Talk:Technical support scam

Archives (Index)

2014 2015 2018 2019 2020 2021

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Tech Support Scammer Virus Popup.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:09, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Technical support scam/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Vacant0 (talk · contribs) 23:05, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi! I will review this article due to the ongoing GAN backlog. I will start the review tomorrow. Cheers, --Vacant0 (talk) 23:05, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello Vacant0, could I confirm if you are still reviewing this? Pahunkat (talk) 10:25, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I will start the review in a couple of minutes. Vacant0 (talk) 11:26, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Comments

General

• 51k bytes–the lede should get expanded, if possible.

  Vacant0, is that enough or should I expand it further? Pahunkat (talk) 15:11, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

• Rest of the article is good and well-written, I haven't noticed any errors while reading.
• Copyvio unlikely, 8.3%–passes.
• It is neutral, and there haven't been any disputes lately.

Photos

File:Tech Support Scammer Fake BSOD Virus Popup.png should be removed, no source was provided.

 Done Pahunkat (talk) 15:11, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Sources

• All are alright, YT video can stay.

On hold. --Vacant0 (talk) 13:45, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Promoting. Vacant0 (talk) 15:55, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! Pahunkat (talk) 16:00, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

No problem! Vacant0 (talk) 16:00, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Neutrality / Citation Concerns

I have gone bold and added a neutrality contested tag. None of the sources cited -- the ARS Technica nor the Guardian articles lead you to say that the scams primarily originate in India. Have orange tagged the section. Ktin (talk) 17:01, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Ktin - "The modus operandi of the tech support scammers, almost all of whom operate out of Kolkata in India" per https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/aug/21/tech-support-scammers-fake-downloads-new-victims . I'm not sure what you mean? Pahunkat (talk) 17:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed the majority of the section as UNDUE and objected to, but will keep the first sentence unless you can find a source that is in opposition to the article in the Guardian (Ktin. Pahunkat (talk) 17:19, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't see why the content about Indian scammers should be removed, Pahunkat. As far as I can tell, it's backed up by reliable sources. The background and motivation of scammers is relevant to this article and it should not be censored just because it is unflattering to India. It would violate NPOV to suppress information on the actual origin of scams just because an editor objects. (t · c) buidhe 18:53, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Can you explain what does "primarily" originate in India mean? Is it 50pc? less than that? greater than that? Basing it on a single news article sounds WP:UNDUE. I am being WP:BOLD and reintroducing the WP:NPOV banner. Do not remove that until consensus is established here. Ktin (talk) 19:01, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Why would you think a ref that states "almost all" would mean 50% or even less? "Primarily" seems like a reasonable synonym for "mostly" or "almost all" (or "majority"; I think "vast majority" feels too emotional even if it's true). The other ref there (arstechnica) talks about six of the major scam operators, and says many their operations "mostly based in India" (cited to FTC). DMacks (talk) 19:09, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I've thought about this for a bit and firmly come down on keeping the paragraph. It's fully sourced to reliable sources, and as Buidhe points out Wikipedia is not censored. It's obvious what the word "primarily" means, the sentence just says that most of tech support scams originate in India; both arstechnica and the Guardian are RS and support this. With two RS supporting the statement, and the statement being neutrally worded I don't see any reason for its removal. The statement isn't undue weight either, it's very clearly related and relevant to the topic. Pahunkat (talk) 20:03, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I do not think my words are amounting to WP:CENSORSHIP. If I were to write a statement like "primarily" originating in a country (irrespective of which country it is), I would go beyond a news report which is using empirical case studies to make a qualitative and absolutely subjective claim. Leaning on the article is WP:UNDUE. Furthermore the entire paragraph that goes into motivations of a scamster though from a news article is also WP:UNDUE. This source seems to place the origins to Moldova and some of the countries from Eastern Europe. [1] The definitive study on this seems to be a Microsoft commissioned study [2] [3] which does not isolate the source / originating geographies. The only study that I could land on to find the sources of some of these scam calls is this study from Truecaller which has a different geographic distribution. [4]. Ktin (talk) 21:11, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Ktin, Source one doesn't even cover technical support scams. Not all "computer scams" are tech support scams. The Microsoft survey looked at the victims of the scams and did not seek to identify the perpetrators. It is not a "definitive" study either, there is plenty of coverage about the topic in reliable sources so the Microsoft study is not the only piece of information that can be relied on. The sources provided to the statement in the article do identify the people making the calls. The last source once again looks at the victims and not the perpetrators. The sentence being disputed is about where the scams come from, not who they affect. So none of the sources contradict the statement and the sources that support it. Pahunkat (talk) 21:54, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

This is not UNDUE weight either, the origin of such scams is relevant to the topic and you have failed to present a single source that contradicts the statement. I don't see the need for an "empirical case study" either, the statement is verified by reliable sources and that is enough. Pahunkat (talk) 21:58, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I was just passing through and saw the tag on a just-passed GA, so I thought see what the discussion was about. I'm not versed in this topic but a source that's included in the External links summary may be of some use. The study, "the first systematic study of technical support scams and the call centers hidden behind them", sees the authors use a crawler to identify 1,524 tech support scam TLDs which resolve to 685 unique IP addresses. They did not track the source of all 685 of these IP addresses, but randomly sampled 60 for an interview survey, of which they were able to track the locations of 41; of these 41, "85.4% of them were located in different regions of India, 9.7% were located in the US, and 4.9% were located in Costa Rica." They caution that "While we cannot know with certainty that the scammers were not using VPNs located in these countries, we argue that they most likely are not since the recovered IP addresses do not belong to known VPN providers but rather to residential and corporate ISPs." I hope this can be useful! —⁠Collin^{t c} 23:31, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@Bobamnertiopsis: Thanks Collin. This is helpful. I would recommend changing this sentence to the below:

"A 2017 study of technical support scams traced the originating IPs most likely to countries including India, US, and Cost Rica"

OR

"A 2017 study of technical support scams, published at the NDSS Symposium, traced the originating IPs most likely to countries including India, US, and Cost Rica."

OR

"A 2017 study of technical support scams, published at the NDSS Symposium, traced ~58% of the originating IPs most likely to India, 7% to the United States, 3% to Costa Rica, with 32% of the locations remaining not determinable."

With or without that, the text As a result of the country formerly being a territory of the British Empire, as well as a strong presence of English taught as a second language and a vast urban population, India has millions of English speakers who are competing for relatively few jobs. One municipality had 114 jobs and received 19,000 applicants. This high level of unemployment serves as an incentive for tech scamming jobs, which can be lucrative. Many scammers do not realize they are applying for tech support scam jobs, but many often stay and continue to scam people even after they realize what they are doing. When one tech scammer was asked why she continues to work for scammers she replied, "You think because the people who run these call centre are making so much money every day, you might as well make some of it while you are here." which is The Guardian journalist, Snigdha Poonam's subjective opinion and should not be written in WP:WIKIVOICE. And yielding an entire section to the subjective opinion is definitely WP:UNDUE.

Ktin (talk) 01:51, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Another passer-by here. Pretty much all of the corresponding text (minus the quote from the call centre worker) in the Guardian article is not Poonam's subjective opinion but facts based on surveys and interviews. It's a piece of longform journalism, not an op-ed. DigitalIceAge (talk) 02:22, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Ktin, I'm alright with changing to the third option but I assume you meant 85% from India (that's what the source says on page 12). The Guardian's piece isn't an opinion piece. Pahunkat (talk) 12:16, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

85.41% of 41 = ~58% of 60 from India.

9.7% of 41 = ~7% of 60 from the US.

4.9% of 41 = ~3% of 60 from Costa Rica.

19 of 60 = ~32% location unknown.

Ktin (talk) 15:48, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

That's borderline OR with the manipulation of figures, I changed it slightly so it's exactly verified by the source without manipulation. Pahunkat (talk) 16:05, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

The section is not titled "Guardian's article on Technical Support Scam Motivations", is it? what you have there is WP:WIKIVOICE declaration of the Poonam's article. Ktin (talk) 15:50, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't see why this is a problem, it also uses the BBC, neither are opinions and both are RS. Pahunkat (talk) 15:55, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Please read WP:WIKIVOICE and WP:UNDUE. Ktin (talk) 16:00, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I have already read them and still do not think it is UNDUE, it is also based off RS and not opinions. I have rewritten the paragraph in question Ktin, all sentences are now supported by at least one reliable source from BBC News, The Guardian and Which? How does this look now? Pahunkat (talk) 16:32, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

And I have reverted your removal, consensus is not needed to rewrite the paragraph. You should voice feedback here rather than blindly reverting, communication is not optional. Pahunkat (talk) 16:36, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Please do not misreport here. Your mischaracterization of numbers needs to be fixed. This is the passage that needs to be fixed.

"A 2017 study of technical support scams, published at the NDSS Symposium, traced ~58% of the originating IPs most likely to India, 7% to the United States, 3% to Costa Rica, with 32% of the locations remaining not determinable." Ktin (talk) 16:38, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I am not misreporting Ktin, as I have said above it is borderline OR that you are manipulating the figures so I changed it so the source backs it up. Pahunkat (talk) 16:39, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

It is not borderline OR nor manipulating figures. If you are asserting here that You should voice feedback here rather than blindly reverting, communication is not optional. -- you did exactly that. Didn't you? Ktin (talk) 16:41, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Nope, I not, I'm reporting here every time I make changes. Pahunkat (talk) 16:43, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Let me cut to the chase here. The only revert that I did was this one [5]. You would agree that we did not discuss this change here.

Anyways moving on.

1. If we are reporting the percentages. You should either report the percentages of the entire distribution or report the percentage that was not determinable. Else, it is misleading.
2. If we are making statements like As a result of the country formerly being a territory of the British Empire, as well as a strong presence of English taught as a second language and a vast urban population, India has millions of English speakers who are competing for relatively few jobs. One municipality had 114 jobs and received 19,000 applicants. This high level of unemployment serves as an incentive for tech scamming jobs, which can be lucrative. I do not see how the causality is being established. This should be removed and if you need to add some of the text you should write it as "Per an article in Guardian in 201x, A, B and C are motivations for the scam." Ktin (talk) 16:59, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I placed a message on this talk page about the change and even pinged you to it. Consensus does not need to be established for that improvement which I hoped would help solve the dispute. I am going to open an ANI thread about this in a bit. Pahunkat (talk) 17:01, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I am stepping down at this point. I have no interest in being taken to ANI. Will cede to uninvolved editors to take this forward as they deem fit. My reservations have been noted. I am pinging @DigitalIceAge and Bobamnertiopsis: the two other editors. Please move forward as you all deem fit. Ktin (talk) 17:08, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Apologies Ktin, you posted while I was writing the report - I've noted it on the ANI, hopefully it can just be closed without further drama. Pahunkat (talk) 17:17, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I also see that you reverted it with the summary "per TP" when you haven't said anything about the rewrite here. That is deceptive or a plain lie. Pahunkat (talk) 16:37, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Read above with timestamp of 15:48, 20 January 2022. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 16:38, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I am getting the impression that you are not bothering to read any of this discussion given that I addressed it above, or are just reverting any improvements I make to the article. Pahunkat (talk) 16:41, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and changed it. Pahunkat (talk) 12:29, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

The paragraph as rephrased is as non-judgemental as it gets and coverage is split between two mainstream reliable sources. The constant wikilawyering and the reversion of Pahunkat's rephrasing smacks of a knee-jerk reaction, @Ktin:. DigitalIceAge (talk) 16:43, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I've decided to remove the NPOV tag as I believe the balancing of coverage between the Guardian and the BBC has resolved the issue of the perception of NPOV and over-reliance on one source to make definitive statements regarding the motivation for scamming (without being synthetic). If it helps make the section seem less othering, I've added India to the list of countries that have fallen victim to these scams with a reliable source to back it up. Thank you. (@Pahunkat: @Ktin:). DigitalIceAge (talk) 17:26, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

@Ktin: I've been watching this page for a long time. I agree with DigitalIceAge and Pahunkat. Just because a fact is being mentioned in a manner that you personally dislike doesn't mean it is WP:NPOV or that it should be altered; that is just disruptive editing. If reliable sources state a certain fact, it should be menitoned without censorship or editorializing. Wretchskull (talk) 18:49, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks DigitalIceAge for closing, this discussion hasn't been the nicest but hopefully it's resulted in a better article. Now let us go and build an encyclopedia. Pahunkat (talk) 19:20, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

References

"Indian scammer" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Indian scammer has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 18 § Indian scammer until a consensus is reached. Voxl (talk) 23:19, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Pictures of Scammers

Should some pictures of scammers be uploaded? We can have individuals, their names and address listed, we can have pictures of inside the call centers and the address of the call center. We can have information about their life, their arrest, the arresting officer's name, etc. Vmelkon (talk) 00:49, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

No, that's not a good idea, especially for an encyclopedia that anyone could edit. The policy is at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, but just imagine if someone got mad at you, and posted your name and address in this article... WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:52, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Vmelkon, isnt that doxing? Additionally, potential copyvios may arise if we do this. — Davest3r08 >:) ^(talk) 00:14, 28 November 2023 (UTC)