I think we should focus on advice rather than procedure. We cannot prevent events that break our rules, and we shouldn't discourage spontaneous events. A couple of friends gathering to get Denmark up to usable status shouldn't need to be advertised weeks beforehand, while WMF planning a competition for getting better coverage of India should involve us in an early phase, probably more than half a year before the editing starts.

I wrote the first part of an alternative approach, including some from the existing content.

–LPfi (talk) 09:58, 22 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Your version is much better than mine, to be honest. //shb (t | c | m) 11:47, 22 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

I think we should ask organisers to declare any commercial support for their event. This includes support from tourist offices etc, and could be in the form of prizes or providing free venues for in person events. Generally this is unlikely to be an issue, but I would not be pleased if a restaurant chain offered a free meal for every listing added. AlasdairW (talk) 23:00, 26 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Feel free to add it to the list, I'd say. //shb (t | c | m) 23:36, 26 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Swept in from the pub

Hey everyone!

I wanted to bring up an interesting conversation happening over at Wikidata about forming a user group called trainer. The idea is to ensure that activities, especially those organized by Wikimedia affiliates, are led by experienced users who really know their stuff.

I think it would be great to kick off a similar discussion here. My suggestion is that any such events be accompanied by a sysop and that organizers give a heads-up about their plans at least thirty days in advance. We've all noticed how some activities can create more challenges for our volunteers than they solve, so I believe this could be a positive step toward improving the relationship between our communities and those seeking funding. Best, Galahad (sasageyo!)^(esvoy) 04:35, 20 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'd be in support of something like that. It prevents competitions that cause chaos such as the Africa Expedition we previously had that only waste everyone's time and any other net negative events. //shb (t | c | m) 04:40, 20 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Giving notice 30 days in advance is a long time. Even 2 weeks is more than sufficient. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:41, 20 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

1 week would be fine. Notice is less important than participants not posting copyvio, copying the same information in every destination article in a country, etc. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:03, 20 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

I disagree about the notice; advance notice is quite important, especially if the event is organized by a Wikimedia volunteer/affiliate funded by some Wikimedia community fund Galahad (sasageyo!)^(esvoy) 06:08, 20 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

I think 1 week or 10 days would suffice. I do agree notice is important – it allows us to prepare for an expedition beforehand and better track the participants' contributions as opposed to it being thrown all at once. I also maybe think we could lower the bar to patrollers, since patrollers are generally trusted enough to fully understand how Wikivoyage works. But overall, I still support any change as opposed to the status quo which in the past has caused us to waste months unnecessarily on cleaning up problematic articles which could be better spent elsewhere. //shb (t | c | m) 07:37, 20 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

I agree that a bit of notice is good, but the quality of the edits is the most important thing. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:31, 20 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yeah ultimately we want both. //shb (t | c | m) 09:15, 20 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

I think it would be good if we had 1 week's notice in advance of the event being advertised. It is better that we comment on event details before people the event is announced. This may mean that we get 14 days notice of some events and 100 days notice of others.

I think we can be more relaxed about the trainer requirements for in person events than online events and competitions. The amount of damage that 20 people at an event in a classroom for an afternoon can do is small compared to a month long competition. (I occasionally get invites to Wikipedia or Commons events held at a local university, run by their Wikimedian-in-residence.) AlasdairW (talk) 00:19, 22 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

I made a draft at User:SHB2000/Organising events – thoughts? //shb (t | c | m) 03:56, 22 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

The notice has several functions. For us being prepared to handle the edits caused by the event, a week is plenty. For us to convince organisers that they need to rethink their concept (points by number of articles created and the like), the discussion may require weeks – before the announcement that would include such issues is published.

Requiring an admin gives misleading signals about their role. The only reason why an admin would need to be involved is if the event causes a need to delete or hide created content or to block participants – nothing a well-planned event should cause. Autopatrollers and patrollers (as suggested by SHB) are more relevant groups.

Anyway, we cannot forbid and at least not prevent events that break our rules. Thus the page should focus on advice, and be made visible enough that "outsiders" will stumble upon it when in a preliminary phase of the planning. This includes WMF, which oddly enough often have people that don't understand the communities in such roles.

–LPfi (talk) 08:54, 22 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

The goal is to provide advance notice for community preparedness. Ideally, an enwikivoyage sysop should manage any resulting issues, not as a requirement but as a precaution. As a program host once said, "It's better to have a sysop and not need it than to need it and not have it"

Although I don't believe I have the right to vote in this community, I suggest including examples of well-organized events in the draft policy. Best, Galahad (sasageyo!)^(esvoy) 14:03, 22 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Every user has the right to vote or express an opinion here. It's a wiki! Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:07, 22 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

There are definitely things I appreciate about the draft (e.g., restricting it to medium- and large-scale events, rather than a few friends, and naming the problem of mistargeted incentives).

However, I wonder whether the thing we would really want is: If you're organizing this event, you need to know how to edit Wikivoyage yourself.

This would sound less like "Please follow these steps in announcing" and more like "Before you plan an event, you should first contribute a significant amount of material to a couple of Wikivoyage articles".

This community has been generous in providing ample feedback to would-be organizers who are taking the trouble to get familiar with our approach, and I think it is easier to teach what you know. We could suggest some other ways to learn, e.g., reading this page for a couple of months, patrolling RecentChanges to see what others are reverting, watching the low-traffic Wikivoyage:Arrivals lounge, etc. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:03, 23 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

I assume we're all good on moving this into projectspace now? //shb (t | c | m) 04:22, 9 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Done – it's now at Wikivoyage:Organising events. //shb (t | c | m) 22:48, 14 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

I don't feel a need for a user right for vetting people. Any of the regulars is welcome to set up an editing workshop whenever they want, e.g., at school, at work, or as a community event at their local library. Any of us could do it, and some of us have. We don't need a user right to do this.

The point behind a user right is to give you relevant tools. In the case of user rights such as w:en:Wikipedia:Event coordinator and w:en:Wikipedia:Account creator, it gives you tools that are useful for running an event (e.g., helping people create their accounts). User rights also make it easier to figure out who has these tools, because it puts you in lists such as Special:ListAdmins.

Unless specific tools are actually needed, I don't think we should create a user right. That tends to lead to a behavior we call "hat collecting" (trying to make yourself look important by getting as many user rights as possible, even though you aren't using them). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:33, 22 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

As someone who has seen plenty of people try at hat collect, I must say it's rather rare on this wiki and almost anyone who tries to hat collect is almost always stopped. That said, I'm still indifferent because I do see the use of allowing non-admins to use the mass message feature but at the same time, I do think autopatroller or patroller should be enough. //shb (t | c | m) 22:20, 22 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

I agree. I don't see why some special status is needed. If we've recognized someone as an autopatroller, we consider them a trustworthy editor. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:22, 23 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

I think there is still plenty of merit in discussing whether having a permission to allow non-admins to use Special:MassMessage, though. //shb (t | c | m) 01:43, 23 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'd trust a patroller to use it. If they're going to abuse it, they shouldn't have been made a patroller. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:51, 23 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Personally I'm fine either way of whether we want mass message to be included with patroller or a separate perm, so long as it's not bundled with autopatroller (since autopatroller requires a lower trust level than patroller and we have had to remove autopatroller from a few users before). //shb (t | c | m) 04:01, 23 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yes, we have. We agree. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:02, 23 February 2025 (UTC)Reply