That depends on how you interpret it. No monetary gain was there but they a r e userping someones identity for personal gain.
Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE device
------ Original message------ From: Nathan Date: Wed, Dec 10, 2014 12:49 PM To: Addressing gender equity and exploring ways to increase the participation of women within Wikimedia projects.; Subject:Re: [Gendergap] a gender gap meet-up?
No, nothing described below constitutes fraud of any kind.
On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 12:42 PM, Carol Moore dc carolmooredc@verizon.net wrote: Let's just call it what it is - internet fraud...
On 12/10/2014 12:02 PM, reguyla@gmail.com wrote: That is joe jobbing.
Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE device
------ Original message------ From: LB Date: Wed, Dec 10, 2014 11:58 AM To: Addressing gender equity and exploring ways to increase the participation of women within Wikimedia projects.; Subject:Re: [Gendergap] a gender gap meet-up?
Is there a term (like "joe job") for when someone pretends to be you to get you into trouble? In my case, after I'd already been blocked for a week, an IP address deleted some info that I'd asked to have revdeled. It's possible it was someone who thought they were helping me, but it's also possible - maybe probable - that someone did it maliciously so an admin would think I was dodging my block.
Lightbreather
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
On 12/10/2014 12:47 PM, Nathan wrote:
No, nothing described below constitutes fraud of any kind.
On 12/10/2014 1:01 PM, reguyla@gmail.com wrote:
That depends on how you interpret it. No monetary gain was there but they a r e userping someones identity for personal gain.
How do you know?
For example, maybe there are secretly for profit, paid editors on Wikipedia who feel threatened by more Admin and/or Foundation scrutiny of the kind that some editors have been promoting, sometimes for years.
GGTF has too many snoopy, boat rocking editors. Getting rid of such editors allows them to continue to make money without pesky snoops. If faking IPs helps discredit those editors and get them blocked, so they can continue their secret paid editing, that's fraud.
Or maybe someone who doesn't like GGTF or Lightbreather paid someone $50 to fake the IP and Lightbreather-like comments in order to cover their tracks.
Maybe there's someone making a good living faking 3 or 4 IPs a week in some topic area where some organization wants to discredit some BLPs or companies or even a whole nation. So they flood the topic area with socks from phony IPs and then it's easy to claim new editors are socks and get rid of them before they can learn the ropes and deal with POV edits.
I'm sure there are all sorts of more examples of what might be happening we could come up with.
So don't claim there is no fraud when there could be fraud going on...
CM
On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 1:15 PM, Carol Moore dc carolmooredc@verizon.net wrote:
How do you know?
For example, maybe there are secretly for profit, paid editors on Wikipedia who feel threatened by more Admin and/or Foundation scrutiny of the kind that some editors have been promoting, sometimes for years.
GGTF has too many snoopy, boat rocking editors. Getting rid of such editors allows them to continue to make money without pesky snoops. If faking IPs helps discredit those editors and get them blocked, so they can continue their secret paid editing, that's fraud.
Or maybe someone who doesn't like GGTF or Lightbreather paid someone $50 to fake the IP and Lightbreather-like comments in order to cover their tracks.
Maybe there's someone making a good living faking 3 or 4 IPs a week in some topic area where some organization wants to discredit some BLPs or companies or even a whole nation. So they flood the topic area with socks from phony IPs and then it's easy to claim new editors are socks and get rid of them before they can learn the ropes and deal with POV edits.
I'm sure there are all sorts of more examples of what might be happening we could come up with.
So don't claim there is no fraud when there could be fraud going on...
CM
Those are some outlandishly unlikely scenarios, just as unlikely as you being secretly an impersonator of the real Carol Moore hired to defame the real Carol by getting banned on Wikipedia. As I said, outlandish and unlikely. In the absence of evidence of fraud, concluding that fraud exists ("Let's call it what it is... Internet fraud") defies reason.
Speculation on the monetary gain definition of fraud is lots of fun. However, we all know fraud has a wider meaning as two dictionary definitions show.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fraud 1 a : deceit, trickery; specifically : intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right b : an act of deceiving or misrepresenting : trick 2. a : a person who is not what he or she pretends to be : impostor; also : one who defrauds : cheat b : one that is not what it seems or is represented to be
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fraud?s=t noun 1. deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage. 2. a particular instance of such deceit or trickery: mail fraud; election frauds. 3. any deception, trickery, or humbug: That diet book is a fraud and a waste of time. 4. a person who makes deceitful pretenses; sham; poseur.
I think most people who were victim of some false email pretending they engaged in obnoxous or illegal behavior would say the email was a fraud and the person who sent it was one too..
On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 1:39 PM, Carol Moore dc carolmooredc@verizon.net wrote:
Speculation on the monetary gain definition of fraud is lots of fun. However, we all know fraud has a wider meaning as two dictionary definitions show.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fraud 1 a : deceit, trickery; specifically : intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right b : an act of deceiving or misrepresenting : trick 2. a : a person who is not what he or she pretends to be : impostor; also : one who defrauds : cheat b : one that is not what it seems or is represented to be
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fraud?s=t noun
- deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated
for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage. 2. a particular instance of such deceit or trickery: mail fraud; election frauds. 3. any deception, trickery, or humbug: That diet book is a fraud and a waste of time. 4. a person who makes deceitful pretenses; sham; poseur.
I think most people who were victim of some false email pretending they engaged in obnoxous or illegal behavior would say the email was a fraud and the person who sent it was one too..
I suspect "Internet fraud" has a narrower definition. In any case, an IP with a single edit removing information that someone else asked be removed is not proof even of deception, let alone any definition of fraud. And as convincing as LB's protests sound (and they do sound convincing), Risker and other people with CU experience have declined to overturn or speak against the block extension.