[Foundation-l] spamming of the english wikipedia users detected

[Matthew Britton]

Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> The message is no mystery, I posted it in advance on wikien-l.
> Unfortunately many people don't see posts on the lists.
> 
> Oscar, I find it amusing that you've quoted it so selectively and
> imply that the rest of the body reflects your selection. It doesn't of
> course, but that would weaken your argument.   It also amuses me that
> there would be any question about who sent it: All, save a few, went
> out with my name on them. And all would have told you who sent them by
> simply looking for the username that sent the message.
> 
> For those who care to see the actual message rather than a
> misrepresentation, you can see it at
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-July/076652.html
> 
> The message I sent in email just had a slightly personalized into
> sentence, the rest was pretty much the same.
> 
> It's been an interesting cultural experiment, if nothing else.
> 
> I've received over a hundred positive responses, messages spanning
> from casual "thanks" to some which absolutely glowed with praise.
> 
> I've hand held easily a dozen people through the voting process...
> Some who would have been otherwise unable to vote because of mistakes
> we made.   The email uncovered numerous process errors, for example: A
> great many, potentially a majority of, currently active En Wikipedians
> couldn't see the site notice and were totally unaware of the election.
> 
> I have received a grand total of clearly four negative responses, all
> from people I would have considered usual suspects... people I've had
> past disagreements with, and would have excluded from the mailing if I
> hadn't considered it important to avoid allowing my personal choices
> to bias the selection.
> 
> The facts are that:
> 
>  1) That under 5% of the recently active eligible English Wikipedians
> had participated in the election thus far. (My email said 'under 16%'
> but I was trying to be conservative as there is room to argue over
> what constitutes recently, and the real numbers are just far too
> embarrassing).
> 
> 2) The board appointed election com.  has made several serious and
> impacting errors in the handling of the election which has resulted in
> low turnout.  Some of these errors have discriminated against the
> English Wikipedia community although no doubt unintentionally so. I
> have personally, found the election com. to be unable to address most
> issues because they are over worked.
> 
> 3) As mentioned above, the responses have been overwhelming and
> intensely positive.
> 
> As such, I am convinced that my actions were correct. They were my
> actions alone, made with no one's permission, assistance, or advice
> but my own, so if you'd like to yell at me and tell me that I can't do
> it... that is your decision. But I will not care what you think. My
> reply will be that you are misinformed, because a small angry group on
> a malling list does not carry more truth than hundreds of personal
> messages.

You didn't even manage to email the right set of users.

For example, you sent the message to Qxz, one of my alternate accounts. 
Qxz *does not qualify to vote*; it was registered in January 2007, and 
thus fails the "You must have been a contributor to at least one 
Wikimedia project for one year prior to June 1, 2007" criterion by a mile.

I wonder just how much of the "less than 16%" turnout can be accounted 
for by this mass-mailing of ineligible users.

-Gurch