Posted by: Honest ABE | June 4, 2010

Incredibly Bad Poker Face

There is a boogeyman haunting wikipedia’s climate change halls and his name is Scibaby.

Basically, this account has been accused of creating over 500+ accounts over the years to promote the skeptical point of view on the climate change articles, but what have been the results of his actions?

1. Massive IP rangeblocks to prevent new accounts – fresh blood is the bane of the climate cabal at wikipedia.

2. A convenient excuse to harass and ban new users with skeptical points of view – often driving them completely off of wikipedia.

3. A faceless enemy to point to as justification for their actions and to demonize the remaining skeptical editors.

Do results speak louder than stated goals?

And so we come to the title of this post with this statement of  Hipocrite’s:

I’m only willing to respond to people who doubt these are socks if they are willing to put their money where their mouth is – if they turn out to be wrong, they have to promise never to question me about sock judgements again – forever. If I turn out to be wrong and they are actually and truly new users, I’ll never report socks in this area to anything but SPI. Otherwise, it’s just disruption from people who support the goals of the socks – because that’s what ZP5 and ATren are engaging in – they are disrupting wikipedia by supporting obvious and transparent sockpuppetry. Hipocrite (talk) 12:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Strong words from Hipocrite, and he makes this challenge several times. Why is he so sure that they are socks? Personally, I only bet on sure things, and since Hipocrite reports Scibaby socks so much then I find it odd that he’d be willing to risk the power he now wields to ban people based on “the usual” as his only presented evidence.

Of course, if he was behind a certain % of these socks, or knew who was, then it’d be no risk at all – and such a bet would further his ability to ban his ideological opponents and keep their numbers in check.

Perhaps one day we’ll pull the scooby mask off of Scibaby, and then feign shock that the hypocrite underneath had been the Inquisitor General all along.




  1. I just looked over the Fred Singer article and put a note congratulating SlimVirgin on what she has achieved there. I’m sure many others were involved. It might make for an interesting post here to explain to readers how it is that she has managed to stand up to the climate change advocates and get a decent biography of Fred Singer written. Has the wiki process improved, or is it sheer determination — perhaps backed by the powers that be — to get it done right despite the resident climate change advocates?

    Meanwhile on Scibaby, why don’t you invite him to do a guest post? 😉


  2. Well, I think the most obvious explanation for SlimVirgin’s success is the confluence of factors that have put the AGW team into what I like to call “hibernation mode.” This is a pretty typical response from them, when they sense they are pushing things too far they will back off to avoid serious sanctions only to come back with renewed intensity after the perceived danger has passed.

    As for the Scibaby guest post, despite you joking, I think it’d be interesting to get his perspective, but one of the main problems is “Who is Scibaby?” And I think we’d get an “I am Spartacus!” sort of situation – especially since I suspect “Scibaby’ is probably several people who may or may not be communicating with each other or even have the same goals.

  3. TGL, if they really are backing off for a while, now would be an excelent time to make other sensible changes.

  4. Yep, I agree Dan. It is too bad I’m blocked, especially with that rather damning “cross examination” that Solomon recently reported on:

    He pretty much states the obvious for those of us who’ve looked at the issue in any detail – they don’t use the scientific method, but instead use rhetoric to advance their agenda.

  5. antistalkingadvocate, I have received your messages but I won’t be publishing that information since it would be putting this blog in violation of the Wikipedia policies regarding outing. I have already taken steps previously to protect the anonymity of other editors and I see no reason to not extend that same courtesy to the individual you mention as well. If you leave a message with a valid return email I would be happy to discuss this in more detail with you off-line.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: