Have a chat with: SilkTork

Letter petitioning WMF to reverse recent decitionsEdit

The Wikimedia Foundation recently created a new feature, "superprotect" status. The purpose is to prevent pages from being edited by elected administrators -- but permitting WMF staff to edit them. It has been put to use in only one case: to protect the deployment of the Media Viewer software on German Wikipedia, in defiance of a clear decision of that community to disable the feature by default, unless users decide to enable it.

If you oppose these actions, please add your name to this letter. If you know non-Wikimedians who support our vision for the free sharing of knowledge, and would like to add their names to the list, please ask them to sign an identical version of the letter on change.org.

I'm notifying you because you participated in one of several relevant discussions. -Pete F (talk) 22:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


Nice to see you on Meta. :) 14:00, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not active here, but have had a presence since 2007. I applied to be a steward in 2011, and passed the vote, but messed up the procedure on a technicality. SilkTork (talk) 14:41, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Superprotect letter updateEdit

Hi SilkTork,

Along with more hundreds of others, you recently signed Letter to Wikimedia Foundation: Superprotect and Media Viewer, which I wrote.

Today, we have 562 signatures here on Meta, and another 61 on change.org, for a total of 623 signatures. Volunteers have fully translated it into 16 languages, and begun other translations. This far exceeds my most optimistic hopes about how many might sign the letter -- I would have been pleased to gain 200 siguatures -- but new signatures continue to come.

I believe this is a significant moment for Wikimedia and Wikipedia. Very rarely have I seen large numbers of people from multiple language and project communities speak with a unified voice. As I understand it, we are unified in a desire for the Wikimedia Foundation to respect -- in actions, in addition to words -- the will of the community who has built the Wikimedia projects for the benefit of all humanity. I strongly believe it is possible to innovate and improve our software tools, together with the Wikimedia Foundation. But substantial changes are necessary in order for us to work together smoothly and productively. I believe this letter identifies important actions that will strongly support those changes.

Have you been discussing these issues in your local community? If so, I think we would all appreciate an update (on the letter's talk page) about how those discussions have gone, and what people are saying. If not, please be bold and start a discussoin on your Village Pump, or in any other venue your project uses -- and then leave a summary of what kind of response you get on the letter's talk page.

Finally, what do you think is the right time, and the right way, to deliver this letter? We could set a date, or establish a threshold of signatures. I have some ideas, but am open to suggestions.

Thank you for your engagement on this issue, and please stay in touch. -Pete F (talk) 18:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

2016 Community Wishlist SurveyEdit


You’re getting this message because you participated in the 2015 Community Wishlist Survey and we want to make sure you don't miss it this year – or at least can make the conscious choice to ignore if it you want to. The 2015 survey decided what the Community Tech team should work on during 2016. It was also the focus of Wikimedia hackathons and work by other developers. You can see the status of wishes from the 2015 wishlist at 2015 Community Wishlist Survey/Results.

The 2016 Community Wishlist Survey is now open for wishes. You can create proposals until November 20. You will be able to vote on which wishes you think are best or most important between November 28 and December 12. /Johan (WMF) (talk) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:17, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

JSTOR account redistribution (The Wikipedia Library)Edit

Hi - according to our records you received a free account for JSTOR through The Wikipedia Library. Because we’ve used up all of our allocated accounts, and it’s been some time since they were distributed, we want to redistribute any accounts that aren’t being used to users on our waitlist.

If you’re still using, or plan to use, your JSTOR access, no problem! Simply head over to the Library Card platform, log in, and request a renewal of your account. You should be able to do this from your user page, or the JSTOR signup page. If you can’t find the renewal button, or have any other issues or questions about this, please feel free to leave a message on my talk page. We’ll begin redistributing inactive accounts in September; if you request renewal after then we will only be able to reactivate your account if we have spots remaining. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:32, 20 August 2018 (UTC)


Sent you an e-mail. Please respond at your earliest convenience.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:51, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Fram caseEdit

Hi, Silk, a bit of clarification on that T&S document. Is it your impression that the document is comprehensive and covers all actions taken by the Foundation in this case as well as all complaints made to the Foundation regarding Fram? Does the document clearly distinguish between people who initiated complaints with the Foundation as opposed to those whose complaints may have been solicited by the Foundation? Lastly, are you absolutely certain that this comment you made is an accurate and complete reflection of what the T&S document says occurred with the Fram case in the timeframe from late 2018 to Fram's ban?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:52, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

My time is limited, so I would prefer to prioritise on the case rather than questions about the document. But what I will say, is that for me at the moment, I am looking at Fram's behaviour since the April 2018 warning, including material not in the T&S document nor in the ArbCom case evidence. I don't think I am betraying any confidence because the information is already out there, when I say that the ban rests on complaints this year regarding Fram's behaviour in ArbCom cases and toward ArbCom, so that is what I am concentrating on looking at. But when I say that, I have to be honest and say that I am very time limited at the moment, so I've not had much of a chance to re-examine closely Fram's conduct in those cases where he got involved and concerns were raised. SilkTork (talk) 16:44, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Understand the time limitations, though I believe this is pertinent to the case. Redacted documents, even lightly redacted, can be difficult to interpret in my experience. So, the possibility of misunderstanding does exist. Were the T&S document not complete or being misinterpreted due to redactions, then that could prejudice the case discussion. In that respect, is it possible that the dates in the T&S document do not show when a complaint was made, but rather when the conduct complained about occurred?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:28, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
I have said this many times, but I don't mind repeating myself. I took the document as the impetus to open a case. I am not using the document itself as evidence. I am looking at what I know independent of the document, and what has been revealed during our ArbCom case. I did read the document, and found it a fair summary of Fram's conduct, and a subtle understanding of the difficulties that the community has with civility. The document shows the struggle that T&S had with reconciling the complaints with Fram's actions and reaching a clear conclusion that Fram acted strongly outside community standards, or that Fram was unfairly or inappropriately targeting people. Fram was reported in 2016. There were another five reports before T&S opened an investigation in 2018, so it wasn't a knee-jerk reaction, and it took a number of complaints before T&S started looking into the matter. I understand the actions that T&S took, but I would not have banned Fram based on what is in the document, including what I know of Fram that is not in the document. And, even if I agreed totally with the decision by T&S to ban Fram, it was highly inappropriate of them to take action themselves. The conduct they were looking at falls squally on the responsibility of the Wikipedia community. Where I am at the moment is that Fram got a warning about conduct - and such a warning was warranted, I don't think anyone, including Fram, disputes that. Fram's conduct wasn't such that it deserved an actual sanction, but there has been concern about Fram's persistence and manner for some time. So a "cool it" from any quarter was appropriate. So Fram got a warning. Has Fram continued to behave in an inappropriate manner since the warning? Possibly. There was stress around ArbCom and ArbCom cases at the start of this year, and Fram was quite heated. That's what I'm looking at. That's the case. The document doesn't really come into it. SilkTork (talk) 03:35, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
You seem to have indicated that there were exactly a dozen complaints to the Foundation. This would seem to be inconsistent with the statement on the evidence page that over a dozen complaints were sent to the Foundation. Have I missed something? Either you misplaced a complaint or two somewhere or the evidence page contains an error in describing the T&S document, presuming I am reading you correctly. The evidence page does also have a section for "evidence from three years ago" that includes some evidence from just within three years, so an error is entirely possible, unless the "three year" scope was specifically dated from when the first complaint was made. Could that have been the case?
Regarding the focus on evidence not gathered by the Foundation, I understand your reasoning, but I also think the T&S document is pertinent since the case would not exist without it. Should there be omissions or it is being misinterpreted in some way, then that is a relevant concern. Understandably, a great many people want to know what the Foundation's grounds were for action and to be assured they were not acting rashly. If ArbCom's assurances are erroneous or based off a document that does not contain all the relevant information, even under redactions, then that matters.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:08, 12 September 2019 (UTC)


Sorry for bothering you, but can you please check out my latest proposal WikiDirect and leave your opinion in there? Arep Ticous 10:37, 12 September 2019 (UTC)