2012-02-19 15:55:53Adam & Camburn
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

Adam has succeeded in hi-jacking the comment thread to Dana's A mishmash of Monckton misrepresentation. We look like complet dofusses for letting him do it.

Ditto for Camburn on multiple comment threads.

2012-02-20 03:19:27
Dikran Marsupial
Gavin Cawley
gcc@cmp.uea.ac...
139.222.14.107

I have just issued Adam a formal warning

Asking for specific examples where Moncktons reply is in error and ignoring the responses is not acceptable behaviour, it is just trolling.  I have also asked for him to be ignored until he gives a meaningful response to one of the issues raised (Huang), so the ball is in his court,

2012-02-20 03:37:19
Dikran Marsupial
Gavin Cawley
gcc@cmp.uea.ac...
139.222.14.107

Also for Camburn I gave him some advice on link-only posts and said he needs to explain what point the link adresses and what evidence the link provides, so we should keep an eye on him to make sure he complies.

2012-02-20 03:41:17
John Mason

johntherock@btopenworld...
86.133.202.150

Good stuff, Dikran. Certainly trollish characteristics there with the dude.

Cheers - John

2012-02-20 09:27:46
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

Our readers are really getting pissed off at Adam's hi-jacking tactic. It's past time to drive a stake through his heart.

2012-02-20 12:39:45
Tom Curtis

t.r.curtis@gmail...
112.213.173.31

Despite my dislike of Adam, he has not violated the comments policy as it currently stands.  Nor has he violated John Cook's stated intention about how the comments policy should work.  Therefore, until we resolve the impasse about revising the comments policy no action should be taken against him.

Moderators cannot keep exceeding the stated comments policy to get rid of trolls and threadjackers, much as I appreciate their attempts to do so.  It creates an impression of unfair and biassed moderation.  What is more, as John Cook has repeatedly made plain in this forum, it is not how he wants moderation to work.  I disagree with him, but it is his website.  

Of course, if we pursue that policy, moderators and commentors will have to consider if they want to continue moderating or posting in the environment that will result.  IMO, the environment that will result is 2nd law on every thread, and the answer for me personally is no.  Should SkS go down that path than I will find some other avenue to combat climate change denial.

2012-02-20 13:11:37
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.37

"Of course, if we pursue that policy, moderators and commentors will have to consider if they want to continue moderating or posting in the environment that will result."  

I will do neither (continue moderating or posting).

"IMO, the environment that will result is 2nd law on every thread, and the answer for me personally is no.  Should SkS go down that path than I will find some other avenue to combat climate change denial."

I am in complete agreement. 

And I will add but one thing:  I have voluntarily contributed hours of my life beyond easy counting (mostly at the expense of sleep) over the past year-and-a-half towards moderating this site and chipping in with the occasional blog post. A lot of personal sweat-equity has been expended towards reining in the likes of Camburn, Ken Lambert and even Adam (in an earlier infestation of his).  Not to mention many, many others.  Additionally, I have spent much time and effort adding to the ranks of this forum and soliciting contributions from active climate scientists.

The path we are now embarked down is not one that I will follow.  Nor one I will continue to be associated with.

2012-02-20 19:00:43
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.93.201.176

The path we are now embarked down is not one that I will follow. Nor one I will continue to be associated with.

So why don't we change the path?

2012-02-20 22:32:42
Dikran Marsupial
Gavin Cawley
gcc@cmp.uea.ac...
139.222.14.107

BTW My suggested solution to the Adam problem is each time he raises one of the items in Moncktons reply we start a new thread on that question and force the discussion there.  That prevents a Gish Gallop from being successful as he would then have to answer each question separately in a different thread.  The off-topic rule could then be used to prevent him from derailing those discussions.

2012-02-21 05:37:12
Dikran Marsupial
Gavin Cawley
gcc@cmp.uea.ac...
139.222.14.107

Sorry John, I had to delete your posts as being off-topic, especially once Camburn responded there was a danger of the thread being derailed by a discussion of the comments policy.  I have left the posts on the thread you referred readers to as it seems O.K. for there to be a discussion somewhere, just not on an artcile that was on a specific scientific topic.

While Camburn has been complying with the comments policy, he is sailing close to the wind as usual.

2012-02-22 08:00:00
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

Adam's epic post of today suggests to me that Comment Policy be amended to require that  if person A is responding to persons B,C, D, etc. that each response be a separate post rather than combining a number of responses into a single post.

2012-02-22 09:14:52
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

Can someone with higher adminsitrative authority check to sse if Adam isn't just another reincarnation of jdy123?

(Where's the Yooper when we need him?)