Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mmarque

To remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 14:45, 19 October 2012 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 18:44, 3 January 2025 (UTC).

---

• Mmarque (talk · contribs · logs)

---

Anyone is welcome to endorse any view, but do not change other people's views. Under normal circumstances, a user should not write more than one view.

Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct and have previously attempted and failed to resolve the dispute. Only users who certify this request should edit the "Statement of the dispute" section. Other users may present their views in the other sections below.

Cause of concern

In the course of [Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gerhard_Kramm|a deletion discussion], User:Mmarque has made several personal attacks on other editors, including Nazi comparisons and failures of WP:AGF:

• [1] (copied from Talk:Gerhard_Kramm
• [2]
• [3]

User:Mmarque has rebuffed several requests to cease engaging in personal attacks:

• [4]
• [5]

Applicable policies and guidelines

List the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct.

1. WP:AGF
2. WP:NPA

Desired outcome

User:Mmarque should strike out or otherwise retract personal attacks made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerhard Kramm and Talk:Gerhard_Kramm and should cease engaging in personal attacks on other users.

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute.

1. User:Joel B. Lewis: [6]
2. User:ArthurPSmith: [7]

and perhaps

1. User:‎Stephan Schulz: [8]

I've only had very limited interaction with User:Mmarque - essentially I've only observed some of his comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerhard Kramm, and the two comments on his talk page he mentioned to receive here. I think some of User:Mmarque's comments where inappropriate and displayed bad faith, and that the two remarks by JBL and APS where a justified response. I don't really know enough about the situation to be a co-endorser, though. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:05, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Additional users endorsing this cause for concern.

Questions to certifiers

Any users may post questions in this section.  Answers should be reserved for those certifying the dispute.

Q.

A.

Q.

A.

Response

{This section is reserved for the opinions and views of the user whose conduct is disputed. Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but only the person named in the dispute should change or edit the view in this section.}

Response to concerns

{Add summary here.}

Applicable policies and guidelines

List the policies and guidelines that apply to the response.

Questions to named user

Any users may post questions in this section.  Answers should be reserved for the user named in the dispute.

Q.

A.

Q.

A.

Additional views

This section is for summaries and opinions written by users who are not directly involved with the dispute, but who would like to share their views of the dispute. Anyone is welcome to endorse any view on this page, but you should not change other people's views.

Outside view by User:Phil Bridger

Firstly, my apologies if this is the incorrect place to be posting, but I can't see any section for an editor who is not the subject of the discussion, does not endorse the discussion, but is involved.

I am the target of several of the comments listed above, and have been perfectly happy to refute any substantive comments and to ignore any ad hominem comments made. I don't see any point in having a discussion here about something that can be dealt with perfectly well at the discussion where these comments were made. Let's get on with our job of building an encyclopedia rather than creating unnecessary drama.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:51, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposed solutions

This section is for all users to propose solutions to resolve this dispute.  This section is not a vote and resolutions are not binding except as agreed to by involved parties.  

Template 1

1)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template 2

2)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template 3

3)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Reminder to use the talk page for discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.