Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Eugene Plotkin

Conduct by the nominator and another account
This comment relates to the conduct of two editors:

Both are single-purpose accounts: neither has edited any subject unrelated to Mr. Plotkin.

Both have deleted the sourced portions of the article, relating to the crime, and leaving only the unsourced background section.

Based on past experience, this suggests that the accounts may have a conflict of interest with Plotkin or other interest in removing this content from Wikipedia. I'm not convinced that their actions in the article have been with malice, though I do feel that they have been outside the realm of good-faith improvement of the encyclopedia. I do not think any sanctions are warranted against them at this time. —C.Fred (talk) 01:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we can no longer show good-faith because two new SPA's have popped up in the course of the nomination to vote Strong Delete.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 04:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Based on which, if it becomes necessary, I'm willing to file the sockpuppet report. —C.Fred (talk) 04:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * ...And another one, just refactored comments.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 04:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I have filed the sockpuppet report, although it's not showing up on SPI yet. - Jorgath (talk) 05:54, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Link is here: Sockpuppet_investigations/Jackadvisor - Jorgath (talk) 06:04, 29 February 2012 (UTC)