User talk:Sue Gardner

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome to Meta![edit]

أهلا Sue Gardner ، ومرحبا بك في ويكيميديا ميتا ويكي! يعمل هذا الموقع على تنسيق ومناقشة كل مشاريع ويكيميديا. ربما سيكون مفيدا لك مطالعة صفحة السياسات هنا. إذا كنت مهتما بأمور الترجمة، راجع ميتا:بابلون. يمكنك أيضا ترك ملاحظة في ميتا:بابل (من فضلك راجع أولا التعليمات هناك قبل ترك الملاحظة). إذا أردت الاستفسار عن شئ ، لا تتردد في سؤالي في صفحة نقاشي. تمتع بالتحرير هنا!

Hola Sue Gardner! Benvingut a la Meta-Wiki de la Fundació Wikimedia! Aquest lloc està fet per a coordinar i discutir tots els projectes de la Fundació Wikimedia. Potser us serà útil llegir la nostra pàgina de polítiques (en anglès). Si us interessen les traduccions, visiteu Meta:Babylon. També podeu deixar un missatge a Meta:Babel o al Meta:Metapub (però abans de fer-ho, llegiu les instruccions situades al principi de la pàgina). No dubteu en preguntar si teniu qualsevol dubte. Si cal ho podeu fer en la meva pàgina de discussió. Bona sort!

Vítejte, uživateli Sue Gardner, a vítejte na Wikimedia Meta-Wiki! Tento server je určen pro spolupráci a diskusím ke všem projektům nadace Wikimedia. Možná si budete chtít přečíst naše pravidla. Pokud chcete spolupracovat na překladech, navštivte Meta:Babylon. Také můžete přidat příspěvek na Meta:Babel či Meta:Metapub (nejdříve si přečtěte pokyny na začátku těchto stránek). V případě potřeby se neváhejte zeptat se na mé diskusní stránce. Hodně štěstí!

Hallo, Sue Gardner, und Willkommen bei Wikimedia Meta-Wiki! Diese Website ist zur Koordination und Diskussion aller Wikimedia-Projekte gedacht. Vielleicht findest du es nützlich, unsere Regelseite zu lesen. Wenn du daran interessiert bist, etwas zu übersetzen, besuche Meta:Babylon. Du kannst auch eine Notiz auf Meta:Babel oder Meta:Metapub hinterlassen (bitte lies die Anleitung am Anfang der Seite, bevor du etwas schreibst). Wenn du möchtest, kannst du mir auf meiner Diskussionseite Fragen stellen. Fröhliches Bearbeiten.

ވިކިމީޑިޔާގެ މީޓާ-ވިކީ އަށް މަރުހަބާ! މިވެބްސައިޓަކީ ވިކިމީޑިޔާގެ ހުރިހާ މަޝްރޫޢުތަކާއި ބެހޭގޮތުން ވާހަކަތައް ދެކެވި އެ މަޝްރޫޢެއް ހިންގައި ހަދާ ވެބް ސައިޓެވެ. އަޅުގަނޑުމެންގެ ޤަވާއިދުތައް ފުރަތަމަ ވިދާޅުވުމަކީ މުހިންމު ކަމެއް ކަމުގައި ދެކެމެވެ. ތަރުޖަމާކުރާ ހިތްޕުޅުވެވަޑައިގަންނަވާ ނަމަ މީޓާ:ބެބިލޯން އަށް ވަޑައިގަންނަވާށެވެ. އަދި ހަމަ އެހެންމެ މިކަމާއި ބެހޭ ލިޔުމެއް މީޓާ:ބޭބެލް ގައި ލިޔުއްވަވާށެވެ. (އެހެންނަމަވެސް އެޞަފްޙާގައި އެއްވެސް އެއްޗެއް އިތުރު ކުރެއްވުމުގެ ކުރިން އެ ޞަފްހާގެ މަތީގައިވާ ޢިބާރާތް ވިދާޅުވެލައްވާށެވެ.) މިއާއި މުދު ހިތްހަމަޖެހިވަޑައިގަންނަވާ ނަމަ އިތުރު އެހީ އަށް އެދުމަށް މި ޞަފްހާ ގައި އެދުމަށް ފަސްޖެހި ވަޑައި ނުގަންނަވާށެވެ. އުނިއިތުރު ގެނައުމުގައި އުފާވެރި ވަގުތުކޮޅެއް ހޭދަ ކޮށްލައްވާށެވެ!!

Hello Sue Gardner, and welcome to the Wikimedia Meta-Wiki! This website is for coordinating and discussing all Wikimedia projects. You may find it useful to read our policy page. If you are interested in doing translations, visit Meta:Babylon. You can also leave a note on Meta:Babel or Meta:Metapub (please read the instructions at the top of the page before posting there). If you would like, feel free to ask me questions on my talk page. Happy editing!

Hola Sue Gardner! Bienvenido a la Meta-Wiki de la Fundación Wikimedia! Este sitio es para coordinar y discutir todos los proyectos de la Fundación Wikimedia. Tal vez le sea útil leer nuestra página de políticas (en inglés). Si le interesan las traducciones, visite Meta:Babylon. También puede dejar un mensaje en Meta:Babel o Meta:Metapub (pero antes de hacerlo, por favor lea las instrucciones situadas en lo alto de la página). No dude en preguntar si tiene cualquiera duda, o pregunte en mi página de discusión. Buena suerte!

Hei Sue Gardner, ja tervetuloa Wikimedian Meta-Wikiin! Tämä nettisivusto on kaikkien Wikimedia-säätiön projektien koordinointia ja keskustelua varten. Saattaa olla hyödyllistä lukea käytäntömme. Jos olet kiinnostunut käännöksistä, käy Meta:Babylon-sivulla. Voit myöskin jättää huomautuksen Meta:Babel, Meta:Metapub -sivulle (ole hyvä ja lue ohjeet sivun yläosassa ennenkuin kirjoitat sinne). Jos haluat, saat vapaasti kysyä minulta kysymyksiä keskustelusivullani. Iloisia muokkaushetkiä!

Bonjour Sue Gardner, et bienvenue sur le Meta-Wiki de Wikimédia ! Ce site a pour but de coordonner et discuter de l’ensemble des projets Wikimédia. Il vous sera utile de consulter notre page sur les règles de Wikimédia. Si vous êtes intéressé par des projets de traduction, visitez Meta:Babylon. Vous pouvez aussi laisser un message sur Meta:Babel ou Meta:Metapub (mais veuillez d’abord lire les instructions en haut de cette page avant d’y poster votre message). Si vous le voulez, vous pouvez me poser vos questions sur ma page de discussion. À bientôt !

נכתב בלשון זכר למען הנוחות
היי Sue Gardner, וברוך בואך ל- ויקימדיה מטא-ויקי! אתר זה נועד בכדי לתאם פעולות ולדון בפרויקטים של וויקימדיה. יש להניח שדפי המדיניות שלנו יהיו שימושיים עבורך. אם הנך מעוניין לבצע עבודות תרגום, בקר ב-Meta:Babylon. תוכל גם להשאיר הערה ב-Meta:Babel, Meta:Metapub, (אנא קרא את ההוראות בראש הדף לפני כתיבה שם). אם תרצה, הרגש חופשי לרשום לי שאלות בדף השיחה שלי. עריכה נעימה!

Helló Sue Gardner, és üdv a Wikimedia Meta-Wikijén! Ez a weboldal az összes Wikimedia projektet érintő ügyek megtárgyalására és koordinálására szolgál. Hasznosnak találhatod elolvasni az irányelveinket (angolul). Ha szeretnél fordításokat végezni, látogasd meg a Meta:Babylon-t, vagy a Meta:Babel, Meta:Metapub, oldalon hagyhatsz üzenetet (mielőtt ide írsz kérlek olvasd el a lap tetején található utasításokat). Ha szeretnél, nyugodtan kérdezz tőlem a vitalapomon. Jó szerkesztést és tartalmas szórakozást! Jó szerkesztést és tartalmas szórakozást!

Ciao Sue Gardner! Benvenuto sulla Meta-Wiki della Wikimedia Foundation! Questo sito serve a coordinare e discutere di tutti i progetti della Wikimedia Foundation. Potrebbe esserti utile leggere le nostre policy (in inglese). Se sei interessato a fare traduzioni, visita Meta:Babylon. Puoi anche lasciare un messaggio su Meta:Babel o Meta:Metapub (ma per favore, leggi le istruzioni che si trovano all'inizio della pagina prima di scrivere). Se vuoi, puoi lasciarmi un messagio nella mia pagina di discussione. Buona fortuna!

Sue Gardnerさん、ウィキメディア メタ・ウィキへようこそ!このサイトは、ウィキメディアのプロジェクト間の調整や話し合いを目的としています。もしよろしければ、ポリシーページを是非ご一読下さい。もし翻訳に興味をお持ちなら、Meta:Babylonをご覧下さい。Meta:Babel, Meta:Metapub にメッセージを投稿していただくことも可能です(投稿前にページ上部の説明をお読み下さい)。もしよろしければ私のノートページに質問をお寄せ下さい。

Sue Gardner님, Wikimedia Meta-Wiki에 회원가입하신 것을 환영합니다! 이 사이트는 모든 위키미디어 프로젝트들 간의 상호조정(coordinate)과 토론을 위한 공간입니다. 우리의 정책을 보면, 도움이 되실 겁니다. 만약 번역에 관심이 있으시다면, Meta:Babylon을 방문해 보세요. 또한 Meta:Babel, Meta:Metapub 을 사용하실 수도 있습니다. (사용하시기 전에 바벨의 사용설명란을 먼저 읽어주세요). 만약 궁금한 것이 있으시면, talk page에 질문을 올려주세요. 즐거운 편집이 되시길 바랍니다!

Hai Sue Gardner, dan selamat datang ke Meta-Wiki Wikimedia! Laman web ini adalah untuk mengkoordinasikan dan membincangkan segala Projek-projek Wikimedia. Anda boleh mendapati bahawa membaca laman polisi kita adalah berfaedah. Jika anda berminat dalam membuat penterjemahan, sila melawat Meta:Babylon. Anda juga boleh meninggalkan pesanan di Meta:Babel atau Meta:Metapub (sila baca panduan di atas laman yang berkenaan sebelum meninggalkan pesanan). Jika anda mahu, tanyalah soalan di laman perbualan saya. Selamat menyunting!

Hallo Sue Gardner, en welkom op de Wikimedia Meta-Wiki! Deze website is voor het coördineren en bespreken van alle Wikimedia-projecten. Waarschijnlijk vind je het handig om onze beleidpagina te lezen. Als je geïnteresseerd bent in het vertalen van teksten, ga da naar Meta:Babylon. Je kunt ook een bericht achterlaten op Meta:Babel of Meta:Metapub (lees wel de instructies aan het begin van de pagina voordat je een bericht achterlaat). Als je nog vragen hebt stel ze me dan op mijn overlegpagina. Veel plezier met bewerken!

Hei Sue Gardner, og velkommen til Wikimedia Meta-Wiki! Denne siden er til for å diskutere og samordne alle Wikimediaprosjektene. Vil du vite mer om siden, kan vår policy-side komme til nytte. Er du interessert i å hjelpe til med oversettelser, besøk Meta:Babylon. Du kan også legge igjen en beskjed på Meta:Babel, Meta:Metapub (vær vennlig og les instruksjonene øverst på siden før du skriver noe der). Hvis du vil, er du velkommen til å stille spørsmål på min diskusjonsside. God redigering!

Cześć Sue Gardner i witaj w projekcie Wikimedia Meta-Wiki! Ta strona została stworzona do koordynacji i dyskusji nad wszystkimi projektami Fundacji Wikimedia. Proszę Cię o przeczytanie naszych zasad. Jeżeli chcesz się zając tłumaczeniem stron, odwiedź Meta:Babylon. Możesz również zostawić notkę na stronie Meta:Babel, Meta:Metapub, (proszę jednak, abyś najpierw przeczytał instrukcje na górze tej strony). Jeżeli będziesz potrzebował pomocy zostaw komentarz na mojej stronie dyskusji. Miłego edytowania!

Olá Sue Gardner! Seja bem-vindo ao Meta! Este site/sítio é dedicado à discussão e à coordenação de todos os demais projetos da Fundação Wikimedia. Talvez lhe seja útil ler a página contendo a nossa política (em inglês) antes de começar a editar. Se tiver dúvidas, sinta-se à vontade para me fazer perguntas em minha página de discussão, ou deixe uma mensagem para toda a comunidade na Babel, Meta:Metapub, a versão do Meta da Esplanada. Boa sorte!

Ciao Sue Gardner, şi bine aţi venit la Wikimedia Meta-Wiki! Acest website este pentru coordonarea şi discuţiile tuturor proiectelor Wikimedia. Este folositor să citiţi pagina despre politica noastră.. Dacă sunteţi interesaţi de traducere, vizita-ţi Meta:Babylon. De asemenea puteţi lasa o notă pe Meta:Babel, Meta:Metapub, (vă rugăm citiţi instrucţiunile de la începutul paginii înainte de a posta acolo). Dacă ai întrebări, nu ezita să mă întrebi pe pagina mea de discuţii talk page. Editare cu succes!

Здравствуйте, Sue Gardner, и добро пожаловать на Мета-вики фонда Викимедиа! Этот сайт предназначен для координации и обсуждения вопросов, связанных со всеми проектами фонда. Для начала предлагаю ознакомиться с правилами этого проекта. Если Вы заинтересованы в работе над переводами страниц Мета-вики и других материалов, посетите Meta:Babylon. Вы также можете обсудить различные вопросы на странице Meta:Babel или Meta:Metapub (пожалуйста, ознакомьтесь с инструкцией сверху, прежде чем писать). Если возникнут вопросы, не бойтесь задавать их мне на моей странице обсуждения. Удачи!

Tjeta Sue Gardner, dhe mirësevin në Wikimedia Meta-Wiki! Ky vënd i rrjetës është për të koordinuar dhe diskutuar çdo projekt të Wikimediës. Mund ta gjësh të dobishme faqet e politikës sonë. Në qoftë se je duke interesuar në përkthime, vizitò Meta:Babylon. Mund të lësh një shënim në Meta:Babel ose Meta:Metapub (të lutem të lexosh përdorimet në fillim të fletës para se të postosh atje). Në qoftë se do, ndihu i/e lirë të më bsh pyetje në faqen time të diskutimit. Të auguroj një redaktim të këndshëm!

Здраво Sue Gardner, и добро дошли на Викимедијин мета-вики! Овај сајт служи за координацију и дискусију око Викимедијиних пројеката. Вероватно ће Вам бити корисно да прочитате наше странице везане за политику рада. Ако сте заинтересовани за превођење, посетите Meta:Babylon. Можете такође и оставити поруку на страници Meta:Babel, Meta:Metapub (молимо погледајте упутства на врху те странице пре него што пошаљете свој коментар тамо). Ако имате неко питање, можете да ми поставите на мојој страници за разговор. Срећно уређивање!

Hej Sue Gardner, och välkommen till Wikimedia Meta-Wiki! Meta är till för att diskutera och samordna alla Wikimedias projekt. Vill du veta mer om webbplatsen, kan vår policy-sida komma väl till pass. Är du intresserad av att hjälpa till med översättningar, besök Meta:Babylon. Du kan skriva diskussionsinlägg på Meta:Babel eller Meta:Metapub (läs instruktionerna överst på sidan innan du skriver något där). Om du vill, är du välkommen att ställa frågor på min diskussionssida. Lycka till med redigerandet!

வணக்கம் Sue Gardner, விக்கிமீடியா மேல்விக்கி! இற்கு நல்வரவு. இவ்விணையத்தளமானது கூட்டாகச் சேர்ந்து விடயங்களை விவாதிப்பதற்கென உருவாக்கப் பட்டது. விக்கித்திட்டங்கள். நீங்கள் எங்களின் பாலிசிகளையும் பாலிசி பக்கம் படித்தறியலாம். நீங்கள் மொழிபெயர்பில் ஆர்வமுடையவராகின், Meta:Babylon ஐப் பார்வையிடவும். நீங்கள் Meta:Babel, Meta:Metapub இல் குறிப்பொன்றையும் விட்டுச் செல்லலாம். (பக்கத்தின் மேலேயிருக்கும் அறிவுறுத்தல்களை வாசித்தபின்னரே அங்கே செய்திகளை இடவும்). நீங்கள் விரும்பினால் எனது பக்கத்தில் செய்தியொன்றை விடவும் talk page. உங்கள் ஆக்கங்களை வரவேற்கின்றோம்!

Sue Gardner, 你好!歡迎光臨維基媒體元維基!這個網站是為協調和討論所有維基媒體項目而設。我們的政策頁可能對您有用。如果您有興趣協助翻譯工作, 請參觀Meta:Babylon。你可在 Meta:Babel, Meta:Metapub 留下口訊 (張貼之前請先讀該頁上指示)。若有問題, 請在我的討論頁問我 。祝
編安!

--Aphaia 01:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to give you a Barnstar![edit]

FDC special barnstar

This is to recognize your hard work on the first round of the FDC! Apart from co-creating it you were indispensable in making it a reality!

Thanks!

Jan-Bart (talk) 19:45, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

BLP - does it respect editors?[edit]

Dear Sue, at Commons I have been the victim of loads of false accusations. Now they defiled my user page there with a banner, see also history. I chose to contribute to wikipedia using my own name. Unlike most of detractors, I am not hiding behind pseudonyms. Today I was asked about this page by an acquaintance, so the page is starting to make a real-world impact on me. Is not this what BLP is about? As I see it, me using my own name is now used for harassing me in real life. Could you please have the previous version restored? Or have the page deleted? Regards, /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:19, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

[edit]

Hi Sue, I inform you that here's a facebook page who encourages vandalism on it.wikipedia and makes improper use of the Wikipedia logo. I think that the WMF should take measures against it. --Vale93b (talk) 09:42, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Vale, I'll let the legal team know, since Sue is traveling. Philippe (WMF) (talk) 02:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Best photo ever? Or B. P. E![edit]

via ABC. I'm tending towards the exclamation mark. Travel safely back! SJ talk  09:41, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Wondering about Russia[edit]

Hi Sue, I don't know who else to ask, so: it's my understanding that the Russian Wikipedia implemented Pending Changes on (all? or just many?) of their pages some time ago. How's that working out? OK, or are they getting backed up, or somewhere in between? Not a pressing question (and you may not know the answer), but the answer'd be of interest to us English Wikipedians. Herostratus (talk) 05:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Herostratus, ruWP has Pending Changes (PC, or Flagged Revisions or Patrolled Revisions or Gesichtete Versionen or ...- i'll just call it PC) since 2009 (kind of, cp. Flagged_Revisions#Flagged_Revisions_on_Wikimedia_projects) and i don't think ruWP is a good example to follow. Much better example is polishWP and they are comparable to ruWP in both number of articles and number of active editors (see pl:Special:Statistics vs. ru:Special:Statistics). PC on plWP works quite good, like on deWP. PC on ruWP is terrible, on arWP too:
So, why the big differences?
1) Status assignment procedure. On plWP and deWP users get PC right automatically at some point (number of unreverted edits+XYZ, I'll leave aside the difference of active or passive reviewers for now), plus users can request PC right for themselves or somebody else. On ruWP and arWP users have to ask for PC right, discuss and be eventually denied. Not surprising: There are far fewer users with PC right, and bigger delays. Reason for different procedure is a bigger (perceived?) vandalism problem on ruWP and arWP (well, egg/chicken first ... see RuWiki_History/English) Quite a power trip, denying PC status ^^.
2) Review policy. On deWP users with PC right only have to look out for vandalism. Not quality control, not "endorsing" edits, not reverting unsourced edits (except unsourced sensitive info on BLP). Users apply higher personal standards for their review anyway, but the rule is simple, low standard: just revert vandalism. Higher standards, more rules for PC -> less adoption, less users reviewing PC, higher delays. I read that ruWP applies higher standards for PC than deWP.
This is IMHO, of course. See also relevant analysis/ discussion on deWP: [1], [2] (mostly german, some english, you'll understand with googletranslate). Hope this helps. --Atlasowa (talk)
This post was copied to Talk:Flagged Revisions#Comparison of some Wikipedias + further discussion. --Atlasowa (talk) 14:54, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Just got[edit]

the news. Thanks for all the good work up to now. It was nice to meet u here.--Angel54 5 (talk) 00:44, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Exit Interview[edit]

Hi Sue, Mz started this page -Wikimedia_exit_interview, and left a message on Jan-Bart's page. I believe the idea is similar to Reddit's AMA's(or IAmA?). I would like to see something like this too, if you feel up to it. Your departure announcement did seem a bit out of the blue to some, and there are some questions about. You are of course within your prerogative to deny this, and it would be completely understandable given your schedule. Just in case, you feel up to it and have some free time, Please let me know, I would be happy to moderate and make sure the tenor of the questions is in-line before you even see the page. I would also see if you want to limit any cross-talk or have any other requests. Thanks. Theo10011 (talk) 16:15, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

PS. Just in case I haven't said this yet, I really am disappointed to see you leave. I know I've had enough disagreements and my share of contentious positions with you, but your conduct has never been less than exemplary and honorable. For what its worth, I apologize for any transgressions past or present on my part, and wish you the very best the world has to offer Ms. Gardner. Kind Regards. Theo10011 (talk) 16:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Theo, Thanks and sure, I'd be happy to do this. Generally speaking, I think the idea of public exit interviews for departing WMF staff members is a bad one -- most staff have non-public roles, and on balance their personal right to privacy should be valued more highly than the desire of other people to satisfy their curiosity about their leaving. So in doing it, I wouldn't be aiming to set any kind of precedent that it would ever happen again. But my position is a public one, and so I'd be totally fine with it. There's no rush, because I'll be here for quite a while yet. So yes, go ahead and collect questions, and ping me when they're ready :-) Thanks Sue Gardner (talk) 05:49, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Sue. I completely understand and agree with your concerns. I don't think we would be asking if it was anyone else, you basically built WMF from the ground-up and been there for a lot of big changes. I don't think asking for a public exit interview from any other staff member would be reasonable or justified, and I would be completely against such a thing - you should have no concern about setting a precedent on this one. You have had an open IRC office hour for as long as I can remember, and answered us directly when you can. I thought since we already had an IRC office hour about this, an interview can give others the opportunity to ask questions they didn't get a chance to. I think an asynchronous method like this might be easier for everyone than an IRC session, and give everyone time to formulate their questions and present them on a page. Glad to know you are up for it, I will start soliciting questions and work on this in the coming weeks. Thanks again Sue. Theo10011 (talk) 08:15, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Would you be interested in doing this now? Or maybe in a day or so to let more people submit questions? PiRSquared17 (talk) 01:46, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Child protection[edit]

Hi Sue. I thought I'd drop you a message about a subject which I've become very aware of since I joined the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee at the beginning of the year, that of child protection. I'll be writing this primarily from an En.WP perspective, but I'm sure these comments could be extended to every WMF project.

Child protection, something I know we all take seriously, does not mesh well with Wikipedia's way of working. We accept anonymity as standard and believe in ignoring rules. The consensus model relies on discussion and listens to all points of view. The delicate nature of these requests, which can have real world ramifications for the subjects if they are gotten wrong, just don't fit with the Wikipedia model.

As I understand it, because the child protection policy is currently a community policy, suspicions are passed to the Arbitration Committee, which fully investigates and makes a decision, which the WMF is happy to implement.

I believe that the child protection policy should be updated to be a WMF policy, investigations and decisions should be made by WMF as well as enforcement. There are not many situations where control should be taken away from the community and imposed by fiat, but this is without a doubt one. There are a number of reasons for this.

  • The people who are ultimately responsible for child protection should not be volunteers. We volunteers are excellent at what we do, but at the end of the day, we can walk away and have the ability to leave a difficult problem for somebody else.
  • Training should be given to those who will be dealing with these complaints, ensuring an accurate outcome of the investigation.
  • The possibility of liaising with authorities exists if there is a consistent single point of contact, meaning that real world action can be taken.
  • Proper procedures should be set up, defining the scope of investigation and the threshold that action could be taken.
  • The protection afforded to an individual working on behalf of a company and following the company's specified guidelines is much more appropriate for the role.

When this was suggested before, we were told that the Foundation didn't have the resources to take over these investigations. I don't accept that, I believe it needs to be budgetted so that the resources are there. Looking at our Arbitration Committee logs - we've dealt with about 100 of these in the past 5 years, the majority of which are clear cut. The role would not take a full time employee.

I'm sure the Arbitration Committee would be willing to help in any transition and also assist where possible - as long as the overall responsibility lay with the Foundation. WormTT 12:48, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Sue, I'm another English Wikipedia ArbCom member. In my view, we arbitrators simply do not have enough training or protection to retain responsibility for child protection investigation; and this all needs to be passed on to the Foundation at some point soon. These responsibilities do not take a lot of time at all, but they are unspeakably important—and should not be remanded to a bunch of amateurs like us. The situation on the English Wikipedia at the moment is basically like Facebook giving a group its fifteen most active users responsibility for investigating concerns sent to Facebook that another account holder is using the site to share illegal pictures or recruit people to terrorism. It beggars belief. Surely child protection concerns are surely as important as the things currently handled by the WMF emergency e-mail address? If in your view they are, then the Foundation needs to take on this responsibility; we aren't doing (and could never do) a good enough job of it. Thank you, AGK [•] 13:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oh, and Sue: if you would require some sort of statement by the Enwiki ArbCom that we, as a group, would like to hand over this responsibility to you, then I will try to make that happen (and would probably succeed). AGK [•] 22:24, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • As a member of the Oversight team on the English Wikipedia, and as someone who has dealt with child protection cases on enwp, I have to fully endorse what is being detailed here. We need clear directive as to how to handle cases like this. Just about everyone working in this arena uses common-sense, and that's fine, but I'm concerned about the lack of followup. I've reported many issues to both ArbCom and the WMF regarding protection of children, some relating to child pornography, and I'm concerned that much of what I report is met with silence or a brief acknowledgement. There are legal ramifications to all this and, as a volunteer, that concerns me. I'd like to think that in cases where laws may have been broken that there is adequate followup with the authorities, but I've no way of knowing, and we have no visible policies as to how the WMF handles stuff like this (at least, none that I'm aware of). There have been times when I've seen egregious breaches of the law, that I have gone directly to the authorities with a complaint, but that's really not my remit as a volunteer. We really should have a formal central point of contact at the WMF for such matters - Alison 18:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Hi Sue, as you know I have a well known interest in governance issues for our movement. I fully endorse the concerns above, and would encourage this change in project policies. In addition to a focus on the English Wikipedia, I believe we can accept that Wikimedia Commons is a critical entry point for media that may require urgent attention, and cooperation with that community is essential for a realistic and reliable response to problems. There have been encouraging work-flow improvements proposed on Commons to help the public report media, normally photographs, that they find worrying. Processes should distinguish between delegation of handling general complaints to established volunteers and necessary responsibility for material under the child protection policy that should be investigated by insured and trained employees or agents of the WMF. Along with many other interested volunteers of better experience and knowledge, I would be happy to lend any weight I might have to help make this work. Thanks -- (talk) 18:38, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Sue, I'm a Commons Bureaucrat, in media-related terms, this is an issue that would likely affect our project more than it would others. Perhaps Alison is able to give some insight into the media issue on en.wp. Just recently we have started a discussion on Commons relating to some of these issues. I did contact Philippe and Legal asking for their input, which we have yet to see. We are being told that CP is basically a Commons problem that Commons needs to deal with. Whilst the number of CP images uploaded to Commons are < 100 a year, and dealing with them is generally done within a matter of minutes, the issue itself on how they are dealt with is something that I am not comfortable with on placing on the shoulders of volunteers. Many countries have mandatory reporting requirements under law for child pornography, which is great thing as it should be, but our team deal with such issues as they arise places our admins in a precarious legal position where computers can be seized, children taken from the family, etc just for accessing in order to take action. Like Alison, I too have in the past deleted images, had them OS, and informed Legal, but also gone directly to our authorities to report; luckily for me nothing occurred as a result. But for others who have reported such issues to the authorities have not been so lucky.[3][4] The ramifications of this issue as quickly outlined by others and myself above is too great a burden to expect volunteers to have to deal with. The Foundation has both legal protection and the money for legal protection behind it. We as volunteers do not. Russavia (talk) 18:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • The WMF needs a stronger commitment to children and their safety. The community has difficulties dealing with pedophiles and pedophilia, and it'll continue having difficulties. I've also seen the WMF hesitate and shy away from responsibility by attempting to dump those responsibilities onto the community. The WMF can't afford to be afraid when faced with difficult issues and choices; it needs to courageous (be bold). The WMF needs a clear policy and the will to enforce policy. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:23, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Sue, I am very worried that people are trying to enforce their sense of morality under the guise of Child protection. That said there are country/state/federal/international laws governing content on children we have to abide by. WMF Legal had created some content on age verification on adult content (how it isn't required) and perhaps they can create something for this issue (whatever law requires). -- とある白い猫 chi? 15:05, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • It is not unreasonable to expect contributors to a WMF project to have a bare minimum moral standing regarding child protection, a moral standing that states we have zero tolerance for pedophiles or pedophilia advocacy among other thing. Perhaps even above and beyond what is required by the letter of the law. If you cannot meet that minimum, Mr. White Cat, then perhaps you should rethink your membership here. Tarc (talk) 23:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I think White Cat has admitted to trolling by suggesting that laws are supposed to be disconnected from a social sense of morality. Obviously, he is just saying very absurd things to disrupt. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  • No, all I am saying is we are required to follow laws that apply to US anyways which is what we should use rather than someones vague definition of morality. Are you sure we are doing everything we can to follow the law (what you call bare minimum)? I have a feeling we aren't. You are not going to be able to protect anyone unless you have the law behind you. If you think there is more we should do "beyond the bare minimum the law demands" in your words, that is fine and we can do that (I'd probably support it) but our starting basis must be the law. This is how we handle copyrights too, commons & en.wikipedia is more restrictive than what copyright law demands and for good reason.
  • For instance we lack the legal basis in policy on how to handle cases where child pornography is posted. Sure we would deleted it and block the uploader but is that really enough to protect children & meet the requirements of the law? Or what about people using wikipedia to prey on children, how do we handle that and are we at least complying with what the law requires? What about cases that apply outside of the jurisdiction of US law?
  • If you carelessly toss in morality into the mix then people will demand we bring Sharia law or some other restrictive legal system. There is a difference between moral panic and objective reasoning.
-- とある白い猫 chi? 18:02, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Ms. Gardner and the Foundation knows my thoughts on this matter - this is clearly a matter where it is everyone's responsibility. Owners or users are obligated to report anything that endangers a child (be it from them merely viewing illegal content to someone try to create a pedophilic atmosphere). The law is rather clear on the neglect aspects, and we are all culpable if we do nothing. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:40, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I'd like to hear Ms Gardner's thoughts on this, but perhaps those across this issue better than me could also put this question to the candidates in the upcoming board election: they will be appointing and directing her replacement. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:47, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Worm's original statement here is contrary to fact: the problem with en:WP:Child protection is that it is not really a community policy - it was never adopted by consensus; at the beginning we were told that Jimbo Wales was using his special status on en.wp to issue it directly. As a result, it contains very vague terms that are poor thresholds to draw for enforcement. The solution is not to kick this poorly written policy up to an even higher level and expose the WMF to direct legal liability for the next test case Wikipediocracy dreams up. Instead, the existing Terms of Service point the way, carefully laying out more legalistic requirements that can be enforced by the WMF, such as not soliciting identifying information from minors. Wikipedia does not need to treat pedophiles' POV-pushing any differently from the horde of racists, religious fanatics, and nationalistic zealots who are just as dedicated to promoting fringe views as fact. Nor is it sensible legal practice to ban editors based on "identity", even for something like this, rather than for their actions. It does the WMF no good, and may expose it to devastating liability, to make a top-down exercise of official policy guidance that encourages editors trying to make a name and profession for themselves as Wikipedia critics to troll through every real name ever disclosed, however incidentally, by a user of the site, trying to find if that person was ever charged for a crime. Wikipedia should be content to be what it is, by intent and design: an encyclopedia that anyone can edit - with all the good and bad that entails. Wnt (talk) 19:19, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Sue, before you leave employment with the WMF, could you show us what you have done to get an initiative started on managing the child-protection situation? Could you post a link to the minutes of a WMF staff meeting in which discussion of this issue was on the agenda and a list of the action items and points-of-contact assigned to take care of each item? Could you link to or post any memos or emails that you have sent to your staff assigning responsibility for coming up with a plan of action to deal with the issue? Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 23:30, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Hi everyone - Sue asked that I post a response to you here. As you might imagine, she's pretty incredibly backlogged right now, but she wanted me to let you know that we've had numerous conversations about this topic internally. She did quite a bit of research into what our current policies are and how they're being handled on the wikis. We all agree that this is an important issue, and we suggest that we discuss it further, with a designated representative from the Arbitration Committee (this need not be the standard liaisons, Risker and Newyorkbrad - it could be any other member of the committee that the committee wishes to delegate to this task). Once you let us know who, we'll gladly set up a call and see how we move forward with this. Philippe (WMF) (talk) 00:36, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Philippe, this is yet another very upsetting example of the Foundation being focused only on the English Wikipedia. If you are going to discuss any possible changes to global policies, please at least include oversighters from other projects (the German Wikipedia, Commons and Meta come first to my mind) and a representative of the stewards. Or even better — discuss it on a public page here on Meta. odder (talk) 09:56, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
    • I concur with Odder; it would be amiss to base such discussions only with English Wikipedia. As per Odder I am calling for these discussions to take place openly here on Meta so that full community input can be given. Russavia (talk) 09:59, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
    • +1. The Wikimedia community and the Wikimedia Projects are not represented by one arbitration committee for one project. I would doubt that the English Wikipedia Arbcom would accept such a role were they asked. -- (talk) 10:19, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Philippe, I'm confused - did you officially say that the en.wiki ArbCom is now the designated legal counsel for the WMF and will be the ones responding to Wikimedia-wide issues? Ottava Rima (talk) 14:05, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
      • The above comments are fundamentally misguided. The original request was that the Foundation take over responsibility on the English Wikipedia for investigations into child protection concerns. Our present request has nothing to do with any other Wikimedia project. AGK [•] 18:39, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
        • Actually, AGK, this thread started with "I'll be writing this primarily from an En.WP perspective, but I'm sure these comments could be extended to every WMF project." So, as a member of another project, I would like to know what are the steps the WMF is considering to take with regards to child protection, since it seems to be related not only to the English Wikipedia. odder (talk) 18:52, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Philippe, thank you for passing on Sue's response. We will arrange a call over the next few days. (One minor correction: Newyorkbrad alone is our designated and "official" liaison.) AGK [•] 18:39, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
      • Can we ask for the Skype call to be logged and transcribed for us mere mortals to read? odder (talk) 18:52, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Before Jimbo Wales issued the secret edict that those who have any contrarian views relating to sexuality should be automatically banned from the English Wikipedia, there was actually a strong consensus against banning such editors. Before the creation of the page en:Wikipedia:Child protection, nobody actually knew that there was any such policy except for the Arbitration Committee, and people who were banned due to this secret policy were banned without any prior warning writing about such views, and with "all mail to be sent to ArbCom" thus ending any community discussion about the merits of banning such individuals. I say that this is a very concerning fact, because there is no other such views that get such treatment; even if one advocates for murder of entire races or other abhorrent views, it is only this view that one get people banned with "no possible discussion" about this from the community, a type of banning that the community has actually rejected before all discussion about this was stifled. I would say firstly, that it is indeed very concerning if known pedophiles are hooking up with children who are working on Wikipedia, but to ban people for merely espousing contrarian ideas is probably the greatest threat to free thought and debate, and contrary to the spirit of an Encyclopedia and learning. Even the Guardian has published an article examining pedophilia in detail. Perhaps if people wrote on the English Wikipedia the same things as in that Guardian article, they would be automatically banned with no discussion. This is perhaps the greatest error that the English Wikipedia has made, under the guise of "child protection," whereas it is not so much about protection children as it is about suppressing contrary views.--98.118.56.224 19:40, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
    • I wasn't planning on contributing here, for numerous reasons, but I feel the need to refute the above comment. For one thing, advocacy of any viewpoint is at odds with several Wikipedia policies. For another, although this is often forgotten, Wikipedia should always be representative of the current mainstream view on scientific subjects and the most current research should generally not be included at all. Significant minority views should be represented, but Wikipedia is intended to be an encyclopedia and as such it should provide an overview of the topic. If scientific consensus changes, that will be reflected in secondary sources. Wikipedia should follow, not lead. As for the Guardian article (assuming this is the article), it is an op-ed. An op-ed is by definition an opinion piece, which means it is not a great source for a scientific article. Regardless, I'm not sure what is said in that article that is not already included in some form in the existing w:Pedophilia article. There are often discussions on the talk page about various aspects of that article. They are concluded through the normal process of consensus and without editors being banned. In any case, this discussion is about who enforces the policy, not about the inherent unfairness of such a policy. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:55, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
    • I find it odd that the IP hasn't been banned yet for trying to justify the rape of children as acceptable behavior. I think, at the very least, Verizon should be contacted about the individual. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:18, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
      • Is that a joke? That IP's one contribution is above. What he is proposing to defend is commentary that would be protected by the First Amendment in the U.S. You're proposing people be banned merely for agreeing with the First Amendment's approach as presently interpreted in the U.S. courts? Wnt (talk) 22:57, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
        • It made something come to my mind. Another issue. Brazil, along with parts of Asia-Pacific and Central America, is likely going to be the next server hotspot of Wikipedia after the PRISM scandal. While Brazilian law is much more permissive/progressive/both than the United States' one in some aspects (remembering famous controversial matters in our project... here people have the freedom to want ages of consent to be lowered, and it was never a crime distributing human-animal or legal minor-like cartoon pornography), unlike in the U.S., the distribution of Nazi or racial supremacist content is a crime. While it is hardly enforced unless people engaged in it are e.g. part of a gang using brutal violence or making death threats against minors, and people that are otherwise not criminal commenting liberally on those topics in the internet very, very rarely are arrested on the charge of virtual crimes (they have to do very visible virtual crimes advocating violence, generally relating to already existing developments in real life even if not perpetrated by them, as the impersonators of masculinist Silvio Koerich that advocated a myriad of different kinds of far-right prejudice that would make both the KKK and the Westboro Baptist Church scared and whose views were influential in the moulding of the ideas of the perpetrator of the 2011 Rio de Janeiro school massacre), and it is quite obvious that the cops and the justice system won't punish us as a group for it unless we deny handling anonymous personal information of the (Brazilian!) suspect criminals to them, it may be a concern per people's, media's and authorities' views over the project's reputation just as with many other topics until now (but then Brazil, duh, doesn't speak English – the reason why our authorities will not care too much about even the wildest racist fringe POV if written from and for foreigners – and is way more messy in itself – they have other things to worry about –, so it will be way less problematic) and may warrant future banning policy similar in fashion to our current policy against child molesters and their supporters for people with minimally far-right or white nationalist views if the project's ideal rules in the way Tarc, for example, espouses them, are supposed to be the dominant ones. Lguipontes (talk) 22:04, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Hi Sue. Quite a number of people have weighed in on this issue now, from a diverse array of backgrounds. Can we possibly have some answers to the questions laid out above, or at least some statement to show where the WMF stands on these issues now? Could you possibly provide some direction on the whole issue of reporting/visibility/liability/etc? Thanks - Alison 03:35, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi Alison. Yes -- and I want to say, I appreciate people's comments here, and their seriousness about the issue. On an issue this important, I'm not in a position to just express my personal opinion, and so that's why I'm not actively engaging here. I am reading everyone's comments though. What I've done is to ask the LCA department to investigate and develop a position that they think makes sense -- and to that end, they are consulting internally inside the WMF, and consulting with the two enWP ArbCom members who volunteered to talk through the issues in real time with us. (I don't think it actually matters whether the ArbCom reps are enWP-only or not: the purpose of the consultation is for the WMF to get a general sense of the kinds of pressures and challenges faced on this issue by various community people in positions of leadership and authority. The finer details might be different in different language versions and for different roles, but the headlines will likely be similar.) Basically: the WMF is working to develop a position -- until that's done, I won't have anything useful to say here. Thank you: I do appreciate everyone's patience and understanding that this is a tough and important issue. Sue Gardner (talk) 20:10, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi all,
Thanks to everyone who has commented here and communicated their concerns. Child protection is an incredibly important issue and we know it's on the mind of a lot of folks in ArbCom and other leadership roles within the projects. On behalf of the LCA team, I want to provide a status update of our work on this. As always, my comments here are not legal advice to community members as I only represent the WMF.
I should first emphasize that we have certain policies and practices in place to deal with child protection. Our Terms of Use prohibit solicitation of personally identifiable information from children for any illegal purpose or in violation of any applicable law regarding the well-being of minors. The terms also prohibit posting content that violates applicable law concerning child pornography on any Wikimedia project. Users are asked to report child pornography and other potentially illegal content to legal-reports@wikimedia.org. We also have a separate emergency@wikimedia.org email address for threats to life, limb, or property. Both of these email addresses are staffed twenty-four hours a day by qualified staff members. If users report threats to children on those email accounts, we follow a protocol that represents best practices in the industry to ensure that we evaluate the credibility of threats. This protocol was designed by a sociologist specializing in online communities. It was based on a significant number of interviews with other companies and vetted by law enforcement. If a threat is determined to be credible, staff follow up with reports to appropriate law enforcement agencies.
As Sue mentioned, we are in dialogue with the English Wikipedia ArbCom members on roles in investigation and enforcement of other child protection cases. More recently, we have discussed other strategies internally, which we intend to discuss with ArbCom shortly. For example, as some of you have suggested in this discussion, we are thinking about developing specific guidelines for investigating child protection issues. We understand the importance of having clear guidelines for anyone who conducts investigations and enforcement in these types of cases.
We also appreciate that volunteers may face unexpected risks and challenges in the process of protecting children on our projects. We have created a legal fees protection program for volunteers in support roles dealing with child protection and other sensitive issues. Prior to adopting this program, we consulted the community, which resulted in an extension of the scope of this program.
We do think that this is a very important issue and it has not fallen off our radar. We look forward to continuing the discussions with ArbCom and other interested community members as we move towards some new, hopefully improved, processes.
Again, thank you for your input. YWelinder (WMF) (talk) 02:29, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
As an update, we are still working with the English Wikipedia's arbitration committee and other interested parties on this. For this process, we've done review of similar policies at other organizations, have had conversations with industry experts about some of the best practices, and drafted an initial position paper, which we provided to Arbcom for review. Their review took longer than what I think they had originally expected and we are now evaluating their comments. Geoffbrigham (talk) 20:22, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

RFAR: Wikipedia's IRC channels[edit]

Please see a current request for arbitration, which discusses the relation between

  • WMF and Wikipedia (and its ArbCom) and
  • Wikipedia's IRC channels.

I added you as a party to the arbitration case.

Concerns include the use of IRC for

  1. canvassing administrators,
  2. sexual banter with children,
  3. chatting about lighting myself on fire with oil and a lighter (by a WMF employee), etc.

Another concern is the failure of WMF and Wikipedia to match the child-protection standards of the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts, for example, by requiring two adults witness every child-adult interaction. The Scouts would not tolerate Wikipedia's editor

  1. telling a boy how to work around his parents' removal of his contact list from his email, and following up with emails and IM messages for months, including one following the boy's having "learned his lesson".
  2. telling a boy that the editor will be visiting his town the next week.

IRC is a liability to children and Wikipedia and certainly to the WMF.

Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:43, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Copied from Sue's page on English Wikipedia. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 23:02, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

As there, leaving notice that Sue has been removed from the case as a party. Philippe (WMF) (talk) 07:13, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Who is responsible for child protection?[edit]

Hi Sue. I left some questions on a staffer's page about child protection issues. No reply. As you know I emailed you a couple of times about this. No reply. Why this wall of silence about child safety? Is it because the Foundation doesn’t want to be seen as legally liable for child protection? But then who is? At least three members of the Arbitration committee (two of them above) have said they do not want to be responsible for child safety.

The child protection policy is very weak, and no one wants to claim responsibility even for that. The police have told me nothing can be done unless a criminal act happens. Do you really want it to come to that? Shouldn’t the Foundation be acting more responsibly when it comes to something so important? Peter Damian (talk) 08:02, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Sue, when the WMF is asked about child protection your silence, and the silence and/or dishonesty of your staffers don't look good at all.
By the way when I'm talking about child protection I mean not only protecting children from pedophiles and users with an unhealthy fetishes. I mean protecting children's health. Have you read this study "Facebook Bad For Your Mental Health, Study Suggests'. There are many evidences that Wikipedia is even worse for one's mental health than Facebook is, yet the WMF goes above and beyond to attract more children to edit Wikipedia, and then when these children get hurt, the WMF doesn't give a damn about these children. 50.174.76.70 18:18, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Response to your question[edit]

Hi Sue, I cannot respond your question on English Wikipedia because I was blocked there. So below is my response to you here, and after you read it I'd like you to respond if you believe that the described behavior of an adult Wikipedian is a matter of concern. Please note I have some additional evidences, which I could email to you.

pretending to be a child himself[edit]


teaching kids how to disable the parental control[edit]

teaching a young boy how he could continue email correspondence with his "mentor", against the boy's parent’s wishes[edit]

"Technically speaking, someone not being in your contacts, doesn't stop you emailing them (if you know their address), or them emailing you."


corporal punishment and caning[edit]


  • More disturbingly, one of the adopted boys , then 14, placed a message on "the mentor's" user page saying this user enjoys caning naughty boys. At the time the message was posted there was nothing on wiki to suggest that "the mentor" enjoyed caning boys, which indicates that the boy got this information from the off-wiki contacts with his "mentor".


Thanks. 50.174.76.70 16:49, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Sue, you were active here, but haven't bothered to respond my post. Are the diffs I presented not concerning enough, or maybe you know something I do not? 50.174.77.224 05:08, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Still waiting[edit]

Hi Sue, still waiting for a reply to my questions about children's welfare on Wikimedia projects. Peter Damian (talk) 19:23, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Peter Damian. This is a sensitive and complex topic: I'm sure you can understand why the Wikimedia Foundation isn't engaging lightly in public conversations about it. Thanks Sue Gardner (talk) 19:40, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Sue, thanks for the reply at last but most of my questions are not really complex or difficult. For example, I asked YWelinder " You say that the Terms of Use "prohibit solicitation of personally identifiable information from children for any illegal purpose". How is this monitored?". This is a pretty simple question. How do you monitor whether users are soliciting personally identifiable information from children? I don't really understand why the Wikimedia Foundation isn't engaging lightly in public conversations about it. Does that mean you are going to have a serious public conversation about it? Or does it mean you aren't going to discuss it at all, because of legal liability questions. Can you confirm whether you are having any private conversations, e.g., with the Arbitration Committee, three of whom say they aren't prepared to deal with child protection issues at all because of legal liability issues? When will we hear something? Peter Damian (talk) 21:31, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Emails ignored[edit]

Sue, you say above that you don’t want to discuss matters of child protection in public. Why in this case has the Foundation and its representatives consistently refuse to discuss the matter in private?

I first emailed Jimmy about problematic edits on 13 August 2013. Receiving no reply, I followed up on 27 August to Jimmy Wales, copying Geoff Brigham. I copied Michelle Paulson after receiving out of office from Geoff, then to you, copying Jay Walsh. Then receiving no reply, to Jimmy again, 12 hours later, copying you and Michelle.

I never received any response or acknowledgements for any of these emails. This was even when I pointed out that an ex-police officer had advised me that the matter was serious and that the foundation, or even law enforcement, should deal with it. Why the secrecy? Peter Damian (talk) 07:33, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Update on Child Protection Issues?[edit]

Hi Sue, it sounds like you guys really went to work on the issue of child protection at the Wikimedia Foundation. But I don't see a reply from you here on the issue since September of last year. What came of that effort? It would be very helpful if you linked to the results from this page, since so many people have brought it up here. If you can't talk about it in public, could you at least tell us if the Wikimedia Foundation processes that were referred to earlier have been completed? Thanks! Wllm (talk) 02:06, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Exit interview questions[edit]

Hello Sue,

Here is the list of questions, in the order they were submitted.

  1. What do you see as the Wikimedia Foundation's greatest challenge in the coming years? (13 endorsements)
  2. What do you believe was the biggest or best change that you've implemented during your tenure at the Wikimedia Foundation? (15 endorsements)
  3. What aspects of the relationship between volunteers and the Foundation, its board and its staff, do you wish were better understood? (16 endorsements)
  4. What does "leadership" mean to you, if there is a wide span of interests? (3 endorsements)
  5. How should Wikimedia handle controversial content? (11 endorsements)
  6. If you could give advice to your successor (and other future EDs), what would it be? (4 endorsements)
  7. What do you think is the most important quality for your successor to have? (3 endorsements)
  8. What was the biggest mistake you think you made during your time as ED? (9 endorsements and a comment: "would be more interested in knowing what you and WMF learned from it")
  9. You mentioned "free and open internet" as a reason for departure. Do you think it is achievable in developing countries? Why? How? (2 endorsements)
  10. Is there anything particular you wanted to change in the system but you could not? If yes, what and why? (6 endorsements)
  11. Do you still see contributions to Wikipedia as a public service and will you still hand out barnstars? (1 endorsement)
  12. What are your thoughts on Wikimedia Commons? (1 endorsement)
  13. Why I should be interested in what you think? (1 endorsement)
  14. What are your thoughts on the future of the Wikimedia movement affiliates model? (2 endorsements)
  15. Do you think Chapters are still relevant to the movement? (1 endorsement)

Best regards,

PiRSquared17 (talk) 20:42, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Although we supposedly stopped accepting questions a few days ago, there is a new one. Since you have not answered the existing ones, I see no reason not to add it to this list:
  1. If a genie granted you a 3 wikimedia-related wishes, you'd wish for...
PiRSquared17 (talk) 23:19, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi PiRSquared17. Exactly! I finish up as ED Sunday -- I will probably get to these questions sometime next week. There's no rush :) Thanks Sue Gardner (talk) 04:00, 31 May 2014 (UTC)