Talk:PeopleBrowsr/Archives/2013
 | This is an archive of past discussions about PeopleBrowsr. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Sockfarmed walled garden?
This article, and others related to it, seem to be largely the work of a small group of contributors who post nothing but PeopleBrowsr-related articles, or material promoting PeopleBrowsr in other articles. This makes me suspect that some or all of these editors are sock puppets, or are employed by or otherwise have an interest in PeopleBrowsr. All relevant articles ought to be double-checked for promotional language, neutrality, and to ensure the sources are indeed reliable and establish notability. I regret I don't have the time to do all this now, but am posting this message here in hopes that someone else can.
Some of the relevant articles:
Here are some of the editors in question:
- LarissaMeikle (talk · contribs)
- Bdavid55 (talk · contribs)
- Ohiphigenia (talk · contribs)
- B0bsmith354 (talk · contribs)
- TechPacific (talk · contribs)
- Jess4862 (talk · contribs)
—Psychonaut (talk) 17:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
- We can add to this list Techsearch547 (talk · contribs). This new account rapidly made what appears to be a bunch of trivial (and usually incorrect) edits to random articles (e.g., [1] [2] [3]), waited a few days, and then started removing sourced material and maintenance templates from articles related to PeopleBrowsr, Kred, and Jodee Rich. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:08, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
- Rocknrollduck (talk · contribs) is another SPA. Entroporium (talk · contribs) seems to have a particular focus on these articles as well, though the edits are less problematic, so I'm not sure whether it belongs in this group. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:16, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Attention required
Someone with editorial influence or control needs to look very carely at the articles on Kred Influence Measurement, PeopleBrowsr and Jodee Rich as they are being manipulated for commercial reasons and do not exhibit a npov. Castlemate (talk) 06:52, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- We need to keep an eye on these articles, as well as those listed above. Qworty (talk) 09:11, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- I've listed a number of problematic accounts in another section above, including two recent ones. Perhaps someone could check for additional ones and file a report at WP:SPI. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:23, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
- OK, I got around to it myself. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/B0bsmith354. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:48, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
- I've listed a number of problematic accounts in another section above, including two recent ones. Perhaps someone could check for additional ones and file a report at WP:SPI. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:23, 11 June 2013 (UTC)