Focus
[edit]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)
- Your version is much better than mine, to be honest. //shb (t | c | m) 11:47, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
Commercial sponsorship
[edit]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)
- Feel free to add it to the list, I'd say. //shb (t | c | m) 23:36, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
Event trainers
[edit]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)
- 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)
- Giving notice 30 days in advance is a long time. Even 2 weeks is more than sufficient. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:41, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Yeah ultimately we want both. //shb (t | c | m) 09:15, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
- 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)
- I made a draft at User:SHB2000/Organising events – thoughts? //shb (t | c | m) 03:56, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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"
- I made a draft at User:SHB2000/Organising events – thoughts? //shb (t | c | m) 03:56, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah ultimately we want both. //shb (t | c | m) 09:15, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Giving notice 30 days in advance is a long time. Even 2 weeks is more than sufficient. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:41, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- I assume we're all good on moving this into projectspace now? //shb (t | c | m) 04:22, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
- Done – it's now at Wikivoyage:Organising events. //shb (t | c | m) 22:48, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
- I assume we're all good on moving this into projectspace now? //shb (t | c | m) 04:22, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Yes, we have. We agree. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:02, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
Guideline to policy
[edit]Right now, this page still stands as a guideline and not a policy. This means that a notification is not technically required and current policy standpoint is that this page is still only a strong recommendations. This is less than ideal, since the lack of proper notification such as this one, allowing us to essentially mandate event organisers to notify the community in advance and also allow us to take action on event organisers that repeatedly organise poorly-managed events without notification (including bans, which prevent any future WMF grants being given). While this won't solve everything, I don't think it's a huge ask for us to request organisers to give the community proper notice (and in the case of "forgots" or "didn't knows", it becomes an open indicator of a poorly-managed event). //shb (t | c | m) 13:01, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
- Support this becoming a policy. I think we should also add a section on grants, but I need time to think of the wording. AlasdairW (talk) 00:26, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
- I think for the purposes of local policy, grants should basically be treated as any organised event with monetary prizes involved. If a user fails to comply then a user block will prevent them from future grants. //shb (t | c | m) 03:51, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
- I think the policy should apply to any WMF grant, with notification 14 days before submission. This would include grants that were not for events. The policy should also apply to large grants from other sources ($500+ including free stuff of that value) - the limit is intended to not require notification for an offer of a free venue & refreshments for a small in-person event. AlasdairW (talk) 22:59, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
- That sounds very reasonable to me. //shb (t | c | m) 23:33, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
- I've removed the guideline template on this page since most of us here seem to support it and no arguments have been made for why it shouldn't be made one. //shb (t | c | m) 09:18, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
- You did a lot more than just "remove the guideline template on this page".
- There are only four people in this discussion. You proposed it, Alasdair and Ikan supported it, and I oppose it. I oppose making this page a policy because the reasons for making it a policy are invalid and because making it a policy will not solve the stated problem. That is two "arguments for why it shouldn't be made a policy".
- Let me spell out the invalid rationales:
- You said that the lack of 'policy' status says that compliance is "not technically required". This is not true. We have all kinds of things that are absolutely required even though they are not written down on a 'policy' page. For example, the Wikivoyage:Spam filter is not marked as a 'policy', and compliance is absolutely mandatory (and automatically enforced by software).
- You said that "current policy standpoint is that this page is still only a strong recommendations". There is no policy page saying that there is any difference between pages marked as 'guideline' and pages marked as 'policy'. I assume you've made this assumption based on your experience at other wikis.
- You said that we can't "essentially mandate event organisers to notify the community in advance" unless this page is a 'policy'. This is not true. We mandate things all the time without having a page marked 'policy'. The spam list isn't a policy, and compliance is mandatory. The abuse filter isn't a policy, and compliance is mandatory.
- You said that we can't "take action on event organisers that repeatedly organise poorly-managed events without notification", except that this is not true. We absolutely can do this. We can even take action against organizers who do give notice.
- IMO more importantly:
- We need "proper notice". The edit you made does nothing to get us proper notice.
- Well, I suppose that eventually, indirectly, it might have an effect. If you block a bunch of people for attempting to contribute without providing "proper notice", then eventually we'll get a really bad reputation as a bunch of unwelcoming, rule-bound jerks, and most of the event organizers will warn people away from Wikivoyage. We won't get "proper notice", because we won't have any groups trying to help. But that's not what you were hoping, right?
- If you want to solve the problem of not getting "proper notice", then I suggest that you look at the end of this thread and think about how we could actually get that proper notice. "I changed the magic word at the top of the page" is not a realistic solution. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:04, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
- To be clear, would you support the new form of words we're discussing below if we called it a "guideline", rather than a "policy"? The important thing is for us to agree among ourselves on what our policy/guidelines is/are and make the page easily readable and understandable. Then we can publicize these requirements for events more widely. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:40, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
- I've removed the guideline template on this page since most of us here seem to support it and no arguments have been made for why it shouldn't be made one. //shb (t | c | m) 09:18, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
- That sounds very reasonable to me. //shb (t | c | m) 23:33, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
- I think the policy should apply to any WMF grant, with notification 14 days before submission. This would include grants that were not for events. The policy should also apply to large grants from other sources ($500+ including free stuff of that value) - the limit is intended to not require notification for an offer of a free venue & refreshments for a small in-person event. AlasdairW (talk) 22:59, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
- I think for the purposes of local policy, grants should basically be treated as any organised event with monetary prizes involved. If a user fails to comply then a user block will prevent them from future grants. //shb (t | c | m) 03:51, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
- Back in the day, Wikivoyage didn't have guidelines at all. We have tried to avoid the complexity that the English Wikipedia revels in (NB: I've personally written a lot of that complexity over the last 19 years) and specifically to avoid making distinctions about what's "not technically required".
- When we're talking about ordinary, neurotypical, non-rules-lawyering people, slapping the word "policy" on a page makes no difference. I can't emphasize this enough: people violate "policies" at the English Wikipedia every hour of the day, without punishment of any kind. And they follow some parts of some guidelines scrupulously, without the slightest deviation. I can tell you without bothering to check that there have been exactly zero violations of w:en:WP:ELNEVER #2 so far this year, even though it's "just" a guideline. But the core content policies get violated regularly. I posted a "policy violation" myself yesterday (I can't find a source after a diligent search, but I added the uncited content anyway). Nobody's going to care.
- I recommend w:en:WP:PGE to anyone who thinks that policies require higher levels of compliance.
- If your goal isn't about tidiness or emotional expression ("You kids stop that right now, or I'm going to pull this car over and make this page a policy! I'm serious!"), and you just want to make it more likely for people to comply, then I suggest these two things:
- Get this publicized through non-Wikivoyage processes. Advertise this page through the m:Grants: team, at outreach: wiki, on GLAM pages, etc. – any place where event organizers might find it.
- Publicize this through Wikivoyage processes. For example, redirect Project:Welcome, event organizers to this page, and list it as a ==See also== on all the other welcome pages. Make it very easy for event organizers to find this page.
- WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:08, 10 January 2026 (UTC)
- Your recommendations for publicity sound very good, and maybe you'd like to help us with those after we provisionally finish this discussion (because policy discussions are never irrevocably finished on this site), but the point is to make this an enforceable policy on our end. It seems like we take policies more seriously here than en.Wikipedia does.
- And I would say that we should require notice for -any- event that involves editing this site, whether it's funded by a grant or not, although for projects like classes editing, a week's notice should be fine for repeat business. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:39, 10 January 2026 (UTC)
- The page currently describes no enforcement mechanisms. How do you imagine it being enforced for, say, a two-hour "Learn to edit Wikivoyage" event in a library, with ten newcomers?
- I'm happy to help with publicizing the page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:51, 10 January 2026 (UTC)
- The enforcement is that anyone who organizes an event that causes havoc on this site because they didn't consult Wikivoyagers during the planning stage or even give us any notice will be banned. If the event is beneficial, there would be no problem and no reason to penalize anyone. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:50, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
- Where does it say anything about banning on this page?
- Where does it say on any page that users need to break a policy to get banned, or that they can't be banned unless they break a policy? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:00, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
- We should probably add that to the page. I don't understand your second sentence but don't see why we should discuss that here. Users are banned through discussion and consensus. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:12, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
- The concept here seems to be "Let's make this a policy. Then, when people 'violate' it, we can punish them!"
- But:
- This page makes no provision for punishment of anyone.
- Punishments are handed out through discussion and consensus, which is not limited to having a page that says 'policy' on it.
- In other words, we can punish people for causing problems now, even though the page doesn't say 'policy' on it, so why bother rearranging the deck chairs?
- As for your proposal that the correct punishment for someone whose editing event goes awry is banning, I'm not sure that I agree. A sentence of hard labor (i.e., you clean up the mess your class made yourself) seems more fitting. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:57, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
- The point is that if someone is banned on any project, they can't be eligible for any grants. And good luck trying to get people like the organizers of the recent Nigerian editing project to come here and fix everything! Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:34, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that interfering with grants elsewhere is actually fair play, or that it's effective in practice ("Oh, he can't get the grant now, so let's have her apply for it this time"), but even if we all agreed that intentionally affecting grant eligibility was a grand idea, it is not necessary to mark this page as a 'policy' to be able to ban failed organizers.
- Consider this:
- What do we want? To prevent failed events.
- How will we do that? By requiring advanced notification.
- And what if they don't? We'll complain at Wikivoyage:User ban nominations and make a decision about whether to ban them through discussion and consensus.
- I see nothing in that list that requires putting the word 'policy' on this page. Therefore, assuming the actual goal is to prevent failed events (and not, e.g., to increase the number of Official™ Policies® for its own sake), then "Let's put the word 'policy' at the top of this page" is irrelevant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:01, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
- Banning disruptive organizers is fair play for sure. I don't understand the down side of making a policy a policy. You cite the experience at Wikipedia, but this is not Wikipedia. Your point seems to be that it's pointless to hone this as a policy, but what's the harm? Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:08, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
- I object to the non sequitur: "Let's make this a policy. Then we'll be able to do, uh, the same things we can do now. And everything will get better, because it will be a Policy™."
- If our problem is "some event organizers don't follow this" (NB: not a love of rules), then we might ask ourselves why don't they follow this?
- Do you think that an event organizer would look at this page and say "Oh, it's just a guideline. That's probably equivalent to the English Wikipedia's guidelines, such as Notability and Reliable sources. I'm sure I can safely assume that all guidelines are useless and unimportant"? I don't, and I bet you don't either.
- So let's brainstorm: Under what circumstances might an event organizer either intentionally or unintentionally fail to comply with the advice we're giving them on this page? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:01, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
- Because they never looked at it or even gave enough of a damn to inform us, let alone involve us in planning their event. The point is to make it official that people doing this in the future will be banned, and that's all I have to say. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:25, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
- No, the main point is that we are agreeing about this among ourselves. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:26, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
- Exactly this. //shb (t | c | m) 03:26, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
- Okay: So you think one of the known failure modes is "they never looked at it". I think that's both true and important.
- I don't think that marking this page a 'policy' can realistically solve the problem of "they never looked at it". How could we solve that known problem? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:46, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
- Because they never looked at it or even gave enough of a damn to inform us, let alone involve us in planning their event. The point is to make it official that people doing this in the future will be banned, and that's all I have to say. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:25, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
- Banning disruptive organizers is fair play for sure. I don't understand the down side of making a policy a policy. You cite the experience at Wikipedia, but this is not Wikipedia. Your point seems to be that it's pointless to hone this as a policy, but what's the harm? Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:08, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
- The point is that if someone is banned on any project, they can't be eligible for any grants. And good luck trying to get people like the organizers of the recent Nigerian editing project to come here and fix everything! Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:34, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
- We should probably add that to the page. I don't understand your second sentence but don't see why we should discuss that here. Users are banned through discussion and consensus. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:12, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
- The enforcement is that anyone who organizes an event that causes havoc on this site because they didn't consult Wikivoyagers during the planning stage or even give us any notice will be banned. If the event is beneficial, there would be no problem and no reason to penalize anyone. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:50, 11 January 2026 (UTC)
Engage in the theme?
[edit]I started editing the page through the end of "Notification" - see here - and I don't understand what this means:
"engage some of the community in the theme and report on the planning progress."
Can that be rephrased more clearly? Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:35, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
- Having read to the end, I really think the entire page should be edited for brevity and clarity. Let's decide exactly what we want to require and require it. I'll have more to say about this soon, probably tomorrow. I think we need to make this as simple as possible, involving one bulleted list of things we require in the planning stage and another of links to Wikivoyage policies or guidelines that are essential to emphasize to participants and follow. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:42, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
A draft of a substitute for the text on this page
[edit]The following is a Wikivoyage policy:
If you are thinking of organizing an event involving edits to improve the coverage or quality of Wikivoyage, welcome! There are many parts of the world that could use increased coverage on this site, and the process of updating existing articles is never-ending, so we could always use a helping hand. Various editing events have greatly improved Wikivoyage's coverage of a number of countries around the world.
However, not all editing events have produced good results, and after considering what has gone right and what has gone wrong, we have developed the set of guidelines listed below. In essence, their point is that editing events require an emphasis on the core principles of this site and a dialogue between experienced Wikivoyagers and event organizers and participants.
Therefore, anyone who organizes an event that is likely to involve 100 or more edits to Wikivoyage or the creation of 5 or more articles by 15 or more people must:
- Announce their plans in the Travellers' pub before finalizing most of the details or as early as possible during the process of applying for any grants. Classes involving edits to Wikivoyage, which have to be organized well in advance, should be announced at least 1 week before the editing for the class starts in the case of organizers familiar with Wikivoyage guidelines and 1 month in advance for those who are not.
- Involve Wikivoyagers in as many stages of the event as possible, and in any case, early enough to help change or if necessary cancel an event in cases in which its goals and intentions are diametrically opposed to Wikivoyage:Goals and non-goals and other core Wikivoyage guidelines. For example, if there are off-Wikivoyage organizing and discussion pages Wikivoyagers can read and better yet participate on (such as on Meta or Wikipedia), post a link to them in the Travellers' pub the same day those pages are created, so that Wikivoyagers can participate in discussions and notice any problems before they occur.
- Regularly monitor the comments and advice Wikivoyagers give them, whether in the Travellers' pub, off-Wikivoyage discussion pages or user talk pages, and take it into account at every stage of the event.
- Read, understand and emphasize the need for participants to follow core Wikivoyage guidelines, especially those laid out on the Wikivoyage:What is an article?, Wikivoyage:Don't tout, Wikivoyage:Copyleft, and Wikivoyage:Welcome, Wikipedians pages. Make sure all participants are aware of those pages and urge them to read them before they start editing Wikivoyage.
Small collaborative sessions with a group of mates, including in-person one-on-one Wikivoyage mentoring sessions, aren't considered to be events.
Organizers who have closely followed these guidelines have achieved good results and contributed greatly to this site; those who have not have caused havoc. We hope the event you organize will be one of the good ones, and we would like to help you make it a success!
Like any other policy, there is some give for good-faith people who are cooperative and constructive, but anyone who organizes events that are not announced in advance on this site, do not take Wikivoyage guidelines or Wikivoyagers' advice or objections into account and create a big mess Wikivoyage volunteers have to clean up will be banned from the site. So make sure that's not you. We look forward to working with you.
What do you think? Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:20, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
- That reads much better and makes it stern that organisers who don't budge will be shown the door. //shb (t | c | m) 09:25, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
- Are you good with this being the entire contents of the page? That's my proposal. Short and clear if not necessarily sweet. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
- In considering common mistakes in these events, I added 2 more pages in Wikivoyagespace to the draft. Let me know if you agree with including them. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:17, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
- I like the short guidelines. A couple of small points:
- In 3, I would clarify that the link should be posted when the pages are created, not when the event is started. This allows comment on the pages before the event.
- In the final paragraph, you refer to "these guidelines", but this is now a policy, so it would be better to say "this policy". Also maybe "achieved good results" is better than "gotten good results".
- I would also like the event to be announced at Wikivoyage:Planned events, as it is then easy to comment on a grant application on Meta - "this event has not be announced". Editors can also see when events are running and maybe join in if they are interested. AlasdairW (talk) 21:54, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
- Could you make those edits? There is no Wikivoyage:Planned events, though. Why should we create it? Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:33, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
- I made a few edits, but I would say, regardless of whether this is a policy or a guideline, the numbered list is a set of guidelines that are part of the policy. If the word is somehow problematic, maybe we can find another appropriate word. They're not criteria, not procedures. Why isn't "guidelines" best? Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:45, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
- I don't think it should be created. More people follow the travellers' pub than any other discussion page and thus it's far less likely to be noticed if Wikivoyage:Planned events were separate. //shb (t | c | m) 00:27, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
- I agree with SHB about this. Announcements should be posted where the community is already reading, unless and until we get so many of them that we feel like they're flooding the page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:16, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
- I don't think it should be created. More people follow the travellers' pub than any other discussion page and thus it's far less likely to be noticed if Wikivoyage:Planned events were separate. //shb (t | c | m) 00:27, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
- I made a few edits, but I would say, regardless of whether this is a policy or a guideline, the numbered list is a set of guidelines that are part of the policy. If the word is somehow problematic, maybe we can find another appropriate word. They're not criteria, not procedures. Why isn't "guidelines" best? Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:45, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
- Could you make those edits? There is no Wikivoyage:Planned events, though. Why should we create it? Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:33, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
- I like the short guidelines. A couple of small points:
- I would potentially keep the Help section, but otherwise yes, I think short makes it more likely to be read. //shb (t | c | m) 22:47, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
- In considering common mistakes in these events, I added 2 more pages in Wikivoyagespace to the draft. Let me know if you agree with including them. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:17, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
- Are you good with this being the entire contents of the page? That's my proposal. Short and clear if not necessarily sweet. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
- Initial thoughts (numbered for your convenience):
- 100 edits, 5 new articles: What about the number of people? I would be sorry to have someone believe that a solo m:100wikidays challenge is now a reportable event.
- Announcements "before finalizing details": I think what we want is probably to have people us early enough that it's still possible to cancel the event if we hate it. Realistically, sometimes the details aren't "finalized" until the event starts. (Seriously: "Hi, club. We planned to do Wikidata today, but our Wikidata expert is sick, so let's do something else instead. How about Wikivoyage?")
- Announcements before "applying for any grants": Grant making is an interactive process, which means that you might apply for a grant with a focus on X, and then modify the application to include X and Y, or to switch entirely to Z. It's not always possible to comply with this "before" applying, even if you happened to be aware of this rule.
- Announcements before "applying for any grants": For annual plan grants, that means giving notice up to 18 months in advance. Is that really what you want?
- One-week notice for classes: This sounds okay, except that if the teacher is a newbie, we might expect it to be a disaster and have no time to fix it. A newbie generally shouldn't be teaching others how to edit Wikivoyage. Looking back at my earliest contributions, I see that as an experienced Wikipedia editor (I remember reading Wikivoyage:Welcome, Wikipedians and finding it very helpful) I was able to be somewhat useful straightaway, but I was asking a question on my second day. After, say, 25 or 50 edits, I probably could have run a decent workshop on improving existing articles, and I might have been able to help people start some articles, but I still didn't know where to find all the help pages or have a good grasp of Wikivoyage:What is an article?
- "Pay attention" is not a measurable outcome. Are you looking for "agree with", "obey", or "frequently check all talk pages and monitor RecentChanges during your event"? What if the event organizer is doing these things, but an event participant is not? Will we blame the organizer?
- "Post a link...the same day those pages are created": You're assuming such links exist. You're assuming there is a discussion there. You're assuming that you'll be able to join the discussions. Imagine that the event is organized on a high school club's mailing list. Now what?
- It might be helpful to consider a few scenarios, such as these:
- An after-school Wikipedia club whose teenage leaders want to make a one-time visit to Wikivoyage.
- A structured class project like Piotrus runs each year (only perhaps with a teacher who has never edited any wiki).
- A Wikimedia chapter whose annual plan includes one-day editing events for each sister project, including Wikivoyage.
- A contest organizer who wants to include a Wikivoyage option.
- An informal group that might edit Wikivoyage.
- That last most closely resembles my own experience with editing events: I ran occasional how-to-edit workshops for WMF staff for several years. Mostly, participants wanted to edit the English Wikipedia, but I let people pick whatever they wanted, and a few came here. I wouldn't usually know who was attending, much less what they wanted to do, until the meeting started. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:44, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
- Could you please create a workable draft? We probably can't allow for every possibility, but we want something that is not only enforceable but workable. To give some quick replies to some of the points you made, all of which I thank you for: What do you think we should say about the number of people involved? More than 5? More than 10? In terms of giving notice up to 18 months in advance, I'd absolutely want that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:10, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
- For your last scenario, the existing page says "Things like small collaborative sessions with a group of mates aren't considered to be events (including in-person one-on-one Wikivoyage mentoring sessions)". I see no reason why this shouldn't continue to be the case. //shb (t | c | m) 05:00, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
- We could include that in the revised page, but I'd like more input on how best to phrase some of the rest of the page. Our requirements need to be reasonable and workable in the real world and flexible enough to try to hem in the bad editing events that ill-served this site's desperate need to have a much greater amount of reliable, useful information about every part of Africa, but which don't create problems for helpful events. I've been basing the draft on the experiences we've already have, but WhatamIdoing has been helpfully anticipating other possible events, and it would be good if we could address those eventualities, if possible. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:07, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
- I added a slightly edited version of the last scenario to the draft. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:16, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
- I also made some further edits to try to take into account more of Whatamidoing's remarks, but not everything has been addressed yet in the draft. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:23, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
- On further reflection about some of the points WhatamIdoing made, I made some more edits, some of which are pretty substantive. Please look at the draft again. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:49, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
- I think we should clarify that the "10 or more people" are people who actually edit during the event ("10 or more people editing") and maybe make this 20 people. This would exclude in-person presentations and lectures about Wikivoyage. I don't think giving a talk to the local geographic society about Wikivoyage is likely to result in many edits, even if there are 200 people in the hall. It would allow a training course on editing wikis, intended for users of an in-house corporate or academic wiki, to include a quick example presentation showing a WV edit ("wikis aren't just used for documenting our software..."). I think this would also mean that we wouldn't have required notification for the recent Toronto event AlasdairW (talk) 23:11, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
- I'm fine with this and take your points. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:46, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
- I think we should clarify that the "10 or more people" are people who actually edit during the event ("10 or more people editing") and maybe make this 20 people. This would exclude in-person presentations and lectures about Wikivoyage. I don't think giving a talk to the local geographic society about Wikivoyage is likely to result in many edits, even if there are 200 people in the hall. It would allow a training course on editing wikis, intended for users of an in-house corporate or academic wiki, to include a quick example presentation showing a WV edit ("wikis aren't just used for documenting our software..."). I think this would also mean that we wouldn't have required notification for the recent Toronto event AlasdairW (talk) 23:11, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
- On further reflection about some of the points WhatamIdoing made, I made some more edits, some of which are pretty substantive. Please look at the draft again. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:49, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
- I also made some further edits to try to take into account more of Whatamidoing's remarks, but not everything has been addressed yet in the draft. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:23, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
- I added a slightly edited version of the last scenario to the draft. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:16, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
- We could include that in the revised page, but I'd like more input on how best to phrase some of the rest of the page. Our requirements need to be reasonable and workable in the real world and flexible enough to try to hem in the bad editing events that ill-served this site's desperate need to have a much greater amount of reliable, useful information about every part of Africa, but which don't create problems for helpful events. I've been basing the draft on the experiences we've already have, but WhatamIdoing has been helpfully anticipating other possible events, and it would be good if we could address those eventualities, if possible. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:07, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
- For your last scenario, the existing page says "Things like small collaborative sessions with a group of mates aren't considered to be events (including in-person one-on-one Wikivoyage mentoring sessions)". I see no reason why this shouldn't continue to be the case. //shb (t | c | m) 05:00, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
- Could you please create a workable draft? We probably can't allow for every possibility, but we want something that is not only enforceable but workable. To give some quick replies to some of the points you made, all of which I thank you for: What do you think we should say about the number of people involved? More than 5? More than 10? In terms of giving notice up to 18 months in advance, I'd absolutely want that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:10, 15 January 2026 (UTC)
- Support. This is a good policy to adopt. I haven't dug deeply into the details, but I trust the work that the three of you have done on this. Thanks. Ground Zero (talk) 12:34, 16 January 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks for your trust.
- I'd really like to hear from User:WhatamIdoing again, since she has expertise on how grant applications and other events unfold: To @WhatamIdoing especially: Is this draft OK now? What would you like to change, and could you suggest an edit that you would support? Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:40, 17 January 2026 (UTC)
- I plan to put this substitute on the page tonight, as an improvement on the current language and organization, unless I hear further in the interim, knowing that we can edit further as discussion continues. To clarify my previous post: WhatamIdoing, I know you disagree with making this a policy, so I'm not asking you to support it as such but would like to use a form of words that you otherwise support. I really don't care much whether we call this a policy or guideline, only that we agree on what we are asking people to abide by, state it clearly, and have a clear plan for how to promote and enforce the guidelines within this policy or overall guideline. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:19, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
- A propos, should Wikivoyage have its own pages on Meta and en.Wikipedia that promote the guidelines? I think that should be possible on Meta? But I am not a Meta user. I don't see it as possible on Wikipedia and figure the best we can do might be to post to the talk page of w:Wikivoyage, where it is likely to be ignored unless it's deleted for being off topic. Maybe the best thing we could do is promote the policy/guidelines on the Wikivoyage front page? Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:25, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
- Sorry, real life called.
- My problem with offering a draft is that I'm not sure that what we (IMO) need has much relationship to what you want. My overall sense is that you and SHB are upset (think "personally offended") by the way the recent Nigerian edits went, and you're looking around for a big stick that you can hit future offenders with.
- Imagine this as a traveler experience: A hotel is so upset about last week's bad guests that they stop being hospitable to everyone. Instead of "Welcome to our hotel", tour group operators are now greeted with a list of rules and told that if any of their group members violate any of them, the whole group can be kicked out with no warning, the tour group operator will be blacklisted, the tour group operators will be yelled at, we'll post bad reviews in an effort to drive them out of business, etc.
- I don't think that's what we need.
- I think what we need is something that sounds more like: "We love tour groups. The best way for your group to have a positive experience is for you to visit us by yourself first. Then you'll know everything you need to lead a successful tour. Your group members will be so impressed with your knowledge, and by working together, we'll create a wonderful experience for everyone." WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:49, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
- No, it's because this has happened three times and takes a lot of unpaid time to clean up. Today, Ground Zero, with a little help from me, was still cleaning up some of the debris from the most recent Nigeria editing event. I will work to add a more positive introduction, but I think you might feel a little different if you had been heavily involved in cleanup during and after any of these events, let alone all 3. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:54, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
- Indeed. The more analogous example in this case would be more like if a hotel is very upset at certain tour group for failing to abide by certain guidelines, so the hotel tightens up their policy on tour groups in order to permanently ban tour groups that cause havoc. That's very much what this proposed change is to me. //shb (t | c | m) 00:17, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
- No, it's because this has happened three times and takes a lot of unpaid time to clean up. Today, Ground Zero, with a little help from me, was still cleaning up some of the debris from the most recent Nigeria editing event. I will work to add a more positive introduction, but I think you might feel a little different if you had been heavily involved in cleanup during and after any of these events, let alone all 3. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:54, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
- I plan to put this substitute on the page tonight, as an improvement on the current language and organization, unless I hear further in the interim, knowing that we can edit further as discussion continues. To clarify my previous post: WhatamIdoing, I know you disagree with making this a policy, so I'm not asking you to support it as such but would like to use a form of words that you otherwise support. I really don't care much whether we call this a policy or guideline, only that we agree on what we are asking people to abide by, state it clearly, and have a clear plan for how to promote and enforce the guidelines within this policy or overall guideline. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:19, 20 January 2026 (UTC)
- User:Bamjos apparently made 140 edits from 10 Dec to 19 Dec, and most of them need clean-up. I suspect that there were many contributors using one account, or AI was being used. The vast number of edits, and the subsequent disappearance of anyone associated with the account, has created a lot of clean-up work for other editors. Ground Zero (talk) 01:49, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
- In the case of Bamjos, it seems they're still contributing to Commons, indicating that they were only here for the competition and had no interest in actually helping out this site. //shb (t | c | m) 02:03, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
- It looks like they went on to a couple of other events. The event that involved Commons was one about the Yoruba language. Bamjos' work on this site was not good, but I don't think the motivation to be involved with different events in sequence is something to disapprove of. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:31, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
- Maybe, but they certainly made it evident that they're not going to clean up their mess. //shb (t | c | m) 05:37, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
- Certainly not, but did any of the participants? Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:16, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
- Maybe, but they certainly made it evident that they're not going to clean up their mess. //shb (t | c | m) 05:37, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
- It looks like they went on to a couple of other events. The event that involved Commons was one about the Yoruba language. Bamjos' work on this site was not good, but I don't think the motivation to be involved with different events in sequence is something to disapprove of. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:31, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
- In the case of Bamjos, it seems they're still contributing to Commons, indicating that they were only here for the competition and had no interest in actually helping out this site. //shb (t | c | m) 02:03, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
- User:Bamjos apparently made 140 edits from 10 Dec to 19 Dec, and most of them need clean-up. I suspect that there were many contributors using one account, or AI was being used. The vast number of edits, and the subsequent disappearance of anyone associated with the account, has created a lot of clean-up work for other editors. Ground Zero (talk) 01:49, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
- I added some introductory text to start off on a positive note and made some other changes to accentuate the positive more without putting away the stick. AlasdairW, I think 20 editors is probably too large a number to be the minimum for required notifications, so I hope it's OK with you if I split the difference to 15 editors. Are you all OK with the new form of words? I'll wait till tomorrow before making the change. Also, though, how about if we call this page Wikivoyage:Welcome, event organizers? Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:43, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
- I think 10 editors is enough, or 12 if we really think we need a bigger number. In practice, it matters what kind of an event it is. Ten editors in a Zoom-based meeting is a lot for one person to handle, especially if they're all new. When I've run virtual editing events, ten total editors was the point where I started considering splitting the group into breakout rooms, and I never had ten total newbies. With an asynchronous event, it's a different situation. Ten editors for a week-long contest might be much easier to handle than ten editors for a one-hour event.
- I like the idea of renaming the page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:27, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
- I plunged forward and renamed the page – should be a fairly uncontroversial page move that fits in with Wikivoyage policy naming customs. //shb (t | c | m) 05:37, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
- It looks like we have more support for 10 or more editors than a larger number, and I prefer that number, too, so I'll go with it if no-one else has anything to say about it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:16, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
- @SHB2000, don't we use U.S. spelling for policy and guideline pages by default, ergo organizers, rather than organisers? I thought we did. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:18, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
- I think we do, but I completely forgot about that policy and my mind just didn't really put much thought into it. I'll fix the page once again. //shb (t | c | m) 07:08, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
- Done. //shb (t | c | m) 07:10, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
- I am ok with 10 people now that is clear that this is editors, not people in the room. It covers the situations I was thinking of, and should cover most regular wiki meetups which are advertised on Meta, and probably school wiki clubs. AlasdairW (talk) 21:54, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
- Cool. I'll make the substitution now, with the understanding, as always, that all of this text is still subject to change. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:32, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
- Done. I made a few additional edits. I'm not opposed to re-adding some of the advice and other specifics that were previously in the article, but let's guard against the risk of making the page too long and decreasing its readability. I'm also open to bolding parts of the page or dividing it into some little sections. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:45, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
- I don't know how I feel about 10 being the threshold. 10 people editing Wikivoyage is very easy to reach at an event. I'll use our this past Sunday's event as example. In our afternoon's split activity session, 48 people were broken up into 4 groups for different topics (beginners to Wikipedia, languages, governance and Wikivoyage). Our group did end up having about 10 people listening to my presentation and some of them did participate in the editing. I can't control how many show up at an event and how many will sit in my group activity. If I didn't plan in advance and give notice, but rather doing it impromptu because there were too many people in other groups that I have to break out a group to control the group size, then I might have broken this rule. I don't know where we can land on this. OhanaUnitedTalk page 16:19, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
- Done. I made a few additional edits. I'm not opposed to re-adding some of the advice and other specifics that were previously in the article, but let's guard against the risk of making the page too long and decreasing its readability. I'm also open to bolding parts of the page or dividing it into some little sections. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:45, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
- Cool. I'll make the substitution now, with the understanding, as always, that all of this text is still subject to change. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:32, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
- I am ok with 10 people now that is clear that this is editors, not people in the room. It covers the situations I was thinking of, and should cover most regular wiki meetups which are advertised on Meta, and probably school wiki clubs. AlasdairW (talk) 21:54, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
- Done. //shb (t | c | m) 07:10, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
- I think we do, but I completely forgot about that policy and my mind just didn't really put much thought into it. I'll fix the page once again. //shb (t | c | m) 07:08, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
- @SHB2000, don't we use U.S. spelling for policy and guideline pages by default, ergo organizers, rather than organisers? I thought we did. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:18, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
- It looks like we have more support for 10 or more editors than a larger number, and I prefer that number, too, so I'll go with it if no-one else has anything to say about it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:16, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
- I plunged forward and renamed the page – should be a fairly uncontroversial page move that fits in with Wikivoyage policy naming customs. //shb (t | c | m) 05:37, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
I took a look at it with fresh eyes. I have made some copyedits, which I ask you all to review. I'm thinking about splitting the four-point numbered list into two separate lists (one about notification/planning and one about what to do during the event).
I think we can add (or link, if it already exists?) some examples about what constitutes a helpful contribution. For example:
| Point | Good | Bad |
|---|---|---|
| Review | *removes listing for restaurant that closed* | *leaves bad information on the page* |
| Don't tout | Upscale seafood restaurant best known for their tomato fish stew. | Best restaurant in the city. |
| New article | Smalltown is near Daura in North West Nigeria.
==Eat==
==Sleep==
|
*copies part of a Wikipedia article* |
I think if we provided some examples of desirable contributions, then event organizers would like to recommend these things, especially if our suggestions were relatively easy to present to beginners ("Everybody pick an article. Is there a restaurant? If not, can you add one?"). This doesn't need to be on this page, but it should be linked/easy to find from this page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:32, 21 January 2026 (UTC)
- I haven't looked at your copy edits yet, but my reaction to what you want to add is that your idea is good, but "good for families and large groups" is touting over 99% of the time. Also, listings templates should be used. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:03, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
- OK, about the copy edits: I appreciate them, and many of them are good. I edited a couple of them further but want to focus on two sentences:
- My version:
- "but anyone who organizes events that are not announced in advance on this site, do not take Wikivoyage guidelines or Wikivoyagers' advice or objections into account and create a big mess Wikivoyage volunteers have to clean up will be banned from the site. So make sure that's not you."
- Your version:
- "but anyone who organizes events that are not announced in advance on this site, do not take Wikivoyage guidelines or Wikivoyagers' advice or objections into account, and create a big mess Wikivoyage volunteers have to clean up can be [[Wikivoyage:User ban nominations|banned]] from the site. We want to make sure that's not you."
- I don't agree with your version because the ban is a promise in the situation I describe, and we want to make sure people take responsibility. So yes, we absolutely want to help people, but if they don't ask for help, don't involve us in any discussions and create a trail of wreckage behind them, that's on them, and being the least bit ambiguous about that runs counter to the impetus behind this page. Had we not suffered from 3 damaging events, we wouldn't have felt impelled to create any policy or set of guidelines for event organizers. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:14, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
- Btw, my further edits so far. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:36, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
- I don't think "the ban is a promise" because I think "the situation described" could be interpreted as applying or not applying to a wide variety of differing situations. Also, I'm not sure that the community would always reach a consensus to ban any given person who does none of these things, and that we might ban someone who does parts of these things.
- As written, it says a ban could be prompted by a situation with three components (no announcement+disregarding advice+creating a big mess). But making an announcement while flouting the other two would not immunize you against a ban, nor would agreeing with some advice and still creating a big mess.
- I don't think we want to ban an apparently responsible and cooperative event organizer if a participant misbehaves ("Hi, you told him to stop it, but he didn't obey you, so we're banning you" – "Um, did you Wikivoyage admins ever consider blocking that problematic user? Because I can't stop him making bad edits, but you admins sure can"), or to be shooting the messenger if the event is organized by a group but we only see a low-level person (e.g., Wikimedia Country organizes a program, but none of them edit; instead, we see edits from the teenage leaders of the Wikimedia Country Smallville school, so we blame them for having trusted the organizers to be providing them with good information about Wikivoyage). WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:25, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
- 4 or 5 of Piotrus' students last semester uploaded copyvio photos to Commons that they used as thumbnails here. That's a problem but not a reason to ban Piotrus, and no-one is suggesting that. The situation in which a ban is a promise is very clearly stated. All that said, we can come up with a different form of words. Wherewith:
- "but anyone who organizes events that are not announced in advance on this site, do not take Wikivoyage guidelines or Wikivoyagers' advice or objections into account and create a big mess Wikivoyage volunteers have to clean up will be subject to a user ban nomination on this site. So make sure that's not you." Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:40, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
- I decided to make that edit. Of course you should feel free to discuss it further. You're right that situations slightly different from the one I describe could possibly result in user bans, but I think my point is made that someone who covers all three of these bases will be subject to a user ban nomination. There's no call or need to cover every possible negative (or even positive) eventuality here, especially as we're trying to make this page briefer, clearer and more readable than it was. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:49, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
- On further reflection, I added a fifth requirement. I think it will be uncontroversial, but like any other part of this page, it's subject to discussion and possible rephrasing. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:02, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
- The fifth requirement should be included, but hard to do even for myself or editors that I personally trained one-on-one. I'm currently sitting on 5 unread notifications (some dating back to 12 days ago) because I'm currently on work trip. So I don't want to hold someone to a standard that even I myself cannot hold. OhanaUnitedTalk page 16:23, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
- You are not a newbie making a bunch of edits on Wikivoyage for the first time and getting reverted for violating Wikivoyage guidelines you're unfamiliar with, haven't fully understood or forgot about. If new users ignore their user talk pages and edit summaries when they contain important information they need to know, they will add lots of text we need to clean up and may have to be blocked. So I think it's proper for us to require them to pay more attention to their user talk pages than an experienced Wikivoyage user on a work trip. That said, look at those talk page posts when you have a few minutes to spare. And enjoy your trip! Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:36, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
- Part of the problem with a one-size-fits-all rule is that a rule that makes sense for a week-long or month-long virtual contest may not make sense for a 90-minute in-person event.
- Here's a normal timeline:
- Complete first edit (finally).
- Immediately start second edit.
- First edit is reverted. You can't see this yet, because (a) reverts aren't flagged in the Echo/Notification system to brand-new accounts (to reduce edit warring) and (b) the Echo/Notification system won't update until you load a page (e.g., not until you're finished with your edit, and not even then if you used the visual editor).
- Complete second edit (finally).
- Event is over. You go home.
- Second edit gets reverted, and this time, the reverter left a nastygram on your User_talk: page. However, you never see that, because you never edit again.
- How is the person supposed to "pay attention" in this scenario? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:06, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
- If they make only 2 edits, it doesn't matter much unless there are 40 or so people following the same pattern. But what are we supposed to do, throw our hands up and not do anything? Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:11, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
- Multiple people doing the same thing sounds possible, though I don't remember hearing of any single-day events happening here that brought in 40+ people.
- What we're supposed to do is figure out realistic standards. For example: Do we actually care about single-day events? After all, one swift click of the rollback button per unsuccessful contributor would remove all of their contributions. Maybe our focus should be on multi-day events, and especially on contests. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:55, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
- It's still good to be informed about single-day events. Let's see what other people think, though. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:49, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
- I agree that being informed is a good idea, since if we know, we can help. But that's separate from a "pay attention" rule.
- In terms of getting people's attention on subsequent days, a partial block (for the entire mainspace, or from creating any kind of new page at all) should be practical and effective, but it looks like they're not used much here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:22, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
- It's still good to be informed about single-day events. Let's see what other people think, though. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:49, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
- If they make only 2 edits, it doesn't matter much unless there are 40 or so people following the same pattern. But what are we supposed to do, throw our hands up and not do anything? Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:11, 23 January 2026 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek I would say that part of the problem is the somewhat-unintuitive notification symbol in the MediaWiki interface. I have heard from multiple new editors that they didn't know what it meant (and too afraid to click on it). Part of me wishes we go back to the old old days (like 15 years ago) when there's a bright orange notification spreading page-wide that lets users know when they received a message. OhanaUnitedTalk page 07:44, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
- You are not a newbie making a bunch of edits on Wikivoyage for the first time and getting reverted for violating Wikivoyage guidelines you're unfamiliar with, haven't fully understood or forgot about. If new users ignore their user talk pages and edit summaries when they contain important information they need to know, they will add lots of text we need to clean up and may have to be blocked. So I think it's proper for us to require them to pay more attention to their user talk pages than an experienced Wikivoyage user on a work trip. That said, look at those talk page posts when you have a few minutes to spare. And enjoy your trip! Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:36, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
- The fifth requirement should be included, but hard to do even for myself or editors that I personally trained one-on-one. I'm currently sitting on 5 unread notifications (some dating back to 12 days ago) because I'm currently on work trip. So I don't want to hold someone to a standard that even I myself cannot hold. OhanaUnitedTalk page 16:23, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
- On further reflection, I added a fifth requirement. I think it will be uncontroversial, but like any other part of this page, it's subject to discussion and possible rephrasing. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:02, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
- I decided to make that edit. Of course you should feel free to discuss it further. You're right that situations slightly different from the one I describe could possibly result in user bans, but I think my point is made that someone who covers all three of these bases will be subject to a user ban nomination. There's no call or need to cover every possible negative (or even positive) eventuality here, especially as we're trying to make this page briefer, clearer and more readable than it was. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:49, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
- Btw, my further edits so far. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:36, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
- Maybe a concrete example would help. Imagine that you wanted to start a Wikivoyage version of m:Feminism and Folklore. You'd copy m:Feminism and Folklore/Sample and change it to have some clear, simple rules:
- Do not create any new articles.
- No points for expanding articles with information unrelated to folk festivals. Only content about folk festivals will count.
- Do not create a separate ==Section== for the folk festival.
- No points for copying the same (or nearly the same) information from one page to another. If the same folk festival is celebrated in multiple places, then list it only the most iconic place (e.g., city or region).
- You must use the [add listing] button or the {{do}} listing template to add an entry under ==Do== in an existing article. The entry needs to include the name, time, place, and other basic information about a folk festival. The |content= description must be between 10 and 100 words long.
- On the second day of the event, a new contributor creates six articles about different folk festivals. They are mostly copy/pasted from Wikipedia articles that the contributor posted to Wikipedia on the first day of the contest (so technically, there's no copyvio problem, just a Wikivoyage:What is an article? problem).
- What should you, as the event organizer, do about this? If you were not a Wikivoyage admin, what could you realistically do about this? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:23, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
- Post to the user's user talk page wherever their home wiki is or on Wikivoyage, complaining that they had violated the rules of the event and asking them to stop doing that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:21, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
- OhanaUnited, should we request to change the notification back to a bright orange symbol? Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:23, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
- Can we ask that event participants provide an email address in their "Preferences/User Profile", and enable notifications for "Edit to my talk page" in "Preferences/Notifications"? I think some Commons competitions require accounts to have email addresses, probably so that the organisers are not left with a pile of prizes for winning contestants who haven't logged in recently. AlasdairW (talk) 11:03, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
- I doubt that it will do any good. We can't require it, and even if we could enforce it, we can't force people to use valid e-mail addresses, to check their e-mail accounts, or to not put the notifications in junk mail. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:36, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
- The m:Orange bar of doom can be enabled by user script or gadget.
If you really can't guess what this bright orange message means, maybe you shouldn't be editing any wiki. - I'd first want to confirm that Ohana is hearing from people that they don't know what a bell icon means when it says "New messages" in bright orange next to it.
- The confusion I've heard about is the 'inbox tray', which is where people find things like Special:Thanks but not pings, reverts (which are usually suppressed for newbies – think about what that means for them finding out that you disagree with their edits), and messages left on their talk pages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:33, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
- I hadn't realized reverts are "suppressed" for newbies until you mentioned that in this thread. I think that's a mistake and we should try to undo it. Does anyone disagree, and should we discuss it somewhere else? Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:41, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
- We should first confirm what the config setting is here. Then, because Chesteron's fence, we should think about why that was done. In this case, I happen know why that fence was built: to reduce edit warring by brand-new editors. So think about the new contributors we get. How much do we want to risk edit warring vs how much do we think they would actually benefit from discovering that their edit had been reverted? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:21, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
- I don't know. We get edit warring, anyway. Is there any way to know what effects this kind of change would cause without trying it? In the entire history of Wikitravel/Wikivoyage, were notifications of reverts always suppressed for new accounts? If not, when did that change? Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:53, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
- Whatever the state is, it probably hasn't been changed since approximately when the feature was introduced, which was probably when Wikivoyage was new here. Echo/Notifications reached the English Wikipedia in early 2013. (I've heard that the m:Orange bar of doom was removed on a Friday, and that the resulting uproar caused an informal policy within the WMF against making any visible UI changes on Fridays.)
- The question is whether we can figure out who sees notifications about reverts, which is config dependent. My guess is that Wikivoyage:Autoconfirmed users do and non-autoconfirmed users don't, but in my experience, the best route to getting an accurate answer that question is to ping @Quiddity (WMF). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:35, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
- I don't know. We get edit warring, anyway. Is there any way to know what effects this kind of change would cause without trying it? In the entire history of Wikitravel/Wikivoyage, were notifications of reverts always suppressed for new accounts? If not, when did that change? Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:53, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
- We should first confirm what the config setting is here. Then, because Chesteron's fence, we should think about why that was done. In this case, I happen know why that fence was built: to reduce edit warring by brand-new editors. So think about the new contributors we get. How much do we want to risk edit warring vs how much do we think they would actually benefit from discovering that their edit had been reverted? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:21, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
- Hang on, this is news to me. This might actually make a lot more sense as to why some new users have ignored some of our messages placed in edit summaries. //shb (t | c | m) 22:29, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
- Absolutely. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:06, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
- I hadn't realized reverts are "suppressed" for newbies until you mentioned that in this thread. I think that's a mistake and we should try to undo it. Does anyone disagree, and should we discuss it somewhere else? Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:41, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
- Can we ask that event participants provide an email address in their "Preferences/User Profile", and enable notifications for "Edit to my talk page" in "Preferences/Notifications"? I think some Commons competitions require accounts to have email addresses, probably so that the organisers are not left with a pile of prizes for winning contestants who haven't logged in recently. AlasdairW (talk) 11:03, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
- OhanaUnited, should we request to change the notification back to a bright orange symbol? Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:23, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
- Post to the user's user talk page wherever their home wiki is or on Wikivoyage, complaining that they had violated the rules of the event and asking them to stop doing that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:21, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
