Tenofalltrades was an admin whom I so identified with William M. Connolley that I asked him to intervene to prevent WMC from losing his bit. Well, that didn't work.... too bad, WMC could have kept his adminship if a friend had given him some clue. Point is that TOAT is an ally of WMC, it's been recognizable for a long time. In the RfAr that ensued, Tenofalltrades was listed in my evidence as a "cabal" editor. Specific references showing Tenofalltrades participation in the RfCs, RfArs, and the like that were the basis for my cabal conclusions are at my evidence subpage.

One of the early signs of damage from WMC's activities was the creation of the Scibaby puppet farm. Scibaby was effectively banned by WMC and Raul654. There was no community discussion, and such isolated actions were later rejected by the community, but Scibaby has created, what, maybe 600 sock puppets? Raul654 at one point had range-blocked a huge chunk of the internet in order to try to stop Scibaby from editing. The edits themselves, all that I've seen, were relatively harmless, though usually rather inept.

A new editor appeared, ClimateOracle (T-C-L-K-R-D) . Within several edits, Hipocrite was openly claiming he was a sock. Stephen Shultz, another cabal administrator who should very much not be pretending to be neutral, filed a sock investigation. ClimateOracle was not notified, but it seems he noticed it anyway. Now, Tenofalltrades has blocked ClimateOracle for (Abusing multiple accounts: Fails WP:DUCK). No block notice on the user talk page.

Perhaps they know something I don't, and it's possible that Scibaby has modfied his behavior, but the edits don't look like Scibaby edits I've seen. It's obvious, from the immediate tagging, that it's the POV that is banned. WMC's backups in the climate change cabal are stepping up to the plate.

Articles under the Climate Change probation have a special device I've not seen before. It appears that someone can accuse an editor of being a sock puppet and it becomes immediately legitimate to automatically revert anything the editor puts up.

A request for evidence was made, and it was said, no, we can't give evidence because that would teach the puppet master how to avoid detection. In other words, we have secret evidence, which boils down to, then, "I know one when I see one." The editors who have "confirmed" this are ones whose names are familiar to me from prior climate change flaps. Naturally. Who else would be familiar with Scibaby? There is practically an entire industry devoted to finding and banning Scibaby socks. He has clearly figured out how to have enormous fun, and they happily oblige.

I certainly can't say that ClimateOracle is not Scibaby. What I see, though, is that the tar and feathers are broken out and applied based on nothing more than an impression by a highly biased administrator. Scibaby will know that, sooner or later, they will tar and feather an innocent editor, who will be able to prove it. He wins if they do that, he wins big. He's playing whack-a-mole, having discovered that the hammer can't actually hurt him, but he can waste more time than it takes him to provoke.

The argument by Wordsmith is brilliant. He's claiming that we can block even though we don't know who the puppet master is. Since this actually rules out the use of personal behavioral evidence, all that's left is POV. People with "that POV" are obviously to be excluded. This "sock" was tagged based on the simple fact that he made an obvious edit to the article on William Connolley.
Wordsmith revision-deleted Hipocrite's evidence. WP admins here might be interested in seeing that.
And this desire to exclude POVs is quite how the cabal believed and operated. So I looked at Wordsmith's user page. Bingo. Rouge admin userbox. That was one of WMC's favorite running jokes, and I once looked at who had the category. High percentage of cabal admins. I see that the category was just recently deleted....

So ... you can look at the user talk page for ClimateOracle and you won't find the sockpuppet investigation. So, SPI/Scibaby. It's clerk approved for checkuser. Why? (The user wants it, but that hasn't been mentioned and I've tried to get checkuser when I had far stronger evidence, and been turned down. No evidence at all was presented except DUCK. Apparently it depends on who you are.) In this case, though, it's probably a good thing, though I'd seen one checkuser, forget who it was, who was apparently carrying on the anti-Scibaby crusade on his own initiative, replacing Raul654, who probably gave up his checkuser privilege over this, I know the office people were not thrilled.

Scibaby cannot lose. He's trolling, successfully, he gets a payoff every time he shoves them through the process, and he gets a huge payoff when they block an innocent editor; since that's an editor who has apparently expressed a skeptical position on global warming, and there is now someone else who has personally experienced how Wikipedia is censoring the topic. Perfect.

ShortBrigadeHarvesterBoris, when he sees a disaster coming, becomes terse and vague. His comment in the SPI is pure Boris. He often seems to realize that his team is afflicted with idiots.

Pass the popcorn.

Atren questions ClimateOracle. CO seems to think that Atren is aligned with those who want to block him. That's a sign that this may well not be Scibaby. CO gives a quite good explanation of how he appeared familiar with Wikipedia. I never saw anything this skillful from Scibaby. I'd suspect GoRight, frankly, if anyone, but I absolutely don't think he'd risk it at this point.