Talk:Scam baiting

Heading

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)

I'd be a lot happier if there was a source on that murder. --195.92.168.167 02:09, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Likewise. --Cornince 20:26, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Here it is: http://www.news24.com/News24/South_Africa/News/0,,2-7-1442_1641875,00.html

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

Bordering on obsolescence

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certainly important (and 419 baiting still exists), not devoting some coverage to the telephony topic puts this article out of date with the subject matter.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 Whatever broad-stereotypical brush that was used on the 419 baiting community is horrifically out of date with who present-day telephony-based scambaiters currently are.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)

External links?

I notice there has been some backing and forthing about external links to this page.

I would have added a link to [Scamorama.com], which is a long-established humorous site about scambaiting, but I hesitate based on the apparently contentious history of this page as to external links.

Perhaps someone could explain here what is acceptable and what is not for external links here? Kestenbaum 15:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

It may be the case that external links are deleted or edited as a result of in-fighting among scambaiters. There are certainly some inflated egos involved in the pastime. I have added a passage under the "Criticism" heading about the problems between scambaiting sites, which are an unfortunate but definitely germaine subject for anyone considering getting into scambaiting. I have tried to keep the new passage as balanced as possible, since feelings run high.

PS - I note that my addition has been deleted without comment. So that was a waste of time, then. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.97.229.210 (talk • contribs) .

The external links? I removed them because they seemed completely irrelevant, with the comment "rm irrelevant links". zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Zuuzz - I think that the links to the satellite "ranting sites" are relevant in that they are an integral part of the scambaiting subculture, and their existance serves as a warning about the levels of egotism, infighting and bad feeling that exist within scambaiting. Scambaiting is also discussed on these forums, although the rules about off-topic conversation are much more relaxed, or in some cases non-existant.

MScambaiting sites do not exist as a team effort - it is very much a rivalrous relationship in most cases. In a small number of cases the websites actively hate each other. It's a bit of a jungle, the scambaiting world, and the ranting sites are clear evidence of that. I hope this helps to show their relevance to the wiki on the subject.

Talking as a scambaiter, and a common visitor to more than one forum dedicated to the sport, I must say that 195.97.229.210's edits are competly and utterly alien to me. So far I've yet to meet an experienced scammer whos unwilling to help a newbie, nor have I seen much in the way of infighting within or between the forums I frequent. WegianWarrior 12:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the comments here, and I can see that my addition caused some controversy, and has been removed again. I understand that one of the sites in particular is taking offence because they think that the addition was a bitter attack upon them, when it really wasn't. If you re-read what I added, you will see that it criticised, under the "criticism" heading, the infighting among scambaiters, and the only specific mention of sites was the mention of the two major "ranting" sites, which were given equal prominence and without comment upon either one's character.

In fact, my addition, which I tried to keep balanced, was intended as a caveat for new scambaiters, who may find the culture a bit caustic. I did not refer to any particular site, either explicitly or implicitly, as being more guilty of anything than another.

I would appreciate it if the addition was viewed in the spirit that it was meant, rather than as part of the very same infighting that it criticised. I think that the discussion of it now, on one of the sites in particular, only goes to *prove* the levels of tetchiness and paranoia that exist within the scambaiting culture! (It should be mentioned at this point that the nature of scambaiting makes paranoia a healthy trait, since scambaiters are involved in baiting criminals, some of whom may be dangerous. It is the fact that this often translates as bickering that I was trying to highlight.)

In conclusion, I can quite understand why my addition has gone, possibly under protests from people wishing to protect the reputation of individual websites. But if you read what I wrote, nobody's website got a harder time than anyone else's.

Cheers

Another excellent link where you can watch baits unfold is http://www.thescambaiter.com tF is a legend! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.216.141 (talk) 23:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Dispute tag

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Sadivan, thanks for the clarification. I accept your point. I'll see what I can do. PizzaMargherita 19:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Verifiability - are we pushing it too far?

In the article is full of "claim" and "alleged", for a phenomenon that is under everybody's eyes and ears. I don't think there is any reasonable doubt that at least some of the documentary evidence publicly available (email and audio) are genuine. By Occamm's razor, we should reject that there are hundreds of people in dozens of websites whose only intent is to produce evidence to make people believe that they are baiting real scammers.

I mean, are we really waiting for a complete BBC dickhead who doesn't know the first thing about scambaiting to bump into one (1) of these websites, actually believe these "claims" and produce a report in order to make the phenomenon verifiable? I think not. PizzaMargherita 06:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I would think that websites dealing with baiting and the various forums dedicated to the sport ought to be excelent primary sources for information. WegianWarrior 12:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Right. So, if nobody objects I'm going to remove the "missing references" template. The article now has quite a few references. PizzaMargherita 23:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Done. PizzaMargherita 10:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources: "Posts to bulletin boards and Usenet, wikis or messages left on blogs, are never acceptable as primary or secondary sources." This article needs serious attention on this front, as it is currently unverified and littered with original research. I also agree that is biased toward the POV the scambaiters. I'll add {{fact}} tags to those places I feel a direct source citation would be useful. — BrianSmithson 17:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Some scam baiters specialize in hunting down and "killing" these fake sites in order to remove one of the tools in the scammers' arsenal.[citation needed] The sheer number of Citation Needed tags in this entry is bordering on the retarded. I'm counting 16 of them on this one page. For example, who exactly are you looking to 'cite' this statement? Some guy who says he's "killing fake sites"? A Newsweek article about a UN initiative to "hunt and kill" 419 websites? What about all the other Citation Needed tags? Each sentence about scam-baiting doesn't need a citation. It only needs to be informative if it is objective. If it isn't objective or is unverifyable remove it.65.28.34.108 12:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC) JP

An independent source would be needed to cite this article. The current page is mostly original research based on editors' first-hand experience with scam-baiting sites. The citation needed tags are there for a reason, to ensure that Wikipedia remains verifiable and reliable. This article isn't in many places. — BrianSmithson 22:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Would this page be an acceptable source? http://wiki.aa419.org/index.php/FAQ_and_Support Silver923 19:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm starting to wonder why wikipedia doesn't have a page called 'New York Times Syndrome' describing the phenomenon of contributors who have the world view that if it's not been reported in the NYT it never happened. For heavens sake this is a short article which is a pretty accurate description of scambaiting. I'd be very interested to hear exactly what parts of the article people are finding contentious. I don't think I've ever read anything in the papers about scambaiting (although I assume the subject has been covered) probably due to the fact it's very much a niche pastime of a few thousand serious baiters(no I don't have a reference for that, I'm just guessing)which is probably rather baffling for the man on the Clapham omnibus. If there's one thing anonymous have shown lately it's that you can't believe everybody who says they are experts in things on the periphery of the internetz. Why would an article in the mainstream media be any more believable than content derived from a baiting website? I've been baiting for years but as far as I know there's nobody uniquely qualified to authoritatively speak for me or any other baiters on matters of method, motivation, ?? , profit. 92.40.172.30 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:25, 22 June 2011 (UTC).

Expertise is important, but is not the only criterion. This project is an attempt at an encyclopedia. It is not a blog or an op-ed piece. It is not an informative magazine. Those are all worthy undertakings. I do not imply that they are not. They are sometimes EXCELLENT sources, for personal edification, or otherwise. This, on the other hand, is an encyclopedia, an entirely different form of beast. An encyclopedia requires a different standard for sources and refs. Personally, I find this article informative, even intriguing. As is often pointed out to me, my personal interests, tastes & opinions are irrelevant to the progress of the project. As an encyclopedia, secondary and even tertiary sources are necessary, NOT from the NYT, NOT from the Times of London or the Guardian, necessarily, but JimBob's Occasional Blog would usually not be considered notable and easily verifiable (no personal aspersions are intended, JimBob).

Personally, I intend to mine the edit history of this article for useful links. If you never look at edit histories, I recommend them. However, the casual reader should not have to learn to navigate the edit history in order to learn what scambaiting is. This is a useful article, and could be much more useful, if somma y'all would just get over yourselves and READ the rules and policies and conventions of Wikipedia. They are well developed and well stated.

All that said, there is an over-riding principle at Wikipedia (as well as in the wider world) that rules can be broken. Learn the rules first. They are all in place for a reason. Breaking them should always be an exceptional, occasional act, not a routine practice. Common sense should always prevail. Per Jimbo, not JimBob. Rags (talk) 12:31, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Scam baiters or scambaiters?

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)

I am baiter and I refer myself as scambaiter. And i have seen other people reffering themselves as scambaiters too. But mostly we are just 'baiters' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.102.205.212 (talk) 08:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

Ranting sites

Ranting sites is a reality in the scambaiting community, and it definitely needs to be mentioned. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.175.149.2 (talk • contribs) .

To be honest I don't oppose a (better written and perhaps shorter) section about the scambaiting subculture... PizzaMargherita 07:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

And properly sourced, off course. Remember WP:V. WegianWarrior 08:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. This particular scambaiting sub-culture is limited to a few people at 419eater, and a few people who are no longer members of 419eater. It's not a major subculture of scambaiting, but of current and former Eater members. Zhadov 16:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that ranting sites should be mentioned. The ranting sites are populated with people from other scambaiting sites, too. It's definitely not just a 419eater.com thing. Also, at least one of the ranting sites has members who seem to have never heard of scambaiting before joining the ranting site. The ranting sites are also relevant to the rivalries which exist between scambaiting websites. One of the rant sites even made a parody of one of the scambaiting sites complete with larger than life caricatures of the members. Note that I'm not linking to anything or naming names here folks.

David Lee Roth

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

• The article currently states: Fictional characters used have included Bruce Wayne, The Thane of Cawdor, Mr. T, Marty McFly, Homer Simpson, HRH Princess Margaret, Marion Morrison and so on as well as the regular, entirely fabricated personalities and celebrities, such as David Lee Roth. But Mr. T, HRH Princess Margaret, and Marion Morrison are real people, and Mr. T is still working as a celebrity. --Metropolitan90 20:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Ethics section

Hah. Ha. Hahahaha. Okay, safety I can do. But a serious look at the ethics of scambaiting? Keep it there for humor, I guess. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beepboop77 (talk • contribs) 03:49, March 24, 2008

Please elaborate on how you would prefer to see the Ethics section written. Currently, your tone comes off as trolling to me. --Geniac (talk) 18:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

@unsigned troll. The ethics are simple. Help victims, gather evidence, stop scammers. If you'd *[http:// the amount of victim support that I have, you would know what I mean. Archolman 04:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Isn't a debate about the ethics of scambaiting going to be a little like debating the ethics of badger-baiting? I'd be truly interested to see any sort of vaguely credible argument that scambaiting was at worst ethically neutral or at best a self-evident public service (as well as highly amusing). If anybody could make a valid argument against baiting I'd be fascinated doubly so if they could find a wikipedia approved source.

To be honest I think a lot of the talk comments about verifiability rather depressing and perhaps wikipedia would be better off without an article at all... which would be a real shame. This isn't a discussion on dialectic materialism (whatever the hell that is) so can we please keep a sense of perspective.92.40.208.169 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:07, 6 July 2011 (UTC).

External links

Which of these (if any) that i removed form the article meet the Wikipedia guidelines for external links? WP:ELTheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 01:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

External links

• ScamBaiting Videos
• Anti-Fraud International
• 419 Eater
• Artists Against 419
• Bait A Mugu
• Ebola Monkey Man
• Frank Rizzo and the 419 Zeros
• Good Morning Nigeria!
• Scambaits.com
• Scambuster419
• theScambaiter
• Scambaiter.info German website and forum. Baits and information about Nigeria-Connection. Photos, fake documents and more.
• A Hilarious Response turning the tables
• Turning the Tables on E-Mail Swindlers
• "Mr. Know-It-All: Bannable Blog Behavior, Scam Bait, MySpace Geezers," Wired
• "Scamming The Online Scammers," NJ.com
• 'Scam-Baiters' Turn Tables on Would-Be Cons
• Nab those scammers Computer Times

See these directories also:

• Template:Dmoz

Please discuss:

Well, the 419eater.com link at least should be reinstated, considering that it is probably the biggest scambaiting site on the net, to the extent that it warrants an entire article to itself- I think it is most definitely relevant. It is also in fact soruce material for a lot of material that just suffered rampant deletion- anyone who looks on that site for five minutes will soon find references to much of the stuff that was deleted. Please see below.

"probably the biggest scambaiting site on the net" does not appear to be one of the reasons that we include external links in articles: Per the external link guidelines: Wikipedia articles may include links to Web pages outside Wikipedia. Such pages could contain further research that is accurate and on-topic; information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks); or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to their reliability (such as reviews and interviews).

Also "It is also in fact soruce material " is the reason that much was deleted. Please read Wikipedias reliable sources. Reliable sources need to have some type of peer review or editorial oversight. The fact that it has an article of its own in Wikipedia does not make it a reliable source. Wikipedia has an article and it is not considered a reliable source. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 13:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Didn't say it should be delted because it's a reliable source. It should be reinstated because it's significant. And it definitely contains accurate and on-topic information on scambaiting, considering that thousands of people there actually do it.

Deletion of Much of the Article

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)

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)

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)

Error 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) I am now getting through to the site with no CGI message. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.252.249 (talk) 10:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Pages on baiting sites, and external links to baiting sites, and ethics

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)

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)

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)

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)

IP editors removing sourced content about racism as a motivator

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

It's trivially easy to find more citations: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. 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)

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)

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)

Uncited material in need of citations

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)

Methodology

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:

1. 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).
2. To identify and publicly expose scammers.
3. To shut down scam operations.
4. 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.

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)

"Racism"

I read the entire paper by Nakamura, which is the citation for alleged "Racism" in the opening. It does not provide any proof of racist motives, at most it claims that those sensitive to topics of race or post-colonialism will be uneased with the harsh reality of scambaiting (Nigerian 419 scams at least). The whole paper more delves into strange Freudian (I think this represents X and Y cause Z) statements alongside the authors deep but only opinionated discomfort. As the paper doesn't, and can't, prove racism in the minds of Scambaiters, and can only see symbolism and vague historic analogies, its best to err on the side of caution and not make the bold claim that Scambaiter communities are racist. Its within the realm of defamation if no written or spoken proof by Scambaiters of racism is provided.

As it is now stating they are racist or motivated by racism as a fact doesn't have proof, it is at most accused by a few academics. A theme or aura that is perceived by these few academics but not one proven to motivate scambusters. It's a mind-reading fallacy at work.

As an aside I think the paper is extremely poor quality, suffering from Americentrism (obscure racial topics only from the USA's past, of no connection to most Scambaiters outside it), tiptoes or avoids completely condemning scammers for crime or considering their actions unjust, and avoiding the main motivation of Scambaiters; to try to stop criminals who often reside in areas with inadequate police and legal avenues for taking down scammers, thus vigilantism fills the void. The whole reptitive paper felt as a long session of gaslighting its readers into feeling the scammers to be hopeless victims justified by allusions to macro-economic ideas, and the Scambaiters as racist, predatory perpetrators on a Colonial adventure. It also fails to provide a control for the hypothesis that Scambaiters are targeting scammers just for being African, without being able to test any hypothetical as to if Scambaiters would or would not target scammers if they were White instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.83.96.160 (talk) 22:19, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I believe that your criticisms of the paper would fall under WP:OR, and the statement cannot be defamatory as it does not name any specific individuals or organisations.

That said, I agree that the paper does not claim racism as a motivation, but rather that some scam baiters engage in performative racism. At least two of the other three sources also fail to back up the claim (I have not read the book), with one saying "I think there is a racial element to it" and the other saying "the rhetoric used [by scam baiters] is problematic". Both claims are not even made directly by the sources, but are attributed to other individuals.

In my opinion the information should be rephrased as "some scam baiters have been criticized for engaging in acts that are perceived as racist" or similar, unless the book cited provides a significantly different claim. TWM03 (talk) 18:26, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Looking at the specific passage in the the book, it does explicitly accuse scam baiting of being racist. Paraphrasing to avoid a copyvio, but Lupton says scam baiting is an “overtly racist” example of digital shaming/vigilantism, and that websites like 419eater encourage people to humiliate people from non-Western countries (typically African countries).

It doesn’t explicitly say “motivated by”.

I like your rephrase, but I would propose “Some scam baiting has been described as racist”.

• Talking about scam baiting as an act rather than scam baiters as people avoids accusing individual people of being racist.
• “Perceived” feels like a euphemism - Lupton isn’t saying it appears to be racist, she’s saying it is.
• While Lupton’s tone seems to be critical, it’s probably more neutral to say “described” rather than “criticized”.

Would that work? POLITANVM ^talk 19:05, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree with these objections to my phrasing. I think your suggestion is an improvement, though we probably need more context either in the lede or the rest of the article to explain what specifically might be considered racist. As far as I'm concerned we can change it to this for now, and later I may add a sentence to the methodology section giving more context on what has been described as racist and why. TWM03 (talk) 19:25, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

“Some of these images have been described as reinforcing racist stereotypes.”

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)

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)

Yes, sources do not have expiry dates. That is correct. However, the sources are so outdated that they are not discussing scam baiting in its current, modern day form. I invite you to actually read these articles rather than immediately revert just because the sources discussed the topic 2 decades ago. I am once again removing the content. To avoid an edit war, please continue dialogue on here before reinstating it. I have brought up points that must be answered. Corona1112 (talk) 03:34, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

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

I will go through arbitration. Corona1112 (talk) 03:39, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

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)

I’m not a member of the website mentioned in the sources. Why? Because it is no longer active. The namesake email 419 scams are no longer an effective methodology of scamming individuals, and thus, that website is essentially just a small community from the looks of things. This is why I find the sourced content to be unfit for the current day scam baiting community, this is not a forum that people use. I checked all of this PRIOR to making my first edit. Corona1112 (talk) 04:12, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

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)

I have rephrased the sentence, please take a look and tell me what your thoughts are. I appreciate you actually taking the time to discuss it. Corona1112 (talk) 04:31, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

To elaborate on why I feel it’s redundant in this article: there is already a dedicated article for 419eater, and interestingly, it does not mention any of this on there. The sentence would be far more appropriate on the article of the actual website the sources are referring to, rather than on the topic article. Corona1112 (talk) 04:35, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

Hi, from what I’ve seen, no website mentioned other than 419eater are still live. Maybe I missed one (the article is really long and the website names are similar to each other), but I truly have not seen any other live one. Could you please tell me which one you’ve found?

I’ll add a source for my new phrasing. Corona1112 (talk) 04:50, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

NinjaRobotPirate, I would really encourage you to stop with the degradation. I want to contribute to Wikipedia, not to “get a blog”. If you don’t feel like you can talk to me as a fellow editor on equal terms, even though I am putting in effort to satisfy concerns about my changes, then please remove yourself from the conversation. It is unhelpful. Corona1112 (talk) 04:53, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Politanvm: I think my rephrasing is good as it currently stands, I worded it so not as to imply that racism was never an issue in the community, but that nowadays, it’s not an issue that is primarily done. The article I used does explain that efforts are undertaken by the scam baiters to remove racist comments from their content. Maybe the sentence could be tweaked a little bit to just be that tiny bit more specific, but I personally can’t think of any. In hindsight, modifying the sentence would have been a better option than removing it completely in the first place. I live and learn. Hopefully the modification will appeal to you eventually - if not, we can wait for others to give their say. :-) Corona1112 (talk) 05:27, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

"primarily" Corona1112 (talk) 18:58, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

I did one more small tweak to follow what the sources (including mine) say Corona1112 (talk) 05:33, 13 May 2022 (UTC)