them. They  have made extroadinary  efforts  to  clear what  was a huge backlog, (including  the trash  that  would have been indexed by  Google after 90 days if not  patrolled) which  will  now grow again unless ACTRIAL  is permanently  implemented. These are the facts we have to  face. The vast  majority  of new registrations and new articles are not  made through editathons. The claims of the WiR can, and certainly will, be addressed, but  I  doubt  that  they  will  be taken into much immediate consideration  by  the regular editing  and maintenance community -  they  are the people  who  create  and maintain the encyclopedia.  Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:40, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that the argument for some kind of exception for those running outreach events has been well put by Stinglehammer, Richard Nevell and others, so i do not want to go over old ground. However i would like to lend my support for some flexibility and consideration here. Outreach work is hugely important in growing sustainable editing communities. I have run nearly 30 edit-a-thons in 3 years and editors who attended those events have gone on to create over 10,000 articles. I can say from experience that one of the main attractions of Wikipedia editing is that people can publish their work immediately and share it with the world - after all, Wikipedia is built on the idea that 'any one can edit'. Now when we host events we have to say 'anyone can edit, apart from you, until you can be trusted'. And as for getting people to sign up in advance, and make a few edits, it simply doesn't work in practice. Most people are either to busy or lack the confidence to edit until they have received some training, and can make their first edits whilst under supervision. There is a certain magic in clicking 'Publish' to create your own Wikipedia article and it would be a real shame and a betrayal of Wikipedia's core values to take that away from new good faith editors. Jason.nlw (talk) 09:29, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * @, To that I say a regretful "too bad". I too have been involved in editathons, and know that new users often want to create new articles. However, it has become apparent that allowing new users as a whole to have the ability to publish new articles has simply become too disruptive to be allowed to continue. The WMF's statistics on this are fairly clear. In addition, there are good workarounds that have been expounded upon higher in this thread, and the creation of a new user group for experienced event coordinators is by no means off-the-table (some of the motivation for not creating such a group 6 months ago was a desire to not spoil the statistics of the trial by making exceptions, which no longer applies). New users at Editathons are certainly higher quality than the average new editor, and I therefore would support a new user group for experienced event coordinators to be able to manually confirm them. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  21:38, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * @ It is a bit misleading to say that Wikipedia is no longer "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". Anyone can edit (almost any) article, and anyone can create a new article, with the restriction that you cannot immediately publish it to Mainspace without assistance (which is available at any edit-a-thon). This helps us to prevent vandals and spammers from destroying the encyclopedia. When I frame it that way at the edit-a-thons where I facilitate; nobody has ever complained that they couldn't do it themselves. Nor has anyone ever complained (to me, at an edit-a-thon at least. see the teahouse for complaints) that their article wasn't immediately indexed by a search engine, because they didn't get the autopatrolled user right). Requiring assistance to publish has another advantage; the organizers, who are experienced editors, have the opportunity to go over the article before it goes live and help make sure it will survive in Mainspace. Mduvekot (talk) 21:32, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * @ I'm not sure that saying "too bad" is helpful in anyway, or necessary, as you then go on to make valid points. It just adds to the 'us and them' feeling that is emerging in this thread. I completely understand the need to make changes in order to protect against vandals and spammers. I also agree that new users at edit-a-thons are generally higher quality and are almost always there for the right reasons. And that is exactly why i'm not suggesting we call the whole thing off. I simply think there should be some exception which allows event organizers to auto confirm new users in attendance. I think, if people stop being so defensive they might see that our view points are not that dissimilar. Jason.nlw (talk) 14:49, 20 March 2018 (UTC)


 * @ I can see where you are coming from with regards to the attitude of editors towards this extra step and the advantages or trainers having to check new content before moving it. Although a good trainer will check every article created at an event anyway. Most new users who have made the effort to attend an edit-a-thon are not generally the sort of people who would complain, although i have had to explain numerous times, why this new process is in place. What concerns me most is the way that this muddies the waters when we are pitching Wikipedia as a fair and open platform where anyone can edit, and suggests an element of mistrust of new editors. Jason.nlw (talk) 14:49, 20 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I endorse the comments made by Stinglehammer, who is a paragon of energy and enthusiasm. I reckon that the key technical issue is the four-day cooling-off period currently required for auto-confirmation.  This is a significant obstacle for outreach events which are usually just for a single day.  A waiting time of four days seems to be an arbitrary, artificial and unnecessary requirement because it adds no value or validation -- it's a purely bureaucratic delay.  It is quite contrary to the general approach of modern web services, which are expected to be immediate and responsive.  Get rid of the four-day delay and we are much more likely to achieve consensus. Andrew D. (talk) 13:43, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't buy that argument . You make it sound as if nobody here on Wikipedia does any hard work. Well, we do it All for FREE and a lot of us even burn the midnight candle to clear up the mess made by some editathons. Did you read this entire thread before commenting? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a web service, and the abberation is that access to editing it is the least restrictive of all the millions of forums and blogs out there. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:55, 19 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Not sure This conversation goes in various directions and I cannot address all of it. One point raised is that Wikimedians in Residence and staff Wikimedians for organizations should be in better communication with each other when they hear of relevant research, discussions, and policymaking. There is a Wikimedian in Residence user group and I posted a note about this discussion at meta:Talk:Wikimedians_in_Residence_Exchange_Network. Anyone who wants to participate in Wikimedian in Residence policymaking or news sharing might go there.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  14:12, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

@User:Andrew Davidson your comments are completely tone deaf to the concerns of those of us who volunteer at NPR. I tried to check WP:Andrew Davidson/CSD_log but it's empty. When you have some relevent experience with NPR please share your updated thoughts. If you think I don't know what I'm talking about look at User:Legacypac/CSD_log and the 9 pages archived behind it. Legacypac (talk) 16:18, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Even in my coin forum we require 10 posts before a new user can start a new topic. In facebook buy/sell groups we require Admin approval to join to keep out spammers. A vetting process is very normal. Legacypac (talk) 16:18, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Waiting people wait four days isn't a vetting process. Making people make 10 perfunctory edits isn't a vetting process either.  If there were some actual vetting then Legacypac might have a point, but there isn't any.  As for my experience, I've lots of experience of creating articles and defending other editor's articles from deletion.  But I notice that Legacypac didn't seem create any articles during 2017 and hasn't created any this year either.  Presumably this is the difference of philosophy detailed at deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia. Andrew D. (talk) 17:41, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * We can tell a lot about intent in 4 days and 10 edits. A cooling off period removes the impulse creation opportunity to do damage but does nothing to discourage a good faith contributor who understands a few checks and balances make life better. I'm actually an inclusionist who pushes to include drafts others deny. I have very extensive experience in draft and userspace and I can tell you the non-contributors posting garbage rarely get past 10 stupid edits before tiring out. I think three times before creating a new page. I've been involved in the early development of many high traffic pages. I may still be the top contributor to ISIL for example. At close to 100,000 edits, I've touched a lot of pages. Legacypac (talk) 18:04, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * , to imply that all those that support this are deletionists is rather rude. I also push to include drafts that others deny, and am considering proposing changes the the way AfC operates to reduce the number of declines of notable topics. You don't have to be a deletionist to approve of a trial that reduced the proportion of deleted new articles from 35% to 15% while simultaneously leaving the overall rate of article creation largely unaffected. Common sense is all you need. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  18:33, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * We can argue about why autoconfirmed worked as a vetting process, but the fact that it does is indisputable: we have statistical proof from ACTRIAL, and it is patently obvious to everyone who has done NPP over the last year. Personally I suspect the majority of instantly-deleted articles come from people who don't read the instructions at all. Adding the extra step of becoming autoconfirmed seems to be enough to filter those out.
 * The old deletionist vs. inclusionist chestnut isn't helpful here. I am an inclusionist when writing articles, trying to address systematic balance, or participating in AfDs of good articles. I'm a deletionist when I see the sheer volume of self-promoting rubbish that people who do not understand what an "encyclopaedia" is throw at this project every minute of every day. I'd encourage anyone who's worried about the necessity of ACTREQ to put aside philosophical arguments actually look at Special:NewPagesFeed. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 21:56, 20 March 2018 (UTC)


 * , FWIW, I'm neither an inclusionist  nor a deletionist. I  may  be one of the loudest voices on issues of RfA, NPP, and ACTRIAL, but  I certainly  try  to  interpret our  policies and guidelines as closly  as possible (I  think  I  know them quite  well) as far as their complexity  and contradiction is understandable even if I don't  always privately  agree with  them. One thing is sure: I  don't  argue with  stats and facts, and at  this stage of its maturity  of Wikipedia, 'philosophy' is not  part  of the equation. An encyclopedia is not  a socio-political  movement. It's a database of supposedly  neutral  content. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:33, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Effect on Non-English creations

 * The rate of creation of articles in languages other than English plummeted when the experiment began. When a flood of new articles needing translation started appearing at WP:PNT three days ago, I guessed that the experiment had just concludedand I was spot-on. And, while I haven't compiled figures on this, it's my sense that the majority of non-English articles posted there are fodder for WP:A2, WP:A10 (people translate articles that are already here and don't realize they belong on another language's Wikipedia) in addition to the more common types of speedy deletion and that, of the remainder, most of them never get translated and will wind up deleted within three weeks anyway. Largoplazo (talk) 23:21, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Two weeks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:30, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Two weeks till PRODded plus one week from then till deletion = deleted within three weeks. Largoplazo (talk) 01:29, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Not PRODed -  CSDd. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:25, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Whatever the exact mechanism for removal, knowing that ACTRIAL cut way down on non-English pages that almost all need to be deleted is very helpful. Another good reason to keep brand new accounts from throwing up new pages we have to process out of the system. Inrarely see a non-Englsih page in Draft BTW. Legacypac (talk) 05:32, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Any one with experience at  NPP  will  have noticed that  the vast  majority  of such  articles are in  Arabic script and are mostly autobiographies -  a quick  Google translation  is sufficient. They  are either CSDd when the non-English tag expired or even sooner by any admin  who  patrols the Articles for  Translation department. It's true that  we have had very few (if any) during  the ACTRIAL. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:19, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * In all the years I've been patrolling WP:PNT, articles that have sat there for two weeks have been PRODded. And there is no CSD criterion covering themat least, I don't know what criterion one would use, because I haven't seen it done. I think there should be, precisely because the two weeks are the grace period for these articles, but I'm talking about the current situation. Largoplazo (talk) 11:02, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

RfC on permanent implementation of ACTRIAL
There is currently a request for comment at Autoconfirmed article creation trial/Request for comment on permanent implementation about whether or not autoconfirmed status should be required to create an article in the main space. This is a follow up to the recently ended autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL). All are invited to participate. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:40, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Drawing this discussion together towards a workable consensus
Hi, wasn't going to comment again as I felt I'd made my point earlier. But some of the later comments seem to have misconstrued what I was actually saying. I realise for some this may seem like an 11th hour attempt to derail ACTRIAL and can well understand the strong views and how irksome this must be if you have worked long and hard on ACTRIAL. This is absolutely not about derailing ACTRIAL and, for the avoidance of any doubt, I have not once advocated the postponing or cancelling of ACTRIAL. I never at any point dismissed the long & hard work that has gone into this, or the work conducted at NPP and NPR. And I certainly don't think that my views or the work done in outreach is in anyway better or more important than anyone else's. The point was that now the trial is over we could discuss it and return to a discussion the Wikimedians in Residence raised 7-8 months ago about their concerns over the effect of ACTRIAL. The feeling was the effect on outreach had not really been given due consideration. This discussion ended not with any conclusion but because the trial was to go ahead and we had to let it run its course. Hence why there were no comments during the trial. We had to let it run its course with the expectation that there was to be a review period/"discussion month" at the end of the trial.For what it's worth, I actually favour quality control so am completely sympathetic to the aims of ACTRIAL. I just don't want increased quality control to be at the expense of the work we do in outreach. I also don't think that has to be the case when there seems to be a clear consensus forming about how to serve everyone's interests here. I do take Doc James' point about that the 4 day rule might increase respect for Wikipedia. I also take Jason.nlw and Andrew Davidson's point that there is a trade-off if you move from the encyclopedia that anyone can edit to the encyclopedia that trusted users can edit. And we may lose a bit of respect/admiration for our open editing model as a result. Which I don't accept is an "aberration". That is bit strong to suggest that. Question is whether the tradeoff to improve quality control is needed. It certainly seems to be but it is a pity that it is necessary.

3 main issues
As far as I can see there are 3 issues arising from this wide-ranging discussion. Two are about improving communication on an ongoing basis and one is the way I think we can find consensus on this particular issue. NB: For the record, Jason.nlw and I did attend Wikimania 2016 and made a point of attending as many sessions & having as many conversations as possible. I actually sat with you Kudpung for an entire afternoon discussing Wikipedia. Didn't come up once. Stinglehammer (talk) 17:27, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Communication issue #1 - For whatever reason Wikimedia UK, WiRs, Partner institutions etc. were not sufficiently aware of ACTRIAL until too late. I'm not a big fan of the "you're just supposed to know" argument some times used on Wiki. But we do need to consider if there is something missing in our own practice in outreach or how these big broad conversations are being both monitored & shared currently. My own work often takes me off-wiki and across multiple projects (increasingly into Wikidata) but that's really by-the-by. A discussion could definitely be had about this at the next AGM. Incidentally, were there any tweets, Facebook posts, Wikimedia blogposts put out about the ACTRIAL discussion? Reaching out is no bad thing at times to help improve awareness and participation but accept that centralised discussion spaces need monitored.
 * Communication issue #2 - There seems to be a certain amount of negativity around the work done by Outreach editors/trainers; including editathons, Wikimedians in Residence and education programs. This is deeply saddening and frankly alarming. We are indeed accountable, an incredibly large portion of our work is on reporting to evidence our impact and effectiveness. Perhaps this is not being communicated. While I can't speak for all editathons, and there does seem some concern on there being editathons that didn't work, I will say that have spent the last two weeks video interviewing lots of staff, students and library colleagues across the University of Edinburgh who love sharing knowledge in this way. If there have been any issues around the editathons I have conducted then I would obviously like to know about these issues so I can address them going forward to better serve the community at large. But so far in 26 months I have not had a single complaint. The articles we've generated all seem to exist fine on Wikipedia so quality control, which I check over, seems to be fine. And I can only recall two articles being deleted - one because the student's Norwegian was not up to scratch and one because the student's Chinese was not up to scratch. Mea culpa. If there is a tension between Outreach and the wider Wikimedia community we need to communicate where the issue lies and look to improve things as we cannot work in opposition like this. NB: I do take issue with outreach being described as unimportant to the movement. I do think we have made demonstrable in-roads in a number of sectors and our monthly & quarterly reports have too many tangible benefits to dismiss in this regard.
 * Achieving increased quality control without affecting outreach work - Main thing is how we meet the need for quality control of articles without it being at expense of our outreach work. I know a number of suggestions were made but my experience from teaching for 7 years and teaching Wikipedia for the last 26 months tells me that anything that involves a time delay, or requesting 100% signups a week in advance or creating more work for admins or more work for WiRs is not going to improve things. I hope other trainers like RexxS and Jason.nlwwould agree. Honestly, I think clear consensus that serves interests of everyone is in granting trusted trainers with the ability to auto confirm new users. That way trusted trainers can ensure the quality control is in place and that new users get to see the correct way of contributing to Wiki from beginning to end so they can replicate this going forward. Plus it would also help with allowing proficient bilingual and multinlingual users to translate articles and avoid new users feeling unnecessarily annoyed by the Captcha codes. So the RfC on granting the ability to confirm user rights to Event Co-ordinators would seem to the best way out of this particular discussion thread in a way that serves everyone.
 * My apologies, but I can't remember that discussion. Perhaps it  wasn't  focused on these issues - I'm  involved in  a variety of policy  topics. I hope I bought you a beer -  I usually do for anyone who will put up with me for that long! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:11, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You seem to be singularly focused on a single issue and unable to see the forest for the trees. Yes, this has a minor effect on outreach. Do you realise that in the last 6 months an estimated 40 thousand unsuitable Wikipedia articles by new editors would have been deleted? (300 articles a day by new users, 80% of which were deleted previously). That involves review by NPP, tagging, many will go on to a week long discussion, and then eventually an admin has to review it, and finally delete it. The minor effect that this might have on outreach is minuscule compared to the disruption we are avoiding. While I am sympathetic to outreach issues, and have worked in outreach myself, there are good commonsense workarounds that can workaround these issues, as have been pointed out over and over again:
 * Request users create an account 5 days before the event. One event leader reported 100% success with this request.
 * Have an experienced editor at the event move the pages after checking them. This can done on any device logged in as a user with appropriate rights and the new users can follow along and learn from it.
 * Have an experienced editor anywhere in the world monitor the drafts off an event page and move them as appropriate.
 * Have new users make a request at WP:PERM for confirmed status, specifying they are at an event and naming the editor running the event.
 * Have a physically or virtually present Admin give out Confirmed status for event participants.
 * —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  19:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Insertcleverphrasehere. Thanks for your comment. I am indeed "singularly focused on a single issue". I am being consistent. I raised this issue at the start of this thread, we have discussed it at length, suggestions have been made. I have listened to them and I am in full support of the Event Co-ordinator RfC TonyBallioni is raising as the best way forward. Not sure what is wrong with this. You say I don't "see the forest for the trees" about the bigger picture that ACTRIAL seeks to address. And then quote figures at me when I have already said that I am broadly in favour of ACTRIAL if it meets the needs of the community which is broadly seems to. The only thorn in the ointment is the effect it has on outreach work. I don't see this as an EITHER / OR situation. The issue I raised can be met by the RfC TonyBallioni created. You say it is minor but I beg to differ and I know of other voices working in Outreach today who, were I allowed to bring them into the conversation, would similarly concur with my view. User:Richard Nevell, User:RexxS, user:Lirazelf, User:Jason.nlw and others. I do appreciate that you have also worked in Outreach but can I ask has this been during the trial? If so, what were your observations? Perhaps I should also mention that running an event once in a blue moon with a healthy lead-up time might reduce the concerns I'm raising. But I often run multiple events in a week which informs my understanding of the practicality of the 5 suggested workarounds you make. And I know user:RexxS and User:Richard Nevell have similarly voiced that these workarounds are not always as practical as you suggest. Before I comment on each, can we consider for a moment what we actually mean when we talk about workarounds? "A workaround is a bypass of a recognized problem or limitation in a system. A workaround is typically a temporary fix that implies that a genuine solution to the problem is needed. But workarounds are frequently as creative as true solutions, involving outside the box thinking in their creation.Typically they are considered brittle in that they will not respond well to further pressure from a system beyond the original design. In implementing a workaround it is important to flag the change so as to later implement a proper solution."
 * Request users create an account 5 days before the event. One event leader reported 100% success with this request.
 * Comment - That was RexxS and contrary to popular belief he is not the only one working in Outreach (apologies RexxS no offence meant). 100% might work for events once in a blue moon but I'd be amazed if achieving 100% every single time was achievable. Not my experience because ultimately you can't force people to signup and nor would you want to deter people from attending that have suddenly become available or interested in attending. Some will sign up, some won't. The net result most often is you are left with a mixed group of trainees which makes it harder to manage than if they are all made confirmed users.
 * Have an experienced editor at the event move the pages after checking them. This can done on any device logged in as a user with appropriate rights and the new users can follow along and learn from it.
 * Comment - Depending on the event, I may be the only experienced editor in the room. I can do the moving for them, yes. But if they all finish at the same time, or have lengthy questions as user:Richard Nevell suggests, then it can make the room unnecessarily hard to manage at the end of the workshop resulting in a final flurry of activity which is not condusive to the stress levels of the trainer or the trainee. It also robs the trainee of seeing how to publish for themselves in the correct way so they know how to publish after the 4 days have elapsed and the sense of the ownership that they spent a worthwhile afternoon/day/two days researching, creating and then publishing a (perfectly good & vetted) article on Wikipedia. No small thing.
 * Have an experienced editor anywhere in the world monitor the drafts off an event page and move them as appropriate.
 * Comment - Creates more work for the trainer and more work for the experienced editor. Ultimately trying to reduce workloads not add more. Plus it ties you to people's availability which can vary greatly depending on the day. Not great if you run multiple events.
 * Have new users make a request at WP:PERM for confirmed status, specifying they are at an event and naming the editor running the event.
 * Comment - Slows down workshops and adds more content to workshop in terms of explaining the whole process. Plus creates more work for the trainer and more work for the WP:PERM editor. Ultimately trying to reduce workloads not add more. Plus it ties you to people's availability which can vary depending on the day. Not great if you run multiple events.
 * Have a physically or virtually present Admin give out Confirmed status for event participants.
 * Comment - Great if they are physically available. But I am often the only experienced trainer in the room. Creates more work for the trainer and more work for the Admin. Ultimately trying to reduce workloads not add more. Plus it ties you to people's availability which can vary greatly depending on the day. Not great if you run multiple events.
 * In summary, I honestly think the RfC suggestion is the best way to go as user:Richard Nevell, User:Jason.nlw, User:Lirazelf, User:Certes and user:RexxS have suggested. I'd like other Outreach editors to be able to add their tuppenceworth too so you could see this wasn't just us lobbying for this and that there actually is a wider consensus among Outreach editors. Stinglehammer (talk) 21:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * @, The event I attended was before ACTRIAL (Meetup/Wellington/Women_in_Science), but I understand the issue of not having time to move them yourself because you are being pulled in a bunch of directions. That is why I pointed out in my comments below that any user who did sign up 5 days before can move the articles for those who did not. I agree the event coordinator RfC is the right way to go, but we can't really pursue that until after the current RfC is finished (or else we have a proposal dependent on the outcome of another proposal). I referred to these solutions as workarounds for the exact reason that I expect that they will only be needed temporarily. Outreach survived just fine over the last 6 months, and I'm sure that you guys can deal with the workarounds for a short time while we sort out an 'event coordinator' role. As for notifying outreach editors, is there a specific noticeboard that outreach users frequent? —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  21:56, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * THANK YOU!!!! Insertcleverphrasehere. This is exactly where I'm coming from. I'll have a think where would be best to post such a message. We just can't go on like this, working in opposition. And you seem to have experience of both sides of the equation which is great for helping both sides see where issues lie. Anyway, I'll leave it for now until things calm down. NB: my intention was never to derail the RfC but rather to throw out a suggestion as to how we could get more Outreach editors to take part in discussions like these. Many, many, many thanks! Stinglehammer (talk) 23:34, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Briefly:
 * I'm sure you can see that a 100% success rate is by far the outlier and I've yet to see it replicated. There is always someone who has forgotten, hasn't had time, or just missed the message.
 * What if there's only one trainer at the event who has to divide their time between a dozen attendees?
 * You then have the issue of communicating with someone remotely and hoping they respond quickly.
 * Don't send a new user into the maze that is Wikipedia's bureaucracy unless you're actively trying to discourage them from editing. It's admin work, and nothing is less invigorating than doing admin.
 * Works when they're on hand, but they're not always.
 * The more dependencies there the more likely it is that something will go wrong. some of these will work some of the time for some situations, but can we please stop trotting out these memes as if they're some kind of miracle cure. We are already aware of the potential workarounds. As for being "singularly focused on a single issue" perhaps you could say something about the other two issues Stinglehammer you seem to have missed. Richard Nevell (talk) 20:14, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * @, I fail to see how the two first bullet points in conjunction would not be sufficient every time. Request that users create an account 5 days before (or request WP:ACCOUNTCREATOR for yourself and create an account for them) and you should have a pretty good success rate. As you say, some of the users might forget or fall through the cracks, in which case you can ask any other editor who did sign up as requested to move it for them. I fail to see this as a major issue. As for 's points: #1 These editors are not aware because they don't follow any of the policy discussion pages, short of sending out a sitewide watchlist notice, there is nothing we can do. Selective canvassing is not a solution, and there are good reasons why it isn't allowed. #2: The perceived 'negativity' is largely exasperation at profound lack of perspective and lack of willingness to try and do a new way of doing things. Some outreach editors seem unwilling to have anything change with regards to how they have always done things (this applies to #3 too). #3: Stinglehammer's comment "requesting 100% signups a week in advance or creating more work for admins or more work for WiRs is not going to improve things" shows a lack of understanding about what ACTRIAL is meant to address, less work for admins is exactly what we have been achieving. Once again I'll also point out that if you don't get 100% signups it doesn't matter, as any that did sign up can move the pages of those that did not, and it encourages collaboration and communication between editors, which is a good thing. Stinglehammer seems to want this change to have absolutely zero effect on outreach events, but the facts are that the effect on outreach is small, and the benefit to maintenance is huge (80,000 less articles that have to be deleted each year). —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  21:00, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Not an EITHER / OR situation Insertcleverphrasehere. We can achieve ACTRIAL and the positive benefits you wish to see without the need of workarounds which hamper Outreach. Why? because"a workaround is a bypass of a recognized problem or limitation in a system. A workaround is typically a temporary fix that implies that a genuine solution to the problem is needed. But workarounds are frequently as creative as true solutions, involving outside the box thinking in their creation. Typically they are considered brittle in that they will not respond well to further pressure from a system beyond the original design. In implementing a workaround it is important to flag the change so as to later implement a proper solution."Stinglehammer (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2018 (UTC)


 * We're working towards an RfC to be proposed if ACTRIAL is made permanent about an event coordinator user group. The community will have a chance to weigh in on whether it thinks your concerns are a good enough reason to exempt new event participants from the requirements if the changes are made permanent. There isn't really much more we can do here. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:20, 20 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Regarding "communication": in general I would consider posting at WP:CENT sufficient. If that isn't enough, what on-wiki pages do you watch?  Or should some other system (wikimedia-l@) be used for high-profile, arguably philosophical, proposed changes? power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 21:04, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Not all active users watch wikimedia-l@, and that brings up the canvassing issue. Ideally all notification should be handled on-wiki where it is transparent and active members of the community see it. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:07, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * What is there to actually discuss here? As far as I can see, everybody on this talk page agrees that a) ACTRIAL was good for Wikipedia in general but b) we need to come up with a way to mitigate its effect on outreach activities. There is nothing stopping you pursuing the latter, and Tony has kindly got the ball rolling at Event coordinator proposal. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 22:18, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The only issue is one of timing. Some of the outreach folks would like to see the 'event coordinator' solution implemented before ACTRIAL is made permanent, and oppose its implementation without a concrete long term solution for outreach in place before hand. In any case the genie is out of the bottle already, and I don't see the point of temporarily opposing permanent implementation on these grounds. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  23:01, 20 March 2018 (UTC)


 * both of you know me fairly well, and so I think you'll get how much it takes for me to say I don't see any further point in engaging in this conversation here. There is a concrete proposal but forward to meet their needs, but all we have here is whining that the community has thus far been unwilling to bow down to their 11th hour demands on their timeline. There is a proposal that meets all of the issues other than the when that is being discussed and drafted. It will be put forth to the community if the ACTRIAL RfC is successful, but not before, as it is a distinct proposal that the community has had issues with in the past, and where we need to work through the specifics. Further general discussion here is a complete waste of time, as I believe Stinglehammer is unwilling to even discuss anything other than what he sees as absolutely neccesary. Discussion should focus on a concrete proposal, not whatever this is. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:41, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Just so we don't end this discussion on sour note. My 3 points above were rather to move towards a workable consensus given I felt some had taken umbrage and misconstrued this discussion as somehow being against ACTRIAL. It's not. It never was. We are on the same page. No demands were made. There is as you say agreement all round that "a) ACTRIAL appears to be good for Wikipedia in general but b) we need to come up with a way to mitigate its effect on outreach activities". While I'm not the only one who voted Oppose for now in the RfC, if it calms things down I'd be happy to switch to Support in the hope that things can move forward in a more amicable fashion. All the best, Stinglehammer (talk) 00:05, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment. I appreciate that you are listening to the concerns I expressed. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:12, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Proposal creating an event coordinator user right
There is currently a proposal at Requests for comment/Event coordinator proposal about creating a new user right for event coordinators. All are invited to participate. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:44, 18 April 2018 (UTC)