User talk:NuclearWarfare

Home Talk Email Contributions monobook.js Content Awards Userspace

Wait! Are you here because your article was speedy deleted? Click here before leaving a message to find out why.

Ludwigs2 on AE ArbCom

Hi NW. I am not going to respond to Ludwigs2's continued claims of "slander" on the talk page of the proposed decision, written after you made your request to disengage. Apparently Ludwigs2 now includes all my contributions on the evidence page and workshop page as part of the "slander". But diffs are diffs, that is the wiki way. As far as I am aware I have conducted myself properly in the AE case and the Noleander case. Regards, Mathsci (talk) 17:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

slander is slander, throwing in random defamatory material from over two years ago, or from completely unrelated issues, does not constitute valid evidence. --Ludwigs2 18:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

???Mathsci (talk) 19:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

After you made your request to disengage, Ludwigs2 ignored it here in replying directly to me after your request, which he must have read. [1] The edit summary is worse than the comment: "slander is slander - it doesn't matter if you put a pretty pink bow in its hair, it's still an ugly business." He than continued with thinly veiled personal attacks and uncivil language here. [2] He added another thinly veiled personal attack here [3], again repeating substantiated claims of slander. From my perspective, Ludwigs2 has ignored your warning. He appears to be more disruptive than he was on the workshop page. I have no idea why he is editing like this. Mathsci (talk) 20:57, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

redactions

NW - if you are not going to redact Mathsci's posts to that thread, please let me know explicitly so that I can ask the other clerk to do so (or if necessary, bring the issue up with the drafting arbiters). thanks. --Ludwigs2 18:32, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

This request seems to be highly disruptive. Mathsci (talk) 19:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

@Ludwigs2: Enough with this "slander" nonsense. I don't care if Mathsci is saying that every single edit you have made to Wikipedia has been disruptive and destructive; you bringing it up over and over again is not helpful in the slightest. I'm sure that every arbitrator is aware right now that you don't like Mathsci and vice-versa, and will take what you two say about each other with an appropriate amount of salt.

@Mathsci: Would you be willing to withdraw from the threads without any recognition of fault? Your presence isn't really as "necessary" to the case as Ludwigs2's presence is, and it might help matters a bit. NW (Talk) 18:50, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi NuclearWarfare. I already removed all my comments on the PD talk page at the same time Risker wrote a response on her talk page. I think what you suggest is the best way forward for all concerned, including arbitrators and parties. Other users have spontaneously emailed me with similar suggestions. So yes, I am happy to do as you suggest. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 21:07, 16 April 2011 (UTC)