Benutzer Diskussion:Marco Krohn/Schmierzettel
User JonGwynne (JG) has a strong opinion about the matter of climate change and tries to push his POV into the article. Unfortunately he seems to lack scientific education and is by far not on the same scientific level as Dr. Connelly (WMC). Discussions with JG are difficult and rarely lead to a compromise. Furthermore he does not accept a majority decision and keeps reverting to his version instead.
In one case JG tried several times to add the fact that the atmosphere only contains a very small fraction of CO2. The insertion was highly misleading at best and showed that he had problems differing between "increase of x%" and "increase of x percentage points", two very different values [1]. This actually small difference lead to a huge discussion (see Talk:Carbon dioxide) where JG argued ad nauseam and several dozens reverts. Despite being reverted by at least four different persons (Shimmin, VSmith, Gene Nygaard and WMC) JG kept reverting until the article was finally protected.
At times he becomes ad hominem in his comments and if he is reverted often he tends to do changes with misleading comments. Furthermore he tries to circumvent the 3RR by combining partial reverts with other edits. Nevertheless JG has violated the 3RR several times and consequently was banned for multiple periods of 24 hours.
All the above leads to a bad climate for working on the articles and costs the contributers a lot of time for discussion and reverts. I very much believe that JG can be a valuable contributer in less controversial areas, for instance [2]. Unfortunately his strong believes and his lack of scientific understanding hinder him to work on the climate related articles in collaboration with others and in particular with Dr. William Connolley.
General comment: Unfortunately the history of the climate related articles reveals a deeper problem. Experts who write about their subject in Wikipedia have to defend their work all the time against "decay", i.e. new users who lack the expertise, but modify the articles nevertheless (not necessarily in bad faith). In particular highly controversial topics such as climate related articles suffer from a constant stream of "skeptical" users who have at best read a Crichton book and then start editing. This of course is a bad climate for keeping or winning experts for Wikipedia who have to deal and discuss the same things over and over again, e.g., the influence of water vapor. After seeing what is happening here I can partially follow Larry Sanger in his criticism about Wikipedia.