It's a pretty simple calculus. Some fairly influential people hang out here, and monied interests have been screaming their heads off that they don't want this. With that in mind, it's a lot more likely that shilling and astroturfing is going on than it is not.
Whether that applies to you or not cannot be said (it's unfalsifiable anyways), but the facts stand.
4 for NN (not necessarily for the FCC action) 1 against 1 unknown 1 ambiguous
Unless you have a different definition of new account, it is not even close to 'all but universally'.
Edit: I'm still not seeing how your edit applies. There was only one new person I saw that would even come close to 'parroting discredited anti-neutrality talking points'.
I'll give you that one person easily fits the bill. The rest I'm just not seeing it. I'm not sure how you can get anything out of 'time will tell'. Two where just arguing against the blanket labeling of green members as astroturfers. One of the parents wasn't even arguing against NN, but the way this decision acheives it. Other than that one person where is the astroturfing from the green members?
Do you consider me an anti-NN astroturfer even though I have yet to comment on the decision?
You're defending people who have commented on the decision. So, it seems pretty likely you're an anti-NN astroturfer, yes.