Talk:Scam baiting

message: General use of language in this article appears to be sub-standard and is in style closer to a blog then a adhering to wikipedia standards of use of language. Could I inspire a clean-up? wh 16:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Likewise. --Cornince 20:26, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Added it --Yoghurt 23:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Heading

message: 419 scambaiting has really declined as a hobby short of a few people like James_Veitch_(comedian) who have kept it alive in the public mind.  Scambaiting today is heavily dominated by telephone scambaiting.    As I am in the telephone-oriented scambaiting community (and had a great deal of time trying to find a safe place to update Wikipedia from, since giving my IP away to scammers is the worst thing ever)... the majority of content being produced and the work being done by scambaiters is on the voice and SMS side.    E-mail filtering has done a marvelous job at reducing the level of advance fee fraud that crosses the eyes of the public.  You have to work for it now to get those emails.
Given how automated dialing (aka "robocalling") has replaced 419 scambaiting, I think this article still needs a revamp to bring it more up to date with what is going on today.  While the 419 history is certainly important (and 419 baiting still exists), not devoting some coverage to the telephony topic puts this article out of date with the subject matter.
:: Wikipedia includes historical material. Have seen some. If 419-ing is old hat, then this is where to come and learn what it once was.
Also:  Bravo to the editor who extricated out the whole racist stereotyping madness that was in this article.    Whatever broad-stereotypical brush that was used on the 419 baiting community is horrifically out of date with who present-day telephony-based scambaiters currently are.   Travel around social media a bit, particularly YouTube/Discord where the telephony scambaiting community is present and you'll see a representation of... well... the Internet.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.98.240.25 (talk) 03:34, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bordering on obsolescence 

message: This article is ridiculously biased toward the pov of scam-baiters. It is edited mostly by anons and entirely unreferenced. There have been several users who have made valiant attempts to NPOV it but I feel the tag will be necessary for the near future. savidan(talk) (e@) 00:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. The article is well written and there are a lot of external references. In fact, I'll add some shortly. Could you be more precise in your criticism? PizzaMargherita 21:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm curious, what is the opposing view that you think is underrepresented here, Savidan? The views of scammers? Of people who think that scam-baiting is dangerous? Of law enforcement, who have various differing opinions about people taking the law into their own hands? Please describe the views that you think are underrepresented, rather than just smearing "POV" all over the place. --FOo 21:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, please do not bother making comments such as "it is edited mostly by anons". Anonymous editing and posting is fully supported here at Wikipedia. We judge contributions by their content and their references -- not by whether the person who added them has a user account. Attacking contributors for being anonymous is not OK here. --FOo 21:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fine with the unreferenced template for now. It's not so much that I think that the views of any one group's views are not represetned (FOo mentions spammers, law enforcement, non-scam baiters, etc.). Rather I think the problem is that some things which are the views of scam baiters are presented as fact. There are no sources from newspapers etc. All of the sources are from the scambaiters websites themselves taken at face value. For example, "A few scambaiters have succeeded in recieving cash from the fraudsters." Says who? The scam baiters? The New York Times? This is my main concern. Perhaps some of the regulars here can assuage it. savidan(talk) (e@) 08:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you head over to 419eater.com and either read the archives, or contact Shiver (the owner of the site) directly, I'm sure he'll be happy to explain that he (and otehrs) have managed to get cash from the scammers in the past, and the reasons why cashbaiting is frowned upon today. WegianWarrior 08:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is exactly my point. To state that scam baiters have gotten cash from scammers would be original research, which is under no circumstances accepted at Wikipedia. If you can track down a reference to the cites archives, that validates the sentence that "scam baiters claim to have gotten money from scammers". If you want to state it as a fact, you need a reputable, third party source, like a newspaper. savidan(talk) (e@) 19:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sadivan, thanks for the clarification. I accept your point. I'll see what I can do. PizzaMargherita 19:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute tag 

message: ALREADY THE TITLE SHOULD BE CHANGED!
There is not such thing as "scam baiting", it's always "scambaiting"! - Just like "trainspotting", "gangbanging", "mindblowing" a.s.o. That's why it's "scambaiter(s)", too. Please change the title, a term "scam baiting" doesn't exist! (rumbero)
Since the title of this article is scam baiting, with a space between the words, I've assumed that the word 'scam baiters' should be used rather than 'scambaiters'.  I've standardised this throughout the article.  If anyone thinks a different word should be used (scambaiters?  scam-baiters?) please put it forward here.  Latinata 06:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I call myself a baiter, as do most others in the baiting community. Because it's quicker to type than the alternatives. Archolman 04:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scam baiters or scambaiters? 

message: Fabricated? Does that mean he's a puppet? Buster79 10:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  David Lee Roth 

message: Much of the deleted information was in fact accurate and should not have been removed. Redpen, the intention of marking stuff as unsoruced is not to delete it, it is to instruct editors to attempt to find sources for deleted material. Remember, just because you haven't heard of it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist). I personally don't have the time to search for all of it, but will have a look if and when I can. Anyone with sources or who has time to trawl through all of 419eater to find examples, please reisntate or delete as appropriate and it would be greatly appreciated.211.30.66.138 (talk) 11:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not a 'how to' on how to scam bait, not is it a place for a personal essay about the pleasures of scambaiting. I stand by my deletions. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 13:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But it is a site where information about scambaiting can be shown, a lot of which was removed. Now the article barely outlines what scambaiting actually is, and parts of it don't even make any sense. At the very least, the article should list some of the more common practices scambaiters use, as they would provide relevant information as to what it is. (I know lists are discoraged, but still) I'll give it a quick edit now that I think is a fair enough compromise. If you don't like it, feel free to remove it; I won't try to stop you. Reminds me, though- if you do wish do do this to any more articles, please read what you've left to make sure it actually flows to someone trying to read it. Too many editors will legitimately remove information and leave behind stuff which sometimes doesn't even have the correct punctuation, let alone structure.
(Note: I'm probably dropping off the net for the next week or so after this, so chanes are I won't be able to respond to further communication for a while- sorry!211.30.66.138 (talk) 07:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion of Much of the Article

message: A CGI Error message appears if you use most of www.thescambaiter.com
This might be a denial-of-service attack or a legal problem.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.252.249 (talk) 12:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error message 

message: What I would love to know is HOW 419eater is allowed to have a Wikipedia page but no other baiting sites are. It is very hard to prove a scambaiting site with external sources as nobody ever writes about them unless something like a DDos attack happens to them or they contact news agencies to promote themselves even more. So who is there to say if they are notable or not? They help support victims of scams, they help close fake bank websites and scammer email addresses, they help distact scammers from their real victims, they help close their bank accounts, they even get some arrested. Are they not worthy of a page? If even churches have pages (are they REALLY notable?) why can't scambaiting communities? If people go to Wikipedia and read about these communities they will look into them further and grow wise about scams and not fall for them
I would also love to know how links to scambaiting sites are forbidden. The article is about scambaiting for heaven's sake, these scambaiting sites are what the article is ABOUT, they provide real EXAMPLES of what the article talks about, they let readers see for themselves what scambaiting is. It's not like a bank or a hotel where people are absolutely sure what it is, these sites are complex. They don't just take the mick out of scammers - they support victims and try to stem the flow of scams. You need to actually see the sites to experience them, and what appear to be biased admins have allowed for a 419eater page but banned others.
I should also point out the ethics over at 419eater (the second largest forum after thescambaiter (which I was IP banned from for disagreeing with a mod)). I have heard tons and tons of sources saying the hidden forums for what I can call premium members contain what is known as cashbaiting (which they claim they ban). Cash-baiting is where baiters try to get money off scammers, wholly unethical. No matter what people from that site say, I have had many MANY people tell me this goes on. I'm not saying this out of jealousy that they have a Wikipedia page, I am saying it so people are aware.
So I have asked why one scambaiting site is allowed on Wikipedia but not others, why scambaiting site links are banned when they are beyond useful, and I have pointed out an ethical issue with one of the sites. Now I am expecting answers, answers which have actually considered my reasoning instead of "well it says on ... page you can't do this so I won't let you".
What is the point in having this website if you ban half the things people want to put on. Isn't a page on Scamtacular better than no page? Isn't linking to baiting sites to help people understand better what it's all about better than no links? People will look up a site like Scamtacular (or any other site) having been linked to it or visited it to see what its purpose is if they don't fully understand, that's what Wikipedia pages are for. These sites won't tell you their histories, or give every small detail, that's Wikipedia's job. It's not like we are trying to link to tiny blogs of which there are millions - scambaiting is a bit of a niche thing so has few notable websites.
What has Wikipedia got to lose by allowing links through and allowing the creation of pages on Scambaiting sites? What has Wikipedia to gain by banning them? Why does Wikipedia think no page on a site is better than A page? The admins here are too focused on "well it says on this page you can't..." or "you can't put that page up, it says here you can only...if...". The admins are blinded by the rules and take cases according to whether they check boxes or not, not whether they actually have merit or not.
Alexzarach (talk) 22:44, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read WP:EL. External links are not here because "they are useful", and wikipedia is particularly not promoting useful resources for scambaiters. External links are intended to provide further information about the topic, from a reputable, academic source. None of the links listed above match that description. We can definitely expand the external links, but they would need to meet our policies first.   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:33, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: What about my other points? Wikipedia pages on notable scambaiting websites? 419eater has one, why is nobody else allowed one? Please actually read everything I typed then answer again addressing all the points. Thank you. 91.135.1.65 (talk) 23:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Inclusion criteria for an article, and inclusion criteria for an external link are separate things. No one is "disallowing other sites". 419eater was deemed notable, and thus has an article. Notice, it's not in the external links either. If you feel another site is notable, you may create an article on it, but even still that won't warrant placement in the external links. If you do create an article, please read WP:N first.   — Jess· Δ♥ 04:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pages on baiting sites, and external links to baiting sites, and ethics 

message: Seriously, the blanking sprees need to stop.  Discuss your issues about this sourced content here on the talk page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:30, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It... was already discussed above, I thought? I have no idea what an "impact factor" is or whether 0.166 is that low, but apparently the only source given is one obscure paper that even when I (a complete moron) read it, seems completetly illogical. At the very least, it might be undue emphasis. Hppavilion1 (talk) 09:21, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Also as far as I can tell, the paper never even really claims that racism is a motivation for scambaiters, just that they produce racist images as they go along (compare to old Loony Toons cartoons) Hppavilion1 (talk) 09:24, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Funny how new users all seem to zero in on that one source and not any of  the others.  You wouldn't happen to have any other accounts here, would you? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:51, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I do not, nor am I generally an IP editor. I'm pretty sure the reason people focus on that one source is that it's the only one cited immediately after the word "racism". Having actually looked at 419eater's trophy room (where, as far as I looked, literally every person does appear to have dark skin), that paper does hold a more merit, but I can also see a number of ways that it might be vulnerable to some form of selection bias (for example, if European and American scammers are more likely to be caught due to their countries' police forces, they may be less likely to share images of themselves; alas, this likely falls under WP:OR and is otherwise just speculation). Reconsidering my earlier position, I think that just saying "racism" isn't enough, and it would be better if that topic was expanded upon later in the article rather than just dropping it without any clarification. Hppavilion1 (talk) 20:40, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's trivially easy to find more citations: , , , , .  Most of them mention it in passing, but they do mention it.  If someone spent more than 30 seconds searching, they'd probably able to find better sources.  I used to have access to JSTOR, which would probably be a better source to search for citations, but Google Books and Google Scholar can be useful. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:46, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

text:  Put me down as another editor who thinks more needs to be said about racism as a motivator in the actual article. Without clarification, it does look like it's simply been dropped in there with no intent to provide useful information. I don't doubt that racism either colors scambaiting (with most of these scams originating in countries like India, and the Internet being what it is, racist memes and "jokes" are inevitable) or that some baiters could be spurred by racial hatred, but the article doesn't offer any context or clarification. It's not enough for someone like me to have a fair idea about what is meant. We need to be explicit. WP Ludicer (talk) 09:38, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  It doesn't strike me as confusing.  You understood "amusement" and "civic pride" as motivators, right?  Apply that same understanding to the remaining concept.  But there's more information in Advance-fee scam, so someone could probably copy-paste some of that info here.  See Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  IP editors removing sourced content about racism as a motivator 

message: I am moving the following material here until it can be properly supported with reliable, secondary citations, per WP:V, WP:CS, WP:IRS, WP:PSTS], WP:BLP, WP:NOR, et al. This diff shows where it was in the article. Nightscream (talk) 00:29, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Uncited material in need of citations

message: For scams dependent upon telephone contact, baiters may consult directories of known scammer numbers; use search tools to locate active scams; call numbers on fake pop-up messages, which may be disguised as official virus warnings or alerts from companies such as Microsoft or Apple; or consult telephone number complaint websites in search of scammers who have used robocalling to lure potential victims into returning their phone calls.
The objectives of scambaiting are, in no particular order:
# To extend bait sessions as long as possible, thus costing scammers time and diverting resources that would otherwise be spent on communicating with potential victims (wasting scammers' time).
# To identify and publicly expose scammers.
# To shut down scam operations.
# To ensure that scammers and any names used are easily found on search engines.
Baiters may use facetious aliases, including references to Western popular culture that, while obviously ludicrous to native or fluent English speakers, will go unnoticed by scammers. They may introduce characters or plot lines from movies or television shows for comedic effect.
Baiters may consult lists of Hindi swear words to abuse the scammer for comedic purposes, especially if they are live streaming or recording a bait session. This is especially common with tech support scams or refund scams since most scams of this nature are operated by Indians.
</blockquote>
:I don't know who wrote the lines above mine but it sounds good to me, it sounds accurate, also please sign it with 4 tilde characters like I am about to do. Vmelkon (talk) 17:54, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Methodology 

message: I removed this sentence. 2/3 of the sources were outdated by two decades, and none of the sources applied to present day scam baiting.
This is completely overlooking the fact that these sources were very much opinion pieces by a single individual, rather than any sort of study with consensus from numerous researchers.
Putting aside formality, I do not see any objective in pushing this false information on this article, unless the persons are either scammers themselves, or scammer sympathisers. It is dangerous to label the scam baiting community as racist when there is great pains taking within it to prevent people from being taken advantage of.
Instead of reverting my edit, either consider the necessity of the sentence with my thoughts in mind, and let it stick, or write here and we can discuss it properly. Corona1112 (talk) 02:50, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: These issues are completely non-starters for Wikipedia content.  The point of Wikipedia is report what reliable sources say, and that's it.  Blanking out content because you think it's hurting the activities of someone you like is basically attempting to right great wrongs or use Wikipedia to promote that group at the expense of neutral point of view.  I couldn't care less whether scambaiters are racist or not.  The point is that the sources have discussed this issue, not that it's true or false. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:21, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

text: Stop removing sourced content just because you want to promote this activity. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:38, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

text: You can go through WP:DRN if you really insist.  Why do you even care what some researcher says about some obscure websites?  Are you a member of one of the websites?  That would give you a clear conflict of interest.  You also seem pretty worked up over this, calling people "scammer sympathisers", when this is clearly not assuming good faith is meant to poison the well. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:50, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

text: Hi Corona1112, the current phrasing was done pretty carefully to avoid insinuating that scam baiting is inherently racist. Like NinjaRobotPirate said, reliable sources don’t expire (and either way, one of them is much newer). Is there a way you think it could be rephrased to more closely summarize the sources? Or are there other/newer reliable sources that should be added to the article? Politanvm talk 04:23, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

text: Hi Corona1112, there are a few issues with the edit. For the rephrase, the sources are talking about multiple sites. Many of the ones mentioned in the Nakamura source are still live. So the rephrase is untrue. For the new sentence there are no reliable sources cited, so it looks like original research. Politanvm talk 04:37, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

text: This criticism is not of 419eater.com; it's of scam baiting.  Your changes are unsourced and come off like their your own opinions rather than the opinions of academics and professional journalists.  If you want to tell the world what you think, you can always get a blog. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:49, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

text: The article talks about reposts on Reddit and YouTube, among other sites. I would respectfully suggest undoing your edit until you’ve found some more reliable sources. WP:RS and WP:NOR aren’t negotiable, and the edit doesn’t follow either. Politanvm talk 05:13, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I hadn’t seen your most recent edit with the Guardian source. That seems fine to me, but I would still suggest undoing your rephrase of the previous sentence. Even the source you’ve added discusses the racist reputation scam baiting historically has had. Politanvm talk 05:18, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

text: Perhaps you could at least phrase it in a way that’s closer to any of the sources, rather than your own interpretation? 419eater isn’t a former forum - it still exists. Politanvm talk 05:29, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

text: The source also quotes a scam baiter as saying there's still racism in the community.  Why is this being used as a "however" after discussions about racism? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:33, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: "primarily" Corona1112 (talk) 18:58, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  “Some of these images have been described as reinforcing racist stereotypes.”