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

[Peter van Londen]

I am sorry, but your actions are misplaced. It is trying to influence voters
selectively.

It is "not done" and reason to doubt the results of this election.
The election committee will have to make a standpoint what this means for
the election as such.

The election committee might have made mistakes (which ones you did not
mention though), but your mistake is absolutely the biggest.

Kind regards, Londenp

2007/7/3, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com>:
>
> On 7/3/07, Matthew Britton <matthew.britton at btinternet.com> wrote:
> > Something doesn't have to be "totally ridiculous" to be spam.
> >
> > An "unpleasant" and "unwanted" message copied to hundreds of users
> > without their consent counts as spam, as far as I'm concerned.
> >
> > I think the sender of these messages should be informed that it is not
> > acceptable.
>
> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>