Wikipedia talk:Autoconfirmed article creation trial/Request for comment on permanent implementation

Opposes don't need badgering

Just a quick reminder that we should all strive to be civil and not badger any of our fellow participants. Healthy discussion should be encouraged, but not every oppose !vote needs a basket of lengthy replies. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:33, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. I notice this is common when a discussion is already one-sided -- perhaps the obvious majority feels emboldened. To borrow a phrase from Victor Hugo, there is no need to increase the defenses when the fortress is least threatened. --RL0919 (talk) 15:53, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

The problem is largely the opposers are writing things that demand a response. How can someone with no involvement in NPR or deleting inappropriate pages make any helpful points about how the rest of the project deals with the flood of crap? When solutions to their objection are provided, they dismiss the solutions while insisting that ACTRIAL is bad. It is rude and disruptive to reject a proven solution to the flood of crap while providing no alternatives. Legacypac (talk) 19:39, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps, but we are all of us entitled to an opinion and rude and disruptive need not beget rude and disruptive. Perhaps also they do not feel the solutions provided are indeed solutions. Regardless, this isn't a vote, so there is no need to harangue users if our ripostes sufficiently counter their argument in the eyes of the eventual closer. ~ Amory (u • t • c)

In general I agree with you, and noticed this quite a while ago on this thread (it is also common at RfA). However, most of the Oppose !votes are from people ignorant of the processes at NPP and AfC, or misunderstand the effect that ACTRIAL is likely to have on this or that. Those of us that have followed the research closely find it rather irksome to have these misrepresentations sitting out there uncorrected (take Kudpungs recent comment on the second to last oppose as a perfect example). — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 06:56, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

• I do agree with User:Amorymeltzer, but I can also understand the frustration felt by some. A bunch of people actually try to do something to help stem the torrent of dross that we have to deal with every day, and work very hard to make ACTRIAL happen - and then present the results clearly and objectively, showing what a huge success it has been. The folks at WP:AFC have been doing a grand job of keeping up with the backlog, and ACTRIAL has greatly reduced the massive burden on people working WP:NPP and has seriously reduced the A7/G3/G11/etc rubbish clogging up WP:CSD. And people turn up here to voice philosophical objections without apparently ever having lifted a finger to help in any of these areas. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:01, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Extend or not

Collaboration effort of a new editor. The trial is to allow only Autoconfirmed editors to create new articles. The request is for a comment on the permanent implementation of said trial is not a discussion of Wikipedea policies and guidelines. nopv. The trial is just that, a trial, so compile the information and then should a consensus be reached to extend permanently, put that to the community. Deermouse (talk) 12:46, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

@Deermouse: I don't follow. The trial has taken place and ended. This is a request for comments on whether to permanently implement these changes. So what do you believe we should do differently? Regards SoWhy 12:51, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

The permanent implementation as policy or admin would be perfectly fine with me as a new editor. Finding myself under those restrictions does not stop me from becoming the Wikipedean inside of me. Apprentices do not become editor in chief overnight. So if this is a vote for consensus count my say Yay. Clarity of statement achieves understanding.Deermouse (talk) 13:03, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Deermouse, if you want to support, click "edit" next to the support header and then put #'''Support''' your comment here. ~~~~ Likewise, if you want to oppose, you'd switch support for oppose, and put it in the relevant section. The great part of Wikipedia is that we are self-governing, and anyone can edit applies to these policies as well. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:29, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I can't find the support header.Deermouse (talk) 13:43, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Click here to edit the Support section. Place your comment/vote at the very bottom of the page. Primefac (talk) 13:44, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Shouldn't we wait for the 6-month results?

Although this RfC implies that the research results are for the full 6-month period, they are actually only from the first two months. That needs to be clarified in this RfC asap. But in general, shouldn't we wait for the results of the full 6 months to be posted before !voting on this? Mike Peel (talk) 01:32, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

We have all the results WMF is going to give us. Legacypac (talk) 01:35, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

@Legacypac: , plus that's not at all scientific. Mike Peel (talk) 01:39, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

You already posted on the talk page of the report. Info is all there. The WMF thought 2 months of trial was enough but the community voted for 6 months. Legacypac (talk) 01:52, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

@DannyH (WMF) and Kaldari: can confirm this. I can't find the diff now, but the independent data scientist the Foundation hired thought that this would be sufficient to detect statistically significant changes, and because it would allow for a common window of statistical analysis, since they began doing some of the final analysis in December. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:21, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

That's correct. There are no more results coming from the WMF. Our analysis is finished. We would welcome, however, any additional analysis from the community. See Wikipedia talk:Autoconfirmed article creation trial/Post-trial Research Report#Term examined for further discussion on this. Kaldari (talk) 03:01, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

The analysis was so thorough, accurate and conclusive that it would never have been necessary to prolong it. The rest of the effect on New Page Patrolling and AfC speaks for itself, especially since the trial ended. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:57, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: I'm just digging through old threads I need to respond to. If I'm not mistaken, you're referring to this discussion on the talk page on Meta. Yes, we needed a consistent window across all our analysis. As you also mention, it's unlikely we'll gain much information by extending the analysis to the full six months. Cheers, Nettrom (talk) 19:41, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Analysis of additional data would give us a better picture of how the trial affected AfC. "AfC backlog struggle" is highlighted several places in the report as an apparent WMF concern. I have made an open request for further analysis which could potentially substantiate or unsubstantiate this concern. The "struggle" may not actually exist and, in any case, does not appear to be a concern for AfC reviewers nor the larger community and so the analysis is likely unnecessary. ~Kvng (talk) 15:12, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

In a nut shell, AfC submissions are highly variable but generally rose durimg ACTRIAL (but have not decreased at the trial end by the same as the increase at the trail beginning for some reason) The backlog of unreviewed submissions has always gone up and down in waves. Most pages are quickly (48 hours) rejected or accepted but edge cases or more technical topics may wait up to 8 weeks for review. The ones that wait have often been rejected a few times already. Submissions are either reviewed off the Newest or Oldest, with some randomly selected pages from the middle. Help is needed request access to the script here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Participants Legacypac (talk) 16:16, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

2+ weeks, 200 !votes, closure and POINTY

It has been two weeks now, and over 200 participants have contributed their voices to the discussion. All the major arguments have been made, and all the counterarguments made too. All the recent !votes indicate this; users have been merely citing others comments or reiterate why they in particular fall on one side of the fence or the other. This shows that the 'discussion' has stagnated and we are simply marking time. The 'oppose' !votes have been around 10% pretty much since the beginning, and have remained so.

I realise that the original RfC called for 30 days of discussion, and I respect the views of those that declined the SNOW closure-request nearly a week ago. However, the discussion has been had, and do we really need to wait another two weeks while the NPP backlog continues to raise?

We are in danger of being POINTY in requiring a full month when the discussion has so obviously stagnated. NPP will already have to do a lot of catch-up, we don't need more, and it is plain to everyone what the outcome will be of this discussion.

The sooner we can move on to the RfC on an edit coordinator usergoup, and give those guys some closure on how we can integrate them into the new system, the better. AfC reform discussions are also somewhat waiting on the outcome, as we have new decline templates to discuss, where the format will depend on the outcome here.

In short, we have other work to do, so lets finish up here. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 03:44, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm very sympathetic to those points, especially over the pressure being piled once again on the hardworking folks at NPP. But I think we should stick to the agreed timescale and not leave open any procedural weaknesses that opponents might subsequently exploit. A month with no AC restrictions is not a lot compared to the years we had to suffer before ACTRIAL happened. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:22, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

• Suggestion: turn WP:ACREQ back on for the rest of the RFC period. If the results change we can always switch it off again based on the final numbers. Legacypac (talk) 09:32, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

• There are people who have not even voted who will yell "Out of process!" if we close this RfC early or switch ACTRIAL back on already. What is however needed is someone waiting in the wings to close immediately the RfC time limit expires. It not going to take a team of three a week to close, but it needs to be a highly respected closer because this is a very high level RfC. AfC will just have to be patient and there will be more to it than just making a couple of palliative new templates. Despite the reform I introduced there and Primefac's careful caretaking since, AfC has never performed as well as it should and new templates are not going to address the core issues.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:47, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
• If we must have bloody-minded adherence to process:

1. The exact wording at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Proposal_to_require_autoconfirmed_status_in_order_to_create_articles/Trial_duration is "A discussion will take place over the 30 days immediately following the end of the trial".
2. WP:RFCEND states "The RfC participants can agree to end it at any time...".
3. This RFC states "it is proposed that as from 3 May 2018, (or sooner if a consensus is reached)"

By my count, that makes 13 April the already approved date that avoids IAR. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 10:00, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't much like what you well describe as bloody-minded adherence to process myself, but some people do and I'm most concerned at this point that we don't leave any doors ajar for opponents - especially not after the huge amount of hard work put in by the folks who made the trial happen. I think we should let it run for a full 30 days from the start of the discussion, which I think would make it 18 April, just to forestall all foreseeable objections. Let's not leave any risk open just for the sake of a few days. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:09, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I'll just add that my wariness stems in part from the difficulty in getting through a global ban on meta once - it was an obvious ban candidate, but it took two lengthy attempts and a lot of words to get it accepted, against those battling over inane and pedantic procedural points. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:12, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Further WP:RFCEND says " If the matter under discussion is not contentious and the consensus is obvious to the participants, then formal closure is neither necessary nor advisable. ... Editors are expected to be able to evaluate and agree upon the results of most RfCs without outside assistance. An RfC should last until enough comment has been received that consensus is reached, or until it is apparent it won't be.

Anyone can evaluate the results now. With north of 80% support it is no longer contensious. Enough comments have been received that concensus is reached. RRFCEND almost requires us to end this now. Legacypac (talk) 10:18, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

• Per BsZ above, let it run its course. This is a significant change to how enWiki has operated for years, and 30 days is the least we can give it. The 'pedia won't fall apart in the next two weeks; the current state of affairs is the normal situation anyone with greater than seven months tenure should be familiar with. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:50, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
• Just an observation... I'm working at CAT:CSD on article space nominations to help keep the problems down, and I am seeing an uptick in things like spammy company promotion by unconfirmed editors which would have been stopped by ACTRIAL. But it doesn't seem too bad, and I'd say it's reasonably easy to manage. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:22, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

There is a possible explanation for that. We've trained a bunch of corp spammers who use throw away accounts they have to use AfC. When ACTRIAL started AfC submissions shot up, but when it ended AfC submissions decreased, but not by much. If all new accounts were true new users we should have gone back to pre-ACTRIAL levels. User:Espresso Addict and User:Primefac ran the numbers. Some of them don't realize they can go direct to mainspace again and they don't dare use the same account for creating spam page after spam page so they never get autoconfirmed. The impulse creation idiots were the main group stopped by ACTRIAL. Good Faith users used AfC. It is like installing an electric fence-after a while you can turn off the power and the cows will still avoid the fence. Legacypac (talk) 11:41, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, there very possibly is an electric fence effect. I wonder how long it will last. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:32, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

The increased declined junk from the start of the trial is just starting to go CSD G13 now. Legacypac (talk) 11:48, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Personally, I agree that it would not be improper to speedily close this RfC. Discussion and debate has essentially ended, and the consensus is overwhelmingly in favor of re-introducing the trial. Opponents can of course raise a hellstorm, but I don´t think their claims of an inappropriate closure will gain much traction with neutral users in light of those facts. But I´m also not too concerned about the backlog either. The backlog fell over 75% during the six-month trial, from over 16,000 articles to less than 3,000. We´ll survive one month without difficulty. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 15:50, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

To be more precise the backlog did not fall by gravity it was driven down through the incredible hard work of a small number of dedicated NPRs. None of the opposes here are part of that group AFAIK. NPR is still hard at work but the backlog is rising steadily while we fail to accept the obvious consensus. I used to do some NPR but mostly AfC and Draft management. Since ACTRIAL ended I've been doing New User-New Page NPR and its depressing and frustrating the amount of crap pouring in again.

Every person that has opposed wrapping this up is a strong supporter of ACREQ - they are worried we will lose it on some technicality or because someone that as not even voted yet will object. I think that is not a realistic fear or concern. Legacypac (talk) 16:04, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

@Legacypac: Obviously it was the result of reviewers´ hard work. My point is that while the backlog is currently growing, no permanent harm will be done to the project by waiting another two weeks. Once ACREQ is reinstituted, we´ll get the situation back to normal. I imagine it won´t take longer than a month. Would I prefer we close this now? Yes, absolutely. I consider the fears unsubstantiated. But while this influx is obviously inconvenient, I don´t consider it to be anything resembling a crisis. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:19, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

@Compassionate727, to be clear, nearly all of the reduction of the backlog happened during the Christmas-New Years period (when reviewers had more time) and during the January Backlog drive. We had actually stalled for over two months at around 3.5K by the time the 14 March rolled around. Another two weeks won't be the end of the world but it is also unclear exactly how long it will take to bring it back down. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 20:25, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Trying to get consensus to end the RFC early is clearly going to be more difficult than getting a consensus on the RFC. Let's let it run and not get impatient and distracted. When conversation gets exhausted and stays there for a couple weeks the close will be easy. ~Kvng (talk) 16:47, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

That is, unfortunately, the salient point here it seems. While I don't consider it likely that ACPERM could somehow be cancelled due to out of process arguments (not with support at 89%), I can understand why some of you guys might have those concerns given the way that ACTRIAL implementation went down the first time. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 20:25, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Submissions from India

• Just another observation, spurred by what looks like a bigger influx of company spam today... it's mostly from India. Commercial spam from that country has been, and continues to be, a serious drain on Wikipedia resources (outstripping spam from the whole of the rest of the world put together, in my experience), and I will be very happy when the trial becomes permanent (even if I oppose ending the RfC early). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:34, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm starting to think every other person in India is an actor, politician, or businessperson trying desperately to get their own Wikipedia page plus one for their village and high school. Maybe the Foundation should start a WikiIndia Bio website we can send them all to?

There must be many millions more of aspiring youths – and not only in one country – who will be coming forward to delight us with their offerings until we devise ways to persuade them to stop before they start, without of course deterring potentially useful editors: Noyster (talk), 10:38, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, yes, yes. Bollywood actors would be the biggest piece of the NPP pie chart. I almost wish there were some kind of edit filter for this. Natureium (talk) 13:54, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

It is only natural that the India and Pakistan, countries with the second and third highest number of English speakers, 125 million and 100 million respectively, contribute significantly to English Wikipedia. I also think it's quite clear that Hollywood actors are a substantial part of English Wikipedia, so it should come as no surprise that Bollywood actors have a large presence. FWIW, we have in the order like 65,000 articles about American actors, and 6,000 about Indian actors, despite the fact that Bollywood sells more tickets than Hollywood. To suggest that Bollywood actors are over-represented is a bit of a stretch, perhaps? Vexations (talk) 15:17, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't know if they're overrepresented in Wikipedia in general, because I'm not interested in reading articles about celebrities. At NPP, there seem to be a lot more articles on Bollywood actors being created, although there's probably a similar amount of articles on sportspeople and sports teams from the 20th century to sort through. Natureium (talk) 15:23, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

In the NewPagesFeed right now we have 11 articles that match the phrase "American actor" and 8 that match "Indian actor". Vexations (talk) 15:36, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

The torrent of spam from India that I've been seeing for years is nothing to do with Bollywood (which I would love to see well represented), it's A7/G11 rubbish about non-notable individual people and companies. I've no idea what it is about India that makes it the source of such junk, though I must say it's one of the most astonishingly wonderful countries I've visited. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:27, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Example from one I just deleted a minute ago - "The company has a network of consultants for providing connection, expertise, and cultural awareness to help organisations explore new market". That's an example of the marketing dross from India that is typical. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:39, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

And from another one I deleted a little earlier, "We challenge the conventional perceptions, and delivered innovative solution that embarked our brand name in International markets. From one man Vision to strong bridge of skilled, experienced, passionate, desiring, creative and dedicated team members, all under one roof are called [company name]'. That really is typical of Indian spam. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:45, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

It continually amazes me what people think they're entitled to post on Wikipedia. We need to have some screen-filling, flashing message for all new users saying that advertising and promotional language are absolutely not allowed and requiring them to certify that they understand that before editing. As far as India goes, well, it has a huge and growing English-speaking population and a rapidly advancing tech sector, so it's not terribly surprising that it's responsible for a lot of traffic around here. I suspect that cultural differences between India and the First World, relating to the norms of where advertising is acceptable and expected, are driving many of these misunderstandings. I was obviously kidding about the flashing message, but I suspect we probably could do more right up front to make our standards clear. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 16:43, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Indian paid news scandal understates the situation. When evaluating sources from India look really carefully amd look for multiple sources. I once watched a travel show host buy his way onto page 3 of a major indian paper for the price of dinner. He put some very fanciful claims in his fake news story too. When paid fake news is cheap, Free Wikipedia is even better. Legacypac (talk) 19:18, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

That's good to be aware of. Thanks! Natureium (talk) 19:59, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• As a nation with a massive English speaking population but still only a developing wiki-presence, it is no surprise that a large proportion of all new submissions are from India. It seems that a sizable contingent of the editors are paid/COI editors, and that really isn't a surprise either. I've also seen plenty of great articles come from Indian Wikipedians. Nothing to be done except be vigilant at NPP. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 20:40, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
• It's...wild guess...around a half a billion people who have an intermediate understanding of English. People with an intermediate understanding of English from anywhere are going to be the least likely to understand policy, and among the most likely to copy/paste from something online written by someone who speaks the language well. GMG^talk 20:44, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Potential AfC process improvement with Community Tech team

Hi all -- I'm Marshall Miller; I'm a new product manager on the Community Tech team with DannyH at WMF. As part of the follow-up to ACTRIAL, the Community Tech team is going to have some bandwidth over the next couple months to take on an improvement to the AfC process. I've been following along with the conversation to learn about the biggest challenges facing AfC and the ideas for improving it.

Though I’m new to this process, I’ve attempted to summarize AfC’s challenges, goals, and ideas for improvement here: AfC Process Improvement May 2018.

Unfortunately, the Community Tech team will only have limited bandwidth to make a focused improvement, but we want to make sure it is valuable. I hope those of you interested in AfC can check out the linked page above, help fill in gaps of things I’ve missed, and be part of a conversation of what sort of impact Community Tech can make during April and May. We're hoping to consolidate around some of the top ideas by next week, and then we'll start to scope and narrow down to one together. -- MMiller (WMF) (talk) 22:11, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Is today the day to close this?

According to this calculation yes: If we must have bloody-minded adherence to process: The exact wording at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Proposal_to_require_autoconfirmed_status_in_order_to_create_articles/Trial_duration is "A discussion will take place over the 30 days immediately following the end of the trial". WP:RFCEND states "The RfC participants can agree to end it at any time...". This RFC states "it is proposed that as from 3 May 2018, (or sooner if a consensus is reached)" By my count, that makes 13 April the already approved date that avoids IAR. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 10:00, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Legacypac (talk) 18:47, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

It's only six days until the RfC has run for a month and we can say we've dotted all the is and crossed all the ts. Now would be a good time to find somebody experienced to close it promptly when the time comes, though. – Joe (talk) 19:28, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

5 days. March had 31 days, so the end date is 18 April. I put the 3 May 2018 date as a deadline to give the WMF two weeks to work out any technical things they may need to do beforehand, and it also gives us time to get the ball rolling on any followup proposals. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:37, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I think Tony's right, but what the WMF needs to do is not a major software tweak. What we do need now is for someone to be prepared to close the Rfc promptly. The consensus will be very easy to judge, but the closing statement will be lengthy and will take the closer a day at least to go through the whole thing to be able to make an objective report. I've also prepared another Special Report for The Signpost and I would like to meet the next publication deadline with it if possible. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:44, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

We need to make sure that someone is ready to close this promptly on the 18th. That being said, we are more than coping at NPP, with a reducing backlog, largely due to a prodigious effort by one of our top patrollers who decided to go on a one woman new page reviewing crusade for the last week (Boleyn).

Any volunteers to help close the RfC when the time comes? Could be more than one person. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 23:07, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't think we need a team closure on this, that's usually for close calls or things that are expected to be, where pretty much no matter what the close is it's likely to be contentious. This really isn't a close one at all. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:11, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. There is no need at all for a team closure. We just need an uninvolved user, preferably an admin given how significant the RfC is and the amount of back and forth. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:15, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Not disagreeing! But as stated above by Kudpung, the close needs to have a good writeup, which might be accomplished by a team. I'm open to either, but would like to see someone coming forward before the date. I suppose we can always ask over at WP:AN for a volunteer. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 23:18, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I suspect that there are likely a few admins waiting to close it, but if it doesn't happen quickly, we could post at AN. While I get the anticipation of this closing, I'm also not that worried about the specific timing. The Wikimedia Foundation has likely been following this and has an inkling about where it is going to land, and the exact timing of the closure is less important: they roll out changes on Thursdays, and the RfC proposed 3 May, so they'll have plenty of time to implement it technically. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:27, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Not sure why they will need 2 weeks, as it will essentially just be flipping a switch back to the ACTRIAL version. They could do it as early as this Thursday if closed promptly on the 18th (though I consider Thursday next week to be far more reasonable). In any case, whatever it ends up will be fine I'm sure. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 23:57, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Proposal creating an event coordinator user right

There is currently a proposal at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Event coordinator proposal about creating a new user right for event coordinators. All are invited to participate. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:43, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Implementing ACPERM

In case anybody else doesn't know the WMF is aiming to implement ACPERM the week of April 30. See T192455 which was posted at this query I made. Jytdog (talk) 20:12, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

ACPERM is now live

Per this comment from Kaldari, ACPERM is now live on en.wiki. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:57, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Splendid news. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:59, 26 April 2018 (UTC).