Nlfestival (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Suspected sockpuppets

• Sharmag20 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
• Editor interaction utility

Two brand new editors who started off editing David Bergstein, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bergstein and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Bergstein. With Sharmag20 coming in and supporting Nlfestival with no prior edits. GB fan 21:41, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be discouraging new users on this site from joining and voicing concerns and opinions. I am independent of Nlfestival and my statements are my own.--Sharmag20 (talk) 21:53, 21 October 2013 (UTC)sharmag20[reply]

If what you say it true, then you should welcome this. It will clear your name and you can continue on with editing. GB fan 22:01, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

• Your claims are as unsubstantiated as the matter of David Bergstein. I have done no such thing and vehemently deny these claims. Agreeing with another person's statement does not make you their "sock puppet." Please close this pointless investigation so we can get back to the purpose of this site. --Sharmag20 (talk) 21:50, 21 October 2013 (UTC)sharmag20[reply]
  • There is substantiation for my claims. Nlfestival comes in and makes their first edits regarding David Bergstein and exclusively edits regarding him. You come in and your first edit is to a noticeboard that newcomers usually don't know about, 15 minutes after Nlfestival last edit. That is enough for suspicion of sockpuppeting. GB fan 21:58, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

•  Unrelated. Tiptoety ^talk 00:59, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Closing with no action, though it wouldn't surprise me if they are meatpuppets, and this does not prevent any action from being taken on those grounds. Rschen7754 07:43, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just because someone had the same viewpoint and similar experience in wiki does not make them same people. I can testify here under any scrutiny that I am not on wiki under any other name or profile, the arguments used by others to connect without any basis clearly shows other motives. --Nlfestival (talk) 13:02, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is telling that within minutes, the ad hominem attacks start, increasing suspicion that the 'meatpuppet chorus' is in fact doing someone else's bidding. All I said was that the film business if full of scammers - more so than other industries - so there is a de facto heightened burden on the editors to not allow the forum to be used to sell, shill or distort. It's noteworthy no one stood up and said "not true - Hackford worked on three films with Bergstein" or "Not true - those companies aren't in bankruptcy". Bergstein's name appears in over 100 live cases in federal and state court in California. That is a red flag to a neutral editor - a hyper-litigious subject deserves greater scrutiny than other subjects. RedFeltPen

Suspected sockpuppets

• RedFeltPen (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
• Editor interaction utility

 Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me. WP:SPA posting only on an AFD where the pupeteer is very active, and posting on a previous SPI of that same pupeteer. Obviously SOMEONE's puppet. Beyond that, the style in the one AFD post is very similar to the puppets post, including posting just a comment, with the all caps COMMENT header, and similar rhetorical style. [1] Gaijin42 (talk) 18:35, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

•  Administrator note Yup, these editing characteristics are very unusual. Blocked master 2 weeks, sock indef. Tagged both. I will go to tag the sock in AFDs now. Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 19:47, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Administrator note Note that the AFD was already closed. If you think the discussion needs to be reviewed given the outcome here, you may wish to take it to WP:DRV. Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 19:51, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
•  Clerk note: Corrected capitalization of sockmaster name --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 19:53, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]